DTW
I thought you were quoting a textbook as your authority regarding the dangers of modern religion. When you mentioned the work of Dr. Bowen, (a textbook) I expected to see a well researched, fully documented work as your authority
In response to the many request for a cite to the source of the information you posted, you’ve come through with a web page. As a citation, this ridicules your position and destroys the creditability of your argument.
Before I waste any more time with this, it might be of interest to see what Google returned in response to your authority (the writer at the web site)
THE ORANGE PAPERS One Man’s Analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous An Online
Book by Secret Agent Orange. "There is a principle which is …
Lastly, The textbook you quoted is available at Amazon. With little effort, I had accessed the table of contents. Apparently there was an oversight when they created the this table of contents as it is incomplete. You wouldn’t happen to know where they put the part about harm and danger would you?
I am leery of “one book” authorities to say the least. I initially thought you might be a one book authority, but, I see that this was not the case.
With step one over and no dazzled apparent,proceed to step two, and bring forth the baffle.
I provided citations from the two goddamn books that were sitting on my shelf.
I provided a link which listed the criteria put forth in the text. That idiot web-page was the first one I found with the complete series. I don’t spend all F-ing day in front of the computer and don’t feel like playing search around the web for a more pleasant site.
I told readers to disregard the author and focus on the questions only.( this being the “disregard the author of the web-page”)
I’m terribly sorry if your perusing of the table of contents didn’t pull up a direct link for you.
I provided the material as a comparative “step-back” from the issue. Most people do not realize the general cult-like aspects of their faith due to defensive reactions.
I’m not going to bother sitting here nit-picking over pissant points any longer. I provided that information as anecdotal AND provided a Cite for it. The first one being the books, the second a web page that included the full test. I’ve got better things to do than quibble over this. I was provided that information in a University class taught by Dr. Keith Atkins at The University of North Florida. I do not believe that he is currently in residence there. A cursory search of his name and anthropology ought to get you a hit or two to assure you that he’s not made up.
Your rebuttal failed to read my replies, and ignored the instructions that I provided with that weblink.
Perhaps you could have said “The RCC has historically been rich as hell and rife with hypocritical corruption” or something else that’s acknowledged as being common knowledge. Of course, even common knowledge gets occasionally subverted here in the endless game of citing sources. Watch that a good debate doesn’t get hung up in cites and refutations of cites. :eek:
DTW, You made a few alarming statements regarding members of modern religious groups being subject to mental and and/or physical harm by their association with those groups. (your post #11 in this thread) . You credited Dr Bowen (post #11, this thread) as the source of your material.
I was unable to find a reference in the table of contents of Dr. Bowen’s book. You dismissed this fact as insignificant. I disagree. On two occasions I have asked you to support your statement (made in item #11 this thread) with a cite to the source of this information. You respond by offering a web site, than , instead of enhancing your credibility, destroys it. Your failure to furnish the other information has destroyed whatever veracity it originally had. The criterial that was used to assign the mathematical values you have stated, is certainly not part present on that web site.
DTW
I see, so you were joking, and of course, you have properly and adequately identified your authorities. …a web page rant about the AA 12 step program.
I would ask again, but you have made it abundently clear that what I have ask for does not exist.
Are you not paying attention? The web site has nothing to do with his credibility. He said to disregard the content of the site, other than the list itself. That site just happened to be the first one he found that included the complete list of 100 characteristics that could indicate dangerousness in a belief system. Just because this list is used on a crackpot’s web site doesn’t mean that it isn’t a genuine anthropoligical tool. Crackpots like incorporating real stuff into their rants to make them look better. And just because you couldn’t find the list in the table of contents of the book on Amazon doesn’t mean it isn’t in there. Only one of the books he mentioned had the table of contents available. The other one didn’t – perhaps that is the book that has this list of cult characteristics in it?
Just in case anybody cares, the Amazon links for the two books DeaganTheWolf mentioned are:
I wasn’t asking for a debate, nor other people’s opinion.
Just because you dont know the facts I present doesnt make it garbage. So I’d ask you to watch your mouth.
As I said in the previous paragraph… just because YOU dont know anything that goes on around you makes ME ill-informed? Please get a clue? I dont go around memorising the exact date, paragraph etc of everything i read. Nor do I keep around 3-4 year old newspapers just to prove YOU a point. Do you? And because my reply was in direct reply to a Staff Report, and I assumed the staff who’d respond would be aware of, or atlease be able to find the sources of the statements that I made pretty easily seeing as they find other information so well… (and I wasnt prepared to go around searching for 3 year old newspapers either.)
Refer above paragraph again… and I dont know the extent of YOUR experience either, so I cant say whether your experience means much at all… can I? I’ll play mister Shodan and ask for proof and citations on your experience… care to present?
