GROK:
Religious scholars often dislike the term "cults" because it’s loaded with negative connotations and lacks precision in academic study. The word originally comes from the Latin "cultus," meaning worship or devotion, but over time—especially since the 20th century—it’s been hijacked by popular culture to describe fringe groups, often with implications of brainwashing, danger, or fanaticism. Think Jonestown or Heaven’s Gate. This baggage makes it a sloppy fit for serious analysis.
Scholars prefer terms like "new religious movements" (NRMs) because they’re neutral and descriptive. NRMs focus on groups that emerge outside established traditions, without instantly branding them as deviant or manipulative. "Cult" gets thrown around too loosely—sometimes it’s just a lazy jab at any belief system someone finds weird or threatening. That subjectivity muddies the water when you’re trying to understand what a group actually believes or does.
Plus, the term’s history in sociology and theology has shifted. Early 20th-century thinkers like Ernst Troeltsch used "cult" to describe small, mystical offshoots of bigger religions, distinct from "sects" or "churches." But that technical meaning got drowned out by sensational headlines. Today, slapping "cult" on a group can shut down discussion—it’s more a judgment than a tool for insight. Scholars want to dissect belief systems, not dunk on them.
I told you already nincsnevem that you must supply proof of your claim that those receiving organ transplants were subject to expulsion or retract your claim to that effect before this discussion can continue. It should be a simple matter to find such a quote if your claim is truthful. The article makes the point that the book "the truth that leads to eternal life" which was used to prepare baptismal candidates during the late sixties and throughout the seventies don't even mention organ transplants.
ReplyDeletehttps://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/03/an-oversimplification-examined.html
Apostates are pathological liars.
DeleteI have never been a JW, so I cannot be an "apostate". And I have answered your article on the transplant issue in a detailed manner.
DeleteWhere is the quote stating that one could be disfellowshipped for an organ transplant, marrying outside the faith is frowned upon,but you can't be disfellowshipped for marrying outside the faith,not participating in the preaching work is frowned upon but you can't be disfellowshipped for being inactive, the publications used to prepare candidates for baptism let them know what the baseline expectations are including what is strictly prohibited,during the late sixties and throughout the seventies that would have been the "truth book". Why does this publication that have single word about organ transplants,if they were considered a serious enough matter to warrant expulsion?
DeleteQuisque vir integre solvat.
ReplyDeleteYou are copying and pasting their lies nincsnevem,at least make up your lies.
ReplyDeletehttps://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/03/an-oversimplification-examined.html
ReplyDeleteFrom the article in question:
ReplyDelete"[T]he Christian can decide in such a way as to avoid unnecessary mutilation and any possible misuse of the body. Thus he will be able to have a clear conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:16.
It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God's Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making PERSONAL decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105."
You will never see this kind of language with regard to sexual immorality,gambling,political involvement,these are not personal decisions these are dogma,upon which a clear stand must be taken prior to baptism.
"Granted, this opinion was taken from the article "Medical cannibalism" appearing in the Encyclopœdia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings (Volume 3, page 199), "
ReplyDeleteThe cannibalism quote was actually cited from the above source without comment.
When they give their opinion:
"[T]he Christian can decide in such a way as to avoid unnecessary mutilation and any possible misuse of the body. Thus he will be able to have a clear conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:16.
It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God's Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making PERSONAL decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.—Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105."
Even as they make their preferences clear it is still a PERSONAL decision
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/03/an-oversimplification-examined.html