There really isn't much difference between a religion, and a cult, but the word cult has taken a negative meaning. Sort of like how socialism has taken a negative meaning in America, even though everyone loves their medicare, and that's socialism. Sometimes words take such a bad name in culture that people forget the positive or benign aspects of the word. Yeah, christianity is a death cult, but very few christians are going to be comfortable saying that. They want to call it eternal life, even though christian and non christian alike always wind up in a hole in the ground, as far as the rest of the world can see.

(September 13, 2018 at 6:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't necessarily know the correct distinction to make. Many argue the distinction is simply a matter of size of following. Others suggest that the divergence from mainstream religious opinions and practices characterizes a cult. Regardless, I think that an important distinction needs to be made between a group of religious followers whose faith and devotion is invested in a doctrine or a belief, and those who are invested in the personality and utterances of a person or small group of people. Thus, the Ananda Marga religion which Little Rik follows would, while P.R. Sarkar was alive, likely have tended more toward a cult than a religion. It also allows one to make meaningful distinctions in non-religious areas as well. China's gang of four would then be considered a cult. And Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung, regardless of their religious claims, would have been considered cult leaders. The question becomes somewhat tricky when it comes to the Judeo-Christian religions. Judaism is largely a belief in doctrines and a supreme God rather than a leader or person. Christianity can go either way. Christianity has a large investiture in doctrines and beliefs, yet it is also centered on the worship of their founder, Jesus Christ, and slavish adherence to his opinions. Likewise, Islam exhibits a strong doctrinal component, yet is slavishly devoted to its founder. It's a matter of judgement, I suppose, as all religions typically come from the sayings or writings of a small few or single person. I think that as long as the followers remain focused on worship and reverence and obedience toward a leader or charismatic figure, rather than devotion to the ideas expressed by that person, then they are more of a cult than less of one. It then becomes a matter of degree, rather than an all or nothing attribute.

This is a great post with many good points.

Looking at things in a sliding scale as opposed to a black and white, yes/no way seems the most accurate.

Would Buddhidm be a cult? They certainly Revere the teachings of one individual, but that individual teaches not to bellringer any of his teachings unless you test them yourself, lol. I hear, Buddhism is at least as cult like as Christianity.

I agree that Judism does not actually seem to fit the definition of a cult very well.... Instead it is a cult-ure. The same is likely true with otherd such as Shinto and Hainism. They lack the founding guru worship that is so defining of most cults. They are more like general philosophies than the teachings of a single individual.

Personally I would absolutely categorize Christianity and Islam as cults. Obviously Mormonism and Scientology too. Certainly North Korea as well, as you say. It is, to my mind, what makes them more dangerous than the the less cult like religions mentioned earlier. The teachings are rigid, and the followers can be ousted if they disagree. This is fundamental to cultism. They keep followers in line with threats of cutting off from the flock, family, friends, and support. They teach you to rely on them, then threaten to take that away if you don't follow.

I tend to recognize cults by their traits.

Authoritarian leader(ship)
Exclusivity
Isolationism
Demands loyalty
Opposition to Independent Thinking
Fear of Being Shunned
Threats of External Attack
Dictates obtaining new members and/or money

A lot of religions fit.

(September 13, 2018 at 7:57 am)Aroura Wrote: Personally I would absolutely categorize Christianity and Islam as cults. Obviously Mormonism and Scientology too. Certainly North Korea as well, as you say. It is, to my mind, what makes them more dangerous than the the less cult like religions mentioned earlier. The teachings are rigid, and the followers can be ousted if they disagree. This is fundamental to cultism. They keep followers in line with threats of cutting off from the flock, family, friends, and support. They teach you to rely on them, then threaten to take that away if you don't follow.

