Conference yukon::christian_v7

    As I understand it, in today's definition, a cult is a religious 
    organization or group which isolates its members from outside 
    thought and information. Cult members are not permitted  to read 
    unauthorized material or have contact with anyone other than cult 
    members. Often, mind and  behavior programming is used to accomplish 
    this.

    
     Jim

    Until further clarification has been made via note 47.77, I am asking
    that you lease participate in this discussion freely, but do not 
    list names of organizations whether religious or not.
    
    
    Thank you for understanding,
    Nancy
    co-mod CHRISTIAN
    

    RE: -.1
    
    HUH?

    re .3 (SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI)
    
>                             -< Hairy Fishnuts... >-
    
    As a long-time Bloom County fan, I know what this means.  (Someone in
    MKO used to have it posted outside their office.)
    
    Pretty obscure, Andy.
    
    								-mark.

    Me thinks I know what Hairy Fishnuts is.. but by my own flingers I'm
    not allowed to type... :-) :-)
    
    Quick somebody loan me their fingers!
    
    Nancy

    Hello!

    Since this conference's premise is based on the inerrancy of the Bible,
    can anyone out there tell me how the Bible could be used as a measuring
    stick in defining cults as the world cult was defined in .2 [I
    believe]?
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    Re: Note 125.8 by JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
>   can anyone out there tell me how the Bible could be used as a measuring
>   stick in defining cults as the world cult was defined in .2 [I
>   believe]?                      ^^^^^ = word?             ^^ not a definition
    
    I'd say that if the bible says do, or do not do, something, and a group
    of people do not do, or do, the thing that the bible said to do, or not
    to do, and "enough" of those differences exist in seemingly critical
    mass, then I'd call them a cult.  Sloppy definition.
    
    That would be one way _how_ the bible can be used as a measuring stick
    to define the membership of groupings into cults.  But the word itself?
    I can't think how yet... what do others say?
    
    --
    
    There is the tendency for the popular press to connect the word "cult"
    with the word "minority", such that "materialism" cannot be defined as
    a "cult", since too many people practice it.
    
    Sorry; I shouldn't mention cult names like that...  ;-)
    
    James

This isn't quite right, but I'll toss it out:

I tend to think of cult<------->religion as sort of a sliding scale.

To the extent which a group/philosophy attempts to put its followers in touch
with the Living God of the Universe, for the purpose of their enlightenment and
salvation, even if their doctrine or methods are not perfect, that group/
philosophy is a religion.

To the extent which a group/philosophy attempts to ensnare people in man-made
doctrines, rituals, requirements, or worship of anything other than the Living
God of the Universe, for the purpose - stated or unstated - of *preventing* them
from getting in touch with that Living God, or for the purpose of exercising
control over them, that group/philosophy is a cult.

This seems to work pretty when I try to apply it from my perspective, but the 
problem lies in defining what is from God and what is from Man.  Since Jesus was
a man (God too, but yet a man), people from other religions could classify all
of Christianity as a "cult," claiming that this worship of a man was not worship
of God.  

I'm not quite sure where to take it from there.

Paul

    This is especially tough because my KJV doesn't seem to use the word
    "cult."  (My Danish version might, but I don't have it handy at the
    moment.)  And, if asked whether I was a member of "a system or community 
    of religious worship and ritual"* I could answer in the affirmative if 
    I was a member of one of many different and accepted organizations.
    Further, there are examples of organizations generally accepted to be
    cults that use(d) the Bible and whose leaders portend(ed) to be avatars;
    perhaps insidious mockeries of the Lord and His mission.  Sometimes
    they copy so much that it may be easy to be deluded.
    
    A more troubling question to me is whether or not followers of Christ in 
    His day would be considered a "cult" by today's standards.  He was a worker
    of miracles and was the Son of God.  But, to those who didn't know that, 
    he may have been just another "cult" leader.  I recall that before his
    conversion, Paul persecuted the Christians thinking he was doing good.
    I think Saul (Paul) may have thought of Christians as a "cult."  That is, 
    until he took a trip to Damascus ...
    
    The point is, that it can be very difficult to distinguish a "cult"
    from a people that truly worship God.  It may literally have taken a 
    miracle for Paul to learn differently.  Fortunately, we have the Bible 
    and perhaps better awareness of history to help us discern today.  But, 
    one cannot underestimate the deceptive capabilities of man or of the 
    slanderer.
    
    
    Steve
    
    * definition 1 of "cult" in The American Heritage Dictionary.

      Hi,
    
        Aside from 'Websters' and thinking of the term _cult_ in the
        negative way we often think of it, I think of it in two aspects.
    
        The first is pretty much what Jim said in .1.  That is, that
        'recruiting' methods and certain practises are considered
        suspect.
    
        The second aspect (and I don't mean to suggest that these aspects
        cannot have some overlap) is in the area of specific things a
        group might believe.  For example, one might list a few things
        that are considered so fundamental to true 'Christian faith' that
        to believe contrary to such a list is considered cultish.  In fact
        this is precisely what Walter Martin did.  He had a very systematic
        process whereby he had a set of doctrinal guidelines and guaged
        groups/denominations againt the set of guidelines he had.
    
        Among the list Martin had were:
    
        Jesus is fully God.
    
        Jesus took the prefallen nature of man.
    
        The Atonement was finished at the cross.
    
        There were a couple others.  Personally, I didn't think a whole lot
        of his entire list which leads me to a question about Martin.
    
        If a person believed contrary to his list (in any way), did Martin
        contend that such a person could not possibly have faith?  (Or
        did he feel such a person just lacked even the most elementary
        light or was perilously close to eternal damnation?)
    
        Just wondering.
                                               
        But, anyway, so far as cult is concerned in its often-used way
        (irregardless of Webster) I think the above two aspects are perhaps
        the biggies; that being practises and set of beliefs.
    
                                                     Tony

Dictionary definitions aren't usually much good for technical terms - you 
need to use a dictionary which specialises in that technical area.  My 
'English' dictionaries do not distinguish satisfactorily between 'cult' and 
'religion'.  I ought to get a dictionary of religious terminology... one 
day.

I'd agree with Paul's observations in .10 as observations, though they don'
constitute a definition. Those claims would be denied and resented by any
group, and the term would be seen as purely deroatory.  I believe that
there is a more specific identification, which might even be accepted by
some cult members.  first, to put it in context: 

There's cult, sect, denomination...
 � Denominations are sub-groups within a religious belief, which disagree 
   (not necessarily antagonistically) over some aspects of practice and 
   faith, but hold to the same basic essentials.
 � Sects are sub-groups within a religious belief, which disagree on more 
   fundamental areas.  'Sect' as I understand it strictly means 'division' 
   or 'area', rather than implying anything about the particular sect.  I 
   may be wrong there...  You recall that Christianity was regarded as a 
   sect of Judaism in Acts 24:5, 28:22, not considered as derogatory.  
   Sadduccees and Pharisees were also regarded as sects within Judaism in 
   Acts 5:17, 15:5, 26:5.
 � Cult, I would see as the next stage removed.  I'll try to put down some 
   characteristics which come to mind, as applied to Christianity, for 
   simplicity.

I would identify a cult as holding to the following:

 * Exclusive salvation - they don't believe that salvation is available 
   through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ ALONE, but have additional 
   requirements which claim that *only* members of the particular sub-group 
   receive salvation.

   This usually implies a measure of 'works', ie a requirement on the 
   believer to follow certain actions, rather than relying on faith in the 
   Blood alone.

 * Exclusive beliefs - they hold certain unique views about the 
   interpretation of the Bible which conflict sharply with how it is 
   understood by most Christian denominations.

I would see cults as typified by the following, rather than them being 
'prerequisites':

 * Dominant leader - usually the exclusive teachings emanate from 'a' 
   single leader's particular revelation, whose acceptance implies 
   exclusion from general Christian communion.  The cult has then sprung 
   from people who are drawn to that particular teacher / leader.

 * Often, the 'threat' aspect, implications of loss of salvation (or
   worse!!! ;-) if you leave the cult. 

 * Generally the LORD Jesus is displaced from the centre of worship.  Focus
   is transferred, maybe subtly. 

 * I would include the observation you made, Paul about cult indoctrination
   ensnaring people, exercising (mental, and spiritual, presumably) control
   over them, in a way to prevent them from coming to God, in this category.

.1 - JimR, - I thought you made a good point with:
    organization or group which isolates its members from outside 
    thought and information.

    - it springs from the dominant leader (ultra-heavy shepherding) symptom.


.8 - Nancy
    Since this conference's premise is based on the inerrancy of the Bible,
    can anyone out there tell me how the Bible could be used as a measuring
    stick in defining cults as the world cult was defined in .2 [I
    believe]?

It comes from the exclusivity factor.  "No scripture is of any private 
interpretation" 2 Peter 1:20 (though this verse has a rather different 
slant in other translations - no prophecy of scripture came about by
prophet's own interpretation...).  But to take scripture and use it to mean 
something significantly different from the generally accepted meaning,and 
to make a unique religion of it, births a cult.

Now, after that, my question is 

	Is the description 'cult' and offensive term, or could anyone say 
	honestly, "Yes, I belong to the xxx cult"?

I rather think they *could* strictly, but the common imprecise use of the
word (as opposed to the way we are using it), is such that they would be
likely to be misunderstood.

					may God bless....
								Andrew

Many of the replies speak of "denying major tenets of the faith" as a yardstick
of a cult, then go on to explain some of the major tenets of the *Christian*
faith, denial of which would constitute a cult.

What about other world religions?  Islam, for example (I'm not calling it a cult
here, so I can use the name :-).  Islam certainly denies many of the tenets of
the *Christian* faith.  It's not a derivative of Christianity at all.  In Walter
Martin's mind, that makes it a cult.  In my mind, it isn't.  It's a religion
that I disagree with, but calling it a "cult" seems too extreme.

Are cults associated with religions?  Are some groups "cults" of Christianity,
while other groups are "cults" of Islam or Hinduism?

If you take .13's definition, and apply each piece of the definition as to how
a group diverges from religion in general, instead of how it diverges from
Christianity in particular, then almost every world religion can be considered
a "cult."  Considering our own religion for a moment: (I can call this a cult 
too, since I'm part of it :-)

*Exclusive salvation -  We certainly believe that. Salvation is by Christ alone.
			Other religions don't have Christ, so they don't have
			salvation.  We believe it's by grace, not works, but it
			still requires Christ, which only we have.

