Rating: 
Summary: Encylopedia of cults and new religions: Jehovah's Witnesses.
Review: Good read;Religion falls into one of three categories : (1) your mainstream,mostly benevolent churches (2) the 'sects' usually perceived as sorta on the 'fringes' Then we have the, high demand destructive cults.The Jehovah's Witnesses fall into the latter slot.I know, i've been there.............
Danny Haszard
Bangor Maine USA
http://www.DannyHaszard.com
Rating: 
Summary: The best defense is attack?
Review: I found this book far below the standard set in Ankerberg/Weldon's previous book, Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs, which I also own. My disappoint is based on two points:First, as noted by other reviewers, the authors give extremely short shrift to many if not most of the cults, beliefs, groups and sects listed. It is not helpful for those seeking to learn what these various groups are "about," that is, what their particular beliefs are. I find the term "encyclopedia" inaccurate as a description of the book's contents, as the only entries that could be considered truly encyclopedic are those on which the authors have written other voluminous works (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and other "almost but not quite" orthodox Christian groups - which, perhaps not coincidentally, seem to irk the authors far more than out-there groups such as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the Children of God). Also, they fail to address a number of groups problematic for Christians, such as the "word-faith" movement, Toronto Blessing, Benny Hinn, etc. Secondly, the authors' work is far less balanced than that presented in their previous work. It rapidly becomes obvious that Ankerberg and Weldon are going to condemn any self-defined religious group that does not conform to their orthodox definition of conservative (not to say fundamentalist), evangelical, Biblical-inerrancy based Christianity. As a seminarian whose dissertation concerns why people turn to cults, New Age beliefs, alternative faiths, and new religious movements, I was very disappointed that Ankerberg and Weldon could not provide more information about these groups and why people might turn to them - and away from orthodox beliefs - in an attempt to settle their own personal "unpaid bills" of faith. In areas, Ankerberg/Weldon come dangerously close to personifying what many people dislike about orthodox Christians - the dogmatic, doctrinaire, intolerant, narrow-minded, even bigoted insistence that their, and only their, view is correct. There is a difference between toleration - respecting differences - and relativism - accepting all beliefs as equally valid, so that none are valid. (Thanks to Michael Shermer for that definition!) The book makes one wonder whether their faith, their beliefs, are so fragile and vulnerable that they must fear and condemn everything that does not fit their narrow standards. it doesn't say much either for their God or their faith that they are so easily threatened, so constantly under attack. This may also a way of making themselves feel important - "we must be important and powerful or Satan/demons/spirits/heretics/etc wouldn't attack us so." It's also intellectually and theologically lazy - The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. If it doesn't agreee 100%, it can be discarded without further thought or investigation. And someone needs to explain to them: "Never attribute to evil that which can be explained by stupidity." Perhaps we should not, as they are, so quick to attribute "wrong" beliefs to Satan when human stupidity, ignorance, laziness, arrogance and evil are more likely to be at fault. Also disturbing, to an academic, is the repeated assertion of general "facts" without any support or proof, such as the repeated recitation of "thousands of lives destroyed..." by cultic involvement. All too often, the authors are either disingenuous or fall back on petitio principi argument, and there is little to no attempt to place any of the groups in context - i.e., the currents of history and social thought had much influence on the founding of Freemasonry and its documented beliefs, but Ankerberg discusses none of this. Many of the refutations of those groups that are discussed at length are like going after a mosquito with a howitzer - are elaborate apologetics necessary when prima facie silliness presents itself? Ankerberg/Weldon give the impression that they are writing for an audience that is incapable of understanding, without their help, that the listed groups are incompatible with Christianity.
