--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > I'm wondering what exactly separates a cult from a "regular" > > > religion to begin with. The main difference that I can see in > > > most cases is simply higher numbers. Beyond that, aren't they > > > all somewhat cult-like? > > > > In my opinion, yes, most of them are. If you look > > up the actual definition of 'cult' in the dictionary, > > you'll find that it has little to do with the modern, > > perverted meaning of the word we throw around today. > > Many common usage words do not adhere to usage a century ago or > middle age usage. Language evolves. Go Figure! > > Are you suggesting we should all start talking and writing in 1850's > english? Or that we would be better off if we did?
I think it's more a matter here of reifying a particular definition. Scholars of religion still use the term "cult" in its older meaning, but in this case the thread was explicitly dealing with the newer "destructive group" meaning, exploring the characteristics that make a group destructive. Sal was suggesting that many established religions have some of the proposed destructive characteristics, which is true. So do a lot of secular groups. In those contexts the characteristics may or may not be destructive (although it's still subjective; what one person sees as destructive, another person might see as beneficial). The trick is to find characteristics that are *unique* to the kind of group you want to identify. Too often, what folks do is look at a group they consider destructive, list its characteristics, and insist that if another group has the same characteristics, it is also destructive. I call this the "anticult fallacy" (but the same kind of fallacy is seen in many other contexts). It's like saying that a dog is a small carnivorous animal with fur and a tail that is usually kept as a pet, then looking at a cat, finding that it is also a small carnivorous animal with fur and a tail that is usually kept as a pet, and claiming it is therefore a dog. The fallacy is especially pernicious in the cult context because the evaluation of characteristics is so subjective anyway. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
