Let's Get It On - identify a cult!

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Some JWs misunderstood

Tell us the names of those JW's who misunderstood, and we shall try to check  that   :))))

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The Org may not have put it into print, but they deliberately spread the rumours about it happening. 

They spread rumors in print :)))

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Our friend @Space Merchant  

The roots of the Unitarian movement lie mainly in the reformation of the 16th century. At that time people in many countries across Europe began to claim the right to read and interpret the bible for themselves, to have a direct relationship with God without the mediation of priest or church, and to set their own conscience against the claims of religious institutions. - source https://www.unitarian.org.uk/pages/history

 

In this description we see how this movement (at least in the beginning) is not cult - like in comparison to some WTJWORG quotes and in comparison to list on page 1 made by @Outta Here . 

[Srecko Sostar]

On 6/21/2019 at 4:59 AM, Space Merchant said:

That being said, some so called Christian spread their idiocy and claim they are of God and Christ,

Does this statement is applicable to JW's too... because they claim how they are only true religion, and how God and Jesus supporting, guiding, empowering, leading, teaching (only) them, and how WT Society with all other Legal Entities that this Society established is His Earthly Organization and His Possession among all other Nations and Religions??

Don't need to answer !! :))  Because you defending every religion doctrine you find fit to your understanding of Bible and your models of acceptable (i don't think that you are wrong in some of your understanding). And by that you support "interfaith" (something that is blasphemy to WTJWORG), because many religions have some "Common, General, Universal Truths". Otherwise, you would join WTJWORG and become a member of Only One True Religion. :)))

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Despite what SM and others may say.  SM wasn't and isn't a JW.

Instead of just guessing, a person might be able to get closer to the answer just by asking @Space Merchant. Assuming SM responds at all, one can see whether a direct YES or a direct NO appears in the response @Space Merchant gives to the following question:

@Space Merchant, Are you now, or have you ever been, one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

[Srecko Sostar]

49 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Instead of just guessing, a person might be able to get closer to the answer just by asking @Space Merchant. Assuming SM responds at all, one can see whether a direct YES or a direct NO appears in the response @Space Merchant gives to the following question:

@Space Merchant, Are you now, or have you ever been, one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Until now, as SM and i had conversations, he never said his clear position to this question. I don't know what stops him to tell us to Whom He Belong? :)) He is man of integrity and don't want to lie, but in the same time not want to tell the truth... perhaps he is silent on this because of that reason. 

[Witness]

6 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

It was debunked that they never claimed the world would end in 1975,

“Debunk” – to prove that something such as an idea or belief is false and silly.

 

It wasn’t falsely “debunked” until the expectations of the organization never were fulfilled.  It was then that the responsibility of believing in a scam fell on the shoulders of the members, even though it was the "serious students of the Bible" who believed 1975 to be an important date.  I would guess the most serious of "serious students" would be the leaders who approved of printing the article.  

A collage of expectations:

 

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

Quote @JW Insider Instead of just guessing, a person might be able to get closer to the answer just by asking 

Instead of just quoting the bit you want why not quote the whole phrase. 

What I actually wrote. Despite what SM and others may say.  SM wasn't and isn't a JW. He just uses info he finds. 

I wasn't asking SM if he was a JW, I was stating that he wasn't / isn't a JW, and therefore only uses info he finds, and he has no personal experience on the matters. 

Then he questions the FACT that i have 'hands on' experience of JW Org / Society from the 1970's onward. Yes here in the UK only but at least it is direct first hand knowledge, not just 'something i read online'. 

[JW Insider]

48 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I wasn't asking SM if he was a JW, I was stating that he wasn't / isn't a JW, and therefore only uses info he finds, and he has no personal experience on the matters.

Yes. I know. I was more talking about myself. I went ahead and posed the question because I personally am only GUESSING that he is a JW. I also think that he is probably quite a bit younger than several of us here, and therefore does not have the personal experience that many of us experienced directly with those predictions for the 1970's and the expectations surrounding 1975. 

I have believed since the first set of posts I read from SM, that he is a JW and is using a kind of "lawyer's honesty" in focusing on the fact that he is a Unitarian, [Primitive Christianity] Restorationist, etc. If you read closely you will notice that these terms are exactly in line with his definition of JWs. JWs are, in fact, both unitarian and restorationist, and most of us should have no problem admitting this.

In fact, what do you think would happen if someone tried to point out some information from so-called "official" Unitarian sites and publications that sounded too different from what Witnesses teach? We shouldn't be surprised to see SM ridicule such sources as "stupid" and point out that he is a "Biblical Unitarian." In other words, one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Things like this are a good test of peoples' integrity.  

