by foolsparadise 106 Replies latest jw friends
"Outlaw still can't read or understand the concepts of "scholarly reference" and "single terms having multiple definitions depending on the context." ..."
And Twitty - er, I mean, Teary - still doesn't understand the actual origin of the word "apostate"...
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/217172/1/Apostate-originally-meant-Runaway-Slave
sorry Teary...but I find the Teary writing style quite disconcerting Are you writing on behalf of someone else? Or do you have a conversation with yourself before you answer?
I love these threads, almost as good as a good Star Trek novel
lol @fsp,,, I had my fun, now I'm done with 'it' ,,, can't debate when someone sticks fingers in ears and goes 'LaLaLaLa'
hehehe
Teary's frustrated by our lack of a scholarly approach.
I like Teary . . . like Eggie, Teary has a good sense of humor.
Teary . . . let's be scholarly about this . . . you said . . .
The reactions so far to Teary's one single reference are hilarious. The posters started trying to crucify the authors of the work almost immediately, and the information they used to attack those authors come almost exclusively from the anti-cult movement which those authors originally criticised!
Now that's not true Teary . . . and not very scholarly I have to say.
The reactions to your single reference simply quoted extemporaneous material from the same article you quoted. This was done in order to add some balance . . . which is a healthy approach scholastically don't you think? However, your use of the religiously emotive term "crucify" is interesting from a sociological viewpoint.
Attributing the criticism "almost exclusively" to the Anti-Cult Movement was also intriguing. What is this movement you mention? A scholastic examination of that would be helpful don't you think?
The anti-cult movement (abbreviated ACM and sometimes called the countercult movement) is a term used by academics and others to refer to groups and individuals who oppose cults and new religious movements. Sociologists David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe initially defined the ACM in 1981 as a collection of groups embracing brainwashing-theory, but later observed a significant shift in ideology towards a "medicalization" of the memberships of new religious movements (NRMs).
Publications of the International Cultic Studies Association have disputed the appropriateness of the term "Anti-cult movement"; (see for example Kropveld) with one writer preferring the label "cult critics" rather than "anti-cult" activists.
Hmmm . . . how very interesting . . . scholastically speaking . . . but wait, there's more . . .
The anti-cult movement is conceptualized as a collection of individuals and groups, whether formally organized or not, who oppose new religious movements (or "cults"). This countermovement has reportedly recruited from family members of "cultists"; former cult members, (or apostates); church groups (including Jewish groups); and associations of health professionals. Although there is a trend towards globalization, the social and organizational bases vary significantly from country to country according to the social and political opportunity structures in each place.
As are many aspects of the social sciences, the movement is variously defined. A significant minority opinion suggests that analysis should treat the secular anti-cult movement separately from the religiously motivated (mainly Christian) groups.
The anti-cult movement might be divided into four classes:
As is typical in social and religious movements, no unified ideology exists, but most, if not all, the groups involved express the view that there are potentially deleterious effects associated with New Religious Movements.
So . . . it would appear this movement is simply a conceptual term identifying all individuals and groups, who are variously Sociologically, Secularly, Religiously and Medically of the opinion that cults are detrimental and damaging . . . much like say, the anti-pollution movement.
You also listed the credentials of one of your sources . . . David G Bromley . . . and that is indeed very scholarly of you.
However, Stephen A Kent PhD, a Professor of Sociology, holds a view which is diametrically opposed to Bromley, and is often linked to this conceptual anti-cult movement. I have chosen him at random, but here are his credentials . . .
Kent graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park in 1973, with a B.A. degree in Sociology. In 1978, he received a Master's Degree in the History of Religions, from American University. Kent received an M.A. in 1979 from McMaster University with a focus in religion and modern Western society and a minor in Indian Buddhism; he was granted a Ph.D. in religious studies in 1984 from the same institution. From 1984 to 1986, Kent worked in the sociology department at the University of Alberta, in the Izaac Walton Killam Postdoctoral Fellowship.
But really, what is more scholastically relevant, is this comment from the original article . . .
Social scientists, sociologists, religious scholars, psychologists and psychiatrists have studied the modern field of cults and new religious movements since the early 1980s. Cult debates about certain purported cults and about cults in general often become polarized with widely divergent opinions, not only among current followers and disaffected former members, but sometimes even among scholars as well.
To portray all opposition to your views as inspired by the ant-cult movement while "foaming at the mouth" is very disingenuous and emotive Teary . . . and not very scholarly I have to say
Also, I see no evidence of, or potential for "indoctrination" as you arbitrarily claim. This conceptual anti-cult movement includes groups and individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and scholastic fields . . . and has no unified ideology. To make such an inference is scholastically innaccurate and irresponsible I would suggest.
I hope this has helped in some way in your desire to be more scholarly.
You may wish to revisit some of your opinions in order to achieve this.
sizemik....are you saying that Teary is another gift from God?...he sure works in mysterious ways LOL
"He who fights and runs away . . . lives to run another day"
Eggie bailed as well . . . there's no mystery . . . they've just got no intellectual staying power.
It's all very dissappointing.
