Fats Schindee

Here's the list of different definitions for "cult" (from dictionary.com):

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
cult  /kʌlt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
–adjective
9. of or pertaining to a cult.
10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.
[Origin: 1610–20; < L cultus habitation, tilling, refinement, worship, equiv. to cul-, var. s. of colere to inhabit, till, worship + -tus suffix of v. action]

It fits definitions one through five, but I'd say that he probably is using cult in the sense of definitions six and seven. I would say that it applies to Christianity only in that it is false, but that is only my opinion (well, along with other athiests/agnostics/every-other-religion-out-there-people). I wouldn't call it unorthodox, or extremist, or outside of conventional society. But only in today's USA and other majority Christian countries would I not say that.

When it started, back when Rome was ruling and Jesus was a Jew, I would definitely call it a cult. And there are offshoots of it that are considered cults (e.g. Branch Davidians, even some Mormons [although nowadays they are more prevelent and considered less cultish], etc.). I think the big criterion is how popular the particular religion is. Now that Christianity (mainstream branches like Catholicism and Protestantism) is so popular, most people wouldn't consider it a cult anymore, because it now meets that part of the definition that says unorthodox or extremist. Basically, any religion in it's infancy would be considered a cult - when it only has a few followers. It just so happens that all the major religions in the world (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc.) have survived, prospered, and grown, so people don't consider them cults anymore. And they usually promote this fact of growth and survival of their particular religion as evidence of the validity of it. But how can they all be true, then, if they are conflicting in beliefs? Haven't had enough time to convert everyone to the one "true" religion? :roll: (I hope people don't really believe that...)

I think that these religions survived and prospered due to certain factors like sociological, anthropological, and political conditions. The religions are passed down and propagated through generations (look up "memes" for more about this, if you are unfamiliar with the concept), similarly (but not exactly) to genes in organisms. But then again, if you don't believe in evolution, you probably wouldn't buy the theory of memetics either, and you probably just think I'm flapping my jaws...

Again - this is just my personal opinion. But I base it on science, logic, reason, and belief in the scientific method of amassing, shaping, validating, and invalidating, a body of universal knowledge - not based solely on belief in one person's teachings or book alone. If enough evidence comes out that is strong enough to disprove evolution, or gravity, or relativity, or (insert scientific theory here), then the scientific community will either change or drop that theory, and keep searching for a more correct theory. That's the beauty of science. It is open-minded and un-biased (or should be, in theory: science is, but some scientists are not - much like Christianity preaches being a good person [well, most of it. Other parts, not so much], but not all Christians are good people).

And on that note, I'd like to apologize to anyone that may have taken offense to any of my posts on this subject (I know it's a touchy one!), as some have mentioned above. I haven't meant to come across as condescending or "above" those that have religious beliefs, if that is indeed how I have sounded to anyone. Nothing personal to anyone. I was raised Christian, and like others have posted on here, slowly grew out of it and realized its world view just doesn't jive with what I perceive to be closer to the truth. And now that I have moved on to a different, more scientific worldview (in respect to all religion, not just Christianity), it's hard to put myself back in that mindset.

But I do realize what people see in religion. It does have its good points (some of its morals, familial respect and tradition, helping in the community, etc.), but it also has its bad points (some of its morals, trying to teach where we came from in the universe, fanaticism, exclusivity, closed-mindedness, etc.). I think, though, that the same good points found in most religions (e.g. the golden rule) can be applied to one's life in a form of secular humanism without belief in supernatural beings and fairy tales. IMHO...

__________________
Fight on, Trojans! Beat the Nittany Lions!