Religions and cults

[DMB]

For some people there are genuine, worthwhile religions and then there are dangerous cults. Others see no difference between the two. What do you think?

[VoxRat]

I think the difference between "religion" and "cult" is degree of social acceptance. Christianity was undoubtedly a "cult" in its early days.

But that's the obvious, boring, answer. I'll watch this thread for more interesting ones.

[Worldtraveller]

Religions, or more appropriately, sects, are just cults that someone likes. :p

There is no real practical difference, except in scale, and there's no hard cutoff between one and the other.

[Barefoot Bree]

There may be no hard cutoff, but I do think there is a good deal of difference. A cult, in my view, is largely built around a single person, and is at its most basic level about the glorification of the (human) leader and the control and debasement of the members.

Many folks have written up checklists for identifying cults. A good one (IMO) can be found here (http://www.tangledmoon.org/cultidentification.htm).


1 INTERNAL CONTROL: Amount of internal political power exercised by leader(s) over members.

2 WISDOM CLAIMED by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations.

3 WISDOM CREDITED to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s).

4 DOGMA: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or "fundamentalism."

5 RECRUITING: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing.

6 FRONT GROUPS: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group.

7 WEALTH: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members' donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members.

8 POLITICAL POWER: Amount of external political influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members' secular votes.

9 SEXUAL MANIPULATION: of members by leader(s); amount of control exercised over sexuality of members; advancement dependent upon sexual favors or specific lifestyle.

10 CENSORSHIP: Amount of control over members' access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).

11 DROPOUT CONTROL: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.

12 VIOLENCE: amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).

13 PARANOIA: amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.

14 GRIMNESS: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

15 SURRENDER OF WILL: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

16 HYPOCRISY: amount of approval for other actions (not included above) which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate group's declared principles for political, psychological, economic, or other gain.

[DMB]

Apart from number 6, that fits Islam like a glove.

[ninewands]

To a certain extent, some modern-day Christian sects should STILL be considered "dangerous cults." See, e.g., "How to Determine if a Group is a Destructive Cult (http://www.factnet.org/rancho5.htm)", see, also, "The Most Dangerous Cult in the World" (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/Laura-Knight-Jadczyk/fastest_growing_cult.htm).

[BioBeing]

There may be no hard cutoff, but I do think there is a good deal of difference. A cult, in my view, is largely built around a single person, and is at its most basic level about the glorification of the (human) leader and the control and debasement of the members.


So if the human leader is still alive, it is a cult, and if he is dead, that makes it a religion? ;)

That does make Scientology a religion then!

[Barefoot Bree]

I said human leader, not live leader. Scientology is still a cult.

Besides, that was only the merest surface idea. I'd take a look through the rest of that list and see how much fits before I made a decision on the label of any group.

That list isn't yes or no, it's a sliding scale. Score each item 1-10. The higher the final score, the more cult-like the group is.

[David B]

I said human leader, not live leader. Scientology is still a cult.

Besides, that was only the merest surface idea. I'd take a look through the rest of that list and see how much fits before I made a decision on the label of any group.

That list isn't yes or no, it's a sliding scale. Score each item 1-10. The higher the final score, the more cult-like the group is.

Having some cult experience myself, from the inside, I agree with this.

Let's not forget, too, that even within mainstream religions there are subsets with a lot of the marks of cult about them.

Most Catholics, for example, I don't think have many of marks of the cult about them, but members of Opus Dei, or any of the monastic orders, certainly do.

Followers of gurus in the Eastern Tradition also vary widely - some people might just practice the meditation as prescribed, others throw themselves right in.

David

[MrFungus420]

The only real difference is whether or not the cult is accepted by society.

If it is, it is a religion; if it isn't, it is a cult.

[David B]

The only real difference is whether or not the cult is accepted by society.

If it is, it is a religion; if it isn't, it is a cult.

I don't think so. As has been said above, there are numbers of factors involved, but how much it dominates a cult member's life seems to me to be a grey scale that is something of a defining factor.

The person who goes to church on Sunday, and has a social life with other church members is one thing, the person who devotes their life to a monastic order something else again.

David

[MrFungus420]

The only real difference is whether or not the cult is accepted by society.

If it is, it is a religion; if it isn't, it is a cult.

I don't think so. As has been said above, there are numbers of factors involved, but how much it dominates a cult member's life seems to me to be a grey scale that is something of a defining factor.

Yes, there are a number of factors. But, to a degree, they are all in most religions.

