[soc.religion.christian] cults

mmoore@ub.d.umn.edu (Michelle Moore) (02/14/91)

	i am co-writing a skit on "what makes a cult a cult" for InterVarsity
	this week.  any information at all would be appreciated on cults,
	other religions, newage, etc.

	my email address is mmoore@ub.d.umn.edu

	thanx in advance for any help!

	:) peace, love, joy


-- 
you see, the invitations have all been heaven sent
it's come one come all but unlike most
you can't crash this party
	'cause you gotta know the Host!
		
				-- Whiteheart



Michelle "Shelly" "Shell" "Shel" "Shmelly" "Smelly" "Mich" "Mic" "Mickey" 
       "Mikki" "Micker" "Mickster" "Micaroonie" "Roonie" "Schlipps"
           "Mishelly" "Roo" Moore

conan@ragu.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (02/18/91)

In article <Feb.14.07.03.36.1991.23278@athos.rutgers.edu> mmoore@ub.d.umn.edu (Michelle Moore) writes:
>
>	i am co-writing a skit on "what makes a cult a cult" for InterVarsity
>	this week.  any information at all would be appreciated on cults,
>	other religions, newage, etc.
>

On the lighter side:  a cult is any religious organization you belong to
that your parents, neighbors, or coworkers disapprove of. :-)

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO

[There's a lot to be said for your definition.  It's hard to be sure
whether the term "cult" as currently used is simply a geneal term of
disapproval, or whether it has a specific definition.  I think to the
extent it is used for something specific, it normally implies groups
that are authoritarian and tend towards "brainwashing".  Even here, I
think the practices have to be extreme.  E.g. the Catholic Church is
in some sense authoritarian.  Bishops in general and the Pope in
particular, have authority to settle issues.  However I would not
regard that alone as making it a cult.  It does not involve the sort
of servile obedience and suppression of thought that a true cult does.
--clh]

hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (03/01/91)

In article <Feb.26.04.28.29.1991.12765@athos.rutgers.edu> geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) writes:
>Our Over-worked and Under-paid Moderator writes:

>>It's hard to be sure
>>whether the term "cult" as currently used is simply a geneal term of
>>disapproval, or whether it has a specific definition.

[lottsa' stuff deleted for brevity]

Geoff closes with:
>All in all, I think it's a term that should be replaced, because of the
>``Jim Jones'' connotations it now has.  Anybody have any suitable
>replacements? :^)

Maybe we should consider if a suitable replacement is even
desirable.  My experience is that the term "cult" is usually used 
to pigeonhole people and avoid learning what they really believe.
Once a group is so labeled too many of us simply don't take them
seriously except to assume they must be stopped.  I say this as a
member of a church (LDS) often so labeled.  It's amazing how many
people stop at the label and refuse to listen to what we really
believe.  I'm confident we are not the only ones in this situation.
Also, once a group is labeled "cult" it's easy to spread false ideas
about their beliefs.  Some even refuse to accept the statements of
belief from the group, claiming that since they are a cult they must
believe the strange things  their enemies say they do.  (I find it
rather odd when someone claims he knows more about what I believe
than I do, but it happens.)

I think we would be better off just calling people by whatever name
they call themselves (LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) and trying to
learn what they believe and why.  Trying to understand somebody by
calling them a cult is no more helpful than thinking you know
someone because you know they are Black or German or like certain
clothes.  Replacing the word "cult" with something else will not
change this.

ph600fev@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) (03/05/91)

     I'm sure that according to the Jews in the days of Jesus, he and
his followers would be labeled a "cult" in that they fit each and
every one of these conditions.  Anyways, as christians, we should
respect the beliefs of others (as we expect them to respect our
beliefs) and not go around trying to destroy their beliefs.  If they
show an interest in discussing their beliefs, fine, but it is
un-christian to go around destroying the faiths of any whom we
think "unorthadox".

Robert

JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) (03/06/91)

In article <Feb.26.04.28.29.1991.12765@athos.rutgers.edu>,
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) says:
>
>Our Over-worked and Under-paid Moderator writes:
>
>>It's hard to be sure
>>whether the term "cult" as currently used is simply a general term of
>>disapproval, or whether it has a specific definition.
>
>True.  Unfortunately, it is a term that now carries with it a lot of
>excess baggage.  It's become a term that doesn't really mean anything.

