|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 18, 2017 12:05:57 GMT
"I'm not a fascist, I'm a priest. Fascists dress in black and go around telling people what to do, whereas...priests... " I hear you're a racist now? Fecking Greeks! They invented gayness
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 12:11:24 GMT
I hear you're a racist now? Fecking Greeks! They invented gayness Who did?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 12:11:51 GMT
I hear you're a racist now? Fecking Greeks! They invented gayness What's the church's position on this? Should we all be racists now? Only the farm takes up most of my time, and in the evening I just like a cup of tea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 12:18:38 GMT
Fecking Greeks! They invented gayness What's the church's position on this? Should we all be racists now? Only the farm takes up most of my time, and in the evening I just like a cup of tea. You mean mosque.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 18, 2017 12:32:56 GMT
Yup. A friend in Wales where they're all foul mouthex, a friend in Belgium where they're all racist, a Canadian ex ergo just like all Americans, a teacher she stalked and imagined gay between him and a pupil... 😉 Supes lies again. What I really said is that I have a friend who has a friend in prison on remand (the trial has not happened yet). I do have cousins in Wales, why would I not? As for Gerry M., I didn't stalk him, don't be absurd. I am glad to have seen the last of his lardbutt. You love to pretend that I am a shut-in but that is just ridiculous. Do you really think that I reached 63 without ever meeting anybody? Meeting=/=socializing
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 18, 2017 12:47:38 GMT
In popular culture and general belief....I think the mainstream ones are considered religion whereas less followed ones are called cults. Note: It's not my definition though. Sometimes, established sects of a religion may see some newer sects as cults. Once PD said to me that one man's religion may be another man's cult and vice verse. I think he had made a valid point. Ever since then I have not called JWs as followers of cults. I disagree with PD, as usual, in the notion that an individual has the right to determine anything about an organization which, from a blatant critic of that group, only leads to false accusations, lies, distortion, & at best misunderstandings about the thing they are concerned about. PD in particular was an absolutely terrible judge of character and that warped his view of what something was.
If it mainstream and not based on some superstar leader, it is not a cult. It's the norm and large religions cannot be cults specifically because they are the norm. Even the Catholic Church is far larger than the Pope that leads it. The easiest way to delineate a cult from a religion is simple. It's based on scope (Not the same as size necessarily), influence, longevity, & foundation...Or at least what the religion claims is their foundation. Most large religions (Which I'm going to arbitrarily say is over a million) stopped being cults no more than a few decades after their establishment (When their first leaders started dying off), maybe less if they are continuations of other religions. There is no doubt that JW's, for example, were ever anything more than a Christian denomination. They never worshipped a dude other than God and have only grown despite it being kinda tough to become one ( They ain't exactly baptizing babies over there.), and their leaders constantly dying of old age and replaced by others without any great disruption. Honestly, I would consider Scientology legit too. A religion isn't a religion based on our respect of them or even the possible harm they cause. It's largely about how they are accepted, not necessarily respected of course) by society at large and if they are integrated into society, they are probably legit.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 18, 2017 12:54:11 GMT
Apart from the charisma bit how does differ from the Catholic Church? Well, my guesses would be: - The Catholic Church does not use psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members;
- The Catholic Church does not form an elitist totalitarian society;
- The Catholic Church's founder leader (who? St Peter?) isn't self-appointed, etc.
- The Catholic Church does not believe the end justifies the means in order to solicit funds recruit people.
- The Catholic Church's wealth benefits society at least to some extent.
But of course I'm not an expert by any means and you can always disagree! So now you have your new-found knowledge, how about formulating a coherent argument why The Catholic Church meets the criteria of a cult as defined on that website (assuming you agree with that definition, of course)? Who knows, somebody with a better knowledge of Catholicism might decide to weigh in and advance our knowledge even further. REally? You wouldn't consider heaven and hell, and sin and redemption as psychological coercion? Doesn't it? The Pope is always right and I don't believe his descisions are made by popular mandate. No, but he is appointed by a select cabal from within their own ranks. Doesn't it? Indulgences for money? Nazi gold? Really? Because the Catholic Church should not have wealth. That it is worth billions is a scandal.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 18, 2017 13:05:23 GMT
Well, my guesses would be: - The Catholic Church does not use psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members;
- The Catholic Church does not form an elitist totalitarian society;
- The Catholic Church's founder leader (who? St Peter?) isn't self-appointed, etc.
- The Catholic Church does not believe the end justifies the means in order to solicit funds recruit people.
- The Catholic Church's wealth benefits society at least to some extent.
