• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

When does a sect of a main religion cross the line to be another religion?

 
 
 
repoman

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
8,617
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism
Take the Cathars, they were not Catholic, but were they still Christian?

Also, is the labeling of a sect as heretical wrong, or more wrong considering that you are already in a religion and believing nonsense anyways?

What is the long term effect of a religion not be allowed to call anything heretical?
 
The Church I go to is Southern Baptist, repo, and it consists of potheads, old people and milfs. I don't think any of them have any idea what they are doing. They listen and sing and then clock out. I don't really respect that but I go because it is a way to have God and be accepted for my flaws. I get my psychological fix and it works. We aren't above being convinced that baby punting through the temple gate of Bel pleases the Christian God, because we are stupid. I think it feels good to be stupid to a certain degree. Nobody in the congregation takes anything in the Bible seriously. The whole system in this case is a vague framework. Dangerous people but isolated and too stupid to cause any real harm. Maybe it depends on your definition of harm.
 
100 years. That's my completely-objective-and-not-at-all-arbitrary dividing line between a sect/cult and a religion. If it has the legs to last a century, it's its own religion. Until then, it's just a subset of whatever it came from and it's perfectly fine to name it heretical up until then. After that, it's a separate category, so it's incorrect to label it as heretical.
 
Oh you were asking when. My church has been there since 1800 something and the congregation is all related and interbred.
 
I don't know whose quote this is, but I use this:

"In a cult, there is a guy at the top that knows it is all made up and scam; in a religion, that guy has died."
 
I should have clarified, I really meant WHAT doctrinal differences would make other followers of the main religion say justifiably that this branch was no part of that religion.

There must be ranks of these differences. First rank would be something like that Jesus is not the savior, but just another important prophet. Second rank would be not quite as crucial a difference and third rank would be some piddling difference that only a stickler would care about.

In my opinion a Catholic or mainline evangelical Christian has not only the right but is essentially correct (in this fantasy land of talking about fairy tales of any religion) in saying that Mormons are NOT christians. There are enough first and second rank doctrinal differences to nail it down.

If you won't say that Mormons are not Christians then the meaning of the word "Christian" is zero.

Again I don't care about it being an atheist, I just think that I don't want postmodern thinking to invade this. Words have meanings and should not be altered or diluted because "woah, whatever man..."
 
repoman said:
I should have clarified, I really meant WHAT doctrinal differences would make other followers of the main religion say justifiably that this branch was no part of that religion.

There must be ranks of these differences. First rank would be something like that Jesus is not the savior, but just another important prophet. Second rank would be not quite as crucial a difference and third rank would be some piddling difference that only a stickler would care about.

In my opinion a Catholic or mainline evangelical Christian has not only the right but is essentially correct (in this fantasy land of talking about fairy tales of any religion) in saying that Mormons are NOT christians. There are enough first and second rank doctrinal differences to nail it down.

If you won't say that Mormons are not Christians then the meaning of the word "Christian" is zero.

Again I don't care about it being an atheist, I just think that I don't want postmodern thinking to invade this. Words have meanings and should not be altered or diluted because "woah, whatever man..."
Click to expand...

Wouldn't we have to clearly define christianity first? If we go by Merriam Webster:

the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
Click to expand...

then Mormonism would still be christianity
 
The cladistics argument is useful for biological evolution, but not always for religions.

Islam is also derivative of Christianity.

Mormonism has more than one first rank deal breakers.
 
repoman said:
I should have clarified, I really meant WHAT doctrinal differences would make other followers of the main religion say justifiably that this branch was no part of that religion.

There must be ranks of these differences. First rank would be something like that Jesus is not the savior, but just another important prophet. Second rank would be not quite as crucial a difference and third rank would be some piddling difference that only a stickler would care about.

In my opinion a Catholic or mainline evangelical Christian has not only the right but is essentially correct (in this fantasy land of talking about fairy tales of any religion) in saying that Mormons are NOT christians. There are enough first and second rank doctrinal differences to nail it down.

If you won't say that Mormons are not Christians then the meaning of the word "Christian" is zero.

Again I don't care about it being an atheist, I just think that I don't want postmodern thinking to invade this. Words have meanings and should not be altered or diluted because "woah, whatever man..."
Click to expand...