We accept the isolationist practices with the Amish, but not of the Branch-Davidians.

We ridicule the creation story of Scientology, yet are supposed to accept the equally ridiculous creation story of the Bible.

We find fault with the "Moonies" for their reverence of Sun Myung Moon, yet we are supposed to respect a Catholic's reverence of the Pope.

The person who goes to church on Sunday, and has a social life with other church members is one thing, the person who devotes their life to a monastic order something else again.

True. But, both extremes exist in both cults and religions.

[Ray Moscow]

For some people there are genuine, worthwhile religions and then there are dangerous cults. Others see no difference between the two. What do you think?

There's no real difference except in what the public generally accepts and what it doesn't. E.g., Scientology is a "cult" because it's new, but the RCC is just as crazy and, since it primarily targets kids for its brainwashing, is arguably more destructive.

[LoneWolf]

There is a fine line, for sure. Cults may be a bit more proactive in separating you from those otuside the group.

On a side note there is an actual governmental agency here in Cambodia called "The Ministry of Cults and Religion". :)

[farhat]

As I read somewhere, a religion has an army, a sect has militia, a cult has lawyers.

[BioBeing]

I said human leader, not live leader. Scientology is still a cult.

Besides, that was only the merest surface idea. I'd take a look through the rest of that list and see how much fits before I made a decision on the label of any group.

That list isn't yes or no, it's a sliding scale. Score each item 1-10. The higher the final score, the more cult-like the group is.

Its OK, Bree - I was joking. See that smiley in my post?

[Barefoot Bree]

I guess I'm humor-impaired these days, BB. Is there a (homeopathic) pill for that? :D

I see you decided to capitalize yourself here. Or was that Baldie that went lowercase?

[David B]

...We accept the isolationist practices with the Amish, but not of the Branch-Davidians.

Well, I don't, really. Though the one is less physically dangerous than the other

We ridicule the creation story of Scientology, yet are supposed to accept the equally ridiculous creation story of the Bib

But most Christians don't accept the creation story of the Bible.

We find fault with the "Moonies" for their reverence of Sun Myung Moon, yet we are supposed to respect a Catholic's reverence of the Pope.


Many Catholics don't revere the Pope. Nor live their lives according to his pronouncements.

David

[Coragyps]

I had an interesting sort-of-culty experience Sunday. I went to the dedication of a new church building (very sweet friends of mine, and the roof didn't fall in when I got there) for the Community of Christ, as it's now called. The denomination's name ended in " Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints" up until a few years ago - there were a bunch of adjectives before that intended to distinguish them from that bunch in Salt Lake City, though.

Anyway, at least three of the speakers at the occasion talked about all the trials they had in the past here in Bible Belt Texas, and about how they weren't a cult but Real Christians and how they still, despite the name change, had to defend themselves from defamation by Baptists and such. Odd.

And I've seen said Baptists in action, calling Mormons, Roman Catholics, and probably even Northern (as opposed to Southern) Baptists "cults." Funny folks, but not funny Ha Ha.

[BioBeing]

I guess I'm humor-impaired these days, BB. Is there a (homeopathic) pill for that? :D

I see you decided to capitalize yourself here. Or was that Baldie that went lowercase?

I think the remedy is beer! And I have always had capital B's. Think baldbantam was lower case.

[Tenebrae]

I know some of you will argue that all religon is harmful,



In my experience there is very much a difference between cult and religon. I "got saved" in a cultic church, there was a real sense of spiritual arrogance, they were the only church apart from one other that was walking with God. Attempts at relationship control, and telling me that I couldn't be friends with other Christians from other churches.

Sermons from the senior pastor were seen as direct communications from God, and to question him was to question God, and would lead to a surefire getting out on the outs.


I'm shamed to say it, however I found that after I left and got out from that toxic shit hole, there were aspects of mind control I was dealing with.

[DMB]

I know some of you will argue that all religon is harmful,



In my experience there is very much a difference between cult and religon. I "got saved" in a cultic church, there was a real sense of spiritual arrogance, they were the only church apart from one other that was walking with God. Attempts at relationship control, and telling me that I couldn't be friends with other Christians from other churches.

Sermons from the senior pastor were seen as direct communications from God, and to question him was to question God, and would lead to a surefire getting out on the outs.


I'm shamed to say it, however I found that after I left and got out from that toxic shit hole, there were aspects of mind control I was dealing with.

So much of that sort of thing can also be found in Islam. The koran tells Muslims not to be friends with non-Muslims, for example. Fortunately, not all Muslims follow such precepts.