Interesting television, perhaps...

MrPudding

A new series starting tonight on Channel 4:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/revelations

Tonight's show follows several non believers as they attend the 8 weeks Alpha Course.

I am hopeful that this will be very interesting.

MrP

Dades

Saw that - looks interesting.

Húrin

Won't be in the house at the time but it looks like really worth watching. Might even get up super early on thursday morning for the repeat!

check out some of the hilarious comments on their site:

It sounds like a propaganda program to me. Brain washing agnostic people into believing some superstitious nonsense. Isn't that like indoctrination and cult behaviour? Should be banned in the UK.

tut tut indeed

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

Might even get up super early on thursday morning for the repeat!

It should be available to watch for free immediately after (and for the next 30 days or so) on their website catch-up service. This is the proper link, I think:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4od

CerebralCortex

I love tongues, class :pac:

Rowley Birkin QC

Anyone else watching??

I had a revelation during the programme when they were getting to speak in tongues at the camp.....it was amazing, truly beautiful.....that fantastic, burbling, rumbling sound of the Ford V8 in the GT40 interrupting the congregation confirmed my belief that religion is a load of old nonsense.

pts

I felt uncomfortable watching the show. It reminded me that religious memes are very similar, even though they claim not to be.

I didn't think the Christians running the Alpha course were no better than the Scientologist. Preying (or should that be praying) on people who are troubled in one way or another, claiming that they have the answer.

Sam Vimes

pts wrote: »

claiming that they have the answer.

Well they definitely have an answer, you can say that for sure. I suppose I could have all the answers too if I didn't have to back up anything I was saying or follow the rules of logic

pts

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well they definitely have an answer, you can say that for sure. I suppose I could have all the answers too if I didn't have to back up anything I was saying or follow the rules of logic

That's very true. What annoys me though is that an answer is billed as the answer. What annoys me even more is that it's accepted as a good answer. Good answers are logical and can be used to predict future events.

Urizen

This claims that it 'explores the impact religion has on the lives of believers and non-believers in Britain today'. Religion. In general. And yet it's only about Christianity, far as I can see.

Pure propeganda drivel. Don't care how good the films are, it sickens me that this kind of brainwashing muck is still being shown.

Christianity, and indeed most organised religion, is propegated by fear. And here, they take that fear and they feed it, to force them into accepting faith. For shame, Channel 4.

MrPudding

Urizen wrote: »

This claims that it 'explores the impact religion has on the lives of believers and non-believers in Britain today'. Religion. In general. And yet it's only about Christianity, far as I can see.

Pure propeganda drivel. Don't care how good the films are, it sickens me that this kind of brainwashing muck is still being shown.

Christianity, and indeed most organised religion, is propegated by fear. And here, they take that fear and they feed it, to force them into accepting faith. For shame, Channel 4.

Perhaps you should have actually watched the programme? I am assuming that you did not. If you had have, you would probably know that next weeks episode is about Muslim schools in the UK, I don't think they teach christianity there...

I found it quite funny, and a little bit silly. I was actually considering going on one of the courses to see what it was like. Don't think I will bother now, I am not sure I could stop myself from laughing.

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It should be available to watch for free immediately after (and for the next 30 days or so) on their website catch-up service. This is the proper link, I think:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4od

Thanks. I'm not very up on television technology. Unfortunately though

"Rights agreements mean that our 4oD service is only available in the UK. Even if you are a citizen of the UK you cannot access the service from abroad."

pts wrote: »

Preying (or should that be praying) on people who are troubled in one way or another, claiming that they have the answer.

What's wrong with trying to help people? What's wrong with a troubled person trying to help themselves by looking to see if Christianity has an answer?

liah

Húrin wrote: »

What's wrong with trying to help people? What's wrong with a troubled person trying to help themselves by looking to see if Christianity has an answer?

Because christianity claims it has THE answer and not just AN answer.

Dades

I had to record it.

Baba was a bit unwell so we watched Makka Pakka, Iggle Piggle and the Toomliboos.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

we watched Makka Pakka, Iggle Piggle and the Toomliboos.

Felt my life was too short to watch C4, let alone Makka and company's burblings. Down that way, my friend, lies the chilly corpses of a million parents. Be warned.

So we watched the Muppet Show and Shaun the Sheep instead, and we felt mighty good about the world

Urizen

MrPudding wrote: »

Perhaps you should have actually watched the programme? I am assuming that you did not. If you had have, you would probably know that next weeks episode is about Muslim schools in the UK, I don't think they teach christianity there...

