Getting deep with Dom Cruise -

[Cheerlead-in-Chief]

And that's fine, I can have a good laugh at myself.

I only get uncomfortable if an attack on me is really vicious or unfair, but none of you guys have ever attacked me at a level SJWs have, the Woke will very viciously attack you for simply pointing out the truth about their stupid lies and narratives (ie just because a man is accused of something doesn't instantly make him guilty), that's the kind of shit I simply can't abide and it's why I gravitate towards places like here and not other places with unironic SJWs.

If you've never had the misfortune of actually interacting with an SJW directly and only know the second hand accounts and stereotypes, you can't imagine how awful those people really are, most posters on the Farms are Boy Scouts compared to those pricks.

To be fair, I am enjoying lurking in this thread.
"KF are Boy Scouts compared to SJW'S"...hold up, I used to be a Brownie Scout (before the kerfuffle of girls joining Boy Scouts). And I had to deal with a literal danger haired "FTM" (who never bothered to transition and loudly told their wet dream of rubbing their obese body all over a hung guy for more attention.

Or alternatively, are you referring to the SS versions in WWII?

 

[Radical Cadre]

Why did @Null allow politics in this site again?

Because eventually they result in threads like this.

 

[Penis Drager]

People with the latter two, but lacking the former, seem to invariably twist them into, if not religion, something with all the trappings of such. Social strictures, dogma, painting opposition as some sin or heresy analogue, etc etc. Look at anything from social justice, to politics, environmentalism, animal rights, hell, even vidya. You will find people who have formed dogmatic behaviors around it, who use it to fill the very same hole people traditionally used religion to fill. And they inevitably start trying to impose their beliefs on those around them.

I think you have it backwards: religion is a substitute for actually sitting down to find out what you care about and constructing an ethical framework around it. And if you're convinced that you're right about "right and wrong," it only makes sense that the logical conclusion is often ends up being that fighting against the "wrong" and defending what's "right" is the proper thing to dedicate much of your life doing.

 

[Clarence]

Me too man, fuck politics and all that. Im just trying to focus on my hobbies now

 

[Punished Benis]

I think you have it backwards: religion is a substitute for actually sitting down to find out what you care about and constructing an ethical framework around it. And if you're convinced that you're right about "right and wrong," it only makes sense that the logical conclusion is often ends up being that fighting against the "wrong" and defending what's "right" is the proper thing to dedicate much of your life doing.

Hard disagree. People who do the latter (almost) invariably become the former. I'm not talking just the old Religions, like Christianity, Buddhism, etc etc. Social Justice, Pop Science, and Racial Identitarianism all have the trappings of religion. All have dogmatic strictures, all have an orthodoxy, most have some sort of concept equivalent to "sin". If you can name a functional component to religion, you can easily find a workable ideological parallel in any of those things. In any belief that propagates into society.

All of them started as people forming ethical bounds on topics and areas that meant something to them. Those lacking the capacity for self-reflection you described (which I'd argue to be the majority of people) latched on to whatever sounded good to them, while the intelligent formed their own opinion, and then in the nature of a social animal, banded together with individuals of like mind, if not on all the specifics. Because people can only assert change (or preservation) with sufficient ability to do so, and people intelligent enough to reflect in such a way are also intelligent enough to know that iconoclasm is, if good on paper, incapable of achieving momentum. Even Ghandi was aware that he needed to bring other people around to his way of thought if it was to make an impact.

Now tell me, when no one, whether the working man or dictionaries, have been able to come to a unified consensus on what religion really means, what separates that phenomena from the religion of old? I'd argue what you're seeing as a cheap substitute is the inevitable end point of any idea that gains memetic traction.

I'll give an example to wrap up my autistic essay. If you care so much about, say, the environment, you are not going to be content to just hold that belief. You are going to wish to act to protect that which you care about. You are going to achieve very little pushing on your own, so you are going to try to recruit others or join in with those of similar belief. This is going to lead to a group with codes and tenants they operate by and hold to be true. Some are going to do more productive things, like attempting to prevent chemical dumping. Others are going to do retarded things, like protesting nuclear power or pushing half-baked ideas that cause more harm than good. People will argue that certain actions, institutions, and behaviors invariably lead to certain outcomes, turning ethics into morals. People will be pushed to either cease activities deemed to be bad, to do good to make up for past ills, or simply pushed to contribute for the good. QED environmentalism has become indistinguishable from a church.

 

[Dom Cruise]

I think you're confusing religion with faith. Or purpose.

I think the difference is that Religion has a spiritual element, simply having faith in something or a sense of purpose doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the spiritual.

And I think it's important for people to at least wake to the spiritual side of reality, everything seems to work on a binary, right? Light and dark, up and down, male and female, good and evil.

There's shades of grey in between things too of course, but going by the rule of something seeming to always have it's opposite, if we have the material, why wouldn't we also have the immaterial or what one may call the spiritual?

Science already talks about "dark matter" ie matter that we can't actually examine and detect through traditional means, we only know it's there at all by the effect it has on matter and dark matter makes up the majority of our universe, what if that's the spiritual? What if science has gotten so advanced it's catching it's first glimpses of the spiritual side of the universe?

No intention to offend you or your beliefs, but the greatest tragedy is a self-aware Christian. Fully understanding and willing to question the asinine, demanding, unforgiving, judgmental nature of their religion, but being unwilling to question it in fear of a cosmic punishment ingrained into them.
This is pretty much exclusive to Christianity, too. Hinduism is the same, but that spawned an entire sect of Buddhism in retaliation to it and scares away followers every day. Christianity is perfectly engineered to make you afraid to question it but it doesn't inconvenience you too much to really rebel against it - Pascal's wager and all. Aside from not really preaching much in the way of personal development, the worst it does it just tells you that your heathen friends and family don't believe you so they'll go to hell so you may as well just avoid them or alienate them by preaching too much.

You're totally right, Christianity should be more forgiving, having a concept of "you got it wrong, but you can try again in the next life". But then it wouldn't be Christianity.

You're take on it is the more typical, fundamentalist view of "here's a list of dos and don'ts and depending on what you do or don't do you go to Heaven or Hell" but my take on it is different, my take is the entire of point of Christianity is transcending strict rules because God realized how flawed humanity is and how we will always fall short of it and break some rule and do so willingly, we can't help ourselves.

So Christ took on our collective spiritual "Karma" if you will, the weight of our sins and through making the ultimate sacrifice redeemed us, but it's waking up to this fact and accepting that Jesus is Lord is the choice you do have to make to get into Heaven.

For anyone that never heard the message at all or it never sunk in due to the fate of being born in different cultures, well, I do believe in the Catholic concept of Purgatory, I've heard some call it Sheol, which is basically the land of the dead where in some views everyone goes when they die before the Final Judgement when the Book of Life is opened and you actually enter Heaven or Hell.

People of other Religions like Hinduism or Buddhism have, I guarantee you, broken those Religions' rules at some point in their lives, so while there might be knowledge in those Religions, they're grace is not sufficient enough to cover their sins of people like the blood of Christ is.

What God is really looking at is our hearts, how did we at the end of the day treat our fellow man, did we make a genuine effort to treat them well? That's the bigger picture beyond "were you gay?" or "did you wait until marriage before you had sex?"

And if a follower of a different Religion tried to treat their fellow man then I can promise you they're not going to Hell just through a twist of fate, they will perhaps have to go to Sheol, but they will ultimately be given a second chance before Final Judgement, when every knee shall bow and profess Jesus is Lord whether you want to or not, so you might as well make the choice willingly before it's too late.

I know people disagree with this view, but that's just my take on it, obviously arguing theology is complex and there's many different takes on many different things, but that's just my take and what I go with.

To be fair, I am enjoying lurking in this thread.
"KF are Boy Scouts compared to SJW'S"...hold up, I used to be a Brownie Scout (before the kerfuffle of girls joining Boy Scouts). And I had to deal with a literal danger haired "FTM" (who never bothered to transition and loudly told their wet dream of rubbing their obese body all over a hung guy for more attention.

Or alternatively, are you referring to the SS versions in WWII?

It's a figure of speech, I was referring though to the old school Boy Scouts of America founded in 1910, not whatever it's like today.

My point was that communicating here on Kiwifarms is much better than trying to communicate with the full on Woke or SJWs, the way those people viciously attack you and just their overall irritating nature of being so full of themselves while spouting such obvious falsehoods, that even when they're proven 100% wrong (like the Jussie Smollett thing) they simply get mad at you bringing it up and will never, not once, have a moment of self awareness or a willingness to ever admit their wrong over any small thing, if you said "the sky is blue" they would go "nah, I think it's actually more of a green color"

Been there, done that and bought the T-Shirt and this hombre is flat out done interacting with people like that.

 

[ResurrectedFerret]

Hard disagree. People who do the latter (almost) invariably become the former. I'm not talking just the old Religions, like Christianity, Buddhism, etc etc. Social Justice, Pop Science, and Racial Identitarianism all have the trappings of religion. All have dogmatic strictures, all have an orthodoxy, most have some sort of concept equivalent to "sin". If you can name a functional component to religion, you can easily find a workable ideological parallel in any of those things. In any belief that propagates into society.

All of them started as people forming ethical bounds on topics and areas that meant something to them. Those lacking the capacity for self-reflection you described (which I'd argue to be the majority of people) latched on to whatever sounded good to them, while the intelligent formed their own opinion, and then in the nature of a social animal, banded together with individuals of like mind, if not on all the specifics. Because people can only assert change (or preservation) with sufficient ability to do so, and people intelligent enough to reflect in such a way are also intelligent enough to know that iconoclasm is, if good on paper, incapable of achieving momentum. Even Ghandi was aware that he needed to bring other people around to his way of thought if it was to make an impact.

Now tell me, when no one, whether the working man or dictionaries, have been able to come to a unified consensus on what religion really means, what separates that phenomena from the religion of old? I'd argue what you're seeing as a cheap substitute is the inevitable end point of any idea that gains memetic traction.

I'll give an example to wrap up my autistic essay. If you care so much about, say, the environment, you are not going to be content to just hold that belief. You are going to wish to act to protect that which you care about. You are going to achieve very little pushing on your own, so you are going to try to recruit others or join in with those of similar belief. This is going to lead to a group with codes and tenants they operate by and hold to be true. Some are going to do more productive things, like attempting to prevent chemical dumping. Others are going to do retarded things, like protesting nuclear power or pushing half-baked ideas that cause more harm than good. People will argue that certain actions, institutions, and behaviors invariably lead to certain outcomes, turning ethics into morals. People will be pushed to either cease activities deemed to be bad, to do good to make up for past ills, or simply pushed to contribute for the good. QED environmentalism has become indistinguishable from a church.

Here fren

 

[The Fool]

You're take on it is the more typical, fundamentalist view of "here's a list of dos and don'ts and depending on what you do or don't do you go to Heaven or Hell" but my take on it is different, my take is the entire of point of Christianity is transcending strict rules because God realized how flawed humanity is and how we will always fall short of it and break some rule and do so willingly, we can't help ourselves.

So Christ took on our collective spiritual "Karma" if you will, the weight of our sins and through making the ultimate sacrifice redeemed us, but it's waking up to this fact and accepting that Jesus is Lord is the choice you do have to make to get into Heaven.

For anyone that never heard the message at all or it never sunk in due to the fate of being born in different cultures, well, I do believe in the Catholic concept of Purgatory, I've heard some call it Sheol, which is basically the land of the dead where in some views everyone goes when they die before the Final Judgement when the Book of Life is opened and you actually enter Heaven or Hell.

People of other Religions like Hinduism or Buddhism have, I guarantee you, broken those Religions' rules at some point in their lives, so while there might be knowledge in those Religions, they're grace is not sufficient enough to cover their sins of people like the blood of Christ is.

What God is really looking at is our hearts, how did we at the end of the day treat our fellow man, did we make a genuine effort to treat them well? That's the bigger picture beyond "were you gay?" or "did you wait until marriage before you had sex?"

And if a follower of a different Religion tried to treat their fellow man then I can promise you they're not going to Hell just through a twist of fate, they will perhaps have to go to Sheol, but they will ultimately be given a second chance before Final Judgement, when every knee shall bow and profess Jesus is Lord whether you want to or not, so you might as well make the choice willingly before it's too late.

I know people disagree with this view, but that's just my take on it, obviously arguing theology is complex and there's many different takes on many different things, but that's just my take and what I go with.

I really don't understand this. You're just describing Buddhism, why not just become a Buddhist instead of warping a totally different religion into a parody of another one? You remind me of that one sect of Christianity that denies the validity of inherent sin. Good philosophy? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to butcher a religion like that? No, you're literally just making shit up by that point.

 

[The Fool]

Bruh...

Say what you want about followers of a religion, but they have the sense to simply follow and adapt to society, not making up whatever they want about faith to make it suit their tastes. Look at all those Wiccan nutjobs.

 

[Penis Drager]

If you can name a functional component to religion, you can easily find a workable ideological parallel in any of those things. In any belief that propagates into society.

Belief in the supernatural would be one exception. And as trivial as it may sound, it's a big difference. Religious morality revolves around doctrine while secular morality is (or at least should be) based on the logic that leads to moral conclusions.

That basically sums up my response to the rest of your post: it is belief in the supernatural that makes a religion. That's not to say secular cults don't exist. At least according to the "BITE model" the makings of a cult revolve around the methods of control rather than just a set of weird beliefs. A simple call for action based on moral absolution is neither a religion nor a cult, however.

 

[Punished Benis]

View attachment 2003595
Here fren

Thanks, fren. Most autistic post I've probably ever made on the Farms, and that's saying something. Good competition in this post, though. I miss puzzle pieces in off-topic.

Belief in the supernatural would be one exception. And as trivial as it may sound, it's a big difference. Religious morality revolves around doctrine while secular morality is (or at least should be) based on the logic that leads to moral conclusions.

That basically sums up my response to the rest of your post: it is belief in the supernatural that makes a religion. That's not to say secular cults don't exist. At least according to the "BITE model" the makings of a cult revolve around the methods of control rather than just a set of weird beliefs. A simple call for action based on moral absolution is neither a religion nor a cult, however.

View attachment 2003626

Eh, I'd argue this goes back to differing ways of defining things again. Again, there has been no consensus in hundreds of years on what exactly delineates religion vs spiritualism vs guiding philosophies vs paradigms in a society. Merriem-Webster, Oxford, and all manner of institutions academic, political, and yes, religious have argued and never settled on a unified definition for centuries. The BITE model, while informative in other regards, fails to delineate that programming and deprogramming are one and the same. IE, disindoctrinating is fundamentally just indoctrinating people away from their previous indoctrination, something Steve Hassan has historically failed to grasp. It's one of his greatest failings in that most of his criteria apply to himself and his foundations just as much, an accusation he has spent arguing against for decades based on semantics rather than any tangible facts. In his mind, thing he dislikes = cult, thing he likes = not cult. Just look at his political activism for some great examples. He's the Unitarian equivalent of Ray Comfort or some similar such charlatan.

All of life is indoctrination. Sage advice from an older relative over an evening bonfire or a parent teaching their small child to associate brushing their teeth and cleaning up their toys with positive feedback are by their very function and definition indoctrination, just as much as cult programming.

As for the spiritual vs non spiritual thing? Not to sound like a fedoralord, but what is the tangible, functional difference? A spiritual component matters to the person holding it and absolutely no one else. It impacts the outcome of the actions they take not at all. A rock thrown is a rock thrown. A brick laid is a brick laid. It matters not what motivated it, but that it was done. Harm birthed from good intentions is indistinguishable from harm by malice, and the same is true of boons caused by ulterior motives. What does the ant care for why you stepped on it, or the tree care for why you cut it?

Some argue that Confucianism, pragmatic Buddhism, and to a lesser degree Samkya or Mimansa are philosophies, rather than religions, but what is the effective, rather than semantic, difference if they are guiding philosophies?

 

[Cool Dog]

And I had to deal with a literal danger haired "FTM" (who never bothered to transition and loudly told their wet dream of rubbing their obese body all over a hung guy for more attention.

WTF? in front of minors?

 

[Penis Drager]

there has been no consensus in hundreds of years on what exactly delineates religion vs spiritualism vs guiding philosophies vs paradigms in a society. Merriem-Webster, Oxford, and all manner of institutions academic, political, and yes, religious have argued and never settled on a unified definition for centuries.

If it requires supernatural beliefs, it's more in the "religion" domain than not.there may be "iffy" cases but that falls into a Loki's Wager fallacy. No need to waste time on the details.

The BITE model, while informative in other regards, fails to delineate that programming and deprogramming are one and the same. IE, disindoctrinating is fundamentally just indoctrinating people away from their previous indoctrination, something Steve Hassan has historically failed to grasp

I think it's you that fails to grasp something: that being the fact that the burden of turning away from something is much smaller than acceptance of it.
Deprogramming involves explaining how to leave an idea. The programming is getting someone to accept said idea.
In many cases, accepting an idea means rejecting all others. Deprogramming is typically all about giving perspective on all the ideas they had to reject in order to join their group of ideologues.

thing he dislikes = cult, thing he likes = not cult.

Except the whole point is that cults seek to control your behavior via dishonest means.

 

[Punished Benis]

I think it's you that fails to grasp something: that being the fact that the burden of turning away from something is much smaller than acceptance of it.
Deprogramming involves explaining how to leave an idea. The programming is getting someone to accept said idea.
In many cases, accepting an idea means rejecting all others. Deprogramming is typically all about giving perspective on all the ideas they had to reject in order to join their group of ideologues.

You ignore that ideas can be beneficial, not everyone uses the method you describe, there have been repeated allegations of circular and non sequitur reasoning in "giving perspective on all the ideas they had to reject", and that deprogramming has been put forward as an option to use on a hilarious range of innocuous ideas and values, from basic political affiliation, to a desire to better oneself, to wanting a wife and children.

Plus, it's still inherently coercive and manipulating others into a behavior pattern that the deprogrammer desires. "You shouldn't believe this idea" is, itself, an idea.

Except the whole point is that cults seek to control your behavior via dishonest means.

"My thoughts about cults is that you can have a cult that’s benign or even positive, or you can have a destructive authoritarian cult."
~Steven Hassan, who you based part of your argument about cults on.

Also, Hassan's claims have included such things as "Trump as a cult leader is almost identical to Jim Jones", "Republicans are a death cult" and "the Boston Marathon bomber was hypnotized into comitting the bombing". He was described by several of his research peers, including Michael Langone, of attempting subconscious manipulation in his "deprogramming".

About the only thing I'll hand to Hassan is that he opposes involuntary deprogramming, though his alleged tendencies towards soft manipulation lends even that a sinister factor.

 

[ResurrectedFerret]

Bruh, what's all this bullshit y all talking about? We're supposed to be calling dommy a dum dum poopy butt.

 

[L50LasPak]

I went back to the start and read the entire thread for some reason.

This stuff is so bizzare. I'm still surprised at how much trouble people have dealing with negativity. I've always drawn strength from being negative; it feels much more natural and rewarding than being positive. It was never about being cool or aloof or smug. Most of the time when I have to act positive I feel like I'm lying straight through my teeth, and I'm often highly uncomfortable with it. I honestly thought this was the way everyone felt about being negative, and why people indulge in it so much on the internet.

I guess I should be worried that this thread feels like a bunch of aliens arguing about a book I've never read. But I really don't get it, and I can't wrap my head around why people struggle so much with holding a negative point of view. This is far from the only thread like this on the site too. The more of them I read, the closer I get to just throwing my hands in the air and saying I'll never understand how people work.

 

[The Fool]

I went back to the start and read the entire thread for some reason.

This stuff is so bizzare. I'm still surprised at how much trouble people have dealing with negativity. I've always drawn strength from being negative; it feels much more natural and rewarding than being positive. It was never about being cool or aloof or smug. Most of the time when I have to act positive I feel like I'm lying straight through my teeth, and I'm often highly uncomfortable with it. I honestly thought this was the way everyone felt about being negative, and why people indulge in it so much on the internet.

I guess I should be worried that this thread feels like a bunch of aliens arguing about a book I've never read. But I really don't get it, and I can't wrap my head around why people struggle so much with holding a negative point of view. This is far from the only thread like this on the site too. The more of them I read, the closer I get to just throwing my hands in the air and saying I'll never understand how people work.

guess you were just born on the Wrong Planet :/

 

[ResurrectedFerret]

I went back to the start and read the entire thread for some reason.

This stuff is so bizzare. I'm still surprised at how much trouble people have dealing with negativity. I've always drawn strength from being negative; it feels much more natural and rewarding than being positive. It was never about being cool or aloof or smug. Most of the time when I have to act positive I feel like I'm lying straight through my teeth, and I'm often highly uncomfortable with it. I honestly thought this was the way everyone felt about being negative, and why people indulge in it so much on the internet.

I guess I should be worried that this thread feels like a bunch of aliens arguing about a book I've never read. But I really don't get it, and I can't wrap my head around why people struggle so much with holding a negative point of view. This is far from the only thread like this on the site too. The more of them I read, the closer I get to just throwing my hands in the air and saying I'll never understand how people work.

Its called having an undiagnosed mental disorder.

 

[Punished Benis]

I went back to the start and read the entire thread for some reason.

This stuff is so bizzare. I'm still surprised at how much trouble people have dealing with negativity. I've always drawn strength from being negative; it feels much more natural and rewarding than being positive. It was never about being cool or aloof or smug. Most of the time when I have to act positive I feel like I'm lying straight through my teeth, and I'm often highly uncomfortable with it. I honestly thought this was the way everyone felt about being negative, and why people indulge in it so much on the internet.

I guess I should be worried that this thread feels like a bunch of aliens arguing about a book I've never read. But I really don't get it, and I can't wrap my head around why people struggle so much with holding a negative point of view. This is far from the only thread like this on the site too. The more of them I read, the closer I get to just throwing my hands in the air and saying I'll never understand how people work.

>Not using both positive and negative energy to fuel your complete self
Not gonna make it, bro.

 

[Penis Drager]

My thoughts about cults is that you can have a cult that’s benign or even positive, or you can have a destructive authoritarian cult

Absolutely true. If you read the "Noble Lie" by Socrates you'd understand how that basic idea pretty much dismantles the majority of your argument.

it's still inherently coercive and manipulating others into a behavior pattern that the deprogrammer desires. "You shouldn't believe this idea" is, itself, an idea.

"You must do [thing]" has a much higher burden of proof than "you must not do [thing]." In other words: it's easier to not do a thing as it frees you to do literally anything else. To mandate that a thing must be done requires someone to not do anything else during that same time frame. So "deprogramming" is actually a far cry from the programming itself, ethically speaking at least.

The rest of your post: the man's not a prophet. I'm free to disagree with him as I wish so long as I remain logically consistent.