Everyone wants to change the way you behave

Every organization and individual you interact with wants to change the way you behave. Politicians do it to get votes. Corporations do it to get you to buy their products. Friends, wives, husbands all do it for all kinds of reasons.

It is nearly impossible to interact with someone else without trying to alter their behavior in some way. The difference is mostly in the extent to which they want to alter it, but it is almost always for personal gain and not always intended. Peer pressure is a very powerful force.

Also any group will tend to view non-members in a more negative perspective then members. Most groups exist not just to tie members together, but to keep those who don't adhere to their beliefs out. It isn't something that is limited to religions and cults.

The opposite is true too

It is quite possible to believe in all kinds of stiff, however far fetched or even weird, without changing one's normal behaviour in society. One certainly doesn't need organisations like this.

By the way, I have fond memories of a friend and I being thrown out of the Scientologists' London shop for bursting into song --- Frank Zappa's "What's the ugliest part of your body ... ... ... I think it's your mind".

This is a UK site

Primarily anyway, so calling it a religion would be wrong.

What else could you possibly refer to it as, other than a cult?

All religions are cults...

... the moment their followers abandon their critical facilities ... which is most of the time ... Though Scientology seems better than most at combining incredulity and criminality in one package.

That's why religions don't like each other. Bet no-one is raiding the Vatican files anytime soon.

Oooh, so close ...

The title was right - wow, someone who knows what the word actually *means* - and then you blew it by qualifying. And I think you meant credulity, not incredulity, didn't you?

Extortion methods

I thought the primary wealth of the Catholic Church came largely from extorting money from their followers with the promise of life after death. How is this different from Scientology?

surely

"Church" is a perfectly appropriate name for a bunch of murderous crooks?

Mine's the cassock with the choirboy tear stains at about crotch height..

Why?

Are you going to claim "church" as a trademark?

I don't see Christianity in a particularly different light, preying on the vulnerable and the gullible. They might be less demanding and certainly less overt about it but they still require their tythe.

The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.

As a number of 'Christians' do not consider other 'Christians' to be true 'Christians'. Who gets to decide which group can call them selves a church?

It's only a name

It matters not whether you call them a "church", an "organisation", a "group", a "religion" or a "cult". It's just a name. Changing the name of something does not change what it is. A rose by any other name would smell a sweet. And a bunch of charlatans by any other name would smell as bad.

The basis of your argument seems to be that the using the word "church" somehow legitimises them. I don't understand that since there are an awful lot of "churches" out there who are truly sinister, including the mainstream. Religion has historically been a means of gaining control over the population and/or making money. It's not necessarilly that any religion starts out like that, but there it doesn't take too long before people with those motives will take control. People like that are attracted to organisations like churches.

Agreed

However, if you decide to stop giving them your money, the Christian church doesn't hunt you down and kill you...

Anti-Christian Bigots?

I like that "the net is heavilly infested with anti-christian bigots" is it? What you mean is that when somebody criticizes your beloved church (which one is it, BTW?) you simply accuse them of being a bigot. It's an easy way to believe you've won an argument and common among almost all religious zealots. The trouble for you is that to win an argument it is necessary that your oponent concedes defeat, not just that you refuse to listen to them and shout "bigot".

"Ours is the one true god" they say. And if there are many churches worshiping that god then "ours is the one true religion" is the mantra. As soon as anybody within the church questions its dogma then you throw them out. Should a large number of people question the dogma then it's time for a a schism. And once the church has split in two, and has become smaller, then you can once more chant "ours is the one true religion".

The inteseting thing about your stance is that there are many people on here opposing organised religion, but when you read their comments you see criticism of christianity. And yet they may not be talking about christianity in any of it's forms, it is you who makes that assumption. More than that I suspect that when you say "christian" you don't actually mean "christian" you really mean the branch of christianity that you support. I have no problems if people choose to believe in a god, a prophet or a sacred banana - it's when people start playing on those beliefs in order to control the believers and extort money that I start to object. An interesting question is which came first, organised religion or belief? Did people really believe in gods before some clever caveman told them to. "The fruit on the tree won't grow, unless you make devotions to the fruit god at the foot of the tree every night." Says the clever caveman, and then collects the tributes every night when everybody else is asleep.

The real question here, Turtle, is why you should get to choose who should and should not be allowed to call themselves a church. Does it work on number of members? Or is it the age of the church? Either way, at one point did your chosen "organisation" get to call itself a "church" and what was it before that time?

Criminals? Interestingly many churches seem to exist outside the law, or rather laws are rewritten to bend around them. How does that happen? Members of the church in hpositions of power.

As far as I can see most organised religion exists mainly to play on human weakness in order to extort money from its members. I can see very few major religions that would not, if they were set up today, be treated as a dangerous cult.

Can you explain to me the difference between a legitimate religion and a cult, without referring to age, size or governmental recognition?

Yes

It should be.

It won't be though.

That parasite seem to be too deeply ingrained into Italian society.

good point by amanfromMars

But I wouldn't be surprised if the Vatican had a buit-in exception in the law. There are a few such things; for example, I don't need to sign a privacy disclaimer every time I go to the doctor, because doctors are automatically bound to keep that info secret. The confessional secret may be considered equally valid. Still, it would be hilarious if priests had to get penitents to sign a privacy disclaimer before confession!

Hardley

The Italian police can't raid the Vatican can they? It's not, strictly speaking, in Italy.

@Roger Ruffley

"....there is nothing to raid the Vatican in search of." Your right there's no point in raiding it for non-exsistent confessional records, bu there is plenty more secrets/art/etc stashed away in their vaults that could be raided.

@AC - I think the vatican is considered it's own state, which apparently they could technically enforce passport control on their border (last I heard they even had their own police force).

A Secretive Artificial Intelligence Service?

"Actually the vatican is an independant state not part of italy " ......Thomas Whipp Posted Friday 21st May 2010 14:03 GMT

How very convenient and unusually odd? It is not though, as far as I know, Thomas Whipp, independent whenever it comes to the matter of taxation of Italians.

Tick tock....

With the numbers of Christians falling, it will be interesting to see how much longer they can pay their bills and stay afloat for.

Who else?

So that means there are another eight on your personal top ten. Go on name them.

Incidentanlly were the Taliban in your top ten back when they were fighting the soviets with their US provided weaponry?

I Wonder...

...how many publishers rejected Ron's manuscript before he gave up and used it as a foundation for his cult.