I did watch it. Admittedly, I DID also give up halfway. That's better so. Makes more sense too, C4 are usually relatively broad minded.

Thanks for lettin me know that, prob give it a look next time so.

Still propeganda filth though, obviously. But it'll be interesting to see the brainwashing of other religions too. Compare and contrast, ya know?

pts

Húrin wrote: »

What's wrong with trying to help people? What's wrong with a troubled person trying to help themselves by looking to see if Christianity has an answer?

I'm glad you asked

Let's put aside (for the moment) if the God of the Bible exists or not. I think some techniques used in the course were manipulative. If we go back to my favourite example, Scientology I might be able to clarify what I mean. In Scientology they have techniques for getting people into the "religion". In Scientology speak it's about "finding a persons ruin", i.e. finding someone's weakness and exploiting it.

When I watched the documentary yesterday I felt the alpha course did something similar. They used emotions that all people feel from time to time (loneliness, lack of purpose etc) and then implied that they could help them. They then used techniques like love bombing. I also didn't like that any time some one felt something when they were their hypnotic rituals (the group silence, speaking in tongues over music etc) they implied it was God (or the holy spirit).

In my opinion they are selling snake oil, except if the snake oil doesn't work you can't complain as you'll be told there is nothing wrong with the miracle cure, it's you who is doing it wrong.

The whole speaking in tongues also annoyed me, but that's a thread in itself.

Húrin

liah wrote: »

Because christianity claims it has THE answer and not just AN answer.

Thus it should not be permitted to give any answer?

pts wrote: »

When I watched the documentary yesterday I felt the alpha course did something similar. They used emotions that all people feel from time to time (loneliness, lack of purpose etc) and then implied that they could help them.

Again, what's the problem with acknowledging real problems and trying to help?

They then used techniques like love bombing.

It sounds like they are a bunch of friendly people. Is that so hard to believe? It would be in line with most of my own experiences of Christians so far.

I also didn't like that any time some one felt something when they were their hypnotic rituals (the group silence, speaking in tongues over music etc) they implied it was God (or the holy spirit).

They're Christians. Of course they believe in God.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Thus it should not be permitted to give any answer?

No, it should not be permitted to make out that it has the answer. It should make it clear that it is one of many unsubstantiated answers

Húrin wrote: »

Again, what's the problem with acknowledging real problems and trying to help?

Acknowledging problems that everyone has and making out that they have the solution. It's what all cults do. I suppose you think this one is different because you think they actually do have the answer

Húrin wrote: »

They're Christians. Of course they believe in God.

Believing in God does not mean that everything should be attributed to him. How likely do you think it is that the person was actually being made speak in tongues by God?

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, it should not be permitted to make out that it has the answer. It should make it clear that it is one of many unsubstantiated answers

Why would Christians claim to have an unsubstantiated answer. The reason they are doing it it because they think it is substantiated.

Acknowledging problems that everyone has and making out that they have the solution. It's what all cults do. I suppose you think this one is different because you think they actually do have the answer

Same as many people do with atheism and humanism. Make it out as if it's the universal solution to a host of problems.

Seriously though, every group who is promoting a meme thinks it has some advantage over others. That's why they're promoting that one and not another. It's no crime. You make everything out to be a crime!

Every piece of Alpha Course literature I've seen is quite open about the possibility of leaving the course if it's not working for you. I'm getting a strong sense of desperation to smack the aul' "cult" label on anything you don't like.

Believing in God does not mean that everything should be attributed to him. How likely do you think it is that the person was actually being made speak in tongues by God?

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the Alpha course people think. I see no reason why you wouldn't expect them to think their toungue speaking is attributable to God.

toiletduck

It was interesting. Always wondered what went on at them courses. Tongues? Oh dear.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Why would Christians claim to have an unsubstantiated answer. The reason they are doing it it because they think it is substantiated.

So your god's existence has been proven has it? I didn't get the memo.

Húrin wrote: »

Same as many people do with atheism and humanism. Make it out as if it's the universal solution to a host of problems.

Seriously though, every group who is promoting a meme thinks it has some advantage over others. That's why they're promoting that one and not another. It's no crime. You make everything out to be a crime!

Every piece of Alpha Course literature I've seen is quite open about the possibility of leaving the course if it's not working for you. I'm getting a strong sense of desperation to smack the aul' "cult" label on anything you don't like.

