Cult or Religion?

[Ghoti]

He asked for opinions. I gave him the result of my experience dealing with people over the years concerning the subject. No biggy.

Nah, no biggy. Sorry if I was making a mountain out of a molehill.

The thing that piqued my curiosity was the “we”, and I was just wondering who the “we” be (especially since you (ye?) emphasized the “we”).

Maybe these are “irregular nouns”, i.e. nouns that decline irregularly by person:

1st person. I am in The Church.
2nd person. You are in an ecclesial community.
3rd person. He is in a cult.

 

[Leela]

Actually, the word ‘cult’ comes from the latin “cultis” or ‘worship.’ as well as the old French "colere (to attend to, cultivate, respect, etc.)

Whereas “occult” comes from the Latin "occultus,’ meaning 'secret, hidden from the understanding, hideen, concealed…past participle of occulere, meaning to cover up, hide or conceal.

Claiming that “cult” comes from “occult” is at best using a false cognate. The most one can say is that both words, way back in the Latin, share a common root word…rather like French and Italian share a common linguistic tie back to Latin, but French did not come from Italian, nor did Italian come from French.

It means: 1.Wordship: reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings.
2. A particular form or system of religious worship: esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies.

More recently, as has been noted, it means “a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practice regarded by others as strange or sinister.”

So…“cult” is, basically, an all inclusive pejorative; a subjective insult that has very little to do with the group being CALLED a cult, but a great deal to do with what others think about it.

When you think about it, though, a cult would be a small group of people who worshiped differently than the majority of the people around them…and whose beliefs are strange to that majority.

'course, that would make Catholics a cult in Utah…and Christianity a cult in Saudi Arabia. I think you can see the problem.

Basically, then, the word “cult” is simply, and only, an insult. Nobody has a definitive idea of what a “cult” is, except “you sound weird to me.”

Diana

Thanks, Diana. This analysis sounds right on. But I also have sympathy for the view that the word cult could be used as more than a slur against religions we think are especially wierd. The distinction between religions that attempt to take practitioners out of the world rather than helping them to live in the world seems like a good use of the term.

Best,
Leela

 

[James_S_Saint]

The distinction between religions that attempt to take practitioners out of the world rather than helping them to live in the world seems like a good use of the term.

Exactly.

 

[1holycatholic]

Still not philosophy. :coffeeread:

 

[James_S_Saint]

Still not philosophy. :coffeeread:

Yes it is.

He could have said, “What is the philosophical difference between a cult and a religion?”

That is all we have been discussing.

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes it is.

He could have said, “What is the philosophical difference between a cult and a religion?”

That is all we have been discussing.

I’m aware of what’s being discussed, it’s not philosophy.

The question:

“What is the philosophical difference between a cult and a religion?”

is not a question of philosophy. You might as well be asking “What is the philosophical difference between football and basketball?”, it’s equally meaningless.

 

[liquidpele]

I’m aware of what’s being discussed, it’s not philosophy.

The question:
is not a question of philosophy. You might as well be asking “What is the philosophical difference between football and basketball?”, it’s equally meaningless.

I disagree. Football and basketball are two well defined things. Religion and beliefs are not. We are discussing where the boundary (if any) exists and differentiating between what is perceived as a good belief or an unhealthy belief. Simply labeling the groups as religion and cult does not take away that fact. If you don’t want to discuss, go to another thread.

 

[Leela]

Still not philosophy. :coffeeread:

Well, you are drinking coffee. Others here are doing philosophy. We are thinking about thinking. We are thinking about the categories we use to understand the world, whether such categories as “cult” and “religion” represent a meaningful intellectual distinction or if “cult” is merely a pejoritive. Such a question can be addressed from a linguistic perspective where we just look at how these words are generally used, from a theological perspective where we see what the Bible and Christian tradition tells us about these terms, or from a philosphical perspective where we see how these words are currently used, where these words came from, and try to find a way that these words may be reclaimed or reinterpreted to give us insight into religious practices. It is the latter perspective that I hoped to invite by posting in the philosophy forum.

I don’t think philosophy or anything else has an essence, so I am not very interested in the question of what is and is not philosophy. I for one don’t wish to put any boundary on philosophy and think of it as more of an attitude than a discipline. But if the question of whether some topic ought to be in one forum or another is a particular interest of yours, I would recommend starting your own thread on the topic if you can ever decide in which forum to post that thread. Just please don’t post any more in this one unless you have something to contribute to the question at hand.

Best,
Leela

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks, Diana. This analysis sounds right on. But I also have sympathy for the view that the word cult could be used as more than a slur against religions we think are especially wierd. The distinction between religions that attempt to take practitioners out of the world rather than helping them to live in the world seems like a good use of the term.

Best,
Leela

That might be one definition…except that it might cause problems for some Catholic religious orders, especially the deeply contemplative ones.

