That's not really true on either count. People leave cults all the time. I have known several myself who have done so.
On the other hand, everyone who leaves a religion is constantly hounded to return. They are pressured by everyone around them. There are interventions. Its crazy the amount of propaganda that goes on to keep people in any particular "religion."
I have experienced that first hand.
I disagree with your statement based on my own anecdotal evidence to the contrary on both counts.
I assert that the only real difference between "cult" and "religion" is whether or not you are an adherent.
Cult like behavior is when any movement not only claims some novelty of special revelation hidden from the rest of mankind, but also characterized by discouragement or consequences for its members to inquire into the rational basis of the belief system or practices, nor if there are concerns about the character and behavior of a (typically charismatic) leader of the movement. You know its a cult like movement if you cannot freely and openly study and question the logical coherence of its belief system, and also if it consistently shies away from taking its strongest criticisms seriously and fairly.
Yes cult like behavior can and does exist within say the broader Christian tradition and its various offshoots, especially in American and other folk traditions susceptible to superstitious thinking or heavily experiential religious affections.
As an aside, this is why I am in the Presbyterian tradition with eyes wide open, at its best it has functional built in checks and balances throughout the church government in regards to doctrines and practices, specifically to protect the members from abusive or heretical or cultic leadership, and the standards are found within biblically based historical creeds and confessions that stood the test of time. I at least can assure you Calvinists understand the corruptibility of human behavior better than anyone else I can think of, and in church governance they planned for it to be a continual issue so implemented many stop gaps and systems of accountability. Still perhaps imperfect but closest to the New Testament model and worlds away from anything-goes religious despots.
It's actually an interesting discussion to me, but I don't think I agree with your conclusion, at least not fully. I suppose you could have a cult that doesn't destroy its members where people are free to come and go whenever they want but they worship their leader as a God. And there are probably lots of religions we don't adhere to that nobody would really call cults. Maybe you're not a Buddhist or a Baptist, but would you really call them cults?
Cult: A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
Who considers a cult to be "extremist"?
Those that do not share the belief system.
I consider all religions to be extremist (note: I am not talking about people with any particular belief system or spirituality, but the religious institutions themselves)
I consider all religious followers to live in an "unconventional manner" or at least delusional manner.
All religions have a "charismatic leader" that they consider to be a complete authority. For some religions that person is long dead, for others they are not. Which one is more delusional or extreme?
Maybe you're not a Buddhist or a Baptist, but would you really call them cults?
I am not calling anything a "cult". I am making the assertion that there is no difference between the two words "cult" and "religion" except by the belief system of those making the distinction in any particular case.
All religions, all cults, cast spells to make people not think for themselves. You are allowed to do research, but you are only allowed to believe the tenants of the religion. If your research doesn't lead you back to those tenants you are ostracized (or worse, depending on the religion). There is no fundamental difference between the spells being cast, the spellcasters, or the institutions that promote the casting of those sleeping spells.
The number of adherents only shows the popularity. That is not a fundamental difference.
Christianity was really small at one point. Hell, it was one person at one point. Popularity is an irrelevant, time dependent and insufficient distinction.
One can slip in and out of a religious movement. Cults don't let you leave.
That's not really true on either count. People leave cults all the time. I have known several myself who have done so.
On the other hand, everyone who leaves a religion is constantly hounded to return. They are pressured by everyone around them. There are interventions. Its crazy the amount of propaganda that goes on to keep people in any particular "religion."
I have experienced that first hand.
I disagree with your statement based on my own anecdotal evidence to the contrary on both counts.
I assert that the only real difference between "cult" and "religion" is whether or not you are an adherent.
religious movements can be cult like.
Cult like behavior is when any movement not only claims some novelty of special revelation hidden from the rest of mankind, but also characterized by discouragement or consequences for its members to inquire into the rational basis of the belief system or practices, nor if there are concerns about the character and behavior of a (typically charismatic) leader of the movement. You know its a cult like movement if you cannot freely and openly study and question the logical coherence of its belief system, and also if it consistently shies away from taking its strongest criticisms seriously and fairly.
Yes cult like behavior can and does exist within say the broader Christian tradition and its various offshoots, especially in American and other folk traditions susceptible to superstitious thinking or heavily experiential religious affections.
As an aside, this is why I am in the Presbyterian tradition with eyes wide open, at its best it has functional built in checks and balances throughout the church government in regards to doctrines and practices, specifically to protect the members from abusive or heretical or cultic leadership, and the standards are found within biblically based historical creeds and confessions that stood the test of time. I at least can assure you Calvinists understand the corruptibility of human behavior better than anyone else I can think of, and in church governance they planned for it to be a continual issue so implemented many stop gaps and systems of accountability. Still perhaps imperfect but closest to the New Testament model and worlds away from anything-goes religious despots.
It's actually an interesting discussion to me, but I don't think I agree with your conclusion, at least not fully. I suppose you could have a cult that doesn't destroy its members where people are free to come and go whenever they want but they worship their leader as a God. And there are probably lots of religions we don't adhere to that nobody would really call cults. Maybe you're not a Buddhist or a Baptist, but would you really call them cults?
Who considers a cult to be "extremist"?
Those that do not share the belief system.
I consider all religions to be extremist (note: I am not talking about people with any particular belief system or spirituality, but the religious institutions themselves)
I consider all religious followers to live in an "unconventional manner" or at least delusional manner.
All religions have a "charismatic leader" that they consider to be a complete authority. For some religions that person is long dead, for others they are not. Which one is more delusional or extreme?
I am not calling anything a "cult". I am making the assertion that there is no difference between the two words "cult" and "religion" except by the belief system of those making the distinction in any particular case.
All religions, all cults, cast spells to make people not think for themselves. You are allowed to do research, but you are only allowed to believe the tenants of the religion. If your research doesn't lead you back to those tenants you are ostracized (or worse, depending on the religion). There is no fundamental difference between the spells being cast, the spellcasters, or the institutions that promote the casting of those sleeping spells.
This conversation reminds me of this episode
Religion is the usual, cults are the unusual.
The real difference is number of followers. If I have 1,000,000 armed zealots and take Virginia, we’ll make sure Virginians call us a religion.
The number of adherents only shows the popularity. That is not a fundamental difference.
Christianity was really small at one point. Hell, it was one person at one point. Popularity is an irrelevant, time dependent and insufficient distinction.
And how’d the romans feel about Christ cult?
I think you missed the point.