David Gould

Loneliest,

All this means is that the sociological definition, that a cult is a religion with no or limited power and acceptance, can be reversed to say that a religion is a cult with great power and acceptance.

This reversal holds if all religions start as cults. I do not see how it can be otherwise: it would be incredibly unlikely for a religion to suddenly appear with power and acceptance.

With regard to methods, the methods for growth and survival are identical. Just because a cult with power and acceptance can use them more effectively does not change what it is they do.

A cult without power and acceptance does try to reppress competing cults wihtin its limited sphere of influence (ie, among its members). There is no difference in that to a cult with power and influence - as far as a cult's influence extends, its use of methods to attack other cults will also extend.

David

The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

Groups like the Heaven's Gate organization are labeled cults because their practices and/or beliefs are unconventional. When someone calls a group a cult, typically they are implying that the group has beliefs and practices that are thought to be bizarre. This appears to fall pretty readily under the third definition listed in Webster's.

The Loneliest Monk

David,

I think a useful analogy would be the weight classes in boxing. If a boxer weighs 156 lbs, he is a Middileweight. If he puts on 20 lbs, he is then a Cruiserweight, not a heavy Middleweight.

So if a religion gains enough political power, it no longer fits the defintion of a cult (that being having little or no political power).

David Gould

Lonliest Monk,

Christianity fits the definition in my opinion of having practises and beliefs that are bizarre. Thus, it is a cult.

You also wrote:

"I think a useful analogy would be the weight classes in boxing. If a boxer weighs 156 lbs, he is a Middileweight. If he puts on 20 lbs, he is then a Cruiserweight, not a heavy Middleweight"

No, this analogy is not useful. If a middleweight was defined as 'a cruiserweigth with 20lbs less weight' then it would be the same.

However, the middleweight definition is not dependant on the cruiserweight definition - it has it's own definition - 156lbs. There is no such independant definition for a cult.

A cult is defined dependantly on the word religion and not independent of it. Logically, you can reverse the dependency if and only if all religions start out as cults. And I see no way that this cannot be true. Thus, defining a cult as a religion with no power or acceptance is exactly the same as saying that a religion is a cult with power and acceptance.

David

The Loneliest Monk

David,

If a cult is a religion with no power or acceptance, then saying that a religion is a cult that has power and acceptance is equivalent to the following statement is it not:

A religion is (a religion with no power or acceptance) that has power and acceptance.

And that simply does not make sense. It appears self-referentially incoherent.

The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

On a side note, the majority of the world's population does not speak chinese (unless of course you are using your own special definition for the word majority).

David Gould

That simply makes the whole sociological definition meaningless, then.

They define a hierachy of things, defining a cult as:

a religion with no power or influence

But what do they define a religion as? It has to be something??? with power and influence.

Therefore, under there defintion a cult is:

a [something with power and influence] with no power an influence

Same circularity, see?

If I admit my definition is invalid, so must the sociologists.

However, I do not think that is the case because hierachies are defined in terms of one another and that is not circular. Thus, them defining a cult as a religion with no power or influence and me definging a religion as a cult with no power an influence is fine. Howeve, each of us must go to separate definitions of 'cult' and 'religion' to complete the meaning of the hierachy.

Thus, I and the sociologists must define religion and cult in terms of what they do! This is what I wanted from the start.

Cults and religions do exactly the same thing. Therefore, they are the same thing.

Names on a hierachy are all that religion and cult are and it is perfectly valid in a hierachy to define things in terms of one another and no reference point is special.

That is why you can say that a cult is a religion without any power or influence and I can say a religion is a cult with power and influence and both of us are correct.

David

p.s: you didn't respond to my first point

Pantera

This thread stopped being about II policy a long time ago. I'm moving it to Misc Religion Discussions.

The Loneliest Monk

David,

As for your first point, while you might find christianity bizarre, not enough people in America do for it to qualify as a cult here. It might still qualify as a cult in Iraq, but certainly not here.

In your post you stated:
It is obvious that the something ??? need not have power and influence. Otherwise you could not define cult as a religion with no power or influence. In different cultures, some religions have power and others do not. By definition, a cult cannot.

mongrel

"Did you know that the majority of the world's population speaks Chinese?"

This small point has already been brought up, but I'd like to ask which Chinese? Cantonese or Mandarin?