SETIAP DENOMINASI KRISTEN pasti mengaku ajarannya paling benar, tidak mau dianggap sesat apalagi dicap sebagai kultus. Demikian juga Lembaga Menara Pengawal, organisasi Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa mengaku Kristen dengan ajarannya yang paling benar. Tetapi apakah pemahaman kultus menurut para ahli kultus? Simak dalam video berikut yang menjelaskan 3 pilar suatu organisasi digolongakan sebagai sebuah kultus berkedok agama Kristen
Silahkan juga kunjungi akun instagram @menyingkap.ajaran.saksiyehuwa
Silahkan kunjungi youtube channel tersebut dan jangan lupa subsribe ya. Hindari penyesatan Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa dengan membagikan blog ini, akun instagram dan video di youtube
Soli deo Gloria
Selamat malam Pak Awi. Setelah melihat dan mendengar narasi Pak Awi di video ini, perkenankanlah saya memberikan sedikit koreksi terkait dengan 3 kutipan pernyataan yang Bpk Awi jadikan dasar untuk membenarkan “cocoklogi”-nya Pak Awi (meminjam istilahnya Pak Awi)
ReplyDeletePernyataan-pernyataan tsb BUKAN dari seorang Saksi Yehuwa tapi MANTAN Saksi Yehuwa yang murtad. Nah kalau berbicara tentang mantan Saksi Yehuwa yang murtad, pertanyaan besarnya adalah apakah kesaksian/pernyataan mereka bisa dipercaya atau diandalkan? Bagaimana kesaksian/pernyataan mrk bisa dipercaya atau bisa diandalkan jika menurut Pak Awi sendiri, para mantan SY yang murtad tersebut “membawa dendam kesumat”?
Sangat berbeda dg pandangan Pak Awi bahwa semua kesaksian para mantan SY yg murtad "100% dapat dipercaya", bersama ini saya sertakan kutipan beberapa PAKAR dari http://templeofreason.org/cyclopedia/apostasy.htm dimana sebagian besar dari para PAKAR dlm bidang tsb justru menyimpulkan apa saja alasannya sehingga keterangan atau kesaksian para mantan sangat tidak bisa di andalkan validitas dan kredibilitasnya.
1. Bryan R. Wilson, who was a professor of Sociology at Oxford University, writes that apostates of new religious movements, are generally in need of self-justification, seeking to reconstruct their own past and to excuse their former affiliations, while blaming those who were formerly their closest associates. Wilson coins the term of atrocity story that is in his view rehearsed by the apostate to explain how, by manipulation, coercion or deceit, he was recruited to a group that he now condemns. (Wilson, 1981) Wilson also challenges the reliability of the apostate's testimony by saying that "[apostates] always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader." (Wilson 1994)
2. Jean Duhaime, a professor of religious studies and science of religion at the Université de Montréal writes, based upon his analysis of three memoirs by apostates of NRMs (by Dubreuil, Huguenin, Lavallée, see bibliography), that he is more balanced than some reseachers, referring to Wilson, and that apostate testimonies can not be dismissed, only because they are not objective, though he admits that they write atrocity stories in the definition by Bromley and Shupe. He asserts that the reasons why they tell their stories are, among others, to warn others to be careful in religous matters and to put order in their own lives. (Duhaime 2003)
3. Bromley and Shupe while discussing the role of anecdotal atrocity stories by apostates, proposes that these are likely to paint a caricature of the group, shaped by the apostate's current role rather than his experience in the group, and question's their motives and rationale. In Lewis Carter and David Bromley claim in some studies that the onus of pathology experienced by former members of new religions movements should be shifted from these groups to the coercive activities of the anti-cult movement.(Bromley, 1984)
-- b e r l a n j u t --
-- l a n j u t a n n y a --
ReplyDelete4. Gordon Melton, while testifying as an expert witness in a lawsuit, said that when investigating groups, one should not rely solely upon the unverified testimony of ex-members, and that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents turning them into major incidents. [11]. He also quotes the above study of Lewis Carter and David Bromley. .He also follows the argumentation of Lewis Carter and David Bromley above and claims that as a result of this study, the treatment (coerced or voluntary) of former members as people in need of psychological assistance largely ceased and that an (alleged) lack of widespread need for psychological help by former members of new religions would in itself be the strongest evidence refuting early sweeping condemnations of new religions as causes of psychological trauma. (Melton 1999)
5. Dr. Lonnie D. Kliever, Professor of Religious Studies of the Southern Methodist University, in his paper titled The Reliability of Apostate testimony about New Religious movements that he wrote upon request for Scientology, claims that the overwhelming majority of people who disengage from non-conforming religions harbor no lasting ill-will toward their past religious associations and activities, and that by contrast there is a much smaller number of apostates who are deeply invested and engaged in discrediting and peforming actions designed to destroying the religious communities that once claimed their loyalties. He asserts that these dedicated opponents present a distorted view of the new religions and cannot be regarded as reliable informants by responsible journalists, scholars, or jurists. He claims that the reason for the lack of reliability of apostates is due to the traumatic nature of disaffiliation that he compares to a divorce and also due the influence of the anti-cult movement even on those apostates who were not deprogrammed or received exit counseling. (Kliever, 1995)
6. Massimo Introvigne in his Defectors, Ordinary Leavetakers and Apostates (Introvigne 1997) defines three types of narratives constructed by apostates of new religious movements:
Type I naratives: characterize the exit process as defection, in which the organization and the former member negotiate an exiting process aimed at minimizing the damage for both parties.
Type II naratives: involve a minimal degree of negotiation between the exiting member, the organization it intends to leave, and the environment or society at large, impliying that the ordinary apostate holds no strong feelings concerning his past experience in the group.
Type III naratives: characterized by the ex-member dramatically reversing his loyalties and becomes a professional enemy of the organization he has left. These aspostates, often join an oppositional coalition fighting the organization, often claiming victimization.
Introvigne argues that apostates professing type II narratives prevail among exiting members of controversial groups or organizations, while apostates that profess type III narratives are a vociferous minority.
Silakan pembaca yang obyektif menilai sendiri, pendapat atau pandangan siapa yang akan kita percayai, Pak Awi atau para pakar tsb.
Terima kasih.
Saksi Yehuwa merupakan kelompok KULTUS yang sangat rahasia dan berbahaya bagi keselamatan anggotanya.
ReplyDeletePakar yang Anda tampilkan di atas bukanlah pakar yang menangani bidang Kultus, apalagi pernah bercokol di dalamnya.
Membahas soal Kultus, tanyakan kepada Pakar Kultus donk masa ke Pakar bidang Sosiologi, anda sungguh lucu.
Membela agama ya ngak sedemikian fanatisme itu kali.... Ya, wajar. Anda kan seorang budak. Dan budak harus menuruti keinginan tuannya, bukan?
Jadi, sekali lagi Pakar yang Anda berikan bukanlah Pakar yang menguasai bidangnya...
Apostasy bukan membenci rekan-rekan mereka tapi penyesatan dan penipuan yang telah dilakukan oleh Organisasi nya.