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.
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