Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult

[Barbarossa]

Well, scientology is in the news at the moment, with poor little Katie Holmes duped into giving birth silently, with silent midwives and silent nursing staff to hand, (however I do believe she desperately gestured to be given an epidural :dry: ), so big TC has reported back to his scientology church with the details of the birth, so they can determine how much "auditing" is needed for the mother and baby following the trauma.

I think this is really scary stuff. These people are nutters. It's especially scary that with all these celebrities endorsing this nonsense that more and more impressionable teenagers and that will think this sort of thing is OK.

Also, here's a funny article.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/scien410.html

For balance, here is the official website.

http://www.scientology.org/

I just wondered what everyone thinks about all this.

[Seedler]

Harmless and fun fun fun.

[CortexRock]

Must be something to do with the air in Hollywood that turns normal, sensible human beings' brains into playdoh.

I actually read one of L Ron Hubbard's books a few years back (before I knew anything about Scientology) and it seemed like a fairly standard sci-fi/fantasy work.

And Battlefield Earth is one of the most ridiculous films ever made!

[j2k4]

The fact it's foremost practitioner is Thomas Cruise Mapother the IV tells you all you need to know.

L. Ron Hubbard's own personal idiot.

BTW-did you know Kwanzaa dates all the way back to the ancient 1960s?

No wonder U.S. culture has such a bad/dumb reputation. :dry:

[vidcc]

Scientology holds as much legitimate credibility as any other religion.

[j2k4]

Scientology holds as much legitimate credibility as any other religion.

Legitimate credibility?

As opposed to what other kind?

In any case, "legitimacy" and "goofiness" are not mutually exclusive qualities; witness Pat Robertson...

[What'spunk.]

Dangerous cult, absolutely agree. You only have to read the accounts of those who have managed to be de-programed from the brainwashing. Or to examine their financial interests to see that it is a money making venture, exploiting those who it manages to "recruit".

To call it a religion is nonsense, unless for tax purposes and then you can see the point.Lafayette Ron Hubbard, who made the whole thing up, was a liar and a fraud.


Pseudo Science is great

http://img2.scientology.org/pics/en_US/religion/presentation/how-mind3.jpg

I quite enjoyed his SciFi books though.

[vidcc]

Scientology holds as much legitimate credibility as any other religion.

Legitimate credibility?

As opposed to what other kind?

In any case, "legitimacy" and "goofiness" are not mutually exclusive qualities; witness Pat Robertson...

Hocus-pocus is Hocus-pocus whatever guise it takes or however many believe in it.

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

[What'spunk.]

Legitimate credibility?

As opposed to what other kind?

In any case, "legitimacy" and "goofiness" are not mutually exclusive qualities; witness Pat Robertson...

Hocus-pocus is Hocus-pocus whatever guise it takes or however many believe in it.

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

The main difference with Scientology is the pseudo-science it uses on it's victims. Can I suggest you read a bit more about it before you judge it as harmless fun. It's a dangerous organization and shouldn't be taken lightly.

I'll give you one guess who said this ""Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion""

[100%]

They have a "church" in amsterdam, they stand on the main street, lurring in the cliche "open" international youth.
I entered once for fun, did the psko garantueed exam, they told me i would die by the age of 25 if i did not use them.
after some arguements i left.
Their window is often broken.

[muchspl3]

HAIL XENU!!

its a cult, and a expensive one at that

[j2k4]

Legitimate credibility?

As opposed to what other kind?

In any case, "legitimacy" and "goofiness" are not mutually exclusive qualities; witness Pat Robertson...

Hocus-pocus is Hocus-pocus whatever guise it takes or however many believe in it.

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

I believe you are still impaled upon the hook of (Il)legitimate credibility, sir...:huh:

Please explain if your use of the term was within a stone's throw of serious.

[vidcc]

I believe you are still impaled upon the hook of (Il)legitimate credibility, sir...:huh:

Please explain if your use of the term was within a stone's throw of serious.
The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief may not be based on fact/reality.

Being accepted widely may legitimise something in ones mind but that doesn't make it fact/reality.

example:

The world was once stated to be flat and any scholar stating this in his day was "credible". Did his credibility have any legitimate basis in fact?

[What'spunk.]

I believe you are still impaled upon the hook of (Il)legitimate credibility, sir...:huh:

Please explain if your use of the term was within a stone's throw of serious.
The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief may not be based on fact/reality.

Being accepted widely may legitimise something in ones mind but that doesn't make it fact/reality.

example:

The world was once stated to be flat and any scholar stating this in his day was "credible". Did his credibility have any legitimate basis in fact?

That may be true, but how does it relate to the actual "teachings" of Scientology. We know what they are, we know that they are nonsense. That is not the same as an "incorrect fact" being popularly believed centuries ago.

If you wish to demonstrate that Scientology is "harmless fun" would you not do better to concentrate on what it "teaches", rather than posting about centuries old beliefs which we have subsequently learned to be incorrect.

[vidcc]

That may be true, but how does it relate to the actual "teachings" of Scientology. We know what they are, we know that they are nonsense. That is not the same as an "incorrect fact" being popularly believed centuries ago.

If you wish to demonstrate that Scientology is "harmless fun" would you not do better to concentrate on what it "teaches", rather than posting about centuries old beliefs which we have subsequently learned to be incorrect.
That post was in reply to a question about syntax from J2.

My views on scientology can be read in previous posts on this thread.

[What'spunk.]

That may be true, but how does it relate to the actual "teachings" of Scientology. We know what they are, we know that they are nonsense. That is not the same as an "incorrect fact" being popularly believed centuries ago.

If you wish to demonstrate that Scientology is "harmless fun" would you not do better to concentrate on what it "teaches", rather than posting about centuries old beliefs which we have subsequently learned to be incorrect.
That post was in reply to a question about syntax from J2.

My views on scientology can be read in previous posts on this thread.
Yes, you described it as "harmless fun". I really do find it difficult to see how someone would come to that conclusion. I have read a few books about it and done some research on the internet, including their own site and I think it is obvious that it is far from being harmless fun.

[vidcc]

That post was in reply to a question about syntax from J2.

My views on scientology can be read in previous posts on this thread.
Yes, you described it as "harmless fun". I really do find it difficult to see how someone would come to that conclusion. I have read a few books about it and done some research on the internet, including their own site and I think it is obvious that it is far from being harmless fun. I would probably not have responded so, had you not quoted my reply about syntax to J2.


However in reply my words were


I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

To expand for you all religion can be used to justify good or bad actions. Being a Scientologist does not make a person a danger to scociety, just as being a christian , jew, muslim etc. does not make someone a danger.
Interpretation of the teachings can.

religion in the hands of a "normal" person can have very good concequences, in the hands of a nutter can be very dangerous indeed.

[What'spunk.]

Yes, you described it as "harmless fun". I really do find it difficult to see how someone would come to that conclusion. I have read a few books about it and done some research on the internet, including their own site and I think it is obvious that it is far from being harmless fun. I would probably not have responded so, had you not quoted my reply about syntax to J2.


However in reply my words were


I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

To expand for you all religion can be used to justify good or bad actions. Being a Scientologist does not make a person a danger to scociety, just as being a christian , jew, muslim etc. does not make someone a danger.
Interpretation of the teachings can.

religion in the hands of a "normal" person can have very good concequences, in the hands of a nutter can be very dangerous indeed.


I'm not arguing with anything you say. I'm just saying that Scientology is demonstrably a dangerous cult, based on making money and controlling people. It uses pseudo science which actively damages people's sanity, removes them from their families, takes all of their money away and ruin's their life.

I just don't see how you can conclude that is "harmless fun". Whatever you may think of other groups of people. You may argue there are others as bad, I would almost agree, but they are not "harmless fun" either.

[j2k4]

Yeah, and your syntax still sucks.

I would much prefer you endorse my own formulation:

"pseudo-credibility"

I demand you submit to my superior construct.

Do it now. :angry:



















:P

[thewizeard]

it's probably unsuitable for weak-minded, follow the herd , type people...

[What'spunk.]

it's probably unsuitable for weak-minded, follow the herd , type people...
Why would anyone else be intereted in getting involved.

[thewizeard]

there are enough memebers, so you can probaly better address that question to them... Strangely, it is often "well to do members" that join Ron's scam...

[j2k4]

there are enough memebers, so you can probaly better address that question to them... Strangely, it is often "well to do members" that join Ron's scam...

Yeah, kinda like "Skull and Bones" for liberals. :dry:

[3RA1N1AC]

selfosophy! (http://www.morganandwongonline.com/jose2.htm)

also: scientology is a religion started by an author of bad sci-fi novels, who seems to have been a misanthropic drug-abusing psychopath. they copyright, trademark and sell their religious materials like free marketeers, shuffle the money around their various companies till the money (the part that hasn't been reserved for starting lawsuits and buying spiffy sea org uniforms, anyway) ends up in who knows whose pockets, behave pretty much like a for-profit business, yet scientology's companies pay no taxes. they insist that psychology & psychiatry are evil, yet scientology itself is just an abusive application of psychological theories obscured by a complicated insular vocabulary to protect it from outside scrutiny. then there's the mumbo-jumbo about aliens and thetans and engrams, which is possibly the most orthodox and least interesting part of the whole thing.

it's a scam, yeah. but it's a brilliant scam, considering how successful it's been, despite being so recently invented and so farcical in every aspect. i'm divided between disgust and admiration.

