I define cult as someone who considers himself a new god recruting those who wish to be swindled. ( no offense to those who think that this is not exactly pc)
No definition I have ever seen before defines a cult as “someone”
Perhaps a group following someone…
but then, wouldn’t all of Christianity be considered a cult, as it was founded by someone who considered himself to be a new (depending on your definition of new) god recruiting those who wish to be swindled (or at least were convinced by miraculous signs and wonders!)
In short, Blueangel, your definition is cannon fodder for Great Debates but cannot really be addressed in this venue.
How about this (from http://www.howcultswork.com/ ):
"The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying. This is the definition that most people would agree with. Except the cults themselves of course! "
If ,as I assume, the OP is asking about coersive cults. Now lets define “mind control”. 
All I have to say is that this OP, along with Bluey’s (yes, that’s an intentional pun) purported defintion, is the latest salvo supporting my assertion about certain borderline illiterate anti-everybody else fanatics.
Drat it. “purported definition” & NOT “purported defintion” in the posting above please.
I feel just a bit insulted by montys post i dont really think that i am an “anti-everybody” or “illiterate” person I just feel that certain things can be considered scams and most cults exactly that
Okay. So you’ve (theoretically) defined cult. Now give an example of one. You must certainly have that since you just asserted that most cults are scams.
okay “monty” why do you feel it necssary that i prove my knowledge of cults ( which i never stated that i had alot of) to you
Don’t know if this is the book that Sugaree is referring to, but Snapping: America’s Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change
by Flo Conway, Jim Siegelman sounds similar. If you look it up on Amazon, you can connect to at least five others.
It’s been a long time since I read it, but one thing I remember is that they listed the types of cults that people would be more suseptible to, according to their upbringing. And they listed the times of life/lifechanges that made a person more open, as well.
Could someone please tell me how my little question turned into a debate about the definition of “cult”?
Well i guess this thread is now officially "down the tubes with no response by anyone who has read the last post by me.
The deal is that you made an assertion. Now it’s time to support your assertion with this amazing thing called a fact. You can begin by providing an example of what you consider to be a fact that supports your assertion.
You made a sweeping statement concerning the thing under discussion. Surely you remember saying “most cults exactly that.”
The GD switch is about to come, I can feel it…
Blueangel, come on! You asked if there are more cults today than yesterday. More than one of us were patiently trying to explain to you that it depends on what you define as cult… to which you offer a definition that doesn’t make any sense… and then we’re supposed to explain to you how this “debate” happened… sheesh!
Okay, back to reasonable discussion… CarnalK begins to approach a more reasonable definition of a cult… a group that practices mind control… unfortunately for the very reasons stated by the poster, it is difficult to finger exactly what a cult still is, as “mind control” is somewhat nebulous. One of the most famous cult deprogrammers, Ted Patrick, himself uses reverse mind control techniques to “release” cult members, and has been accused and tried on charges of abuse and kidnapping. This is not an easy issue, by any means. What constitutes a cult is more in the eye of the beholder than anything else. E.g. I have yet to meet a single person who admits that they currently belong to a cult, but I have met plenty of people who claim they did at one time but don’t anymore. Taking people at their word, you might say that there are more ex-cult members now then ever before.
As JS pointed out the idea of mind control seems to be central to defining a cult. And what is mind control? Certainly some people would claim (me for example) that virtually every religeoun has some methods for controlling the thoughts of it’s subjects.
Some are crudely overt, others subtle and with much finesse. A crude method is the low protein hard work indoctrination through chanting method couples with “smothering” that was used by Jim Jones and in re-education camps for lapsed party members in Cambodia and China. But how about the repeated mantras and corporal punishment beginning in early childhood for Catholic children brought up in Catholic schools? Having dated two Catholic girls with lingering Catholic guilt issues even into their 30’s who never attended church after their teens I can tell you that the recognized cults do not have a patent on mind control.
Hell, I still keep kosher in most ways or feel guilty if I lapse and I don’t even believe in god. Everyone is brainwashed, so how do you define a cult?
Could we agree on the presence of all three of these points as a definition of a cult?
-
A charismatic leader or leaders who demand loyalty.
-
Secrets gradually revealed as one gets sucked in. No one is going to tell a recruit up front that they are expected to sleep with the leader or sign over their paychecks before they are safely reeled in. Likewise, the more bizarre or unusual philosophical beliefs of the cult would be glossed over at first, or only revealed to the already initiated.
-
Decision making on the part of the recruitee is forbidden or severely restricted. Independent thinking is forbidden. Fraternizing outside of the organization is frowned upon.
sugaree, plenty of bonafide religions would arguably fulfill your three criteria.
How so JS? Let’s take Catholicism.
- Charasmatic leader, expect loyalty- check. That one fits.
2.If you are converting as an adult, you already know that are expected to attend mass, refrain from using certain forms of birth control, ect. The beliefs and doctrines of the Church are explained, and are all avaliable in both official and unofficial publications. I cannot think of a thing that will be sprung upon you after conversion.
- Although Catholicism offers a rigorous moral framework that it strongly suggests you live by, well, it takes a lot of disobedience to get thrown out. In fact, there is an active network of praticing Catholics lobbying for chances within the infrastructure, or protesting certain doctrines. The Church does not require that you do not associate with non-Catholics. The Church asks for donations, but does not insist that you sign your property or your paycheck over.
