Re: Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult
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.
Re: Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult
i'd like to do the test and shit. but i'd be scared of getting hypnotised :ermm:
Re: Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Re: Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult
Re: Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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."
Quote:
{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.
Re: Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult
anything you can Imagine is possible and regarding W.T.F
WTF
Re: Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Quote:
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."
Quote:
{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.
Re: Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult
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.
Re: Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Monk
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Monk
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.
Re: Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult
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.
Quote:
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".