If atheists and humanists make out that they have the universal solution then they're also wrong to do so. This actually brings back the problem with religious reasoning. I can tell you all my ideas but I don't make out they're backed up by the creator of the universe.

edit: all cults have in their literature that you're free to leave at any time btw, except for islam which prescribes death for doing it

Húrin wrote: »

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the Alpha course people think. I see no reason why you wouldn't expect them to think their toungue speaking is attributable to God.

"It doesn't matter what I think" ->translate -> "of course it's not god doing it and of course they are deliberately making out that it is to trick people into accepting what they're saying, like all cults".

These people are saying they can summon miracles on demand. Even if God exists, they are fraudsters.

The Mad Hatter

My hero, Derren Brown's take on it here.

MrPudding

Excellent article. Nice site actually, I will have to have to spend a bit of time reading.

MrP

Rowley Birkin QC

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

My hero, Derren Brown's take on it here.

Cheers for that, anyone dare to put it in the Christianity forum and ask them to respond, especially to his closing thought...

Derren Brown wrote:

There was an interesting exchange between a questioning attendee and one of the Christians designated to gently persuade them during the small group meetings. The Christian said that God had spoken to him on a bus. He had been asked to carry out an assignment which he felt was probably too much for him, and God has spoken to him, ‘as a voice inside his head’, to say ‘you can’t do it’. The question was asked – a perfectly sensible one – how did he know it came from God, as opposed to from himself? The question was treated as patronising and offensive, by the very people placed there to answer sensible questions. It was brilliantly symptomatic of the problem: that rational discussion has no place at the table. Just believe it because it’s true. End of story.

pts

Húrin wrote: »

Thus it should not be permitted to give any answer?


Again, what's the problem with acknowledging real problems and trying to help?


It sounds like they are a bunch of friendly people. Is that so hard to believe? It would be in line with most of my own experiences of Christians so far.


They're Christians. Of course they believe in God.

I think Sam covered most of your objections, but just to reiterate my main objection, which is that the techniques used are manipulative. I think most people would agree that they are, if they were used by a group they didn't agree with (such as Scientology) however when they are used by your religion, then it seems to be ok. The objections then become that the techniques somehow become non manipulative when used by Christians or that they are manipulative but they are justifiable as the Christian God is real. Needless to say I don't agree with either of those objections.

Also kudos to The Mad Hatter for the link to the excellent Derren Brown article. For anyone who hasn't already seen it I can't recommend the Derren interviewed by Richard Dawkins and "Messiah" enough. People like Derren show that people can be manipulated, the only difference between Scientology and Christianity is that Christians are ok with their manipulation since God exists, but not the Scinetologists manipulation because Xenu is obviously made up.

MrPudding

pts wrote: »

I think Sam covered most of your objections, but just to reiterate my main objection, which is that the techniques used are manipulative.

But they don’t see it as manipulative. And even if they did, if they actually admitted that they did think it was manipulative they can rationalize it because they are trying to save someone’s immortal soul. What cost your soul?

pts wrote: »

I think most people would agree that they are, if they were used by a group they didn't agree with (such as Scientology) however when they are used by your religion, then it seems to be ok.

But it is not scientology or home cleaning systems or double glazing. It is just harmless old Christianity. How could you possibly object. Next thing you will be telling us that you don’t think people employed by the government in non-religious jobs should nto be offer to pray for people… oh wait…

pts wrote: »

The objections then become that the techniques somehow become non manipulative when used by Christians or that they are manipulative but they are justifiable as the Christian God is real. Needless to say I don't agree with either of those objections.

I would like to think that in most cases they genuinely do not realise they are being manipulative. It is possible they were brought in using the same technique and they are now happy, so what is the harm?

pts wrote: »

Also kudos to The Mad Hatter for the link to the excellent Derren Brown article.

Agreed. It is a whole side to the guy I never knew existed.

pts wrote: »

For anyone who hasn't already seen it I can't recommend the Derren interviewed by Richard Dawkins and "Messiah" enough. People like Derren show that people can be manipulated, the only difference between Scientology and Christianity is that Christians are ok with their manipulation since God exists, but not the Scinetologists manipulation because Xenu is obviously made up.

Hard to argue with that, but I am sure somebody will.

MrP

jill_valentine

I'd highly recommend Browne's book, Tricks of the Mind. One of my favourite books of the last decade, really fascinating, and always entertaining. The guy turned out to be a million times more interesting than I'd realised, and very damn funny.

