a dangerous cult which originated in the middle east

joona · Post by **joona** » Wed May 06, 2009 5:23 am

I just heard about this cult which is out to recruit and convert your kids:

they think we're all descendants of incest

they worship a torture instrument

they practice ritual cannibalism

and their God impregnated a woman without her consent

be afraid

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed May 06, 2009 1:04 pm

Another riveting thread!

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Wed May 06, 2009 1:47 pm

I suppose Catholicism can be described as such.

I just heard about this cult which is out to recruit and convert your kids:

they think we're all descendants of incest (Adam and Eve)

they worship a torture instrument (the crucifix)

they practice ritual cannibalism(the sacrament of communion)

and their God impregnated a woman without her consent ( Mary did give her consent)

Ps. I was raised as a Catholic.

joona · Post by **joona** » Thu May 07, 2009 3:09 am

along-for-the-ride;1184506 wrote:

Ps. I was raised as a Catholic.

You mean YOU are a part of this cult? Seriously? It's quite unbelievable that you condone eating human flesh and drinking human blood to satisfy your god.

I seriously hope you are joking...

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu May 07, 2009 3:47 am

along-for-the-ride;1184506 wrote: Catholicism

they think we're all descendants of incest (Adam and Eve)

they worship a torture instrument (the crucifix)

they practice ritual cannibalism(the sacrament of communion)

and their God impregnated a woman without her consent ( Mary did give her consent)

Catholicism? Surely "Christianity"?

The four points above all seem grossly inaccurate, BTW.

joona · Post by **joona** » Thu May 07, 2009 4:52 am

Bill Sikes;1184674 wrote: Catholicism? Surely "Christianity"?

The four points above all seem grossly inaccurate, BTW.

Exactly how are they "inaccurate?" :-3

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu May 07, 2009 4:58 am

joona;1184682 wrote: Exactly how are they "inaccurate?" -3

Do you think Adam and Eve were brother and sister?

joona · Post by **joona** » Thu May 07, 2009 5:21 am

Bill Sikes;1184683 wrote: Do you think Adam and Eve were brother and sister?

They did have descendants, didn't they? Those were brothers and sisters.

I don't get what you are so angry about anyway. It's not like I'm the one who practices ritual cannibalism...

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu May 07, 2009 6:12 am

joona;1184689 wrote: They (Adam & Eve) did have descendants, didn't they? Those were brothers and sisters.

But they weren't, were they - hence it was an inaccurate statement - if it had been (Adam, Eve, their offspring" it would've been a different statement.

joona;1184689 wrote: I don't get what you are so angry about anyway. It's not like I'm the one who practices ritual cannibalism...

I "don't get" why you think I'm in the slightest bit angry. Are you hopeful, or thinking of someone else, perhaps?

Leaving cannibalism for just a minute, do you think that Christians *really* worship crucifixes?

joona · Post by **joona** » Thu May 07, 2009 7:55 am

Bill Sikes;1184706 wrote: But they weren't, were they - hence it was an inaccurate statement - if it had been (Adam, Eve, their offspring" it would've been a different statement.

I "don't get" why you think I'm in the slightest bit angry. Are you hopeful, or thinking of someone else, perhaps?

Leaving cannibalism for just a minute, do you think that Christians *really* worship crucifixes?

Of course I think so, for it's the truth. It only shows how evil they are, as does their practice of ritual cannibalism.

Their beliefs also speak of loving everyone, including ones enemies. Such sexual promiscuity isn't a good thing at all! How could any of them be trusted to behave morally?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu May 07, 2009 8:07 am

joona;1184791 wrote: Of course I think so, for it's the truth. It only shows how evil they are, as does their practice of ritual cannibalism.

Their beliefs also speak of loving everyone, including ones enemies. Such sexual promiscuity isn't a good thing at all! How could any of them be trusted to behave morally?
Speak for yourself..

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu May 07, 2009 8:28 am

joona;1184791 wrote: Of course I think so, for it's the truth (Christians worshipping crucifixes).

