Cults and Religion
religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
cult
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
So when does a cult become a religion? Did all religions start out as cults? Is the difference between the two as simple as, being more numerous and established?
Or is it something more?
Here are two more sets of definitions
Merriam-Webster
re•li•gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
cult
noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\
: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous
_________________________________________________
Dictionary.com
religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
• Examples
• Word Origin
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
cult
[kuhlt]
noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers:
the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
_________________________________________________
There is a lot of overlap in the definitions. As a mater of fact, all religions were at one time a cult. The main difference is size and the belief of others.
For example: Christianity was considered to be a cult by the Romans, and was persecuted for their beliefs that were viewed by the majority as being false. At that point in time it would have been appropriate to call Christianity a cult. However, today Christianity is a major religion and the word cult would not fit.
There is a show in the UK that covered this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spe9JbmDOms
What Shakyamunison said seems reasonable.
Here is what I think is a good explanation
Here is another one
^ Wow! The video above is describing Christianity.
1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members.
If you don’t ask Jesus for forgiveness, then you are going to hell.
2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
Preachers, minister, bishops, and popes.
3. Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
Jesus, what more can I say.
4. It believes “the end justifies the means” in order to solicit funds recruit people.
Sunday morning church, pass the hat. Pay your dues. Don’t go to hell. Be born again.
5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.
This one is debatable, but if you have ever been to the Vatican, you can see the riches.
well, when we say "cult", the first thing comes to mind is,
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader
definition #6 in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Wow! The video above is describing Christianity.1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members.
If you don’t ask Jesus for forgiveness, then you are going to hell.
2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
Preachers, minister, bishops, and popes.
3. Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
Jesus, what more can I say.
4. It believes “the end justifies the means” in order to solicit funds recruit people.
Sunday morning church, pass the hat. Pay your dues. Don’t go to hell. Be born again.
5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.
This one is debatable, but if you have ever been to the Vatican, you can see the riches.
Most or all of these could be questioned depending on which particular sect or church of Christianity you're talking about. However, there's some truth to each.
But to me, above and beyond all of this is how children are indoctrinated. It's a painless, optimistic process, so the term "indoctrination" seems at odds with this, because the word is generally negative. But initiating any child into a group before they can understand it and think critically about it is immoral, imo. And even when it's under a positive guise and, in the minds of adherents, for a good cause (salvation, etc.), it's still a form of brainwashing, because no one at that age can rebut any of it, or even understand the nuances of most of it.
I have a friend whose parents are agnostic and atheist, respectively. My friend is atheist; his brother is a devout Catholic. It was his decision somewhere in his teens. The parents accept and love both unconditionally. They were honest about their own beliefs, but allowed their children to choose for themselves once they were able. That's the way to do it. If more religious people and/or sects would adopt this approach, I'd have almost no problem with their structure or tactics.
Originally posted by Digisee.. i sorta don't understand this. what if the person teaching the child is under the impression that they're actually correct and know the real truth. how can it be immoral to teach kids the truth?
But to me, above and beyond all of this is how children are indoctrinated. It's a painless, optimistic process, so the term "indoctrination" seems at odds with this, because the word is generally negative. But initiating any child into a group before they can understand it and think critically about it is immoral, imo. And even when it's under a positive guise and, in the minds of adherents, for a good cause (salvation, etc.), it's still a form of brainwashing, because no one at that age can rebut any of it, or even understand the nuances of most of it.
Originally posted by red g jacks
see.. i sorta don't understand this. what if the person teaching the child is under the impression that they're actually correct and know the real truth. how can it be immoral to teach kids the truth?
It will still be the truth when they're a bit older. In grade school, there's a progression of ideas that start with the most simplistic and get gradually more complex. Religion is dressing up calculus as basic addition, and almost always at the expense of other forms of thought.
Even if you ignore the "thinking critically" portion of my justification, kids can't actually understand religious concepts until a certain age. It's too abstract. So even if your intent is still to convert, by teaching it to them at an older age you're giving them a chance to accept it on more than a superficial level.
Mostly, though, I think that this mentality is preposterous, because you're imposing it on another human being who can't object. It's forced upon them. And I value freedom of thought, which this is a direct invasion of. If it is indeed Truth, capital T, it should be self-evident at an older age as well.
To be clear, I don't mind people espousing their religion or trying to convert people to their beliefs if they think them to be true or beneficial. That's a form of freedom as well. But you don't need to be a scholar to see videos of toddlers speaking in tongues and damning heathens (which is provably just mimicking what they see adults doing and saying), and feel a bit queasy at the whole thing. Or, on a less evangelical level, robbed of a reasonable chance at determining incredibly important aspects of their worldview for themselves.
The overwhelmingly highest statistic for what religion you are is what your parent(s) are. There are exceptions aplenty, and I'm one of them, but those prove the rule. I'd like us to be much less insular with this trend, and let religions compete on their merits, not on their ability to brainwash children.
The other answer, for some, is that it ISN'T immoral to teach them the truth. In fact, that's why it happens. It's not seen as indoctrination, it's parents thinking they're doing the right thing. So there's a fundamental difference of opinion, one that I know I won't be able to reconcile with many people.
To be clear, I hold the same standard to my atheism. I wouldn't bring up a child as anything or steer them away from a religion if they were at an age where they could think critically about it. As needed, I'd present the ideas to them, but would embrace their eventual choice regardless of what it is. It's about choice, not about the religion chosen.
Originally posted by riv6672
Its a fine line.
Are the parents that teach Catholicism any better/worse than a Satanist?
On principle, no, imo. Both are forms of indoctrination. In reality, it would likely depend on the particulars of what's being taught.
Others would disagree. See my earlier comments for the discrepancies and details.
Originally posted by riv6672
On a non religious bent, is the parent that teaches racial tolerance any better/worse than the one that teaches racial purity?
This is more easily answered, because there are universally accepted ideas of respect and love that can and should be taught. But, say, the Golden Rule can be understood by a 4-year-old. The variance of religious thought, and the implications and justifications of any complete belief system, cannot.
Originally posted by riv6672
Universally accepted is relative though.I guarantee if the British/South/Nazis had won the war, what is and isnt universal'd be completely different than it is now.
Agreed to an extent, but we're getting awfully nitpicky here. I'd venture to say that you'd agree with me that there's a difference between teaching basic respect for humans and teaching the particulars of any religion (or lack thereof). I also don't think "universal" is as hard as you seem to think it is. Anyone and everyone can understand suffering as bad.
But as I just edited into my earlier post, it's about allowing for choice. Kids can understand concepts of good and bad, happiness and sadness. The whole idea of God - or lack thereof - is beyond them until a certain age. Even if you don't accept anything as universal, respect their intellectual freedom to choose as much as possible. That, more than anything, is my position.
And, again, I hold the same standard to myself. I wouldn't raise my children as atheists. They'd be introduced to religious ideas as they became able to understand them, and would be free to choose on their own (or change, as needed) as they absorbed more and more information. Others would value their "truth" over their kids' freedom, which is unfortunate imo, but is the rebuttal to my argument.
But as I just edited into my earlier post, it's about allowing for choice. Kids can understand concepts of good and bad, happiness and sadness. The whole idea of God - or lack thereof - is beyond them until a certain age. Even if you don't accept anything as universal, respect their intellectual freedom to choose as much as possible. That, more than anything, is my position.
THAT i totally agree with.
Originally posted by Digiit would seem so me that if we were to make this a rule, religion would be the one unique subject in which the student's ability to grasp all of its nuances would preclude any discussion of the subject whatsoever. i'm sure kids can't grasp biology, history, physics, etc but we give them the overview instead of sheltering them until they're ready.
It will still be the truth when they're a bit older. In grade school, there's a progression of ideas that start with the most simplistic and get gradually more complex. Religion is dressing up calculus as basic addition, and almost always at the expense of other forms of thought.Even if you ignore the "thinking critically" portion of my justification, kids can't actually understand religious concepts until a certain age. It's too abstract. So even if your intent is still to convert, by teaching it to them at an older age you're giving them a chance to accept it on more than a superficial level.
Mostly, though, I think that this mentality is preposterous, because you're imposing it on another human being who can't object. It's forced upon them. And I value freedom of thought, which this is a direct invasion of. If it is indeed Truth, capital T, it should be self-evident at an older age as well.
To be clear, I don't mind people espousing their religion or trying to convert people to their beliefs if they think them to be true or beneficial. That's a form of freedom as well. But you don't need to be a scholar to see videos of toddlers speaking in tongues and damning heathens (which is provably just mimicking what they see adults doing and saying), and feel a bit queasy at the whole thing. Or, on a less evangelical level, robbed of a reasonable chance at determining incredibly important aspects of their worldview for themselves.
The overwhelmingly highest statistic for what religion you are is what your parent(s) are. There are exceptions aplenty, and I'm one of them, but those prove the rule. I'd like us to be much less insular with this trend, and let religions compete on their merits, not on their ability to brainwash children.
The other answer, for some, is that it ISN'T immoral to teach them the truth. In fact, that's why it happens. It's not seen as indoctrination, it's parents thinking they're doing the right thing. So there's a fundamental difference of opinion, one that I know I won't be able to reconcile with many people.