Scan barcode
darylreads's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
4.5
Some material is very dated.
agruenbaum's review against another edition
4.0
Lots of info about lots of specific cults. It will take multiple listens to get more of it to stick.
skigirl1689's review against another edition
4.0
This is a thoroughly researched book detailing the differences between major cults and Biblical Christianity. Martin's arguments are backed by fact, and not opinion, and are extremely informative. I did read it straight through, and I did find the section on Seventh-Day Adventists a bit confusing, but it is a good reference book to keep on hand when wondering which religions believe and teach what. I am planning on reading [b:The Kingdom of the Occult|4568687|The Kingdom of the Occult|Walter Ralston Martin|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1391828623s/4568687.jpg|4618021] next.
franquie's review against another edition
5.0
This is an excellent book on the beliefs of the various cults. This is a must read (or listen) for anyone studying this topic.
nerdyher's review against another edition
4.0
It’s a heavy read so it took me a while, yet I still wish certain areas were expanded simply for curiosity’s sake. As a whole though, The Kingdom of the Cults is thorough and as far as I’m aware, accurate and theologically sound.
jmanchester0's review against another edition
1.0
On the surface it seems to be a good text on cults, but it seems mostly to exist to cast dispersions on ‰ЫПnew age-y‰Ыќ kind of stuff (alternative medicines, astrology), the more extreme forms of Christianity (Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah‰ЫЄs Witnesses), and how certain teachings of Eastern religions have created cult-like organizations as they have been Westernized. Most of this book is a close look at the theologies of Jehovah‰ЫЄs Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Mormons, and how their practices differ from Martin‰ЫЄs own fundamentalist views of the Bible. There are shorter chapters describing how other organizations, like the Moonies, the Baha‰ЫЄi Faith, Scientology.
Also, a big part of the book is how these cults draw people away from fundamentalist christianity.
And it‰ЫЄs interesting that he comes from the perspective of a very specific reading of scriptures, which seems to almost put his beliefs dangerously close to those that he is arguing against. For example, he notes:
‰ЫПIt should be noted that hardly ever in their discourses will such cultists discuss the essential problem of evil, the existence of personal sin, or the necessity of the substitutionary atonement of Christ as the sole means of salvation from sin, through the agency of divine grace and the exercise of faith.‰Ыќ
I guess if you‰ЫЄre a Christian and don‰ЫЄt completely agree with all of those things as important, you can still use this book to classify certain other Christians as members of a cult.
His arguments about semantics remind me of the church I grew up in. His very specific interpretation of the Bible is the valid one, and others are not. He compares this things like law and mathematics where you have specific, correct, terms. Like one person I talked to discussing how their very specific Biblical interpretation was true meant all others were incorrect: ‰ЫПIf I say there is one moon, and you say there are two moons, only one of us can be correct.‰Ыќ It‰ЫЄs this kind of rhetoric that gives these kinds of doctrines a false sense of truth. Martin assumes his interpretations of the Bible are NOT interpretations - they are factually correct.
He also wants to evaluate science against God‰ЫЄs Word.
‰ЫПWhile Christians should not reflect very psychological discover or position as wrong (!), each psychological assumption should be evaluated carefully against the standard of God‰ЫЄs Word, the Bible.‰Ыќ
While I understand his point that a field like psychology may not have the exactness of some of the physical sciences like physics or chemistry, ensuring that even this field of science agrees with the Bible gets dangerously close to what Galileo faced several hundred years ago.
I love how he says he doesn‰ЫЄt want to make fun of anyone involved with these organizations, then compares them to dogs!
On page 18, ‰ЫПIt is not my desire in any sense to make fun of adherents of cult systems, the large majority of whom are sincere, though I am not adverse to humor when it can underscore a point.‰Ыќ
Then on page 41, he is completely condescending:
‰ЫПIn the case of Jehovah‰ЫЄs Witnesses, the literature of the Watchtower is replete with examples of psychological conditioning that elicits a definite pattern of religious reflexes in response to stimuli. As Pavlov‰ЫЄs dog salivated at the sound of a bell that represented food, so a true Jehovah‰ЫЄs Witness will spiritually and emotionally salivate whenever the Watchtower rings the conditioning bell of Russellite theology.‰Ыќ
Really, I think that point could have been made without comparing Jehovah‰ЫЄs Witnesses to dogs.
It‰ЫЄs probably telling that he spends a lot of a chapter complaining that secular versions of deprogramming (removing cult brainwashing) don‰ЫЄt necessarily differentiate Christian fundamentalism (like Martin‰ЫЄs teachings) and some of the more extreme cults that Martin is writing this book about.