But then Mormonism is just "Jesus - the story continues". While Christianity ends the story with Jesus going to heaven after his crucifixion and resurrection, Mormons add his ministry in the Americas. At least that is my understanding. Other than that, the differences seem piddly to me. One has magic underwear and the other has magic hand signals.
 
Last edited:
repoman said:
Take the Cathars, they were not Catholic, but were they still Christian?
Click to expand...
Are the people who wear Gryffindor House emblematics the true Harry Potter fans, or can you be a Ravenclaw and still claim to be a 'true' HP fan?
If ANY of the Christain faiths are correct, then only Jesus can decide who has the real line on what a true Christain is.
If none of them are correct, then no one's in a position to point to any other faith(s) and say 'they're not Real Christains.'

Every schism starts with someone deciding that the current authorities have lost The Way. Attempts to reform the mainstream church fail and those who remain true to the cash flow the Way leave the Lost Ones and/or allow the Lost Ones to leave. I figure they're a 'new religion' when they start calling themselves by a different name.

For every Pope that's taken a side on any issue, there will be those people who consider themselves Catholics but disagree with that Pope. But though they may technically be heretics in saying that The Pope cannot say that, or that the Pope's stand on gay rights 'isn't real Catholicism' they're still not a new religion.
 
repoman said:
The cladistics argument is useful for biological evolution, but not always for religions.

Islam is also derivative of Christianity.

Mormonism has more than one first rank deal breakers.
Click to expand...
There are no Muslims or Christians or Mormons, only fallen away Jews.
 
When the sect has its own writings that it puts on a par with , or superior to, the mother religion's scriptures then it is well on the way to become another religion.

- - - Updated - - -

RavenSky said:
Veritass said:
I don't know whose quote this is, but I use this:

"In a cult, there is a guy at the top that knows it is all made up and scam; in a religion, that guy has died."
Click to expand...

That's perfect :lol:
Click to expand...

So Koresh and Jones are now heads of religions?
 
It's all semantics until someone sets someone on fire.

I meant that as a joke, but violence would be a definite and almost unmistakeable sign of a rupture. Theological disputes are nebulous and often ignored by ordinary people. There's no ignoring violence.
 
another1 said:
The Church I go to is Southern Baptist, repo, and it consists of potheads, old people and milfs. I don't think any of them have any idea what they are doing. They listen and sing and then clock out. I don't really respect that but I go because it is a way to have God and be accepted for my flaws. I get my psychological fix and it works. We aren't above being convinced that baby punting through the temple gate of Bel pleases the Christian God, because we are stupid. I think it feels good to be stupid to a certain degree. Nobody in the congregation takes anything in the Bible seriously. The whole system in this case is a vague framework. Dangerous people but isolated and too stupid to cause any real harm. Maybe it depends on your definition of harm.
Click to expand...


I wish your church was closer to me. I'd probably attend if I was awake at that hour and my internet connection went out.
 
repoman said:
Take the Cathars, they were not Catholic, but were they still Christian?

Also, is the labeling of a sect as heretical wrong, or more wrong considering that you are already in a religion and believing nonsense anyways?

What is the long term effect of a religion not be allowed to call anything heretical?
Click to expand...

Good point.

There is a long and ugly history of bloodshed when one group of Christians declares another group "not Christian" or "not Christian enough." In fact the Mormons are a perfect example of that. It was technically legal to kill any Mormon in the state of Missouri until the 1970s.

All said, any time Christians start declaring other Christians to not be "Christian enough" or Muslims start complaining about other Muslims not being "Muslim enough," it's time to worry about how much blood may be shed.
 
You are saying that people should not be able to say a self-claimed group is not part of their religion because of the possibility of violence? Not good enough of a reason.

Ok going back earlier in the thread, what it takes for a group to actually be Christian should be sorted out. We here are almost all atheist so we don't have a dog in the fight so we should be able to have a clear headed definition.

Even without having done this process I would bet that Mormons are going to fail on 3 or more key features of what it means to be a Christian.

Would you think that a person at a job be in trouble (other than for being rude or talking religion) if they said to a Mormon coworker: "I don't think your religion is Christian and these are the exact reasons why..."?

Let me go to a very extreme hypothetical: could a religion claim to be Christian if it never mentions Christ at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom