Tight security as evangelical group meets in new hall (From Worcester News)

I don't believe we should be supporting the mass congregation of any cults in Worcester.

Why so much secrecy?

Enough parking problems in this area so don't want any more.

Parking problems bode well for the new stadium then.

Swinesherd is a pagan name and comes from pigs head on a stake.... left at the entrance to the village or settlement.... apparently..
Christianity is a religion of cults. The original followers were not in the style of the modern church. Unfortunately perhaps the Roman church expunged the spiritual stuff ie meditative etc.... and replaced it with ceremony to entertain the masses.
What a hotchpotch of mumbojumbo we are left with. Preying on pagan superstition, hence Easter and Christmas on pagan festivals and churches on pagan sites .
Prophets come along and teach us to meditate or whatever then it gets messed about with ignorant so called preachers...

Something doesn't seem right about this article. These don't sound like Plymouth brethren at all. I think these are that Exclusive Brethren mob. Does anyone know?

Confirmed, its the Exclusive brethren, a very odd and controlling cult which it is very hard to escape from. I am extremely sceptical that any member of the public who is not part of the clan would be able to attend their meetings, and if they did would run a mile after about five minutes. Any "non-members" would be forced to sit behind everyone else and treated like aliens. Its a horror show folks.

Reducing their carbon footprint? It appears they like to pick and choose which bits of science to believe then.

If it's the Exclusive Brethren, then why does the title say they are evangelical? The Plymouth Brethren are very evangelical but the Exclusives are a cult. Looks as though the Exclusives got to someone here. Be afraid, very afraid!

DanMacc wrote:
I don't believe we should be supporting the mass congregation of any cults in Worcester.

Bit harsh. If they're not harming anyone, what does it matter?

I'm appalled by this article. In this country we value the freedoms of speech, association and religious belief. However, this piece appears to have been written to incite distrust, suspicion and hate. Worcester News needs a new editor.

I'm appalled by this article. In this country we value the freedoms of speech, association and religious belief. However, this piece appears to have been written to incite distrust, suspicion and hate. Worcester News needs a new editor.

ushmush83 wrote:

DanMacc wrote:
I don't believe we should be supporting the mass congregation of any cults in Worcester.

Bit harsh. If they're not harming anyone, what does it matter?

Actually they do cause harm mate. Look at this - http://peebs.net/In_
Memoriam/

ushmush83 wrote:

DanMacc wrote:
I don't believe we should be supporting the mass congregation of any cults in Worcester.

Bit harsh. If they're not harming anyone, what does it matter?

Just like The 9/11 pilots weren't harming anyone UNTIL the morning they woke up and flew planes into buildings, Just like Hitler wasn't hurting anyone UNTIL he starting WW2, Just like Anders Breivik wasn't hurting anyone UNTIL he did, in fact, start hurting people.

Hindsight isn't a good weapon against problems, foresight is.

Peace.

Nice people... lets get our flaming torches out and drive them from our midst.

Andrew Guy wrote:
I'm appalled by this article. In this country we value the freedoms of speech, association and religious belief. However, this piece appears to have been written to incite distrust, suspicion and hate. Worcester News needs a new editor.

I think you are over-reacting rather - the article simply states what was seen, and then gives approximately two-thirds of the rest of the article to quoting the groups spokesman. Hardly inciting hate.

I on the other hand, using the free speech you value so dearly, am happy to go on record saying I think they are a bunch of deluded idiots.

Agreed about quoting the spokesman. The cult must be delighted by the coverage. There are too many errors to count in this article. Poor journalism.

DanMacc wrote:

ushmush83 wrote:

DanMacc wrote:
I don't believe we should be supporting the mass congregation of any cults in Worcester.

Bit harsh. If they're not harming anyone, what does it matter?

Just like The 9/11 pilots weren't harming anyone UNTIL the morning they woke up and flew planes into buildings, Just like Hitler wasn't hurting anyone UNTIL he starting WW2, Just like Anders Breivik wasn't hurting anyone UNTIL he did, in fact, start hurting people.

Hindsight isn't a good weapon against problems, foresight is.

Peace.

Didn't take long for this discussion to prove Godwin's Law did it?

You might want to do a little bit of reading up on pre-war Germany and treatment of the Jews and others before making this type of sweeping comment!

Slightly Grubby Harry wrote:

DanMacc wrote:

ushmush83 wrote:

DanMacc wrote:
I don't believe we should be supporting the mass congregation of any cults in Worcester.

Bit harsh. If they're not harming anyone, what does it matter?

Just like The 9/11 pilots weren't harming anyone UNTIL the morning they woke up and flew planes into buildings, Just like Hitler wasn't hurting anyone UNTIL he starting WW2, Just like Anders Breivik wasn't hurting anyone UNTIL he did, in fact, start hurting people.

Hindsight isn't a good weapon against problems, foresight is.

Peace.

Didn't take long for this discussion to prove Godwin's Law did it?

You might want to do a little bit of reading up on pre-war Germany and treatment of the Jews and others before making this type of sweeping comment!

Wow you must be really clever, you must have loads of books and stuff. I know Godwin's Law, I wrote my thesis on it, that's why I used the example. My point was more about nipping things in the bud and hopefully eradicating all organised religion from the world. LOL only joking. But seriously, Cults.

DanMacc wrote:

ushmush83 wrote:

DanMacc wrote:
I don't believe we should be supporting the mass congregation of any cults in Worcester.

Bit harsh. If they're not harming anyone, what does it matter?

Just like The 9/11 pilots weren't harming anyone UNTIL the morning they woke up and flew planes into buildings, Just like Hitler wasn't hurting anyone UNTIL he starting WW2, Just like Anders Breivik wasn't hurting anyone UNTIL he did, in fact, start hurting people.

Hindsight isn't a good weapon against problems, foresight is.

Peace.

Just like you didn't do any harm UNTIL you started a hate campaign against a minority religion...

All organised religions are cults... Whether they should all be eradicated? hmmmmm before they eradicate the unbelievers maybe....
.
There is safety in numbers and this is maybe why people join groups like faiths, trouble is... while they are like minded they are not the same mind and it ends up in sectarianism and oppression.
.
Religion is a bit silly but so are people. Trouble is those who take it very seriously can often be dangerous to society.

I just found a website that has all the information you could wish for. http://peebs.net - check out the Forums on http://peebs.net/for
ums/ they are talking about this article there. Looks as though the reporter ignored the facts and just printed what the cult told him!

britfix wrote:
I just found a website that has all the information you could wish for. http://peebs.net - check out the Forums on http://peebs.net/for

ums/ they are talking about this article there. Looks as though the reporter ignored the facts and just printed what the cult told him!

Thanks for posting that, I guess its not long until WN remove this post from the website.

Good luck to any fellow posters who know the truth.

I think I am being followed but fjk kjlgkdfg.i

"I just found a website that has all the information you could wish for". You may have found a website but how do you know it is fact or fiction? Never ceases to amaze me how many people quote websites as having 'the truth' about a topic. To support this I offer up the website elvis-is-alive dot com. It has 'proof' and everything!

CJH wrote:
"I just found a website that has all the information you could wish for". You may have found a website but how do you know it is fact or fiction? Never ceases to amaze me how many people quote websites as having 'the truth' about a topic. To support this I offer up the website elvis-is-alive dot com. It has 'proof' and everything!

How do you know Elvis isn't alive?

Point taken CJH, but there are documents, history, photos and videos. I'm impressed and the forums I mentioned are fascinating. Just google exclusive brethren and you will see that this is a good reference website. Good luck with your search for elvis though.

DanMacc wrote:

CJH wrote: "I just found a website that has all the information you could wish for". You may have found a website but how do you know it is fact or fiction? Never ceases to amaze me how many people quote websites as having 'the truth' about a topic. To support this I offer up the website elvis-is-alive dot com. It has 'proof' and everything!

How do you know Elvis isn't alive?

That's my point really - how does anyone really know that anything they read is true. But offering up evidence as fact because they read it on the internet is, I don't know, naive? stupid? pointless? You choose. ;-)

Just like to point out that I am NOT NOT NOT looking for Elvis. He can come and find me when he's ready...

I think one thing we can all agree on is that religion is silly. I mean one word...

DINOSAURS!!

DanMacc wrote:
I think one thing we can all agree on is that religion is silly. I mean one word... DINOSAURS!!

Try Googling 'are dinosaurs still alive'. Fascinating.

Worcester News has been well and truly led up the garden path by their obvious minimal research and by the spokesperson of the group. WN you have been duped.

This group is indeed the Exclusive Brethren, did you ask them who their Universal Leader was ? – it is Bruce Hales from Australia and the reason for all the security is because he is conducting a UK visit of some of the Exclusive Brethren Meeting Rooms this week and over the weekend. In Australia and other countries they are known as a Cult.

The report contains so many untruths and inaccuracies that it is WN’s duty to set the record straight and print an apology.

