(May 10, 2014 at 1:43 am)Zidneya Wrote: Ironically the reason why I ask is because I heard a christian claiming that Mormons are a cult way below Christianity. Because he said christianity is a true religion claiming that there is a clear difference.

I just told him that I don't see any difference at all.
Christian myths, Mormon myts, Christian fanatics, Mormon fanatics, Christian preachers, Mormon preachers. Since none have any evidence of their deities for me all religions are simply glorified cults.

How funny that I found this thread, I just PM'd Bad Writer this question to see what he thinks not knowing this thread was here.

I think the only difference between a cult and a religion is the modern connotations of the word cult and it's negative associations. All religions seem to start as cults and graduate to religions when their membership gets high enough.

Cult is to religion as puppy is to dog.

I don't remember the source, but I remember a quote that explained the difference.

"In a cult, there's a guy at the top that knows the whole thing is a scam. In a religion, that guy is dead."

(May 9, 2014 at 11:35 pm)Zidneya Wrote: Whats the difference between a cult and a religion to you guys?
Because for me those are just two sides of the same coin.


No…. Why I lie to you guys I'm gonna be honest for me theres no difference between those two.

Excellent question!! And...I don't really know the answer (at least any official answer). I've read thru the thread and it appears that no one else really knows the answer either.

Just a few thoughts.....
If "size" is the differentiator - then at what "size" (assuming size=membership) does the cult transform into religion?
If money is the differentiator - then what amount of money transforms a cult into a religion?
If leadership is the differentiator - then how many "leaders" turn a cult into a religion?

I suppose I could go on with the questions, but you get the drift.

Here's a few thoughts:
It seems that within a cult - almost all (or virtually all) members are "rabid". That is to say, they will follow whatever the leader demands them to do.
It seems that within a cult, the "leader" is almost always charismatic - it is rare indeed to find a cult leader with a "beige" personality.
It seems that within a cult, there is little history supporting the present ideology of the cult. Therefore, almost any idea/theory/ideology the leader wishes to enforce is fine.

With respect to religion....apply these same thoughts.
In a religion, tho many are....many members are anything but "rabid".
In a religion, many of the leaders are anything but charismatic. However, the "leaders" within fundamentalist or radical brands of religion do indeed take on the charisma of a true cult leader.
In a religion, there is some history - or lots of history - used by the religion to support its position (see muslim, jew, catholic/christian, shinto, budahism, and the rest).

Just my thoughts...but a great question!

(May 13, 2014 at 11:05 am)RaisdCath Wrote: It seems that within a cult, the "leader" is almost always charismatic - it is rare indeed to find a cult leader with a "beige" personality.

[snip]

In a religion, many of the leaders are anything but charismatic. However, the "leaders" within fundamentalist or radical brands of religion do indeed take on the charisma of a true cult leader.

Regarding your statements about cult leaders being charismatic and present religious leaders not always being charismatic, perhaps, as RobbyPants points out with his unsourced quote,

(May 13, 2014 at 9:01 am)RobbyPants Wrote: I don't remember the source, but I remember a quote that explained the difference.

"In a cult, there's a guy at the top that knows the whole thing is a scam. In a religion, that guy is dead."

that's where one of the distinctions between cults and religions occurs.

Quote:It seems that within a cult, there is little history supporting the present ideology of the cult. Therefore, almost any idea/theory/ideology the leader wishes to enforce is fine.

[snip]

In a religion, there is some history - or lots of history - used by the religion to support its position (see muslim, jew, catholic/christian, shinto, budahism, and the rest).

Not sure if I fully agree with this; some religious movements invent false histories they sell as true (like Mormonism), or reinvent history to suit their own ends (Christianity making David and Solomon more renounced kings than archaeology actually implies they were) while some cults could take "real" history and reinterpret it to their own ends. I think there is a decent argument for cults not having a lot of history to support their ideology, but that's based on the couple cults I'm aware of. There definitely could be exceptions.

(May 13, 2014 at 11:34 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(May 13, 2014 at 11:05 am)RaisdCath Wrote: It seems that within a cult, the "leader" is almost always charismatic - it is rare indeed to find a cult leader with a "beige" personality.

[snip]

In a religion, many of the leaders are anything but charismatic. However, the "leaders" within fundamentalist or radical brands of religion do indeed take on the charisma of a true cult leader.

Regarding your statements about cult leaders being charismatic and present religious leaders not always being charismatic, perhaps, as RobbyPants points out with his unsourced quote,

(May 13, 2014 at 9:01 am)RobbyPants Wrote: I don't remember the source, but I remember a quote that explained the difference.

"In a cult, there's a guy at the top that knows the whole thing is a scam. In a religion, that guy is dead."

that's where one of the distinctions between cults and religions occurs.

Quote:It seems that within a cult, there is little history supporting the present ideology of the cult. Therefore, almost any idea/theory/ideology the leader wishes to enforce is fine.

[snip]

In a religion, there is some history - or lots of history - used by the religion to support its position (see muslim, jew, catholic/christian, shinto, budahism, and the rest).

Not sure if I fully agree with this; some religious movements invent false histories they sell as true (like Mormonism), or reinvent history to suit their own ends (Christianity making David and Solomon more renounced kings than archaeology actually implies they were) while some cults could take "real" history and reinterpret it to their own ends. I think there is a decent argument for cults not having a lot of history to support their ideology, but that's based on the couple cults I'm aware of. There definitely could be exceptions.

I completely agree with you....but they were just thoughts...not dogma.

(May 9, 2014 at 11:35 pm)Zidneya Wrote: Whats the difference between a cult and a religion to you guys?
Because for me those are just two sides of the same coin.


No…. Why I lie to you guys I'm gonna be honest for me theres no difference between those two.

Market share.