I know we have often discussed the fact that there are many, many Christian denominations in existence. More often then not the reason for this is due to a differnce in opinion as far as interpretation is concerned. There are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations to date: Source

But there is, I suspect, to be another reason, one that is a little more illusive, one not really talked about, one that may actually occupy the very subconscious mind of Christians.

When one faith group attains political power in a religiously divided country, then the potential for persecution based on religion is high. This is evident all over the world with faith groups other then Christians:Sri Lanka (Hindus, Buddhists),Middle East (Jews and Muslims),India (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Aboriginals, etc.),Bosnia (Serbian Orthodox, Muslims).

What we have here in North America and many parts of Europe historically is a predominantly Christian founding and a predominantly Christian rule....there is little competition to the Jesus faith historically in these areas.

We also know that the Christian religion is steeped in the idea and history of its adherents being persecuted. It seems that if your being persecuted then you are more "Jesus-like"......Christians at times are in their element whilst under persecution......and in some cases there is a desire to claim persecution.


Here's what Ive been wondering:

When one Christian denomination rises in dominancy or popularity in any given area, then that means that in that area the other Christian denominations become a minority, and we know that the minority group oft deals with persecution.

So could there be a subconscious desire to break off from the predominant denomination in order to become the minority and be persecuted?

Does branching off from the predominate denomination sate this possible desire for persecution?

There has to be more then just subtle discrepencies to explain the vast amount of Christian denominations.

Apparently the mormons where tortured and killed by their fellow christians all the way from New York to Utah, after they split from the protestants. It was even legal to kill a mormon in Missouri up until the 1970’s.

I think you may be on to something here. Good luck getting a strait answer on this.

This is true, and it culiminated with the eventual martyrdom of Smith in Carthage Jail in 1844, where he was attacked by a mob of 200 Christians and killed.

interesting question. suffering to bring one closer to God in a sense ? or to seem rightous ?

in the same vein it makes me think of my mother who gets her attention by being sick.

great example --

I had just had brain surgery. I was in ICU out cold except for various seconds. I remember there was ALWAYS a nurse by my side . if they had to pee they had to call to be relieved.

I woke up to see my sister and mother there. I couldn't speak well so gargeled something , I don't remember. probably ouch ! lol

anyway , my mom saw I was awake and kissed my hand !!!!!! ( my mother isn't one to show affection. she's too selfish. even my gran says she should have never had kids since she made such a bad mother. and honestly she did.) so this surprised me. but then , after my sister kissed me ( whom I love to death) my mother started telling me about how they are changing her meds she was one ! to which I heard ( because I couldn't see well) my champion of a sister say " shut up ma , this isn't about you.) lmao. I smiled and passed back out ( thank god)

priceless.

so maybe some people need that. some people need a challange too. a fight . or a feeling of importance because underdogs tend to cling togeather in that fight.a close knit.

I do believe some is over differences - like lutherans .

I dig what your saying Ripley.

We have all heard about individual Christians having a sort of Persecution complex.....but i want to take it one step further then the individual. Where possibly most seperate denominations that apostate from their original denomination , may do so out of the need for persecution.

Why when a denomination is at its peak of popularity and dominancy do people apostate from it and start a whole new denomination.

Is it because once you are at the top there is no persecution, there is no uphill battle......There is no Cross To Bear?

Well, I know that the "schisms" in my own denomination (which was never part of a larger Christians denomination, it was created from "scratch" more or less) were over purely theological and social issue. Quakers have always been peaceful and non-violent. 'Round the time of the American Revolution, a certain number broke off and became "fighting Quakers" who picked up arms and fought as soldiers (Nathiel Green, Betsy Ross etc...) There are actually three kinds of Quakers... Liberal, Orthodox and Evangelical (there are VERY few evangelical, but they do exist). It's really a matter of theology and practice.

I really don't think it's a desire to be persecuted, I think that perhaps any persecution happens as a result of a fracture, not an underlying cause.