Bearing in mind his Séance and Messiah stuff, I'd say this forum owes him some sort of medal.

The Mad Hatter

pts wrote: »

Also kudos to The Mad Hatter for the link to the excellent Derren Brown article. For anyone who hasn't already seen it I can't recommend the Derren interviewed by Richard Dawkins and "Messiah" enough. People like Derren show that people can be manipulated, the only difference between Scientology and Christianity is that Christians are ok with their manipulation since God exists, but not the Scinetologists manipulation because Xenu is obviously made up.

I really must see Messiah actually - I think it's the only one of his specials I haven't seen.

And everyone in the world should read his book, Tricks of the Mind.

Edit

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'd highly recommend Browne's book, Tricks of the Mind. One of my favourite books of the last decade, really fascinating, and always entertaining. The guy turned out to be a million times more interesting than I'd realised, and very damn funny.

Yeah. Also made me realise he wasn't a fraud. I love the way he kind of starts in character, but it just turns into a rant about psychics half way through.

pts

MrPudding wrote: »

Rebutting my arguments one by one

Who needs theist to argue with when we've got each other
Funny how predictable responses become after a while though.

MrPudding

pts wrote: »

Why needs theist to argue with when we've got each other
Funny how predictable responses become after a while though.

Like I said in antother thread, it really is quite a racket.

MrP

TwoShedsJackson

Interesting documentary, had never heard of the Alpha Course prior to it.

The 'speaking in tongues' section was an utter embarrassment, as they usually are - the fact that it was never mentioned prior to the weekend away, then pretty much sprung on the attendees smacked of psychological tricks to me.

Had to laugh at the GT40s interrupting the spiritual moment

Zombrex

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Interesting documentary, had never heard of the Alpha Course prior to it.

The 'speaking in tongues' section was an utter embarrassment, as they usually are - the fact that it was never mentioned prior to the weekend away, then pretty much sprung on the attendees smacked of psychological tricks to me.

The whole thing smacked of a bait and catch, get a load of people at the course and you will catch a few people who are discontent with their lives and can easily be manipulated into believing that Christianity is the answer for them. The guy who poundered (with some non-ironic sincereity) that there must be "more" to life than drinking and one night stands high as well have been wearing a bulls-eye (there is more, read this book..)

The whole thing was quite disturbing and I was glad that at least a few of those interviewed at the end found it such as well.

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

My hero, Derren Brown's take on it here.

Good article, summed up the whole thing for me.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

The guy who poundered (with some non-ironic sincereity) that there must be "more" to life than drinking and one night stands high as well have been wearing a bulls-eye (there is more, read this book..)

He had victim written all over him. It seemed to me like they tried to identify the weakest in the herd and then target that person. Slipping him the note was a masterstroke, or am I being too cynical?

MrP

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

What's wrong with trying to help people? What's wrong with a troubled person trying to help themselves by looking to see if Christianity has an answer?

What is wrong with it is that the "help" they are offering is emotionally and mentally dangerous and potentially damaging.

You might as well ask what is wrong with people wanting to lose weight when discussing the Mars bar diet :rolleyes:

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

He had victim written all over him. It seemed to me like they tried to identify the weakest in the herd and then target that person. Slipping him the note was a masterstroke, or am I being too cynical?

MrP

I think one of the interesting aspects of the religious memes that make up something like Christianity is its ability for these techniques to self perpetuate without the person necessarily understanding that they are being manipulative.

The memebers of the alpha course are probably just subconsciously repeating the techniques that worked on them under the belief that they work, the way a bullied kid will bully other kids in the way they have been bullied without consciously being aware they are doing this.

This leads to the cry that you cannot think it is bad because they are genuinly trying to help people, as if that some how means they are not being manipulative and damaging.

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So your god's existence has been proven has it? I didn't get the memo.

I didn't say that. You seem to be in a flamebaiting mood today. They think that their religion is substantiated and that's why they're doing this. It doesn't mean that you think their religion is substantiated. My statement was crystal clear.

If atheists and humanists make out that they have the universal solution then they're also wrong to do so. This actually brings back the problem with religious reasoning. I can tell you all my ideas but I don't make out they're backed up by the creator of the universe.

And yet every day we hear on this forum that the world would be better without religion, that all people would be more peaceful, happier, and prosperous if they were atheists. It's one-size fits all thinking.

Atheists don't pretend their ideas are backed up by the creator of the universe, but they do pretend their ideas are backed up by the universe itself as understood through science.

edit: all cults have in their literature that you're free to leave at any time btw, except for islam which prescribes death for doing it

Don't like it eh? Just call it a cult for some quick, effort free vilification!

"It doesn't matter what I think" ->translate -> "of course it's not god doing it and of course they are deliberately making out that it is to trick people into accepting what they're saying, like all cults".

Better off translating it as an attempt to deflect your efforts into making a thread full of personal insults.

These people are saying they can summon miracles on demand. Even if God exists, they are fraudsters.

Where do they say this?

pts wrote: »

I think Sam covered most of your objections, but just to reiterate my main objection, which is that the techniques used are manipulative.

You say this, but you offer no supporting arguments.

Also, you don't know what my beliefs are. You think that I must be "one of them" because I'm not dead against the Alpha course. Typical tribal thinking.

Derren Brown wrote:

The question was treated as patronising and offensive, by the very people placed there to answer sensible questions. It was brilliantly symptomatic of the problem: that rational discussion has no place at the table. Just believe it because it’s true. End of story.

This is where Derren goes all vague. He accuses others of being irrational despite offering no reasonable evidence of it. He then feels that it is sensible to assume that the answer he didn't like would have been given by all Christians everywhere, and is thus "symptomatic of the problem". No doubt many reasonable answers were given to questions, but no matter how many he would never call the Christians a shining example of reason.

You are all only nodding because he is saying what you want to hear.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

The memebers of the alpha course are probably just subconsciously repeating the techniques that worked on them under the belief that they work, the way a bullied kid will bully other kids in the way they have been bullied without consciously being aware they are doing this.

I love the way you pick a negative example when there are a multitude of positive comparisons available.

This leads to the cry that you cannot think it is bad because they are genuinly trying to help people, as if that some how means they are not being manipulative and damaging.

Looks like the brains are out the window in this thread. Still a lot of repetition of "manipulative and damaging" without evidence or even plausible explanation of why it applies here.

Wicknight wrote: »

What is wrong with it is that the "help" they are offering is emotionally and mentally dangerous and potentially damaging.

Utter nonsense. I know people who are Christians and none appear to be emotionally damaged. Many testify that Christianity has helped them cope with emotional damage, however.

You might as well ask what is wrong with people wanting to lose weight when discussing the Mars bar diet.

So Christianity inherently makes people miserable? I see that you are in line with most of the posters in this thread: Christianity is not only not the answer for everyone; it isn't the answer for anyone.

Isn't that as reductive and biased as thinking that it's the answer for everyone?

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists don't pretend their ideas are backed up by the creator of the universe, but they do pretend their ideas are backed up by the universe itself as understood through science.

Atheists just don't believe your ideas are backed up by science. Whatever other ideas they may have are personal to them.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

I didn't say that. You seem to be in a flamebaiting mood today. They think that their religion is substantiated and that's why they're doing this. It doesn't mean that you think their religion is substantiated. My statement was crystal clear.

The definition of substantiate: "to verify something by supplying evidence; to corroborate or authenticate; to give material form or substance to something; to embody"

If only they think it's substantiated then it's not substantiated and they don't understand the word. As I've said to you several times, if the evidence is only apparent to people who are already inclined towards believing then it's not evidence, it's wishful thinking.

Húrin wrote: »

And yet every day we hear on this forum that the world would be better without religion, that all people would be more peaceful, happier, and prosperous if they were atheists. It's one-size fits all thinking.

Atheists don't pretend their ideas are backed up by the creator of the universe, but they do pretend their ideas are backed up by the universe itself as understood through science.

I think the world would be better without irrational religious beliefs clouding people's judgement. That's different to saying the world would be perfect. There are still other irrational beliefs, most often centred around patriotism and politics in general.

Húrin wrote: »

Don't like it eh? Just call it a cult for some quick, effort free vilification!

No, call it a cult because it's exhibiting the behaviour of a cult

Húrin wrote: »

Better off translating it as an attempt to deflect your efforts into making a thread full of personal insults.

I'm not attempting anything of the sort. I'm asking you if you think that God was making them speak in tongues. What you think is relevant because I am asking you what you think. So what do you think?

Húrin wrote: »

Where do they say this?

When they say that they're speaking in tongues and where they said that any time someone felt something in hypnotic rituals they said it was God. People spend their whole lives looking for signs from God and these people claim to be able to make them happen on demand.

They are fradusters using standard cult tactics and if they belonged to another religion you would see that straight away. This is one of the reasons why I think the world would be better without religion. You honestly can't see that they're just like any other cult because it's your god they're supporting

What we are saying here is nothing against your religion mate, it's against the tactics these people are using to recruit people to the religion. They are the tactics of a cult

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

Atheists just don't believe your ideas are backed up by science. Whatever other ideas they may have are personal to them.

Tell that to the many atheists who think that science supports atheism. I have repeatedly stated that science IMO supports not religion but agnosticism.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The definition of substantiate: "to verify something by supplying evidence; to corroborate or authenticate; to give material form or substance to something; to embody"

Yes, that definition of substantiate means that Christianity is substantiated in the eyes of the Christians. That's why they're Christians.

If only they think it's substantiated then it's not substantiated and they don't understand the word. As I've said to you several times, if the evidence is only apparent to people who are already inclined towards believing then it's not evidence, it's wishful thinking.

So they have to get you on board, or else they have to put a disclaimer about how unsubstantiated their beliefs are? What makes your view on things more objective than theirs?

People become Christians because they think the evidence is substantial enough to justify the belief. They don't think that the evidence is substantial because they are already Christians.

I think the world would be better without irrational religious beliefs clouding people's judgement. That's different to saying the world would be perfect. There are still other irrational beliefs, most often centred around patriotism and politics in general.

I don't see the importance of a "more rational than thou" contest here. People do very good and moral things in the name of religion. If it's irrational, it doesn't make the deeds any less good. Likewise, other people do very evil things in the name of reason. It doesn't make those deeds any less bad.

No, call it a cult because it's exhibiting the behaviour of a cult

TBH I haven't seen the programme, but by the sounds of it people are accusing them of being a cult because they believe they have a relationship with God and they're friendly people.

I'm not attempting anything of the sort. I'm asking you if you think that God was making them speak in tongues. What you think is relevant because I am asking you what you think. So what do you think?

I don't see the point since the whole thread is about their beliefs and behaviour, and not mine.

When they say that they're speaking in tongues and where they said that any time someone felt something in hypnotic rituals they said it was God.
People spend their whole lives looking for signs from God and these people claim to be able to make them happen on demand.

Did they not credit God with making the speaking in tongues happen?

They are fradusters using standard cult tactics and if they belonged to another religion you would see that straight away.This is one of the reasons why I think the world would be better without religion.

If you weren't so anti-Christian and anti-religion you would see straight away that they are not a cult.

MrPudding

Húrin wrote: »

If you weren't so anti-Christian and anti-religion you would see straight away that they are not a cult.

dictionary.com wrote:

cult

  /kʌlt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhlt] Show IPA Use cult in a Sentence

–noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

7. the members of such a religion or sect.

8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

The ones is bold seem to describe christianity quite well, no?

MrP

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Utter nonsense. I know people who are Christians and none appear to be emotionally damaged. Many testify that Christianity has helped them cope with emotional damage, however.

Replace "Christians" with "Scientologists" or "Branch Dividians" and perhaps you can see how pointless such a statement is.

All cults and religions claim to help people.

But if they were actually helping people they wouldn't need to act like those on the Alpha Course. You don't need to use psycological tricks and manipulation in order to help people if you can actually help them. You don't need to indoctrinate them into believe they are being helped if you can actually help them. That is the central point here.

You would never get a doctor or a pyschologists acting like this, even if they believed it was for a good cause.

Your apparent argument that no one can say that no Christian has ever been helped (how ever you are defining that) by Christianity some where at some point in time, therefore how dare people attack Christianity, is nonsense.

What was demonstrated in this documentary was quite appalling, you yourself seem to realise this because you are spending a great deal of time trying to distance the rest of Christianity from what we saw in this documentary, while at the same time attacking people from criticising it.

The Mad Hatter

Húrin wrote: »

This is where Derren goes all vague. He accuses others of being irrational despite offering no reasonable evidence of it. He then feels that it is sensible to assume that the answer he didn't like would have been given by all Christians everywhere, and is thus "symptomatic of the problem". No doubt many reasonable answers were given to questions, but no matter how many he would never call the Christians a shining example of reason.

You are all only nodding because he is saying what you want to hear.

Well, it was only a short blog post. I think rather than picking on the weakest answer to a question from the show, he was picking the clearest example of what he was trying to say.

Brown grew up an evangelical Christian. It was through learning the techniques of suggestion, hypnosis and manipulation, and realising that he was applying them in his proselytising, that led Brown to atheism and skepticism generally. So I think he knows what he's talking about here.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, that definition of substantiate means that Christianity is substantiated in the eyes of the Christians. That's why they're Christians.

So they have to get you on board, or else they have to put a disclaimer about how unsubstantiated their beliefs are? What makes your view on things more objective than theirs?

Let's put it this way:

Christianity can be considered substantiated when it's taught in history class as a series of historical events and students are expected to answer questions on the resurrection in the same way they do on Julius Caesar.

Húrin wrote: »

I don't see the importance of a "more rational than thou" contest here. People do very good and moral things in the name of religion. If it's irrational, it doesn't make the deeds any less good. Likewise, other people do very evil things in the name of reason. It doesn't make those deeds any less bad.

When the beliefs are irrational, they are unpredictable. They might do good but they might not. It's better to be able to give a rational reason for doing something

Húrin wrote: »

TBH I haven't seen the programme, but by the sounds of it people are accusing them of being a cult because they believe they have a relationship with God and they're friendly people.

No, there are churches all over Ireland filled with friendly people who have a relationship with God and I don't say they're in a cult. I'm saying this group are a cult because they are using cult methods, which are separate to religious motivations and don't even have to be religious. There are lots of secular cults too, or cults of personality

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

TBH I haven't seen the programme, but by the sounds of it people are accusing them of being a cult because they believe they have a relationship with God and they're friendly people.

So let me get this straight, you haven't actually seen the program, and you have ignored or dismissed the majority of this thread where people have discussed the clear manipulation techniques that were observed in this doc, ignored or dismissed that other viewers (such as Derren Brown who is some what of an expert in manipulation) spotted in this program, and been apparently unaware that this manipulation which was in fact mentioned by some those attending the Alpha Course themselves in interviews at the end of the show, but you feel confident in attacking the rest us as being biased and forming views based on preconceived notions and anti-Christianity loathing.

Ummm ... :rolleyes:

Dades

I watched it last night and thought it was interesting but fairly bland, tbh.

It suffered from only being able to focus on 3 or so individuals who ultimately didn't lend themselves to anything dramatic. I'm sure there were real stories to be told amongst the other participants.

The "Around the World in 80 Faiths" commentaries on Christianity were infinitely more fascinating.

Will watch the Muslim schools one next week. Should be a bit more contentious.

pH

Hopefully C4 will buy the UK rights for this

Turkish TV gameshow looks to convert atheists

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - What happens when you put a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk in a room with 10 atheists?

Turkish television station Kanal T hopes the answer is a ratings success as it prepares to launch a gameshow where spiritual guides from the four faiths will seek to convert a group of non-believers.

The prize for converts will be a pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen religion -- Mecca for Muslims, the Vatican for Christians, Jerusalem for Jews and Tibet for Buddhists.
http://in.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idINIndia-40789120090703

(It's called "Penitents Compete")

dvpower

pH wrote: »

Hopefully C4 will buy the UK rights for this

Turkish TV gameshow looks to convert atheists

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - What happens when you put a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a rabbi and a Buddhist monk in a room with 10 atheists?

Turkish television station Kanal T hopes the answer is a ratings success as it prepares to launch a gameshow where spiritual guides from the four faiths will seek to convert a group of non-believers.

The prize for converts will be a pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen religion -- Mecca for Muslims, the Vatican for Christians, Jerusalem for Jews and Tibet for Buddhists.
http://in.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idINIndia-40789120090703

(It's called "Penitents Compete")

What happens if the atheists manage to convert the religious people? A pilgrimage to Vegas?

Hrududu

He had victim written all over him. It seemed to me like they tried to identify the weakest in the herd and then target that person. Slipping him the note was a masterstroke, or am I being too cynical?

I thought so too. The way they slipped him that note was genius. From what I could see of it it seemed pretty personal and was written like a letter to him. It seemed to do the trick as he had them pray over him not long after.

The one thing that got to me was that point Derren Brown made. The Alpha guy told them God has spoken to him as a voice in his head. And when someone reasonably asked him how he knew that it was God and not his own voice both he and his wife got very upset. I think the words the wife used were "My husband knows his own mind." So rational questions and answers were out. Instead of debating they relied on manipulating them emotionally. It was a very interesting program.