“Evangelical” – no they are not, they don’t engage in any evangelism at all. They don’t support any missionaries nor are their Rooms open to the public to hear the Gospel. They are a closed, exclusive group.

“Gospel Hall” – they don’t use that phrase themselves, that is just a PR cover. They are called Meeting Rooms. The word “Gospel Hall” is false representation, as it’s a description belonging to “Open Brethren” who are totally different and much more respected and trusted

“Plymouth Brethren” – No they are not. The Exclusive Brethren separated from the Plymouth Brethren around 1848 led by John Nelson Darby. The Exclusive Brethren as we know them today, really formed in their current extremist views from 1960 onwards

“We’re part of mainstream Christianity”. – Utter balderdash, nonsense. They do not eat or drink with non members, they have no TV, no Radio, they follow ministry (rules) written by historical leaders such as Jim Taylor Jnr, they “withdraw from” or excommunicate anyone who leaves the group even if they leave to go to a Christian Church, they have left generations of families split and unable to communicate as you are “cut off” if you leave the group, they regard everyone who is not “in fellowship” with them as iniquitous or evil and they call everyone “not in fellowship” with them “worldly” or worldlies”, members are taught to “develop a hatred of the world” – and that’s a direct quote from their leader Bruce Hales.

Does any of that sound like they are part of “mainstream Christianity” !!!!!!!! No way.

Their doctrines and practices stand alone and apart, it is an insult to mainstream Christianity to claim the Exclusive Brethren are part of it

“At all church services, members of the public are welcome to attend” – That again is pure nonsense. All services are closed off from the public attending, even if joe public was Christian they certainly would not be free to engage in worship with the Exclusive Brethren. To be able to attend and take part you would have to convert to Exclusive Brethrenism and conform to their laws and rules. This would include giving up your Iphone, Laptop, Friends etc and living in “separation” from “the world” devoting your social circle to only those within the group

Christian Rev wrote:
Worcester News has been well and truly led up the garden path by their obvious minimal research and by the spokesperson of the group. WN you have been duped.

This group is indeed the Exclusive Brethren, did you ask them who their Universal Leader was ? – it is Bruce Hales from Australia and the reason for all the security is because he is conducting a UK visit of some of the Exclusive Brethren Meeting Rooms this week and over the weekend. In Australia and other countries they are known as a Cult.

The report contains so many untruths and inaccuracies that it is WN’s duty to set the record straight and print an apology.

“Evangelical” – no they are not, they don’t engage in any evangelism at all. They don’t support any missionaries nor are their Rooms open to the public to hear the Gospel. They are a closed, exclusive group.

“Gospel Hall” – they don’t use that phrase themselves, that is just a PR cover. They are called Meeting Rooms. The word “Gospel Hall” is false representation, as it’s a description belonging to “Open Brethren” who are totally different and much more respected and trusted

“Plymouth Brethren” – No they are not. The Exclusive Brethren separated from the Plymouth Brethren around 1848 led by John Nelson Darby. The Exclusive Brethren as we know them today, really formed in their current extremist views from 1960 onwards

“We’re part of mainstream Christianity”. – Utter balderdash, nonsense. They do not eat or drink with non members, they have no TV, no Radio, they follow ministry (rules) written by historical leaders such as Jim Taylor Jnr, they “withdraw from” or excommunicate anyone who leaves the group even if they leave to go to a Christian Church, they have left generations of families split and unable to communicate as you are “cut off” if you leave the group, they regard everyone who is not “in fellowship” with them as iniquitous or evil and they call everyone “not in fellowship” with them “worldly” or worldlies”, members are taught to “develop a hatred of the world” – and that’s a direct quote from their leader Bruce Hales.

Does any of that sound like they are part of “mainstream Christianity” !!!!!!!! No way.

Their doctrines and practices stand alone and apart, it is an insult to mainstream Christianity to claim the Exclusive Brethren are part of it

“At all church services, members of the public are welcome to attend” – That again is pure nonsense. All services are closed off from the public attending, even if joe public was Christian they certainly would not be free to engage in worship with the Exclusive Brethren. To be able to attend and take part you would have to convert to Exclusive Brethrenism and conform to their laws and rules. This would include giving up your Iphone, Laptop, Friends etc and living in “separation” from “the world” devoting your social circle to only those within the group

All completely true, I just feel very sorry for kids who are born into this kind of cult, it is life ruining

BernarddeCampio wrote:

Christian Rev wrote:
Worcester News has been well and truly led up the garden path by their obvious minimal research and by the spokesperson of the group. WN you have been duped.

This group is indeed the Exclusive Brethren, did you ask them who their Universal Leader was ? – it is Bruce Hales from Australia and the reason for all the security is because he is conducting a UK visit of some of the Exclusive Brethren Meeting Rooms this week and over the weekend. In Australia and other countries they are known as a Cult.

The report contains so many untruths and inaccuracies that it is WN’s duty to set the record straight and print an apology.

“Evangelical” – no they are not, they don’t engage in any evangelism at all. They don’t support any missionaries nor are their Rooms open to the public to hear the Gospel. They are a closed, exclusive group.

“Gospel Hall” – they don’t use that phrase themselves, that is just a PR cover. They are called Meeting Rooms. The word “Gospel Hall” is false representation, as it’s a description belonging to “Open Brethren” who are totally different and much more respected and trusted

“Plymouth Brethren” – No they are not. The Exclusive Brethren separated from the Plymouth Brethren around 1848 led by John Nelson Darby. The Exclusive Brethren as we know them today, really formed in their current extremist views from 1960 onwards

“We’re part of mainstream Christianity”. – Utter balderdash, nonsense. They do not eat or drink with non members, they have no TV, no Radio, they follow ministry (rules) written by historical leaders such as Jim Taylor Jnr, they “withdraw from” or excommunicate anyone who leaves the group even if they leave to go to a Christian Church, they have left generations of families split and unable to communicate as you are “cut off” if you leave the group, they regard everyone who is not “in fellowship” with them as iniquitous or evil and they call everyone “not in fellowship” with them “worldly” or worldlies”, members are taught to “develop a hatred of the world” – and that’s a direct quote from their leader Bruce Hales.

Does any of that sound like they are part of “mainstream Christianity” !!!!!!!! No way.

Their doctrines and practices stand alone and apart, it is an insult to mainstream Christianity to claim the Exclusive Brethren are part of it

“At all church services, members of the public are welcome to attend” – That again is pure nonsense. All services are closed off from the public attending, even if joe public was Christian they certainly would not be free to engage in worship with the Exclusive Brethren. To be able to attend and take part you would have to convert to Exclusive Brethrenism and conform to their laws and rules. This would include giving up your Iphone, Laptop, Friends etc and living in “separation” from “the world” devoting your social circle to only those within the group

All completely true, I just feel very sorry for kids who are born into this kind of cult, it is life ruining

I feel sorry for kids "born into" any mythology. It really is time we stopped allowing children to be brainwashed by shamans from an early age, whether in Extreme Brethren/Scientology type cults or CofE/RC/Muslim/Jewis
h "mainstream" mythologies. It's all brainwashing, it's all hogwash, and it's all child-abuse.

And will WN please allow us to edit what we quote? I really didn't need to quote all of Christian Rev's comment when quoting Bernard De Campio's!

longpete, are you trying to say that we should either ban all religions, or take all children that belong to religious parents from them, to prevent this 'brain washing'?

Longpete does seem to be getting over-excited, but I do think people should have a choice about their religion, children or otherwise, and not be bullied into a way of thinking by family and friends, and completely isolated if they leave.

Why all the excitement all of a sudden when according to the article they've been in Diglis since 1900

DarrenM wrote:
Why all the excitement all of a sudden when according to the article they've been in Diglis since 1900

This issue is that this article is completely misleading and as explained above, the wrong name has been associated - these people are not the Plymouth Brethren, they are a dangerous cult known as the Exclusive Brethren. The community has a right to know and also, perhaps some good reporting might look into whether the planning authorities knew who they were dealing with. How do you feel about the fact they don't have to pay rates on a 'church' that you are not allowed to enter?

ushmush83 wrote:
longpete, are you trying to say that we should either ban all religions, or take all children that belong to religious parents from them, to prevent this 'brain washing'?

Not at all. What consenting adults do in private is their business. And as long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else I am a complete anti-prohibitionist; smoking, sex, drugs, religion, SM, assisted suicide, you name it - if it's consensual and among adults I have no problem with people doing it and do not believe "society" has any grounds to stop them.

However, children are not adults and cannot knowingly consent. So we shield them from some things - sex, drugs etc. - while not even protecting them from others things like second-hand smoke in their parents' houses and cars, or mental abuse by priests who strike fear into them with stories of hell and eternal damnation.

In the name of religion they are indoctrinated into a belief system - generally the one of their parents - that can pervade the rest of their lives; in the name of religion some of them have their foreskins removed at a few months old, or some, their clitorises at around 12; in the name of religion, some of them are made to wear skull caps or head scarves; in the name of religion some of them are forced to jump into freezing water to be "baptised". And in the name of religion, they are brainwashed into believing that stories dreamt up by bronze-age shamans are true.

And the descendants of these shamans are now being allowed to run "free schools" and "academies". The fools are in charge of the asylum.

Amish with 4x4s...

Blimey, the promise of warmer weather must be bringing out all the fruitloops.

CYNIC_AL wrote:
Amish with 4x4s...

But no TV.

This is a grossly misinformed and offensive article. I know times are tough and budgets are limited, but aren't your journalists required to do research any more before publishing?

In particular:

"an evangelical Christian group " - these Hales exclusive brethren are not evangelical. They do not share their teaching with anyone. They meet behind closed doors and do not welcome anyone to their private meetings.

"at their new gospel hall". They do not meet in a gospel hall. Christians, sometimes called by others 'open brethren' meet in gospel halls. These people who are the subject of the article meet in windowless fortresses with locked doors, no one welcome.

"He said gospel hall will have regular services, prayer meetings, Bible readings and gospel preaching."

The gospel is not preached, and no one is invited in to hear any preachings. The gates are locked to outsiders.

"At all church services, members of the public are welcome to attend". This is a blatant, blatant lie.

If you don't believe me, can I suggest readers attempt to attend a 'service' next Sunday, or any night of the week. They will soon find they are not welcome and they will not be allowed to attend. Yet our taxes go to paying for this group to hold their private meetings and they lie that all in Worcester will benefit.

"The group was formed in 1827 by John Nelson Darby." The group was founded by an alcoholic adulterer named James Taylor in the 1960s. To sully John Nelson Darby's name with this cult is scandalous - he would turn in his grave.

"They’re very polite and smart." I'm glad one neighbour has had this experience. I wonder how long that impression will last.

it sounds its much harder to get into this so called church , than it is at bushwackers were gona give it a go tattos short dresses no ties and punk hair thigh lenth boots no brars bet a pound to a penny they let us in

britfix wrote:

DarrenM wrote:
Why all the excitement all of a sudden when according to the article they've been in Diglis since 1900

This issue is that this article is completely misleading and as explained above, the wrong name has been associated - these people are not the Plymouth Brethren, they are a dangerous cult known as the Exclusive Brethren. The community has a right to know and also, perhaps some good reporting might look into whether the planning authorities knew who they were dealing with. How do you feel about the fact they don't have to pay rates on a 'church' that you are not allowed to enter?

Well no different as presumably they've been not paying rates on this property in Diglis since 1900?

And the font of all Knowledge Wikipedia says the "Plymouth Brethren" are "are commonly perceived as being divided into at least two branches, the "Open Brethren" and the "Exclusive Brethren" and later in the article on Wikipedia "The Plymouth Brethren split into Exclusive and Open Brethren in 1848 " - There is a section on Accusations but I can't see anything in there that the Jehovahs Witnesses or LDS's don't do as well.

I believe there has been a "brethren" room in Diglis or Worcester area since around 1900 but I doubt that has been an Exclusive Brethren room.

The Exclusive Brethren, as they are known today, taken from the doctrines they practice, only really developed after 1960 under the leader at that time Jim Taylor Jnr. He was a confirmed alcoholic who eventually was found in bed with another mans wife around 1970, causing a huge division amongst the Exclusive Brethren.

This current group numbering around 40,000 worldwide, led by Bruce Hales from Australia, claim that Jim Taylor Jnr was pure and had done no wrong !!, recorded evidence at the time says otherwise !!

As to the reference regarding the LDS and the Jehovahs Witness groups - there are some who would view those as Cults.

security guards posted on the access and blacked out windows in the vehicles, that seems a little sinister to me.

“Tight security as evangelical group meets in new hall”

Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. Why, if this is an “evangelical group”, would the members need or want “security”. Surely the basis of Evangelism is to share the teachings of the Bible and seek to make converts …. or am I missing something?
.

“At all church services, members of the public are welcome to attend”

In that case, I think it would be helpful if a WN journalist could attend one of the services to report on what exactly takes place. I look forward to hearing more factual information about this group.

britfix wrote:
I just found a website that has all the information you could wish for. http://peebs.net - check out the Forums on http://peebs.net/for

ums/ they are talking about this article there. Looks as though the reporter ignored the facts and just printed what the cult told him!

Because everything you read on teh interwebz is truth people!.

To be honest i hate all religion. BUT as long as they are not barrarging myself or anyone else who hates it with scripture and fires of hell speeches, then let them be.

Let them bleed each other's souls as long as they are not damning mine to hell they can do as they please.

Are they the Judean People's Front or are they the People's Front of Judea?

I think we should be told.

Blessed are the cheesemakers

longpete wrote:

ushmush83 wrote:
longpete, are you trying to say that we should either ban all religions, or take all children that belong to religious parents from them, to prevent this 'brain washing'?

Not at all. What consenting adults do in private is their business. And as long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else I am a complete anti-prohibitionist; smoking, sex, drugs, religion, SM, assisted suicide, you name it - if it's consensual and among adults I have no problem with people doing it and do not believe "society" has any grounds to stop them.

However, children are not adults and cannot knowingly consent. So we shield them from some things - sex, drugs etc. - while not even protecting them from others things like second-hand smoke in their parents' houses and cars, or mental abuse by priests who strike fear into them with stories of hell and eternal damnation.

In the name of religion they are indoctrinated into a belief system - generally the one of their parents - that can pervade the rest of their lives; in the name of religion some of them have their foreskins removed at a few months old, or some, their clitorises at around 12; in the name of religion, some of them are made to wear skull caps or head scarves; in the name of religion some of them are forced to jump into freezing water to be "baptised". And in the name of religion, they are brainwashed into believing that stories dreamt up by bronze-age shamans are true.

And the descendants of these shamans are now being allowed to run "free schools" and "academies". The fools are in charge of the asylum.

So what are you saying then? A government, or other ruling body should bring everyone's children up for them? Or just those that openly practice religion? What about agnostics? Or pagans? I don't understand your point.

Surely no matter how you're brought up, you are brain washed in someway. You are influenced to believe what the parent believes, you are influenced to support the same football team, speak the same language, similar political beliefs and have the same prejudices (against all religion in your case). So, by your reckoning, you wouldn't be allowed to bring up your own children because you would indoctrine them with a hatred of anyone who was religious, and that would be preventing them from making their own choices. Maybe we should just dump all of our children and let them fend for themselves before they can talk so that they don't get influenced by their parents?

Trying to prevent, or put caveats on, the way people practice their beliefs is the first step to totalitarianism. If that is what you believe, then you are certainly worse than these "Exclusive Bretheren" because at least they do not impose their beliefs on to others.

250 years ago, you could be executed for being an atheist. Let's not go full circle on this. We should evolve, not devolve.

I'm doing a copy/paste on the quote here since the WN site only allows block quoting of miles of text:

ushmush83 said on
9:07am Mon 23 Jul 12
"you wouldn't be allowed to bring up your own children because you would indoctrine them with a hatred of anyone who was religious"

If you read the beginning of my post you will see tha, as far as I'm concerned, consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want if it doesn't adversely affect anyone else. I have no "hatred" of religious people in the slightest, though I consider them deluded and in need of a course in reason and science.

Most children in the UK and in the rest of Europe are educated by the state and though idiots like Gove would have you believe otherwise, they become perfectly intelligent, rational, upstanding members of society.

Children will always be subject to the influence of their parents, whether in terms of politics, religion, criminality or whatever. But society sees fit to limit that influence if, for example, a parent is violent or a criminal (by that, society means burglars, not bankers) by removing the parental contact. Society sees fit to counteract some of these influences in school, for example by teaching that racism and criminality (burglars, not bankers) etc. is wrong.

Society could, and I believe society should, restrict the influence of priests and their warped mythologies, by forbidding depraved acts like religious circumcision (male as well as female) of children, forbidding children from displaying any sign of "religious belonging" (crosses, head-scarves, skull caps, red spots on their foreheads etc.) and by banning religious indoctrination of children, especially bronze-age stupidities like creationism that fly in the face of accepted science.

Are you really against the concept of banning the brainwashing of children into believing that millennium-old shaman-invented hogwash is fact?

Are you really against the concept of protecting children from physical abuse in the name of "belief"?

For a start, male circumcision is accepted to be more hygenic, which is why the practice is carried out as the norm amongst Americans. It's certainly not cruel. Female circumcision is not carried out by any religion, it is carried out by certain cultures throughout Africa to prevent the woman from feeling any pleasure from intercourse, and reduce their libido, but it is certainly not a religious act. Besides, that is cruelty, and is outlawed by all (I think, if not most) countries nowadays. Regardless of religion, cruelty is a completely different matter. You could be a theist, or as atheist as they come, cruelty is cruelty, and abuse is abuse; your religious standing makes no difference to this.

