Anti-Cultists are a cult

by proplog2 32 Replies latest jw friends

AlanF

That's fine for us not to discuss anything proplog. Anyone can see that you're a friggin' idiot.
AlanF
Double Edge

I know a lot of Mormons, and from what I've seen on this board, I wouldn't classify them as a 'cult' at all. Sure there beliefs are a little different than a lot of the Christian religions that can trace their roots back thru the Catholic religion, which claims it was the Church that Christ established. But there are many things they have in common. The basic belief that Jesus is the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, that salvation comes because of his atonement on the Cross. There are so many misconceptions of Mormons, usually from people who think they know alot about them, but don't really know many if any Mormons. After all, for a few hundred years, Christians were considered a CULT to put a negative conotation on them. As I said, I know a lot of Mormans...there are several ways they differ from what I've read about on this board re: JWs....such as: they don't shun, they think that is very Un-Christ like; they could care less if you visit some other Church, funeral, wedding etc. They are very open to discussing diffent views on relgion, are not threatened by differing opinions ... and if you don't show up for a while, they might check on you out of concern, but they don't carry a big stick threatening you with numerous labels...'bad association', 'apostate', 'wordly'.... Another thing I notice, they genuinely take care of their own and would give you the shirt off their backs. It's also interesting to note that Christianity itself has changed, not only from what we would think would be the Protestant Reformation, but Christianity from the first century was different than some of the Christian beliefs of the forth century. So for "Christians" to point a finger at others who belief that Jesus is The Christ and call them a 'cult' is ludicrious when in reality they could be called a 'cult' by the first century Christians.
OUTLAW

Hey prolong2,you won`t debate AlanF because he will shred you.Your not afraid of him cussing,your afraid of someone speaking the truth.Your right about letting people see another view point,so they can decide for themselves,which view deserves their belief.Your just not believable.I`m sure there is a vaccum cleaner sales position somewhere for you..LOL...OUTLAW
Lady Lee

Just as the the abuse recovery movement started with the most servere cases and eventually progressed to understand that while a fist in the face was clearly abuse to the understanding that the threat of the fist in the face was also abuse so too the research on cults has grown.
Initially the understanding started at the most severe groups. Then we realized that the verbal coersive threats were just as serious - perhaps not to the body but most defintiely to the mind.
Your article infers that the only form of mind control that is valid occurs when physical restraint is used on the victims. This is not true. There are more ways to restrain a person than physical. Your article states that coersion must be physical for any effective control to occur. This too is not true. Even legally it is accepted that threats are sufficient coersion to negate a legal document.
A slave is still a slave whether he wears a physical chain or whether the chain is in his mind. When any person or group sends the message that one is not free to choose (and interesting at the same time says it allows freedom of choice) then that person or group enslaves people. Sanctions are real. They induce fear of loss of friends, family, community and life. And therefore they are abusive. And cultic.
As for my credentials and whether I know what I am talking about - check my website.
Rejoice in the healing and not in the pain.
Rejoice in the challenge overcome and not in the past hurts.
Rejoice in the present - full of love and joy.
Rejoice in the future for it is filled with new horizons yet to be explored. - Lee Marsh 2002
proplog2

Lee:
It will take me some time to look over your web-site carefully.
proplog2

"Cult" is an ambiguous word. So to say that any religion is a cult
would be fallacious if a person fails to specify what they mean by
"cult".
If a person is talking to Hassan about "cults" Hassan will list his
criteria and then they will know what Hassan means by "cult". He
strategically sets HIS criteria based on what he feels are the essential negatives that will protect most "old-time religion" from the derogatory label, yet include the widest possible universe of non
mainstream religions so that his market for his anti-cult expertise
includes an inexhaustible stream of clients.
To assume that "cult"
means whatever Hassan means by cult is assigning him the arbitrary
role of writing the definition of cult or "bad religion". Hassan's definition of "cult" is idiosyncratic and not the main dictionary definition. It may be reasonable for someone who defines something by certain criteria to declare a match -but there is nothing that says these criteria are to be universally accepted
by everyone.
If the anti-cult movement succeeds in moving their definition of cult to the main definition in Websters it will be a credit to their advertising expertise. The hysteria over "cults" has passed its critical phase now that the baby boomers have grown old. The Russian Orthodox church will try to play the cult card in keeping out the competition. Europe tends to be socialistic so they will continue to pass laws that they feel "protect" people from their stupidity.
However it should be noted that the reference to "cult" has been removed from the Psychiatrist Bible in DSM-IV.
proplog2