Of course, some of the ways he discounts the teachings of these more extreme Christian organizations is how their very specific (false) doctrine differs from his very specific interpretations (sorry, factual truths) of the Bible. To his credit, a lot of these doctrines from these Christian ‰ЫПcults‰Ыќ are pretty fantastic and absurd. But we aren‰ЫЄt going to talk about how some of Martin‰ЫЄs teaching are absurd and fantastic to other biblical scholars. He states that ‰ЫПDoctrinal heresy is a sin against God.‰Ыќ But one man‰ЫЄs doctrinal heresy is another man‰ЫЄs Truth.
I think we‰ЫЄd all agree that these cults probably cause more harm than Martin‰ЫЄs own religion, but that may be like saying murder is worse than assault. That doesn‰ЫЄt mean the latter is ok.
Also, a big part of the book is how these cults draw people away from fundamentalist christianity.
And it‰ЫЄs interesting that he comes from the perspective of a very specific reading of scriptures, which seems to almost put his beliefs dangerously close to those that he is arguing against. For example, he notes:
‰ЫПIt should be noted that hardly ever in their discourses will such cultists discuss the essential problem of evil, the existence of personal sin, or the necessity of the substitutionary atonement of Christ as the sole means of salvation from sin, through the agency of divine grace and the exercise of faith.‰Ыќ
I guess if you‰ЫЄre a Christian and don‰ЫЄt completely agree with all of those things as important, you can still use this book to classify certain other Christians as members of a cult.
His arguments about semantics remind me of the church I grew up in. His very specific interpretation of the Bible is the valid one, and others are not. He compares this things like law and mathematics where you have specific, correct, terms. Like one person I talked to discussing how their very specific Biblical interpretation was true meant all others were incorrect: ‰ЫПIf I say there is one moon, and you say there are two moons, only one of us can be correct.‰Ыќ It‰ЫЄs this kind of rhetoric that gives these kinds of doctrines a false sense of truth. Martin assumes his interpretations of the Bible are NOT interpretations - they are factually correct.
He also wants to evaluate science against God‰ЫЄs Word.
‰ЫПWhile Christians should not reflect very psychological discover or position as wrong (!), each psychological assumption should be evaluated carefully against the standard of God‰ЫЄs Word, the Bible.‰Ыќ
While I understand his point that a field like psychology may not have the exactness of some of the physical sciences like physics or chemistry, ensuring that even this field of science agrees with the Bible gets dangerously close to what Galileo faced several hundred years ago.
I love how he says he doesn‰ЫЄt want to make fun of anyone involved with these organizations, then compares them to dogs!
On page 18, ‰ЫПIt is not my desire in any sense to make fun of adherents of cult systems, the large majority of whom are sincere, though I am not adverse to humor when it can underscore a point.‰Ыќ
Then on page 41, he is completely condescending:
‰ЫПIn the case of Jehovah‰ЫЄs Witnesses, the literature of the Watchtower is replete with examples of psychological conditioning that elicits a definite pattern of religious reflexes in response to stimuli. As Pavlov‰ЫЄs dog salivated at the sound of a bell that represented food, so a true Jehovah‰ЫЄs Witness will spiritually and emotionally salivate whenever the Watchtower rings the conditioning bell of Russellite theology.‰Ыќ
Really, I think that point could have been made without comparing Jehovah‰ЫЄs Witnesses to dogs.
It‰ЫЄs probably telling that he spends a lot of a chapter complaining that secular versions of deprogramming (removing cult brainwashing) don‰ЫЄt necessarily differentiate Christian fundamentalism (like Martin‰ЫЄs teachings) and some of the more extreme cults that Martin is writing this book about.
Of course, some of the ways he discounts the teachings of these more extreme Christian organizations is how their very specific (false) doctrine differs from his very specific interpretations (sorry, factual truths) of the Bible. To his credit, a lot of these doctrines from these Christian ‰ЫПcults‰Ыќ are pretty fantastic and absurd. But we aren‰ЫЄt going to talk about how some of Martin‰ЫЄs teaching are absurd and fantastic to other biblical scholars. He states that ‰ЫПDoctrinal heresy is a sin against God.‰Ыќ But one man‰ЫЄs doctrinal heresy is another man‰ЫЄs Truth.
I think we‰ЫЄd all agree that these cults probably cause more harm than Martin‰ЫЄs own religion, but that may be like saying murder is worse than assault. That doesn‰ЫЄt mean the latter is ok.
couldbutwont's review against another edition
3.0
I would love to read an updated version of this. I feel like it's slightly outdated but it is still relevant. While reading what stuck with me the most was his calling everyone to not focus on knowing and understanding the cults in order to recognize them but instead to read the bible to know Jesus so well that anything contrary is immediately obvious. This is great advice for everyone. Want to be sure what you believe is based in bible? Want to make sure what you are being taught in your churches is biblical? Get in the word and read it for understanding. If you know God any counterfeit religion will be made so obvious that you can't possibly be fooled into following "another Jesus".
More...