If a leader dies or becomes incapable of continuing, someone else takes leadership of a cult. To my knowledge, cults follow hierarchies. If you have in mind a cult without leaders and hierarchical structure, please give an example.
But I thort everything was subjective?
: p
1 Like
And, as I said and pointed out in my first post here -
While one believes that they need money to survive, and does not question this, then they are in a cult.
Thank you for providing the evidence for, and verifying, my assertion.
Why don’t you tell us the alternative for money?
Very simple and realistic scenario: We are farmers, I produce corn, you produce cotton. You need my corn, I do not need your cotton. How are you going to convince me to give you corn?
The difference between you and me is that you question without asking how we reached this stage as societies.
I have questioned first why societies needed money in the first place, I got the answer and I simply do not have a better alternative in mind. Please give us a better one.
What you said if I have mind …, has nothing to do with what I said and claimed.
Now, if you want to go back to and focus on what I said and claimed, then that would be good.
You are still yet to answer my questions.
Also, if after a leader dies someone else takes leadership of a cult, then this could be interpreted as countering what you intended when you said and claimed after Charles Manson got in jail, his cult dessolved.
First you give me the alternative for money
You actually made me unironically smile.
Thank you for that. (EDIT: No, i did not mean this as an act of condescension or anything like that)
That being said, no: Its not a self contradiction on my part.
I categorize things by their framework. Human beings, me, you, him, every individual is by their very definition and existence subjective, because your idea of reality and truth is subject to your individual experiences and knowledge.
You view the world the way you can view it. Through the lens of what you know, learned, experienced.
Aaaaand also that being said:
The fact that we are subjective by our very nature does not mean that objective truth does not exist outside of us.
It all comes down to the proverb of the three truths. Yours. Mine. And the truth.
I responded to your question if a leader is permanent. As long as he is active and alive, the leader does not change. That was the intention of my first answer. The subsequent response was in a different question. Sorry if you interpreted differently.
Why do I not tell you the alternative for money is because ‘what that is’ has nothing to do in regards to this thread about cults. I prefer to keep on topic instead.
That you are still using the “need” word here, is just more evidence of you do not question things and just follow things. Which is how you can know that you are in a cult.
As I stated and pointed out earlier.
Your claim here is just too absurd to reply to.
You can claim what you have here. But, what you questioned shows how indoctrinated you really are, in the cult that you are.
I gave my definition of the cult, so I very much replied to this thread.
Unless you give me the alternative for money, you fail to justify the “question everything”. I questioned, I got an answer, I was satisfied with that. Even with your generalistic definition you cannot show that I belong to a cult.
The discussion with you is done on this topic.
What happens if I do not?
When, and if, you want to get back to the actual words I have used, and put forward, then we can discuss further.
If you know there is “your truth”, and, “the truth”, why then do you have both of them?
Also, which one is the “objective truth”?
If it is “the truth”, then why have your own personal subjective Truth, which does not even align with “the objective truth”.
Just because a leader might not change, for a particular period of a cult, does not mean that other things do not change, which is what you were trying to imply.
Are you now trying to claim that your only intention was that as long as a leader is active and alive, then the leader does not change?
If this is what you intended, then why?
Now you are really trying your hardest to deflect and detract.
Look, you said what you did above. I will leave it at that.
So, if I do not answer, I somehow, under your logic, fail to justify the “question everything”.
You are satisfied with some answer regarding a question some question about how we reached the money stage only as societies.
If you questioned further, then you have found the answer to the alternative all by yourself.
Once more, if one is not “questioning everything” and so just blindly follow and abide by rule and orders, then they are in a cult.
Again, you blindly believe that you are not in a cult. Which is what all people do when they are first told that they are in a cult.
If you want to finish this discussion with me, then this is fine and okay with me.
Most people in cults want to end all discussions that talk about them being in a cult. You are no different.
Because omniscience is unobtainable. I am not god to know all and be aware of everything.
How do you further break down objective truth? Its the truth. As is. Factual reality.
Because you are an individual and all your thoughts, impressions and experiences including your knowledge, is subjective to you.
What is inside your head, is an impression of reality and not reality itself.
A maximum amount of information exists within this universe. That is the truth.
What is your estimate what percentage of “all information in existence” do you know about?
Is that even a positive number?
Are you anew1? Your ‘response’‘ to my post had nothing to do with my post. Nothing. Can you see that? Go back and take a look. I mean, even if you are anew1, it still has nothing to do with my post.
Do you remember how I responded the first time you said this about Shiva in Geneva to me? Do you notice what others write or is it only what you want to assert that you are aware of? I mean, let’s say you’re right about everything. Congratulations, you’re still, at this point, given the way you are interacting with people, a partial person. Someone not quite aware of other people, running around screaming in people’s ears. Not quite a social entity. More like a radio station or a podcast acting as if it is responding to other people.
Do you remember when I pointed out what they actually say which is different from what you say they say here in the quote? Because I pointed this out, does this mean you are wrong? No. Here’s what full human would do. Integrate what I wrote in your response. To show you understood. You say they say X. I point out they say Y. What do you do? Just repeat that they say X. This creates a dead end.
Do I know if you understood what I wrote?
No, I cannot possibly tell from your response.
Do I know if you read what I wrote?
No, I cannot possibly tell from your response.
If you were right AND knew how to communicate with humans, then you would try to explain the difference there.
You: Claim X!
Other person: But what about Y?
You: Claim X!
This is narcissistic communication. Are you a narcissist? I have no idea. But it’s narcissistic communication because you can only hear yourself. You can vaguely note that the other person has not said ‘Oh, you are so right.’ So, you repeat yourself, as if this is a discussion.
And you seem to have the fallacious belief that repeating yourself over and over will do something other than lead to people just ignoring you.
Can you learn? [rhetorical question]
You are mixing me up with Atla, again. Why are you still so confused?
There you have me referring to you with male pronouns and in the post after Atla referring to you with female pronouns.
Still trying this poor logic. And for some reason making up things I never said. Poor thing. How are your connections to humans in real life going?
I asked you questions and only questions and you responded that my post showed I was in a cult.
Note: I asked you three questions, that was all I wrote in response to you and this was used as evidence I was in a cult. Hypocrite.
Yet, you say here, later, ‘Finally, we find one who asks questions’. Why are you so confused about something so basic?
Seriously, there is deterioration in your communication since you wrote under ‘Age’. Or perhaps you care less and have become more careless. But perhaps it is something more serious.
That you have not recognised the contradiction in “your truth” here, speaks volumes.
What are you basing your perception of “poor logic” on, other than what you believe is true?
Are you not aware of human beings denying they are in cult when they are in a cult?
Also, that quote of mine that you copied here does not stand on its own. It has be read in conjunction with what else I have said. If you do not, then one can quite easily miss the point that I was making. As you have just proved once more.