Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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?

There is a show in the UK that covered this,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spe9JbmDOms

What Shakyamunison said seems reasonable.

What if cultures form from cults?

Originally posted by Jynocidus
What if cultures form from cults?

I think that the similarity in the words is just coincidental, but I don't know for sure. I could be wrong. However, there is a connection between culture and religion that feeds back and forth.

Yeah there is.

And you're spot on about the overlap. It really is a case of history being written by the winners...

Here is what I think is a good explanation

ruSHCRiKJaE

Here is another one

FnhdCzJ6lNg

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

And most every major religion fit the description at one time. Funky.

Originally posted by Digi

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. 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?

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.

Its a fine line.
Are the parents that teach Catholicism any better/worse than a Satanist? On a non religious bent, is the parent that teaches racial tolerance any better/worse than the one that teaches racial purity?

I think the ones outside looking in/the majority are making the distinctions.

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.

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.

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.

THAT i totally agree with.

Originally posted by Digi
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. it 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.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it 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.

Overviews are fine. That's not what I'm talking about though. You can introduce them to the concept of God without indoctrinating them to a specific idea. In my posts above, a key part of what I was espousing involved introducing kids to concepts as they were able to grasp them. Sorry if I wasn't more clear on this.

There are kids in their teens who have never even encountered a different way of religious thinking. I know because I've met many of them...in a fairly liberal part of the country, no less. Nowhere near the Bible belt or South. While I'm sure they had well-meaning parents, THAT is the enemy of understanding and acceptance on a societal level, as well as the enemy of freedom of choice for millions of children.

alright but lets take it back to the religious parent who is convinced they have the truth. maybe their kid can't understand all the nuances of their religion. but why is it immoral for them to say jesus died for your sins blah blah blah devil bad god good blah blah blah garden of eden etc etc... the kid can easily grasp all that shit and it provides a decent overview of what that parent thinks is the truth. so why is that immoral?

Don't teach anything to anyone. Make every generation discover it all for themselves. Hee Hee

Originally posted by red g jacks
alright but lets take it back to the religious parent who is convinced they have the truth. maybe their kid can't understand all the nuances of their religion. but why is it immoral for them to say jesus died for your sins blah blah blah devil bad god good blah blah blah garden of eden etc etc... the kid can easily grasp all that shit and it provides a decent overview of what that parent thinks is the truth. so why is that immoral?

There are two answers here. One is that, this is where I'm going to disagree with that parent, and the disagreement is likely irreconcilable. I don't think we can know the truth about this. I'm not claiming a competing truth; I just think none of us know to the extent that we can teach it as Truth. So teaching a subjective opinion as truth is irresponsible. There are levels at which we must trust authority, and theories that are likely not irrefutable, but that must also be taught. But making those distinctions along that spectrum is key, and is another reason why children aren't ready to handle much of this.

The other answer is that I think it would be ok for a parent to do this...IF they taught other belief systems as well, at a level the child could understand them. Again, to teach a child something at that age is to limit their freedom of choice. They can't make distinctions between beliefs and empirical facts, between opinions and facts, and between the validity of statements. Knowing the influence a parent's beliefs have on a child, to do this is to acknowledge that you're stripping them of a level intellectual playing field. Again, this is a values issue. I value the freedom element; such a parent would value their Truth over that level playing field for a child.

I'd maybe even go so far as to say it would be ok to present different ideas that the child could grasp, and explain that one of them is what the parents believe (and why). It's still exposure to other ideas, and it's acknowledging the belief as just that: a belief. Not an irrefutable fact. There's an element of influence if the parents lean toward one over another, and I can't say I'm a huge fan of it even in this scenario. But true ambivalence may be possible only in hypothetical scenarios.

You don't have to look far to see this in action. The easiest examples are those videos of child worship camps, which are literal brainwashing facilities. The principle holds true through less obvious examples, but it's not hard to see the destructive potential of instilling beliefs before critical and abstract thinking can put it into proper context.

Maybe I'm not going to convince you red g, but there's a middle ground. Even if you think parents aren't in the wrong to raise their children as one religion over others from a very young age, there are practical examples of the negative side of this. Like this:

Originally posted by Digi
There are kids in their teens who have never even encountered a different way of religious thinking. I know because I've met many of them...in a fairly liberal part of the country, no less. Nowhere near the Bible belt or South. While I'm sure they had well-meaning parents, THAT is the enemy of understanding and acceptance on a societal level, as well as the enemy of freedom of choice for millions of children.

