Čo je to náboženský egregor a ako ovplyvňuje vedomie jednotlivca?

Náboženský egregor predstavuje kolektívnu psychickú entitu vytvorenú myšlienkami a emóciami veriacich. V psychologickom zmysle funguje ako autonómny systém, ktorý spätne formuje vnímanie reality jednotlivca, obmedzuje jeho kognitívnu autonómiu a posilňuje skupinovú konformitu prostredníctvom zdieľaných dogiem.

Aké sú hlavné znaky psychickej manipulácie v cirkevnom prostredí?

Medzi kľúčové znaky patrí vyvolávanie pocitov viny a strachu, milieukontrola (izolácia od vonkajších informácií), sakralizácia doktríny, ktorá nepripúšťa pochybnosti, a používanie naloženého jazyka (loaded language), ktorý redukuje komplexné myslenie na čiernobiele kategórie.

Prečo je kritické myslenie kľúčové pri dekonštrukcii náboženských dogiem?

Kritické myslenie umožňuje jednotlivcovi identifikovať logické klamy v teologických argumentoch a rozpoznať manipulatívne techniky používané na udržanie moci. Pomáha oddeliť osobnú spiritualitu od inštitucionálnej kontroly a obnoviť intelektuálnu integritu analýzou faktov a dôkazov bez apriórnej zaujatosti.

The Bible questions the divinity of Christ - Philosophical criticism of Christianity and religion

Table of Contents

The Divinity of Christ vs. the Bible

The Bible is the most heretical book ever written because it questions the most fundamental dogmas of the Christian faith. Not only does it not support the divinity of Christ, but it directly questions it. What do you think is the reason why the church in the past banned the Bible and only priests had access to it, and even then only in very incomprehensible Latin? It had clear reasons for that.
Christian believers do not realize how much they are manipulated. They read the Bible without understanding it. They do not realize that they are holding in their hands the most anti-Christian book ever written.
The basic principle of religion is the manipulation and psychological enslavement of man. It would take a separate lecture to explain the psychology of religion and how egregors and collective consciousness work.

It was very difficult for pagans who converted to Christianity, that is, the first Christians, to completely give up pagan thinking. Therefore, they tried to adapt Christianity to their ideas at all costs. They looked for anything in the Bible that could be twisted and misinterpreted to introduce the principle of the Divine Couple into Christianity, which was very well known in paganism, in Greek and Roman mythology. In the Nicene Creed, we still only have the divine couple, which was a teaching identical to the divine couples of pagan gods. And later, the divine trinity evolved from the divine couple when the Holy Spirit was added to the Father and the Son. The Church Fathers searched the Bible for anything that could support their view and invested an unimaginable amount of time and energy in it. Sometimes they went to extremely extreme interpretations, which the church still adheres to today.
The most support for the Divinity of Christ is found in the youngest and therefore least authentic and most manipulated Gospel of John, which was not written by John but by a pagan convert to Christianity, who added his pagan thinking and myths to the gospel, which embellished Jesus. However, even in John's Gospel, we have nothing about the Divinity of Christ, although some micro hints can be found there. But even in John's Gospel, one cannot speak of the divinity of Christ in any way. There are two possibilities. Either the author of John's Gospel himself did not believe in the divinity of Christ, or he did not have the courage to write it "out loud".
In the article, we will also talk about the manipulation of Bible translations in favor of the Deity of Christ.

Another serious theological problem with the Divinity of Christ is that the Old Testament did not designate the Jewish Messiah as God. Jews do not believe that their Messiah should be God. However, Christians consider the Messiah Jesus to be God. Something is not right here.

The correct interpretation of the term "Son of God"

Mainstream Christian theology is based on the logic that when Jesus is referred to as the "son of God" in the Bible, it is confirmation that Jesus is God. However, in the Bible, we find several passages where the phrase "sons of God" is used in the plural, or where "children of God" is mentioned. Early Christians and the original authors of the Bible clearly believed that ordinary believers and Christ were equal, that anyone could become a son of God, not just Christ. The titles "son of God" and "children of God" are hierarchically of equal standing. Christians read the Bible without understanding it. The argument presented clearly challenges the divinity of Christ as it is currently understood by mainstream Christianity.

The correct interpretation of the designation of Jesus as "Lord"

In the Bible, especially in Paul's letters, Jesus is very often referred to as "lord". But how to interpret this correctly? Calling Jesus "lord" does not automatically mean calling him God.
In the New Testament of the Bible, we would find at least 50 verses from which it very clearly and explicitly follows from the context that the term "lord" is not the same as and is not identical to the word "God." These terms are very clearly distinguished, and very often in the context that the term "lord" is something lower and smaller than the term "God."
Christians do not realize that almost everywhere in the New Testament of the Bible, where Jesus is referred to as "Lord," his divinity is questioned. The term Lord not only does not confirm the divinity of Christ but also refutes it.
Paul explains in more detail what he means by the term lord. He also used the term lord to refer to the Roman emperor as lord on earth (who was worshipped as a lesser god within the Roman religion).
https://dkc.kbs.sk/dkc.php?hl=&in=1kor8,1-6
Christians also believed in the so-called Kingdom of God, they believed that they would live to see it, they believed that the Roman emperor would be overthrown and replaced by the ruler Jesus – this is very clearly implied in the Bible.
The Greek Septuagint and many national translations of the Bible also translate the term Yahweh as "lord" "kyrios", but this is an incorrect translation. The word "lord" "kyrios" has very different meanings in the Old and New Testaments.

First Letter to the Corinthians – 1 Cor 8:1–6
For even if there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth—as there are many gods and many lords— 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Uncovering the manipulation of translations and the correct interpretation of passages about the Word Logos as Christ "God"

Even the early Church Fathers tried to manipulate and misinterpret these passages of the Bible.
The standard translation is as follows:
The Gospel According to John – Chapter 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us .
https://obohu.cz/bible/index.php?styl=PR&k=J&kap=1&v=14&por[]=BKRS&por[]=SKP&por[]=TIS&vyberpor=porovnat#v14

The incorrect translation is the underlined text. The correct translation is "dwelled in you" .

Correct interpretation: this is a strongly Gnostic element in the Bible, which suggests the divinity of every human being, not just Christ. Through incorrect translation, Christians tried to achieve that "he dwelt among us" means that it is the god Christ who came to earth among people. But the original author of the Bible did not want to say that, it is a bad translation.

Manipulation of Bible translations in favor of the divinity of Christ Philippians – Phil 2:6

https://dkc.kbs.sk/dkc.php?in=flp2
You can view a comparison of several older translations here .

Slovak Catholic translation:
He, though he was in the form of God, did not cling to his equality with God,

Kralice Bible translation:
Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

(just as a matter of interest, the translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not recognize the divinity of Christ , is also quite objective)

The Kralice Bible translation is definitely the most objective.
As I have already mentioned in several articles, the younger the translation, the more it is manipulated in favor of church dogmas – this often happens in the Bible in several places.
When you compare all the English translations, it's a horror and a terror. Many translators, with complete audacity and rudeness, go even further in manipulating the translation than the Slovak Catholic Bible. The frenzy of religious fanatic translators knows no bounds.
The Slovak Catholic Bible, as well as many English and national translations, translates the Greek word morphe as Divine nature, by which the translator wants to manipulate the reader as if it were the Greek word ousion (homoousion), translated as nature, which is Trinitarian terminology that was invented many years later at the Council of Nicaea.

The meaning of the word morphḗ in the secular dictionary, because church theological dictionaries have been manipulated and are in conflict with science.

To understand the meaning of this verse, the key verb hyparchō, which is found before the word morphḗ, is also very important.
The problem with the word hyparchó is that it has many meanings, which has caused a large number of different interpretations and disputes among the first Christians, such as Bishop Arius (Arian Christians) and, for example, the Church Father Tertullian.
The role of the church, Christian theologians, and translators is to manipulate and deceive believers, and also to manipulate Greek translation dictionaries. In a secular dictionary, you will often find different meanings than in theological ones . Secular dictionary here .
The meaning of the word hyparchó is also to begin, to start, to come into existence, starting from below, to come into existence, to be at hand.

Possible translations of the passage that the Catholic Church translates as "has a divine nature" are as follows:

"he was beginning to take on a divine form"
"entered the divine form"
and so on.

Theologians often use this passage as evidence of the Divinity and pre-existence of Christ, i.e., that he has lived since time immemorial and was not created later, to strengthen the Divinity of Christ.
It seems that the original author of the Bible meant the exact opposite and, on the contrary, strongly condemned the divinity of Christ when he praised Jesus for not declaring himself God, for not "usurping the title of God."
The most modern and most manipulated English translations translate this verse as "Jesus is God and did not consider his equality with God to be a robbery." It's really crazy how religious fanatics modify the Bible as they please. Link and proof here, where all English translations are: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Philippians%202:6

Manipulation of Bible translations John 20:28 : "My Lord and my God!" about "doubting Thomas"

https://obohu.cz/bible/index.php?morf=ano&k=J&kap=20&v=28&kv=28&styl=PR#v28
Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"
Christian theologians speak of this passage as the main biblical evidence of the divinity of Christ.
However, even Christian theologians admit that the correct translation may be vocative, i.e. they at least mention such a possibility of translation, even if they do not agree with it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=John+20%3A28+vocative
If we were to admit that the vocative is the correct translation, then the words would be just a general exclamation, not addressed directly to Christ but generally. In the case of the vocative translation, you can forget about the divinity of Christ.
The translation in the vocative would be:

"Oh my God!"
"My God!"

In general, the last parts of the Bible are considered the least trustworthy, as something was usually added to them later. And this is also the case here.

Even if we were to admit that this is a passage supporting the Divinity of Christ, then the orthodox Christian and theologian must solve other difficult and unpleasant theological problems:

What to do with approximately 50 biblical passages that not only do not support but directly question the divinity of Christ? Many biblical passages, especially in Paul's letters, very clearly distinguish between the concepts of God (Father) and Jesus (Son) in context. Few Christians understand the seriousness of the situation, that these passages not only do not support the divinity of Christ but actually explicitly question it. The Bible must be viewed in context. Do not take just one statement out of context and ignore dozens of others. The ratio of 50:1 is too unpleasant an odds to be ignored.
Another unpleasant theological problem is that if I acknowledge the divinity of Christ, how do I then solve the problem of two gods, the Father and the Son? How do I resolve the dual divinity of the Father and the Son so that it begins to resemble the Trinity? Not only do we not find any passages in the Bible about the unification of the Father and the Son into a dual divinity, but we find passages that explicitly question it.
Even if we pretended that the Bible speaks of a unified dual deity of the Father and the Son, then how do we deal with the biblical passages that Jesus is much lower, a much lower deity at the level of an angel than the Father, as Tertullian, for example, proclaimed?
The teaching of the divine trinity and the divinity of Christ is a dead end. The reason why the church banned the Bible until 1900 is very clear. The Bible questions the trinity.

Jesus "declares" himself to be the "Son of God" Jn 10:22-38

John 10:22-38
It was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem. It was winter.
Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon's colonnade. The Jews surrounded him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense?! If you are the Messiah, tell us openly." Jesus answered them, "I have already told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in the name of my Father testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life. They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand."
My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of the Father's hand.
The Father and I are one."
The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of them do you want to stone me?" The Jews answered him, "We are not stoning you for a good work, but for blasphemy, because although you are a man, you make yourself God."
Jesus said to them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—"
Why do you say to the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming," because I said, "I am the Son of God"?!
If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me. But if I do them, even if you do not want to believe me, believe those works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father!"

Correct interpretation :

Jesus declares himself to be the son of God. I have already written above about the biblical meaning of the term son of God and children of God. The term Son of God does not in itself support the divinity of Christ.
This is an extremely heretical passage in the Bible, about gods in the plural. It is not for nothing that the Bible is the most heretical book. If a Catholic priest were to speak about gods in the plural during a sermon, he would be fired by the bishop the next day, but such "blasphemy" is written in the Bible.
What did the original author want to write? The passage about gods in the plural can also be interpreted as an element of Gnosticism, that everyone is a piece of God in their own way.
Another interpretation is that the author wanted to use the passage to create a myth about Jesus similar to Greek and Roman mythology about gods, in which gods became humans and humans became gods. Even mainstream theologians agree that John's Gospel is the youngest and was not written by him but by some of his disciples from the 2nd century. It was most likely a convert from paganism to Christianity, whose pagan thinking was still intensely pulsating in his blood. However, gods in the plural are contrary to the teaching of the Divine Trinity, so in the place of Christians, I would not refer to this passage as confirmation of Christ's divinity.
Even if we were to admit the divinity of Christ in this passage, it would certainly be a much lower and subordinate deity to God the Father, which is contrary to the teaching of the Divine Trinity. If there are gods in the plural, then there are more of them, not just Jesus, and from the context, it is a lower deity. Not to mention other very numerous passages in the Bible that speak of the Son as a lower and subordinate deity to the Father.
We cannot see into the mind of the original author, but the passages "I and the Father are one" … "the Father is in me and I in the Father" could be the first bold speculation and an indirect, cautious hint by a Christian author to transfer the pagan teaching of unified dual deities (such as the Hermes-Toth pair) into Christianity, into the Christian church. That is, the teaching of a divine pair, from which the divine trinity later developed.
- The problem, however, is that even if we acknowledge the existence of a unified dyotheism, biblical passages still speak of the Son as a lower and subordinate deity than the Father, which, according to Christians, is an unacceptable heresy. When the Church Fathers spoke of dyotheism, they always spoke of Jesus as a lower god than the Father, for example, Tertullian.
- But what to do with the biblical passages that clearly question the divinity of Christ, and there are many more of them? The Bible should not be taken out of context, but should be viewed comprehensively. And what do we do with the approximately 50 passages that explicitly question the divinity of Christ?
- On the other hand, "I and the Father are one" says nothing about the unity necessary for the divinity of Christ and the divine trinity. Even ordinary Christians try to be in unity with God, and that does not mean that an ordinary believer is a person in the Divine Trinity.
- The passage "the Father is in me and I am in the Father", the Kralice Bible "that the Father is in me, and I in him" is also not simple or unambiguous to translate. … And yet I found time to revise the translation. The literal translation is as follows: " The Father in me, I in myself." The Greek word autos is incorrectly translated. So I apologize for the text above. There is no hint of any above-standard unity of the father and son in the biblical passage. Biblical translators are aware of the great problems with the divinity of Christ, so they have to manipulate and distort Bible translations to make it look like there is at least something.

Manipulation of the translation of Romans 9:5 in favor of the Deity of Christ

https://obohu.cz/bible/index.php?styl=PR&k=R&kap=9&v=5&por[]=BKR1&por[]=BKRS&por[]=TIS&vyberpor=porovnat#v5

Romans 9:5
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them Christ came according to the flesh; he is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

The translation of the Kralice Bible is no longer so clear:
Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Just make a slight adjustment to the translation, don't change a single word in the Kralice Bible, just divide it into two sentences with a comma, and suddenly Christ ceases to be God's, and the sentence has a completely different meaning:
Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all.
God blessed forever. Amen.

And is Christ really "above all" as it is translated in the Bible?
The Greek word "pás", which theologians translate as "all", has a very unclear meaning to me. Especially the fact that Strong's number G3956 πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν has a very unconventional morphology, which would suggest many meanings. In the Bible, it is declined as πάντων. It would be very interesting if a secular experienced translator of ancient Greek could comment on this.

And is Christ really "above all" as it is translated in the Bible?
Now we will analyze the preposition "nad", ἐπί, [epi] in more detail.
Theological dictionaries also give this preposition many meanings . Secular dictionary here .
A better translation would be "in everything", "with everything" rather than "above everything", which would radically diminish the divine qualities of Christ.

Jesus' Divine Superpowers. Manipulation of Translations. Letter to the Philippians – Phil 3

Phil 3:21
By the power with which he can subdue all things, he will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body.

Kralice Bible:
" Who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power by which he is able to subject all things to himself."

The Kralice Bible translation is far more cautious with Christ's divine superpowers. Christian churches revel in manipulating translations. The younger the translation, the more manipulated it is. The Kralice translation rather states that Christ will be helped by power with the resurrection of the body. The term power probably metaphorically refers to God the Father.
Unfortunately, I no longer have time for a more detailed linguistic analysis.

Other Biblical Passages

I have selected not only passages that support my vision, but I have even given more space in this article to the arguments of religious fanatics who have the opposite opinion to mine.

Hebrews 2:7
You made him only a little lower than the angels, crowned him with glory and honor.
(The highest possible anti-Christian blasphemy in the Bible is to call Jesus lesser than the angels).

John 14:28
You have heard that I said to you, 'I am going away and am coming to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
(Jesus as a subordinate and inferior being to the Father. A heretical sentence in the Bible. If a Catholic priest were to say in a sermon that the Son is something less than the Father, he would be suspended by the bishop the next day.)

1 Cor 11:3
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.
(The heretical anti-Christian and anti-Trinitarian idea that the Father is not equal but is hierarchically superior to the Son)

John 17:3
And eternal life is this: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
(It is clear from the context that the biblical author did not consider Jesus to be God. There are at least 50 such and similar passages in the Bible)

John 20:17
Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
(Jesus makes it clear that he is not God, but just an ordinary believer who also believes and needs to believe in God)

Mark 7:7-9
But they worship me in vain,
because the teachings they teach are only human commands."
You are abandoning the commandment of God and are holding on to human traditions.
And he said to them, "You skillfully set aside the commandment of God to keep your own tradition."
(Although this passage is off-topic, it is very relevant to the current church, which has created more commandments and prohibitions than are in the Bible itself, such as the prohibition of contraception, masturbation, the creation of the doctrine of original sin, hell as eternal punishment, homophobic teachings, and much more)

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
(It is clear from the context that Jesus is not God, but only a mediator between God and people)

Romans 9:26
And in the place where they were told:
"You are not my people."
there they will be called the Sons of the living God."
(Gnostic element in the Bible. The Son of God is not only Christ but every human being)

John 17:22-24
And the glory that you gave me, I have given them, that they may be one, just as we are one.
I in them and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them as you have loved me.
Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they may see my glory, which you have given me, because you loved me before the creation of the world.
(Another passage questioning the divinity of Christ. If Christ were God, he would not have to pray)

Titus 2:13
and so they awaited the blessed hope and the coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,
who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
(We find at least 50 such and similar passages in the Bible. From the context of the text, it is clear that the author does not recognize the Divinity of Christ. God is one entity and Christ is a separate second entity. Christ himself is not a powerful enough being to bring "blessed hope and the coming of glory". Christians do not know how to read the Bible with understanding. They do not understand that this passage not only does not support the Divinity of Christ but also speaks directly against it. So if the author of the Bible believed in the divine and human nature of Christ, then in connection with the second coming of Christ, he would have emphasized the divine nature, which he did not do)

Acts 7:55-56
But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
and he said, "I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
(the passage does not support the divinity of Christ in any way)

1 John 5:19-21
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us the ability to know the True One. And we are in the True One, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the True One, God and eternal life.
My children, protect yourselves from idols!
(Correct Interpretation. The author did not mean to say that Jesus is God, but explains that by the term "True" he means God)

Rev 22:13-13
Behold, I am coming soon, and My reward is with Me, to give to each one as his work deserves.
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
(The argument of the pre-existence of Christ, which strengthens his divinity.
Even among mainstream theologians, there is an agreement that the Book of Revelation is the least authentic and the youngest book of all, written with a long time gap from the other gospels and letters. Many theologians consider the Book of Revelation to be apocryphal, meaning they would not object if it were excluded from the Bible altogether.

John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, to stay with you forever.
(Jesus is not God because he does not have the ability to mediate the Holy Spirit directly, but must ask the Father for it)

John 8:58
Jesus told them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
(a reinforcing argument for the divinity of Christ, who was not created but lived from eternity. However, the Bible should not be taken out of context. There are more opposing arguments in the Bible.
An alternative translation is: "Before Abraham was born, I existed," which could indicate reincarnation or the pre-existence of all souls before incarnation, not just Jesus. In the Greek environment where the author wrote the Gospel of John, reincarnation was very well known from Hermetic philosophy, so no one can completely reject my interpretation.

John 5:13
so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

John 14:6
Jesus answered him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
(a reinforcing argument of the importance and thus indirectly of the divinity of Christ)

Col 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation,
(a reinforcing argument for the divinity of Christ, who was not created but lived from eternity. However, the Bible should not be taken out of context. There are more opposing arguments in the Bible)
**************************
A particularly interesting passage of the Bible is where Jesus refuses to be worshipped. A clear argument against the worship and divinity of Christ.

Since Jesus saved us all, he must be God.

Even such a theological argument may appear.
I don't remember exactly which church historian wrote it in their publications, whether it was Prof. Bart D. Ehrman or Prof. Jeffrey A. Trumbower, but one of them mentioned that the first Christians did not believe that Christ's sacrificial death on the Cross would be enough, so they greatly looked forward to martyrdom to complete Christ's sacrifice for the purpose of salvation. The first Christians believed that their martyrdom contributed to the salvation of mankind, just like Christ's death.
By the way, some contemporary mainstream Christians mocked the Gnostics for looking forward to death so much that it bordered on a desire for suicide, while many non-Gnostic Christians did the same.

Michal Patarák on redemption by the blood of Jesus

Although Patarák is a doctor, he presents very interesting and enriching philosophical arguments criticizing mainstream Christianity. I would like to draw special attention to the subtitle of his article:
What is more: birth or death?
https://dennikn.sk/blog/539987/ja-krestan/

Jehovah's Witnesses do not recognize the Deity of Christ. Their teaching is closest to the Bible and to the faith of the early Christians.

