PDA

View Full Version : Cult....How the definition is changed to suit an agenda.



Vlad III
05-12-2009, 10:31 AM
Jill said her father defined a cult as
"a group of people gathered around someone's interpretation of the Bible".

Jill goes on to say,
"The early Christian Church could have been cl***ified as a cult, so no one should be throwing around this word as a pejorative--it's simply a concise way to define teachings that conflict with biblical and historical Christian doctrine."

First, how can you say the word "cult" can be used to describe the early Christian church AND THEN claim the word "cult" is a concise way to define teachings that are AGAINST the early Christian church? Logically that would mean the early Christian church is a cult because it both follows someone's interpretation of the Bible AND conflicts with teh Bible as well. :confused:

Second, people tend to add to the definition of a cult when it suits their agendas. In the case of anti-mormonism, I have seen attackers of Mormonism define a "cult" with many different definitions in order to cl***ify the LDS church as one. It's almost as though they find something they disagree with in LDS doctrine and then say, "A cultist is someone who believes 'X'."

Here is the standard definition of the word "cult":



Main Entry:cult
Pronunciation:\ˈkəlt\
Function:noun
Usage:often attributive
Etymology:French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
Date:1617
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual ; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) ; especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

As you can see, the only definition that I can see that attackers of Mormonism would use is #3, however ANY religion (including mainstream Christianity) could be cl***ified as a cult by definitions 1,2, and 5.

Thoughts?

Bat-Man
05-12-2009, 01:28 PM
Your thoughts are spot on, Vlad, to anyone who can see what makes sense.

Vlad III
05-12-2009, 02:29 PM
Your thoughts are spot on, Vlad, to anyone who can see what makes sense.

Thanks.

Jill had asked me to create a new thread about this issue, so it will be nice to see what she has to offer on the subject.

nrajeff
05-13-2009, 11:17 AM
Logical as usual, Vlad.

Mesenja
08-18-2009, 07:30 PM
For those of us old enough to remember who Jim Jones was that is exactly the picture that anti-Mormons are trying to convey when they use the word cult. Notice I used the term anti-Mormon and not critic. Just like the term anti-Catholic is a valid term if used properly similarly the term anti-Mormon is an equally acceptable term to use. There is a difference between these two terms and the sooner Mormons understood this fact and our critics accepted this reality the better the dialogue between us will be. If this is to harsh a reality for some I am not sympathetic to this in the least.

John T
08-18-2009, 08:47 PM
First of all, Jill is not an authoratative person as it relates to definitions and etymologies of words.

Second, she used the term in an extremely narrow sense, comparing the early church with the established religions of the day, which were primarily Emperor worship and the sex cults like Diana and others.

In this, she was correct, for all the other things WERE ABOMINATIONS to Christianity, as was Christianity an affront to the licentiousness of the "established " state religions.

However to extrapolate this below from what she meant is to take something clearly out of its context, and is patently illogical.
First, how can you say the word "cult" can be used to describe the early Christian church AND THEN claim the word "cult" is a concise way to define teachings that are AGAINST the early Christian church? Logically that would mean the early Christian church is a cult because it both follows someone's interpretation of the Bible AND conflicts with teh Bible as well. :confused:


Britannica describes middle eastern cults thus:

In the cultic practices, humans fulfilled their destiny: to take care of the gods' material needs. They therefore provided the gods with houses (the temples) that were richly supplied with lands, which people cultivated for them. In the temple the god was present in—but not bounded by—a statue made of precious wood overlaid with gold.
from: Mesopotamian religion. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Deluxe Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
No sane person would accuse Jill of promulgating this as early church practices, so that is why the "lauded logic" is quite illogical.


Second, people tend to add to the definition of a cult when it suits their agendas. In the case of anti-mormonism, I have seen attackers of Mormonism define a "cult" with many different definitions in order to cl***ify the LDS church as one. It's almost as though they find something they disagree with in LDS doctrine and then say, "A cultist is someone who believes 'X'."

