What is the difference...

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

violent religions such as Islam are not globally violent, and they will eventually consume themselves from within because there are so many different schools of thought, because they encourage the personal interpretation of amiguous religious texts.

Islam is not globally violent? Excuse me? Islam is defined by its call for global violence.

I love your bias hate. Wrong, completely. Not all Muslims are violent nor wish to be nor will be, therefore it is not globally violent.

You're confounding the totality of Muslims with 'Islam'. At the most, you can object to his generic term and force him to a definition. If he moves to a 'idealogical movement based on the revelations and life's teachings of Muhammed' then he will arguably be correct in his description of 'call to violence'. Arguably? Sure, it's a question of scholarship, and I would love to see you try. Regardless, whatever it is - it is not wrong, nor completely, at the most a non-default interpretation nor does it have anything to do with bias or hate.
Your response, I'm afraid to say, is unwarranted.

[Trolldor]

It is in response to what I've written.
I was equating Islam with all of Muslims in my post, the same as anyone would equate Christianity with Christians. I'm taking his response in context of my own, and any other interpretation of my words is wrong because it isn't what I said.
If you read carefully, I wrote "even a violent religion like Islam" which quite obviously refers to the doctrine, "is not globally violent" - the second statement can not be related to the first or I've contradicted myself in saying "it's doctrine is violent but it's doctrine is not violent". Maybe I could have used universally, but I shouldn't have to.

Edit: secondly, everything al writes in regards to Islam is bias and hateful.

[Hermit]

everything al writes in regards to Islam is bias and hateful.

Agreed, but do his bias and hate make his statements untrue?

If anything, al Rawandi's bias is most apparent in so far as he does not put in the same effort in vehemently criticising christianity as he does with islam, but that is understandable. It is definitely true that the degree and extent of brutalities commanded by the bible in no way lag behind the brutalities commanded by the q'ran, but by dint of cherrypicking christians are no longer calling for crusades, the stoning of heretics, adulterers, the destruction and massacre of entire societies, and so on. A very noticable portion of muslims, however, are not only advocating similar actions based on equivalent sections of the q'ran, but it is also acting in accordance with it.

It may be argued that - on the whole - the tenor of the bible and of the q'ran is pretty much identical. The difference is that christians have increasingly focused on the lovey-dovey aspect of the bible, while a similar change of direction among muslims in respect of the q'ran's lovey-dovey bits is yet to occur. On average christians have become somewhat more civilised and humanistic despite their holy text. By comparison muslims are largely stuck in the dark ages.

[Hermit]

Sorry. I got distracted.

Back on topic. The online etymology dictionary has this to say about cult: 1617, "worship," also "a particular form of worship," from Fr. culte, from L. cultus "care, cultivation, worship," originally "tended, cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or primitive rituals. Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.

Going by the origin of the word I cannot see any difference between "religion" and "cult".

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

It is in response to what I've written.
I was equating Islam with all of Muslims in my post, the same as anyone would equate Christianity with Christians. I'm taking his response in context of my own, and any other interpretation of my words is wrong because it isn't what I said.
If you read carefully, I wrote "even a violent religion like Islam" which quite obviously refers to the doctrine, "is not globally violent" - the second statement can not be related to the first or I've contradicted myself in saying "it's doctrine is violent but it's doctrine is not violent". Maybe I could have used universally, but I shouldn't have to.

Edit: secondly, everything al writes in regards to Islam is bias and hateful.

And yet, your response was not at all "That's not what I mean, rather that is wrong", as if Islam is not globally violent in rawandi's understanding. Indeed, if someone were to call something globally violent, I would also believe he meant that this violence was projected over the whole globe - not that all its followers were violent. Arguably, there has been no religion where all the followers are violent.

And your edit seems to me to be a bias in itself. Because you are used to seeing rawandi making a specific comment, you infer that he is being so biased now. I do not see that as proper reasoning.

In any case, I suggest we return to the question of a difference between cult and religion: what do you make of my comment on the subject?