David Gould

From your definition, it appears that every religion started out as a cult.

It also seems that if a religion start in a new area it is a cult, even if well established elsewhere.

To me, that seems to be ridiculous (but I am no sociologist either... )

As I cannot see the substantive difference between the Anglican Church and the Branch Davidians (they both worship a supernatural force, they both make unprovable and miraculous and bizarre claims about their founders, they both make demands on their followers for time and/or money), either they both are cults or neither are.

If cult is an evolutionary stage in a process which may lead to something being a religion (I do not accept this definition but I might be convinced), am I correct in thinking that while Christianity is no longer a cult it once was?

If it once was a cult, does it still use the same methods to survive and grow as it did when it was a cult?

If so, what marked it's change from being a cult to being not a cult? Is it that it is accepted or that it gained power?

Surely all this means is that Christianity is a cult with power and acceptance.

Is a cult defined by what it does or by where it is?

If moving a bunch of Anglicans to Pakistan makes the Anglican Church a cult, surely Koy defining them as a cult is valid?

Imagine a nation of Branch Davidians, say 500,000 of them. Are the Branch Davidians a cult?

What about 1 million? 3 million? 25 million? Where is the line drawn?

If there is no line, or it is poorly defined, how can anyone truly draw a distinction between a cult and a religion? Doesn't such a thing become subjective if it is based on vague ideas about size, influence, power wielded?

If it is subjective, then from my atheist perspective cults have to be defined by what they do. Otherwise, discussion of them becomes impossible.

"I will talk about the cult of Anglicanism in Pakistan, as well as the religion of Anglicanism in England.'

Doesn't that sound like nonsense? They are the same thing! If you define a cult by it's location, you end up with nonsense. The cult must be defined by what it does.

David

(sorry for the length and repetitiveness )

chickensoupforthebowl

LadyShea is quite attractive if you ask me.

Bookman

David,
I hear you. I don't really want to be in a position of arguing for a particular definition for the word cult. I'll add some additional layman's remarks and see what you think.

It's probably not a coincidence that sociologists define a cult by the position that its adherants have in their society or culture -- after all, that is their stock in trade, no? Believe me, as a fellow non-theist, I can certainly understand your reluctance to distingush between two organizations with the same modus operandi and give one a "positive" label ("religion") and give the other a "negative" one ("cult").

However, it is clear to me that the societal role that our two examples (Catholic Church and Branch Davidians) play is quite different. I can certainly see where (particularly within the discipline of sociology) comparing the Christians of the second century, the Mormons of the nineteenth, and the Branch Davidians of the twentieth would reveal that each had features in common and further that there are substantial differences with regard to societal role between each of them and the modern Catholic church. I have not in this thread argued for the adoption of any particular definition as the One True Definition, but as I can see a difference between the two I'm willing to grant the sociologists a term that can be used within their discipline to distinguish them.

As such, I reject the notion that it is inherently wrong to use the label cult to distinguish organizations like the former from the latter. I'm not arguing for the sociologists' definition; I am arguing against the notion that it is demonstrably incorrect.

Bookman

David Gould

Bookman,

I guess I agree with you that there is likely to be no one true definition. However, that does not make Koy's use of the word wrong either.

Koy could, for example, say the folowing and fit in with the sociologists definition:

"Christianity was a cult that by it's size and influence in society alone is now defined as a religion. The ways in which it continues to survive and grow are no different than those used by any cult that exists today."

Which is the long way round of saying that Christianity is in effect a cult. So, why not simply say that?

People object to the negative connotations that the word 'cult' has. However, as the word cult describes what Christianity did, still does and will continue to do for the forseeable future, denying that it fits the definition of a cult (apart from the size and influence areas, both of which seem to me to be irrelevant to the negative connotations anyway) is strange in the extreme.

If cult simply means 'religion that is small', isn't a religion simply 'a cult which is large'?

This reversal holds if all religions start out as cults, I think. And that's what the sociological definition seems to be saying.

I think that the use of the word accurately describes religions when you are looking at their methods.

I also think that no cult ever describes itself as such. For example, the personality cult of Hitler was only described that way from the outside. I am sure that the early Christians did not think of themselves as a cult; neither did the early Mormons.

From the outside, Christianity looks to me like a cult.

If a sociologist is looking at the cultural, social and political influence a particular cult has, I have no problem with them defining a cult as meaning a small non-influential religion.

David

The Loneliest Monk

David,

Are you saying that religions with widespread acceptance and significant political power would employ the same methods as fringe religions with little to no political power? I would find that very surprising. A religion with significant political power could use that power to repress competing religions, and history has shown that given the chance, many will exercise that power. This option is not open to groups like the Branch Davidians.

Koyaanisqatsi

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Isn't it terrible to be concerned about being right and making every effort to carefully present one's arguments so that they are as exhaustively detailed as possible? Maybe I can take lessons from you and just not give a shit and be wrong all the time.

Any more rank, cheap shots you want to throw my way, little clubber, you just go right ahead.

It's cute.

Hey, watch it. If Kenny's still around he might lift that sentence out of context and make a formal complaint.

Say, wasn't that the point of this thread to begin with?

Go figure. Redirection is an addiction, I guess.

For f*ck's sake, Bookman, give it a rest. I posted the definition and clarified what I meant and how I applied the term over five goddamned times now. How other people dance and sing and prance around is entirely irrelevant to how I dance and sing and prance around, so kindly stuff that strawman, capisca?

Now who's flinging the unmitigated bullshit? I demonstrated repeatedly how the one "popular" definition (actually, "colloquial misapplication" would be more appropriate) offered by The Loneliest had no relevancy to my arguments. NONE.

Trying to force a popular, colloquial misapplication of a term does not impress me and has no relevancy to my legitimate and proper use of the word.

Did you know that the majority of the world's population speaks Chinese? So why aren't you?

And I've demonstrated that such an assertion is not applicable and not relevant. End of discussion.

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.

Address the goddamned arguments!

No, you are not, IMO. You are offering a colloquial misapplication of the term that certain people are using as a means to denigrate and segregate one group from another.

I am using the term according to its proper definition, so if you can't deal with that then exhume Webster!

Irrelevant, pointless observation not in contention. The definition I presented had several levels to it, all of which I demonstrated applied perfectly and that is all that is required of me.

I use the term according to the dictionary definition I posted and the further corollaries I detailed REPEATEDLY.

Enough of this pointlessness.

Of course not, because your trying to build the world's fattest strawman. The Duke's of Hazard was one of the most popular television shows ever, but that doesn't mean I have to drive the General Lee!

I have detailed the fact that I do not use the term in the colloquial sense you and The Loneliest are trying to force upon me, nor is there any requirement for me to do so.

Further, I have demonstrated why I feel using the term in this colloquial sense obfuscates the truth and is detrimental to society.

According to the definition of the word (not its colloquial use, but it's definition) and my further qualifying corollaries to that definition, which is all I need to provide to establish what I mean when I use the term and how I apply the term, if you call yourself a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., etc., etc., then you are ipso facto calling yourself a cult member.

Grow up.

You? Good god! Kill me now.

What's wrong with you? Seriously. READ MY GODDAMNED POST AND ADDRESS YOUR ARGUMENTS ACCORDINGLY. "IMO!" IN MY OPINION this is what the loneliest is doing.

Congratulations. You've just demonstrated my point perfectly! I used a colloquial application of a popular acronym--"IMO"--and you either didn't know what I meant by such an application or missed it because I wasn't being diligent about using the proper terminology.

So there's that if nothing else.

Ok...

Stuff that strawman, stuff that strawman (boil that dust speck, boil that dust speck)!

What a shock. You've left off the most important part; THE QUALIFIER!

This should be fun. Let's see how much straw can a Bookman stuff when a Bookman can stuff straw.

Hey, what do you know? You can use a dictionary. I hope you haven't removed the meaning from the word by detailing the meaning of the word...

Your point?

Let's repeat them now since I know how much you love repetition:

Everyone on the same strawman...page now? Good.

Now, let's see what the point of all of this is:

Yes according to the only qualification that matters to my argument; they are both cults based upon the bible.

Yes according to the two levels of definition you chose; comparatively speaking (as I was in the quote you selected), they were both in compliance with the law (the only legal accusation against the Branch Davidians was that they had machine guns, which is still a hotly contested and unproved accusation, but irrelevant to the fact that the comparison I was making was in regard to their reliance upon the bible, not whether or not some Catholics own guns along with the Branch Davidians) and they are both in accordance with accepted patterns and standards (according to their own cult doctrines and accepted by their own members).

If you're at all interested in researching the Waco debacle, you might try <a href="http://www.monumental.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/" target="_blank">The Waco Electronic Museum </a> as a fascinating start, but since the "appearance of comparative legitimacy" I was referring to was the fact that they both indoctrinate members based upon the bible, all of this is pointless.

But stuff away, my friend. At least you'll get the exercise.

F*ckin' finally!

Yes, it is rather.

Well, have faith, My child, have faith.

You should apologize, because it wasn't contradiction. It was a demonstrable observation of fact.

Stuff that strawman, baby! Yeah!

First, it's not a solipsism; second, do you not agree that at the time of that post the only formal definition that was presented was from Webster's and that everyone agreed that it was in fact the correct definition of the word?

I'm not asking you to comment on the colloquial misapplication of the word you and The Loneliest continue to stuff in your strawman, but that the only formal definition of the word was Webster's, presented by me and addended by The Loneliest and agreed upon by everyone involved (including you) as being the correct formal (dictionary) definition of the term?

Here, I'll post it again:

Stuff that in your strawman and smoke it.

Considering that's the only relevant section to this whole ridiculous pointlessness, thank you for having the integrity to concede this point.

End of discussion.

NO! The whole point is that they do not have "intrinsic" meaning and must therefore be defined and then properly applied according to the definition!

That's the purpose of language and, I should add, debate; carefully defining the terms being used and then correctly applying that definition in order to arrive at clarity of meaning (aka, the truth).

I believe the phrase that leaps most readily to my mind at this point rhymes with "clucking bell."

Once again and for auld lang syne, in my opinion, you and The Loneliest are arguing for a revision of the formal (dictionary) definition based upon the colloquial misapplication of the formal definition, which is good work if you can get it, but, as always, TAKE IT UP WITH WEBSTERS!

That's hardly surprising since no tautology is involved.

Christianity is a cult and christians, therefore, cult members based upon the formal (dictionary) definition of the word "cult."

If there are any misperceptions based upon the colloquial misapplication of the term, too f*ckin' bad.

The term has been defined and qualified and the use repeatedly justified without sufficient counter-refutation to warrant consideration.

Don't start whining like a child because you can't force me to use a colloquial misapplication of the term.

Christianity is a cult. Deal with it.

Au contraire, mon ami...

Now, is this utterly pointless bullshit over with yet or is there more? I've got a full day's worth of proselytizing to get to, so let me know, because you know what I sound like.

One of us, one of us, one of us...

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

While I have referred to common usage of the term "cult", the definition used by social scientists has been mentioned by myself and others. So it is not the case that objections to your use of the term are based solely on common usage.

brighid

I think in a broad sense that many Christian denominations (and other faiths as well) fit the criteria outlined here:
<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/safe_sec.htm" target="_blank">http://www.religioustolerance.org/safe_sec.htm</a>

as being potentially dangerous "cults."

Brighid

Koyaanisqatsi

It was the case while I formulated my responses. Sorry, I haven't gotten to yours and will address them next.

NEXT...

Well, I can't find any definition used by social scientists mentioned by yourself or others. This was all I could find (from page 4):

Followed by Bookman:

Since neither of you actually presented a "standard definition from the social sciences," merely asserted your belief that this was a "standard" definition and then further asserted the qualities of that asserted classification, why I should further address this beyond what I've already stated I can't really fathom.

Bookman then presented "other dimensions to the sociologicaldescription of a cult," but not necessarily a "standard" sociological definition, which we'll see in a moment only reinforces my proper use of the term as it is defined by Websters, with my further qualifying corollaries:

Nothing about this description (uncredited, I should add) has any bearing on my use of the word. Indeed, several elements (especially that last part) only serve to reinforce the fact that I am using it more properly than the colloquial manner you and Bookman are trying to force upon me.

In case it isn't painfully clear, most atheists here (the most popular group on this site) find christianity "unacceptable" and, arguably, "outside cultural norms" in the big picture sense (i.e., secular humanism, the only demonstrably true state of existence) so, just as with the "unorthodox" and "spurious" elements of Webster's definition that The Loneliest first built his strawman upon, so we see here that once again, my application of the term is correct and justified.

Not to mention that most of us also consider the following to be true of christian cults: "strange beliefs, charismatic leadership, manipulation of members, strong emotional bonding, and slavish devotion to the group."

All worship me and my tyrannical need to be "right" and join the Cult of Koy!

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

Cultural norms are defined by the culture. It is simply a fact that christianity is well accepted in American culture. Secular humanism does not change that fact. If you wish to argue that christianity is outside cultural norms in Iraq or China, I will have no problem with that. The fact that the norms in some cultures do not adhere to secular humanism does not change the fact that they are still the cultural norms there.