• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

At what point is calling someone a cult slander?

e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
On another forum, someone from the Apostolic church, in what I'm sure what he considers righteous anger, is aggressively calling JWs and Mormoms devils and cults. That upset me. I believe JWs and Mormons are sorely and wildly mistaken on their beliefs, but the majority of the members I have spoken to have come to their own convictions from their own personal Bible study. They appeared to have ample freedom of choice and of movement. There have been reports of abuses in the JW church, but have since made reforms. This happens sometimes when churches decide how to manage rapid growth. Do people have the right to call another group a cult based on the fact that they don't like them? I hear the word cult slung around so casually when one disagrees with the other group's doctrines. I don't mean just that one guy on the other forum.

On a practical level what are the requirements for a group to qualify as a christian religious cult?

I do not think that a few power hungry individuals within the group can qualify as a cult. I believe that as a whole entity, or a great majority, as policy, the leadership believes in the stripping away of its members individuality and punishing them for questioning and disagreeing with its leaders, like the branch dividians. What I'm seeing is a group using that word as evidence to debunk another's belief. "You're a cult, so then your beliefs are wrong."

In any church two dynamics are going on, the doctrines and how people are left or governed

They also mentioned on tv recently that the most common form of brainwashing is advertisement (commercials).

The floor is open.
 
Last edited:
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
Skwim said:
Why are you caring what others call X, Y, or Z?
Click to expand...

It just upsets me. I don't like slander. Stating what one observes is one thing, name calling as a means of proving one's point and dismissing another's is another thing.
 
Last edited:
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Personally, I avoid the term "cult". I use "unsafe group"... a term I picked up from Rick Ross:

Warning Signs

It isn't necessarily a religious thing (one unsafe group I encountered in real life masqueraded itself as a "personal mastery" program), and it's dependent on its effects on the particular member, so two people could belong to the same group and it would be an unsafe group for one but not for the other.

As an analogy, I can see groups (religious or not) like substances: just like drinking water's fine for anyone, huffing gas is bad for everyone, and drinking alcohol can be bad for some but not for others, I think that groups run the gamut from fine for everyone, bad for everyone, or bad only for some.

Actually, in most of the cases where I've encountered seem to have been negatively affected by their religion to the point of serious harm, I look on them a lot like alcoholics: while I wouldn't call their religion a "cult", and I see that plenty of other people can belong to it and get by perfectly fine, I can recognize the harm of alcoholism even though I don't consider alcohol "poison".
 
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Personally, I avoid the term "cult". I use "unsafe group"... a term I picked up from Rick Ross:

Warning Signs

It isn't necessarily a religious thing (one unsafe group I encountered in real life masqueraded itself as a "personal mastery" program), and it's dependent on its effects on the particular member, so two people could belong to the same group and it would be an unsafe group for one but not for the other.

As an analogy, I can see groups (religious or not) like substances: just like drinking water's fine for anyone, huffing gas is bad for everyone, and drinking alcohol can be bad for some but not for others, I think that groups run the gamut from fine for everyone, bad for everyone, or bad only for some.

Actually, in most of the cases where I've encountered seem to have been negatively affected by their religion to the point of serious harm, I look on them a lot like alcoholics: while I wouldn't call their religion a "cult", and I see that plenty of other people can belong to it and get by perfectly fine, I can recognize the harm of alcoholism even though I don't consider alcohol "poison".
Click to expand...
Good description! My pastors have said a few times that the church is perfect on paper until you put people in it, ahaha!
 
Last edited:
savagewind

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses claim the exclusive right to define Truth. They claim they alone are the way to "listen to what the spirit says to the congregation" as the Book of Revelations directs. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach they ARE the congregation and there is no other. That is why I believe they can rightly be called a cult. And according to this definition most religions are cults in that they lead people away from a personal search for truth, righteousness and meekness as the book of Zephaniah says to do. I am not saying there are many ways to interpret truth. I am saying there are many ways in which it can be found. Cults make the claim that their way is the only way.

At what point is calling someone a cult slander?

A person cannot be called a cult. A cult is a group of people.

So then at what point can calling a person a cult member be slander? It is always slander to call a person a cult. At what point can calling a religion a cult be slander? I think it can never be slander because imo a group cannot be slandered. But I'm no lawyer.
 
Last edited:
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
savagewind said:
The leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses claim the exclusive right to define Truth. They claim they alone are the way to "listen to what the spirit says to the congregation" as the Book of Revelations directs. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach they ARE the congregation and there is no other. That is why I believe they can rightly be called a cult. And according to this definition most religions are cults in that they lead people away from a personal search for truth, righteousness and meekness as the book of Zephaniah says to do. I am not saying there are many ways to interpret truth. I am saying there are many ways in which it can be found. Cults make the claim that their way is the only way.

At what point is calling someone a cult slander?

A person cannot be called a cult. A cult is a group of people.

So then at what point can calling a person a cult member be slander? It is always slander to call a person a cult. At what point can calling a religion a cult be slander? I think it can never be slander because imo a group cannot be slandered. But I'm no lawyer.
Click to expand...
You're right about the individual and religious group. I didn't want to make the title too long, but I guess I should have been more clear. Sadly ironic is that this Apostolic guy on the other website fully claims the Apostolic church as the only way to find the truth, calling JWs and Mormons cults. He even asked me if I was baptized in an Apostolic church, as if Apostolicism is the standard instead of the scriptures.
 
