What Makes a Cult Different From a Religion?

Turtwig

One thing that always puzzled me is what determines if something is cult, or if it is a religion? Is it how harmful the society perceive it to be, is it the number of adherents to the ideology or is it money related??

Tim Robbins

Malty_T wrote: »

One thing that always puzzled me is what determines if something is cult, or if it is a religion? Is it how harmful the society perceive it to be, is it the number of adherents to the ideology or is it money related??

A legal difference would be that cults don't usually have charity status or do any sort of tax returns.

A philosophical difference would be that cults generally don't take any criticism from the outside world. They completly avoid it. Either by organising secretly or by not engaging with the media. As much as we give out about religions they get a massive amout of criticism from the outside world and engage with the media.

Gregor Samsa

I think the main difference is whether the user of the word wants to afford the organisation in question a level of respectability or not.

I'd assume that most of the current mainstream religions and sects were regarded as cults by their opponents in their infancy.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

One thing that always puzzled me is what determines if something is cult, or if it is a religion? Is it how harmful the society perceive it to be, is it the number of adherents to the ideology or is it money related??

The difference is much the same as the distinction between a language and a dialect, which is to say mostly between the ears of a True Believer. Alternatively, you could define a religion as a cult with tax breaks.

In sociological or psychological circles, cults are classified as being smaller, more self-selective, coercive and authoritarian, but other than that there's really not much that differentiates them.

This cartoon puts it better than a shelf-load of pious literature:

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

One thing that always puzzled me is what determines if something is cult, or if it is a religion? Is it how harmful the society perceive it to be, is it the number of adherents to the ideology or is it money related??

-Huge fees for courses, books, rituals etc. usually with new ones cropping up all the time.

-Claims of controlling supernatural events, usually visions or healings. And of course, for a fee.

-Suggested or forced separation from community or family.

-Secrecy and/or dishonesty about their beliefs, teachings or rituals.

-Direct manipulation of the practitioner into staying it the cult. (it's a bit more than "you'll go to hell" before you jump on it.)

-A figurehead who is revered by the cult as enlightened/possessing greater knowledge etc. usually reaping the benefits.

-Teaching that the members of the cult are superior to normal people due to ancient knowledge/supernatural abilities.

-Often using legal system to silence critics.

-Sometimes strict control over what their members can and can't view on TV or the internet. Sometimes suggested, sometimes enforced.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A legal difference would be that cults don't usually have charity status or do any sort of tax returns.

Actually that's not a good way to define them at all.
Scientology has tax exempt status in certain places and is pushing for it here.
Cults can also form in mainstream religions that do have tax exempt status.
Joe Coleman's crowd for instance
Also not paying tax is certainly not a unique feature

Funglegunk

It's disturbing how much of the above criteria describes Bono... :eek:

Doctor DooM

King Mob wrote: »

-Huge fees for courses, books, rituals etc. usually with new ones cropping up all the time.

1) Claims of controlling supernatural events, usually visions or healings. And of course, for a fee.

2) Suggested or forced separation from community or family.

3) Secrecy and/or dishonesty about their beliefs, teachings or rituals.

4) Direct manipulation of the practitioner into staying it the cult. (it's a bit more than "you'll go to hell" before you jump on it.)

5)A figurehead who is revered by the cult as enlightened/possessing greater knowledge etc. usually reaping the benefits.

6) Teaching that the members of the cult are superior to normal people due to ancient knowledge/supernatural abilities.

7) Often using legal system to silence critics.

-Sometimes strict control over what their members can and can't view on TV or the internet. Sometimes suggested, sometimes enforced.


Actually that's not a good way to define them at all.
Scientology has tax exempt status in certain places and is pushing for it here.
Cults can also form in mainstream religions that do have tax exempt status.
Joe Coleman's crowd for instance
Also not paying tax is certainly not a unique feature

Just to point out:

1) Such as the Catholic Chruch did in the dark ages?

2) Magdalen Laundries.

3) Such as, perhaps, reading mass in a language the common people can't understand?

4) Such as controlling public institutions such as schools so as to make anyone who disagrees ostracised from their peer group or unable to be educated?

5) Like a pope? Who is in contact with God and unable to be wrong? Living in a city of unimaginable wealth?

6) Like, we're going to heaven and no one else is because we know the true path?

7) Such as threatening to sue Sony for allowing a church to appear in one of their games, or colluding with the Gardai in the past to hide... troublemakers in the Catholic church?

I know some of these are stretching, but the point I feel is made.

krudler

King Mob wrote: »

-Huge fees for courses, books, rituals etc. usually with new ones cropping up all the time.

-Claims of controlling supernatural events, usually visions or healings. And of course, for a fee.

-Suggested or forced separation from community or family.

-Secrecy and/or dishonesty about their beliefs, teachings or rituals.

-Direct manipulation of the practitioner into staying it the cult. (it's a bit more than "you'll go to hell" before you jump on it.)

-A figurehead who is revered by the cult as enlightened/possessing greater knowledge etc. usually reaping the benefits.

-Teaching that the members of the cult are superior to normal people due to ancient knowledge/supernatural abilities.

-Often using legal system to silence critics.

-Sometimes strict control over what their members can and can't view on TV or the internet. Sometimes suggested, sometimes enforced.

Yup, thats the RCC alright..

Theres really not much difference from a cult and religion, only member numbers. I was watching a Bill Maher standup where he mentions Scientology and a few audience members chuckle, and he sums it up perfectly (paraphrased) " Oh yeah because all the stuff about the talking bush and virgin birth and all that is plausible, but that scientology? thats some crazy ****! its like the new religions have to up the bar because all the good crazy stuff is already gone"

I honestly cant see how people can look down on Scientology as being crazy when your average catholic believes in a virgin birth, resurrection, and a lot more chucklesome stories in that silly book that causes so much strife.

Is scientology a cult? yes, are is members deluded? probably, is it any different than any "actual" religion, not really. plus it has alien warlords and spaceships, thats way cooler than anything in the bible :pac:

getz

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Just to point out:

1) Such as the Catholic Chruch did in the dark ages?

2) Magdalen Laundries.

3) Such as, perhaps, reading mass in a language the common people can't understand?

4) Such as controlling public institutions such as schools so as to make anyone who disagrees ostracised from their peer group or unable to be educated?

5) Like a pope? Who is in contact with God and unable to be wrong? Living in a city of unimaginable wealth?

6) Like, we're going to heaven and no one else is because we know the true path?

7) Such as threatening to sue Sony for allowing a church to appear in one of their games, or colluding with the Gardai in the past to hide... troublemakers in the Catholic church?

I know some of these are stretching, but the point I feel is made.

its very interesting to note ,that in the 1920s the catholic church in ireland urged the irish goverment to down grade the church of ireland,to a cult,effectively banning them from calling themselves a church.

Doctor DooM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Just to point out:

1) Such as the Catholic Chruch did in the dark ages?

Well they never claimed to control any supernatural events beyond transubstantiation.
And even if there were others it's not the dark ages anymore.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

2) Magdalen Laundries.

No, not the same thing at all. More in the way of "those people are corrupting you, you shouldn't speak to them."
Also they don't do it anymore.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

3) Such as, perhaps, reading mass in a language the common people can't understand?

Which they also no longer do.
And again it's totally different. In a cult they would tell you that you can't learn the higher levels on the teachings because you are not ready to hear them etc.
Also they would lie straight out if asked about their odder beliefs.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

4) Such as controlling public institutions such as schools so as to make anyone who disagrees ostracised from their peer group or unable to be educated?

Again they don't do that anymore and not really the same thing.
It's much more serious than that.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

5) Like a pope? Who is in contact with God and unable to be wrong? Living in a city of unimaginable wealth?

Again not really the same thing and most Catholics realise that their own moral compass trumps the pope, I think that was the general new rule.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

6) Like, we're going to heaven and no one else is because we know the true path?

More like everyone else is corrupted/asleep and you are clean/awake and thus you should stop interacting with others people as they might bring you down.
So again not the same thing at all.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

7) Such as threatening to sue Sony for allowing a church to appear in one of their games, or colluding with the Gardai in the past to hide... troublemakers in the Catholic church?

Nope not even close.
One was a valid (if petty and reactionary) defence of intellectual property.
The other was a vile corruption of the law to protect themselves.
Not the same thing.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I know some of these are stretching, but the point I feel is made.

They're all a stretch and most are wrong.

krudler

krudler wrote: »

Yup, thats the RCC alright..

Theres really not much difference from a cult and religion, only member numbers. I was watching a Bill Maher standup where he mentions Scientology and a few audience members chuckle, and he sums it up perfectly (paraphrased) " Oh yeah because all the stuff about the talking bush and virgin birth and all that is plausible, but that scientology? thats some crazy ****! its like the new religions have to up the bar because all the good crazy stuff is already gone"

I honestly cant see how people can look down on Scientology as being crazy when your average catholic believes in a virgin birth, resurrection, and a lot more chucklesome stories in that silly book that causes so much strife.

Is scientology a cult? yes, are is members deluded? probably, is it any different than any "actual" religion, not really. plus it has alien warlords and spaceships, thats way cooler than anything in the bible :pac:

And this is kinda the problem.
Equating cults and mainstream religions both legitimises the cult and detracts from their critics.

Yes, cult's beliefs are as crazy as mainstream religious ones.
The issues however are the practices of the cults which include brainwashing (in the proper sense and not in the hyperbolic sense we atheist normally use it), extortion, kidnapping, breaking up families, stifling free speech and doing enormous amounts mental health and physical harm.

krudler

King Mob wrote: »

The issues however are the practices of the cults which include brainwashing (in the proper sense and not in the hyperbolic sense we atheist normally use it), extortion, kidnapping, breaking up families, stifling free speech and doing enormous amounts mental health and physical harm.

you can apply all of those to most religions as well...

krudler

krudler wrote: »

you can apply all of those to most religions as well...

Currently, in the modern developed world?

robindch

getz wrote: »

its very interesting to note ,that in the 1920s the catholic church in ireland urged the irish goverment to down grade the church of ireland,to a cult,effectively banning them from calling themselves a church.

Never heard that -- where's it documented?

Ickle Magoo

Malty_T wrote: »

One thing that always puzzled me is what determines if something is cult, or if it is a religion? Is it how harmful the society perceive it to be, is it the number of adherents to the ideology or is it money related??

I think it comes down to volume of numbers and how long it's been around. Regardless of the bizarre practices of lopping off parts of babies genitalia or considering what one does with ones own body sinful - as we have grown up with these religious ideas we don't consider them as odd as someone declaring their small group of adherents are going to start chopping half an ear off.

krudler

King Mob wrote: »

Currently, in the modern developed world?

depends on what you're considering the "modern" world, the magdalene laundries may not be active any more, but it wasnt that long ago either.

Doctor DooM

King Mob wrote: »

Currently, in the modern developed world?

You said this several times in response to me too, so I will bite...

are you saying the Catholic church was a cult then, but isn't now?

Why doesn't transubstantion count as something magical or supernatural?

Do you honestly think the RCC is not in a position of alot of control in ours schools?

Why does a "vile corruption of the law" not count as manipulating the law to silence people?

Why does Catholics "own moral compass" debunk the fact that Catholic teaching that the pope is infallible? This is not the teaching of the church nor removes the fact he lives in a city of gold.


Special pleading tbh.

Doctor DooM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

You said this several times in response to me too, so I will bite...

are you saying the Catholic church was a cult then, but isn't now?

It shared certain characteristics with cults today.
However they don't now.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Why doesn't transubstantion count as something magical or supernatural?

I didn't say it wasn't. I said excluding that.
Also there's a huge difference between that really minor piece of dogma (to the average church goer) and the stuff cults will claim.

krudler wrote: »

depends on what you're considering the "modern" world, the magdalene laundries may not be active any more, but it wasnt that long ago either.

Modern, as in today.
The important thing is they aren't doing it now, cults are.

Doctor DooM

King Mob wrote: »

It shared certain characteristics with cults today.
However they don't now.

So... it was a Cult then, but isn't now?


by the way I edited this into my post after you got to it, sorry:

Do you honestly think the RCC is not in a position of alot of control in ours schools?

Why does a "vile corruption of the law" not count as manipulating the law to silence people?

Why does Catholics "own moral compass" debunk the fact that Catholic teaching that the pope is infallible? This is not the teaching of the church nor removes the fact he lives in a city of gold.

Turtwig

King Mob wrote: »

Also there's a huge difference between that really minor piece of dogma (to the average church goer) and the stuff cults will claim.

But in principle what's the difference between the cult that claims it can protect your throat from harm and the Catholic Church who makes the exact same claim?

Doctor DooM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

So... it was a Cult then, but isn't now?

That's not what I said. read it again.
It shared some characteristics not all.

And the important part: they don't now.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

by the way I edited this into my post after you got to it, sorry:

Do you honestly think the RCC is not in a position of alot of control in ours schools?

Never said they didn't.
However as an atheist who relatively recently went through a catholic school I saw none of what you claim or anything close to what cults do.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Why does a "vile corruption of the law" not count as manipulating the law to silence people?

Because the example you gave was of clergy being shifted around.
Cults today use threats of litigation mostly to silence any institution or individual from even calling attention to the cult.

Also, not doing it now.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Why does Catholics "own moral compass" debunk the fact that Catholic teaching that the pope is infallible? This is not the teaching of the church nor removes the fact he lives in a city of gold.

I'm pretty sure it is. It's what most of my catholic friends tell me. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable about the dogma can point out exactly where this is or if I'm wrong.
And regardless even then the pope does not equate to the leaders of cults.
For most of them their leader usually equates more to the prophets or the messiah.

And even then assuming all these particular where valid and applicable to the catholic church today, the more important characteristics don't match up.

-Huge fees for courses, books, rituals etc. usually with new ones cropping up all the time.

-Claims of controlling supernatural events, usually visions or healings. And of course, for a fee.

-Suggested or forced separation from community or family.

-Secrecy and/or dishonesty about their beliefs, teachings or rituals.

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

But in principle what's the difference between the cult that claims it can protect your throat from harm and the Catholic Church who makes the exact same claim?

Because in principle most everyday Catholics don't believe that the crackers actually become human flesh and it never really effects their lives.
Nearly all people in the cult would believe that they will get superpowers/be healed etc.

krudler

so the church was a cult, but thanks to mordern reasoning, scandals and people just being plain sick of them and them losing their grip on social issues, they're not?

thanks for clarifying.

Once Tom Cruise becomes an infallible figure and scientology asks for donations rather than fees, they'll be a religion?

krudler

King Mob wrote: »

Because in principle most everyday Catholics don't believe that the crackers actually become human flesh and it never really effects their lives.
Nearly all people in the cult would believe that they will get superpowers/be healed etc.

but nearly all catholics believe theres an everlasting peace or new existence waiting for them once they stick to gods 10 Things you Should Not do list. whats the difference?

Rev Hellfire

A cult is simply a religion which hasn't reached a critical mass to become accepted by society as a whole.

Doctor DooM

King Mob wrote: »

!) That's not what I said. read it again.
It shared some characteristics not all.

And the important part: they don't now.


2) Never said they didn't.
However as an atheist who relatively recently went through a catholic school I saw none of what you claim or anything close to what cults do.


3) Because the example you gave was of clergy being shifted around.
Cults today use threats of litigation mostly to silence any institution or individual from even calling attention to the cult.

Also, not doing it now.

4) I'm pretty sure it is. It's what most of my catholic friends tell me. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable about the dogma can point out exactly where this is or if I'm wrong.
And regardless even then the pope does not equate to the leaders of cults.
For most of them their leader usually equates more to the prophets or the messiah.

And even then assuming all these particular where valid and applicable to the catholic church today, the more important characteristics don't match up.

1) SO you are saying in the past, the RCC church, in Ireland, shared characteristics with a cult, but is not a cult, because you cannot now observe it?

