Originally Posted by Socialite (Post 926761)

The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are reasonably considered strange.


Primary feature of a cult is Mind Control. Here's symptoms of mind control:
People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader -- or constantly feel they need to find unconditional acceptance, love and attention from said charismatic leader;
They get a new identity based on the group;
They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.

Another symptom is what happens when people leave:

People are verbally abused.
People feel trapped and pressured, not sure about leaving.
People are shunned, even family members and life-long friends step aside.
People are publicly castigated and chided.
Married couples may be advised to divorce, children may be advised to leave their parents or vise versa.
Intimidation and manipulation are the chief ways of preventing actual fall-out.

Some called Jesus' earlier followers members of a cult (a key charismatic leader they followed), and that may be rightly used. However, Jesus was always a gentleman, patient and loving, and always leaving the verdict to others to decide.

Though the word is emotionally explosive, the issues with the way some churches are culturally made-up often merit such pejoratives. However, these churches often turn to scripture to defend their actions. What scriptures have you heard? Often the twisting of Jesus' remarks about "hating mother and father" and his statements when sadly departing from his hometown after they did not believe. However, this "mother-hater" honored Mary at his death, entrusting her to the care of John. Of course, that's not the only argument against such twisted interpretation, but it's surely the most obvious.

If a church, on multiple occassions, gives advice to family members to cut the others off if they leave the church, speaks frequently of "confusing others" as their chief concern, should you be worried? Is this a red flag or the righteous signs of Jesus Followers?

Originally Posted by Socialite (Post 926766)

by the way, here is a link from a monk that i thought properly exegeted the hate your family scripture.

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/...ate-our-family

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926779)

The word cult, before the evangelicals and psychopa....eh psychologists took it over, meant the same thing as a sect. Cult meant any group or believe in the supernatural, any religion essentially.

The word cult is ever expanding by Trinitarians to include some group or belief that is not theirs

I don't have a single translation that refers to the followers of Jesus as a cult.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926780)

One verse says to hate, the other says you must love God more. This is a classic example of a hyperbole.

It's a hyperbolic way of saying your love for God must be so great that it overshadows the love you have for family. God must be #1

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 926792)

Send me the Cliff Notes!

There is most definitely cult-like tendencies among many groups that us here on AFF have identified with. The horror stories could probably feel up pages and pages.

Originally Posted by Socialite (Post 926786)

#1 I understand there is a pejorative context today in the word, which can't all be blamed on mean, pesky evangelicals and fundamentalists. Or even those who have made "cult" an equivalent to "unorthodox." I think Jim Jones, David Koresh, Heavens Gate and the FLDS have done a good enough job at branding themselves.

Originally Posted by Socialite (Post 926787)

Did you even read the link? I think your scratching the surface (picking up on the hyperbole). Read the link and let's chat.

Originally Posted by SteppingStone (Post 926771)

Religious groups that use fear, guilt, and all means of manipulation to control and extort from their subjects...

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926808)

My point is, well what I have been saying, the word cult has become so convoluted as to what it means.

People keep adding to the word, what a cult is. It's completely subject to the whims of whoever is making their list of things that defines a cult.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926809)

No. I don't see why I need to. It's clearly a hyperbole. Jesus used several oratory devices. He was a preacher. He used parables. He used hyperboles. Its really not that complex

Originally Posted by Praxeas

We might all agree they are mind cults, or cults where in a good deal of mind control by a charismatic leader was used. Even then I don't need the word cult in order to describe such groups or warn people. If I said "they are a cult", what pops up into someone's mind when the word cult has no one specific meaning anymore or so many? If I said "well these pentecostals are a cult" those that don't know what was meant might think they are in a mind controlled group

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926808)

We might all agree they are mind cults, or cults where in a good deal of mind control by a charismatic leader was used. Even then I don't need the word cult in order to describe such groups or warn people. If I said "they are a cult", what pops up into someone's mind when the word cult has no one specific meaning anymore or so many? If I said "well these pentecostals are a cult" those that don't know what was meant might think they are in a mind controlled group


This is my point though. Who comes up with this stuff? Why is following a charismatic leader a bad thing? The term cult and it's so called definitions (there is no official source anymore) is so incredibly subjective. If we wanted to we can decide any one that believes in the Trinity is in a cult.


Ok. Well you just said "some called". I had no idea you meant "outside the bible" or "today"

But looking back, it only fits one persons addition to the word cult. Where did you get this list? I have seen a dozen lists out there on the web and they don't all agree. My point is, well what I have been saying, the word cult has become so convoluted as to what it means.

People keep adding to the word, what a cult is. It's completely subject to the whims of whoever is making their list of things that defines a cult.

Using the dictionary, here is the first def
a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

Etymologically cultus from latin means "worship" without any bad connocation

1617, "worship," also "a particular form of worship," from Fr. culte, from L. cultus "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended, cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals. Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.

Where did you get this list from?

Here are the rest of the definitions from that same resource

an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.


3.the object of such devotion.



4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.



5.Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.



6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.



7.the members of such a religion or sect.



8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926809)

No. I don't see why I need to. It's clearly a hyperbole. Jesus used several oratory devices. He was a preacher. He used parables. He used hyperboles. Its really not that complex

Originally Posted by SteppingStone (Post 926818)

It's all about audience relevance. Cult originally meant a religious gathering but today since there are so many the word is taking on a new meaning for it's present time...

Originally Posted by Cindy (Post 926824)

Any group that perverts parts of or the gospel of Jesus Christ. And that the leader eventually becomes god like, or replaces Jesus Christ. That is how I think religious cults are defined. Most use the same tactics to get their following to believe them.

There are other cults that have nothing to do with religion at all......Charles Manson and his followers as an example.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926831)

Right, but unfortunately a lot of people are taking a lot of liberty in how to define it

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926831)

Right, but unfortunately a lot of people are taking a lot of liberty in how to define it

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 926825)

I'm not afraid of the word, and I think the pejoratives are rightly earned I guess. And I don't know what Socialite has in mind, but I've seen my share of "mind control" groups.

Can you be serious? You think it's okay for people to give their allegiance to charismatic personalities? How fast until you have kool-aid stains? Can you say "dangerous?" We could be subjective in our definitions. Then we'd discuss "why." I understand some use it as a form of "name-calling." So come up with another name that sums it up. I see nothing positive in what we refer to as "cults" today. I prefer to keep the same, negative word.

Originally Posted by Socialite (Post 926837)

We get it! There's multiple meanings, there's multiple meanings, there's multiple meanings :blah

So now that you know how we are referring to it, shall we proceed?

Originally Posted by Socialite (Post 926829)

So let's not use the word because there are too many definitions? You are sure touchy about this word.

You pretend mind control groups don't exist in many Pentecostal circles. If that was the case, books of the abuse wouldn't fill bookshelves. You are actually defending the whole "all in one leader" idea?

There are dozens of definitions for many words we use. So we defined what context we were using for the word. It's pejorative, it refers to manipulative, exclusive groups. Am I hitting close to home to you or something?

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 926846)

A manipulative group that just can't seem to find a way to even try and present their views in a reasonable and persuasive manner. "Cults" are usually lead by clever people who are also lazy thinkers. Beating people down is always the method of a lazy preacher.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

1, the word being used, here, does not simply apply to mind control groups. The word as it is used out there does not simply refer to mind control groups. However if you deny the trinity, you are a cult and because of how the word is used, some will associate the word cult not with having a different theological view, but mind control.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926847)

No, if that is all you got, you did not get it. :drama

Im trying to point out that any Tom, Donna and Harry can add to the word what ever definition they want. The list is growing. It's incredibly subjective.

By the historical definition of the word, every religious person is a cult member.

This is my 2 cents worth.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926847)

No, if that is all you got, you did not get it. :drama

Im trying to point out that any Tom, Donna and Harry can add to the word what ever definition they want. The list is growing. It's incredibly subjective.

By the historical definition of the word, every religious person is a cult member.

This is my 2 cents worth.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926851)

A person that has no front teeth, plays deliverance on the banjo with his feet and handles snakes while shouting "In jethuth name" and teaches others to do likewise, is a cult

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 926855)

Some call unorthodox views cultic. I get it. Calvin Beisner aside, the thread has not defined it in such a way. And because someone puts on the label doesn't mean it's end-of-discussion. All you've established so far is that some believe Oneness Pentecostals are a cult.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 926858)

Uh... I think you are being dramatic. Everyone else on this thread is understanding the way the word is used. You are trying to show-off how many word definitions that also include the word. Your ultimate point is still a mystery. You can't seem to understand these cult-like tendencies that people are referring to. You're really struggling with that. Let's make up a new word to define the laundry list of things we've thrown out thus far. Wasn't the thread title "What is a cult?" That's it! You are just saying "it's definition is too broad and too subjective. The end."

I think there was more to the post though. Just speculating.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 926858)

Uh... I think you are being dramatic. Everyone else on this thread is understanding the way the word is used. You are trying to show-off how many word definitions that also include the word. Your ultimate point is still a mystery. You can't seem to understand these cult-like tendencies that people are referring to. You're really struggling with that. Let's make up a new word to define the laundry list of things we've thrown out thus far. Wasn't the thread title "What is a cult?" That's it! You are just saying "it's definition is too broad and too subjective. The end."

I think there was more to the post though. Just speculating.

Originally Posted by Socialite (Post 926864)

Definitely bizarre.

i get your point (again)! You think the word is too broad and too subjective and don't like using it.

Please creatively come up with a new word for us if that makes you feel better.

