• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are all religions cults?

Are all religions cults?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 38.8%
  • no

    Votes: 26 53.1%
  • I do not know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • other

    Votes: 4 8.2%

  • Total voters
    49

Turin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
813
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Are all religions cults?
 
What do words mean when we mean them to mean something else when their meaning doesnt seem to apply?
More properly I would say all cults are religions.
 
What do words mean when we mean them to mean something else when their meaning doesnt seem to apply?
More properly I would say all cults are religions.

Possibly ... One could make a case that cults that last long enough or that convert large numbers of people, or both, are eventually called religions.

I voted other ... I certainly support any individual's right to have blind faith in something or anything that helps them make it through the day.
 
Last edited:
Depends on your definition of cult, and religion. There are some that would define a religious cult as any religion other than their own.
 
Yes, for example Christianity started as a cult but its principles are nothing like the original worshipers of Christ.
 
I can only speak of Christian cults, and those are defined as any group that claims to follow Christ, but who follow another person whom they exalt as Christ's equal, and who follow a book to which they give equal importance as the bible, or a heavily edited bible. Or so I was taught at a Christian University by a man who studied cults extensively.
 
I can only speak of Christian cults, and those are defined as any group that claims to follow Christ, but who follow another person whom they exalt as Christ's equal, and who follow a book to which they give equal importance as the bible, or a heavily edited bible. Or so I was taught at a Christian University by a man who studied cults extensively.

I think that's a very narrow viewpoint aimed to de-legitimise other Christians sects.
 
I would say all religions we know of today started out as a "cult".
 
I can only speak of Christian cults, and those are defined as any group that claims to follow Christ, but who follow another person whom they exalt as Christ's equal, and who follow a book to which they give equal importance as the bible, or a heavily edited bible. Or so I was taught at a Christian University by a man who studied cults extensively.

Umm the standard King James Bible is "heavily edited." The topic of which specific religious texts were actually a part of the Bible was hotly debated for 1,500 years after Christ (with no real rhyme or reason behind the final canon), and the text was translated, interpreted, re-translated, and re-interpreted countless times.
 
Last edited:
Umm the standard King James Bible is "heavily edited." The topic of which specific religious texts were actually a part of the Bible was hotly debated for 1,500 years after Christ (with no real rhyme or reason behind the final canon), and the text was translated, interpreted, re-translated, and re-interpreted countless times.

Choosing books is not editing them. And the KJV says nothing like, "And LuckyDan stood beside the Lord. And the Lord Said unto LuckyDan 'Thou art too cool for school. Ye shall be my bro henceforth.'"

You get the idea. That's heavily edited
 
Last edited:
(edit: in response to LuckYDan) I wonder what religion he had in mind lol. So I take it that it was all right for Mathew, Mark, and Luke to believe that God spoke to Moses and also to them in their lives and they viewed both as the word of God, but if a Nephi or a Joseph Smith were given revelation from heaven and believed that God spoke to men and women anciently and to them and they viewed both as sacred, they would be a cult. If a cult is opposite of the "Christianity" of your professor, then I love the term.
 
Last edited:
Choosing books is not editing them. And the KJV says nothing like, "And LuckyDan stood beside the Lord. And the Lord Said unto LuckyDan 'Thou art too cool for school. Ye shall be my bro henceforth.'"

You get the idea. That's heavily edited

If I remember correctly, the King James Version was a compilation from the various scrolls that existed, and then translated. Of necessity, not all scrolls could be added, and not all of each scroll was included. I would call that editing.

I am curious, under your definition of heavily edited, does that then mean that those christian groups that use other than the KJV of the bible, say the Revised Standard Edition, are cults?
 
If I remember correctly, the King James Version was a compilation from the various scrolls that existed, and then translated. Of necessity, not all scrolls could be added, and not all of each scroll was included. I would call that editing.

I am curious, under your definition of heavily edited, does that then mean that those christian groups that use other than the KJV of the bible, say the Revised Standard Edition, are cults?

There are some Christians who are skeptical of any version but the KJV, but no, I am not among them.
 
(edit: in response to LuckYDan) I wonder what religion he had in mind lol. So I take it that it was all right for Mathew, Mark, and Luke to believe that God spoke to Moses and also to them in their lives and they viewed both as the word of God, but if a Nephi or a Joseph Smith were given revelation from heaven and believed that God spoke to men and women anciently and to them and they viewed both as sacred, they would be a cult. If a cult is opposite of the "Christianity" of your professor, then I love the term.

I'm not a bible scholar, but my professor was. I'm sorry he's not here to discuss this further with you.
 
His teacher had one religion in mind with those comments, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. When he says edited he means the Book of Mormon quotes many Biblical passages. The problem with that is the New Testament quotes heavily the Old Testament. So if he was consistent he would have to reject the New Testament as scripture.
 
I would love to spend a day with your scholar friend and discuss the origins of the bible. I do have some observations and questions. I don't argue religion because at the end of the day we would part ways and I would not have changed my opinion, nor would he.


There are some Christians who are skeptical of any version but the KJV, but no, I am not among them.
 
His teacher had one religion in mind with those comments, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. When he says edited he means the Book of Mormon quotes many Biblical passages. The problem with that is the New Testament quotes heavily the Old Testament. So if he was consistent he would have to reject the New Testament as scripture.

You presume. As I recall, the course title was "World Religions and Cults." I'm sorry I didn't keep the notes, but I assure you Mormons were not the only cult discussed.

That the NT quotes the OT negates neither. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
 
I belong to a faith. You belong to a religious movement. He belongs to a cult. It's like the difference between "making love", "having sex" and "****ing".
 
More accurately when the heroic cult busters mention editing, they make a big deal about the thousands of textual changes the Book of Mormon has gone through from the original translation. They do not mention that like 99.9% are spelling and punctuation, and rendering an abvious direct Hebrew translation to more readable English. The original translation had no punctuation, no paragraphs. Then they ignore just how much the Bible has been edited.
 
Last edited:
I would love to spend a day with your scholar friend and discuss the origins of the bible. I do have some observations and questions. I don't argue religion because at the end of the day we would part ways and I would not have changed my opinion, nor would he.

He was a very learned - and a very kind and patient - man. I'm sure you would enjoy talking to him if you had the chance.

This idea of changing opinions, though, on any topic, is really a waste of time. Clarifying ideas is a much more constructive end.
 
So back to my post 4, it seems that I was correct. It does depend on your definition of cult and religion. And generally speaking yours is the true religion, the rest are cults.


Depends on your definition of cult, and religion. There are some that would define a religious cult as any religion other than their own.
 
Like I said, that is the reason I discuss, not argue. I want to learn.

He was a very learned - and a very kind and patient - man. I'm sure you would enjoy talking to him if you had the chance.

This idea of changing opinions, though, on any topic, is really a waste of time. Clarifying ideas is a much more constructive end.
 
So back to my post 4, it seems that I was correct. It does depend on your definition of cult and religion. And generally speaking yours is the true religion, the rest are cults.

I'm not sure if that's directed at me, but if so, no, I do not believe all other religions are cults. Where have I even implied such?
 
Back
Top Bottom