if you read scriptural commentaries etc pre and post 60's/70's it is evident.
Religion or Cult?
- Thread starter one_raven
- Start date
I've seen cultists interviewed, and it is often quite clear that they are enamoured with the great leader.
They get this blank look in their eyes as they talk about what a perfect person the leader is, and how they'd follow him in whatever he said (note: him, not his ideas).
They'll say straight out how charismatic the leader is.
When pushed, they'll say that they agree with the leader's ideas, of course, but there's seldom much depth there. When the leader changes his mind, as cult leaders often do, it is always rationalised by the followers - perhaps as a "new revelation". It doesn't seem to matter how many new revelations there are - faith in the leader seldom waivers.
circa 1950 from Srimad bhagavatam intro
Later it was disclosed that Bhaööäcärya also came from the Navadvépa area, and it was understood from him that Nélämbara Cakravarté, the maternal grandfather of Lord Caitanya, happened to be a class fellow of the father of Särvabhauma Bhaööäcärya. In that sense, the young sannyäsé Lord Caitanya evoked paternal affection from Bhaööäcärya. Bhaööäcärya was the professor of many sannyäsés in the order of the Çaìkaräcärya-sampradäya, and he himself also belonged to that cult. As such, the Bhaööäcärya desired that the young sannyäsé Lord Caitanya also hear from him about the teachings of Vedänta.
Those who are followers of the Çaìkara cult are generally known as Vedäntists. This does not, however, mean that Vedänta is a monopoly study of the Çaìkara-sampradäya. Vedänta is studied by all the bona fide sampradäyas, but they have their own interpretations. But those in the Çaìkara-sampradäya are generally known to be ignorant of the knowledge of the Vedäntist Vaiñëavas. For this reason the Bhaktivedanta title was first offered to the author by the Vaiñëavas.
compare
Strange and bogus religions are common on the American scene - the 60s and 70s were not that unusual.light said:
I'd say a cult becomes a religion when it grows past about 150 members - the level at which personal control becomes difficult, and some kind of dogma or creed binds people to the identity rather than a personal charisma alone.
Last edited:
For the devout or serious religious adherent, the word "cult" is nearly always used as a pejorative label to segregate superstitions which they deem illegitimate or incorrect (or even heretic/apostic) from their own superstitions.
In my day to day study of ancient culture and their material remains, the concept of "cult," "cult worship," and "cult-item" is used descriptively and specifically to refer to that which surrounds the religious superstitions and forms of worship of these ancient cultures. The term is, in no way, pejorative.
I see no reason why modern human cult worship cannot be described the same way, using the same words of utility, without the pejorative connotation. I recognize that the religious cult member that has his cult called a cult will perceive it as pejorative, but that would be their problem. That would be a social construct of their own doing.
In my day to day study of ancient culture and their material remains, the concept of "cult," "cult worship," and "cult-item" is used descriptively and specifically to refer to that which surrounds the religious superstitions and forms of worship of these ancient cultures. The term is, in no way, pejorative.
I see no reason why modern human cult worship cannot be described the same way, using the same words of utility, without the pejorative connotation. I recognize that the religious cult member that has his cult called a cult will perceive it as pejorative, but that would be their problem. That would be a social construct of their own doing.
"1a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader"
I found the words "unconventional manner" funny. Who determines what is unconventional and what is not when we are looking at and comparing the belief structures of religions.
Maybe a better way would be to break down the various ideas of Gods in religions and leaders of cults. Are the leaders of a cult considered to be a God, a voice of God or just the leader of the group ? In an unconventional manner of course.
Otherwise I see no difference between the two other than one grows large enough to no longer be considered odd.
I like this one from Swarm.
"There aren't clear cut distinctions between a cult and a religion except a religion has enough political power to not get called a cult often."
I found the words "unconventional manner" funny. Who determines what is unconventional and what is not when we are looking at and comparing the belief structures of religions.
Maybe a better way would be to break down the various ideas of Gods in religions and leaders of cults. Are the leaders of a cult considered to be a God, a voice of God or just the leader of the group ? In an unconventional manner of course.
Otherwise I see no difference between the two other than one grows large enough to no longer be considered odd.
I like this one from Swarm.
"There aren't clear cut distinctions between a cult and a religion except a religion has enough political power to not get called a cult often."
What I'm saying is that a given sect of a religion is a cult. A cult is a particular or specific method or practice of worship within a religion.
I suppose, on reflection, one can belong to a "religion" without belonging to a "cult."
This would be someone who consideres themselves "Christian" but only in the loose sense that they believe in the Christian notion of a god and the story of Jesus, but not specifically in that they attend a church or belong to any worship group or engage in any organized worship circle.
This would begin a "cult" practice. For instance, those that attend Wednesday bible study and Sunday worship are cult members.
This would be someone who consideres themselves "Christian" but only in the loose sense that they believe in the Christian notion of a god and the story of Jesus, but not specifically in that they attend a church or belong to any worship group or engage in any organized worship circle.
This would begin a "cult" practice. For instance, those that attend Wednesday bible study and Sunday worship are cult members.
Uh. No.
Isn't it kind of a pejorative though? One man's religion is another's cult? All depends on how much sense it makes to the viewer.
Of course that first guy would be completely deluded. Religion, pfft. A funny hat and you're all about "God". Bah!
Anyway.
How so?
How DOES it mean that everyone has a little bit of cult in them?
Because your conclusion didn't follow from my premises. If you're saying it does, please show us.
Cult members are kidnapped by friends or relatives & The Holy Babble is used to "deprogram" them.
1111
1111
Well maybe not everyone, excuse me. But everyone has a devotion to a particular musicaians, take novelists words and use them in there own lives, clothing styles that reflect ones "habits" if you will. etc. I may not be talking specifically about what you added to this thread but it is a valid argument, to the word "cult", not only are religions followed by a base line.