Personally, I can't stand the current definition of "persecution" ... which seems to include "oh you don't agree with me, stop persecuting me!" or "you're saying mean stuff, stop persecuting me!" Blech, what a crock... Come talk to me for sympathy when mobs of people who hate solely because of your belief are chasing you down main street trying to light you on fire.

Martin Luther didn't break away from the Catholic church because he wanted to be persecuted, not even as an underlying cause... he did it because of corruption and the growing unease with the Catholic Church's theology. From there, several groups disagreed with Luther theologically and split again, then within those organizations differences of theology and even sociology differed and more fractures happened.

Did they do it with an underlying desire to be hated? No, that's ludicrist in my opinion.

Martin Luther wanted a reformed version of Catholic theology......mainly that there shouldn't be a mediary between the Christian god and man.......or did he simply want to get married?(Katharina von Bora)

Again we are also looking at an individual that called for the persecution of other interpretations of God, mainly the Jews!.......His decree that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their churches burned, their money taken and civil liberties revoked was used by the Nazis......some of the things this man said about the Jews is only described as vile!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vom_Schem_Hamphoras

It is a logical question to ask....did this man really want to lead christians toward a better society or did he want to be the head hancho of his own following.

Once he apostated himself from the catholic church , he knew he'd be persecuted......what better way to invoke a following once you are excommunicated from the Catholic church and exiled, people are going to listen to what you have to say.

So there is a real possiblity that Martin Luther knew that being persecuted by the predominate denomination of the time was the only way to ensure a following and in essence the creation of a new denomination of christianity.

I would say most definetly that Martin Luther wanted to be hated by the dominate denomination of his time.

And I think that's a good question... Luther was no angel in a lot of respects... and not everyone agreed with his theology either... hence more fractures.

I think it's sometimes VERY difficult to separate the social and theological. Sometimes each is a result of the other. Other times they are very separate.

I think with Luther, it started as wanting a better society, a closer relationship with God. Unfortunately, it's easy to see that like all humans, he was able to get swept away and drunk on the idea of power as do most people in a power position.

There's a reason that Quakers and many Anabaptists (who were a radical diversion from the Protestant movement), by in large have no clergy or church buildings... it was their answer to keeping any single person from becoming drunk on their own grandure and the lure of power. Other demoninations split off and had their own way of hopefully preventing one person from becoming a power monger.... they weren't always successful, but they tried.

Within the Quaker faith (this is simply the best example I can give, it's the one I know the most about historically obviously) many DID martyr themselves for the sake of all. Tons of early Quakers plain and simple were persecuted, thrown in jails and stocks, were brought up on charges of treason, were shipped off to America where they faced more persecution, (puritans were particularly fond of hunting and stringing Quakers up)

Did George Fox start the denomination with the underlying desire to be persecuted? No, if you read his writings, that was the last thing he wanted, but he did push the idea that you should absolutely stand for what you believe in, even if it means you'll be persecuted. Thank goodness he did too... if he hadn't made that such a core belief of the faith, the USA in particular might not be the country it is today. We might still have slavery, woman might not be able to vote or treated equally under the law, American Indians might have been treated even more poorly than they were...

Do they desire to be persecuted? No... but does it happen in order to continue to stand for what you believe in? Yes. Absolutely.

Good, topic, Chauncy...and provokes seom serious thought!!

If I could throw in a little thought of my own though and suggest it's not that persecution makes one more Christ-like (in Christian thinking) but that being Christ-like makes one persecuted?

The former suggests the believer looks for persecution while the latter suggests those who don't believe (or believe a different 'Christ-state') react in a strong negative fashion to the adoption of a Christ-like demeanor by the believer. It might be something intrinsic to our make-up that does this?

Anyway I'm going to suggest the denominations did not schism to attract persecution, but they schismed because they were persecuted. Of course this persecution might be imagined rather than real and there may be/have been some denominations who actively set out to attract persecution.

I think that's probably fairly accurate Leo... I'd go as far to say that when certain groups of people decided to split from a main denomination, they knew that they could run the risk of being persecuted, but did it anyway in order to stand for what they believed theologically.

