Re:Britain 1, USA 0 (Score 1)

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.