Church of Oprah Exposed: Your thoughts?

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Angela

I kind of figured during the first webcast pre-show when Oprah was talking about how she had taken her Christianity "out of the box" that there would be umbrage.

I thought it was interesting that the first point made in this video was that Oprah, earlier in her career, had said that she disagreed that Christianity was the "one true way" and everyone who believed differently was WRONG. She said she felt that there is room for all kinds of belief and diversity. The video's point of view is that she is WRONG to even say that because of course there is only ONE TRUE WAY.

I agree, there is only ONE TRUE WAY and that is your own.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Angela

Oh my god! You're kidding! Someone is saying we all have a purpose in life -- and a possible life purpose might be to make a difference for others?!? And the masses are falling for this?!? Innocent people are being turned into zombies? That's HORRIBLE! Something must be done! You know, we'd better keep an eye on Steve -- I think he has also advocated a belief that distinguishing an inspiring life's purpose should be decriminalized.

Can we dip them in tar, and set fire to them all!?

EDIT:

re: Oprah and Tom Cruise.

I can only go on what I saw towards the end of her Eckhart Tolle series of web-casts, where she seemed full of admiration for Tom Cruise, and was raving about his wonderful mansion etc. To my way of looking at it, just the fact that she's a very prominent public figure whom a lot of people listen to, coupled, with her approval of and assosiation with Tom Cruise, is a bit alarming; and perhaps indirectly sending out the message that Scientology is acceptable, that it's okay to have that in the world.

That's how I feel about it, maybe there is a case of me not being able to seperate their friendship, as people; and, an implicit approval of his position and beliefs.

re: Life Purpose.

My own take on it, is that we all have different propensities (inclinations) towards different things, as we manifest in to the life-forms that we have; our 'purpose' is inherent, and tied in with our very natures. We define (or perhaps choose) our own life purpose, I don't think anyone gives it to us.

Maybe it also reflects the lessons we're personally here to learn in life?

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by jawillie

I am guessing those who are criticizing this haven't actually READ any of the books. Because, if you had, you would be taking away the judgements.

It is "a way" to get the word out. That's all it is. It is ONE WAY to get information out to people. It is what it is. Why is that so bad?

People get so up in arms anytime money is exchanged, or anytime someone is in the limelight. Who cares?

Why so defensive? What are you defending? My God, even Angela is getting snippy. I didn't know that was possible... must be a sign of the apocalypse. Guess I better sign up on that "Left Behind" website before it's too late.

I imagine Miester Eckhart would say you are clinging to the belief that all people must accept your view.

In a previous post, you were talking about "them"... as in, us vs. them. You ever read that bumper sticker: we are the people our parents warned us about? Well, you are the fundy Christian who doesn't get it as much as you are you.

Said in a less convuluded way: all other people are just you in another form. If there is anything the Internet has taught me, it's tolerance for flaming cow paddies.

I'm sorry this post didn't make any sense. It's been a long night.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

If she's endorsing them, that's really bad. Scientologists brainwash people. They control you and force you to go down their path. The scary thing is how they try to own you financially as well as mentally. Those "stress tests" are actually lie detectors. If you try to leave them, they try to destroy you so you come crawling back. It's awful.

I really believe she's trying to help the world. But if she endorses Scientology... that's dangerous. She does have a lot of power, let's face it. And, I don't think she abuses it. As long as she recommends looking at all different ways of self improvement and not just one (which Scientology believes - there's only one way).

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

I really believe she's trying to help the world. But if she endorses Scientology... that's dangerous. She does have a lot of power, let's face it. And, I don't think she abuses it. As long as she recommends looking at all different ways of self improvement and not just one (which Scientology believes - there's only one way).

I'm not sure she openly and directly endorses Scientology, and I didn't intend to suggest that.

Just that her approval of, and friendship with Tom Cruise (if you check out, I think one of the last two episodes in her recent web-cast series with Tolle), it seems to imply that she doesn't have any big problem with Scientology, and sends out a message that there's nothing to see here, no problem, nothing wrong with Scientology.

Not that I know much about Scientology you understand, and I won't say they're all cuckoo, because I have an aversion to death threats, and legal actions against me; but they do seem to have a bad press.

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Why so defensive? What are you defending? My God, even Angela is getting snippy. I didn't know that was possible... must be a sign of the apocalypse. Guess I better sign up on that "Left Behind" website before it's too late.

I imagine Miester Eckhart would say you are clinging to the belief that all people must accept your view.

In a previous post, you were talking about "them"... as in, us vs. them. You ever read that bumper sticker: we are the people our parents warned us about? Well, you are the fundy Christian who doesn't get it as much as you are you.

Said in a less convuluded way: all other people are just you in another form. If there is anything the Internet has taught me, it's tolerance for flaming cow paddies.

I'm sorry this post didn't make any sense. It's been a long night.