*Exclusive beliefs -	We hold unique beliefs about the world, how it came to
			be, who the creator is, and what our place in it is.
			These beliefs contrast sharply with how other people and
			other religions view the world.

*Dominant leader -	Need I elaborate?  Dead these 2000 years, and we still
			follow him.

*Threat -		Loss of salvation if you deny Christ.

*Worship center -	Creator of universe displaced from center of worship,
			this place being taken by our dominant leader.  We don't
			view that to be fully true, because of the trinitarian
			God, but it certainly seems that way at first glance.

*"Ensnare" - 		Much of the shepharding that is done to bring people to
			Christ would be perceived as "ensnaring" by people
			outside the faith.

*Isolation - 		"Be in the world, but not of the world."  "The wisdom
			of the world is foolishness to God."  We definitely
			seek, if not to fully isolate ourselves from the
			outside world, at least to minimize it's impact on us.
			And then there are monastaries and convents, which
			practice full isolation.

I think other religions would fare about the same.  I think through this 
discussion I'm coming to see that while the word "cult" has many negative 
connotations, all of those connotations - or at least most of them - we practice
ourselves and are proud of them.  I'm starting to think "cult" really has no
useful definition, but is just a derogatory term for religion.  It just means
"Religion that I think is wrong," or "Religion that is new and hasn't attracted 
many followers yet."

Think of how Christianity started.  By any measure of cults, it fit the bill.
A rag-tag group of people went from town to town, claiming that a plain man, who
had lived for only 30-odd years and then been killed by the government as a 
criminal, had risen again from the dead and was really God in human flesh.  They
claimed that he was the only way to reach heaven with God, and that anyone who 
denied him was doomed to eternal damnation.  They claimed that this man had 
really existed forever, and that the whole earth and all of creation had been 
created through him.

Be honest - if someone came to your door with that story, you'd think he was
nuts, and you'd classify the belief as a cult in an instant.  Yet here it is 
2000 years later, and we're still sticking to that story.  What is different
about it, other than the fact that it's been around for 2000 years and millions
of people have lived it and died for it?

I'm not trying to minimize Christianity, just point out that it is as *unlikely*
a position as any that a current cult might come up with.  If we claim that what
made Christianity different was the power of the Holy Spirit, that through the
power of that Spirit the Christian church caught on, then how do we deal with 
the other religions?  Islam caught on pretty well, too.

More questions than answers, I know, but that's where I'm at on this one.

Paul

RE:14
    Paul,

>*Isolation - 		"Be in the world, but not of the world."  "The wisdom
>			of the world is foolishness to God."  We definitely
>			seek, if not to fully isolate ourselves from the
>			outside world, at least to minimize it's impact on us.
>			And then there are monastaries and convents, which
>			practice full isolation.

     It is true that monasteries and convents generally isolate themselves, 
     however it is voluntary isolation and once you enter your still free 
     to leave and they don't recruit  members. Also, they don't cut off
     contact with the outside world completely. Visitors are allowed and
     they usually go outside to do charitable work. Information from the
     outside is also allowed in, such as literature, films, tapes, radio
     and some even have T.V. They also, don't exclude literature of other
     religions or philosophies. One of the best libraries I've seen was in
     a monastary.
     
     A cult, at least the ones I've read about, isolate its members from
     those who could influence them away from the cult. Brainwashing and
     other mind control techniques are used. True Christian, Jewish or Islamic 
     religions do not brainwash or use mind control techniques to keep its 
     members in. They allow their members free contact and dialog with
     others. 
     
     Jim

    IMHO (value: 2 cents maybe):
    
    1. Are you being mislead somehow? Under the cover of religion are they
       playing games with you for their own end?
    
    2. Are you allowed to freely ask questions? [ One difference between
       a 'cult' and early Christianity is that the disciples could and
       did ask endless questions. also they were not threatened about leaving. ]
    
    jk
    

    Please forward me a oneline answer to the following question, I will
    give it till Monday, tally the results and then post in here.
    
    QUESTION:  When you read/see/hear the "cult" does it have a
               negative connotation to you?
    
    		   YES___   or   NO___
    
    ANSWERS MAILED TO:  JULIET::Morales_na

    
    RE: .4
    
    Sorry for the late reply.... been busy.
    
    Hairy Fishnuts...
    
    Bloom County cartoon...
    
    Opus the Penguin (character), approached by Hari Krishna member and
    asked for a donation....
    
     Can't verbalize 'Hari Krishna', so keeps transliterating until it
    comes out Hairy Fishnuts. Member completely frustrated.....!!
    
     We should all be like Opus....
    
     :)
    
     Andy
    

Re .14 , Paul...

� Many of the replies speak of "denying major tenets of the faith" as a 
� yardstick of a cult, then go on to explain some of the major tenets of the 
� *Christian* faith, denial of which would constitute a cult.

I think you misunderstood my meaning in .13  I understood a 'cult' in this 
sense to claim to be the true representation of a particular religion, in 
contradiction to the mainstream of that religion.  As this is the 
CHRISTIAN conference, I went on to consider this in the light of 
Christianity, that being most easily understood and expressed.  However, 
other religions certainly have sects, and probably cults (mutually
exclusive) also.  In Islam, for instance, there are the Sunnis, Sufis, and
Shi'ites, (often pretty incompatible) for instance, and in Judaism, there's
conservative, liberal, orthodox, etc schools, which tend to acknowledge 
each other... 

 - but these wouldn't be so meaningful to use as examples here.


							Andrew

Re 125.16 by Elvis, (jk;-)

� [ One difference between a 'cult' and early Christianity is that the 
    disciples could and did ask endless questions. also they were not 
    threatened about leaving. ]

Early Christianity was referred to as a sect, not a cult (I quoted the refs 
in .13).

While there was heavy tension between early (Jewish) Christians and
orthodox Jews, as seen in the persecution by Paul, it didn't come to a
total split until the Bar Cochba rebellion against Rome, when Bar Cochba
thought to gain an increased commitment and following by declaring himself
to be the Messiah.  This was seen as blasphemy by the Christians, who
therefore had to separate from the rebellion, and were seen as traitors by
the orthodox Jews, to whom the claim of messiah still didn't imply
divinity. 

							Andrew

I was going to start this with the statement that my observations are
very close to those of Andrew, but I see that we pretty much have this 
to ourselves at this hour (as usual).

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the fact that the word
cult is, and has been, quite simply in the process of change.  This is
not a rare or surprising event for our language.  When the meditators
and Hairy Fishnuts first started their big evangalistic push in the
sixties, the term was used in a normal way.  As their power increased
and there came to be identifiable characteristics - the biggest being
the isolation and programming - the term gradually migrated.  There
are a number of other terms this has happened to in the last few decades:

	video (used as a noun)
	tabloid 
	mall
	interstate
	etc.

All of this is in the way of pointing out that the dictionaries may or may
not have a definition suitable for today's usage.  Some of the biggest
differences between what I have come to think of as "cults" vs religions
are:

	Religions have no secret rituals; e.g. anyone can walk in to any
	valid Christian service and at least observe.

	All elements of a religion are subject to discussion; albeit we
        reserve the natural right not to waste time.

	Religions do not abnormally elevate any humans.  Yes, this is
	sometimes a judgement call.  In other cases, it clearly is not.

There are a few others, but they are in the same vein; and I am afraid
that, with the changing nature of the word cult, they are subject to
individual interpretation.  This was one reason that Dr. Martin always
began a program or lecture with the definition he intended to use.  The
definition and the effects of groups on both sides of that definition
were the topic.  Use of the semantics was not.  This in itself was, to
me, a good example of not being cultish.  One is told up front what the
premises are, and one is then free to participate or not.

Have to go.

Lew

>Early Christianity was referred to as a sect, not a cult (I quoted the refs 
>in .13).
    Right. But, someone not 'in the know' could perceive it as a cult.
    There was one earlier note that 'obsessive devotion to a person' or
    something like was a sign of a cult. 
    
    (yea, my personal name gives me high credibility. :-)  )
    
    JK not_elvis_nor_really_wanting_to_be . :-)

    IMHO .16 has it 
    
    The ability of the members to question the word of the leader, or
    thier text is the basis.
    
    If you blindly accept everything as fact...she's a cult.
    (or your very gulable)
    
    Brian v

    Er, Ahem Brian........
    
    >...she's a cult.
        ^^^^^
    
    Ain't never been one, and don't wanna be one when I grow up! :-) :-)
    :-) :-)
    
    Nancy

Re: .22, jk (but ELvis was more interesting - gave me a smile;-)
Referring to early Christianity :
�    Right. But, someone not 'in the know' could perceive it as a cult.
�    There was one earlier note that 'obsessive devotion to a person' or
�    something like was a sign of a cult. 

I was pointing out that it was actually explicitly referred to as a sect of 
Judaism.  The Person Who inspired devotion is the basis of the religion 
(Christianity, now), but was anticipated as 'to be identified', by Judaism 
then.  Judaism recognises the role, but not the individual.  I guesss it's 
rather a moot point as to whether Judaism would have seen Christianity as a 
cult or sect then.  Now, I guess they'd inevitably look on it more as a 
cult ... possibly ...

I'm coming to the conclusion that we're looking for a concensus of our own
*perceptions* of what 'cult' means, rather than finding a specific definitive 
source.  We make an entry in the dictionary?  Sounds like it needs one!

Arch�ologists use it generally as 'religion', in referring to objects and 
rites associated with worship.  I believe that is a different application 
from what we would understand, though.

Josh McDowell / Don Stewart's "Concise Guide to Today's Religions" 
describes a cult as:

cult from a Christian perspective, a religious group polarized around one 
     central religious interpretation which denies, in one or more essential 
     areas, Biblical Christian doctrine.  Cults usually claim to be the 
     restoration of, or at least compatible with, Biblical Christianity.


For me, that description leaves it a little loose.  I think the exclusive
claim to salvation is significant.  And I think that to attain that, the 
brainwashing / absolute control of the leadership is a key factor.  

I've gone on long enough.  Time wise too - it's the weekend for me.

