Conference hydra::dejavu

    Short answer: To the majority of our western culture, yes.
    
    Longer answer:
    
    In a purely definitional sense, "cult" derives fron the Latin _cultus_,
    with meaninbgs of "cae" and "devotion."  It has religious aspects
    as well as the more faddish ones.  In this sense, devout worship
    by an organized religious order [cult] is well within the definition.
    However, things are never that simple.
    
    Modern usage makes "cult" synonymous with brainwashed, sheeplike
    followers of a charismatic [in the nonreligious sense] leader or
    leaders.  This may lead to such things as the Jonestown mass suicide.
    Also, there's a great fear of the unknown, and often the merely
    unfamiliar: what one fears one often suspects of being evil.  Thus,
    people organized that are doing something secret are almost invariably
    suspected of doing Bad Things.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    It is my personal opinion that "cult" as it's used in "western"
    civilization is a dirty word.  What has to be done in secret tends
    to make me believe that individuals involved in cults realize this
    too (though it may only be subconsiously).  
    
    As with Jonestown, those that did not freely commit suicide, were
    murdered...  Scary isn't it?
    
      

          <<< REGENT::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]RELIGION.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< Religion Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 95.9                       Religion or Cult?                         9 of 9
NEXUS::MORGAN "Walk in Balance on the Earth Mother"  21 lines   8-JUN-1987 23:16
                        -< A fanatic and a cultist... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Let me then muddy the waters even further:
    
    While agreeing that cult has a negative meaning presently that may
    change.
    
    Cults are like test tubes or controlled experiments. A smaller cell of
    people get together and surrender (focus?) their individual wills
    toward a more restricted purpose. Whereas religions are larger groups
    of people who put to use the more reasonable findings of the cults from
    which they sprang.
    
    This seems to be a continual process. Couldn't the various orders of
    the Catholic Church be considered Cults? Perhaps as an accepeted
    religion needs renewing or changing for their various members needs the
    crucible of _protected_ cults is used to renew the creative religious
    energies. (Note: I may have just redefined cult to meet my expectations
    of the word.) 
    
    Many years ago my peers and I would say that a "fanatic is a person
    who loves Jesus more than you do." Perhaps a cultist is one who
    serves their chosen deity more than you do yours. B^)

    Mikie:
    
    There are so many ways to view "cult's".  I have a strong feeling
    that Steve Kallis is the one to really explain it well for you.
    However, I have a book, called "Kingdom of the Cults" (I have to
    look up the author for you and I will tonite!)  I found/find this
    to be one of the better literary investments of my life!
    
    Jean H
    

    Reply to Jean in .4;
      
    Ah, yes. _Kingdom_of_the_Cults_ by Dr. Walter Martin. Interestingly
    enough I studied under Walter Martin in San Diego, Calif for about
    6 weeks and participated in the counter-"cult"ure efforts of the
    fundamental churchs for about 8 years. His books and booklets are
    leaned on heavily because he is very polished in his research.
    
    He defines, identifies and categories a cult according to their
    christology. That is, if the group in question has a different view of
    Christ from the conventional churchs then they are a _cult_. This
    presumes that one understands that the whole effort of Walter Martin is
    based upon the Christian Emic reality tunnel. According to Walter
    Martin Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, EST, T/A, Scientology and many
    others are cults.
    
    Dr. Martin goes a step further by insisting that any group not
    recognizing Jesus Christ as Savour and Lord is a cult, again based upon
    (his) christology. 
    
    If one has a religious view that coincides with Walter Martin's then
    they will reap great teachings from Dr. Martin. If one disagrees
    with Dr. Martin they may find themselves publicly accused of being
    a cultist.
    
    The general view of cults are dirtied by the Christian Emic reality
    tunnel, not by the cultist view of themselves. The Mormons are not a
    cult, they are a sect of the Christian Church. The Jehovahs Witnesses
    are not cultist they are a sect of the Christian Church. Buddhist are
    not cultist, they are believers of an eastern religion. Just because
    these groups do not have the exact same christology as Dr. Walter
    Martin does not make them a cult, it just makes them different from
    Dr. Walter Martin.
    
    Most of the major religions started from cults. Small groups of
    individuals that fawned upon their leaders or founders. It is my
    susspision that cults are looked down upon because they have _power_.
    Not only do they have power, but for the most part they are
    uncontrolable by their weaker but larger benefactors. Thusly, cults are
    discriminated against because of their greater power and affect upon
    their respective religious communities.
    
    As with anything else you read please don't put your mind in netural
    when reading religious or philosophical materials. Dr. Walter Martin
    is especailly entrancing.                                     
    
      Mikie?
    

    Thanx Paul, I agree. I had forgotten about Kesey. And I should have
    used sumbunall religions start as cults.
    
      Mikie?