- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Most Helpful Favorable Review
5 out of 6 people found this review helpful.
Still The Best on the Cults
Those who argue that Dr. Martin had anything derogatory in mind when he called his book Kingdom of the Cults, in reference to his study of various religions, have either purposely disregarded Dr. Martin's own direct statements in the book, or simply didn't read the book...
Those who argue that Dr. Martin had anything derogatory in mind when he called his book Kingdom of the Cults, in reference to his study of various religions, have either purposely disregarded Dr. Martin's own direct statements in the book, or simply didn't read the book carefully. Despite false allegations about Dr. Martin's doctorate ('degree mill') education and other unsubstantiated assertions about people 'lambasting' him for 'inaccuracies,' the Kingdom of the Cults remains a perennial classic in its field. What Dr. Martin attempted to do, as he clearly stated, was to evaluate various belief systems as they compared with the doctrines of the historic Christian faith. All the cults, and many major religions like Islam, deny certain historic Christian doctrines: The trinity, the deity of Christ, etc. With scholarly information and exhaustive documentation using mainly primary source material, Dr. Martin evaluates, in about 20 chapters, religious traditions from The Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Mormonism, and Spiritism, to Islam, Seventh-day Adventism, and Unitarianism, to name a few. It should be noted that although Dr. Martin includes the Adventists in his book, he clearly says that he does not consider them to be a cult religious system outside of orthodoxy, but a Christian sect with some heterodox beliefs, such as soul sleep and soul annihilation. Since the exhaustive nature of this book and limited review space does not permit a review that does justice to Dr. Martin's work, I will only give a few examples of how he evaluated some religious teachings in comparison to historic, orthodox doctrine, focusing on how Dr. Martin contrasted the Jesus of orthodoxy with the 'Jesus' of the cults. Explaining Jehovah's Witness doctrine using their own works in context, Dr. Martin wrote: 'For Jehovah's Witnesses, their Jesus is an angel who became a man. He is a god, but he is not God the Son, second Person of the Holy Trinity' (p. 379). Earlier in the book, Dr. Martin demonstrated how the Watchtower Society purposely mistranslated John 1:1 so that Jesus becomes 'a god' instead of God, which is pointed out as simply bad Greek grammar and exegesis (pp. 85, 86). Quoting Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, from her 'Science and Health' book, Dr. Martin demonstrates that her 'Jesus' is also an unorthodox one: 'The Christian who believes in the First Commandment is a monotheist. Thus he virtually unites with the Jew's belief in one God, and recognizes that Jesus Christ is no God as Jesus Christ Himself declared, but is the Son of God...' (p. 378). Dr. Martin also demonstrated from primary sources that Mrs. Eddy plagiarised from many sources to produce her 'Science and Health' book. The plagiarism is obvious when you see it as it reads in Dr. Martin's book in parallel columns, as it was reproduced prior to his book in the New York Times of July 10, 1904. This was not something Dr. Martin invented, but a fact publicized in a well-known newspaper prior to his work. And finally, Dr. Martin deals with the Mormon view of Jesus from their own literature, which he quotes as saying, 'Each of these gods, including Jesus Christ and his Father, being in possession of not merely an organized spirit, but a glorious body of flesh and bones...' (p. 380). Dr. Martin then goes on to further explain their position by stating, '...in fact, the Mormons have a full pantheon of gods. Jesus, who before His incarnation was the spirit-brother of Lucifer, was also a polygamist, the husband of the Marys and Martha, who was rewarded for his faithfulness by becoming the ruler of this earth' (p. 380). The sad fact is, most who criticize Dr. Martin's work either have not really read the book, have not thoroughly researched behind his information, or simply are not really qualified to make sweeping charges of 'pseudo-scholarship' and so forth that they make in classic ad hominem style. Apparently those who are within the cults D
posted by Anonymous on August 29, 2005Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Most Helpful Critical Review
1 out of 11 people found this review helpful.
if really want to know
If you want to know the truth about something, do you not go to the source? If want to know the truth about any religion, mainly Jehovah's Witnesses ask one of them.
posted by Anonymous on April 21, 2006Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1