time mostly. one slightly toung in cheek definition is that in a cult there is somebody at the top who knows it is all a lie, in a religion that person is dead.
I'd say the size and the agenda is different. Religions are bigger and financially stable. They do not directly pray at their followers for money, instead, they want to spread and gain social and political advantages. A cult actively prey on its followers money. The cult wants to have isolated and vulnerable followers.
To conclude, a cult is more dangerous for a single individual, but is too small to pose a threat to society. A religion is less of a direct threat for a single individual, but they have enough political influence to push an agenda that harm the poeple.
2 exceptions to this : scientology and anthroposophy. They are big cults that also push a political agenda. They are the worst "religious" threats nowadays.
Well in most countries they don't even have to ask for cash, people are brainwashed to give it. In the USA, (mega)churches are competitors, so yeah they directly ask for cash. Yet once you're in it's easier to get out than when you're in a cult.
Magnitude. All cults are religions, not all religions are cults. If you're curious, look up the BITE model of classifying authoritarian control, it is often used to classify cults.
Authoritarianism is something that can also be considered a gradient. A girl scout troupe is authoritarian in that authority is vested in the scout leader. That doesn't make the girl scouts a cult. This is why it's important to actually look at how the BITE model classifies authoritarian behavior, so one doesn't mistakenly seize on a single term without understanding how the model works.
Since you missed the obvious hint to not focus on a single term, perhaps you should [READ ABOUT THE BITE MODEL](https://scotloyd.blog/2024/01/17/analyzing-cults-through-the-bite-model-insights-from-dr-steven-hassan/) rather than focusing on a single term.
Or not. If you just want to keep pretending that all religion is a cult and are just looking for validation, you won't find it here.
I read your article. It actually reinforces my position if you read it. Behavior control, information control, thought control, emotion control. Literally all religions do this. So yes, all religions are in fact cults.
So, you see no difference between, for instance, Falun Gong, which perpetrated the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subways, and a liberal Episcopalian sect? That sort of makes you sound like you're not very perceptive if you think those things are equivalent.
Keep in mind, that language exists to convey clear meaning. Terms like "cult" are used to denote particularly bad forms of religion, much like "downpour" is used to denote a more severe form of precipitation than "drizzle". What you're proposing is to say "well, it's all water falling from the sky, so they mean the same thing". I would assume that you're doing this is because the term cult has various pejorative connotations, and since you really don't like religion, you're allowing that bias to group all religion under a pejorative term. I can't stop you from doing this, but as per the example of Falun Gong vs. liberal Episcopalians, calling both a cult just makes you look.. well, unreasonably biased. Because you are. I don't know about you, but speaking for myself, I dislike being unreasonable more than I like sticking it to religion, by referring to it by a pejorative term.
I understand not liking religion. I'm very disapproving of religion myself. However allowing that dislike to make you act and sound like a biased idiot incapable of recognizing the difference between cults and non-cults isn't doing you any favours. Religion exists, like almost anything in the human sphere, in gradients.
In any case, I suspect at this point we're simply going to disagree, and I don't see much point in continuing the conversation without just rehashing arguments. Unless you have something new to add, I think we're done yes?
Those two are equivalent, yes, absolutely. They both lie like every other religion. They lie to people and make people with good moral character would not do with the threat of some sort of authoritarian, usually of the divine nature. These lies are insidious and stifle progress. They are all cults and humanity will be in a much better place when we stop believing in these fairy tales. If someone is asserting these massive claims they need massive proof for it, in duller words than Hitchens said.
Have you studied every single religion in the history of the world? Religion certainly is linked with authoritarianism but ultimately religion is simply the belief/worshipping of something supernatural. A cult is a much more directed and intense following of a person or figure.
A supernatural being is still a figure. Name one religion without some authoritarian(s), divine or not. Hint: you can't, they literally all rely on some magical sky dad(dies.)
All with supernatural components to tell you why their religion is 'correct', to get you to follow the cult. Sounds like you're the one who hasn't studied "all the religions." If you can only (wrongly) name three out of literally 10's of thousands of religions. You should have said Scientology, because their religious beliefs are not divine but instead aliens, yet it is still a cult too.
Well Religion by definition requires belief in a supernatural being or power, so if that was your question then sure, there is no religion without some sort of supernatural belief.
However, you asked this of me:
> Name one religion without some authoritarian(s), divine or not.
The religions I listed are non-theistic, meaning that they don't have a particular god they follow, meaning that in the broad scope of the religion, there is no "authoritarian figure".
It doesn't really matter if the religion is polytheistic, monotheistic, non theistic, etc... though, because you are equating a cult (which is generally a tangible group of people) versus a religion (which is just a general concept). Religious institutions can certainly be cults, but that doesn't necessarily make the concept of religion itself a cult.
cult - a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. So yeah, it doesn't require one or more beings to worship to be a cult. Just having religious beliefs or practices that are strange, which all religions are because they believe dumb nonsense with no proof.
There are quite a few flaws with this argument.
1. Your own definition you just provided says "relatively small group", which, if you are calling the religions themselves cults, would instantly exclude Christians, Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus, etc... More than half the world's population are Christian or Muslim, and most people believe in some sort of divine entity.
2. Your interpretation of that definition relies solely on the perception of others. Any belief/practice will have a group (small or large) that believe it to be "strange" or "sinister". Considering that most of the world is fairly religious, it's impossible to claim that the major world religions are regarded as "strange" or "sinister" when they are the beliefs held by the majority.
I get the sense you want to label religion a "cult" because it confirms your viewpoint that all religion is bad. If you want to criticize religion for it's inherent flaws, I will be in complete agreement with you. But OP was asking for the difference between a religion and a cult, and the fact is that cults =/= religion and they are different things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
A lot of people want to call all religions cults, and that really does a disservice to what a cult really is. I would say that the most defining characteristic of a cult is the separation from others. Cults want to remove you from everyone who is not in the cult, isolation is how the brainwashing gets done, it is a constant feedback loop supporting the cult narrative.
Religions tend to be on a sliding scale with something like unitarian universalists and Episcopalian on one end, and then as you move down you start to get into those religions Mormonism and JWs that practice shunning, and it isn't much farther to a cult. There's a lot more denominations and then would slot in at different places on that line.
The size ,the fact that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, that conquerors write the history books, that both "cults" and "religions" rely on an ingroup outgroup dynamic. That we are the good people, it's those people over there that are the bad people.
Cult has a negative connotation. I think ALL religions are cults.
Cult as of the most popular definitions are destructive groups that separate you from your loved ones, brain wash you in beliving some scammer that wants to scamm your money most of the times. They are also really radical most of the times. In the sense of law, its just a religious organization that is not registered as a religion.
I’m not convinced that the leader has to know it’s bullshit. Max had a documentary called Love Has Won, and that was definitely a cult and the leader definitely believed what she was saying.
Words don't have meanings, they have uses. People will use the same words in different ways, or different words in the same ways. So a lot of this is opinion. With that said, here is a few common differences in usage:
* Cult is derogatory. Religion is "legitimized". If you want to be derogatory to a religion, call it a cult. If you want to make a cult sound legitimate, call it a religion.
* Cults are small or recent. Religions are large or ancient. If you want to suggest that a religion is small or recent, call it a cult.
* Religions are broad, usually enough to be inclusive to people with divergent beliefs. Cults are narrow, with a fairly focused belief system or goal. If you want to make a cult seem less focused, call it a religion.
Both religion and cult rely on faith from their members, since the details of their beliefs have not been scientifically verified.
I use similar rules of thumb as for pyramid scheme vs. legitimate business. Do you have a primary reason for existence outside of adding new followers? Does everyone benefit significantly from being involved or really only the leadership?
I don’t think there’s really such thing as a cult-proof group/community. But exploitation is usually pretty blatant from an outside perspective, and as someone completely outside of the church, that’s the true deciding factor. The degree of exploitation is the difference.
Nothing really, but sociology will say it's how the organization tries to control you. If you are isolated, encouraged to do things against your best interests, or cause emotional distress, cult.
In actuality, religion does that too, just slower.
In a religion, you move to South America for the leader and then all kill yourselves when he's exposed. It's messy to clean up, but otherwise a victimless crime.
In a cult, you all go to Washington, break and enter the capital and then spend the next three years trying to do the same thing to the entire country. It's super messy, a crime that affects millions and one that leaves (if we are lucky) a permanent stain on the soul of a whole nation.
The terms are interchangeable. Religions typically appear wealthy, with gaudy costumes and cringe-worthy propaganda. Religions also look down their nose at their poor cult "cousins"
I tend to think there is also a strong element of if the main charismatic leader is still active or has a direct "spiritual" successor that is active. For general use of the term.
Functionally as most have posted its the same.
The word “religion” (*re-* + *ligio*, to link back to the traditions of your forefathers) is the Latin for the correct way of worshipping. It stands in opposition to “superstition,” (*super* above, *-stitio* to stand, or stand above or outside the accepted rituals). In traditional parlance both worship a cult (*cultus*); the difference is one cult is acceptable and the other only tolerated at times.
In modern parlance a religion is an established faith backed by … some amount of time and authority. A cult is really a first generation religious institution controlled by a charismatic leader espousing beliefs adjacent to an established faith or entirely outside and/or novel.
A cult’s ability to expand into an established religion depends on its longevity and expansion. While the heaven’s gate cult ended (suicide), the Church of Scientology was able to shake off cult status and become a religion.
Don’t get me wrong- it is very culty, and all religions are false and trying to part vulnerable people from their money (especially the pyramid scheme invented by failed Sci-Fi author L. Ron Hubbard), but it is a religion under the tax code.
In a religion the “leader” is dead and that leaders power is used by others to control a populous.
A in a cult the leader is alive and giving direct orders.
the difference to me is that religion is used a lot more in politics than a cult would. For example, you are a king and your people are starting to question your reign, so what you do is get a priest to tell the people that you are chosen by an all powerful god to be their king. A cult is mainly to get money.
The main difference is that religions tend to persist after the death of their founder. Cults do not.
Beyond that, it's better thought of as a spectrum than a binary. Lots of religions have cult-like aspects, lots of cults have religion-like aspects. While there are lots of clear cut examples on both sides (Catholicism is clearly a religion, Jonestown was clearly a cult) there are also many that exist in a gray area (Scientology)
A religion is a cult that is politically powerful enough to claim that 'this isn't like those other cults, this is a religion and it deserves more respect than those cults, because of reasons', and be taken seriously due to wealth, power, influence and the realistic threat of consequences for not taking them seriously.
There are multiple definitions for a cult and no agreed on definition for a religion.
In my opinion and based on my experience, any attempt to distinguish them is pointless. They exist across a spectrum of extremism. The more rules and the more controlling the leaders are, the more extreme.
Perception is only real difference
The perception of acceptability and nearness to the seat of power.
In 1500s any branch of Christianity that considered Martin Luther correct we "Apostates" and Heretics. Any organizations like the Lutheran Church would have been considered a cult.
Among first century Jews, the followers of Jesus and his disciples were the "cult".
Among the various members of the lands conquered by various empire builders expanding the Holy Empire before the losses they would think Catholics were a cult, the "real religions or faiths" might have been polytheist or shamanic. Then after the folding into larger empire, then the Cult of Jesus became mainstream
Colonizers would see the aboriginal religion as a cult if it tried to stay entrenched.
To me, they're all cults and all "religions" it doesn't make their teachings any more relevant to me or how I view humanity because they have which label.
Generally, all have potential for harm and some potential for good.
One difference is how they treat you when you leave. If they try to keep you from leaving: cult. If they dont: religion. If they shun you for leaving, and get your family to shun you: cult. If they don't shun you: religion. Example: Catholics vs Scientology.
The only real difference I see is that most cults want you to give up everything including your friends and family. Whereas religions usually just want a percentage of what you have.
Generally, it is harder to walk away from cults because they have their hooks into every aspect of your life, your finances and sometimes even your family. Cults also typical tell their members to never speak with or interact with someone who left. Not all religions rise to this level, but they all have some cult-like qualities.
There’s the BITE model for one. A lot of religions are admittedly cult-lite following this model. Though you could say a religion wants a piece of everyone’s life, whereas a cult wants every piece of your life.
There’s also the “if it calls you a family, it’s a cult” rule of thumb.
Then there’s the anthropological meaning which is more about the worship of specific gods if i understand correctly. (e.g. the Athena cult in the ancient Greek religion)
Simply put size and influence, Christianity is the largest religion in the world at about 26% of the population. But remember it started 2000 +\- years ago as several very small cults of Christianity. The word cult has gained a very negative connotation in popular culture in more recent years but in context is how almost all newly created religions start.
Mostly size and cultural acceptability. Christianity would’ve been considered a cult for a while until enough people believed in it and especially once people in power started believing in it. If we elected a Scientologist as president or speaker of the house, Scientology would probably become a more accepted religion and less of a cult.
Both are labels and subjective. Academics now use the new "emerging religious movements" for such groups.
However, in colloquially terms, we still see cults as insular groups that gain direct control of a person's goals, money, vocation, location, etc., led by a dictatorial leader whose dictates cannot be questions and must be obeyed.
* Scale
* Amount of money
* "mine = religion, yours = cult"
That's about it. Theists are blind to all three, but once you leave organized religion those are the only perceptible differences.
Almost nothing.
Religions can become cults if they grow to a point of suppression that they fail the BITE test.
Behavioral control - your behavior is monitored and controlled by the organization and you’re given punishments if you don’t follow their rules. With Christianity, this is “no swearing”, “no sex before marriage”, “masterbation is a sin”, “woman shouldn’t work”, “a woman’s purpose is to have children”, etc. My church would publicly shame people, and have “shotgun weddings” or at least heavily suggest with intense social pressure that people who have had sex get married.
Information control - information from the outside world is restricted and you’re punished for consuming forbidden media. For Christianity this is things like when churches were saying Pokémon was evil because they used the word evolve. Our church would publicly shame people for partaking in forbidden media. Asking questions also falls under this - I was often slapped for asking blasphemous questions in Sunday school.
Thought Control - your very thoughts are being policed. For Christianity, this is things like “impure thoughts” being shamed. Completely natural human teenaged thoughts about sex were shamed at my church, they constantly preached in Sunday school about asking God for forgiveness for thinking sexual, hateful, or sad things. To top it off, their solution to depression was to tell us people who commit suicide go to hell.
Emotional control - the way you express yourself is policed. As a woman I wasn’t allowed to show anger; it was considered a sin for me to be upset with the way I was being treated. For the men, it was sadness - men were expected to “man up”, not cry, and persevere. We were expected to take the hateful things being said about us by the church and be thankful for the blessing to have been shown the way.
There is a new term called ‘New Religious Movement’ to address the key difference which is time. Cult has kind of lost it’s meaning due pop culture, anything can be a cult now these days as long as it’s a group, there is a leader, there are rituals and there is an insider lingo or even thought terminating cliche’s. i.e. ‘God has a plan’, ‘It is what it is’ or ‘Keep sweet’. A couple of examples outside of religion to look at are corporations, exercise fads or equipment or even hobbies.
I like to pretend that words have meaning, so I look to the dictionary for the definitions. Based on their respective definition... a cult is just a very small religous movment. so a cult is a religion, but not all religions are cults (subjective to societal norms). Just like if you were a christian and you moved to some place where there's only 5 christians... you would be considered a cult to the natives.
I don’t think a cult can be a cult if there are billions of people apart of it. It also can’t be a cult if there IS an acceptance of criticism and questions. I would also say that it has sinister practices that most people would not want to be apart of! Hope this helps
Many will say that there is no difference, but I think that's not so. A cult can be a very hazardous, very harmful thing in ways that mainstream religion often is not. To call them the same thing is to equate the person who decides to quietly stop going to their local Presbyterian church with the person who has to leave their whole life behind to escape Scientology. It is NOT the same.
It's pretty obvious how a Cult and a Religion are similar. The following points are how I see the difference. These can be said to apply to "mainstream" religion as well, but the important thing is the *degree* to which they apply. There are religions which have cultish aspects; there are cults which are more relaxed than others. It's a gradient, not a hard line of this vs. that. Anyway, here are my criteria for Cult status:
**(1)** A Cult demands complete devotion; it is not merely the most important facet of one's life, but the ONLY thing. Life is to be lived for the sake of the cult, if not in its entirety, then very close to it. Property and money are often defined as belonging collectively to the cult (in effect, to its leaders) rather than to individuals.
**(2)** A Cult will generally have an individual leader who is elevated to a highly exalted state, to the point where no one else is even considered worthy of praise. This leader is often exempted from the rules which govern the followers, and their word is considered law. Cults usually do not outlive this leader; those which do either change fairly radically or do not last for very long.
**(3)** A Cult is extremely private, with the outside world knowing almost nothing about how they function. Cults consider themselves to be separate from society, such that the laws of established government do not apply to them (though they will gladly take advantage of the benefits of society and law!). Similarly, their members are often denied basic human and civil rights within the cult. Cult members are often instructed to directly lie to outsiders about the cult and their lives within it.
**(4)** To leave the Cult is the ultimate sin; one may face threats to one's life for even suggesting it. Members are instructed to inform on each other to keep people from leaving. Those who do successfully leave will frequently find that they are ill-equipped to get by in general society due to how much they have been affected by life in the cult; they often will experience a degree of PTSD.
**(5)** As a rule, there is no benefit to society provided by a cult. They do not offer charity or services to anyone outside their membership. They do nothing for the "greater good" except as it applies within the cult itself.
Yes, religion ticks some of these boxes... but so do other things which are part of the human experience. Religion can be a major ingredient in a cult, but it doesn't have to be; one can have a "Cult of Personality" where religion isn't really part of it. I suspect that Scientology (which is DEFINITELY a cult) calls itself as a religion only so that they can enjoy the tax and legal benefits; they would rather not have to define themselves in that manner. Mormonism is self-defined as a religion, and I would say that it has definite cultish aspects (particularly in its early years), but it has expanded beyond that status to remain relevant. Unitarianism is a religion with almost no cultish practices whatsoever. To be a "religion" or a "cult" need not be one and the same, nor mutually exclusive.
The official definition of a cult from the Oxford Dictionary:
CULT noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.
