Nice, you begin with disparaging comments... Then you go on to yet another OPINONATED “definition”!

I too can offer opionated definitions, but I realize that’s TRULY meaningless!!

@Ungod okay. This is NOT opinion this academic classification. Please do your own research.

@Geoffrey51
A cult is a motorcycle group! Anyone/thing “in conflict with society’s conventions”!

Yeah, real “academic”!!

Cult is a pejorative term for religion.

In your case, it’s a pejorative term for ANYTHING and ANYBODY !!

Ridiculous, but ok. That’s what’s called an OPINIONATED definition!

‘Sect’ has nothing to do with ANTHING in regards to this discussion !!

@Ungod I’m glad that’s decided then. Good luck in your search

@Geoffrey51
Cult is a pejorative term for religion.

Good!!

?

Can you name these characteristics in one word each?

@Ungod - My apologies. It's been a long time since I looked them over, and when I went to find them online, it appears the list has been greatly expanded (like 101 characteristics). Steven Hassan's site appears to be under the name 'Freedom of Mind Resource Center'. Rick Ross is anogher cult expert who has a recent article listing 10 characteristics. I know you asked for a 1word each list, but this is about the best I'm able to do. The article isn't long and the list is brief designated with bullet points.
[theguardian.com]

@RussRAB
That’s my point!

I was honestly asking if you could do something like that, or narrow the ‘cult’ definition down to something reasonable, but 101 characteristics!?!

That also sounds like a convenient catchy number, like 10 commandments!!

Can no one see how ridiculous and meaningless that ultimately is?!?

Cult is just the word religionists use to discredit another faith!

If there are specific issues, they should be addressed individually!!

@Ungod - Like most terms, this one has several meanings and this one ranges from the pejorative as you mention of one religion disparaging another to the description of controlling and abusive groups. Cults under this latter definition are what Steven Hassan and Rick Ross deal with. Although the definition does tend to be fluid depending on individual experience, the definitions offerred are at least an attempt to quantify the characteristics of dangerous organizations. Having said that, I agree that 101 characteristics to too many and become excessive in trying get a sense of what make a dangerous and controlling cult.

I don't know if you are still interested, but the characteristics from Rick Ross's list are as follows. These aare from the article linked in the previous comment.

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or broadcast reports that document the abuses of the group/leader.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9.  The group/leader is always right.
   10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Cults under this definition are not exclusively religious. Amway is a marketing cult, and several political cults have been discussed by various individuals. Michael Shermer described Ayn Rand's Objectivism as the unlikeliest cult to have developed in his book "Why People Believe Wierd Things."

@RussRAB
Seems like in each of those cases, “pejorative” seems like a good working part of the definition!

If you want to say Amway is a cult, then yes anything can be a cult!

Apple computers and OS is a cult by that definition!
Clothing can be a cult! It seems so broad as to be meaningless to me!

I have no idea what #3 is referring to.

But I find it hard to believe any “cult” could fulfill ALL of these characteristics, so the best I can say about them, as a definition, is who/what determines how many of what each cult/religion has to apply to define each as either!

Surely you can see this is all a judgement call at best!!

I would DEFINITELY call Catholicism a cult.

And I don’t think so, but if ANYTHING is a cult, it seems TRUMPISM is definitely one!!

@RussRAB
Man!

I look at just those 10 alone and honestly - Catholicism fits quite well!!

To specify a few:

4.They fervently believe X is coming back, with a rapture, judgment and world destruction!
8. Followers definitely believe they can never be “good enough”, just forgiven!

9/10. The Pope is the top unquestioned leader, the sole and final determining source of godly truth and validation.

I could easily go on...

!!

@Ungod - What is missing from #3 is "disclosure". No meaningful financial disclosure. My bad.

A damgerous or controling cult doesn't have to have every one of tbese characteriztics, just 3 or 4 from the list and they may be over that line. I prefer to view it as the more characteristics they have, the worse of an organization they are.

@RussRAB

So who or what determines what charactericistics have been met and which ones apply?

Water is defined as 2 molecules of H with 1 molecule of O, chemically bonded together, existing in a liquid state between 0 and 100 degrees Celsius.

No one disputes this.

I’d like somewhere near that as a defining characteristic of ‘cult’.

