All I meant to do was challenge KK, or anybody else, to distinguish in purely descriptive terms between the truth of one cult and another.
Well that's problematic because it requires some sort of definition for the word "cult" as well as criteria to identify whether one religion is a cult or not.
Islam is usually not considered a cult. However, practicing Islam in America is a lot different than practicing Islam in Afghanistan. Islam becomes much more of a cult for the latter case.
Christianity, by its very basic premise and doctrines, is not cultish. However, by systematically crystallizing doctrines and implementing certain rules, Christianity becomes a cult (Mormonism and especially Jehova's Witness).
The very defintion of cults implies that their specific truths are not to be questioned by their adherents. The reason for this, is that by their very nature, cults are based on premises easily refutable using reason, logic, and access to various sources of information. Therefore, cults suppress critical thinking using mind control exercises and activities, isolate their adherents from conflicting information using fear and intimidation, demonize non-adherents, and purposely distorts any facts that can show how fake the cult's beliefs are.
Christianity does not need to be TOO cult like because the basic tenets of its belief system were developed centuries ago interwoven with historical events. Yes, Christians exhibit some of the characteristics I've mentioned, but to a moderate degree when compared to other more real cults. Sure, the Bible has unlikely stories and questionable doctrines. But it is old and has been widely accepted thanks to some geographical and cultural conditions. We can't talk to the authors, much less verify who was doing the writing.
However, Dianetics is MUCH MORE questionable, given not only its premises, but also the verifiable accounts of its author, L. Ron Hubbard. Therefore, Scientology HAS TO be very cult like to keep people believers, with some but ever diminishing success.
The truth in the cult lies in its tenets. But not only what it says, but how long ago it first said it. New religions need more cult like qualities to retain believers because the level of scrutiny is greater and more sophisticated than in ancient times. It is no wonder that the largest religions are quite old and well timed in history.
Hinduism needed Asoka to survive. Christianity needed Paul and a Byzantine Empire to fully develop and spread. Islam needed Umar and a weakening Roman Empire to flourish.
How many perhaps superior religions were ill timed or placed, like Ba'hai?
Just because a religion is less cult like doesn't mean it is more true. And just because a religion is older doesn't mean it is more true.
The truth of the cult/religion lies in the claims. Ancient religions can hide their claims in antiquity and recent cults hide their claims through fear/intimidation/mind control/isolation/deception.
