The pot and the kettle
eshra
christians vs. scientology view. I see this as a 'pot calling the
kettle black' statement. Most religions are based in teachings which
have little or no proof. In fact it is the very definition of a
religion to be based on faith or belief without proof.
Like most cults they will go through many reincarnations as they
evolve into an accepted religion. This is done so that a religion can
shed responsibility for their past actions by claiming to be 'a
different church now'. A perfect example is the catholic church which
has reinvented itself many times for just these reasons. Another
example will be the numerous flames I receive from those claiming that
'their' religion has never done anything like 'them'. The truth is of
course that their religion started from a group who was also called a
cult and at some point reinvented itself to become acceptable and avoid
responsibility for its past actions.
I don't see scientology as being an original threat but the same one
that mankind has been dragging around like luggage for centuries. The
first time you believe in anything without proof you start down that
slippery slope to believing in anything you're told.
Rob Morris
This isn't the proper forum for this, but I'd like to try and clear
this up before it gets out of hand. I would be very leary of a
Christian who agreed with the definition of "beleif without proof".
The Christians I know hold to the "credo" that: God gave me a soul to
desire him, a heart to love him and A MIND TO KNOW HIM. When asked
what the greatest commandment was Jesus said "To love the Lord your
God with all your heart, all your soul, AND ALL YOUR MIND" Cristians
do indeed end up making a leap of faith, but it ends up being a VERY
small leap :)
Faith yes, credulity NO!
Hope I didn't upset anyone or start a big argument, just though it
might help. Like I said, I know no Christians who have not
investigated things VERY thouroughly.
Take Care,
Rob
eshra <es...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:36F48D46...@usa.net...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQEVAwUBNvSReNRpZ7pM4C+dAQGdYgf/Q25epx7uEP7+Vsk4lvmPzbPeXHzYdwyr
6NDOt+uW7tNUa65fteMtBdM19Wbf3GRQ1KOoLYxlUyfWrIBZdNH/LLA3aV8K3VNL
ydD5MbNEt3Q/o1P5XrbKq8vS3aJg4CTEYy0ZEEKDDd5tzXpDIe/iwRkDv+WxVscV
J5TwY8OlJ2FfkKmT8oVO8/2XUlVakm1ws5hrD6q19eFJUwX//KsgEUxPHYub0uKB
+J161yIgmQFaHY2vMs6szUfhPWRByDocT0TtTPxmrkiwzqsBpYyCycsIav6reUF5
LlAg7+X5f3KSQSDw0zYNBgKTSsXQiac9NrDkmhTXJZ+GJqZhcdc3sA==
=ru6V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark W Brehob
: I have seen many posts which in one way or another present a
: christians vs. scientology view. I see this as a 'pot calling the
: kettle black' statement. Most religions are based in teachings which
: have little or no proof. In fact it is the very definition of a
: religion to be based on faith or belief without proof.
: Like most cults they will go through many reincarnations as they
: evolve into an accepted religion. This is done so that a religion can
: shed responsibility for their past actions by claiming to be 'a
: different church now'. A perfect example is the catholic church which
: has reinvented itself many times for just these reasons. Another
: example will be the numerous flames I receive from those claiming that
: 'their' religion has never done anything like 'them'. The truth is of
: course that their religion started from a group who was also called a
: cult and at some point reinvented itself to become acceptable and avoid
: responsibility for its past actions.
: I don't see scientology as being an original threat but the same one
: that mankind has been dragging around like luggage for centuries. The
: first time you believe in anything without proof you start down that
: slippery slope to believing in anything you're told.
You are correct to a great extent. Any argument by a Christian
(such as myself) that says "their beliefs are wacky" is a poor
argument. _My_ belief in a loving God, not to mention things like
Adam and Eve, is certainly just as "far out."
The difference is that _we_ are upfront about our beliefs. We will
tell you all about Jesus as well as Adam and Eve. They won't tell
you about _their_ creation story (Xenu) until you've given them a
LOT of money (>$50,000 I think)
And I get annoyed when a religion claims they are "compatible with
Christianity" when they aren't. (Reincarnation is not compatible
with Christianity. "There was no Christ" isn't either...)
It is not the "wacky" beliefs that I have problems with. It is the
lies and the omissions of truth. It is the harm done and the
attempts to deny that harm. If they were honest, I would still
strongly disagree with them. But I wouldn't object to them.