This points to an additional aspect of the cult question I hadn't considered and that is the group process. Does the group promote itself and maintain followers by appeal to the ideas, or does it use propaganda, coercion, shunning, and fear to maintain and increase its share of believers? The behavior of followers independent of doctrine is relevant, in addition to size, heterodoxy, and devotion to a small group or a single individual. Thus movements like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientology would be considered more cult-like than mainstream Christianity. But then again there's the caveat. While Christianity doesn't use social mechanisms to maintain belief, the threat of hell is definitely a form of coercion, and it's questionable as to how many would follow the model of Christians if they believed that everyone was going to heaven regardless of belief or action. Many say that the motive for following Christ is the meaningfulness of God's love and purpose, but is that enough for all followers? I doubt it. I suspect without any hint of eternal punishment, the number of followers would drop off dramatically, to say nothing of the drop in new recruits. In the middle ages, threats of hell as well as temporal punishments from the church were used to keep followers in line, and to encourage others to join Christianity (Spain and its treatment of Muslims and Jews being a prominent example, as well as the Albigensian crusades and the wars of the reformation). Nowadays, Christianity tends to attempt to maintain and encourage followers through political manipulation more, and less so by direct threats, so in that it has become less cult-like. But for the majority of its existence, the social process of Christianity was very cult-like. And aspects of the cult-like social aspect remain, such as people de-friending people on Facebook and shunning families that don't share their beliefs. But the real example is Islam, which has yet to leave the period in which coercion and violence are prominent tools in maintaining and increasing the number of followers. And it seems unlikely that Islam will make a similar transition to that of Christianity as war with non-followers and violence towards non-believers seems not only deeply embedded in the culture, but also a core part of doctrine.

I can only speak of my personal knowledge, which is limited to Australia, where most people do not take religion very seriously any more. Many churches and excepting the Charismatics such as Hillsong and smaller groups, many people are nominal Christians or social Christians, especially older people who go to Church mainly to catch up with friends. One of their few remaining social outlets.

The religions themselves can be defined as cults, many of the adherents not so much. Up until the late 1960's/early '70's people went to Church on a Sunday because there was nothing else to do. The country simply shut down after Noon on Saturday until Monday morning. Church Picnics, Social Events, Dances, Hay Rides, birthday parties at the Church hall, cake stalls, were activities that most followed. And I would love a dollar for every boy and girl who had their first fuck after a Church outing. Or at an evening Church beach party in the sand dunes.

It was not because we frothed at the mouth because: Jesus, God, or feared Damnation and Hellfire. It was a habit which stuck for a while and for many and still does for some older people. Hell, I was a Church Organist and Sunday School teacher even after I became an atheist. Belief was not a requirement.

Can you have a cult with non cult adherents? Of course. I do not doubt that some people who make a profession of religion cults and make a helluva lot of money are proverbially laughing the way to the Bank. Do all TV evangelists who encourage cultism believe or adhere to all the garbage they spout? Does the Sun rise in the East?

Norm

(September 13, 2018 at 6:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't necessarily know the correct distinction to make.  Many argue the distinction is simply a matter of size of following.  Others suggest that the divergence from mainstream religious opinions and practices characterizes a cult.  Regardless, I think that an important distinction needs to be made between a group of religious followers whose faith and devotion is invested in a doctrine or a belief, and those who are invested in the personality and utterances of a person or small group of people.  Thus, the Ananda Marga religion which Little Rik follows would, while P.R. Sarkar was alive, likely have tended more toward a cult than a religion.  It also allows one to make meaningful distinctions in non-religious areas as well.  China's gang of four would then be considered a cult.  And Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung, regardless of their religious claims, would have been considered cult leaders.  The question becomes somewhat tricky when it comes to the Judeo-Christian religions.  Judaism is largely a belief in doctrines and a supreme God rather than a leader or person.  Christianity can go either way.  Christianity has a large investiture in doctrines and beliefs, yet it is also centered on the worship of their founder, Jesus Christ, and slavish adherence to his opinions.  Likewise, Islam exhibits a strong doctrinal component, yet is slavishly devoted to its founder.  It's a matter of judgement, I suppose, as all religions typically come from the sayings or writings of a small few or single person.  I think that as long as the followers remain focused on worship and reverence and obedience toward a leader or charismatic figure, rather than devotion to the ideas expressed by that person, then they are more of a cult than less of one.  It then becomes a matter of degree, rather than an all or nothing attribute.

Here we go...............    

The expert in this field has spoken........

A pity that when I did asked her what is the difference between religion and spirituality she could not come up with anything that make any sense.

For her it is all the same soup so to speak.  
This show all her impudence and effrontery.  

(September 13, 2018 at 8:38 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(September 13, 2018 at 6:58 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't necessarily know the correct distinction to make.  Many argue the distinction is simply a matter of size of following.  Others suggest that the divergence from mainstream religious opinions and practices characterizes a cult.  Regardless, I think that an important distinction needs to be made between a group of religious followers whose faith and devotion is invested in a doctrine or a belief, and those who are invested in the personality and utterances of a person or small group of people.  Thus, the Ananda Marga religion which Little Rik follows would, while P.R. Sarkar was alive, likely have tended more toward a cult than a religion.  It also allows one to make meaningful distinctions in non-religious areas as well.  China's gang of four would then be considered a cult.  And Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung, regardless of their religious claims, would have been considered cult leaders.  The question becomes somewhat tricky when it comes to the Judeo-Christian religions.  Judaism is largely a belief in doctrines and a supreme God rather than a leader or person.  Christianity can go either way.  Christianity has a large investiture in doctrines and beliefs, yet it is also centered on the worship of their founder, Jesus Christ, and slavish adherence to his opinions.  Likewise, Islam exhibits a strong doctrinal component, yet is slavishly devoted to its founder.  It's a matter of judgement, I suppose, as all religions typically come from the sayings or writings of a small few or single person.  I think that as long as the followers remain focused on worship and reverence and obedience toward a leader or charismatic figure, rather than devotion to the ideas expressed by that person, then they are more of a cult than less of one.  It then becomes a matter of degree, rather than an all or nothing attribute.

Here we go...............    

The expert in this field has spoken........

A pity that when I did asked her what is the difference between religion and spirituality she could not come up with anything that make any sense.

For her it is all the same soup so to speak.  
This show all her impudence and effrontery.  

As I have already told you, I don't find the distinction you make between the two to be valid, nor your claim that you are spiritual and not religious. Your past attempts at soliciting an answer have been seen through as the transparent attempts to provide a springboard for talking about what you believe and proselytizing rather than honest discussion and have been treated as such. I don't recall venturing any opinion on the difference between the two. I may have, if so, feel free to remind me. Otherwise this is just a schoolyard taunt that I did not fall for your loaded questions and because I may have chosen to respond otherwise than according to your pre-written script, I have not addressed the issue. The only relevant question which I have addressed is whether you and Ananda Marga are religious in addition to being spiritual, and despite your opinion otherwise, it's relatively obvious that you and they are. So you can take this claim about what I could and could not come up with and shove it up your rectum where you will find the rest of your opinions. (I even listed how Ananda Marga hit all or most of the check marks on Ninian Smart's seven dimensions of religion, so your claim that I didn't come up with anything that makes sense is just absurd nonsense and yet another one of your lies. Ninian Smart's research is highly acclaimed, and far from mere nonsense.)

(September 13, 2018 at 8:27 am)fromdownunder Wrote: I can only speak of my personal knowledge, which is limited to Australia, where most people do not take religion very seriously any more.  Many churches and excepting the Charismatics such as Hillsong and smaller groups, many people are nominal Christians or social Christians, especially older people who go to Church mainly to catch up with friends. One of their few remaining social outlets.

The religions themselves can be defined as cults, many of the adherents not so much.  Up until the late 1960's/early '70's people went to Church on a Sunday because there was nothing else to do. The country simply shut down after Noon on Saturday until Monday morning. Church Picnics, Social Events, Dances, Hay Rides, birthday parties at the Church hall, cake stalls, were activities that most followed.  And I would love a dollar for every boy and girl who had their first fuck after a Church outing. Or at an evening Church beach party in the sand dunes.

