49,076
edits
More actions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:Or is their name not enough of a definition? Are you looking specifically for description/dialogue that says 'this is X they're a cult, they do stuff'. | :Or is their name not enough of a definition? Are you looking specifically for description/dialogue that says 'this is X they're a cult, they do stuff'. | ||
:It just seems like an odd set of questions, the cults exist, they have members and a leader and so we have categories. (Or am I missing a logic jump?). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:50, August 15, 2011 (UTC) | :It just seems like an odd set of questions, the cults exist, they have members and a leader and so we have categories. (Or am I missing a logic jump?). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 15:50, August 15, 2011 (UTC) | ||
A useful definition of 'cult' in the real world is difficult enough. L. Sprague DeCamp, in SPIRITS, STARS AND SPELLS, defines it as any religious group whose members are, largely, converts. He admits that this is a ridiculous definition, but cannot conceive of any more exact for sociological purposes. For such a punctilious writer to admit that, shows how difficult the definition is. The French had a department of state in charge of religious affairs from the fall of Napoleon I, on and off, through 1905. It was responsible for administering the Concordat with the Pope and for similar arrangements with the Protestants and Jews. It was called 'The Ministry of Cults'. So first, we need a good definition of the word, which doesn't seem to exist. Furthermore, when we descend from the word's meaning in general use, to its use in the DWU, which almost invariably involves a group of people Up to No Good.... [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 00:04, August 16, 2011 (UTC) | |||