Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
From: bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: MHCS results
Message-ID: <572@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 10:08:31 EST
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.572
Posted: Mon Jan 28 10:08:31 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 05:24:45 EST
References: <1784@uvacs.UUCP> <2765@ncsu.UUCP> <484@ecsvax.UUCP> <168@cadre.ARPA> <7547@brl-tgr.ARPA> <192@cadre.ARPA> <260@teklds.UUCP>
Reply-To: bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes)
Organization: N C Educational Computing Service
Lines: 57
Xref: watmath net.flame:8113 net.religion:5400 net.philosophy:1405
Summary: 

In article <260@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) writes:
 
>I think the term cult in general terminology today means:
>
>1. Any religion that teaches that man can become God.
>2. Any religion that teaches that Jesus was not God.
>
>These two beliefs are opposed to christianity which is what uses the
>term cult.

I really would like to know how karen aka larry came on to this definition.
If we really follow it we find the world is divided into christians and
cultists exclusively and exhaustively...interesting.

Actually a great deal of work has been done on the cult/church continuum
by sociologists.  What they find is that the difference between cult, sect
church and ecclesia is less dependent upon belief than upon organization
and relation to the surrounding culture.

If I remember correctly the distinguishing features of a cult are a small
loosely knit group of followers held together by belief in the divinity
of a single, possibly living, charismatic individual.  Thus the followers
of the Rev. Jim Jones would qualify as cultists, as would the very
*early* Christians as would those who followed Moses out of Egypt.

Most cults die out after the death of their leader or leaders unless they
find a way, a form of organization, which can take the place of the
initial charismatic attraction.  In general, should this kind of permanence
be established, they become "sects" characterized by an ongoing organization
with provision for future changes of leadership, a more formal organization
and provision for formally bringing in new members.  Some sociologists of
religion divide sects into "established sects" and just "sects," but this
seems more a matter of size and length of establishment than any
substative difference.

a "church" (in the sociological sense) takes this development one step
further by having a professional rather than lay leadership who are
legitimized by a group which is independent of the body of believers.
This guarantees continuance of the religious order irrespective of the
vagueries of individual congregations, regions or political events.

Ultimately, of course, a well-developed church organization can make
inroads into the political sphere and become identified with the state.
Some sociologists call this an "ecclesia" in that it differs substantively
from the church due to its ability to bring in new members without
their volition.

One must be aware that this is not a sequence of discrete categories
but a description of points on a continuum and many religious organizations
fall in the spaces.  Perhaps it sheds some light on definitions, though
it has been many years since I did sociology and I may not have it all
in perspective.
-- 

                                              Byron Howes
					System Manager -- NCECS
				   ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch