Better PR.
It most definitely is. There have been, and still are, places in India where Christianity is considered a cult (well, the equivalant word in Hindi). Not to say that Christianity isn’t pretty prevalant now (I think it’s 1% at last check) but you go into a traditionally henotheistic religion and try to tell them, “There’s only one God, and he had a son, and doesn’t reincarnate”…you know, etc., etc…well people will give you a :dubious: look, at least initially.
This has gone on for over 20 posts and no one has mentioned the Staff Report: What’s the difference between a church and a cult?
Interesting. I think many of those qualities can appear in a mitigated form in more mainstream faiths. If those are defining characteristics, they are only by degree.
Apart from the sociological definitions, it’s really a matter of viewpoint. My parents think my church–Congregationalist, part of the United Churches of Christ, descended from the Puritans–is cultish because we ordain women and homosexuals, and I don’t wear a tie to services.
Skald, check out my definition #4.
I’m not being snarky here but the line between a religion and a cult seems to be pretty damn blurred.
Of course the line is blurry.
Originally, cult simply meant religion and carried no pejorative connotations.
In the 18th century, the fact that religions tended to have dynamic, inspiring leaders (Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed) led to the use of the word to indicate a group of people who followed such a leader.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the word was borrowed by explorers into distant lands when used to describe the “peculiar” religions of distant peoples.
In the late 1960s, the word (pretty much in its 18th century form) was used to describe small groups such as The Children of God, originally only as a descriptive term, although with a hint of the “peculiar” nature of such groups from the early 20th century meaning.
When the CoG turned out to be a weird mind-control group and were followed by similar groups, eventually leading to Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc., the word took on a seriously disparaging turn.
Then it was picked up by various Fundamentalist Christian groups, using it in its most disparaging manner, to be applied to everyone whom they disliked.
Throughout that whole evolution, no meaning of the word has actually fallen out of use. There are still people who use it (in context) to identify all religion, still people who use it to identify religious or other groups who are led by charismatic figures, alongside people who use it to indicate mind-control groups or who use it to mean any religion of which they disapprove. (In the last meaning, you often see it used on the SDMB by persons who condemn all religions and hope to express their contempt by using a word commonly accepted as pejorative.)
Asking what the word means is pretty much a waste of time, since the word has mulitplie meanings that are concurrent.
A better approach when the word is used is to ask what the speaker/writer means, since without that key, one never actually knows.
Arnold nailed it in post #18. I’d only add that those criteria are often matters of degree rather than bright lines.
Well, “child-brides for the leader” seem to be one pretty common cult characteristic. 
Hey, Tom, I ALREADY said you were among the smartest on the Dope in the now-locked thread. 
Hey, Tom, I ALREADY said you were among the smartest on the Dope in the now-locked thread.
“A religion is a cult with an army.”
I think my college religion teacher told me that.
There are two ways in which I would use the word.
The first, “a cult”: a religious group, usually a small one, frequently focused on a particular personality, in which the members of the group are encouraged to cut ties or become distant from non-members, dogma is handed down unquestionably, and from which people can only extract themselves with difficulty. There are checklists on the internet here and there for traits associated with this sort of cult. (The link is just one hit off google.)
(This usage can also be done metaphorically for other organisations that behave similarly.)
The second, “the cult of such-and-such”, a more anthropological sort of usage, refers to the devotions and practice focused on such-and-such. So the cult of a god is the set of trappings and behaviours around honoring and worshipping that god. This is a neutral usage, but I don’t tend to use it in general conversation because the pejorative usage is much, much more common.
(Sorry in advance is this posts multiple times, I got an ‘Operation timed out’ on the submit…)
This is one of those words, like atheism, that people try to ue for equivocation purposes. It is possible to define the word cult so that many and most religions fall under the definition. It is then possible to play on the much narrower connotations of the word to try and sneak in nasty implications about this or that religion.
Just one more reason that the key to ones arguments should NEVER rely on the use of special terminology. If they do, chances are you are committing a logical fallacy somewhere.
I’ve referred to that methodology as “moving target argument” right here on the SDMB.
The whole “blurry line” thing is why a group I used to be a part of once defined the beliefs of cult members as “Christianity with a twist.” We discussed whether one could have a cult that wasn’t based on Christianity for all of 5 seconds and decided that the answer was presumably yes, but it wasn’t really relevant to our discussion. Now in fairness, we were not trying to come up with a good definition of cult, so much as pondering where one draws the lines between Mainstream Non-Denominational (Protestant) (Evangelical) Christianity, groups like Catholics who didn’t (in general) fit in with our groups but are still Christian and not exactly weird, groups like the Mormons who are slightly more weird but fairly populous and relatively innoccuous, and finally groups like the Branch Davidians who are undeniably weird and dangerous.
At the time, I recognized this definition of Cult as useful for our purposes (we learned just enough about various fringe groups in Christianity to be dangerous–and I’m sure I forgot which beliefs belonged to each group before I went to sleep) but not so good for more general purposes. We did also spend plenty of time talking about definitions more similar to tomndebb’s --but the “Chrisitianity with a twist” definition was such a perfect nutshell of our discussion that that stuck with me better.
But, for some reason, it does not yet seem to have made the quasi-official list of logical fallacies. (Perhaps that list needs to be expanded . . .)
Thanks, BrainGlutton. I do kind of like the term.