GarthP2000

CM, That's part of it, as there are those who would look down upon, or view dimly those who were involved with the so-called 'cults'. Ie., "So-o-o, you were involved in a cult, ehh? Have you repented of it yet? What doctrine do you now believe? Still believe that Jesus isn't God yet? Well then, apparently you still are influenced (or still have 'Way brain')". Ie., its almost like being 'on probation', and there is the undercurrent of 'redeeming yourself' back to some orthodox view before you are 'good enough' again. Now I know that isn't the only response that people give. Responses can range from "Oh wow man, what was it like?" to "I'll pray for your soul" to "That's nice" to a simple shrug of the shoulders. But the very term itself has a lot more hype than substance to it overall (IMHO anyway). And what people do/react as a result of such terms. And related and questionable 'science' regarding 'mind control', 'brainwashing', 'loading the terms', 'thought stopping techniques', and the like. Ie., by people who evidently take flicks like The Manchurian Candidate W-A-Y too seriously.

Coincidence? ;)--> Please don't take this as a spoiler of the upcoming new movie, Star Wars: The Revenge of the Sith. :D-->

From The Daily Dish on Andrewsullivan.com=http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php and Wow jeepers! ... I wonder how Pat Buchanan feels about all this. --> JerryB, would St. Malachy be that old distant relative of Malachi, one of the authors of the book in the bible bearing his name? Why I didn't know that any of the prophets were a wee bit Irish, now did ya, lad?

Okay Wayfer Not, I see what you were sayihng about the JW now, and that it doesn't directly tie in to the trinitarian issue in that respect. My apologies to you for that mea culpa. Too bad that there are still many people who do make that connection between non-trinitarian beliefs - 'cults'. :(-->

That's not what I said. Read what I said again. I said the USAGE of the term often is destructive in nature, particulrly when people use it either to keep others in line with orthodox doctrine, or in intimidating people from joining up with groups that they don't know about or who aren't mainstream for that matter, even if those selfsame groups do wind up being destructive in nature. Think of how emotionally charged that term is. Cult. Hell it's short, blunt, it doesn't sound easy on the ears. Scary sounding even. Words are often like that, especially when the term/usage is hammered into society to where when you mention the term 'cult', what kind of mental image do you get? And keep in mind that before the 60s-70s, the term cult was more neutral in usage/meaning: "A group of people following a person, idea, or thing." Along comes folks like Dr. Singer, and transform the term into something scary. That's what I mean by 'loading the terminology' in my previous post as per its anti-cult usage. They see the 'cults' transform words like 'believing', 'available', etc., towards their own purposes; bingo! 'Loading the terminology'. So what do they do? Go and do the same thing. Use the 'cult' term for their own purposes in driving up the fear factor. I understand that we need to show where specific destructive groups are harming people, and words are needed to communicate the alarm and warning. So why does doctrinal differences/'heresy' need to have anything to do with it? For example, you said that the majority of Christians are trinitarian and that they view non-trinitarianism=cult. You also said that the word 'cult' communicates destructive behavior and the like ... Now just stop and think of the discrepancy here please. WTF does non-trinitarianism have to do with destructive behavior, hmmm? I can think of **MANY** destructive things done by trinitarians, in the Name of trinitarianism even, that FAR exceeds anything done by TWI, ... and you know it. And this 'overlap' as it were, occurs in people's thinking re: 'cults' and they don't even realize it. ..... Are they then 'brainwashed' perhaps? Like I said, it goes beyond semantics, or that I "don't like the 'cult' term". (But oversimplifying my reasons like that would be more convenient for you, wouldn't it?) Think about it.

My, my, ... haven't had our morning coffee, have we? I'm not granting anyone 'permission' as it were, just starting up a discussion, ok? ... Damn I stand corrected.

Sure I can accept that. I never indicated otherwise. ... ... just if you can accept that I have my valid reasons for griping about the seemingly manipulative and emotional 'throwing about like water' (to me anyway) of the 'cult' term. Anyway, its all part of the discussion and points raised about this kind of topic, isn't it? The pros AND the cons of concepts like this.

What GrouchoMarxJr fails to realize is the destructive nature in the term itself when applied to ((cough)) 'false doctrines' as a determiner of such terms. Just stop and think about it for a minute, why don't you. Whether or not Wierwille intended to 'seperate' himself from mainstream Christianity (as tho' that's a big crime in and of itself. Which it really isn't) is beside the point. Think about how many mainstream church leaders use adherence to the trinitarian dogma to define the the 'cult' term. And the term 'cult' itself is quite a highly and emotionally charged term. "If you follow this teaching, then you're getting involved in a cult!", a charge that many good people shy away from/are scared of having pointed at them. Talk about 'loading the language', ... hmmmm? And isn't loading the language one of the hallmarks of a 'cult'? If so, then why would mainstream leaders/anti-cult groups violate their own rules by doing the same 'loading of the language'? It goes beyond semantics, beyond 'synonyms' for a term, so to speak. I mean, being told "If you follow this teaching, then you're getting involved in a ice cream social!" just doesn't have that same scare tactic effect, know what I mean? The term itself, as used in regards to questionable groups and doctrines, is often about as manipulative and intimidating as the abusive groups themselves. So no, I won't 'lighten up'. :P

Okay folks. Now that we know that John Ratzinger is the new Pope Benedict XVI (the 16th, for all those who have trouble with Roman numerals ;)-->), what do you all here think of him. Both Catholic and non. Let the Discussium Re Pontificum fly.

Tell me something Wayfer Not. What is it *specifically* about non-trinitarianism that lends to TWI's 'cult'ness? Why should not believing that Jesus Christ is God = cult, hmmm? Think about it. See, this is one of the reasons why I don't give the 'cult' term too much credence overall. Like you can point at a group, and say with proven certainty, "Yea verily! That is a verifiable CULT!" (Particularly when 'anti-cult' activists go on and on about how 'cults' and 'mind control' have nothing to do with religious beliefs, yet the Trinitarian factor always seems to creep in.) So yes, lets loosen up our brains a little bit more, shall we? Oh, and by the way, do you know that Jews and Muslims are also non-trinitarian? Are they 'cults' too? Just say "NO" to 'cult'-like acceptance of 'mind control' theories.

Yet Another Reason that I have for not going for the 'Shut Down the Website as part of the Settlement' argument. At the time, TWI vs. Allen was headed towards the trial stage, if not already there. Now, one would think that in that situation, TWI would have more pressing things on their minds than just shutting down some critical site. ... Ohh, like avoiding the trial. Period. Besides, the website wasn't part and parcel of the Allens suit against TWI anyway. Anywho, just my opinion anyway.

Long Gone, Like I said, Paul stated in a post a few years back the reason why he was shutting down Waydale, and I saw no reason to believe otherwise, including the legal details you just gave. That might be legally true in this case (the law being quite complex/contradictory at times); it just doesn't make any sense to me that the losing side (or were plainly about to lose), ie., TWI would then dictate terms. The Allens had the upper hand in that situation. ... I mean, what was TWI going to do if the Allens didn't take the 'settlement'? Continue with a case that was a sure loser for them? That's why it doesn't make sense to me, legal or otherwise. But perhaps, like you said, I flat don't know (for sure). But I'd almost be willing to make a wager. ;)-->

My3Cents, Valid points all. Yet that paragraph of mine was put in the context of Waydale not forced to shut down due to any demand by TWI. Plus also, (if I'm not mistaken) TWI called for the settlement, thus putting them, at least, at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes for setting terms. ... Ie., *they* blinked. The site was still shut down voluntarily by them, with no legal force/effect put upon them by TWI. Just clearing up a point, is all.

... D. Add pineapple and call it *PIZZA*! :D-->

Now that I'm all for. And no, it isn't the same as the deprogramming practice either.

Try telling that to the victims themselves, and see where it gets you. Also keep in mind all the 'relocations' of the accused priests who just wind up doing it again. There is ample evidence for that. Whereas there is NO evidence for your point about the accusers simply doing it for the money. Just the accusation.

Having a tad too much free time on our hands, do we? :D-->

(((sigh))) And Yet Another Urban Rumor keeps rearing its ugly head. ((*ahem*)) Waydale was NOT shut down due to any demand from TWI as a part of any settlement. Exhibit A - They said as much themselves openly. They just got tired of having to keep running the Waydale board, as it was draining from their lives and after their *victory* (via the settlement), they wanted to live out their lives quietly. (Anybody running any message board can readily identify with this, .... right Paw? ;)-->) Exhibit B - Uhhh, now could someone please tell me how the (Ace Ventura mode) **lo-o-o-ser** can legally set the terms of the settlement? "Better not bring forward your very damning testimony that can blow my case clean out of the water! Settle now on my terms, ... or .... or ... I'll get *very* upset!!" TWI was the loser. They were the winners. Winners get to pick the conditions. The losers get to whine. ... That's how it works in our wonderful American legal system. --> (Removing Names)

No prob, Wordwolf. Basically I think that it goes beyond JP2 having been 'asleep at the switch'. Remember the accounts of the Vatican meetings about this very same topic, and the Pope himself was in attendance in at least some of the meetings? (I at least saw the pics) For whatever effectiveness Ratzinger's filtering might have been, sorry, but there is no way anybody can persuade me that John Paul had no idea, no idea at all that that kind of behavior was going on. I do think that (unless corrected) his actions were more in line with keeping the public image of the church and its doctrines and traditions sancrosanct, rather than a direct malevolence or disregard for the children. More of a "I can't allow this scandal to upset and stop the Church." loyalty kind of thing. But then again, I could be wrong, as I have nowhere near all the facts. But I remain unconvinced that he didn't know about the sex abuse to any sizeable degree. ... Nope. No way.

Wordwolf, In no way did I take any responsibility for the pedophelia and the coverup thereof off of JP2's shoulders, however much that might be. From what I could see, he might not have been directly supportive wholesale in those practices, but from what I've read/heard about the Vatican responses and discussions about the matter, he knew to a sizeable degree, and his 'denouncing' thereof was largely ceremonial or for image. For one thing, he was supportive of Law by declining his first resignation, but was forced to accept it later, due to the public outcry. If JP2 was really against what was going on, Law wouldn't have a chance to resign the first time, as he would have been sacked from his cardinal position in a heartbeat, and I do believe the Pope (being the 'Vicar of Christ' and all) had that authority. No, that Law was allowed to give one of the homilies at the Pope's funeral (something that could have been forbidden by the Pope when he was alive, since he knew about these kinds of rituals at a pope's funeral) clearly indicates a calloused disregard for the abuse victims, ... a disregard that was shared by the Pope. Maintaining their authority was more important to them. :(--> P.S., and suffering from Parkinson's usually doesn't affect the mental clarity of a person; Jack Northrop was suffering from that same disease in his 90s, yet he still had a keen engineering understanding of the B-2 Northrop Stealth Bomber when it was presented to him shortly before it was introduced to the public.

I agree. Recent (and unconfirmed, I admit) info on the Pope's successor places Ratzinger as to having a very good chance at becoming the next Pope. And if that's true, and Ratzinger has 'filtered' or otherwise was part of the coverup/squeltching of the details, then it will really mean business as usual in that department. Particularly since Ratzinger places a very high premium on defending church doctrine. Which usually means that a situation like the publication of the sexual abuse of children runs a sizeable risk at upsetting that apple cart. ... Which Ratzinger just won't stand for.

... And then the Bronx lost its bid to start its own professional basketball team, and the giants faded from public view. :D-->

A number of different possibilities spring to mind. Mind you, I have no proof ;)-->, but I think these just might be why Mr. Spock hasn't been sighted yet. They might be just as 'damn curious' as we are. Its just that they: 1) Haven't found our civilization yet, but are going on observations, speculations, and probabilities, like we are. 2) They have indeed located our civilization, but they lack the faster-than-light technology needed to get here w/o taking hundreds and thousands and more years to get here in sleeper ships. 3) They've noticed us, they have the warp speed ships, but due to the *immense* stupidity and wars plaguing this blue globe, they basically said, "I think not". 4) (For all you Matrix junkies out there) They noticed us, have the ships, and the interest, and have either taken over our planet w/o our knowing about it, and/or are surrounding and observing our little planet like scientists around a lab rat in a maze. Now why do I have a sudden craving to scurry and find a peice of cheese? :D--> Ahhhh, ... the Power of Cheese!

.... and your successful rebuttal is .....? Oh, by the way, about all those [Carl Sagan mode] billions and billions [/Carl Sagan mode] of light years, ... the fact that they are indeed billions, ..... ... now, I'm no mathematical genius (and neither was Einstein, by the way), but I find it rather difficult to cram, even with my handy-dandy Ronco Super Family Sized Cramer (order now for $6.95, and we'll throw in a dicer autographed by Dr. Hovind himself absolutely *free*), 15 billion years into 6,000 years. ... Sideways, even. --> Please explain!