just wondering if anyone in here is a scientologist and wethere or not you fancy explaining it to me a little, cos to to me it seems even more fasr fetched than other religiouns
scientology
when i hear or see that word, all i could think of is Tom Cruise.
i am not a Scientologist, but i know far more about the religion than most people, because i was drafted to assist a group that did a detailed and in-depth study of it many years ago.
Although it was a long time ago, i believe i still remember enough to give a fairly accurate and detailed account of it, if you're interested. What aspects are you curious about? Beliefs? Practises? History?
Although it was a long time ago, i believe i still remember enough to give a fairly accurate and detailed account of it, if you're interested. What aspects are you curious about? Beliefs? Practises? History?
well tbh as much as you care to indulge me with, i know nothing of it, so a brief over view would be appreciated, i know somethign aboutpsace ships and us evolving from clams?
It's not to difficult to find info on them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
| Yantaal wrote: |
| well tbh as much as you care to indulge me with, i know nothing of it, so a brief over view would be appreciated, i know somethign aboutpsace ships and us evolving from clams? |
A lot of what you read about scientology is crap. Some of it has basis in truth, but it is almost universally blown WAY out of proportion for comedic effect.
It's not as easy to understand the ideas behind scientology as you might think. Scientologists redefine words to suit their purposes - occasionally even to the opposite meaning. So when you read a scientology text, you have to be very careful to figure out what exactly is being said - every time a word is used, you have to figure out whether they're using the standard meaning of it, or their own. So don't be surprised if you read two apparently contradictory descriptions of a scientological belief... and find out that both are true.
i will use the standard definitions of all words - as much as possible. But remember that it's been a long time since i researched this stuff... and even when it was fresh, it was hardly clear. But, here goes:
All people are actually non-corporeal, immortal beings called Thetans (usually written: Θn), and this entire universe is actually a collective delusion of our own creation that we all share.
We (as Thetans), have existed for an infinite amount of time in a sort of formless void. But we got bored, and to amuse ourselves, we created universes to play in. We did this a number of times without any problems. But in order for an intelligent being to be amused by something, there has to be some kind of surprise - or at the very least, something that cannot be predicted. If you know how the book is going to end before you even pick it up... why bother? If you know how the game is going to end... how can you really enjoy it? So in order to have fun, the Thetans had to suppress some of their infinite knowledge and awareness.
What happened when we created this universe was we suppressed too much... and found ourselves stuck in this universe having forgotten that we ourselves created it. We were trapped in a universe of our own creation. We have not only forgotten that we are really immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, non-corporeal beings, we have forgotten that this entire reality is just a toy we created to amuse ourselves, and that we have the power to control, alter, or destroy it at will. Instead, we are doomed to stay trapped in this universe until we "wake up", attaching ourselves to meat bodies time and time again - each time operating under the delusion that that meat body is who we really are.
As we live these endless reincarnated lives over and over, we accumulate emotional baggage. A trauma in one life creates an emotional scar that the Thetan carries on into their following lives - these emotional scars are called engrams. Over the billions or quadrillions or whatever number of years that we've been reincarnating in meat bodies, we've all accumulated a crapload of engrams. These engrams are what cause all of our psychological problems, and make it even more difficult for us to become aware of what we truly are.
The church of scientology offers "counselling" (called auditing) to help you identify the engrams that are making your life suck, and get rid of them. They then work with you to help you rid yourself of the delusion that you've imposed on yourself, and wake you up to the fact that you are really an immortal Thetan, and that the universe is yours to control. In theory, after they've finished with you, you should be able to manipulate reality at will.
That is a very brief and very vague introduction to the idea of scientology. In summary, you are not the being you think you are - you are really an immortal Thetan that has become trapped by an illusion of its own creation into being stuck in this universe, and your body. The emotional scars or engrams you have accumulated over the millenia of being reincarnated in body after body are what make you miserable today. Scientology helps you rid yourself of those engrams and achieve awareness of your Thetan nature.
Now, as for the stuff you've heard - the spaceships that look like DC-10's, evolving from clams, going to Venus, Xenu, all that crap... yes, most of that is really included in the religion. But most of it is incidental stuff - not really core beliefs. For example, the Xenu story is just one of the many "incidents" that caused massive engrams (ie, trauma) for all humans (it's a little more complicated than that, but that's essentially it). You can be a scientologist, and not believe anything about Xenu at all (i don't know if you're aware, but as with all religions, there is more than one sect of scientology - and many of them have competing beliefs). And yes, scientology has beliefs that include a lot of laughable science (like the clams)... but then, what religion doesn't?
How does the founder claim to know all of this if he himself was a Thetan who had his memory suppressed?
Scientology is a cult, but it is worse than that its a cult designed to con (I don't know if con is the right word but it is appropriate) people out of there money by convincing them that all there problems are cause by these mythical thetans and that they can get rid of them for a price. There mythology to explain these thetans is not even told to the people who join scientology till they have spent allot of money to get rid of them. It make sense that they wouldn't tell them till they have gotten deep into Scientology, its stupid b-movie scifi.
You think we evolved so far but it says allot about humanity and society when some bad scifi writer can just make up a bunch of shit and people will fallow him.
You think we evolved so far but it says allot about humanity and society when some bad scifi writer can just make up a bunch of shit and people will fallow him.
The Conspiritor, you're obviously quite ignorant to what scientology actually is.
Scientology claims that we ourselves are thetans, you could take the time to read up on a subject before denying it outright.
| The Conspiritor wrote: |
| its a cult designed to con (I don't know if con is the right word but it is appropriate) people out of there money by convincing them that all there problems are cause by these mythical thetans and that they can get rid of them for a price |
Scientology should have been exactly what it is. A science fiction story written by a not that great sci-fi writer.
To use the words religion and scientology both in one sentence makes me shudder.
To use the words religion and scientology both in one sentence makes me shudder.
| breebree wrote: |
| How does the founder claim to know all of this if he himself was a Thetan who had his memory suppressed? |
The idea of scientology is that you can, by certain practises, reach "enlightenment". As you approach enlightenment, you shed the engrams and the bad Thetans that are holding you back, and eventually you start seeing past the deceptions you created for yourself about the nature of reality.
Now, the vast majority of people will not be able to reach enlightenment by themselves - the need the help of the church of scientology who will guide them (for a fee).
But there are a very, very small number of people throughout history who have managed to get close, and sometimes all the way. Hubbard named Buddha and Jesus as two people who managed to "clear" themselves of all the bad engrams and whatnot, and thus achieve Thetan enlightenment and power. (In fact, Hubbard claimed that he was the reincarnation of Buddha. His position on Jesus, however, varied wildly.)
Hubbard, naturally, was one of those people who naturally and spontaneously "enlightened" themselves. Dianetics and eventually scientology were the methods he taught to others to help them also achieve this enlightenment.
Of course - as with all organized religions - they claim that even though the "truth" of the divine is "obvious", the only way to successfully to achieve this divinity is... through the church. Trying to do it any other way is "dangerous" and will probably result it catastrophic and dramatic failure of some kind (ex. going to hell, being trapped as a Thetan, whatever).
| Indi wrote: |
| Hubbard claimed that he was the reincarnation of Buddha. |
Does Hubbard give any explanation as to why Buddha never talked of Thetans and such like? Also, is there anywhere I can read up on Scientology further?
| breebree wrote: | ||
Does Hubbard give any explanation as to why Buddha never talked of Thetans and such like? Also, is there anywhere I can read up on Scientology further? |
http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/
Well...there's reading, but it's moreso a presentation. That should give you a good rundown of Scientology.
| breebree wrote: | ||
Does Hubbard give any explanation as to why Buddha never talked of Thetans and such like? |
i can't really recall, but i would guess it would be that Buddha never really understood the nature of what his mind was opening up into and/or that he didn't go quite as far as Hubbard did.
One thing you have to keep in mind about Scientology - which a lot of the critics get wrong - is that Hubbard was not to Scientology what Jesus Christ was to Christianity or what Siddhartha Gautama was to Buddhism. Jesus was (according to most sects) a god, and Gautama was a buddha. In both cases, they are... essentially... perfect. And their message is perfectly accurate and divine. And if we found evidence that Jesus was a rapist, or that Gautama robbed people that came to visit him... well that would pretty much spell the end of the religion in both cases. That's not the case with Hubbard and Scientology. Hubbard could have been a mass murderer, serial rapist and puppy-kicker... but that wouldn't invalidate anything he taught. Hubbard could also have made mistakes in what he taught, and corrected them later or had them corrected by someone else... that also wouldn't make Scientology false.
It's hard for people raised in western tradition to grasp this. We just assume that the founder of a religion must be divine and perfect. The idea that someone who is a known liar and criminal could found a valid religion is ludicrous. Similarly, the idea that the founder of a religion could make mistakes while writing up the description of the religion is also something we can't grasp.
But Hubbard was, in the end, a human being. He was allegedly a human being with access to higher truths about the nature of the universe, and a human being who had attained an abnormally high degree of control over his mind and body... but he was still a human being - or at least as much of one as any of us are. Although he was supposed to be far less susceptible to evil desires and temptations... he was not, despite what many people seem to think, supposed to be entirely immune. And he was allowed to have further "revelations" about the universe later that showed he had been wrong with earlier claims.
Those kinds of things would not be allowed according to the theological rules of most religions - for example, Jesus would not be allowed to make mistakes like that - but it does not contradict the teachings of Scientology for those things to happen even when someone is that high up the Scientological scale.
| breebree wrote: |
| Also, is there anywhere I can read up on Scientology further? |
Oh, there's tons of information online. It's fashionable to make fun of Scientology, and to date at least it hasn't seemed to sink in to the people doing it that it is, for most of them, just religious bigotry. Just go Google and you will find all the info you could ever want. Of course, you have to practise good critical reading skills in order to syphon out the facts from the people making fun of it.
i don't advise using "official" Scientology resources, for two reasons. First, they use all kinds of double talk, including redefining words to sometimes mean the opposite of what it really means. Second, they don't publish the vast majority of the information - at least, not unless you're willing to pay through the nose to get it.
Most "unofficial" sources of information use information that was obtained via court orders, so it's reliable. But you do have to practise your critical reading skills, because although usually they present the truth, they present it in a warped way in order to make it look as funny and/or ridiculous as possible.
| {name here} wrote: |
| http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/
Well...there's reading, but it's moreso a presentation. That should give you a good rundown of Scientology. |
That's not a "rundown" of Scientology, let alone a "good" one. ^_^; That gives you not a word of information about what Scientology is. It's just a list of crimes that are associated with Scientology, with the vague notion that somehow the religion and/or the church is responsible. Of course, it's never explained why.
If i were to put together a video, complete with ominous music, listing the Catholic Church's crimes with regards to the child abuse incidents and the systematic cover-ups... would that mean that Christianity makes people paedophiles? Or that the Catholic Church is a dangerous cult of paedophiles? Don't be absurd.
| Quote: |
| It's just a list of crimes that are associated with Scientology, with the vague notion that somehow the religion and/or the church is responsible. Of course, it's never explained why. |
Yes it is. Everything that they have done is to further the "church" and not the people that are under it. Hence the reasons for members in the CIA (or whatever it was, I haven't watched it for a while), and other various things. There was a follow up one too where the guy interviews a scientologist, and he gets flustered IIRC.
http://theunfunnysequel.ytmnd.com/ <- About censorship of a site which linked to the original because of apparent copyright infringement.
http://smoothscientology.ytmnd.com/ <- The actual one I was talking about.
| Quote: |
| If i were to put together a video, complete with ominous music, listing the Catholic Church's crimes with regards to the child abuse incidents and the systematic cover-ups... would that mean that Christianity makes people paedophiles? |
That's not what the FSF had said. It's basic notion is that the church of Scientology is greedy and inhumane while it's followers are absolute suckers for what they've been fed and need psychiatric attention that they'll never get simply because the church will not give them that. It's the perfect scheme to raise money - get yourself tax amnesty by saying you're a religion, have books and items full of lies which don't even teach you how to be a good person, then charge up the wazoo to get all of the things you need for it. All of this is going on while targeting the mentally disturbed and telling them that they don't need pills to suppress their epilipsy or even schizophrenia (when in reality the treatments don't really do anything but are still loopholed). Hubbard was an absolute criminal genius. Of course, he still couldn't pull this crap in several foreign countries, specifically good old Deutschland, which wised up to their little scheme from what I've heard, probably because of the mistakes of the past.
Think about it, what religion trademarks and copyrights its own name and has a logo and forces people to pay to read their "scriptures"? The Catholic Church hasn't trademarked the cross, and anyone can go to a mass without paying a penny, though donations are obviously accepted since you can't run everything for free in a governed republican capitalism. No religion I've ever heard of (AFAIK) has pulled such things as Scientology - Not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Judaism, and not Islam. Oh, but you might say it's a science! Wait, science hasn't recognized scientology as a legitamite science. It's right up there in respect with Astrology.
| Quote: |
| Or that the Catholic Church is a dangerous cult of paedophiles? Don't be absurd.
|
I bet there are people who work for the church (like that guy in the video) who don't know what the church's scheme really is, and actually work thinking that what they do works.
| {name here} wrote: | ||
Yes it is. Everything that they have done is to further the "church" and not the people that are under it. |
That is an explanation for why a Scientologist might have done it and/or why the church might have officially sanctioned it. It is not an explanation for why Scientology itself is responsible.
For example, a Catholic who goes out and murders a politician that is trying to make Christianity illegal is acting to further the church and/or the religion. Would the Catholic Church be responsible for their actions? Would Christianity be to blame?
Let's take it a step further and consider a case where the church itself sanctioned the crimes. Suppose the Catholic Church began a program of systematically arresting people who didn't believe in Catholicism, and killing them (oh, let's give it a name... let's call it "Inquisition"). Would that make the Catholic Church a criminal organization? Would that make Christianity evil?
| {name here} wrote: |
| Hence the reasons for members in the CIA (or whatever it was, I haven't watched it for a while), and other various things. |
So what? Seriously - so what? Religions have been infiltrating and manipulating governments from as far back as history records. Every major religion in the world is guilty of it. Hell, several major religions have actually staged bloody coups where they murdered the existing government and took over. Compared to that, breaking into a federal office to get a few files is rather tame, don'tcha think?
Here's the problem. If you're going to use some standard to judge Scientology as evil, then you must use that same standard to judge other religions as well. Because the moment you don't... that's religious bigotry, nothing more, nothing less.
Scientologists have committed crimes in the name of Scientology. Sure. Fine. You want to claim that that's what makes Scientology bad? Alright. Fine. Sounds good. But now you have to apply that same standard to all the other religions... including your own, if you have one. And where does that take you?
The Church of Scientology officially sanctioned criminal activities. Damn straight. Is that what makes Scientology bad? If so, now apply that same standard to other religions. Now what do you say?
| {name here} wrote: |
| That's not what the FSF had said. It's basic notion is that the church of Scientology is greedy and inhumane while it's followers are absolute suckers for what they've been fed and need psychiatric attention that they'll never get simply because the church will not give them that. |
And all of that is really little more that bigoted opinion. Let's say i were to repeat that entire spiel and replace "Church of Scientology" with "Catholic Church" or "LDS" or anything else really. Now prove me wrong.
You'll find you can't. Oh, sure, you can disagree. You can tell me i'm wrong. But you can't prove it. Because there's not a single tangible fact in that entire rant. It is literally a steaming heap of bigotry. Nothing more, nothing less.
| {name here} wrote: |
| It's the perfect scheme to raise money - get yourself tax amnesty by saying you're a religion, have books and items full of lies which don't even teach you how to be a good person, then charge up the wazoo to get all of the things you need for it. |
Gee. That is a pretty good scheme.
But you know, i think you and i are pretty smart. i think we can do better.
First of all, let's forget the whole books and items schtick. That's just not that profitable really. Oh sure, you'll make some cash on each item, but you have to shoulder production and distribution costs. Not really efficient. Plus there's only a finite amount of books and items you can sell to any one person.
Here's my idea. Suppose we convinced the suckers that there was an all powerful being watching over their every move, who was really nasty when angry, and who could offer infinite joy and happiness when pleased. The really genius part? We don't have to supply anything - this infinite joy and happiness isn't supposed to come until after the sucker is dead! Awesome, eh?
Next thing we do is convince them that this being gets really happy when he sees them being charitable. Then at the weekly gathering, we pass around a bowl... and tell them to put money in! That's it! That's all we do! We rely on their desire to please the imaginary being and peer pressure (because everyone around the person will be able to see how much they put in). And they'll put that money in once a week, every week, for the rest of their lives! And for special occasions... we'll sucker them into doing fund-raising drives for even more money! Then we can take all that money the suckers give us and use it to build churches all over the world - and to send missionaries to the far reaches of the Earth to recruit more suckers. And we never have to supply anything! We don't even have to explain why bogus "better person" techniques don't actually help - because there are none - all the benefits allegedly come after death, when they can no longer complain! It's brilliant!
Now that's the perfect scheme to raise money. What do you think?
| {name here} wrote: |
| Think about it, what religion trademarks and copyrights its own name and has a logo and forces people to pay to read their "scriptures"? The Catholic Church hasn't trademarked the cross, |
You're joking, right? The Catholic Church is a registered corporation in many countries. Hell, most churches are. Just look at the bottom of this page (which was the first that popped up in a Google search). Freaking hell, not only is the Catholic Church incorporated - with its own registered trademarks, yes - it's a god-damn sovereign government, complete with its own police force, bank, and top level Internet domain (.va).
| {name here} wrote: |
| and anyone can go to a mass without paying a penny, though donations are obviously accepted since you can't run everything for free in a governed republican capitalism. No religion I've ever heard of (AFAIK) has pulled such things as Scientology - Not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Judaism, and not Islam. |
^_^; Seriously dude, you need to do more reading. There is not a single "crime" that Scientology has perpetrated that has not been perpetrated by one or more of the religions you named.
For the record, you can do Scientology without paying a penny, too. Of course, you didn't know that, did you? Not a penny paid by a Scientologist is mandatory. Every penny is an optional donation. Naturally, the Church strongly advises against doing it on the cheap - and suggests that you will advance much faster with much better success if you donate gratuitously. But still, it's all optional.
And, just FYI - you'll find this out eventually if you bother to do any research, but i'm feeling generous - the idea of charging for salvation is another great invention of the Catholic Church. Google for "indulgences".
| {name here} wrote: |
| Oh, but you might say it's a science! Wait, science hasn't recognized scientology as a legitamite science. It's right up there in respect with Astrology. |
Oh, believe me, i would never mistake Scientology - or any religion - for a science. ^_^; But so what? The science in any religion is laughable. You want an engineering analysis of Noah's ark? Here's the short version: it won't float.
Once again, if you apply a standard to Scientology, you have to apply it everywhere. If Scientology is invalid because it's "science" is laughable... well just follow the logic and see where you end up.
| {name here} wrote: | ||
I bet there are people who work for the church (like that guy in the video) who don't know what the church's scheme really is, and actually work thinking that what they do works. |
Most likely. So what? There is no shortage of well-meaning suckers in the world.
cheers indi thats great, i have allready brough it up in intelligent conversation, thanks alot. 
Dang it, the database failed just as I was replying to this!!! I lost all my good post data in the process, so don't be surprised if this isn't very polished. I know it certainly isn't as good as my previous post and I know that I should learn to use Opera Notes more often.
Partially both would be as they gave a mentally unstable man a reason to be able to kill a politician. One can draw a paralell between this and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The difference is the cause: one organized religion and the other nationalism. I am opposed to both.
The Catholic church only killed "repeat offenders". The rest were not killed, but rather imprisoned or tortured. At that time you probably couldn't consider it a crime. Most Christians at that time were paranoid god fearing nuts who would resort to such things. Well, that's still the case today in some regions but not to the extent of the past, I would think. The people surrounding the organization are the crooked, misguided ones, just as those in Scientology would be.
Let's set up an example for this point, because examples are fun:
Imagine a country which is in an economic crisis - the people are dirt poor and their currency isn't worth anything. People there are burning their money in the streets because it's cheaper than coal, because they were forced to pay reparations to all the other countries. Then an organization comes along (We'll call this organization NDSAP), and promises to get the country out of its crisis, disrespect the treaty which forced them to pay reparations, and unite ethnically similar countries, all with a little propoganda to help along the way. The people are so desperate for such an economic upturn they willingly make this organization have a good foothold in the government come election time. Then something happens - an important government building burns down. The organization scapegoats a rival organization, and calls it an act of terrorism. The leader of the organization as well as the country (we'll call him Chancellor Hiedler) then says in order to combat the threat, he needs special powers, and thanks to the foothold the party has in the government, he is granted them, and starts to slowly descriminate against several groups of people, including the rival organization, calling them "unclean" or "spineless". Eventually the Chancellor gave up on trying to make them leave the country, so he devised a secret plan that only few of his people(which were brainwashed in the first place) knew to kill them all(which we will call The Solution) while he was on warpath trying to gain new territory. An government wing created by him consisting of people he considers pure further devises and executes the plan, but soon they find themselves losing the war. As the rivals which once punished the country before close in on their lost territories they discover The Solution, and find out that this organization used the country to kill 11 million people. The people of this country were later humiliated and discriminated against due to this issue.
Are the desperate people who elected the organization evil or bad because of what the organization did while in power?
It takes me to the fact that many religions are headed by crooked people. As for my religion, I don't think I can honestly find anything that would be necessarily bad about it, other than the fact that many who share similar ideas to mine are also bible bashers and are against the following of organized religion (if you didn't read my other posts in this forum, I'm a freethought agnostic deist, with the adjetive having the most influence over my beliefs being the first, and the least being last). Organized religion is an opiate to the masses, and a great promoter of stupidity. As far as I know, there is no person that actually follows the beliefs that I do.
The one thing is I don't consider scientology a religion, but an organization with a medical practice in likeness to herbal medicine with a small and strange story to go along with it. Dianetics is basically like herbal medicine with a sci-fi twist and some other differences. Scientology adds a few things to that to make it have a few more parallels. I feel it's more astrology than mythology.
It isn't just the criminal activities. Criminal activiities are the least of my worries when it comes to that organization. They've censored internet postings criticizing their organization and even went to court about them. Who do they think they are, the PRC? Usually the behavior I see with other religions is they condemn the post as "ignorant atheist babble" or some variant, but don't go as far as censoring it.
It's not even just that either that irks me about the organization. It downplays psychiatry/psychology. Scientologists that need psychiatric medicines for such things as epiliepsy and schizophrenia don't get their medication and as a result suffer in the worst way imaginable - not physically, but mentally. Yes, conservative christians and their prayers as a cure-all without the use of real medicine are also an issue, especially forcing it on a child when medicine would work best. I'm not going to promote that and I hope that that people inside the Christian faith outside the medical community are condemning it.
Here's the thing about it. I have an aunt that's a real Jesus freak - god fearing, conservative, and the whole nine yards. She volunteers a lot at her local church and one time she was boring us to death on how donations were used. Most of it goes into a utitlity and maintainence fund for the local church so that it can basically work, not to mention a fund so they can buy all those song books and such. The priests and other people working for pay at the church are given their salary, which I do not know the exact number, although I do suspect that with many of the other beliefs that they are paid minimum wage (Friars?).
I always thought it was a problem that there isn't enough water to actually flood the world, but that is a good observation as well.
And I hope this posts...
| Quote: |
| For example, a Catholic who goes out and murders a politician that is trying to make Christianity illegal is acting to further the church and/or the religion. Would the Catholic Church be responsible for their actions? Would Christianity be to blame? |
Partially both would be as they gave a mentally unstable man a reason to be able to kill a politician. One can draw a paralell between this and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The difference is the cause: one organized religion and the other nationalism. I am opposed to both.
| Quote: |
| Let's take it a step further and consider a case where the church itself sanctioned the crimes. Suppose the Catholic Church began a program of systematically arresting people who didn't believe in Catholicism, and killing them (oh, let's give it a name... let's call it "Inquisition"). Would that make the Catholic Church a criminal organization? Would that make Christianity evil? |
The Catholic church only killed "repeat offenders". The rest were not killed, but rather imprisoned or tortured. At that time you probably couldn't consider it a crime. Most Christians at that time were paranoid god fearing nuts who would resort to such things. Well, that's still the case today in some regions but not to the extent of the past, I would think. The people surrounding the organization are the crooked, misguided ones, just as those in Scientology would be.
Let's set up an example for this point, because examples are fun:
Imagine a country which is in an economic crisis - the people are dirt poor and their currency isn't worth anything. People there are burning their money in the streets because it's cheaper than coal, because they were forced to pay reparations to all the other countries. Then an organization comes along (We'll call this organization NDSAP), and promises to get the country out of its crisis, disrespect the treaty which forced them to pay reparations, and unite ethnically similar countries, all with a little propoganda to help along the way. The people are so desperate for such an economic upturn they willingly make this organization have a good foothold in the government come election time. Then something happens - an important government building burns down. The organization scapegoats a rival organization, and calls it an act of terrorism. The leader of the organization as well as the country (we'll call him Chancellor Hiedler) then says in order to combat the threat, he needs special powers, and thanks to the foothold the party has in the government, he is granted them, and starts to slowly descriminate against several groups of people, including the rival organization, calling them "unclean" or "spineless". Eventually the Chancellor gave up on trying to make them leave the country, so he devised a secret plan that only few of his people(which were brainwashed in the first place) knew to kill them all(which we will call The Solution) while he was on warpath trying to gain new territory. An government wing created by him consisting of people he considers pure further devises and executes the plan, but soon they find themselves losing the war. As the rivals which once punished the country before close in on their lost territories they discover The Solution, and find out that this organization used the country to kill 11 million people. The people of this country were later humiliated and discriminated against due to this issue.
Are the desperate people who elected the organization evil or bad because of what the organization did while in power?
| Quote: |
| Scientologists have committed crimes in the name of Scientology. Sure. Fine. You want to claim that that's what makes Scientology bad? Alright. Fine. Sounds good. But now you have to apply that same standard to all the other religions... including your own, if you have one. And where does that take you? |
It takes me to the fact that many religions are headed by crooked people. As for my religion, I don't think I can honestly find anything that would be necessarily bad about it, other than the fact that many who share similar ideas to mine are also bible bashers and are against the following of organized religion (if you didn't read my other posts in this forum, I'm a freethought agnostic deist, with the adjetive having the most influence over my beliefs being the first, and the least being last). Organized religion is an opiate to the masses, and a great promoter of stupidity. As far as I know, there is no person that actually follows the beliefs that I do.
The one thing is I don't consider scientology a religion, but an organization with a medical practice in likeness to herbal medicine with a small and strange story to go along with it. Dianetics is basically like herbal medicine with a sci-fi twist and some other differences. Scientology adds a few things to that to make it have a few more parallels. I feel it's more astrology than mythology.
| Quote: |
| The Church of Scientology officially sanctioned criminal activities. Damn straight. Is that what makes Scientology bad? If so, now apply that same standard to other religions. Now what do you say? |
It isn't just the criminal activities. Criminal activiities are the least of my worries when it comes to that organization. They've censored internet postings criticizing their organization and even went to court about them. Who do they think they are, the PRC? Usually the behavior I see with other religions is they condemn the post as "ignorant atheist babble" or some variant, but don't go as far as censoring it.
It's not even just that either that irks me about the organization. It downplays psychiatry/psychology. Scientologists that need psychiatric medicines for such things as epiliepsy and schizophrenia don't get their medication and as a result suffer in the worst way imaginable - not physically, but mentally. Yes, conservative christians and their prayers as a cure-all without the use of real medicine are also an issue, especially forcing it on a child when medicine would work best. I'm not going to promote that and I hope that that people inside the Christian faith outside the medical community are condemning it.
| Quote: |
| Now that's the perfect scheme to raise money. What do you think? |
Here's the thing about it. I have an aunt that's a real Jesus freak - god fearing, conservative, and the whole nine yards. She volunteers a lot at her local church and one time she was boring us to death on how donations were used. Most of it goes into a utitlity and maintainence fund for the local church so that it can basically work, not to mention a fund so they can buy all those song books and such. The priests and other people working for pay at the church are given their salary, which I do not know the exact number, although I do suspect that with many of the other beliefs that they are paid minimum wage (Friars?).
| Quote: |
| Oh, believe me, i would never mistake Scientology - or any religion - for a science. ^_^; But so what? The science in any religion is laughable. You want an engineering analysis of Noah's ark? Here's the short version: it won't float. |
I always thought it was a problem that there isn't enough water to actually flood the world, but that is a good observation as well.
And I hope this posts...
| {name here} wrote: | ||
Partially both would be as they gave a mentally unstable man a reason to be able to kill a politician. One can draw a paralell between this and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The difference is the cause: one organized religion and the other nationalism. I am opposed to both. |
One can also draw a parallel between a woman and a Coke bottle. That does not make them the same thing, or even in the least bit similar. Nationalism and religion are two entirely different things, and are only superficially similar in a small number of situations. The fact they look similar in this particular case is particularly unsurprising. Wackjob extremist zealots all look alike, whether their primary motivation is religious, nationalist, or crazed celebrity fanaticism.
Besides, your explanation is entirely irrational. If the man is mentally unstable, then he is mentally unstable. He could get his "reason" for murder from the fact that he didn't like the politician's shoes. Would that make Tommy Hilfiger complicit in the crime?
The religion would be guilty of the crime if and only if the religion explicitly requested the crime. Catholicism would be guilty of the murder of an abortion doctor if and only if the Catholic bible said: "Go ye forth and seek out those who abort babies and smite their asses." Or something to that effect. Needless to say, it does not. Also needless to say, Scientology itself (the religion) has no doctrine of punishing "heretics" or anything of the sort. That (Fair Game) is a policy that the Church of Scientology (the church) adopted. (The actual religious position on heretics in Scientology, is actually almost identical to the Catholic religious position on heretics - at least, the biblical position, anyway. We all know that the Catholic church position on heretics has changed over the ages, and in many ages... wasn't so tolerant.)
Again, religious tolerance is all about maintaining a consistent position - not changing the rules for religions you like versus religions you don't like. Here you have two religions - Catholicism and Scientology. Neither religion advocates harming heretics. The major churches of both religions have had, at some point in time, an official policy of harming heretics. If Scientology is evil because of this... then Catholicism must be evil as well... or you are simply being a religious bigot.
But let's take it a step further. Let me suppose that you will say: "Ah ha, but Catholicism's crimes are in the past, whereas Scientology's crimes are in the present. I will admit that the Catholic church was evil, during those times it did those evil things. But it has reformed and is now good. The Church of Scientology is engaged in these activities today. Thus it is evil right now." However, if you do that, i would have to point out that you are saying that what is really evil is not the religion, and not the church... but the activity (harming heretics). Your problem, then, is not with Scientology at all, but with one of their policies. If they dropped that policy today, they would be an a-ok religion tomorrow... unless you're going to fall back on bigotry again.
It's a fine line, but it's a clear line. You must apply the standard universally, otherwise it is not a fair standard, it is just a cover-up for bigotry.
| {name here} wrote: | ||
The Catholic church only killed "repeat offenders". The rest were not killed, but rather imprisoned or tortured. At that time you probably couldn't consider it a crime. Most Christians at that time were paranoid god fearing nuts who would resort to such things. |
^_^;
Ok, i'm sorry... what exactly is that ↑ supposed to be? ^_^; i must be reading it wrong... because it sure looks to me like you're trying to say that Catholicism isn't really guilty of a crime because they only imprisoned and tortured heretics, and didn't actually outright murder them. Usually. Well, they only murdered the really annoying ones. And, anyway, it's ok, because it was the "thing to do" back in those days (which amuses me to no end, because the reason it was the norm back in those days is because the Catholic Church made it so.)
^_^; Ok, take a step back and think for a minute. Why would you go to such... let's face it... idiotic... lengths to make excuses for Catholicism in this context (a comparison of Catholicism and Scientology)? Or do you think that that's a good argument? Is there something else going on here - something not quite rational - that would make an argument as lame as that seem reasonable? Are you sure that your position on Scientology (and/or Catholicism) is entirely unbiased and rational? Seriously, take a step back and reassess your position in making the above statements. Can you a give a rational, unbiased reason why those statements might be a good argument? (And if so, please tell me what that good argument might be.)
| {name here} wrote: |
| Well, that's still the case today in some regions but not to the extent of the past, I would think. The people surrounding the organization are the crooked, misguided ones, just as those in Scientology would be.
Let's set up an example for this point, because examples are fun: Imagine a country which is in an economic crisis - the people are dirt poor and their currency isn't worth anything. People there are burning their money in the streets because it's cheaper than coal, because they were forced to pay reparations to all the other countries. Then an organization comes along (We'll call this organization NDSAP), and promises to get the country out of its crisis, disrespect the treaty which forced them to pay reparations, and unite ethnically similar countries, all with a little propoganda to help along the way. The people are so desperate for such an economic upturn they willingly make this organization have a good foothold in the government come election time. Then something happens - an important government building burns down. The organization scapegoats a rival organization, and calls it an act of terrorism. The leader of the organization as well as the country (we'll call him Chancellor Hiedler) then says in order to combat the threat, he needs special powers, and thanks to the foothold the party has in the government, he is granted them, and starts to slowly descriminate against several groups of people, including the rival organization, calling them "unclean" or "spineless". Eventually the Chancellor gave up on trying to make them leave the country, so he devised a secret plan that only few of his people(which were brainwashed in the first place) knew to kill them all(which we will call The Solution) while he was on warpath trying to gain new territory. An government wing created by him consisting of people he considers pure further devises and executes the plan, but soon they find themselves losing the war. As the rivals which once punished the country before close in on their lost territories they discover The Solution, and find out that this organization used the country to kill 11 million people. The people of this country were later humiliated and discriminated against due to this issue. Are the desperate people who elected the organization evil or bad because of what the organization did while in power? |
i'm afraid i don't see your point at all.
Of course the people who elected the Nazis into power are not guilty of their crimes... they didn't know those crimes were planned when they elected them! They were duped. You even cover that yourself in your recap above, indirectly. Was supporting a racist organization wrong? Sure. And the people that voted for the Nazis are guilty of that crime. But they did not know that mass murder was planned. They were scared into submission, and they made a very human mistake - the consequences of which no one at the time could have reasonably foreseen.
Was the average Catholic responsible for the Inquisition? Of course not! They didn't have any say in whether or not the Inquisition came to be! No one asked them for a vote. And the average Scientologist has no say over the policies of their church either.
i honestly can't see what point you're making.
| {name here} wrote: |
| The one thing is I don't consider scientology a religion |
i'm going to stop you right there, because starting from this point, you have taken a nose dive into opinion.
Deciding what does and what does not qualify as a religion is ultimately a very tricky thing. What standard do you use? Well, whatever one works for you, i'd imagine. ^_^; Number of people who believe? That's hardly a good measure. Court rulings? Court rulings are hardly an unbiased standard. Take Germany for example - they don't call Scientology a non-religion because it isn't a religion. They call it a non-religion because they believe that its motivations are primarily economic. But so what? So what if the religion believes in making money? How does that make it not a religion? Why can't it be a religion that also believes in making money? The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive (except in the context of whether or not it deserves a tax break - which was, in essence, the German court's concern).
Ultimately there is only one universally fair way to determine whether or not something is a religion: and that is if its believers call it a religion - presuming they're sincere when they do so. Scientologists do sincerely believe that Scientology is a religion, and they act like it. They go to church and everything. Aside from the fact that you disagree with them and their practises, what about them makes them "not a religion"?
| {name here} wrote: |
| It isn't just the criminal activities. Criminal activiities are the least of my worries when it comes to that organization. They've censored internet postings criticizing their organization and even went to court about them. Who do they think they are, the PRC? Usually the behavior I see with other religions is they condemn the post as "ignorant atheist babble" or some variant, but don't go as far as censoring it. |
^_^; Once again, you are sadly uninformed. (reference 1) (reference 2)
| {name here} wrote: |
| It's not even just that either that irks me about the organization. It downplays psychiatry/psychology. Scientologists that need psychiatric medicines for such things as epiliepsy and schizophrenia don't get their medication and as a result suffer in the worst way imaginable - not physically, but mentally. Yes, conservative christians and their prayers as a cure-all without the use of real medicine are also an issue, especially forcing it on a child when medicine would work best. I'm not going to promote that and I hope that that people inside the Christian faith outside the medical community are condemning it. |
Assuming your standards are not biased, then if your beef with Scientology is that it advocates its own brand of faith healing over conventional medicine, then it follows that you also have a problem with Christian Science and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Is that so?
But is that really a legitimate complaint? If an adult has become a Scientologist and chooses to go with the beliefs of their religion... what gives you the right to tell them they're wrong?
And the child thing... well that's a whole new can of worms that you really don't want to open up. Believe me. Besides, that's not an issue specific to Scientology. Every religion that indoctrinates their children is a human rights issue powder keg just waiting for the spark to set it off. Scientology is not alone or unique in this regard. (And yes, i could provide a Catholic example - related to birth control or sex education or any number of things - but i'm not going to touch this issue. It's way too big, and it really has nothing to do with Scientology, but is an issue with all religions.)
But for the record, no one is saying you have to promote Scientological faith healing. You don't even have to like it. But if a Scientologist has chosen it, who makes your opinion on whether its right or wrong better than his or hers?
| {name here} wrote: | ||
Here's the thing about it. I have an aunt that's a real Jesus freak - god fearing, conservative, and the whole nine yards. She volunteers a lot at her local church and one time she was boring us to death on how donations were used. Most of it goes into a utitlity and maintainence fund for the local church so that it can basically work, not to mention a fund so they can buy all those song books and such. The priests and other people working for pay at the church are given their salary, which I do not know the exact number, although I do suspect that with many of the other beliefs that they are paid minimum wage (Friars?). |
i'm not sure what your point is. Are you implying that the donations in a Christian church are ok because they're not just fattening the pockets of the pastors/priests/whatever... while the donations for Scientology are wrong because they do?
First of all, a reality check. It is true that most of the lower echelons in Christianity do not benefit that much financially from the church. But... what about the church leaders?
Now, to Scientology. You probably didn't know, but most Scientologist church staff and auditors work for peanuts - less than minimum wage (which is less than your average pastor/priest/whatever). They also live in virtual squalor in most Scientologist enclosures - including their boat. But... the Scientologist church leaders...?
You see? Same thing.
| {name here} wrote: | ||
I always thought it was a problem that there isn't enough water to actually flood the world, but that is a good observation as well. |
Eh, you can pick any number of scientific howlers in any religion. i can't comment on where the water came from/went to because that's not really my field.
But i know what will float.
| breebree wrote: | ||
Does Hubbard give any explanation as to why Buddha never talked of Thetans and such like? Also, is there anywhere I can read up on Scientology further? |
True but Scientology also claims that we are polluted with a bunch of there thatens that are causing problems in our life's and (of course) only by going into Scientology and paying allot of money can you get rid of them.
| Quote: |
| But let's take it a step further. Let me suppose that you will say: "Ah ha, but Catholicism's crimes are in the past, whereas Scientology's crimes are in the present. I will admit that the Catholic church was evil, during those times it did those evil things. But it has reformed and is now good. The Church of Scientology is engaged in these activities today. Thus it is evil right now." However, if you do that, i would have to point out that you are saying that what is really evil is not the religion, and not the church... but the activity (harming heretics). Your problem, then, is not with Scientology at all, but with one of their policies. If they dropped that policy today, they would be an a-ok religion tomorrow... unless you're going to fall back on bigotry again. |
The thing about the Catholic church is when they were doing these things people were twice, if not three times more ignorant than the people of today - people were absolute suckers. If some guy told everyone that god spoke to him and said to kill all the Cathars because they're different from you by golly I'll bet they'd do it. Now if some catholic did that we'd dismiss them as a Schizophrenic, and maybe two loons will go with that guy and fail to start a sect of Catholocism.
...but I sometimes have to wonder if the gene pool has actually improved...or is just as stagnant as ever with all these ignorant pop idols slowly draining any last bit of common sense from people. They're just as good as any archbishop with a nutty vision...only this time the person has a drinking problem with a ring of cocaine around their left nostril. I don't think I can trust either one from my standpoint.
| Quote: |
| ^_^; Ok, take a step back and think for a minute. Why would you go to such... let's face it... idiotic... lengths to make excuses for Catholicism in this context (a comparison of Catholicism and Scientology)? Or do you think that that's a good argument? Is there something else going on here - something not quite rational - that would make an argument as lame as that seem reasonable? Are you sure that your position on Scientology (and/or Catholicism) is entirely unbiased and rational? Seriously, take a step back and reassess your position in making the above statements. Can you a give a rational, unbiased reason why those statements might be a good argument? (And if so, please tell me what that good argument might be.) |
I'm a devil's advocate of sorts - whether the argument is good or not I'll post it for the sake of argument. I don't even like the Catholic Church that much with the exception of their patronage to the arts to the point where they have archives of them.
Again, these people's minds were so eclipsed by the notion that god would want people killed even though it goes against his rules, that they'd be thick enough to do it - any one of them. Even with the crackpot star situation I don't think the people of today could be driven to do this.
| Quote: |
| Ultimately there is only one universally fair way to determine whether or not something is a religion: and that is if its believers call it a religion - presuming they're sincere when they do so. Scientologists do sincerely believe that Scientology is a religion, and they act like it. They go to church and everything. Aside from the fact that you disagree with them and their practises, what about them makes them "not a religion"? |
By that reasoning if brokers called NASDAQ a religion then it must be one.
| Quote: |
| Assuming your standards are not biased, then if your beef with Scientology is that it advocates its own brand of faith healing over conventional medicine, then it follows that you also have a problem with Christian Science and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Is that so? |
I did cover that as well. I see a news report every few months where some nutjob tries and substitutes some prayers or herbal roots from "Tanzania" sold by charlatans in african wear...or even worse Kevin Trudeau. I don't advocate such conservative Christian ideas at all. It's rather bloody ignorant substituting something that has a 0% success rate from something that has...maybe a 40% success rate with that particular illness. I'm all for a prayer with some medicine if you think that it will help the medicine because it might ease the religous man's mind, but when it's taken to that extreme I don't think that it should even be allowed the dignity of legality no matter what religion. On the flip side there are also those doctors that are so inflicted with a god complex that they don't even refer people to specialists. That needs to stop too, but maybe something like an AHA regulation.
Scientologists attack psychiatry from what I've heard and not physical medicine, and I haven't heard of a psychiatrist that has that complex.
| Quote: |
| But for the record, no one is saying you have to promote Scientological faith healing. You don't even have to like it. But if a Scientologist has chosen it, who makes your opinion on whether its right or wrong better than his or hers? |
The medical community who probably has more experience in treating people than the average person.
Many christian doctors with standard medical training I met up with whether on a behalf of a family member whose going through presurgury or not don't even advocate such methods in the Christian or other sense.
| Quote: |
| First of all, a reality check. It is true that most of the lower echelons in Christianity do not benefit that much financially from the church. But... what about the church leaders? |
I don't know much about how the higher ups are paid, but I assume that a bishop will be paid more than a priest, and an archbishop more than the bishop (and I'm not even sure which comes first, the archbishop or the bishop, but either way you should get the gist of it).
| Quote: |
| But i know what will float. |
I suppose you're an engineer of sorts?
| {name here} wrote: |
| The thing about the Catholic church is when they were doing these things people were twice, if not three times more ignorant than the people of today - people were absolute suckers. If some guy told everyone that god spoke to him and said to kill all the Cathars because they're different from you by golly I'll bet they'd do it. Now if some catholic did that we'd dismiss them as a Schizophrenic, and maybe two loons will go with that guy and fail to start a sect of Catholocism. |
You're going to have to explain to me how that makes the situation any better.
If i were to take advantage of people who are "twice, if not three times more ignorant" than average... would i be a better person than someone who takes advantage of average people?
If not, then why is Catholicism less immoral for having taken advantage of people who are "twice, if not three times more ignorant" than Scientology? In fact, isn't it the case that Scientology holds the higher moral ground by targetting less ignorant people?
Indeed, let's take it a step further. The Catholic power base is made up of some of the poorest and least educated corners of the Earth, and Catholic missionaries routinely set out to these kinds of areas, and other areas where people are suffering in squalor, to recruit more to the faith. And in these areas where people have no other options, they set up hospitals that provide only the care that the faith approves of - for example, they do not provide contraception or abortions, regardless of what medical science recommends - and they don't even give people the option of getting modern medical care that they don't approve of.
By contrast, Scientology is centered in the richest and most well-educated centers of the modern world, and the people that they recruit are by and large theoretically educated enough (assuming they finished high-school) to know that their theories are bullshit, and relatively wealthy (compared to world standards). Although Scientology does frown on many modern medical treatments, and they strongly discourage their use, these treatments are nevertheless available should the Scientologist decide to say screw the religion and get treatment.
So. Catholicism targets the poorest and least educated, and milks them... while Scientology targets the richest and the most educated, and milks them. Go figure.
| {name here} wrote: |
| I'm a devil's advocate of sorts - whether the argument is good or not I'll post it for the sake of argument. I don't even like the Catholic Church that much with the exception of their patronage to the arts to the point where they have archives of them. |
A devil's advocate is someone who speaks for an unpopular position, not someone who just throws out nonsense arguments for the hell of it. (As a matter of fact, since i appear to be the only person speaking out against bashing Scientology, i would be the devil's advocate here.)
| {name here} wrote: |
| Again, these people's minds were so eclipsed by the notion that god would want people killed even though it goes against his rules, that they'd be thick enough to do it - any one of them. Even with the crackpot star situation I don't think the people of today could be driven to do this. |
i wonder if John Lennon would agree.
Fanaticism is fanaticism, whether it has a religious motivation, a nationalistic motivation... or The Beatles. You can't cite a religion as criminal because its fanatics do criminal things - that would be the same as calling the cause for preventing cruelty to animals criminal because its fanatics are eco-terrorists. It doesn't fly.
Yes, Scientology has had its fanatics that do bad things. That makes them equal with every other religion out there.
| {name here} wrote: | ||
By that reasoning if brokers called NASDAQ a religion then it must be one. |
Assuming they're sincere, correct.
| {name here} wrote: |
| I did cover that as well. I see a news report every few months where some nutjob tries and substitutes some prayers or herbal roots from "Tanzania" sold by charlatans in african wear...or even worse Kevin Trudeau. I don't advocate such conservative Christian ideas at all. It's rather bloody ignorant substituting something that has a 0% success rate from something that has...maybe a 40% success rate with that particular illness. I'm all for a prayer with some medicine if you think that it will help the medicine because it might ease the religous man's mind, but when it's taken to that extreme I don't think that it should even be allowed the dignity of legality no matter what religion. On the flip side there are also those doctors that are so inflicted with a god complex that they don't even refer people to specialists. That needs to stop too, but maybe something like an AHA regulation. |
There are already numerous mechanisms in place to combat those things, and while they are not perfect, they have been proven more than adequate.
Religious freedom means that religions like Scientology are free to peddle their quackery. However, when they do so, they must make it clear that they are not offering medical advice, but rather religious advice. That means that a doctor that is a Scientologist - when they are seeing patients as a doctor - must act like a doctor, not a Scientologist. If they pull out an e-meter during a consultation, they lose their licence. When that Scientologist doctor leaves the doctor's offices and goes across the street to the Scientology centre, they can start talking about Body Thetans and engrams... but if they imply that any talk involving any of those things is actually medical advice, they can be charged (and that doesn't just go for licensed doctors - anyone that dispenses fake medical advice can be charged). The same rules apply to any other religion, and even non-religious quackery like certain kinds of alternative medicine, and they have worked fine for a long, long time.
If it ever comes to pass that someone is allowed to advertise Dianetics as a medical solution, then it will not be Scientology that is at fault, it will be those mechanisms in place to prevent quackery from being practised as medicine. But so far it's not been a problem - if you follow the trail of litigation associated with Scientology, you will see that they have never (at least recently, things were different in the 50's) had the gumption to try and call what they do medicine. So whenever someone turns to Dianetics for a cure, it will not be under the misconception that it is in any way medical science. And if, with that knowledge, they make that choice, that is their business, not yours, not mine and not anyone else's.
| {name here} wrote: |
| Scientologists attack psychiatry from what I've heard and not physical medicine, and I haven't heard of a psychiatrist that has that complex. |
Psychiatry is a physical medicine. They are medical doctors (MD's), just like other practising doctors - the only thing that differentiates them from other doctors is the parts of the body and the bodily functions they specialize in. They identify brain, glandular, hormonal and biochemical factors that cause behavioural abnormalities, and treat them with drugs.
You may be thinking of psychologists. They are not medical doctors. But to my knowledge, Scientology does not have a major problem with them.
| {name here} wrote: | ||
The medical community who probably has more experience in treating people than the average person. |
When a person chooses to trust their religion rather than the medical profession, neither medical professionals nor you have any right to dictate to them that they should do otherwise, regardless whether you think you know better or not - even regardless of whether you can back your opinion up with medical science. If a person chooses to be cured by their religion, rather than medicine, that is their choice. Not yours. Not any doctor's.
| {name here} wrote: | ||
I don't know much about how the higher ups are paid, but I assume that a bishop will be paid more than a priest, and an archbishop more than the bishop (and I'm not even sure which comes first, the archbishop or the bishop, but either way you should get the gist of it). |
Bishops and priests are still within the hierarchy of the church, just like higher level auditors in Scientology. i was referring to the church leaders - not those who are part of the hierarchy, but rather those who are on top of it all. You will find that it is universal in all religions, from the richest organised religion to the poorest backwoods cult, that the church leaders live substantially better than the church members - and that includes members of the church who make up the hierarchy of leadership. Scientology is not unique in this sense.
| {name here} wrote: | ||
I suppose you're an engineer of sorts? |
Of sorts.
man I saw this movie about scientology and I tell you that is some messed up stuff! All I remember is something about aliens and stuff, but it is really a big mystery to me how anyone can believe that crap! If Tom Cruise is one of them, he must be a real nut case. Scientologists are also super hostile and stuff, seen lotsa videos on it. Scary.
I do not understand much of cienciologia but I believe that it is another invention but to catch the attention of people, to avoid its fears, work, the life, the existence, the creation and the death. But aqui I do not put an extract to you of a text that I have leido; The Cienciología was extended and reviewed from the Dianética, a previous system of techniques of self-help originally proposed in the book of 1950 Dianética: The modern science of the mental health. In the middle of years 1950, Hubbard had relegated the Dianética to a substudy of the Cienciología, although it continues being promoted and being spread by the cienciológicas organizations. The main difference between both is that the Dianética is explicitly secular, is centered in the present life of the individual and deals with physical problems, whereas the Cienciología adopts an approach more openly religious trim in the treatment of spiritual questions that include manifold last lives in addition to the present one. Hubbard was accused repeatedly to raise a religious facade to the Cienciología so that the organization maintained estatus of exception of taxes and avoided the persecution by false medical affirmations. These accusations have persecuted until today to the Church of the Cienciología. The word cienciología has its own history. Although at the moment she is associate almost exclusively with the work of Hubbard, was coined by the filólogo Alan Upward in 1907 like synonymous of "pseudoscience". [ 1 ] In 1934, the writer German-Argentinean Anastasius Nordenholz published a book positively using the word: Scientologie, Wissenschaft von to der Beschaffenheit und to der Tauglichkeit DES Wissens or Cienciología, Science of the Constitution and the Utility of the Knowledge. [ 2 ] the book of Nordenholz is a study of the conscience, and its use of the word is not too different from the definition of Hubbard, "knowledge how to know". Nevertheless, it is not clear if Hubbard were to as much of these previous uses. The word in himself is the union of the Latin word scio ("to know" or "to distinguish") and Greek????? lógos ("the own reason" or "internal thought"). It seems reasonable that the meaning of Hubbard derives, like the one of Nordenholz, of the simple translation by these roots.
