Cult vs Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheIrishman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve always felt the best definition of a “cult” is an extremist group that they:
  1. Believe they, and only they are the ‘enlightened ones’.
    and more importantly,
  2. Have a person who directs and dictates what is believed, practiced, and LIVED by the adherants.
    Years ago when I was in fundamentalism, there was a “star” preacher in a certain city (with his name attatched to a “Bible College”) who had a strange “hold” on his congregation. They would kill for him…if he asked. He never did, but he reveled in the attention he got. These types of sociopathic personalities can be very dangerous. They demand unquestioning obedience and loyalty. People looking for what appears to be ‘stability’ or direction in thier lives seem to be the most attracted to groups like this.
    Jim Jones was ordained in the Disciple of Christ denomination, a mainstream and rather liberal denomination before he went off the rails.
 
What’s the difference?

Some would say that Scientology or Jehovah’s Witness are cults but would say that Christians and Muslims are religions. Some would say vice versa.

So what classifies something as a religion or a cult? What’s the defining line?
Is there one? And how do you recognize if you are in a cult?
A cult excludes.

Scientology and Watchtower Society are typical examples of cults.

Christianity as lived in the apostolic Church is not a cult, because not only it opens its doors specifically to the sinner to offer Him the way of light and life, true peace, and salvation and eternal life, but even affirms that every element of good found everywhere outside Christianity proceeds from God, and that there is hope that even those who are ignorant of Christ’s gospel and of His Church will attain what Christ offers and promises.

Christian or pseudo-Christian cults are different from protestant ecclesiastic communities in that the former are hurtful to the individual.

For instance, the Watcthower Society forces by indoctrination its members to refuse blood transfusions, and people have died for that reason. That’s a cult.

Also when you are told that there are “secret” knowledge principles that can be revealed only to a higher group of elects (contrary to the Christian teaching that nothing has been spoken in a hidden way and that all that is hidden shall be revealed).

Or the practice of “shunning” someone as opposed to “excommunicating” someone - the former being a total rejection of an individual by friends and family, the latter being a medical penance in which the person simply cannot benefit from the Sacraments until he repents for the fault because of which he was punished and which he still refuses to acknowledge as a fault, though his community, his friends, and his family are still there for him and above all else his obligations as a disciple remain in place.

As a Catholic, I know the history of my Church well enough to find in her the mirror and fulfillment of what the apostles taught and practiced, of what the first Christians did and followed (as we find out if we read the corpus of writings of those whom we call “Church Fathers”), and in what it does, namely, being all over the world to help the poorest, having hundreds of thousands of men and women who embrace a vow of chastity or celibacy and sometimes even of full poverty and dedicate themselves to serve Christ in His Church, which the Gospel terms “the pillar and foundation of truth”, in obedience to the episkopoi, the presbyteros, and the diaconi - those who are the successors of the apostles according to Scripture and to history (this was the teaching and practice of the Early Church). Also the fact that the majority of Christedom is a member of the apostolic church, the only Church that affirms to have authority to forgive sins, drive out demons, and to have the Eucharist in which Christ is really present in body, blood, soul, and divinity - and despite it all, still affirming that others can be saved without being formally Catholics if they are invincibly ignorant of Christ and the Gospel, and that elements of sanctification can be found even within separated Christian communities.

That becomes my “pillar and foundation” to evaluate if X or Y community is a cult or just another amidst thousands of Christian communities not in full communion with the Church.
 
You know you’re in a cult when several people you trust, love or respect tell you you’re in a cult!
Unless those people are in a cult too, then you’re stuck!

Seriously,you can tell by the fruits they give,happiness & real peace? Religion,worry,anxiety, partner swapping, accumulation of money in one individual, people writing ‘how I left this cult’ books? CULT!
 
nope. I am addressing all of the cults. Look at James Jones. Look at any of them
So would you agree then that a good indication of whether you are in a cult or not is to look at the fruits of your leader, or founder?
 
You know you’re in a cult when several people you trust, love or respect tell you you’re in a cult!
Unless those people are in a cult too, then you’re stuck!

Seriously,you can tell by the fruits they give,happiness & real peace? Religion,worry,anxiety, partner swapping, accumulation of money in one individual, people writing ‘how I left this cult’ books? CULT!
I have never been told that I am in a cult per se by my loved ones or people that I trust. To be honest, it was my own experience through the temple that showed me just how cultish the LDS church can be.

But I do agree that fruits of the leader or founder are a good indication of whether you are in a cult or not.
 
I wonder how early Christianity was viewed by Jews and Romans. Most likely a cult, in my opinion.
You are probably right. When Paul was a prisoner in Rome, he testified to the Jews of the kingdom of God. The Jews thought of Christianity as an unpopular and troublesome sect:

“But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against. And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.” (Acts 28:22-23) (emphasis added)
 
Because a founder may not keep the faith till the end and might be disqualified after preaching, without this making his preaching wrong or his group a cult.

