Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semantics of Cults: What's a cult?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 37 (257038)
11-05-2005 10:19 AM


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)}

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 2:45 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 11-05-2005 3:14 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 11-13-2005 1:55 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 23 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-13-2005 5:49 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 28 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 10:49 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 36 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-18-2007 11:25 AM RAZD has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 37 (257049)
11-05-2005 11:36 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 37 (257080)
11-05-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
11-05-2005 10:19 AM


Definition of "Cult" for the discussion

From Dictionary.com - 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.
Definitions 3-6 omitted for brevity.
(see Cult Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)
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".
(see Cult - Wikipedia)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 10:19 AM RAZD has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 37 (257090)
11-05-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
11-05-2005 10:19 AM


The purpose is to help a Christian distinguish between legitimate mainstream churches and cults.
not sound facetious, but the difference between a religion and a cult is only time. has it been around long enough to be accepted?
i mean, the standard defintion (above) includes this phrase: "with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader." 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.
but about the semantics thing. i guess that explains why the republicans who don't provide for the poor are the party of jesus (who said things like "give to the poor").

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 10:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 3:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 37 (257094)
11-05-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
11-05-2005 3:14 PM


Branches
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 11-05-2005 3:14 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 11-05-2005 3:30 PM RAZD has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 37 (257098)
11-05-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
11-05-2005 3:20 PM


Re: Branches
So then all sects were cults when they started?
yes, i think so. {abe} well, no. the ones that branch of established religions may not need be cults. for instance, lutheranism wasn't a cult, because martin luther wasn't the charismatic leader -- christ was. but starting from scratch, all religions can trace their origin back to a cult. it's kind of an evolutionary process{/abe}
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?
i would say that cultural acceptance is what diffuses cultishness. and i don't mean just in a redefinition sense. i mean that there is an actual process that changes it. think interpretation -- the talmud or the rulings of the pope. it kind of dilutes the radicalism of the cult, and makes it more acceptable to more people.
it's kind of like political candidates centering themselves before an election.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-05-2005 03:34 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 3:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 3:54 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 18 by Omnivorous, posted 11-05-2005 7:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 37 (257100)
11-05-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
11-05-2005 3:30 PM


Re: Branches
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 11-05-2005 3:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 11-05-2005 4:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 37 (257101)
11-05-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
11-05-2005 3:54 PM


Re: Branches
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?
depends. in the case of christianity, yes. although the views it pulled society towards were not its original cultish belief system, rather an already mainstreamed hellenized greek tradition. i suspect that's why the romans picked it up so easily, actually.
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 guess that's a good point. does the leader who radically changes views and leads a departure from the mainstream church, but differs authority, count? maybe he does, and i shouldn't have second-guessed myself.
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.
yes and no. it is a redefinition, yes. but it's TOWARDS the mainstream, not AWAY like in op.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 3:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 4:06 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 37 (257104)
11-05-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by arachnophilia
11-05-2005 4:03 PM


Re: Branches
it is a redefinition, yes. but it's TOWARDS the mainstream, not AWAY like in op
But away from the original faith - isn't that the point of the OP criteria? The 'corruption' of the 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 11-05-2005 4:03 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 11-05-2005 4:22 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 37 (257106)
11-05-2005 4:13 PM


Had Ambrose Bierce defined "cult" in his Devil's Dictionary, I'm sure he would have said something along the line of, but much more clever than, "Any religious group not the speaker's own."
I've noticed that the more fundamentalist and the more cult-like, in the dictionary sense, a group is, the more they like to talk about other groups being "cults."
This message has been edited by Coragyps, 11-05-2005 04:16 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 4:23 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 11 of 37 (257108)
11-05-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
11-05-2005 4:06 PM


Re: Branches
But away from the original faith - isn't that the point of the OP criteria? The 'corruption' of the faith?
Very likely correct: look at the Quakers. They were quite the cult in many people's eyes back around 1800: agitating for equality of all men, freedom for slaves, etc. And such views were indeed a corruption of the mainstream faith, which was against such commie pinko notions. Just, over time, the mainstream took a different path and began to pretend that it had always embraced such notions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 4:06 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 11-05-2005 4:37 PM Coragyps has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 37 (257109)
11-05-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
11-05-2005 4:13 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 11-05-2005 4:13 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 37 (257112)
11-05-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coragyps
11-05-2005 4:22 PM


Re: Branches
quote:
Just, over time, the mainstream took a different path and began to pretend that it had always embraced such notions.
Hee hee hee. We are at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia, we have never been at war with Eurasia.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 11-05-2005 4:22 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 11-05-2005 4:45 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 14 of 37 (257114)
11-05-2005 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Chiroptera
11-05-2005 4:37 PM


Re: Branches
Damn, I need to read that again!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 11-05-2005 4:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 15 of 37 (257124)
11-05-2005 6:11 PM


Cult/sect
As I understand it, a sect is a breakaway from a mainstream church, retaining most of the dogma but introding variations in interpretation. While a cult might be made up of people from various beliefs, welded together by a totally novel approach. Usually, they have a extra-biblical source of authority based on a charismatic leader or ruling body. One thing sects and cults seem to have in common is a wonderful ability to dismiss errors in their past as if they never happened.They never let an ugly fact get in the way of a good tale. Almost makes cognitive dissonance respectable.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 6:30 PM Nighttrain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024