Basic definitions for those who subscribe to a deity... religion - what I believe in. cult - what others believe in excluding those who believe as I do.
this is easy. before the charismatic founder dies, it's a cult. after he's dead and his teachings institutionalised, it's a religion. "institution" is the key word here. i.e. jesus led a cult. after he died, christianity became a religion. mohammed led a cult. after he died, islam became a religion. buddha led a cult. after he died, buddhism became a religion.
i agree with you in principle...just understand that it's still an assertion/conjecture on your part...there are others who would argue otherwise.
forgetting the technical definition of a "cult" but using the common understanding (how the word is used in general discussion). There does seem to be grey areas between the two words. But there are some warning signs that it may be cult. Some things to watch out for are an attempt to control you, asking you to keep secrets, believing any human being is infallible (David Koresh, Charles Manson, Pope John Paul etc....), not allowing you to question the beliefs.
Religious books were not only penned by men, but they were copied, translated, and edited by men over history. The Bible is great because monks would make notations/interpretations in the margins that would then get worked into the text by later scribes. Personally, I think this makes the Bible more interesting and establishes it as a living, organic entity. It does not bode well for the literalists, though. And, yes, technically all religions are cults. It has only been fairly recently that that became a negative thing such that "cult" embodies the extreme deviations from texts, usually promoted by one or two charismatic leaders and emphasizing extreme suffering or sacrifice, etc. in reverence of siad charismatic leaders. In light of this definition, I am the follower of a cult - that of my dog.
Just my .10 (since the thread was aimed at something I said) A cult to me is any religion that does not better its adherents, rules them autocratically and has tenets that of a perverse or anti-moral nature that run counter-current to accepted standards of right and wrong. They often pervert existing religous texts to their advantage and are led by a charismatic, meglomanical leader who dictates every action of his followers. Islam would fit the bill because of the good (in the eyes of the Koran) dying while killing the infidel. It would also fit the bill due to the ridiculous amount of rules that govern every aspect of life in a Muslim society (eeriely reminiscent of various cults in the U.S. like the Branch Davidians where one leader basically told his people when to eat, ****, wipe their noses, ecetera.). So what if this cult has been around for a while? It's still an evil, autocratic religion of ignorance. Muhammed was a morally depraved whacko who molested young girls, broke treaties with his enemies and killed those who wouldn't convert to Islam. Another example would be Mormonism. They have their own perverse doctrines (polygamy, blood oaths) while also micromanaging what their followers can do (no caffeine or alcohol, you can't do any whacky sexual positions, no masturbation, you can't enter the temple unless some Bishop gives you a rodge-O). Ditto for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, two of the biggest con artists in U.S. history who constantly fabricated doctrines, molested women and were responsible for many deaths.
You're walking a very thin line bama. Anyone can point out extremes of one religion and make it seem like a cult by your definition. I don't think pologamy is excepted by most Mormons.
But see, with Islam, those are mainstream examples. Same with Mormonism. I could've thrown in Scientology and the Moonies, but frankly, I don't have MacBeth's posting stamina! Polygamy was accepted by the Mormons until they were forced to officially renounce it so Utah could enter the U.S. as the I-forget-which-one-it-was state. Brigham was a noted polygamist as was religion founder (and major league con man) Joseph Smith.
You guys. All religions are cults by the definition of the word. The thing is we need to go to the new definition, which I hate to do, but for the sake of this pointless debate I will say that no, religion and cults are not the same.
You could make the same flippant remarks about Christianity: people worship a guy who was nailed to a board and now lives on a cloud. Put that way, of course it sounds stupid.
But Christanity doesn't fit my rationale: 1. Paul told the early Christians to "render unto Caesar what is Caesars." So they were told to obey the laws of the land. 2. Jesus was not an autocratic leader and people were free to come and go as they pleased. 3. Jesus said that he had not come change or reject the Covenant, but to fulfill it. 4. There was no perversion or secrecy in their rituals. No killing of non-Christians even though they were horribly persecuted by the non-Christians (in marked contrast to Muslim suicide bombers of today).
The Inquisition? or is you argument that while it was perverted by men . . . these doctrines that lead to things like the Inquisition/slavery etc were not part of the doctrine but merely misinterpretations Rocket River
Not so much AIMED as it just struck an interest in me. . . it is not meant to put u on the spot ,.. . so to speak BTW - I know this sounds crazy but Why is Polygamy considered a Perverse Doctrine? Blood Oaths, and killing. . i get [not exactly sure what blood oaths entail to be honest but it does not sound good] But Polygamy . . .while not something i perscribe too How is that perverse as much as just . .. different ROcket River
All of the supposed sins of Christianity were atrocities committed by men in contravention of its tenets. But Islam on the other hand....
1. "supposed" sins? What's so disputable about the rapes, murder, pillaging, etc carried out during various crusades and inquisitions? 2. You're enough of a Qu'ran expert to know what the tenets are and what is in contravention of it and what is not? How am I not surprised...
No matter the conjecture that others may have, they don't know any better than I how much this human form distorts communication with the divine. We can listen all we like but we are still limited to human comprehension and we interpret input through a human filter. Divine inspiration is just that, inspiration. Inspiration is still colored by the background and mindset of the inspired and as such, has at least some human error in the translation.
you're right...they may not know any better than you....but you may not know any better than them, either. everything you said after your first sentence is conjecture based on something you can't prove with the scientific method...so much of what we believe ultimately falls back on mere faith.