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bre...@cps.msu.edu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~Mark Brehob: Ultimate Player, Gamer, Computer Geek~~~~~~~~~~
StveJ
> Christianity" when they aren't. (Reincarnation is not compatible
> with Christianity. "There was no Christ" isn't either...)
Well, however you want to justify blasting Scientology is up to you.
Meanwhile, if we allow for my beliefs as a Catholic being Christian beliefs,
then I have no problem keeping the two in my heart.
While this may be heretical, the progress of the Church has been full of
heretical teachings that were recognized later...as well as beliefs which were
dropped as the centuries went by, or held onto by a segment that was later
disavowed.
Point being, I don't have to see plaster castings to know Jesus. I know what he
taught and can accept those teachings as workable.
And I know what Scientology teaches and how it positively affects me as a
spiritual being and can accept those teachings as workable. I have no trouble
integrating the two.
So don't be a know it all. You are arguing in a forum predominately filled with
anti-spiritualists, not just anti-scientologists. They work at stripping you of
your sanctity in their other forums and they will get more vehement against you
if they suspect that you will reveal the venality of their lives.
Finally, get off of the money kick. I am sure that you don't begrudge whatever
you have spent for your church. I don't begrudge a cent of what I have spent
either.
Steve Jazz
gerry armstrong
> I have seen many posts which in one way or another present a
>christians vs. scientology view. I see this as a 'pot calling the
>kettle black' statement. Most religions are based in teachings which
>have little or no proof. In fact it is the very definition of a
>religion to be based on faith or belief without proof.
>
> Like most cults they will go through many reincarnations as they
>evolve into an accepted religion. This is done so that a religion can
>shed responsibility for their past actions by claiming to be 'a
>different church now'. A perfect example is the catholic church which
>has reinvented itself many times for just these reasons. Another
>example will be the numerous flames I receive from those claiming that
>'their' religion has never done anything like 'them'. The truth is of
>course that their religion started from a group who was also called a
>cult and at some point reinvented itself to become acceptable and avoid
>responsibility for its past actions.
>
> I don't see scientology as being an original threat but the same one
>that mankind has been dragging around like luggage for centuries. The
>first time you believe in anything without proof you start down that
>slippery slope to believing in anything you're told.
No, it's not belief which is the culprit, because we will always
believe. The issue is what the God-given faculty of belief is used
for. Believing lies sends one down the slippery slope. Believing the
truth doesn't; and in fact keeps lies from being believed, and keeps
one off the slippery slope.
If you look you will find that there is ample proof of this.
If we did not believe what could not be proven, there could be little
scientific advance, nor much of an advance in any other field. If
everyone had refused to believe that man could get into space, we
would never have done so. Yet before man did get into space, there was
no proof whatsoever of his belief that he could.
Belief is not a bad thing at all. The issue on this newsgroup is L.
Ron Hubbard's and $cientology's perversion of that God-given ability
or power for corrupt ends -- money, power, slavery. That is done by
getting people to believe lies.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
eshra
belief system that is a religious one. Mark your fellow christians and
yourself are up front (most of the time) as you claim. But this was not always
the case. You are able to be open and up front because you are in the
majority. This majority status is what gives you this freedom and not
something inherent in your system of belief. There was a time when your
religion was thought of much as scientology is now. At that time christians
were not open and they used symbols to identify themselves to one another, such
as the ictus(sp), the fish that is now seen ubiquitously on the back of so many
cars.
I fear your religion as much or perhaps in some ways more than scientology.
Your religion's symbols are everywhere as a reminder to me that I am in the
minority. Congress opens session with a prayer to your deity. I can not buy
things without using currency that presents the claim that I trust in your
deity. The highest political position in the land has never been occupied by
someone who doesn't at least pretend to follow your religion. Your religion is
able to deny the ability to marry to two people who love each other.
And throughout history christianity has committed unspeakable atrocities and
afterward reinvented itself with a new name so that it could avoid
responsibility. So that you Mark can say 'no blood on my hands' and 'I'm not
responsible'.
And as to scientology claiming compatibility with christianity. Christians
did the same thing when they were a young religion. Many of the traditions and
rituals you hold so dear were borrowed from 'pagan' religions of the time.
Well guess what Mark scientology is already following your lead, they've
reinvented themselves at least once already and I have little doubt that
eventually they will be just as insidiously joined to society as christianity
is now.
