Very rarely for the rank and file; usually, for the "inner circle" or "illuminati" who pull the strings.
Misuse of the word doesn't absolve the cults that have been given official status. Religion is cult. The Apostles are respected by modern Christians, even though they rallied around a living man, (Allegedly.) and now they seem to be worshipping a ghost, a cross and an unseen deity.
ok... an example process to clarify with... === Perhaps give the groupings or "cults" by your definition a severity rating on a scale of 1-10. Just so we know where you are coming from... Christianity Islam Hindi Buddhism Republican Democrat Hell's Angels Biker club Mafia Daesh ( ISIL) Orange people ( Osho ) Jonestown Heavens gate Davidians Aum and explain why the rating? ===
I don't know enough about it to classify. From the little I've heard, it sounds more like a boys' club or fraternity. On what standard? 1-10 in what regard? I don't understand the rating of cults. 1. Christianity - yes; supercult, containing a number of off-shoots and sub-cults 2. Islam - yes - ditto 3. Hindi --- No, that's a language; Hinduism is an old religion that probably began as a cult, but has developed into an entire culture. 4. Buddhism - another old religion that probably began as a personality cult, but has grown diverse and massive. 5. Republican - member of a political party; nothing to do with cults as to this membership; most likely Christian. 6. Democrat - see above 7. Hell's Angels - originally boys' club; later diversified in commercial interests 8. Mafia - commercial organization 9. Daesh (ISIL) - political/military entity using cultish methods 10. Orange people ( Osho ) - I have no idea what that is 11. Jonestown - obviously; poster child 12. Heavens gate - yes 13. Davidians - yes 14. Aum - no idea Why include political parties and organized crime? There is nothing supernatural about them. For that matter, why leave out Disney, the NFL and the US Marines?
"Cult" means different things. In the case of religion, "cult" refers to manners of behavior within the group. When we speak of "a cult", we tend to separate it from religions as a matter of classification according to perceptions of purpose and organization; the key here is the sort of history and rhetoric many people just don't bother studying. Your list, for instance, can't tell the difference between a religion (e.g., Christianity), a cultish offshoot focused on particular behavioral cult (Branch Davidian), a personality cult (Heaven's Gate), political party, international crime syndicate (mafia), or whatever the hell we might call Daa'ish. Don't get me wrong; somewhere between racketeers proper and churches are the Rajneeshees, but there are obvious functional differences between rackets like the Orange People, personality doomsday cults like Heaven's Gate, and political doomsday cults like Aum Shinrikyo. It's not always easy to draw the distinctions, but you do make the point that, eventually, if we disdain something enough to require our own ignorance, it can become difficult to tell the difference between Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Mickey Mouse, and Smedley Butler.
That was the gist of my first response. Like most significant words, it's been debased by popular usage. Some people find nothing wrong with a statement like "I adore Justin Bieber!" It's still wrong. Regardless of what people may refer to, it's still a matter of what's being cultivated. The behaviour is less important than the idea. Because religions are cults that have been given some mainstream (power-structure) seal of approval.
The reason I included groups that would not typically be seen as cults is to find out how you defined cults. what I did manage to discover is that Jonestown, Heavens gate, Davidians and I am confident also you would say the same about Aum (Aum Shinrikyo) if I had bothered to put the whole title in writing (my bad... sorry about that), are cults with out reservation, with no need to explain why you considered them as cults. So can I ask, why is it that those particular groups attract the cult label without hesitation? What is it about them that makes them so obviously cults. Is it mind control? Is it their "doomsday" apocalyptic prophecy ( if any)? Is it their methods of radicalization? ( indoctrination) What?
Well, okay, if you say so, but, still— —there is some irony about the wheres of your coming and going: This, for instance, sounds ... well ... not awful. However— —are you sure about that? After all, there is so much wrong with that sentence, I hardly know where to begin. For keeping it simple sake: 1) A religion, e.g., Christianity, can include many cults: Dominionists, Hedonists, Sabbatarians, Pentecostals, premillennialists, millennialists, postmillennialists, &c. 2) Religion is the mainstream that gives its own approval. 3) Think of it this way: While I don't necessarily know who would actually pay for that kind of political consultation or activism, find someone who will, because the combination of your zeal and ignorance will make for fantastic job security as long as you're not being paid to succeed or win or anything other than not completely fail. Sometime around last year I tried a thread in which I asked atheists at Sciforums what they knew about what they criticized, and part of the answer coming back was they didn't need to. And it really is a weird sense of job security: If you're wrong enough, you'll never be right, so there will always be work to do. Now all you need is someone dumb enough to fall for it. I mean, don't get me wrong, religion isn't going away in our lifetimes, even if technology means we get a couple more centuries out of it. Hell, if we get that technology, religion will flourish as people dream of immortality and, at long last, philosophy that makes senses. But digging into a hole like you do not only makes the windmills seem larger, the circumstance also lends a perpetually increasing perception or sensation of imperative and, thereby, importance. In Darwinian terms, it's a strange clusterdiddle that, to the one, would seem to exist for a reason, or, to the other, has not encountered a circumstance sufficient to disrupt its influence within the species and thus has never gone away or been worked around or replaced. That is to say, it's perfectly human, and lots of people do it. 4) I would have to dig up Markale on myth and history, but what's really strange in that context is your approach vector, which is virtually guaranteed to miss the runway. Stop casting religion according to what you need it to be and start considering what it actually is. Yes, we can draw common subjectivity 'twixt religion and other human behavioral conventions, and thus the President of the United States is not entirely removed from Marshall Applewhite is not entirely removed from Pope Francis is not entirely removed from Mickey Mouse. Moreover, have you ever hung out with anime fans? The problem with your approach, however, is that you're trying to subjugate religion, and have only limited pathways for doing so, and thus require the various elements to play the roles you assign them. Revolutions rarely smash the authority, but, rather, usurp it. Pretending your declared enemies are somehow cast in an image according to your will is one of those errors about history that very much plays into the question of learning or repeating. Religion is a far more complicated concept than mere cult. A cult is a religion like germinated seed is apple juice; there is a little more required.
actually this opens up another potential approach... the difference between a religious sect and a religious cult. Is there a difference and if so what would that be?
Aye. I suppose more than the list I was focusing on the refusal to acknowledge certain differences, and let that carry over. Sigh. It would be less confusing if I wasn't sorting through willful ignorance of what people criticize. This joker is the equivalent of the two-bits who want to tell us they know Einstein was wrong. Your list makes sense in its context; sorry for missing that part.
Just a quick go, my severity rating would be as follows: Christianity Rating 4/10 Islam Rating 7/10 Hindu Rating 7/10 Buddhism 4/10 Republican 1/10 Democrat 1/10 Hell's Angels Biker club 2/10 Mafia 2/10 Daesh ( ISIL) 9/10 Orange people ( Osho ) 7/10 Jonestown 10/10 Heavens gate 10/10 Davidians 10/10 Aum 11/10
oh I see... I just didn't want Jeeves accused of making such a seemingly silly list... "t'was me", I cry,"t'was me", sob sob
What's the difficulty? I defined it thus: "At root, it's the origin of culture. As applied to a group of people, it should denote those who are devoted to cultivating some particular ideal or deity and form a matrix of narrative, art and ritual (a culture) around that ideal or deity." What more is there to 'discover'? The fact that they readily fit the definition. The big religions require explanation precisely for the reason Tiassa mentions. It's not that they "contain" cults so much as that a cult has grown, been modified, subsumed other cults, been adapted to and imposed upon new populations and political applications, split and branched and suffered internal schism, reform, etc. This happens when an idea gains momentum over time: it changes. Especially when a cult is geographically transplanted, the culture around it merges into the existing culture into which it's introduced; both undergo metamorphosis. The kernel of the Christian cult remains that single redemptive sacrifice of a demigod, but it's got all that extra baggage now - plus it owns real estate, banks, a criminal record and kings. Being typical: J -- 'Cult leaders typically claim to channel some supernatural power or interpret some life-directing doctrine or reveal some profound Truth." Not necessarily. Those are common enough gimmicks to apply to most religions, especially if one's definition of "mind control" and "prophecy" are not very stringent, but I see no reason a cult cannot operate without those attributes. That's the second time you've used this word, and it's even more perplexing in this context. In my dictionary, radical means an extreme form of some ideology. In established politics and religion, this would usually denote a splinter group that's taken the central idea beyond the bounds of practical application: they would be marginal and unpopular. But 'to radicalize' implies a deliberate strategy, presumably of pushing a faction toward the margins of the ideology. Mainstream political parties and religions don't typically do that - rather than create, they attempt to eliminate such splinter groups. All religions and political system in power do some form and degree of indoctrination, especially of the very young. But then you put indoctrination in brackets, as related to 'radicalization'. I assume this means that the existing radical splinter group is actively poaching on the mainstream for members. They do, but it's not a requirement. I still don't understand your severity rating. Severity of what?
