At the risk of starting a holy war, let me say the Bible does not call faith in Christ a religion, course I could be ‘called’ wrong by some of you as there are lots of kinds of Bibles. But the Holy Bible does call worship of any other than Christ, false ‘religions’. Now the Encyclopedia Britannica tells us the Pope is no longer the vicar of St. Peter but the vicar of Christ. Look it up. The Christian ‘faith’ knows the vicar of Christ to be The Holy Spirit. You can look up what vicar means, it may help you to sort this all out. Thanks for hearing again 
So, when James 1:27 says that “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world”, that passage is speaking of the form of heathen idolatry which is pure and faultless and acceptable to God?
The New International Version (quoted above), New American Standard Bible, King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Standard Version, Darby Translation, and Young’s Literal Translation all render that passage with the word “religion”. Only the Worldwide English version avoids the word, and the WE translation is intended as a greatly simplified version for people for whom English is not their native tongue, which is therefore going to avoid any “hard” words.
Really, the Bible doesn’t use the word “religion” much at all. The phrase “false religions” doesn’t seem to occur in any of the above-referenced versions of the Bible, if we’re going to play semantic games.
Besides, Christianity does require its members to do certain things. Depending on which sect you belong to, the Christian is expected to either perform good works, or to have faith in God, or both, to be saved.
It seems to me that the fundamental difference between a religion and a cult is secrecy. You want a copy of the Bible? Write to the Gideons; they’ll send you a free copy for the asking. The Book of Mormon? Just call that 800 number you see on the commercials. The holiest book of the Scientologists? Just fork over several grand for “therapy”, lest you go insane from just looking at the cover.
The Church of Latter-Day Saints is open about its beliefs, so it’s a religion. Scientology is not open about its beliefs, so it’s a cult.
I know this is an old thread, but the argument that a cult is just a new/unpopular religion is rather unhelpful. This may be the “modern colloquial meaning” when used by journalists, but suggest there is no legitimate use for the word implies that you consider Jonestown and Heaven’s Gate no different than Judaism or Methodism. I am waiting for someone to point out that the RCC has killed many more people than either of those and had many more martyrs. The difference, of course, is that you don’t have to be a martyr or a killer (much less a suicide) to be a Catholic or Methodist. Obviously, this is a spectrum, not a sharp division. There will always be fanatical members of any group, sometimes in a leadership position. Scientology is clearly not the same as Jonestown, but most people see it as closer to that side of the spectrum than most other religions are, because it requires rather than encourages payment, and withholds information untill you pay.
Cults may be unclearly differentiated from other groups, and the term may invite misuse, but to suggest that the word is inherently useless poisons the well of debate about groups that are clearly and inherently harmful and exploitative.
That, unfortunately, is open to argument. (Not trying to start a war or revive an old thread here, but it’s simple logic that if a group keeps some of its rites secret, no-one on the outside is ever going to completely accept that they’re not keeping other things secret, too.)
As to the meaning of the word “cult” – sorry, but that’s how it is. The actual dictionary definition of the word is “a system of religious worship or ritual”. At some point, it picked up the sense of “something treated like a religion that shouldn’t be”, like the “cult of Aestheticism”, or the “cult of Elvis”, and then it slipped into meaning “an actual religion that I don’t like and don’t expect you to like, either.” As such, it has become a purely emotive word with no actual meaning.
I knew I would stir the pot.
John Bredin said:
Monty said:
Well, there was that Jesus fellow. Perhaps you’ve heard of him? (Of course I could have said that about all the Protestant branches as well.)
Monty also said:
I assume you mean regarding Mormonism. It is my understanding that certain ceremonies are kept secret, that visitors and anyone not certified to be “a church member in good standing” are not allowed, and that the ceremonies themselves are not to be discussed by church members with outsiders. It is my understanding that Mormons get really sensitive whenever the topic is raised, and they claim that supposed versions of the ceremonies available online are not accurate. (In fact, wasn’t that all from you in that other thread?) That means they keep the true nature of the beliefs and plans obscured and do not share them with potential recruits and the general public.
Hey, if you want to keep it secret, fine, but don’t blame others when they then question just what it is those secrets are and why.
ali_v blabbered incoherently:
I fail to see how the lack of the Bible to refer to christianity as a religion makes it any less of a religion. I also fail to see how the use of the phrase “false religions” with regards to other faiths thereby excludes the description of religion to christianity. In fact, were I to read that statement, I would conclude that as an admission that Christianity is a religion, specifically, being claimed to be the true religion (in contrast to all the false ones). I also fail to see the relevance of the definition of the word “vicar” (i.e. a priest acting as a substitute or agent of another) is relevant to whether christianity is a religion. (That seems to be the relevant definition, as all the others pertain to specific posts in Roman Catholic or Anglican hierarchies.)