Or this:

Originally posted by Digi
You don't have to look far to see this in action. The easiest examples are those videos of child worship camps, which are literal brainwashing facilities. The principle holds true through less obvious examples, but it's not hard to see the destructive potential of instilling beliefs before critical and abstract thinking can put it into proper context.

The middle ground is: "raise them whatever you want, but teach them about other belief systems." A wider awareness is another key to all of this, even if you're being raised in a particular religion.

I don't agree that the middle ground is enough; it will increase tolerance but have a negligible affect on freedom of choice for children as they grow into adulthood. But it's a potential stopping point for others that I think is far less controversial.

This is interesting reading.
Great to see all these opinions.

Rao Kal El, I think the video's definition of a cult is wrong. That is what I have been trying to point out. A "cult" is a bad name you call an upstart religion that you don't like. Every religion started out small and had people who didn't like them. They were all cults. Some cults are good and some are bad, just like the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Rao Kal El, I think the video's definition of a cult is wrong. That is what I have been trying to point out. A "cult" is a bad name you call an upstart religion that you don't like. Every religion started out small and had people who didn't like them. They were all cults. Some cults are good and some are bad, just like the rest of the world.

Fair enough

I really enjoyed our conversation and I like to have this type of conversations much better than my usual Quan trolling

Wow.
Shaky actually made the point i had in mind when i started this thread.

Originally posted by riv6672
Wow.
Shaky actually made the point i had in mind when i started this thread.

There is a difference between them that is more than numbers or being stablished.

As a former member of both. I can tell you that a cult is far worse and more damaging than a religion.

When I left the religion I didn't feel like I just woke up from a dream and Iwas never scared or hesitant to reveal that I was no longer a Christian.

When I left the cult, I felt like I just woke up from a dream and it took me a while to let members of the cult to know I no longer believe on their teachings.

It is a completely different situation that it goes beyond some mere traits that you could find on both and maybe only experiencing both you could see the difference.

I no longer believe in ANY man made religion and I understand some people might find strength in religions and cults, but cults are more damaging, imo

Originally posted by Digi
Maybe I'm not going to convince you red g, but there's a middle ground. Even if you think parents aren't in the wrong to raise their children as one religion over others from a very young age, there are practical examples of the negative side of this. Like this:



Or this:



The middle ground is: "raise them whatever you want, but teach them about other belief systems." A wider awareness is another key to all of this, even if you're being raised in a particular religion.

I don't agree that the middle ground is enough; it will increase tolerance but have a negligible affect on freedom of choice for children as they grow into adulthood. But it's a potential stopping point for others that I think is far less controversial. see.. i'm somewhat sympathetic to the sentiment because i know people who home school their kids and teach them a bunch of creationist nonsense and i certainly do think that's not in the kid's best interest. i agree there is certainly a line that gets crossed where religious indoctrination becomes borderline child abuse (see: jesus camp). but i am still thinking about your average family that is just trying to pass down the traditions they grew up with. like my family for example. i don't see any malice in that and so i can't really shake my finger at it.

now if you want to know what i think is ideal? just, like you said, tell the kid what you know and think and don't overstate it, and allow and encourage them to think for themselves. but i don't think not living up to this ideal makes people immoral, just misguided.

one more point of interest and then i'll wrap it up. religious indoctrination is not the only kind of indoctrination kids will face. from day one kids are drilled with political, moral and cultural indoctrination. is this immoral too? can that 5 year old really understand what being a patriot means? it seems like humans have a long history of passing on traditions and a lot of this would seemingly be immoral by the standards we are starting to set here.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
There is a difference between them that is more than numbers or being stablished.

As a former member of both. I can tell you that a cult is far worse and more damaging than a religion.

When I left the religion I didn't feel like I just woke up from a dream and Iwas never scared or hesitant to reveal that I was no longer a Christian.

When I left the cult, I felt like I just woke up from a dream and it took me a while to let members of the cult to know I no longer believe on their teachings.

It is a completely different situation that it goes beyond some mere traits that you could find on both and maybe only experiencing both you could see the difference.

I no longer believe in ANY man made religion and I understand some people might find strength in religions and cults, but cults are more damaging, imo

Sorry about your experience.

Originally posted by riv6672
Sorry about your experience.

Don't be, I feel much better and happy now

I see it as experience and I got out of it by myself, no one helped me, but some people need help to get out of this type of cults.

I will never said to someone "leave your religion" but I will recommend anyone to "leave their cults"

Funny thing is thst when you are in a cult you don't even realize it. You find out usually after you left, some realize this before.

But in any given situation brfore you get into a church I will recommend everybody to investigate their background before.committing bto a religion

Damn good recommendation, no pun intended!