The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

I am not attempting to demonize any particular religious group. I am simply pointing out that a religious group must have a certain relationship with the overall society in order to qualify as a cult. The Mormons could have been called a cult at one time (in part for their support of polygamy), but now the group is too accepted by society at large. Christianity began as a cult, but after it grew in popularity and political clout, it ceased to be a cult.

As for my claim that your intent is too offend the religious posters, your tone makes that point obvious.

I do appreciate the fact that you have not lodged a formal complaint though. That is very big of you considering the "witch hunt" you are having to endure.

Koyaanisqatsi

The Loneliest--

I don't see the distinction as to "popularity" removing the definition of the term.

Again, I think you are talking about the demonization of certain cults by other more established cults, but a cult is a cult is a cult. Denying that fact or attempting to state, "Well, we started as a cult, but now we're no longer one" makes no sense.

In order for a cult to "no longer be a cult" it would have to disband its membership, not grow larger.

It isn't as if there are pupae and larval stages, where you start as a faction, then become a cult and then evolve into a religion. This is what I meant earlier about the "larger picture."

You are in a cult or you are not in a cult; the size or ancestry of the cult makes no difference to the fact that it is still a cult.

What you're talking about is whitewashing the truth to make it seem as if one cult is comparatively less "cultish" than another, which is the disingenuous heart of what I have been fighting all along by my insistence upon using the correct term across the board.

Again, I think you are illustrating quite nicely exactly why it is necessary, IMO, to use the correct terminology so that people do not delude themselves into thinking that there is a fundamental distinction between their own cult and the "others."

This is how lives are destroyed and cultures ruined and wars justified.

If you call yourself a Christian--no matter what the subset faction--you are ipso facto calling yourself a cult member; a member of the overall Christian cult.

If you want to specify, that's fine. You could call yourself a member of the Southern Baptist cult or the Pentacostal cult or the Presbyterian cult--whatever floats your boat--but using the proper terminology so that you are not deliberately deluding yourself or being forced to delude yourself is exceedingly important, IMO.

* WARNING WARNING WARNING * THIN-SKINNED READERS DO NOT GO ANY FURTHER *

Let me use an exploded, controversial analogy that others might arguably find offensive and/or a back-handed, indirect insult in order to demonstrate precisely what I'm talking about since several direct, detailed deconstructions on my part did not get through to you initially in this regard: even if you join the oldest and the largest and the most benign faction of the KKK, you're still a member of the KKK.

Going around stating that you're not really affiliated with the KKK, or that those other people in that other faction who call themselves the KKK don't represent you or your beliefs or that the more older and larger faction is far more orthodox and accepted as benign by the community at large or any other rationalization whatsoever doesn't matter to the big picture; you are a member of the KKK.

So if you find that truth to be stark, objectionable and/or insulting, then your course of action is clear: get out of the KKK.

Trying to rationalize, justify and/or redirect/redefine what it is your particular faction within the KKK is all about and how your faction doesn't do this or doesn't do that or how your charitable donations within the community help to send kids through college and feed the homeless (white) people and all the good things that your group does, etc., etc., etc., makes little to no difference to the big picture (i.e., anyone outside of the KKK); you're still a member of the KKK.

So either accept it or get out, but whatever you do, don't shoot the messenger for pointing that fact out to you; thank him or her for opening your eyes to the truth you've been rationalizing or flat out denying all along.

Bookman

Koy,
1) You are using a dictionary definition of the word in a non-standard way (i.e. it is safe to say that most people don't define cult in the way that you do). This isn't a problem by itself - you are, as others have pointed out, techincally correct (in some fashion) to use the label in your chosen way. In your chosen definition a cult is identified by the fact that it inculcates a theology. Any organization that inculcates any belief about any theology is, by your definition, a cult.

2) The lonliest monk is (I believe) using a
fairly-standard social-sciences definition of cult wherein the classification of "cult" is part of a continuum (religion-sect-cult). In that definition, a cult is identified by its relationship to society at large and by a handful of other identifying characteristics. In this definition, size matters and anything "mainstream" is by definition not a cult. Why you object to a standard definition from the social sciences, I can't really fathom.

You can certainly justify (though I personally find your justification rather weak) using a definition that allows you to call any religious organization a cult. It is my opinion that that removes all meaning from the word, but what the hell. If it makes you happy, who am I to object.

However, when you claim that others are wrong when they apply accepted definitions from the social sciences to the word cult I don't think that you can really justify that.

For instance, you say:
Can you justify that your definition is somehow more correct than the one that The Lonliest Monk is using? It seems to me simply to be the most specious of arguments from authority - the argument from personal opinion.

Thanks!
Bookman

The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

The popularity of a group bears on its status as a cult because the necessary tension between the group and society no longer exists once the group is generally accepted. Cult status is detemined by the relation of the group to society. That is why the Wolfe quote is apt. A cult is simply a religion which doesn't have enough pull in a particular society. It is for this reason that you are not likely to see the U.S. government deal with a Catholic church in the way that it did with the members of the Branch Davidians. I think a good rule of thumb for detemining if a group is a cult is to see if the group is open to government persecution. If a group has enough direct or indirect power to prevent persecution, then one can safely say they are not a cult. If you wished to say that Christianity is a cult in China, for example, I don't believe that would be an unreasonable claim. But it certainly would not apply to Christians in this country.

Being a cult isn't determined by what you believe. It is determined by how society views those beliefs.

Koyaanisqatsi

That is not nor ever shall be my concern.

Not just "in some fashion" and not just "technically correct." Absolutely correct according to the definition of the term and the lack of counter-refutation by anyone here.

Please don't attempt to disingenuously denigrate the fact that I am correctly using the term and others are not.

If there is an aspect of the definition or my clarification that you think I am in error over, then kindly present your counter-argument.

An argument from popularity is not sufficient to demonstrate a misapplication of the term nor is it counter-refutation of my arguments for using the term in its proper fashion.

My "chosen" definition is the only definition there is. What you and The Loneliest are arguing about is the application of the term (i.e., the use of the term in a derogatory or demonizing fashion).

Now do you see why precise language and the proper use of the correct terminology are essential to understand the truth?

I have spelled this out again and again and again, but instead of conceding that fact and moving on, you and The Loneliest are simply trying to get me to acknowledge that people take offense at the proper usage of the term. In case it hasn't already been established ad nauseum, I don't give a rat's ass at who takes offense at the truth.

According to my further clarification, yes. This is not a part of the dictionary definition, however, and therefore not contingent.

In part, yes. I have made this painfully clear several times.

That's not all he's doing. IMO, he is using a popularly misunderstood and derogatory misapplication of the term in order to separate and demonize one cult from another in an attempt to argue that because certain people misapply the term in some fashion, that this should then influence how I apply the term, ignoring the entire time the fact that I have pointed out repeatedly that my goal is to cull the truth from inculcation and do the exact opposite of what he is arguing for.

To label the Branch Davidians as a "cult" (for the purposes of segregation and demonization, as The Loneliest is arguing for) and not also label the Catholics, the Presbyterians, the Jews, the Muslims, etc., etc., etc. as "cults" is to obfuscate the true nature of these "organizations" and give the appearance of some sort of comparative legitimacy where there is none.

They are all cults and should be called that accordingly. Again, hate the sin, not the sinner.

Then you should re-read every single thing I have posted here, as the objections are obvious and spelled out (in many cases) in BIG E-Z-2 READ type.

If you call yourself a "Christian" then you are ipso facto calling yourself a cult member. If you take offense at that fact, then you should not call yourself a Christian or adhere to Christian cult theology, instead of what is done, which is to obfuscate (as I feel you and The Loneliest are doing here) the proper terminology for what is going on.

Let me put it this way, if Jesus had said, "You are all pigs and I am your pig herder," arguably that would have been the end of the cult before it began.

The disingenuous use of obfuscating terminology is at the heart of cult programming and cult infestation, so to deprogram and remove the cult virus from our society, proper terminology must be used at all times so that we can begin to reverse the cognitive dissonance employed in the first place, allowing cult members to open their eyes to the truth of their indoctrination.

Understand? To paraphrase Shakespeare, "the truth will out."

What a surprise

Take it up with Webster.

I see. Using the dictionary definition of the word removes the "meaning" from the word.

You've just demonstrated the justification for my position.



Where did I claim that others were "wrong?" I stated they were incorrect. There's a vast difference.

I have done so at least four times now.

Are you referring to The Loneliest's argument in that last sentence? If that is the case, then I agree.

I have repeatedly demonstrated that the definition of the word--the only one that has been presented and agreed upon by everyone involved--is being applied correctly as well as my own clarification of how and to whom I apply the term.