At least in George Fox's case, he knew that he wouldn't be well loved by the English Anglicans or the Catholics -- he preached freedom and equality for ALL people (male, female, all colors) and all religions... a VERY dangerous concept in 1654. Very very dangerous. He knew he could very well be faced with jail or worse... and was. However, he believed so strongly in his theology, he was willing to be persecuted for those ideas.

I think that's more common than not.

All these individuals who split from the main denomination even though they are well aware they will face persecution but do it anyway to stand for what they believe theologically........sounds familiar......actually it reminds me of one specific person who did this.........Jesus !!!

Are we looking at a long running tradition of Jesus wannabes?

Does facing the brunt of persecution and developing a following complete a Jesus Complex/Persecution Complex?

I guess it's because religion is so subjective and irrational.

No, I don't think so.... if only because it's not at all unique to religion or christianity... Atheists scream that they're being persecuted too... are they following a Jesus Complex/Persecution Complex? Of course not, that would be patently ridiculous.

What radical, who changed people's thinking DIDN'T get persecuted for his ideals at some point or another? ALL people do it, both religious and non-religious. It's about standing up for what you believe in. Even scientists are occasionally persecute by their peers for what they believe.

Of course, I would reiterate that I think you'd best be on fire before you start crying persecution around me. Sometimes life isn't fair and not everyone will agree with you... that doesn't mean you are being persecuted.

Did you have anything of value to add other than trolling what is an otherwise good topic and good question?

It could be far simpler then that, i've heard the term 'recreational grief' used to describe the publics morbid fascinations with other peoples misfortune. We're like bees around a honey pot when a depressing story breaks, sad stories and threads get much more attention then good news stories Executions in foreign lands attracts huge crowds, much like showing your respect over here for someone you've never met through a moments silence. There's nothing like someone elses grief to get the masses chattering.

Groups claiming some form of persecution or another are everywhere. Perhaps the fascination with recreational grief and being on the fringes and therefore persecuted are not as far away from each other afterall. A kind of morbid glue that holds society together. Just a thought.

Eh? What's wrong with what I said? The subjectivity of religion is what enables the "splintering".

I totally agree that attempts to change the hard and fast rule often ignites the torches of dissent, persecution sometimes ensues to one degree or another.

Splintering off from a dominate religious faction in order to breed your own following has less to do with standing up for what you believe in, and more to do with becoming the Grand Poohbah that dictates to mankind, the world over, the manner in which they need to reach salvation based on deification or damnation for the lack of it.

I can't abscond from the very unquestionable fact the the leaders of many religious denominations believe that the world should follow their way......that they claim their way is, more often then not, the only way to salvation.........this is a very haughty claim to fame in my opinion.

Religion in and of itself has a very powerful effect on the masses........more often then not it is a form of leadership, indeed a form of ruling the masses.

In war who would you follow into battle? A green horn who has never been bled from the blades of rivals......or a seasoned veteran who has bled and survived the defilement of the apposing force........Being bled in battle or surviving war/(persecution) is a mandatory badge that religious leaders of the past and present tout as a lighthouse to attract the masses to their congregation.

There is an origin to this idea, that a religious leader must flaunt their wounds attained from persecution in order to maintain their congregation, and that is from the original dissident (Jesus).

This I believe touches on the very concept I'm trying to unravel.........A glue that binds most certainly.........indeed, as per collecting a congregation, manditory!

I would agree, Chauncy, that there are some who aspire to leadership of a religion for satiation of their ego, there are also others who aspire to lead because they feel driven by a cause. There is a difference in being willing to suffer persecution and wanting to suffer persecution. No doubt there are religious leaders of both personality types.

The Christ complex I see as being the personality type willing to suffer persecution in the belief they are able to 'save' people, the wanting to suffer persecution is a martyr complex. The persecution complex is similar to paranoia in that the belief in persecution being levied against the individual may be (and I believe usually is) imaginary.

Religious leaders can be Christ-like or martyrs, some may even be both.

I would also agree with you that the belief a person has that they are a 'saviour' is a very egotistical one.

