Some thoughts on cults

[TasteForTruth]

Funny though look at all the atrocities committed by other religion. I don't recall christianity talking about anything but Love... . So I guess I know which side of the fence I am on. And how can a metal object God be worshipped.

For the life of me I just don't get it, why intelligent people would think this.
Exodus 20:3
"You shall have no other gods before Me. 4"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me.

I'm not sure which "other religion" you were referencing, but Christians have committed atrocities as Christians, just as other religious groups have.

But this topic isn't the OP, so we need to confine our comments on it, unless you were thinking these things relative to "cult," which would need to be explained better, I think.

 

[Booko]

It doesn't really matter. Call it "banana" if you wish and there is still a place for differentiating between the range of Christian churches that, despite some squabbles, adhere to the basics of the Christian religion...AND, on the other hand, those churches which retain some of the characteristics of Christianity but have departed from one or more of the real essentials (previously identified here), to the point that they actually constitute new religions.

And unless they exhibit cultish behaviour of the sort where members are restricted from contact with outsiders, etc etc, the better term is surely "heterodox" which is descriptive and not perjorative.

When it comes to revealed religions, it does make some sense to think of it as a new religion when the focus is not on the original founder and message and instead some other more recent person and message.

For example, in the history of my own faith (Baha'i) we were sometimes seen as a "sect of Islam." Um, except we do not look to Muhammad or the Qu'ran first? We look to our own Books and Founders. So to describe us as a new religion would be accurate. And fwiw, we prefer not to be called a sect of anything, so that's cool.

At one point Christianity was viewed as a "cult" or sect of Judaism, but that got sorted out in time also. I'd hardly call the early Christians cultish in the modern sense of the term. It was an emerging religion.

There are some situations in the realm of Christianity where one could make the case an offshoot has become a new religion.

If it wouldn't turn into another pointless battle between certain people, I'd be interested to discuss it, but I know that's not possible at this time, so oh well.

 

[Booko]

The main issue is that these religions movements or organizations are not properly described by words like heterodox, unorthodox, or heresy. Those are all perfectly good words and familiar, but they don't describe a church that has abandoned a real essential of the historic faith--something so fundamental that both Catholics and Protestants would immediately reject it as dangerously wrong.

Oh you mean like the Eastern Church rejected claims of Roman supremacy as heretic?

Does that mean all the offshoots in Western Christianity are now "cults"?

This weapon you created can be turned back on you. Tread with care.

[quoteThat goes more directly to the non-negotiables of the faith, and it was thought that making the distinction was important to do because ordinary people have a hard time fighting through these terms and doctrinal differences, some of which are supposedly critically important and some are less so.[/quote]

And there is not universal consensus for what is "non-negotiable."

Your argument takes what YOU consider non-negotiable and defined it as everyone's non-negotiable. That's pretty sketchy logic there.

Certainly in Christianity there are long standing doctrines that are very widely held as true. Trinitarian views would be an obvious one, but even there there is division between East and West when it comes to that iota.

Personally I don't think at this point it's out of line to say that rejection of the Trinity is heterodox within Christianity. It's so commonly held for so long, it would be a great departure, even though there was a time it was not so widely held, the Church ruled on it, and so there it is.

But rejecting the Trinity makes you "cultish"? HAHA if there's one group claiming to be Christian that is the antithesis of cultish it would be the UUs, so good luck making that one stick.

 

[ViaCrucis]

My chief issue with the use of "cult" specifically to designate heretical or heterodox Christian groups is that there is already a well established term. In fact I just used it. For two thousand years the language of orthodox and heterodoxy has been employed just for that purpose.

Additionally, it isn't as though in Evangelical counter-cult culture the use of the word "cult" doesn't also incorporate the sociological elements. In Evangelical anti-cult sources Mormons are put in the same basic category as the Church of Scientology and Jonestown.

Further, I've seen Roman Catholics included in such lists all the same.

This tells me that the use of the word "cult" tends to be a broadbrush term to describe all religious groups that aren't one of the major world religions or conforming to a particular expression of modern Evangelicalism.

Defining "cult" as "any religious group that disagrees with me" is a very subjective and rather useless definition.

Defining a cult with very specific criteria that doesn't depend on any one specific group's theological formulae offers a consistent and meaningful use to the word.

If I want to talk about groups that define themselves as Christian but which do not conform to the historic confessional faith of the historic and catholic Church then "heterodox" and "heretical" are completely valid terms which have been used for two thousand years.