[vidcc]

I just don't see how you can conclude that is "harmless fun". Whatever you may think of other groups of people. You may argue there are others as bad, I would almost agree, but they are not "harmless fun" either.
I said I would vote "harmless fun" and when it comes to normal people, it is, then if you notice I put a "but".


Any religion is dangerous when it comes to the unhinged. I will say that religion isn't the only dangerous thing when it comes to the unhinged but it happens to be the subject in this thread.
My stance is clear, Scientology is no more dangerous or safe than any other religion, the danger is in the individual.

So, sorry, but I shall not single it out.

[j2k4]

My stance is clear, Scientology is no more dangerous or safe than any other religion, the danger is in the individual.

Similar statements are made in reference to firearms when comes time to argue about gun control laws, as I remember...:)

[vidcc]

My stance is clear, Scientology is no more dangerous or safe than any other religion, the danger is in the individual.

Similar statements are made in reference to firearms when comes time to argue about gun control laws, as I remember...:)

Well I will suggest a distinction.

A religious nutcase as annoying as he/she may be, isn't a danger to me............unless he/she has a gun of course. (disclaimer: I realise that any other type of weapon could be used and by using gun as an example I am not ignoring other weapons or other physical dangers that may exist or dangers to personal freedoms that religious zealots may pose)

What an interesting thought though, a background check before you can have religion :shifty:

[What'spunk.]

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions
So you are now saying that it's not harmless fun, is that it?

[vidcc]

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions
So you are now saying that it's not harmless fun, is that it?

My position hasn't changed, I simply repeated.

[What'spunk.]

So you are now saying that it's not harmless fun, is that it?

My position hasn't changed, I simply repeated.
So what is it, harmless fun, or not harmless fun?

[vidcc]

My position hasn't changed, I simply repeated.
So what is it, harmless fun, or not harmless fun?
Ok last repeat:

To a normal person- someone capable of reaosnable thought and personal behaviour control- harmless fun


To an unhinged person- someone perhaps with low mental capacity and easily influenced to accept and perhaps act in a way any normal rational person would not- dangerous.

While I believe the vast majority of people belong to the first group I am not ignoring the latter.

[What'spunk.]

So what is it, harmless fun, or not harmless fun?
Ok last repeat:

To a normal person- someone capable of reaosnable thought and personal behaviour control- harmless fun

So you think that it's harmless fun to a normal person. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Biggles]

On a whimsy, I sat their psychological test many years ago (1975 I think). It took a while and was in itself a tad tedious. They then kept me waiting two hours while the analysed the results. I had a train to catch so I left before finding out that they could have undoubtedly helped me if I followed their directions and joined.

Fortunately, I caught my train, although it was touch and go. However, they subjected me to two hours of boredom - perhaps not dangerous but certainly a pain the butt. I skimmed through one of Ron's books whilst waiting - I was unimpressed. I never went back.

I would classify as "best avoided"

[j2k4]

I would classify as "best avoided"

Like any Tom Cruise movie.

Y'know, when he pissed off Brooke Shields with his ill-chosen remarks a while back, I remember wishing she'd challenge him to a duker.

I think she'd have kicked his ass, the little pip-squeak. ;)

[Fromagepas]

On a whimsy, I sat their psychological test many years ago (1975 I think). It took a while and was in itself a tad tedious. They then kept me waiting two hours while the analysed the results. I had a train to catch so I left before finding out that they could have undoubtedly helped me if I followed their directions and joined.

Fortunately, I caught my train, although it was touch and go. However, they subjected me to two hours of boredom - perhaps not dangerous but certainly a pain the butt. I skimmed through one of Ron's books whilst waiting - I was unimpressed. I never went back.

I would classify as "best avoided"
I really, really wish you hadn't posted that. It saddens me more than you can ever imagine.

[Smith]

Wasnt the creator or Scientology convicted of fraud?

[j2k4]

On a whimsy, I sat their psychological test many years ago (1975 I think). It took a while and was in itself a tad tedious. They then kept me waiting two hours while the analysed the results. I had a train to catch so I left before finding out that they could have undoubtedly helped me if I followed their directions and joined.

Fortunately, I caught my train, although it was touch and go. However, they subjected me to two hours of boredom - perhaps not dangerous but certainly a pain the butt. I skimmed through one of Ron's books whilst waiting - I was unimpressed. I never went back.