ESPECIALLY when the test has a simple YES or NO answer, and they are aware that they will answer to Almighty God, for lying.  Honest questions deserve honest answers, and unless life or liberty are at stake, are appropriate.

Especially in a discussion room where credibility is so very important ... as we are casually discussing life and death matters.

 

so here goes.....

1.) BillyTheKid46, ... are you now or have you ever been one of Jehovah's Witnesses ? ... and,

2.) are you now, or have ever been a Watchtower Lawyer, or anything similar?

3.) Space Merchant:  Are you now or have you ever been one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Working on the exchange of information theory of Steven Covey, in "The Seven Habits of Successful People", about emotional "bank accounts" ... that it is immoral to try and make a withdrawal without having enough "deposits" to cover it ... please consider all the personal information about myself I have freely given here, to try and contribute to general understanding ... including my real name, and real picture, ad nauseaum, as enough "deposit" to cover the request for a withdrawal from YOUR emotional bank accounts, for information not already volunteered.

Of course this only works between men of integrity, and will be ridiculed and/or ignored by weasels.

 

[JW Insider]

On 6/20/2019 at 6:34 PM, Outta Here said:

1. Run by a charismatic, authoritarian leader, or leadership group, who seeks extreme levels of control over followers.
2. Uses a hierarchical pyramid structure with layers of secrecy surrounding the leader.             
3. Followers are socially, psychologically and sometimes physically isolated.
4. Leader's behaviour is justified by a totalitarian belief system that claims to have all the answers.
5. A brainwashing process takes place. Total immersion in the group leaves no time or space for self-generated relationships or activities
6. The group alternates an apparently loving or attentive approach with escalating levels of stress or fear. This could be implemented through sleep or food deprivation, apocalyptic predictions, or threats of violence or sexual abuse.
7. This process of coercive control creates followers who are controlled by or for the leader without regard for their own needs.

This is a good set of points. (I changed the bullets to numbers for discussion.)

Do you think that all of them have to be true at once? Or can 5 of the 7 bullets be true? Or only 2 of the 7?

Actually it appears that #1 through #6 are characteristic "ingredients" or features that will ultimately lead to #7 which is the actual cult product. That product becomes a support structure that can continue to support and enhance and defend the features of #1 through #6.

But there is also the question of a spectrum rather than black and white labeling. Within that spectrum there are variables for intention, motivation, flexibility, freedom, independent thinking, perceived spiritual value, etc.

I've kept an interest in this topic for years.

• In fact, at Bethel I tried to study with some Moonies, who seemed receptive (they weren't). I did it mostly to get into their "community" warehouse, where they offered me crackers, milk, and fruit nectar (and more publications).
• Since then I've had a couple of LDS elders come by the house and make 4 return visits to try to study with me (I would point out things I found on anti-LDS sites, but woudn't study with them of course).
• And, working right near the NYC Scientology center in midtown I also took their little Bethel-like presentation tour a couple of times, and even met David Miscavige (from a short distance away) and heard him talk about how they helped 9/11 responders.
• On May 20, 2011, I spoke at length with a Harold Camping follower who gave me an entire CD/DVD full of proof that the rapture would be on May 21, 2011.
• I have a cousin who is a staunch Seventh Day Adventist, so I also studied as much of the early historical information about them as I could to try to convince her that the Witnesses had the more correct Adventist path.

After trying to study them closely, I decided there was a little bit of "cult" in all of them. Of course, I mean in the pejorative sense that people use the term cult --based mostly on those bullet points you offered.

It's a stretch, but one could even defend or explain why one might call the Catholic Church a cult, because there are several of your bullet point features that are often seen in the lives and activities of some Catholics. The same might go for various political ideologies, even so broad as the United States Republican or Democrat parties, or various others  -- all in the pejorative sense.

But there are also nearly neutral or even nearly positive senses in which scholars use the term cult. Scholars can also look at the history of various religious groups and can speak of the cult of Yahweh in Israel, or the cult of John the Baptist, or the cult of primitive Christianity. This is not intended pejoratively. It's mostly used to help one realize the context in which a religious group survives and "cultivates" itself in a setting where they might be outnumbered by other larger religious groups surrounding them.

[Space Merchant]

10 hours ago, Witness said:

“Debunk” – to prove that something such as an idea or belief is false and silly.

 

It wasn’t falsely “debunked” until the expectations of the organization never were fulfilled.  It was then that the responsibility of believing in a scam fell on the shoulders of the members, even though it was the "serious students of the Bible" who believed 1975 to be an important date.  I would guess the most serious of "serious students" would be the leaders who approved of printing the article.  

A collage of expectations:

 

 

Yes, it has been debunked, and I had given evidence to such by means of said sources in which you were refuted on before as with others. Nothing here is a claim of them stating the world will end at 1975, therefore, such remains unfounded.