HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Oct. 28, 2008 It used to be fairly well known, theologically and otherwise, concerning the great differences between what was just regarded as a mere cult as opposed to a genuine religion, especially when set in larger terms of Western Civilization. However, many popular modern writers, such as Michael Medved, have terribly obscured and confused the many important issues intimately involved. He incorrectly believes, for instance, that a cult can, through much longevity of being, an increasing number of followers, and other associated means, be eventually transformed into a valid religion, meaning as much as any religion can be said to be valid as such. This corruptive and illogical thinking, aided greatly by the even more corruptive influence of nominalism (read: progressive subjectivism) in philosophical cognition treats truth as a merely flexible item of exchange from mind to mind. Thus, one man’s cult may subjectively be said, by nominalist “logic”, to be simply another man’s religion and vice versa. But, nominalism is an intellectual vice of the worst sort in that, as another example, a terrorist to one person may equally be a true freedom fighter to someone else, though Medved, of course, would be among the very first to deny such logic on this other kind of issue. One of the most dangerous noetical aspects of nominalism is, therefore, how it creates a kind of mental schizophrenia, in the mental cogitation of all its adherents, because of the many integral inconsistencies in rational and reasoned thought that it, necessarily, always functionally creates. First, before continuing, some definitions are in order. Nominalism, sometimes called Occamism, is the philosophical denial of actual universals in thought; thus, to keep the matter simple, one can know a particular dog or dogs but not know actually the posited condition of there being knowledge of “dog” as a universal subject of valid knowledge. A cult is a partial mode of belief that apes universalized religious overtones, while disguising its true nature as an elaborated mental fixation having a psychological grip upon its true believer who seeks a particularized form of salvation through gnosis (secret knowledge) and its cognate and necessary esotericism. A religion is a full mode of belief that incorporates either universal or primitive theological assumptions, doctrines, or attitudes that call for free belief and uncoerced assent, which properly results in an exoteric faith without any Gnostic overtones. Equally speaking, superstition is the very opposite of religion, not a supposed version of religious faith. Because various examples of still contemporary cults will later be given in this article, it is, thus, greatly important to keep the above definitions clearly in mind. A major, world-class religion is, e.g., that of Roman Catholicism with its own doctrines, dogmas, beliefs, ecclesial structure, canon law, history, its international headquarters known as Vatican City, and much else besides what is readily known. The lowliest peasant or common, working-class, manual laborer can validly know all of the basics of the Faith as would the most educated and learned priest, bishop, or even a pope; Catholicism is clearly a completely exoteric religion since it is not and has never been a cult. Early Christianity, synonymous with Catholicism as it was equally with the term known as Athanasianism, fought against pagan Gnosticism with its esotericism and supposed secret knowledge only really open to the select few adepts, the elite believers, truly capable of gaining true gnosis. Thus, Gnosticism was not, as is often falsely alleged, a Christian heresy. It is easy, of course, for Medved, due to his well known Judaic perspective, to dismiss Christianity as having begun as just a mere Jewish cult, which is fairly “logical” from the Jewish point of view. However, this reasoning participates in nominalist cognition in assuming that what was once a subjective situation can, over a period of time or with, in addition, an increasing membership or a multiplicity of other signs, be somehow or other transformed into an objective reality, namely, the establishment of the attributes of what is said to constitute a proper religion. This awkward “reasoning” by Medved is the same kind of fallacy in logic that assumes if a monkey simply kept typing, then he would, eventually, produce all of, e.g., Shakespeare’s plays. This is the classic fallacy of composition. A fallacy of composition occurs when one, thus, illogically infers that something is posited true of the whole from the fact that it is simply true of some part of the whole in question. As long as a system of belief incorporates, directly or indirectly, the assumption of gnosis and, therefore, cognate esotericism within the particular faith asserted, it will still forever remain just a cult; it cannot be ever supposedly changed into a religion, regardless of various other kinds of attributes, including longevity of existence, increasing membership, social prestige, cultural advantages, institutionalization, elaboration of officialized doctrines, etc. Of course, those people whose minds are sadly afflicted with degrees of nominalism cannot, therefore, properly understand and comprehend the many difficulties and differences involved in trying to interpret a cult as if it were, in fact, really a religion. Indiscriminate aspersions, let it be said, are not being at all laid against or upon all cult members of all cults whatsoever. Some cults, moreover, are surely better than others in not being as harmful to its adherents, though they may very well put the salvation of their precious souls into serious question and much associated jeopardy. This is, also, not to say that cult members are unable to be fairly decent or good people who, of course, are fully capable of doing many kind acts of charity; nor is the supposed case being here suggested, however, that just because someone claims to be a member of a formal or recognizable religion, on the other hand, that this automatically or otherwise then makes such a person, thereby, a naturally superior human being. Types of current cults, among many others, include the following: Sedevacantism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Chen Tao, Ho No Hana, Freemasonry, Scientology, Mormonism, Theosophy, Satanism, and, of course, literally numberless others. As is explicitly and properly noted above, cult membership, in reiteration, does not in-and-of-itself signify whether or not that person is or is not, by definition, morally vicious or immoral. Of course, it is appropriately wished, by all men of good will, that all people would come to chose to find and accept the true Faith, of which there can be only one, again, by logical definition. And, the one and only religion that both possesses perfectly all the attributed theological and related necessary attributes of a fully valid belief and that, moreover, avoids Gnosticism (and all possible heresies) completely, meaning as an integral part of its very existence as an established belief, is Roman Catholicism. Even among “pious” folk, however, who think of themselves as still “Catholics,” there are those who chose to belong to the Sedevacantism cult that idiotically denies that any valid pope has existed since Pope Pius XII who died back in 1958. It is a totally absurd belief, therefore, because it also ignorantly denies one of the most fundamental attributes of the Church that Jesus Christ Himself, besides the added guidance of the Holy Ghost, will never, in fact, desert the Church. If no pope exists, then, by definition, this would logically mean that Jesus had deliberately lied, which is, of course, always theologically inconceivable according to all of Catholicism and its teachings. What these cult members dislike and, yes, hate are the many scandals that have unfortunately afflicted the Church since the 1960s. But, historically, scandals have been and will always be connected to the institution because people are only human beings who are capable of sin. The Pope is only guaranteed by the Holy Ghost against deliberate heresy, not against all or any sin, meaning besides just the noted matter of heresy as the single exception. When St. Peter, during the earliest time of the formation of the Church, had denied Christ no less than three times, this was meant to forever alert the members of the Faith that scandal, even terrific scandal, will stay with the institution. Catholicism , though it ought not to need to be said, did not eradiate sin from the world, which is, at a minimum, what the Sedevacantists don’t seem to ever consciously realize. Further proof can be had by studying, among other prominent historical examples, the terrible Great Schism of the 15th century when, at one time, there were no less than three “popes” equally claiming the assumed holding of fully apostolic authority! Moreover, applying the always ridiculous “reasoning” and absolutely absurd justifications involved, the very second after Jesus had said that St. Peter was the Rock upon which He would found the Church, the Sedevacantism cult should have then and there immediately started. But, of course, it is greatly hoped that all such cult members will come to rightly see, once again, the good light of the Faith and get past the totally erroneous and heretical notion that any mere scandal, no matter how monumental in impact, can invalidate the permanent Truth of the Faith itself.
The Sedevacantism cult, thus, boldly participates in a disgusting and untenable heresy, besides it being simply just plain stupid in its entire conception, ongoing persistence, and continued obnoxious opposition to the forever right understanding and comprehension of all of Catholicism. Religion offers, therefore, more to honest and sincere people than can any mere cult, even when upheld by an entire army of nominalist suppositions and supporters.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