However, I can say that I have studied the history of the RCC more than ordinary parishioners have, and my studies in the church ended 7 years ago whence I concluded that they were a scam and unofficially cut ties with the church. Unofficially only because officially cutting the tie would then give their rituals a sense of power. Since then and afterwards, the extent of my newly gained knowledge comes from personal experience and newspapers only.
Have we seen that what I said is wrong? I’ll play YOU and ask for YOUR reference on this. If you want a historical reference for a strong example of this, you can do a search for Church of England vs Roman Catholic Church in Ireland and evaluate the credibility of the information yourself.
Roman Catholic Priests do not have the right of ownership of church equipment nor gains made through the church. They are given temporary usage rights from the church with a living allowance. On the other hand, ministers DO have the right of ownership. Ministers CAN (not neccesarily DO) own their own church, CAN keep the collection money, CAN keep other gains made through the church, etc. I know of a guy who has become a minister in order to earn money. Understand now? And mistresses and little boys… hmm… just rumors? or rumors based on facts? I’ll tell you one thing… my school teacher 16 years ago, was a catholic brother. He was arrested 14 years ago for child molestation and sexual child abuse. Was it just him? You cant say. Neither can I. However, the newspaper article I referred to would strongly suggest that the church would cover up such matters and protect their clergymen in favor of their victims, be they parishioner or not.
Yes… I’m wrong… right… and your right… so present citations and proof of this… ok? Note: sarcasm WAS intended. I’ll ask again who are YOU to say I’m wrong? So who’s the leader in your church? Does he become an unpriest if your congregation goes ‘piss off’? How about further up… does your bishop of your dioces get replaced by your local priest just because your cogregation wants him to? And that’s why the pope is voted in (for life) by a secret ballot of cardinals only… and not parishioners… huh? Church clergymen are protected from local authorities by the church as far as they adhere to, or in many cases - even if they dont, church laws and governings. Yes, there is a limit to their influence and they cant protect all their clergymen, but if they did, then it’d be too obvious that they were scammers, wouldnt it?
And I’d say you give CPAs too much credit. If they were so perfect, then all the nonsense bubble stocks in keiretsu form enterprises and corporations would never have happened. If they were so perfect, then the Enron incident wouldnt have happened. There are a 1001 ways and probably more to pass an accountants audit after doing dodgy shit. BUT that’s beside the point. The thing with the RCC vs other Christian churches is that the local priest is very much UNLIKELY to do dodgy shit with money gained through the church because he has nothing to profit from it.
You really are an idiot. Just because YOU are ignorant and refuse to believe (or more likely just refuse to see) what’s going on around you, does NOT make ME a mad man with voices in his head. I’ve already mentioned the paper ‘I READ’ in the original post (credible paper - “The Age”)… and I’ve already mentioned the content of the article/s. But then… I guess many a bright individuals were claimed to be mad by the ignorant. (I guess you want examples and references/citations for this statement too? Go fish.)
And based on my experiences and studies, you are a regular ignorant parishioner sheep and show the regular reactions of one. I really dislike ignorant people like you who make personal insults to one just because they know more than yourself… continue to ignore the rest of the world and live in that fishbowl of yours. Or… try opening your eyes and reading newspapers, watching evening news on tv, going outside and see what’s going on, etc once in a while?
No, the fact that you made assertions and decline to support them makes it “garbage”.
I repeat, you need to read around a good deal more and get an idea as to how we do things before you start threads. If you make an assertion, you are required to demonstrate the basis for the assertion. Which you have not done.
And therefore, your post is “garbage”.
I am not a Roman Catholic, as I mentioned earlier in the thread. Perhaps you could read before you react, instead of after.
Um… Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board! Debates and other people’s opinions are the whole reason for being here. Doubt me if you want, but virtually every thread on this board bears me out.
No one expects you to remember every newspaper article you’ve ever read in your life (which would be alarming), or save it in your apartment (which would pose a fire hazard at the least). But you have access to the Internet, which is the most comprehensive research tool in history. If something was ever a major news story, it’s either archived on the web or some mention of where to research it in greater depth can be found there.
If your point is that some con men and pedophiles have obtained positions in the Roman Catholic Church-- you’re right. Some have also infiltrated the United States Government, the National Broadcasting Company and every other large organization that offers access to money or small children. If your point is that scoring gobs of cash, swag and underage tail is the Roman Catholic Church’s main purpose and that this is a well-documented fact, this is what we call an “extraordinary claim,” and anyone asserting it needs to back it up with “extraordinary proof.” You haven’t done this yet. You’re asserting facts that thousands of journalists over several centuries have sought, so far in vain.
You’re swimming with sharks here, sir, and “I read something somewhere once” just doesn’t cut it anymore.