I would classify as "best avoided"
I really, really wish you hadn't posted that. It saddens me more than you can ever imagine.

I think we need more of the "why" of that sentiment. :huh:

[Biggles]

On a whimsy, I sat their psychological test many years ago (1975 I think). It took a while and was in itself a tad tedious. They then kept me waiting two hours while the analysed the results. I had a train to catch so I left before finding out that they could have undoubtedly helped me if I followed their directions and joined.

Fortunately, I caught my train, although it was touch and go. However, they subjected me to two hours of boredom - perhaps not dangerous but certainly a pain the butt. I skimmed through one of Ron's books whilst waiting - I was unimpressed. I never went back.

I would classify as "best avoided"
I really, really wish you hadn't posted that. It saddens me more than you can ever imagine.

I am saddened that you are sad.

Like J2, I am intrigued as to why though. It was, after all, a minor event over 30 years ago (notwithstanding butterflies and hurricanes).

[Fromagepas]

You, a respected person (and I mean by me and others whose opinions matter, not someone who has been here for a certain time) have effecively trivialised something I see as dangerous and insidious.

I have had some personal experience with cultism (close family member) and we managed to nip same in proverbial bud. However that highlighted even more to me just how easy it would be for someone to become part of that type of thing. I have taken to researching things I previously laughed at, or mocked in an off-hand manner.

Scientology is a dangerous cult, it is not harmless fun.

[Biggles]

You, a respected person (and I mean by me and others whose opinions matter, not someone who has been here for a certain time) have effecively trivialised something I see as dangerous and insidious.

I have had some personal experience with cultism (close family member) and we managed to nip same in proverbial bud. However that highlighted even more to me just how easy it would be for someone to become part of that type of thing. I have taken to researching things I previously laughed at, or mocked in an off-hand manner.

Scientology is a dangerous cult, it is not harmless fun.

Fair point - although in my defence I did say "best avoided" - something I actually meant. I voted dangerous cult although I felt that perhaps over-stated things. There are more dangerous. I never liked the Moonies or the Children of God who I would definitely class as more dangerous. They want you body and soul - the Scientologists are more interested in your wallet (and continued donations). I also find the Gouranga mob a tad scary although I don't know much about them. I think it is the anoraks and clip board that worries me.

[Fromagepas]

Thanks for clearing that up. I really do appreciate it.

It's just that your story and "best avoided" came across as being jocular. It portrayed them as figures of scorn (which they no doubt are) however it also seemed to portray them as something which could be toyed with. Which I very much do not think is the case.

I agree that there are much more dangerous cults, however that does not mean that they cannot ruin their victim's life's. It's just better for them to keep most of them active and earning, to keep the cash flowing in.

Cheers, mate.

[TheDave]

i'd like to do the test and shit. but i'd be scared of getting hypnotised :ermm:

[j2k4]

You, a respected person (and I mean by me and others whose opinions matter, not someone who has been here for a certain time) have effecively trivialised something I see as dangerous and insidious.

I have had some personal experience with cultism (close family member) and we managed to nip same in proverbial bud. However that highlighted even more to me just how easy it would be for someone to become part of that type of thing. I have taken to researching things I previously laughed at, or mocked in an off-hand manner.

Scientology is a dangerous cult, it is not harmless fun.

Fair point - although in my defence I did say "best avoided" - something I actually meant. I voted dangerous cult although I felt that perhaps over-stated things. There are more dangerous. I never liked the Moonies or the Children of God who I would definitely class as more dangerous. They want you body and soul - the Scientologists are more interested in your wallet (and continued donations). I also find the Gouranga mob a tad scary although I don't know much about them. I think it is the anoraks and clip board that worries me.

As you say, Les.

Fromagepas-

Absent solid knowledge to the contrary I would hesitate to catagorize all...fringe religious movements so narrowly, but your caution is obviously well-founded (and well-taken), given your experience.

Jim Jones, David Koresh...we've seen it happen, and it is not a great stretch to imagine L. Ron Hubbard devoted a good amount of time to grooming his spiel to seem innocuous as strawberry jam.

At the same time, the very name, "Scientology" seems calculated to appeal to those with an otherwise sectarian inclination.

Judging by those we see advocating Scientology specifically (Cruise, et.al.), I find it telling that we continually see the moneyed types pushing for legitimacy-I remember hearing Cruise once compare the gradual (and "inevitable") acceptance of Scientology to that of chiropractic medicine over the past 30-35 years.

I remember thinking he was off his nut when he said it, and I haven't changed my mind in the interim.

In any case, the only difference between you and I (and I'm guessing Biggles, as well) is first-hand experience.

My opinion.

[Afronaut]

http://www.xenu.net/

[Spiteful]

At first I thought Scientology was a "religion" grounded in proven scientific fact. But now that I've read more, I'm astounded at the gullibility of people who truly believe in it.

Because so many rich people have joined, it has the funds to sue the crap out of any one or anything that tries to criticise it (even in a civilised, debating-like manner)

Has anyone read their "doctrines"??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

In Scientology doctrine, Xenu (also Xemu) is an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to cause problems today.


The kidnapped populace was loaded into space planes for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). The space planes were exact copies of Douglas DC-8s, "except the DC-8 had fans, propellers on it and the space plane didn't."


{On the "Marcab Confederacy"} They had turbine-generated cars that went about 275 miles an hour (443 km/h). They ran with a high whine. I notice they've just now invented the motor again. And they had tracks that were booby-trapped with atom bombs, and they had side bypasses. The tracks were mined, and the grandstands were leaded-paned.

I've got just three more letters to add:

W.T.F.

[thewizeard]

anything you can Imagine is possible and regarding W.T.F

WTF (http://rcmedia.town-local.net/software/index.php?option=articles&task=viewarticle&artid=37)

[vidcc]

At first I thought Scientology was a "religion" grounded in proven scientific fact. But now that I've read more, I'm astounded at the gullibility of people who truly believe in it.

Because so many rich people have joined, it has the funds to sue the crap out of any one or anything that tries to criticise it (even in a civilised, debating-like manner)

Has anyone read their "doctrines"??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu



The kidnapped populace was loaded into space planes for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). The space planes were exact copies of Douglas DC-8s, "except the DC-8 had fans, propellers on it and the space plane didn't."


{On the "Marcab Confederacy"} They had turbine-generated cars that went about 275 miles an hour (443 km/h). They ran with a high whine. I notice they've just now invented the motor again. And they had tracks that were booby-trapped with atom bombs, and they had side bypasses. The tracks were mined, and the grandstands were leaded-paned.

I've got just three more letters to add:

W.T.F.

These "doctrines" are just as likely to be true as those of other "mainstream" religions.

As I said, Hocus pocus is Hocus pocus.

[Chip Monk]

The teachings of the mainstream religions, as you call them, are mostly based on historical fact. Jesus did exist, he did travel, he did have followers, he did teach certain things. He basically taught that it would be a good thing for everyone to be nice to each other and to be charitable. To do other people a favour rather than a bad turn. To turn the other cheek if you yourself were attacked. Whether you believe He was anything other than a man, surely these are good lessons. Surely everyone can try to aspire to that, whatever you think of Him.

I agree that the interpretation people place upon things may be different and that it cannot be scientifically proven the He was the Son of God. That's a matter of faith. I have no problem with anyone taking that position, good on them if that's what they feel and believe. May the blessings of the Prophet be upon you.

However to equate that to Scientology is not really tenable. Scientology is based on the writings of a hack science fiction author. Just look at the "teachings" the bloke earlier highlighted. Look at how the organisation works, look at how it treats it's members and those who would oppose it. look at the techniques it employs to enslave it's members. For fucks sake, just look at the name, even that was specifically chosen to appeal to a certain type of person.

Scientology is a dangerous cult. Of that there is no doubt.

[vidcc]

The teachings of the mainstream religions, as you call them, are mostly based on historical fact. Jesus did exist, he did travel, he did have followers, he did teach certain things. He basically taught that it would be a good thing for everyone to be nice to each other and to be charitable. To do other people a favour rather than a bad turn. To turn the other cheek if you yourself were attacked. Whether you believe He was anything other than a man, surely these are good lessons. Surely everyone can try to aspire to that, whatever you think of Him. I think it entirely possible that "jesus" may have existed or at he is a character based on someone that may have existed, I also think it entirely possible that he was a made up personthat happened to be a "nice concerned man" in a book.the idea that he was the "son of god" and the "miracles" is hocus pocus fiction.
The bible cannot be called fact because certain events depicted actually happened.
For example the great flood. Let's say that the world did flood, this is entirely possible. This is not proof that "god" flooded the earth.
Accepted history is full "truthiness".


I agree that the interpretation people place upon things may be different and that it cannot be scientifically proven the He was the Son of God. That's a matter of faith. I have no problem with anyone taking that position, good on them if that's what they feel and believe. May the blessings of the Prophet be upon you.

However to equate that to Scientology is not really tenable. Scientology is based on the writings of a hack science fiction author. Just look at the "teachings" the bloke earlier highlighted. Look at how the organisation works, look at how it treats it's members and those who would oppose it. look at the techniques it employs to enslave it's members. For fucks sake, just look at the name, even that was specifically chosen to appeal to a certain type of person. And how do you know that the authors of the bible etc. where not just the "hacks" of their day?

Christianity for example isn't just based on the teachings of jesus (in fact it seems his teaching are more often than not ignored) religious doctrine tends to be the creation of the followers more than the prophet. Christianity follows "gods words" as well. God is hocus pocus and the scientology theory, even based on a science fiction story is as likely to be true as the god creation theory.

Scientology is a dangerous cult. Of that there is no doubt. I disagree, there is doubt.

Adressing the point someone made about "being after money"....Tithing isn't exactly unique to scientology. One may make a differential case about what the money is used for but it comes down to this.... If the people that choose scientology as their belief system want to give money then that is up to them.

[Fromagepas]

You've already said that you think it's harmless fun. However your argument for that seems to rest on your opinion that other things are hocus pocus, or are as bad. That may or may not be true. However it really is irrelevant, the poll is not a comparative study. It relates to Scientology, which is a dangerous cult. Whether other things are hocus pocus, superstition or just plain nonsense is irrelevant.


If the people that choose scientology as their belief system want to give money then that is up to them.

Maybe at the very start, but not for long. that's how it works.

Have you carried out much research into Scientology? Or indeed into any other cult? it may be worth your while doing so, just in case someone you know, or heaven forbid are related to, announces that they are joining it. I seriously would not want your reaction to be "Oh, well, it's just a bit of harmless fun".

[vidcc]

You've already said that you think it's harmless fun. However your argument for that seems to rest on your opinion that other things are hocus pocus, or are as bad. That may or may not be true. However it really is irrelevant, the poll is not a comparative study. It relates to Scientology, which is a dangerous cult. Whether other things are hocus pocus, superstition or just plain nonsense is irrelevant.

My stance is clear, Scientology is no more dangerous or safe than any other religion, the danger is in the individual. You do not decide what is relevant to anyones point or what can be discussed. It would be a pretty unfair and unbalanced debate if scientology were singled out without being able to show comparisons upon which ones reasoning is based.
without balance or comparison it's nothing more than a schoolyard flaming statement.








If the people that choose scientology as their belief system want to give money then that is up to them.

Maybe at the very start, but not for long. that's how it works.

Have you carried out much research into Scientology? Or indeed into any other cult? it may be worth your while doing so, just in case someone you know, or heaven forbid are related to, announces that they are joining it. I seriously would not want your reaction to be "Oh, well, it's just a bit of harmless fun".
It's called a cult by those that believe in other religions.....to me all religions are cults and we take responsibility for our own actions.

[ilw]

The followers don't seem to be killing themselves or anyone else afaik, so why is it dangerous?

[Fromagepas]

My stance is clear, Scientology is no more dangerous or safe than any other religion, the danger is in the individual. You do not decide what is relevant to anyones point or what can be discussed. It would be a pretty unfair and unbalanced debate if scientology were singled out without being able to show comparisons upon which ones reasoning is based.
without balance or comparison it's nothing more than a schoolyard flaming statement.








If the people that choose scientology as their belief system want to give money then that is up to them.

Maybe at the very start, but not for long. that's how it works.

Have you carried out much research into Scientology? Or indeed into any other cult? it may be worth your while doing so, just in case someone you know, or heaven forbid are related to, announces that they are joining it. I seriously would not want your reaction to be "Oh, well, it's just a bit of harmless fun".
It's called a cult by those that believe in other religions.....to me all religions are cults and we take responsibility for our own actions.

It is not just called a cult by people who believe in other religions. It's called a cult by many people, religious or not.

My point is, your defence of Scientology as harmless fun is based on comparing it to other religions, rather than on analyzing what Scientology teaches and how it treats it's members.

Let us assume, for the purposes of your argument that every other religion is a dangerous cult. It's all nonsense and hocus pocus, it's all just rubbish.

How does that effect whether Scientology is a dangerous cult, or harmless fun? It doesn't, it's a non-argument.

I can see how you would use that type of argument to debate that it was no worse than say, Christianity, but that's an entirely different issue.

[TheDave]

:dabs:

i watched the south park on mormons today. mormonology is a respected religion right? it's just as suck as scientology or believing the world is 6000-7000 years old :dabs:

[Fromagepas]

:dabs:

i watched the south park on mormons today. mormonology is a respected religion right? it's just as suck as scientology or believing the world is 6000-7000 years old :dabs:
How much research have you done into the beliefs of the Mormons and where they came from?

Is it just the one episode of soth Park, or have you spread your net a bit wider?

[TheDave]

:dabs:

i watched the south park on mormons today. mormonology is a respected religion right? it's just as suck as scientology or believing the world is 6000-7000 years old :dabs:
How much research have you done into the beliefs of the Mormons and where they came from?

Is it just the one episode of soth Park, or have you spread your net a bit wider?
just one episode of south park :smilie4:


is it not true that it was started by one guy said he found 4 gold tablets with scripture in a foriegn language on, and that he translated them using two magic stones. then when asked to replicate the first translations, he couldn't, because he pissed god off :dabs:

[vidcc]

It is not just called a cult by people who believe in other religions. It's called a cult by many people, religious or not.


to me all religions are cults





My point is, your defence of Scientology as harmless fun is based on comparing it to other religions, rather than on analyzing what Scientology teaches and how it treats it's members.

that is your creation, not my arguement.

my argument is -

the danger is in the individual.

I think scientology is complete bunkum, but as I said before I am not going to single it out as being different from any other religion. If you wish to tunnel the subject feel free to do so, I will not.






I can see how you would use that type of argument to debate that it was no worse than say, Christianity, but that's an entirely different issue.


Originally Posted by vidcc
My stance is clear, Scientology is no more dangerous or safe than any other religion, the danger is in the individual.
:rolleyes:

I shall re-quote this

the danger is in the individual.

edit: Quotes fixed

[Fromagepas]

How much research have you done into the beliefs of the Mormons and where they came from?

Is it just the one episode of soth Park, or have you spread your net a bit wider?
just one episode of south park :smilie4:


is it not true that it was started by one guy said he found 4 gold tablets with scripture in a foriegn language on, and that he translated them using two magic stones. then when asked to replicate the first translations, he couldn't, because he pissed god off :dabs:

I think that's pretty much it. Other than it was a bloke called Joe Smith.

http://www.exmormon.org/fourteen.htm

[TheDave]

We believe we know the truth by our feelings. We do not rely on and we will disregard any facts that contradict what our feelings tell us is true. If something feels bad, like someone telling us that Joseph Smith was a fraud, then we know that Smith must of been a prophet since falsehoods create bad feelings and it feels bad when someone tells us that we have been duped. In other words, if we get a bad feeling, we are hearing bad things which must be lies. We feel good when we read the Book of Mormon, therefore it is true. Archeology, genetics, science, metallurgy, agriculture and animal studies are irrelevant since our feelings tell us it is a true book revealed by God. This good feeling applies to all aspects of our lives. We determine if we should do something or know the truth of something if we have prayed about it and have a good feeling about it.


yeah, so, that's pretty fucked up right there :dabs:


as zany as that what the bleep do we know video :dabs:

[3RA1N1AC]

Judging by those we see advocating Scientology specifically (Cruise, et.al.), I find it telling that we continually see the moneyed types pushing for legitimacy-I remember hearing Cruise once compare the gradual (and "inevitable") acceptance of Scientology to that of chiropractic medicine over the past 30-35 years.
well, i reckon it's the mandate of every scientologist, whether moneyed or not, to win mainstream legitimacy for the church.

one might be tempted to say that tom cruise's behavior in tv interviews & such over the past year seem to be merely a result of him being one individual nut. or it's an unique result of his brain being scrambled by a cult. except his attitude toward simple conversation is not really unique among representatives of scientology. for all the seeming attempt at making the church seem innocuous, they place a heavy emphasis on winning the battle which the rest of us call conversation. whether by lying, by verbal sparring & intimidation, or by lawsuits. i'm fairly certain i've seen tom cruise attempt to use a couple of those techniques while he was being interviewed about scientology. if you can look up some quotations from scientology's public relations instruction manuals, cruise's behavior might not seem any more crazy/hostile than the church's own prescribed P.R. methods (in fact they might appear to be exactly the same).

[j2k4]

Judging by those we see advocating Scientology specifically (Cruise, et.al.), I find it telling that we continually see the moneyed types pushing for legitimacy-I remember hearing Cruise once compare the gradual (and "inevitable") acceptance of Scientology to that of chiropractic medicine over the past 30-35 years.
well, i reckon it's the mandate of every scientologist, whether moneyed or not, to win mainstream legitimacy for the church.

one might be tempted to say that tom cruise's behavior in tv interviews & such over the past year seem to be merely a result of him being one individual nut. or it's an unique result of his brain being scrambled by a cult. except his attitude toward simple conversation is not really unique among representatives of scientology. for all the seeming attempt at making the church seem innocuous, they place a heavy emphasis on winning the battle which the rest of us call conversation. whether by lying, by verbal sparring & intimidation, or by lawsuits. i'm fairly certain i've seen tom cruise attempt to use a couple of those techniques while he was being interviewed about scientology. if you can look up some quotations from scientology's public relations instruction manuals, cruise's behavior might not seem any more crazy/hostile than the church's own prescribed P.R. methods (in fact they might appear to be exactly the same).