Bear in mind how long many of these things took to come out. Why is the NOW so important?

2) Really?

For example, a muslim child, excluded from all the festivities and classes to do with confirmation, is not being excluded or made feel different as a young child?

It's a situation where the parents choice about how they raise their child is being controlled. Yet it is the child who suffers.

3) And?

Are you saying one manipulation of the law for the purposes of silencing bad publicity doesn't count- but the other does?


4) Well, then your friends are a la carte christians, taking what they want from Catholicism. You don't get to choose what you can just ignore from a religion!

It doesn't change the fact the CHURCH says he is infallible, and that he lives in immense wealth. And plenty of people out there- perhaps less in our nice comfy 1st world country- believe him.

Michael Nugent

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

A cult is simply a religion which hasn't reached a critical mass to become accepted by society as a whole.

And, once a cult does reach that critical mass, it doesn't have to continue to overtly engage in the type of tactics that it previously had to use to recruit and keep members, because it now has a substantial supply of new members from the children of its existing members.

Doctor DooM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

1) SO you are saying in the past, the RCC church, in Ireland, shared characteristics with a cult, but is not a cult, because you cannot now observe it?

Bear in mind how long many of these things took to come out. Why is the NOW so important?

Can you honestly say that the church is currently doing all or most of the stuff on the list currently?

Do you agree that most cults exhibit some or all of those characteristics?

Doctor DooM wrote: »

2) Really?

For example, a muslim child, excluded from all the festivities and classes to do with confirmation, is not being excluded or made feel different as a young child?

It's a situation where the parents choice about how they raise their child is being controlled. Yet it is the child who suffers.

So that's the same thing as a cult actually taking a family member away from the rest of the family and blocking all contact as well as harassing the family when they try?
That's the difference.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

3) And?

Are you saying one manipulation of the law for the purposes of silencing bad publicity doesn't count- but the other does?

That's exactly what I'm saying, that does count and the church shouldn't be held accountable...
Seriosuly man, stopping using straw men.

My point is that cults use the laws in other ways, harassing critics in prolonged campaigned both with lawsuits and other such methods, as well as accusing the critic of all manner of crimes and general defacement.

And all of this is mandated by the practices of some cults.

Now can you honestly say that's what the Catholic church are currently doing?

Doctor DooM wrote: »

4) Well, then your friends are a la carte christians, taking what they want from Catholicism. You don't get to choose what you can just ignore from a religion!

Yes, yes they are. That's kinda my point.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact the CHURCH says he is infallible, and that he lives in immense wealth. And plenty of people out there- perhaps less in our nice comfy 1st world country- believe him.

And exactly how much of his wealth comes from his followers exactly?
Can you think of any people who have had to re-mortgage their house so as to continue to give him money?

Seriously it's not the same level that cult leaders are at.

And again I have to point out that even if these points where applicable to the current church, you're still ignoring the more important characteristics.

krudler wrote: »

so the church was a cult, but thanks to mordern reasoning, scandals and people just being plain sick of them and them losing their grip on social issues, they're not?

thanks for clarifying.

That's not what I said, but if you prefer to pretend I did than actually learn something, go nuts.

krudler wrote: »

Once Tom Cruise becomes an infallible figure and scientology asks for donations rather than fees, they'll be a religion?

And this is the kinda of ignorance the whole "cults are just religions" breeds.

Scientology does ask for "donations" they never call them fees.
Tom Cruise is not a church leader, he's a spokesperson at best but they are currently keeping him quiet because of the bad press he's given them lately.

Michael Nugent

Michael Nugent wrote: »

And, once a cult does reach that critical mass, it doesn't have to continue to overtly engage in the type of tactics that it previously had to use to recruit and keep members, because it now has a substantial supply of new members from the children of its existing members.

And this is exactly my point: Mainstream religions don't engage in the same tactics, therefore are distinct from groups that do.

Michael Nugent

King Mob wrote: »

And this is exactly my point: Mainstream religions don't engage in the same tactics, therefore are distinct from groups that do.

I think it is more that they don't have to engage in such tactics, or at least don't have to engage in them so overtly, rather than that they necessarily don't engage in such tactics, because they sometimes do.

But I broadly agree with your point that there is typically a distinction in practice.

mikhail

krudler wrote: »

I honestly cant see how people can look down on Scientology as being crazy when your average catholic believes in a virgin birth, resurrection, and a lot more chucklesome stories in that silly book that causes so much strife.

Is scientology a cult? yes, are is members deluded? probably, is it any different than any "actual" religion, not really. plus it has alien warlords and spaceships, thats way cooler than anything in the bible :pac:

The theology of Scientology is probably no crazier than any other group, but I think it's ignorant or disingenuous to downplay how dangerous a group the Church of Scientology is.

"Cult" is just a word. Some cults are relatively harmless eccentrics, others are essentially schemes for extracting money from the gullible (exacty how much does it cost to reach the highest levels of Scientology again?), others still are genuine in their beliefs but those beliefs are dangerous to the believers or to others. Some people use the word cult to refer to any small ostensibly religious group, others associate the word with strong negative connotations. People arguing that one definition or the other is canonical are missing the point.

krudler

Can you honestly say that the church is currently doing all or most of the stuff on the list currently?

I'm pretty sure the KKK isnt "currently" still lynching people, does that make them no longer a hate group? same organisation, same principles. just cos they've softened up on some of their more nefarious doings doesnt make them different from what was going on a few decades ago.

Michael Nugent

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I think it is more that they don't have to engage in such tactics, or at least don't have to engage in them so overtly, rather than that they necessarily don't engage in such tactics, because they sometimes do.

But the important thing is they don't. And if they do on occasion (honestly can't think of any examples) it's rare and for a very small section of the entire religion.
Cults however do engage in all of those tactics, all of the time and with all or at least the vast majority of their members.

The problem is equating the two does two things for the general public.
They could think that whoever claims this is simply anti-religion by thinking all religions are cults or they could see it as that what is being described as a cult is a religion and should be offered the same protection from criticism the public affords mainstream religions.
Both are bad outcomes.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

But I broadly agree with your point that there is typically a distinction in practice.

So go get Mike Garde to give a talk at AI so then I can talk him into giving me commission

Glenster

What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

Semantics.

krudler

krudler wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the KKK isnt "currently" still lynching people, does that make them no longer a hate group? same organisation, same principles. just cos they've softened up on some of their more nefarious doings doesnt make them different from what was going on a few decades ago.

So then the catholic church are still telling people that they should use the same tactics, just not to?

But yea, since you'd like to continue with silly slippery slope fallacies here, I think the KKK are a lovely bunch of people alright... :rolleyes:

Michael Nugent

King Mob wrote: »

So go get Mike Garde to give a talk at AI so then I can talk him into giving me commission

Mike will be talking to Dublin members of Atheist Ireland, I think some time in September.

strobe

Glenster wrote: »

What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?

Semantics.

"Conversion" Glenster?

trish23

The main difference is who controls your beliefs - you or them, regardless of who 'them' may be. All main religions allow a certain amount of freedom. You choose to belong to that religion even if that religion is inherited. Cults will brainwash you, emotional blackmail you & play with you until you belong to them. And them only. As in everything else in life, if you're uncomfortable - get out

strobe

I'm gonna say, number of people likely to vote......

mikhail

trish23 wrote: »

The main difference is who controls your beliefs - you or them, regardless of who 'them' may be. All main religions allow a certain amount of freedom. You choose to belong to that religion even if that religion is inherited. Cults will brainwash you, emotional blackmail you & play with you until you belong to them. And them only. As in everything else in life, if you're uncomfortable - get out

You mean like how you can be executed for leaving Islam? Or how you can never see your family again if you leave many Amish communities? Interesting.

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

You mean like how you can be executed for leaving Islam?

You mean like how extremists do in ****holes of countries?
Not really what you'd call mainstream....

mikhail wrote: »

Or how you can never see your family again if you leave many Amish communities? Interesting.

Not even remotely close to the same thing.
Also according to this you can see you family again:

Members who break church rules may be called to confess before the congregation. Those who will not correct their behavior are excommunicated. Excommunicated members are shunned to shame the individual into returning to the church. Members may interact with and even help a shunned person, but may not accept anything — like a handshake, payment or automobile ride — directly from the wayward person. Some communities have split in the last century over how they apply the practice of shunning. This form of discipline is recommended by the bishop after a long process of working with the individual and must be unanimously approved by the congregation.[27] Excommunicated members will be accepted back into the church if they return and confess their wrongdoing.

And they are only shunned if the entire community agrees to it?

In a cult, like say Scientology, a member can be told to break all contact with with friends or family the higher ups in the cult decide are bad influences. The person could then be shipped off to another church in a different country. And on top of that the cult would activity work against the family trying to reconnect, up to and including filing restraining orders. There's no working with the family just disconnection.

And this has happened in Ireland.

Ickle Magoo

So the difference between religion and cult is degrees of sinisterness? :eek:

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So the difference between religion and cult is degrees of sinisterness? :eek:

And you know, practices and actions.
And the level of control they have on their members.
And the numerous things that we've listed...

Ickle Magoo

They would all be levels of sinisterness though, wouldn't they? I don't think there is such a huge difference between the least sinister cults and most sinister of religions - other than the general acceptance of weird and wonderful practices of one and the assumed shockingly weird and wonderful of the other.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

They would all be levels of sinisterness though, wouldn't they? I don't think there is such a huge difference between the least sinister cults and most sinister of religions - other than the general acceptance of weird and wonderful practices of one and the assumed shockingly weird and wonderful of the other.

Again I provided a list of things that distinguish cults from mainstream religions, and stated several times why it's a bad idea to equate the two.

mikhail

King Mob wrote: »

You mean like how extremists do in ****holes of countries?
Not really what you'd call mainstream....

And by ****holes you mean most of the middle east? The core territories of the world's biggest religion?

Not even remotely close to the same thing.
Also according to this you can see you family again

That seems to depend on the group; the Amish vary quite a bit.

And they are only shunned if the entire community agrees to it?

I think you underestimate the degree of conformity in those communities. Leave the religion and you're pretty much not welcome any more.

In a cult, like say Scientology, a member can be told to break all contact with with friends or family the higher ups in the cult decide are bad influences. The person could then be shipped off to another church in a different country. And on top of that the cult would activity work against the family trying to reconnect, up to and including filing restraining orders. There's no working with the family just disconnection.

As opposed to Islam, where your entire family is already of the same religion, and who may kill you if you become an apostate? As has happened in the US and England.

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

And by ****holes you mean most of the middle east? The core territories of the world's biggest religion?

Yep.

mikhail wrote: »

That seems to depend on the group; the Amish vary quite a bit.

I got that from the source you used...

mikhail wrote: »

I think you underestimate the degree of conformity in those communities. Leave the religion and you're pretty much not welcome any more.

And what exactly are you basing this on exactly?

mikhail wrote: »

As opposed to Islam, where your entire family is already of the same religion, and who may kill you if you become an apostate? As has happened in the US and England.

I'm not saying that doesn't happen. Just not in the mainstream of the religion, by definition.

And what about the other stuff on the list?

Gregor Samsa

King Mob wrote: »

Can you honestly say that the church is currently doing all or most of the stuff on the list currently?

Opus Dei is doing most of things on your list currently, and is an integral and Papally sanctioned part of the Catholic church.

The Hare Krishna movement doesn't do many of the things on your list, yet would be called a cult by most people.

PeterIanStaker

Money, money and more (or less) money?

Lets all drink the Kool - Aid.

I always thought it was the size of the membership
Become big enough, cult-> religion

phutyle

phutyle wrote: »

Opus Dei is doing most of things on your list currently, and is an integral and Papally sanctioned part of the Catholic church.

Well notice how they are distinct from the normal catholic church.

Even if they do most of the stuff on my list, which I doubt, they are not part of the Mainstream.

phutyle wrote: »

The Hare Krishna movement doesn't do many of the things on your list, yet would be called a cult by most people.

And some people call dolphins, fish...