Here is something I been thinking of while studying my world civ. class

They are not a recent trend. I think just more known these days. In the media more often. They have been around since the beginning of time.

Before Rome became a christion state christianity was a considerd a problematic cult. It even thretend the power of the Autocracy that exsisted in the Roman empire prior to its merging with that Autocracy around 200 AD.

Like jewls said, the dawn of time.
Ever since man created scociety man began to manipulate that scociety.

Not so much a trend as a scophisticated scientific aproch to its methodology.

I agree. Cults have been around forever. And if you check the original and literal meaning of the word (synopsis from an English dictionary: 'a group of people which gather to worship a divine being or beings) over 70% of todays world populus is involved with one.

Media has attached negative stigma to the word. I say make up your own mind and know what your talking about before you speak, but I don't control the airwaves.

saunders:

Yes, it does seem that cults have been with us for some time. But your choice of how to define the word "cult" is rather selective and does not reflect the way it is actually used to describe certain groups.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Note the various definitions provided.

When most people use the word "cult" they mean a destructive cult and not a benign one.

Note the definition of cult as outlined by Robert Jay Lifton, M.D. noted researcher and author once associated with Harvard Medical School.

See [www.culteducation.com]

A living totalitarian leader that has little if any meaningful accountability typically defines the group. Note the three specific criteria Liftons lists.

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;
See [www.culteducation.com]

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

saunders:

The website you have linked is largely involved in cult apology. That is, it frequently defends cults

I don't see the site as objective and/or credible and if you examine its explanation about groups called cults (e.g. Scientology).

The bias expressed really becomes evident when you read their account of the so-called "anti-cult movement" and the sources they footnote, many are cult apologists such as Dick Anthony.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Academics like Anthony, J. Gordon Melton and David Bromley have come under fire within academia for being little more than hired guns for cults.

See the following:

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.cultnews.com]

moderator:

regardless of the sites intent, which I don't really care about anyway, we were discussing the written definition not who advocates cults or who denounces them. I don't care either way as long as people are aware of who they are and how to leave/avoid them.

look, just go to any older edition of webster's dictionary and read it for yourself. that was the point. not who believes in what, but that until the controversy, the word had less negativity attached. can we drop it now? and yes I am aware that current dictionaries at times carry the definition as the negative, unethical cults seen today.

saunders

saunders:

The site's intent is a serious concern as it is important not to mislead people through links posted at this board. Perhaps you should care more about your sources and/or research them better.

The issue is not a dictionary definition, but rather a working practical one that makes sense.

The website you previously linked is not concerned with either and instead often attempts to obfuscate the relevant issues.