I realize ‘cult’ is not so easily defined and determined, but I am looking for a meaningful, useful and well determined definition. And that words have a more fluid definition of USAGE - that words don’t usually have such intrinsic unfaltering definition. USAGE referring to how a people commonly use words.

My point is, there is no such practical definition for ‘cult’. It has become such a whimsical, pejorative term of limitiless application that there is just no useful definition people can agree upon, except to mention a group another people find objectionable!

@Ungod - [culteducation.com]
[freedomofmind.com]

@RussRAB

My point is, there is no such practical definition for ‘cult’. It has become such a whimsical, pejorative term of limitiless application that there is just no useful definition people can agree upon, except to mention a group another people find objectionable!

But who decides? You say they're more radical yet hear Christians calling Mormons a cult.

@paul1967 There is a certain subjectivity in the analysis, of course. But I once heard a Mormon history of religions professor state in the mid-70s that Mormonism once would have qualified as a cult, but then about half qualified as a cult and appeared to be in transition. Mormonism hasn't changed much since the 70's, however. They still have their secret temple rituals, underwear, and oaths, for example.

@Heraclitus ALL religions have their own rituals of sorts just as do 'cults,' they all have a subject of/for worshipping/veneration, they all 'expect' their followers to provide financial support, they all DICTATE how their followers should live, think and act, ergo there is very little or no difference at all between organized religious beliefs and ' cultism.'

@Triphid First of all, you apparently did not read the link, or did not read it carefully, because it does not define a cult so simplistically. Secondly, you apparently did not read what I said because I did not mention any of those things. Not all religions have secret private temple ceremonies and rituals, or secret underwear, or secret (death) oaths. Not all religions have secret handshakes. Not all religions have a living prophet, either, that one is obligated to obey at the cost of one's salvation. Those sort of things constitute a kind of modern Gnosticism that claims that only an elite that has access to a private secret knowledge that, in turn, is necessary for salvation. Again, there is a subjectivity to the analysis of what exactly constitutes a cult. It is not clearcut. But, to claim that all religions are cults is to strip the word of all meaning. Here is another link that may help clarify:

[theguardian.com]

@Heraclitus I am more than cognizant of the meaning/s and terminologies in reference to 'Cults and Cultism' thank you.
Now, instead of being so stubbornly pedantic, imo, consider this from outside the ' box;;'
a) do not ALL religious systems of belief have a specific, central character of worship/veneration,
b) do not all religious systems of belief have rituals, ceremonies, etc, etc, both public ( for the members of the 'congregation' and private ( secretive) for the select few, eg, Catholicism, Anglican and xtianity in particular such as Baptism/Christening, Confession, Tithing/taking up a weekly, collection etc,
c) for Xtianity, in particular here, do not they all worship/adore/venerate an invisible, intangible Deity, or as in the Catholics, etc, a Trinity of Sacred Entities, yes the Mormons elect their OWN living Prophet on a very regular basis, ergo that ' prophet' is in all truth the CULT Leader just as is the Catholic Pope, the Anglican Archbishops, etc, etc,
d) as for " Death Cultism' are not the vast majority of religions, world-wide, based and concerned with what happens to the believer AFTER death, i.e. in the next life/After-life, etc, call it what you may it is all the same?
Ergo, technically and logically speaking, then organized religions ARE cult in nature and in practice are they not?

@Triphid I did not mean to pedantic, let alone "stubbornly" pedantic, but I am not going to apologize for being educated. Why should I? Education is not the enemy of agnosticism. Don't be so super sensitive, judgemental, and condescending. Why do you want to debate the question if you have already made up your mind that the two words mean exactly the same thing and don't want an honest answer? What's the point? Was it just a trap or an ambush? Sure sounds like it.
BTW, in light of the history of religions, in which I have a degree, the answer to A through D is "no" on all counts. But, I can't explain why to you or you would accuse me of being "stubbornly pedantic".

