posted
Preamble : I'M NOT TRYING TO BE OFFENSIVE, THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION, NOT AN ATTEMPT TO BE RUDE.
What is the difference between a religion and a cult ? What makes, say, Protestantism a religion but the Church of Body Mortification a Cult ?
Size ? Well, the biggest religion in the world is christianity, so that would mean that judaism, mormonism, islam, etc. are cults.
Particular beliefs/rules/rituals ? All religions and cults have different sets of these. Who's to say which are 'better' ? If you're a hindu, what to you makes mormonism a religion and scientology a cult ?
Posts: 26 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religions did all their important killings in the past - ie, Jesus. Cults still do religious killings today.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One sociological definition I have heard is a cult that makes it to the 3rd generation becomes a religion. Makes some sense, as most cults die out in less than 20 years. cult-->
[edit: Also, if it makes it 3 generations it will likely make it more. Cults that have have kids at 18 moving hemispheres away from their parents instead of accepting the cult practices are unlikely to have much sense in them. So in this sense, if a cult can "reproduce" it becomes a religion.] a cult propogating into the future--> bad cult--> cult leader and victim-->
quote:cult (kult) n. <L cultus, care, cultivation 1 a system of religious worship or ritual 2 devoted attatchment to a person, principle, etc. 3 a sect --cult'ism n. --cult'ist n.
quote:religion (ri lij' en) n. <L religio, holiness 1 belief in and worship of God or gods 2 a specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics
(Couldn't get an upside down "e" in the pronuciation of religion.)
But as you can see, no help with the dictionary.
I agree with Foust. Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the official difference between a cult and a religion is "A cult is easier to illustrate with smilies."
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think cults always involve a person with absolute power over the organization, whereas religions do not.
So, if a religious congregation believes that their leader should be obeyed in everything, then they are a cult.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well....then there's the pope. He's at the head of the Catholic church, and has almost absolute power....does that make Catholosism a cult??? Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt many catholics would kill for the pope or give all their money to the pope if he commanded it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard a cult defined by several different criteria, where if the organization matches 2 or more, it may be considered a cult.
I don't remember them all. *racks brains*
1. Does the organization require exclusivity? In other words, does it require that you belong to only that organization or organizations that are sanctioned officially?
2. Does it have strict rules about your money? Strict as in, enforced on pain of expulsion or shunning.
3. Is there an inner circle that is secret or semi-secret that guides or manages the organization?
4. Does it have unique rituals and/or sub-language that identify you as a member of the organization?
Overall, I think a cult could be classified as an organization that is insular, secretive, and requires its members' singular devotion both in time and money.
So I think the way some people practice their religion could make it look like the religion is a cult, but may not in fact be a cult when you look at the organization itself.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a couple of criteria thrown out in half-seriousness.
1. If it's a set of beliefs you hold and the group you yourself belong to, it's not a cult.
2. If it's a set of beliefs at odds with your own, fairly new, and no one you know belongs to the group, there's a greater likelihood you'll consider it a "cult."
Disclaimer: Neither I nor anyone I know well has ever been in a cult. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has been a while since my tenth grade religion teacher tried to define the difference so I may be a little off, but here is what I remember...
1. Both put forth a set of beliefs and rituals (just for the record)
2. In a cult it is beleived that the leader of the cult is divine, as opposed to him being the successor of an Apostle like the pope. (hey it was a catholic school)
3. The things a religion tells you to do are up to you to do, and if you don't do them you are punished by some higher power as, in a cult you are punished by the cult itself.
4. Cults require their members to be separated from the rest of society, either physically separate, or just cut off. (usually to make brain washing easier)
He did mention the thing about Cults that last 3 generations become a religion, maybe Morbo and I had the same teacher. The process of a cult becoming a religion can be spead up by having important/famouse/respected members.
Posts: 2332 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to many definitions, a religion and a cult are the same thing. In fact, look up cult in Merriam-Webster's thesaurus, and the first synonym is religion. It's synonym #2 if you look the other way (religion to cult). This is also why eslaine's definitions were so similar. I've always felt that a great deal of the difference is in connotation. If you respect someone's belief system, you call it a religion. If you don't respect it, you call it a cult. Means the same thing, but gets your opinion across at the same time.
Of course, the other definition of cult is based upon the number of people involved. For example, UHF (the Weird Al movie) might be considered a cult classic. Never a mainstream success, but it has a small, loyal following. This definition has less to do with belief systems, though, so it's probably not relevant.
[edit: I just noticed that popatr already brought this point up. Sorry for plagarizing. Didn't mean to.]
posted
Jeniwren, I don't think number 4 would work. Part of the way American Jews can identify themselves is by using Hebrew, Catholics may use Latin, Muslims use Arabic, Hindus use Hindi, etc. Also almost if not every religion has certain rituals that they perform.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Catholics identify themselves by using latin? Wow I guess that means I have to start learning latin, Oh well maybe if I wear a cross people will get it.
Posts: 2332 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still in general I agree with newfoundlogic, most religions have their own terms, symbols, sighn, etc. that identify them. In fact that even includes most clubs.
Posts: 2332 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said may use Latin, and that was in reference to prayers. I don't think all members of a cult group would be able to speak this mysterious language either.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I always tend to think of cults being those with an extremely charismatic leader, which demands absolute control over the people and their money. David Koresh, Jim Jones, were both "cult leaders" The guys who committed suicide so they could catch a ride on Halley's comit - didn't they have one leader who told them to kill themselves?
quote:For example, UHF (the Weird Al movie) might be considered a cult classic. Never a mainstream success, but it has a small, loyal following.
It's consider a "cult classic" because we believe Weird Al to be divine and we send him all our money.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what my psych of religion text from a couple of years ago says about the definition of cults:
quote:...the term cult is popularly used in two senses and covers a wide range of groups. The first sense in which it is used by some refers to doctrinal belief, that is, any religion whose teachings deviate fromt he doctrines of orthodox Christian belief is said to be cultic. The emphasis is on what the belief is, not on how the belief is held or what the group's procedures are. By this usage the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) would constitute a cult rather than a church regardless of its status in light of, for example, church-sect theory.
The second meaning of the term, surrounded by frequent controversy, connotes a "destructive cult" and refers to a number of religious groups that are charged by their critics (the "anticultists") to seek to control and radically alter the personalities of their members (Melton, 1986). No abstract defintion in this sense is given, but the groups' critics do write lists of characteristics, sometimes more than a dozen, that are siad to be found among them. The following factors are often included in such lists.
1. Charismatic leader. Fine in the group is said to center around a single person who has absolute authority. He or she is the final decision maker whose pronouncements on both policy and ideology are binding upon the followers.
2. Regulation. Followers may be taught that complete submission to the will of the leader is necessary. The leader's authority can extend into areas of life that are normally regarded as private, such as sexual behavior, marriage, or freedom of speech and movement.
3. Separation. Converts and potential converts may be physically and emotionally separated from tangible or identifable influences from former life, including family, friends, school, and employment.
4. Control of resources. Pressure may be placed upon followers to devote all of their resources to the "Master's" cause. This may include their money, time, vocational or educational skills, etc. In some cases, absolute abandonment of one's resources may be a requirement.
5. Control of information. In some groups, the content of the doctrine is not revealed to potential converts until they are "ready," i.e., until they have been with the gorup for some time and have made some concessions to it.
A note of caution: just because a religious group possesses one of the above factors does not mean the group is a cult. Religious groups vary in how much they display feature such as the above. For example, some such features can be identified in monastic orders within mainstream traditions that are not described as being destructive. Also, some chruches that hold traditional Christian doctrines are charged by people who have left them to do many of the same things that "cults" have been accused of (Enroth, 1992). The degree to which a group should be regarded as cultic in this particular connotation of the term is a matter of repeated debate (Barker, 1995).
Invitation to the Psychology of Religion, Second Edition, by Raymond F. Paloutzian (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996) pp. 166-167.
So, you see, it kind of depends on which definition you are using and where you stand in relation to the group being discussed, in trying to figure out what a cult is and whether any particular group is one.
Being LDS myself, I have some mixed feelings about the example used for the first definition. Yeah, we are out of the so-called mainstream in relation to some doctrines (the way we see the trinity, for example, and our conception of the organization of the preexistence and the afterlife). So from that point of view, I can see the use of that example. But the term "cult" is used so often in a perjorative sense, that the label bothers me because I think it makes it all too easy to discount or demonize the beliefs of any group it is attached to. I know in the class I took (at a Christian university) this example was discussed in terms such that being "out of the mainstream" or "not orthodox" was equated with being "wrong" and not a valid way of belief.
I hope this at least gives some definitions for your consideration. Please excuse any typos in the quote; I typed it out pretty quickly.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that if that definition has ever been used, I have never heard it. Considering no dictionary (even the OED, which tries to consider words solely on the basis of how they are used) contains that definition. Considering no one on this board would use that definition. Considering not even many of the more morally repulsive and exclusive "religious" people use that definition (Pat Robertson, even: he doesn't consider Judaism a cult).
Considering you were butting into a seriou conversation and giving a snippy little definition with not even a tad of evidence to back it up.
Considering I like sentence fragments beginning with the word considering.
Your definition is completely wrong.
I've rather liked what I've seen of you, Jeffrey, but being snippy and acting stupid isn't a good look for you.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
newfoundlogic, that's why I said to qualify, the organization had to show two or more of the characteristics. Obviously rituals and sublanguage in and of themselves don't indicate cult status.
littlemissattitude's list looks far better than mine. I can't remember which book my incomplete and poorly written list came from...I know it was written by M. Scott Peck, but can't remember which of his books it appeared in.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeniwren, not only do I think that rituals and such don't indicate that an organization is a cult in and of itself, but I also think that they aren't any more specific to cults than they are to established religion.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love M. Scott Peck. Have you read People of the Lie ? I was married to a person like Scott describes in that book. He was a cult leader all on his own. He wasn't charismatic, but he did isolate (we lived in a tent for 2 years) control resources (he didn't have a job) and information was filtered through him i.e. "The bishop has a personality conflict with you, let me talk to him by myself." Scary, no.
Posts: 180 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Auh, come on guys, Jeff was just joking. Jeff use more graemlins.
Yes, I was joking. Well, sort of joking. I was also making a point: everyone's religion seems rational to himself, but may not appear such to outsiders. It's something to keep in mind when judging other religions as well as judging one's own.
EllenM, yeah, People of the Lie is excellent. Scary, though. It was very thought provoking. Secretiveness is now a huge red flag to me when I am getting to know someone new.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've found M. Scott Peck to be a little scary, myself. If I remember correctly, not only did he advocate kidnapping people for deprogramming, but in one of his books, he stated that he'd sleep with a client if he thought it would be psychologically helpful to her.
But that doesn't mean his other ideas don't have merit, and it would be good for me to cite references to check-up on my memory. I'll try to do that.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Oh well maybe if I wear a cross people will get it.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
Auh, come on guys, Jeff was just joking. Jeff use more graemlins ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