Some might find me handicapped by the fact of my sincere non-fascination with young Tom; I find the sum total of his worth to be the work-product of an excellent dentist, and his acting ability next-to-nil.

That he favors Scientology is fitting, I suppose, and his naturally smug demeanor would seem to make him predisposed to the role of "spokesman", but while he conveys 'smug' with his bearing, he cannot manage 'convincing', being equipped only with his mouthful of pretty teeth and his wee tiny brain.

To attribute to him the gravity of a "mandate" is going a bit far, unless you were merely being sarcastic, which is proper and acceptable. ;)

[vidcc]

Is cruise a "spokesman" or is he just someone famous that speaks out?

[j2k4]

Is cruise a "spokesman" or is he just someone famous that speaks out?

If he has a mandate, as you say, it goes beyond garden-variety proselytizing, I think, and if you're Tom Cruise, it would be easy:

'Hi, I'm Tom Cruise, and if Scientology is my choice, you know it's good enough for you...'

As they say, "Image is everything"

I'm quite sure his Church overlooks his clumsiness as a mouthpiece in lieu of his financial largesse.

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

I didnt vote either because "pack of loony nut-jobs" wasnt a option. I only know what I see on TV and hear on the radio about this scientology crap, and if they are anything like what tom cruise is displaying, then they are the most retarded bunch of idiots to hit the scene since the "heavens gate" retards a few years ago. Seems funny they all think spaceships are comming.........maybe they are :lol: But in all fairness, I dont really know what they stand for.........But I do like scifi stuff :P

[vidcc]

@ j2

I didn't say he has a mandate, I asked if he did.

My question was if Cruise is officially a spokesman or just someone open or vocal about his religion....hardly unusual....... that happens to be famous.

would his position as a celebrity be an issue if he was openly christian ?

[What'spunk.]

@ j2

I didn't say he has a mandate, I asked if he did.

My question was if Cruise is officially a spokesman or just someone open or vocal about his religion....hardly unusual....... that happens to be famous.

would his position as a celebrity be an issue if he was openly christian ?
Mel Gibson, enough said.

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

I think if you have a lunatic down the street that says "the end is near", then you have, say, tom cruise saying "the end is near", more people will hear tom cruise cuz he is famous. SO, with him doing all this weird shit in the name of scientology, he gets tagged with being the "unofficial" spokesman. So in that respect, all of scientology would get picked on because he sounds like a total wack job.

[vidcc]

So david ike was the spokesman for uk christians?

[ilw]

I think one of the articles linked to earlier said that every time Top Gun opens his mouth the Scientology central office has to release a bunch of press releases 'clearing things up', so I think he's a useful PITA rather than any sort of official spokesperson.

[j2k4]

@ j2

I didn't say he has a mandate, I asked if he did.

Sorry-I assumed we were bound by our normal contrarian contract. :)

My question was if Cruise is officially a spokesman or just someone open or vocal about his religion....hardly unusual....... that happens to be famous.

As posted above, yes-Mel Gibson as a Christian (bad, of course, for his career; good thing he's already fuck-off successful), and, of course, John Travolta, whose unfortunate effort (can't remember it's name) was a pet project-at least he's more forthright and sincere with his cash than Cruise.


would his position as a celebrity be an issue if he was openly christian ?

Yes; Mel Gibson suffered some slings and arrows, as I recall...had you forgotten?

[vidcc]

Yes; Mel Gibson suffered some slings and arrows, as I recall...had you forgotten?
the question was to you. your opinion, if cruise was "praising jesus" would his celebrity be an issue.
I have no problem with any celeb. stating their opinions, political or religious. I only have a problem with people who try to force others to live by their "values".

[3RA1N1AC]

My question was if Cruise is officially a spokesman or just someone open or vocal about his religion....hardly unusual....... that happens to be famous.
well, no, if the question be "is tom cruise (or any other celebrity) an official spokesperson for the Church Of Scientology proper?"

but many (most?) celebrity scientologists do have "official spokesperson" status within scientology organizations that are clearly separate in name only. tom's unwieldy job-title is International Ambassador for Applied Scholastics International (http://www.study-technology.com/celebrity-supporters/tom-cruise.php).