5 questions to Ask About Whether Something is a Cult or Not.

When people explore or analyze religion, 1 common, but unfortunate word people use is often,?cult?. Whenever folks do not like religious or spiritual groups, it is not uncommon to use the word ?cult?, with out comprehension of the difference cults and legitimate organized religions. The reasons behind this become clear when you come to fully grasp the differences between the 2.

For example, should you fail to follow Christian Biblical concepts to the letter, the Christian Protestant Fundamentalists think you a cult. Although they perhaps originally intended that to demean only those Christian denominations that somehow ?were misguided?, their narrow definition now extends clearly also extends to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, ? In fact, because at least two thirds of the planet?s population doesn?t identify with any type of Christian, almost 70% of humanity is thus ?in a cult?.

Alas, this issue is far more widespread than that. The Protestant fundamentalists have further expanded their cult list by including Roman Catholics as well as all Easter Orthodox faiths, over a disagreement over how many sacraments there are. That increases the ?cult membership? to about 93% of humanity. Finally, these folks also think most the other Christian Protestants to have moved away from biblical fidelity By their definition, the only ones who are not in cults are them!

When looked at from the outside, it?s common to think that any sane person who adheres to the strict doctrines of many of the religions, have clearly lost the ability to think straight, so subsequently must belong to a cult. To much of the rest of humanity, it is actually these biblically strict, narrow groups who are the real cults. If you put it all together, then put a check in each of the boxes, we are ALL in a cult! The Baptists are pointing fingers at the Catholics who are pointing fingers towards the Protestants ? and everyone is pointing fingers at the Mormons.

What good is the term when it applies to everyone? The elementary school vernacular has it spot on: if you use the term cult, you are a poopy head. Makes no sense.

So, is there any way to redeem the word, so that it has some meaning of value? The main thing is that those creating the definitions are lacking neutrality. They have an agenda. What we need is someone else to offer us a neutral means for identifying a cult ? a person devoid of personal interest in the outcome. 1 such person could be named a ?religion anthropologist?.

This person (or group) studies religion looking from a scientific viewpoint. Sometimes they have got a particular religion to which they adhere, and other times not. This will make some members from the organized religions rather uncomfortable. If the anthropologist belongs to a religion ? any religion ? the others scream ?bias! bias!?, which means that everything the anthropologist has to say has got to be wrong because they have this personal bias.|If it happens that the person is a member of a particular religion, everyone else shouts, ?Bias! Bias! -- then ignores anything stated.

On the other hand, if said neutral party does not have a specific religion, that other people shout, ?Atheist! Atheist! ? making everything said irrelevant based on a built-in opposition to all religious beliefs. If we were to stop rolling our eyes at the many faithful for a moment, what would we learn from those Religious Anthropologists about cults?

Essentially, the majority of anthropologists use a ?five point system? to determine whether or not a specific group ? religious or otherwise ? ought to be classified as a cult. These five factors may be presented in the form of questions concerning the group.

The Questions are:

1. Is there a charismatic, strong leader in control?

Two. Does it display a group mentality which denies individuality and personal, independent your mind?

3. Is there a denial of intimacy by leaving out or alienating friends and relatives?

Four. Do they apply financial pressure and abuse towards the welfare of the group, disregarding the personal expense of the adherent?

5. Is there a separation along with isolation from the nearby community?

Even using this method, the problem is that it still isn?t always clear-cut. If all five questions are answered ?yes?, then it easily qualifies as a cult. If not a single one of these questions are answered ?yes?, then it's undoubtably certain that the group is NOT a cult. If only it were that easy. The difficulty arises when, as is the situation with the majority of groups, the answer is ?yes? to some number of questions between those 2 extremes. One can nearly view this as a ?sliding scale?, in which the more yes responses there are, the more likely it is that the group under review ought to be classified as being a cult any concrete answers, so the best we can do is really a sort of sliding scale.

Allow us to look at some situations you may well already be familiar with.

One Case Study of a Cult -- The A TRUE CULT: Rev. Jim Jones of the People?s Temple. Well over nine hundred individuals drank the Kool-Aide at Jonestown, Guyana in the year 1978.

Consider those ?5 questions?|Ask yourself those aforementioned 5 questions:

(a) They had a strong, charismatic leader (Jones);

(b) They frequently displayed an impressive level of ?group think?, and seldom had instances of genuinely independent thought;

(c) they were encouraged strongly to exclude their friends as well as relatives from every aspect of their lives and their church activities.

(d) The members more than tithed, they essentially gifted all all their worldly possessions to the church, trusting that they would be cared for by the church (the group had been avowedly communist);

(e) When their separation from the nearby community started to break down, they relocated to a distant spot inside the jungles of South America.

All five criteria have been met, so they most definitely had been a cult.

A 2nd Case Study ? Jehovah?s Witnesses. These door-knockers had been founded by Charles Taze Russell in the late 1800?s.

Let?s compare them to the same five questions:

(a) They do not have a specific leader, powerful or otherwise.

(b) They firmly believe that through independent bible study, everybody will eventually arrive at the same conclusions that they have.

(c) As a group, they make sure to include their friends and relatives and share with them their beliefs.

(d) Although member Witnesses give generously of their time and efforts for the church, there is no evidence of any financial abuse of their members for the sole benefit of the group;and,

(e) Rather than keeping separate, it?s often their persistent LACK of separation that keeps them potentially at odds with their neighbors.

Some may find them kinda pushy, but they are definitely NOT a cult.

The bottom line is that prior to labeling a group as a cult, certain sociological factors, unconnected to their specific beliefs, (however ?weird? they may well be) have to be met. Whether cults are dangerous to others or not depends on the cult. Just because it is a cult, doesn?t make it automatically dangerous, but any one or any thing that discourages independent thought, is in the end bad for you.

Additional articles about religious philosophy

About the author

Susan is the author of multiple books on Spiritual Development and Growth. This is an section of 1 lesson (of thirty) from the Master of Religious Philosophy course offered through the http://www.ulcseminary.org Seminary. We have many classes available and each one carries with it a degree at the end of the course.

Please Rate This Article

Select Rating Excellent Very Good Interesting Fair Could Use Improvement

Number of ratings: 0
Rating: 0