Suicide Cult Anyone?
atypican
committing suicide?
http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/
e_space
degree ... looking to a self-promoted representative of god, to answer
their religious questions and/or to offer them relief from their fear
of death [or whatever other reasons one joins a cult], is a sign of a
weak and gullible mind, imo ...
many of the jonestown members were not tricked, they were innocent
children who were forced to drink poison by their very own parents ...
the adults who carried out this atrocity, were not only tricked, but
void of reason and spiritual awareness, from my perspective ...
one has to ask the question ... why would anyone who has joined a cult
to improve their life, subsequently take it?
ornamentalmind
you envision it happening?...mainly the 'trick' part?
Thanks.
atypican
gullible and weak minded? How can we discourage the from seeking a
shepherd who appears to have all the answers?
My thinking is that what occurred at Jonestown would more accurately
be described as murder.
atypican
It was based on notions commonly thought of as "Christian". Ala
Matthew 10:39 and plenty of others I don't need to list.
On May 11, 8:31 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Brock Organ
> They were lured into a trap.
By whom?
Regards,
Brock
atypican
What happened occurred independently of what I may think. Me offering
my opinion, whether convincing or not will not change what really
happened. You shouldn't be asking me, when you have an objective
source of truth that's not subject to human misunderstandings and
limitations like I am. ;-)
On May 12, 6:57 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
e_space
control the fear of death, and need for leadership of the general
public ... threats of eternal damnation for not doing this or that,
seemingly have long lasting, and often devastating effects on
people ... it seems that society in general do not feel that they can
answer their own god questions ... and need to gravitate to those who
promote the "truth" ... imo, people need to graduate from their
childhood environments, and figure things out for themselves ... this
is not likely to happen in a significant number of people from my
viewpoint ...
maybe we should start a brain dewashing cult? ;-^)
ornamentalmind
e_space
On May 13, 9:08 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Brock Organ
>> > They were lured into a trap.
>>
>> By whom?
>
So, who lured them into a trap? :)
> What happened occurred independently of what I may think.
Were they lured into a trap? By whom?
> Me offering
> my opinion, whether convincing or not will not change what really
> happened.
Sounds like you said they were lured into a trap. But by whom?
> You shouldn't be asking me, when you have an objective
> source of truth that's not subject to human misunderstandings and
> limitations like I am. ;-)
Well, to be clear, if you appeal to your inner self and subjective
landscape as an epistemological basis for answering, I would do well
to respond by noting the limitations of such an appeal. Of course,
your sovereign petulance and displeasure is noted.
For a moment, I thought you indicated that they were lured into a
trap. I think what gave me the indication was your specific words:
>> > They were lured into a trap.
But by whom? Who is it who lured them? And what was the nature of
the allurement?
Regards,
Brock
e_space
lured them in, you should probably consider some sort of comprehension
course ... i know this is a personal question, but do you ever get on
your own nerves? ;-^)
On May 13, 2:13 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
atypican
>
> > Question noted.
>
> So, who lured them into a trap? :)
> > What happened occurred independently of what I may think.
>
> Were they lured into a trap? By whom?
my imperfect ability to describe reality....
Yes they were lured into a trap. They were lured by people whose
rhetoric they found convincing.
> Well, to be clear, if you appeal to your inner self and subjective
> landscape as an epistemological basis for answering, I would do well
> to respond by noting the limitations of such an appeal.
might be wrong but..."
> Of course, your sovereign petulance and displeasure is noted.
why you think that I am displeased? Come on Brock if you won't let me
draw you out than for Christs sake leave me be! You don't want a
conversation! You want to propagandize!
> And what was the nature of the allurement
run at the mouth up on podiums. I'd be happy to play a role in the
changing of that paradigm.
On May 13, 11:13 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
>> Were they lured into a trap? By whom?
>
> With a forewarning that these assessments are necessarily subject to
> my imperfect ability to describe reality....
Ok ...
> Yes they were lured into a trap. They were lured by people whose
> rhetoric they found convincing.
By whom, specifically?
>> Of course, your sovereign petulance and displeasure is noted.
>
> I understand you think I am petulant (I'll ignore that). Let's hear
> why you think that I am displeased?
What does that matter to your position that "they were lured into a trap"?
> Come on Brock if you won't let me
> draw you out than for Christs sake leave me be!
Why does your position depend upon "drawing me out"?
> You don't want a conversation! You want to propagandize!
Lol. Its simpler than that. You said:
> Yes they were lured into a trap
By whom, specifically?
>> And what was the nature of the allurement
>
> People have been conditioned for generations to look up to people who
> run at the mouth up on podiums.
I was hoping for a more cogent analysis. For example, my home church
in Saxonburg, PA, founded in 1823 has had 150+ years of speakers
behind podiums, yet no Jonestown type scenario there. Other churches
have hundreds of years of history of sermons being delivered from
podiums, with no corresponding behavior as described here. So, there's
nothing intrinsically wrong with speaking behind a podium.
Regards,
Brock
atypican
With a forewarning that these assessments are necessarily subject to
my imperfect ability to describe reality....
> What does that matter to your position that "they were lured into a trap"?
> > Come on Brock if you won't let me
> > draw you out than for Christs sake leave me be!
>
> Why does your position depend upon "drawing me out"?
privilege of addressing YOU and what you think as opposed to just
trying to determine what you think by reading blocks of texts written
by others you are fond of citing. If this requires a diversion from
the topic at hand, I'm OK with that even though it's obvious you
aren't.
> > Come on Brock if you won't let me
> > draw you out than for Christs sake leave me be!
>
> Why does your position depend upon "drawing me out"?
>
> > You don't want a conversation! You want to propagandize!
>
> Lol. Its simpler than that.