In saying that, Vlad is not accounting for the connotative meaning of a word, described thus: "

the ***ociated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of “home” is “a place of warmth, comfort, and affection.”

and the denotative meaning of a word, described thus:


"the explicit or direct meaning or set of meanings of a word or expression, as distinguished from the ideas or meanings ***ociated with it or suggested by it; the ***ociation or set of ***ociations that a word usually elicits for most speakers of a language, as distinguished from those elicited for any individual speaker because of personal experience."
from Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Therefore the word can be accurately described as referring to gang bangers, herion addicts, Moonies and JWs because it is not precicely described in either Jill's quote or in Vlad's response.

What I am getting to is that the denotative meaning of the word "cult" has to deal with something that is out of sync with the traditional, and established, especially as it deals with the religious realm.

In order to do that, I suggest that you first seek to establish what is true, and is consistent. In doing so, you are establishing a baseline of orthodoxy. After you do that, then you can describe the aberrant things deviating from the orthodox, and when you do that, you will be able to define exactly what is a religious cult.

It was a good try Vlad, but it was not hitting the mark, and I hope you can see why I say that.

Vlad III
08-18-2009, 09:53 PM
It was a good try Vlad, but it was not hitting the mark, and I hope you can see why I say that.

Oh, that's fine.

Besides, when it comes to words and meanings, I realize you are the authority.

I mean, just yesterday I saw you make your usual criticism toward someone for calling Judas an apostle.

We talked about that sveral months ago and I see that you are still sticking to your guns that, even though the Bible states that Jesus called Judas an 'apostle', you say that is a false teaching and that he should be called a 'disciple' NOT an apostle.

nrajeff
08-19-2009, 12:44 AM
Oh, that's fine.
Besides, when it comes to words and meanings, I realize you are the authority.
I mean, just yesterday I saw you make your usual criticism toward someone for calling Judas an apostle.
We talked about that sveral months ago and I see that you are still sticking to your guns that, even though the Bible states that Jesus called Judas an 'apostle', you say that is a false teaching and that he should be called a 'disciple' NOT an apostle.

---When one thinks he is an expert on a biblical topic, why should he defer to Jesus' opinion on it? :rolleyes:

BrianH
08-19-2009, 03:16 AM
The problem you are having is that you are not permitting context to determine which of the definitions you offered is the correct one.

In the language of comparative religions, belief systems fall into four categories. These are:

1. Religion
2. Denomination
3. Sect
4. Cult

If you use definitions from outside the relevant context of the language of comparative religion, you simply eliminate our ability to make these distinctions and to understand the differences between categories of belief systems.

Now try to understand ...these categories are NOT hard and fast definitions with no examples of deviation. Rather they are broad characterizations with many variations. Nevertheless, the words do have a general meaning that is more precise within the discipline of comparative religion than they are in popular usage.

"Religion" generically refers to any belief system. However, in the context of comparative religions, the term has a more precise meaning as a reference to a category of belief systems. The word "religion" is a superset - the major world "religions" are distinguished from each other, for the most part, by major distinctions in dogma and history. Buddhism for example, is entirely distinct both dogmatically and historically from Judaism. Each is a separate "religion" and cannot rightly be perceived as having any historical connection or any doctrine derived from such a connection. Nor could you refer to one as a "sect", "denomination" or "cult" of the other. However, there are counter-examples. Christianity is clearly derived from Judaism. It could indeed have been rightly described as a "cult" or a "sect" of Judaism in the 1st century, and yet historically it has obtained the distinction of a separate "religion" from Judaism.

Religions are generally recognized as broken down into broad, major categories of "denominations". These are the major structures within a religion and distinguish belief systems along the major lines of interpretation. Thus, for example, the two major divisions of Buddhism are the Mahayana and the Theravada schools. Orthodox Christianity is broadly divided between Catholic (in this case to include the Eastern Orthodoxies) and Protestant schools. Judaism is divided among the Orthodox and Reformed denominations (each with its variants). While again, there are counter-examples, the important thing here is to recognize the broader distinction. For example, no one should make the mistake of referring to "Catholicism" as a "religion" in the terminology of Comparative Religions. Catholicism cannot be considered a separate religion from Christianity. It is properly referred to as a denomination of Christianity.

"Sects" are generally recognized as divisions within denominations, usually resulting from a "schism" - a major, defining event of some kind that divides one branch of a denomination from another. Thus, for example, there is the Hicksite sect of the Quaker denomination (a "denomination" of the "religion" of Christianity). In Islam, the Shi'ite denomination is divided by different "sects" based on how many in a string of Shi'ite Imams to whom each sect grants official and authoritative recognition. There are the "twelvers" and the "sixers" each sect adheres to the teachings of a different number of historical Imams. However there are also examples of recognized sects of a religion (i.e. without reference to a specific denomination). The Ismali sect of Islam is one example of a more or less autonomous sect. And sects generally do NOT deviate from the fundamental tenets of the underlying religion.

Finally, "cults" are groups formed around an attempt to redefine the foundational doctrines of a religion usually accompanied by claims of being the exclusive TRUE revelation of that "religion". Thus the Hare Krsna is a "cult of Hinduism". The Mormons are a "cult of Christianity". The Nichren Shoshu is a "cult of Buddhism". In each case there are major dogmatic breaks from the historical parent religion and in each case the "cult" claims that it represents the one true or at least best representation of the intention of the founder of the parent religion.

The use of the term "cult" is more complicated because of its use in the overlapping contexts of sociology and popular jargon and its pejorative overtones in popular use. The word "cult" can refer to a group of adherents to any belief or value system in this expanded context. That includes fans of rock stars or sports heroes with no specific religious connotations whatsoever. It is also used in reference to totally NEW religions and pseudo-religions like UFO "cults" that have no inherent reference to any formal, prior religious belief system.

Certainly these categories overlap by specific examples and a belief system can change categories over time. While Christianity was at one time, technically a "cult of Judaism", it is now universally recognized in the parlance of comparative religion as a "religion" unto itself. Similarly, the Mormon religion is SO distinct from the doctrines of any mainstream Christian denomination that some scholars are beginning to categorize it as a "religion" rather than a "cult" (or at the very least, this new designation is being debated). But the current Mormon effort to become accepted as just another denomination of Christianity is totally doomed.

The point of all of this is to show that there is a proper, academic means to cl***ify or categorize belief systems. Again, these are more characterizations than they are hard and fast definitions. But the proper distinctions will help us think about what different belief systems really are. If you eliminate the proper distinctions among religion, denomination, sect and cult, then you eliminate your ability to think clearly about these things.

thank you

-BH

.

Garry T
08-19-2009, 08:20 AM
Actually, a cult is anything that deviates from Christ's plan of Salvation!

In 325 AD, a group of Christian scolars met to define, in laymans words, what cons***utes a Christian and consequently the Christian Church.

The reason they compiled the Nicene Creede was the encroachment into Christian churches of Gnostic beliefs, and a standard had to be set down.

The first thing Mormons say is "these are words of mortal man". True, but they are taken from the Word of God and put in terms that are complete and easy to understand.

My suggestion is read the Nicene Creede, and if your belief system doesn't agree with it, it is a cult!

BrianH
08-19-2009, 09:08 AM
Actually, a cult is anything that deviates from Christ's plan of Salvation!

In the context of discussing Christianity that is at least partly true. But the term "cult" is not limited to a Christian context. The word is applied in comparative religion to groups that have no relationship to Christianity whatsoever. For example, the Hare Krishna are correctly called a "cult of Hinduism" and would never be called a "cult of Christianity".

-BH

.

John T
08-19-2009, 10:15 AM
Oh, that's fine.


Besides, when it comes to words and meanings, I realize you are the authority.


SARCASM NOTED It does zero to advance the discussion, but if it makes you feel better...


I mean, just yesterday I saw you make your usual criticism toward someone for calling Judas an apostle.

Did you also see that I researched that issue and explained from an encyclopedia how I came about the statement that I did? You see, we were BOTH right. However, it seems as if you really love to attack Christians personally instead of DEALING WITH THE ISSUE.

That may be very telling about your character, for I took the upper road, and very nicely explained that without the citing of authorities (as opposed to a dictionary definition) there are very many things left up in the air.



We talked about that sveral months ago and I see that you are still sticking to your guns that, even though the Bible states that Jesus called Judas an 'apostle', you say that is a false teaching and that he should be called a 'disciple' NOT an apostle.

Discussed above, and irrelevant to the issue of defining a cult. Besides that, you need to get your facts straight. The author of the gospel wrote that, not Jesus.

Now, let's get back to the issue of defining cults, as others here have ably done.

alanmolstad
10-12-2012, 07:53 PM
,.....First, how can you say the word "cult" can be used to describe the early Christian church AND THEN claim the word "cult" is a concise way to define teachings that are AGAINST the early Christian church?

a CULT is a term to describe any type of cutting away from a larger group.

The Mormons are a "Cult" because they split off of the Christian faith and went with this guy Joe and his chasing after women.

The use of the term "CULT in the media can be talking about anyone i would guess...

The use of the term "CULT" by historians could also be used of any new church or faith...

Libby
10-12-2012, 08:50 PM
Then, I guess Protestantism is a cult, as they broke off from the Roman Catholic Church.

Libby
10-12-2012, 08:54 PM
The point is, it's a derogatory label that only causes more division than already exists. If one really wants to bring someone around to their way of thinking, it's not a good idea to, first, insult them.

But, I don't think anyone in these parts is much interested in bringing anyone to Christ...just mostly interested in preaching to the choir and criticizing others.

Libby
10-12-2012, 08:55 PM
Maybe that's why Jill has abandoned this place.

alanmolstad
10-12-2012, 09:06 PM
Then, I guess Protestantism is a cult, as they broke off from the Roman Catholic Church.

Lots of people that know deep down they are in a non-Christian cult, try to lesson the image others have of their religion by attempting to paint everyone with the same ***le of "cult"

think it fools anyone?

Libby
10-12-2012, 09:23 PM
Lots of people that know deep down they are in a non-Christian cult, try to lesson the image others have of their religion by attempting to paint everyone with the same ***le of "cult"

think it fools anyone?

So, that's why the Christians here call Mormonism a cult? They are actually in a cult, themselves? Makes sense to me! ;)

I don't really care whether people here believe I am a Christian or not. I am certainly not an orthodox Christian and I wouldn't want anyone to think I was. I am not a big fan of orthodoxy. Christianity has been very distorted over the centuries.

alanmolstad
10-12-2012, 09:23 PM
so,...lets now turn our attention to the non-Christian cults.

How do we define them?

how shall we know them when we see them?....

I shall answer in a moment'

alanmolstad
10-12-2012, 09:25 PM
The first thing that points us to a religion being a non-christian cult is that they have to sooner or later reject the very real death and very real resurrection of Christ.


that and that alone makes them a cult.

alanmolstad
10-12-2012, 09:28 PM
So if you belong to a religion that screws with the death and resurrection of Jesus?...look out, because that's the first sign that you are in a non-Christian cult

alanmolstad
10-12-2012, 09:30 PM
what is the 2nd sign that you are dealing with a Cult?

its when the religion screws with the Bible's teachings about God....

All cults have to reject the resurrection and have to screw around with how they define god

alanmolstad
10-12-2012, 09:31 PM
Remember....
All Cults reject the resurrection of Christ...

oh they may have tons and tons of other weird teachings too...

But at some place on the list you will notice that they teach error about the very real death of Jesus and his resurrection.

Libby
10-12-2012, 09:39 PM
Many people don't even know about the resurrection of Christ, Alan.