What strange ideas you have.

joona · Post by **joona** » Thu May 07, 2009 8:32 am

Bill Sikes;1184840 wrote: What strange ideas you have.

What? Can't accept the truth?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu May 07, 2009 8:43 am

joona;1184846 wrote: What? Can't accept the truth?

Of course I can accept the truth - if you think that Christians worship crucifixes, I'm sure you can supply a mainstream pointer to such a thing. Go on!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 07, 2009 9:28 am

Bill Sikes;1184859 wrote: Of course I can accept the truth - if you think that Christians worship crucifixes, I'm sure you can supply a mainstream pointer to such a thing. Go on!

The catholic church do. Or rather I know a good few protestants that would argue that they do. No kissing of the cross for them-mind you that kind of discussion has been known to provoke warfare.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu May 07, 2009 10:17 am

joona;1184846 wrote: What? Can't accept the truth?

A very distorted version of the truth put up with the sole intention of starting an argument :-

1) The children of Adam and Eve are reported as having mated with the Children of God - not with each other

2) To worship the cross would by idolatry which is specifically forbidden within the Christian Bible

3) There is a world of difference between ritual cannibalism and symbolic cannibalism

4) Specifically with consent

As an introductory post starting a discussion about the way we view cults it was interesting to see the reaction you'd get.

As a deliberate attack on the faith of the majority of members here, which your follow up posts show it to be, it is trolling.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu May 07, 2009 11:14 am

Bryn Mawr;1184905 wrote: it is trolling.

QED. Oh well.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu May 07, 2009 12:31 pm

Cannibalism of a wafer? ......................So what your saying here is ice cream is canniballistic? Or is that , another wafer is canniballistic ?

Now I'm confused. yes that's right folks I'm pulling an all nighter . been fishing walked along the surf beach ( probably shouldn't have done that.) I'ts 5:30 am and I probably should get some shut eye for at least an hour ...............YES!!! THAT'S RIGHT GOD DAMMIT I'M STRESSED. How much sea air is one supposed to breathe to fall asleep?:-5

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 08, 2009 2:48 am

Bryn Mawr;1184905 wrote: A very distorted version of the truth put up with the sole intention of starting an argument :-

1) The children of Adam and Eve are reported as having mated with the Children of God - not with each other

2) To worship the cross would by idolatry which is specifically forbidden within the Christian Bible

3) There is a world of difference between ritual cannibalism and symbolic cannibalism

4) Specifically with consent

As an introductory post starting a discussion about the way we view cults it was interesting to see the reaction you'd get.

As a deliberate attack on the faith of the majority of members here, which your follow up posts show it to be, it is trolling.

Depends on how you look at it. On one level it is definitely trolling.

On another it raises a serious point. If you're a non believer then both the main middle eastern religions are cults with a ridiculous belief system.

Yet I am not allowed to say that because it is an attack on someone's faith rather than expressing non-belief.

Given that those cult followers are prepared to make war on each other and on those who are not members in order to force their beliefs on to others then it is justifiable to view them as dangerous cults.

But you're not allowed to call them cults because that implies their faith is not the one true one and in actual fact everybody else is in a cult. (or following a false god which for a follower of a monotheistic religion must be a mind boggling concept to take on board).

There have been times when being in the wrong cult or even not in any of the cults would get you burned at the stake as a heretic.

posted by bryn mawr

A very distorted version of the truth put up with the sole intention of starting an argument :-

It's a moot point whether the truth being distorted is actually any kind of truth or simply a fairy story told by stone age people to explain where they came from.

1) The children of Adam and Eve are reported as having mated with the Children of God - not with each other

It's not a truth it is a made up story. Are you saying Jesus Christ had bothers and sisters and he was not the only begotten son sacrificed to save mankind.

2) To worship the cross would by idolatry which is specifically forbidden within the Christian Bible

Well that caused a few wars between sections of the same cult didn't it.

3) There is a world of difference between ritual cannibalism and symbolic cannibalism

So there is. The notion of sacrificing a human to appease a god is a very old one. I suppose of you believe in a supreme being sacrificing children to him is logical on some level.

4) Specifically with consent

Assuming of course you buy in to the whole belief system in the first place. If you don't the consent or otherwise is a bit immaterial.

Clearly there is not much scope for agreement-best agree to disagree and leave it at that perhaps. But religion is dangerous cancer and that the followers feel they should be above criticism and no one should be allowed to make disparaging comments about the belief system or have it questioned in any way kind of makes the point as to how intolerant they are and how dangerous they can be given half a chance and in the right circumstances.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri May 08, 2009 6:12 pm

The whole issue is one of failing to understand the nature and purpose of sacred writings whether they be Jewish, Christian or any other.

Shalom

Ted:-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 10, 2009 4:47 am

Ted;1185702 wrote: The whole issue is one of failing to understand the nature and purpose of sacred writings whether they be Jewish, Christian or any other.

Shalom

Ted:-6

No it's not that. It's why should there be acceptance of this idea that you are not allowed to criticise religious belief.

posted by bryn mawr

As a deliberate attack on the faith of the majority of members here, which your follow up posts show it to be, it is trolling.

Clearly it was trolling-but on the other hand of it had been about communism say would anyone have objected on the grounds that it was an attack on someone's political beliefs and therefore reprehensible?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun May 10, 2009 8:38 am

gmc;1186384 wrote: No it's not that. It's why should there be acceptance of this idea that you are not allowed to criticise religious belief.

posted by bryn mawr

Clearly it was trolling-but on the other hand of it had been about communism say would anyone have objected on the grounds that it was an attack on someone's political beliefs and therefore reprehensible?
I didn't have my glasses on and i thought this was a thread about gmc....then i put my specs on and saw it was 'cult'. I'm leaving now.

Only jesting sporran. :p:p:p

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 10, 2009 1:58 pm

gmc;1186384 wrote: No it's not that. It's why should there be acceptance of this idea that you are not allowed to criticise religious belief.

posted by bryn mawr

Clearly it was trolling-but on the other hand of it had been about communism say would anyone have objected on the grounds that it was an attack on someone's political beliefs and therefore reprehensible?

Totally see where you're coming from but, as I said in by previous post, as an introduction to a discussion on cults (including whether the major religions can be viewed as cults) it was fine - had that been the intent I would have had no problem with it but the intent was not to discuss but to attack.

The Garden is a discussion area - not an area to attack those we disagree with.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun May 10, 2009 2:18 pm

Bryn Mawr;1186567 wrote: The Garden is a discussion area - not an area to attack those we disagree with. It's always puzzled me why the odd new members come straight in and attack the members of an established forum. Perhaps they have been kicked off all the others?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 10, 2009 2:33 pm

oscar;1186585 wrote: It's always puzzled me why the odd new members come straight in and attack the members of an established forum. Perhaps they have been kicked off all the others?

That's always possible and has certainly happened in the past - we've also have gang attacks by members of other forums instigated by disaffected former members of the Garden. Then again, some people just get their kicks from stirring up trouble.

I joined specifically to post a rebuttal to a comment I saw in passing - the member concerned might have seen it as an attack but that was not its intent.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun May 10, 2009 2:35 pm

Bryn Mawr;1186593 wrote: That's always possible and has certainly happened in the past - we've also have gang attacks by members of other forums instigated by disaffected former members of the Garden. Then again, some people just get their kicks from stirring up trouble.

I joined specifically to post a rebuttal to a comment I saw in passing - the member concerned might have seen it as an attack but that was not its intent. Isn't that the truth?

I posted the question merely because i saw a sinister element to the thread poster.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 10, 2009 2:41 pm

oscar;1186596 wrote: Isn't that the truth?

I posted the question merely because i saw a sinister element to the thread poster.

That's a lovely way to describe it - "This woman's a blue rinse battleaxe" "Excuse me, I object" :wah:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun May 10, 2009 2:42 pm

Bryn Mawr;1186599 wrote: That's a lovely way to describe it - "This woman's a blue rinse battleaxe" "Excuse me, I object" :wah: Spot thinks he got away with that one........ how little he knows :wah::wah:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 11, 2009 3:38 am

oscar;1186437 wrote: I didn't have my glasses on and i thought this was a thread about gmc....then i put my specs on and saw it was 'cult'. I'm leaving now.

Only jesting sporran. :p:p:p

I was going to be really really rude there by suggesting changing the location to fife and one of the letters in cult and the thread could be about gordon brown but on reflection I feel it lowers the tone of the forum and the humour perhaps too obscure.

posted by bryn mawr

Totally see where you're coming from but, as I said in by previous post, as an introduction to a discussion on cults (including whether the major religions can be viewed as cults) it was fine - had that been the intent I would have had no problem with it but the intent was not to discuss but to attack.

The Garden is a discussion area - not an area to attack those we disagree with.

Fair enough but it's one of those discussions you end up deciding just to agree to disagree about. I do happen to think religion is divisive and dangerous. You can almost distinguish between those of faith and the religious.

Yes it was a troll but there is a sentiment often times expressed on the religious forums that any disagreement or expressed disbelief about religion is a personal attack on someone's faith and for that reason should not be allowed. Even had it not been such an obvious troll someone would probably have objected on those grounds.

Religion is the only area of debate where people (generally not just on this forum) think they should not be criticised or their beliefs made fun of no matter how ridiculous or bigoted they are. It's also the only area where active discrimination is allowed-e.g. separate state funded religious schools that exclude other faiths and perpetuate religious bigotry. Now we have muslim schools adding to the problem.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 11, 2009 4:03 am

gmc;1186862 wrote: I was going to be really really rude there by suggesting changing the location to fife and one of the letters in cult and the thread could be about gordon brown but on reflection I feel it lowers the tone of the forum and the humour perhaps too obscure.

. Why not?...... When talking to me..... you usually are :wah:

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue May 12, 2009 1:43 pm

gmc:-6

I have no problem with anyone criticizing any faith.

The list of 4 points shows a lack of understanding of the nature of sacred writings. The Bible is not a history book nor is it a science book. It is a religious book written in a specific style. If it is not read as such then one could use it to prove anything including the acceptance of murder or slavery as was done in the past.

Either it is a lack of understanding or an attempt to challenge and there is nothing wrong with that.

Shalom

Ted:-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 13, 2009 1:12 am

Ted;1187689 wrote: gmc:-6

I have no problem with anyone criticizing any faith.

The list of 4 points shows a lack of understanding of the nature of sacred writings. The Bible is not a history book nor is it a science book. It is a religious book written in a specific style. If it is not read as such then one could use it to prove anything including the acceptance of murder or slavery as was done in the past.

Either it is a lack of understanding or an attempt to challenge and there is nothing wrong with that.

Shalom

Ted:-6

As a history book it is actually quite interesting. A lot of the stories-like the flood and descriptions of tribal warfare we now know do have a basis in fact and some of the more apparently fanciful stuff is an attempt to describe things people were seeing but couldn't understand. But it doesn't contain any great truth nor is it the word of god and the sooner religions stop insisting it is and taking offence every time someone expresses that opinion the more peaceful place the world will be.

In the 21st century religion is an incredibly divisive and destructive. All it would take is education and a bit of common sense to stop it-but no you are no supposed to offend someone's religious belief no matter how absurd it is.

Bevdee · Post by **Bevdee** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:03 pm

gmc;1187890 wrote: As a history book it is actually quite interesting. A lot of the stories-like the flood and descriptions of tribal warfare we now know do have a basis in fact and some of the more apparently fanciful stuff is an attempt to describe things people were seeing but couldn't understand. But it doesn't contain any great truth nor is it the word of god and the sooner religions stop insisting it is and taking offence every time someone expresses that opinion the more peaceful place the world will be.

In the 21st century religion is an incredibly divisive and destructive. All it would take is education and a bit of common sense to stop it-but no you are no supposed to offend someone's religious belief no matter how absurd it is.

Because of the previous posts about newcomers and trolls, I hesitated to post here because I just joined. But- I have been interested in this topic for a while, because I am not a Xtian. I'm not sure what I am, atheist, agnostic. Because I wear crystals on a chain around my neck, someone recently asked me if I was some kind of witch and I said, "probably, but I don't know which kind."

Because so many feel that an expression of disbelief is an attack on their belief, I don't feel free to discuss my beliefs, or reasons for non-belief, other than in discussion forums. Even then, the topic often gets derailed. To me, the bottom line is that there is no way to be sensitive to everyone's sensitivities.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:29 am

Bevdee;1188963 wrote: Because of the previous posts about newcomers and trolls, I hesitated to post here because I just joined. But- I have been interested in this topic for a while, because I am not a Xtian. I'm not sure what I am, atheist, agnostic. Because I wear crystals on a chain around my neck, someone recently asked me if I was some kind of witch and I said, "probably, but I don't know which kind."

Because so many feel that an expression of disbelief is an attack on their belief, I don't feel free to discuss my beliefs, or reasons for non-belief, other than in discussion forums. Even then, the topic often gets derailed. To me, the bottom line is that there is no way to be sensitive to everyone's sensitivities.

You can always just agree to disagree as ted and I have actually done. We still occasionally have fun arguing though. But I know what you mean, there is also the problem that something written looks offensive-but had it been said face to face would not have been taken that way. Passionate disagreement is not the same as a personal attack and yes one or two can't tell the difference. On the whole though debate is fairly free flowing and you can always ignore the odd one that take umbrage at every opportunity, they get fed up and bother someone else. If you don't want to discuss things what are they doing on a discussion forum?

Bevdee · Post by **Bevdee** » Fri May 15, 2009 8:36 am

Hey gmc, thanks for the response!!

Oh, I feel ok to discuss it in forums. It's other than - it's with the face to face that I hesitate. I enjoy the discussions, and have learned a lot about me or others feeling attacked. , and not just when it comes to religion.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri May 15, 2009 8:01 pm

Bevdee:-6

Welcome.

Yes I often disagree with gmc but I do agree with his last post. Carry on.

Shalom

Ted:-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 18, 2009 12:32 am

Bevdee;1189183 wrote: Hey gmc, thanks for the response!!

Oh, I feel ok to discuss it in forums. It's other than - it's with the face to face that I hesitate. I enjoy the discussions, and have learned a lot about me or others feeling attacked. , and not just when it comes to religion.

A lot of people think that you discuss things by bullying the other in to submission and that's how you win the argument, conceding the other is entitled to view things differently and live and let live doesn't come on to it. They like certainty and to be right. Unfortunately when you look at the history of Christianity and islam it seems to be that kind of mentality that is most attracted to them and end up in charge-hence the obsession with heresy and making people conform.

They also have not much of a sense of humour.

Bevdee · Post by **Bevdee** » Fri May 22, 2009 6:40 am

Hey gmc how you doin,

"conceding the other is entitled to view things differently and live and let live doesn't come on to it." - I agree. "A lot of people think that you discuss things by bullying the other in to submission and that's how you win the argument"

If submission is giving up the discussion, then lots of people will win an argument with me. I will give up a discussion once I realise that the person I tried having one with is a mono-logger, not interested in dialogue. I've also noticed kind of a group filibuster thing that happens. But bullying just to shut a different opinion up- sometimes that makes me more stubborn!

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:22 pm

The OP of this thread was copied from a dangerous cult which originated in the middle east - Facepunch

It originated at Politics Forum .org - View topic - dangerous cult which originated in the middle east in 2007

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:26 pm

tut, tut Joona. :wah:

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:17 pm

joona;1184327 wrote: I just heard about this cult which is out to recruit and convert your kids:

they think we're all descendants of incest

they worship a torture instrument

they practice ritual cannibalism

and their God impregnated a woman without her consent

be afraid

:wah:omg thats halarious you just described most monthiestic religions:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:21 pm

after reading more posts i feel i need to point out i was making a joke, people get so heated over these things, wow.

:-4