I would also like to point out that not too long ago, most of the greatest scientists of the time would have laughed at you for not believing in a god of some sort. In fact, an atheist would have been regarded as the lowest of the low. Even more recently, phrenology was an accepted science. How things have changed. And yes, through education, evolution, leaps in science etc. But do not for one second think that we know everything now, and our 'greatest scientists' know exactly what has gone before, what is to come and what exists. Do not be so arogant to call others beliefs hogwash. Until a few years ago, I knew Pluto was a planet, and that the atom was the smallest thing in existence. How stupid I feel now. Who knows what will be discovered to make me even more foolish before I die?

How the hell did we make it to circumcision? One thing, it's genital mutilation. As many nerve endings as finger tips etc. I'm quite attached to mine, that's for sure.

Now. Back to topic:

""I believe this is an extremist cult and sect.."

"They split families and I am deeply concerned about their impact on communities across Australia."

Kevin Rudd (former Austrialian Prime Minister).

Ted Elgar wrote:
How the hell did we make it to circumcision? One thing, it's genital mutilation. As many nerve endings as finger tips etc. I'm quite attached to mine, that's for sure.

Now. Back to topic:

""I believe this is an extremist cult and sect.."

"They split families and I am deeply concerned about their impact on communities across Australia."

Kevin Rudd (former Austrialian Prime Minister).

Oh wow, Its an honour to have you post here, Mr Rudd.

Thank you for your opinion.

Ted Elgar wrote:
How the hell did we make it to circumcision? One thing, it's genital mutilation. As many nerve endings as finger tips etc. I'm quite attached to mine, that's for sure.

Now. Back to topic:

""I believe this is an extremist cult and sect.."

"They split families and I am deeply concerned about their impact on communities across Australia."

Kevin Rudd (former Austrialian Prime Minister).

So a cult is "extremist" if it splits families and causes division between brother and sister, husband and wife. Whereas mainstream religions like protestant and catholic, that cause neighbour to kill neighbour in northern Ireland, or sunni and shia islam that cause neighbour to kill neighbour in Iraq etc., are perfectly acceptable, aren't they?

All religions are dangerous cults. They are all divisive. They all believe they hold the only truth, the only path to "righteousness" and "heaven". They all dictate what how their members should behave. They all consider "non-believers" to be heretics or apostates. They are responsible for the deaths of inordinate numbers of people who didn't happen to believe what they were told to believe by the shamans of the day.

longpete wrote:

Ted Elgar wrote:
How the hell did we make it to circumcision? One thing, it's genital mutilation. As many nerve endings as finger tips etc. I'm quite attached to mine, that's for sure.

Now. Back to topic:

""I believe this is an extremist cult and sect.."

"They split families and I am deeply concerned about their impact on communities across Australia."

Kevin Rudd (former Austrialian Prime Minister).

So a cult is "extremist" if it splits families and causes division between brother and sister, husband and wife. Whereas mainstream religions like protestant and catholic, that cause neighbour to kill neighbour in northern Ireland, or sunni and shia islam that cause neighbour to kill neighbour in Iraq etc., are perfectly acceptable, aren't they?

All religions are dangerous cults. They are all divisive. They all believe they hold the only truth, the only path to "righteousness" and "heaven". They all dictate what how their members should behave. They all consider "non-believers" to be heretics or apostates. They are responsible for the deaths of inordinate numbers of people who didn't happen to believe what they were told to believe by the shamans of the day.

longpete wrote:

All religions are dangerous cults. They are all divisive. They all believe they hold the only truth, the only path to "righteousness" and "heaven". They all dictate what how their members should behave. They all consider "non-believers" to be heretics or apostates. They are responsible for the deaths of inordinate numbers of people who didn't happen to believe what they were told to believe by the shamans of the day."

So is sport, I have seen people get attacked and murdered just because they support a different football team to someone else.

Lets just eradicate everything.

Man, I really messed up that post.

DanMacc wrote:
Man, I really messed up that post.

Never mind, you tried, that's the important thing ;-)

I adhere to the Jungian idea that if a man uses his religion to improve himself then that religion is performing a healthy psychological function; but that as soon as he begins to try and externalise that religion, for example by imposing morality on others, or using his religion as an identifier to mark him as different and superior to other groups, then his religiosity becomes unhealthy.

