|
Post by emy on Nov 11, 2011 16:17:28 GMT -5
(I'm usually pretty good at vocabulary, but I had to look up 'hermeneutics.' I even found out I'm a fan!)
I'm not quite sure how hermeneutics and Scripture are supposed to reveal if the F&W fellowship is a cult. Like What, I hope you can clarify that.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 11, 2011 16:33:55 GMT -5
Slack? We try to make the board as self moderating as possible, and while we take action when needed by removing/altering posts, we also try to get those who made the posts to voluntarily make the changes whenever possible. Usually our requests are honored, and we don't get beat up on for being board Nazis by deleting/altering posts. If someone is accused of posting libelous information then we normally contact that person and ask them to take care of the issue themselves. Thanks Scott Ross. So tell us all, please, when a whole thread suddenly disappeared, did the mods encourage all of the posters on that thread to delete their own posts (good and bad) all at the same moment? From your post, it seems to me more observable that the mods are allowing Jesse L continuance of disrespectful posts out of fear that he might call them “Nazis.” And I have to admit, that would be just as scary as his “Lloud Fartt’s” Just my opinion – I am obviously amused by all the shows found on this board. And since I came here to post workers words for those who need to know what workers really teach and can hardly get a post in edgewise lately on a thread I started for all the foolishness going on on it, I’ll take a bit of a coffee break and let those interested in the real workers’ church decide for themselves whether it is even represented on this board.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 11, 2011 16:55:01 GMT -5
I'm embarassed for you, not me. I'm happy to stand with "what" on this issue.
"The Validity of the Formula
Scholars such as David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, and Brian R. Wilson challenge the testimonies of apostates, who crying the word “cult” with stories often so compelling and frightening are just accepted as true by society and the media without question. One can almost imagine a similar situation centuries ago when a disgruntled former affiliate could conduce a woman before the establishment by simply accusing her of being a “witch”, and immediately bring upon her a terrible stigma—being able to use a known effective social weapon even for their own personal ends.
Wilson found that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents, turning them into major incidents. Bromley and Shupe discuss “captivity narratives” that depict the time in the group as involuntary and point out that the apostate is likely to present a caricature of his former group. Massimo Introvigne, president of CESNUR, found in his study of the New Acropolis in France, that public negative testimonies and attitudes were only voiced by a minority of the ex-members, who he describes as becoming “professional enemies” of the group they leave.[1]
Wilson states “Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader.” [2]
“Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group”—David G. Bromley, Anson D. Shupe, Jr. and J.C. Ventimiglia, “The Role of Anecdotal Atrocities in the Social Construction of Evil,” in Bromley and Richardson, Brainwashing Deprogramming Controversy, p. 156
In a 1997 interview with Time Magazine, Gordon Melton (a research specialist with the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California) asserts that anti-cult figures give too much credence to the horror stories of “hostile” former cult members, which he says is “like trying to get a picture of marriage from someone who has gone through a bad divorce.” [4]
References
1. Wikipedia’s page on Cults: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
2. Wilson, Bryan R. (1994). Apostates and New Religious Movements. Oxford, England, UK.
3. Wilson, Bryan R. (1992). The Social Dimensions of Secretarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society. USA: Oxford University Press. p.19. ISBN-13: 978-0198278832.
4. Bonfante, Jordan (1997). ‘Apologist’ Versus ‘Alarmist’. Santa Barbara, USA. Time Magazine Vol. 149 No. 4: www.time.com/time/magazine/1997/int/970127/religion.apologist.html"
Great post, Jesse. Please keep that one handy. It may prove useful again.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 11, 2011 17:00:26 GMT -5
Slack? We try to make the board as self moderating as possible, and while we take action when needed by removing/altering posts, we also try to get those who made the posts to voluntarily make the changes whenever possible. Usually our requests are honored, and we don't get beat up on for being board Nazis by deleting/altering posts. If someone is accused of posting libelous information then we normally contact that person and ask them to take care of the issue themselves. Thanks Scott Ross. So tell us all, please, when a whole thread suddenly disappeared, did the mods encourage all of the posters on that thread to delete their own posts (good and bad) all at the same moment? From your post, it seems to me more observable that the mods are allowing Jesse L continuance of disrespectful posts out of fear that he might call them “Nazis.” And I have to admit, that would be just as scary as his “Lloud Fartt’s” Just my opinion – I am obviously amused by all the shows found on this board. And since I came here to post workers words for those who need to know what workers really teach and can hardly get a post in edgewise lately on a thread I started for all the foolishness going on on it, I’ll take a bit of a coffee break and let those interested in the real workers’ church decide for themselves whether it is even represented on this board. If there are threads that contain several posters that have quoted the words of others, and then those same quotes are quoted again, the whole thread may be deleted or moved. If it is just one person who has posted something that we feel needs addressed then we may ask them to reconsider their post and alter or remove it without any further action. I am sure there are several people here that could verify that they have been contacted and asked to change their posts if they wish to do so. I don't have a problem with Jesse calling me a board Nazi. I also don't have a problem with banning a person for continued disrespect of the board rules or ignoring repeated warnings or requests to change how they are posting. Most issues are resolved with very few people even being aware of it happening. Sometimes it is more expedient to delete/move an entire thread than to pick out one or two posters and ask them to alter their posts. Bottom line is that the mods can moderate as they feel needs to be done. That is why we were appointed as mods.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2011 17:02:40 GMT -5
Vocabulary has power. When I was in secondary school, a teacher asked a fellow classmate a question and she replied "it's on the tip of my tongue" and he retorted quite ascerbically, "there's no such thing, ideas are words, if you don't have the word you don't have the idea." I've kicked that issue around in my head for years now, not sure if I agree or disagree. Sometimes finding the perfect expression for the vague notions in my head is a powerful experience. Sometimes, finding the "mot juste", just the right word, finally settles in my mind an idea of what I was trying to describe.... I've kicked that same idea around for years also, wondering if I could think of or about something I didn't have a word for.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 11, 2011 17:08:29 GMT -5
"Massimo Introvigne in his Defectors, Ordinary Leavetakers and Apostates (Introvigne 1997) defines three types of narratives constructed by apostates of new religious movements:
- Type I naratives: characterize the exit process as defection, in which the organization and the former member negotiate an exiting process aimed at minimizing the damage for both parties.
- Type II naratives: involve a minimal degree of negotiation between the exiting member, the organization it intends to leave, and the environment or society at large, impliying that the ordinary apostate holds no strong feelings concerning his past experience in the group.
- Type III naratives: characterized by the ex-member dramatically reversing his loyalties and becomes a professional enemy of the organization he has left. These aspostates, often join an oppositional coalition fighting the organization, often claiming victimization.
Introvigne argues that apostates professing type II narratives prevail among exiting members of controversial groups or organizations, while apostates that profess type III narratives are a vociferous minority." bitterwinter.org/apostates-4-not-all-ex-members-are-apostates/dictionary.sensagent.com/apostasy/en-en/#Other_religious_movements
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 11, 2011 17:39:37 GMT -5
Jesse L quoted:
How do these 3 narratives apply to the ex-2x2s?
I'm not aware of any "new religious movements" that the ex2x2s have constructed.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 11, 2011 18:42:22 GMT -5
"Massimo Introvigne in his Defectors, Ordinary Leavetakers and Apostates (Introvigne 1997) defines three types of narratives constructed by apostates of new religious movements:
- Type I naratives: characterize the exit process as defection, in which the organization and the former member negotiate an exiting process aimed at minimizing the damage for both parties.
- Type II naratives: involve a minimal degree of negotiation between the exiting member, the organization it intends to leave, and the environment or society at large, impliying that the ordinary apostate holds no strong feelings concerning his past experience in the group.
- Type III naratives: characterized by the ex-member dramatically reversing his loyalties and becomes a professional enemy of the organization he has left. These aspostates, often join an oppositional coalition fighting the organization, often claiming victimization.
Introvigne argues that apostates professing type II narratives prevail among exiting members of controversial groups or organizations, while apostates that profess type III narratives are a vociferous minority." Ya Ya, and the Bible says; And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (where “reprove” means “expose”) And for people who believe in doing what God said regardless of what men say, all the analysis of apostates that you can dig up that were written by men are just excuses aimed at discrediting what Bible believing apostates have to say about the guts of heretical religious organizations. Some people seem to think such apostates would express “love” if they kept their mouths shut, but that is not what God said. And those who want to pay more attention to the analysis of men, however well intended those analyses may be, show disregard at best toward God. And some of the ones trying to shut apostates up even resort to disrespectful “Lloud Fartts” in the faces of such apostates to try to shut them up, but odor-masking sprays are a dime a dozen. And evidently, where you are involved, one is wise to already have several cans of odor-masking spray in hand wherever you show up. It seems rather obvious that you have nothing to answer regarding the issues brought before you, so you do the only thing left to you besides shutting up in constant personal attacks on those people who YOU have decided are your ‘enemies.’ Yours is therefore a great showing of the average type of 2x2 apologetics in action. But two things that is clear from your own revelation of otherwise invisible background information (if that is even true) is that a lot of posts you made WERE libelous, and it took reports from LF to get the mods to remove them from this board. And now that you have exposed information to your own disgrace (and that of the mods as well), try to withdraw it without revealing your claim was not true. It seems to me that you always shoot off your own entrance foot as well as your own exit foot at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 11, 2011 18:59:35 GMT -5
Jesse L quoted: How do these 3 narratives apply to the ex-2x2s? I'm not aware of any "new religious movements" that the ex2x2ss have constructed. Cherie the dry objective explanation is that per Massimo, Wilson et al the 2x2s are a "new religious movement". (These scholars advocate using "NRM" instead of "cult".) People that exit NRMs (apostates) fall into the three narrative types. People like Fortt, Lewis, ilylo, Massey, Cooper are the obvious "apostates that profess type III naratives [and] are a vociferous minority" of all those that have exited the NRM (in this case 2x2s). People have recently posted that "40,000" people have left, obviously most of those would fall into types I and II, not type III. More; "Religious scholars have routinely found the testimony and public statements of apostates to be unreliable. In his book "The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movement", professor David Bromley, Department of Sociology and Anthropology of Virginia Commonwealth University, explained how individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then become critical of their religion in order to justify their departure. This then opens the door to being recruited and used by organizations which seek to use their testimony as a weapon against a minority religion:
"...One critical result of external intervention is that dispute and non-dispute precipitated exits are converted into the former as external opponents actively recruit exiting members into the oppositional coalition, provide social networks through which exiting members can reinterpret personal troubles as organizational problems, and control role transition on favorable terms. There is likely to be a price for re-entry. Former members have to confess to disloyal conduct or plead loss of free will as a result of subversive influence. The burden of proof is on the organization to refute claims by exiting members, and there may be little opportunity to do so." All this is fairly easy for a coherent, objective observer to see.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 11, 2011 19:03:22 GMT -5
blah a lot of posts you made WERE libelous, blah How were they libelous? You are making it painfully obvious you have no idea what libel is.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 11, 2011 19:14:04 GMT -5
Jesse, I do not think you can say you are a "choherent, objective observer", now can you?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 11, 2011 19:16:38 GMT -5
I'm not trying to "shut up apostates" I'm just pointing out the obvious psychology at play per scholars like Wilson et al. to those who can grasp it, and I know most do. I do think that if certain apostates could see the forest (instead of staring cross eyed at one tree thinking it's the forest) they would shut up on their own. If they could see they have become exactly what they criticise they would shut up on their own.
Nothing will shrink one's worldview faster and more completely than putting ones self at the center of it. This is exactly what type III apostates do.
When even exes point this out to them, these type III apostates should consider, and shut up on their own. It's their choice, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 11, 2011 19:26:44 GMT -5
Jesse, I do not think you can say you are a "choherent, objective observer", now can you? Why not? Because I am a beat down worker worshipping indoctrinated, brainwashed, blindered, cultic, robotic moron? I already know that, so tell me something new.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 11, 2011 19:31:00 GMT -5
blah a lot of posts you made WERE libelous, blah How were they libelous? You are making it painfully obvious you have no idea what libel is. I don’t know, and no one can find out either, but the fact that you shot off your entrance foot and your exit foot along (both feet of the mods too) and with the evidence of the deletion of your posts, that is good enough evidence for me. And clearly your learning ability from your own actions teaches you nothing in spite of the stench of your own “Lloud Fartt’s” so rather than waste more odor-masking spray on you, I’ll just leave the room now and let you sit in your own pew along with any that like the stench of your “Lloud Fartt’s.”
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 11, 2011 19:42:57 GMT -5
How were they libelous? You are making it painfully obvious you have no idea what libel is. I don’t know, (...blah...) Well I do; they were *not* libelous. In fact the idea they were libel was so far out of the realm of reason, logic, and law, it's hard to believe anyone in their right mind could think they were. Amazing human synapses could short circuit that bad. Words fail.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Nov 12, 2011 0:16:41 GMT -5
The TMB is not the right place to come looking for scholarly hermeneutics. They don't have to be scholarly - just use the correct principles of interpretation would be a start! Too much eisegesis and little evidence of exegesis. And the correct principles of interpretation according to who?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 12, 2011 5:52:19 GMT -5
I'm not trying to "shut up apostates" I'm just pointing out the obvious psychology at play per scholars like Wilson et al. to those who can grasp it, and I know most do. I do think that if certain apostates could see the forest (instead of staring cross eyed at one tree thinking it's the forest) they would shut up on their own. If they could see they have become exactly what they criticise they would shut up on their own. Nothing will shrink one's worldview faster and more completely than putting ones self at the center of it. This is exactly what type III apostates do. When even exes point this out to them, these type III apostates should consider, and shut up on their own. It's their choice, not mine. If one can avoid absconding ones identity while acquiring and drawing closer to the mind/will of God, are Christians really doomed as you imply, to the fate of a shrinking worldview?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 12, 2011 6:00:52 GMT -5
Jesse L quoted: How do these 3 narratives apply to the ex-2x2s? I'm not aware of any "new religious movements" that the ex2x2ss have constructed. Cherie the dry objective explanation is that per Massimo, Wilson et al the 2x2s are a "new religious movement". (These scholars advocate using "NRM" instead of "cult".) People that exit NRMs (apostates) fall into the three narrative types. People like Fortt, Lewis, ilylo, Massey, Cooper are the obvious "apostates that profess type III naratives [and] are a vociferous minority" of all those that have exited the NRM (in this case 2x2s). People have recently posted that "40,000" people have left, obviously most of those would fall into types I and II, not type III. More; "Religious scholars have routinely found the testimony and public statements of apostates to be unreliable. In his book "The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movement", professor David Bromley, Department of Sociology and Anthropology of Virginia Commonwealth University, explained how individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then become critical of their religion in order to justify their departure. This then opens the door to being recruited and used by organizations which seek to use their testimony as a weapon against a minority religion:
"...One critical result of external intervention is that dispute and non-dispute precipitated exits are converted into the former as external opponents actively recruit exiting members into the oppositional coalition, provide social networks through which exiting members can reinterpret personal troubles as organizational problems, and control role transition on favorable terms. There is likely to be a price for re-entry. Former members have to confess to disloyal conduct or plead loss of free will as a result of subversive influence. The burden of proof is on the organization to refute claims by exiting members, and there may be little opportunity to do so." Al this is fairly easy for a coherent, objective observer to see. So I guess there's not a discernable difference between religions, specifically that of their affect upon people? I thought you were a 2x2, not just because you liked it but because you thought it had some quantifiable concentration of truth, the very currency of philosphopical intergrity as well as the very soul-essence of our Lord. What gives with you Jesse?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 12, 2011 6:28:51 GMT -5
I don't see how either eisegesis or exegesis are relevant on this thread. Perhaps you could elaborate as I don't see your point. Did you expect to perform some kind of exegesis based on the thread title? Yes I did. The question: 'Is the 2x2 movement a cult?' It is resonable to expect an exegesis of Scripture to support or disagree with this question. At the end of the day Scripture alone will be the final arbiter! I'd be nice if it were that easy. IMO Catholics are theoretically better exegetes for having acknowledged not only that interpretation but the very selection of Scripture has been the work of the saints. Furthermore, doctrine is like law, a tudor that leads us to Christ. That said some tutors are more better than others. If any justification exists for the continued existence of the "2x2-tudor", it consists of offering us contrast.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 12, 2011 8:06:22 GMT -5
"Religious scholars have routinely found the testimony and public statements of apostates to be unreliable. In his book "The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movement", professor David Bromley, Department of Sociology and Anthropology of Virginia Commonwealth University, explained how individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then become critical of their religion in order to justify their departure. This then opens the door to being recruited and used by organizations which seek to use their testimony as a weapon against a minority religion:
"...One critical result of external intervention is that dispute and non-dispute precipitated exits are converted into the former as external opponents actively recruit exiting members into the oppositional coalition, provide social networks through which exiting members can reinterpret personal troubles as organizational problems, and control role transition on favorable terms. There is likely to be a price for re-entry. Former members have to confess to disloyal conduct or plead loss of free will as a result of subversive influence. The burden of proof is on the organization to refute claims by exiting members, and there may be little opportunity to do so." Irvinegrey, Since suffering the hard shock of the discovery that life-long trusted workers were dishonest about many things right through the history of their church, I do not trust remaining professing people in meetings when that information has been available to them for thirty of more years. So, out of that lack of trust, since the posting of this exact quotation was not accompanied by proper credits, I searched out the possible sources. And it brought very interesting results beyond the original and complete source text. The exact same quotation first showed up in Public Relations, Scientology, which is no surprise to me since one “cut” uses the same defense-text as another quite frequently. First source of exact same text; www.cosvm.org/apostat.htm From: Public Relations (publicrelations@scientology.org) Subject: Apostates Date: 1999/03/31 RE: APOSTATES Religious scholars have routinely found the testimony and public statements of apostates to be unreliable. In his book "The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movement", professor David Bromley, Department of Sociology and Anthropology of Virginia Commonwealth University, explained how individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then become critical of their religion in order to justify their departure. This then opens the door to being recruited and used by organizations which seek to use their testimony as a weapon against a minority religion: "...One critical result of external intervention is that dispute and non-dispute precipitated exits are converted into the former as external opponents actively recruit exiting members into the oppositional coalition, provide social networks through which exiting members can reinterpret personal troubles as organizational problems, and control role transition on favorable terms. There is likely to be a price for re-entry. Former members have to confess to disloyal conduct or plead loss of free will as a result of subversive influence. The burden of proof is on the organization to refute claims by exiting members, and there may be little opportunity to do so." But what is really interesting is that it also brought up a detailed study into “cult apologist.” Here is a bit of the beginning of the study, with link below it; The cult apologist FAQ: exposing the cult's willing defenders In the last few years I had a look at cults and cult members; recently I had a look at the species of the "cult apologist". This is a work in progress to expose the "arguments", and investigate what drives these unpleasant people. 1. What is a cult apologist? For this, it is just needed to get the word "apologist": Apologist One who makes an apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution; especially, one who argues in defense of Christianity. In general, cult apologists are people who are not cult members, but who support cults and defend their unethical activities. 2. What are the motives of cult apologists? It is hard to guess what drives someone. Here are some suggestions: a) Money Cults can pay good money for friendly opinions. Alternatively, they organise "conferences" where they can meet other cult apologists, all expenses paid. Academics welcome this, since their universities do not have the money to send them to conferences all the time. These are advance payments to secure positive opinions in the future. Positive books are bought by the cults themselves. The most reliable cult apologists are also invited to make affidavits in court cases, or provide support when the cult is under attack by the government, the press and the courts. While it is of course important to debate the arguments of cult apologists, it is also important to "follow the money" to see whether these people are really independent or just mouthpieces for hire. b) Fear Some cult apologists are themselves member of minority religions and face intolerance. Although this intolerance is rather driven by beliefs instead of valid criticism, it drives these people into seeing all criticized groups similarly. c) Misconception of religious freedom Some cult apologists genuinely support religious freedom, and because of their belief that religious freedom is of utmost importance, give less concern for the negative aspects of religion run amok, for fear of damaging their "cause." Scientology critic Rod Keller attended a session with Dr. Ben Zablocki at CultInfo 1999. Zablocki's opinion is that the great majority of American sociologists of religion (a tiny minority of all sociologists) can be called cult apologists. They want protect religious liberty by protecting the most offensive groups, and believe that the anti-cult movement would destroy, if possible, the most offensive groups, and there would be a domino effect, destroying religious liberty for everybody. d) Self-promotion Some cult apologists create fancy "institutes" to get into the media, become famous, etc. These institutes are a reflection of their own ego, even if there is a giant "board of directors" or whatever, of course staffed with fellow cult apologists. e) Academic stupidity This is a result of an "ivory tower" mentality: academics support cults because the cult critics do not use "scientific methods". This will be elaborated on later. Another problem is that because of this "ivory tower" mentality they are too lazy to do research on their own, i.e. weighting all the sources against each other; instead they rely on "feeding" by smooth cult PR agents who play "nice guy" with them and simulate a personal friendship. Most cult apologists have or allege an academic background. See it all at; www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/cultapologists.html
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 12, 2011 9:23:37 GMT -5
If one can avoid absconding ones identity while acquiring and drawing closer to the mind/will of God, are Christians really doomed as you imply, to the fate of a shrinking worldview? I don't don't have any idea how you got that out of my post. Type III apostates have a shrunken worldview, at least partly because they always put themselves at the center of it. The whole world revolves around them. In their world they have all the answers, they know everything. Anyone who has a different opinion is wrong, and mirrors, so they can see what manner of man they are, are non-existant. Watch type III apostates of any religious flavor and you will see it. At any rate Christians, of all people, should not be so self centered it shrinks their worldview to the point they speak and act like type III apostates do. IMO that, clearly, is the opposite of what Jesus taught. So I guess there's not a discernable difference between religions, specifically that of their affect upon people? I thought you were a 2x2, not just because you liked it but because you thought it had some quantifiable concentration of truth, the very currency of philosphopical intergrity as well as the very soul-essence of our Lord. What gives with you Jesse? Put a name and "discernible difference" on this; "Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you." Instead of doing that man wastes much time and effort "discerning" the religion of his fellow man. The tale is as old as time. The worst are the Type III apostates. They act as if it's been given to them, and only them, to not only discern, but broad brush judge and condemn the innocent along with whoever *they* think is guilty. They are very exclusive about it too, they are the only ones Worthy to judge, very interesting psychology at play for all to see even right here on this thread! In contrast spiritual truth and philosophical integrity doesn't come from man, and that includes type III apostates no matter how much they will protest that fact.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 12, 2011 11:36:39 GMT -5
SOME BANANCING INFORMATION g) Massimo Introvigne --------------> mintrovigne@---------------- CESNUR www.cesnur.orgTransylvanian Society of Dracula - Italian Chapter www.cesnur.org/dracula.htmHe is an Italian attorney, specializing in intellectual property, especially software. www.jacobacciperani.com/abboard.htm#8 Has no formal education related to cults (although he has education in the philosophy of religion and in law, and teaches about "new religions" a few days a year) and likes to appear as a "sociologist". He has no degree in sociology. (Nevertheless he can publish in such journals) He runs "CESNUR" (Center for the study of new religions - see extensive description below). His name is so closely associated with it and vice versa, that I believe it is mostly a one-man operation - an opinion that is contradicted by presented evidence. Massimo Introvigne looks similar to Silvio Berlusconi. He/CESNUR organise conferences on cults. He claims that if cults do anything illegal, they should be brought to trial; he testified for the *defense* at the French trial, where a scientologist and father of two children had been driven to suicide as a result of the scientology "hard sell" coercive tactics. (This is very embarrassing to him: he regards himself as a witness "on", not "for" Scientology. In 1998 he testified for the CSCE in Washington, and was confronted by an ex-scientologist wearing a "$CIENTOLOGY KILLS" T-Shirt). His articles or press releases often make the following points: that he/CESNUR own 10,000 books, that he/CESNUR are influential, that he is quoted, that he is misquoted, that he is attacked by unscientific anti-cult activists. In e-mail exchanges, he showed intelligence, the ability to communicate, and an ego of galactic proportions. Introvigne, the successful sociologist, media wizard and frequent traveller. He is not just only a cult apologist - he is a "cult apologist apologist". In his article "Blacklisting or Greenlisting" www.cesnur.org/testi/greenlist.html he "apologizes" for the activities of other cult apologists - unnamed because of restrictions by the magazine where he sits on the board. Most funny is a segment where he says that the money paid by scientology to willing "scholars" is "minimal". No numbers are mentioned. But if the $$ really is minimal, it would not only mean that these people are corrupt, but they are stupid, too! Introvigne disagrees with the strategy of secular anti-cult groups not to discuss the beliefs of cults and to focus on their activities. He says - without explaining why - that the "deeds, not creeds" approach does not work. (Montreal Gazette 16.8.1996) I believe he said somewhere that cults should only be attacked from a theological point of view, but can't remember where. His texts often name many academic people in the main text and use many additional footnotes, which is normally typical for academic papers. But Introvigne's papers are often shallow: the names are often not needed in the main text (footnote would be enough), and the really needed footnotes or names are painfully missing. (Past examples include him mentioning the MSIA trial without reference (corrected shortly after being mentioned in this FAQ!), the allegation that "cult critics claim that cults are not religions", the allegation that the book "The Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens says that one needs to be 'brainwashed' to help mother Teresa in Calcutta, and more examples can be found at any time, probably even in *any* document by him - challenge me!) I have had the opportunity to browse through some of his italian books on cults. They are superficial to the max and do not bring the information that is actually needed. Introvigne is named a professional referral by the scientology-run Cult Awareness Network www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/newsletter.html See also his comment www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/8393/CANCESNUR_Denial.htmAll this gives the appearance that he is just a guy who feels important. But recently evidence came up showing that he is actually connected to an obscure right-wing cult, the Brazilian "Tradition, Family and Property", and suggest that criticism against TFP is his original motivation. Introvigne has been thoroughly exposed by anti-cult activists: www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/eng.htmIntrovigne successfully pressured their ISP to close the site, which resulted in several mirrors around the world and the reappearance on another ISP. However, he never sued the people who wrote the materials. His other hobby: vampires. He is the president of the italian chapter of the Transylvanian Society of Dracula, which he claims "promotes serious scholarly studies on the vampire mythology". Example: "There are 100 scholars coming to present papers on vampires, but it's really a party," said J. Gordon Melton, who is organizing the event with Massimo Introvigne. "The majority of people coming are just like us - people who like vampire and horror movies. It's going to be fun - a bunch of silly people dressing up and biting each other on the neck." (The Los Angeles Daily News 23.7.1997) In 1999 he presented a paper on "Anti-Cult Terrorism via the Internet" www.cesnur.org/testi/anticult_terror.htm In it, he first redefines Terrorism by explaining that free speech is actually "verbal terrorism". Part of this paper is also a "limited covert participant observation study" of the usenet. Under different names, people associated with CESNUR posted pro-CESNUR material and also libellous allegations against critics of CESNUR. This is like making a "study" on the implications of terrorism by throwing a bomb on a crowded place. The rest of the paper is just whining that cult critics criticize him and his dubious organisation. This paper was presented at the annual conference of the Association for Sociology of Religion (ASR) in Chicago on 5.8.1999. It shows that this group has a low standard both for contents and for authors - Introvigne is neither a sociologist nor a religious scholar. The following information on CESNUR was submitted by Massimo Introvigne and reorganised by me, as part of a long e-mail exchange: There are currently four different CESNUR organisations that are not linked by licensing or franchising contracts, and do not solicit nor receive funds from religious organisations old and new. They receive royalties from publishers, contributions of the members, and registration fees on conferences they organise. Decisions are made according to the by-laws (and national laws) by Boards of Directors and other appropriate organs. The founders were the board members, with the exceptions mentioned below. CESNUR International: founded 1988, non-profit, publicly recognized association (re-incorporated) in 1996, legal person (Decree 150-11310 of the Government of Piedmont). Funded by the State of Piedmont, located in Torino. [When people started to point out that this funds are obviously used for unethical activities (e.g. the terrorism "study"), Massimo suddenly restricted his statement and said that the funds are earmarked for the library (excluding electricity) and the conferences organizational costs] Manages the website www.cesnur.org. The by-laws provide that it can be designated as "CESNUR", "CESNUR International", "CESNUR Piedmont" and "CESNUR Torino". Managing Director: Massimo Introvigne. President: Father Luigi Berzano, Professor of Sociology of Religion at the University of Turin Board: Luigi Berzano, J. Gordon Melton, Eileen Barker, Massimo Introvigne, Michael Homer, Reender Kranenborg, Gianni Ambrosio. CESNUR Italy: founded 1988, incorporated 1990 as non-profit private association, registration number 1486/1, located in Foggia and Torino. Managing Director: Massimo Introvigne. President: Monsignor Luigi Casale (a Catholic historian and archbishop) Board: Giuseppe Casale, Michele Di Cesare, Massimo Introvigne, Jean-François Mayer, Régis Ladous, Gianni Ambrosio Giovanni Sangiorgio and Giorgio Frascella left the board, Prof. Roland Chagnon died. CESNUR France: founded 1996, non-profit association "loi 1901", registration number 126189 P, located in Paris. President: Sorbonne Professor Antoine Faivre ("History of Mystical and Esoterical Doctrines") Executive Secretary: Olivier-Louis Séguy (attorney) Board: Antoine Faivre, Roland Edighoffer, Olivier-Louis Séguy CESNUR USA: unincorporated. It has a secretary, Michael W. Homer (attorney). Disclosure of information about trade and service marks was refused. www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/cultapologists.html
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Nov 12, 2011 12:25:07 GMT -5
SOME BANANCING INFORMATION g) Massimo Introvigne --------------> mintrovigne@---------------- CESNUR www.cesnur.orgTransylvanian Society of Dracula - Italian Chapter www.cesnur.org/dracula.htmHe is an Italian attorney, specializing in intellectual property, especially software. www.jacobacciperani.com/abboard.htm#8 Has no formal education related to cults (although he has education in the philosophy of religion and in law, and teaches about "new religions" a few days a year) and likes to appear as a "sociologist". He has no degree in sociology. (Nevertheless he can publish in such journals) He runs "CESNUR" (Center for the study of new religions - see extensive description below). His name is so closely associated with it and vice versa, that I believe it is mostly a one-man operation - an opinion that is contradicted by presented evidence. Massimo Introvigne looks similar to Silvio Berlusconi. He/CESNUR organise conferences on cults. He claims that if cults do anything illegal, they should be brought to trial; he testified for the *defense* at the French trial, where a scientologist and father of two children had been driven to suicide as a result of the scientology "hard sell" coercive tactics. (This is very embarrassing to him: he regards himself as a witness "on", not "for" Scientology. In 1998 he testified for the CSCE in Washington, and was confronted by an ex-scientologist wearing a "$CIENTOLOGY KILLS" T-Shirt). His articles or press releases often make the following points: that he/CESNUR own 10,000 books, that he/CESNUR are influential, that he is quoted, that he is misquoted, that he is attacked by unscientific anti-cult activists. In e-mail exchanges, he showed intelligence, the ability to communicate, and an ego of galactic proportions. Introvigne, the successful sociologist, media wizard and frequent traveller. He is not just only a cult apologist - he is a "cult apologist apologist". In his article "Blacklisting or Greenlisting" www.cesnur.org/testi/greenlist.html he "apologizes" for the activities of other cult apologists - unnamed because