If I want to talk about an abusive cloistered group that grants unlimited power and authority to beloved Leader and expects all members to toe the line or face dire, dire consequences, then I'll use the term cult.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aYN5XpWzpM

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

My chief issue with the use of "cult" specifically to designate heretical or heterodox Christian groups is that there is already a well established term. In fact I just used it. For two thousand years the language of orthodox and heterodoxy has been employed just for that purpose.

Additionally, it isn't as though in Evangelical counter-cult culture the use of the word "cult" doesn't also incorporate the sociological elements. In Evangelical anti-cult sources Mormons are put in the same basic category as the Church of Scientology and Jonestown.

Further, I've seen Roman Catholics included in such lists all the same.

This tells me that the use of the word "cult" tends to be a broadbrush term to describe all religious groups that aren't one of the major world religions or conforming to a particular expression of modern Evangelicalism.

Defining "cult" as "any religious group that disagrees with me" is a very subjective and rather useless definition.

Defining a cult with very specific criteria that doesn't depend on any one specific group's theological formulae offers a consistent and meaningful use to the word.

If I want to talk about groups that define themselves as Christian but which do not conform to the historic confessional faith of the historic and catholic Church then "heterodox" and "heretical" are completely valid terms which have been used for two thousand years.

If I want to talk about an abusive cloistered group that grants unlimited power and authority to beloved Leader and expects all members to toe the line or face dire, dire consequences, then I'll use the term cult.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aYN5XpWzpM

-CryptoLutheran

I just felt like I needed to repeat this.

 

[Booko]

It was worth repeating

Oddly I checked a "list of cults" on Wiki and among things you might actually consider cults in the modern sense, there sat the Christian Reformed Church.

Uh...what? Half my family belongs to that. Funny they all still speak to unbelievers like me.

I didn't know how to edit Wiki at the time, but fired an email off to the Synod and had a very nice exchange with the secretary, and they fixed it within an hour or two.

I still can't fathom why someone would have added a mainline Protestant denomination to a list of cults. smh

 

[TasteForTruth]

It was worth repeating

Oddly I checked a "list of cults" on Wiki and among things you might actually consider cults in the modern sense, there sat the Christian Reformed Church.

Uh...what? Half my family belongs to that. Funny they all still speak to unbelievers like me.

I didn't know how to edit Wiki at the time, but fired an email off to the Synod and had a very nice exchange with the secretary, and they fixed it within an hour or two.

I still can't fathom why someone would have added a mainline Protestant denomination to a list of cults. smh

Because it's all very subjective?

 

[Booko]

Because it's all very subjective?

Maybe someone had a beef with Amway? It's possible.

 

[smaneck]

It's more a matter of the kinds of beliefs than the much-discussed control over the membership or the uniqueness of any religious body's interpretations.

1. Is the nature of God redefined?
2. Is the nature of Man redefined?
3. Do they base it upon their own scriptures?

Say 'yes' to any of those and you're probably dealing with a cult, regardless of how unthreatening it is in practice.

That's the Fundamentalist Christian definition, which frankly I find rather 'cultish.'

 

[smaneck]

Whoa! In these conversations, the word cult assumes some variation on historic Christianity.

It really has no relevance to different versions of non-Christian religions, although I suppose there may be some similar discussion among the adherents of those faiths.

That simply isn't the case.
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St. Olaf"

• a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
  "a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
  synonyms: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction
  "a religious cult"
• a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
  "a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
  synonyms: obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of,devotion to, worship of, veneration of
  "the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood"

No mention of Christianity here whatsoever.

 

[Albion]

It's the consensus definition of many writers and academics in the field. With one exception I'm thinking of, I don't know that any of them are Fundamentalists, and there's nothing about the definition (which I paraphrased) that would say. The definition doesn't favor a Fundamentalist perspective any more than a Catholic one, for instance.

 

[Albion]

That simply isn't the case.
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St. Olaf"

• a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
  "a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
  synonyms: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction
  "a religious cult"
• a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
  "a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
  synonyms: obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of,devotion to, worship of, veneration of
  "the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood"

No mention of Christianity here whatsoever.

Well, I've covered that previously. The word did, until recently, mean just a system of devotion as per the usage you referred to here, but it has come to have another. Ask almost anyone, and you're not going to get any recognition of the archaic usage you're referring to above.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, I've covered that previously. The word did, until recently, mean just a system of devotion as per the usage you referred to here, but it has come to have another. Ask almost anyone, and you're not going to get any recognition of the archaic usage you're referring to above.

It is a pity that the word means something akin to "evil sect of heretics that we don't want to dignify with the name Christian" but it has. Such is the way of language. The voice of the people in the use of words has great potency.

 

[Albion]

It is a pity that the word means something akin to "evil sect of heretics that we don't want to dignify with the name Christian" but it has. Such is the way of language. The voice of the people in the use of words has great potency.

