f13.net

There are no words for the cataclysm that just took place in my brain.

Wow. I knew she was a flake, but holy fuck. And isn't it the position of the Church of Scientology that reprinting church documents is a sin or something?

How is the entertainment world home to "massive suppression"? These people would sell their own organs for another season of exposure in the public eye. Perhaps they are using a fancy definition that means something else.

I imagine her definition of reality probably differs a great deal from your own, so suppression is a no-brainer.

That is one nutty broad. Opiate for the masses, anyone?

What an unlikely pair, a free spirit and a puppet. -Brian the dog regarding Dharma and Greg.

But looking at this story, I've come to a revelation: A person CAN, in fact, be both a free spirit and a puppet at the same time.

Someone shoot her before she kills us all.

VIVA LA THETA!














Edit: What?

I think she means massive suppression of her "religion" or "religious" views. On the other hand, Tom Cruise and John Travolta don't seem to be having any problems finding work.

Now I have agita.  Thanks, Shockeye.

Could someone please explain this belief system to me?

All I know is a father of a friend of ours was filthy rich, but would give all his cash to the Church of Scientology.  Poor guy didn't see a dime.

It's kind of complicated. If you want to know the gory details there are plenty of Web site you can search for. Here's a super simplified description:

Scientologists believe that human beings and other creatures are just vessels for an immortal soul or "thetan". Thetans are what created the universe and everything in it. However thetans are vulnerable to all sorts of psychology problems (i.e. your typical human neurosis and psychosis) which rob them of their powers. They can also have these problems implanted in them through various nefarious means. The body of your thetan can also be "infected" with another thetan which means the primary thetan is in conflict with this other one and if that one is infected, well, that's bad news. There were a whole bunch of implanted thetans that were brought to Earth millions of years ago by the galactic overlord Xenu and are now infecting other bodies -- those are the body thetans Ms. Elfman is trying to get rid of.

If a thetan can get rid of all these problems and implants he/she/it can become omnipotent again. Now it just so happens that Scientology offers a way to do this -- unfortunately it'll cost you a lot of money. Basically there are a number of steps or ranks you can progress through (Operating Thetan or OT in Scientology-speak) with each step becoming more and more expensive where you need to purchase various training materials and spend time and money with Scientologist "auditors", basically Scientologist trained shrinks without medical licenses.

Edit: Fixed typo

Don't call them "shrinks". Scientology despises the mental health professionals of the world. They believe all psychiatrists and psychologists are a scam a sham.

I think that's ironical.

Is it possible to feel stupider after you learn more about something? :oops:

Goddamn I've been found out!

Honey, fire up the saucer, we're taking off!

Scientology is a really interesting phenomenon in all seriousness. It's obviously total horseshit and is somehow super-over-represented by the Hollywood community - their own strange designer religion. I suspect it's because it requires people that have the proper mix of money and vapidness.

I half-suspect it's just a stupid joke and someday all these Hollywood types are just going to out and say "holy shit, you guys really thought we believed that?" Here's hoping...

Wow.

That's rich.

I think we should have an MMO set in the Scientology Multiverse!

If you want to read up a bit on scientology, have a look at Operation Clambake (http://www.xenu.net/). It's the 'anti-scientology' site.

I don't see how Scientology's beliefs are any more kooky than, say, Catholicism's.

However, since I've had a prior involvement with the CoS and was a secret source for one of their magazine articles, I'm potentially biased in their favor.

Bruce

Wow, 18 posts until it became about Bruce.  He must be having an off day.

Color me not at all surprised.

Once again, the thread wasn't "about me" until you decided to make a point of it.  Really, must you be so predictable?

My post was more of an attack on Catholicism than anything else.  Originally I didn't even include the disclaimer, but decided after the fact that I should, in case it came up in later conversation.  Dammned if I do and dammned if I don't, I suppose.

Bruce

Actually, you did specifically mention your involvement with COS before you make a completely unsubstantiated comparison between drastically different systems of beliefs. I don't think your intent can be construed in any other manner other than to a) incite flames by the righteously indignant, and 2) stroke your ego as a subject expert.

But then again, I'm new. I've only seen you do it on every thread you've commented on. Maybe I'm just shooting in the dark.

Of course, I wait to be enlightened on actually firing weapons in the dark, perhaps at Scientologists, or Catholics, or a mixed pair that became lost in the woods and began mating in some twist of Darwinism.

Fine, then... answer this.

Why does Scientology require so much money to get into the later steps?  You can be dirt poor and still be a Catholic.  Matter of fact some of the most devout Catholic communities have no shoes and live in dirt-floor shacks in the third world.

Scientology strikes me as the religion of the rich and famous who want to be "unique".

I think that description of Scientology answers the question, but you have to pay 90% of your total net worth to find the answer.

Wow, you really need to see someone about your reading comprehension problem.  It seems quite clear from the text that I mentioned my involvement *after* I made the so-called "completely ubsubstantiated comparison".  Furthermore, that still did not make the thread "about me".


Well, that's one of the eternal problems of mine: people constantly misconstrue my intent, because they always believe I have some hidden agenda.  I don't.  The post was meant to simply inform/remind people that Catholics believe a lot of crazy stuff too, which is also in turn a provocative thought to those who have not thoroughly considered it before.  It's to provide some illumination about religious tolerance.


Sounds to me like your preconceptions have coloured your evaluations.  For the near future, simply take whatever I post at face value, unless it's obviously a joke.  If you do that for a while, I think you'll eventually arrive at something a lot closer to the truth than your current opinion.

Bruce

Jebus... I'm no Bruce enthusiast but most people do form opinions based on personal experience.  Can't we just stop the Bruce bashing in nearly every thread he in which he posts?  It's becoming every bit as tedious as Bruce's SirBrucing.

Anyway... Scientology is a joke.  Literally.  Only Mr. Hubbard went insane and started believing his own silly witterings. Actually, it might have been pay back for his mostly mediocre science fiction writing.  If Harlan Ellison is to be believed...  Of course, Mr. Ellison, himself, was rather fond of dissing his peers, spreading rumours and the odd cruel practical joke.  It might all be untrue, but I've read a bit about scientology and still think it's a joke... intentional or otherwise.


 LIving in the middle of the ocean was a nice touch, though... even I have to admit that.

I don't know.  Why does Catholicism require so much "good works" to gain salvation, rather than faith alone?  You can have faith in Jesus and still be a Protestant even if you don't accomplish any good works.  Matter of fact some of the most devout Protestant communities do nothing good and survive on faith alone.

Bruce

Well, I trust Harlan.  At the risk of making the thread "about me" again, I actually know Harlan personally, and while he is an opinionated little prick, I respect him enough to say he usually does not make stuff up.  However, my point is merely this: so what?  Who is to say that Jesus Christ himself didn't have a similar conversation?  Heck, the Church of England was started by a guy who simply wanted a divorce and 100,000 pounds from the Church in royal payment, but that doesn't mean therefor that all Anglicans are a joke.  I mean, you're free to make fun of them like Eddie Izzard, just as people are free to make jokes about Catholics.  My point is it's quite unfair to look down on one preferentially over the other simply because they have unusual beliefs or questionable origins.

As a general rule of thumb, I am opposed to all organized religions.  However, I find it difficult to find fault with one over another unless they have some particularly heinous beliefs.  I recognize the value all religions provide to a society.

Bruce

The point is Christianity, for the most part, is a religion while Scientology is a cult.

And it doesn't suprise me that Bruce had any involvement with a cult.



Since it's no longer schild's birthday, I can remind him of this:

Jason Lee is a Scientologist.

God damn it, where's that exploding head .gif when you need it?

I'm sorry, color me foreign, but isn't Protestant based on Catholicism?

See, I come from a place where there are 4 religions (3 really):  Islam, Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, and Israel.

Edit: I understand your point about Catholicism being based on something that sounds just as fictional if read aloud by someone who believes.  But the difference is 1 billion people.

(http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/exploding-head.gif)


(http://www.artie.com/20001014/arg-exploding-head-guy-lg-border-url.gif)

Protestant is basicaly those churches that split from the Catholic church. (Methodist, Baptist, Penticostal) They all believe in Christ, but Protestant's reject the authority of the Vatican.

Why do you call it "Israel" rather than "Judaism"?

Anyway, yes, Protestants derive from Catholics.  So do Greek Orthodoxy.  So do Mormons.  And Catholics and Muslims both derive from Jews.

Bruce

One could argue that Catholocism developed from Orthodoxy.

And don't leave Lutherans out of the discussion. You'd be unwise to ignore the power of the pot luck.

So are these people:

Anne Archer
 Billy Sheehan
 Carina Ricco
 Carl W. Röhrig
 Catherine Bell
 Chris Masterson
 Corin Nemec
 Danny Masterson
 Edgar Winter
 Eduardo Palomo
 Erika Christensen
 Geoffrey Lewis
 Giovanni Ribisi
 Greta Van Susteren
 Haywood Nelson
 Isaac Hayes
 Jason Beghe
 Jeff Pomerantz
 Jenna Elfman
 Jennifer Aspen
 John Travolta
 Judy Norton
 Juliette Lewis
 Karen Nelson Bell
 Kate Ceberano
 Keith Code
 Kelly Preston
 Kimberly Kates
 Kirstie Alley
 Leah Remini
 Lisa Marie Presley
 Lynsey Bartilson
 Marisol Nichols
 Michael Fairman
 Michael Roberts
 Michelle Stafford
 Nancy Cartwright
 Pablo Santos
 Priscilla Presley
 Rev. Alfreddie Johnson, Jr.
 Sharon Case
 Terry Jastrow
 Tom Cruise
 Xavier Deluc
 
 It makes me sad that John Travolta is stupid.  He's so cute.

CORIN NEMEC? Damn.

It seems Parker Lewis CAN lose.

The key differences between them being..?

And I refer to it as Israel, because that's what it is called over in the Mid. East.

Good point, and probably more accurate from a historical POV, but since the world became dominated by Western thought, the Western tradition of saying otherwise prevails. :)


Or the Anglicans, the Quakers, the Unitarians, the Coptics, etc.

Bruce

Thank you, shock.  I feel better now.  Carry on.

"Hey chef, whats a scientamologist?"

"Oh, children.  You see, when a man loses his mind...."

/begin song

Those scientologists are nuts.  I'm so glad I'm a Luddite.

Orthodox do not derive from Catholicism. Get it straight. Catholics were "Orthodox" until they took the whole "seat of Rome" thing a little too seriously. Then they were excommunicated.

Where the heck did you get that list Signe.  Say it aint so !  Some of those names surprise the hell out of me.

The various Protestant religions began when a bunch of intelligent folks in the Middle Ages basically decided that the Catholic Church was overly corrupt and powerful (which it was), and needed to be reformed.  The Pope didn't like this very much, and what followed where hundreds of years of war and political conflict without which the United States probably wouldn't have ever existed, since it was mainly founded my Protestant immigrants.

Each Protestant sect focuses on different aspects of Christianity, but all are distinct from the Catholic Church.  According to wikipedia, the distinct beliefs are:

1. Solus Christus: Christ alone.
Only Christ is a mediator between God and man.

2. Sola scriptura: Scripture alone.
Against the Catholic orthodoxy that Tradition, the teachings of the College of Bishops united with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, shares primacy with Scripture for the handing-on of doctrine, Protestants argue that the Bible is the only rule of faith. This doctrine is connected with the doctrine of private interpretation of the bible.

3. Sola fide: Faith alone.
In contrast to the Roman Catholic concept of meritorious works, of penance and indulgences, masses for the dead, the treasury of the merits of saints and martyrs, a ministering priesthood who hears confessions, and purgatory, the Protestants argued that every believer is a priest and obtains reconciliation with God through faith in Jesus Christ, alone.

4. Sola gratia: Grace alone.
Against the Roman Catholic view that faith and works necessarily occur together and that works flow from faith, the Reformers posited that salvation is a gift from God dispensed through Jesus Christ, regardless of merit - for no one deserves salvation. The Roman Catholic Church, by contrast, posits that salvation is not dispensed through Jesus Christ, but was effected by Jesus Christ, on the Cross at Calvary.

All of the above taken together can basically be viewed as a weakening of Church heirarchy and established power structures, and instead returning the religion to its roots and letting every man judge for himself how best to interpret the Bible.  You read it, you make your own deal with Jesus, and that's all that matters; you don't have to go to a special guy in a robe and do what he tells you to do in order to achieve salvation.

With the advent of Vatican I & II, it is fair to say that many of these beliefs are no longer as antithetical to the Catholic Church as they were when they began.

Bruce

http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/celeb.txt

Bruce

I remembered that John Travolta was a scientologist and several other celebs so I  googled it, choosing the first alphabetical list I found.  I removed Jason Lee because I didn't want Shockeye to call me redundant.  It was all very complicated.   :-P   I knew it was a celebrity embraced thingy, but I didn't realise that so many were into it, either.  I agree that some of them don't seem as flakey as you would think and I can't figure out how these sorts of beliefs make sense to seemingly normal people. 

I also looked up quite a few of those people and saw that many have been involved with scientology sponsered benefits and fund raising, so I think the list is relatively accurate.

Edit:  I didn't actually get it from Bruce's list... that's too hard to read. I did the Wiki thang.  This is an interesting list, too.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_by_belief

I knew Isaac Hayes was one. That was quite enough to already make me sad.

That's stretching and baiting, and it will incite argument. You might as well say that Jews are really Syrians. Despite there being an element of truth, its as daft as a brush to make such an assertion.

However, this is very good:


The only thing I'd add is that the word "little" should have been in boldface. What Harlan says is supported by other attendees. Russell Miller wrote an excellent biography, which is available in full (http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm) on Clambake.

I thought it was "The Zionist Entity".

At least to some.

NOO!

I had so much respect for her!  :cry:

Now what will I do with all my DVDs of Veronica's Closet?

I think she ate hers. Try that.

Gratz to Paelos on post #1111!!1!!1!!

Scientology is sort of like numerology.  Right?

They make lovely coasters, reflectors, flying disks of death....

I think I'll go with the flying disks of death tactic.  They've already proven themselves remarkable weapons, and that's only when used as directed.  Add velocity and watch the chaos begin.

Bruce did not say Catholicism is similar to Scientology -- he said Scientology's beliefs are no more kooky than Catholicism and I would agree with that assessment. For example, try explaining transubstantiation to somebody who wasn't raised in a Christian culture and you'll probably either get a look of total befuddlement or a question like, "So Catholics are cannibals?"

To me, Scientology is a mixture of Buddhism (reincarnation, eightfold path) and "old school" Catholicism where only the Church could forgive you for your sins and you had to pay for it (paid indulgences) wrapped around a sci-fi, pseudo-scientific mythology (Xenu, aliens, emeters, etc.).

You know, I never really found her very attractive before.  But now that I know she's insane, she's gotten much more appealing. 

Which one was "her" again? I got lost.

I know next to nothing about Scientology but do feel that its secretive nature and copyright claims to its 'expensive secret insider info' make it, in my book, as suspect as any supposed 'secret insider info' of the Catholic church.

I was raised in Roman Catholicism and agree that any belief/faith system will sound odd to anyone who was not culturally indoctrinated with it from the start.

