>”I look upon the meaning of cult from google, and here’s the answer”
Let me stop you there. A single sentence dictionary definition of what a cult is won’t really be accurate. Would a single sentence dictionary definition of Christianity capture it all? The B.I.T.E. model is a better definition if you want something official.
>”If this is what you mean by the word ‘cult’, then I think every religion in the world is a cult. Jews to YHWH, Christianity to Jesus, Hindu to Shiva, Islam to Muhammad, etc. And if it is so, what’s wrong with it?”
No, those aren’t cults, they’re religions. Christianity is also no longer a cult, but a religion. The argument I made was not that Christianity is currently a cult (it isn’t) but that it started out as one. So did Islam and Judaism, as you rightly point out.
The fact that these deceptions are numerous and widespread does not excuse them. It’s like saying “Many people around the world have AIDS. And if you’re going to call AIDS a disease, then what about the flu? What about cancer? If they are all diseases, then what is wrong with disease?”
>”If that’s the definition of the cult, then we can say that people who devote themselves about any objects belong to a cult. For ex : football/NBA supporters who devote their time, money and energy toward their own supported club/athlete; people who devote their time, money and energy reviewing, comparing and even bashing other people about android and apple, etc, about political identity, about music, etc.”
No, that is too loose and meaningless of a definition. But this is a common, psychologically understandable defensive reaction from people in cults. They wish to generalize the definition as much as possible to hide their cult among other types of groups which are socially neutral or well regarded.
But realize to an outsider, this is like a Scientologist saying “If you’re going to call Scientology a cult, then basketball is a cult! Everything’s a cult!”
No, everything is not a cult, and I did not actually use such a loose, general definition. It is a lie to imply that I did. The definition I gave applies to Christianity and other Abrahamic religions, Scientology, MLMs to an extent, but not to just anything and everything.
There is no business, for example, which requires you to sell everything you own and cut off your family to work for them. There are no sports teams which proclaim an imminent apocalypse.
>”So, it seems strange to me if you want to look for secular/non-spiritual/religious source about Jesus’ miraculous signs, because if there are books that wrote about Jesus’ miraculous signs, surely those books will be labeled as spiritual isn’t it?”
None exist. From the time period when the Bible was written, or when Jesus was alive. Which is conspicuous given that the Bible repeatedly claims that there were hundreds of witnesses to Jesus’s miracles. Why aren’t there hundreds of accounts, outside of the Bible, of Jesus’s miracles written by those witnesses?
>”So you are looking for outside source (not non secular source) beside Jesus’ followers, thus upon this demand, Ben has given you some.”
He has given me a few known hoaxes that were fabricated by Christians to make their religion appear credible, and some sources which simply mention the existence of Christians or that the crucifixion (not the resurrection) took place, which I don’t deny.
Christians just excitedly exaggerate the implications of these mentions, when obviously we should expect them to exist. It’s worth noting that many of those historical mentions of Christianity explicitly refer to it as a cult, or to Jesus as a magician.
But as I pointed out, if there were hundreds of witnesses, there shouldn’t be just two or three independent accounts of the actual miracles. That’s more consistent with what we should expect to see from Christians fabricating evidence for their religion, like the Shroud of Turin.
>”The Babylonian Talmud (remember, you didn’t ask for non secular source, you asked for outside source :D )
I will bet a great deal of money that if I ask you for the specific verses you’re referring to, they will be predictably disappointing. Mere mentions that Christians existed as a group, that they believed he performed miracles, that Jesus was crucified and so on, which Christians exaggerate the implications of.
>” Josephus writings (which you said fabricated and you have provided the link), Tacitus, Pliny (which you also said was fabricated, but where’s the evidence that said that it’s fabricated).”
>”Btw, I can also add one more outside source, the Quran, since the Quran also recorded Jesus as performing miracles and signs.”
Because Islam is based on the assumed truth of Christianity. They have the same motive to affirm Jesus’ miracles and resurrection that Christians did.
>”I haven’t researched about Dianetics, etc, but who published the Book of Mormon? According to this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon, it’s none other than Joseph Smith. So Joseph Smith published a book that said that he himself was a morally perfect human. Don’t you see the difference here with the Bible? :D”
No, because the devoted members of a cult are not any more unbiased than the founder of it. Scientologists will paint you just as rosy a picture of what sort of man L. Ron Hubbard was as he painted of himself while alive.