Getting back to my original point though - religions have been fighting
amongst themselves since the second religion was formed. To me on the
sidelines, much of this looks like religious business as usual. Scientologist
being called satan and the antichrist. One side crying foul as the other uses
their tactics such as tax exemption status and parading celebrities who believe
as they do.
I don't support or condone what they have done but neither do I support or
condone your religion's actions. A pox on both your houses.
Mark W Brehob wrote:
> You are correct to a great extent. Any argument by a Christian
> (such as myself) that says "their beliefs are wacky" is a poor
> argument. _My_ belief in a loving God, not to mention things like
> Adam and Eve, is certainly just as "far out."
>
> The difference is that _we_ are upfront about our beliefs. We will
> tell you all about Jesus as well as Adam and Eve. They won't tell
> you about _their_ creation story (Xenu) until you've given them a
> LOT of money (>$50,000 I think)
> And I get annoyed when a religion claims they are "compatible with
> Christianity" when they aren't. (Reincarnation is not compatible
> with Christianity. "There was no Christ" isn't either...)
>
Mark W Brehob
Before I launch into my disagreements with you, I would like to
thank you for responding. I do think you are wrong on the issues
you have raised (As you think I'm wrong) but I appreciate the chance
to hear your side of the story.
StveJ <st...@aol.com> wrote:
:>And I get annoyed when a religion claims they are "compatible with
:> Christianity" when they aren't. (Reincarnation is not compatible
:> with Christianity. "There was no Christ" isn't either...)
: Well, however you want to justify blasting Scientology is up to you.
Thanks.
: Meanwhile, if we allow for my beliefs as a Catholic being Christian beliefs,
: then I have no problem keeping the two in my heart.
: While this may be heretical, the progress of the Church has been full of
: heretical teachings that were recognized later...as well as beliefs which were
: dropped as the centuries went by, or held onto by a segment that was later
: disavowed.
That's fine. You can have things in your heart which conflict with your
religion and still hold to your religion. However by that token, _any_ two
religions are compatible. One could be a Satanist and a Catholic. The
statement of compatibility becomes meaningless.
When the claim of compatibility is made, _I_ would assume that means that
one can subscribe to both without serious conflict. I don't think your
Priest would call a belief in reincarnation compatible with Catholicism.
Certainly a belief that "there was no Christ" is not compatible with any
form of Christianity.
So yes, you can believe in both by either picking and choosing what to
believe _or_ by ignoring the conflicts. However the differences are so
significant that the two religious beliefs cannot be called compatible.
: Point being, I don't have to see plaster castings to know Jesus. I know what he
: taught and can accept those teachings as workable.
: And I know what Scientology teaches and how it positively affects me as a
: spiritual being and can accept those teachings as workable. I have no trouble
: integrating the two.
> So don't be a know it all.
I don't think I am. I'm forming an argument.
A) Scientology has reincarnation as a tenant
B) Catholic teaching is that when one dies one goes to
Heaven, Hell, or (perhaps) Pergitory. Reincarnation is
not an option
C) Claiming that A and B are compatible is false.
And:
A) LRH said "there was not Christ" and put off Christianity as
an implant. This is a part of CoS scriptures.
B) Catholics believe in Christ as their savior. Without
Christ there is no religion.
C) Claiming that A and B are compatible is false.
One can argue that A in this case is a minor, perhaps even optional, part of
the CoS.
> You are arguing in a forum predominately filled with anti-spiritualists,
> not just anti-scientologists. They work at stripping you of your sanctity
> in their other forums and they will get more vehement against you if they
> suspect that you will reveal the venality of their lives.
Thanks for the generalizations. They have not worked at stripping me of my
sanctity. In fact I don't think anyone _could_. My religious beliefs are
in my heart and they are mine.
> Finally, get off of the money kick. I am sure that you don't begrudge
> whatever you have spent for your church. I don't begrudge a cent of what I
> have spent either.
My concern is with a church that requires donations to make spiritual
progress. As a Catholic I'm sure you are familiar with the idea of
indulgences. From what I have seen the CoS uses very similar tactics for
very similar reasons.
And I can get a complete accounting of where every penny I donate goes.
Can you say the same?
: Steve Jazz
Again, thanks Steve.
Mark W Brehob
> I'll preface this by saying that I have no love of scientology or any
> other belief system that is a religious one. Mark your fellow
> christians and yourself are up front (most of the time) as you claim.