But of course I'm not an expert by any means and you can always disagree! So now you have your new-found knowledge, how about formulating a coherent argument why The Catholic Church meets the criteria of a cult as defined on that website (assuming you agree with that definition, of course)? Who knows, somebody with a better knowledge of Catholicism might decide to weigh in and advance our knowledge even further. REally? You wouldn't consider heaven and hell, and sin and redemption as psychological coercion? Doesn't it? The Pope is always right and I don't believe his descisions are made by popular mandate. No, but he is appointed by a select cabal from within their own ranks. Doesn't it? Indulgences for money? Nazi gold? Really? Because the Catholic Church should not have wealth. That it is worth billions is a scandal. Of course not. No one is a devout Catholic on that basis. They are religious because they want to be and if they don;t want to be then they do the things they wish to do or are held back perhaps by their developed conscious. Coercion by an unwieldy behemoth like the Catholic Church is pert near impossible. People are going to do what they are going to do. I also don;t get the notion that people from outside a church should be the ones who pick church leaders or that a church isn't allowed to be wealthy. All successful organizations are wealthy.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 18, 2017 14:16:12 GMT
You wouldn't consider heaven and hell, and sin and redemption as psychological coercion? Not even close, unless accompanied by mind control techniques such as sleep deprivation, subliminal communication and similar stuff. The Cult Information Centre has a page on that as well. (Edit: Can't get the link to work, so here it is: cultinformation.org.uk/question_what-is-mind-control.html) The rest of your comments are either far too vague or complete non-sequiturs, so I can't be arsed to respond do them.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 18, 2017 14:37:44 GMT
You wouldn't consider heaven and hell, and sin and redemption as psychological coercion? Not even close, unless accompanied by mind control techniques such as sleep deprivation, subliminal communication and similar stuff. The Cult Information Centre has a page on that as well. (Edit: Can't get the link to work, so here it is: cultinformation.org.uk/question_what-is-mind-control.html) The rest of your comments are either far too vague or complete non-sequiturs, so I can't be arsed to respond do them. Oh, well if you say they are non sequiturs, then they must be.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 18, 2017 22:57:20 GMT
You wouldn't consider heaven and hell, and sin and redemption as psychological coercion? Not even close, unless accompanied by mind control techniques such as sleep deprivation, subliminal communication and similar stuff. The Cult Information Centre has a page on that as well. (Edit: Can't get the link to work, so here it is: cultinformation.org.uk/question_what-is-mind-control.html) The rest of your comments are either far too vague or complete non-sequiturs, so I can't be arsed to respond do them. Telling an indoctrinated person that if they leave they/stop following your rules they will be excommunicated and face an eternity in hell. That doesn't sound like a specific enough threat to you? Papal infallibility. A doctrine that one person is beyond question and must be obeyed because God has chosen them to lead their Church. Doesn't this strike you as a cult of personality? And what's complicated to understand about the billions the Catholic church has in bank accounts and the huge palaces and art collections they have around the world? What possible justification could it have for any of those regardless of any charity work that may be done in their name?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 18, 2017 23:07:33 GMT
Not even close, unless accompanied by mind control techniques such as sleep deprivation, subliminal communication and similar stuff. The Cult Information Centre has a page on that as well. (Edit: Can't get the link to work, so here it is: cultinformation.org.uk/question_what-is-mind-control.html) The rest of your comments are either far too vague or complete non-sequiturs, so I can't be arsed to respond do them. Telling an indoctrinated person that if they leave they/stop following your rules they will be excommunicated and face an eternity in hell. That doesn't sound like a specific enough threat to you? Of course it's not. It's simple terms and conditions and it's silly to pretend that there is some kind of torture at work for people being given the OK to do what they want to outside of the rules of their religion. They are literally just becoming free like you so it's a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 18, 2017 23:22:51 GMT
Telling an indoctrinated person that if they leave they/stop following your rules they will be excommunicated and face an eternity in hell. That doesn't sound like a specific enough threat to you? Of course it's not. It's simple terms and conditions and it's silly to pretend that there is some kind of torture at work for people being given the OK to do what they want to outside of the rules of their religion. They are literally just becoming free like you so it's a good thing. I'm not focusing on people necessarily wanting to leave all religion, but even just wanting to switch from one religion to another religion. You're dealing with people who have been programmed by cults to really fear these punishments so bandying them around is a real threat to them. If they were willing to let people leave they wouldn't feel the need to threaten them. The whole "ex-communication" thing is specifically designed as a threat - it serves no other purpose.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 19, 2017 4:39:15 GMT
Well, my guesses would be: - The Catholic Church does not use psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members;
- The Catholic Church does not form an elitist totalitarian society;
- The Catholic Church's founder leader (who? St Peter?) isn't self-appointed, etc.
- The Catholic Church does not believe the end justifies the means in order to solicit funds recruit people.
- The Catholic Church's wealth benefits society at least to some extent.
But of course I'm not an expert by any means and you can always disagree! So now you have your new-found knowledge, how about formulating a coherent argument why The Catholic Church meets the criteria of a cult as defined on that website (assuming you agree with that definition, of course)? Who knows, somebody with a better knowledge of Catholicism might decide to weigh in and advance our knowledge even further. Seconded!
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 19, 2017 4:44:08 GMT
Well, my guesses would be: - The Catholic Church does not use psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members;
- The Catholic Church does not form an elitist totalitarian society;
- The Catholic Church's founder leader (who? St Peter?) isn't self-appointed, etc.
- The Catholic Church does not believe the end justifies the means in order to solicit funds recruit people.
- The Catholic Church's wealth benefits society at least to some extent.
But of course I'm not an expert by any means and you can always disagree! So now you have your new-found knowledge, how about formulating a coherent argument why The Catholic Church meets the criteria of a cult as defined on that website (assuming you agree with that definition, of course)? Who knows, somebody with a better knowledge of Catholicism might decide to weigh in and advance our knowledge even further. REally? You wouldn't consider heaven and hell, and sin and redemption as psychological coercion? Doesn't it? The Pope is always right and I don't believe his descisions are made by popular mandate. No, but he is appointed by a select cabal from within their own ranks. Doesn't it? Indulgences for money? Nazi gold? Really? Because the Catholic Church should not have wealth. That it is worth billions is a scandal. Only a weak person would be manipulated by heaven, hell and sin and redemption and your understanding of how these things work seems very limited. The Pope's decisions are binding only one those who are already adherents. Indulgences have not existed for around 500 years, and the Nazi Gold story is a lie. The Catholic church uses its wealth to support its work - schools, hospitals, missions etc.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 19, 2017 4:46:08 GMT
Not even close, unless accompanied by mind control techniques such as sleep deprivation, subliminal communication and similar stuff. The Cult Information Centre has a page on that as well. (Edit: Can't get the link to work, so here it is: cultinformation.org.uk/question_what-is-mind-control.html) The rest of your comments are either far too vague or complete non-sequiturs, so I can't be arsed to respond do them. Telling an indoctrinated person that if they leave they/stop following your rules they will be excommunicated and face an eternity in hell. That doesn't sound like a specific enough threat to you? Papal infallibility. A doctrine that one person is beyond question and must be obeyed because God has chosen them to lead their Church. Doesn't this strike you as a cult of personality? And what's complicated to understand about the billions the Catholic church has in bank accounts and the huge palaces and art collections they have around the world? What possible justification could it have for any of those regardless of any charity work that may be done in their name? As CoolJGS said, why do you think the RC Church is uniquely not allowed to choose its own leaders?
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 19, 2017 9:28:29 GMT
Telling an indoctrinated person that if they leave they/stop following your rules they will be excommunicated and face an eternity in hell. That doesn't sound like a specific enough threat to you? Papal infallibility. A doctrine that one person is beyond question and must be obeyed because God has chosen them to lead their Church. Doesn't this strike you as a cult of personality? And what's complicated to understand about the billions the Catholic church has in bank accounts and the huge palaces and art collections they have around the world? What possible justification could it have for any of those regardless of any charity work that may be done in their name? As CoolJGS said, why do you think the RC Church is uniquely not allowed to choose its own leaders? I don't think this is unique to the RC church I'm just using them as an example. But with the RC they don't claim that it's a group of old men just selecting their leader - oh no - their leadership process involves divine inspiration. If one of the largest and oldest religions on the planet ticks all the boxes that define a cult then surely all religions are cults?
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 19, 2017 9:59:41 GMT
As CoolJGS said, why do you think the RC Church is uniquely not allowed to choose its own leaders? I don't think this is unique to the RC church I'm just using them as an example. But with the RC they don't claim that it's a group of old men just selecting their leader - oh no - their leadership process involves divine inspiration. If one of the largest and oldest religions on the planet ticks all the boxes that define a cult then surely all religions are cults? Because no matter what you think divine inspiration is real. You have been shown that it doesn't tick those boxes at all
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 19, 2017 10:47:42 GMT
Telling an indoctrinated person that if they leave they/stop following your rules they will be excommunicated and face an eternity in hell. That doesn't sound like a specific enough threat to you? You're actually asking me a leading question based on some random factoid that you are assuming I automatically agree with, without even bothering to make an argument for it? How does that normally work out for you? Anyway, why would the Catholic Church excommunicate somebody for leaving it? That would be a bit pointless, no? I think you've been taking lessons from the book of " How to argue against somebody without actually bothering to address any of their arguments". You weren't a young earth creationist at some point, were you? They do this kind of thing all the time.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 19, 2017 12:36:27 GMT
As CoolJGS said, why do you think the RC Church is uniquely not allowed to choose its own leaders? I don't think this is unique to the RC church I'm just using them as an example. But with the RC they don't claim that it's a group of old men just selecting their leader - oh no - their leadership process involves divine inspiration. If one of the largest and oldest religions on the planet ticks all the boxes that define a cult then surely all religions are cults? That's kinda incorrect. Yes, there is likely prayers and whatnot since it is religious, but details regarding the selection make it pretty obvious that it's a normal run of the mill selection process with very little difference from a company looking for a CEO...Unless you have details of what divine inspiration means for the selection.
|
|