@Ungod It has been estimated that there have been at least 10,000 separate religions in human history. When it comes to denominations of a religion, the number skyrockets. It has been estimated that there are as many as 51,314 different denominations of Protestantism alone.
[ncregister.com]
To assume they all approach religion in the same manner is not only absurd, but highly stereotypical. I could not begin, of course, to name all the religions and denominations that do not fit such narrow prejudicial stereotypes, but I will give some examples.
A) How about Hinduism with its 33 million gods, not to mention all polytheistic religions that have ever existed in human history?
B) What is incorrect here is that the rituals and ceremonies are only for the "select few". Sure, many religions are elitist, but to label all religions as elitist is highly prejudicial. For example, I have participated in Buddhist religious rituals. I am not a Buddhist. They knew I was not a Buddhist and welcomed me. This is really not that unusual. I was raised a Catholic and some of my Protestant friends would occasionally come to Catholic mass to "watch the show". I would sometimes go to their ceremonies as well at their invitation. No one EVER checked at the doors to see if you were actually a practicing member of that church. No one cared. Does such welcoming tolerance really surprise you that much?
C) Is simply not true that all religions worship an invisible, intangible Deity. Pagan religions often, if not usually, believed in gods that could be seen and spoke of them as such. If a god can be seen, it is not invisible. Most religions started out as ancestor worship. An ancestor is not an invisible, intangible Deity. Mormonism does not believe in an invisible, intangible Deity. Rather, God is a Being of Light with a body of highly refined matter. Light can be seen and is not invisible, and was (claimed to have been) seen by the prophet Joseph Smith among other witnesses. A body is tangible. BTW, Jesus Christ has a perfected resurrected body, don't you know?
D) The author here left a verbal escape hatch by qualifying with a "vast majority" condition. But historically, even this is highly questionable. There is no real evidence that ancestor worship religions, which at one time was just about all that existed, was primarily concerned with an afterlife. Rather, they were concerned with just surviving in this existence, hopefully with the help of their ancestor spirits. The same appears to have been true of most pagan religions. Getting through this life was their primary concern, and they did not particularly look forward to ending up in a place like Sheol or Hades, that is for sure. It is also true that many Jews have not historically, and even today do not believe in an afterlife. The idea that you have to believe in, let alone make your primary concern, an afterlife simply is not true.

Unfortunately, it is this type of prejudicial, stereotypical cultist labeling that is often the main enemy of agnostic/atheist arguments. When theists are confronted with this type of thinking their eyes glaze over and their ears close up. You will never convince them by arrogantly flaunting ignorance and prejudice, but only by talking to them with respect and rationality. And again, I maintain that education is not the enemy of agosticism/atheistm, but is its ally.

@Ungod I don't know who this "one person" is, but I think it is obvious from my previous statements that I do not agree with such a hasty overgeneralization. It strips the word "cult" of any real meaning. So, why would you ask me to defend, with examples, a statement that I never made and don't agree with...unless you are trolling me.

@Heraclitus

1. Mormons certainly believe in dieties - Jeezus, the gods and events that took place and resulted in the races etc here on earth. That they were(?) and will be once again gods of their own planet (with black slaves?) and the special powers of J Smith!
   AND, don’t they believe in god?!?

2. “Beings of light”, “refined matter”, John Smith having the special power to see light, all point to divine beings and supernatural powers and are no different than gods in my book!

3. Jewwws?!? Well they definitely believed in a heaven and I think hell, but not that humans went there - of course not until their own PREDICTION of a savior would enable that.
   They also spoke of “sleeping with their fathers” AND I believe it was Enoch who lived 65 years and then “god took him”!
   Don’t they believe Eden was heaven on earth and death was god’s punishment?!
   That is belief in eternal life - no different than afterlife imho!

They may not believe in an afterlife (now), but they certainly hold the view that there is none for them right now - a belief about the afterlife nonetheless!
They also speak of “giving up the ghost”... Is that not afterlife?!!

This is a religious/belief based view of the afterlife not an open minded scientific one...
I would contrast that with the scientific view that doesn’t believe in an afterlife but is thoroughly open to evidence to the contrary!
I don’t think Jewwws hold such an open minded/evidence based view of the afterlife (as being Jewwws!)...

Jewwws believe about the afterlife what their religion tells them to believe!

@Heraclitus
I’m not asking you to defend anything.

Just if you think there are any examples in your opinion...

@Heraclitus the simple thing I think you’re missing is EXAMPLES of what you are being asked about!

