--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J.
Williams" > <willytex@> wrote: > > > > satvadude wrote: > > > I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the > > > matter Richard. Any reaction to the story? > > > > > It all depends on the definition of 'cult'. > > > > The term 'cult' is just another term for 'sect'. > > There are at least eight dictionary definitions > > of the term 'cult'. > > I always use Chambers: > > http://tinyurl.com/3gb8wz "cult noun 1 a a system of religious belief; b the sect of people following such a system. 2 a an unorthodox or false religion; b the people adhering to such a system. 3 an especially extravagant admiration for a person, idea, etc. 4 something which is popular and regarded as particularly significant by a certain group of people: a fashion, craze or fad" Not particularly helpful in this context, is it? There are huge differences between the different groups to which each of these definitions refer. > Do any other definitions exclude groups like > scientology or the TMO? I'd be surprised if they did, > you could probably fit most New Religious Movements > into the definition above. You could fit people who've bought the iPhone into the definition above. The trick is to find a definition that includes features characteristic *only* of the type of group you want to define. Too many anticultists fall into what I call the "anticult fallacy," pointing with horror to groups that have a list of purported cult characteristics many if not most of which can be found in groups that nobody would consider cults. (Also, I'd love to see a definition of "false religion" that all "true religions" would agree on. Since we don't know for sure whether *any* religion is true, how can there be any that we know are false?)