I will say that I found the book useful in a bibliographic sense. Apart from that, the only nice thing I have to say is that Ankerberg/Weldon and I at least agree on one thing, which is that the Jesus Seminar is nonsense.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I found this book far below the standard set in Ankerberg/Weldon's previous book, Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs, which I also own. My disappointment is based on two points: First...the authors give extremely short shrift to many if not most of the cults, beliefs, groups and sects listed. It is not helpful for those seeking to learn what these various groups are "about," that is, what their particular beliefs are. I find the term "encyclopedia" inaccurate as a description of the book's contents, as the only entries that could be considered truly encyclopedic are those on which the authors have written other voluminous works (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and other "almost but not quite" orthodox Christian groups - which, perhaps not coincidentally, seem to irk the authors far more than out-there groups such as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the Children of God). Also, they fail to address a number of groups problematic for Christians, such as the "word-faith" movement, Toronto Blessing, Benny Hinn, etc. Secondly, the authors' work is far less balanced than that presented in their previous work. It rapidly becomes obvious that Ankerberg and Weldon are going to condemn any self-defined religious group that does not conform to their orthodox definition of conservative (not to say fundamentalist), evangelical, Biblical-inerrancy based Christianity. As a seminarian whose dissertation concerns why people turn to cults, New Age beliefs, alternative faiths, and new religious movements, I was very disappointed that Ankerberg and Weldon could not provide more information about these groups and why people might turn to them - and away from orthodox beliefs - in an attempt to settle their own personal "unpaid bills" of faith. In areas, Ankerberg/Weldon come dangerously close to personifying what many people dislike about orthodox Christians - the dogmatic, doctrinaire, intolerant, narrow-minded, even bigoted insistence that their, and only their, view is correct. There is a difference between toleration - respecting differences - and relativism - accepting all beliefs as equally valid, so that none are valid. (Thanks to Michael Shermer for that definition!) The book makes one wonder whether their faith, their beliefs, are so fragile and vulnerable that they must fear and condemn everything that does not fit their narrow standards. it doesn't say much either for their God or their faith that they are so easily threatened, so constantly under attack. This may also a way of making themselves feel important - "we must be important and powerful or Satan/demons/spirits/heretics/etc wouldn't attack us so." It's also intellectually and theologically lazy - The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. If it doesn't agreee 100%, it can be discarded without further thought or investigation. And someone needs to explain to them: "Never attribute to evil that which can be explained by stupidity." Perhaps we should not, as they are, so quick to attribute "wrong" beliefs to Satan when human stupidity, ignorance, laziness, arrogance and evil are more likely to be at fault. Also disturbing, to an academic, is the repeated assertion of general "facts" without any support or proof, such as the repeated recitation of "thousands of lives destroyed..." by cultic involvement. All too often, the authors are either disingenuous or fall back on petitio principi argument, and there is little to no attempt to place any of the groups in context - i.e., the currents of history and social thought had much influence on the founding of Freemasonry and its documented beliefs, but Ankerberg discusses none of this. Many of the refutations of those groups that are discussed at length are like going after a mosquito with a howitzer - are elaborate apologetics necessary when prima facie silliness presents itself? Ankerberg/Weldon give the impression that they are writing for an audience that is incapable of understanding, without their help, that the listed groups are incompatible with Christianity.
I will say that I found the book useful in a bibliographic sense. Apart from that, the only nice thing I have to say is that Ankerberg/Weldon and I at least agree on one thing, which is that the Jesus Seminar is nonsense.
Rating:
Summary: Terrible!
Review: I have never read such a terrible book! These people are not even fully educated in their topics. And they are SO biased, it's not even funny. Don't waste any money on this book at all!
Rating:
Summary: Bland and Biased
Review: I would have strong hesitations suggesting this book. It does not seem well researched. If you are interested in new religions, find another book.
Rating:
Summary: Good Reference on Different Types of Religious Groups
Review: In my humble opinion, Ankerberg and Weldon have written a good reference on many religious groups, from Armstrongism to Zen and several groups in between. Indeed, many groups I have never heard of are included. For some groups, nothing more than a couple of sections entitled "Info At a Glance" (name, purpose, attitude toward Christianity, quotes from leaders) and Doctrinal Summary (view of God and Jesus, salvation, death, the Bible, Heaven and Hell). Other groups such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baha'i, Masonic Lodge, Unitarianism, Unification Church, The Way International, and Zen, have more detailed information. As an evangelical Christian, I do not have a problem with the book's approach (contrary to several previous reviewers) - after all, since Jesus made claims and performed feats that no other leader could make or back up, does it not make sense to measure what other religious groups believe compared to Biblical Christianity? Unfortunately, too many earlier reviewers trash the book without being honest about how their beliefs line up with Christianity. I do wish the book had more information on various groups such as Christian Science, Silva Mind Control, UFO Cults, and Yoga as these groups have recently been making the news and have infiltrated some corporate training methods. Complaint aside, I recommend the title as a good source for finding out what other religious groups really believe and how they compare to Biblical Christianity!