If you claim there are millions of gods and religions, and I don’t doubt OR believe that, you should at the very LEAST have a defining framework of what a religion or god is that applies to those millions!

You are just being asked what EXAMPLES don’t fit some categories mentioned previously (A-D).

I have thought about it since posting and, given my education in the matter, I dare to say I think there are the following 5 defining characteristics of the concerns of “all religions”.

And I think at least 4, maybe the first 4, maybe all 5, are absolutely required of a system for it to be accurately be called a religion.

As brief as possible:

1. Faith
2. Supernatural
3. Unknowable
4. Death
5. Actions

Which ONE OR TWO of those millions of religions can you fully describe as not having any of these realms of concern?

I submit these 5 as required and definitive whe people say things like science, math and football for example, are religions/cults/ just like religions.

These examples may be concerned with #1 & 5 in a way, but not the rest!

@Heraclitus
Now actually, ancestors are invisible because you can’t see them.

Even if you can see the dead body, that’s just the ancestors remains.

It’s just not gonna fly that a person’s remains are them themselves or the dander and body parts a person leaves behind is also that person - animals can detect and even see those remains as well!

That the dead ancestors exist in any form is intangible and supernatural - there is nothing you can see or confirm about this...

Those who worship gods they can see, can show or demonstrate nothing about them the verifies them as a god.

What makes the physical phenomenon they see a god is un-seeable (invisible) as well!
It is a made up, invisible notion that the sun, or Joe Pesci, is a god!

To assume “all approach religion in the same manner” is truly absurd.

But it is true that all people approach religion in the same (various) MANNERS!

There definitely are similarities that apply to “all religions” otherwise they wouldn’t all be religions!

@Ungod

1. Of course, Mormons believe in God. You seem to have forgotten the original point concerning an invisible, intangible Deity.
2. Same here.
3. You are interpreting Judaism through the eyes of a Christian. Christianity is unique in that it is the only major religion that tells another major religion what they believe, and they often get it very wrong. Not all Jews have believed in a heaven and a hell, and many today do not. This is Christianity arrogantly imposing its beliefs upon Judaism. No, "god took him" does not refer to an afterlife, it refers to death. No, Jews do not believe that Eden was heaven on earth. That is Christianity once again imposing its beliefs upon Judaism. No, "giving up the ghost" is not an expression of a belief in an afterlife, but an expression of death. Once again, this is Christianity arrogantly imposing its own beliefs upon Judaism.

As for your second comment, are you even reading my responses?
4) I gave you a link for the millions of gods in Hinduism.
5) I never said there were millions of religions.
6) I have obviously given you specific examples to prove my points.
7) My comments have had absolutely nothing to do with your 5 characteristics of religion and you know it.
8 ) I never said that dead ancestors are visible and you know it.
9) I never said that ancestors are gods and you know it.
10) Many of your ramblings are absurd. Why are you even discussing Joe Pesci as being a god??? Are you sober???
11) Yes, to assume “all approach religion in the same manner” is absurd, which is what you have been doing, and as you know my point is the exactly that. Your distinction between "manner" and "manners" makes no sense.
12) Yes, of course, there definitely are similarities that apply to all religions otherwise they wouldn’t all be religions. I have never said otherwise, and you know it.
13) Why do you continue to ask me to defend or respond to comments that I have never made and defend and give examples for positions that I do not hold???

You are a troll!!!!!

I have no respect for any religious ideals or organization regardless of size.

@NoMagicCookie the world 8s not made by just you and copies of you.
For society behaviour in general your opinion or anyones opinion alone or irrelevant.

@Pedrohbds Are you actually asserting you think I am alone in not respecting religious ideals?

Really?! Face - palm,

I know many who share my lack of respect for religious ideals or organized religions and none of them would qualify as a "copy of" who I am.

@NoMagicCookie no, I am just tell thing that is not about you or people that think like you. OMG, just staring that is possible to something be respected even if you don't respect it.

So it's basically a hazing process theistic groups need to get labeled with until they brainwash enough people?

@OwlInASack
If you can define “cult” in one sentence, and that passes muster, I’ll be impressed!

David Koresh and The British Anglican Church are basically both pushing the same lie - Christ is coming back.

Koresh and the others established religion hates as “cults”, are just claiming they are that Christ...