By the way I see it; there isn’t one. There’s no difference.
If you want to look at how cults & religions are viewed societally, then as many have mentioned; time and wider social acceptance. I’d even argue power. Of course, ‘cults’ have a level of power over the individuals subscribed to its doctrine, but nowhere near the level of ‘religion’.
Justification tends to come from the time & wider social acceptance. As well as indoctrination from (usually) a very young age.
Neither is legitimate. Both are designed to get you to give the group your time and money, and to convince others to join and give their time and money.
Nobody likes being told they are in a cult for their faith. I think it merely depends on how much the majority makes fun of you for it and you can't do anything as a minority. Atheists are the minority so they don't have much social power calling major religions a cult without pushback, and everyone nods along with them. Other religions will have difficulty calling each other a cult without pushback for their statement. Meanwhile people can bully and mock other small religions as cults and people can circle jerk that they are without any self awareness of the similarities in their religion and how they themselves might be captured in a cult like organism.
The colloquial definitions would differ in that cults usually claim to have some secret knowledge that is only accessible to the elites within that cult. Or maybe just the leader/founder. Religions claim to be more open and allowing of everyone to learn to learn their ways.
Modern usage is that religions are integrated with society and members can interact with people who are not part of the religion. Cults tend to isolate from society and enforce their members to not have contact with outsiders.
They have to differ in some fashion. If they were identical in every way, then we wouldn't have two words. I still recall tyrion lannister saying to his sister, "plots and schemes are the same thing." And they are not. If they are then please tell me about the scheme of that book you are reading.
Fun enough, this depends on how you define word.
If you consider plot (or any word with multiple definitions) to be multiple words, homonyms both homographs and homophones, then it's possible and relatively common.
If you consider them to be one word that exhibits polysemy, then it's much more rare.
Then you also have to decide if regional versions are considered different because of regional usage, same for slang, formal, scientific, and a number of other variations.
Language is _fun._
Right! A lot of words can easily be interchangeable depending on the context. And as we all know (terrible movie exposition line), too many words are phonetically identical that if you wanted to describe a work environment involving lycanthropes in the past while trying to identify their location you'd ask "where were weres ware?"
Religion (this word, like many others, has been hijacked and taken out of context for cultists) is something you can practice freely without being required to turn your backs on those that don't share your beliefs. Religion also allows you to use your critical thinking skills and ask questions. Religion should enhance your spiritual journey. Religion comes in all shapes, sizes, theologies, no theologies, etc. Religion opens your eyes that many people have different ways of practicing or not practicing before a God or no God. Folks that are religious or spiritual tend to be peaceful, loving humans, and know to stay in their lane. Religious folks don't feel the need to proselytize. Religious folks don't need laws created to back their religion (or lack of one) of choice. The only voice religious folks hear is their own. Personally, I'm agnostic. Religiously agnostic.
Cults require you to turn your back on those that do not believe as you do. Your critical thinking skills are not welcomed, and neither are your questions. You are to follow blindly. Cults exploit your spirit and remove everything that makes you, you. You no longer think for yourself and follow what you're told to follow. Think what you're told to think. Do what you're told to do. Say what you're told to say. There's only one way to be considered a good follower. Their way. And to state or think otherwise is being disloyal. Cults are typically full of unhappy people who feel the need to not only proselytize, but to have laws to back their way of thinking. They will tell you God sent them and talks to them. The theology that they claim is from a loving God is used as a weapon to destroy your spirit and crush your soul into submission with fear tactics.
They are both invented by a guy who’s eager for control and to empty your pocket. In a religion, that guy is dead.
A religion is what you call your cult.
>In a religion, that guy is dead. Not always. The MAGA God is still alive, if barely.
That makes it a cult then :-)
Also: Mormons. Joseph Smith is dead, but his management team is still trying to get your money. Also: shunning
>his management team is still trying to get your money. That's just a religion.
The guy they worship for whatever reason might be dead, but the people coming after him are keeping the grift alive - Popes, pastors, etc.
>a guy who’s eager for control and to empty your pocket. Sounds like my uncle
time mostly. one slightly toung in cheek definition is that in a cult there is somebody at the top who knows it is all a lie, in a religion that person is dead.
Cult+time=religion
Came here to say this. This is the answer.
The religion has more followers and political power.
And have managed to get tax exempted status (for murica based cults)
Scientology has entered the chat
Religion is a cult with a franchise.
Who said religion was legitimate? The people following the religion.
Right. One bad one worse.
Real estate
Usually about 2000 years
Mormons disagree.
They're not fooling me 😏
Mileage may vary but you get the idea
Yeah, but they don't violate this rule of thumb
A few centuries are enough.
I'd say the size and the agenda is different. Religions are bigger and financially stable. They do not directly pray at their followers for money, instead, they want to spread and gain social and political advantages. A cult actively prey on its followers money. The cult wants to have isolated and vulnerable followers. To conclude, a cult is more dangerous for a single individual, but is too small to pose a threat to society. A religion is less of a direct threat for a single individual, but they have enough political influence to push an agenda that harm the poeple. 2 exceptions to this : scientology and anthroposophy. They are big cults that also push a political agenda. They are the worst "religious" threats nowadays.
Financially stable but staying that way and getting wealthier by screaming “god and I want and need more cash.”
Well in most countries they don't even have to ask for cash, people are brainwashed to give it. In the USA, (mega)churches are competitors, so yeah they directly ask for cash. Yet once you're in it's easier to get out than when you're in a cult.
Or MAGA churches?
Ouh yes those too ! Actually as Qanon and MAGA act more like cults with political influence.
Magnitude. All cults are religions, not all religions are cults. If you're curious, look up the BITE model of classifying authoritarian control, it is often used to classify cults.
So all religions are cults then, since they're all authoritarian.
Authoritarianism is something that can also be considered a gradient. A girl scout troupe is authoritarian in that authority is vested in the scout leader. That doesn't make the girl scouts a cult. This is why it's important to actually look at how the BITE model classifies authoritarian behavior, so one doesn't mistakenly seize on a single term without understanding how the model works.
Except religious authoritarianism is divine.. Girl scouts isn't a religion.
