Printable View
I came accross some interseting information about a group in Oregon who professed to have spiritual beleifs of one nature or another, but used them to reel in distraught youths and ended up turning into a cult where they dressed in only red and purple and decided to poison a fair amount of small town citizens at a bouquet all you can eat resteraunt. I wonder when it is that religion turns into a cult? Or how religion can hurt us should we not know where to turn.
Language is of course powerful enough to designate positive or negative connotations. The word cult has a less than stellar etimology in North America. Cult has come to mean other than rational......
Of course, main stream religions would shun this word as descriptive of their own activities..........
Any 'cult', due to the use of the word through the media, is inherently wrong......
Of course, those of knowledgable of the power of words see it otherwise......
Anything can be made good or evil by a simple manipulation of the language.....
Cult...Religion....Cult.....Religion.....Cult....R eligion.....Cult.......Religion....Cult.....Religi on......cult.......religion......cult.......religi on.......cult.......religion.....
..................?
I agree with you Den, it seems that a 'cult' according to the standards in my mind, is harmfull to human beings. And there seems to be two basic reasons for this, one being that, as you stated Den, there is destruction of the individual by secluding them and restricting them from society. And second there is a destruction of society that results from a lack of individual participation and rejection. I should think that the nature of spiritualism is to seek it for yourself and then to try and share it with society, it would be open to all those who were interested. A 'cult' seeks only a selective group of people and seems to reject the idea of 'oneness' or 'wholeness' with the world, a divine concept, and humans. It could be said that according to the definitions provided above that a 'cult' does seek that unity though in, "1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP". But I think that becuase the 'cult' is also dubbed "unorthodox" and "a usually small group of people" that the unity they have is selective to a small portion of people and unaccepted by others. It seems to me that this counters the idea of unity and wholeness, for if only a small group whorships and whorships without consideration of anyone elses person then it is not a religion, because it does not share or unite without corruptive undercurrents.
Personally, when I heard the word "cult" I tend to refer to a religious group (mainstreem or not) which has the potency to bring negative effects. I mean the word itself, "Cult", sounds negative. I think is more or less doesn't have an established organization/structure. Many act of "violence or harm were done by cult members. I forgot the name of this group in Japan, which leader told his members to blow a poisonus gas bombs in the subway. Lots of people were dead and lots of others are poisoned.
Sometime ago, there was this group in my country, which leader claimed to be the reincanation of Paul the Apostle. His followers are Christians who left their original church and join this priest. This mas claimed that lasyt 9-Sep 04, Jesus would come for the second time. So on that day, all the followers gathered up in this hall. They sold their houses, cars, and all of their belongings and gave the money to people (I don't know who). They gathered from Sep 8, singing, praying, non-stop. But too bad, Jesus didn't come on 9-Sep, and some of the followers gone nuts... The police had to take action and the priest was taken to prison.
David Christie-Murray, in his book "Heresy", on the last page of that book, writes "Perhaps the greatest heresy is the existence of any dogma at all." The first sentence of his preface states: "To write the history of Christian heresy adequately would be to compile a complete Church history."
David Christie-Murray worked on his book for 20 years. When he began, he was an Anglican priest. By the time he finished, he was so personally transformed in his beliefs that he resigned from the Anglican clergy and became a Quaker.
One day in a book store, I opened an enormous expensive book entitled something like "The Harvard History of Christianity." I looked in the lengthy index under HERESY, and found...... NOTHING, .... I then proceeded to laugh myself silly.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/4532
There are many different answers to this question, but the best one
I've heard was from a man who worked full-time at rescuing and
deprogramming cult members. (He was usually hired by their
families.)
He said that a religion teaches you how to be in the world, while a cult
tries to take you out of the world. He explained that a religion gives its
members guidance and support in how to survive and get along out in
the world. And then he pointed out that cults always try to isolate
their members from the world. Cults want their members to live
together, usually in isolation, and break off all contact with friends or
family who aren't also members of the cult.
Therefore, a religion is not necessarily a cult, but a cult is always a
religion. Being a cult a religion usually characterized by radicalism,
oddness, obsession, short number of years, small number of followers
and guidance by a founder who almost all the times tend to be
authoritarian. Another particularity is that in cults, you found that in
many cases the cult-followers worship the founder as God himself.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cult
"Cult leaders succeed in dominating their followers because they have
mastered the cruel art of exploiting universal human dependency and
attachment needs in others."
- Daniel Shaw, ex-member of Siddha Yoga, founded by Swami Swami
Muktananda from his lengthy essay "Traumatic abuse in cults".
"We often seem most comfortable with people whose religions
consist of nothing but a few private sessions of worship and prayer,
but who are too secularized to let their faiths influence the rest of the
week. This attitude exerts pressure to treat religion as a hobby."
- Stephen Carter, The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and
Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion
"The most dangerous lie is that which most closely resembles the
truth.",
- Jan Groenveld, Australian anti-cult activist and ex-member of the
Jehovah's witnesses.
"The difference between a cult and an established religion is
sometimes about one generation."
- Scott McLemee reviewing the book Hearing the voices of Jonestown
by Mary McCormick Maaga in salon.com
"If Jones' People's Temple wasn't a cult, then the term has no
meaning."
- Scott McLemee in the same article in salon.com
"I have been a victim of it, despite my rigorous scientific and
philosophical training and reams of critical writings. I have published
about the methodological failings of various sciences and others
systems of thought. So come on, you are not alone."
- Robert Priddy ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba
============================
"Cult" and "Sect" have become dirty words. Sectarian is more respectable. And "Non-Sectarian" is irreproachable.
"Therefore, a religion is not necessarily a cult, but a cult is always a
religion." That's a very astute differentiation sitaram.
It seems to me that the words "religion" and "cult" are very prescriptive and judgmental. And whose to say which actions deserve to be classified as a religion or a cult? Could not some people believe they are providing guidance when they are really inhibiting their followers?
Well I don't think you'd call Christianity a cult. It's a very established religion and also one of the religions with the biggest followers. The holidays are celebrated worldwide and in some countries, the Christian authorities (priest, pope, etc) have influence to determine policies.
At one time christianity was not accepted as a religion. The evolution of religion from a counterculture or underground spiritual movement into something later accepted as a prominent religion insociety, one of the ruling class in some areas is very interesting.
Well then all religions were cults in the first place. Perhaps the term "survival of the fittest" also apply in this matter since we know that there are some beliefs which now hardly exist, yet they used to be the dominant beliefs in the old days. Like the ancient religion of the Egyptian.
I think the barrier between cult and religion is crossed in numbers and age. Catholic teachings were originally considered a cult but with larger numbers and time, the catholic faith is a mainstream religion.
Question: are the scientologist a cult or a religion???
In my view, you can differentiate a cult from a religion by the fact that in a cult, the followers usually give money or their assets to the head of the organisation. In a religion, although you do give your money, it's more for charity.
What do you mean..People give gifts to church so the organization has the ability to pay for its priets, pay electricty, fix broken windows, etc. In the church that my family go to, people were asked to give money so that the priests can have cars/motorcycle, the main purpose so that these priests can do their evangelical works easier. The church also pays their sallary, allowance, healt insurance, etc..
Yes, that is true but some of that wealth is also distributed to the poor. I guess what I mean to say is that in a cult, the head of the organisation aquires all the money for their personal gain, and not for the gain of the community. Sorry if i dont make any sense :)
Hey 'tis ok...sorry If I didn't sound to good with that :)...My point was church today is a modern organization/institution. The institution needs funds to support itself and its major source of fund is its congregation.