Right from the first sentence, I want to prevent any misunderstanding and state that I am not a sympathizer of Jehovah's Witnesses and have a clearly negative opinion of them.
                         An interesting theological question remains as to why most Christians do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians. The reason is probably that Jehovah's Witnesses do not recognize the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity. The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are not considered Christians in public opinion, despite the fact that their teaching is closest to the Bible, can be considered a justified injustice against them.
By the way, the Christian offshoot of Adventists has the closest teaching to Jehovah's Witnesses, and no one doubts that Adventists are also Christians. Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists recognize the divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity. Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses have in common that they both believe in annihilationism , which means that under normal circumstances, without God's grace, not only the body but also the soul dies after death, and it is also a belief that questions hell as eternal punishment. God will punish the godless by burning their souls in fire, and then the soul will cease to exist.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not follow the Bible in everything, for example, the prohibition of blood transfusions or very active evangelization, that is, very active spreading of their Christian faith, was completely alien to the first Christians and the Bible.
A common feature of Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses is the exaggerated emphasis on the Book of Revelation and the expectation of Christ's imminent return. Both Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses have experienced embarrassing blunders, as their predictions of the end of the world have been unsuccessful. Incidentally, similar blunders also happened to the early Christians. The pagan philosopher Celsus criticized the early Christians for selling all their property because they believed they would live to see the Second Coming. The religious leaders of the early Christians profited greatly from this property. So yes, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and early Christians have a lot in common.
Jehovah's Witnesses also believe that salvation, or eternal life, will be achieved by exactly 144,000 chosen ones, because they place an excessively high emphasis on the Book of Revelation. It is a psychologically enslaving theology that forces a person to be a religious fanatic in order for the believer to belong to this small number.
                         Hoaxes are spreading among Christians that Jehovah's Witnesses have a radically different Bible, which is not similar at all. These are the prejudices of mainstream Christians who perceive Jehovah's Witnesses as competition. The Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible is publicly available on the Internet and there are no dramatic differences.
                          Are Jehovah's Witnesses a sect? My opinion is clear. Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are a sect. By the term sect, we mean a religious community that manipulates and enslaves its members. Jehovah's Witnesses fulfill this. The problem with Jehovah's Witnesses is bigotry, religious fanaticism, and closed-mindedness. On the one hand, the fact that they do not believe in hell seems to be a very liberal theology, but Jehovah's Witnesses have an extremely "conservative", not liberal, theology. One liberal element in the teaching does not mean that the entire religion is practiced that way.
For comparison, as a philosopher and critic of Christianity, I call not only Jehovah's Witnesses a sect, but also so-called Christian communities, the vast majority of which are communities based on religious fanaticism. I see no difference in the harmfulness and psychological enslavement in Christian communities or among Jehovah's Witnesses. Both are equally dangerous. The difference lies in how society views Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian communities. Society is more tolerant of Christian communities than of Jehovah's Witnesses, and public opinion also has a more positive view of them. The degree of psychological enslavement among Jehovah's Witnesses and in Christian communities, whose leaders are Eduard Heger or Marek Krajčí, may not be great. I have long been sounding the alarm that society as a whole greatly underestimates psychological manipulation in Christian communities and does not consider them a sect. There are no rescue, psychological, or support centers for people who have become victims of Christian communities.
                         Another problem with Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventists is that they do not acknowledge that the Bible also has errors, that even the Bible contains harmful and dangerous things. To consider the Bible as an authentic divine revelation is a mistake. Fanaticism is a mistake.
                         Furthermore, it must be said that Christian communities have a psychologically much better-developed marketing strategy and know how to promote their faith in a much more sophisticated way than Jehovah's Witnesses.

Updated 21.9.2025

False argumentation Logos=God=Christ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Son
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity)
In these articles, strongly religiously oriented Wikipedia authors try to argue that the first Christians interpreted the first chapter of John's Gospel in the style of Logos=God=Christ. However, this is a misinterpretation of their words.
They refer, for example, to Justin Martyr , who considered the Son to be a deity subordinate to the Father.
Other early Christian authors used the term logos in a completely different context than the modern ecclesiastical Trinitarian doctrine.
Other authors are very unknown and had no significant influence in the church.
Theophilus of Antioch also speaks of the Logos in the context of a lower, subordinate deity.