And, Mormonism does not reject the resurrection of Christ. As a matter of fact, they focus on it even more than orthodox Christians, which is why you will see a resurrected Christ in their Visitor's Centers, rather than a cross.

alanmolstad
10-12-2012, 09:42 PM
Many people don't even know about the resurrection of Christ, Alan.

.

hence the commandment to "Go into all the world.." by jesus.

We are sent to they who have not heard....


So people that have not heard may be in a false religion, but it is not a non-Christian cult.

Libby
10-12-2012, 09:43 PM
In the Orthodox Christian view (particularly, conservative Christianity) there is no difference. They are all bound for hell.

alanmolstad
10-12-2012, 09:45 PM
rather than a cross.

nope......again...all non-Christian cults will sooner or later screw around with the resurrection of Jesus.

they ALL do...

all of them...

They will add to the story...they will subtract from his death.

they will change things around.
They will make Jesus this or that other person...

But they all will simply not allow the story to be read and believed as told in the bible.......

all cults have to add to the story just enough to make it moot to salvation.


Thats what Satan was up to in starting the cult in the first place remember....

alanmolstad
10-12-2012, 09:48 PM
all cults are of satan remember.


and let us also remember the point Satan was up to in starting the cult.


The idea is to get people lost.


perhaps that not clear to people, but when you stop to think about what satan was up to in starting up religions like the moonies and the JWs and mormons, the only real point Satan was up to was getting people lost.....

Libby
10-12-2012, 10:30 PM
Well, I just don't accept your paradigm, Alan. Cult has no meaning or place in this discussion, IMHO.

alanmolstad
10-12-2012, 10:53 PM
Well, I just don't accept your paradigm, Alan. Cult has no meaning or place in this discussion, IMHO.
Hmmm....

Lets think about that for a moment....

we are WalterMartin's message forum correct?....and what was he known for again?

something about a book he wrote about some type of "kingdom?. correct?

Libby
10-12-2012, 11:11 PM
Yes, I disagree, basically, with Walter Martin's views, as well. I really like his daughter, Jill. She is a genuinely good person, but I disagree with most of her religious views, as well.

Not that any of that really matters. We are all where we are for whatever reasons. It's all for spiritual growth.

James Banta
10-13-2012, 02:24 PM
Yes, I disagree, basically, with Walter Martin's views, as well. I really like his daughter, Jill. She is a genuinely good person, but I disagree with most of her religious views, as well.

Not that any of that really matters. We are all where we are for whatever reasons. It's all for spiritual growth.

Yes because Dr Martin was a bible believing Christian and so is Jill you disagree with them.. All that means Libby is that you disagree with the teachings of the Bible.. You know the ones that teach that Jesus is the one true Way to the Father and no one can come to Him but by and through Jesus.. IHS jim

dberrie2000
10-17-2012, 06:23 AM
Actually, a cult is anything that deviates from Christ's plan of Salvation!

In 325 AD, a group of Christian scolars met to define, in laymans words, what cons***utes a Christian and consequently the Christian Church.

The reason they compiled the Nicene Creede was the encroachment into Christian churches of Gnostic beliefs, and a standard had to be set down.

The first thing Mormons say is "these are words of mortal man". True, but they are taken from the Word of God and put in terms that are complete and easy to understand.

My suggestion is read the Nicene Creede, and if your belief system doesn't agree with it, it is a cult!

So--your standard is the Nicene Creed? For the first century church, and the LDS--it was and is Christ. The Trinitarian doctrine of "****ousious" is not found anywhere in the Bible.

That is nothing more than a cult belief you have formed by your definition.

alanmolstad
07-20-2014, 12:03 PM
CULTs have a way of being about sex in many cases.

Sooner or later, one way or the other the topic of "sex' will be shown to be all that a CULT is about.
Now its not every cult, but lately I have seen this sexual connection be found to be behind the true aim of the leader of most any non-Christian cult that has a representative drop by..

The Mormons who had all their children taken away from them a few years back....fit this, in that what the State officials learned when they moved in and took over the Mormon compound is that little girls as young as 14 were being offered as brides to the CULT's Mormon leadership.