csfield:

Let's be honest.

You are not here to much other than flame and argue.

Quote
rrmoderator
csfield:

Let's be honest.

You are not here to much other than flame and argue.

No. Sorry for expressing a different viewpoint from yours. If you want to debate me on the benefits of religion, we can set up a formal debate. Just a heads up, you will get owned.

csfield:

Again, it seems that your only purpose here is to argue, flame, etc.

However, this board is not devoted to the subject of religion.

The distinctions between mainstream religions and cults have already been made on this thread. And the differences between relgious indoctrination and "thought reform" or "brainwashing" were likewise pointed out.

Read the links.

Ok, I'll acknowledge that it seems that way to you. Try to understand that you are wrong.

Quote
vaidya
certainly xtians have caused more harm on this planet than any other group - entire civilzations have been destroyed at the hand of christ

This is a matter of numbers. Christianity is the largest religion on earth, so naturally the number of extremists will have been proportionally larger at some point in it's history. I mostly blame the Catholic Church for this one, because the clergy withheld the Bible from the common man for many years, and as a result we end up with crusades and the like because the people don't know any better. That's what I would call destructive, for sure. Of course, that doesn't put the blame off the people. Who in their right mind takes radical action on behalf of a religion they barely even know about?

I agree totally with Rick Ross that the definition of cults needs to be seperated from more orthodox or mainstream religions. If not for any other reason than to give specific attention to those groups who are smaller scope and secretive about their organisation.

Of course a common idea about cults is a group that follows a leader who is considered to be a person of worship and generally the christian church is not the first organisation that anyone would associate with the word cult.

Another definition is a group of people who follow a common belief system outside of what is considered mainstream.

I'm sure that RR has his hands full so one of his detractors might like to start a site and forum that discusses orthodox "cults" instead of criticising the beneficial exposure that this site provides.

I have a question though regarding criticisms levelled at members of cults if RR has any links to information or anyone else.

It seems to be a common theme to blame the members of cults for thier irresponsibility in getting involved with a cult in the first instance. To be fair it could be suggested that certain members do begin to feed off the abusive nature of cult hierachies and that perhaps their easy corruptibility is their own fault. Others become involved due to low intelligence and niavety or vulnerability and a desire to belong to a family perhaps that they were not able to find in conventional society or a genuine belief of the cults authenticity.

The idea that followers are weak, stupid and pathetic appears apologetic without directly condoning cults. It also ignores the deceptive way that cults use brainwashing to the point where a spiritual leader manipulates followers as if they were lab rats. It's not immediately known to the follower what the beliefs of the cult actually are and thought reform usually occurs over designated time frame where progressively perverse ideas are introduced..

Any thoughts on this?