AboutBlanchjoe Expertise What is a Cult? Are cults dangerous? How does one become a member of a cult? Why do people join cults? How does one leave a cult? Why do cults exist? Are cults benificial?
Experience I have studied comparative religions for more than 25 years. I am currently a student of Ruchira Adi Da Samraj. My primary area of study is the interpersonal dynamics of the Guru/Devotee relationship.
Question Would the people that make up Satanism be considered a cult? Why would someone want to be apart of it, and how could this particular cult be benifical? Could Satanism be considered dangerous?
I know someone who claimed to once be a christian, then, decided to become a member of a Satanic organization, and after seeing some disturbing things, decided to leave them, and become a Buddhist. This guy's reasoning, along with any one elses for wanting to be apart of something like that puzzles me.
Answer Interesting Question.
A cult is defined within Webster's as, “. . . Etymology French & Latin; French “culte”, from Latin “cultus” meaning care, adoration, from “colere” to cultivate. Dated 1617 1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP 2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also its body of adherents 3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also its body of adherents 4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator ( health cults ) 5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work ( film or book cults ); such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion. . .”
In essence any group of individuals who adore or adhere to a specific practice, fascination, or interest are involved in some form of a cult per se, so the inquiry what is a “cult” is a very difficult answer to give.
It is possible that the nature of the cultic “re-action” is inherent within the individual and correspondingly the psychology of group dynamics, so even though the term is used to refer to a spiritual or religious context, its actual meaning is significantly broader, and as such one can easily stipulate that there are as many non-religious cults as religious, or perhaps even more so.
For the sake of simplicity when I refer to the term “cult” from this point forward I will be meaning religious or spiritually based cults.
An example of the difficulty in defining a good or bad cult is in the initial followers of Jesus the Nazarene who, by the Webster's definition above, were Jews involved in a Messianic “cult”, and this definition was accepted by the established Pharisees, and Sadducees Jews of that time.
From the example above one can recognize the inherent difficulty in making judgements about any spiritual or religious process.
It is true that some organizations have been created by well meaning but limited individuals to seek a spiritual state which they were not mature to, or by even unscrupulous individuals to “fleece” their members of property and emotional commitment.
However having said that, all groups of the latter negative “type” are recognized early within their existence and do not survive into time.
Some Christian organizations within the public mind have become the most dangerous of all the cults in the late 20th century.
It is also true that religious or spiritual groups are often designated a “cult” only in 20/20 media hindsight.
One if the issues revolving around defining a cult is the tendency for individuals seek some specific psychological marker or trigger that can easily determine an uncertain cult from a beneficial one, when in reality their are no objective or quantifiable determinations that can make such a determination.
Poor or limited cults appear exactly as valid beneficial cults.
Some limited research has been done on organizations or “cults” to determine any similarities or patterns between valid and invalid groups, however the summation of this work determined that it was impossible to make “any” distinctions between the actions of individuals caught within an elaborate and determined “con” or a valid spiritual endeavor, as each portrays similar characteristics outwardly.
Like freedom of speech, where individuals have the right to say that which others vehemently disagree with, it may be true as well that valid cults and limited cults must exist side by side to ensure the freedom of religious practice as a whole.
There is a plethora of groups and organizations that cater to individuals who have determined their victimization, but from a measurable psychological perspective the reasoning and motivation for joining a religion or group was not dissimilar than reasons any individual gives for adopting Judaism or Christianity or Soccer for that matter.
Currently in the media there is an inordinate amount of information regarding the empirical experiences of specific individuals regarding one group or another, and some personal narratives are horrific, though the vast majority are not and generally deal with issues of personal independence or aspects of sexual activity.
However the same aspects can be said for any study done of individuals in “families” where some of the greatest victimization and sexual assaults are performed by family member upon another, so by this narrow definition families could be one of the largest negative “cults” in our society.
Also the degree and definition of “victimization” has not been determined methodically, or quantitatively, meaning that within one individual group there are always a certain percentage of individuals who will determine that they are victims, i.e.; Taxpayers, Sports Fans, Hari Krishna, Christians, Sewing Circles, etc., and that some argument can be made that the more investigative a specific group is, [ radical teachings, or unusual philosophical purpose or ethics ], the greater this percentage of dissatisfied individuals or “victims” there may be.
The problem here is that there is no quantifiable tools that can be used to make the distinctions you seek, . . . meaning simply that one man's cult is another man's home spun religion.
Nor are there any known quantifiable parameters that define just what is or is not a cult.
Some work has been done by individuals writers to make such distinctions, but depending upon who you read, everything from Doll collecting to the Catholic religion can be defined as a “cult”, or on the contrary side No Group can be defined as a “cult”.
I can say from my own very limited, and wholly individualistic experiences, that by and large, and in the main, valid spiritual cults tend to be difficult to join and easy to leave, whereas invalid spiritual cults tend to be easy to join and difficult to leave, and there is of course infinite variations within this generalization.
The interesting fact is that all the current accepted and conventional religious institutions existing today began as a cult in their time, and this is especially true of those apostolic Jewish and Gentile ( God-Fearers ) who became followers of Jesus the Nazarene, just as this was true of the Essenes, or of Buddhism when it arrived within Tibet, China, and Japan, or of the early Lutherans, etc.
Each existing belief methodology and conservative thinkers of those times considered the emerging belief system a “cult”.
So today's cult could become tomorrows established religion.
To make a determination as to what is or is not a cult will require the understanding of our substantial preliminary suppositions before it is possible to begin collecting any information, as any prior assumptive stance will determine “how” one defines what is or is not a “cult”.
Now regarding your question of Could Satanism be considered dangerous?
Yes it could, but no more nor less than Christianity could be considered dangerous, or any other belief methodology.
In and of themselves (and if one looks objectively) all faiths are belief methodologies, or systems of action and faith (acceptance as real in that which can not be proved or quantified) based upon some pre-determined dogma.
What any individual does with their faith determines whether that belief will be dangerous or not, either to themselves, or to others.
Christians who kill doctors because of a conflict over the subject of abortion are performing an evil for a greater good, at least in their own considerations.
When a Moslem explodes himself in a restaurant he or she is performing one evil to for the sake of a larger good, the destruction of his or her religious enemy.
When a Hindu kills a Moslem family across the street, he or she is doing the will of God by cleansing the holy ground of blasphemer and the unclean non-believer, so an evil is performed for the greater good.
Few good men create evil because they are evil, most if not all are doing so because they believe they are doing good!
However few of us are worried about the Satanist next door killing us in our sleep, blowing themselves up in an airplane, or setting off a bio-weapon in a crowded city.
Does this mean that Satanism is a better religion than the others, ...no, but neither is any worse.
Your friend wanted to be a Santanist for the same reasons why any individual wanted to be a Hindu, Christain, or a Jew, because within their mind the philosophical base of that belief methodology held for the the source of The Truth, at least as they saw it at that time, and it also held for them the possiblility for the greatest personal happiness.
