What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
urantiafox
()
Date: April 06, 2003 12:00AM
Hello, I chanced upon this forum while doing a search upon the Rick Ross site for 'Urantia' and consequently 'Gabriel of Sedona'
As you may gather from my chosen name I am and have been a Urantia book reader for the past 6 years.
The Urantia Book is not a cult in the conventional sense of the word, although I would say that it has promoted a new religious movement and could be loosely classified as such.
I'm at a reasonable loss as to what to put as a first post here, as I am not certain what reaction I may get.
I have decided to put a quote from the Urantia Book on the subject of this forum firstly:
PAPER 100 - RELIGION IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE
I will try and add to the thread of channelling on here as this is largely and arguably the origin of the Urantia Book.
I am wondering about one other noticable exception on this forum, that is the UFO cult of the Raelians who have been given much press in recent times as a result of their claims of human cloning. I have read much of their literature and find it quite scary ultimately. Do members of this forum also class this as a new religious movement or a cult, and if so where does the speration lie between the two here?
Regards,
Charlie
As you may gather from my chosen name I am and have been a Urantia book reader for the past 6 years.
The Urantia Book is not a cult in the conventional sense of the word, although I would say that it has promoted a new religious movement and could be loosely classified as such.
I'm at a reasonable loss as to what to put as a first post here, as I am not certain what reaction I may get.
I have decided to put a quote from the Urantia Book on the subject of this forum firstly:
PAPER 100 - RELIGION IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE
Quote
(quote)line 90: The world is filled with lost souls, not lost in the theologic sense but lost in the directional meaning, wandering about in confusion among the isms and cults of a frustrated philosophic era. Too few have learned how to install a philosophy of living in the place of religious authority. (The symbols of socialized religion are not to be despised as channels of growth, albeit the river bed is not the river.) (/quote)
I will try and add to the thread of channelling on here as this is largely and arguably the origin of the Urantia Book.
I am wondering about one other noticable exception on this forum, that is the UFO cult of the Raelians who have been given much press in recent times as a result of their claims of human cloning. I have read much of their literature and find it quite scary ultimately. Do members of this forum also class this as a new religious movement or a cult, and if so where does the speration lie between the two here?
Regards,
Charlie
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
richardmgreen
()
Date: April 06, 2003 02:34AM
Quote
Originally posted by urantiafox
Hello, I chanced upon this forum while doing a search upon the Rick Ross site for 'Urantia' and consequently 'Gabriel of Sedona'
As you may gather from my chosen name I am and have been a Urantia book reader for the past 6 years.
The Urantia Book is not a cult in the conventional sense of the word, although I would say that it has promoted a new religious movement and could be loosely classified as such.
I'm at a reasonable loss as to what to put as a first post here, as I am not certain what reaction I may get.
I have decided to put a quote from the Urantia Book on the subject of this forum firstly:
PAPER 100 - RELIGION IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE
I will try and add to the thread of channelling on here as this is largely and arguably the origin of the Urantia Book.
I am wondering about one other noticable exception on this forum, that is the UFO cult of the Raelians who have been given much press in recent times as a result of their claims of human cloning. I have read much of their literature and find it quite scary ultimately. Do members of this forum also class this as a new religious movement or a cult, and if so where does the speration lie between the two here?
Regards,
Charlie
By cult, I take it that Rick means a movement that's dangerous whether physically threatening or mentally controlling. A New Religious Movement is simply a recently founded group that has untried and untested ideas. But an NRM may or may not be dangerous or a cult. Hope that's helpful.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
Cam
()
Date: May 01, 2003 10:37PM
Hi,
Just reading that last post.
So I guess that would make the Catholic Church one of the most physically and mentally dangerous cults around. ( pedophilia, guilt, fanatical christians - and all the rest)
So, how do we tell the difference between a cult or religious movement ?
The only thing I can think of is - how it affects the "member's" life. Of course, we can find criminals in any church, cult or NRM.. so I guess we just have to look at the majority of members..and ask if it had a postive affect in their life - would that be correct ?
Thanks.
Cam.
Just reading that last post.
So I guess that would make the Catholic Church one of the most physically and mentally dangerous cults around. ( pedophilia, guilt, fanatical christians - and all the rest)
So, how do we tell the difference between a cult or religious movement ?
The only thing I can think of is - how it affects the "member's" life. Of course, we can find criminals in any church, cult or NRM.. so I guess we just have to look at the majority of members..and ask if it had a postive affect in their life - would that be correct ?
Thanks.
Cam.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: May 01, 2003 10:44PM
The following links can be helpufl to better define the word "cult."
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
letGodbetrue
()
Date: May 14, 2003 10:42AM
I agree with most of what Mr. Ross indicated in his 2 links. I would like to add that, from a conservative, evangelical Christian view, that all cults I've encountered attack the person and work of Jesus.
Most conservative, Bible-believing denominations will agree that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, went through the mockery of a trial, and was tortured to death. He was laid in a grave but rose 3 days later, and now sits at the right hand of the Father.
I have found that every cult will attack at least one element of that, either adding words or whole books to the Bible, saying that Jesus is just an angel, that it was just a pole, not a cross, that Satan is Jesus' spirit brother, and so on.
Involvement with cultic groups can be very dangerous as Mr. Ross says, but they can also deny you eternal life, which IMHO is much worse.
Most conservative, Bible-believing denominations will agree that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, went through the mockery of a trial, and was tortured to death. He was laid in a grave but rose 3 days later, and now sits at the right hand of the Father.
I have found that every cult will attack at least one element of that, either adding words or whole books to the Bible, saying that Jesus is just an angel, that it was just a pole, not a cross, that Satan is Jesus' spirit brother, and so on.
Involvement with cultic groups can be very dangerous as Mr. Ross says, but they can also deny you eternal life, which IMHO is much worse.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
richardmgreen
()
Date: May 14, 2003 09:28PM
Many of the cults I've seen are trying to live life the "old old" way". The ICOC, Hickman, Chabad, Carlebach all try to go back to the roots.
Shlomo Carlebach used to talk about "the roots of the Torah, not the way it's coming down to us". And he was on the outs with the Jewish establishment.
Shlomo Carlebach used to talk about "the roots of the Torah, not the way it's coming down to us". And he was on the outs with the Jewish establishment.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
csfield
()
Date: February 12, 2007 06:19PM
The Catholic Church is a cult too.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: February 12, 2007 10:05PM
csfield:
The Roman Catholic Church is not a "cult."
See [www.culteducation.com]
[b:baccea672c]Defining a Cult [/b:baccea672c]
Isn't the word "cult" a pejorative label used to discriminate against new religious movements?
No. It is disingenuous to ignore the historical significance and modern day applications of the word cult. Today many controversial groups, that have been called "cults", are seeking to either eliminate the word, or create through fear of litigation a reluctance to use the term. Some cult apologists have literally said that "'cult' is a four letter word," and should be replaced by the politically correct title "new religious movement" (NRM). However, historically cults have always been with us and they continue to be a part of the world today.
[b:baccea672c]How is the word "cult" defined? [/b:baccea672c]
Webster's Dictionary defines a cult as:
"1. A formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious beliefs and rituals also its body of adherents; 3. A religion regarded as "unorthodox or spurious."; 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5. a: A great devotion to a person, idea, thing; esp.: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad, b: A usually small circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or intellectual movement or figure."
This definition obviously could include everything from Barbie collectors to old "Deadheads," "Trekkies" to diehard Elvis fans. American history might also include within such a definition the devoted followers of Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science, or the Mormons united through their devotion to Joseph Smith. Both these religious groups were once largely regarded as "unorthodox or spurious." However, the most important concern today is not simply who might be somewhat "cultic" in their devotion now or historically, but what groups might represent potential problems regarding personal or public safety. That is, groups that are potentially unsafe and/or destructive.
Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote the definitive book about thought reform (often called "brainwashing") also wrote a paper about cult formation. Lifton defined a cult as having the following three characteristics:
A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.
A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.
Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.
Don't some groups once seen as "cults" often move more into the mainstream, becoming generally respected sects or religions?
Yes. There are certainly examples of groups that were once perhaps thought of as "cults" that have evolved into relatively mainstream sects or religions. Such examples as the Seventh Day Adventists once led by Ellen White, or the Mormons, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.
But it is also important to note that some groups, which may have once been labeled as "cults" continue to be controversial due to their unsafe or destructive practices. Two examples of groups that continue to be problematic and often destructive are the former Russellites, now known as "Jehovah's Witnesses," that once prohibited organ transplants and still expects its members to refuse blood transfusions, which has resulted in numerous deaths. And the Christian Scientists founded by Mary Baker Eddy who often reject medical treatment, again resulting in the loss of life. Some groups may say they have renounced unsafe or destructive practices, only to be exposed later as guilty of the same extremes and abuses.