Wanting to suffer and willing to suffer persecution are most definetly two different ideologies and the motivation behind each gives a direct reflection on the character of said suffer.

Again the very commencement of the divisions in Christianity started immediately after the death of Jesus when his disciples started a reform group sometimes called Jewish christianity. In 36AD there were 3 splinter groups of the same philosophy, and it has mutated at an exponential rate ever since.

I agree that a persecution complex does include a level of paranoia.......and this may not be the exact term that I should be using.

What I do see though is that the whole of the Christian faith is based on the fundemantal idea that suffering, sacrafice, martyrdom, persecution are sure fire ways to attain a level of sacrosanctity.

Knowing full well that Christianity can and does ingrain itself into the very psyche of its adherents and looking at the history of this specific faith, I cannot dispell the idea that there is a very real intrinsic capacity to this religion that in many cases, individualized or in groupings, causes its adherents to lay claim to Christ-like superiority.......it seems sought after, it seems to be touted as a level of achievement.

The large number of splinter groups seems less an evolution of, and more a race to power.

Chauncy - These splinter groups of Christianity, is there a theme were they tend to be more stricter (if that's the right word) or at least more critical of their followers then the original religion there rooted too?...is there a case for saying there's a noticeable trend one way or the other?

Not exactly sure, I see what your getting at though, there was and is different degrees of religious strictness, orthodoxy, puritan-ness(if thats a word)......I believe that possibly the degree of severity may depend on the level of biblical literalism.

Some classify Christianity today into 3 seperate practices: conservative, mainline and liberal.

maybe religions splinter because at heart belief is a very personal thing and no ones belief is exactly the same even in the same sect. like snowflakes.

some people are always looking for what fits perfectly to the God they understand , but that's just it. it will never happen. as we grow spiritually our views , vision changes. and God isn't understood by anyone completely . never has been and never will on a human plane of existance. But it's important we keep it fluid.

some people are too afraid to question and search so stick to what they know. although personally I believe if you aren't questioning and searching you remain stagnate.

This I feel to be accurate Ripley. Maybe thats the case, that there cannott be one unified system of Christianity. If this is the case then this says alot about the manner in which the Bible and religion in general has been presented to the world.

If we see from the beginning that organization of religion doesn't work, case in point: the splinter groups, then alot of christian adherents have interpretated or have succomb to an interpretation that is perverted from the original facts.

If this is the case then what does that say about christian interpretation of the bible, of God, of mankind......the history of mankind offers alot of points that shows that your theory does in fact hold water.

So, I seem to be getting lost a little here...

Which Christian denominations do you have in mind that you feel fractured and split who had an underlying desire to be persecuted?

I'm having a hard time coming up with any... it would be interesting to see if the topic can be focused a little.

I think these kinds of topics on UM and in this forum are actually the most interesting because they're focused and specific, I was wondering if this one could be narrowed down and a specific example looked at.

Martin Luther was a good start, but "Protestant" isn't an actual denomination... in fact, there are a whole lot of denominations that don't even necessarily consider themselves "protestant".

Lets instead, narrow this topic down to the specific faith itself: Christianity.

Now i've used the term Christian Persecution Complex, Leonardo has pointed out that this term alludes to a state of paranoia, and this is not what I'm trying to imply, I myself am trying to unravel this thought, so please bare with my lack of definitives

What I do see in the whole of this specific religion is a constant exigency for persecution. We know that Christ was persecuted by the dominate religious faction of his time. So great was his persecution that he gained the following that exists today. If he was not persecuted and killed then his following would not exist today.

Within the very teachings of the Christian religion there is a standardized model that suffering persecution will merit the sufferer great rewards, it will bring the individual closer to a christlike existence.

Here are some(there are many more) examples of this standardized model:

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.—Matthew 5:10-12

...strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.—Acts 14:21-22

"Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,"
—2 Timothy 3:12

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... —John 15:18-20

"We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh."—2 Corinthians 4:8-11

"Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,"—2 Timothy 3:12

So we see here that the reward is greater in the land of milk and honey if you suffer persecution. The greater reward in heaven, in the mind of a Christian, is the most prestigious of rewards......a reward that is sought after.