A social psychology professor of mine and I had a discussion about that
once.  She said that there was actually some characteristics of cults
that were generally recognized by psychologists.  I don't remember what
all she said, but a couple of the characteristics stuck out in my
mind:
     1) isolation from previous friends, etc.
          - this includes family, friends, classmates, clergy, basically
          people in general.  This need not be permanent,  it may just
          be for an initiation period, (say a few weeks or so) but it
          generally involves complete isolation from non cult members.
        For those of you that hadn't noticed,  this lets out both the
          LDS and the Catholics, as far as I know.
     2) idolization/worship of some leading figure
          - This is a *living* figure, who is the head of the cult
        People have gotten on Catholics' cases about this, but we
          are talking about orders of magnitude of difference
          between the way Catholics treat the Pope, and they way,
          say, that cult members treated Jim Jones.
     3) surrendering of worldly possessions to the cult
          - This is not always the case, but when it is, it is not
          like tithing, it is like "transfer all of your assets to
          us and we'll see to your needs, as long as you work in the
          commune (or whatever)and don't need too much."
        People who had done this would probably not have net access...
          =)
There was more that she said, but I don't remember it all.  Suffice it
to say that I don't think that the term "cult" is accurately applied to any of
the groups represented on this newsgroup...  =)

/------------------------------------\             --Jenni
|JMS111@PSUVM.psu.edu BITNET/Internet \---------------------------------\
|These opinions are not the property or responsibility of Penn State.   |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/

art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Arthur L Miller) (03/07/91)

In article <Mar.5.00.24.27.1991.1168@athos.rutgers.edu> ph600fev@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes:
>
>     I'm sure that according to the Jews in the days of Jesus, he and
>his followers would be labeled a "cult" in that they fit each and
>every one of these conditions.  

I agree completely.

>Anyways, as christians, we should
>respect the beliefs of others (as we expect them to respect our
>beliefs) and not go around trying to destroy their beliefs.  If they
>show an interest in discussing their beliefs, fine, but it is
>un-christian to go around destroying the faiths of any whom we
>think "unorthadox".

I also agree that we should _respect_ the beliefs of others, but I
dispute your claim that it is "un-christian" to challenge the faiths of
others.  On the contrary, Christ himself constantly challenged much of
what the religious establishment of the day stood for:  burdensome
legalism, traditions that took the place of worship, and selfish concern
rather than devotion to God.

I do NOT believe that we should just look to argue with those of
different beliefs.  However, we certainly should not accept the views of 
anyone simply because he calls himself a Christian.  If we have solid
convictions about what we believe as supported by God's Word, it is 
probably inevitable that we will be drawn into discussions that challenge
others' beliefs.  I welcome challenges to my beliefs--it solidifies my 
convictions.


-- 
Arthur Miller		| art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Northwestern University	| "Evolution: A few links & a missing chain." 
Class of 1991		|     -- Dave Eastman

rrmorris@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Rodney Raym Morrison) (03/07/91)

In article <Mar.5.00.24.27.1991.1168@athos.rutgers.edu> ph600fev@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) writes:
>
>     I'm sure that according to the Jews in the days of Jesus, he and
>his followers would be labeled a "cult" in that they fit each and
>every one of these conditions.  Anyways, as christians, we should

      Actually, the Jews were prepared to receive the CHrist Jesus. His
work and teachings perfectly fitted with everything they had already
been given in the OT. One just has to examine the feasts (Christ is in
every one) as an example of this. There are countless others, all through
the OT (prophecy, etc.). It is not such a strange thing at all to believe
in the Lord Jesus. There is no other 'religion' (this is a bad,bad word)
in the world with such a burden of proof (espe cially in prophecy).
There is absolutely nothing outrageous about Jews receiving Christ; in
fact, it is the most natural thing (in regard to _jOT teaching, etc.)
for a Jew to do.

>respect the beliefs of others (as we expect them to respect our
>beliefs) and not go around trying to destroy their beliefs.  If they
>show an interest in discussing their beliefs, fine, but it is
>un-christian to go around destroying the faiths of any whom we
>think "unorthadox".

      Would you also not warn a blind man to step off a cliff, in respect
of his blindness?  You would be destroying his belief in the safety of his
present course.
      I don't understand this argument for 'respect' of other people's
beliefs.  Don't take me wrong here, I don't go around 'forcing' myself
on others (like if they tell me to 'go away')  as this would only
harden a person's heart against Christ.  I try to approach others in
the way that will be most effective in leading them to Christ. Being
rude and/or offensive  would be most ineffective (and contradictory to
the nature of Christ).

djj@sequent.com (03/08/91)

In article <Mar.6.00.19.11.1991.24841@athos.rutgers.edu> 
   JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) writes:
>In article <Feb.26.04.28.29.1991.12765@athos.rutgers.edu>,
>    geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) says:
>>
>>True.  Unfortunately, it is a term that now carries with it a lot of
>>excess baggage.  It's become a term that doesn't really mean anything.
>
>A social psychology professor of mine and I had a discussion about that
>once.  She said that there was actually some characteristics of cults
>that were generally recognized by psychologists.  I don't remember what
>all she said, but a couple of the characteristics stuck out in my
>mind:
>
>  [ characteristics of cults deleted for brevity ]
>
>There was more that she said, but I don't remember it all.  Suffice it
>to say that I don't think that the term "cult" is accurately applied to
>any of the groups represented on this newsgroup...  =)
>

Reading this article prompted another idea:  what about shunning?  You
know, like "you don't belong to us anymore, therefore, I can't
associate or communicate with you..."  I've heard of some groups 
doing this to "former members" who have left the fold for one 
reason or another.  I would like to hear people's opinions regarding
shunning.  Is there significant biblical reference for/against this 
practice?

It seems this practice is also associated with those groups who 
receive the label "cult"?   I agree, that this label "cult" means little; 
it has been used so broadly.

Any thoughts? 

________________________________________________________________________
Dale Juenemann (CCM) 	                        Sequent Computer Systems
djj@sequent.com    (Internet)                   Beaverton, OR 
uunet!sequent!djj  (UUCP)                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Praise Him with the lute and harp...           These are my opinions,
		-Psalm 150			   not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Here are some passages you might look at:  

  Mat 18:17, which is about how to resolve situations where someone
	has "sinned against you".  If the person ignores attempts
	at resolution "let him be to you as a Gentile and tax
	collector".
  Acts 20:28, on the responsibility of Christian leaders to
	protect their flock.
  1 Cor 5:4-12, which says not to associate with anyone who claims
	to be a Christian if he is guilty of a variety of sins,
	including idolatry.
  2 Thes 3:14, if anyone refuses to do what Paul says, have
	nothing to do with him.
  2 John 9-11, says that if anyone doesn't bring sound doctrine,
	do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting.

Practices of "disfellowshipping" and shunning tend to be
controversial.  There are clear commands from both Christ and Paul not
to judge.  However the preceeding passages can be used to justify
shunning people who you believe are in error, both to protect the
church from their influence and as an act of church discipline to help
bring them around (the clear intent of the 2 Thes passage, for
example).  Results seem to depend upon what people expect, and the
spirit in which it is done.  In extreme cases, these procedures can be
used to help enforce "thought control" -- making sure that people have
no contact with anyone that might challenge the authoritative view,
and removing any disssenting voice.  It can also lead to conflict in
the organization.  An early example of such a situation is 3 John
9-10, where one Diotrephes was, according to John, "disfellowshipping"
the wrong people.  It has become increasingly difficult in the last
couple of centuries to practice church discipline of any sort.  People
tend to consider it an attempt to exercise an inappropriate degree of
clerical control (possible based on experiences where it it in fact
used that way).  This makes it hard for even groups that want to use
church discipline responsibility to do so.  If congregations are not
prepared for it, the attempt to impose it can create serious problems.

--clh]

sa24+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sondra Ahlen) (03/09/91)

     I am using a friends account, my name is Nils K. Hammer, I hope to
get mine back in a month.

     I have just read an article in the May 1979 issue of Playboy
magazine with an interview of Ted Patrick. He was the first
"deprogammer" of cult victims. I recommend it for those interested in
the subject of cults. His story seems exagerated, perhaps paranoid, but
compelling. He seems to have predicted (vaguely) the Jim Jones incident
12 days before it happened. 
     What caused me to post on the subject was the discussion of what
the term "cult" meant in common usage. The interviewer tried to get
Patrick to tighten his definition of a cult, and I think he said that
when someone loses their *personality* is when you know they are a cult
victim. I would agree. I fell in with a "holy roller" sort of crowd when
I was a teenager, and the main effort seemed to be making me just like
they were, but my crusty conservative norwegian-american upbringing
helped me resist. I went back to the bland Presbyterians where I fit in.
Take a look at the article, Patrick gives a fairly simple explanation of
how deprogramming works to encourage individuals personalities to regain
function.

Nils K. Hammer
with help from the account sa24@andrew.cmu.edu

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (03/09/91)

[Someone asked about the practice of shunning former members.  I
listed some passages (many of which, by the way, have been used by
Jehovah's Witnesses to justify their practice of shunning former JW's):
Mat 18:17, Acts 20:28, 1 Cor 5:4-12, 2 Thes 3:14, 2 John 9-11.  --clh]

Only one of these is attributed to Jesus.  I have heard others make the
point that Jesus freely associated with both Gentiles and Tax
Collectors, and did not shun them.  It has been suggested that Jesus
meant for us to tolerate these members of the fellowship, just as we
tolerate these other more notorious individuals, that we should see them
an an opportunity for evangelization in the fellowship.  (Particularly
promising evangelization.)


						Tom Blake
						SUNY-Binghamton

[I find myself in the odd position of pointing out texts that favor a
practice I have grave reservations about myself, but I should point
out that Paul's advice distinguished between disobedient Christians
and pagans.  Christians were expected to shun wayward members of their
own flock, but not non-Christians.  I Cor 5:9-13: "I wrote to you in
my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons -- not at all
meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or
idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world.  But now
I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of
brother or sister who is ... Do not even eat with such a one.  For
what have I to do with judging those outside?  Is it not those who are
inside that you are to judge?  God will judge those outside.  'Drive
out the wicked person from among you.'"  Thus Christ's eating with
gentiles and tax collectors is not a contradiction of this.  --clh]

barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (03/09/91)

There has been much talk about what is a cult from a perspective of
-joining-. 
What about leaving a group? Leaving or trying to leave a group and
what follows an individual that leaves says more of -what is a cult-
than joining, in my opinion.

barry olson