That's true, but that sneering use of the word--although common--is not what we've been discussing here. There is a distinction to be made between varieties of Christianity and some new (and a few not so new) Christian-like religious movements that go beyond the beliefs that are held in common by traditional Christian churches, even given the bitter disagreements that divide the latter on some other doctrinal matters.

 

[Albion]

And unless they exhibit cultish behaviour of the sort where members are restricted from contact with outsiders, etc etc, the better term is surely "heterodox" which is descriptive and not perjorative..

Unfortunately, "heterodox" has an entirely different meaning, so using it in this situation would only make the meaning LESS clear.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's true, but that sneering use of the word--although common--is not what we've been discussing here. There is a distinction to be made between varieties of Christianity and some new (and a few not so new) Christian-like religious movements that go beyond the beliefs that are held in common by traditional Christian churches, even given the bitter disagreements that divide the latter on some other doctrinal matters.

I often wonder if it is fair and reasonable to exclude groups like Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's witnesses from the general term "Christian" even though I am well aware of their extremely heterodox views on many matters of importance in christianity. They self-identify as Christians. Perhaps Christian Forums could find a way to help them to participate more equally in portions of the forum without thereby denying the theological heterodoxy of their organisations/churches?

 

[Albion]

I often wonder if it is fair and reasonable to exclude groups like Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's witnesses from the general term "Christian" even though I am well aware of their extremely heterodox views on many matters of important in christianity. They self-identify as Christians. Perhaps Christian Forums could find a way to help them to participate more equally in portions of the forum without thereby denying the theological heterodoxy of their organisations/churches?

It's a tough question, IMO. I think that the research in the nature of cults is valuable, and so I wish people would understand it, mainly because it shows us who's who and what the issues are. It can also be of value when friends ask about churches in town, just as we'd be able to tell them what a Real Presence church is all about. But when it comes to screening off certain church bodies from others on a forum like this one, that seems a different matter. In the end, I tend to accept that the people who created and own the forum are the ones who get to decide which way to look at that. There are other forums that many folks here have had some contact with and think are very unfair in their policies...but in the end it's their website.

 

[smaneck]

It's the consensus definition of many writers and academics in the field. With one exception I'm thinking of, I don't know that any of them are Fundamentalists, and there's nothing about the definition (which I paraphrased) that would say. The definition doesn't favor a Fundamentalist perspective any more than a Catholic one, for instance.

What academic in the field of religious studies working in a secular university uses that definition? I've never seen a Catholic scholar use it. Show me some examples.

 

[smaneck]

I often wonder if it is fair and reasonable to exclude groups like Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's witnesses from the general term "Christian" even though I am well aware of their extremely heterodox views on many matters of important in christianity. They self-identify as Christians. Perhaps Christian Forums could find a way to help them to participate more equally in portions of the forum without thereby denying the theological heterodoxy of their organisations/churches?

That is exactly what they were doing before last week. The LDS and JW's were posting in the "unorthodox theology" section. They got rid of it and moved their threads here instead.

 

[smaneck]

Well, I've covered that previously. The word did, until recently, mean just a system of devotion as per the usage you referred to here, but it has come to have another. Ask almost anyone, and you're not going to get any recognition of the archaic usage you're referring to above.

There is an academic use of the words a well, as i pointed out in my discussion of Max Weber. That's now how the word is being used in Evangelical circles, however.

 

[smaneck]

Unfortunately, "heterodox" has an entirely different meaning, so using it in this situation would only make the meaning LESS clear.

Heterodox infers not believing in the right doctrine (orthodox.) That seems to be precisely the definition you are (mis)applying to 'cult.'

 

[Albion]

Heterodox infers not believing in the right doctrine (orthodox.) That seems to be precisely the definition you are (mis)applying to 'cult.'

No, it's not. I have explained this several times. The word "cult" is being used in order to differentiate between types of (wrong) doctrines.

 

[smaneck]

Funny though look at all the atrocities committed by other religion. I don't recall christianity talking about anything but Love... . So I guess I know which side of the fence I am on. And how can a metal object God be worshipped.

For the life of me I just don't get it, why intelligent people would think this.
Exodus 20:3
"You shall have no other gods before Me. 4"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me.

Seriously? You don't know of atrocities committed by Christianity? You never heard of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Wars of Religion, the conquest of the Americas and the genocide that came with it? How about the way in which the Saxons were forcibly converted by Charlemagne? All the pogroms against the Jews? The witch hunts of the 17th century? There has certainly been more forcible conversion in the history of Christianity than say in Islam. And if Islam today seems more violent than the West, I would argue it is because the West has become considerably less religious.