Rocky

IOW, I disagree that my question was off topic. But I won't push it.

If you have a subscription to Netflix, you may view a new documentary about ‘The Darkness within La Luz del Mundo’ on Netflix, a Grueling Documentary About a Religious Cult That Sheltered its Leaders’ Sex Crimes The Darkness within La Luz del Mundo (now on Netflix) is the second grueling documentary in the last year about the crimes perpetrated by Mexican religious leader Naason Joaquin Garcia. This Netflix original follows 2022’s HBO three-parter Unveiled: Surviving La Luz del Mundo, both of which track the details of Garcia’s serial sexual abuse of minors, and give survivors a platform to share their harrowing experiences. So be aware: the film (a Spanish-language production from director Carlos Perez Osorio) and this review contain some difficult-to-hear, potentially upsetting testimonials, but they carry the weight and power of truth – truth that could potentially topple a morally corrupt figurehead. The Gist: “We chose him as our savior.” That’s how the followers of Aaron Joaquin Gonzalez choose to phrase their devotion to the founder of La Luz del Mundo (which translates to “The Light of the World”), a Christian primitivist church founded in Guadalajara in 1926. Curious, considering Gonzalez declared himself to be an apostle of Jesus Christ after saying he experienced a holy vision. But that’s brainwashing for you, the circular “logic” of a cult – a cult that allegedly perpetrated a vast number of sex crimes, including rape, trafficking and child pornography for nearly a century. Allegations came to light in 2019, when five Jane Does came forward to accuse current church “apostle” Naason Joaquin Garcia of abusing them. It's rated TV-MA and has in a subtitle at the beginning, translating from Spanish, The church says it has 5 million followers and 15,000 temples. Does any of this sound familiar?

And wouldn't it be intriguing to imagine HOW humankind could evolve to somehow not depend on cults behaviors to survive, as individuals or groups?

What's the standard in that lyric? The action word is "imagine," isn't it? Did he imagine? Did he try to imagine what he'd do with or without money? I appreciate the story at that link. Thanks.

Is not the topic of cults inherently related to the characteristics of and interaction of social animals (humans), groups, and that of leaders? Why would you not be interested in imagining, or exploring evolution of cults, social animals, groups, and leadership? Just asking.

Oh, okay.

Oh, okay.

Ants predate humans by hundreds of millions of years. They have evolved with ways to avoid many of the conflicts we humans still struggle with. I hope it won't take humanity that long to figure out how to solve such problems/conflicts.

Ants at Work by Deborah Gordon. 6 Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! 7 It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, 8 yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest. Proverbs 6 ***** The basic mystery about ant colonies is that there is no management. A functioning organization with no one in charge is so UNLIKE the way humans operate as to be virtually inconceivable. There is NO central control. No insect issues commands to another or instructs it to do things a certain way. -- Deborah Gordon, Ants at Work, 1999.

Reiterating STL's gentle request regarding you again seeming to think you (might) know what's going on inside my head. In case you would like to actually know, you could start that other thread as STL so gently requested, and ask me for clarification. In which case, I would simply add that it is my understanding that it is NOT contrary to GSC rules to DISAGREE with points you make, positions you take, claims you state. If YOU feel attacked, that's something YOU might do or feel, not something I do to you.

1) Because humans are inherently social animals. 2) The older you and I get, we are indeed more comfortable and secure in our own skins. Is that because we have FOUND our "tribe?" Those with whom we most relate and from whom we receive/give the most mutual support? I think, maybe. Also, I read something a few days about about the prevalence of organisms, from individual cells to individuals, to colonies, to populations functioning more naturally together, than independently. If I can find that piece, I'll share it here. And I certainly DO agree it's something important to pay attention to.

And WHY do we buy those demands? It's certainly NOT logic. Could it be the human condition of needing/wanting to belong to a group with whom we FEEL comfortable, sharing beleeefs in common?

Why would you believe you have a right to demand or expect obedience or compliance or anything else from anyone? As I understand it, that's not how life works. Whether or not I am authentic is not something, from my perspective, that's at all dependent on whether I ever meet your expectations. In case you MIGHT be interested, here's a gentle reminder of something someone important to me shared recently on FB. If you're not interested, by all means, disregard it. "When someone is at war with themselves, it will be very hard for them to be peaceful with you. Remember that." If you want "real connection" with me, you've been going about it all wrong. As far as what I want, from you or anyone else, is to honor emotional boundaries. I can't expect if from you by demanding it of you. I am NOT trying to woo or control or influence or manipulate you for ANY kind of relationship. As I DID say to you recently, you and I have NO relationship of any kind that would cause me to want to manipulate you for any reason. My wholeness (emotional or otherwise) is in no way dependent on you or anyone else, either here or IRL.

The only thing I challenge(d) was that willfully ignorant people were the only ones who couldn't/wouldn't recognize it. Those who are blissfully ignorant (by default) usually can't see it either. Perhaps that's why pictures of crowds of Germans saluting their fuhrer and only one person declining to do so is so stark. Human nature is human nature. Having to suffer before people begin to recognize the absurdity is part of human nature, perhaps unfortunately.

Gramsci argued that consent to the rule of the dominant group is achieved by the spread of ideologies—beliefs, assumptions, and values—through social institutions such as schools, churches, courts, and the media, among others. These institutions do the work of socializing people into the norms, values, and beliefs of the dominant social group. As such, the group that controls these institutions controls the rest of society. Cultural hegemony is most strongly manifested when those ruled by the dominant group come to believe that the economic and social conditions of their society are natural and inevitable, rather than created by people with a vested interest in particular social, economic, and political orders. [...] In his essay “The Intellectuals,” written between 1929 and 1935, Gramsci described the power of ideology to reproduce the social structure through institutions such as religion and education. He argued that society's intellectuals, often viewed as detached observers of social life, are actually embedded in a privileged social class and enjoy great prestige. As such, they function as the “deputies” of the ruling class, teaching and encouraging people to follow the norms and rules established by the ruling class.

I disagree with your claim as to who can't, won't or doesn't see them. It's a matter of cultural hegemony. Most Americans, IMO, CANNOT even see the problem because of the cultural hegemony of Christian thought in our society/culture. Unfortunately, countering cultural hegemony takes much more than pointing it out. It takes. IMO, significantly pervasive artistic expression. Cultural hegemony refers to domination or rule maintained through ideological or cultural means. It is usually achieved through social institutions, which allow those in power to strongly influence the values, norms, ideas, expectations, worldview, and behavior of the rest of society. Cultural hegemony functions by framing the worldview of the ruling class, and the social and economic structures that embody it, as just, legitimate, and designed for the benefit of all, even though these structures may only benefit the ruling class. This kind of power is distinct from rule by force, as in a military dictatorship, because it allows the ruling class to exercise authority using the "peaceful" means of ideology and culture.

How true. Unfortunately, logic is pretty much not associated at all with cult decision making anywhere.

Why would I? Why would you care?

I realize this is but I ask Stayed Too Long's indulgence. More than a decade ago, I faced a hurricane of a storm in my life. My GSC posts at that time reflected the storm I was then immersed in. I came out of the storm not the same person. I'm thankful for having gone through the storm and survived and grown as a person.

That's sad, but I don't doubt the veracity of the study.

Another excerpt from the WaPo article some of you may find this interesting: Religion offers ready-made answers to our most difficult questions. It gives people ways to mark time, celebrate and mourn. Once I vowed not to teach my children anything I did not personally believe, I had to come up with new answers. But I discovered as I went what most parents discover: You can figure it out as you go. Establishing a habit of honesty did not sap the delight from my children’s lives or destroy their moral compass. I suspect it made my family closer than we would have been had my husband and I pretended to our children that we believed in things we did not. We sowed honesty and reaped trust — along with intellectual challenge, emotional sustenance and joy. Those are all personal rewards. But there are political rewards as well. My children know how to distinguish fact from fiction — which is harder for children raised religious. They don’t assume conventional wisdom is true and they do expect arguments to be based on evidence. Which means they have the skills to be engaged, informed and savvy citizens. We need citizens like that.

I don't wish to continue bickering with you at this time. Are you willing to leave it at that?

From Washington Post, today October 3, 2023: (all readers are able to read the rest of this WaPo essay for no charge because I subscribe by clicking the link) I like to say that my kids made me an atheist. But really what they did was make me honest. I was raised Jewish — with Sabbath prayers and religious school, a bat mitzvah and a Jewish wedding. But I don’t remember ever truly believing that God was out there listening to me sing songs of praise. I thought of God as a human invention: a character, a concept, a carry-over from an ancient time. I thought of him as a fiction. Today I realize that means I’m an atheist. It’s not complicated. My (non)belief derives naturally from a few basic observations: The Greek myths are obviously stories. The Norse myths are obviously stories. L. Ron Hubbard obviously made that stuff up. Extrapolate. The holy books underpinning some of the bigger theistic religions are riddled with “facts” now disproved by science and “morality” now disavowed by modern adherents. Extrapolate. Life is confusing and death is scary. Naturally, humans want to believe that someone capable is in charge and that we continue to live after we die. But wanting doesn’t make it so. Child rape. War. Etc. And yet, when I was younger, I would never have called myself an atheist — not on a survey, not to my family, not even to myself.

It's NOT about YOU. That's all I'm going to explain about it at this time. Not everything you (might) take personally is actually about you.