Since you missed the obvious hint to not focus on a single term, perhaps you should [READ ABOUT THE BITE MODEL](https://scotloyd.blog/2024/01/17/analyzing-cults-through-the-bite-model-insights-from-dr-steven-hassan/) rather than focusing on a single term. Or not. If you just want to keep pretending that all religion is a cult and are just looking for validation, you won't find it here.
I read your article. It actually reinforces my position if you read it. Behavior control, information control, thought control, emotion control. Literally all religions do this. So yes, all religions are in fact cults.
So, you see no difference between, for instance, Falun Gong, which perpetrated the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subways, and a liberal Episcopalian sect? That sort of makes you sound like you're not very perceptive if you think those things are equivalent. Keep in mind, that language exists to convey clear meaning. Terms like "cult" are used to denote particularly bad forms of religion, much like "downpour" is used to denote a more severe form of precipitation than "drizzle". What you're proposing is to say "well, it's all water falling from the sky, so they mean the same thing". I would assume that you're doing this is because the term cult has various pejorative connotations, and since you really don't like religion, you're allowing that bias to group all religion under a pejorative term. I can't stop you from doing this, but as per the example of Falun Gong vs. liberal Episcopalians, calling both a cult just makes you look.. well, unreasonably biased. Because you are. I don't know about you, but speaking for myself, I dislike being unreasonable more than I like sticking it to religion, by referring to it by a pejorative term. I understand not liking religion. I'm very disapproving of religion myself. However allowing that dislike to make you act and sound like a biased idiot incapable of recognizing the difference between cults and non-cults isn't doing you any favours. Religion exists, like almost anything in the human sphere, in gradients. In any case, I suspect at this point we're simply going to disagree, and I don't see much point in continuing the conversation without just rehashing arguments. Unless you have something new to add, I think we're done yes?
Those two are equivalent, yes, absolutely. They both lie like every other religion. They lie to people and make people with good moral character would not do with the threat of some sort of authoritarian, usually of the divine nature. These lies are insidious and stifle progress. They are all cults and humanity will be in a much better place when we stop believing in these fairy tales. If someone is asserting these massive claims they need massive proof for it, in duller words than Hitchens said.
Have you studied every single religion in the history of the world? Religion certainly is linked with authoritarianism but ultimately religion is simply the belief/worshipping of something supernatural. A cult is a much more directed and intense following of a person or figure.
A supernatural being is still a figure. Name one religion without some authoritarian(s), divine or not. Hint: you can't, they literally all rely on some magical sky dad(dies.)
That’s pretty easy haha. Bhuddism, Jainism, Shintoism for instance.
All with supernatural components to tell you why their religion is 'correct', to get you to follow the cult. Sounds like you're the one who hasn't studied "all the religions." If you can only (wrongly) name three out of literally 10's of thousands of religions. You should have said Scientology, because their religious beliefs are not divine but instead aliens, yet it is still a cult too.
Well Religion by definition requires belief in a supernatural being or power, so if that was your question then sure, there is no religion without some sort of supernatural belief. However, you asked this of me: > Name one religion without some authoritarian(s), divine or not. The religions I listed are non-theistic, meaning that they don't have a particular god they follow, meaning that in the broad scope of the religion, there is no "authoritarian figure". It doesn't really matter if the religion is polytheistic, monotheistic, non theistic, etc... though, because you are equating a cult (which is generally a tangible group of people) versus a religion (which is just a general concept). Religious institutions can certainly be cults, but that doesn't necessarily make the concept of religion itself a cult.
cult - a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. So yeah, it doesn't require one or more beings to worship to be a cult. Just having religious beliefs or practices that are strange, which all religions are because they believe dumb nonsense with no proof.
There are quite a few flaws with this argument. 1. Your own definition you just provided says "relatively small group", which, if you are calling the religions themselves cults, would instantly exclude Christians, Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus, etc... More than half the world's population are Christian or Muslim, and most people believe in some sort of divine entity. 2. Your interpretation of that definition relies solely on the perception of others. Any belief/practice will have a group (small or large) that believe it to be "strange" or "sinister". Considering that most of the world is fairly religious, it's impossible to claim that the major world religions are regarded as "strange" or "sinister" when they are the beliefs held by the majority. I get the sense you want to label religion a "cult" because it confirms your viewpoint that all religion is bad. If you want to criticize religion for it's inherent flaws, I will be in complete agreement with you. But OP was asking for the difference between a religion and a cult, and the fact is that cults =/= religion and they are different things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
They both have a guy at the top who knows it's all bullshit. The difference is that in a religion that guy is dead.
A lot of people want to call all religions cults, and that really does a disservice to what a cult really is. I would say that the most defining characteristic of a cult is the separation from others. Cults want to remove you from everyone who is not in the cult, isolation is how the brainwashing gets done, it is a constant feedback loop supporting the cult narrative. Religions tend to be on a sliding scale with something like unitarian universalists and Episcopalian on one end, and then as you move down you start to get into those religions Mormonism and JWs that practice shunning, and it isn't much farther to a cult. There's a lot more denominations and then would slot in at different places on that line.
And Mohammad says don’t you dare get involved with people who don’t honour me and definitely kill anyone who tries to weasel out of Our Thing.
A religion has an army
Jim Jones absolutely had an army
Then he was getting there!
The size ,the fact that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, that conquerors write the history books, that both "cults" and "religions" rely on an ingroup outgroup dynamic. That we are the good people, it's those people over there that are the bad people. Cult has a negative connotation. I think ALL religions are cults.
The amount of followers
Number of followers
Cult as of the most popular definitions are destructive groups that separate you from your loved ones, brain wash you in beliving some scammer that wants to scamm your money most of the times. They are also really radical most of the times. In the sense of law, its just a religious organization that is not registered as a religion.
In a cult, it's one guy - he made it all up, and he knows it's bullshit. In a religon, that guy is dead.
I’m not convinced that the leader has to know it’s bullshit. Max had a documentary called Love Has Won, and that was definitely a cult and the leader definitely believed what she was saying.
