top help: What is the difference between a cult and a religion? - Help.com

Exactly nothing. Theyre both belief systems that tell you how to live.

a cult is dangerous to the established elite. A religion supports it.

Cult uses people’s weaknesses in evil purposes. About religion, there’re good sides and there’re bad sides but it can become a cult too.

A “cult” is what you call the organizational hierarchy of other people’s crazy beliefs. A “religion” is what you call your own. =)

Yes, and yes.

tictactomm wrote:
From my perspective a cult is a following that centers around an actual person (messiah, prophet, monk, fanatic)

Tictactomm, you have a good point…all the modern cults that come to mind have a central charismatic figure — Jim Jones, David Koresh, the comet guys, that one guy with God on the TV…

There’s a book I read in school called ‘influence’ by Chaldini that talked about cult leaders and how they worked…highly recommended reading by the way…

So is it definitive that a cult have a single religious, charasmatic figure at its center or does it require more than that? That is, can a cult be defined that way without being anything else?

No. There’s more to it than that. Must I quote Webster, or have we all done our research, here?

hmm, not a bad idea…

from dictionary.com:

“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. “

so a cult has to be extremist and charamatic. If it fails on either condition it is a religion.

tictactomm wrote:
Can we name one that didn’t have, somewhere at its source, a charismatic leader that attracted a following?

Hinudism.

tictactomm wrote:
I find that ironic that some fundamentalist sects (christian, muslim, jewish what have you) are considered non-mainstream now, when they are probably closer to the cult origins of that religion. Makes one think that in order to have that mass appeal, a cult also has to dim down some of its more marginalizing initial doctrines.

Indeed, hence the term ‘fundementalist’…You’ve hit upon something there I think. But I would hardly call the taliban or al queda a cult…it doesn’t seem to “fit” you know what I mean?

tictactomm wrote:
Yeah, I think I know what you mean.

Hinduism is a tricky one, but I would consider Zoroaster an early progenitor of that. Ancestor worship in China is also without that charismatic leader, although Confucius might fit the bill. I guess there is always someone if you dig deep enough, but maybe that is a given and not some revelation.

Not sure if you have your religions confused, but Zoroastrianism and Hinduism are two different religions.

tictactomm wrote:
…Hinduism is a tricky one, but I would consider Zoroaster…

Zoroaster isn’t a guy. ;) Zoroastrianism is semetic (Persian) in origin while Hinduism is aryan (Indian). But I see your point. In fact it’s hard to put a charasmatic leader at the head of any of the ancient religions be it the Greeks, Persians, Indians, Chinese or Japanese…although what the Chinese worshipped before Confucius’ and Lao Tzu’s day I don’t really know.

Interesting conversation, kudos for the posting.

I don’t think that cults are completely related to faith or a particular religion.

Look at Hitler, he was able to brainwash an entire group of people. That is what cults do, they play on your beliefs and manipulate you for their own personal agenda.

A cult is a religious group that has an inordinate amount of control over it’s members.

tictactomm wrote:

Fizz wrote:
Interesting conversation, kudos for the posting.

I don’t think that cults are completely related to faith or a particular religion.

Look at Hitler, he was able to brainwash an entire group of people. That is what cults do, they play on your beliefs and manipulate you for their own personal agenda.

That’s a very good point. Not every “cult” that demands it’s members take a leap of faith and “trust” in it’s leaders has to do with religion. That blows the door wide open. Enron? Microsoft? lol

Don’t forget the Evil Walmart! lol

“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. “

You do realize that, to most of the world, every religion is considered false. To a Christian, Islam, Paganism and Hinduism are all false. As are, from the looks of it, all other sects of Christianity, outside their own. No matter who you ask, they’ll likely tell you that their religion is correct, and all others are false. So, every religion is “considered to be false”.

And, as we all know, anything we’re unfamiliar with can be dubbed “unorthodox”. To a Wiccan, eating the body and drinking the blood of your savior, even in symbolism, is QUITE unorthodox.

Then we have the stipulation of the belief system being “extremist”. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, eh? And to any one who thinks their religion has never done anything that sticks them firmly in this category, just tell me the name of your religion, and I’ll prove you wrong.

And lastly, there’s this: “with members often living outside of conventional society”, and this: “under the direction of a charismatic leader”. By deffinition, by secluding themselves from everyday society and indeed ostracizing themselves by calling themselves by different titles and such, in addition to the fact that all “conventional societies” are different, ALL belief systems live outside of what is conventional.
As for the charismatic leader… have you ever known anyone to be willingly followed unless people liked them?

In conclusion I stand by my original analysis. ALL religions are cults.

The difference between a cult and a religion is numbers. Numbers and money. I reject the idea that’s it’s anything to do with how sensible or divisise or extreme or manipulative or controlling the beliefs are.

To me, whether you believe in an all seeing God, fairies, that the world will end tomorrow, that we are controlled by aliens, it’s the same. None of these beliefs make any sense to me but all are no more or less ridiculous than each other.

Your beliefs might be based on what your parents believe, a desparate need to feel not alone, a need to feel a sense of belonging, a science fiction novel, an ancient text. Whatever it’s based on I think it very unlikely that it’s based on anything close to the truth.

The more people that accept whichever of these crazy ideas, the more likely it is to be a religion. If only a few are fooled and there’s not much power and money behind the ‘leader’, it’s doomed to forever remain a cult.

*divisive

i think most people believe a cult is some institution or group that maintain secrecy in their beliefs only passed on to an inner circle of members confusing it with the occult where as a religion is an open book of ritual practice that anyone may inquire of ,occult means hidden i believe though it also means to worship ,or look after something give it nuture,or praise ,hence there are many cults in the world that have no conection to any form of belief ,you cultivate land so to speak and have the cultural ideals at heart ,i guess a nationalist or a patriot is a cult concept,religion is to follow a particular doctrine of belief religeously meaning with all heart consistant and with the best of their ability,some people may be christian and still not be religeous only having a belief in christ but not confined or obligated to the practices or law

I’m late to the discussion, but I still think it has to do with what happens to the individual’s free will. (which means I disagree with Nensix and Xeno, I guess)

A cult insists on the individual who joins leaving free will and critical thinking at the door. In fact, every attempt is made to socialize, sleep deprive or isolate the person to the point that he or she cannot think anything but the “groupthink” of the cult, which is often controlled by the leader. Deviating even slightly results in ostracization, punishment and even physical harm.

Religion– when it is done well– on the other hand necessitates a delicate balance between free will and voluntary relinquishment of that will. Although there is a central doctrine and code of morals, religion has room for individuals to doubt and struggle with the beliefs. Although extreme deviation would be seen as a threat to the core beliefs and would result in ostracization, slight deviation, would more likely be met with concern yet not considered reason for serious repercussion. (remember, I am talking practiced well–whether Hindu, Islam, Chrisitan, Jewish)

Yes, this means that I define many religious groups within what we would call major “religions” as cults.

To add one more metaphorical log to the equally metaphorical fire; it is my personal thinking that cults are somewhat geo-deterministic. In other words, if the individual leaves a certain area (’compound’ typically LOL) then the hold of the cult drastically diminishes. Whereas true (and I use this word extremely lightly) religions tend to actually encourage moving out into the world to ’spread the word’. There is less fear of the hold of the religion fading than in the eyes of a cult. They withstand modest scrutiny better than cults, and so are less concerned about keeping their members in close proximity to each other. Just a thought, but an interesting discussion regardless.

ZZ from STL wrote:
To add one more metaphorical log to the equally metaphorical fire; it is my personal thinking that cults are somewhat geo-deterministic. In other words, if the individual leaves a certain area (’compound’ typically LOL) then the hold of the cult drastically diminishes. Whereas true (and I use this word extremely lightly) religions tend to actually encourage moving out into the world to ’spread the word’. There is less fear of the hold of the religion fading than in the eyes of a cult. They withstand modest scrutiny better than cults, and so are less concerned about keeping their members in close proximity to each other. Just a thought, but an interesting discussion regardless.

Good point ZZ

Someone mentioned free will as the defining difference. How much free will do you have if it’s all you’ve ever known, or all you were ever taught? How much free will do you have if you’re raised to believe that leaving or questioning the faith will send you to a pit of torture, pain, despair, and Fran Dresher’s laugh for all eternity? That’s the theological equivalent of holding a gun to your head and saying, “Do this, or I pull the trigger.” That’s not free will, it’s a fear tactic that plays on humanity’s fear of the unknown, and inbred social insecurities.

I didn’t expect much to be added to this conversation that hadn’t been brought up already, but Feng and ZZ proved me wrong. It seems like very sound reasoning, I really like how you broke it down Tict and I agree with the point you made Xeno about there not being much freewill if you don’t have access to other concepts, I think that is another thing that seperates religion from cults, like it was already pointed out most religions encourages going out into the world, unlike with cults. Christianity, even teaches to seek for your faith. It’s like I tell my own children, I can show you and teach you what I believe, but you still have to learn and find out what you believe for yourself.