And wasn't it the Romans who initailly believed early Christians were some kind of cannibalism cult? It wasn't until I got some distance from the Catholic Mass that I could hear some of the lyrics to hymns I used to gleefully sing as a child, with such references as "eating his body" and "drinking his blood". Figuratively, I know, but I can see  myself as a child just singing along because it was what my parents did and what teachers and other adults at church did. And even now, some American Catholics have a hard time with the Mexican fascination with overly bloody crucifixes and crowns of thorns and open (sacred) hearts in Mexican church statuary and imagery.

Elfman.  My apologies for veering back on topic.  If it makes you feel better, pretend I was speaking of the Blessed Mother.

I thought maybe you were talking about Signe. I'm easily distrac... OOOHHH! SHINEY!

I realized this after I posted, but what I was trying to get at was this:  it makes it highly suspect to me that they demand money to advance further.  It seems like a conflict of interest.   The relative kookiness is a matter of opinion.


To be sure, you didn't HAVE to pay for it, the issue was that it was allowed at all.  If you weren't rich you could gain forgiveness by the usual routes (confession, penance).

And yet people have no problem paying a psychologist to improve their mental health.  So why not pay a "priest" to improve your spiritual health?  Where's the law that says all religions must be free to be valid?  (An interesting counter-point here, since one of the core tenants of Scientology is that most of Psychology/Psychiatry is a fraud.)

Bruce

So having admitted I know next to nothing about Scientology, i checked out their Web site and their 50 page FAQ (http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/catechism/index.html). I didn't read all 50 pages but reviewed quite a few of them.

Then I also check out a counter-Scientology site (http://www.scientology-lies.com/). And this interesting page at Operation Clambake (http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html).

It seems that Scientology runs into trouble when its concept of "suppressive people" starts to mean anyone who speaks negatively of Scientology. Basically, it sounds like the message is hate/harm/destroy your enemies. That certainly doesn't seem to be the way to bring about the peaceful world they say they want to help people create...

Sure it does.  When everyone who disagrees is dead, the peace can begin!

Ya know, Xenu and the Virgin Mary have a nickname for one of my friends.




















































Donkeypunch.

At this point I should probably Den this thread, but hell.. let's let this one ride a bit and see where to goes next.



















Hot Karl in 3... 2... 1...

NSFW
http://www.chud.com/chudvd/reviews/images3/st1.jpg
NSFW


Who wants a mustache ride?!

Link was fubar.

But you did give me this juicy bit.


I'm going to see that Saturday. Now I'm even more excited.

I like it when Keanu plays Keanu. Much like when Al Pacino plays Al Pacino.

It's when they try ACTING that there's a problem.

What about Keanu playing Al and Al playing Keanu in yet another Freaky Friday remake?

I'm feeling blockbuster gold on this one. Get a producer on the phone, stat!

 My mother's church refused to baptise me because she named me Signe.  They even threatened to kick her out.  They only relented when my grandfather threatened to leave the parish, taking his annual donation of 10% of his income and removing them from his will.  The Catholic religion is all business. 

Yeah, I remember the Catholic Church had some problems with that sort of thinking in the past... not to mention the Muslims, the Protestants, etc., etc.

Bruce

And the stupid get stupider. (http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/11167/index1.html)

Nah, after reading the whole scientology link that someone posted earlier, this is one religion that probably can't get any stupider.

Though the article makes a good point.  Where are the jewish and catholic tents and if they ain't there, why ain't they there ?  It's America;  shouldn't someone be suing ?

Scientology seems like an awful lot of bullshit.  I realize that is kind of redundant, particularly considering some of the crazy shit religions focus on(Old Testament has some unbelievably fucked-up stories about how God punishes sinners through their children), but when I look at Scientology I see something more disturbing.  The idea that you are success through religion and a failure through nonbelievers is such garbage I'm unable to articulate exactly how much I abhor the concept because there probably are no words of hate that are strong enough.  I'm more likely to join Carpainter's Blue-Blue cult and paint my cat than look at any more parts of Scientology with an open mind.  Shit, even Heinleins Martian Language-school in Stranger In A Strange Land seems less ridiculous to me.

And pederasty.

EarthBound rocked.

Alkiera

I'd like to point out that admitting that organized Catholizism has its problems as well (and being a bred and born Catholic I certainly agree to that) does not excuse Scientology. It drags Catholics down into the mud instead of making Scientology better. Which is fine by me, but don't try to let it look the other way round.

Scientology is dangerous, and rightfully not accepted as religion in some countries. They use all tools given to them by modern psychology to brainwash their members. Their whole scheme builds on that brainwashing, giving higher functions to those people sufficiently cleared (=brainwashed). The fact that most people searching solace in obscure sects were not that stable to begin with makes them ideal victims for such practices. But I can't deny that there are Christian sects or parts of the Catholic church themself that have a similar approach, they just don't do it with the same psychological background (which is outright scary if you think about what a screwed-up psychologist can do to your brain). For arguments sake I assume death-threats issued against former Scientologists and people actively working against them are not officially sanctioned by the CoS and that hatred  is not part of their training.

Read those paranoid ramblings that everybody is out to get that poor Elfman in that light again. She is a tool, thinking and saying what has been planted into her. Poor loony girl.

How long are we going to beat this drum?

OMG keep kids away from teachers! (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=2286.0)

Yes, it was a cheap shot. But I find the institution of Catholicism (not Catholics themselves) horrendously corrupt and hypocritical and would smirk with glee if the whole thing crumbled into more scandals. There needs to be a new schism.

Thanks Martin Luther. Remember, they didn't disappear when they were REALLY corrupt, why would they now?

Since the church has been hushing up the fact that alarmingly high numbers of priests have been buggering kids for generations, I think we can beat the drum for a bit longer. At least until the rest of them have been tried, convicted, sent to prison, and beaten to death by psychopaths.

You mean like early Christians?


I don't know how you can say this.  How is the brainwashing the Catholic Church does less "pyschological"?  Just because you say so?

Bruce

Examples of brainwashing in the Catholic Church please.

Ok, I'm curious ... what the hell is wrong with the name Signe?  What was their objection?

Context, dude.  Context.  The author already admitted it for the purposes of this discussion; there's no need to haggle over whether or not what they di is actually "brainwashing", just whether or not what they do is more or less "psychological".

Bruce

The only way to do that is to list examples of both types, Bruce. Otherwise, it's simply a matter subjective statements.

All religions are hokey, but some are hokier than others. 

Life is a sliding scale.

That's why I'm asking Tebonas was he means by psychological.  Don't muddy the waters by trying to argue whether or not its brainwashing, because we can go back and do that about CoS too, and that doesn't advance the discussion.

Bruce

How does providing examples of brainwashing for both sides and then evaluating them on a "psychological" scale not advancing the discussion? I would think it's the only way to advance the discussion realistically without getting into "well my definition of _____ is". And we all know that goes nowhere.

I wish I could remember the quote or who said it but "Man no longer needs religion".

See, this is an interesting statement, and I'm not sure it's really that simple.

It's one thing to say some beliefs may be wrong.  For instance, at one time or another science has indicated many things to us that later turned out to be incorrect, or at least, only an approximation of the truth.  The key to all of these, though, is that science accepts that its "beliefs" can be falsifiable, and will change them as new information warrants.

With most (all?) religions, the vast majority of beliefs the religion espouses cannot be challenged.  At least, not the core beliefs.  Standards and practices do seem to shift over time, but very slowly; a lot of secondary religious characteristics do change, but the core beliefs are often immutable, unless you want to spawn another religion based on the previous one.

It's one thing to say science once thought the Sun went around the Earth, because at a time there was reason to believe that.  And so a religion that believes that would be okay too. If the religion can change when science does, then I'd argue there's no difference.  Of course, it took the Catholic Church much longer to change its doctrine than it did science, so I guess they were "hokier" for a while...

Anyway, we're talking about some more fundamental things.  The belief in invisible beings with supernatural powers seems pretty hokey enough; is another religion "hokier" if they believe in such beings but think they are advanced aliens?  Seems more plausible to me, not less.  And an atomic explosion in the ocean X thousands of years ago seems more plausible, not less, than the notion that the world is only 6000 or so years old.  What of transubstantian or virgin birth or that Jesus was both God and not-God at the same time?

How do you measure hokieness?  And even if you could, how would you compare?  Is it the sum total of all a religions hokey beliefs, or do you just set it at the level of whatever the hokiest belief is?

Today people would consider slaughtering animals in sacrifice to your God to be pretty hokey, but Jews were doing it 2000 years ago and it wasn't hokey then.  And numerous other religions have done it before and since.

Bruce

Examples of "psychological" would advance the discussion.  Examples of "brainwashing" could simply just lead to arguments about whether or not something qualifies.  Anyway, none of this is for *me* to provide.  Tebonas is the one who said that both sides had "brainwashing" but one was more "psychological" than the other.  I'm not requiring him to prove that there is "brainwashing" on either side; simply that he shows how one is more "psychological" than the other.  If he wants to provide examples at the same time that satisfies both questions, that's just icing on the cake, I suppose.

Bruce

Hokey doesn't mean scientifically invalid, false or stupid, it means "noticeably contrived; artificial."  You can eyeball some religions and tell that they are hokier than others quite easily. It may be no less artificial, but it is a whole lot more noticeable.  Older religions at least have the benefit of time to get around the obviously stupid aspects of themselves. New ones don't and it is just that much more blatantly obvious what a crock of shit they are.

Signe isn't a Christian name.  It's old Norse and they considered it pagan.

Burn the witch!

Well, now then you're not talking hokey at all, or at least not in any objective sense.  Sounds more like you're talking about societal norms.  Catholicism isn't "hokey" because we're all used to it, whereas CoS and Mormons and Jedi are because they are new and different.

Bruce

I still can't believe that's your real name.  Is it considered female or gender-neutral?

Bruce

It's female from Signy. 

I didn't say anything wasn't hokey, just LESS hokey. As to your second point: Duh, that's what hokey means (at least in this context).

Then you've basically added nothing to the discussion.  We all KNOW that society sees CoS as different when compared to, say, Catholicism.  We're interested in actual, objective reasons to view one differently from the other.

Bruce

What does your brother think about all this?  Assuming you have one...

Bruce

As to not "adding to the discussion," my point is that it is a stupid discussion.

Oh just wait, the thread is heading straight for a dictionary fight.

I mean like most people searching solace in obscure sects. If some early Christians fit that bill, then yes. How should I know, early Christians were a long time ago.


No, because they usually are not trained to brainwash people by official church doctrine, because they don't have the psychological background to do it, and (biggest point) it isn't the whole point of the Catholic church to brainwash its members. I am the last person that defends the Catholic church, but it is beyond me how you can equal religious zealotry that is forced down its members throat (in extreme circumstances, not in every Catholic community like you claim) with a brainwashing pyramid scheme (in all circumstances, it being the whole point) is beyond me.

Take away the psychological tricks from Christianity and you still have at its foundation the belief in a higher, benign being. How stupid that belief may be is another discussion. It works without all this. Take away the "Clearing" part from Scientology, and the whole system breaks down. Thats all there is, there is no other idea behind it. It is only fed by the narcistic tendencies of its members.

PARTS of the Catholic church, meaning sects within it. Why do you people equate parts of it with the whole?

There are some extreme sects that work with some tricks. Secrecy because "The others wouldn't understand", elevating selfworth but at the same time making that selfworth dependant on participation in the group, making outsiders who disagree the enemy (even if they are family) because they want to do you harm and are of the devil, therefore strengthening the bond with the group, etc.

Again, I don't know how you can distinguish.  Both churches have people that are trained by church doctrine.  You seem to be arbitrarily calling one a course on "how to brainwash followers" and the other, not.


There are plenty of religious leaders with degrees in Psychology, and plenty of CoS auditors without one.


Er, but I know people who would claim the whole point of organized religion period is to brainwash its members.  It sounds to me like circular logic; i.e. "I think the CoS is about brainwashing, so everything they do must be simply to advance brainwashing."

I'm actually not trying to be snarky or argumentative; I was curious if you had real, concreate examples of how CoS practices are "psychological" and the Catholic ones less so.


See, now I think this is a completely unfair analogy.  The "auditing" part of CoS is simply a methodology, much like confession and the sacraments are for the Catholic Church.  Strip it away, and you certainly still have ideas and core beliefs behind it.  If I may quote Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Beliefs_and_practices):


Bruce

Well, I am impressed by the above, as it tells me that you do actually know something about brainwashing, and weren't just using that word loosely.  And that's good, because these are the sorts of things I want to focus on.  The above, as you start, are all things the Catholic Church does, as well as many cults.  I would point out that until recently, you also had the Latin mass, and a few hundred years ago, the various procedures Catholicism used to pressure people were MUCH stronger than they are today.

Bruce

The whole auditoring is Psychology. Psychology bent towards a goal. I'm not talking degree here, I'm talking methodology. Even CoS auditors without a degree are taught these things in the line of their work. Priests aren't. Its the difference between optional and mandatory.

No, what remains at the core of it is the feeling that in Christianity, there first was the message and then they found ways to bring the message to the people, with whatever means they found worked. Be it colorful and bright church windows that stimulated the brain to experience (religious) exstasy, be it indoctrinating the people with fear of hell so that they find god to save them from that fate. In Scientology I always felt first there was the methodology to extort massive ammounts of money from people by that scheme, and they built the whole thing around that core. Maybe I would have said the same thing about Christianity two thousand years ago though, I am a cynic, after all.



And there likes the danger of that teaching. All unenlightened people are per definition dangerous. The are inhuman (something less than human), society without CoS is insane, therefore everybody not Scientology is insane. Only by EVERYBODY achieving enlightenment (which only Scientology can give) can the world work. Everybody not seeing it that way is a enemy of the cause, most likely dictated by his insanity to destroy all the hard work we (the Scientology) achieved in hard labour and with much money.

See how that works?

Christianity can only threaten me with eternal hell after life. Which I shrug off if I don't believe in god anyway. And all but the most zealotry Christians are only sad if I choose that way, but it doesn't threaten their eternal bliss.

Indeed, I think the Catholic church had more and sharper teeth in its time, and a skillfully exexuted mass is still a beautiful thing to behold, and can grasp you even if you know how and why it works. As mentioned in my previous post, the handles they use as leverage on their clientelle don't work as well anymore. But don't misunderstand me, beyond a certain fascination for such things (I even visited a pyramid scheme meeting at one time to witness it in action) I don't find their methods without blame. I just trust their goals a bit more, which might be lingering indoctrination from my Catholic youth.

I disagree.  A lot of what Priests are taught is psychology, even thought it's not called such.  And a lot of what auditors are taught is not "psychology" in their minds at all; in fact they see psychology as a corrupt, misguided attempt at "true" metal health.


Well, that's just my point.  Now it seems you're talking about your "feelings" about one religion over another, and that's fine -- I'm entirely used to the notion that one smells more than the other, but I think that's purely because it's not mainstream.  I thought you had some objective, definable reasons for accusing one of being more of a psychological "scam" than the other.  Okay, so the Catholic Church doesn't charge you for confessions, but you could still be expected to tithe some of your income, or be pressured into donations, or you could refer to the history of the selling of papal indulgencies.

Now, what I'm getting at here, is that if indeed the Catholic Church was more of a "scam" in the past, but it had core teachings that ultimately shone through and which form the basis of belief today, then I see no reason why one couldn't see CoS in the same way -- for the value (or lack thereof) of its core teachings, not of its allegedly dubious orgins.  But, I've said that before.


Seems perfectly analogous to "sin" to me; all people are sinners, those who don't accept God are dangerous to humanity, etc.  Yes, the modern Catholic Church is more about the afterlife than establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth, but that's only because it lost the struggle with nations during the Rennaisance and the Reformation.

Anyway, CoS teaching may be more dangerous.  Again, my entire goal with you was simply established how CoS's practices were more "psychological", thus belying a true intent and design to brainwash as opposed to Catholicism wherethe brainwashing is more incidental.  And I don't think you did that.

In any case, we're basically just saying the same things over and over again now, so perhaps we should let this particular subthread end here.

Bruce

Heh.  I actually enjoy watching a good Southern Baptist preacher myself.  Before Jimmy Swaggert's fall, he was a master at manipulating an audience with his sermons.  Adding grandeur and mystery via pomp and circumstance is one thing, but watching pure oration sway the psychology of an audience is fascinating to me.  (I've always wondered if Hitler's speeches were more effective in the original German.)

Bruce

Its really hard to objectively grasp intent. My take on these matters boils down to intent. Therefore I have to reach back to my "feelings" about these matters. Not something I like to do in a discussion, its too subjective for my tastes. It has nothing to do with mainstream though. I'm against the Catholic church as well, and there is nothing more mainstream around here. Its the demeanor of every Scientology member I met that screamed "Danger, Will Robinson" at me. Its only empirical evidence though, therefore not really discussable. I just wanted to get to the point that the Catholic church and its failings don't make Scientology less dangerous. We both can agree to that, we just see different levels of danger. Thats fine by me. We can quit now.


And yes, Hitlers speeches ARE frightenly effective in the German original. But knowing what happened because of them takes much of the effect away in the German original as well.

Probably of the same reason some people equate 1.3 billion Moslems with terrorists.

Good point.  People love their categories.  Too bad the world isn't really that simple?

And I disagree there as well. There are actually some quite progressive Moslem branches.

I don't have a brother.  If I did I would have changed my name when I become of age... just in case.


It's not the least bit surprising that Scientolgy appeals to celebs.  It's weird and it justifies being all about yourself.  One of the things in which most other religions differ is that it's nearly always about someone else.  L Ron Hubbard seemed to have sussed this bit out well and attracted people who were important enough to sustain his little bit of tomfoolery and pass it along to their rich friends.  I just don't understand how these people, who must have done some research on this man, coud take it seriously.  After reading the things that people like Harlan Ellison and Theodore Sturgeon said about the night Hubbard invented Scientology, don't they feel a wee bit silly?  I guess denial and self absorbtion rulles in Hollywood.

I only read some of one of his Mission Earth books, and as an author, he was no great shakes.  I have read some exerps from Mission Earth and I suppose it's only real saving grace (for some) was the pair of hostile lesbians and some kinky sex. I think that it was from one of those books.  Battlefield Earth might have been a bit better, as long as you don't require your scientific facts to be accurate,  but I don't think you can write books in the style of "a penny a word pulp fiction" and get too much respect from your peers.  It's not surprising that John Travolta couldn't make the movie work, either.  Maybe he reckoned he could get some respect from cool religion idea from other sorts of people.  That sort of worked out for him.

Have you ever read thing things other people said about Jesus?  Like the Apocrypha where Jesus, as a child, acidentally runs into another boy, and gets knocked down.  So in retaliation, Jesus kills him, then when the villagers complain, he resurrects the child, but leaves him lame so he'll forever remember the day?

Anyway, as I've stated before, for all we know Jesus sat around a table with his disciples and said, "Hey, I have this great idea for making money!" too.  What matters is not the origins of the religion, but whether or not its core teachings are valuable, right?

Bruce

Dying a slow painful death on a cross the next day pays very little.  Asshole.

I didn't say this took place at The Last Supper.

Bruce

The Church didn't have any money worth speaking of until about FOUR HUNDRED years later. Exactly why would Jesus, or even his followers, plan such a scheme again?

EDIT: Not to mention the thousands who suffered indignity, rape, torture, and execution to get to that point. No mass amount of people, starting with the movement's leader, would do that without at the very least the most sincere of intentions.


I think it's safe to say that whatever one's hypothesis of the origins of the Church are, they'd have to be at least something that didn't involve immediate gain, selfishness, or whatever vain objective some would love to ascribe to them. That much should be ruled out.

That "for we all know..." thing you're talking about?

It's pretty much bullshit.

And don't even get me started on the apocrypha. For now, I'll spare you the exegetical asskicking, but keep it up, and this thread will reach the heights of BOREDOM and TEDIUM, the likes of which few have ever seen.

Whatever.  Get back to me when you're willing to have a reasonable conversation.

Bruce

Sorry Bruce, but in the real world, you don't win arguments by fiat.

I've always liked that tedium is derived from Te Deum, it's somehow fitting.

Anyway, I can't find anything in 1500 years of catholic history that wasn't mostly selfserving or even at least even tried not to seem as  prospecting for immediate gain so there isn't really any reason I should discount the founding moments of the religion either.

If you would like for people to give your religion a bit more credit for altruism you should maybe try and find a religion that tries to give the idea a little more than just lip service.

I wonder how much a Bishopric costs nowadays?

Try researching the time before the Catholic Church (yes, there was such a time), and the lands east of Rome. I'm not going to write off Catholicism as a whole, but the origins of that specific movement are most definitely founded in corruption and egotism....More to do with the remnants of Roman politics and the founding of Byzantium as the new capital of the Empire than they were about theology or the Church.

The Catholics used to be Orthodox (every church was at one time), and the Pope was just another Bishop...Until the politics of East and West started to take hold. Soon after, the Orthodox excommunicated them, and the Catholics went on inventing new ways of being jackasses for 1500 years (and not to say they were all bad -- their biggest critics were their own members -- Many of the Saints, now hailed as heroes. Like Francis of Assisi. And most importantly, the Reformers -- all Catholics trying to get their Church back to it's original state).


That'd be advice well worth heeding, if I were Catholic. So taking that into account, I couldn't possibly apologize for heretics...even if they do believe in a few of the things that I do. All I can do is say: Look, don't mistake me for them. Catholicism (and it's western offspring) broke off from Christianity ages ago.

Are we arguing over who's religion is nicer now?

No, I think we're just fagging up threads by turning them into serious discussions in "USELESS News."

And when they do that, they become fair game for those of us who know what to do with a piece of useless news, right?

(This thread brought to you by Conjunction Junction, What's your Function)

Edited to add an "r" to the mispelling of "your" to avoid sounding like HRose.'

Feel free, I can take a beating.

But to answer your question from earlier: If this is a contest on who's religion is the nicest, it'd probably be yours, Signe.


Yes, I'm trying to suck up. Although I'm quite able to take a beating, I don't really want one either.

edit: Besides, Rasix already has me pegged for being the resident Sean Penn fanboi. You'll have to wait in line awhile.

I'm an athiest, and I wouldn't beat you up.  To me, you are God. 

 :evil:

Damn, Signe.  You're sexy, you're funny, you're geeky, you talk sex and you're an atheist... what's your catch?

Bruce

She's married. Righ ain't as dumb as he looks! =)

You say "married" as if that's some sort of obstacle...

Bruce

I'm too tired to read this thread right now, but I will say this! Gosh it was fun killing hubbologists in Fallout 2.

Hmm...So what have we learned from this thread so far?

That a belief in love, let alone God or gods, can sometimes be a very, very bad thing.

What is it about Atheists and the internet? Maybe yall are just more vocal here or something.

Because, of course, Christians aren't vocal about their beliefs on the internet at all.

Athiest - Google results: 118,000

Christian - Google results: 79, 600,  000

Uhm, did you spell Atheist correctly there in Google, Signe?

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,030,000 for atheist [definition]. (0.05 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 109,000,000 for christian [definition]. (0.29 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 50,100,000 for jesus. (0.07 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,700,000 for jews. (0.07 seconds) - first result, Jews for Jesus. Who would've thought?
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,120,000 for kabbalah [definition]. (0.77 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 14,200,000 for muslim [definition]. (0.16 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,340,000 for agnostic [definition]. (0.22 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,090,000 for jedi. (0.08 seconds)

There are more Jedis then atheists. I mean, that's the point of hard facts like these, right?

No, I probably didn't.  I suffer from sleep deprivation.  I also just tried to take on the entire Hollows by myself with my level 5 character.  I died 19 times. 

Thank you for fixing me.

There are over 23, 000 atheist jedi.  Wowsers.

Damn, there are fewer net Agnostics than I though. Well, "I could be wrong about what I'm thinking" never was the strong suit of internet citizens.

Agnostics and Atheists are kind of hard to tell apart in discussions. That might explain the perception of their numbers, Paelos. Plus, I suspect most of the jedi are in this camp as well for all practical purposes (ever saw somebody counter a religious argument with Jedi teachings?)

I don't like to label my personal spiritual/religious feelings because I have a hard time determining how I actually "feel" about such things, but I suppose if I'm anything it'd be Agnostic as well, Tebonas.

Bollocks.  I can tell by the way you speak that you are of the Jedi persuasion, Ahoy!

My comment should have been, what is the deal with the disproportionally high amount of agnostics and atheists on this board?

They don't have any faith in MMO designers; why should they believe in the ultimate MMO designer?  At best, even if he exists, he doesn't know what he's doing.  PKs, PermaDeath, and class imbalance galore?

Bruce
PS - Bring back pre-casting, biyatch!

Yes, Raph is not God.

I believe that shattered many a belief system.

Shit, I've been found out!  [waves hands]You know not that I am jedi, move along.[/waves hands]

In all seriousness, there was a time when I flirted with atheism, but when it came down to the deeply honest truth, I have the belief, irrational as it may be, that there is something tangible beyond death.  I respect Christianity far more than any other religion(since I don't consider Buddhism an actual religion), but a lot of it just doesn't "connect" with me.  Hence my agnosticism.

So, basically, whatever belief system I posess is half-assed and subject-to-change, sort of like World of Warcraft patch dates.  I'd rather have that, though, than place my faith in something batshit insane like Scientology and it's thinly-veiled pyramid scheme.

But you can get salvation in 1,000,000 easy payments of $9.95

Haha Bruce.

I remember Der Fuhrer - He did not say zis 'baby'.