this is kind of an odd question. I think you might get all kinds of answers with this one.
The main areas that certain Christian's usually identify, (the biggest areas) are:
Baptism, the Eucharist, the Trinity and some version of the Ransom/Redemption/Atonement doctrine.
But depending on how strictly one wishes to define the qualifying belief or practice, it could be argued that JWs meet all of these with the exception of the Trinity of course.
.....the following bit is excerpted from my website in relation to the whole "Cult" debate.....
Members of the Counter-Cult Movement and some others use Orthodoxy as a basis to say whether a group is a cult.* This theological slant is most evident in Christian evangelical literature. I don't believe that orthodoxy or non-orthodoxy is a valid factor to consider for a number of reasons including the fact that to presuppose orthodoxy means simply to acknowledge that there were "winners" in the development of Christianity and to ignore the fact that there were "losers" such as Christian Gnostics and other variations of Christianity that were in competition during the first several centuries of the Church or which exist now within the body of Christian faith. While this conventional theological analysis has appealing features, including that it is simple, direct and intelligible, it has too many flaws to be truly useful. The first flaw is the question of orthodoxy I have just mentioned. Second, this factor fails to acknowledge the variety of beliefs and practices among the innumerable groups labeled as a cult. Third, calling a group a cult because it is unorthodox helps only to merely identify them based upon this definition it does not help us to understand them. Fourth, such a narrow view does not address satisfactorily questions regarding religious pluralism. Nevertheless, despite these inherent flaws, let's briefly examine the major areas which most Christians would insist that another christian religion possess in order for it not to be labeled a cult. These areas are Baptism, the Eucharist, the Trinity and some version of the Ransom/Redemption/Atonement doctrine.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe and practice baptism. They believe that complete immersion is appropriate and that baptism is a "public declaration of one's dedication and trust in Christ's ransom sacrifice" as well as a declaration of repentance from sins. One could hardly criticize Witnesses in this area.
Jehovah's Witnesses practice a limited form of the Eucharist, having about 8,000 of the elite (the anointed) partake of the bread and wine, once a year, during the
Memorial of Christ's Death
. While some Christians may criticize this practice and assert that partaking in the Eucharist is meant for all Christians, this is a disagreement over doctrine and belief and not reason to call Witnesses a cult.
Jehovah's Witnesses reject the Trinity part and parcel. If some wish to call them a cult on this basis, they are just exhibiting their strong bias and belief in the Trinity doctrine, which Jehovah's Witnesses and some others dispute. There is not much to be said about it.
Finally, Witnesses do of course, believe in the Ransom and the Redemption made possible by the death of Jesus.
Thus taking everything above, it is clear to see, that with the one exception, Jehovah's Witnesses are within the realm of accepted Christianity and in fact when one looks at the various lists of world religions they are included in the segment encompassing Christianity. Again, Christian orthodoxy should not be a basis in determining whether a group is a cult but even if one did make such an examination they would have to give Jehovah's Witnesses the benefit of the doubt unless they were using extremely narrow filters of what would be considered orthodox.
----------
it probably goes without saying that persons who do use orthodoxy as a standard to say what is "Christian" also label other groups like Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. as non-Christian.
-eduardo