I just wanted to share some seemingly pointless information I learned in Psych of Religion about Churches, Sects, and Cults and what defines them. It isn't complicated, but it's kind of interesting.
A church is a religious group that accepts the social environment in which it exists. In more plain language, a church is widely accepted by the host culture in which it resides. In America, protestantism would be a church. It is generally accepted by the whole and is consistent with the culture's values (maybe not traditional protestantism, but what forms we have of it today). Under this topic, I think I should quickly explain that denominations are small changes made in the church that are still accepted by the host culture.
A sect is a religious group the rejects the social environment in which it exists. Now, it's not as extreme as that definition makes it seem. A sect doesn't necessarily share the same values as the host culture. This causes some friction between the religious group and the host culture, but we accept the group as a society because we're more tolerant to differing religions in this day and age. Judaism or Islam might be a sect in America (following the previous example).
Then there are cults. Cults are novel forms of religion that are not evolved from churches or other religious groups. They typically completely reject the values of the host culture and holds the host culture in distrust. The host culture generally holds the cult in distrust as well. The two group hold a lot of tension with each other.
The main difference between all of these is how well the religious group and host culture accept one another. Now, knowing all of this, I've noticed that many people refer to religions as cults here on the forum. Now, this is blatant reductionism is really isn't correct, can you make any arguments for it? I believe (and this is mostly for fun) that with the knowledge we are all now armed with, you can. If you assign the forum as a culture and the religions of our theistic members as a "religious group", you might get away with it. We generally act hostile to the particular brand of theist who comes in here with their ideas and demand that they are correct. There is much tension between these groups, so on that point, you could get away with calling it a cult. However, these religions come from other religious ideas, which is the opposite of what our definition of cult. Isn't psychology fun!?
I have been thinking about this since I took my exam on Wednesday, because I realized I didn't remember what made a denomination a denomination, so I committed the entire concept to memory.
A church is a religious group that accepts the social environment in which it exists. In more plain language, a church is widely accepted by the host culture in which it resides. In America, protestantism would be a church. It is generally accepted by the whole and is consistent with the culture's values (maybe not traditional protestantism, but what forms we have of it today). Under this topic, I think I should quickly explain that denominations are small changes made in the church that are still accepted by the host culture.
A sect is a religious group the rejects the social environment in which it exists. Now, it's not as extreme as that definition makes it seem. A sect doesn't necessarily share the same values as the host culture. This causes some friction between the religious group and the host culture, but we accept the group as a society because we're more tolerant to differing religions in this day and age. Judaism or Islam might be a sect in America (following the previous example).
Then there are cults. Cults are novel forms of religion that are not evolved from churches or other religious groups. They typically completely reject the values of the host culture and holds the host culture in distrust. The host culture generally holds the cult in distrust as well. The two group hold a lot of tension with each other.
The main difference between all of these is how well the religious group and host culture accept one another. Now, knowing all of this, I've noticed that many people refer to religions as cults here on the forum. Now, this is blatant reductionism is really isn't correct, can you make any arguments for it? I believe (and this is mostly for fun) that with the knowledge we are all now armed with, you can. If you assign the forum as a culture and the religions of our theistic members as a "religious group", you might get away with it. We generally act hostile to the particular brand of theist who comes in here with their ideas and demand that they are correct. There is much tension between these groups, so on that point, you could get away with calling it a cult. However, these religions come from other religious ideas, which is the opposite of what our definition of cult. Isn't psychology fun!?
I have been thinking about this since I took my exam on Wednesday, because I realized I didn't remember what made a denomination a denomination, so I committed the entire concept to memory.
![[Image: SigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i169.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu224%2FUchiha_Kina%2FTags%2FSigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png)