						'bye
							Andrew

    re .23 
    
>    The ability of the members to question the word of the leader, or
>    thier text is the basis.
>    
>    If you blindly accept everything as fact...she's a cult.
>    (or your very gulable)
    
    	Suppose after questioning said leaders, texts, and what have you, a
    person gets convincing answers, and then decides to "accept everything
    as fact".  Is it *still* a cult because all significant traces of doubt
    have been eliminated?
    
    	Speaking of "questioning leaders ...", in the first century, the
    words of Jesus himself were held to be 'unquestionable.'  By the above
    definition, wouldn't that in itself have made first generation
    Christianity a cult?
    
    	Since when has the element of doubt been a touchstone for the test
    of 'true faith'?
    
    * * * 
    
    	A few people have implied that cults imply that those who leave
    'the one true faith' will suffer severe repurcussions (whether
    spiritual or temporal).  Does the NT itself cast its blessings (and
    thus pose no penalties) upon those who leave true 'orthodox'
    Christianity?  How can 'true Christianity' (i.e., that which is not a
    cult) cheerfully let its members go and not teach that at least
    everlasting spiritual harm will befall those who leave?
    
    
    								-mark.

    I suspect it will continue to be a recursive problem.  Most folks that
    adopt more specific definitions of "cult" (than what might be found in
    dictionaries) seem to me to be taking care to pick criteria that exclude
    their own religions.  Or, they are sticking in ambiguities that are
    subject to futher interpretation.  There are many who find it difficult, 
    for example, to agree on what the basic tenets of the Bible are, present 
    company possibly excluded.  I feel that may be one reason for the large 
    diversity of mainstream Christian faiths and for the many different 
    versions of the Bible.
    
    There is a flip side, I think, to being part of a "cult."  And that is
    to be part of a religion that is ineffective (or like a "harlot" to use 
    terms of the Bible, particularly in Revelations).  That is, I think it
    is possible for a religion to become so watered down and to bend so much 
    to the public will that it no longer draws people to God but away from 
    God -- effectively doing the same thing that "cults" are to be condemned 
    for.
    
    Steve

    RE:28

    Steve,
         well cults are usually very effective. Damaging, but nonetheless,
    effective.

    Jim

    Steve,
    
    I think you make a very good point.  While I may not agree that it
    is better to belong to a cult then  to belong to an ineffective
    church of the Gospel, I do agree that ineffective churches of the 
    Gospel give way to cults.
    
    *N*
    
                                                          
    

    Don't misunderstand my point here, folks!  I'm NOT saying it's better
    to belong to an ineffictive church versus a cult OR vice versa.  Near 
    as I can tell you lose either way if the final result is that you are 
    distanced from God.  The point is that some folks might be SO concerned
    about avoiding "cults" that they could go completely the other way and 
    join organizations which are entirely ineffective and don't help them
    draw any nearer to God.
    
    Steve

    Out of 13 people who responded to the survey:
    
    12 responded YES
    1 Waffled between Yes and No, depending on interpretation
    
    I'd say that the word CULT definitely to most people has a NEGATIVE
    connotation, therefore, the word should not used lightly or when it is
    used to be cloaked by the DICTIONARY definition... it is definitely a
    STRONG and OFFENSIVE word.
    
    To a lot of people in the world today, who have been brought up with NO
    religious orientation, the Southern Baptist Church is a cult.  To most
    Protestant faiths, a cult is anything that adds or takes away from the
    Gospel.
    
    Nancy

      Hi Nance,
    
        "ineffective churches of the gospel."
    
        Sorry, sister, but that seems a contradiction!  The gospel
        is the power, is it not???  If there's no power, how is there
        the gospel???
    
        Just to provide my own deepest convictions regarding this
        topic...
    
        I have come to believe that the very smallest nugget of light
        is enough to lead to conversion.  I also have come to believe that
        much of christianity equates (at least to a large extent) the
        gospel to that which leads to conversion (and not to anything
        which leads _beyond_.)
    
        I have come to believe that the most infantile knowledge of the
        gospel can lead to conversion (with the Spirit's tugging of course)
        and that A FULNESS OF THE GOSPEL LEADS TO PERFECTION - and by
        perfection I mean being able to follow the Lamb withersoever He
        goeth and we know where the Lamb went (to the cross).
    
        1 Corin 8:2
        If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as
        he ought to know.
    
        Deuteronomy 32:1,2
        Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth,
        the words of my mouth.
        My _doctrine_ shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill
        as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the
        showers upon the grass.
    
        Hosea 6:1-3
        Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and
        he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
        After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will
        raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
        Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: his 
        going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come 
        unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the
        earth.
    
        The latter rain MATURES the grain.  It prepares it.  Part of
        this outpouring is an outpouring of DOCTRINE (Deut 32:1,2).
    
        Paul in Ephesians 3 prays that a people will come to comprehend
        the dimensions of agape so that "we might be filled with all
        the fulness of God."
    
        The gospel is the power and there is a latter rain of gospel
        power yet future.
    
        My conviction...
    
        A group (and I believe it will cross all denominations for the
        necessary ingrediant will be discernment which requires FAITH)
        will grow and grow and grow in discerning the gospel.  They will
        eventually receive the latter rain.  The moon (typifying this
        group - all its light is from another source) will be as "bright
        as the sun" and the sun "will be seven times brighter."
    