Although in a general way we could argue that the good fruits overcome the bad fruits, or that the good fruits, though lesser in number, are far more worthy in God’s eyes than the bad fruits, so your argument would be true.

I just think we should focus on the doctrine and its errors, not on the heresiarch or founder of the community 🤷 Though, especially in Christianity, this does hold, for, as John wrote:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.
 
You are probably right.
Of course not.

They would have been seen as a cult if they had said that all those pagan idol-worshippers were going to hell and that only they had the secret knowledge needed to be saved.

Instead they preached of a God of love and forgiveness, who came to seek sinners for repentance and not to condemn the world but so that through him the world would be saved, and of a Good News to be proclaimed to all the people, and of a Church whose Head was God Himself and whom everyone could and was called to join.

Their way of life, too, was awe-inspiring and edifying. They refrained from all immorality, and hold on to the faith to their One True God even when this meant being persecuted and killed - yet at once they taught and believed that the authority had to be respected because it came from God, and they did not judge anyone who indulged in immoral behaviors.
 
Because a founder may not keep the faith till the end and might be disqualified after preaching, without this making his preaching wrong or his group a cult.

Although in a general way we could argue that the good fruits overcome the bad fruits, or that the good fruits, though lesser in number, are far more worthy in God’s eyes than the bad fruits, so your argument would be true.

I just think we should focus on the doctrine and its errors, not on the heresiarch or founder of the community 🤷 Though, especially in Christianity, this does hold, for, as John wrote:
I can accept that.

However, usually speaking, doctrines and its errors derive from the leaders of the alleged cult. So in reality, the doctrines and errors are the fruits of the leaders. But at the same time i understand your point.

IMO, its becoming increasingly more difficult to distinguish a cult from a religion. But then again, you have to distinguish the true church from all these religions.

Is there a difference from being in a false religion and being in a cult?
 
What classifies as hard to leave?

Would you consider Islam a cult then?
If the majority of people who practice Islam hunt and stalk ex-members, take them away from their families, fire them, etc then YES, they are a cult. If a smaller portion of an otherwise free religion does those things, then they are a cult within that religion.

I am mostly defining cult by the meaning of contemporary (approxiamately 1800’s to present day) cults, especially those that have sprung upon us since the 1970’s.
 
A cult, of the type to which TheIrishman is referring, is like pornography. It’s hard to define but you know it when you see it.

I have no bones about naming Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the LDS as cults. As other have said, they are easy to get into but your life will be turned upside down if you try to leave. In my opinion it is the external pressures, such as shunning or harassing, that qualify an organization as a cult. I know that when someone leaves the Catholic Church there is great sadness, but we do not shun them in any way. Our doors and our arms are always open to welcome them back. That’s the difference.
 
A cult, of the type to which TheIrishman is referring, is like pornography. It’s hard to define but you know it when you see it.

I have no bones about naming Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the LDS as cults. As other have said, they are easy to get into but your life will be turned upside down if you try to leave. In my opinion it is the external pressures, such as shunning or harassing, that qualify an organization as a cult. I know that when someone leaves the Catholic Church there is great sadness, but we do not shun them in any way. Our doors and our arms are always open to welcome them back. That’s the difference.
Through personal experience, I have 2 family members who have left the LDS church. My parents are always welcoming with arms wide open and don’t shun any of them. I can say the same for the ward in which we group up in also. It might be a different case for everyone but generally speaking, family members are saddened when a loved one chooses a different religion than the “family” one. But my family will always love my siblings and me if I leave the church just the same as if i stay in the church.
 
Cult is the mode of worship or liturgy. It is an aspect of Religion. For example, Syrian churches in India. They are catholic by faith, Eastern by cult and Hindu by culture.
I’ve never heard that definition though! :o
Are you talking about the Eastern Catholics (Syriac Catholic I believe), here?
And you really call that a cult as well? - Isn’t that rather a rite?
 
Through personal experience, I have 2 family members who have left the LDS church. My parents are always welcoming with arms wide open and don’t shun any of them. I can say the same for the ward in which we group up in also. It might be a different case for everyone but generally speaking, family members are saddened when a loved one chooses a different religion than the “family” one. But my family will always love my siblings and me if I leave the church just the same as if i stay in the church.
Interesting. To be honest, I would have guessed that it is rather hard to convert from the LDS church to another church.

I can report the same thing, having reverted from the Baptist Church, though. But I don’t really want to have to do anything with them anymore. I mean I do great them if I meat them and have small-talk, but nothing more.
 
As in, are they trying to lead you to Christ and God? or are they only trying to build themselves up in a false pretense?
“God” is a vague term in the company of some churches, Mormons being one, because their “god” is not THE God. So, any “god” they try to lead you to would be considered bad fruits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top