The Loneliest Monk

brighid,

You have listed several religions which have little power and acceptance in our culture. I have repeatedly stated that a religion with little power and acceptance in a culture is considered a cult. It is obvious what I would call them.

The Loneliest Monk

Koy and Proud Atheist,

Christianity is accepted by the majority of Americans. This fact is true regardless of how much you are annoyed by it. You can both call Christianity cults if it makes you feel better, but it will not make the religion any less accepted.

David Gould

Lonliest Monk,

I gave an example earlier of the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church, under your definition, would be a religion in England and a cult in Pakistan.

That can only make sense if the words cult and religion mean the same thing and are simply levels in a hierachy.

If they are levels in a hierachy (and you never responded to my rebuttal of your claim that the following is circular, by the way) then the claims that:

a cult is a religion with no power; and
a religion is a cult with power

are both valid claims.

Therefore, when power has no bearing on our discussions, the words 'cult' and 'religion' become legitimately interchangeable.

The Loneliest Monk

David,

The Anglican Church would be a religion in both England and Pakistan. It would be a cult in Pakistan. A cult is just a specific type of religion.

David Gould

Sigh. We are back at a point I had hoped we had got away from.

Loneliest Monk,

You define a cult as a religion without power.

(please let me know if I am wrong here)

If all religions began without power, then all religions started as cults, correct?

As these cults gained power, they became religions under your definition.

Thus, all religions are cults with power.


In what way is my logic flawed?

I started from your definition and got mine. If yours is valid, mine has to be just as valid.

Remember, I have refuted your claim that this is circular in an earlier post.

The Loneliest Monk

David,

If a cult is defined as a religion with no power, then by definition it already is a religion. It is just a religion with a specific relationship with the culture around it. If a religion gets to a point where it no longer has the appropriate relationship with the culture, it ceases to be a cult.

It is just like with taboos. Taboos are determined by the surrounding culture. An action that would qualify as a taboo in Afghanistan might not qualify as a taboo here. If an action becomes accepted enough, it is no longer a taboo. For example, tattoos were once taboo in our society. Now they are generally accepted. One would not call tattoos an accepted taboo. One would just cease referring to it as a taboo. The same holds with religions considered cults. Once a religion is accepted by a culture, it can no longer be called a cult.

David Gould

Loneliest Monk,

Please logically deconstruct my definition to show that it is not valid.

Taboo is not part of a hierachial system - cult and religion are.

Taboo and not taboo are opposites, not hierachial.

If I keep adding age to a kitten, I get a cat.

If I keep adding power to a cult, I get a religion.

A cult is not the opposite of a religion anymore than a kitten is the opposite of a cat.

Examine my definition of the word religion and how I reached it. Where does the logic fail? I cannot see it.

you wrote: "If a cult is defined as a religion with no power, then by definition it already is a religion."

I agree with you. This is my starting point for demonstrating that a religion can validly be described as a cult with power.

Perhaps you are again arguing for some sort of circularity here where none in fact exists. I have refuted this in an earlier post and you have made no attempt to counter this refutation.

When discussing religions or cults and when the power level is irrelevant to the discussion, I contend that the terms are completely interchangeable.

Please logically refute my contention. Remember, I start from your definition that a cult is a religion with no power, and therefore (obviously) all cults are religions.

David

David Gould

Using the term in this perfectly valid way may make some people think about what it is they believe and why. For example, if someone thinks that the evil cult of the Branch Davidians brain washed people into believing nonsense and then is exposed to the idea that the only difference between the words 'cult' and 'religion' is one of degree of power, they may start to look at the similarities in actual behaviour between religions and cults. This will in turn demonstrate that they are both exactly the same in behaviour. That may in turn make less of them accept religion in general and Christianity in particular.

If Christianity is false, this is a good thing.

The Loneliest Monk

David,

The definition we have been using entails that a cult have no power. So it is contradictory to speak of a cult having power. A mainstream religion can certainly start out as a cult. But once it has achieved mainstream status, it can no longer reasonably be referred to as a cult(because it no longer fits the definition).

By saying that a religion is a cult that has power, you are saying that something without power (a cult) has power. That is clearly contradictory.

David Gould

As I have already pointed out previously, there is no contradiction. Please go back and read my post which demonstrated that there is no contradiction or cirularity.

On second thoughts, I'll write a small part of it again, as it seems you cannot be bothered reading it:

a kitten is a cat that has not grown up
a cat is a kitten that has grown up

According to you, the second one is circular and therefore invalid. But it obviously is perfectly valid.

The explanation? Cat and kitten are part of a hierachy and are differentiated by 'grown up' or 'not grown up'. As part of a hierachy, they must be independantly defined as the same thing or else the hierachy must fail.

Remember also that I have previously said that my definition can be derived from yours if and only if all religions were once cults. (Which of course they have to be if your definition of cult is valid - and I accept your definition as valid, which is why my definition of religion is valid also: it is derived logically from yours)

Again, please logical deconstruct what I have said and show me where it is wrong.

I am getting a bit weary of the whole thing, to be honest.

David