Are you suggesting Christianity (broadly speaking), through it's teachings of suffering and the rewards commensurate thereof, encourages martyrdom?

If so, I would agree, although some denominations might not highlight this particular message.

Especially telling is the Christian interpretation that God sent Jesus to die for our sins, not to simply teach us how to live a better life, but to actually die (and die horribly) in the process.

And you see, this is what I was sort of getting at.

I've always belived the word "Christian" means very very little... it's SO general that it can't be very acurately defined... at least not by specifics. About the only specific you can attach to the word "Christian" is a belief in Christ as Savior (and in rare cases, not even that!)... regardless of what form that is.

I am a Christian, I identify that way... I don't read the bible (very often) and don't believe it's a book of the inerrant word of God. A LOT of Christians feel the same way I do. Tons actually.

When you start to identify "Christian" with certain behaviors, models and beliefs, you end up in a situation where you're telling certain christians they aren't actually Christian. We've seen that repeatedly here. I've seen almost all denominations called "not Christian" and all sorts of individuals too. So, there really isn't one single philosophy exactly.

That's why I was taking it to a more specific definition... trying to see if we could pin point one denomination that might have historically set out with a persecution goal in mind.

MMW,

I appreciate what you are saying and how you feel. I can accept when a Christian tells me this is not their interpretation, but an outsider, reading the bible, without knowing an individuals interpretation would possibly see this interpretation there. This is why I said broadly speaking.

To be honest, you could be specific to one denomination and individuals within that would still have their own interpretation and possibly object to a non-believer suggesting they have the interpretation that the non-believer reads into the tenets/scripture pertinant to that denomination.

Christianity has an overall theme, yes, individuals can choose to adopt all or parts of that theme, but someone calling themselves Christian does get identified with 'Christianity' as a whole. Just as all atheists get identified with an individuals perception of 'atheism'. It's just what we do!

BINGO Leo... bingo...

That's one of the more honest posts I've seen in a while around here.

I think our work here is done. LOL.

Honestly, I don't know any faithful people who enjoy the idea of being persecuted or think it makes them more "Christlike" .... not a single one.

That's why I was wondering if we could come up with a specific example. An example that could be analysed and looked at from a lot of different angles.

Enjoying persecution, MMW, is a whole different psychology to wanting persecution. Enjoying persecution would imply that persecution is the goal of the believer, that is not what Chauncy is implying. The goal of the believer, as I read what Chauncy has stated, is to acheive bliss in Heaven. Persecution is a means to that goal.

Now, I am generalising here and interpreting what I read in scripture based on my own understanding of human psychology. This doesn't necessarily apply to ALL believers, but I would ask if you agree that, according to scripture, Jesus was sent to die for our sins? I am not asking you whether you necessarily accept the implication of that within Christianity or suggesting that it is part of your denomination's teachings. I am asking if you can read what others read in the bible.

I dig what your getting at here MMW, your saying that if you believe in Jesus as a saviour then your christian by default.

I realize also that over the last 60 years this has become a common method of adherence to the christian faith, which also indicates a constant change in the religion since its inception.



I see it as the opposite, it is when you have so many splinter groups of the same belief that it creates the arena where one claims it is more christian then the other, a competition of sorts. This happens because followers of certain denominations need to justify or assert the reasons why their choice of path is either more correct or plain and simply the only path to salvation.



Well there are many of these groups if we follow the definition you stated of Christian, that believing in a comming messiah named Jesus makes a person christian by default.

People's Temple, Jim Jones, Guayana, Jonestown,913 death
Branch Davidians, "Waco"David Koresh (Vernon Howell), 82 death
The Family, Charles Manson
Jeffrey Lundgren, destructive Mormon splinter group
Snake Handlers,Jesus Church of Micco, West Virginia
Movement of Restoration of "Ten Commandments, in Uganda, 924 death

These are a few that either made a point to go out and be persecuted or sought out martyrdom.