> But this was not always the case. You are able to be open and up front
> because you are in the majority. This majority status is what gives you
> this freedom and not something inherent in your system of belief. There
> was a time when your religion was thought of much as scientology is now.
> At that time christians were not open and they used symbols to identify
> themselves to one another, such as the ictus(sp), the fish that is now
> seen ubiquitously on the back of so many cars.
I'll disagree with parts of what you say. Christians did hide at one time.
But it was a fear of harm from society that caused that hiding. The CoS had
ads, and books, and big chruches. It is _what_ they believe that they hide.
Both from their own members as well as from outsiders. I feel it is very
similar to a bait-and-switch scam.
: I fear your religion as much or perhaps in some ways more than scientology.
: Your religion's symbols are everywhere as a reminder to me that I am in the
: minority. Congress opens session with a prayer to your deity. I can not buy
: things without using currency that presents the claim that I trust in your
: deity. The highest political position in the land has never been occupied by
: someone who doesn't at least pretend to follow your religion. Your religion is
: able to deny the ability to marry to two people who love each other.
A) Remember that a number of the founders of the US where Diests and not
Christians.
B) Most of those things you mention (God's name on coins etc.) are fairly
generic to most religions. Jews, Muslims, Christians. Perhaps others.
C) You are right. Christianity can be very scary. I actually hadn't
thought about it in those terms. Interesting.
As a Computer Scientist I would say I'm out numbered by the
non-Christians in my dept. I'd guess we are about 10% active Christians
with another 10% "inactive" Christians. I'd say we have more diehard
athiests than Christians. In fact of my close friends here, 4 are
very athiest, while 2 are very Christian. And I think I'm one of the only
two Christians on my Ultimate team (the other I know of being my wife).
Just pointing out that the whole US isn't as Christian dominated as you seem
to believe.
I'd say that society is much more open to hearing the views of an athiest,
or even a Scientologiest, than a Christian.
: And throughout history christianity has committed unspeakable atrocities and
: afterward reinvented itself with a new name so that it could avoid
: responsibility. So that you Mark can say 'no blood on my hands' and 'I'm not
: responsible'.
As a member of a group I have some responsiblity for the actions of that
group. But to hold me accountable for any action taken "in the name of
Christ" would be like holding you accountable for every action taken to stop
Christianity and religion (Stalin comes to mind.)
: And as to scientology claiming compatibility with christianity. Christians
: did the same thing when they were a young religion. Many of the traditions and
: rituals you hold so dear were borrowed from 'pagan' religions of the time.
Yep.
: Well guess what Mark scientology is already following your lead, they've
: reinvented themselves at least once already and I have little doubt that
: eventually they will be just as insidiously joined to society as christianity
: is now.
: Getting back to my original point though - religions have been fighting
: amongst themselves since the second religion was formed. To me on the
: sidelines, much of this looks like religious business as usual. Scientologist
: being called satan and the antichrist. One side crying foul as the other uses
: their tactics such as tax exemption status and parading celebrities who believe
: as they do.
Yes, one (new) guy has been calling the CoS Satanists. I choose to ignore
him as clueless. I have no real problem with non-Christian religions. I
do disagree with them. I will even explain why. But I recognize their right
to exist. And I value it, because I'm afaid of people like you, who seem to
desire to eliminate all religion. However that does not protect the CoS (or
any other religion, including my own) from critisism when they harm or
intentionally mislead others.
Mark Dallara
> I'll preface this by saying that I have no love of scientology or any other
>belief system that is a religious one. Mark your fellow christians and
>yourself are up front (most of the time) as you claim. But this was not always
>the case. You are able to be open and up front because you are in the
>majority. This majority status is what gives you this freedom and not
>something inherent in your system of belief. There was a time when your
>religion was thought of much as scientology is now. At that time christians
>were not open and they used symbols to identify themselves to one another, such
>as the ictus(sp), the fish that is now seen ubiquitously on the back of so many
>cars.
*snip*
> I don't support or condone what they have done but neither do I support or
>condone your religion's actions. A pox on both your houses.
I agree with you in that a religious-based counter-argument to $cientology
is ineffective and smacks of sectarian motives. However, most of the
folks 'round these parts oppose $cientology from a civil liberties
perspective. The cult's policies of launching vicious attacks on critics
who quote seekrit skripture, the harassment and illegal operations against
former members, judges, journalists, and others, etc., etc., ad nauseum -
all of this is reprehensible, and it has nothing to do with any religious
objections.