Outlaw:
I looked at AlanF's stuff and there really isn't a lot there. In fact this whole argument comes down to whether professionals ought to use the "C" word. Those professionals who want to use the word "cult" are usually those who have a vested interest because they desire to attract clientelle who had bad experiences with some organization.
By the way you really ought to read the article I linked in my opening of this thread. You will find stuff like the following there.
"The relevant professional organizations have taken firm stands on the scientific status of Margaret Singer's brainwashing theory.66 At the request of Singer and some of her colleagues, the American Psychological Association (APA) formed a task force to produce a report on "Deception and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control." Singer was the senior author of the report that was submitted in 1987 for evaluation to the APA's Board for Social and Ethical Responsibility (BSERP). BSERP, in turn, sent it to four reviewers for anonymous peer review. Their unanimous opinion, according to a 1987 memo from BSERP, was that the report had "significant deficiencies" and "[i]n general . . . lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur."67 The APA therefore rejected the report and ordered the committee not to distribute or publicize it without indicating that the report had been rejected by the APA on scientific grounds. The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, meanwhile, submitted an amicus curiae brief in an NRM appeal before the California Court of Appeal. The brief argued vigorously that Margaret Singer's testimony should have been disallowed by the trial court because of its unscientific nature."
Abaddon

proplog; So, are you saying that the Unification Church is no more inherantly damaging (damaging as in forcing followers to a level of conformity by a variety of means that leads to diadvantage or alienisation from society, friends and family) to its adherants (due to it beliefs, its expectations of its followers, and its organisational structure) than, oooo, Universal Unitarians? Are you saying the Church of Jim Jones is (was, there's a hint) no more inherantly damaging to its adherants than, say, being a Quaker?
If you are saying there is no difference in the amount of damage done to the adherants of the above cited examples, then I don't think I even need provide examples to show that you are wrong, as everyone will be able to see that.
If you admit there is a difference in the amount of damage done to the adherants of the above cited examples, then it follows that it is useful having a set of discriptors that allow one asses how inherantly damaging or undamaging a system of belief is, and the organised pursual of that belief is to an adherant.
If you admit there is a difference in the amount of damage done to the adherants of the above cited examples, then maybe it is handy to have easy terms of reference, like 'cult', 'sect' and 'denomination', to use when you talk about them. Just like you can talk about reptiles, insects or birds; easy terms of reference that are more wieldy than 'Heterostatic chordates capabale of flight, covered in adapted scales, believed to be descended from dinosaurs'.
You are very good at speculating on Steve Hussan's motives.
What are yours? Or are you a white knight unblemished by ulterior motivations?
And do stop with making up arguements that you can refute;
"Cult" is an ambiguous word. So to say that any religion is a cult
would be fallacious if a person fails to specify what they mean by
"cult".
Note how this is an attack on something that does not happen, or if it does, if the meaning of the disputed word is questioned, normally results in the terms of reference being defined, so is not a true problem and certainly no fallacy. You are therefore making up an arguement to refute to lend yourself credability. Oooo, moral high-ground!
You wouldn't be an active Witness would you? Or maybe a inactive apologetic Witness? I don't suppose that could result in your attempts to deny the existence of damaging religious movements?
Haven't I already had a discussion with you regarding the fact that discriptors of cult activity are spectrums and not tick boxes, shades of gray, not black or white?
You wanna play semantics and silly buggers, raise your game, it's not working.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
gravedancer

So Proplog you have argued till green stuff oozed from your gills over a semantic issue. Is it a cult or isn't it?
All you have succeeded in convincing me of so far is that you are some disgruntled old man who likes to push people's buttons without any substance behind your way of thinking (to use the word liberally). Let's say that the word cult is misapplied (although I am of the bent that says all religion is a cult and that Marx was right on one thing at least) so what is left of your argument? Have you succeeded in anything. As I said in another thread I always ask the next question - so the next question/s to you:
Are the beliefs of JW's harmful?
Are the beliefs and practices of JW's unkind? Do the reults of their beliefs breakup families unnecessarily?
Do the mthods used by JW's parallel to the methods used in mind-control or in brainwashing techniques?
Are they goverend by fear?
Why don't you ask the important questions?
proplog2

Gravedancer:
It is a semantic issue and we are creatures that live in a semantic environment. The labeling of religions as "cult" does nothing to deter organizations like JW's. It is also a term that has legal and social ramifications. It's similar to Europeans referring to distinct languages in Africa and other "uncivilized" areas as dialects. It is intended to demean. Once a cult always a cult.
The intent of using the word "cult" as defined by Hassan is for public relations. It has no scientific validity and is simply a tool to reframe information so "victims" can be exploited. I have mentioned victimology before. This "recovery" movement keeps people from moving on with their lives. As long as there are "victims" there are people who need help that somebody has to pay for. With victims there is also the pay dirt of civil suits.
Are the beliefs of JW's harmful? I think their stand on blood transfusions is harmful and false. I think it is harmful because although members choose this course it is irreversible.
Shunning is the right of any individual or organization. There are some on this forum who are so abusive in their attacks that I choose to shun them.
People break up families for all sorts of reasons. The JW divorce rate is the same as the population in general. So I wouldn't say they are any better at keeping people together.
Governed by fear? I would say that most government involves both fear and love. Carrot and stick.
I don't believe in mind control. I believe people tend to do as little thinking as they need to get by. Human society is based on the idea that people are quite willing to let others do their thinking.

Anti-Cultists are a cult

Share this