The last "books" link at the RRI pagetop (just above "Disclaimer") contains the FAQ page. It's URL is [www.culteducation.com]

At first while reading I kept thinking that beliefs drive all action, so shouldn't the definition of cult go by what is believed, rather than by the resulting action? So I've spent the last five days or so pondering the question.

When I visited some chatrooms to ask folks I knew about what they thought of this definition, one of the respondents pithily replied that of two groups holding the SAME tenet, one concludes violence -- that one is then a cult. So it's how the tenet is APPLIED to behavior, not the tenet itself.

That's a remarkably wise distinction. For example, in these forums you can thus simplify your determination of whether "x" is a cult by watching all the behaviors parade. There will be people pro- and anti "x" in the forum. You can tell by their behavior whether they are merely iconoclastic against someone, or whether they are unaccountably gushy. From there, you can decide to investigate the tenets -- which take longer.

So I guess this topic's posting would be to thresh out what kind of BEHAVIORS would be indicative of a true cult -- as evidenced in the forum itself -- rather than, behaviors of individuals who themselves, are merely REACTING (pro or con).

This question has immediate historical relevance. The conflict in the Middle East is due to beliefs. From what I can tell, the Arabs are unaccountably hostile toward the Jews and toward America, and some among them use Islam as an excuse for their violence. Yet others who are Moslem, couldn't be more peace-oriented. Yet when you look at the Koran and the Hadith, you can understand why both the violent ones and the peaceful ones, conclude as they do from the SAME tenets.

Same can be said for the Bible. Throughout history the most unspeakable violence has been committed in God's Name: it's still impossible for me to grasp how a whole nation (Germany, for example) could just abuse the Jews and still think of themselves as Christians. Before that, of course, there were the RCC persecutions -- Bible was essentially kidnapped for 18 centuries, no one but RCC was allowed to have it or translate it. So it was surrepticiously (sp?) copied and translated. Then came the Reformation, which was also violent.

So what is it, that makes two different people look at the SAME tenet, and one concludes harmful behavior is holy? While the other, concludes peace? By "harmful behavior", I mean the full spectrum, whether self-to-self (i.e., obsession, so the normal balance in life becomes increasingly narrowed to the obsession itself) -- or, toward others (i.e., invective, vitriol, outright physical abuse from mere slapping to bombing/killing).

Is it the personality of the person, merely? And when you look at the same question in aggregate, wouldn't those attracted to the "harmful behavior" conclusion, aggregate into a cult?

What do you think? I'm just brainstorming here, have no particular agenda to pursue. I'm really grateful for these forums, they help me think.

Actually simple objective criteria exist for determining what is a destructive cult.

Here is a good working definition for a destructive cult as defined by a doctor that once taught at Harvard Medical School.

See [www.culteducation.com]

"Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;

2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;

3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Also see [www.culteducation.com]

Here are some "warning signs" regarding a potentially unsafe group or leader:

See [www.culteducation.com]

Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

The group/leader is always right.

The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Here are some additional "warning signs" concerning those who become involved with potentially unsafe groups and leaders:

Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.

Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.

A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.

Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.

Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.

Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.