Reading those reminded me of self harm, not so much in the physical sense though. I noticed in myself that when i used to have really bad downers it was often triggered by something i'd seen or heard and then i'd get two or three other things in quick succession that bring you down further. It's like a spiral effect where you look for depressing situations to make yourself feel worse in order to feel better, the feeling better part comes from dragging yourself so far down that the people in the situation which triggered the original thought don't seem in quite as bad a situation as your currently in. It's a weird thought process but i'm going off topic.



I see, thanks. I was thinking in terms of the relationship between the follower and their self worth (as defined by the branch religion they choose) rather than the actual practise of the religion itself. I'll have to look into a bit further before commenting really, i'm shooting from the hip which isn't always wise in these type of debates (as your dealing with peoples beliefs). I'll pick it up again after christmas. Have a good one everybody.

They didn't though, not exactly. Although that's good start.

People's Temple wasn't really a splinter group. They were started from scratch more or less. If you read about Jim Jones he started off with semi-good intentions and he grew more and more paranoid and power hungry. Eventually, HE sought persecution and sowed that within his "flock" but not with religious reasons, but for continued control.

David Koresh was similar... Branch Davidians had been around for years and years prior to Koresh and living happily in their commune with no persecution complex. Koresh, in a bid for power (and probably some insanity) managed to convince them to do things that had up until then been against their nature.

Manson was just flat insane and had no persecution complex. He convinced some young and impressionable minds of some things that they may or may not have been pre-disposed to.

It really sounds like what you alluding to here are what we popularly define as cults... cult dynamics are interesting, but I don't think their main goal is persecution... sometimes it does end up that way to keep control of the group though. That I won't deny.

Just look at all the other groups that don't have a "persecution complex" who are splinter groups. Quakers, a faith started from scratch more or less (Shakers are a splinter group of Quakers, they're more or less extinct though). Mennonites and the Amish are one of their splinter groups. Even within in the major denominations there are fractures within fractures... Lutheranism has at least three; Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Church of the Lutheran Confession. (I was married in a Missouri Synod). These are fractures based on practice of certain rites, not persecution; persecution wasn't even on the minds of those congregations.

Baptists have TONS of fractures because each church operates independently and locally... Methodists even have their fractures.

Fractures aren't bad, they just give more choices.

Even though the Vatican doesn't like to admit it, there are even quasi-fractures in the Catholic faith. And even a cult or two. For example, here where I live, we have a Catholic Cult in the next town over (they are NOT recognized by the Vatican as Catholic) Their leader was a lunatic, his very small following still exists today even though he died a few years ago. They didn't/don't have a persecution complex as far as I can tell, but they are ostrasized for being VERY different, and they're likely a danger to themselves at a minimum--abuse charges have been brought up against them several times.

I mean, sometimes individuals go off the deep end and start religious denominations for their own reasons, often they start with semi-good intentions, but then the leaders use all tools available, which might include a persecution complex to keep tight control of the group. Often, it has little to do with individual members. We even see this with non-religious groups... the ELF (Environmental Liberation Front) comes to mind, or even PETA.

As far as the relationship goes between the follower and their self worth, i hesitate to answer it seems possibly that that is a question that you may need to ask the believer.

If your interested in my opinion, the Christian religion does (again in my opinion) lower the self worth of mankind as a whole. By saying that we are born into sin, or a total corruption of human nature this has been transmitted to the entire human race,and hence that every child of Adam is born into the world with a sinful nature.

As equally damaging in my opinion is the fact the the christian religion teaches that this Earth and mankind is the center of the universe. Now this works in reverse of lowering the self esteem, by way of creating an ego amongst believers that this Earth was created entirely for mankind and the universe that surronds it.

They did it to get to heaven. Most of the people willing drank the tainted Kool-Aide, some didn't. How do you know it wasn't for religious reasons......believing in heaven seems as religious as it gets.

And most certainly they were a splinter group. Jones was a member of an other church prior to starting the PT, as I'm sure alot of the members were adherents to other denominations prior to joining Jones......obviously the other denominations that Jones and the members were previously part of did not suit their needs , but they satiated these needs with creation of the PT.



