Difference between a religion and a cult?, Is there one?

Objectively speaking,is there a difference between an organised religion and a cult ? (apart from size that is)
Apparently there is but, due to the glaring fact that there exists no tangible,cogent evidence for any of the fantastical claims of organised religion,and more and more inductees becoming hysterically polarised,bigotted,prejudiced,conditioned,indoctrinated,brainwashed and deluded into thinking they are superior to other human beings,should we not reappraise our definitions and afford all 'non provable beleif systems' cult status?
If not why not-what's the difference if there is no evidence for any of it?




[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by karl 12


I think it is just size and popularity. Obviously a lot of cults require you to worship their leader and many require some strange sexual rites, but a blanket answer would just be size and popularity / acceptance.

reply to post by karl 12

The difference (as far as people's usage of the term goes) is very simple. When you want to be insulting towards it, you call it a cult. When you are talking about it normally, it is a religion.

Check it out. At any instance of the use 'cult' in ATS/BTS, you can be 100% sure that the person who used the term was antagonistic towards the group in question.

You yourself seem to be against all religions, hence your desire to call religion a cult.

becoming hysterically polarised,bigotted,prejudiced,conditioned,indoctrinated,brainwashed and deluded into thinking they are superior to other human beings,should we not reappraise our definitions and afford all 'non provable beleif systems' cult status?




These aren't sane people though karl. These are the hypocrites or the ones who want attention who sneak into the faith of God.

God taught to have pure humitity and love for everybody, and he specificaly said, be subject to all creatures, meaning put yourself below them.

and the fact is, is that the ones who follow Christ true teachings, our cult, are some of the most loving sane people Iv'e ever met.


The word Cult is used by people who hate deepness, so what they do is blame religion for many problems and they don't or can't fathom how someone could actually search in this life and have faith.


having faith is not a cult, distorting certain teachings to fit ones own agenda is a cult, yet sadly, all us religious people get blamed for their actions it seems.


peace.

Well you say a cult to me is more of evil gatherings. Some who practices are not good, but even against the law. A cult I believe not follow a God creator but more of a man on earth.

Religion follows a God or beliefs systems.

cults do have their own beliefs systems but are not moral right.

By definition, all religions are cults. It depends on which definition one uses though. Certainly they all start out as one, adhering to another of the definitions.

The most common of religious organizations (IMO) have conditioned people to believe they are above this cult label, however this is not so. It is these organizations that have demonized the term cult as well.

Workplaces can be considered cults, as well as ATS/BTS...

Basically a group of people that hold an ideal at high regard





[edit on 11/18/2008 by eye open doors]

A religion follows scripture while a cult has it's own agenda how it was explained to me any religion not following scripture is considered a cult

Originally posted by karl 12
Objectively speaking,is there a difference between an organised religion and a cult ? (apart from size that is)
Apparently there is but, due to the glaring fact that there exists no tangible,cogent evidence for any of the fantastical claims of organised religion,and more and more inductees becoming hysterically polarised,bigotted,prejudiced,conditioned,indoctrinated,brainwashed and deluded into thinking they are superior to other human beings,should we not reappraise our definitions and afford all 'non provable beleif systems' cult status?
If not why not-what's the difference if there is no evidence for any of it?
[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

"Cult" is from the same root as "culivate". Cults have a particular methodology in captivating and cultivating its members. What's known as "brain-washing" is used to a greater or lesser extent among cults and fosters a reliance on the leader figure which becomes an absolute.

Speaking as a Catholic I know that some consider we use brainwashing, in schools etc., to ensure unquestioning loyalty to the Pope and the Church. However, if that's the case why are our churches so empty? Even at the peak of religious practice in the last century the number of Church going catholics who had been educated and raised by Catholic parents and catholic schools the highest practice rate was only about 60-70 perccent. Despite all the brainwashing techniques we're accussed of, it don't seem to be working. If it did condoms wouldn't be so popular in Italy.

Mainstream religions are not a cult, which can be demonstrated by the numbers who come and go, or only use the Church for hatching, matching and dispatching. In a cult you hatch when the leader tells you. Match who the leader tells you too. And, in many case, dispatch with all your friends just as the big spaceship/light beam/spaghetti monster passes the moon.

Originally posted by Oldtimer2
A religion follows scripture while a cult has it's own agenda how it was explained to me any religion not following scripture is considered a cult

If that is the case, then the Catholic and Protestant churches are the biggest cults of all.

Things not followed in scripture....

The seventh day Sabbath. (Exodus 20:10) - Substituted by these churches for Sunday

God's Holy Days (Leviticus 23) - Substituted for Christmas and Easter etc.

The 10 commandments, including the 7th day Sabbath, the veneration of Idols, and placing others before God.

Scripture says man goes to the grave at death and returns to the dust from which he is made, to await the future resurrection (Genesis 3:19, Daniel 12:13, John 11:24, 2Timothy 2:18, 1Corinthians 15:52, Revelation 20:5) but this is substituted for a belief that man goes to heaven at death, or the modern view of "hell".

Jesus said to pray to God the Father (Luke 11:2), not dead people who are in the grave such as Saints or Mary etc

I could goon forever but you get the point.

[edit on 19/11/08 by doctorex]

It is my personal opinion that all religions have points, either in their origin or throughout their history, where they are cults.
Christianity has had, and will have many points in history where this was hte case.
An obvious example is back during the middle ages where it was required that a male child serve in the clergy.

Generally, cults have serious backlashes when you try to leave, up to and including murder. Religions are more relaxed, whether by benefit of being considered proven, or by not having to prove themselves to the public, i don't know.
I think the majority tend to decide what is and isn't a cult, while many in the minority tend to ascribe anything remotely religious as a cult.

Originally posted by RuneSpider
An obvious example is back during the middle ages where it was required that a male child serve in the clergy.

Not an obvious example at all, as it was never a requirement, unless you have a source that demonstrates this point?

It was certainly a common practice to have one child join the clergy, not a requirement.

Originally posted by babloyi
The difference (as far as people's usage of the term goes) is very simple. When you want to be insulting towards it, you call it a cult. When you are talking about it normally, it is a religion.

Check it out. At any instance of the use 'cult' in ATS/BTS, you can be 100% sure that the person who used the term was antagonistic towards the group in question.

You yourself seem to be against all religions, hence your desire to call religion a cult.

Didn't realy address the question there but thanks for the reply anyway.
It seems to me,if you look the term dispassionately/objectively and free from emotive agenda;all religious groups or organisations,whether they claim to be or not,can be seen as cults.
If the word has negative connotations then it doesn't detract from the fact that groups of people,with no evidence whatsoever to go on,blindly follow and unquestioningly accept what others tell them to believe regarding the fantastical claims of many religions.
There is always the 'scripture excuse' but again, objectively speaking,scripture is just another invented literal label for 'words written down in a book'.
The way many religions squabble and bicker between themselves about who is more holy and superior (and attempt to forcefully impose their views on others) is also akin to cult logic and behaviour.
Maybe it is time for society to stop apologising for (and hiding behind) non provable religion and tar all cults with the same brush.
Special dispensations for religion seem to me to be unfair and hypocritical.
Maybe when someone presents some tangible,cogent evidence to give one organised religious institution dominion over the other,then they can be legitamised-until then I think all these various religious cults have just as much credibility,validity,feasiblity and plausiblity as one another.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Religions are (or allege to be) interested in fostering your spiritual development and growth. It becomes "cultish" when that religion starts telling you what constitutes your spiritual development and growth.

If they start punishing in any way (ridicule, shunning, ostracism, excommunication, pennance, etc.) for not adhering to their accepted methods for your spiritual growth and development and start serving Kool-aid.......RUN!