Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: MHCS results
Message-ID: <210@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 26-Jan-85 12:35:48 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.210
Posted: Sat Jan 26 12:35:48 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Jan-85 04:53:56 EST
References: <1784@uvacs.UUCP> <2765@ncsu.UUCP> <484@ecsvax.UUCP> <168@cadre.ARPA> <7547@brl-tgr.ARPA> <192@cadre.ARPA> <260@teklds.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.flame:8080 net.religion:5376 net.philosophy:1397
Summary: 

In article <260@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) writes:
>
>I really think this should be moved to net.religion or something but
>here goes anyway, since you are discussing it here.
>
>I think the term cult in general terminology today means:
>
>1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God.
>2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God.
>
>These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the
>term cult.
>
This is ridiculous!  Maybe this is the Fundamentalist Christian
definition of cult, but perhaps Webster's is more authoratative
as to "general terminology": "a system of religious beliefs or
ritual".  This includes "Christianity", of course.  If some people
would like to adopt a provincial view and call themselves the
"true believers" and everyone who disagrees with them a "cult"
then perhaps making the term a perjorative and applying it to those
of differing belief will make them feel better when rational argument
and discourse fail them.  One would hope that as people become
more educated and mature, name-calling would become less necessary.