What do words mean when we mean them to mean something else when their meaning doesnt seem to apply?
More properly I would say all cults are religions.
I can only speak of Christian cults, and those are defined as any group that claims to follow Christ, but who follow another person whom they exalt as Christ's equal, and who follow a book to which they give equal importance as the bible, or a heavily edited bible. Or so I was taught at a Christian University by a man who studied cults extensively.
I think that's a very narrow viewpoint aimed to de-legitimise other Christians sects.
Being a Christian means holding "a very narrow viewpoint," no?
I can only speak of Christian cults, and those are defined as any group that claims to follow Christ, but who follow another person whom they exalt as Christ's equal, and who follow a book to which they give equal importance as the bible, or a heavily edited bible. Or so I was taught at a Christian University by a man who studied cults extensively.
Umm the standard King James Bible is "heavily edited." The topic of which specific religious texts were actually a part of the Bible was hotly debated for 1,500 years after Christ (with no real rhyme or reason behind the final canon), and the text was translated, interpreted, re-translated, and re-interpreted countless times.
Choosing books is not editing them. And the KJV says nothing like, "And LuckyDan stood beside the Lord. And the Lord Said unto LuckyDan 'Thou art too cool for school. Ye shall be my bro henceforth.'"
You get the idea. That's heavily edited
If I remember correctly, the King James Version was a compilation from the various scrolls that existed, and then translated. Of necessity, not all scrolls could be added, and not all of each scroll was included. I would call that editing.
I am curious, under your definition of heavily edited, does that then mean that those christian groups that use other than the KJV of the bible, say the Revised Standard Edition, are cults?
(edit: in response to LuckYDan) I wonder what religion he had in mind lol. So I take it that it was all right for Mathew, Mark, and Luke to believe that God spoke to Moses and also to them in their lives and they viewed both as the word of God, but if a Nephi or a Joseph Smith were given revelation from heaven and believed that God spoke to men and women anciently and to them and they viewed both as sacred, they would be a cult. If a cult is opposite of the "Christianity" of your professor, then I love the term.
There are some Christians who are skeptical of any version but the KJV, but no, I am not among them.
His teacher had one religion in mind with those comments, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. When he says edited he means the Book of Mormon quotes many Biblical passages. The problem with that is the New Testament quotes heavily the Old Testament. So if he was consistent he would have to reject the New Testament as scripture.
I would love to spend a day with your scholar friend and discuss the origins of the bible. I do have some observations and questions. I don't argue religion because at the end of the day we would part ways and I would not have changed my opinion, nor would he.
Depends on your definition of cult, and religion. There are some that would define a religious cult as any religion other than their own.
He was a very learned - and a very kind and patient - man. I'm sure you would enjoy talking to him if you had the chance.
This idea of changing opinions, though, on any topic, is really a waste of time. Clarifying ideas is a much more constructive end.
So back to my post 4, it seems that I was correct. It does depend on your definition of cult and religion. And generally speaking yours is the true religion, the rest are cults.