        Part of this process will include an intense change in under-
        standing.  They will look back and those who have not received
        the light will appear strange AND those who have not received the
        light, those who are "ineffective churches of the gospel" will
        look at this group and think one word - CULT.
    
        The beast will certainly see a cult.  This 'cult' will be the
        scum of the earth and I for one hope (by the grace of God) to
        be a part of that cult.
    
                                                    Tony

Hi Steve, re .28

Interesting, that the 'cult' point is exactly what wil be applied to the 
last-days true church....  My point in trying to pin the word down somewhat 
more precisely was that in general terms, there's a group which can be 
identified as main-stream, and there are others which positively dissociate 
from that group, to the extent of denying their salvation (reserving it for 
the exclusive group), having their own exclusive scriptures, etc.

But agreed, some grounds of persecution are made very clear in John 16:2-3.

� I think it is possible for a religion to become so watered down and to bend 
� so much to the public will that it no longer draws people to God but away 
� from God -- effectively doing the same thing that "cults" are to be condemned 
� for. 

Agreed, it can be watered down - as per 2 Timothy 3:5 "...having a form of
godliness, but denying the power..." - I believe this ties in with 4:3 :
"the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead,
to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of
teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their
ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths...." 

However, I don't think the harlot of Revelation 18 (for instance) is 
ineffective; rather, that it is an evil which is very effectively 
anti-Christian.  I would see this as the false prophet who accompanies the 
beast, in Revelation 13.  But that's another topic...

The ineffective church is one which lets people reserve their 'religion'
for a small slot in their life, rather than it being the real value and
meaning of the total life.  It may, for instance, not challenge them beyond
the pocket, and a brief weekly appearence (if that).  If Jesus Christ is
not LORD of our hearts, we are open to any attack, and defenceless against
the deception of cults (whatever your definition may be;-), etc.  Remeber 
that the last times deception is pretty convincing.  Matthew 24:24 warns 
us: "False Christs and false prpophets will appear and perform great signs 
and miracles to deceive even the elect - if that were possible."

ie - the opposite to "cult" isn't "watered down Christianity", but 
"true, dedicated Christianity".  The watered down variety is an a-spiritual 
denial, which has distanced itself from God as much as from the cult.

Hi Tony! - enjoyed (most of;-) your .33.... though I believe that the Bible
identifies the preparation of the church as completed by the return of the
LORD.  Certain celestial phenomena accompany and follow this time (which we
commonly call the last times, but in fact leads into the millennium), into
the personal reign of the LORD Jesus Christ on earth.  Isaiah 30 (which
speaks of the intensified light of the sun and moon) refers to the
restoration of Israel to Godly worship (v19-22), and subsequent material 
blessing (v23-25), culminating in intensified light (v26), and physical 
healing.

 - But that's just how I read it... ;-), and again, it's another topic... 

As to the perfection being a preparation to follow the Lamb through
persecution, to the death, I'm with you there, certainly:  Revelation 12:11
"...they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death..." 

�        The beast will certainly see a cult.  This 'cult' will be the
�        scum of the earth and I for one hope (by the grace of God) to
�        be a part of that cult.

Amen ... if we're still here!  At first I thought you meant to put "...The
beast will certainly *be* a cult."  Until I read the sentence twice ;-) 

						God bless
								Andrew

      Hi Andy,
    
        Thanks bro!
    
        To summarize something so important.  There is most definitely
        going to be an increase in _light_ and this increase will be
        staggering.  Who knows just what that increase will be?  Who
        knows what will need to be unlearned and what will need to be
        learned?  How hard it is to 'unlearn' colors you have always 
        thought were part of the tapestry of truth and how hard also
        to discern 'new' colors heretofore unseen.  
    
        Tradition doesn't help for tradition only knows what's in the
        past.  Nothing can help except faith.
    
        I truly believe there will be a shift in understanding that will
        rival the shift in understanding of truth that took place in the
        transition of the Israelite sacrificial system to the apostolic
        understanding of the gospel.  And one other thing: we know there
        was a great falling away.  This must be a falling away of under-
        standing the gospel.  How much have we recovered since the falling
        away???
    
        There is a transition over the horizon and it will be awesome in
        magnitude.  NOTHING but faith will discern it.  Those that hold
        to our present understanding of the gospel will prove themselves
        to be identical to the Pharisees of old - hold onto present truth
        and reject anything new.  They are a type of those that will not
        receive new light, that echo in their hearts, "We know" while Jesus
        says to Laodicaea (Rev 3), "Thou knowest not."
    
        We need       eyesalve,    white raiment,     and gold.
    
        We need to    discern      righteoussness     by faith.
    
                                                     
                                                     Tony

Hi Tony,

My understanding is that it is the arrival of the LORD Jesus which
enlightens us to the immensity of the change which the millennium brings -
"We we see Him we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is..." 
(1 John 3:2).  I've been amazed at the anticipation of this for awhile.... 
The whole of the sin culture thrown back to early post-fall times...  And
He Himself, reigning in person.....!!!!!! 

							Andrew

 AMEN!

I forget who posted the foloowing notes but I extracted them and now provide
them for your reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CULT AWARENESS NETWORK
Let me see if I can help those who do need accurate information.
Let's start with basic good journalism...what does CAN say about
itself?  The following I typed in from CAN's brochure.  Following
the info on CAN is information on cults - how to identify them,
how to help.  A suggested reading list is at the end.