Perhaps you would like to choose a definition for “religion”, and then explain why christianity is excluded?
Alan Smithee, I do agree there is a real meaning to cult that is different than religion. However, common parlance has come to apply that label (inappropriately) to “any religion but mine” or “any religion newer than mine” or “any newfangled religion, especially one with any type of New Age whatsamagizzits”. Thus the distinction between usage by a sociologist and a politician. Also pointed out by John. W. Kennedy, “cult” has been applied to anything that takes on inordinate emotional worth to a group, such as cult of Elvis, or Trekkies. That usage also corrupts the worth of the word as a destinctive description.
Number 3 would seem to be the definition most commonly encountered and employed in the OP. Spurious means false or deceitful, which would seem to be the agreed upon criterion for distinguishing cults. (I use false here in the sense of phoney, not untrue.) The phrase “regarded as” suggests that this is a subjective designation without any real content, but I disagree that this is necessarily so. Some religions do, in fact, present different faces to the public and to the high ranking members. Mormonism may be secretive about some rituals, but I don’t think anyone would be surprised by anything–they seem relatively upfront about their beliefs to me (I could be wrong, and anyway, it’s a spectrum). Scientology, on the other hand, lies to the public, uses front groups to recruit and conduct business, and keeps its beliefs more or less secret. And I seriously doubt anyone was recruited into Jonestown with the line, “Have you ever wondered whether God wants you to kill your children and commit suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid? Well he does!”
Actually, this points to a sixth definition of cult that may not be widely enough used to have been picked up by the folks at M-W’s, but nevertheless seems useful and fairly widespread: a system of belief or practice which uses severe psychological manipulation to control and exploit its members to their detriment.
BTW, this thread is over two years old, and it’s still waiting for someone to post a link to the column! This has got to be some kind of a record! Will anyone do it, or should we see how long we can drag it out?
Point taken, Alan. I think that back in those balmy days, we weren’t posting links to the Staff Reports (“Mailbag”)?
In any case, I have edited the link into the OP.
A failrly simple answer:
A religion is a cult with enough political clout to get tax relief.
Ultimately I suppose a word’s definition is largely based on usage. Unfortunately, the word “cult” has no cohesive meaning.
According to sociologists Stark and Bainbridge, the term “cult” generally refers to any religious group which exists in a state of tension with the dominant culture, and which exhibits innovative practices and novel beliefs. Now, such a religious movement may seem very dangerous indeed to one who is part of the dominant culture (whatever that may be, depending on where in the world you live). However, it is not inherently dangerous.
Contrast this usage with words like “sect” (referring to an offshoot of a major religion which has some novel beliefs. Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism, for example. The Branch Davidians are (were?) likewise a sect of Christianity, as were the Joneses.
Elwell’s Glossary of Sociology defines “cult” as “A fragmentary religious group which lacks permanent structure,” which also doesn’t imply inherent danger. In fact, it may not be saying anything at all. Arguably, by this definition, you can either say that all religions are cults because, so far, none of them has lasted eternity. Or, you can say that none of them are cults, since so religious movement with a failed structure still exists.
Add to these all the various definitions posted in this thread, and you get a word that is basically meaningless and useless. Nevertheless, when the average American uses the word “cult” they mean one thing and one thing only: “a small group of religious people who really scare me!” So I think we should call it official.
I tend to use the word as Stark and Bainbridge do, and keep my life a little simpler by calling small groups of religious people who really scare me, “small groups of religious people who really scare me.”
I wonder if my dog realizes that she is in a cult. She relies on me for food and water, does everything I say, and has probably completely forgotten her parents, having been long out of touch with them – not to mention her other family members. Fortunately for her, I still let her have friends, but only while maintaining complete control over her with the leash and collar that I have assigned her. Luckily for me, this cult has no tension with the dominant culture, so the danger and peril that my dog is in goes widely unnoticed. 
So, hydralvx, you not only got the poor animal in a cult, you got dogma, too.
So, hydralvx, you not only got the poor animal in a cult, you got dogma, too.
Dex, you’re an admin - don’t you know to trust the cgi?
hydralvx, why limit it to “small” groups? Scientologists fit the bill, except they’re much too large.
… and Democrats.
No, no, no… hydralvx specifically stated that he does not have dogma:
Hey Irishman, you’re right of course. Scientology is also very scary and large. I would still hesitate to call them a cult though, given their increasing acceptance in our culture. Catholicism scares me too (not as much as Hubbard of course), but that’s a major religion.