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.
I grew up as a Seventh-Day Adventist, one of the Christian denomenations regularly deemed a 'cult', and I always understood 'cult' to meen a group that venerated a person or thing rather than God. I know that's a fairly Christian-looking-at-non-Christians viewpoint, but if that is the difference then Christianity by definition is a cult. Christians venerate Christ. He was a dude. So they're a cult. Protestants refered to Catholics as 'The Cult of the Virgin' during the reformation. And Adventism was dubbed a cult because the founder (Ellen White) believed she was a prophet of God, and she is sometimes venerated, although she's not supposed to be doctrinally. Because of the high stock Adventists put in her writing (most believe she is infallible) Adventism was written off as a cult for many many years.
in 1844 Uriah Smith (early Adventist) interpretted the prophocies in Danial 7 and Revalation 12 to point to October xx, 1844 as the date for the coming of Christ, and just like the afformentioned cult, Ol' JC was a no-show. He should really pay attention when we tell him to come so we don't end up loooking so stupid! ;)
Hi, I'm new here. I just chanced upon this thread. I was doing a research on cults. I'v not gone through all the topics, but on the theological arguments going on here, I noticed is centered mainly on the Judea-Christian concept of what God is. There is another concept of God that is not anthropomorphic, more cosmological like that of The Force in Star Wars. In the ancient Hindu tradition in particular all deities are mere representationals of the divine that is beyond understanding (transcendental). That's why it's not uncommon for some hindus to worship objects, people or animals they deem are worthy representations of the divine. When they bow to a guest in the house or pay respect to a stone or give reverrence to a cow, a westerner will find it buffling or backward. God as an emanation of the life force that is all within us and in all matters in that respect, that I may not have a problem believing, or even illogical. But for a person who governs the whole universe and at the same time will seek us among these billions and billions of galaxies to interfere in our human affairs, that maybe too far-fetched. I cannot be that too arrogant to believe in it.
I previously posted this in the wrong thread, I apologize. It's difficult to find your way back here, the search tool is too general. This is my intended thread not the respect for religion.
Yea, I live in Oregon and they sprayed salmanilla tainted water or something all over a salad bar at Izzys pizza. Lots of people got very sick, but not as sick as the mind that invented the idea. I think that group would be a classic definition of the word cult.
If God is an cloud of electron particles covering the entire universe then, OK. But if He is such, then why would he care if Bob got married to Tim?Quote:
Originally Posted by sunglider
What's the thing between 'cult' and 'occult'?Quote:
Originally Posted by baddad
A cult is a religious group that is not recognized as a legitimate religion.
Jesus and his followers would have been considered a cult in their time. The same with Mormans.
I agree I mean religion and killing people and everyone has a right to their opinionsbut when someone goes out and starts killing people its time to well put thoose lunatics away because whether they believe that god is telling them to do it or whatever in the bible it isnt ok to kill
The difference between a cult and religion is a very thin line that is unfortunately easily crossed. I term a cult as any group of religious people who think that they and they only are right. To my way of thinking, when you have it all figured out, you can be certain of only one thing—you're wrong. Nobody and no group have the answers to everything. Even science will not be so arrogant as to claim that they know it all. They are sure that there must be a rational explanation for everything, but they will also tell you that in many cases they have yet to find one. God as an all-knowing being I can accept. Any group of people as all knowing, I wouldn’t give a chance. We grow, we learn, and we strive for that perfection. We learn from the mistakes we make along the way. Tell me you have perfection now, here on this Earth, and I will not believe you.The Clay is still in the hands of the Potter.
God Bless
Pen
I think that a cult is one which believes itself to be legitimate and for the purpose of establishing that which is good, but by ridding the world of that which is evil by not-so-legitimate means. The KKK tried to get rid of blacks b/c they thought they were evil and had sold their souls to the devil, which seemed to be a legitimate reason, and they ran around in black hoods and burned houses to get rid of them. That would be a cult.
A religion on the other hand, also seems to believe itself legitimate and to est. what is good, but instead of destroying the bad, converting it.
Your "too busy with other things" argument is very common, but it's indefensible. God is outside time (time is illusory) He can take as long as He wants to govern all things, He is also far more powerful than a person, and present everywhere, so it is not even difficult for Him to govern all things at once.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunglider
It's my opinion that cults are religions that don't represent a large enough voting block.
Many large, established religions would no doubt agree with you. Yet there are a few large established religions usually given the name of "cult." People still seem to think that they hold the power of judging one another. Like I said, when you have all the answers, you might want to double check everything. Nobody has all the answers. One who thinks he or she does is delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbeliever
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l1.../PuppyLove.gif
Culture, cult and religions are integrally one thing.
The transformation of the word "cult" from describing an association worshipping a particular god (ancient Egypt, imperial Rome) to a normative term applied to an association of people manipulated by a religious figure, is interesting.
"Sect" seems to avoided this transformation somewhat and is still applied in a neutral sense to a subset of a larger religion that emphasizes some dogma over others while still subscribing to all of them.
A cult is not necessarily negative.
I think bottom line is that the difference between a cult and a religion is size. (putting aside the semantics for a moment)
Basically a cult is a small group with unique religious beliefs - and this is of course the problem with cults, the leader/priest/prophet of the cult has complete control, where as religions are composed of hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of groups each with its own "priest" who is largely answerable to the censure of the other groups and priests.
Of course religions have established and immutable canon which is something that cults lack, though naturally even with established doctrine extremists can read just about anything they want into it to justify their actions, so the difference isn't as great as it might be.
By coincidence, I came across this article in The Guardian:
Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/ma...d=networkfront
When religion holders become extremists cults originate there.Quote:
Originally Posted by DapperDrake
Name one, please, Nik.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
A cult is not always necessarily negative, but more often than it is negatively inclined for history validates this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI