Religion
Related: About this forumA pertinent and important cross-post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025079945Anyone who glibly compare this to anything else, including religious belief, is truly fucked up.
Response to rug (Original post)
Adam051188 This message was self-deleted by its author.
murielm99
(30,656 posts)Thanks.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)of psychosis and it was one of the most terrifying experiences of my life.
I agree. Those that use this in a glib way really have no idea what they are saying and have zero credibility in my book.
rug
(82,333 posts)Truly inescapable misery.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)For those of you keeping score at home:
Accusing people of having auditory hallucinations = bad
Accusing people of having visual hallucinations = okay
rug
(82,333 posts)How about you, Heddi? Do you think this compares to religious belief. Don't be afraid to answer.
BTW, that post you searched with such alacrity refers to misreading something, probably deliberately, not visual hallucinations. I'm surprised. I thought you were some sort of medical professional.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)To make personal attacks. Class act on your part again.
rug
(82,333 posts)She may heed your advice.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)me a bigot recently. You should heed the advice also.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)School on a holiday.
That you don't get it makes it even funnier.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)School on a holiday. Think about it. What is there none of when school is on a holiday?
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Thanks, rug. I needed a good laugh today, and boy, did you provide it.
rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Save your money. You already provide me with enough entertainment.
rug
(82,333 posts)Nice deflection
rug
(82,333 posts)"Anyone who glibly compare this to anything else, including religious belief, is truly fucked up."
Are you not entertained?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I am entertained. You're doing great!
rug
(82,333 posts)Knowing when to fold is a good thing.
rug
(82,333 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)Here, you even ADMIT that it's a slur: "Your streak of using mental illness as a slur is intact."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=119781
Of course you've always granted yourself the "it's okay if I do it" exception
If had no history of the major players in this forum, I'd expect your campfire pals to come crashing down on your post for using a clinical term to slur another poster. For using a clinical term in a colloquial way.
see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=22128
and here : http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=86060
but I know that will never happen.
Once again:
Atheist uses "delusional" in a colloquial way = bad
Rug uses "delusional" in a colloquial way = okay.
So far in this thread we have learned that you okay with suggesting that others suffer from hallucinations, but think it is wrong when other so. We have learned in this thread that it is okay when you accuse others of being delusional, but it is wrong when others do.
Please don't bother to respond, because I really don't care about what you have to say. I'll let your hypocritical words, and the repeated inaction of those who wring their hands and gnash their teeth if someone who identified as a non-believer said the same thing stand on their own for everyone to see.
rug
(82,333 posts)Repeating his favorite phrase to him is hardly an endorsement.
BTW, next time don't say Ah! like that. It's startling, like when Noman dressed as Mrs. Bates flew out of the room and attacked the private detective.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)Hallucinations are not that rare or restricted to only the mentally ill. They are more common across the population.than people might think. Probably many here have had one at some time.
As far as religion, it is apparent that some religious experiences can be explained as hallucinations, either audio or visual. But I think the perception of what it was comes from predisposed religious belief. As opposed to hallucinations = beliefs.
rug
(82,333 posts)Whatever you consider to be religious experiences or religious hallucinations, it's not that.
It's an odious and ignorant comparison.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)not this specific one. This one is not that, as you say.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)For instance, a seizure isn't a hallucination at all, it's a pathological sync or excess in firing neurons in your brain. It's pretty well understood. The Russian author, Dostoyevsky, was convinced that he was in the presence of god when it was happening. He was told they were seizures, he knew they were seizures, and he incorporated it into one of his characters in a book, and yet, to him, the presence of god was real in that condition.
There are likewise, people who claim to have auditory hallucinations, that ARE divine in some way. How do we tell? Moreover, how does the person experiencing it tell?
The ecstasy of Teresa of Ávila. What do we make of that, as external, indirect observers? Was that a physical medical issue like a stroke, a hallucination, made up, or divine/supernatural?
I'm happy to speak up and point it out when I see the term used as invective. But there are also practical, non-invective uses of the term. Some that may intrude into this realm, if not as religion, perhaps as people believe they experience religious events.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)distinguish auras or hallucinations due to them from other kinds.
Some people do believe that their hallucinations are "divine". One often sees this during a manic episode and it is sometimes a way for someone with psychosis to try and understand what is happening to them.
In general, it doesn't matter what the person thinks they mean. If they are disturbing, disruptive or cause a person to behave in a way that causes them to be dangerous or unable to care for themselves, they should be addressed. It becomes much murkier when a person is not disturbed by them and they do not cause an impairment. Most state laws would not permit you to treat that person against their will.
I think it's important to note that hallucinations due to psychiatric conditions are neurological events, just like they are if precipitated by a seizure or tumor or metabolic disturbance.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)the external perception of a seizure to bystanders observing the victim, is not merely a side effect of divine visitation?
Obviously I don't believe that, but speaking hypothetically, I can't know that for certain. Throughout much of the bible, divine contact is often described as terrifying to the core, some flop on the ground, etc.
St. Teresa's sainthood is at least partially built on conditions that, looking back historically, sure sound like a mental health issue, un-treated. I can't know that, but sure does sound like it. Oneiroid hallucinations, or divine contact warranting sainthood by way of the prayer reforms she led as a result? I know how the RCC answered that question, but honestly doesn't look like they chose the right answer, to me.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In the end it doesn't matter. Seizures generally impair someone's life and can place them in danger. They generally need to be treated.
No you don't know for certain whether there is some underlying mystical event going on, but does it make any difference? Not to me.
My personal opinion is that "miracles" have explanations that are neurological or otherwise medically explained. But if others want to embrace another explanation for things that happened in the past, it makes no difference to me at all. Saints don't generally have any impact on my life.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)For instance, whether the subjective interpretation of an experience such as a seizure, by a person, can be credibly interpreted as a bona fide supernatural contact.
That's actually a real, meaningful question in some places/circles. Auditory hallucinations like the audio track in the OP's video could also be questioned in that manner. I've never once in my entire life heard a voice inside my head. If I was hearing things like that, I might well be led to think some intelligence other than my own (possibly colloquially described as 'demons') was putting it there.
I, of course, readily assume all such instances are medical malfunctions, or misperceptions, but there are those who genuinely disagree. (and it isn't just religion where such questions come into play, either.)
Anyway, to make a long story short, I hope to see continued discussions/questions, when this sort of issue arises, but on the other hand, I hope such discussion is free of viciousness/invective. It's possible to talk about these things, even critically, without belittling the person having the experience.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)religious explanations for these as a way of trying to make sense of them. This can happen whether they were religious prior to the episode or not.
Others think it's the CIA or extraterrestrials or ghosts or something else. It doesn't much matter. If it's a problem, then it needs a diagnostic work up and appropriate treatment. If it's not a problem, then so be it.
I am seeing a pretty civil discussion here, and I am glad for that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And it's not a comfortable question, but it colors part of my worldview. I don't mean to spring this later in the conversation like some mustachioed villain in a top hat, leaping out of the bushes, having set a trap earlier but...
What of the credibility of a professionally religious institution, like the RCC, getting their assessment of what happened to Teresa of Ávila, wrong?
Shouldn't they know? Shouldn't they be able to tell? If they canonized her upon that, doesn't that chuck credibility out the window? (Cue willhelm scream)
Like I said, I don't raise this as a 'gotcha' late in a conversation, just, this is where I'm coming from when I get frustrated with certain entities that profess to know, and then act upon their purported knowledge. When wrong, does it not then call into question every other thing they do/proclaim with assumed authority?
Not really looking for a comprehensive solution type answer here, just raising it as an example, so that you might better understand me, for past or future conversations.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And what difference would it make, other than to score some points against the RCC? Who is harmed by her being canonized?
Lots of people and groups profess to know lots of things and act on that belief. Even if they are wrong, they are possibly just wrong about part of it, so it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that would chuck all credibility out the window.
Being skeptical is often a very good thing. Making judgements about a all the positions taken by an individual or group based on finding one part untrue is lazy, imo.
My takeaway, in terms of understanding you better, is that you would like to find reasons to "chuck all credibility" and "call into question every thing" that the RCC does or proclaims with assumed authority by finding something they are wrong about.
That's just too black and white for me. Lots of groups that I am or have been associated with have made mistakes or followed the wrong path, including scientifically based groups. That doesn't lead me to conclude that they have no credibility at all.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)because of the church's political activism, against multiple progressive issues. Courts, lobbying, even telling members that faith doctrine should guide their votes.
I focus on the RCC, because its influence is particularly strong here in the Pac NW, and most of the US overall. If you look at a religious breakdown of the population by legislative districts, it's staggering.
If one could fell the catholic doctrine at a single stroke, it opens up at least DEBATE on issues like abortion and access thereto, insurance that covers abortion and contraceptives, end of life decisions, you name it. Not all Catholics are staunchly against such things just because the RCC says so, but it is a significant component for an enormous number of voters.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't share your wish to fell all catholic doctrine in one stroke, but I will share your wish to challenge them on individual issues on which I think they are wrong.
Not sure who you hope to convince here. Catholics in general?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Certainly at the individual level. I'll give them credit, members of the church score higher in acceptance of contraceptives, than the general us public. That's cool.
But their membership being such, doesn't constrain the RCC from suing over the ACA because of the contraceptives coverage implicit in the law. They could blow a hole in the ACA, even though their membership not only could benefit from it, but actually approves of it.
It's a weird state of political being to exist in.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This episode is about living on minimum wage for 30 days.
They are only going to maybe make it because they are accessing services provided by religious organizations, including the catholic church.
So there are some good things and bad things associated with that institution. I, for one, am not at all in favor of throwing this particular baby out with the bathwater.
So I will fight them on political issues with which I disagree, but I will not advocate for or support those who think the whole thing needs to be taken done.
In the end, that would cause enormous harm to the neediest and most marginalized among us.
And I wish you could see that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)restrict their activism to members of the church. For instance, telling members that it is not acceptable to use contraceptives, while, in my estimate, is deplorable, it is also 'acceptable'. Membership in the church is elective, and in that context seeks to impart no control on people outside the church.
But what we have, is a very real threat to a mandate that covers non-catholics. It reaches quite beyond elective members in that faith.
If they can keep the doctrine to themselves, hey, I got no beef with them. I would still retain a negative personal feeling about it, but I wouldn't feel any compunction to engage the church politically.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)like most groups and institutions, has good aspects and bad aspects. And you would be doing a wonderful thing by not only recognizing that, but confining your crusade to the bad parts instead of trying to take down the whole institution.
Because you might actually make a difference if you chose your battles and proceeded accordingly. OTOH, you really aren't going to make much difference if your goal is to destroy all their credibility because it's just not going to happen.
Part of their doctrine is caring for the poor. So do you want them to abandon all of their doctrine or just parts of it?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The one that ousts 'cafeteria catholics' that actually weigh the bits and pieces and select which parts they support. (IIRC most of which are politically progressive.)
The pope says they aren't really catholics.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2014/06/pope-francis-rigid-traditionalists-and-cafeteria-catholics-arent-really-catholics/
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)that they claim it issues from. If that makes sense.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They may be experienced when people are waking up or falling asleep and there are some metabolic/neurological conditions that may cause them, but are otherwise very rare outside of those with significant psychiatric illnesses .
Where did you get that idea?
In addition, I have never seen any data that shows that hallucinations are more common in religious people than in non-religious people or that there is any difference in the rates of psychiatric illnesses. I don't think it's apparent that some religious experiences can be explained as hallucinations, although clearly some people with psychiatric illnesses are also religious.
I again ask where you got that idea.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)are more common that people think and are often the cause for people who think they have experienced visitations, spiritual, alien etc..
I did not say religious people are more prone, just that they would more likely interpret it through that filter.
We may be differing between a more narrow definition of clinical hallucinations and a more general idea of seeing glows or hearing sounds. Which are more common.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)pathological. They are entirely different that the kinds of hallucinations experienced by people with psychiatric disorders and comparing them is a really bad idea. They are also not that common and they are nothing like what you will hear on this recording.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)and not specifically about this recording.
Are you saying all hallucinations must be analyzed as if they are the same as this recording?
And I have seen numbers of around a third of the population for the more benign type hallucinations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/seeing-things-hearing-things-many-of-us-do.html?_r=0
cbayer
(146,218 posts)you are asking whether someone who reports hallucinations should be assumed to be having something similar to this recording.
If that is the case, the answer is clearly no, and it would only take a question or two to determine whether these are hallucinations that may represent a serious underlying illness or are relatively benign.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)and your response seemed to infer I was.
Wanted to clarify that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The point of the OP was that serious psychiatric disorders and symptoms are, well, serious. Making the claim, as some here have done, that religious people are psychiatrically ill is both a disservice to believers and to the psychiatrically ill.
I may have misread, but I thought you were supporting the position that equates religious beliefs/experiences with psychiatric illness, and that is what I challenged.
Sorry if I misunderstood.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)I was making a more general comment about hallucinations.
I think the point of the OP might have been, "This is a horrible hallucination. If you mention hallucination and religion you are saying this horrible thing is the same as belief."
That isn't true, some people who hallucinate, which I have said is more common and not restricted to only the psychotic, might interpret it as a religious experience, depending on their beliefs.
I have certainly read historical accounts of religious visions that sound like hallucinations.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The post was prompted by some ongoing debate here about religion being a psychiatric illness, a concept which I strongly oppose.
OTOH, people with psychosis often develop religious themes to help them make sense out of what is happening to them. This can occur whether they were religious before the break or not.
I also agree that some experiences and events that are described as religious are sometimes more likely to be neurological than some mystical experiences.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)but I am curious what you think of post 39 in this context.
pinto
(106,886 posts)I have a seizure disorder. Learned after the first one that the glow was the "aura" preceding a seizure. Very visual, the reverse of a movie screen going black to a visual field going white. So I gained another interest - anti-seizure meds.
Science, medicine and religion can coexist! I see your point, though. Some may take it as a religious experience, which I also can understand. Certainly gave me a new perspective on things...
Take a half dozen people and ask them to describe the view from a window. You're likely to get a half dozen different accounts.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)I don't think all religious people will interpret it that way. But some have.
Others have thought hynagogic dreams are alien visitations.
pinto
(106,886 posts)The medical terms in the discussion are unfamiliar to me, yet I think I get the gist.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)is sometimes called waking dreams. It's when you are half awake and see something. (Your brain is still dreaming) It feels very real but isn't. It is the reason behind many stories of ghost, demons, aliens and other beings people think have visited them at night.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)This simulation does not match your experience but it will be some peoples experience of religion. What is more given the extremes of behaviour that some groups undergo to achieve religious enlightenment visual and auditory hallucinations of this nature are inevitable. Starvation, sleep deprivation, physical exhaustion and isolation can all lead to such phenomena.
rug
(82,333 posts)And I will l say this categorically: that is no person's experience of religion.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)I have stated, uncontroversially, that some people will have had religious experiences based on this type of hallucination and hence their belief will be based on that.
You have only declared, wrongly, that such experiences cannot be compared to religious belief without providing any supporting evidence.
Consider St Paul, the description of his enlightenment on the road is a classic description of such hallucinations possibly due to a head injury caused by falling from a horse.
okasha
(11,573 posts)is absolutely nothing like the recording in the OP. Paul's experience apparently had quite coherent visual and auditory elements--including an intelligible conversation.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)... there are 2 inconsistent versions of of the event (did his companions hear the event or not?) and those subject to hallucinations and dreams will confuse the chronology and make their account coherent rather than describe the chaos actually experienced. This last is such a common process it even has a name - confabulation.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)and thought the experience was religious in nature?
rug
(82,333 posts)Writhing on the ground going off heroin cold turkey is not an example of religious ecstasy either.
Ask disc jockey's who have tried days without sleep, or people who are starving themselves, or those who isolate themselves for months or years - like hermits or the Desert Fathers.
rug
(82,333 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)But here 3 citations in respect of sleep deprivation
Alhola, Paula; Päivi Polo-Kantola (October 2007). "Sleep deprivation: Impact on cognitive performance". Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 3 (5): 553567. PMC 2656292. PMID 19300585. "Although both conditions [total and partial SD] induce several negative effects including impairments in cognitive performance, the underlying mechanisms seem to be somewhat different."
T A Wehr The British Journal of Psychiatry (1991) 159: 576-578
Sleep-loss as a possible mediator of diverse causes of mania.
UC Berkeley News Sleep loss linked to psychiatric disorders By Yasmin Anwar, October 2007
A couple in respect of starvation/dehydration
Starvation causes acute psychosis due to anterior thalamic infarction. from [link:Starvation causes acute psychosis due to anterior thalamic infarction.|PubMed] The abstract specifically mentions auditory hallucinations.
Wellness Wordworks Maria Mangicaro What Is Brief Reactive Psychosis?
Brief reactive psychosis is not a result of drugs or alcohol, the NIH says.
Alan Hilfer, chief psychologist at Maimonides Medical Center in New York City, told ABC News:
Dehydration can absolutely cause all the signs of mental confusion he seemed to be experiencing, adding that severe dehydration would most likely be brought on by illness, but could also result from poor self-care. Starvation, can also cause acute psychosis. A bad reaction to a medication, possible a prescription sleep aide, might also be to blame, he said
Only one for isolation because I'm bored of doing your research for you
Lonely Madness: The Effects of Solitary Confinement and Social Isolation on Mental and Emotional Health via Serendip
rug
(82,333 posts)I will bookmark the links though.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Did your research for you again
Maybe he should have been. In photographs taken at the beginning of the wake-a-thon, Tripp appears confident, relaxed. Everyones eyes are on him, which is exactly what he wanted. After the second day, the sly grin has been replaced with a glum, nervous expression. By day five Tripp looks haggard, haunted and slightly crazed.
He was crazed, too, and not just slightly. While Tripp somehow managed to keep it together during broadcasts, off the air he was experiencing wild hallucinations. He saw mice and kittens scampering around the makeshift studio. He was convinced that his shoes were full of spiders. He thought a desk drawer was on fire. When a man in a dark overcoat showed up, Tripp imagined him to be an undertaker and ran terrified into the street. He had to be dragged back inside.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)Are you trying to make an argument against the idea that what some call religious experiences can be found in other ways that are not religious?
Or are you narrowly saying this particular audio is not like other sounds or voices people her that they may interpret as a religious event?
rug
(82,333 posts)What that recording illustrates is raw illness. You can draw as much of a comparison between that and religious experience as you can with a CT scan of a stage 4 lung tumor.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)Because I would say they may be similar in some few instances
I would agree that audio is unlike most of the descriptions of people hearing divine voices.
Though ill people do claim to hear God, I imagine it might around like that
I don't have a problem with you preemptively saying that people should not equate this audio with religious beliefs.
But I don't think you can categorical say there are no similarities to other types.
rug
(82,333 posts)That includes visual, olfactory and tactile hallucinations.
I don't think that is true.
As discussed elsewhere on this thread. Some hallucinations are very similar to some religious experiences.
In fact there are many other types of experiences that are similar to religious experiences.
rug
(82,333 posts)Differential diagnoses are one of the first things learned in medical school.
but both have biological causes.
I don't know what your point is.
As an atheist I would say all hallucinations have internal causes. I can see why a believer would say some have divine causes.
But I don't think it's realistic to say all religious experiences are divinely caused and there is no overlap or no mistaking one for the other.
that seems to be a very shaky stance.
rug
(82,333 posts)After all, as we know, atheism is mute on anything beyond the absence of god(s).
edhopper
(33,182 posts)Was just my atheism, but it was a preamble. Perhaps if I had said as a rational person instead of atheist you could have found a different non-sequitor to reply with to avoid the debate.
rug
(82,333 posts)Atheism is already being stretched to cover all sorts of things: science, progress, logic, enlightenment, etc.
Religion, as such, has no place in government. Atheism, as such, has no place in science.
edhopper
(33,182 posts)But disregarding the existence of a God has everything to do with Science.
No scientific finding we have is compatible with there being the supernatural. Non-believing scientist don't have to leave there atheism at the door when in the lad. But religious ones often do.
And as I said, just replace atheism with rationalism. Either way I expressed it as my opinion and made a larger point to contest yours, or what I gathered was yours. You could address that if you want, or find another tangent.
Anyway I'm off to bed.
rug
(82,333 posts)Have a good rest.
I did.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)To go beyond that to a specific problem, hardware or wetware, then requires medical expertise.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)IMO, there is a clear answer to that.
People sometimes develop religious explanations for psychotic symptoms in an attempt to understand or explain what is happening to them. This can happen whether they were religious prior to the episode or not.
And while you are right that certain practices associated with some religions can lead to a psychotic state, that does mean that religion itself leads to the psychotic state. All of the things you list can happen in any number of circumstances.
A medical resident who is severely sleep deprived may develop psychotic symptoms. That does not mean that medical residency causes psychosis or that psychosis is a residency based condition.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)I said that the physical extremes I described do lead to such states. Those perceived as holy have in the history Christianity and other faiths used such practices which do lead to this type of hallucination; equally there are those who suffer from such hallucinations naturally and have been pulled into many varieties of faith.
There are other experiences not involving hallucinatory visions or voices which can be perceived as holy and can be triggered by self hypnosis, group hypnosis and meditation.
Please note I am not demonising Christianity specifically all faiths use these types of shamanism.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If an individual or group has practices that lead to psychotic states, then that should be addressed if it causes harm or danger. If those practices do not lead to that, then what difference does it make.
Again, this is in no way only seen within religions and most religions don't adhere to these kinds of practices.
The issue is when people conflate religion with psychiatric illness. It's wrong on just about every level.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Think of Christian Science or other Faith Healing, or Scientology, or the practices of some of the Fakir in Hinduism.
Of course there is a school of thought that, ultimately, all religion is harmful because it is a delusion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Those that see all religion as a delusion are wrongheaded, intolerant, misinformed, poorly educated and no better than those that think all atheists are immoral.
The question of when a specific religious practice or belief causes harm is an ethical issue and very complex. There are groups, like hospital ethics committees, that deal with it frequently and on a case by case basis. Sometimes it's a legal issue as well.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)but I didn't think it would upset you that much. The thing is that if religion is not descriptive of reality then it is a delusion - but not necessarily a harmful one. Steering away from Christianity then examine Scientology, it is based on a deluded version of reality and definitely causes harm.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)or a more colloquial one?
Who is to determine whether religion is descriptive of reality or not? Certainly there are areas on which there would be broad consensus that something is not consistent with reality. But so much of religion is in a grey area where no one really knows what is or isn't the truth.
I don't think Scientology meets the criteria for a religion, but does meet the criteria for a cult. I know there can be a lot of debate about what is religion and what is cult, but that's my personal view of it.
intaglio
(8,170 posts): a false idea or belief that is caused by mental illness
Merriam Webster
Regarding Scientology, it meets the IRS and Inland Revenue definitions of religion and is definitely regarded by its lower echelons as a faith.
In respect of cults how do you separate them from "valid" religions? Were the cults of Dionysius, Cybele and Mithras religions? Definitely. Was Christianity at the start of the 1st Century CE cult like subset of Judaism? Probably.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They couldn't withstand the legal warriors that the Scientologists brought to the table and eventually just let it go.
I'm not sure what the "lower echelons" are, but it doesn't matter. I don't consider it a religion. I consider it a cult.
As to cults, I have used this table frequently, thought the difference is not always that clear. But I don't think the major religions are cults and would object to them being called that.
http://www.cultclinic.org/qa3.html
intaglio
(8,170 posts)I did specify the early Christian Church.
Firstly the Cult Hotline states there is no definitive answer also it uses some pretty undefined terms such as "mind control techniques" and "Limits development of the individual"
Secondly going through the checklist for the early Church
Deceit in recruitment - well there is the fulfilling the laws and the prophets statement.
Totalitarian - Probably not until much later
Destroys the Family Unit - Luke 5:11 (Peter was married Luke 4:38) and Luke 14:33,
Isolates Members - Luke 18:29 - 30 and 21:16
Commitment encouraged during recruitment process - The recruitment process was the Apostles preach and then baptise
Criticism is met with threats of legal action - not available at the time and dubious for many cults otherwise
Leader and follower consider leader to be above reproach - well, yes
Questioning the leader, or basic tenets, is not allowed - yup
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Surprise surprise!