What's the difference between a religion and a cult?

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

Meaning no offense thereby, the working definition of a "cult" that I use personally is any religion with a living master.

Again, this isn't in any way intended to give offense or condemn, but simply to denote a brand-new religion of whatever nature.

Regards,

Bruce

 

[lilithu]

The way i see it, any religion with a founder starts off like this.

Hi Halcyon, as I said in the end, some cults do mature into full religions. But I do not agree that all religions with a founder started off like this.

Mark's/eudaimonia's definition perhaps says it more succinctly and directly than mine:

1) social isolation
2) psychological manipulation
3) dictatorial control

I feel that some people nowadays, in an attempt to be open-minded, have become incapable of naming some things as harmful.

 

[XAAX]

Do cults have secretive symbols, hidden messages and still more secretive members whilst religions do not?
Are monotheistic religions cults of personality? Does Jesus have a cult of personality?Are religions umbrella terms for many different cults?
Are religions mainstream whilst cults are not? Is atheism a cult?
Are pantheism, paganism and Wiccanism cults?
Are there any tangible differences, or are the "differences" completely intangible?

Very simple Ozzie...A religion is a successful cult...

 

[Quiddity]

Very simple Ozzie...A religion is a successful cult...

So not true!

You must think I dump out my brain before I enter Church? That I don't challenge my priest? That I don't read history? That I am unaware of reason and logic?

Seriously man, your bias toward this radiates through my screen. So much so, that it shrunk one of my eyes....:areyoucra

 

[Halcyon]

I feel that some people nowadays, in an attempt to be open-minded, have become incapable of naming some things as harmful.

Oh i totally agree, i get like that myself sometimes.

However, i still stand by what i said. I see those aspects in the ministry of Jesus and Muhammed, and to a lesser degree with Buddha and Joseph Smith - people may not like it, but that's what i see.

1) social isolation
2) psychological manipulation
3) dictatorial control

I see these aspects in those groups too, not in the religions now, but when they first started out with their charismatic leaders as the focus. I think in some new religions these three aspects are more predominant than in the ancient ones, and more harmful as a result.

The disciples were certainly socially isolated, i don't think anyone could deny that.

Psychological manipulation can take many forms, from disciplined meditation technique to sunday schools to brain washing. I see Jesus, Muhammed and Buddha changing how people thought, through the nicer methods of psychological manipulation to be sure, but its still there.

And as for dictatorial control, i think its more complex than "Do what i say or suffer the consequences" as we'd ascribe to political dictators today. People in these new religions, for the most part, follow their leaders wholeheartedly through choice - so even though Jesus and Muhammed dictated what their followers should believe, their followers accepted that dictation ungrudgingly and because they wanted too.

Now, some new religions (along with some sects/churches/places of worship of already well established faiths) do go too far and force people to think as they (the leaders) wish, through brain washing etc. And, like you i think that is very wrong.
But i honestly think there is a scale of cultish behaviour, from the practically benign kind we see in Buddha or Jesus or Joseph Smith right through to the dangerously disturbed kind of Heaven's Gate.

I also think Bruce says quite succinctly what i'm driving at;

Meaning no offense thereby, the working definition of a "cult" that I use personally is any religion with a living master.

Again, this isn't in any way intended to give offense or condemn, but simply to denote a brand-new religion of whatever nature.