If you saw my post up a few you will see I am aware I was totally feeding my ego with this thread.

Walking away now, you can all discuss this amongst yourselves.

[Niki]

What's so exposing about this vid?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I don't think they are advocating a belief as a belief. That is the problem. They are advocating beliefs as facts or the truth. In fact this swing into a new spiritual era is full of them.

I believe a lot of these 'facts' are proved to oneself just because it feels good, as in Oprah's purpose in life. I wish to know who gives us this damn purpose?

You yourself in your posts advocate your beliefs as fact or the truth. You are saying, "They are advocating beliefs as facts or the truth," you are doing exactly what you seem to be complaining about. What's the problem? Would you prefer that each time someone talks about their beliefs, they qualify it with, "...but remember, this is just MY belief, not fact or the truth." Are you willing to do that for all of your declarations? So far, you have not done that.

I think it's reasonable to trust people to have a brain in their head, and to be able to sift through the beliefs of others without being vulnerable to being turned into a zombie.

My God, even Angela is getting snippy. I didn't know that was possible... must be a sign of the apocalypse. Guess I better sign up on that "Left Behind" website before it's too late.

Sorry if I sounded snippy to you. It just struck me as funny that anyone would feel like we need to be warned of the "dangers" posed by listening to Tolle or Winfrey.

What's all this about Oprah endorsing Scientology, just because she might be friends with a Scientologist? She's a talk show host, for god's sake. She's friends with people of all sorts of beliefs, but that doesn't mean she endorses, shares, or even condones their beliefs. Some of my friends believe in a personal, interventionist god, and I love these people, but that doesn't mean I endorse their religion. Would you prefer that she, or anyone, scorn and shun others because of their beliefs? You seem to feel that she is guilty by association, and she herself should be scorned and shunned.

But take a look at your own lower companions, and see if you would wish to be judged by your association with them!

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Angela

You yourself in your posts advocate your beliefs as fact or the truth. You are saying, "They are advocating beliefs as facts or the truth," you are doing exactly what you seem to be complaining about. What's the problem? Would you prefer that each time someone talks about their beliefs, they qualify it with, "...but remember, this is just MY belief, not fact or the truth." Are you willing to do that for all of your declarations? So far, you have not done that.

I think it's reasonable to trust people to have a brain in their head, and to be able to sift through the beliefs of others without being vulnerable to being turned into a zombie.



Sorry if I sounded snippy to you. It just struck me as funny that anyone would feel like we need to be warned of the "dangers" posed by listening to Tolle or Winfrey.

What's all this about Oprah endorsing Scientology, just because she might be friends with a Scientologist? She's a talk show host, for god's sake. She's friends with people of all sorts of beliefs, but that doesn't mean she endorses, shares, or even condones their beliefs. Some of my friends believe in a personal, interventionist god, and I love these people, but that doesn't mean I endorse their religion. Would you prefer that she, or anyone, scorn and shun others because of their beliefs? You seem to feel that she is guilty by association, and she herself should be scorned and shunned.

But take a look at your own lower companions, and see if you would wish to be judged by your association with them!

They are not a religion. They "think" they are, but they are, in fact, a cult. I've witnessed it firsthand. They tried to make me sign four+ years of my life away with ten to fifteen people in the room all staring at me willing me to sign. I've never felt so much pressure in my life. They say their way is the only way and anyone who is not in scientology is wrong. They truly believe this. They also tried to bind me to them financially so if I did work for even a year, I would never be able to leave without filing for bankruptcy. They have wicked tempers and are extremely scary people. So, I do kind of understand why Oprah shouldn't endorse Tom Cruise. If it was just a religion, it would be different.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

So, I do kind of understand why Oprah shouldn't endorse Tom Cruise.

Again, why do you suggest that Oprah is endorsing Tom Cruise merely by associating with him? You think she should shun and scorn him because of his beliefs, with which you disagree?

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Angela

Again, why do you suggest that Oprah is endorsing Tom Cruise merely by associating with him? You think she should shun and scorn him because of his beliefs, with which you disagree?

Do you think she should be openly friends with a cult leader? You tell me? Anyone who says Scientology is not a cult just doesn't have enough information about them.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Do you think she should be openly friends with a cult leader? You tell me? Anyone who says Scientology is not a cult just doesn't have enough information about them.

I think she should be openly friends with whomever she is openly friends with.

I don't feel vulnerable to being brainwashed or even slightly influenced by Oprah's purported association to Scientology, or anything else she believes or supports. I trust everybody else to use their heads and make their own evaluations -- and their own friends. It sounds like maybe you and Maguru have no such trust in people -- that you feel people are in danger of being manipulated by the Great Evil Power of someone like Oprah, or anyone else in the media. To me, it implies that you think people are generally soft-headed. It's one thing to say, "Look, I have experienced Scientology and my experience is that it's manipulative and cultish. I recommend you stay away from it." and quite another to say, "Beware of anyone who even associates with anyone who is a scientologist --- they are dangerous and possibly evil!"

Which is fine, of course. You are free to warn others of what you feel is dangerous. But to me, it sounds like, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" to complain about the dangers of Oprah and her friendships and her belief/life purpose and her wanting girls in Africa to be educated.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think she should be openly friends with whomever she is openly friends with.

I don't feel vulnerable to being brainwashed or even slightly influenced by Oprah's purported association to Scientology, or anything else she believes or supports. I trust everybody else to use their heads and make their own evaluations -- and their own friends. It sounds like maybe you and Maguru have no such trust in people -- that you feel people are in danger of being manipulated by the Great Evil Power of someone like Oprah, or anyone else in the media. To me, it implies that you think people are generally soft-headed. It's one thing to say, "Look, I have experienced Scientology and my experience is that it's manipulative and cultish. I recommend you stay away from it." and quite another to say, "Beware of anyone who even associates with anyone who is a scientologist --- they are dangerous and possibly evil!"

Which is fine, of course. You are free to warn others of what you feel is dangerous. But to me, it sounds like, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" to complain about the dangers of Oprah and her friendships and her belief/life purpose and her wanting girls in Africa to be educated.

Are you saying that if Oprah were to take a known cult leader on national tv and praise them and talk about how wonderful they are, it would be okay? No responsibility?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Are you saying that if Oprah were to take a known cult leader on national tv and praise them and talk about how wonderful they are, it would be okay? No responsibility?

Sure, there would be responsibility. It would be 100% mine.

And yes, it would be okay.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Angela

Sure, there would be responsibility. It would be 100% mine.

And yes, it would be okay.

That's kind of ridiculous... so she can praise child molesters and murderers too, I suppose? Why have any laws at all if it's all your responsibility?

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Angela

Sure, there would be responsibility. It would be 100% mine.

And yes, it would be okay.

but what about children who watch the show? They don't have the judgment you have. There have to be laws about television. Otherwise, they'd be putting murder tapes and rape tapes and whatever else on TV. They have to be held somewhat responsible for their content.

[Dannyboy1]

about Tom Cruise. I like Oprah. I'm just surprised she doesn't try and look into the allegations against Scientology. Sure Tom's a nice guy. He believes he's trying to make the world a better place. That's what makes it so hard to reveal the truth about scientology. They never get deep enough into it to realize how crazy they are. Anyway... I guess we'll just have to wait until they slip up and people find out on a mass scale what they really are....

[Angela]

Well, you're kind of going off like the Lakers when they need a time-out, with your fantasies of what Oprah or other media-ites "might" do.

But to answer your question, it's still 100% my responsibility. If I object to what's happening, it's my responsibility to object and do what I can to influence legislation. Or not. If I had children, it's my responsibility to keep them away from the objectionable programs and possibly to organize some kind of protest. Or not. It's my responsibility to be fully self-expressed about what I find objectionable (kind of like you're doing now ).

If Oprah were to suddenly start praising child molesters and murderers, I think I would be surprised, but it would still be okay. I grant her the freedom to think and do what she's going to think and do, because it wouldn't make any difference if I didn't grant her that freedom -- she would think and do it anyway! Just like you, and just like Scientologists, and just like child molesters and murderers. That is not to say that there are no consequences for your actions.

I'm not sure why it's so hard for people to hear when I say: accepting and condoning are not the same thing. That's something I guess I will play on.

And -- I find it amusing that, considering the reality of Oprah and what she does -- anyone would find her to be dangerous and evil.

And -- I am 100% responsible for that, too!

By the way, Dannyboy, it seems to me that the hidden stuff about Scientology is in fact becoming more widely known. Have you seen that website of the three women who "escaped" from the inner circle -- what is it called? The Sea Org? One of these women was related to the chief guy in charge, and she's pretty vocal and visible in her objection to their little tricks.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, you're kind of going off like the Lakers when they need a time-out, with your fantasies of what Oprah or other media-ites "might" do.

But to answer your question, it's still 100% my responsibility. If I object to what's happening, it's my responsibility to object and do what I can to influence legislation. Or not. If I had children, it's my responsibility to keep them away from the objectionable programs and possibly to organize some kind of protest. Or not. It's my responsibility to be fully self-expressed about what I find objectionable (kind of like you're doing now ).

If Oprah were to suddenly start praising child molesters and murderers, I think I would be surprised, but it would still be okay. I grant her the freedom to think and do what she's going to think and do, because it wouldn't make any difference if I didn't grant her that freedom -- she would think and do it anyway! Just like you, and just like Scientologists, and just like child molesters and murderers. That is not to say that there are no consequences for your actions.

I'm not sure why it's so hard for people to hear when I say: accepting and condoning are not the same thing. That's something I guess I will play on.

And -- I find it amusing that, considering the reality of Oprah and what she does -- anyone would find her to be dangerous and e