Whenever individuals explore and analyze religion, one common, but unfortunate word people use is,‘cult’. Whenever people don’t like religious or spiritual groups, it’s not uncommon to bring up the word ‘cult’, with no real comprehension of the difference those and legitimate organized religions. The reason for this is actually very simple to see.

For example, in the event you fail to follow Christian Biblical concepts strictly, the Christian Protestant Fundamentalists think you a cult. Although they perhaps originally intended that to demean only those Christian denominations that somehow “were misguided”, that definition now extends clearly also includes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, … In fact, because at least 2/3 of the world’s population doesn’t identify with any sort of Christian, almost 70% of all of us are therefore ‘members of a cult’.

But, the problem goes even deeper than that. The Protestant fundamentalists have continued to expand their cult list by including Roman Catholics along with all Easter Orthodox faiths, over a disagreement over the number of sacraments there are. By those standards, 93% of the people on the planet are involved in cults. To take it 1 step further, they also think most other Christian Protestant groups to have fallen out of compliance with biblical fidelity. So, for these men and women, virtually the only singular group of people on the planet who aren’t in a cult is them!

Whenever different groups examine these extraordinarily strict doctrinal interpretations, they frequently believe that anyone following them has lost all individualized thought, and must therefore be a member of a cult. To much of the rest of the planet, it’s actually these biblically strict, narrow groups who are the true cults. Taken together, that includes everybody. Everyone on the planet is a member of a cult — according to somebody! The Baptists are pointing fingers at the Catholics who are pointing fingers at the Protestants – and everyone is pointing fingers at the Mormons.

Whenever you paint anything with such a broad brush, it’s pointless; as Joey on ‘Friends’ once said, “The point is Moo — because who cares what a cow thinks?

So, is there any way to redeem the word, so it can have some meaning of value? The main issue is that those who are creating the definitions are lacking neutrality. They’ve got an agenda. The thing we need is someone else to give us a neutral means to identify a cult — someone without a personal interest in the decision. That individual can be the ‘anthropologist of religion’.

An anthropologist of religion is someone who studies the field of religion from a scientific standpoint. Sometimes they’ve got a particular religion to which they adhere, and other times they don’t. This will make some members from the organized religions rather uncomfortable. If the anthropologist belongs to a religion — any religion — the other people scream “bias! bias!”, and everything the anthropologist has to say must be wrong because they’ve got this personal bias.|If it happens that the individual belongs to a particular religion, all the others shout, ‘Bias! Bias! — and ignores anything stated.

If, on the other hand, the anthropologist doesn’t take part in any specific religion, the others scream “atheist! atheist!”, and everything this anthropologist says has got to be biased on the fact that they’re simply opposed to all religious beliefs. Drama and accusation aside, how do these neutral parties define cults?

Usually, the majority of them define a cult by using a specific ‘five point system’. The answers to the the following questions will make it clear whether or not the group is a cult.

These are:

1. Does the group have a charismatic, strong leader (or leaders)

Two. Does the group squash individuality as well as independent thought?

3. Is there a denial of intimacy by excluding or alienating friends or relatives?

Four. Do they apply financial pressure and abuse for the welfare of the group, even at the personal expense of the adherent?

Five. Does the group keep its members separated from their surrounding community?

Even using this approach, the problem is that it still isn’t black and white. If all 5 questions are answered “yes”, then it easily qualifies as being a cult. Obviously, if every one of the answers is no, then it’s absolutely NOT a cult. If it were only The hard part is when, as is the case with most groups, the answer is “yes” to a number of questions between those two extremes. you are unlikely to find any solid answers, so the best we can do is really a sort of sliding scale.

It’s always easy to handle to fully grasp with a real-life situation.

One Case Study of a Cult — The People’s Temple. This is the title of the church founded by the Reverend James Warren “Jim” Jones — over nine hundred folks that committed suicide in Jonestown, Guyana back in 1978.

Ask yourself those aforementioned five questions:

(a). They had Jones as a leader – strong and charismatic.

(b) they thought as a group and weren’t allowed to have any ideas to call their own.

(c) they ended encouraged strongly to exclude their friends as well as relatives from every aspect of their lives and their church activities.

(d) The members more than tithed, they basically gifted all everything they owned to the church, and were in turn cared for by the church (the group was entirely communist);

(e) When their isolation from the surrounding community began to break down, they relocated to a remote spot inside the jungles of South America.

All five factors had been met, so they clearly were a cult.

A 2nd Case Study – Jehovah’s Witnesses. Founded in the late 1800s by Charles Taze Russell, these are the folks that you are likely to come across when they knock on your door.

Let’s compare them to the same five questions:

(a) They do not have a particular leader, strong or otherwise.

(b) They believe that as a result of independent bible study, everybody will eventually come to the same conclusions that they have.

(c) Witnesses ask people they don’t know as well as relatives to teach what they think they have learned;

(d) While it’s frequently true that Witnesses devote a lot of their time and effort trying to convert others, there does not appear to be any monetary pressure – not any more so than any other church encourages tithing.

(e) It’s their lack of separation from the nearby community that often has them at odds with their neighbors.

They meet none of the criteria. Jehovah’s Witnesses are definitely not a cult.

Bottom Line: determining properly whether a group is a cult is unrelated to their biblical interpretations, and needs to instead be determined by sociological criteria unrelated to the religious position of the group. Whether cults are dangerous or not depends on which cult. Just because it’s a cult, does not make it automatically dangerous, but any one or any thing that discourages independent thought, is ultimately bad for you.

This is an excerpt of 1 lesson (of 30) from the Master of Religious Philosophy course offered through the Universal Life Church Seminary. We have many courses available and each one carries with it a degree at the end of the course.

Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web, answers questions submitted through YouTube — www.freedomainradio.com

It seems everyone you meet these days is a self-proclaimed psychologist. From radio talk shows, television interviews, romance novels, weekly magazines, to cliques at work; everybody has an opinion on the latest “mental illness.” I was first introduced to practical psychology when I joined the United States Air Force in 1970. It was expected that Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) would become counselors to their subordinates. Profession military education devoted entire chapters and lectures on non-directive or eclectic counseling techniques. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was drilled into our heads. We were sternly warned to avoid any mention of religion, but instead to make ample use of psychological techniques.

Paul Vitz in his book “Psychology as Religion” attempts to expose psychology for what it really is, i.e., religion. He begins by giving the reader a brief biography on the fathers of the modern psychology movement along with some of their theories. The opening chapter was dry reading but I suppose necessary as a historical backdrop. My interest peaked when I immediately recognized Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow since I was forced to study them for 26 years while in the military. Vitz also discusses Carl Jung, Erich Fromn, and Rollo May as being significant contributors to the movement.

Vitz quickly transitions into explaining the concept of self-esteem which he promotes as the center of the entire selfism movement. This became important to me as it seems no matter where you turn, a lack of or poor self-esteem appears to be the cause of every ill known to mankind. For a movement to be so widespread to the point where psychology has been woven into the gospel message, Vitz says that the self-esteem concept has “no clear intellectual origins.” That’s a surprising claim considering the impact selfism has had on academia and the practice of counseling.

Vitz states that self-esteem should be understood as an emotional response and not a cause. He says it is a reaction to what we have done and what others have done to us. High self-esteem is a desirable feeling to have (like happiness), but the feeling itself isn’t the cause of anything. In trying to obtain a feeling of self-esteem, the only successful way is to do good to others or accomplish something. In so doing, you’ll get all the self-esteem you want. However, the downside is people begin to pursue happiness as a far greater goal than the goal of obtaining personal holiness.

]]>

Not only is selfism a self-defeating goal for the Christian, Vitz goes on to make the case that it is also simply bad science and a warped philosophy. The little clinical evidence that does exist is mostly based on empirical observations and doesn’t stand the test of solid scientific problem solving. He exposes flaws in each step of the process, from stating the problem, forming and testing the hypothesis, to testing the conclusion. He also identifies several philosophical contradictions and in some cases, actual misrepresentations. The spread of this bad science and faulty philosophy is believed by the author to have contributed to the destruction of families. Additionally, the entire recovery group mentality convinces the person with “low self-esteem” that their ills are due to trauma inflicted on them in the past. Recovery group therapy strokes the patient with self-pity thereby convincing the clients are victims. Once labeled, the “victim” now assumes the attitude of victimhood
<!– BEGIN STANDARD TAG – 728 x 90 – Readbud.com: Run-of-site – DO NOT MODIFY –><!– END TAG –>

Values clarification has become the model taught in schools and begins with the assumption that man is naturally good. Since the developers of values clarification reject moral teachings, Vitz claims that if responsible adults, i.e., teachers, don’t promote good values then someone else will. Providing a permissive environment supposedly nourishes the child by granting satisfaction for the child’s desires and interests. However, this philosophy is bankrupt because kids will assume the values of irresponsible sources in lieu of responsible ones. This combined with the aforementioned teachings has produced a society of victims where everyone is pointing to blame someone else for their misfortunes.

Vitz takes three chapters to present a Christian analysis and criticism of humanistic self-theories. He gives the credit to our educational system for the transformation of our society into a culture of pure selfism. He notes that the New Age movement has many founders, but Abraham Maslow’s theories have been the most influential. Vitz argues his Christian critique within a historical framework and the impact it has had on the evolution of our society. Unfortunately he gives scant attention to biblical references for his position, but does show how the selfism heresy affects teachings on depression, idolatry, and suffering. He closes his work with the observation, “never have so many people been so self-conscious, so aware of the self as something to be expressed…., the self has become an object to itself.” (I think this may make the case that self-esteem has become a new barometric indicator to the question everyone asks, “How are you doing today?”)

Overall, Vitz’s book uses a cerebral approach in attempting to prove that self-worship is simply a religion. Biblical counselors looking for material to help their counselees break free of a selfish worldview of life will be disappointed. Then again, Vitz didn’t write his book for that purpose. Moreover, he provides a wealth of information and a refreshing argument against those who say, “You can’t teach religion in public schools.” This leaves the reader with an irony: it’s not a question of should we or should we not teach religion in public schools, but instead, what religion will we teach; selfism or Christianity?

The most ancient example of written song. A hymn to Nikkal, wife of the moon god. The text is written upon a fragmented tablet and, therefore, is incomplete. The hymn has four stanzas, each with a refrain. Stanzas 1 and 4 are imitation, and stanzas 2 and 3 are identical musically. The singer is accompanied by a lyra. The lyra harmony is predominantly in thirds and sixths, a few fourths, and one fifth. There are startling similarities between the Babylonian principles of music theory and those used by ancient Greeks. Moreover, the Babylonian principles antedate the Greek ones by more than a millenium. The Babylonians seem to have used music exclusively in connection with religious observances and festivals. The names of lyra/kithara strings and musical pitches were related to their cult deities and to the planets in a cosmology similar to Greek philosophers’ “harmony of the spheres.”

I’ve heard Buddhism referred to as a philosophy.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism referred to as a religion.
Mormonism and Scientology referred to as cults.
Atheism and agnosticism referred to as non-belief
They all have beliefs about the afterlife whether it be certainty of Jesus as God or certainty there is nothing or certainty of reincarnation.

No hate here. Just sharing of opinions. Thank you.