• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Sunday 10th November 2024.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Let's Talk About Alpha

My Parents-in-law are committed Christians and they have nothing but scorn for the Alpha course and Nicky Gumby (what no hankerchief). Personally it sounds very cultish, the fact that in the JR article he says that he doesn't know hypnosis is disengenuous - their are many ways of brainwashing that do not involve direct hyponsis techniques - especially when one is using a group. Humans are social creatures, pack animals, and will react in a certain way if it makes the Alpha male (Ha!) happy. Pecking order must be preserved, and the use of previous 'converts' to enforce the message is an obvious way to intimidate the doubter. As for the spaking in tongues, healings and what not - sheer circus entertainment. I am reminded of the amusing Steve Martin comedy "leap of faith" about a travelling religious conman - could almost be a nicky biopic!

Glossolalia is an interesting phenomenon in itself but speaking in fake chinese is hardly the language of angels. Perhaps it has a programming aspect to it - by divorcing oneself from conscious thought (ie speaking and thinking in a false language) one is more easily susceptible to subliminal messages from the leader. Fainting is easily achieved if one makes people stand up, hold up their hands (blood pressure drops) and either sing or recite for any period of time - also if people have already low BP and go down first others will follow by autosuggestion (cf mass hysteria, poison building syndrome, pokemon crazy kids etc.)

By manipulating known phenomena and peoples fears this guy is a charlatan of the highest order, and quite possibly the antichrist :devil:
 
Nah, only kidding. Tony Blair is the real antichrist :devil:

NB - I was trying to find the photo of him at the dispatch box with a demonic expression, but couldn't (bah). There were, however, over 2000 pages in google under the seach terms "tony blair antichrist". I kid ye not :)
 
dot23 said:
Nah, only kidding. Tony Blair is the real antichrist :devil:

NB - I was trying to find the photo of him at the dispatch box with a demonic expression, but couldn't (bah). There were, however, over 2000 pages in google under the seach terms "tony blair antichrist". I kid ye not :)
Click to expand...
What worries me is that, perhaps, Tony Blair and George W. Bush are merely the bum wipers of the antichrist to come! :(
 
A great book if you can find it is The Psychology Of Speaking In Tongues by John P Kildahl, it's the only scientific study I know of into glossolalia.

Some of their interesting findings were:

* Whenever glossolalia occured in a church it was always in responce from a visiting preacher to practiced this.

* It is possible to identify from the style of the tongues who had taught it to them.

* They tried tape recording some glossolalic speech and playing it back to several individuals who had 'the gift of interpretation of tongues'. All of the listeners gave different interpretations. When challenged with this none of them saw anything contradictory about this result, claiming that god could give people different interpretations of the same speech.

The reort ends by concluding that speaking in tongues, irrespective of the true source, is intrinsicly damaging to churches as in every case investigated it led to a church split between the traditionalists and (what would now be termed) the charismatics.

I should say that I used to be with a Vineyard church and know several people who spoke in tongues, I never heard anything that approached consistent speech, in pretty much every case they'd just repeat a short string of syllables (which while useless for communication, is quite good for trance induction).

Marie
 
Way back at the top of this thread I mentioned the sign on the side of our friendly neighbourhood Alpha-promoting Baptist church; well, they've recently changed the message on it and as a self-avowed militant atheist I must admit to finding it very comforting indeed, tho' I'm at a loss to figure out what the Faithful get out of the deal...
There are no non-believers in Hell!
Click to expand...


That there's defeatist talk!!! :D :rofl:

Yes, yes, I do know that I'm not taking the meaning from it that they intended, but I much prefer my reading of it to theirs... :)
 
Sorry for bumping a very old thread, folks. I wanted to ask a question of anybody who's also attended:

I've been attending an Alpha course - in a Catholic setting - for the past couple of months or so. Though it is, by design, a rather lightweight programme, the group's discussions following the weekly video presentations were always interesting to me & taught me to consider all sorts of opinions from the strong atheistic to the deeply devout.

Anyway...Monday evening was due to be the final session, and a meal was arranged for the attendees and the course's helpers. The organiser had invited a priest to the meal. This was welcomed by the rest of us - although this was merely a kind of farewell meal for the group, with no religious discussion planned, we thought it'd be nice to meet one of the parish Fathers in a less-formal environment than was usual.

It was a disaster. Even the lead organiser was utterly exasperated with the priest (and duly apologised to us all afterwards), and the helpers (all female, and two of the three were nuns) were continually talked-over by the priest and therefore were barely allowed to express an opinion. For whatever reason the priest chose this pleasant, casual occasion to make plain that his (deprived) personal background, his moment of being 'saved', his acts of charity, and his all-encompassing religious experience and erudition were all more authentic than our own. He was - and certainly acted - superior, while we, whatever beliefs we hold, and the programme were apparently merely shallow. All this came after his deeply-tedious domination of the supper conversation, something which basically boiled-down to: 'The old ways are the best; modern people are fickle and superficial; the Church lies moribund due to such traits; you organisers & helpers fail to recruit converts; you are all merely dilettantes in comparison with me'. All the while he kept asking us, very directly, "How do you suffer? How have you suffered for your beliefs?"...as if it should be taken as read that repaying Jesus in literal kind was the only mark of a Christian and a badge of the priest's especial pride. Well it certainly appeared to be prideful vanity. And God knows what the atheists among us thought...their experiences and opinions were an afterthought at best, it appeared.

It really was all-round dreadful, to the extent where some of us felt obliged to take him to task and even debate points of religion with him. In the end, he left before everyone else, after a reluctant and swift apology for 'challenging' us. According to him, this was just a test - if any of us ever chose to become Catholic, we were to understand that this would be a deeply serious undertaking with scant room for dabblers. We were later told that he's known as a controversial character. Whoopee...

So, his behaviour was either boastful and contemptuous or else a provocative attempt to shake any complacency we might've settled into. It's good to be questioned, it causes us to think - or so I believe. But his manner was just awful, and I'm struggling to accept that the priest was only 'helpfully' playing devil's advocate; I'm certainly struggling to believe that this was a standard part of the Alpha Course programme or even of everyday Catholicism. But am I wrong? Have any former Alpha attendees here experienced this or similar?

Thanks for reading the rant. It's true, though, that I'm genuinely confused.
 
Last edited:
Steven said:
Sorry for bumping a very old thread, folks. I wanted to ask a question of anybody who's also attended:

I've been attending an Alpha course - in a Catholic setting - for the past couple of months or so. Though it is, by design, a rather lightweight programme, the group's discussions following the weekly video presentations were always interesting to me & taught me to consider all sorts of opinions from the strong atheistic to the deeply devout.

Anyway...Monday evening was due to be the final session, and a meal was arranged for the attendees and the course's helpers. The organiser had invited a priest to the meal. This was welcomed by the rest of us - although this was merely a kind of farewell meal for the group, with no religious discussion planned, we thought it'd be nice to meet one of the parish Fathers in a less-formal environment than was usual.

It was a disaster. Even the lead organiser was utterly exasperated with the priest (and duly apologised to us all afterwards), and the helpers (all female, and two of the three were nuns) were continually talked-over by the priest and therefore were barely allowed to express an opinion. For whatever reason the priest chose this pleasant, casual occasion to make plain that his (deprived) personal background, his moment of being 'saved', his acts of charity, and his all-encompassing religious experience and erudition were all more authentic than our own. He was - and certainly acted - superior, while we, whatever beliefs we hold, and the programme were apparently merely shallow. All this came after his deeply-tedious domination of the supper conversation, something which basically boiled-down to: 'The old ways are the best; modern people are fickle and superficial; the Church lies moribund due to such traits; you organisers & helpers fail to recruit converts; you are all merely dilettantes in comparison with me'. All the while he kept asking us, very directly, "How do you suffer? How have you suffered for your beliefs?"...as if it should be taken as read that repaying Jesus in literal kind was the only mark of a Christian and a badge of the priest's especial pride. Well it certainly appeared to be prideful vanity. And God knows what the atheists among us thought...their experiences and opinions were an afterthought at best, it appeared.

It really was all-round dreadful, to the extent where some of us felt obliged to take him to task and even debate points of religion with him. In the end, he left before everyone else, after a reluctant and swift apology for 'challenging' us. According to him, this was just a test - if any of us ever chose to become Catholic, we were to understand that this would be a deeply serious undertaking with scant room for dabblers. We were later told that he's known as a controversial character. Whoopee...

So, his behaviour was either boastful and contemptuous or else a provocative attempt to shake any complacency we might've settled into. It's good to be questioned, it causes us to think - or so I believe. But his manner was just awful, and I'm struggling to accept that the priest was only 'helpfully' playing devil's advocate; I'm certainly struggling to believe that this was a standard part of the Alpha Course programme or even of everyday Catholicism. But am I wrong? Have any former Alpha attendees here experienced this or similar?

Thanks for reading the rant. It's true, though, that I'm genuinely confused.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is typical. I went on an Anglican Alpha years ago, actually run by a vicar, hosted by a couple from the congregation - with great food! It was friendly, but somewhat shallow - and although we were all told that any question was permissible, any question I asked about the reality of supernatural evil was quickly deflected.
 
Frideswide said:
Bumping old threads is positively adored around here :twothumbs:

Say when and if you open the floor to interested persons but they haven't done alpha?
Click to expand...
Oh, anyone's invited. :) I'm not the sharpest when it comes to evaluating social situations, generally, so other perspectives are definitely welcomed by me. :)
 
Big fan of Alfas here.

1701917770809.jpeg
 
I went on an interesting guided tour of our local Anglican church, learning it's historical moments, the meaning behind the stained glass windows etc. We were introduced to the new vicar of the parish. Nice chap, though when he said he'd come from a position in Canary Wharf I asked, with a grin, did he manage to overcome Mammon, to which he replied with a po-face "They were VERY nice parishioners actually!"

Edited by mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Going back to the @Steven's post -

Why would anyone be surprised about being patronised and bullied by a Catholic priest? That's what they do. :dunno:
 
escargot said:
Going back to the @Steven's post -

Why would anyone be surprised about being patronised and bullied by a Catholic priest? That's what they do. :dunno:
Click to expand...

My dad was a (non-practising) Catholic, and only had praise for those he'd encountered in his life. For example, he was educated by nuns and these were always kind to him. So, when this expectation of mine was added to the user-friendly Alpha atmosphere, and my ridiculous naivety/idiocy, I thought all would be sweetness and light. What a twit.:D
 
Steven said:
My dad was a (non-practising) Catholic, and only had praise for those he'd encountered in his life. For example, he was educated by nuns and these were always kind to him. So, when this expectation of mine was added to the user-friendly Alpha atmosphere, and my ridiculous naivety/idiocy, I thought all would be sweetness and light. What a twit.:D
Click to expand...
I've met plenty of decent Catholic priests, and some who are arrogant idiots. In the end, people are people.

Edit: the same goes for Anglican clergy.
 
That's the problem - if there is one.
When you set up as a moral and ethical advisor in a religious context, then you are obliged - and claim - superiority.
Yes, they're human - of course. Fallible, with all the flaws and strengths available to anyone. However, when you represent a Supreme Being who has set the rules and your job is to teach and encourage their guidance to being a better person then it requires you to behave in an exemplar manner.
God is everywhere and hears everyone - so why go to a special building and listen to a representative of God?
 
Stormkhan said:
That's the problem - if there is one.
When you set up as a moral and ethical advisor in a religious context, then you are obliged - and claim - superiority.
Yes, they're human - of course. Fallible, with all the flaws and strengths available to anyone. However, when you represent a Supreme Being who has set the rules and your job is to teach and encourage their guidance to being a better person then it requires you to behave in an exemplar manner.
God is everywhere and hears everyone - so why go to a special building and listen to a representative of God?
Click to expand...
Because God hears everyone, but not everyone hears him - and that includes some clergy.
 
Simon wrote: I've met plenty of decent Catholic priests, and some who are arrogant idiots. In the end, people are people.

I'd not met any before this. And so, I expected to meet either a) a saintly and wise person, or else b) a terribly grave, fire-and-brimstone type. Unfortunately, I met the latter.

99% of what I'd read about the history of the organised Church was damning. The history books I've read were almost united in their scathing verdict, and yet the Course was as friendly and open as anything; and so I hadn't expected the Spanish Inquisition...I mean, I hadn't expected to encounter an old-school kind of priest.
 
Steven said:
Simon wrote: I've met plenty of decent Catholic priests, and some who are arrogant idiots. In the end, people are people.

I'd not met any before this. And so, I expected to meet either a) a saintly and wise person, or else b) a terribly grave, fire-and-brimstone type. Unfortunately, I met the latter.

99% of what I'd read about the history of the organised Church was damning. The history books I've read were almost united in their scathing verdict, and yet the Course was as friendly and open as anything; and so I hadn't expected the Spanish Inquisition...I mean, I hadn't expected to encounter an old-school kind of priest.
Click to expand...
I think most of the more godly priests, hard at work being decent, weren't the kind of people to draw attention - they just tried to do their best, teaching, healing, protecting. These things don't get noted in the history books, they might be kindly remembered in their local area, if that, but most likely forgotten within a generation or two. But you start hanging people, or burning them at the stake, or torturing them - you get into the history books.
 
It just seemed like an outdated technique*,and not one that's guaranteed to be effective. Whether a person has religious faith or is godless, if they are sincere in their particular beliefs then being harshly questioned is not going to deepen - or destroy - their personal outlook and their inner conviction.

*I'm being generous, for the sake of argument, and here assuming that the priest genuinely was simply challenging us to think, as he claimed.
 
BTW, I should've made it clear that my position on all of this is neither anti-Christian or anti-other faiths. Nor have I intended to criticise those who have no religion. More specifically I found Alpha to be neither the insidious propaganda of raving Charismatic fundamentalists, or a happy-clappy hugfest in which Christianity is packaged and sold as one might sell cheap margarine. It had elements which were good or bad, I found.

Perhaps the real reason for the Course's reported success in gaining new recruits to the various denominations is simply this: not the effectiveness of the programme, but that people had made their minds up ahead of actually taking the Course.
 
Steven said:
BTW, I should've made it clear that my position on all of this is neither anti-Christian or anti-other faiths. Nor have I intended to criticise those who have no religion. More specifically I found Alpha to be neither the insidious propaganda of raving Charismatic fundamentalists, or a happy-clappy hugfest in which Christianity is packaged and sold as one might sell cheap margarine. It had elements which were good or bad, I found.

Perhaps the real reason for the Course's reported success in gaining new recruits to the various denominations is simply this: not the effectiveness of the programme, but that people had made their minds up ahead of actually taking the Course.
Click to expand...
Going into the course in the first place indicates a spiritual searching, otherwise you wouldn't even be there.
 
Steven said:
BTW, I should've made it clear that my position on all of this is neither anti-Christian or anti-other faiths. Nor have I intended to criticise those who have no religion. More specifically I found Alpha to be neither the insidious propaganda of raving Charismatic fundamentalists, or a happy-clappy hugfest in which Christianity is packaged and sold as one might sell cheap margarine. It had elements which were good or bad, I found.

Perhaps the real reason for the Course's reported success in gaining new recruits to the various denominations is simply this: not the effectiveness of the programme, but that people had made their minds up ahead of actually taking the Course.
Click to expand...
I've no idea why any atheists would go on the course. Personally, I'd walk in as an atheist and walk out with my opinions intact.
 
SimonBurchell said:
Going into the course in the first place indicates a spiritual searching, otherwise you wouldn't even be there.
Click to expand...
Good point. Certain of us would never even dream of taking that course.
As a random example, I couldn't be dragged there by wild horses. :chuckle:

Techy and I used to regularly drive past a church that advertised the course. Remarks were always passed. :mad:
 
Mythopoeika said:
I've no idea why any atheists would go on the course. Personally, I'd walk in as an atheist and walk out with my opinions intact.
Click to expand...

I actually thought that the programme would feature a great deal about the history of religion and, as something who's very interested in history, therefore assumed the course might be ideal for me. I was very wrong. :D Maybe some atheists might've had similar assumptions?
 
Steven said:
But free crisps and chocolate bars were available at every session! I defy anyone to resist such temptations! :D
Click to expand...

Were there cups of tea? :thought:

If so - praise the Lord, I have seen the light! :chuckle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top