The Loneliest is the one who would need to justify an argument from popularity to be somehow "more correct" as you put it, than the dictionary definition or my own qualification of that dictionary definition.

The fact that a selection of people in a society does not recognize the correct usage of a term is not my concern and has no bearing on this...whatever this is.

I have defined the word cult and explained repeatedly why it is applicable. I have asked repeatedly for anyone in here to demonstrate how I am misapplying the word as it is defined.

The Loneliest has then come along and stated that some people take offense or feel that the term is used primarily as a derogatory term, which I have also addressed repeatedly and will no longer continue to repeat myself repeatedly in a repetitious fashion.

I am using the term correctly and deliberately in order to properly define a section of our society that has succeeded in deluding the rest of society into thinking that they are not precisely what they are; cults.

Any negative connotation that the word may or may not bring with it is entirely between the cult member and their therapist, but I would say as I've said before, if you take offense at the proper use of the term to describe your belief state, then, as in the KKK analogy, you should get out of the cult, not shoot the messenger for opening your eyes.

sotzo

Koy:

Since you've invited others to come here from the other thread and critique what was found there (which I applaud), allow me to throw in my 2 cents since I have dialogued with you on several occasions...

My experience with you can be summarized this way:

1. You hurl "elephants" loaded with assumptions and then expect a point by point rebuttal of every assumption that is behind your argument. When a person then deals with the heart of your argument, you claim he/she is not dealing with the specifics. On the other hand, when they deal with the specifics, you cite Webster's dictionary as if a definition is able to deal with the context of the immediate conversation. You then proceed to cite your opponent with evasion tactics and insincerity. There's a reason why philosophical and epistemological thought can fill volumes of book. It's because these subjects are more complex than brute definitions and as such demand more attention than a dictionary definition.

2. You fail to understand that Christian theism posits God as a starting point for rationality and the universe. Further you fail to understand that, as a starting point, one's knowledge of God's existence is not arrived at in the same way as one arrives at one's knowledge of how airplanes fly. I know you haven't grasped this yet because you get extremely upset that Kenny is not able to give you a full detailed schematic diagram of how God soveriegnly controls all things. Guess what? If Christian theism is true, then we should not expect to know the mechanism by which God does many things...but this isn't a problem unless one's epistemology requires that one understands such mechanisms in order to affirm God's existence.

3. As to the whole cult definition issue, you can call it what you wish. The issue between Kenny and you on the board was not the definition of cult, nor does such a definition usually have anything to do with any discussion you've been involved with here. This is a red herring and has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity is true or not. I haven't a clue why you think screaming "cult" magically gives you ownership on rationality.

All in all, I've always wondered why you get so hung up on name-calling, especially when you seem so convinced that theism is really so unconvincing. Why do you continue to beat a horse that is so obviously (to you) illogical, irrational? It's sort of like me hanging out at <a href="http://www.santaclausbelievers.com" target="_blank">www.santaclausbelievers.com</a> so that I can tell folks how stupid they are to believe that Santa actually exists. If secular humanism is that obvious to you as truth, then a few posts from theists shouldn't get you that riled up.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Thanks.

Those are both very serious allegations. Could you provide any examples of where I have "hurled" assumptions and then expected a point-by-point rebuttal of every assumption that you allege is behind my argument as well as examples where someone has "dealt with the heart" of my argument (I'll take that to mean, "offered counter-refutation") where I then claimed that he/she did not deal with the specifics?

Again, just one example would help. You are making very serious allegations against my argumentation and deconstruction--the only thing I do give a rat's ass about--so I would sincerely appreciate it if you could provide detailed examples.

And I always try to demonstrate the legitimacy of those admonitions, so again, please provide an example where I did this without such demonstration, as you are implying that I do this as a matter of disingenuous course, rather than as a demonstrable fact in evidence.

Again, you're making very serious allegations that I take to heart, so please provide the examples and demonstrate that they support your observations or retract your accusations.

The purpose of debate is to clarify meaning, not obfuscate it. Those "volumes of books" you refer to take great pains to detail all of the terms that the authors will be using precisely because "these subjects are more complex" so your assertion is not founded. Definition of terms is the very first thing that philosophers do prior to a discussion and they do it in the same manner that I have done here.

I do not "fail to understand it," I demonstrate why it is fallacious and then reject it as an invalid presupposition.

See above.