"CAN at a glance!

What is CAN?

The Cult Awareness Network is a national non-profit
organization founded to educate the public about the harmful
effects of mind control as used by destructive cults.  CAN
confines its concerns to unethical or illegal practices,
including coercive persuasion or mind control, and does not judge
doctrine or beliefs.  Funding comes exclusively from voluntary
contributions.

Who Are We?

We are former cult members and the families and friends of past
and present cult members.  Some of us are mental health
professionals, lawyers, physicians, legislators, clergy, law
enforcement officers and educators.  We represent and care about
an estimated five million people who have been seriously affected
by the more than 2500 destructive cults.

What Do We Do?

We are dedicated to bringing to public awareness the harmful
effects of destructive cults and providing information and
support for families, as well as assistance to former cult
members.  CAN recognizes the need for voluntary exit
counseling/deprogramming as a means to restore critical thinking,
and supports all legal efforts to protect individuals' freedom of
choice.

Where Are We?

The Cult Awareness Network is a coalition of volunteer affiliate
groups throughout the United States.  FOCUS is a support group
for former cult members.  Communication is maintained with
similar organizations throughout the world, including Denmark,
England, France, Germany, Spain, Israel, Australia, and Canada.

What is a Destructive Cult?

A destructive cult is a closed system whose followers have been
unethically and deceptively recruited through the use of
manipulative techniques of thought reform or mind control.  The
system is imposed without the informed consent of the recruit and
is designed to alter personality and behavior. [more follows]

Who Are They?

Those groups that have engaged in some illegal or unethical
practices, including: child abuse, neglect, and death; illegal
immigration; drug dealing; fraud and deceit in their recruiting,
business, financial, and fundraising activities; theft;
harassment of critics, families, and former followers with
threats, lawsuits, and foul play; stockpiling or smuggling of
weapons and ammunition; beatings; sexual abuse and prostitution;
kidnapping; murder; attempted murder; and psychological and
emotional damage.

[a partial list of groups about which CAN has received complaints
follows]

What Can You Do?

- Inform yourself, your family, and your friends about these
groups and what they represent.

- Encourage your school, college, synagogue, church, or office to
arrange a program on cults.

- Donate books on destructive cults to your local library.

- Investigate any "training" program offered or required by your
company, place of employment, or in the military; do not use
current advocates of the program exclusively in your
investigation.

- Write your members of congress, senators, state and local
officials.  Tell them of your concern and report illegal or
unethical activities of destructive cults.  Assure them that the
issue is not one of beliefs but of human rights.

- Encourage media outlets to cover cult activity and respond
constructively when such programs air or appear in print.

- Find out if solicitation permits are required in your area.
Ask what limitations/ordinances apply to collecting/selling
door-to-door, soliciting in shopping centers, or on the street.

- Always ask questions about a solicitor's identity or
affiliation.  Ask for a valid Federal identification number from
charities you want to give to.  Call the IRS to verify
legitimacy.  Be suspicious of charities that have not obtained
such a number.  Check the Attorney General's office in your state
to make sure of registration.

- Check on zoning restrictions regarding single/multiple
dwellings and regulations concerning frequent "gatherings" by
cults in any neighborhood.

- Never accept an invitation, give money, take a course, or join
any group until you have thoroughly checked it out with someone
you trust.

Do's and Don'ts

A guide for families who think a member or friend is involved
with a destructive cult?

- DO record all names, addresses, phone numbers of persons known
to be associated in any way with the individual's activities.

- DO maintain a written chronology of events associated with the
individual's activities relating to the group.

- DO answer all communications from the individual in a loving,
sincere, non-critical and consistent manner.

- DO NOT send money to an individual in a cult if you can send
non-cash gifts such as clothing, non-refundable airline tickets,
etc.

- DO NOT spend large amounts of money for treatments or seminars
until you have verified such program's credentials and
qualifications for handling your problem.

- DO NOT GIVE UP!  Remember the individual is a product of your
love, training, heredity, and home environment.  These influences
can never be permanently eliminated by any technique.

- DO NOT feel alone.  This is a common problem faced by thousands
all over this country and abroad.  It affects families of every
religious or socio-economic background.

DO seek help, establish and continue an association with an
organized group of families with similar situations.

WHO IS VULNERABLE?

Everyone - often those who believe they are too intelligent or
strongwilled to be recruited!

WHEN? - During normal transition times, including:

- the first year away from family home.
- a job change or loss.
- a year "off" or after graduation.
- a sudden illness, death, or accident.
- loneliness: without or away from friends or family.
- traveling or on vacation.
- growing up or growing old: the idealists, curious and/or
  depressed.
- a change in lifestyle or homeland.

WHERE?

- On campus, in dorms, in student unions, outside counseling
centers, or within student organizations or where they gather.

- At a conference, self-improvement seminar, stress class or
training session.

- On the street corner, in front of the library or post office,
on a military base, in your office (solicitations to feed the
hungry, fight drugs, help the homeless, improve or save the
environment, promote peace), in high schools.

- In religious organizations, nursing homes and hospitals.

- At a dance, party, fast-food restaurant, sports event, concert,
or weekend retreat.

