I was recently given a link to this site:
2003 Kingdom of the Cults - Excerpts on Key Doctrinal Issues (click) in relation to certain claims of cults in the US and their relationship to Christianity.
I found this section a little interesting:
The Riddle of Semantics (click)
The problem of semantics has always played an important part in human affairs, for by its use or abuse, whichever the case may be, entire churches, thrones, and governments have been erected, sustained, or overthrown. The late George Orwell’s stirring novel 1984, in which he points out that the redefinition of common political terms can lead to slavery when it is allowed to pass unchallenged by a lethargic populace, is a classic illustration of the dangers of perverted semantics. It should be of no particular surprise to any student of world history that trick terminology is a powerful propaganda weapon. The communist dictatorship of China, which even the Russian theorists rejected as incalculably brutal and inept, dares to call itself the People’s Republic of China. As history testifies, the people have very little, if any, say in the actual operation of communism, and if democracy is to be understood as the rule of the people, the Chinese communists have canonized the greatest misnomer of all time!
Applying this analogy to the field of cults, it is at once evident that a distinct parallel exists between the two systems. For cultism, like communism, plays a type of hypnotic music upon a semantic harp of terminological deception. And there are many who historically have followed these strains down the broad road to spiritual eternal judgment. There is a common denominator then, and it is inextricably connected with language and the precise definition of terminology. It is what we might call the key to understanding cultism.
The average non-Christian cult owes its very existence to the fact that it has utilized the terminology of Christianity, has borrowed liberally from the Bible (almost always out of context), and sprinkled its format with evangelical cliches and terms wherever possible or advantageous. Up to now this has been a highly successful attempt to represent their respective systems of thought as “Christian.”
The solution to this perplexing problem is far from simple. The Christian must realize that for every biblical or doctrinal term he mentions, a redefinition light flashes on in the mind of the cultist, and a lightning-fast redefinition is accomplished. Realizing that the cultist will apparently agree with the doctrine under discussion while firmly disagreeing in reality with the historical and biblical concept, the Christian is on his way to dealing effectively with cult terminology. This amazing operation of terminological redefinition works very much like a word association test in psychology.
It is simple for a cultist to spiritualize and redefine the clear meaning of biblical texts and teachings so as to be in apparent harmony with the historic Christian faith. However, such a harmony is at best a surface agreement, based upon double meanings of words that cannot stand the test of biblical context, grammar, or sound exegesis. Language is, to be sure, a complex subject; all are agreed on this. But one thing is beyond dispute, and that is that in context words mean just what they say. Either we admit this or we must be prepared to surrender all the accomplishments of grammar and scholastic progress and return to writing on cave walls with charcoal sticks in the tradition of our alleged stone-age ancestors.
The purpose is to help a Christian distinguish between legitimate mainstream churches and cults. Taking this in a broader context, the question that comes to me is, how can a normal non-church going (& not necessarily christian) person determine when any church (christian or other) crosses the line from proper faith to cult faith?
It seems to me that all churches engage in some of this type of redefinition to distinguish one branch (splinter) of faith from another - Southern Baptist, say, from Protestant or Catholic faiths - and to promote their specific form of {church} more than the {general} faith.
Does that not make these splinter faiths cults? Does that make all 'established' religions cults? My (lack of) knowledge of the differences between these groups and what one could call {core faith} is very limited to non-existent, so I am asking this more for my own interest in the perceptions of others than to provide any.
I also notice that this article in general takes a very hard position of other faiths being cults but does not look in the mirror.
Note - this kind of redefinition of meanings also seems to be a pervasive part of dealing with a lot of YEC and other fundamentalist types when it comes to science and knowledge.
Enjoy.
{'coffeehouse' - for general discussion - or 'is it faith' for more specific (and likely out of my range of interest)}
™ Version 4.2