Cults and Religion

Originally posted by red g jacks
it would seem so me that if we were to make this a rule, religion would be the one unique subject in which the student's ability to grasp all of its nuances would preclude any discussion of the subject whatsoever. i'm sure kids can't grasp biology, history, physics, etc but we give them the overview instead of sheltering them until they're ready.

Overviews are fine. That's not what I'm talking about though. You can introduce them to the concept of God without indoctrinating them to a specific idea. In my posts above, a key part of what I was espousing involved introducing kids to concepts as they were able to grasp them. Sorry if I wasn't more clear on this.

There are kids in their teens who have never even encountered a different way of religious thinking. I know because I've met many of them...in a fairly liberal part of the country, no less. Nowhere near the Bible belt or South. While I'm sure they had well-meaning parents, THAT is the enemy of understanding and acceptance on a societal level, as well as the enemy of freedom of choice for millions of children.

alright but lets take it back to the religious parent who is convinced they have the truth. maybe their kid can't understand all the nuances of their religion. but why is it immoral for them to say jesus died for your sins blah blah blah devil bad god good blah blah blah garden of eden etc etc... the kid can easily grasp all that shit and it provides a decent overview of what that parent thinks is the truth. so why is that immoral?

Don't teach anything to anyone. Make every generation discover it all for themselves. Hee Hee

Originally posted by red g jacks
alright but lets take it back to the religious parent who is convinced they have the truth. maybe their kid can't understand all the nuances of their religion. but why is it immoral for them to say jesus died for your sins blah blah blah devil bad god good blah blah blah garden of eden etc etc... the kid can easily grasp all that shit and it provides a decent overview of what that parent thinks is the truth. so why is that immoral?

There are two answers here. One is that, this is where I'm going to disagree with that parent, and the disagreement is likely irreconcilable. I don't think we can know the truth about this. I'm not claiming a competing truth; I just think none of us know to the extent that we can teach it as Truth. So teaching a subjective opinion as truth is irresponsible. There are levels at which we must trust authority, and theories that are likely not irrefutable, but that must also be taught. But making those distinctions along that spectrum is key, and is another reason why children aren't ready to handle much of this.

The other answer is that I think it would be ok for a parent to do this...IF they taught other belief systems as well, at a level the child could understand them. Again, to teach a child something at that age is to limit their freedom of choice. They can't make distinctions between beliefs and empirical facts, between opinions and facts, and between the validity of statements. Knowing the influence a parent's beliefs have on a child, to do this is to acknowledge that you're stripping them of a level intellectual playing field. Again, this is a values issue. I value the freedom element; such a parent would value their Truth over that level playing field for a child.

I'd maybe even go so far as to say it would be ok to present different ideas that the child could grasp, and explain that one of them is what the parents believe (and why). It's still exposure to other ideas, and it's acknowledging the belief as just that: a belief. Not an irrefutable fact. There's an element of influence if the parents lean toward one over another, and I can't say I'm a huge fan of it even in this scenario. But true ambivalence may be possible only in hypothetical scenarios.

You don't have to look far to see this in action. The easiest examples are those videos of child worship camps, which are literal brainwashing facilities. The principle holds true through less obvious examples, but it's not hard to see the destructive potential of instilling beliefs before critical and abstract thinking can put it into proper context.

Maybe I'm not going to convince you red g, but there's a middle ground. Even if you think parents aren't in the wrong to raise their children as one religion over others from a very young age, there are practical examples of the negative side of this. Like this:

Originally posted by Digi
There are kids in their teens who have never even encountered a different way of religious thinking. I know because I've met many of them...in a fairly liberal part of the country, no less. Nowhere near the Bible belt or South. While I'm sure they had well-meaning parents, THAT is the enemy of understanding and acceptance on a societal level, as well as the enemy of freedom of choice for millions of children.

Or this:

Originally posted by Digi
You don't have to look far to see this in action. The easiest examples are those videos of child worship camps, which are literal brainwashing facilities. The principle holds true through less obvious examples, but it's not hard to see the destructive potential of instilling beliefs before critical and abstract thinking can put it into proper context.

The middle ground is: "raise them whatever you want, but teach them about other belief systems." A wider awareness is another key to all of this, even if you're being raised in a particular religion.

I don't agree that the middle ground is enough; it will increase tolerance but have a negligible affect on freedom of choice for children as they grow into adulthood. But it's a potential stopping point for others that I think is far less controversial.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Wow! The video above is describing Christianity.

1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members.

If you don’t ask Jesus for forgiveness, then you are going to hell.

A lot of religions use some sort of scare tactics to keep everyone in check

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society.

Preachers, minister, bishops, and popes.

I don't think they were referring to this type of totalitarian society, preachers, ministers, bishops and popes can be publicly criticized with out fearing of death or excommunication. This MIGHT have been true in the middle ages for the high hierarchy clergy or the inquisition, but they needed a lot of power to pull a stunt like that with someone on the royal court. Some no name preacher will have a hard time trying to battle someone on the upper levels of society

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
3. Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.