I would like to see a specific, official, definition of the word 'cult, ’ if only because having one makes it more difficult to use it as an all inclusive pejorative. Even so, I’m not certain we would be able to find one that actually describes the belief system under consideration. So far all of 'em are more about the people observing, rather than those being observed.

 

[1holycatholic]

Leela;:

I don’t think philosophy or anything else has an essence, so I am not very interested in the question of what is and is not philosophy.

That is evident from the misplaced thread. As a nominalist you arbitrarily assign meaning to words. Truth is whatever you claim it to be.

Now there is some philosophy in your thread.

 

[JDaniel]

I think the relevant difference is determined by how information is controlled.

A cult maintains itself by so restricting information flow that its devout beliefs cannot be challenged.

More originally, the word “cult” came from “occult” referring specifically to magic worship of one form or another. Magic requires hidden information.

Ummm. To use an ancient expression: Not!

From: English Plus.com
Cult or Occult?

These words are sometimes confused because the expression a cult often sounds like the word occult.

Cult most commonly means a religious sect organized around a strong leader and requiring beliefs or commitments not typical of other related groups. It can also refer to a following of a particular religious figure or icon within an organized religion or a fanatical following of a particular entertainer, athlete, film, television show, or historical figure.

Cult is normally a noun, though it can be used as an adjective meaning “having a cult following” as in a cult film.

Occult literally means “hidden” and generally refers to the pursuit of some kind of magic or secret supernatural knowledge or power. It is most often used as an adjective but is sometimes used as a noun.

The verb to occult means “to hide from view,” and is used most commonly in scientific or specialized fields such as astronomy, navigation, or optics.

Cult: origin 1610 - 1620, < L cultus habitation, tilling, refinement, worship, equiv. to cul-, var. s. of colere to inhabit, till, worship + -tus suffix of v. action - dictionary.com

Occult: origin 1520–30; < L occultus (ptp. of occulere to hide from view, cover up), equiv. to oc- oc- + -cul-, akin to cēlāre to conceal + -tus ptp. suffix - dictionary.com.

Just a slight correction to your pronouncement. Neither word has essentially anything to do with the other.

jd

 

[Sonic]

I’ve always thought that the word cult refers to a popular following of a set of beliefs.

After several centuries of religious questioning and debate over the nature of those beliefs, that popular following or cult qualifies as a religion.

So, if no questioning of beliefs is allowed, a cult remains a cult and never develops into a religion.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Ummm. To use an ancient expression: Not!

NOT!

JDaniel, as explained earlier, how a word is actually used by the populous and how it is supposed to be used “by the book” is often very divergent. (“God” would be one of the best examples).

Where the word originated into the English language is meaningless.

The word gained its use in THIS generation from the word and concept of occult that was taken to mean the worship of those “weird, magical, untrue things”.

And that is still how it is used throughout the Western population. Time to fix the dictionary.

 

[dianaiad]

NOT!

JDaniel, as explained earlier, how a word is actually used by the populous and how it is supposed to be used “by the book” is often very divergent. (“God” would be one of the best examples).

Where the word originated into the English language is meaningless.

The word gained its use in THIS generation from the word and concept of occult that was taken to mean the worship of those “weird, magical, untrue things”.

And that is still how it is used throughout the Western population. Time to fix the dictionary.

At the risk of being nailed for giving a linguistics answer to a philosophical question…you are entirely mistaken.

The word “cult” as originally used in the 1930’s was indeed from the Latin “cultus…” and it is THAT word which has been used to express all the different meanings now attached to it. As I mentioned earlier, “occult” and “cult” have similar root words, but one does not evolve from the other simply because they both evolved from something else.

We may (if anybody ever actually nails one down) add a new meaning to the word “cult” to the dictionary, and apply the initials “obs.” for older meanings, but that does not affect the etymology of the word, especially since “occult” currently refers mostly to dealings with the supernatural, secrets and ceremonies of invoking the supernatural (as in 'superstitious vs. standard religious faith) into daily living, by use of things like spiritism, etc., (spiritualism, as opposed to 'spiritual.")

While some religious groups that people consider to be ‘cults’ deal in that, a great many do not–and in fact, are paranoid about avoiding any hint of the occult as it is presently defined.
Therefore your suggested etymology is erroneous.

In short, word meanings can and do change, because they exist in the present and future; people are using these words now. Etymology, however, is the history of the sound and meaning of a word, and since it IS history (the past), it does NOT change. Several people have told you what the etymology of the word is…I got mine from the OED, and I imagine that the others got their sources from equally prestigious and authoritative sources. They all agree–and that’s not going to change any.

May I humbly suggest that this is a learning experience? That you appreciate the new information, and store it away for future use, rather than letting your intransigent nature prevent intellectual growth?

 

[JDaniel]

NOT!

JDaniel, as explained earlier, how a word is actually used by the populous and how it is supposed to be used “by the book” is often very divergent. (“God” would be one of the best examples).