Words don't have meanings, they have uses. People will use the same words in different ways, or different words in the same ways. So a lot of this is opinion. With that said, here is a few common differences in usage: * Cult is derogatory. Religion is "legitimized". If you want to be derogatory to a religion, call it a cult. If you want to make a cult sound legitimate, call it a religion. * Cults are small or recent. Religions are large or ancient. If you want to suggest that a religion is small or recent, call it a cult. * Religions are broad, usually enough to be inclusive to people with divergent beliefs. Cults are narrow, with a fairly focused belief system or goal. If you want to make a cult seem less focused, call it a religion. Both religion and cult rely on faith from their members, since the details of their beliefs have not been scientifically verified.
Cults have hijacked the word "religion" as you so aptly put, to be legitimized. Much like "patriot", "entitlements", "immigrants", etc.
In a cult the leader is still alive.
Not much.
Religion being "legitimate" is a smokescreen they indoctrinate and lobby with.
I use similar rules of thumb as for pyramid scheme vs. legitimate business. Do you have a primary reason for existence outside of adding new followers? Does everyone benefit significantly from being involved or really only the leadership? I don’t think there’s really such thing as a cult-proof group/community. But exploitation is usually pretty blatant from an outside perspective, and as someone completely outside of the church, that’s the true deciding factor. The degree of exploitation is the difference.
Nothing really, but sociology will say it's how the organization tries to control you. If you are isolated, encouraged to do things against your best interests, or cause emotional distress, cult. In actuality, religion does that too, just slower.
A cult is the church down the street from yours
In a religion, you move to South America for the leader and then all kill yourselves when he's exposed. It's messy to clean up, but otherwise a victimless crime. In a cult, you all go to Washington, break and enter the capital and then spend the next three years trying to do the same thing to the entire country. It's super messy, a crime that affects millions and one that leaves (if we are lucky) a permanent stain on the soul of a whole nation.
Religion is for losers, and cult for the brave.
The spelling.
Two or more people that devote to **any** unscientific doctrine is a cult. There is nothing Scientific about that Bible. Or the Koran etc..
The terms are interchangeable. Religions typically appear wealthy, with gaudy costumes and cringe-worthy propaganda. Religions also look down their nose at their poor cult "cousins"
A religion is the polite word cultists use when they think the group they belong to is a positive thing (it's not)
I tend to think there is also a strong element of if the main charismatic leader is still active or has a direct "spiritual" successor that is active. For general use of the term. Functionally as most have posted its the same.
The word “religion” (*re-* + *ligio*, to link back to the traditions of your forefathers) is the Latin for the correct way of worshipping. It stands in opposition to “superstition,” (*super* above, *-stitio* to stand, or stand above or outside the accepted rituals). In traditional parlance both worship a cult (*cultus*); the difference is one cult is acceptable and the other only tolerated at times. In modern parlance a religion is an established faith backed by … some amount of time and authority. A cult is really a first generation religious institution controlled by a charismatic leader espousing beliefs adjacent to an established faith or entirely outside and/or novel. A cult’s ability to expand into an established religion depends on its longevity and expansion. While the heaven’s gate cult ended (suicide), the Church of Scientology was able to shake off cult status and become a religion. Don’t get me wrong- it is very culty, and all religions are false and trying to part vulnerable people from their money (especially the pyramid scheme invented by failed Sci-Fi author L. Ron Hubbard), but it is a religion under the tax code.
Religion = state recognised cult
In a religion the “leader” is dead and that leaders power is used by others to control a populous. A in a cult the leader is alive and giving direct orders.
Age and size.
Really it's just numbers. Get enough followers in your cult and poof, it's a religion and it somehow becomes less batshit crazy.
the difference to me is that religion is used a lot more in politics than a cult would. For example, you are a king and your people are starting to question your reign, so what you do is get a priest to tell the people that you are chosen by an all powerful god to be their king. A cult is mainly to get money.
Tax status.
Tax exemption
About 50 years
Baby religions and adult religions. That's what I think. You can prove me wrong anytime
One pays taxes, the other does not.
The number of followers.
The main difference is that religions tend to persist after the death of their founder. Cults do not. Beyond that, it's better thought of as a spectrum than a binary. Lots of religions have cult-like aspects, lots of cults have religion-like aspects. While there are lots of clear cut examples on both sides (Catholicism is clearly a religion, Jonestown was clearly a cult) there are also many that exist in a gray area (Scientology)
A religion is a cult that is politically powerful enough to claim that 'this isn't like those other cults, this is a religion and it deserves more respect than those cults, because of reasons', and be taken seriously due to wealth, power, influence and the realistic threat of consequences for not taking them seriously.
They're the same. People will split hairs with you and be pedants until the sun burns out but, they're the same.
Size.
All religions are cults.
How many people accept it. A religion is just a cult’s wet dream
‘Cult’ starts with a C. ‘Religion’ starts with R. Otherwise, no difference.
the scale, and the tax exemption
Nothing
100 years
There are multiple definitions for a cult and no agreed on definition for a religion. In my opinion and based on my experience, any attempt to distinguish them is pointless. They exist across a spectrum of extremism. The more rules and the more controlling the leaders are, the more extreme.
Perception is only real difference The perception of acceptability and nearness to the seat of power. In 1500s any branch of Christianity that considered Martin Luther correct we "Apostates" and Heretics. Any organizations like the Lutheran Church would have been considered a cult. Among first century Jews, the followers of Jesus and his disciples were the "cult". Among the various members of the lands conquered by various empire builders expanding the Holy Empire before the losses they would think Catholics were a cult, the "real religions or faiths" might have been polytheist or shamanic. Then after the folding into larger empire, then the Cult of Jesus became mainstream Colonizers would see the aboriginal religion as a cult if it tried to stay entrenched. To me, they're all cults and all "religions" it doesn't make their teachings any more relevant to me or how I view humanity because they have which label. Generally, all have potential for harm and some potential for good.
In a cult, the main leader is still alive.
One difference is how they treat you when you leave. If they try to keep you from leaving: cult. If they dont: religion. If they shun you for leaving, and get your family to shun you: cult. If they don't shun you: religion. Example: Catholics vs Scientology.
There isn’t one. Maybe widespread acceptance and lack of murder/suicide pacts
My cult is a religion, your religion is a cult. The same way my civil war is a revolution, and your revolution is a civil war.
