Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
The inference was, that because it was claimed that there was no biblical basis for the doctrine, it was therefore a cult and not a religion.
|
On the contrary - I said, quite specifically, that there
is a verse in the Bible that the Watchtower Society uses in order to justify the instruction to their members not to accept blood transfusions.
My inference was that the
way they concoct and promulgate their doctrine is what makes them a cult.
---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by zing
For one JWs are not classed as a cult at all so on this one Chris you get the well deserved definition of wrong lol
|
I don't think there is a worldwide body whose job it is to class religions as 'mainstream', 'cult' or 'sect' - so I think you're sticking your neck out a bit to claim the Watchtower Society is 'not classed as a cult'.
Whether it is or not does depend on your point of view. I wouldn't expect a member, or even many ex-members, to accept the view that it is a cult.
The word 'cult' has a traditional application in describing any religious group but more particularly is describes one that deviates from the norm. In the first century AD the early church was considered to be a Jewish cult or sect, because it was seen as having deviated from Judaism.
The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses is a cult by the common, modern definition you can read at answers.com:
Quote:
|
1a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
|
The Society claims to be Christian, which invites the rest of Christianity to either agree or disagree with the claim. The fact that the Society denies the deity of Christ means that no other Christian denomination can agree that the Society is itself Christian; whatever else divides the Christian denominations, there is a creed that binds them together and the nature of God is a critical part of that creed. On this basis, the Society claims to be part of the Church; the rest of the Church cries 'false'.
In fact, the Society goes further - it claims not to be part of the Church; it claims that it
is the church. The Society is led by a group of 'Elders' that claim exclusive knowledge and ability to interpret the Bible. They have managed to convince upwards of 12 million people worldwide of this, to the extent that some of them are prepared to die rather than have a blood transfusion. I think the Society therefore meets any reasonable definitions of 'authoritarian' and 'charismatic'.
As I said at the outset, ultimately it depends on your point of view. But from my point of view, I'm not wrong.