of restrictions by the magazine where he sits on the board. Most funny is a segment where he says that the money paid by scientology to willing "scholars" is "minimal". No numbers are mentioned. But if the $$ really is minimal, it would not only mean that these people are corrupt, but they are stupid, too! Introvigne disagrees with the strategy of secular anti-cult groups not to discuss the beliefs of cults and to focus on their activities. He says - without explaining why - that the "deeds, not creeds" approach does not work. (Montreal Gazette 16.8.1996) I believe he said somewhere that cults should only be attacked from a theological point of view, but can't remember where. His texts often name many academic people in the main text and use many additional footnotes, which is normally typical for academic papers. But Introvigne's papers are often shallow: the names are often not needed in the main text (footnote would be enough), and the really needed footnotes or names are painfully missing. (Past examples include him mentioning the MSIA trial without reference (corrected shortly after being mentioned in this FAQ!), the allegation that "cult critics claim that cults are not religions", the allegation that the book "The Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens says that one needs to be 'brainwashed' to help mother Teresa in Calcutta, and more examples can be found at any time, probably even in *any* document by him - challenge me!) I have had the opportunity to browse through some of his italian books on cults. They are superficial to the max and do not bring the information that is actually needed. Introvigne is named a professional referral by the scientology-run Cult Awareness Network www.cultawarenessnetwork.org/newsletter.html See also his comment www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/8393/CANCESNUR_Denial.htmAll this gives the appearance that he is just a guy who feels important. But recently evidence came up showing that he is actually connected to an obscure right-wing cult, the Brazilian "Tradition, Family and Property", and suggest that criticism against TFP is his original motivation. Introvigne has been thoroughly exposed by anti-cult activists: www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/eng.htmIntrovigne successfully pressured their ISP to close the site, which resulted in several mirrors around the world and the reappearance on another ISP. However, he never sued the people who wrote the materials. His other hobby: vampires. He is the president of the italian chapter of the Transylvanian Society of Dracula, which he claims "promotes serious scholarly studies on the vampire mythology". Example: "There are 100 scholars coming to present papers on vampires, but it's really a party," said J. Gordon Melton, who is organizing the event with Massimo Introvigne. "The majority of people coming are just like us - people who like vampire and horror movies. It's going to be fun - a bunch of silly people dressing up and biting each other on the neck." (The Los Angeles Daily News 23.7.1997) In 1999 he presented a paper on "Anti-Cult Terrorism via the Internet" www.cesnur.org/testi/anticult_terror.htm In it, he first redefines Terrorism by explaining that free speech is actually "verbal terrorism". Part of this paper is also a "limited covert participant observation study" of the usenet. Under different names, people associated with CESNUR posted pro-CESNUR material and also libellous allegations against critics of CESNUR. This is like making a "study" on the implications of terrorism by throwing a bomb on a crowded place. The rest of the paper is just whining that cult critics criticize him and his dubious organisation. This paper was presented at the annual conference of the Association for Sociology of Religion (ASR) in Chicago on 5.8.1999. It shows that this group has a low standard both for contents and for authors - Introvigne is neither a sociologist nor a religious scholar. The following information on CESNUR was submitted by Massimo Introvigne and reorganised by me, as part of a long e-mail exchange: There are currently four different CESNUR organisations that are not linked by licensing or franchising contracts, and do not solicit nor receive funds from religious organisations old and new. They receive royalties from publishers, contributions of the members, and registration fees on conferences they organise. Decisions are made according to the by-laws (and national laws) by Boards of Directors and other appropriate organs. The founders were the board members, with the exceptions mentioned below. CESNUR International: founded 1988, non-profit, publicly recognized association (re-incorporated) in 1996, legal person (Decree 150-11310 of the Government of Piedmont). Funded by the State of Piedmont, located in Torino. [When people started to point out that this funds are obviously used for unethical activities (e.g. the terrorism "study"), Massimo suddenly restricted his statement and said that the funds are earmarked for the library (excluding electricity) and the conferences organizational costs] Manages the website www.cesnur.org. The by-laws provide that it can be designated as "CESNUR", "CESNUR International", "CESNUR Piedmont" and "CESNUR Torino". Managing Director: Massimo Introvigne. President: Father Luigi Berzano, Professor of Sociology of Religion at the University of Turin Board: Luigi Berzano, J. Gordon Melton, Eileen Barker, Massimo Introvigne, Michael Homer, Reender Kranenborg, Gianni Ambrosio. CESNUR Italy: founded 1988, incorporated 1990 as non-profit private association, registration number 1486/1, located in Foggia and Torino. Managing Director: Massimo Introvigne. President: Monsignor Luigi Casale (a Catholic historian and archbishop) Board: Giuseppe Casale, Michele Di Cesare, Massimo Introvigne, Jean-François Mayer, Régis Ladous, Gianni Ambrosio Giovanni Sangiorgio and Giorgio Frascella left the board, Prof. Roland Chagnon died. CESNUR France: founded 1996, non-profit association "loi 1901", registration number 126189 P, located in Paris. President: Sorbonne Professor Antoine Faivre ("History of Mystical and Esoterical Doctrines") Executive Secretary: Olivier-Louis Séguy (attorney) Board: Antoine Faivre, Roland Edighoffer, Olivier-Louis Séguy CESNUR USA: unincorporated. It has a secretary, Michael W. Homer (attorney). Disclosure of information about trade and service marks was refused. www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/cultapologists.htmlbased on this article , i would say, the f&w are not a cult, but a family (body) of worshippers., imo.
|
|
|
Post by hidoyle on Nov 12, 2011 14:01:30 GMT -5
Some else to read and then you can make your own opinion, I already have mine: www.votisalive.com/
|
|
|
Post by apple on Nov 12, 2011 15:09:03 GMT -5
- Type I naratives: characterize the exit process as defection, in which the organization and the former member negotiate an exiting process aimed at minimizing the damage for both parties. - Type II naratives: involve a minimal degree of negotiation between the exiting member, the organization it intends to leave, and the environment or society at large, impliying that the ordinary apostate holds no strong feelings concerning his past experience in the group. - Type III naratives: characterized by the ex-member dramatically reversing his loyalties and becomes a professional enemy of the organization he has left. These aspostates, often join an oppositional coalition fighting the organization, often claiming victimization. [/blockquote][/quote] Type 4: Member discovers the extent to deceit in the group and leaves. On leaving the ex-member finds him/her self being avoided by members and slandered by the preachers for leaving and for expressing anger at being deceited.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Nov 12, 2011 15:33:18 GMT -5
Type III apostates have a shrunken worldview, at least partly because they always put themselves at the center of it. The whole world revolves around them. In their world they have all the answers, they know everything. Anyone who has a different opinion is wrong, and mirrors, so they can see what manner of man they are, are non-existant. Watch type III apostates of any religious flavor and you will see it. At any rate Christians, of all people, should not be so self centered it shrinks their worldview to the point they speak and act like type III apostates do. IMO that, clearly, is the opposite of what Jesus taught. The worst are the Type III apostates. They act as if it's been given to them, and only them, to not only discern, but broad brush judge and condemn the innocent along with whoever *they* think is guilty. They are very exclusive about it too, they are the only ones Worthy to judge, very interesting psychology at play for all to see even right here on this thread! In contrast spiritual truth and philosophical integrity doesn't come from man, and that includes type III apostates no matter how much they will protest that fact. It's the 2x2s who are exclusivist, who make negative judgements and assumptions on the spiritual state of all those outside the meetings, all of those born into the meetings but do not join, and all of those who leave the meetings. It's the 2x2s who think the world revolves around them, all because they perceive themselves to be the only ones on God's "side". They think because they are God's "special chosen ones" that they are above the law. 2x2 preachers think they are above paying tax on their salaries and later claim free nursing home care on money paid by other peoples' tax, 2x2 preachers think it acceptable to ignore safety laws on conventions in farms- no fire alarms and no fire exits in sleeping areas, leaks in the sleeping areas and even sealed windows in sleeping areas in an upstairs area. Kindly remove the plank from your eye before targeting the exes about the speck in their eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 12, 2011 16:31:05 GMT -5
It's the 2x2s who are exclusivist, who make negative judgements and assumptions on the spiritual state of all those outside the meetings, all of those born into the meetings but do not join, and all of those who leave the meetings. It's the 2x2s who think the world revolves around them, all because they perceive themselves to be the only ones on God's "side". Blah. Some might be that way, just like in any religious group. I'm not that way, and I know others who aren't, just like in any religious group.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Nov 12, 2011 18:08:53 GMT -5
It's the 2x2s who are exclusivist, who make negative judgements and assumptions on the spiritual state of all those outside the meetings, all of those born into the meetings but do not join, and all of those who leave the meetings. It's the 2x2s who think the world revolves around them, all because they perceive themselves to be the only ones on God's "side". Blah. Some might be that way, just like in any religious group. I'm not that way, and I know others who aren't, just like in any religious group. The beginning workers intended to preach the gospel and win converts for Christ without forming a religious system. Rather than point a finger at the critics, lets do what we can to counter the cult-like tendencies that are destroying the fellowship we love.
|
|