Originally Posted by Socialite (Post 926863)

My thread offered descriptions of religious cults. You may not like the word, but I guess you'll have to get over it. I'm not changing the word. Reign in the way others have used it, and try to understand the post and maybe even contribute some descriptions of your own.

An average joe on the street is not thinking about the Trinity and Oneness. They will identify bizarre religious practices, those that have shunned society, devout allegiance to a man they hold in an unhealthy view, and they'd call that a cult. So let's think like Average Joe's for a moment. Helpful?

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926868)

Establish? Im just discussing the thread topic, what is a cult. A cult is any group of worshipers of someone or something. All other definitions after the fact seem to be subjective. I give, for example, the followers of a charismatic leader. So democrats are a cult, because they follow Obama. That's ideology. That is not necessarily a bad thing. There are people that follow Joel Osteen, just following him does not make for a bad thing. His parishoneers are followers of Osteen. I follow my Pastor. I follow Jesus. I follow the Apostles. It's NOT inheritly a bad thing

You didn't like my use of the word "establish" either? Sheesh! Should I get a lawyer when interacting with you???

Your definition "any group of worshippers" is one of many. You have a problem with subjectivity. I don't. Clearly, all the other posters on this thread defined the word in a similar context. Manipulative, exclusive, controlling, etc.
The way you use the word "follow" astounds me. If voting means "following" then sure. Since I used the word first (and you decided to argue with it) I guess I can define what I intended. This isn't chasing someone to the store, being a fan of someone, etc... the way it was used is one that gives exclusive "followership" to a man, exclusive of all others. Placing his authority higher than anyone else. SO while you certain do follow Obama and your pastor, it's obviously not in the same sense of what should have been obvious to you what I intended.

Wow, that's pretty condescending. First Socialite starts with the pejoratives and then lies about me now you are talking down to me as though I need to know Jesus is the Son of God? lol

You have had your fair share of condescension in this thread. Let's not play the victim card now. :bigbaby

Again, you throw in that word I never used, yet you are arguing as if I did. Nothing here tells me it is wrong to follow someone. Sorry. I never said "give allegiance to" Then maybe you needed me to spell out what I meant by "follow" since yours and my definitions didn't add up. I'd hate to add to your sayings and be cursed.

Then you say "even in your often misintepreted hebrew 13 citation"...what? I cited it once, how did I misinterpret it? I never said it means a single individual. IN fact if you read what I posted I mentioned following the Apostles, that's plural. So still I see nothing to show that following a charismatic leader is bad
:blah

Then stop using the word Allegiance and tell me how "following" the Apostles was a bad thing or following Jesus was a bad thing. I never said following Jesus or the apostles was a bad thing! There you go, committing the same horrid crime you accused me of!


No, handing your brain over to a single individual is dangerous. Following them is not inheritly dangerous anymore than it was to follow Jesus, the Apostles or the elders in the 1st century was
Again. Jesus was the Son of God. The Apostles... they passed down what Jesus taught. The Apostle's Doctrine was really Jesus' Doctrine. Surprise!

Again you are not showing me why following someone is a bad thing. History is replete with examples of how the bible was misused...so throw the bible out! That's an argument of absurdity in case you missed it. The point is, your relying on a logical fallacy, a generalization and a strawman argument (allegiance) Horrible logic. The Bible was misused, the Bible didn't misuse people though. Nice try. And way to go to your debate textbook and throwout every dagger you could there :ursofunny Strawman? Logical Fallacy? Your're a hoot.

All I am saying is, there is no reason to thing it is inherently bad to follow someone. If you were in the military you would follow the OIC, troop/platoon leader or whatever. You would listen to their commands and do it. You would look to them for direction. That is not a bad thing. It's only bad when and if that leader is himself bad. So let's just debate the word "follow" now. Annoying.

It's not wrong to follow anyone. It's bad to follow anyone blindly and unquestionably to the point that you can not thing rationally for yourself. However I never said it's ok to follow someone under those conditions.If that's the clarification you wanted to make because you assumed that wasn't my intention, then take all the credit for being so profound and stating what was probably obvious to others. You are so smart. DING! DING! DING! We have a winner here!

It's NOT wrong to follow a leader,charismatic or otherwise,

I didn't know some hyperliteral debate was going to ensue. I would have sent the sentence to my lawyer first! Cult leaders are usually charismatic. Quite hard to convince people you are something close to divine without charisma. No, follow anyone you want! In fact, on Twitter, I have 300 followers and I follow 100 people! Sigh.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 926872)

rofl...see topic. It says " what is a cult". Im discussing "what is a cult"...I've mentioned definitions. I brought up etymology. In response I got a few pejorative or mocking replies. I don't get it. If you guys wanted to exclude me from your little chat on "what is a cult",put me on ignore.

I already defined a cult, several times. You seem to be so busy trying to insult me that you missed it