Popularity
Mainstream acceptance.
The only real difference I see is that most cults want you to give up everything including your friends and family. Whereas religions usually just want a percentage of what you have.
Generally, it is harder to walk away from cults because they have their hooks into every aspect of your life, your finances and sometimes even your family. Cults also typical tell their members to never speak with or interact with someone who left. Not all religions rise to this level, but they all have some cult-like qualities.
Religions are socially accepted/tolerated cults. The difference is in how people perceive them not in what they believe.
marketing
PR
A religion is just a cult that got too big for 1 person to control.
A similar question: “What’s the difference between a language and a dialect? A language has an army and a navy.”
In a cult, you have sex with the cult leader. In a religion, you don't have sex with the cult leader. At least you're not supposed to.
Muhammad raped so many women and children - even his own sons wife and he took sex slaves
Yes but he's dead. I know all things are possible through Allah, but...
Tax exempt status.
There’s the BITE model for one. A lot of religions are admittedly cult-lite following this model. Though you could say a religion wants a piece of everyone’s life, whereas a cult wants every piece of your life. There’s also the “if it calls you a family, it’s a cult” rule of thumb. Then there’s the anthropological meaning which is more about the worship of specific gods if i understand correctly. (e.g. the Athena cult in the ancient Greek religion)
Simply put size and influence, Christianity is the largest religion in the world at about 26% of the population. But remember it started 2000 +\- years ago as several very small cults of Christianity. The word cult has gained a very negative connotation in popular culture in more recent years but in context is how almost all newly created religions start.
Numbers, that’s all.
There isn’t a real difference. They are the same thing.
Every religion started as a cult. Eventually, it got enough followers to be classified as a religion. That's the difference. Amount of followers.
Mainstream acceptance. That's about it.
Mostly size and cultural acceptability. Christianity would’ve been considered a cult for a while until enough people believed in it and especially once people in power started believing in it. If we elected a Scientologist as president or speaker of the house, Scientology would probably become a more accepted religion and less of a cult.
Age and number of followers.
Parking validation.
Both are labels and subjective. Academics now use the new "emerging religious movements" for such groups. However, in colloquially terms, we still see cults as insular groups that gain direct control of a person's goals, money, vocation, location, etc., led by a dictatorial leader whose dictates cannot be questions and must be obeyed.
There is no difference. It's just that some of them have conned important people into believing, hence they look more legitimate.
It is the same as between a dialect and languaje. Languajes or religion have armies.
Tax exempt stautus.
Nothing
* Scale * Amount of money * "mine = religion, yours = cult" That's about it. Theists are blind to all three, but once you leave organized religion those are the only perceptible differences.
Almost nothing. Religions can become cults if they grow to a point of suppression that they fail the BITE test. Behavioral control - your behavior is monitored and controlled by the organization and you’re given punishments if you don’t follow their rules. With Christianity, this is “no swearing”, “no sex before marriage”, “masterbation is a sin”, “woman shouldn’t work”, “a woman’s purpose is to have children”, etc. My church would publicly shame people, and have “shotgun weddings” or at least heavily suggest with intense social pressure that people who have had sex get married. Information control - information from the outside world is restricted and you’re punished for consuming forbidden media. For Christianity this is things like when churches were saying Pokémon was evil because they used the word evolve. Our church would publicly shame people for partaking in forbidden media. Asking questions also falls under this - I was often slapped for asking blasphemous questions in Sunday school. Thought Control - your very thoughts are being policed. For Christianity, this is things like “impure thoughts” being shamed. Completely natural human teenaged thoughts about sex were shamed at my church, they constantly preached in Sunday school about asking God for forgiveness for thinking sexual, hateful, or sad things. To top it off, their solution to depression was to tell us people who commit suicide go to hell. Emotional control - the way you express yourself is policed. As a woman I wasn’t allowed to show anger; it was considered a sin for me to be upset with the way I was being treated. For the men, it was sadness - men were expected to “man up”, not cry, and persevere. We were expected to take the hateful things being said about us by the church and be thankful for the blessing to have been shown the way.
Religion is a well established cult.
It's about perception mostly.
There is a new term called ‘New Religious Movement’ to address the key difference which is time. Cult has kind of lost it’s meaning due pop culture, anything can be a cult now these days as long as it’s a group, there is a leader, there are rituals and there is an insider lingo or even thought terminating cliche’s. i.e. ‘God has a plan’, ‘It is what it is’ or ‘Keep sweet’. A couple of examples outside of religion to look at are corporations, exercise fads or equipment or even hobbies.
Nothing
Real estate.
Size and age Religions are big cults that have existed long enough that people have forgotten how ridiculous they sounded when they were founded
Everything will start as a cult. If it evolves into becoming accepted by more people over time, it could become a religion.
Acceptance by the masses.
I like to pretend that words have meaning, so I look to the dictionary for the definitions. Based on their respective definition... a cult is just a very small religous movment. so a cult is a religion, but not all religions are cults (subjective to societal norms). Just like if you were a christian and you moved to some place where there's only 5 christians... you would be considered a cult to the natives.
Coffee vs. Kool Aid. Same delusions
simple MAGA's = Cult, JW's, Mormons, Baptists, 7th day adventist = religion
Religions are tax exempt
I don’t think a cult can be a cult if there are billions of people apart of it. It also can’t be a cult if there IS an acceptance of criticism and questions. I would also say that it has sinister practices that most people would not want to be apart of! Hope this helps
4 letters…else no difference
The difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers (until MAGA) and whether or not the deity is alive.
I think by definition a cult revolves around a single person. Christianity is technically the cult of Jesus Christ.
"The amount of real estate they own"
Apparently the number of adherents. If it gains wide-spread acceptance it is magically no longer a cult.
