Cult Fighters are short sighted fools

by proplog2 50 Replies latest jw friends

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost

    G'day Prop.

    After reading your original post I was surprised by the title. They don't seem to match but I know you wanted to get our attention. Have you heard the expression "The broader the statement, the narrower the mind" ? Generalisations detract from reasoned argument.

    Personally I believe there is a place for the cult busters and for the very good reasons that Randy and others have already expressed. Of course, we can well appreciate that this activity can become an obsession, another cult if you like, but the need for exposure of cults such as the Watch Tower with its totalitarian structure needs to be exposed for the benefit of those who might be drawn in by the borg's persuasive talk.

    Cheers,
    Ozzie

    "It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
    Anonymous

  • Tina
    Tina

    Short-sighted? I think not. Exposing any insular (totalitarian) group that lumbers along on death-dealing policies,seriously diminishes the quality and life options NEEDS to be exposed .
    The short-sighted ones are those who create apologia and paint such groups as innocuous,when they are not. Tina

    Carl Sagan on balancing openness to new ideas with skeptical scrutiny..."if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense-you cannot distinguish useful ideas from worthless ones."

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon
    The anti-cultists are narrow minded and uninformed to say the least.
    You see a lot of this here. It is mostly a cover for irrational hatred.

    What is irrational about having hatred for cults? Oh, you've not defined cult! I think that is so important your entire post is like an unhinged door. How do you define cult? I define cult as a high-control belief group.

    Most religions organized in a way that they expected their members to take their beliefs seriously. The warp & woof of the social fabric consists of an endless variety of -isms all of which are adhered to with a devotion not un-like cults. Identifying cults is about as scientific as identifying RACE.

    We immediately encounter the problem of setting off on a post like this without clearly defining what you mean by cult. A religion, by my definition, is a belief group. A cult is a high-control belief group. You notice the words 'high-control'? I can define those if you like, but the point is that it is quite easy to identify cults.

    And the purpose of both is to provide an instrument for marginalizing their targets. The recent banning of the Salvation Army by the Russian government because they are a "paramilitary" organization is an example of how low the "haters" will go.

    Ah, so an unreasonable action by one government makes fighting against high-control belief groups wrong. I disagree, I actually think the example you site doesn't have anything to do with fighting cults as the Salvation Army is not a high-control belief group. I also note the loaded language you are using; "haters" actually gives a strong hint as to where you are coming from, or if not, is a very unwise choice of words in what you seemingly wish to characterise as a scientific reasoned approach.

    Read Max Webers "The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit Of Capitalism". The main thesis is that the dominant force of our world - CAPITALISM was given birth and nurtured in the emergence of protestantism. Protestantism was the "new" religion of its day. At this point in time 500 years has obscured our view of the innovativeness of protestantism.

    Ah, so, in an arguement about cults (which you don't supply a definiton of) we are suddenly talking about how the growth of Protestantism enabled the birth of capitalism. Are you saying Protestantism is a cult? The 'Old Style' Roman Catholicsm from which the Protestant faith diverged could arguably be defined as a 'high-control belief group', so, as pointed out, so far, through lack of stating terms of reference, your arguement resembles Swiss Cheese, and you haven't got to the guts of it yet.

    Max Weber describes CapitalISM as eventually squeezing out the last drops of humanness from the social order and placing us all in an iron cage he describes as follows:

    "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart, this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved."

    Wey hey, what's the evidence he sites to support his point of view? Otherwise it's just an unsupported opinion, which is worth pants.

    Eventually the rationalization would engulf everyone in a pervasive "disenchantment" with the life that characterizes "modernization". Weber felt that perhaps some "cult" may emerge such as "protestantism" that would redefine the vision of what it means to be human.

    AH, at last, something vaugely interesting. But again, as most of the people here would NOT define Protestantism as a cult, and would define a high-control group as a cult, the lack of definiton of the word cult again weakens your arguement.

    The subcultures created by youthful religous communities are perfect laboratories within which to experiment with new forms of social organization. Members of such groups are open to this kind of experimentation for two reasons: First, they are frequently adverse to at least some features of modern society. Second, they are often inclined to accept the insights of their religion's leadership as being on par with- and sometimes more legitimate than the norms of the surrounding social order. New religions promote an environment within which alternative ideals and social arrangements can be practiced. Once these ideas have been established they have the potential for breaking free and influencing the larger society.

    Nice arguement, as it doesn't use the word cult. But, again, the fact that ALL it refers to are 'religous communities' bespeaks the mindset from which is comes. Howabout NON-religous communities?

    This is exactly how evolution was possible. Isolate a population -usually by geological events. In isolation the population forms new characteristics. When the barrier drops this "new" organism competes and sometimes finds that its'(sic) new characteristics are over powering.

    Basically true, (and its is a possesive without the ', it's uses the ' to indicate the contraction of 'it is') but...

    Those who would like to stop the activities of cults may be doing great damage to the world in which their children and their descendents live. Social-diversity is every bit as important as bio-diversity.

    ... is errant nonsense. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT DEFINE CULT. Saying that totalitarian regiemes are damaging, that means something. But you are not saying that, are you?

    Your arguement, in summary, is weakened severely by;

    a) Bandying around words that are semantically difficult without giving your own usage of those words.

    b) Mixing discussion of wide-ranging religious movements (Protestantism) with discussion of 'cults', when most people would not describe the former as the latter.

    c) Using unscientific loaded language (classic high-control belief group trick) in something that presents itself as a scientific arguement.

    d) Excluding from the discussion any mention of non-religious movements.

    I think you are taking a small point, that cultural development is essential and unstoppable, and using it to justify the assertion that "Those who would like to stop the activities of cults may be doing great damage to the world in which their children and their descendents live". Do you realise how big a leap there is in that??

    (edited for typos)

    Keep on rocking in the free world...

  • AMOS
    AMOS

    Where do you hide Fred?

  • AMOS
    AMOS

    Re this discussion on cults. Isn't there a definition of a cult as opposed to just going along (even without thinking) with anything? I recall years ago looking at the steps of brainwashing, if I remember correctly the JWs had 10 or 11 out of the 12. The only aspect they didn't have was to actively put people into a destabilised state (except that many people are just found that way) in their poaching work. ie have had a major crisis within the last two years, death in family etc. thoughts please.

  • proplog2
    proplog2

    TINA:

    Exposed? I think JW's have pretty much made it clear to people who join what they are all about. And it's been that way for over 100 years.

    You are never going to get much more than 1% of the population believing a religion like JW's.

  • proplog2
    proplog2

    Abbaddon:

    To begin with, my intentions were to confront opinion with opinion.
    The confrontational tone is necessary once in a while so that
    people pay attention. If you don't get people mad once in a while
    they won't listen to the important things you have to say.

    Your rebuttal/counter-opinion is mostly based on your objections to
    my failure to elaborate on the word "cult".

    I define "cult" as a word with negative connotations which is used
    primarily with abusive intent. The checklists for determining if
    a group is a "cult" create a dichotomous typology rather than
    allowing for a scale expressing continuous variation along
    dimensions. Even organizations that consider themselves "anti-
    cult" acknowledge that "cult" is a loaded word.

  • willy_think
    willy_think

    cults suck

    the ideas and opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily represent those of the WTB&TS inc. or any of it's subsidiary corporations.
  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    proplog2;

    With the greatest respect, get off the pot or shit; "I define "cult" as a word with negative connotations which is used primarily with abusive intent" - that is not ANY accepted definition of the word 'cult'. It might be true in some part; "a word with negative connotations" is appropriate, as high-control groups are viewed negatively due to the damage they can do to peoples' lives.

    But, once again you slip into 'loaded langauge'; again I point out this is a classic high-control group trick. "Abusive language" can be rightful condemnation. Is calling a paedophile "a sick pervert" abusive language or rightful condemnation? Cults are, by the definition many people apply to the word, harmful and damaging institutions deserving of exposure and condemnation.

    Saying Jehovah's Witnesses are a harmful cult is descriptive. Saying Islam is bad is abusive. BIG DIFFERENCE.

    So, quit being evasive; what do you mean by cult?

    Also, I made other points you have also evaded;

    You mix discussion of wide-ranging religious movements (Protestantism) with discussion of 'cults', when most people would not describe the former as the latter.

    You use unscientific loaded language (classic high-control belief group trick) in something that presents itself as a scientific arguement.

    You excluding from the discussion any mention of non-religious movements.

    Will you give any answer to these point and provide a meaningful definition of the word cult, or will you evade again?

    How honest are you?

    Keep on rocking in the free world...

  • Tina
    Tina

    I should have said 'exposed' and 'dismantled ,.being the destructive cult that it is. How do you come to this 1%? Sounds like an opinion,not a fact. And even if it was that's 1% too many affected by this cult.

    Carl Sagan on balancing openness to new ideas with skeptical scrutiny..."if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense-you cannot distinguish useful ideas from worthless ones."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit