You’ve heard wrong, at least about the Adventists. My grandparents were SDA and I spent several years of my chilhood attending Sabbath School. The biggest differences between the Adventists and most mainstream Protestant sects are: (1) the Adventists look forward to the Second Coming of Jesus (hence the name); (2) Vegetarianism is encouraged and widely practiced; and (3) they attend church on Saturday (the Sabbath) rather than Sunday.
Perhaps I’m confusing the two. I did know a former JW once – he converted to his wife’s faith when he got married; and after they both dropped out of the church, her parents would no longer – apparently were not allowed to – have anything to do with her. Anything at all.
Hitler came down hard on the Witnesses. I guess non-mainstream cults just didn’t fit into the society he was trying to build.
Stark and Finke give a pretty good definition of what constitutes a cult in their book Acts of Faith. Since I don’t have it handy, no quotes. But the gist of their definition is that a cult is a new religion/faith/practice, either introduced from outside the culture, invented from within the culture, or split off from an accepted religion within the culture. Any cult can then become establish as a “religion” if it gains sufficient membership, institutional legitimacy, or cultural acceptance. (I’ve definitely missed out on some details.)
A comment on “brainwashing” in cults. It doesn’t exist. If it does, why do cults have such high turnover rates? Generally accepted statistics are that 9/10 cult joiners will dropout within a year or two.
Also, just a FYI, those who join cults generally exhibit similar characteristics (see works by Lorne L. Dawson and/or Saul Levine for additional information). Briefly, typical joiners are: white, middle/upper class, well-educated, between the ages of 16-25.
A cult with a lot of people in it is called a “religion.”
Where does ‘sect’ fit in here? It has slightly pejorative overtones but not as much as ‘cult’.
While I’m pretty sure you’re right about establishing or keeping serious relationships with non-JWs, JWs are still professional and friendly at work/school and make the connections necessary to maximize their learning experience/job potential, with no reservations. Probably not likely to take the office out for beer, but I’ve had JW classmates in high school and college science classes; both were quite friendly and kept their lips sealed even in an environment where their personal views were considered laughable. One was my lab partner and had no problems studying with me outside of class–and quite extensively, I might add; we saved each others’ asses in that course.
Well, the commonly held version of “brainwashing” where followers are somehow irresistably stuffed full of beliefs they don’t understand is probably far overblown, but I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to say that what most people call a “cult” works by feeding a specific set of unusually strong beliefs to young people starving for a sense of identity, an explanation of their universe and an understanding of their purpose, often with less than altruistic aims.
Yes, I agree with you; but I don’t find that to be necessarily bad or uncommon.
I mean, join the army, see what they try to do to your mind.
“Sect” usually is used to mean a subset of a broader religious tradition, like Shi’ite Islam or Zen Buddhism.
Well, the scientific community, specifically the American Psychological Association, has been going back and forth on that for some time. See here.
Cults arise independently of other religious movements. Sects splinter off from already established movements. Neither kind of movement necessarily has to entail anything sinister or controlling. In the most technical sense, cults are just new or “deviant” movements (the PC term is “New religious Movements” or NRMs) with some kind of novel beliefs or practices. If the NRM is successful it can become an established Church (e.g. LDS). All religions start as NRMs or sects and the distinction is somewhat ambiguous. These movements often exist with some tension between themselves and the larger culture around them but they don’t have to. Sociologists, Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge further define NRM’s as requiring some kind of supernatural aspect in order to distinguish them from secular movements. They also define several models of how cults are formed. The kind with the charismatic leader is only one type (called the Psychopathological Model), but there are others. You can read about them here.
I have (another branch, not the Army) and you’re certainly right. The difference, though, is that the Army pays you, extremely well in fact when you consider the benefits and free housing (compared to any other job an 18-year-old with no degree can get). And they’ll also teach you to be more self-confident and will raise your self-esteem and make you a more reliable worker. You have to sell your soul, but you get pretty nice dividends in return. (I couldn’t do it, I had to get out.)
In Christianity, wouldn’t that be a denomination rather than a sect?
There’s very little difference other than a perceived level of establishment and success. Sects are movements which are split or calved off from previous movements. rather than arising independently. The word really only denotes a mode of formation, not anything about content. You could call the entire Protestant movement a sect if you wanted to.
So what would be a “sect” in Christianity?
The whole thing.
The word would have the most utility in reference to movements which have most recently split off from some other denomination. The Branch Davidians were a sect.
With plenty o’ sects! 
(Well, at least for David Koresh . . .)
Thanks for that. Since I’m not debating, merely seeking information, I’ll keep reading this thread but I won’t post again.
Nothing
Sounds like the republican party
Quod Erat Demonstrandum (nunc Est)