Scientology

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 5:20 pm

Seraphim, are you seriously suggesting that the international forces effecting the removal of the murderous dictatorships of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in favor of a free state democratically formed by the countries' citizens is an "attempt by the Christian church to kill and repress the Muslims?" Are you fucking serious?

Seraphim · Post by **Seraphim** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 5:43 pm

Yes. Mainly because a vast majority of the troops are American, and Christian in general. The main figure head for the war won't shut the hell up about his Christian god. The fact that this campaign probably won't end with just two countries. Racial profiling. etc...

Well maybe not the Christian church. But Christians for sure.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 5:48 pm

Perhaps, Seraphim, you'd like to show where the troops are forcing Muslims to convert to Christianity instead of allowing them to follow Islam...?

kyoryu · Post by **kyoryu** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 6:02 pm

Let's also not forget that the Inquisition, etc., happened at a time when capital punishment and torture were common. I understand how, in your hate of all things Christian, you think that's irrelevant, but it's really not.

It also doesn't excuse it.

But, as I've said before, I'm most concerned with the impact that a religion has on its members and community in the modern world. I think that is the *most* relevant thing. If we want to hold groups responsible for what they've done in the past, I guess I'm up for capital punishment since I'm about 100% German descent.

The main 'service' of Scientology is auditing. Which is >$100 an HOUR. Estimates by former Scientologists place the amount of money necessary to reach the state of 'Clear' to be around $30K. And it doesn't stop at 'Clear', you get to keep going up. From what I saw, total amount to reach the higher OT levels could be close to $100K.

These are not donations. They are not optional. You cannot receive this 'service' (which, by the sounds of it, sounds a lot like psychotherapy, only without the person doing it having any of that pesky 'education' and without a stupid little box that electrocutes you) without paying hundreds of dollars. You are not told any of the beliefs of the Church without paying them. You have to have a goddamn security check to even join the 'Church'!

If I want to find out about Catholicism, or Buddhism, I can pick up plenty of books that will tell me just about everything that's their core beliefs. I can go to their places of worship and find out more and begin to get instructed.

BTW, atheists have done some pretty crappy things, too. The genocides in the USSR? How about them wacky Chinese? I'm sure I could dig up a few more.

Grumlen · Post by **Grumlen** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:01 pm

Seraphim, I'm actually going to have to disagree with you on why we went into Iraq. Saddam was actually anti-Muslim and in fact hated the Al-Queda and Taliban. We did, however, go into Iraq with the main goal being to secure oil for our own use and not to free the Iraqi people. Now, I won't say that Bush isn't a self-righteous bastard who thinks that he has the power of God behind (or at least claims to), but the root of the war in Iraq is money, not faith.

[quote="Bigity";p="514447"]Uh...what? No, obviously the Catholic Church wasn't asking for forgiveness while burning witches and torturing people. That was in the past. Hence the whole church as owned up to things done in the past thing. As in, they know things have been screwed up bad...in the past.

Scientologist will never, ever accept that the methods they employ are wrong. That's the difference between a compassionate religion that has been misdirected by corrupt persons in the past, and a cult whose objectives are not compassionate.[/quote]
Oh man this is a load of prejudiced bullshit. Do you really think the majority of non-Christians in the days of the Inquisition were saying "Oh, the Catholic Church will eventually see the error of their ways and repent for what they are doing?" For some reason I get the feeling that they didn't. You can't make the assumption that Scientology can never change. Why? Because you haven't seen the future. For all we know, 400 years from now Scientology could be the dominant religion of the world and be more compassionate than Christianity could ever imagine being. You REALLY need to keep in mind that it's always the winners that get to write the history books.

Oh, and the famous Witch Hunts were a Protestant thing too. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the ones in New England and the surrounding area.

[quote="kyoryu";p="514555"]BTW, atheists have done some pretty crappy things, too. The genocides in the USSR? How about them wacky Chinese? I'm sure I could dig up a few more.[/quote]
A perfect example of organized atheism attempting to stamp out other religions. I do NOT support those actions. All you're doing is furthering my point that organized religions as a whole are NOT a good thing. Almost any organized religion, once it gains enough power that it feels safe in doing so, eventually starts taking measures to eliminate those who don't follow their faith.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 8:20 pm

[quote="Grumlen";p="514583"]We did, however, go into Iraq with the main goal being to secure oil for our own use and not to free the Iraqi people.[/quote]
It's important to remember that it's not necessarily admitting that you're wrong to point when you're posting your own postulations, assertions, and accusations all based on your own unexplained allegations rather than actual fact or even general statements made by those actually carrying out the acts. I know I'm not the best about remembering to do this, but when you take Michael Moore's arguments and throw them out there as though they're both a) negative and b) self-evident and undeniable, you really ought to back it up with more than just a sneer.

It's interesting, though (to bring it back around to religion), to hear the hate-Bush-at-any-cost crowd suggest that we freed Iraq and captured Saddam for the purpose of gaining access to oil. Even if that were true, though at this point it remains simply an unfounded allegation by those who aren't exactly unbiased, it reminds me of when

the Apostle Paul wrote:It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

It's like freeing Iraq and Afghanistan are negative things in and of themselves if America does end up benefiting in any way from it...

Jin-roh · Post by **Jin-roh** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:46 am

Yes. Mainly because a vast majority of the troops are American, and Christian in general. The main figure head for the war won't shut the hell up about his Christian god. The fact that this campaign probably won't end with just two countries. Racial profiling. etc...

Well maybe not the Christian church. But Christians for sure.

Seraphim, learn to back up wild assertions, or let the grown-ups talk.

[quote="Grumlen";p="514583"]A perfect example of organized atheism attempting to stamp out other religions. I do NOT support those actions. All you're doing is furthering my point that organized religions as a whole are NOT a good thing. Almost any organized religion, once it gains enough power that it feels safe in doing so, eventually starts taking measures to eliminate those who don't follow their faith.[/quote]

How do determine this last part? How do you know when an organized religion (I understand you're using a broad definition here) has enough power to eliminate those who don't follow their faith and "feels safe in doing so"? Is right when they start doing it? If that's the cause, you're saying the same thing twice.

Grumlen · Post by **Grumlen** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:24 am

Deacon, I did watch Farenheit 9/11 and agreed with most of what was said, I'll admit that much. I'll also admit that saying our main read for going into Iraq was oil is a bold assertion, but it is one that has merit. However, were our reason for going into Iraq truly a matter of preventing Saddam from further oppressing his people, then why did we never do this to the USSR? Like it or not, we're the ones that put Saddam in power in Iraq in the first place because we thought that he would "support American interests." Obviously he didn't, so we felt the need to remove him from power. Also, if what he was doing to his own people was such an issue, then why were we constantly searching for WMDs as an excuse to go to war with him? There are a lot of unanswered questions when it comes to Iraq.

And Jin-roh, by that statement I am referring to such things as the Chinese government did to the Tibetan Monks. Or what Catholicism did via the Inquisition. Or what Christianity as a whole did to the Native Americans, Incans, and Aztecs. After all, how could the majority of people possibly be wrong?

And Deacon that quote you made supports what I am saying wholeheartedly. The church of Scientology seems to have taken the gist of it to heart as adapted to themselves. They don't care why or how their word is being preached, just that it is. And according to the Apostle Paul, Christianity does the exact same thing. Preach the word of their faith at all costs for any reason.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:58 am

[quote="Grumlen";p="514807"]Deacon, I did watch Farenheit 9/11 and agreed with most of what was said, I'll admit that much.[/quote]
I............think that about says it.

I'll also admit that saying our main read for going into Iraq was oil is a bold assertion, but it is one that has merit. However, were our reason for going into Iraq truly a matter of preventing Saddam from further oppressing his people, then why did we never do this to the USSR?

Holy shit bricks! That's like 12 bazillion times worse than the already maddening idiocy pouring out of the hay-guyz-bush-sux-am-i-rite crowd when they ask why we didn't just walk up to North Korea and take over instead of Iraq... Why don't you ask Adolf Fucking Hitler why such a move would be, how you say, fucking stupid?

Like it or not, we're the ones that put Saddam in power in Iraq in the first place because we thought that he would "support American interests." Obviously he didn't, so we felt the need to remove him from power.

No, he did for a while, though to be fair he wasn't always the savage dictator he became. But he sure as hell seemed better than the alternative, at the time, and to go so far as to grossly oversimply things by saying, "He didn't anymore so we felt the need to remove him from power" is just fucking insulting. Christ, dude, most of the people on this forum aren't ignorant little 14-year-olds. You think that kind of stinkbait will just be swallowed without thought?

Also, if what he was doing to his own people was such an issue, then why were we constantly searching for WMDs as an excuse to go to war with him? There are a lot of unanswered questions when it comes to Iraq.

There are lot of in-your-face answers when it comes to Iraq, too, but nobody wants to concern themselves with that when they've got a rich opportunity to peddle their political potshots instead. Compassion my ass.

Or what Catholicism did via the Inquisition. Or what Christianity as a whole did to the Native Americans, Incans, and Aztecs. After all, how could the majority of people possibly be wrong?

That whole Incans and Aztecs and Olmecs and all that? Catholicism. I'll give you "Native Americans" referring to northern American Indian tribes for the non-Catholic Christians just because they weren't exclusively Catholic and usually therefore fell at least partly onto the "other" side, but that's being incredibly generous as there was no religious conquest involved. Back then, everyone was part of some religion or another, and the default was some form of Christianity. The people who were taming the wild west usually fell into this default. While it's an amazing, deep, original, and thoroughly thought-provoking correlation you've drawn, there, you're going to have to work a little harder at showing a causation.

It's like pointing to Detroit's crime statistics in order to show just how horrible, depraved, and crime-prone black people are--neglecting to mention that the city's almost 85% black! Were you aware that the overwhelming majority of ALL crimes in Africa were comitted by black people? No shit! I shit you not!

And Deacon that quote you made supports what I am saying wholeheartedly. The church of Scientology seems to have taken the gist of it to heart as adapted to themselves. They don't care why or how their word is being preached, just that it is. And according to the Apostle Paul, Christianity does the exact same thing. Preach the word of their faith at all costs for any reason.

...

That thing left fucking contrails as it skipped off the ionosphere over your head.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:05 am

[quote="Deacon";p="514856"]

Grumlen wrote:I'll also admit that saying our main read for going into Iraq was oil is a bold assertion, but it is one that has merit. However, were our reason for going into Iraq truly a matter of preventing Saddam from further oppressing his people, then why did we never do this to the USSR?

Holy shit bricks! That's like 12 bazillion times worse than the already maddening idiocy pouring out of the hay-guyz-bush-sux-am-i-rite crowd when they ask why we didn't just walk up to North Korea and take over instead of Iraq... Why don't you ask Adolf Fucking Hitler why such a move would be, how you say, fucking stupid?[/quote]

Yeah, Grumlen ... USSR, we couldn't really do anything about, nothing on the scale of Iraq.

Military dictatorships in Africa that don't have nukes and are doing worse to their people than starving them and making dissenters vanish into the night off to some Gulag (which, yeah, is pretty fucking bad) ... make much better cases for "why don't we liberate these people?" than Russia or North Korea.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:08 am

I think the sheer, overwhelming flood of people in Africa would probably have something to do with that. Death by numbers and all that. Plus, we've tried, remember? And with keeping ourselves leashed as the UN's dog the whole time. Remember how that turned out?

Grumlen · Post by **Grumlen** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:03 am

Strucking, I almost did mention the nations in Africa, but I didn't want to move too far off the topic. I used a poor example, but thanks for considering the point itself rather than simply attacking the example like Deacon did. As for Deacon's statements . . .

Wow, nice usage of ad hominen arguementation there Deacon. At least when I started using it I explained what you were doing that pissed me off so much. All you're saying is that I'm making idiotic statements often without backing up your own statements.

When it comes to the WMDs, were they really the reason we wanted to go in there we'd have taken North Korea or the USSR down for having them too. For that matter, it still seems hypocritical to me that we demand no one else have nukes when we refuse to get rid of them ourselves . . .

Deacon wrote:No, he did for a while, though to be fair he wasn't always the savage dictator he became. But he sure as hell seemed better than the alternative, at the time, and to go so far as to grossly oversimply things by saying, "He didn't anymore so we felt the need to remove him from power" is just fucking insulting. Christ, dude, most of the people on this forum aren't ignorant little 14-year-olds. You think that kind of stinkbait will just be swallowed without thought?

Wow. Despite the fact that it's the truth, you still say that? If we still thought that Saddam was doing what was in the best interest of the USA, do you really think we'd have had him removed from power? I should also take this time to mention that Saddam isn't the first dictator that we've installed in a foreign country and eventually turned on us.

Deacon wrote:I think the sheer, overwhelming flood of people in Africa would probably have something to do with that. Death by numbers and all that. Plus, we've tried, remember? And with keeping ourselves leashed as the UN's dog the whole time. Remember how that turned out?

Right, I completely forgot that the UN is a bunch of worthless assholes who have no say in what goes on in the world. If the USA were in charge, the entire world would be a better place, right? After all, how can anyone in the world disagree with the opinions of one man who was elected by less than 1/20th of the world population? We should have the right to dictate how the entire world should live!

Deacon wrote:There are lot of in-your-face answers when it comes to Iraq, too, but nobody wants to concern themselves with that when they've got a rich opportunity to peddle their political potshots instead. Compassion my ass.

Okay, what are they? A lot of why we went into Iraq in the first place has changed. If memory servers, we originally went into Iraq because we thought they had WMDs and posed a threat to the world, or at least the surrounding area. Then, after we'd already moved in, I start hearing about how why we went into Iraq was because Saddam was such a bad person (not contesting that he was horrible) and was mass-murdering his own people. And now, and you can't deny this even though it is from the film, American Oil companies moved into Iraq and started drilling oil with the protection of American soldiers.

Oh, and Deacon, if I'm so completely utterly clueless about what you meant by quoting that Apostle, then maybe rather than just call me an idiot you should explain it. Otherwise it just sounds to me like I make an excellent point and you refuse to admit it.

Anyways, to make a statement back on topic, I consider Scientology and nigh all other organized religion to differ only in the methods they use to accomplish their goals. The overall goals they have are one and the same: gaining followers, maintaining faith, collecting money, and discouraging other faiths. Thus far no one has said anything even remotely convincing that says otherwise. Sure they preach a different message, but to those outside a faith nigh all of their messages seem far-fetched anyways.

Deacon, the 2 of us disagree. A lot. No amount of arguing is going to convince either one of us that the other is right if we don't agree already because we're both stubborn jackasses. I'm going to back off from name-calling, ad hominen attacks, and other such nonsense and expect you to do the same. If you choose not to, then I shall no long argue with you as any presence of intellectual debate will have gone out the window. I don't come here to participate in flame wars.

minsx · Post by **minsx** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:18 am

I believe the quote by Paul was supposed to be taken like this:

Just as it didn't matter to Paul why the gospel was preached, only that it WAS preached, (because that was what was MOST important)
It doesn't matter to the USA why we go into Iraq and dispose of Saddam Hussein and stabilize the country, only that it happens, because that is what is MOST important.

Altough to be fair: Shame on you, Deac, for using a religoius example in a thread on Scientology in a debate on politics. That one can be taken the wrong way is many ways. (Not to mention sparking a whole new topic/reason for why "Christianity Suxxors" according to half the forum population.

Edit: because I am an idiot with italics.

kyoryu · Post by **kyoryu** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:31 pm

[quote="Grumlen";p="514891"]
Anyways, to make a statement back on topic, I consider Scientology and nigh all other organized religion to differ only in the methods they use to accomplish their goals. The overall goals they have are one and the same: gaining followers, maintaining faith, collecting money, and discouraging other faiths. Thus far no one has said anything even remotely convincing that says otherwise. Sure they preach a different message, but to those outside a faith nigh all of their messages seem far-fetched anyways.
[/quote]

Okay, since it's that plain, then let me clarify my position. It is the *methods* by which they accomplish those goals that concern me, not the goals themselves. The fact that 'gather money' is their primary goal strikes me as distasteful, but their methodology for accomplishing the goals you listed above is precisely what makes me consider them to be far, far more dangerous than any (mainstream) religious grup I've heard of.

To make an analogy, two guys may get groups of friends for the express purpose of gaining money. One does it by starting a business, the other by robbing a bank. Are you going to tell me that the two are equivalent?

The other issue I have with them is their masquerading as actualy technology. They claim that their Narconon program is the only effective drug rehabilitation program. This is absolutely unfounded. They also claim that Dianetic auditing can solve problems that modern psychology and psychiatry cannot, and that psychiatry is in fact 'evil', doesn't work, and isn't science. And while I may agree that we, as a country, are over-medicated, that doesn't mean that I think psychiatry is a sham. I think that religious services claiming they're medical services with NO FACTUAL DATA BACKING THEM UP is a very dangerous situation. Much like the Jehovah's Witnesses with blood transfusion, except that the JW at least never claimed that transfusions didn't work... they just felt it was sinful and better to die than to condemn one's self to hell. Still messed up (IMHO), but at least they aren't claiming that science is a load of crap.

Silux · Post by **Silux** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:17 pm

[quote="minsx";p="514928"]It doesn't matter to the USA why we go into Iraq and dispose of Saddam Hussein and stabilize the country, only that it happens, because that is what is MOST important.[/quote]

Wow. Just wow.

Real Life Forums

Scientology

Who is online