• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religion or Cult?

rjay

rjay

Rocket Surgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
3,106
Reaction score
2,177
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Where do you draw the line between a Religion and a Cult?

The bottom line for me is this: Any religion that requires you to turn your back on a family member, because they have left the religion, is a cult.

The concept of 'shunning' is a real cult indicator, in my opinion.
 
I see no fundamental difference between the two....though perhaps number of followers could be used to evaluate.
 
rjay said:
Where do you draw the line between a Religion and a Cult?

The bottom line for me is this: Any religion that requires you to turn your back on a family member, because they have left the religion, is a cult.

The concept of 'shunning' is a real cult indicator, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

At first, I agreed with your concept of a cult indicator. But then I remembered that the Amish practice shunning. I don't consider them a cult. I suppose one reason I don't view them as a cult is that they have stood the test of time.

I did some Googling and found that Jehovah's Witnesses practice shunning as well. As do Mormons. Mennonites same thing. Some ultra-Orthodox Jews actually hold funerals for those who marry outside their religion. Catholics excommunicate. (Not the same thing, but I think it was more or less meant to be. In 1983, their doctrine was changed and the shunning aspect of excommunication is no longer expected.)

So, then what's a cult? Well, I'm thinking that a cult is a religious sect that believes its leader speaks for God . . . one whose motives are to collect money from its followers to enrich their leader (sound like the Catholic church? Ha!) . . . and where the practice of their religion is ultimately harmful to its congregants. A perfect example would be the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project. (Jonestown)
 
I'm not sure I can draw a clear line. You find questionable aspects in all organized religions too, the same which are often cited to define cults, just usually less extreme.

I guess in general parlor, the term "cult" is often used by established and big religions to attack less accepted, smaller religions or religious groups. So it's often more a pejorative "fighting term" than a clearly defined one.

IMO, I try to be critical of certain aspects in all organized religious groups, no matter their size, such as shunning, questionable business practizes, financial abuses, abuse of the believers by the clerics/authorities and closedness towards the "unbelievers".
 
Well all religions started out as cults so I would say any cult that grows beyond a handful of members and lasts more than one generation can be considered a religion.
 
MaggieD said:
At first, I agreed with your concept of a cult indicator. But then I remembered that the Amish practice shunning. I don't consider them a cult. I suppose one reason I don't view them as a cult is that they have stood the test of time.

I did some Googling and found that Jehovah's Witnesses practice shunning as well. As do Mormons. Mennonites same thing. Some ultra-Orthodox Jews actually hold funerals for those who marry outside their religion. Catholics excommunicate. (Not the same thing, but I think it was more or less meant to be. In 1983, their doctrine was changed and the shunning aspect of excommunication is no longer expected.)

So, then what's a cult? Well, I'm thinking that a cult is a religious sect that believes its leader speaks for God . . . one whose motives are to collect money from its followers to enrich their leader (sound like the Catholic church? Ha!) . . . and where the practice of their religion is ultimately harmful to its congregants. A perfect example would be the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project. (Jonestown)
Click to expand...

To be honest, I feel all of the religions you mentioned in relation to shunning, are cults. I believe you can add Scientology into that mix. Excommunication, to me, is different from shunning.
 
PoS said:
Well all religions started out as cults so I would say any cult that grows beyond a handful of members and lasts more than one generation can be considered a religion.
Click to expand...

You are very generous with your 'religion/cult' line. But the purpose of this thread is to see where and how different folks differentiate between the two.

the one thing i am very certain of - we will not get agreement about where that line is :)
 
Last edited:
I don't see a line per se, since what distingishes a cult from a religion in this regard has to do with degree. What we refer to as cults rely on the need for groupthink so thorough that the punishment for any sign of independence is severe. Some religions go far as supporting the killing of those who choose to leave it, yet we insist on calling them religions, so I think much of the distinction lies in common parlance rather than anything definitive.

In general, though, what we call cults usually rely on a charismatic leader. Religions do not necesarily follow suit.
 
rjay said:
Where do you draw the line between a Religion and a Cult?

The bottom line for me is this: Any religion that requires you to turn your back on a family member, because they have left the religion, is a cult.

The concept of 'shunning' is a real cult indicator, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think that is a good starting point. Another sign might be the mandatory merger of one's own property into the group. There are exceptions though. Hutterites have practiced communal living and combined assets for years. So have Catholic ordered priests (Jesuits, Domincians etc). These groups, however, make no secret about these practices whereas cults conceal the requirement.

MaggieD said:
So, then what's a cult? Well, I'm thinking that a cult is a religious sect that believes its leader speaks for God . . . one whose motives are to collect money from its followers to enrich their leader (sound like the Catholic church? Ha!) .
Click to expand...

Or Obama's Democratic Party?

Well, you need to drop the religous sect component of the definition. The rest fits (cult of personality - yes, Obama has a rather high opinion of himself and his followers reinforce this, calls for wealth to be re distributed to members of the party... ) Sounds pretty scary right?
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
At first, I agreed with your concept of a cult indicator. But then I remembered that the Amish practice shunning. I don't consider them a cult. I suppose one reason I don't view them as a cult is that they have stood the test of time.

I did some Googling and found that Jehovah's Witnesses practice shunning as well. As do Mormons. Mennonites same thing. Some ultra-Orthodox Jews actually hold funerals for those who marry outside their religion. Catholics excommunicate. (Not the same thing, but I think it was more or less meant to be. In 1983, their doctrine was changed and the shunning aspect of excommunication is no longer expected.)

So, then what's a cult? Well, I'm thinking that a cult is a religious sect that believes its leader speaks for God . . . one whose motives are to collect money from its followers to enrich their leader (sound like the Catholic church? Ha!) . . . and where the practice of their religion is ultimately harmful to its congregants. A perfect example would be the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project. (Jonestown)
Click to expand...

