I've been wrong all this time, Scientology makes perfect sense.

[Signe]

 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. 

[SirBruce]

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...

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

[Kenrick]

And the stupid get stupider.

[Ironwood]

And the stupid get stupider.

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 ?

[ahoythematey]

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.

[shiznitz]

The Catholic religion is all business.

And pederasty.

[Alkiera]

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. 

EarthBound rocked.

Alkiera

[Tebonas]

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.

[Jayce]

The Catholic religion is all business.

And pederasty.

How long are we going to beat this drum?

OMG keep kids away from teachers!

[shiznitz]

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.

[Paelos]

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?

[WayAbvPar]

The Catholic religion is all business.

And pederasty.

How long are we going to beat this drum?

OMG keep kids away from teachers!

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.

[SirBruce]

The fact that most people searching solace in obscure sects were not that stable to begin with makes them ideal victims for such practices.

You mean like early Christians?

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).

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

[Paelos]

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

Examples of brainwashing in the Catholic Church please.

[MaceVanHoffen]

My mother's church refused to baptise me because she named me Signe.

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

[SirBruce]

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

Examples of brainwashing in the Catholic Church please.

But I can't deny that there are Christian sects or parts of the Catholic church themself that have a similar approach

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

[Paelos]

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

[Abagadro]

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

Life is a sliding scale.

[SirBruce]

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

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

[Paelos]

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.

[MrHat]

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

[SirBruce]

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

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

[SirBruce]

How does providing examples of brainwashing for both sides and then evaluating them on a "psychological" scale not advancing the discussion?

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

[Abagadro]

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]

My mother's church refused to baptise me because she named me Signe.

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

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

[Shockeye]

My mother's church refused to baptise me because she named me Signe.

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

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

Burn the witch!

[SirBruce]

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.

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

[SirBruce]

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

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

Bruce

[Signe]

It's female from Signy. 

Signy (Norse Legend)

She was the daughter of Volsung, a descendant of Odin. Married against her will to King Siggeir, she tried to warn her father and her ten brothers about his plot against them, but she and her brothers were ambushed in a forest and bound to a fallen tree. Each night a wolf devoured one of them in turn, until only her youngest brother Sigmund was left alive. Signy got a slave to smear Sigmund's face with honey so that the wolf would lick him instead of biting him. Sigmund was thus able to catch the wolf's tongue in his teeth and overcome the beast. Signy helped Sigmund to plot revenge. She even slept with him in disguise and bore a son named Sinfiotli. When Sinfiotli grew up she placed him in Sigmund's care, but they were both captured by Siggeir. A magic sword freed them and killed Siggeir and his sons. Signy chose to die herself in the burning palace, but not before she had told Sigmund the truth about Sinfiotli's parentage.

[Abagadro]

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.

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 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).

[SirBruce]

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

[SirBruce]

It's female from Signy. 

Signy (Norse Legend)

She was the daughter of Volsung, a descendant of Odin. Married against her will to King Siggeir, she tried to warn her father and her ten brothers about his plot against them, but she and her brothers were ambushed in a forest and bound to a fallen tree. Each night a wolf devoured one of them in turn, until only her youngest brother Sigmund was left alive. Signy got a slave to smear Sigmund's face with honey so that the wolf would lick him instead of biting him. Sigmund was thus able to catch the wolf's tongue in his teeth and overcome the beast. Signy helped Sigmund to plot revenge. She even slept with him in disguise and bore a son named Sinfiotli. When Sinfiotli grew up she placed him in Sigmund's care, but they were both captured by Siggeir. A magic sword freed them and killed Siggeir and his sons. Signy chose to die herself in the burning palace, but not before she had told Sigmund the truth about Sinfiotli's parentage.

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

Bruce

[Abagadro]

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

[Paelos]

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

[Tebonas]

The fact that most people searching solace in obscure sects were not that stable to begin with makes them ideal victims for such practices.

You mean like early Christians?

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.

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

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.