In order to reach the highest level as a Scientologist (sorry, I forget what they call the levels, there are two separate systems as I recall), you have to pay lots of money to study on a cruise ship. If you don't go on the cruise ship, you can't reach enlightenment! Which I think tells us a lot about Scientology.
The truth is, if you go to one of their centers you can take a tour and watch a few videos, and decide for yourself. They have a ton of churches, or temples, or whatever, where you can learn about Scientology first hand. Their headquarters is in Dupont Circle, Washington, DC. Now I'm sure it's true that
However, once you're in the Scientology temple watching the video on audits, engrams and silent birth, you'll have a hard time not laughing at their propaganda. My opinion, having heard the Scientologists themselves, is that most of what they say doesn't have to be blown out of proportion at all to be funny.
The truth is, if you go to one of their centers you can take a tour and watch a few videos, and decide for yourself. They have a ton of churches, or temples, or whatever, where you can learn about Scientology first hand. Their headquarters is in Dupont Circle, Washington, DC. Now I'm sure it's true that
| Quote: |
| A lot of what you read about scientology is crap. Some of it has basis in truth, but it is almost universally blown WAY out of proportion for comedic effect. |
| patasarriba wrote: |
| In order to reach the highest level as a Scientologist (sorry, I forget what they call the levels, there are two separate systems as I recall), you have to pay lots of money to study on a cruise ship. If you don't go on the cruise ship, you can't reach enlightenment! Which I think tells us a lot about Scientology. |
That is not true.
It is not true that you have to pay a single penny for anything in Scientology. It is preferred, and it is recommended, but it is not mandatory.
There is also no need to go on Hubbard's boat to attain higher levels of enlightenment. It is preferred, and it is recommended, but it is not mandatory.
| patasarriba wrote: | ||
Now I'm sure it's true that
|
And you have no laughable beliefs? Because i, personally, always found that Ark story to be a real howler.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Scientology is a cult, but it is worse than that its a cult designed to con (I don't know if con is the right word but it is appropriate) people out of there money by convincing them that all there problems are cause by these mythical thetans and that they can get rid of them for a price. There mythology to explain these thetans is not even told to the people who join scientology till they have spent allot of money to get rid of them. It make sense that they wouldn't tell them till they have gotten deep into Scientology, its stupid b-movie scifi.
You think we evolved so far but it says allot about humanity and society when some bad scifi writer can just make up a bunch of shit and people will fallow him. |
most major religions are cults. i heard Scientology was started when he bet that he was so famous that if he started a religion people would follow and he won the bet.
But the vast majority of those do not do not patent there names and symbols and not allow any one else to use them and most don't say "'This' is the cause of your problems now if you pay us a allot of money, we'll get rid of 'this'"
| orion_crown1 wrote: |
| most major religions are cults. |
That depends on your definition of "cult". According to all of the definitions widely used by sociologists, they are not.
| orion_crown1 wrote: |
| i heard Scientology was started when he bet that he was so famous that if he started a religion people would follow and he won the bet. |
1.) Only partially true, but mostly false.
2.) So what?
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| But the vast majority of those do not do not patent there names and symbols and not allow any one else to use them |
First, one does not patent names and symbols. One copyrights them.
Second, virtually every church, both major and minor, have copyrighted their respective symbols wherever possible. Most larger churches are also incorporated. You will probably argue that the Christian church hasn't copyrighted the cross and so on. Well they can't. Would they if they could? Who knows?
Third, most religions fall into one of two categories. Either they're so big that they don't need to quibble over stolen intellectual property (some Christian churches are so powerful that they can influence nations... do you really think they care about a little copyright violation?), or they're so small they can't afford to waste their time on it and are not really often victimized by it anyways. The Church of Scientology is in a unique position in that it is just big enough that it is often victimized and can afford to fight, but still small enough that most people don't take them seriously so they have a motivation to fight.
Fourth... so what? Seriously, i'm seeing people pull all kinds of idiotic objections out of the air. Hubbard created Scientology on a bet, the Church of Scientology litigates often... so what? None of that affects whether or not the religion is correct.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| and most don't say "'This' is the cause of your problems now if you pay us a allot of money, we'll get rid of 'this'" |
ORLY? ^_^;
Christianity (virtually all forms): "sin is the cause of your problems, and if you subscribe to our religion (which, of course, includes frequent donations, because good people donate a lot!) you will be given eternal bliss".
Judaism (virtually all forms): pretty much the same as Christianity.
Islam (virtually all forms): pretty much the same as Christianity.
Hinduism (virtually all forms): "base human weakness is the cause of your problems, and if you subscribe to our religion (which, of course, includes frequent donations/offerings) you will be shown the way to have a better life in the next incarnation."
Buddhism (virtually all forms): pretty much the same as Hinduism.
And so on.
It's all the same, dude. ^_^; If Scientology is more blatant about it than most, than i don't see that it makes them any worse than the rest. Ironically, it makes them more honest.
Scientology is just like any other "religion." I use the term religion loosely, because it is very difficult to define. Each individual is different and so each person defines what they believe to be religion differently.
In my opinion, religion seeks to fill the gaps of life that cannot be explained. It also strives to maintain certain morals, beliefs, ideas, and establishes a sense of hope. It seems everyone always wants to try and poke holes in religions to prove its followers wrong. I want to know...why?
Alot of religions strive to teach people to care for their family, care about others, and lend helping hands to their communities. Yes, they ask for money, but if the church is run by honest individuals, the money is usually given back to the community in some form.
To me, religion should be about helping people, loving people, trying to make this world a better place to live in for ALL human beings on this Earth. Not this, "my religion/beliefs/ideas are much better than yours, and this is why" attitude. In the end, where is this going to get us? It will just bring on more hatred and resentment around the world.
The point is: yes, all religions have fundamental flaws in their belief systems. One could poke fun at these and use the same rhetoric over and over to "logically explain" why people should not believe in that religion (i.e., Noah's ship would have sunk, there is no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible, etc.), or you could look at the positive things religion brings. The choice is yours.
In my opinion, religion seeks to fill the gaps of life that cannot be explained. It also strives to maintain certain morals, beliefs, ideas, and establishes a sense of hope. It seems everyone always wants to try and poke holes in religions to prove its followers wrong. I want to know...why?
Alot of religions strive to teach people to care for their family, care about others, and lend helping hands to their communities. Yes, they ask for money, but if the church is run by honest individuals, the money is usually given back to the community in some form.
To me, religion should be about helping people, loving people, trying to make this world a better place to live in for ALL human beings on this Earth. Not this, "my religion/beliefs/ideas are much better than yours, and this is why" attitude. In the end, where is this going to get us? It will just bring on more hatred and resentment around the world.
The point is: yes, all religions have fundamental flaws in their belief systems. One could poke fun at these and use the same rhetoric over and over to "logically explain" why people should not believe in that religion (i.e., Noah's ship would have sunk, there is no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible, etc.), or you could look at the positive things religion brings. The choice is yours.
 |