Mormons don't practice shunning. I'm not sure about the other ones.

There is no real defined difference. I think that a religion that the person doing the labeling believes in is a religion, and one he doesn't is a cult.
 
Religions are just popular cults. There is no difference.
 
rjay said:
Are you saying cults are unpopular religions? :)
Click to expand...

More like a cult is a religion that hasn't gone mainstream.
 
MaggieD said:
At first, I agreed with your concept of a cult indicator. But then I remembered that the Amish practice shunning. I don't consider them a cult. I suppose one reason I don't view them as a cult is that they have stood the test of time.

I did some Googling and found that Jehovah's Witnesses practice shunning as well. As do Mormons. Mennonites same thing. Some ultra-Orthodox Jews actually hold funerals for those who marry outside their religion. Catholics excommunicate. (Not the same thing, but I think it was more or less meant to be. In 1983, their doctrine was changed and the shunning aspect of excommunication is no longer expected.)

So, then what's a cult? Well, I'm thinking that a cult is a religious sect that believes its leader speaks for God . . . one whose motives are to collect money from its followers to enrich their leader (sound like the Catholic church? Ha!) . . . and where the practice of their religion is ultimately harmful to its congregants. A perfect example would be the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project. (Jonestown)
Click to expand...

LDS Mormons absolutely do not shun. You are likely thinking of some of the small offshoots of the religion like the FLDS.
 
rjay said:
Where do you draw the line between a Religion and a Cult?

The bottom line for me is this: Any religion that requires you to turn your back on a family member, because they have left the religion, is a cult.

The concept of 'shunning' is a real cult indicator, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Than you'd consider the Abrahamic religions in their entirety a cult, as all put God above family.
 
I think religions are big cults.
 
Gardener said:
I don't see a line per se, since what distingishes a cult from a religion in this regard has to do with degree. What we refer to as cults rely on the need for groupthink so thorough that the punishment for any sign of independence is severe. Some religions go far as supporting the killing of those who choose to leave it, yet we insist on calling them religions, so I think much of the distinction lies in common parlance rather than anything definitive.

In general, though, what we call cults usually rely on a charismatic leader. Religions do not necesarily follow suit.
Click to expand...

I'd say Elvis and Jesus were pretty charismatic. However the "leader part" is debatable. On the other had David Koresh claimed he was the incarnate of Jesus, or something to that effect. Apparently he wasn't liked any better the second time around. :shrug:
 
Dittohead not! said:
Mormons don't practice shunning. I'm not sure about the other ones.
Click to expand...

Or at least not formally. Mormons have, however, apparently practiced unofficial shunning - more so in the past than today. This unoffical shunning is / was still very real and could vary in intensity depending on the time, the place, the shunners and the shunned.

ChezC3 said:
Than you'd consider the Abrahamic religions in their entirety a cult, as all put God above family.
Click to expand...
And perhaps Buddhism as well as early Buddhists placed the same value on the darma and the community of Buddhists that Christians placed on the gospels and disciples. I am almost certain that early Buddhists were instructed to leave their family's actions and lifestyle were detrimental to a person becoming party of the community of the Buddhist believers (the Sangha?)
 
Last edited:
A cult might allow for worship of something other than divinity, such as inanimate objects. As such, it's entirely personalised, so it caters only to its limited following, with no probability of mass appeal. The relationship with that worshiped is defined purely in terms of the self. In that sense, we can define cultism as self-worship, which is why it tends towards extremism. Selfishness, as opposed to the selflessness that lies at the core of the major, orthodox religions.
 
I ran across an interesting article. It's a little dated (2007). The title is: "Top Ten Cults", but the author throws in a bonus cult.

Notice that only the Manson Family is not connected to some type of religion like organization (well, plus or minus one cult), I may have missed something. So this article might offer some correlations to religions that you can identify with on this topic. Or not.

Top 10 Cults - Listverse
 
I think if the group requires you to submit to their decisions regarding conduct of your personal life, they are a cult, especially if they shun you if you object to their control. Unhealthy control would be my criteria. I had a friend tell me that in her church, the elders needed to approve who you dated and you dating protocol. That seems like surrender of an unhealthy level of control to me.
 
ChezC3 said:
Than you'd consider the Abrahamic religions in their entirety a cult, as all put God above family.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct
 
MaggieD said:
At first, I agreed with your concept of a cult indicator. But then I remembered that the Amish practice shunning. I don't consider them a cult. I suppose one reason I don't view them as a cult is that they have stood the test of time.

I did some Googling and found that Jehovah's Witnesses practice shunning as well. As do Mormons. Mennonites same thing. Some ultra-Orthodox Jews actually hold funerals for those who marry outside their religion. Catholics excommunicate. (Not the same thing, but I think it was more or less meant to be. In 1983, their doctrine was changed and the shunning aspect of excommunication is no longer expected.)

So, then what's a cult? Well, I'm thinking that a cult is a religious sect that believes its leader speaks for God . . . one whose motives are to collect money from its followers to enrich their leader (sound like the Catholic church? Ha!) . . . and where the practice of their religion is ultimately harmful to its congregants. A perfect example would be the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project. (Jonestown)
Click to expand...

Using your definition, and applying it from an anti-religionist's standpoint, nearly all religions would thereby be cults to differing degrees. This would certainly include major ones like Catholics and broadly speaking most "born again" groups in the Protestant world.

I would note that some people are greedy even though they don't seek monetary gain. A narcissist is greedy for food to feed his ego, for example. In my opinion, most "passionate" church leaders are of this breed, whether they live in poverty or palaces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom