Is There Any Difference Between a Cult and a Religion?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- You've heard the term "cult" before. It conjures images of authoritarian leaders and sheep-like followers. Many people claim that some religious groups are not religions at all...but rather..."cults." But is there any real difference between a "cult" and a "religion?"
Check out Ground Up Religion!: • What is a "Cult"?
Twitter: @andrewmarkhenry
Facebook: religionforbreakfast
Patreon: patreon.com/religionforbreakfast
Andrew's religious studies book recommendations: amazon.com/shop...
Here are some articles to get you started for further research:
aeon.co/essays...
religiondispatc...
storify.com/s0...
jonestown.sdsu....
Photo Attributions:
Artemis of Ephesus: commons.wikime...
Japan mormon temple: commons.wikime...
Brazil mormon temple: commons.wikime...
Spanish mormon temple: commons.wikime...
Church of St. Symeon: en.wikipedia.o...
Hasidic family: commons.wikime...
Amish family: commons.wikime...
Amish buggy: en.wikipedia.o...
Special Thanks to our Patrons on Patreon!:
RUclips has permanently demonetized this video. Religion apparently is not "advertiser friendly content." If you would like to support this channel, consider becoming a patron on Patreon (www.patreon.com/religionforbreakfast) or donate at PayPal! www.paypal.me/religionforbreakfast
What -- is Google becoming a cult or something?!
I’m surprised anything is monetized at this point besides corporate entities. I remember back when RUclips first came out, I was like, “they’re just copying Ebaum’s World”. Ebaum’s lost because you had to spend years contributing to the site in views, likes, and comments to be able to post your own videos. They didn’t demonetize. I was almost at the point of being able to post when RUclips started getting big. Internet fame was just a phase for me. I’m glad I’m not on the tube much.
Who cares.
The reason you can't monetize off this is because advertisers do not want to advertise on religious content because its horrible for marketing almost any product.
You understand that much right? I mean you are a content creator so I don't expect you to be that intelligent.
@@newtdockery9575
Cool.... You understand that in the early 2000s online advertising was still pretty young and not being utilized that much at all. Notice how Ebaums and Stupid videos had absolutely no advertisements in the videos....
How could you monetize your content back then when there was no advertising to monetize....
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
This is why monetization was not utilized at all on those platforms. Even the early days youtube had no monetization as it just used passive advertisements and had 0 video advertisements for a very long time.
That being said we need to understand that the money going into content creation is mainly coming from advertising which means you need to understand that lots of the time products and agendas are being pushed through these content creators as they are more or less tools to be used by the rich.
A lot of credibility has been lost in content creation since mass monetization. A lot of content is not "Monetized" due to political reasons as RUclips is a liberal bias platform. The internet is supposed to be a place to freely exchange information but platforms are not becoming censorship havens as well as indoctrination units.
In Spanish, "culto" is a neutral term that just means "religious service"
In Italian it's the same
Same in Portuguese. The sense the word "cult" has in English is well transmitted by "seita" (sect) in Portuguese.
I remember in Ilocano, a language spoken in the north of the Philippines, we also call "divine worship" as "culto divino". Filipinos borrowed many words from Spanish.
Exactly. I thought the same while watching the video. "Culto" in Spanish is quite neutral word. I have really enjoied the video, coz not only addresses an interesting topic (mainly for english speaking audiences) but also reflects how religious and ideological constructs are shaped by many cultural and social conditions, including language itself.
In German it is the same, "Kult" is any kind of "religious service"
The "joke" I had heard was:
"A cult is a system of belief where the person at the top knows it's a lie. A religion is when that person is dead."
That works for me.
Hmmm? Did Scientology become a religion when LR Hubbard died?
amen!
I wouldn't say so, that definition makes too many assumptions about the character of the "cult leader" but I know it's a joke lol.
The truth!
What are your toughts on Steven Hassan’s BITE Model for Cults?
I had a professor who would occasionally refer to religions, especially as they were being founded, as cults: Jesus and his disciples were the Cult of Christ, Sadartha Guatama and his arhats were the Cult of the Buddha, and so on. It was later, after the founders died and canons began to be established, that the “religion” would develop.
Interesting to learn that the term is more neutral in historical use.
Colloquially, I guess I tend to use "cult" for anything that appears (from my end) to use spiritual concepts to scam people for money, power, social control, or sexual exploitation. But that's obviously not a definition that would fly in an academic environment. :)
Yeah the word for the Romans was either neutral or even somewhat positive. Weird how it changed so much over time.
See but from my perspective I think you could easily say Catholicism is a cult if that’s the definition. The Vatican is one of the most powerful institutions in the world.
My native language is Spanish, and there traditionally the word "culto" has been used to refer only the rites of veneration/adoration of certain figures, not a group of people. To talk about "new religions we don't like" the word used is "sect".
Nowdays people has starting to use the word "culto" instead of "secta" due that the internet has popularized the use of "cult" in English.
Which is what catholic are churches are known for...
By that definition you could include most major religions
I wonder, what do you think of the BITE model?
Please do a video on this
I second this, I would like to hear a neutral analysis of Hassan's work.
Is it possible Steven Hassan, while making keen observations, is not working on a neutral scholarly level?
The BITE model, while helpful to me personally, is a reductionist model. To follow it deeper would mean studying semiotics, semantics, behavior modification, physical gesture and Pavlovian response, sociological stratification, and well, a fair amount more, especially mythology, hermetic philosophy, and other religiously-related sciences, hard and soft, which informed Hassan's model and more naturally than he does, describe the factors that go into what he calls "High Demand Groups."
But you know, the BITE model is easily applied also to political structures, corporate business "culture" (cult-ure), and lower and higher education systems. A job can become as extreme with psychological abuse as a High Demand New Religious Movement.
Hassan is seen as "the cult expert" but often sounds to me like he's also employing loaded language, or that if he isn't, those who follow his work have some tendency to latch onto his terms as though they describe ultimate reality, and turn his classifications into dogmas that perhaps he didn't intend.
I would love to see Religion for Breakfast take on a neutral academic stance on Hassan and other so-called "cult experts," actually, for those reasons particularly.
I grew up in a New Religious Movement; when you've been harmed by one extensively, it becomes a difficult mine field to navigate religion of any kind without either feeling taken advantage of or lied to.
Finding a neutral stance is very difficult. For one, I've called the Amish and Hasidic Jews cults -- mostly as a pejorative for their strict behavior controls. But it has taken me some real pain and openness to accept that things are very much not that black and white, and to appreciate what various religions have that is worthwhile, without needing to convert or destroy them. There are some, however, that, I believe, need to be questioned and challenged somehow, and in a more concrete way than just tossing irrational pejoratives at them or mocking them, both of which cause most members to dig their heels in rather than have a realization.
The group I came from even took their mainstream name from an insult others used against them in its formative years; they're taught that anyone who doesn't love their "one true authority" and doesn't believe it, or leaves it, is doing it because they love their sins, and will make fun of those who do righteous things. For this group, on TV they would say that includes everyone, even non-members of the group, but in their stratified privacy levels (not unlike the levels of Scientology) you would hear that only members of the group will be truly persecuted, and that all other religions are authored by the devil. Double-think, double-talk.
The type of pejorative use for "cultism" tends to be a fear of charlatans and groupthink; the current terms (New Religious Movements, High Demand Groups) don't address this problem, which is, yes, not a neutral scholarly pursuit, but happens to be a specific problem those of us who have experienced religious abuse would still appreciate being directly addressable.
The reality I see is that most often those starting a new religion are (to knowingly generalize) of one of three categories:
1) explorers of the nature of existence who have a *model* they wish to do it by,
2) true *believers* who feel they have a legitimate hold on the One True Model, and
3) *political aspirants.*
The gray between the extremes makes it important to be able to identify those who will use religious authority to abuse their followers, though, so obviously it's not easily written off as pure sensationalism. I was there; I was in the group, others were too and saw the same things -- *the abuse is measurable but socially denied* (as you might expect, but this is done with pre-meditation and exactness). Hassan might use the term "gaslighting" to describe that.
That type of tactic ("plausible deniability" being the legalese version) allows for the argument "I was just following orders" to sound reasonable to the group member when they end up implicated in that abuse. It allows for a facade to take hold socially that is quite intentionally designed to shield the group from damages or criticism, even if that criticism is deserved. And this "I was just following orders" mentality is what the leaders of many abusive religious / self-help movements use to indemnify themselves, though usually in language like "The Lord commanded me to say this, if you hate what I'm saying, you hate what the Lord is saying." Or aliens, or a guru, or the dead -- some Scapegoat invisible and inaccessible to the average group-member.
As one of the leaders of my old group once said, "Some things that are true are not very useful." Another said, "It is wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if that criticism is true."
Those phrases are undeniably *knowingly* manipulative. And I hear followers defend those statements with extreme language and behavior.
It's clear to me that the one I grew up in is politically-motivated. Others though, I think, have experimental-mystical reasons, or self-serving motives, that still mark similar behavior control tactics being used for abuse of various kinds, particularly though, *psychological abuse.* And many shift under changes in leadership, too, and then attempt huge revisionisms of their history to justify the changes.
To anyone who took the time to get to the end of my comment, thanks for reading it despite its length. For anyone who has been through abuse by a group like this, I'm with you.
I'd appreciate if this was addressed in the video. But he's a religious scholar, not a psychologist. His opinion would carry no more weight on the matter than any other lay-person.
@@dande3139 that being said, I would still argue that you shouldn't neglect to mention relevant information just because your voice doesn't carry weight in regards to its area of study.
At least acknowledge that there are other disciplines, particularly sociology and psychology, which *do* sometimes use the word cult as a specific, definable term.
I'd like to see a comparison between the BITE model and, say a high-demand religion, or even a monastic lifestyle. Maybe an in depth comparison and contrast between what these 3 categories' intentions are and how they effect people both inside of and outside a religion.
Personally,I'd like to see more research from the psychology world on the damaging psychological effects of highly authoritarian religions (which is what I would classify as a "cult")
Age of a religion matters far less to me than how a religion effects society and its followers when it comes to labeling it with a word of negative connotation.
Aaron Ra displayed researches and articles in one of his speeches on how religions affect human brain and their behavior.
@@burricat9615 Which one of his speeches was it?
Agreed. But that's a touchy subject. At least in my area, a religious organization has a monopoly on all psychological treatment centers. I wouldn't trust them to be objective.
@@dande3139 oh absolutely not. That would be completely biased.
There would need to be true scientific effort to find actual truth.
I mean, that definitely exists. I would consider the overlap between religious authoritarianism and nationalistic authoritarianism, as they generally use very similar psychological tactics, such as conformity, repetition, isolation, scapegoating, control of information, god there’s just so many overlaps 😂 But in that vein, there have been studies of this phenomenon as old as Milgram’s conformity experiments. People tend to do what authority tells them to do, regardless of what the source of authority is, whether supernatural or utterly mundane. But yeah, I think if you do proper research you would be happily surprised by the depth of research. This topic has fascinated many.
I've always considered a cult (in the modern sense) to be "a religious group that follows the belief of a person, rather than a strict dogma. The beliefs of the person may be strict, but they are subject to change"
Yeah I feel like to me the defining feature of a cult is its autocrat/prophet who not only controls the doctrine, but is actively involved in its enforcement. Like I don't think Mormonism is a cult, but if going to worship was watching a livestream of the prophet telling you what to believe this week, i think it would be. Even more so if he heard you drank coffee, so he sent someone over to break your kneecaps or whatever.
This also leaves room for certain congregations within otherwise non-cult religions to be cults, like televangelists at the lower end, and Westboro Baptist at the higher end
Personally the way I would use the word cult is very close to Definition 1 from 4:15. The main thing that makes how I would use the term different from the one presented in this video is that it's an important aspect of a cult that they use social isolation and other forms of intimidation to prevent members from _leaving._ Scientology is easily the best example of a cult under this definition, but from what I've seen from ex-Mormons and ex-JWs, it would be reasonable to classify those as cults as well. The Amish would _not_ count, because they quite famously encourage their younger members to spend some time outside their community and experience what it is like, to make a decision about whether or not they want to remain.
The definition you've given here reminds me of my favourite _joke_ definition of a cult. What's the difference between a cult and a religion? In a cult, there's a person at the top who knows it's all fake. In a religion, that person died a long time ago.
See also "destructive cult" in criminology (I think it's in criminology), which is a small religious group that actively causes harm to it's members or society at large. That Japanese group (I know the real name can't be assed to look up the spelling atm) and Jonestown, and the Manson Family fit this definition.
Was the first one you were refering to "happy science"
@@krazykris9396 that or Aum Shinrikyo/Aleph, the ones who gassed the Tokyo subway station with nerve gas
"I hang out with a lot of ancient historians."
Now I picture him drinking beer with Thucydides and Cassius Dio. 😀
In a way, you could say he does.
I’ve heard the term “high control group” or “high control religion” used as an alternative to cult. A small eccentric religion might fit the colloquial definition of a cult but be totally benign, while a large religion with more social acceptance might be doing real harm to their followers - cutting them off from outsiders, stealing their money, encouraging violence or self harm - the stuff that would make a cult actually dangerous.
I use the term “cult” when any group, religious or sectarian ( such as cult of personality) make it difficult or impossible to leave the group (or question the leader’s veracity) when one desires to do so. Examples would include groups that socially demonize former members, those who require all current members, even family, to shun those who leave, or even when the former non-religious idolized leader incessantly harasses the exiting member on Twitter. A group who seriously believe in far out things but encourage discussion and debate and can tolerate members leaving with good graces, is never a cult to me. Even a strict order that controls behavior of members but lets people leave when they have had a change of heart would not be a cult to me. Cults to me always have a narcissist at the helm requiring 100% fealty or else.
I wouldn't be so quick to use this definition personally. Pretty much any Christian or Muslim group has some form of severe punishment for apostasy. Even if it's just the threat of a bad afterlife, that's scary enough to trick many people into staying who would otherwise leave.
You might be able to specifically refer to systemic ostracization or other punishment that is openly endorsed by the cult, but this still includes many mainstream groups few would call cults. For example, evangelical Christianity often has hefty social consequences for even questioning dogma.
So Islam is a cult by that definition !
@@troydavis1 How so?
The game Morrowind changed how I viewed the word Cult. One of the major factions in that game is The Imperial Cult, and it was simply the benevolent missionary arm of the Imperial religion in that game. That got me into the rabbit hole of reading up on the definitions of the word in real life and learning how nuanced it is and how people tend to focus on the negative aspect of the word.
Your videos inspired me to go into Religious Studies
You should check out the religious teachings of the Urantia Book.
Great video! I have always battled with people using the term "Cult" as a derogatory term and/or statement. Your explanation beautifully mirrors my own on this subject. In Abnormal Psychology on the nature of this topic, a "Cult" (in the derogatory sense) in today's time and culture, can be a transcendental religion in another time and culture.
Common sense dictates all religions start off as cults.
This is not even a question one should be asking.. as... common sense dictates the answer.. it takes almost no time to think about the conception of religion and how a religion is always a cult before it gets a mass following. The only difference between the two are the number of followers.
This means you can start a religion today.. it will just be known as a cult until it has enough followers.
There are various differences between new religious movements and cults. Its dangerous to lump them all together but there are always groups which use force to ensure devotion. There is a model called "Bite" sometimes called upon to distinguish what is and isn't a cult, the more boxes a group ticks on the list, the more culty it is.
"I just hang out with a lot of ancient historians." My favorite line from this vid.
My quickie litmus test to tell the difference b/w a religion and a cult: If you are shunned by family and friends after leaving it's a cult.
Yup, or if your church tells you to cut ties with those that don't agree with your view. Mormons, Mother God, and JW's fall into this. They blacklist ex member and completely cut ties with them. They encourage people to leave their families as well.
So you refer to the Amish being a cult?
@@adamjohnsonstudio7910 100%
Fully agree wish he had covered it instead of simping for cults
@@joshme3659 im not sure why you think he was simping for cults, he didn't defend a single specific group in the video. he's just defending the point that new religions shouldn't automatically be considered cults, because that isn't a fair assumption
Stephen Haasan's BITE model doesn't get a mention?
Psychology and Religious Studies are very different. They're working off of different definitions for the word "cult".
if I understood: people tend to mean religion as being normal to society while cult means extremist, radical, far-fetched to the norm considered by society.
Also would you talk about the role of early female christians?
Yeah that sums it up perfectly. I'd rather just drop the term cult and call them all religions (or religious movements). And I do plan on doing a vid on women in early Christianity. It has been requested a lot.
I've been binge watching your channel since I discovered it yesterday, and this is one of my favorite videos...absolutely beautifully done. You are seriously a breath of fresh air when it comes to discussing religion. I want to go into Religious Studies now!
Glad to hear you're liking the channel! I started it because I didn't see enough academic, moderate voices discussing religion on RUclips. I'm trying to be that person.
Enlighten yourself with the teachings of the Urantia book my love 👼
Excellent video, but I must say, although it defies your definition, in my experience
A cult usually has a secret that you must be deeply initiated before it can be known, and you can't leave.
A religion usually tells the secret somewhere in the beginning, and u can walk away if it doesn't work for you (even if you are shunned)
Interesting. I didn't address secrecy at all in the video, which was an oversight.
ReligionForBreakfast not a big deal, you made good points regardless
Are you referring to esoteric groups like the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn?
Angelo Nasios Not at all actually, golden dawn OTO and the hermetic orders are religions in the Gnostic sense. Their secret is hey, we know a secret. (As silly as it sounds) I was thinking more along the lines of Xenu or let's kill ourselves when the comet comes.
I was raised Mormon and no longer practice, but I'm always irritated when people (ex-Mormons or never-Mormons) throw the term "cult" around. I have legit grievances with the institution of the LDS church, which is why I left, but none of them ever come up when people start talking about how "Mormonism is a cult." It's always "oooh they have weird beliefs" or "ooooh they don't drink coffee" or "oooh they're too friendly" and not... anything substantial.
Anyway I just discovered this channel and I'm looking forward to devouring all of your content!
So did you leave Mormonism because you like coffee, being cranky and having more conventional beliefs? I decided not to become a Mormon because I like coffee too much. And buttsex. But I gotta admit, the friendly people thing was a huge temptation. It would be great if they were also into coffee and buttsex. Coffee and buttsex with friendly people; sounds good to me! Where do I sign up for that cult?
Interestingly, in swedish, 'kult' is alot closer to the older meaning of the word. This is while 'sekt', wich just means religious group in english, refers to a small and to the followers usuly physicaly and/or psycologicaly destructive religious group, ruled over by a charismatic leader. In the latter case, it does not even have to be a separate religion or bransh of such, as can be seen in the case with the Knutby-sekt, wich was part of the large Pentecostal church.
Torbjörn Lekberg same in Spanish. It's common to hear catholic or evangelicals say "voy a ir al culto" (I'm going to the cult) which sounds scary in English but is completely normal in Spanish.
Realy? Maby it it is a difference between european and american use of the word, similar to how 'liberalism' still have its original meaning in Europe, but turned into somthing a bit diffrent in USA.
Same in French. "Culte" is used in academic setting like "culte de Mithras", or even in association to mainstream religions like "lieux de culte" (places of worship / religious gathering); while the term for an abusive religious movement is "secte", and it's a very loaded word.
Same in Polish.
So the Swedes abuse the word sect or sekt the identical way that Americans abuse the word cult.
I never thought about it in these terms. I've happily used the term, "cult" to speak unfavorably about a religion or "different" group and never thought any more about it. But suddenly I realize that if I call a goofy sounding take on religion a cult, that I'm unwittingly legitimizing other religions. That's it. I'm instantly cured of using the term.
When your religion is better than all the other religions, you don't know any religion. The more you see them all, the more you realize they all share more in common than differences.
That's because all religions are a mix of revealed spiritual truth and man-made religious error
@@davidoverstreet2875 I may agree with you. It depends on how you define spiritual and religious.
@@danielpaulson8838 spiritual is moral behavior based on the supernal and sublime Fruits of the Spirit, as described in the New testament of the Bible. Spiritual is also defined by the description of divine love in the New testament. These referrals are not necessarily an endorsement of the teachings of Christianity, but they are spiritual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the Master of spirituality. Mankind is of animal origin, and subject to animalistic, evil behaviors and emotions. At the same time, man, being the highest and most intelligent of the will creatures, capable of moral, selfless choice, automatically enables a part of the spirit of God to inhabit mankind, creating the birth of the soul, which has the potential, through spiritual growth, to become immortal. Your soul is saved by sincere, fearless, loving, trusting faith in God. And your petty, selfish, childish sins are automatically forgiven by a divinely loving, understanding, tolerant, wise, lenient, non-judgmental, encouraging, and spiritually rehabilitating heavenly Father God.
@@danielpaulson8838 on the other hand, religion is all the irrelevant, ineffective, ridiculous, sometimes insane, teachings and ritualistic and ceremonial practices that mankind has independently created, evolved, and attached to morality and spirituality. Religion is merely the man-made erroneous philosophical and material form of spirituality.
@@davidoverstreet2875 I define it as,
Religion - Looks outward to a God in space.
Spritualism - Looks inward to your own soul.
So yes, I would say, spiritualism is an important factor in the life of humanity. Religion is a way for the blind masses to carry a teaching they can't interpret and don't have inner access to.
I agree with the gist of what you are saying, however you missed an important usage of term “cult”: cult of personality. And when the charismatic personality that engendered that cult of personality wraps it up in religion it can become a very dangerous thing. Isaac Bonewits created an awareness framework to rate individual groups for how high the dangers are from that particular group. The Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Framework v2.7 (at the time of his death) - the ABCDEF v2.7. If you want I can send you a copy or just google it.
When I think of the word "cult", I think of it in broadly two senses.
1. A religion that is so lacking in transparency that you have to join the religion and/or materially contribute to the religion simply to find out what the religions doctrines and practices even are (for example Scientology).
2. A religion that lacks the institutional structure (such as sacred texts, councils, leadership succession rules etc.) necessary for it to survive the religions founders death, making its existence purely to feed the founders ego (for example the Peoples Temple).
When discussing this with someone way back, they summarized this thinking as this "When some says, 'Worship me!', you have a cult. When someone says, 'Worship some invisible dude in the sky!' you have a religion."
By that definition, wouldn't Jesus have been a cult leader?
@@weirdlanguageguy If you take the words of the Bible at face-value, then the answer would be no, considering the Bible says Jesus performed many miracles in public, for all to see.
@@juliocesarfabianosaboia7330 I was referring to the second paragraph, stating that “when someone says ‘worship me’, you have a cult”
@@weirdlanguageguy Relating to that, the answer is still no, if you analyze the Bible you'll see that Christ never says "I am God, worship me now" you'll see that Christ waits patiently for the apostles to realize the truth of his divinity, and only gives hints to attest his divinity and fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, also, it was long after Christ and the apostles had died that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was officially declared by the Church.
@@juliocesarfabianosaboia7330 yeah, you’re right there, now that I think about it. Interesting to think about, thanks for responding to this year old post!
I agree with the assessment that “cult” is merely, colloquially, a pejorative for the term “religion”.....but isn’t predicating something as “academic” merely a euphemism for an invalid inference to authority? It really shouldn’t matter if the use of a term is “academic” or not. All that matters is whether or not there is some manner in which the use of that term is accurate.
Creative Cat Productions i think in this case "academic" is just a type of technical jargon. So that when someone talks about "cults" in an academic setting, it has a different meaning than in common language. Therefore, in the interest of accuracy, someone might describe "cults" in "academic" terms.
They're all cults - definition = "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."
Did you listen to the first minute of the video? The common non-scholarly definition is pejorative.
When dose a religion become mythology
After it reaches mainstream adoption and then declines to the point of irrelevance in modern culture.
Myths are a religion's sacred narratives. Religions *have* mythologies, but they are not myths in and of themselves.
@@sm32646 Was about to say that but figured I should check the replies lol
It really doesn't, mythology is just an element inside religion but not the same thing.
It doesnt, mythology is a part of every religion. In the strictest sense the bible would be considered mythology
I use the BITE model when labeling a cult.
I would define a cult as a set of typically religious beliefs which emphasizes loyalty to the group or perceived authority, demonizes outsiders, and is harmful to it's practitioners and those around them.
The definition of "the difference between a cult and a religion" i always came across is: a cult doesn't invite/tolerate criticism of their practices/beliefs, often with a single personage as their leader/prophet/guru.
No religions really tolerate criticism of their beliefs. That would delegitimize the religion's authorities.
I know you think cult is pejorative but it’s 100% appropriate for some cases. I have heard it used to say “when one small group or leader exerts power over a larger group even to the detriment of its followers. Characterized by ritualistic behavior, exclusivity, guarded knowledge.” In this sense it’s taking advantage of its followers.
I want to try to be fair in my response while not watering down what I think. I think a good analogy for how I think of this situation is interpersonal relationships. If a person is derogatory, controlling, and manipulative, we don't just say, "oh that's just another equally valid relationship strategy," or, "we have to find a way to give people who act like this a label that is non-negative." No, we just say, "that person's a bully," or, "that person is toxic." These are simple ways of talking to ourselves and signalling to others that socially destructive behavior isn't acceptable. If we take this approach to practical ethics and apply it to groups, instead of using words like, "bully," and, "toxic," we use words like, "cult" and, "authoritarian," to talk to ourselves and to signal to others that socially destructive group dynamics also aren't acceptable. It's mostly not the content of the beliefs and doctrines of these new religious groups that gets criticized, but rather, their use of manipulation, deception, coercion, etc to assert control. It may be the case that there are many religious and spiritual groups in the overall category that are anywhere from benign to positive, but I believe that to encourage people to therefore refrain from labeling socially destructive groups as such, is to encourage practices that make society less secure.
I believe the difference lies with motivation. what we generally consider as religion are usually based on selfless motives, whereas cults are for the prosperity of the leader or the organization. or simply morals in essence.
Esoteric orders such as the freemasons and the rosacrucians are often called "cults" due to their secretive nature. How would you define these groups and others alike? Also, many esoteric orders exist within religions while, at the same time, offering a distinct interpretation of the official dogmas of the religions they are related to such as sufism, what do you make up of these groups?
On another topic, could you talk about the differences between universal religions and the tribal ones?
I do not know if the terms "universal" and "tribal" are corret, but it seems clear to me that some religions are closely associated with ethnicity or race while others make no distinction between ethnical background.
Freemansons / rosacrucians and the like would be probably best described as "schools"/organizations within the Western Esoteric Tradition. I would like to see what Andrew says, I would argue that they are not cults.
kbwablzomhebk pumjiws oypp "universal" vs "tribal" religions... another great topic I'd like to see him address. I have heard these referenced as "universal" and "ethnic" or "voluntary" and "natural".
www.nvcc.edu/home/lshulman/Rel100/resources/ethnic_religions.htm
Truth be told, most tribe religions have a more solid belief system/s. Most of them even provide hard facts, which is not seen in more known religious institutions.
How so you feel about the BITE model and other methods to quantify the difference between a cult and a religion. The BITE model doesn't focus on size or whether the doctrine is wacky but on how the group treats its members. How strictly do they control behavior, how strictly do they control information both outside information and information about the religion. If they force you to even perpetually think a certain way, or teach techniques to suppress your emotions.
Under that metric Mormon and the Amish would still count as cults but to different degrees while your neighborhood Methodist church wouldn't and it's less about wackiness than how the organization relates to its members and the outside world.
The BITE model is vague enough that pretty much any group could be considered a cult if you paint it the right way. There's a reason it has no academic basis and is basically pushed solely by its creator.
I like how you use the good reputation of the Amish to refute the concept of a cult who controls its members, but the Amish are one of the first groups I think of when I think of modern cults.
It's been clear for sometime that there is a disconnect between the mainstream usage of the term cult and the academic usage. But, seeing that the mainstream usage of the term is now a part of the discipline of marketing (PBS Frontline The Persuaders, 2004 ep.3, in that cult indoctrination techniques are now a formal part of marketing), I suspect that the discord between the usages will grow until a better term can be established and accepted.
P.S. I do recognize the need to employ proper usage of _cultural relativity_ in the study of "new religious movements." But, we do live in a time where there needs to be a proper academic space for the discussion of what is essentially _mind control_ within groups that profit from certain psychological susceptibilities. So, in current usage, that leaves us with a collision of definitions between academic disciplines. So, is anyone working on an update to terminology that resolves this, so that both disciplines can do their jobs without stepping on each others toes?
Very interesting perspective, so would high control groups be a fair enough term? I just don't think simply labelling them as new religious movements fully describes the behaviours of some these groups. I left a group id consider a cult last year and they can truly have a negative effective on their members. I've love to hear your thoughts on the BITE model!
It is interesting how the word cult in and of itself is used negatively but terms like “cult classic” are still used quite positively
Culte, in French, refers to any religion. Secte, is a subdivision thereof
What do you think of the BITE Cult Model? I think that can be useful. Cults are genuine Religions, and not all religions are cults.
I think you should clarify that the word cult has multiple uses. There is the use you have for religious studies, but sociologically, there is such a thing as a cult. It isn't about what they teach (every religion looks weird to outsiders - for example, role playing eating human flesh and drinking blood is pretty freaking weird, but most Christians do it and don't think twice about it), but about the way they use intense indoctrination, manipulate their members' time, demand their money, and separate the members from the rest of society.
Cults exist outside of religion as well. There are financial cults (typically manifesting themselves as MLMs) and political cults (which are more rare and more complicated).
I agree completely that it isn't a useful term in your line of study, but "cult" is a word that does have a purpose. It shouldn't be used to criticize people for believing differently, but it should be used as a warning about religions that take advantage of their members in ways that often have disastrous results.
But even though I disagree with you on this point, I love your channel and your approach to this subject.
About the terminology: in French we use "culte" (cult) with no negative connotation, to mean "worship". But to talk about "cults" in the popular negative way, we use the word "secte" (sect)... unless it's in a historical context (for instance, when saying that Christianity began as a Jewish sect)! It can be a little shocking to encounter or use those words at first in your second language, thinking you know what they mean, when truly the connotations are reversed!
In portuguese there are two words we use when english speakers say cult. There is a "culto" which means just anything within a major religion like the cult of saints mentioned in the video. There is a "seita" which in english translates as sect but what english speakers call a sect we call a division. "Seita" is what people call a cult here.
One thing with cults is that it doesn't have to be a religion, like personality cults, which includes was used by many instances of atheists and anti-religion political movements. Cults can have no belief and practice relating to the supernatural excepted in religions. Like with Scientology the only supernatural concept is something sprit like thing that is still explained in a psedu-psycholgical scientific way. Also with Jim Jones, we did start off with him as a pastor and running a church, at the end had practically no reference to anything religious at the end.
I’ve complained for years about how the term “cult” is used to refer to religions we do not agree with.
That sounds like something a cultist would say.
Nice one! I really appreciate the example of the Amish as a group that no one would derisively call a cult, but fits a lot of the categories that are often pointed at.You mention "cult of saints'"I JUST ordered that from the library, and was thinking if goin to pick it up from the bookstore today.
Dude nice. It is some heavy-duty history, but a foundational book in the field of early Christian studies.
@seadawg, you are mistken. There absolutely are people who insist that the Amish are a "cult." And others who disagree just as strongly.
I would, they are a cult.
The armish are a cult if the practice shunning members who leave, which they do. They are a cult
As a Latter-day Saint missionary, I fought my whole two year service against the perception of us as a cult.
I appreciated this very academic study of why cult shouldn't be used as a term.
When I served a 2 yr mission in 1977 we were taught to teach Joseph Smith had 1 wife , that he touched the golden plates . By 2011 I left the church when I found the true of not just these 2 lies , but more than I count . By 2013 the Mormon Church came out and said in they're ESSAY'S Joseph had 33 wives . Its important to note I taught on my mission he had 1 , because I was told by those checking us out they heard Smith had more than 1.Also we never taught or were told Smith looked in a hat with a rock to translate the Book of Mormon . Again by 2013 the Mormon Church came clean without EVER saying Smith LIED . I was brainwashed and lied to that = a cult I lost 36 yrs of my life and my 4 kids because of it .
so the term cult is used generally to mean a belief system that employs severe psychological pressure to join and remain. and from viewing Mormonism somewhat close yes it is a cult
Bill Westfall Zero validity to your statement. You were brainwashed.
It is interesting that some people will watch a video explaining the overall uselessness of the word "cult" and then feel the need to comment about a few million people's religion.
+Bill Westfall, backwards! You either didn't watch the video or ignored what it said.
Mormonism is a high control group. Sometimes abusive. Leaves a nasty mark on you psyche. I don't recommend it for your kids.
ttrev007 Absolute crock. Zero validity. Never in 40 years had that experience in Mormonism. Best thing for youth. Fewer drugs, out of wedlock births, returning missionaries much more mature than their peers by a decade. Know their scriptures, doctrine. Age 6 Mormon kids know more about Jesus than some ministers.
The key to understanding "cult" vs "religion" is its longevity. The longer a cult lasts the better chance it has of evolving into a religion; otherwise it fizzles out like Mithraism , the Cathars, the Shakers, etc. Why certain cults evolve into religions and others do not is actually the more interesting question ; otherwise, its only my "religion" is a "cult" to you and vice versa.
Usage also differs from language to language, even relatively close ones. For example, while English has put its pejorative emphasis on the term cult rather than say, the term sect, French did it the other way around and put the pejorative connotations on the term sect, while 'cult' is a common way of referring to religious practice.
Case in point, freedom of religion is often described in French as: _liberté de culte_
One little point from a different language... Maybe it is my personal stuff, but I never used the word "cult" in the pejorative meaning and in my language (czech language) the word cult has the same neutral meaning as it has in ancient times. The word religion/náboženství means in my language the general description or summary of one specific religious belief (roman religion, egyptian religion, christian religion), while the word cult/kult means specific part of the religion, specific aspect of the religion (cult of Sol Invictus, cult of Isis, cult of virgin Mary). There is no pejorative meaning in the word. Not unless is this pejorative meaning added by the context of ironical, sarcastic or satiric text, in which is the word used, or by the tone of the voice in the speach. But this is added, it is not in the word itself.
For the pejorative meaning... we are simply using the word "sect".
According to wikipedia: "A cult following is a group of fans who are highly dedicated to a work of culture, often referred to as a cult classic. A film, book, musical artist, television series or video game, among other things, is said to have a cult following when it has a small but very passionate fanbase." Note the word religion is not even mentioned here. If you make the connection with religion then it is a small group of people who together belief in something which amny others would disagree with (or never even bothered with).
Cults lead to a 'us vs them' mentality, whether they are large, like the various forms of christianity ans islam, or small, like judaism or scientology. It differentiates between those who worship 'correctly' and those who do not. If you're outside the cult, it is probably a negative term, if you are inside, it could be used positively. What they all have in common is that they put up some sort of invisible barrier between people, be that strong, high walls or more like a tiny garden fence. I believe such barriers can be very bad for society, unless they are as insignificant as a one foot tall shrubbery. I used to be part of a cult 25 yrs ago, and I'm very glad I'm out, though inside the cult I met a lot of nice people and made some valuable friendships. I of course do not regret that. Once the barriers are insignificantly low, a cult is more like a club than a religion :)
You mentioned you dont know anyone who would classify the Amish as a cult and I would say to look into the skeptical community for that. I absolutely would classify them as a cult. I know that people used to call any new religion a cult and I feel that was very prominent in the 60s and 70s but most people that I know of today don't care how old a religion is, what matters is the harm and psychological impact of a religion. Classifying harmful religions as cults should absolutely be used because its incredibly important to call our harmful practices. Mormons, jehovahs witnesses, scientology etc... they all utilize methods of abuse and control and those practices need to be called out to protect those that are trapped, those that may fall victim to joining still, and those that have found their way out and need support.
I am really glad for your explanation in this. There is a huge difference between Strict and abusive. But not everyone these days sees that. I belong to a spiritual community that is among the indigenous peoples in the PNW. There is no alcohol, tobacco or gambling as it gets in the way of your connection to the Spriit. Although in modern days the may appear strict we aren't abusive and when people exhibit abusive behaviours they talked to and though I haven't personally seen this happen could involve bringing law enforcement if necessary. Also since among First Nations there is a belief that we all pray to the same God, there is a lot tolerance at least here in the NW between various communities, whether European Christian, Native Christian or various Traditional beliefs. This acceptance of people on whatever path they follow can seem unusual out in the Modern Euro-American communities though truthfully I believe there is more tolerance than violence even there since tolerance doesn't make the news.
There are academically based arguments covering the modern usage of the term "cult". For example, RUclips commentator Telltale Atheist defines a cult as any authoritarian group that exerts control over its members that can be demonstrated by analysis using the BITE model (behaviour, information, thought and emotion control). By this definition, Hasidic Judaism and Amish Christianity are indeed cults or cult-like groups. Others prefer to define cults as movements founded by a charismatic leader which do not long survive the leader's death,. A group that continues to thrive after the founder is dead being a religion. By that metric, not only are Hasidim and the Amish not cults but neither are Scientologists, and Osho look set fair to become a bona fide religion, too.
Good advice. I was raised a jehovahs witness and a well meaning friend I had in high school asserted I was in a cult. Witnesses are raised to have a persecution complex and "cult" was an aggressive word that triggered that and caused me to shut down. I became skeptical of anything else she said and as a result, probably stayed in a "dangerous high control group" longer than I would have otherwise. But my ex-jw friends and I still call the religion a cult in private just to be insulting.
Zoroastrianism , hope you will do it one day! can you see the parable how most of pacifist religions are the most persecuted and destroyed ,every writing burned down.maybe you can do a episode about these religions ,which were destroyed, why they were , who they were ,by whom , what followed. KEEP THE GOOD WORK UP!
Well to start with, all religions are not the same, so lumping them together doesn't really help prove your point.
2 things.
Its not true that all the members at Jonestown committed suicide, many did so at gun point and many tried to escape but couldnt.
And secondly I know the word cult has a lotg of connotations but I was under the impression that the definition was just a religion with less then a specific amount of members.
Merely a curiosity/fun fact: in italian 'cult' has no positive or negative 'baggage' associated with it, though, the word "sect" is often used with the same connotations 'cult' is used in american english.
Thank you for this. As a member of a new religious movement myself, this word has been used over to hurt and discredit us and endanger our community and it’s members. Although if one were to travel to Jerusalem or Bethlehem 2000 years ago, they might have said the same thing about Jesus Christ. I am a member of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light, in case you’re wondering. Peace.
Cult nowadays means groups of people that practice mind control techniques. Not all cults are necessarily religious, some can be political or of other nature. North Korea for example is a cult. Size doesn’t matter, cults can be a very large number of people or a very small number like a family nucleus.
Even if the modern use of the name cult is not historically correct, you have still define these sort of groups who are abusive.
One way to define it is religion is a set of spiritual beliefs, whereas a cult is a specific institution and set of ritualistic practices that accompany those beliefs.
I went into Religious Studies Major because Bible is easy and to be a better sincere Christian! 3 years later I'm a deconstructing post-structuralist agnostic. Turns out religious studies have nothing to do with being an evangelical but everything to do with anthropology/philosophy. The world is so much bigger!
4:18 In Israeli secular Jewish society, many people in fact do call Hasidic Judaism as a cult pejoratively. it's part of a broad animosity between secular Jews and Haredi Jews. Hasidic Judaism isn't counted as a cult by official state bodies.
"why dont we count the armish or harshitic (spelling) jews as cults?" oh but i do
Yeah as soon as I heard him say that I was like, “Yeah your right. We should start calling them cults too.” Well where does it stop. Is Catholicism a cult? Sure why not? I think that religion should be a subcategory of the broader term cult because not all cults are religious. “But not all religions are cults?!?!” Says who? Religious people? “Not my religion, but maybe others are.” Sounds a lot like something someone in a cult would say.
Would this not mean that atheism is also a cult? And for that matter, every political or social group? If religions count as cults, pretty much everything does.
@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts and no, atheism is not a cult, but there are plenty of atheistic cults.
I think Catholicism kind of gets DQ'd from cult status as the most intact singular body of Christians extant. Catholicism is this monolith. It would be like calling New York a town.
My Jewish family members call the Heredi ("Ultra-Orthadox" Jews) a cult
My understanding is simply that a cult is an organization that punishes deviance, exerts severe pressure to conform, doesn't believe in a separation of church and state, and keeps to it's own community. A true religion typically goes out into the world to do good works, spread their message, embrace the separation of church and state (so they may freely worship as they wish), and simply interacts with others that are not like-minded. I wouldn't even call the Amish a cult because I do business with Amish people constantly. They work with those outside of their community and aren't forced to adopt their behaviors. Instead, they freely choose to place restrictions on themselves. I guess to summarize more succinctly. A religion is the choice to adopt certain behaviors and principals while a cult removes choice (by either forcing or pressuring certain behaviors or principals).
I don't know if you'll see this comment, but I'm very interested in digging deeper into the topics you make videos about. What specific courses can I take, because any google search redirects me to Christian religious studies? Subscribed to the channel.
I thought I clicked on Scientology so was confused when this video concluded...But it was good and something I've pondered often as well. I think my usage of the term varies based on the person I'm speaking with or specific context.
How about the Rob Rhodes understanding of what a “cult” is? Cults almost always derive from a “parent” or “host” religion. Theologically, cults can be defined as a group, religious in nature, which surrounds a leader or a group of teachings which either denies or misinterprets essential biblical doctrines of Christian Orthodoxy (Theology, Christology, Anthropology, Hamartiology, and Soteriology, and Bibliology). Cults contain many major deviations from historical Christianity. Yet, paradoxically, they continue to insist that they are entitled to be classified as ‘Christian’. Apologetically, they’re often regarded as religions of antichrists, or counterfeit-christs (cf. Ex. 20:3; Matt. 7:15-23, 24:5; Gal. 1:8). That might not sound neutral for academia. But I do think we should be fair in what these cults have claimed and are still claiming to be: restorationist movements. No amount of neutral academia can do away with the reality of this.
tho I agree with the premiss of not using the word Cutl to de-legitimize a specific type of belief, have you heared about the BITE Model? which is about how the structural institution behaviour towards its followers?
I use the BITE model to figure out if something is a cult so yes I would describe the Amish as a cult. I think at the end of the day it’s important to use the word cult because it helps distinguish the difference between healthy and unhealthy levels of control.
But what about the new religious movements with charismatic messianic leaders who exploit their followers through their perceived holiness for their own personal gain and power? Are all new religious movements like this? Could we separate new religious movements that do not exploit their followers for the personal gain of the one charismatic leader from those that do?
All new religious movements are not like that. And there are sects within larger religions that are charismatic/exploitive too. You see this sometimes on the local level here in the United States, where a single church will develop extreme devotion around a single pastor. Whether we should create a whole new category beyond "religious movement" for these groups? I'm not sure. "Cult" could work if it wasn't so often used as an insult or accusation. That's why I prefer "sect."
Thank you for engaging with me and answering! I definitely see your point. I used the word cult to specifically refer to these types of groups. But I realize that it is used with negative connotations to de-legitimize religious movements. In fact, one could say that my usage of the word also serves to de-legitimize movements that I consider have that charismatic/exploitative dynamic. Precisely because of the negative connotations involved, and in doing so I re-enforce the negative connotations that are attached to the word. Maybe there is always some degree of that dynamic in all religions? Even the ones that did not exploit their followers began with charismatic leaders, like Christ and the Buddha. And one could say that even movements that began like that, say Scientology or even Mormonism (which one could argue historically started out that way with Joseph Smith becoming a prophet and marrying numerous women in the process) cross the threshold into mainstream religious movements because of the sincere faith and fervor of the followers after the death of the leader. I dunno man, it's all really interesting. Maybe there's a turning point just after the death of the leader that becomes a make or break moment for new charismatic religious movements. It's all very interesting and kinda makes me want to become a religious scholar tbh...
I guess the point of my original question would be is there a discernible difference between these charismatic/exploitative movements and other movements or is there really no difference in terms of the institutions and culture they create? I will use sect from now on too btw..
To your point of it happening on a local level in the U.S., there was a Puerto Rican baptist pastor in the Florida that was really charismatic and formed a strong following who began preaching, first that he was John the Baptist come again, then he started preaching he was Jesus-Christ-Man, then that he was the Anti-Christ and that all sin was absolved (so that there was no such thing as sin and therefore his followers could engage in all practices they chose to). He began encouraging his followers to tattoo 666 on their arms. And his followers followed him all throughout this... People that began as traditional Baptists ended up tattooing 666 in their arms and following a guy who called himself the Anti-Christ. Of course he died but his followers dispute his death... I wrote a paper on the whole phenomenon for a sociology course focusing on the charismatic power the leader displayed... That's how far charismatic power can go... You should read about the guy, it's a very interesting case study. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Luis_de_Jes%C3%BAs
I’m a Mormon and I’ve heard from many that I’m part of a cult. I’m glad you used us as an example of how cult as a term is often misused.
Likewise, I'm a Latter-day Saint and have heard our church called a cult, mostly by evangelical Christians, whom ironically, don't understand that Moses' group is a prime example of a cult and Jesus and his followers were regularly referred to as a cult, until both became mainstream. The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is the 3rd largest organized religion in the U.S. now, soon to be #2, and has or is quickly becoming one of the largest religions in many countries around the world with nearly; 900 new converts, every day. Impressive for such a secular world.
I don't think it's misused so much as used in a different context. Religious studies people aren't usually talking to the therapists and activists working with people who have been harmed by religions and other groups termed as cults, including mormonism. By the way, mormonism is a collection of churches and non-church groups. It's not just the LDS church.
Stop living in denial, you’re a cult
Based on the definition of the word he gave... basically everything you care about is a cult. Your relationship to your wife would be cult like. You care and are devoted to this person. As a traditional Christian I had no problem with his explanation of the word cult. It’s over used.
Yes we are...the cult of Jesus Christ. The best place to be is the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints!
The argument: "we shouldn't use the word 'cult' in a pejorative sense" is a strange one.
For this to be sustainable you'd have to ignore the fact that language shifts over time , similar to your characterization of "religions" in other videos.
Alternatively you would need to assert academic primacy in language use: "only academics can use words definitively". But in that case, "religion" itself should only be used by academics since (as Jonathan Z. Smith noted), "“Religion is not a native term. It is a term invented by scholars for their intellectual purposes and is therefore theirs to define. " Notice how often in public discourse 'religion/religious/etc. are weaponized in exactly the same way that "cult" can be used: to marginalize, differentiate the "other", and dismiss. Just read some of the comments in your videos or listen to Bill Maher.
Words have a general use and specific, in-group use. It's in everyone's interest to maintain linguistic continuity (to promote society-wide communication), even while acknowledging the continual evolution of language. In-group specialized usage of words goes far in preserving language meaning since the group population is smaller than the general population. For this reason, calling another group "cult" within a specific group likely carries specific meaning for that group and playing the "academic definition" card has no salutary effect.
