Would you consider the Jehovah's Religion as a Cult?

[InChrist]

I consider the Watchtower organization to be a cult. I also consider other religious groups to be cults, including the Catholic Church which I was raised in and the Mormon Church which I converted to at one point in my life. The main reason I consider these cults is because they require allegiance to the group, organization, or leader along with or rather than devotion to Christ alone, as I consider any other groups to be cults which require such allegiance.

 

[mycorrhiza]

They do seem to fill all the common criteria for a cult, but so do many other Christian groups, including many that aren't generally viewed as cults. Probably wouldn't call them a cult.

I would hesitate to label any religious group a cult unless it was destructive (exploiting members, threatening them, brainwashing, violence).

 

[Reverend Rick]

I have worked for JW's in the past. They where good to me, fair and honest. I don't see them as a cult, just a different religion with different perspectives.

I think we use the word "cult" quite alot more than necessary. Jim Jones, David Koresh, now those would qualify as cults IMHO.

Many preachers around my area consider Mormonism a cult and they would be wrong because they are ignorant of what a real cult is.

I used to date a young woman who was seven day Adventist. I even was a vegetarian for one long summer and went to her church. I'm sorry, not cult there either, just different dogma.

To use your logic, more people eat at McDonalds than Wendys so people who eat at Wendys are a cult. Just kidding, but I hope you get my point.

I champion freedom of religion which means all religions and as previously stated Paganism qualifies as a religion too. No cult there either. :sorry1:

If a religion is organised and has many churches, it is probably not a cult, especially if the religion has been established for a long time.

I'm sure there are exceptions, Scientology is one I am not quite sure of most likely they are not a cult either but may come closer because of the religions age.

 

[McBell]

I was talking to a friend who used to be a Jehovah's witness and he was saying that he felt like the Religion was a Cult.

What do you think?

Yes, they are.
but then, "cult" is just a synonym for "religion".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes, they are.
but then, "cult" is just a synonym for "religion".

I think it's often used as a synonym for "religion I don't like and wish to insult."

 

[McBell]

I think it's often used as a synonym for "religion I don't like and wish to insult."

Yes, that does appear to a popular common usage definition.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think it's often used as a synonym for "religion I don't like and wish to insult."

Spot on.

 

[Shermana]

Some Christians see them as a cult for many reasons: 1. They believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. 2. they don't believe in the trinity 3. They have no preachers- their members take turns leading their meetings.
The late Dr. Walter Martin had a book called Kingdom of the Cults- which included Mormons, JWs, Seventh Day Adventist, etc. He said he didn't believe they were evil or anything, but he didn't believe them to be real Christians.
I have believed for quite a long time that they are all Christians- Mormons, JWs, and all. I knew some JWs who didn't even call themselves Christians (it was two former Catholics who said this). I mistakenly believed this was true of all JWs but I realized recently I was wrong.
I almost became a Jehovah's Witness back in the early 80s, but ended up becoming a Baptist instead.

Basically, the fact that they have a non-(mainstream)orthodox Theology and present credible, honest disagreements with aspects of the mainstream Trinitarians, they are referred to as a cult. Often they won't even bother to address a JW argument simply because they're JW, while expecting people to accept traditional conservative Orthodox arguments as if their religion is "just automatically right". Yet they expect their own church-aligned scholars to be given authority. When the JW arguments on this are forced to be examined, usually there's no defense against it.

In a way, I think JWs represent a grave threat to Western mainstream Christianity (as opposed to Christianity itself) because they force them to get honest about the Trinity, which is a central linchpin of all orthodoxy. The website "Examining the Trinity" is one of the finest, most well researched, well sourced I've ever seen and compares to anything that independent scholars like Jason Beduhn could produce. They are definitely leaders in the fight against the doctrine of the Trinity (and subsequently, mainstream Orthodoxy in general) and for the pursuit of gramatically correct readings of the text, whether they're 100% accurate on other issues or not.

While I disagree with much of their beliefs such as the Afterlife, Mosaic Law, and Roman Canon (in these senses, they are basically the same as standard orthodox), they're not a cult by any stretch, the more innocent-sounding word "sect" would be more fitting. I agree with them on a great many things, including Blood Transfusions, which are not very well researched and may in fact be extremely dangerous even to those whom they save.

 

[Shermana]

http://www.jpost.com/Health/Article.aspx?id=230347

Apparently they need to learn how to store it differently.....but how exactly?

Depending on the amount and age of the stored blood used, there is evidence that transfusion can lead to complications including infection, organ failure and death. New research from Wake Forest University and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine found that these complications are likely due to red blood cell breakdown during storage, implying that transfused blood may need to be stored in a different way. This week in the early online version of Circulation, the team reports the latest findings from its ongoing exploration of the interaction between red blood cell breakdown products and nitric oxide (NO), revealing new biological mechanisms that can reduce blood flow and possibly damage vital tissues after administration of blood that has been stored for longer periods of time.

Blood transfusions: - More dangerous than we thought | What Doctors Don't Tell You

unit found that transfusions failed to oxygenate the blood.
Worse, there's quite a lot of evidence to suggest that a transfusion can make the patient worse, and in rare cases even cause the patient's death.

To say that refusing a Blood Transfusion causes a wrongful death is only half the story, you can also say that accepting a Blood Transfusion may make your life a living, painful Hell and cause a far earlier premature death. There's barely any research on the subject, and the research that has been done is not looking good.

http://www.ener-chi.com/tag/the-risks-of-blood-transfusions/

What makes blood transfusion so risky is that there has never been a randomized, double-blind control study to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety. No scientific proof at all is available to justify its use. Like an antibiotic drug, blood transfusion may have its place as a last resort measure to save a person’s life. As a standard practice, however, it not only fails to achieve the desired results, it may be doing more harm than good.

A major Canadian study, which was published in 1998 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, revealed that fewer patients died when they were given a restricted amount of transfused blood. During the trial, 52 percent fewer transfusions were given to the restrictive group, and transfusion was avoided altogether in one-third of those patients. The death rate in the control group, which received normal, liberal amounts of blood transfusions, was 24 percent, compared with 18 percent in the restrictive transfusion group. “The bottom line is; less transfusion is better than more transfusion,” said Paul Herbert, the trial’s principal investigator. The restrictive transfusion strategy could effectively save one life for every 17 patients transfused.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Blood transfusions: - More dangerous than we thought | What Doctors Don't Tell You

To say that refusing a Blood Transfusion causes a wrongful death is only half the story, you can also say that accepting a Blood Transfusion may make your life a living, painful Hell and cause a far earlier premature death. There's barely any research on the subject, and the research that has been done is not looking good.

the risks of blood transfusions - Ener-Chi Wellness Center

FTR, "What Doctors Don't Tell You" has been labeled as quackery full of pseudoscientific claims, homeopathy and poor medical advice.



Now, back to the topic at hand....

 

[Shermana]

FTR, "What Doctors Don't Tell You" has been labeled as quackery full of pseudoscientific claims, homeopathy and poor medical advice.



Now, back to the topic at hand....

Labeled by who exactly? The same people they're saying "won't tell you"? The same people who say you should get an untested H1N1 shot? Perhaps this calls for a whole thread on the validity of modern medical opinions. The fact remains that there is barely ANY research on the subject. And the scant research that has been done is not at all in its favor, as the Jpost article shows.

See the Jpost article. I can get more mainstream posts like that if you'd like. There are in fact medical establishment studies (of the few that exist on the topic) and much evidence that it's very dangerous like the Jpost article suggests. And naturally it is related to the topic since the Blood Transfusion issue was brought up as an attempt to label them as a cult, how is it NOT related?

 

[Me Myself]

How are we defining cult?

I am going to take a wild guess and believe we are defining it as "weird, obviously wrong but they think they are right, and not so many"

I would think most religions started that way (and probably more than one is saying to his head "started?! :areyoucra " )

 

[oldbadger]

Well except for the fact that JW's don't speak to their family members if they are disfellowshipped. JW's can't ask questions about their religion nor can they get Blood transfusions or Organ transplants and they are not allowed to associate with anybody outside of their Religion (if they do they will get marked).

Some of this is untrue. A Jehovah's Witness married couple have been visiting me for tea, cakes and chat for two decades...... they gave up on me (heathen!) yonks ago but still enjoy a call. I don't speak to a fair number of my family members, but that doesn't make me very unusual, so why pick on JWs? Jehovah's Witnesses have guidance lines just to answer questions! The blood transfusion 'thing' is no big deal these days, because JWs can be operated upon with less need for blood, and they may be allowed to have plasma. Where is Pegg?

Now, the Plymouth Brethren....... they are a cult!!!! Quite different.

 

[GawdAweful]

How are we defining cult?

IMO, the difference between cult and ideology is, to misquote Darwin, a difference 'not of kind, but of degree."

For what belief are the believers willing to isolate others? How cut off from family and friends are they encouraged to be (except for the purpose of proselitizing)? What is the treatment of a family member that disagrees with the doctrine and decides they no longer believe? Since they do not believe any other religion is truly Christian, only those who have accepted the JW doctrine and been baptized, even if 12 years old, are treated differently than others. (There is allowance made for minors still living at home).

Regardless how many JW's listen or don't listen to their religion's teachings, this is the official stand of the Watchtower taken from the www.jw.org official site, quoting their 2008 book, God's Love:

How to Treat a Disfellowshipped Person​

​

Few things can hurt us more deeply than the pain we suffer when a relative or a close friend is expelled from the congregation for unrepentant sin. How we respond to the Bible’s direction on this matter can reveal the depth of our love for God and of our loyalty to his arrangement.* Consider some questions that arise on this subject.​

How should we treat a disfellowshipped person? The Bible says: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1 Corinthians 5:11) Regarding everyone that “does not remain in the teaching of the Christ,” we read: “Never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 9-11) We do not have spiritual or social fellowship with disfellowshippedones. The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, stated: “A simple ‘Hello’ to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”​

Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes, for several reasons. First, it is a matter of loyalty to God and his Word. We obey Jehovah not only when it is convenient but also when doing so presents real challenges. Love for God moves us to obey all his commandments, recognizing that he is just and loving and that his laws promote the greatest good. (Isaiah 48:17; 1 John 5:3) Second, withdrawing from an unrepentant wrongdoer protects us and the rest of the congregation from spiritual and moral contamination and upholds the congregation’s good name. (1 Corinthians 5:6, 7) Third, our firm stand for Bible principles may even benefit the disfellowshipped one. By supporting the decision of the judicial committee, we may touch the heart of a wrongdoer who thus far has failed to respond to the efforts of the elders to assist him. Losing precious fellowship with loved ones may help him to come “to his senses,” see the seriousness of his wrong, and take steps to return to Jehovah.—Luke 15:17.​

What if a relative is disfellowshipped? In such a case, the close bond between family members can pose a real test of loyalty. How should we treat a disfellowshipped relative? We cannot here cover every situation that may arise, but let us focus on two basic ones.​

In some instances, the disfellowshipped family member may still be living in the same home as part of the immediate household. Since his being disfellowshipped does not sever the family ties, normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue. Yet, by his course, the individual has chosen to break the spiritual bond between him and his believing family. So loyal family members can no longer have spiritual fellowship with him. For example, if the disfellowshipped one is present, he would not participate when the family gets together to study the Bible. However, if the disfellowshipped one is a minor child, the parents are still responsible to instruct and discipline him. Hence, loving parents may arrange to conduct a Bible study with the child.*—Proverbs 6:20-22; 29:17.​

In other cases, the disfellowshipped relative may be living outside the immediate family circle and home. Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum. Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have dealings with a disfellowshipped relative not living at home. Rather, loyalty to Jehovah and his organization moves them to uphold the Scriptural arrangement of disfellowshipping. Their loyal course has the best interests of the wrongdoer at heart and may help him to benefit from the discipline received.*—Hebrews 12:11.​

[Footnotes]​

Bible principles on this subject apply equally to those who disassociate themselves from the congregation.​

 

[kjw47]

General ideas constituting the same thing. As in.. the Jehovah's religion to be a normal religion.

I am not bashing the Religion, I am stating that they have (apparently in my opinion) different ideas of how a Religion is constructed. I have nothing against the Religion, beliefs are beliefs. I was more so curious as to how people with more Religious Insight would view the Religion.

For 50 years i have studied religions,history of religions( not all) the different teachings in comparison to Gods written word---I found the JW religion as the only ones on this earth that actually listen to Jesus and apply his words.

 

[GawdAweful]

For 50 years i have studied religions,history of religions( not all) the different teachings in comparison to Gods written word---I found the JW religion as the only ones on this earth that actually listen to Jesus and apply his words.

My question for you kjw47:

If a member of your religion kept teaching that the Bible does not predict Jesus became King in heaven in 1914, how would you be forced to treat this one, even if they were not immoral sexually, or a murderer, or a rapist, or a thief?

What if they still believed the Bible and in Jesus but not in 1914 as a prophetic year?

Would they be allowed to share what they've learned with others without fear of 'discipline'?

What if you personally wanted to fellowship with such a one? Would that make a difference?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Now, the Plymouth Brethren....... they are a cult!!!! Quite different.

Do tell. I've never heard of them.

 

[Me Myself]

IMO, the difference between cult and ideology is, to misquote Darwin, a difference 'not of kind, but of degree."

For what belief are the believers willing to isolate others? How cut off from family and friends are they encouraged to be (except for the purpose of proselitizing)? What is the treatment of a family member that disagrees with the doctrine and decides they no longer believe?

To be fair, Jesus did say "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." and "those who love their fathers more than me dont deserve me, thost that love.... and ... and ... more than me are not worthy of me. I came to separate (father from daughter? husband from wife? don´t remember the specific examples) "

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

How should we treat a disfellowshipped person? The Bible says: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1 Corinthians 5:11) Regarding everyone that “does not remain in the teaching of the Christ,” we read: “Never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 9-11) We do not have spiritual or social fellowship with disfellowshippedones. The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, stated: “A simple ‘Hello’ to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”

Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes, for several reasons. First, it is a matter of loyalty to God and his Word. We obey Jehovah not only when it is convenient but also when doing so presents real challenges. Love for God moves us to obey all his commandments, recognizing that he is just and loving and that his laws promote the greatest good. (Isaiah 48:17; 1 John 5:3) Second, withdrawing from an unrepentant wrongdoer protects us and the rest of the congregation from spiritual and moral contamination and upholds the congregation’s good name. (1 Corinthians 5:6, 7) Third, our firm stand for Bible principles may even benefit the disfellowshipped one. By supporting the decision of the judicial committee, we may touch the heart of a wrongdoer who thus far has failed to respond to the efforts of the elders to assist him. Losing precious fellowship with loved ones may help him to come “to his senses,” see the seriousness of his wrong, and take steps to return to Jehovah.—Luke 15:17.

I don't know whether JWs actually follow such teachings, but I consider shunning to be one of the most disturbing aspects of religion, at least as 'religion' is usually understood.​

Imagine withholding one's love and companionship based simply upon fear that the other guy doesn't see life just as you see it. What kind of fear could push a person to such evil.​

It's why I pray each night for the end of Jews, Christians, atheists, Muslims, etc.​

 

[GawdAweful]

To be fair, Jesus did say "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." and "those who love their fathers more than me dont deserve me, thost that love.... and ... and ... more than me are not worthy of me. I came to separate (father from daughter? husband from wife? don´t remember the specific examples) "

True, which is why I wrote the difference was more of degree than kind.