tonjun wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:32 am
historia wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:21 am
And, since the definition of a sect is a "dissenting or schismatic religious body," that "deviates from a generally accepted religious tradition" it is accurate (for, say, historians or scholars of religion) to call them "sects."
Whatever. Your church has also deviated from the accepted religious practice of Jewish synagogues where Jesus preached.
Yes, when Christianity first emerged it was, indeed, a sect. Since then, it has grown into an established religious tradition.
Likewise, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have more recently emerged as sects, and may one day grow into established religious traditions of their own.
That's simply how these terms are used by historians and sociologists.
See, e.g., Armand Mauss & Philip Barlow, "Church, Sect, and Scripture: The Protestant Bible and Mormon Sectarian Retrenchment," in
Sociological Analysis, vol. 52 iss. 4 (1991), pp. 397-414 (in
JSTOR). They treat this question in some detail, specifically with regard to Mormonism, which they note is often described as an "established sect."
Consider also Ronald Lawson, "Sect-State Relations: Accounting for the Differing Trajectories of Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses," in
Sociology of Religion, vol. 56 iss. 4 (1995), pp. 351-377 (in
JSTOR). He notes that Jehovah's Witnesses are usually classified as an "established sect."
tonjun wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:32 am
historia wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:21 am
tonjun wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:24 pm
And what about the other definitions from Webster?
That doesn't matter.
You are the one claiming "nowhere is the word SECT defined as the way you put it." To demonstrate your claim is false, I simply need to point out that the way I'm using sect is the
primary and
typical way the term is used, which it is.
The fact that there are other, less common meanings of the term doesn't somehow make your claim correct.
Then why did you bring up Webster definition if all of a sudden it doesn't matter?
You need to continue reading beyond my first sentence here: It doesn't matter if there are other, less common meanings of the term "sect" when I'm using it according to its primary meaning.
That, in itself, demonstrates your claim that "nowhere is the word SECT defined as the way you put it" to be false.
tonjun wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:32 am
You just said Jesus is not God in post 35.
No, here again you need to continuing reading, this time to the end of the sentence: I clearly said "Jesus is not God
in the simplistic way that tonjun imagines." I even italicized the phrase "in the simplistic way that tonjun imagines" to show that that is the important qualifier.
There are lots of different ways to conceive of Jesus being divine. Most of those are considered heretical by orthodox Christians, which is why the details matter here.
In between spewing invectives, you've spent the thread demonstrating that the Bible contradicts your own personal, idiosyncratic understanding of the divinity of Christ. But, since that doesn't match what orthodox Christians believe about Jesus being both human and divine, your argument ultimately doesn't apply to most Christians.
tonjun wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:32 am
I have nothing further to add.
Probably for the best.