Christ did the same thing - asking people to throw away EVERYTHING and follow him!

@OwlInASack Where did I say you could define cult in one sentence?

That’s actually the problem. You can’t find one sentence or even one definition that isn’t corrected/contradicted by another !!

It’s simple to say a cult is an “extreme” religion, but that gets lost in the application...

Wikipedia is incorrect in its interpretation of cult. A cult doesn’t need religion. Wikipedia is nortoriously unreliable and should not be taken as authority unless backed by another reliable, preferably academic, source.

@Geoffrey51
Wikipedia is incorrect because you say so?!?

?

Ok, provide a SIMPLE working definition that a SIGNIFICANT portion of the speakers of AMERICAN English agree to!!

?

@Geoffrey51, @OwlInASack

Few concepts are as complex as the theory of relativity - e = mc2 !

How simple can you get?!?

Einstein also said, if you can’t explain it simply, you don’t know it well enough!

?

@Ungod Wikipedia posting has no peer review and contains many non-factual statements. It’s great for entertaining but if you seriously want to find out knowledge for yourself look for referenced articles. Follow the reference, is it based on primary texts or conjecture. Wikipedia, without backing can lead to many incorrect assumptions.

@Geoffrey51
Blah, blah, blah.

Just give a succinct working definition!

???

@Geoffrey51, @OwlInASack

Your post didn’t even offer a definition of cult, just the even MORE vague term “cultish behavior”!

Re:
“...rather than a digital definition, a scale of cultishness perhaps.”

Your words. Your non-definition!

@Ungod Please see primary post for response

@OwlInASack

Then shut up, if you can’t/won’t answer questions!

@OwlInASack, @Geoffrey51
Try again !

???

@OwlInASack
Nothing wrong with spectrum, gradient OR criteria.

But you have to CLEARLY define what that spectrum/criteria is and the exact points on that spectrum that define/determine a particular phenomenon!

As well as who/what qualifies (and why) to make that determination...

Otherwise it’s just Deepak Chopra WOO-WOO!

@OwlInASack
“US” are the members of those churches.

“Them” is everyone else.

“Strong” is WOO-WOO! And what could better establish a “strong US v THEM” other than official membership in a state religion??

Try again!!

@Ungod How about you post your queries on the site under Religion. Then you will get a wider response than just Owl and myself as our responses are clearly not sufficient and you are wasting your time engaging with us.

@Geoffrey51
Religion and cult are synonyms.

‘Cult’ is just a pejorative term...

@OwlInASack
When you stop calling me names, I will consider your questions..

I don’t believe I have ever disparaged you in any way, so let’s try to have a civil discussion, shall we?

I have only asked questions about the points you have presented...

@Ungod that is incorrect but I suggest you place a general post for the input of others

@Geoffrey51 WHAT is “incorrect”??

@Ungod Religion and cult are not synonymous. Please ask for the view of others as I am clearly not your best source for information.

@Geoffrey51
They are listed in dictionaries as synonyms...

I’ve posted the definitions and sources earlier!

@OwlInASack
WHEW, you are definitely a religious atheist!!

WHERE did I ever say it’s not ok for you to ask questions?
(Don’t sweat it - I know you won’t answer anyway!!)

Putting a word or two in all caps is hardly “shouting at a person”!

Cool the fuck down so a civilized discussion is at least POSSIBLE!

But I doubt you will...

You seem very upset by mere questions. THAT is why I call you
“religious”!!

@OwlInASack
YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERS all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

@OwlInASack

YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERS all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

@OwlInASack

YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERING in kind all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

@OwlInASack

YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERING in kind all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

@OwlInASack

YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERING in kind all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

@OwlInASack

YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERING in kind all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

@OwlInASack

YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERING in kind all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

@OwlInASack

YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERING in kind all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

@OwlInASack

YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERING in kind all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

@OwlInASack

YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERING in kind all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

@OwlInASack

YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERING in kind all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

@OwlInASack

YEWWW started it “arse” hole !!

I’ve been taking your childish insults - not damn ANSWERING in kind all along, thinking you might be able to carry out a civilized discussion!

How wrong I was!

So FUCK YOU “ARSE” HOLE !!

So what do you say of a small religion?