Jesus, what more can I say.

I don't think Jesus SELF APOINTED himself to be the leader of Christians, that was a title given to him later on. He claim he was the son of God, but then again He also said that ALL were sons of God. He did however ride the messianic title I guess with the whole being born from a virgin, but then again, I don't recall him claiming that, I think that was introduced later on after his death.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
4. It believes “the end justifies the means” in order to solicit funds recruit people.

Sunday morning church, pass the hat. Pay your dues. Don’t go to hell. Be born again.

I think this one refer more to it does not matter what or who We destroy as long as "our religion" is ok.

Asking for charity will hardly fall into this, Back when I was a christian they never forced me or shun me for not giving money. You give money IF you can and want, no one forces you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.

This one is debatable, but if you have ever been to the Vatican, you can see the riches.

Yes I agree this one is debatable on the upper spheres of the church not on the poor country missions, they do really try to help people.

Some priest though, I believe are corrupted.

But this money thing is one of my major problem with ANY church.

They guys on the upper spheres of religion live like kings, but is a common treat of most religions, IMO

I have seen how the Christian church behaves and how the Church of Scientology behave, from a first hand experience and believe me there is a lot of difference between one and the other.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
A lot of religions use some sort of scare tactics to keep everyone in check

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
I don't think they were referring to this type of totalitarian society, preachers, ministers, bishops and popes can be publicly criticized with out fearing of death or excommunication. This MIGHT have been true in the middle ages for the high hierarchy clergy or the inquisition, but they needed a lot of power to pull a stunt like that with someone on the royal court. Some no name preacher will have a hard time trying to battle someone on the upper levels of society

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
I don't think Jesus SELF APOINTED himself to be the leader of Christians, that was a title given to him later on. He claim he was the son of God, but then again He also said that ALL were sons of God. He did however ride the messianic title I guess with the whole being born from a virgin, but then again, I don't recall him claiming that, I think that was introduced later on after his death.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
I think this one refer more to it does not matter what or who We destroy as long as "our religion" is ok.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Asking for charity will hardly fall into this, Back when I was a christian they never forced me or shun me for not giving money. You give money IF you can and want, no one forces you.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Yes I agree this one is debatable on the upper spheres of the church not on the poor country missions, they do really try to help people.
Some priest though, I believe are corrupted.
But this money thing is one of my major problem with ANY church.
They guys on the upper spheres of religion live like kings, but is a common treat of most religions, IMO
I have seen how the Christian church behaves and how the Church of Scientology behave, from a first hand experience and believe me there is a lot of difference between one and the other.

This is interesting reading.
Great to see all these opinions.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
True. Then these religions have something in common with cults.

Yes, at some point, religions were really small and a lot will qualify as cults. But cults adore or worship an object or a person, not a supreme being.
The focus on the cult is the person or object it self, and only by adoring those objects or persons is that one can achieve enlightenment

But, yes at some point every major religion was so small that they COULD be fit in the description of a cult, but it is not something that ONLY Christianity has, but a common shared threat in religions

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, Christianity has grown up. They still share this history with cults.

True, there is a difference though, A priest does not think of himself as SUPERIOR to you, just because he is "holy", a christian does not think he is superior to you or that he knows more about life than you just because he is a christian. A scientologist DO think that he knows more than you about life, he thinks that he is correct because he has the tech and there is NO WAY his tech is fallible. A Sea Org member (equivalent to clergy) will think that he is superior to you, because he is according to him "more responsible, than you"

I can't remember any priest thinking that they were better than me just because they were priest, as a matter of fact it was often the other way around, many of them are very humble

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Being the Son of God would qualify him as the supreme leader of all Christians.

And He also said ALL OF US ARE THE SONS OF GOD. That will qualify ALL OF US as supreme leaders

He said he was "the son of man" which apparently calling him the son of "GOD" was a bad translation from Aramic and Hebrew to Latin.

He often referred to himself as the "son of man", meaning that he was basically telling that he was human. This might have come as part of the myth that he was a holy man and the peasantry that always crates myths with people who show a better understanding of life than them. Ignorance works that way. Maybe at some point, He actually believe it, but like I said HE OFTEN referred to him as the "son of man" or "Ben Adam"

and quote

"בן אדם= ben adam = Man

בן = ben = son

אדם = adam = person

Then Ben Adam was a bad translation as "son of man" when the correct term is to say Man or person"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There are many cults who never “destroy” anyone, but the crusades killed many people.

Using religion to gain political power is nothing unheard off. Having a greedy fallible human pope trying to gain more power as the leader of a church will of course affect Christians as this will be a reflection of the LEADERSHIP. I don't think all IRANIANS ARE BAD just because they have a leader that despises the USA after all we humans are a herd animal. We often require a higher power or a leader to tell us what to do. I will honestly view this period of the crusades or any religious war as "bad management" I don't think it reflects the core elements of a religion. It happens sadly with a small group of fanatics that use religion to achieve their goals.

If you were to look at the policy that scientology uses (fair game policy) you will see the difference and this is WRITTEN as a policy in the church of scientology.

I never came across anything like that in the Catholic church or probably I don't remember, but a lot of people are willing to sacrifice their life's in the name of religion which I believe is crazy in any case

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A tithe (/ˈtaɪð/; from Old English: teogoþa "tenth"😉 is a one-tenth part of something, paid as a contribution to a religious organization or compulsory tax to government.[1] Today, tithes are normally voluntary and paid in cash, cheques, or stocks, whereas historically tithes were required and paid in kind, such as agricultural products. Several European countries operate a formal process linked to the tax system allowing some churches to assess tithes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe

That is why I said it was debatable.

That is a very old policy that has been changed I believe since the middle ages. it no longer applies to the catholic church at least not where I experienced it.

In any case A LOT of churches ask you for donations as a way to "give back to the community" IIRC since it is a charity you can ask for financial statements to the church to see where your money is going. If they refuse to show you this, then it is probably best that you don't donate your money to that church anymore.

Rao Kal El, I think the video's definition of a cult is wrong. That is what I have been trying to point out. A "cult" is a bad name you call an upstart religion that you don't like. Every religion started out small and had people who didn't like them. They were all cults. Some cults are good and some are bad, just like the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Rao Kal El, I think the video's definition of a cult is wrong. That is what I have been trying to point out. A "cult" is a bad name you call an upstart religion that you don't like. Every religion started out small and had people who didn't like them. They were all cults. Some cults are good and some are bad, just like the rest of the world.

Fair enough 🙂

I really enjoyed our conversation and I like to have this type of conversations much better than my usual Quan trolling 😄

Wow.
Shaky actually made the point i had in mind when i started this thread.

Originally posted by riv6672
Wow.
Shaky actually made the point i had in mind when i started this thread.

There is a difference between them that is more than numbers or being stablished.

As a former member of both. I can tell you that a cult is far worse and more damaging than a religion.

When I left the religion I didn't feel like I just woke up from a dream and Iwas never scared or hesitant to reveal that I was no longer a Christian.

When I left the cult, I felt like I just woke up from a dream and it took me a while to let members of the cult to know I no longer believe on their teachings.

It is a completely different situation that it goes beyond some mere traits that you could find on both and maybe only experiencing both you could see the difference.

I no longer believe in ANY man made religion and I understand some people might find strength in religions and cults, but cults are more damaging, imo

Originally posted by Digi
Maybe I'm not going to convince you red g, but there's a middle ground. Even if you think parents aren't in the wrong to raise their children as one religion over others from a very young age, there are practical examples of the negative side of this. Like this:

Or this:

The middle ground is: "raise them whatever you want, but teach them about other belief systems." A wider awareness is another key to all of this, even if you're being raised in a particular religion.

I don't agree that the middle ground is enough; it will increase tolerance but have a negligible affect on freedom of choice for children as they grow into adulthood. But it's a potential stopping point for others that I think is far less controversial.

now if you want to know what i think is ideal? just, like you said, tell the kid what you know and think and don't overstate it, and allow and encourage them to think for themselves. but i don't think not living up to this ideal makes people immoral, just misguided.

one more point of interest and then i'll wrap it up. religious indoctrination is not the only kind of indoctrination kids will face. from day one kids are drilled with political, moral and cultural indoctrination. is this immoral too? can that 5 year old really understand what being a patriot means? it seems like humans have a long history of passing on traditions and a lot of this would seemingly be immoral by the standards we are starting to set here.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
There is a difference between them that is more than numbers or being stablished.

As a former member of both. I can tell you that a cult is far worse and more damaging than a religion.

When I left the religion I didn't feel like I just woke up from a dream and Iwas never scared or hesitant to reveal that I was no longer a Christian.

When I left the cult, I felt like I just woke up from a dream and it took me a while to let members of the cult to know I no longer believe on their teachings.

It is a completely different situation that it goes beyond some mere traits that you could find on both and maybe only experiencing both you could see the difference.

I no longer believe in ANY man made religion and I understand some people might find strength in religions and cults, but cults are more damaging, imo

Sorry about your experience.

Originally posted by riv6672
Sorry about your experience.

Don't be, I feel much better and happy now 😄

I see it as experience and I got out of it by myself, no one helped me, but some people need help to get out of this type of cults.

I will never said to someone "leave your religion" but I will recommend anyone to "leave their cults"

Funny thing is thst when you are in a cult you don't even realize it. You find out usually after you left, some realize this before.

But in any given situation brfore you get into a church I will recommend everybody to investigate their background before.committing bto a religion

Damn good recommendation, no pun intended!