If Christianity Used Its Own Definition of “Cult”
I want to start with something simple.
I’m not trying to insult Christianity.
I’m not trying to dismantle anyone’s faith.
I’m not even trying to convince you of anything.
I’m just asking for symmetry.
Because the more I study ancient religions—especially goddess traditions like Isis—the more I notice how casually we use the word cult for everyone except Christianity. And once you notice it, it’s very hard to unsee.
So here’s the question I keep coming back to:
What if Christianity were evaluated using the same criteria it has historically used to label other religions as cults?
Not from the inside.
From the outside.
What “Cult” Originally Meant (Before It Became an Insult)
The word cult didn’t start as a slur.
In the Roman world, cultus simply meant care, tending, worship. Every religion was a cult. Worshipping Isis? A cult. Jupiter? A cult. The emperor? Also a cult.
The negative meaning—the idea that a cult is irrational, dangerous, or fake—only shows up after Christianity gains dominance and needs language to delegitimize competing traditions.
That’s important.
Because it means cult isn’t a neutral category. It’s a power term. It marks who belongs and who doesn’t.
The Criteria We Use to Call Other Religions “Cults”
When people label non-Christian religions as cults—ancient or modern—they usually point to some combination of the following:
a divine or charismatic founder
exclusive truth claims
initiation rituals
secret or restricted ceremonies
sacred meals involving the deity
relics, icons, or sacred objects
strong in-group / out-group boundaries
salvation available only through the group
repetitive ritual reinforcing belief
emotional bonding through suffering
These are the standards. We didn’t invent them. They’re already in use.
So let’s be honest and apply them evenly.
Christianity, Seen from the Outside
If Christianity were a minority religion being evaluated by another culture, here’s what it would look like.
A single divine founder whose authority overrides all others.
Exclusive truth claims about salvation.
An initiation ritual framed as death and rebirth.
A sacred meal where followers consume the body and blood of the god.
Restricted rites closed to outsiders.
Relics believed to hold power.
Pilgrimage sites.
Icons that intercede.
Strong boundaries between believers and non-believers.
A heavy emphasis on martyrdom and redemptive suffering.
By the standards used against other religions, this is a textbook mystery cult.
So why don’t we call it one?
Because Christianity Won
That’s not sarcasm. It’s history.
Early Christians were called a cult—by Romans.
They stopped being called one when they gained power, built institutions, and defined orthodoxy.
At some point, a cult becomes a religion not because its structure changes—but because its status does.
This doesn’t make Christianity bad.
It makes it human.
Why This Matters to Me
This isn’t about tearing anything down.
It’s about noticing how language shapes reality.
When goddess religions are dismissed as cults, while Christianity is treated as the default, we aren’t making analytical distinctions—we’re repeating historical power dynamics.
If we care about truth, history, or intellectual honesty, we owe it to ourselves to apply the same lens to everyone.
A Follow-Up: Christianity Compared to Isis, Mithras, and Eleusis
Once I started asking this question, I couldn’t stop.
Because when you place Christianity next to the religions it replaced—or labeled as cults—the similarities are impossible to ignore.
Let’s look at three.
Christianity and Isis
Isis worship stretched across the Mediterranean. Millions followed her. She had temples, priesthoods, festivals, theology, sacred texts, initiation rites.
She was a divine mother.
Her son was a savior.
Death and rebirth were central themes.
Initiates underwent purification.
Sacred objects mediated divine power.
Her worship promised protection and renewal in this life and the next.
And yet, she’s still called a cult.
If Isis worship is a cult, then Christianity—structurally—is not something different. It is something parallel.
Christianity and Mithras
Mithraism centered on:
a savior figure
initiation grades
secret rituals
sacred meals
salvation symbolism
Sound familiar?
The main difference is not structure.
It’s survival.
Mithras lost. Christianity didn’t.
Christianity and Eleusis
The Eleusinian Mysteries ran for over a thousand years.
They promised:
revelation
rebirth
hope beyond death
They had secret rites you weren’t allowed to talk about. Initiation mattered. Experience mattered.
If that’s a cult, then Christianity fits the same category—just with a different mythology.
So Why Are Some “Cults” and One a “Religion”?
Because one got to write the dictionary.
That’s it.
This isn’t a moral judgment. It’s a historical observation.
When we call ancient goddess religions cults, we aren’t describing their size, sophistication, or depth. We’re describing their defeat.
What I’m Really Asking For
I’m not asking anyone to abandon their faith.
I’m asking for fairness.
If we’re going to use words like cult, we should either:
apply them evenly
or stop using them altogether
Because when you strip away power, time, and institutional authority, Christianity doesn’t look like an exception.
It looks like one tradition among many humans have created to make sense of life, death, suffering, and the stars.
And honestly?
That makes it more interesting—not less.
If Christianity Used Its Own Definition of “Cult”
Most people use the word cult as if it were obvious:
something strange, small, irrational, or dangerous—other people’s religion.
But here’s the uncomfortable question few ask:
What if Christianity were evaluated using the same criteria it has historically used to label other religions as cults?
Not as an insult.
Not as a “gotcha.”
But as a thought experiment in fairness.
Where the Word “Cult” Comes From
Originally, cult was not a slur.
The Latin cultus simply meant care, tending, worship. In the Roman world:
Every religion was a cult
The worship of Isis was the cultus Isidis
The worship of Jupiter was the cultus Iovis
Even emperor worship was called the imperial cult
The negative meaning of cult—irrational, false, dangerous—only emerged after Christianity became dominant and needed language to delegitimize competing traditions.
So already, the term is not neutral. It reflects who won, not how a religion functions.
The Criteria Commonly Used to Label “Cults”
When non-Christian religions are called cults—especially in ancient or comparative contexts—the label usually rests on some combination of these traits:
A charismatic or divine founder
Exclusive truth claims
Initiation rituals
Secret or restricted ceremonies
Sacred meals involving the deity
Veneration of relics or images
Strong insider/outsider boundaries
Salvation available only through the group
Repetitive ritual reinforcing belief
Emotional bonding through suffering or persecution
These are not fringe criteria. They appear again and again in polemics against so-called “cults,” ancient and modern.
Now let’s do the uncomfortable part.
Applying the Same Criteria to Christianity
Imagine Christianity—not as the global norm—but as a minority religion being evaluated by an outside culture.
1. Charismatic divine founder
Christianity centers on a single figure believed to be the only incarnate god whose authority overrides all others.
In the Roman world, this alone was enough to raise suspicion.
2. Exclusive truth claims
Statements like “No one comes to the Father except through me” define Christianity as exclusive by design.
Romans routinely labeled exclusivist groups as dangerous cults.
3. Initiation ritual
Baptism is explicitly described as:
death and rebirth
entry into a new identity
rejection of former spiritual status
That is textbook initiation structure.
4. Restricted rites
For centuries, the central Christian ritual—the Eucharist—was closed to outsiders and conducted in private.
Early Christians were accused of cannibalism not because Romans were stupid, but because the language used (“body” and “blood”) combined with secrecy made sense from the outside.
5. Sacred meal involving the deity
“This is my body… this is my blood.”
In comparative religion, this is known as theophagy—ritual consumption of the god.
Exactly the kind of practice used to brand other religions as cultic.
6. Relics and sacred objects
Bones of saints, miraculous objects, pilgrimage sites, icons believed to intercede—these practices are routinely called “cultic” when found elsewhere.
7. Strong boundaries
Believers vs non-believers.
Saved vs damned.
Orthodox vs heretic.
This is classic in-group / out-group formation.
8. Salvation monopoly
Eternal fate depends on correct belief and participation in the system.
This criterion alone has justified calling countless other religions cults.
9. Ritual repetition
Weekly services.
Liturgical calendars.
Repetitive prayers.
In other contexts, this is often described as “indoctrination.”
10. Identity built through suffering
Martyr narratives, persecution stories, redemptive suffering—powerful tools for emotional bonding and group cohesion.
Again: when other religions do this, they are called cults.
So What’s the Conclusion?
If Christianity—particularly institutional Christianity—were evaluated using the same standards historically applied to other religions, it would qualify as:
A large-scale mystery cult centered on a dying-and-rising god, with initiation rites, sacred meals, relic veneration, exclusivist truth claims, and strong boundary maintenance.
That description fits the structure.
So why isn’t Christianity called a cult?
Because It Won
When a religion:
survives long enough
gains political power
builds institutions
writes laws
trains scholars
…it stops being called a cult and starts being called religion.
This is not an insult. It’s a historical pattern.
Early Christianity was called a cult—by Romans.
It stopped being called one when it became the authority.
Today, the Catholic Church is not evaluated as a cult because it defines the baseline against which others are judged.
Why This Thought Experiment Matters
This isn’t about attacking Christianity or dismissing faith.
It’s about language and power.
When we casually label goddess religions, mystery traditions, or Indigenous systems as “cults,” while exempting Christianity from the same scrutiny, we aren’t being analytical—we’re being historical loyalists.
The word cult doesn’t describe structure.
It describes outsider status.
A More Honest Way Forward
Instead of asking “Is this a cult?”, a better question is:
Who is judging?
From where?
Using whose categories?
Because when we apply the same standards evenly, something interesting happens:
Christianity stops looking like the exception—and starts looking like one tradition among many that used ritual, myth, material culture, and community to make meaning in the ancient world.
And that doesn’t diminish it.
It simply puts it back into history.