A gross oversimplification. It has to to with leadership and power differentails as structured by the group. There are cults that are now several generations old (I’d include the Unification Church and Scientology), and cults that are not “religious” in nature (some “self-help,” new age, and even political groups).

The best definition I've ever seen. LOL

Dunno .... Don't care

Cults are simply religions that are too young, small, and/or uninfluential to have captured a fair bit of the popular imagination.

Some would consider, e.g., the JWs to be a cult, but they are tax exempt.

I could set up a religious tax exempt corporation today if I wished, and it could be based around myself as god's sole representative on earth, and I could set up a Jim Jones style compound that members must move to, etc. This would be the very definition of a cult in most people's minds, yet tax exempt.

The US government at least does not have a doctrinal or ideological litmus test or certain disqualifiers, all you have to do is claim to have a religious purpose to be tax exempt.

It's the definitions of the groups that determine the tax protection, not the other way around. It's not clear that religions deserve a tax break but any group could call themselves a religion just to get a tax break. There is a legal test to determine if something is a religion vs just a cult.

#MakeReligionIllegal

Agree. It's a level of acceptance that can be indicated by tax exemption status.

I agree completely. For me, that is the most relevant distinction.

Yup

The cults have better orgies.

The difference is age.

I consider religions just aged and popular cults.

disagree. many people belong to a religion but it doesn't run their lives. in a cult, there is a charismatic leader, isolation of the members from nonmembers, including and sometimes especially family, and the cult's control of every aspect of their lives. religion CAN be like that, but mostly it isn't.

g

Another difference is what happens if/when you want to leave

Nope.