Church or Cult?

church or cult? so understand what you say. Are we not the church. When two or more are gathered in his name.
Speak Jesus and you will know who your friend is I can guarantee it. Even the evil one can not stand in his name.
Be aware be very aware!!!!
I am nothing but his word is everything!!!!

As a side note nothemama8, there are still plenty of these cult members who sell flowers on the street, having signed everything else over to the leaders. You don't recognize them per se anymore (they don't stand out like they used to) because they have become wise to the disdain of "true believers."

I hear all will be deceived and trust in no man. ??

the bible tells us that it is the word of god and that it is the literal truth.

why should we believe that?

because the bible tells us that it is.

but why should we believe that the bible tells us the truth and that it is the word of god?

because the bible tells us that it is?

my uncle said 'i am the son of god'.

why should we believe that my uncle was telling the truth?

because my uncle said he was the son of god and that he was telling the literal truth.

but why should we believe that?

the evidence in favour of my uncle telling the truth (and saying what is the will of god) seems strangely similar to the evidence in favor of the bible telling the truth (and saying what is the word of god)

sure the bible won more converts...

but then my uncle was taken away by community mental health precisely BECAUSE he was winning converts

(similarly to how jesus was taken away by the romans precisely BECAUSE he was winning converts)

but following jesus is thought to be a 'religion'
and folling my uncle is thought to be 'delusional' / a 'cult'.

and... what is the difference?

because miracles happened in the bible?
how do we know miracles happened?
because the bible tells us so? (and the bible is the word of god because the bible tells us it is)?
my uncle said he performed miracles.
people believed that he did precisely because he said he did (and what he said is the word of god because my uncle told us so)

and so what is the difference between a cult, delusion, and religion???????

(i'm trying to help people grasp the problem)

i thought it was an interesting idea that people have to make sense / meaning out of their lives and that that leads to religion. i guess that one trouble is that there are many atheists in the world who don't seem to need religion / cult / delusion to make sense / meaning out of their life. so i don't think that cult / delusion / religion is necessary for sense / meaning.

where do the church of the flying spaghetti monster and the church of virus fit into the picture? church or cult or delusion? can you think of a reason that doesn't equally apply to what are commonly regarded as 'religion'?

freud thought that one idealises ones parent (father usually). then there comes a time where we realise that our father isn't omnipotent as we thought he was. because we cannot relinquish the ideal we 'project' that onto this mythical being: god. freud thought that god was a product of the human mind that was unwilling / unable to relinquish this ideal.

but then there are many atheists in the world who still manage to find sense / meaning. so it isn't inevitable that people need to believe. and many atheists have a sense of purpose and morality etc that is comperable to the sense of purpose and morality that people find in religion (if not even more so - arguably)

so...

i'm still not sure on the difference...

The main difference is the disception and coercion one finds in a cult, as opposed to religion. (And without throwing stones, I hold to this and thus many so called religions are in fact, cults.) Freewill and non-legalism is what keeps the two separate.

My faith gives me the right to make my own choices. I do have freewill. God gives it to me. In a cult, this is not so. You are coerced into believing that you are following a higher power when you are really satisfying the needs of the leaders only.

Eric Fromm stated, "The power that gives the facist leader his real authority is most often given by his followers."

But isn't god being given power by his followers? I've heard it said if one beileves they know gods will, then they do not no god. This is one of those arguements that can go on forever lol..personally I don't know god and to say I know his will is just fantasy.

Oh, certainly I don't believe that God needs anything from me, and since He was before the beginning of me, He did quite well I think I do "know" Him as best as I can, and believe He tells me His will through His word, the Bible and through things that He allows to happen in my life.

Mouse, when you say you don't know god and that saying you know his will is fantasy, are you expressing that also as though you believe NO ONE can know his will since you don't think they can know him? Did I read that right?

alexandra k: my uncle said 'i am the son of god'.

why should we believe that my uncle was telling the truth?

because my uncle said he was the son of god and that he was telling the literal truth.

but why should we believe that?

the evidence in favour of my uncle telling the truth (and saying what is the will of god) seems strangely similar to the evidence in favor of the bible telling the truth (and saying what is the word of god)

sure the bible won more converts...

but then my uncle was taken away by community mental health precisely BECAUSE he was winning converts

I'm willing to entertain the notion that the bible is the word of God, but I'm also well aware of the fact that it's been heavily edited by ordinary mortals. Meanwhile, here's something worth pondering...

All religions are based on the altered states of consciousness experienced by their founders. Moses had an indepth conversation with a burning bush; Christ battled Satan in the desert; Buddha had to kick Mara's illusionary butt, etc. In this culture, the name we have for those altered states of consciousness is "psychosis".

John Weir Perry, the Jungian psychiatrist whose work has been so insightful to me in terms of understanding my own experience has noted...<blockquote><font size=3><font color=DC143C>
O'C: How long does the experience (psychosis/schizophrenia) normally last?

PERRY: The acute hallucinatory phase, during which these contents go through the re-ordering process, usually lasts about six weeks. This, by the way, corresponds to the classical description of visionary experiences in various religious texts, such as the proverbial "forty days in the wilderness" often referred to in the Bible. Anyway, six weeks is roughly it.</font></font>

Source: Mental Breakdown as Healing

See also: Trials of the Visionary Mind</blockquote>

Which begs the question: In following a religion, is one following the vision of a madman? Or, is there something more going on than what we can see?

There came a point in my own experience when time melted; it did not exist. There was no past, no present, no future -- indeed, anything that had ever occurred or ever would was all happening within one singular instant. It was Everything and Nothing. That's the point in which I say, "God showed up."

It's also worth noting that there came a point in that experience when it was conveyed to me that I too was "Jesus". I've touched on this issue in the Metaphor thread in the Schizophrenia and Pyschosis forum. I suspect that what is happening when an individual self-identifies as Christ (or Buddha, or Krishna, or any other icon/symbol that represents "God" within that culture) is that they're tapping into a state of consciousness that includes unconditional love, compassion, and redemption. What happens however is those around that individual interpret such statements literally instead of metaphorically. They get distinctly weirded out by them and they call in reinforcements -- often in the form of hospital personnel and medication.

Your uncle's experience reminds me of a fellow I know by the name of Isaiah. He too thought he was the son of god. According to Isaiah, he underwent more than 200 electroshock treatments and 200 hours of insulin coma as penance for his crime. In spite of psychiatry's "best" treatment, Isaiah still believes that he is Jesus Christ. I've wondered if, at this point, his belief that he is, is a form of compensation for the shame, trauma and humiliation of his treatments.

As for me, I am still digesting some of the weightier spiritual matters of my own experience. I struggle to make sense of them and bring them down to human terms. I do know that at the point of my greatest despair and anguish, something showed up and that something was something mighty powerful. I have my own names for that point in my experience: Kali, The Black Madonna, Sophia, The Tao, Dark Mater, Silence -- the field of quantum physics seems to contain the most possibility for my answers. Still, I can't exactly say... Was that "God" or was it a neurochemical response to despair that unfolded deep within the limbic structure of my brain? I don't know entirely, I only know that it was Something.

See also: Awakening by the Gate of Sorrow

EEEhhh, I think I said personally in my post....I believe people believe they know gods will...thats just my belief...hey we could get real caught up in this belief thing lol...

Jesus said (In John 5: 31-39):

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. (self)

There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. (the Holy Ghost)

Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. (John the Baptist)

But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. (or consider another translation: "And he received not his testimony of man, but of God, and ye yourselves say that he is a prophet, therefore ye ought to receive his testimony. These things I say ...")

He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.

But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. (His works)

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

And ye have not heard his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, ye believe not.

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (the scriptures)

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Jesus did not expect anyone to just take his word for it that he was the son of God or that what he said was true. He outlined at least six different ways for us to know (as I have emphasized in parentheses). He also promised that there would always be more than one witness (Matthew 18: 16 - "... in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." )

How many cult leaders provide more than their own word as evidence that they speak the truth? How many of them encourage their followers to investigate and question and find out for themselves?

And then, how you choose to define "cult" also comes into play. By many definitions Christianity would have been considered a cult when it was new, as it did start as a small group of people giving all that they had to follow one charismatic leader, and going against cultural norms of their society at the time. Now Christianity would not meet most definitions of a cult, as there are many Christians and many societal norms are based on Christianity, and also it has been around long enough to stand the test of time.

There may be some overlap between cult, religion, and delusion. Some (or some might say all) religions may start as cults. Beliefs may be true, or not. Maybe outsiders can't always determine whether or not someone's beliefs are supported by adequate evidence to determine whether they are beliefs or delusions. Sometimes time clears things up. Will the religion and beliefs still be around 100 years from now? How about in 1000 or 2000 years? Sometimes the only way to know is to wait and see.

