True, but there are objective definitions.
First, on matters of adherence to biblical doctrine, St. Francis said this: "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity". This means that difference of opinion over worship style, dress, etc. should be unimportant, and shouldn't get in the way of focusing on the essentials of learning to follow God, and those differences don't define cults.
When defining a cult, Dr. Walter Martin (RIP) wrote the definitive work in the 1970's called "The Kingdom of the Cults". It is an exhaustive, massive reference book that simply points out where each and every religious group in the world differs from Biblical doctrine.
You know when you're in a cult when:
1) The group is led by a charismatic leader who demands obedience to his word above any others.
2) The leader insists on doing your thinking for you, i.e. arranged marriages, etc.
3) The group grants teachings that are not the Bible equal or greater standing than the Bible.
4) The leader teaches that all other churches/groups/whatever are missing it, and only HIS way is really hearing God.
5) The leader doesn't even attempt to live by his own principles.
Sounds like Scientology fits the definition to me.
I'm definitely crossing the U.K. off my travel list. They've gone completely 'round the bend. A christian cannot define an objective definition of what a cult is... 1900 years ago they were cultists by the norms of the day.
"Cult" v. "Religion" is inherently a relative value judgement, a subjective criticism of the "others". This a complete WTF moment for me. I am astounded by the arrogance of all extremists.
This list is passing bizarre. Many American pastors fit this definition, with an emphasis on non-biblical tenets such as wealth (isn't greed one of the seven deadly sins?) over Jesus' actual teachings, which I will not bother you with.
Except for one: let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I believe you are explicitly incorrect. The first amendment clearly says that no law may be passed abridging freedom of speech. Abridging is an interesting word. I like to think of it as very similar to encroaching. The word implies a "complete" right, absolute freedom of speech. No law of Congress (what about states?, by implication they also cannot infringe the national constitution) can impair that right. So if it is a complete right, it is everything you can imagine. And you should!
So if you speak anonymously, do not ask if the Constitution gives you that right. It does. Any law that forces you to identify yourself in relation to your speech, if you have chosen to speak anonymously, is inherently un-constitutional. This does not say that you are not responsible for covering your own tracks. This does not say it is unlawful to try to find out who said something. You are responsible for defending your own anonymity by your own definition of "best practice".
Free speech is wonderful, complicated, and sometimes sucky (when it is millions of dollars of swift-boat drivel hitting your frontal lobe for example). When you are being assaulted by K-Street's version of free speech, say a little mantra to yourself, thank the framers that even idiots and assholes are consecrated in the First Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I believe you are explicitly incorrect. The first amendment clearly says that no law may be passed abridging freedom of speech. Abridging is an interesting word. I like to think of it as very similar to encroaching. The word implies a "complete" right, absolute freedom of speech. No law of Congress (what about states?, by implication they also cannot infringe the national constitution) can impair that right. So if it is a complete right, it is everything you can imagine. And you should! So if you speak anonymously, do not ask if the Constitution gives you that right. It does. Any law that forces you to identify yourself in relation to your speech, if you have chosen to speak anonymously, is inherently un-constitutional. This does not say that you are not responsible for covering your own tracks. This does not say it is unlawful to try to find out who said something. You are responsible for defending your own anonymity by your own definition of "best practice". Free speech is wonderful, complicated, and sometimes sucky (when it is millions of dollars of swift-boat drivel hitting your frontal lobe for example). When you are being assaulted by K-Street's version of free speech, say a little mantra to yourself, thank the framers that even idiots and assholes are consecrated in the First Amendment.