Brad89 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Xenu. SERIOUSLY? Xenu is as plausible as Jesus? Give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyZeb Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 It took almost 3 pages for the atheist swarm to arrive, you're losing your touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Watch this Scientology Promo Video. Somebody needs to wake these people up. They think they are God's gift and they are the only ones to save the world. http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress you mean Xenu's gift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Xenu. SERIOUSLY? Xenu is as plausible as Jesus? Give me a break. i think his point was, in terms you can relate to, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 *EDIT* I was playing with the edit to copy this somewhere else, and I accidentally changed it, which is why this may not make sense in context anymore. To compare Scientology to any religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Hinduism, Nation of Islam, is insane. Scientology is not a religion. It is a con job. For more on this subject, I suggest reading Scientology: Religion or racket? by Dr. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi in the Marburg Journal of Religion. Dr. Beit-Hallahmi is a highly regarded expert in the field of religious studies. From the conclusion: Scientology's own documents show an organization which is blatantly commercial, blatantly secular and blatantly predatory, as well as blatantly fraudulent. As Hubbard himself said in 1962, the religion label "is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors" (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, HCOPL, 29 October 1962). Scientology will use the religion label when it is convenient, and a secular label when it suits better. It will use the cross (as it has done in publications and displays on buildings) just like it has used Sigmund Freud's name. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the religion claim is merely a tax-evasion ruse and a fig leaf for a hugely profitable enterprise, where the logic of profitability and profit-making dictates all actions. Scientology is in reality a holding company, a business empire earning profits from a variety of subsidiaries. It is guided by considerations of economic consequences and benefits, a strict business strategy. The assertion that Scientology is a misunderstood religion seems less tenable than the competing assertion, that it is a front for a variety of profit-making schemes, most of which are totally fraudulent. The question is only whether Scientology is "an ordinary profit-making enterprise", as Passas & Castillo (1992) suggest or whether "Scientology's purpose is making money by means legitimate and illegitimate" (US District Court, Southern District of New York, 92 Civ. 3024 (PKL) see www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/decis.time.html ). The most charitable interpretation would be that it is a profit making organization; a less charitable one that it is a criminal organization. The evidence for an explicit policy of deception makes it harder and harder to show any degree of charity. The story of Hubbard and his brainchild deserves treatment by those who have written on famous impostors and great con men (Maurer, 1940/1999). Similar cases include the phenomenon of "psychic surgeons" in the Philippines, who prey on terminal cancer patients from the West, or the Dominion of Melchizedek (a cyberspace scam, self-described as a "recognized ecclesiastical and constitutional sovereignty, inspired by the Melchizedek Bible"). In the context of United States cultural history, Hubbard seems like a combination of the best-known qualities of Roy Cohn (Von Hoffman, 1988) and Lyndon LaRouche (King, 1990). The similarity between Scientology and the LaRouche organization in terms of ideology and activities seems far from than trivial, but has never been noted. Some of the scholars claiming that Scientology is some kind of a religion have put their statements to an empirical test. Both Bainbridge & Stark (1981) and Passas & Castillo (1992) did suggest that Scientology would become more religious in the future, just because its claims of efficacy were absurd and unprovable. More than two decades later (for Bainbridge & Stark, 1981) and more than a decade later (for Passas & Castillo, 1992) these predictions have turned out to be totally wrong. Scientology has not become more religious in any discernible way since 1981 or 1992. It is as much a religion today as it has ever been, and as it will ever be. The problem with Scientology is not that it is new, and proposes supernatural ideas that seem odd to non-believers. Nation of Islam is a religion of about the same age with beliefs at least equally unusual to outsiders (google "Mother Plane" to see what I mean), but it is a religion. Scientology is not a religion. It is a scam, started by a science fiction writer who basically announced in advance that he was going to make up a religion to make money, which is structured solely for maximum profit, and which only sought status as a religion to get the tax breaks and avoid prosecution on medical malpractice charges. Anyone with half a clue can see the difference between believing in something on faith, and in believing in a demonstrable scam. The correct analogy here is not Christianity. The correct analogy here comes from within Christianity, with a guy like Peter Popov. Popov claimed to hear the voice of God, but was caught hearing the voice of his wife reading cards. Popov was a fraud, and so is Scientology. There is no comparison to Christianity, or Wicca, or Nation of Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or whatever. Anyone trying to claim that there is just doesn't understand the facts. As to whether or not it is "harmless", I already addressed that earlier in this thread. Apparently, the German government doesn't think so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAFGA Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I'm disappointed at some of the ladies that have become scientologists. They are some fine looking women (like that chick from the King of Queens) but they have one weak spot: their brain. Anyone who gets sucked up into this stuff is crazy. And since when did Katie Holmes transform into Barbara Feldon (agent 99)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus87 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Or fraternities/sororities. umm...what? where did this come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommd Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 How long before he's serving kool-aid in Waco, TX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suze109 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Snipped for brevity There is significant historical evidence for the Ressurection of Jesus. The claims of Scientology were invented by a science fiction writer who pretty much announced in advance that he was going to make up a religion to make money.Beyond that, though, to compare Scientology to any religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Hinduism, Nation of Islam, is insane. There is nothing hypocritical about a religious person denouncing Scientology, any more than it would be hypocrtical for a religious person to denounce any evil, known fraud (like Popov). :applause: Well said ... I've a feeling you're going to get a lot of negative follow up action on this post from some others though ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Snipped for brevity :applause: Well said ... I've a feeling you're going to get a lot of negative follow up action on this post from some others though ... No, he won't--we've all heard it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 No, he won't--we've all heard it before. Which is why I find it puzzling that people keep repeating the same tired, incorrect arguments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Which is why I find it puzzling that people keep repeating the same tired, incorrect arguments... They just want to make sure you're still paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suze109 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 No, he won't--we've all heard it before. Oh, ok! Cool! Sorry ... this was my first foray into this Tailgate area at all ... should have probably lurked a while before posting but I couldn't believe some of the stuff in this thread and that post was the first one I saw that made any sense to me whatsoever ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Oh, ok! Cool! Sorry ... this was my first foray into this Tailgate area at all ... should have probably lurked a while before posting but I couldn't believe some of the stuff in this thread and that post was the first one I saw that made any sense to me whatsoever ... no, its cool. we like fresh meat . seriously, though, jump right in; the tailgate's a fine place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I think all religions are a scam, but that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeesburgSkinFan Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 umm...what? where did this come from? Somebody didn't get a bid. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Which is why I find it puzzling that people keep repeating the same tired, incorrect arguments... I mean, to you there's significant historical evidence that Jesus came back from the dead. There's also significant historical evidence supporting the existence of the Lock Ness monster, big foot and the Kingdom of Atlantis. So what? None of it's anything more than heresay from times long gone by. My point is, Scientology, just like all the "legit" religions, claim **** happened which is entirely unsubstanstiatable, falls completely outside the norm with anything we know about how the world works and has to be taken on faith. Given some of the corruption witnessed in the church over the years it's also difficult to accept the explanation that scientology is just a con. Like I said, in 100 years, if enough people still believe in it, it will have developed beyond that and gained a level of institutionalization that will lend it legitmacy. As I said before, par for the course, typical developmental stages of religion. Would you argue that early Christianity is inaccurately described as a cult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 lol, I said this before. A cult and a religion are not the same. It has nothing to do with belief in something that cannot be proven. It has to do with 1) control of information. Manipulating access to the "truth". 2) control of relationships. Controlling of it's members behavior by mandating isolationism 3) use of deception in recruiting 4) promoting dependence on the group. Requiring professional relationships. 5) instilling fear of leaving the group 6) requiring monetary payment. There is a monetary "cost" of enlightenment? If the "goal" of Scientology is to help the world, why is is so expensive that very few people can afford to be "helped" by it? 7) Attacking any critisicm by attempting to monetarily ruin an individual. Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist. Because they do.— L. Ron Hubbard, HCOB of 5 November 1967, "CRITICS OF SCIENTOLOGY" There are plenty of interviews of people who have been in the "church" of Scientology that have come out against them for unethical and perhaps unlawful behavior. I've never even attempted to look for anti-Scientology sites, but just a 2 minute search brought up these. http://www.xenu-directory.net/victims/index.html http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/ http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos-19.html Honestly, for anyone who thinks a cult is the same as a religion, please do a little reading. It's not just about belief in something that cannot be proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I mean, to you there's significant historical evidence that Jesus came back from the dead. There's also significant historical evidence supporting the existence of the Lock Ness monster, big foot and the Kingdom of Atlantis. So what? None of it's anything more than heresay from times long gone by. The case for Jesus' Ressurection can be made using facts agreed upon by skeptical scholars and historians. These facts have a similar level of certainty as do other ancient historical facts, like the actions of Alexander the Great or Julius Caeser. That's hardly on the same level as the Lochness Monster, Big Foot, and Atlantis. Now, it's true that many of those scholars don't agree with the conclusions I draw from said evidence, but the evidence itself is much more solid. Of course, that's not the point. A religion can have zero evidence going for it, and rely entirely on faith, and still be a religion. Scientology is not a religion, for the reasons I elucidated earlier, and which can be found in the Journal article I provided the link to. My point is, Scientology, just like all the "legit" religions, claim **** happened which is entirely unsubstanstiatable, falls completely outside the norm with anything we know about how the world works and has to be taken on faith. If you can't see the difference between believing in something on faith (with evidence or without), and believing in something that is a demonstrable scam, then I don't know what to tell you. Given some of the corruption witnessed in the church over the years it's also difficult to accept the explanation that scientology is just a con. Like I said, in 100 years, if enough people still believe in it, it will have developed beyond that and gained a level of institutionalization that will lend it legitmacy. Did you read the article? One the things it discusses is that religious studies professors who previously examined Scientology expected it to morph into a religion over time, as you postulate here. It hasn't happened. It was started as a business, and it remains a business. Read the article. As I said before, par for the course, typical developmental stages of religion. Would you argue that early Christianity is inaccurately described as a cult? It depends on how you define cult. By the definition you're using, yes, early Christianity was a cult. Nation of Islam could be considered a cult. Scientology is not a cult. It is not a religion. It is a callous, sometimes criminal, business venture. It is a scam. And, as I pointed out earlier, it is not harmless. Germany is seriously considering banning the group from their country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 there was a news article last week that Tom Cruise is the #2 highest ranking Scientologist in the world. the dude is scary crazy believing that nonsense of thetans and aliens and mind control.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvoSkins Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 More Tom Cruise Scientology videos "To LRH!" Then Salute! http://gawker.com/345563/tom-cruise-uncut-the-freedom-medal-award-ceremony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Tom Cruise and Johnny T. are the few people that CAN get that high. 2 mill in disposable income is tough to come by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Scientologists must be really frustrating people to deal with. You try to have a debate with them and they go off with some jargon that doesn't even make sense. How are you supposed to respond to "we spend 50 billion dollars on education, psych driven, and where are we?" Uh, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 My roomate stumbled upon the Scientology center in DC and ended up going in for an audit (the audit is free, the results are not). He said they asked questions like, "Are you having problems with your relationships?" "Do you feel happy at your job?" etc. They used one of those "e-meters" on him. He said he answered truthfully at times, and lied for some other questions, but the e-meter always reacted the same way. It's funny--dime-store psychologists railing against psychology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.