The use of "cult" or "devotion" and "worship" in these cases would be tropes. This discussion is primarily concerned with specific use of such words and not figurative or metaphorical.
cult; idolization of somebody or something: an extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity ( often used before a noun ) the cult of youth a cult hero object of idolization: a person, philosophy, or activity regarded with extreme or excessive admiration fad: something popular or fashionable among a devoted group of enthusiasts ( often used before a noun ) has taken on cult status These are, IMO, broader meanings of the term 'cult'. Religion, being the great subject that it is, is merely a subjective feature, when asociated with the term. Religion is based on scripture, not anyone who has a glint in their eye, or fantastic teeth. The fact that people can be fooled into following a charismatic personality, believing it to be religion, has no bearing on scriptoral religions. There is a world of difference between 'cult' and 'religion'. jan.
Who decides what religions are true or false in that regard? Aren't they all false? I don't see much difference between religion and cult. No line is required, except for the theists who don't want their religions called cults, even though that's exactly what they are.
I see that in Christians and Muslims too. You can read it here, you just can't see their eyes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * * Jan has taken the correct approach to understanding these words. You have to start by not assuming that "religion" and "cult" have the same meaning, and continue by analyzing their different uses. "Scripture" means "sacred writing," and most religions arose long before the technology of writing was invented, so that can't be true. Perhaps that's an exaggeration. Sure, we talk about cults of personality and cults built around economic theories, but these days when we use "cult" without a modifying phrase we invariably mean a religious cult. For example, the Cargo Cult, the Jonestown Cult. (How many people even at the time knew its proper name was "the People's Temple"?) So the question remains: What differentiates a religion from a religious cult? The consensus answer on this thread seems to be the correct one: A religious cult is a religious belief system that markedly differs from its neighboring systems, usually in ways that the general population finds bizarre or downright objectionable, and a religion is a religious cult that has long survived the death of its founder and has usually either shed most of its bizarre and objectionable qualities or has been remarkably successful in evangelizing them.
I think he's suggesting that the early Christians were actually a cult brought together by their adulation of Jesus's charismatic personality. The problem with that hypothesis is that Jesus was not a real person so there was no one to radiate that charisma and focus the cult phenomenon. The Romans were consummate bureaucrats with a fetish for accurate and generally uncensored record-keeping, yet there are no contemporary accounts of the extraordinary events alleged to have occurred during Jesus's life, which would have been widely discussed and debated. AFAIK the first mention of Jesus was not written until after his alleged death. There's no reason, of course, that a proper cult could not spring up after the subject of the cult worship has died, but I'm curious whether anyone here can actually name one. Even Haile Selassie, né Ras Tafari Makonnen, was celebrated during his lifetime, and the Rastafarian faith was well established and stripped of its more bizarre qualities by the time of his death; i.e., not a Selassie personality cult. If early Christianity was a cult, it was a highly unusual one that challenges the paradigm of definitions in our dictionaries.
A couple of the Cargo Cults in the South Pacific appear to have arisen after their alleged founder had left, at least. Unless those are religions now. The parallels between early Christian and more recent Cargo Cult emergences are reasonably clear. John Frum just needs a martyr story and a borrowed sacred text. Likewise the Mormon and the Muslim parallels, if we can safely take the early Mormon church to be a cult - which I would, without hesitation.
You mean a definition dumbed down enough for you to grasp it... oh wait, since you have an Agenda... for you to believe it. but let us try. A Religion is a Large Basic Thing. A Cult is derivative and necessarily smaller... oh, we may already have gone beyond CONCISE... for Little Minds some things can never be TOO concise. Anyway, for a Religion to be large enough to properly contrast itself to a Cult, it must very much part of the Institutionalization of of a Civilization, that is, all the Give and Take, Moral and Legal upon which a Civilization depends, must tie back to this Religion. A CULT or a breakaway Sect, is simply a splinter of renegades from the Source Religion, or perhaps free of any influence of the Institutionalized Religion, and simply is setting itself up as a competitor. To be Concise enough for you, think of it in this way -- Religion=Big and Institutionalized. Cult=Small and Socially Rejected.
Religion=superstitious thought in general. Cult=organized worship or reverence specific to a set of superstitions. Christianity=religion; Catholism/mormonism=cults within Christianity.
You could say "Sect" just as easily, Skin. It's just a semantic pejorative call, with maybe a few notable exceptions like Raelians etc.
Difference between cult and religion: Religion is a set of beliefs/principals/practices by an individual that involves metaphysical/supernatural ideals. Cult is a group that uses status quo/conformity and propaganda to manipulate people into joining a group. Ostracizing or berating those who do not conform is simply a form of manipulation.
It's only pejorative to members of cults who'd like to belittle members of other cults whom they hold some measure of disdain for or bigotry toward. I don't use it in the pejorative sense nor do I think I should be required to tailor my use of the English language to conform to the desires of one superstitious group to dominate others. Indeed, I see no rational argument put forth that 'Raelians' are any less legitimate than any other cult. Wrong. See my definition above.
Heh. Fine, fine: I don't think there's any difference between a religion and a cult save that "cult" is pejorative. And it isn't only theists who use it in that manner.
If there's a group with a charismatic 'leader' or head guru guy, and initially there are ashrams everywhere, but then the leader decides "no ashrams", and then deconstructs any outward signs of organization. The group is 'disbanded ' and told there are no more meetings, except when the head guy shows up, every now and then? Is it still a cult if it had all the outward signs, but now it has as few as possible - a minimum level of organization? Do its members just have to revere their leader and his philosophy? Do they have to give him money, or actively proselytize? What if they don't, but still profess admiration, or a kind of devotion, etc? What if, when you ask about their 'faith', they appear ambivalent, or tell you "there really isn't anything I can tell you"?
It's true that "cult" didn't come to mean "a bunch of brainwashed idiots" until the mid 20th century. Before that I think it was usually used to refer to religions or religious rituals that seemed ancient or primitive, like ancient Egyptian or Roman sects that no longer exist but would probably have been considered more or less mainstream religions in their day. You could sometimes find it used to simply mean a sect that followed some specific teaching, but more often it would be used by historians or archaeologists talking about strange dead religions. Edit: You will still find tons of references in history books (especially older ones) to things like "the cult or Ra," even though back in its day it was a major religion that wouldn't fit the modern definition of a cult.