Here we go again. This thread is certain to be GDed before long.
sugaree, you prove my point wonderfully. You actually say how Catholicism fits each of the criteria while you plead ignorance! You proceed to make excuses for all the things that fit into the very criteria you set up. It’s as if you’re saying that what mainstream religions do isn’t as “bad” as what newer religions do. This is problematic for two reasons:
-
It requires making a slew of value judgements that are not the same from one person to the next.
-
It denies the fact that each religion has its own unique twist. For example, you don’t think that a group can be a cult unless it forbids independent thinking? I beg to differ!
I get the feeling that you know that you’ve set up a problematic definition, and you’re making grand excuses for it. Maybe you see it as a matter of degree, but when we take your criteria straight without embellishment, Catholicism fits beautifully as a cult. The real point is that your criteria are matters of opinion and arbitrary “degree”. You seem to believe that it’s the “degree” to which someone fulfills the criteria that makes them more or less cultish. This only proves to show that is a spectrum and not an obvious cut-off between what is a cult and what is not a cult.
Let me be frank as to how one can twist your definition. I really don’t have a tremendous desire to get into the Catholic-bashing mode, but you basically asked for it.
-
I’m glad you see this one.
-
Secrets do get gradually revealed as you get sucked in. The sucking in process is not just while you are a member of a cult, it occurs while you are initiated, which is a process. Self-proclaimed former cult members describe long-initiation processes in their exposes. In effect, you become a member of the cult and do not realize it, and the day of your true initiation is really just confirming the fact that you already joined a long time ago. There is actually a very similar concept that is verbalized in Catholicism. The convert is the one that makes themselves the member and forms the will to baptism/confirmation.
You say nothing is sprung upon you after conversion. Well, most other cults are the same way. They don’t “spring” anything on their followers, because the very nature of “springing” tends to shy people away from persuing faith in that belief-system. No rather, all effective cults and religions are gradual in their process of conversion. Start with the basics and move up.
Regarding “more bizarre or unusual philosophical beliefs of the cult would be glossed over at first”… let’s consider, the Catholic Church’s initiation starts off with basic religious “truths” and then moves on to more, shall we say, controversial ones. If you think that all converts to Catholicism have read the Catechism cover-to-cover, have perused all of canon law, read all papal encyclicals, and studied the meanderings of all the doctors of the church, you are mistaken. In fact, few people, if any, have studied all the mysteries of the Catholic faith in their full glory. And new converts are absolutely more ignorant of the practices than the old stalwarts and those more fully “integrated”. A non-Catholic attending a mass is just about the best metaphor I can think of for describing confusion. Furthermore, do you think a Catholic Evangelist converts people by revealing papal infallibility or immaculate conception off the bat? I don’t think so. In this way there are secrets that are gradually revealed as the convert gets sucked in. Generally speaking, an uniformed convert to any religion will gradually have “secrets” of said religion revealed to him or her. The bizarreness of said secrets is in the eye of the beholder.
- You never mentioned anything about getting thrown out. That’s a whole other ball of wax. Most cults are accused of exactly the opposite, not letting people leave. Catholicism can be easily accused of both throwing people out and not letting people leave. You make a big show of how there is diversity of belief in the Catholic Church. Similar things can be said of the Moonies. It’s all in the way you look at things. Most Catholics are more keen to advertise their oneness of belief than their differences. There are exceptions, just as there are those Moonies who strive toward reform in their church.
The donations were a part of your criteria number two, and frankly I’m a bit mystified by the distinction you try to make about how much one gives to the religion. The Catholic Church recommends giving ten percent of what you make to the Church. That’s a considerable portion. Some other cults ask for more, true, but it’s all a matter of how loosely independent the religion is designed. Some cults only ask for money as a pay-as-you-go type deal (read: Scientology). That’s probably a bit more honest than the nebulous, “just give us your money and we’ll spend it as we see fit” deal they pull on you in the Catholic Church. And if you want to rise in the ranks and become a saint in Catholicism, it would be pretty hard not to sign everything over to the Church in some fashion (ala Kate Drexel).
“Fraternizing outside of the organization is frowned upon.” Indeed, the Church absolutely requires that you only fraternize with other Catholics in matters of religion. Try to get a godparent for your child who is not Catholic. Try to marry a non-Catholic. You’ll see what I mean.
“Decision making on the part of the recruitee is forbidden or severely restricted. Independent thinking is forbidden.” Indeed, I don’t have to explain how this is done. Today, in order to be a theologian you have to be “certified” with a mandatum from the local bishop. This is so that you don’t preach heresy. And while there are a handful of Catholics-for-Choice groups and so-forth, they are actively ridiculed by those in power in the Church’s structure. If you come to a conclusion on moral or theological issues that the Church doesn’t agree with (say on, oh, I don’t know, fillioque), then most members of the hierarchy will agree that you really aren’t Catholic.
In short, your criteria apply very nicely to the Catholic Church. Now, let me call up Ted Patrick and ask him to help me get my grandmother deprogrammed.
Along the lines of the OP, I’m curious as to how the current level of occult activity compares to that of the 1970’s. This I would define as more or less impromptu attempts to perform magic, holding seances or similar rituals, or displaying intense intersest thru reading, displaying symbols, etc.
JS, I’m at work right now::::sneaks guilty look over shoulder:::::so I don’t have the time to even read your reply in the depth it deserves, much less respond properly. Why don’t we open something up in GD before the Chariot of the Mods swoops down on us in wrath? If there is no OP in that forum by the time I get home, I’ll write one, but that won’t be until at least 8 tonight.