It was not because we frothed at the mouth because: Jesus, God, or feared Damnation and Hellfire. It was a habit which stuck for a while and for many and still does for some older people. Hell, I was a Church Organist and Sunday School teacher even after I became an atheist. Belief was not a requirement.  

Can you have a cult with non cult adherents?  Of course.  I do not doubt that some people who make a profession of religion cults and make a helluva lot of money are proverbially laughing the way to the Bank.  Do all TV evangelists who encourage cultism believe or adhere to all the garbage they spout?  Does the Sun rise in the East?
Norm

No wonder that religions are dying.
Religions are a corrupted form of spirituality.
Obviously the destiny of something corrupted is to die soon or later.

Materialism now has taken over but because materialism is also a form of corrupted way of life his destiny is also to follow religions in the rubbish bin of history.
The circle will go back to where it all started from which is spirituality and this will happen soon
As soon as when people will understand that they are not getting anywhere by following illusions.  

(September 13, 2018 at 8:20 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 13, 2018 at 7:57 am)Aroura Wrote: Personally I would absolutely categorize Christianity and Islam as cults. Obviously Mormonism and Scientology too. Certainly North Korea as well, as you say. It is, to my mind, what makes them more dangerous than the the less cult like religions mentioned earlier. The teachings are rigid, and the followers can be ousted if they disagree. This is fundamental to cultism. They keep followers in line with threats of cutting off from the flock, family, friends, and support. They teach you to rely on them, then threaten to take that away if you don't follow.

This points to an additional aspect of the cult question I hadn't considered and that is the group process.  Does the group promote itself and maintain followers by appeal to the ideas, or does it use propaganda, coercion, shunning, and fear to maintain and increase its share of believers?  The behavior of followers independent of doctrine is relevant, in addition to size, heterodoxy, and devotion to a small group or a single individual.  Thus movements like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientology would be considered more cult-like than mainstream Christianity.  But then again there's the caveat.  While Christianity doesn't use social mechanisms to maintain belief, the threat of hell is definitely a form of coercion, and it's questionable as to how many would follow the model of Christians if they believed that everyone was going to heaven regardless of belief or action.  Many say that the motive for following Christ is the meaningfulness of God's love and purpose, but is that enough for all followers?  I doubt it.  I suspect without any hint of eternal punishment, the number of followers would drop off dramatically, to say nothing of the drop in new recruits.  In the middle ages, threats of hell as well as temporal punishments from the church were used to keep followers in line, and to encourage others to join Christianity (Spain and its treatment of Muslims and Jews being a prominent example, as well as the Albigensian crusades and the wars of the reformation).  Nowadays, Christianity tends to attempt to maintain and encourage followers through political manipulation more, and less so by direct threats, so in that it has become less cult-like.  But for the majority of its existence, the social process of Christianity was very cult-like.  And aspects of the cult-like social aspect remain, such as people de-friending people on Facebook and shunning families that don't share their beliefs.  But the real example is Islam, which has yet to leave the period in which coercion and violence are prominent tools in maintaining and increasing the number of followers.  And it seems unlikely that Islam will make a similar transition to that of Christianity as war with non-followers and violence towards non-believers seems not only deeply embedded in the culture, but also a core part of doctrine.

It's kind of interesting for a christian to be threatened with hell for breaking a rule or two. Jesus says those who break the least of his laws will be called least in heaven. Basically meaning if you're a christian, you're going to heaven. You may not get one of the top seats, but you're not going to hell just because you don't follow every tenet of the religion. But some people need the stick to keep them not only in the faith, but in line of what the local leader believes. So they say if you're gay, you'll go to hell, even if you read the bible, pray to Jesus, and go to church weekly.

Rofl, Rik saying someone else doesn’t make sense is just what I needed this morning.

---

As for the OP, a question:

If you merely changed the names around for Christianity (or the other major religions) would people find it cult like?

Example: if I told you that a guy named Joe was sacrificed for your thetans, and that I and many others believe he was Thor’s only son and that should you believe in his gift of vicarious redemption, and take Joe into your heart, you would be saved for all eternity and taken into the halls of Valhalla... would I be in a cult?