I get "extremely upset" when people evade, redirect, redefine or otherwise rewrite my arguments to their own design. I get appalled when people make arguments from authority. I get apoplectic when people make ludicrous, unsupportable, circuitous, illogical declarations as if their say-so is enough to end the discussion.

Here's a good example:

?

I call it what it is. It is you and your ilk that call it what you wish.

Quite right. That was an example of one of those redirections I've been on about.

Don't take it up with me. I didn't start this witch-hunt.

And I haven't a clue why you think I "scream" it or think that I think it "magically" gives me ownership on rationality.

Rationality has nothing to do with being a cult member, however, so perhaps that's where you're confused?

I don't. Others do as this witch-hunt readily attests to.

It isn't "unconvincing;" it is a lie used to indoctrinate innocent people into cults.

See Jung's notes on the collective unconscious.

No, it isn't. This is the secular web. You are the interloper.

They don't. A few hundred of the same non-answers and evasion tactics and the repetition of arguments that have already been demonstrated to be fallacious again and again and again and again and again and again get me riled up. The deliberate obfuscation of the truth in favor of cult lies gets me riled up. Being falsely accused of transgressions I do not commit gets me riled up. Unsupportable assertions based on nothing more than assumed authority gets me riled up.

Is that clearer for you now?

I tell you what. Concern yourself with providing detailed examples of all of those allegations you "hurled" my way. I'm touched that you're concerned that I'm all riled up, but I can handle it.

The question is, can others?

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Bookman

I know. Your concern is about being right.

Absolute, unmitigated bullshit. The definition?!? Are you seriously suggesting that the word "cult" has an absolute and intrinsic meaning, and that all other definitions are incorrect? Refutation has been offered in the form of perfectly valid (and more widely accepted) alternate definitions, which you curiously and gratuitiously reject.

Strawman. I'm not arguing over aspects of "the" (your) definition, I'm asserting that there are other possible definitions, that are at least equally valid.

Just as an argument from authority isn't always a fallacy, neither is an argument from popularity. Refer to Don's posts above.

No, I assure you that what we are doing is offering an alternate definition. The definition that you are hung up on is quite simply not the only one there is.

Not yet.

How nice for you that you have access to the truth. Quick, Koy, guess what you sound like?

Actually, when I looked on the web for the source of his definition, I found it on several pages devoted to the social sciences, not pages of apologetics. Did you look or make an assumption?

Hold on -- you assert that there is no difference in legitimacy between the Branch Davidians and the Catholics?
Let's refer to The Source of All Truth(tm), Websters.com.
It seems to me that the apropos applications of the word legitimate for this comparison are two and one.
Do you still assert that there is not a difference in legitimacy between the Branch Davidians and the Catholics.
Ah, now I do.

How nice for you to be among the enlightened. Continue your prostlytizing, I'm sure it will get through eventually.

With apologies to Monty Python: But that isn't an argument, its just contradiction.

The One True Definition, right?

Agreed upon by everyone involved? That's the most bizarre solipsism that I've ever seen.

I certainly can't argue with that last part - how and to whom you apply the term.

You do think that words have intrinsic meaning, then?

We have been unable to show that your tautology is logically inconsistent. That hardly reflects poorly on us.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bookman ]</p>

David Gould

This seems to imply that it is the context that defines whether an organisation is a cult or not. Does that mean that the Catholic Church is a cult in Iran?

To me, this does not make much sense. A cult should be defined by what it does and not where it is. If you moved the Branch Davidians to a small island and placed it under their own governance, would they still be a cult? Of course they would. Therefore, placing the Catholic Church in a Catholic nation or a Muslim nation does not change their status - they are either a cult or they are not.

As I define a cult by what they do and not by where they are, I think defining the Catholic Church as a cult is entirely reasonable.


Bookman,

I think you said that you would accept Christianity being defined as a cult in China. In my example above, would the Branch Davidians have been a cult if they had their own country?

David

Bookman

There are other dimensions to the sociological description of a cult which Lonliest Monk alluded to earlier. I have found variants of this theme on a few sites:

Your example is a bit hard to examine -- I find it difficult to imagine a country of less than a hundred citizens. I don't know whether a sociologist would consider such a small group as defining the context of a culture; I wouldn't think so. Given that, a group the size of the Branch Davidians would still be a cult.

Short answer: I'm not sure, but I'm no sociologist.

Bookman