I guess some of the people bashing religion are happy with the outcome of the world we live in today. I would rather believe in God then worship the xfactor winner each year, or the trash from the only way is essex .

longpete wrote:

Ted Elgar wrote:
How the hell did we make it to circumcision? One thing, it's genital mutilation. As many nerve endings as finger tips etc. I'm quite attached to mine, that's for sure.

Now. Back to topic:

""I believe this is an extremist cult and sect.."

"They split families and I am deeply concerned about their impact on communities across Australia."

Kevin Rudd (former Austrialian Prime Minister).

So a cult is "extremist" if it splits families and causes division between brother and sister, husband and wife. Whereas mainstream religions like protestant and catholic, that cause neighbour to kill neighbour in northern Ireland, or sunni and shia islam that cause neighbour to kill neighbour in Iraq etc., are perfectly acceptable, aren't they?

All religions are dangerous cults. They are all divisive. They all believe they hold the only truth, the only path to "righteousness" and "heaven". They all dictate what how their members should behave. They all consider "non-believers" to be heretics or apostates. They are responsible for the deaths of inordinate numbers of people who didn't happen to believe what they were told to believe by the shamans of the day.

You really are naive. Remember that really religious Iraq war?

JulianH wrote:
I guess some of the people bashing religion are happy with the outcome of the world we live in today. I would rather believe in God then worship the xfactor winner each year, or the trash from the only way is essex .

HAHAHA The world is in such a mess BECAUSE of religion. Lets just get rid of it and let science rule us. FACT NOT FICTION. FACT NOT FICTION.

DanMacc wrote:

JulianH wrote:
I guess some of the people bashing religion are happy with the outcome of the world we live in today. I would rather believe in God then worship the xfactor winner each year, or the trash from the only way is essex .

HAHAHA The world is in such a mess BECAUSE of religion. Lets just get rid of it and let science rule us. FACT NOT FICTION. FACT NOT FICTION.

So what is fact then? Has anyone proven god doesn't exist? Do aliens exist? What about spirits, ghosts or highly evolved creatures dwelling in other dimensions? What are the extents of the universe? Are there extents? What is dark matter? Is time travel possible? Are there infinite parallel universes? Was there more than one big bang?

As I have previously pointed out, only a matter of four or five years ago, I, through the facts obtained through science, knew that the atom was the smallest particle in the universe.

Therefore, take this as fact; we do NOT know that many FACTS (I used capitals as you seem to like that). What I do know, or at least believe, is that humanity is evolving, and part of this evolution is a greater level of tolerance and intergration. Sadly, it seems there are some that are determined to be left behind.....

JulianH wrote:
I guess some of the people bashing religion are happy with the outcome of the world we live in today. I would rather believe in God then worship the xfactor winner each year, or the trash from the only way is essex .

Yes - badly written, poor role models, irrelevant and pandering to the lowest common denominator. And that's just the bible, xfactor and the only way is essex are even worse.

(•_•)

( •_•)>⌐■-■

(⌐■_■)

ushmush - with regard to the existence of God/god (there's a lot to choose from after all), burden of proof normally lies with the person who made the initial, positive claim (in this case, for the existence of God) and who is therefore responsible for providing evidence why their position merits acceptance. If sufficient evidence cannot be provided the other party is allowed to disregard the claim without having to disprove it.

And proof exists really only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Science is empirical and deals with things as they exist, so the primary criterion in scientific theory is evidence not proof - all scientific knowledge is by definition tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. So it was never a "fact" that the atom was the smallest particle for instance, just with the knowledge at the time that was the most likely answer.

Maybe one day then, science will have enough knowledge to state that in all probability, actually, the universe probably was created by a higher being - but given the number of different gods worshipped now and through history, I'd still find it very unlikely for it to be one of them who was behind it all.

Anyway, I fear that is getting bogged down in semantics, and your overall point that tolerance is important is a good one - however when a healthy disbelief in God is aligned with watching X Factor and being responsible for all that is wrong in the world today, you have to question quite where the tolerance is needed most.

Robot, I couldn't agree with you more. JulianH's comment was foolish, not sure I know anyone that worships x factor winners, as far as I can remember they disappear each year after Christmas. Also, all of your points about science, proof, facts and what not, basically support my argument: that we never truly know everything.

Funnily enough I do not believe in god or creation, but I take exception to people wishing to religious individuals having children, or that we should ban (or 'get rid of') religion altogether. This would surely be imposing ones beliefs upon another, an accusation often levelled at organised religion. These people can't see their own hypocrisy!