Last edited:
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
e r.m. said:
You're right about the individual and religious group. I didn't want to make the title too long, but I guess I should have been more clear. Sadly ironic is that this Apostolic guy on the other website fully claims the Apostolic church as the only way to find the truth, calling JWs and Mormons cults. He even asked me if I was baptized in an Apostolic church, as if Apostolicism is the standard instead of the scriptures.
Click to expand...
And don't forget that "slander," like "murder" and "burglary" is a legal term. Slander being a form of defamation (oral) communicated to a third party that results in harm. No harm, no slander. :shrug:
 
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
Skwim said:
And don't forget that "slander," like "murder" and "burglary" is a legal term. Slander being a form of defamation (oral) communicated to a third party that results in harm. No harm, no slander. :shrug:
Click to expand...
You make a good point. In the community of people who hold themselves to the Bible, they are also bound to follow the scriptures not to slander. In both cases, it involves doing harm.

βλασφημα,n \{blas-fay-me'-ah}
1) slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another's good name

Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:22, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Ephesians 4:31, Colossians 3:8, Titus 3:1-2.

Calling people a cult to a third party appears to be doing harm to the second party's name. When a person uses that word, others tend to believe it, without question. People get scared and accept whatever one sided evidence the accuser has to offer.
 
Last edited:
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
On another forum, I have found that there are two definition of cults.
1. The correct one: Churches that have travelled down a dark path (or from the start) and nake it a policy to bully its members around to get them to submit and isolate them from family and friends. I don't include churches that occasionally pressure their members to conform. That is an unavoidable dynamic of almost all groups. It has to pass a certain threshhold.

2. And the incorrect one: To be a cult, a church need only teach heretical doctrines, from the perspective of protestant cardinal doctrines.
In other words, "If you just disagree with me, I'm going to call you a cult."
 
Warren Clark

Warren Clark

Informer
e r.m. said:
On another forum, someone from the Apostolic church, in what I'm sure what he considers righteous anger, is aggressively calling JWs and Mormoms devils and cults. That upset me. I believe JWs and Mormons are sorely and wildly mistaken on their beliefs, but the majority of the members I have spoken to have come to their own convictions from their own personal Bible study. They appeared to have ample freedom of choice and of movement. There have been reports of abuses in the JW church, but have since made reforms. This happens sometimes when churches decide how to manage rapid growth. Do people have the right to call another group a cult based on the fact that they don't like them? I hear the word cult slung around so casually when one disagrees with the other group's doctrines. I don't mean just that one guy on the other forum.

On a practical level what are the requirements for a group to qualify as a christian religious cult?

I do not think that a few power hungry individuals within the group can qualify as a cult. I believe that as a whole entity, or a great majority, as policy, the leadership believes in the stripping away of its members individuality and punishing them for questioning and disagreeing with its leaders, like the branch dividians. What I'm seeing is a group using that word as evidence to debunk another's belief. "You're a cult, so then your beliefs are wrong."

In any church two dynamics are going on, the doctrines and how people are left or governed

They also mentioned on tv recently that the most common form of brainwashing is advertisement (commercials).

The floor is open.
Click to expand...

I think anything that has a "church" is a cult. But that's just me.

Definition of CULT

1
: formal religious veneration : worship
2
: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3
: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4
: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5
a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Click to expand...

It fits the definition.
 
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
I like the definitions given in:
Mitch Horowitz: When Does a Religion Become a Cult? - WSJ.com

and in

Philip Jenkins: How We Became Obsessed With Cults - WSJ.com

According to the mythology of the time, such groups found converts by deploying secret psychological techniques that instilled instant obedience. Once immured in cult compounds, recruits were further brainwashed in ways that destroyed their individuality. Breaking with their families, converts were programmed to perform whatever nefarious deeds the cult might demand.
 
McBell

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I have noticed that people tend to not use legit definitions of the word cult that would include their own beliefs.
 
savagewind

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Many academics and observers of cult phenomena, such as psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo of Stanford, agree on four criteria to define a cult. The first is behavior control, i.e., monitoring of where you go and what you do. The second is information control, such as discouraging members from reading criticism of the group. The third is thought control, placing sharp limits on doctrinal questioning. The fourth is emotional control&#8212;using humiliation or guilt.
Click to expand...
Mitch Horowitz: When Does a Religion Become a Cult? - WSJ.com

There are degrees of these four. At what point are the four considered real control?
 
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
Mestemia and savagewind,

Both beautifully stated.

It seems people call others cults as a battle tactic against doctrines they don't agree with. They know people will listen when they bring up the word cult.
 
Last edited:
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
I just had another thought. If in protestant churches, they ramped up the emotionally filled altar call services (hypnotic lights, music, preaching style) more than they already are, and passed around the plate a few more times, how long would it be before they started taking on cultic like qualities?
 
Last edited:
McBell

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
e r.m. said:
I just had another thought. If in protestant churches, they ramped up the emotionally filled altar call services (hypnotic lights, music, preaching style) more than they already are, and passed around the plate a few more times, how long would it be before they started taking on cultic like qualities?
Click to expand...
Um...
Which definition of "cult" are you using...?
 
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
Mestemia said:
Um...
Which definition of "cult" are you using...?
Click to expand...
Maybe secret psychological techniques, such as:
The excesses in Cane Ridge produced expectations for preachers and those seeking religious experience. A Second Great Awakening, inferior to the first, was beginning in America. Preachers were enamored with the idea that they could cause (manipulate) people into conversion. One who witnessed such nineteenth century hysteria was J. V. Coombs who complained of the technique: "The appeals, songs, prayers and the suggestion from the preacher drive many into the trance state. I can remember in my boyhood days seeing ten or twenty people laying unconscious upon the floor in the old country church. People called that conversion. Science knows it is mesmeric influence, self-hypnotism ... It is sad that Christianity is compelled to bear the folly of such movements." (J.V. Coombs, Religious Delusions, 92ff). The Cane Ridge Meeting became the paradigm for revivalists for decades. A lawyer named Charles Finney came along a generation later to systemize the Cane Ridge experience through the use of Wheelock's Mourner's Seat and Scripture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top