> >> And what was the nature of the allurement
>
> > People have been conditioned for generations to look up to people who
> > run at the mouth up on podiums.
>
> I was hoping for a more cogent analysis.
trouble making cogent arguments to people with poorly developed
capacity for lateral thought.
> For example, my home church
> in Saxonburg, PA, founded in 1823 has had 150+ years of speakers
> behind podiums, yet no Jonestown type scenario there. Other churches
> have hundreds of years of history of sermons being delivered from
> podiums, with no corresponding behavior as described here. So, there's
> nothing intrinsically wrong with speaking behind a podium.
lecturer/audience paradigm. Just as there is nothing intrinsically
wrong with books. I hope and predict both will be outmoded
nevertheless. :)
On May 13, 3:27 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
thought" ... why do you continuously ask the immature question "who
lured them?" ... do you want atyp to name every cult leader who ever
lived? ... or are you just repeating your childish question in order
to antagonize him? [my vote] ...
have you never heard of jim jones, david koresh, or any other of the
absolute myriad of cult leaders who have "lured people" into their
compounds from all over the world? have you ever heard of google? its
a search engine, where it will be quite easy [for some people] to find
answers to your silly questions ... to aid with your anticipated
research, here is the URL [www.google.com] ... good luck! ;-^)
the more you respond in this way, asking repeated and redundant
questions in order to get on the nerves of others, or refer to them as
"petulant" or "displeased" or "lacking capacity", etc, etc, etc, ...
the more you resemble the opposite of what i would consider gods
image ... you are more like a nagging pestilence, than a person
inspired to live in the likeness of god ... if you think you reflect
the perfectness of your god, i want nothing to do with it ... you do
more to turn people away from your religion than you do to "lure them
in" ... why you cant see that is a puzzle to me ...
hmmm ... you hope that your bible becomes outmoded? kaching! ...
instant success, as it already has to me and millions of others ...
keep believing it as the "truth" though brock ... it suits your
ability [read lack thereof] to use reason to guide your life to a
tee ...
Brock Organ
>> By whom, specifically?
>
> With a forewarning that these assessments are necessarily subject to
> my imperfect ability to describe reality....
>
> It would be an exercise in futility to attempt to name them all
Well, so far, in your futility you've named a one.
>> What does that matter to your position that "they were lured into a trap"?
>
> I don't know, you brought it up.
Actually, you said:
> They were lured into a trap.
And I responded: "By whom?"
>> > Come on Brock if you won't let me
>> > draw you out than for Christs sake leave me be!
>>
>> Why does your position depend upon "drawing me out"?
>
> I never said it did.
It doesn't. :)
> I'm just hoping against hope to have the
> privilege of addressing YOU
Who, other than I, do you suppose you are addressing?
> and what you think as opposed to just
> trying to determine what you think by reading blocks of texts written
> by others you are fond of citing.
Positionally speaking, consider the distinction artificial and forced.
> If this requires a diversion from
> the topic at hand, I'm OK with that even though it's obvious you
> aren't.
Well, consider that an appeal to "oh look, shiny thing" doesn't make
your position stronger, nor does it weaken an OP's.
> your posting record stands viewable to all
Amen! :D
>> >> And what was the nature of the allurement
>>
>> > People have been conditioned for generations to look up to people who
>> > run at the mouth up on podiums.
>>
>> I was hoping for a more cogent analysis.
>
> Subjective assessment of my arguments cogency noted. I will admit have
> trouble making cogent arguments to people with poorly developed
> capacity for lateral thought.
Or that "run up the mouth" and $1.50, epistemologically speaking, will
get you coffee at a truck stop.
>> For example, my home church
>> in Saxonburg, PA, founded in 1823 has had 150+ years of speakers
>> behind podiums, yet no Jonestown type scenario there. Other churches
>> have hundreds of years of history of sermons being delivered from
>> podiums, with no corresponding behavior as described here. So, there's
>> nothing intrinsically wrong with speaking behind a podium.
>
> I don't argue that there is something intrinsically wrong with the
> lecturer/audience paradigm.
I know, you were tawking smack and got called on it. :)
Regards,
Brock
atypican
I clarified and expanded. and you duck and dodge as usual. I trust
most anyone who reads our dialog will see the truth of the matter
plainly.
On May 14, 9:11 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
>> I know, you were tawking smack and got called on it. :)
>
> Well my perspective on that differs from yours.
>
> I clarified and expanded.
You said:
> They were lured into a trap.
By whom, I asked. You offered a diversion (your own word) and said:
> They were lured by people whose rhetoric they found convincing.
and also:
> It would be an exercise in futility to attempt to name them all
So I sought specifics, but had to note:
"Well, so far, in your futility you've [not] named a one."
So if by clarified and expanded, you meant "not named one single
specific example", then I can respond by noting that some hold
clarified and expanded to a higher standard. :)
> and you duck and dodge as usual. I trust
> most anyone who reads our dialog will see the truth of the matter
> plainly.
I know, you were tawking smack and got called on it. Maybe you could
try another "diversion" (your word) as a way to "clarify" and
"expand". Or perhaps throw out another "run up the mouth"
sociological argument, or another "lateral thought" reference.
For my own responses, I'll stick instead with positional debate. It's
done me well so far. :)
Regards,
Brock
e_space
copying/pasting maybe ... something your are entirely capable of,
although your selection of material to copy sucks the big one ... imo
of course ;-^)
now, speaking of something you ARE good at ... diversion ... you
attribute your avoidance of my questions and issues to my attitude ...
methinks ye are quite incapable of responding coherently to them, and
that is, in fact, your reason for dodging them ... and look at you
now, deliberately pissing people off with your pompous and childish
attitude, while acting like a flippin saint ... ya suck man, plain and
simple ...
On May 14, 2:39 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote: