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)}
1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. .. b. The followers of such a religion or sect. 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
Definition 1 would seem to apply only to extreme sects, but then the discussion turns to what is extreme. Is Pat Robertson a charismatic cult leader?
Definition 2 would seem to apply to all institutionalized, established, religions, particularly in theocratic societies or sub-societies.
From Wikipedia.com - Cult:
In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or because of its idiosyncratic practices.
However, in common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of possible reasons ... largely originated with highly publicized cults which purportedly exploited their members psychologically and financially, or which allegedly utilized group-based persuasion and conversion techniques.
The literal and traditional meanings of the word cult is derived from the Latin cultus, meaning "care" or "adoration", as "a system of religious belief or ritual; or: the body of adherents to same".
In this discussion I do not want to include the purely negative 'mind control' connotations of cult but to deal with this concept in a more neutral manner as a community of people pursuing a group faith that is in the minority or {marginalized\ostracized} by the rest of society. This would be more in keeping with definition #2 above (rather than #1).
This definition would apply to YEC and fundamentalists to some extent; hence I want to be clear about the non-negative aspect.
Can you tell if you are in a cult versus a sect from the inside?
Side note: it is also interesting that the meanings of cult and sect seem to be inverted between {American\English} usage and other European uses (still from "Wikipedia - cult" link above):
The word for "cult" in the popular English meaning is secte (French) or secta (Spanish).
In German the usual word used for the english cult is Sekte, which also has other definitions. A similar case is the Russian word sekta
In formal English use, and in non-English European terms, the cognates of the English word "cult" are neutral, and refer mainly to divisions within a single faith, a case where English speakers might use the word "sect".
I would think this would lead to confusion on the difference between sect and cult. Especially for our participants from other countries.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
isn't that like muhammed and his followers? christ and his disciples? moses and israel? the only differences is that it happened a long time ago, and more people kept joining up.
So then all sects were cults when they started? What makes one stop being a cult and start being a sect? Is there a normalization process that diffuses the original cultishness? Or is it just a cult that is accepted?
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
So cults evolve into sects, usually after the {death\departure} of the charismatic leader, and in the process of evolving becoming less {radical\extreme} and more mainstream to the population as a whole?
Does the existence of the {cult->sect} transition also act on the society to pull it more towards the {cult->sect} views?
Luther wasn't charismatic? He sure had a lot of followers. What is different between him and Bringham Young? Several US colony founders (Mayflower\Plymouth, etc)?
I agree that all religions seem to evolve to {match\attract} members as society changes, but isn't this also a redefinition of the faith that the OP noted as an element of cults? That would imply that established religions become more cultish as time passes and get further from the original {?pure?} faith.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
the more they like to talk about other groups being "cults."
That is one of the issues I have with the mainstream\estabished religions as well - that they 'demonize' the other faiths (some more than others).
We have certainly seen a purge of heathen and pagan beliefs in the history of the world based on their beliefs being marginalized. Were they cults before this happened or were they pushed into cult status?
Does {political\economic\military} conquest change the truths?
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
a cult might be made up of people from various beliefs
You mean like someone combining the concepts of sin from hinduism with the jewish faith?
I find it hard to conceive of a group of people getting together to do this, but I can see where a charismatic leader can accomplish this where he has studied several beliefs.
Some people think that {Jesus\the man behind the myth of Jesus} (per their view) went to India in his "unknown" years.
have a extra-biblical source of authority
Not all cults are christian, ergo bible not necessarily a source in any event. Hindu creationism is independent of christian as well (scientific earth is way too young).
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
i think that cult is a word that is simply utilized as an us vs them thought
This is emphasising the negative connotations. Cult was used in the quoted article, but there is really little difference between cult and sect in raw meaning (dictionary)
it's really not a useful, productive word.
So anyone calling another faith a cult is drawing an artificial distinction?
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
As pointed out in the OP I didn't want to dwell on the negative and subjective aspects. That would mean using something more in line with definition 2. So we can delete the negative & subjective element from what we are looking at here:
quote:Cult; 1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. .. b. The followers of such a religion or sect. 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
Also as noted in the OP the word did not used to have a negative connotation, but was more like sect in description. Several ancient beliefs were described as cults without the negative connotation.
While a Christian will claim Muslims of cult worship, Muslims will claim Christians(faith of a mule) as being a cult.
This has more to do with devaluing all other religions (something most religions do to all other beliefs) than with the beliefs really being cults.
The entire term and concept is nothing but a an underlying stab at religious discrimination which fits hand in hand with *pagan worship.
Thanks for making my point on devaluing other beliefs ...
So is a cult under the domination of a charismatic leader, but a sect has matured (possibly after the death\removal of the charismatic leader) somehow?
David Koresh was a charismatic cult leader by most people's views. Is Dobson? Robertson? Ted Haggard?
{abe}BTW
It is also instructive to look at the definition of sect:
People who actually make cults a serious object of research--such as the psychologists who help people deal with the wreckage--recognize characteristic features that define cult behaviour. These characteristics are not typical of all groups--even all religious groups.
This is more the direction I wanted to go with this topic. Thanks.
One important and measurable feature of cult groups is personality change.
How do you measure this for people brought up in the system? I'm thinking of the 14 yr old FLDS\mormon girl in the spouse\leader rape case as an example (news item 14-year-old bride sobs, describes wedding at polygamist leader's trial). This is not "picking on" mormons but is just an example from current news.
The people who join most groups--... the Marine Corps,...--retain their essential personalities after joining.
There is evidence of mind control techniques being used in basic training, and I would submit that there is some measurable personality change as a result, but this is a minor quibble. The point would be that mind control techniques are often used by cults, and these techniques are identifiable.
These skews are measurable. This skew is accompanied by daily top-down control of the individual's environment, circle of friends, contacts with outsiders, etc.
This would apply to religious communities (like the mormon enclave referred to above), as well as the Jones sect, Koresh, etc. We also see this in the effect of some foreign religious schools (Red Mosque in Pakistan?).
You might feel you've wandered into the middle of a conversation at such sites, though, because you have. The focus of such sites is practical. Former members of abusive groups are talking to each other, coming to terms with the treatment they have endured and hoping to make contacts with former friends who remain inside. As you will see, there is a great deal to get over.
And being "debriefed" from the mind control. Learning what happened to them.
So where do we draw the line between total domination cults and less invasive but still coercive sects that use mind control techniques to control their followers? Do the mormon\FLDS polygamists above fit the cult designation based on use of mind control and coercion? Does Fred Phelps?
™ Version 4.2