Rating:
Summary: Good Reference on Different Types of Religious Groups
Review: In my humble opinion, Ankerberg and Weldon have written a good reference on many religious groups, from Armstrongism to Zen and several groups in between. Indeed, many groups I have never heard of are included. For some groups, nothing more than a couple of sections entitled "Info At a Glance" (name, purpose, attitude toward Christianity, quotes from leaders) and Doctrinal Summary (view of God and Jesus, salvation, death, the Bible, Heaven and Hell). Other groups such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baha'i, Masonic Lodge, Unitarianism, Unification Church, The Way International, and Zen, have more detailed information. As an evangelical Christian, I do not have a problem with the book's approach (contrary to several previous reviewers) - after all, since Jesus made claims and performed feats that no other leader could make or back up, does it not make sense to measure what other religious groups believe compared to Biblical Christianity? Unfortunately, too many earlier reviewers trash the book without being honest about how their beliefs line up with Christianity. I do wish the book had more information on various groups such as Christian Science, Silva Mind Control, UFO Cults, and Yoga as these groups have recently been making the news and have infiltrated some corporate training methods. Complaint aside, I recommend the title as a good source for finding out what other religious groups really believe and how they compare to Biblical Christianity!
Rating: 
Summary: Still Needs Work
Review: Most of the other reviewers on this page have condemned this work as being little more than "biased," "hate-mongering" and "bad." Thier reason? The work looks at small religious traditions in the light of 1. how they measure up to (Traditional) Christianity and 2. what thier beliefs are in general (that makes me wonder how much, if any, of the book most of them read). Now, granted, it is a little biased to stack up a religion next Christianity, but since many of these "cults" claim to either be a supplement to, the fulfillment of, or the true and origional version of Christianity, it only makes sense to look at them as they compare to the beliefs of Traditional Christians (that is, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant). This is especially valuable in the case of Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses since both claim to be legitimate Christiantiy and are often listed as such. As for the other religions subject to scrutinazation in this book...well it is important to remember that all of them are hostile to Tradtional Christianity (in much the same way every other reviewer is) and this is the encyclopedia of cults and NEW religions (though there is no concrete meaning of what exactally New is). In any case, this book does have a few problems. Number one, it give enormous treatment to some subjects (i.e., CofJCofLDS and JW's), but there is less than a page on many. It would valuable to expand some of these areas while tappering off the larger articles in any revision of the book. Second, despite Chrstianity being the measuring line to which all is compared, there is no definition of what exactally Christianity is anywhere that I have seen. On the whole, it is a valuable reference work for anyone looking for information on cults, just as long as you believe Christianity; otherwise, all bets are off and you too will probably hate this book. But that's OK...it wasn't written for the non-Christian anyway.
Rating:
Summary: Still Needs Work
Review: Most of the other reviewers on this page have condemned this work as being little more than "biased," "hate-mongering" and "bad." Thier reason? The work looks at small religious traditions in the light of 1. how they measure up to (Traditional) Christianity and 2. what thier beliefs are in general (that makes me wonder how much, if any, of the book most of them read). Now, granted, it is a little biased to stack up a religion next Christianity, but since many of these "cults" claim to either be a supplement to, the fulfillment of, or the true and origional version of Christianity, it only makes sense to look at them as they compare to the beliefs of Traditional Christians (that is, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant). This is especially valuable in the case of Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses since both claim to be legitimate Christiantiy and are often listed as such. As for the other religions subject to scrutinazation in this book...well it is important to remember that all of them are hostile to Tradtional Christianity (in much the same way every other reviewer is) and this is the encyclopedia of cults and NEW religions (though there is no concrete meaning of what exactally New is). In any case, this book does have a few problems. Number one, it give enormous treatment to some subjects (i.e., CofJCofLDS and JW's), but there is less than a page on many. It would valuable to expand some of these areas while tappering off the larger articles in any revision of the book. Second, despite Chrstianity being the measuring line to which all is compared, there is no definition of what exactally Christianity is anywhere that I have seen. On the whole, it is a valuable reference work for anyone looking for information on cults, just as long as you believe Christianity; otherwise, all bets are off and you too will probably hate this book. But that's OK...it wasn't written for the non-Christian anyway.
Rating:
Summary: A book for scholars
Review: This book is not intended for the casual reader. This is a scholarly work which requires concentration on the part of the reader. It should be described as a reference work. I would definitely recommend it for pastors, seminary students, or Bible college students. The book is well documented.
|