It's meaningful to understand the semantic range of a word, including academic usage, but attempts at linguistic policing are misguided when herding cats is easier than herding word use. Unless there is thought-control of Orwellian proportions, the wisest course is to seek to be understood and to understand the individuals we are in communication with at any given moment.
I think he meant that using that term prevents a productive dialogue
using the word “cult” to describe someone’s affiliation puts the person into a defensive mode, arguing starts and it doesn’t go anywhere
that was my understanding why he prefers people use neutral terms
Cult behavior doesn't have to be religious. Many groups can act like cults when they make their own internal reality. They usually get taken over by one person or a small group of people who then go power mad. Political organizations, military, rock bands, doctors, social movements, etc. We need to use that word to describe this kind of group behavior, but it shouldn't be linked exclusively to religion.
I agree with what was said. "Cult" might not be useful for religious studies, but Steven Hassan's BITE model seems very useful in the field of psychology. "Religious Trama Syndrome" is a legitimate psychological diagnosis. Certain people have convinced others to believe something objectively false (not all religions can be true), to the point that the believers are willing to act explicitly against their self-interest, sacrifice, and even die for those beliefs. This is of MAJOR importance to psychology, and warrants study.
According to a frenemy, postmodern movements with any amount of isolation is synonymous with cult, it doesn't even have to be religious in nature nor involve veneration. He fatly refuses to be informed otherwise.
Funily enough in Czech we use the term "sekta", that is sect, in the sense that people use "cult" in English which leads to a similar problem between academic and popular nomenclature with for example "christian and buddhist sects" sounding kinda fishy to an average listener but normal to an academian.
I've seen "cult" used to describe any kind of group, religious or otherwise, with a leanings towards fanaticism, "us vs. them" mentality, worship of a charismatic leader, suppression of criticisism, etc, etc.
I mean, what other word would you use to describe dangerous groups, that brainwash people - either to scam them or out of genuine delusions?
I think "Cult" might mean different things, depending on the context.
Nope.
It does not "mean different things, depending on the context".
*That* is *_subjectivity_* defined.
*You just defined a cult as* "any kind of group, religious or otherwise, with a...worship of a charismatic leader, suppression of criticism, etc."
A cult is a cult, regardless of size or length of presence.
May god b-less. ; )
Michael Jones everything is _defined_ and named subjectively.
You may use a different word to the meaning, people often ascribe to the word "cult". The specific word used would not change the meaning, as long as both sides of the conversation understand it in similar fashion in a given context.
Two academics talking about cult of Mithra, use one of the meanings of this word in a specific context, for instance.
Michael Jones I referred to one such definition, yes.
I don't understand what you've tried to say (and you didn't understand me, perhaps).
I understand, but _"academics"_ aren't the usual commenters or readers of comments on RUclips.
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cult
My point is addressed to the layman viewers of the video, and responding to your usage of _cult_ in your comment, ultimately.
May god b-less. ; )
Misunderstandings occur, especially in print format. ; )
Steven Hassan’s rubric is what I would use to call something a cult. It is unambiguously non-neutral it the use of the word, but it is objective in its judgement. I think that using words that are intentionally disparaging to problematic religious is a symbol of recognition to the problems the group has. Mormonism scores fairly low on the chart, but groups like Scientology’s sea organization score very high.
Why is this such a hard question to answer? Isn’t there a particular pattern of boxes to check to say whether something is a cult or a religion? Why is it so ambiguous and vague? How is academia distinguishing between religions or cults? Is someone who says “I’m spiritual not religious” in a cult or, unbeknownst to them, are they actually religious if the beliefs they accept have any coherence?
2 words: thank you! :3
I've always ascribed to word 'cult' to a movement centered around a person, belief or cause and the word 'religion' to one that is centered around a god or gods.
I think the bite model is a good way to identify cults in the modern sense, people just need to be careful about bias while grading any group. And I would deffinetly consider the Amish, Mennonites, Jehovas Witness, Mormonism, and 7th day as cults.
I'm from india...I'm relatively new to the word cult and what it means in western countries..... I have seen people making motor bike as their god and worshiping them. I don't feel weird at all..... and thousands of gods appears every in the street corner .... God is our own making as the religion.
Where I live "cult" can be neutral (in the sense "we will now officiate for the cult"), but it is used more often than not negatively by atheists (who say that all religions are cults, and thus they all are bad and should be outlawed). So, in this context, yes, "cult" is used for a lot of different religions.
I highly recommend you to watch this Israeli movie about cults and family relationships:The Other Story is a 2018 Israeli drama film directed by Avi Nesher.[2] It was screened in the Contemporary World Cinema section at the 2018 Toronto International Film Festival.The story follows the wedding planning of two Baalei Teshuva, and the bride's family's plans to sabotage the wedding. The film mainly focuses on the bride's complicated relationship with her father, as well as the divorced parents' relationship with each other.
Cast[edit]
Sasson Gabai as Shlomo Abadi
Yuval Segal as Yonatan Abadi
Joy Rieger as Anat Abadi
Maya Dagan as Tali Abadi
Nathan Goshen as Shahar, Anat's husband-to-be
My question is: How long does it take people giving connotation to word before that becomes its definition?
For instance, if ancient historians at some point started using the word to refer to religions they thought were deviant would that be accepted by today's scholars?
I had always thought "cult" came from a shortened word for "culture"
Same Latin root I think.
Cults usually have living "divine" or "god-like" leaders. The things they do are similar to what Christian devouts would do if Christ was alive and told them to do all sorts of things. It can be argued that the absolute authority of a living god or at least prophet chosen by god over his followers is why cults are seen as dangerous. I do agree that new religions are as valid or invalid as old ones, though, and that the word cult shouldn´t be used so easily.
I love this video. This is actually what I’m writing my thesis on for my MA. Thanks for your bibliography in the description! I’m going to figure out if I can cite a RUclips video too….!?
I don't think that "cult" refers to just New Religious Movements (NRM), even though these are the most prominent examples.
I believe that the term "cult" can apply to abusive, isolating, authoritarian groups, especially where exiting the group may be difficult or dangerous. These can include Christian cults( like Branch Dravidians, political organizations (such as a number of fascist or communist parties) or even self-help groups which encourage self-destructive behavior in order to benefit the leader.
I think that these Christian and secular cults are becoming more prominent in the United States, and since they do not conform to our ideas of NRMs, they more readily dodge becoming known as "cults" despite their insular, abusive, and violent natures.
Churches point to a Saviour for Salvation - Cults point to themselsves
- Churches will try to include anyone who professes a Faith in Christ
- Cults exclude all who will not profess a faith in the Cult - Churches will have Inter Faith dialogue - CULTS will NEVER have Inter-Faith or Inter-CULT dialogue
Isn't a reasonable and fairly neutral definition relate to cults generally not surviving the death of their founders?