Where the word originated into the English language is meaningless.

The word gained its use in THIS generation from the word and concept of occult that was taken to mean the worship of those “weird, magical, untrue things”.

And that is still how it is used throughout the Western population. Time to fix the dictionary.

James:

Perhaps you should undertake that mission. Here’s a couple of misguided folks that could use your help, as a start.

geocities.com/CollegePark/4885/cult.html

theosophical.org/resources/leaflets/cults/cult.pdf

isitso.org/guide/cultona.html

holysmoke.org/report/05.htm

If you’re going to defend what is clearly NOT so, I will provide you with about 26,000,000 more websites you can campaign against for using those words and concepts improperly. Surely some, if not most, of these websites are from “this generation.”

By the way, you are reducing any chance of redeeming yourself from this blunder if you continue to desperately defend your position.

jd

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m a little confused as to your point. Each of those websites use the word differently than the dictionary defines it. That was my point. The way it is used in reality is NOT related to how it came into the language.

I most strongly suspect it came into the language by being an indicator of the “seed of a culture”. This is how historians used it at one time.

An example from your first link;

Cults are religious fractions in which there is one or two absolute, totalitarian leaders who claim to possess the one true knowledge to salvation. Cults preach unorthodox, fanatic dogma which usually works parallel to, but not with, a well established religion (so to gain more followers, since established religions already have a high number of people), such as Christianity, Islamic, Jewish, etc. They often hold a rigid, military style hold over the members, who are brain-washed and psychologically (and some times physically) beaten into submission.

How it is defined in today’s online dictionary (noted for displaying a reflection of preferred view of history rather than actual history) is this;

* Main Entry: cult
* Pronunciation: \ˈkəlt\
* Function: noun
* Usage: often attributive
* Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
* Date: 1617

1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

The first example is the most common thought and use, not the dictionary’s etymological deductions which just happen to be such as to imply that all religions are merely the pejorative “cult”, including the CC.

This implies that the dictionary is the one in error and has a very common and well known agenda reflected in almost all popular media.

Never mind that etymologists get very many words wrong as their job is very restricted and controlled (language can cause and define thought/belief).

 

[j1akey]

I didn’t have the time to read everything in this thread but responding to the original poster here I’ve always found it entertaining that cults and religions are basically the same thing. The only difference I’ve been able to see is that religions A) have had some sort authority figure give them recognition and B) they have more followers. Christianity started out to as what was considered a cult in roman times and it wasn’t until Constantine recognized it on his deathbed and it wasn’t until then that it was even given credibility.

 

[Leela]

At the risk of being nailed for giving a linguistics answer to a philosophical question…

I hope it wasn’t my post that made you concerned about whether you are being philosophical enough because that is the opposite of what I intended. I think that if there is such a clear dichotomy between practicing philosophy and all our other practices, then philosophy would have nothing to do with just about everything we do. I would rather think of philosophy in the broadest terms possible rather than narrowly defining it as a specific discipline. I think we would do well to turn back to Socrates practice of simply asking why people are doing the things they are doing (like asking why we call one thing “religion” and another “cult”) against Plato’s turning philosophy into a separate practice intended to stand beyond all our other practices.

Your comments about the etymology of “cult” are important to this discussion. It seems that “cult” is not so much a matter of having secret information like Scientology. Devotion to a specific person or idol may be a defining characteristic.

Best,
Leela

 

[dianaiad]

I hope it wasn’t my post that made you concerned about whether you are being philosophical enough because that is the opposite of what I intended.

Good heavens, no!

It was actually a wry comment to 1HolyCatholic’s plaint that this thread isn’t philosophy.

I think that if there is such a clear dichotomy between practicing philosophy and all our other practices, then philosophy would have nothing to do with just about everything we do.

Agreed. There isn’t a whole lot that logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology doesn’t cover, and THIS thread? I would put it solidly in the epistemological and metaphysical camp. Not to mention a little ethics in there…

I would rather think of philosophy in the broadest terms possible rather than narrowly defining it as a specific discipline. I think we would do well to turn back to Socrates practice of simply asking why people are doing the things they are doing (like asking why we call one thing “religion” and another “cult”) against Plato’s turning philosophy into a separate practice intended to stand beyond all our other practices.

Your comments about the etymology of “cult” are important to this discussion. It seems that “cult” is not so much a matter of having secret information like Scientology. Devotion to a specific person or idol may be a defining characteristic.

Best,
Leela

I think you are correct…of course, that makes pretty much every theistic belief system a ‘cult.’

Perhaps not Budhism…(thinking a minute)…nope, it applies to them too.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

jd

JD, whats up!? long time no see!

as for me any group that teaches anything in matters of faith, that is not in Communion with the Holy See is a cult.

it may not fit technical definitions, but what does that matter? there is one truth, and that is Christ. anything else is a pale imitation, a shadow of substance and a waste of ones soul.