The Roman Catholic Church is not a "cult."
See [www.culteducation.com]
[b:baccea672c]Defining a Cult [/b:baccea672c]
Isn't the word "cult" a pejorative label used to discriminate against new religious movements?
No. It is disingenuous to ignore the historical significance and modern day applications of the word cult. Today many controversial groups, that have been called "cults", are seeking to either eliminate the word, or create through fear of litigation a reluctance to use the term. Some cult apologists have literally said that "'cult' is a four letter word," and should be replaced by the politically correct title "new religious movement" (NRM). However, historically cults have always been with us and they continue to be a part of the world today.
[b:baccea672c]How is the word "cult" defined? [/b:baccea672c]
Webster's Dictionary defines a cult as:
"1. A formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious beliefs and rituals also its body of adherents; 3. A religion regarded as "unorthodox or spurious."; 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5. a: A great devotion to a person, idea, thing; esp.: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad, b: A usually small circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or intellectual movement or figure."
This definition obviously could include everything from Barbie collectors to old "Deadheads," "Trekkies" to diehard Elvis fans. American history might also include within such a definition the devoted followers of Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science, or the Mormons united through their devotion to Joseph Smith. Both these religious groups were once largely regarded as "unorthodox or spurious." However, the most important concern today is not simply who might be somewhat "cultic" in their devotion now or historically, but what groups might represent potential problems regarding personal or public safety. That is, groups that are potentially unsafe and/or destructive.
Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote the definitive book about thought reform (often called "brainwashing") also wrote a paper about cult formation. Lifton defined a cult as having the following three characteristics:
A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.
A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.
Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.
Don't some groups once seen as "cults" often move more into the mainstream, becoming generally respected sects or religions?
Yes. There are certainly examples of groups that were once perhaps thought of as "cults" that have evolved into relatively mainstream sects or religions. Such examples as the Seventh Day Adventists once led by Ellen White, or the Mormons, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.
But it is also important to note that some groups, which may have once been labeled as "cults" continue to be controversial due to their unsafe or destructive practices. Two examples of groups that continue to be problematic and often destructive are the former Russellites, now known as "Jehovah's Witnesses," that once prohibited organ transplants and still expects its members to refuse blood transfusions, which has resulted in numerous deaths. And the Christian Scientists founded by Mary Baker Eddy who often reject medical treatment, again resulting in the loss of life. Some groups may say they have renounced unsafe or destructive practices, only to be exposed later as guilty of the same extremes and abuses.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
csfield
()
Date: February 12, 2007 10:44PM
OK, it's popular so it's not "unorthodox". But it's still harmful and absurd, with an infallible leader and doctrines and dogmas that are arbitrarily invented. My point is that mainstream religions aren't much better than fringe ones. If you want to use orthodoxy to distinguish a "cult" from a "religion", then any of the cults described in these forums could in principle change their status if they really caught on. Christianity was once a fringe cult and it is more through historical accident than intrinsic value that it has reached the status it has. I consider forbidding contraceptives and opposing stem cell research to be unsafe and destructive practices. Anyway, I consider any irrational or supernatural belief system to be harmful.
What is the diference between a cult and a new religious mov
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: February 12, 2007 10:47PM
csfield:
What is your purpose on this message board?
The Catholic Church is not a "cult" and the purpose of this message board is to discuss "cults," controversial groups and movements.
And I don't receive complaints about mainstream religious groups such as the Protestant, Jewish and other long-time denominations.
See [www.culteducation.com]
[b:66b36b42d1]Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.[/b:66b36b42d1]
Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
The group/leader is always right.
The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
[b:66b36b42d1]Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader. [/b:66b36b42d1]
Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.
Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.
A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.
What is your purpose on this message board?
The Catholic Church is not a "cult" and the purpose of this message board is to discuss "cults," controversial groups and movements.
And I don't receive complaints about mainstream religious groups such as the Protestant, Jewish and other long-time denominations.
See [www.culteducation.com]
[b:66b36b42d1]Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.[/b:66b36b42d1]
Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
The group/leader is always right.
The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
[b:66b36b42d1]Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader. [/b:66b36b42d1]
Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.
Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.
A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.