Cults, why does it seem like most of the cults you hear about come from Christianity?

[PrincessKLS]

I've noticed that some cults just have an exaggerated version of a certain Christian beleifs. Such as the Quiverfull religion/cult believes in no birth control or sterilization and to literately have as many children as possible per heterosexual couple and that women literately are second-class citizens who can't even speak in church or vote in election. According to what I've read.

And of course that's just one example of a cult but there has been and will be so many.

[Autumn]

Probably because we live in a majority christian society at the moment. There are also sociological factors that contribute to this. Humans often have this zeal to get as many people as they can to believe as they do and, as a faith that promotes conversions (in general) Christianity is a breeding ground for cults, so is Islam for that matter.

We just don't hear about whatever cults that come out of that, "Militant Islamic Fundamentalism" is probably a cult, (or numerous cults) it's just that it's not being looked at in that manner.

Then too, you have to look at any micro religion against the Bonewitz Cult evaluation tool http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html because some are not especially dangerous, they're just goofy. (Or maybe not)

[Cunae]

I've noticed that some cults just have an exaggerated version of a certain Christian beleifs. Such as the Quiverfull religion/cult believes in no birth control or sterilization and to literately have as many children as possible per heterosexual couple and that women literately are second-class citizens who can't even speak in church or vote in election. According to what I've read.

And of course that's just one example of a cult but there has been and will be so many.

Depends on how you define a "cult."

It's not always easy to tell the difference between an organization and a cult. There is a smorgasbord of spiritual, psychological, political, sexual, and other cults out there. A cult can be a thought reform group, personality change groups, enlightenment groups, perfect health groups, psychological growth groups, egalitarianism groups, channel groups for speaking to ancient entities, life in echospheres, and groups seeking contact with outerspace beings. Most of them stay under the radar.

The goal is the same: to expose recruits to psychological and social persuasion techniques to produce personal loyalty and remarkable degrees of control by the group and its leader. What is labeled a cult by one researcher may not be identified as such by another. Some researchers count only religion-based groups, discounting the myriad of cults formed around a variety of beliefs and goals.

[Bix]

I'll second the fact that, at least in Europe and the US, there is a predominantly Christian background so it would make sense that there are more "Christian" cults than non-Christian ones.

I consider the various terrorist groups in the Middle East cults as well but people seem to not like using that term to describe them.

[Autumn]

I strongly encourage this whole discussion to look at the link I posted...

Isaac breaks it down so well and, because it's not aimed at any one faith it's not so likely to be anti-christian.

[Bix]

I strongly encourage this whole discussion to look at the link I posted...

Isaac breaks it down so well and, because it's not aimed at any one faith it's not so likely to be anti-christian.

I've seen that scale before and I think it's an excellent way to gauge whether or not a group is a cult. Thanks for posting the link.

[)O( ~ Khara~ )O(]

It is only a cult when they serve kool-aid!!!

COME ON PEOPLES!!!! :smileroll

[Phoenix Blue]

I've noticed that some cults just have an exaggerated version of a certain Christian beleifs.
I would argue that the most notorious cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology) isn't an exaggerated version of Christianity at all.

[Darth Brooks]

(1) Every religion is a cult, including Christianity, Wicca, and everything else, but you don't have to take my word for it...Look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary.

(2) I don't care what Isaac Bonewits thinks about anything. He had the nerve to criticize "cultic" activity in other religions while exhibiting it himself in the way he treated religions like Satanism and Setianity. We have a word for that: "hypocrite." Considering that the man was once a Church of Satan member and he still can't get his facts about Satanism right, I'm not sure he's really somebody we should be trusting to "inform" us as to what to look out for.

(3) Most dangerous cults here in the U.S. are Christian-based because with Americans, nine times out of ten more people will join your outfit if it's centered around Jesus instead of some other god. Jesus warned about such false prophets speaking in His name, so He must have known even in His own day that He would become very popular among mind-controllers and con artists. I believe this is what the "anti-Christ" really is: people who claim to be Christian and who either do evil things in Jesus' name out of a sincere belief that they are the right things to do, or who just use Jesus to try and justify evil things they like to do for fun. If the U.S. had been a predominantly Wiccan country, there's no doubt in my mind that most dangerous cults would be using Wicca to draw in members instead.

[Cunae]

I would argue that the most notorious cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology) isn't an exaggerated version of Christianity at all.


Good point. They aren't even close to being Christian.

[Raven Reed]

:hehehehe:


It is only a cult when they serve kool-aid!!!

COME ON PEOPLES!!!! :smileroll

[Autumn]

(1) Every religion is a cult, including Christianity, Wicca, and everything else, but you don't have to take my word for it...Look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary.

(2) I don't care what Isaac Bonewits thinks about anything. He had the nerve to criticize "cultic" activity in other religions while exhibiting it himself in the way he treated religions like Satanism and Setianity. We have a word for that: "hypocrite." Considering that the man was once a Church of Satan member and he still can't get his facts about Satanism right, I'm not sure he's really somebody we should be trusting to "inform" us as to what to look out for.

(3) Most dangerous cults here in the U.S. are Christian-based because with Americans, nine times out of ten more people will join your outfit if it's centered around Jesus instead of some other god. Jesus warned about such false prophets speaking in His name, so He must have known even in His own day that He would become very popular among mind-controllers and con artists. I believe this is what the "anti-Christ" really is: people who claim to be Christian and who either do evil things in Jesus' name out of a sincere belief that they are the right things to do, or who just use Jesus to try and justify evil things they like to do for fun. If the U.S. had been a predominantly Wiccan country, there's no doubt in my mind that most dangerous cults would be using Wicca to draw in members instead.

Have you read the link I posted?

Simply put, regardless of the rest of his body of work, the cult evaluation tool is solid, to the point, and was quoted in my psychiatric nursing text!! More than one writer has produced a good body of work then gone on to make a fool of themselves...

As far as recognizing cults and cult leaders maybe we could argue that it takes one to know one!

Believe it or not we are on the same side of the discussion, that Christianity doesn't have a lock on the dogma and psychology that is the root of cults.

[David19]

Probably because we live in a majority christian society at the moment. There are also sociological factors that contribute to this. Humans often have this zeal to get as many people as they can to believe as they do and, as a faith that promotes conversions (in general) Christianity is a breeding ground for cults, so is Islam for that matter.

We just don't hear about whatever cults that come out of that, "Militant Islamic Fundamentalism" is probably a cult, (or numerous cults) it's just that it's not being looked at in that manner.

Then too, you have to look at any micro religion against the Bonewitz Cult evaluation tool http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html because some are not especially dangerous, they're just goofy. (Or maybe not)

Like Autumn said, probably 'cause the U.S. (and Europe, technically) is a majority Christian place (although, in Europe is secular, the majority would probably describe themselves as Christian, though maybe not practicing). If the U.S. were mostly Wiccan, you'd hear about more Wiccan cults, if it were mostly Asatru, there'd be more Asatru cults, if it were mainly Buddhist, there'd be more Buddhist cults, etc.


I would argue that the most notorious cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology) isn't an exaggerated version of Christianity at all.

QFT :thumbsup:.

[PrincessKLS]

Good point. They aren't even close to being Christian.


I wasn't saying they were a form of Christianity, but they'll just take things out of context from the Christian doctrine. Like the FLDS with the multiple wives thing and basically abusing young children or the Quiverfull literately having a dozen or more children because of Psalm 127. And there's a lot of other examples of cult leaders taking verses out of context to the most extreme.

[Phoenix Blue]

I wasn't saying they were a form of Christianity, but they'll just take things out of context from the Christian doctrine. Like the FLDS with the multiple wives thing and basically abusing young children or the Quiverfull literately having a dozen or more children because of Psalm 127. And there's a lot of other examples of cult leaders taking verses out of context to the most extreme.
Did you completely miss the link I embedded in my post?

[Darth Brooks]

Have you read the link I posted?

Yes, in fact I've read it many times before I ever came to this board.


Simply put, regardless of the rest of his body of work, the cult evaluation tool is solid, to the point, and was quoted in my psychiatric nursing text!! More than one writer has produced a good body of work then gone on to make a fool of themselves...I disagree that it is "solid." While a few of the criteria on the list are sensible for a cult evaluation model - e.g., isolation, censorship, violence, etc. - most of them strike me as completely nonsensical. Take this for instance:


Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or“fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism.Boy, that covers just about most religions all over the planet, don't you think? Much as pagans might think "dogma" is a bad word, being doctrinally "flexible" is not a very popular idea in most religion. In fact, pagans are vastly outnumbered by that one across the entire globe. So what makes Bonewits think that's a good benchmark for determining whether a religion is a "cult" in the sense of the term that he is using it?



Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners.Wow. That not only covers just about every dangerous cult in the book, it also covers the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, most Muslim mosques, Buddhist monasteries, Jewish synagogues, and damn well the entire Hindu population of the earth (i.e., arranged marriages). And let's have a look at one more:


External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.I have a question: how many religions that have existed throughout human history didn't emphasize some kind of control over the political and social behavior of their followers? Not only does this include most forms of the big Abrahamic Three, it also includes the Egyptian pharaohs and all other pagan kings. Hell, it even includes Jesus and Gandhi for heaven's sake!

Considering that Bonewits seems determined to use the word "cult" in a very narrowly-defined sense, it seems completely self-contradictory to then develop a list of criteria for "cult" evaluation, which might as well include the vast majority of religions on earth, both past and present. This is a rather curious way of admitting that all religions are cults and then wanting to distinguish between the two terms at the same time - almost like having your cake and eating it too. As a matter of fact this entire evaluation model stinks of bias against organized religion in general, which may seem cute, but Bonewits' own fanaticism is already beginning to reveal itself even here in this document.


As far as recognizing cults and cult leaders maybe we could argue that it takes one to know one!I suppose that is true, though I am still frustrated by the general public's lack of precision in defining the word "cult." Last I checked, practically every ancient religion was a cult, and I'm not at all ashamed to say that I'm in the cult of Set, anymore than I am ashamed to say I'm a fan of cult movies like The Evil Dead. But am I subjected to some kind of authoritarian hierarchy that forbids me to be around my non-Setian family and friends? Hell no. The only "religious authority" to which I answer is Set Himself; I don't have any human beings lording it over me, and wouldn't accept it if I did. (And in truth this is a Protestant idea!) But because my beliefs involve a body of doctrine and a system of worship, they can rightfully be considered a cult by the original sense of the term, like any other religion - including yours, Pat Robertson's, the Dalai Llama's, etc. Being in a cult is being part of a system in which you attempt to cultivate the divine.


Believe it or not we are on the same side of the discussion, that Christianity doesn't have a lock on the dogma and psychology that is the root of cults.Unlike most other pagans I don't see anything wrong with dogma. In fact, even the idea that dogma is "bad" is itself a dogma. You can't really have a religion without it - every religion has to have some kind of teaching, right? Some pagans become excessively dogmatic in their attempt to devalue the importance of dogma.

And I stand by my original statement - I don't care what Isaac Bonewits thinks or what he says, because he demonstrates fairly well in his own writing that he is exactly the kind of person he hates.

[David19]

Yes, in fact I've read it many times before I ever came to this board.

I disagree that it is "solid." While a few of the criteria on the list are sensible for a cult evaluation model - e.g., isolation, censorship, violence, etc. - most of them strike me as completely nonsensical. Take this for instance:

Boy, that covers just about most religions all over the planet, don't you think? Much as pagans might think "dogma" is a bad word, being doctrinally "flexible" is not a very popular idea in most religion. In fact, pagans are vastly outnumbered by that one across the entire globe. So what makes Bonewits think that's a good benchmark for determining whether a religion is a "cult" in the sense of the term that he is using it?

Wow. That not only covers just about every dangerous cult in the book, it also covers the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, most Muslim mosques, Buddhist monasteries, Jewish synagogues, and damn well the entire Hindu population of the earth (i.e., arranged marriages). And let's have a look at one more:

I have a question: how many religions that have existed throughout human history didn't emphasize some kind of control over the political and social behavior of their followers? Not only does this include most forms of the big Abrahamic Three, it also includes the Egyptian pharaohs and all other pagan kings. Hell, it even includes Jesus and Gandhi for heaven's sake!

Considering that Bonewits seems determined to use the word "cult" in a very narrowly-defined sense, it seems completely self-contradictory to then develop a list of criteria for "cult" evaluation, which might as well include the vast majority of religions on earth, both past and present. This is a rather curious way of admitting that all religions are cults and then wanting to distinguish between the two terms at the same time - almost like having your cake and eating it too. As a matter of fact this entire evaluation model stinks of bias against organized religion in general, which may seem cute, but Bonewits' own fanaticism is already beginning to reveal itself even here in this document.

I suppose that is true, though I am still frustrated by the general public's lack of precision in defining the word "cult." Last I checked, practically every ancient religion was a cult, and I'm not at all ashamed to say that I'm in the cult of Set, anymore than I am ashamed to say I'm a fan of cult movies like The Evil Dead. But am I subjected to some kind of authoritarian hierarchy that forbids me to be around my non-Setian family and friends? Hell no. The only "religious authority" to which I answer is Set Himself; I don't have any human beings lording it over me, and wouldn't accept it if I did. (And in truth this is a Protestant idea!) But because my beliefs involve a body of doctrine and a system of worship, they can rightfully be considered a cult by the original sense of the term, like any other religion - including yours, Pat Robertson's, the Dalai Llama's, etc. Being in a cult is being part of a system in which you attempt to cultivate the divine.

Unlike most other pagans I don't see anything wrong with dogma. In fact, even the idea that dogma is "bad" is itself a dogma. You can't really have a religion without it - every religion has to have some kind of teaching, right? Some pagans become excessively dogmatic in their attempt to devalue the importance of dogma.

And I stand by my original statement - I don't care what Isaac Bonewits thinks or what he says, because he demonstrates fairly well in his own writing that he is exactly the kind of person he hates.

QFT, and I agree with you, also, I don't see anything wrong with dogma, certain forms it takes can be unhealthy (e.g. when the dogma is to avoid your family members and friends, etc), but, every religion, and path, does have dogma, even Atheism (the belief that there is no God(s) is dogma, the belief that there is a God(s) is dogma, Wicca has a lot of dogma (3 fold law, polarity, and, unofficially, Wiccan's are free to pick and choose whatever God they want, except if it is Chrisitan or Satanic, then, it becomes out of bounds). I also don't take much notice of Isaac Bonewit's, some of his stuff seems ok, but, I don't really like the way he seems to divide the world between "us vs. them", for example, he makes everyone who isn't Christian, Jewish and Muslim into "pagans", he even has a go at Atheists, and calls them "Christian heretics" "'cause the God they don't believe in is the Christian one", which is a load of BS, Atheists don't believe in any God, whether it's all powerful or limited. He wants to divide and polarise the world betwee "Pagans" and Christians, Jews and Muslims, which, IMO, is quite discriminatory.