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

[Tebonas]

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.

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.

[SirBruce]

No, because they usually are not trained to brainwash people by official church doctrine,

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.

because they don't have the psychological background to do it,

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

and (biggest point) it isn't the whole point of the Catholic church to brainwash its members.

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.

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.

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:

The central beliefs of Scientology are that a person is an immortal spiritual being (referred to as a thetan) who possesses a mind and a body, and that the person is basically good. The life one should lead is one of continual spiritual and ethical education, awareness, and improvement, so that he/she can be happy and achieve ultimate salvation, as well as being more effective in creating a better world. Scientology claims to offer specific methodologies to assist a person to achieve this.

Another basic tenet of Scientology is that there are three basic interrelated (and intrinsically spiritual) components that are the very makeup of successful "livingness": affinity, reality (or agreement), and communication, which equate to understanding. Hubbard called this the "ARC triangle". Scientologists utilize ARC to enhance their lives, primarily based upon the belief that raising one aspect of the triangle increases the other two.

In an attempt to clarify the concept of conscious, subconscious, and unconscious minds, Hubbard wrote that the mind of man is structured in two parts: the "analytical mind" and the "reactive mind". He described the analytical mind as the positive, rational, computing portion, while the "reactive mind", according to Hubbard, operates on a stimulus-response basis. Scientologists believe the reactive mind is the root of an individual's travail, as well as the root of mankind's inhumanity and inability to create lasting, prosperous, sane societies.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

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.

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

[Tebonas]

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

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.

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.

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.

In an attempt to clarify the concept of conscious, subconscious, and unconscious minds, Hubbard wrote that the mind of man is structured in two parts: the "analytical mind" and the "reactive mind". He described the analytical mind as the positive, rational, computing portion, while the "reactive mind", according to Hubbard, operates on a stimulus-response basis. Scientologists believe the reactive mind is the root of an individual's travail, as well as the root of mankind's inhumanity and inability to create lasting, prosperous, sane societies.

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.

[Tebonas]

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.

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.

[SirBruce]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And there likes the danger of that teaching.

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

[SirBruce]

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.

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

[Tebonas]

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.

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.

[AOFanboi]

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

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

[Jayce]

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

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?

[Tebonas]

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

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

[Signe]

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.

[SirBruce]

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?

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

[Miasma]

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.

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

[SirBruce]

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.

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

[stray]

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.

for all we know..

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.

[SirBruce]

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

Bruce

[stray]

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

[Murgos]

... heights of BOREDOM and TEDIUM, the likes of which few have ever seen.

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?

[stray]

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.

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).

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.

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.

[Signe]

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

[HaemishM]

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

[Signe]

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.'

[schild]

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 you Function)

i <3 u.

[stray]

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?

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.

[Signe]

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

 

[SirBruce]

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

Bruce

[WayAbvPar]

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

[SirBruce]

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

Bruce

[Rodent]

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

[stray]

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

Bruce

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.

[Paelos]

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

[Signe]

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

[schild]

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?

[Signe]

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.