I think that one of the biggest keys is the works that the leaders and the members do. If they do good works, and have a positive effect on others and on their own lives, then they may have some merit. If they do evil works, then they are not of God.

"You will know a tree by its fruit."

You will find what God wills/wants in the Bible. If you have faith in Him and His leading, you will know minute by minute in your daily life. He will reveal His will to you if you ask and wait silently for His answer to the point that things/problems will be taken out of your hands and will be resolved in the best way possible. I can attest to that happening in my life in just the last week!

Beware of those saying they know God's MIND, though!

i said once before that currently there is an exclusionary criteria that a mental disorder shouldn't be diagnosed when the symptoms are due to religious conviction.

this has been challenged by a number of people.

i'm trying to get my head around it... personally... i think that one day the exclusionary criteria will be dropped.

religious experiences seem to be more prevalent in people who have TLE (temporal lobe epilepsy). They seem to be associated with the disruption to ordinary neural functioning (the seizure activity) Maher talks about what he calls 'anomalous experiences' which occur in psychotic episodes. It is like Jasper's 'delusional awareness' which can be some sense / feeling / awareness that things are significant or important in some way...

Religious experience can indicate that there is neurological damage.

But religious experience can provide a basis for music and literature and art and acts of kindness and love.

But religious experience can provide a basis for war and colonialism and intolerance of the religious experiences of others.

it is interesting that one line on mental disorder is that there must be:

- inner malfunction
- that leads to harmful behaviours

where there are objective facts about whether there is neurological malfunction or not and then we need to assess the behavioural consequences on pragmatic grounds. the notion is that while the first condition is objective (which means that there are facts about mental disorder like there are facts about physical disorder) it is also true that normative judgements come into assessing the behaviours that result.

one example is that if you have a cognitive malfunction that improves your memory then it would be true that you have a malfunction but false that you have a 'disease' or 'disorder' because there is no harm.

are religious experiences harmful?

IMHO not in themselves. But... Sometimes they result in harm and sometimes they result in good...

i'm wary of people who think that one religious text tells the literal truth (and writes other religious groups off as cults) because it seems to me that every single religious group with some kind of bible can say:

'i know my god is the true god because my bible tells me so'

but the trouble is that they all have different bibles you see...

and since one religion hasn't managed to take over the world...
and since the prevalence rates of religion aren't distributed fairly much evenly around the globe...
(e.g., since people tend to be of the same religion as their parents such that religions are found in clusters)

i guess i'm wary of precisely what properties that one bunch of people is supposed to have that means they are a 'cult' while the other is a religion. of course to appeal to such things as 'promotes freedom of speech and encourages people to question' won't help the issue along because there has been much written on how religions don't allow one to do that.

(e.g., catholic dogma is that you believe what the pope tells you. the pope tells you you are literally drinking the blood of jesus body in communion wine (transubstantiation) and hence you should believe that if you are a good catholic).

'i am drinking the blood of christ'.
'my wife has been replaced by an impostor'.
why is the first acceptable but the second delusional?
'the ufo's are taking us to heaven'.
and why is that last one there considered to be a cult whereas the first a religion?

surely it isn't too hard to find something that is a doctrine / dogma / found in the bible kind of a thing that you can plug in instead of the doctrine of transubstantiation?

what to make of this???

personally... i think it is an argument against a literal reading of the bible... and it is one reason why we should be tolerant to other religions / faiths / religious experiences while being very careful to assess for harm (in both ourselves and our religion and in others and in their religion).

but writing off other people as being a 'cult' is (IMHO) to disrespect their beliefs. if the consequences of their beliefs are harmful then whether they are a religion or whether they are a cult intervention would seem to be in order... but to call them a 'cult' rather than a 'religion' is kind of... to make them guilty by connotation (e.g., label something as racist and since everyone agrees racism is bad that person becomes guilty in virtue of being thus labelled. call someone a terrorist...)

I agree, no man can know the MIND of God Not anywhere near the stretch of the imagination...but what we keep finding out about quantum mechanics and physics is AWEsome!

I disagree that Christianity was a cult, ever. While I know that secularism declares it just like any other true cult behavior, it isn't so imo. What Christ preached was a fulfillment of Judaism. He didn't come to condemn the law of the Jews, but to fulfill it. The prophecies of the Messiah had been there for a very long time, and Christ didn't create anything new in that respect. Plus, Christ is the only one who claimed to have risen from the dead. No other prophet did that. AND Christ was seen by thousands afterwards. It's an interesting study that I won't elaborate here.

I'm thinking the topic of mental disorder and beliefs should be in another thread, as I think it's different than CULT vs CHURCH issues.

If something is a CULT and fits the definition as it is, then I would not feel bad for warning anyone about it. I refer back to the deceiving and coercing aspects. No one deserves that.

alexander k: religious experiences seem to be more prevalent in people who have TLE (temporal lobe epilepsy). They seem to be associated with the disruption to ordinary neural functioning (the seizure activity) Maher talks about what he calls 'anomalous experiences' which occur in psychotic episodes. It is like Jasper's 'delusional awareness' which can be some sense / feeling / awareness that things are significant or important in some way...

I just made a post in this theme in the thread The Relationship Between Schizophrenia and Mysticism that may be of interest to you.

cult beliefs are typically regarded to be delusional whereas religious beliefs are excluded from being regarded as delusional as a matter of stipulation. if the distinction between cult and religion is unjustifyable then it might similarly be the case that the distinction between religious belief and delusional belief is similarly unjustifyable.

> I disagree that Christianity was a cult, ever.

I still don't understand what the difference between a 'cult' and a 'religion' is...

> What Christ preached was a fulfillment of Judaism.

well that won't help you if you think that Judaism is a cult too...

> Christ is the only one who claimed to have risen from the dead. No other prophet did that.

so if my uncle said he rose from the dead then he would have founded a religion rather than a cult?

> AND Christ was seen by thousands afterwards.

and if my uncle managed to persuade thousands of followers that he had risen from the dead then he would have founded a religion rather than a cult?

i guess i still think that your definition of cult vs religion is something along the lines of: the closer it is to the deliverances of my bible the more it is a religion whereas the further away it is from the deliverances of my bible the more it is a cult.

but then my uncle (who had religious texts that claimed to be inspired by god) could apply the same line of argument in order to conclude that his group was a religion whereas your group is a cult.

so we would have cult-ural relativism har de har har...

> If something is a CULT and fits the definition as it is, then I would not feel bad for warning anyone about it. I refer back to the deceiving and coercing aspects. No one deserves that.

so now it comes down to what activities count as 'deceiving and coercing'. isn't the presence of 'deception and coercion' likely to be as controversial as whether something is a cult or religion? i'm not sure how that helps advance the dialectic. i assure you my uncle wasn't intending to decieve or coerce. he happened to be a dynamic person and the followers willingly followed him. he also seemed to genuinely believe what he was saying. he might well have been misguided (i think he was mentally ill myself) but i really do think that he genuinely believed what he was saying. and that is why he is typically regarded as mentally ill rather than as morally devient (aka: evil).

tricky though...
sociopathy is another that is tricky (evil or ill???)

thanks for that.
i do find it interesting
:-)

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
hmm... i still fail to see the difference...

once again, i will re-iterate that i'm not at all trying to be sarcastic or smart... but i still struggle with the difference.

is the only identifying characteristic between a cult (where there can be mass delusion)

i guess i'm still failing to grasp the difference...


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">


To sum it all up in one sentence, I will say this.....

In the world today a CULT is any religion / group that goes against the teachings of Christ or that has a leader that is claiming to be the One True Christ or Anti-Christ.

IMHO - I think that is how this world looks at the word CULT..... per society.

LoVe,
Rhapsody -

> In the world today a CULT is any religion / group that goes against the teachings of Christ or that has a leader that is claiming to be the One True Christ or Anti-Christ.

is this definition supposed to be descriptive or normative?
(another way of putting this is: do you think that this is acutually how people who are speakers of English actually DO use the word 'cult' or are you prescribing that this is how speakers of English SHOULD use the word 'cult'?)

i'm sorry but descriptively... it fails.
we simply don't use the word that way.
islam, hinduism, buddihsm, judaism, are not typically considered to be cults and we would regard them as cults if your definition adequately captured the way we use the term 'cult'. in fact christianity would fail on the above definition because christ claimed to be the one true christ...

maybe what you had in mind is the normative claim?

something along the lines of 'my beliefs are religious and if you believe somethign i don't then you aren't a religion at all you are a cult'

?

that is what it is about really, isn't it?

only trouble is that if you judge other people in such a way then it is only more likely that they will return the favor back to you and so you better jolly well make sure you retain power with which to subjegate them 'cause if they get the power... you might be locked up for your 'cultish' religious beliefs.

does this make sense?

