Posted by Kinsman [TG] on October 25, 1999 at 09:23:28 {DjTI9F5X/Yfp06cXfsfIqXkUpQVXdM}:
In Reply to: *Cult or Sect? posted by Bibleman on October 25, 1999 at 06:13:09:
Greetings,
You Wrote: I think the early Christians were sort of cultic.
It is interesting that you say this because when using the term within the context of the sociology of the 1st century : Christainty was clearly a Cult! Note the sociological definition:
Though normally organized around a founding charismatic figure (who leads by example rather than fiat), members largely determine for themselves which elements of belief and practice to accept or reject. As an alternative to conventional religion, the cult stands opposed to mainstream culture, an antagonism reciprocated by society toward the alien in its midst.
A better definition of 1st century Christianity would be hard to find. Nevertheless, once becoming mainstream the term (I.e., cult) no longer applies and any deviant from the mainstream (I.e., orthodox Christianity) would then be defined as a Sect as further illustrated by the sociological definition:
Though doctrinally related to mainstream religion, the sect's dissenting character engenders mutual hostility between itself and society. Normally under charismatic lay leadership, the disciplined membership strictly adheres to all elements of belief and practice. Deviants are commonly ostracized or expelled. The sect insists that it possesses the truth, rejecting all other religious groups as illegitimate.
In my view, a better definition of what we have in the JW’s, LDS, etc. …is again very hard to find.
Nevertheless, I don’t suspect that society will ever change from their current use of the words. Opponents of such groups will likely continue to choose the words that best demonizes their target. …Such use of terms is very subjective and is of little value in serious study.
Thanks for the comment Gary.
Kind Regards – Kinsman