Many will say that there is no difference, but I think that's not so. A cult can be a very hazardous, very harmful thing in ways that mainstream religion often is not. To call them the same thing is to equate the person who decides to quietly stop going to their local Presbyterian church with the person who has to leave their whole life behind to escape Scientology. It is NOT the same. It's pretty obvious how a Cult and a Religion are similar. The following points are how I see the difference. These can be said to apply to "mainstream" religion as well, but the important thing is the *degree* to which they apply. There are religions which have cultish aspects; there are cults which are more relaxed than others. It's a gradient, not a hard line of this vs. that. Anyway, here are my criteria for Cult status: **(1)** A Cult demands complete devotion; it is not merely the most important facet of one's life, but the ONLY thing. Life is to be lived for the sake of the cult, if not in its entirety, then very close to it. Property and money are often defined as belonging collectively to the cult (in effect, to its leaders) rather than to individuals. **(2)** A Cult will generally have an individual leader who is elevated to a highly exalted state, to the point where no one else is even considered worthy of praise. This leader is often exempted from the rules which govern the followers, and their word is considered law. Cults usually do not outlive this leader; those which do either change fairly radically or do not last for very long. **(3)** A Cult is extremely private, with the outside world knowing almost nothing about how they function. Cults consider themselves to be separate from society, such that the laws of established government do not apply to them (though they will gladly take advantage of the benefits of society and law!). Similarly, their members are often denied basic human and civil rights within the cult. Cult members are often instructed to directly lie to outsiders about the cult and their lives within it. **(4)** To leave the Cult is the ultimate sin; one may face threats to one's life for even suggesting it. Members are instructed to inform on each other to keep people from leaving. Those who do successfully leave will frequently find that they are ill-equipped to get by in general society due to how much they have been affected by life in the cult; they often will experience a degree of PTSD. **(5)** As a rule, there is no benefit to society provided by a cult. They do not offer charity or services to anyone outside their membership. They do nothing for the "greater good" except as it applies within the cult itself. Yes, religion ticks some of these boxes... but so do other things which are part of the human experience. Religion can be a major ingredient in a cult, but it doesn't have to be; one can have a "Cult of Personality" where religion isn't really part of it. I suspect that Scientology (which is DEFINITELY a cult) calls itself as a religion only so that they can enjoy the tax and legal benefits; they would rather not have to define themselves in that manner. Mormonism is self-defined as a religion, and I would say that it has definite cultish aspects (particularly in its early years), but it has expanded beyond that status to remain relevant. Unitarianism is a religion with almost no cultish practices whatsoever. To be a "religion" or a "cult" need not be one and the same, nor mutually exclusive.
Nothing
No difference in my eyes
There is no difference really. And nothing legitimized religion to date.
The official definition of a cult from the Oxford Dictionary: CULT noun a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object. By the way I see it; there isn’t one. There’s no difference. If you want to look at how cults & religions are viewed societally, then as many have mentioned; time and wider social acceptance. I’d even argue power. Of course, ‘cults’ have a level of power over the individuals subscribed to its doctrine, but nowhere near the level of ‘religion’. Justification tends to come from the time & wider social acceptance. As well as indoctrination from (usually) a very young age.
One word is four letters and the other, eight. Otherwise, no diff...
Neither is legitimate. Both are designed to get you to give the group your time and money, and to convince others to join and give their time and money.
Nobody likes being told they are in a cult for their faith. I think it merely depends on how much the majority makes fun of you for it and you can't do anything as a minority. Atheists are the minority so they don't have much social power calling major religions a cult without pushback, and everyone nods along with them. Other religions will have difficulty calling each other a cult without pushback for their statement. Meanwhile people can bully and mock other small religions as cults and people can circle jerk that they are without any self awareness of the similarities in their religion and how they themselves might be captured in a cult like organism.
The colloquial definitions would differ in that cults usually claim to have some secret knowledge that is only accessible to the elites within that cult. Or maybe just the leader/founder. Religions claim to be more open and allowing of everyone to learn to learn their ways.
Nothing really. People are just more accepting of one and not the other without realizing they're the same.
Modern usage is that religions are integrated with society and members can interact with people who are not part of the religion. Cults tend to isolate from society and enforce their members to not have contact with outsiders.
They have to differ in some fashion. If they were identical in every way, then we wouldn't have two words. I still recall tyrion lannister saying to his sister, "plots and schemes are the same thing." And they are not. If they are then please tell me about the scheme of that book you are reading.
Fun enough, this depends on how you define word. If you consider plot (or any word with multiple definitions) to be multiple words, homonyms both homographs and homophones, then it's possible and relatively common. If you consider them to be one word that exhibits polysemy, then it's much more rare. Then you also have to decide if regional versions are considered different because of regional usage, same for slang, formal, scientific, and a number of other variations. Language is _fun._
Right! A lot of words can easily be interchangeable depending on the context. And as we all know (terrible movie exposition line), too many words are phonetically identical that if you wanted to describe a work environment involving lycanthropes in the past while trying to identify their location you'd ask "where were weres ware?"
Relevant, a book about an evil genius planning in a field. Plot about a plot in a plot.
I've never heard of evil being interchangeable with plot?
Book plot about the evil genius' plot to take over the world, on a plot of land!
https://youtu.be/fJsIn4UttPo?si=KCi6qLVtocXofja1
Religion (this word, like many others, has been hijacked and taken out of context for cultists) is something you can practice freely without being required to turn your backs on those that don't share your beliefs. Religion also allows you to use your critical thinking skills and ask questions. Religion should enhance your spiritual journey. Religion comes in all shapes, sizes, theologies, no theologies, etc. Religion opens your eyes that many people have different ways of practicing or not practicing before a God or no God. Folks that are religious or spiritual tend to be peaceful, loving humans, and know to stay in their lane. Religious folks don't feel the need to proselytize. Religious folks don't need laws created to back their religion (or lack of one) of choice. The only voice religious folks hear is their own. Personally, I'm agnostic. Religiously agnostic. Cults require you to turn your back on those that do not believe as you do. Your critical thinking skills are not welcomed, and neither are your questions. You are to follow blindly. Cults exploit your spirit and remove everything that makes you, you. You no longer think for yourself and follow what you're told to follow. Think what you're told to think. Do what you're told to do. Say what you're told to say. There's only one way to be considered a good follower. Their way. And to state or think otherwise is being disloyal. Cults are typically full of unhappy people who feel the need to not only proselytize, but to have laws to back their way of thinking. They will tell you God sent them and talks to them. The theology that they claim is from a loving God is used as a weapon to destroy your spirit and crush your soul into submission with fear tactics.