- In your own home: contacts with service people, childcare
workers, housekeepers, and others. [family/friends]

- Through business associates or co-workers.

BY WHOM?

- the friendliest person you have ever met.

- A person too interested in what you like to do.

- Someone who thinks you are wonderful and knows you have
connections, influence, or financial resources.

- Someone who has all the answers.

MARKS OF A DESTRUCTIVE CULT:

- Mind Control (undue influence): manipulation by use of coercive
persuasion or behavior modification techniques without informed
consent.

- Charismatic Leadership: claiming divinity or special knowledge
and demanding unquestioning obedience with power and privilege.
Leadership may consist of one individual or a small core of
leaders.

- Deception: recruiting and fundraising with hidden objectives
and without full disclosure of the use of mind controlling
techniques [group psychology]; use of "front groups."

- Exclusivity: secretiveness or vagueness by followers regarding
activities and beliefs.

- Alienation: separation from family, friends and society, a
change in values and substitution of the cult as the new
"family;" evidence of subtle or abrupt personality changes.

- Exploitation: can be financial, physical, or psychological;
pressure to give money, to spend a great deal on courses or give
excessively to special projects and to engage in inappropriate
sexual activities, even child abuse.

- Totalitarian Worldview (we/they syndrome): effecting
dependence, promoting goals of the group over the individual and
approving unethical behavior while claiming goodness.

HARMFUL EFFECTS

- Loss of free will and control over one's life.

- Development of dependency and return to child-like behavior.

- Loss of spontaneity or sense of humor.

- Inability to form intimate friendships outside the cult or
enjoy flexible relationships.

- Physical deterioration and abuse.

- Psychological deterioration (including hallucinations, anxiety,
paranoia, disorientation, and dissociation).

- Involuntary, de facto servitude or exploitation.

Note: Not all of these harmful effects will be experienced by
everyone who has a destructive cult experience.

WHO ARE THEY?

Destructive cults fall into several different categories,
including:

- religious
- therapy/self-awareness
- political
- commercial
- new age
- satanic/ritual abuse

TECHNIQUES OF MIND CONTROL

- Group Pressure and "Love-Bombing" discourages doubts and
reinforces the need to belong through use of child-like games,
singing, hugging, touching, or flattery.

- Isolation/Separation creates inability or lack of desire to
verify information provided by the group with reality.

- Thought-Stopping Techniques introduce recruit to meditating,
chanting, and repetitious activities which, when used
excessively, induce a state of high suggestibility.

- Fear and Guilt induced by eliciting confessions to produce
intimacy and to reveal fears and secrets, to create emotional
vulnerability by overt and covert threats, as well as alternation
of punishment and reward.

- Sleep Deprivation encouraged under the guise of spiritual
exercises, necessary training, or urgent projects.

- Inadequate Nutrition sometimes disguised a special diet to
improve health or advance spirituality, or as rituals requiring
fasting.

- Sensory Overload forces acceptance of complex new doctrine,
goals, and definitions to replace old values by expecting recruit
to assimilate masses of information quickly with little
opportunity for critical examinations.

Note:  Not all of these features need to be present
simultaneously for a mind control regime to be operative.

For more information on CAN or for information on specific groups
contact:

CAN National Office
2421 W. Pratt Blvd., Suite 1173
Chicago, IL 60645
(312)267-7777

You can also contact:

American Family Foundation
P.O. Box 2265
Bonita Springs, FL 33959-2265
(212)249-7693


Quote:

"When your meet the friendliest people you have ever known, who
introduce you to the most loving group of people you've ever
encountered, and you find the leader to be the most inspired,
caring, compassionate and understanding person you've ever met,
and then you learn that the cause of the group is something you
never dared hope could be accomplished, and all of this sounds too
good to be true, it probably is too good to be true!  Don't give
up your education, your hopes and ambitions, to follow a
rainbow."  -- Jeanne Mills,

former member of the People's Temple and subsequent victim of
assassination a year following the November 18, 1978 Jonestown
suicides/murders of 911 adults and children.


Suggested Reading List:

_Combatting_Cult-Mind_Control_, Steve Hassan, Park Street Press,
Rochester, VT, 1988, $16.95 [now in paperback]

_Cults_and_Consquences:_The_Definitive_Handbook_, Rachel Andres
and James R. Lane, Jewish Federation Council of Los Angeles,
1988, $14.95

_Influence_, Robert B. Cialdini, William Morrow, New York, 1984,
$12.45

_Cults:_What_Parents_Should_Know_, Joan Carol Ross, Ed.M. and
Michael Longone, Ph.D., Carol Publishing Group, 1988, $5.95


As a disclaimer, let me say that I was in a religious cult from
1973-1980 when my parents had me deprogrammed.  I have since
written and lectured extensively on cults and have appeared on
national television.  I have published a handbook on recovering
from group trauma that is distributed through CAN's bookstore.

I do not get any moneys from CAN for this book.  Moneys CAN
receives from the sale of my handbook go to the John G. Clark
Victim Assistance Fund.

    Thanks for posting that!  :)
    
    Steve

    Bible Believers' Resource Page, with information about cults, and other
    points of interest to the Christian, can be found on the Web at the
    following URL: http://www.callamer.com/~kcondron.
    
    Bob