IMHO it would really really suck if the only difference between cult / religion and spiritual / religious and cultish beliefs was a matter of the beliefs of those with the power to involountarily commit others. because psychiatry would be a form of social control, you see.

i guess i just hope that there is a difference...
a tenable difference...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
> In the world today a CULT is any religion / group that goes against the teachings of Christ or that has a leader that is claiming to be the One True Christ or Anti-Christ.

is this definition supposed to be descriptive or normative?
(another way of putting this is: do you think that this is acutually how people who are speakers of English actually DO use the word 'cult' or are you prescribing that this is how speakers of English SHOULD use the word 'cult'?)

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

IMHO - I think that is how this world looks at the word CULT..... per society.

To all involved in this thread:

This thread is looking more and more like a debate, rather than the support that this forum is intended to be used for. Please keep your replies supportive and keep in mind how any of your comments may appear or feel threatening to someone's beliefs. Definitions are not always agreed upon, and the questions being asked here depend on definitions. Everyone can find a definition that will support their own point if they look hard enough. Is the definition of a cult a hill that you are willing to die on?

Rap

p.s. This was a "quick reply" and is not intended to be directed towards any particular person.

Rhapsody, I will say that THIS instance it is a cult, according to the theological definition, which is the realm in which he is operating. This guy is "local" here...though his reach is far and wide

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
To be classified as a cult, not all of the following characteristics have to be present, but in most cases, in one form or another, all of them will be:

1. Extrabiblical Authority: All cults deny what God says in His Word as true. Cults have shifted their theological point of authority away from God's full and final written Word, the Bible, to their own unique, self-promoting opinions about the Bible; they generally will use parts of the Bible but will have their own unique scripture which is considered to be superior to the Bible. While some cult groups give token respect for the Bible and go through the motions of accepting the authority of Scripture, in reality, they honor the group's or leader's novel interpretation of Scripture as normative.


2. Works Salvation/Legalism: Cults teach that eternal life depends upon something other than the Atonement; i.e., faith in the atoning, finished work of Christ on the cross is deemed not to be sufficient (usually replaced with human works and human responsibility). Rather than relying on the grace of God alone for salvation, the salvation message of the cults always boils down to required obedience to, or abstention from, certain obligations and practices (some even including obedience to the Old Testament law).


3. No Assurance of Salvation: The issue of a cult member's salvation is never settled, but is constantly affected by the changing circumstances of life; in this way, cult leaders are able to produce continued obligation and spiritual bondage, rather than spiritual freedom.



4. Guru-Type Leader/Modern Prophet: The cult leader is looked to as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, specially appointed by God to be a special saint, guru, or contemporary messiah, and thereby, has divine authority that must not be violated. Cultists almost always quote their leader rather than the Bible. The cult's adherents often expound the virtues of the founders and seek to cover the founder's sins and wickedness.

5. Vacillating, Ambiguous Doctrines/Spiritual Deception: In order to gain favor with the public, and thereby aid in the recruitment of new members, cult "doctrine" tends to be characterized by many false or deceptive claims concerning the cult's true spiritual beliefs

6. Exclusivity from/Denunciation of Other Groups: Each cult group, regardless of what other doctrines are taught, will all have this one common idea -- "The Only True Church Syndrome." The members of each specific organization have been taught that their church, organization, or community, is the only true group and that all other groups are false. The group's leaders will explain that it is impossible to serve God without being a member of the specific group. Moreover, when the cult leader announces himself as the true "Messiah," all others are declared to be dishonest, deceitful, and deluded, and must be put down; alternative views are denounced as being satanic and corrupt. Persecution is welcomed, and even glorified in, as "evidence" that they are being persecuted for righteousness sake. Thus, if a member decides to leave the group, they have been told that they are not simply leaving an organization, but rather they are leaving God and His only true organization. Hence, for a member of a cult who has been in a group for any length of time, the action of leaving the group is much more difficult than what most Christians understand. To leave the group is, in the minds of the cult member, tantamount to leaving God.



7. Claims of Special Discoveries/Additional Revelation: Acceptance of new, contemporary, continual revelations that either deny the Bible or are allowed to explain it. The fundamental characteristic of Christianity is that it is historical, not dependent upon private knowledge and secret, unconfirmable relationships, while the almost universal basis of cult religion is the claimed exclusive revelation that one person has supposedly received. Rather than conforming to Biblical rules of evidence (2 Cor. 13:1), cult leader revelations almost always emanate from hallucinations, visions, dreams, private discoveries, etc. These new revelations often become codified as official written "scripture" of the cults, and are considered as valid as that of the apostles (and even more relevant because they are given in these end times).