The statement that Koresh "managed to convince them" is unaccurate. After the Waco incident the onus was put on Koresh's head for these deaths......it was a group willing to die in the name of their interpretation of Jesus.......some members fled......but more members stayed.....this situation was most definetly a group effort more so then a single man forcing people to stay and die with him.

After the incident in Waco in order to protect the fundementals of the Christian faith mainstream media blamed the incident on Koresh as apposed to pointing out the possible perils of the Christian faith, indeed the interpretations of its teachings.



Well I'll take it that your just assuming that Manson didn't have a persecution complex in order to uphold your statements......because that statement is the furthest from the truth.

If you've ever watched a Manson interview you hear repeated claims that "Society made me this way", always pointing at the camera stating that "the world is an evil place, I'm a product of the world that YOU created"........Manson's school teachers were interviewed this was the concensus :"School officials described young Manson as moody and suffering a persecution complex--but "likable" during those periods he was feeling happy. "
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...defendants.html

Watch a Manson interview, and you will see a persecution complex in its purest and most unadulterated form.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uhmtAmwnDQ...feature=related



Every new splinter group that sets out to make their own way is originally defined as a cult. You openly stated that believing in Jesus as a saviour makes you christian. These groups fall under that definition. These groups are a prime example of what the christian religion can become.

As I stated previously , the term persecution complex is not the best term to use. It does not totally reflect what I'm trying to point out here.

Please Address these statements

Not exactly... most of them DIDN'T willingly drink the "Kool-Aide" ... most were forced, and the vast majority were terrified. There's a great interview with a few folks who escaped the compound, including Jones' own son. If I can find that interview, I'll post it.

He was an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ (Ronald Regan was a member of the Disciples of Christ) but even prior to that, he tried unsuccessfully to start his own religion. After being ordained, he set out to try again and started a church that had nothing to do with the Disciples of Christ. So it was a religion from scratch, not an official (or even unofficial) splinter of another denomination.

Koresh, was a little different... he came along and convinced the previously peaceful (although insular) Davidians that he was the incarnation of Christ, and they chose to believe it. The Branch Davidians were a splinter group of the Seventh Day Adventists. That's accurate.



I'm really the wrong person to answer those statements for you (I think I mentioned that earlier). My belief is that the Bible is not the infallible and inerrant Word of God. My specific denomination has always considered (for 300+ years) women and men to be complete equals spiritually, socially and intellectually. We might have different roles at different times, but we are not unequal by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree that alot of denominations may or may not concentrate on this specific message. The fact remains though that these teachings do exist in the very book which supplies the basis for the Christian religion regardless of denomination.

The idea that the bible teaches about Jesus being sent to meet a most certain death is very telling of the possible attraction to persecution or martyrdom that seems to live within the core essence of the christian religion.

Here we see that Christ is set as an example for the believer to follow:
"For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps"1 peter 2:21

Also most believers operate under the construct that everything that happens in their lives is as a result of "God's Will"......within this model it would be logical to assume in regards to martyrdom that the martyr has actually been chosen by God to be martyred......a position that in many cases would be sought after. Doing god's will is what christians claim as their very purpose on this planet.

What I see as the bottom line here is that as a result of the christian religion, the need for situations of persecution is very much alive in either the conscious or subconscious of devout adherents to this religion. how can it not be when the message is clear throughout the very book that is referenced for guidance throughout life.

Ok, I get it that you don't really want to hear what others are saying... believers are saying... no, its not a persecution complex... You keep trying to connect it up.

So, let me ask you this... do you think Jesus' apostles were all in agreement as to belief? At what point was Christianity ever unified? I'd be willing to say .... never.

I've said multiple times that persecution complex is not the correct term that should be used and have ceased using it.
See here
And here
And once again here

I've also said that this is an idea that I'm trying unravel here in this forum.

I've also said that there was a splinter group of christianity imediately after jesus's death and has been splintering exponentially ever since.....which in my opinion upholds my theory.
See here



I was going to ask you this very question.