8. Defective Christology: Cults always have a false view of the nature of the Person of Jesus Christ; a cult will usually deny the true deity of Christ, His true humanity, His true origin, or the true union of the two natures in one Person.


9. Defective "Nature of Man": Most cults do not see man as an immortal being; instead they see him either as an animal without a soul or as a being which is being perfected to the point of becoming a god. They usually do not see man as a spirit clothed in a body of flesh awaiting the redemption of body and soul.



10. Out-Of-Context Scripture Use as Proof-Texts/Segmented Biblical Attention: Cults tend to focus on one verse or passage of the Bible to the exclusion of others, and without regard for the context in which Scripture is given (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:29 used by Mormons to justify baptism for the dead). In addition, cults have made an art form out of using Christian terminology, all the while pouring out their own meanings into the words.

11. Erroneous Doctrines Concerning Life After Death and Retribution: Covering the gamut from soul sleep to annihilationism to purgatory to universalism to the progression to godhood, cults invariably deny the existence of a final judgment of, and a final "resting" place for, the unrighteous.


12. Entangling Organization Structure: The less truth a movement represents, the more highly it seems to have to organize itself; the absence of truth seems to make necessary the application of the bonds of fear. Cults often demand total commitment by their converts to an organizational involvement that entangles them in a complicated set of human restrictions, giving the impression of passionate and often irrational devotion to a cause.


13. Financial Exploitation: The cultic practitioner strongly implies that money contributed to the cause will earn the contributor numerous gifts, powers, and abilities, and in many cases, outright salvation.


14. Pseudomystical/Spiritistic/Occultic Influence: Occult influence is many times found in either the origin of the group and/or in its current practices.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

> Please keep your replies supportive

I guess it is hard because the thread was started with the question of whether a bunch of beliefs constituted a religion or a cult.

So... The discussion is going to be around what a religion is compared to what a cult is.

> Everyone can find a definition that will support their own point if they look hard enough.

They can... But typically what we are trying to do is:
1) Come up with a definition that captures the way that society actually uses the term (because a term in English has a common meaning for English speakers)
2) Come up with a definition that prescribes the way that society SHOULD use the term (because one is being a revisionist about language).

I guess one needs to further distinguish between
1) What x (in this case a cult) IS
and
2) What particular beliefs we take to be beliefs of a cult / delusion

These might come apart, you see.

Society doesn't really have a satisfactory definition of what a cult IS. But society does seem to have a sort of consensus on what sorts of beliefs are considered characteristic of a cult. But why do we have the intuitions that we do about whether a belief is a sign of a cult or a religion?

Do intutions vary across cultures?

I think they do... We are tending to become more aware of cultural variation now. And we are tending to be less quick to regard beliefs to be 'cult' rather than 'religion'. I say this because the DSM (for example) is really very careful to draw clinicians attention towards assessing cultural differences.

Here is a story (a true story).
It happened in NZ.

A Maori woman was hospitalised because she kept saying that her recently decesased husband kept visiting her at night and talking to her. She was very distressed about this.

In hospital she was given heavy doses of anti-psychotics to try and stop the hallucinations / delusions. She was dx'd with a psychotic episode.

In hospital she kept asking for an elder (koromatua). It was hard to find one... Eventually one came out. She said that the house had to be blessed or her husbands spirit would be locked in the house. That the house hadn't been blessed and that was why her husband was angry. The elder performed the blessing ceremony. Her symptoms remitted completely. She was discharged the next day.

One might be tempted to treat 'my dead husband keeps visiting me' as delusional. That was what happened. Apparantly this still happens in NZ sometimes. But now people know... That if they can organise an elder to bless the house they can save a lot of money on keeping the person as an inpatient, a lot of money on antipsychotics, disrespecting the persons wishes by involountarily committing them etc etc.

Cult or religion?

Tolerance has its limits sure. In particular... I'm fairly tolerant... But one thing that I will not tolerate is intolerance. When the consequences are harmful then intervention is necessary and IMHO the distinction between 'cult' and 'religion' is unjustifyable. When either result in harmful consequences intervention is necessary...

Here is a page with several definitions of cults. You can take your pick (looks like you will need to copy and paste though).

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=DKUS,DKUS:2006-46,DKUS:en&defl=en&q=define:cult&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title