$cientology is a cult, yes, but more importantly it is Organized Crime.
--
Mark Dallara
mdal...@kcii.com
OCCUPIED CLEARWATER:
Sun, Sea, Sand... and the criminal cult of $cientology
http://www.xenu-city.net
AndroidCat
>>And I get annoyed when a religion claims they are "compatible with
>> Christianity" when they aren't. (Reincarnation is not compatible
>> with Christianity. "There was no Christ" isn't either...)
>
>Well, however you want to justify blasting Scientology is up to you.
beliefs,
>then I have no problem keeping the two in my heart.
Have you done OT III yet? Have you listened to Hubbard explaining R6?
>While this may be heretical, the progress of the Church has been full of
>heretical teachings that were recognized later...as well as beliefs which
were
>dropped as the centuries went by, or held onto by a segment that was later
>disavowed.
>Point being, I don't have to see plaster castings to know Jesus. I know
what he
>taught and can accept those teachings as workable.
>And I know what Scientology teaches and how it positively affects me as a
>spiritual being and can accept those teachings as workable. I have no
trouble
>integrating the two.
If it works for you, I can't question it. But I wonder if you've really had
to test your faiths yet.
And .. isn't most of your argument about the flexablity of belief inside the
Catholic Church rather Scientology?
>So don't be a know it all. You are arguing in a forum predominately filled
with
>anti-spiritualists, not just anti-scientologists. They work at stripping
you of
>your sanctity in their other forums and they will get more vehement against
you
>if they suspect that you will reveal the venality of their lives.
Really? Where did you get that statistic? And what other forums are you
talking about?
What gives you the right or hubris to judge other people's lives as being
venal? (My dictionary only has venial: [of sin or fault] pardonable,
excusable, [Theol.] not mortal. Could you word-clear that one for me?
[Microsoft's spell-checker says venal is a word, but like I trust them...])
(Nitpick rambling: I didn't know you could GET more vehement. I only
thought you could only BE more vehement. So where can get some more of that
vehement stuff? Can I collect it, trade it, sell it for more money later?)
Personally, as an agnostic, I know I don't have the answers to the Big
Questions, but I won't make any claims for anyone else. (I'm as
uncomfortable around Fundamentalist Atheists as around Bible Humpers.)
So why do I criticize the "Church" of Scientology? Part of it is the "it's
a dessert/floor wax" claims to be a religion AND a science. Religion is a
matter of belief and faith--and that's someone's own business, and quite
subjective. But science is measurement of objective reality. It's only
true if it can duplicated by anyone else under controlled conditions.
If it's science, show us the scientific studies continually refered to that
prove dianetics and scientology work. Demonstrate the powers that dianetics
clears or scientology OTs are supposed to have. (Big bucks from James Randi
if Co$ does! Hell, I'd join.) Find evidence of previous civilizations on
Teegeeak. Build a DC-8 space plane. Read the contents of a closed
envelope, leave your body and descibe what's behind a solid wall, knock
someone's hat off from 40 feet away, fry a cockroach, throw away your
glasses, demonstrate perfect memory... (Controlled conditions in front of
skeptics however.)
And then there's the claims for the Whetstone bridge E-meter. You do
realise that it is a toy compared to what the FBI/CIA/NSA does in polygraph
tests? And that even those aren't infallible? (See The Puzzle Palace,
James Bamford, ISBN 0 14 00.6748 5) I suspect Co$ conditioning of the
subject improves the accuracy of the readings, but still...
Or drop of the science claims.
And then there's the "Church" practices and policies: Dangerous practices
masquerading as medical therapy. Heartless policies that force
disconnection of family and friends. (Why not just send one of those
omnipotent OTs around to convince the family and friends to sign up? Budda
and Jesus Christ were only just above clear. [According to Source] An OT
should be capable of so much more, right? Or are there no OTs *anywhere*?)
Why does Co$ leave the moral high-ground and attack any critics with DA,
PIs, libel, counter-pickets against personal residences, stalking, dirty
tricks, and attacking the families of critics?
Why does Co$ violate the sanctity of the confessional by keeping case
folders, then using the contents those folders in DA attacks after someone
is later declared?
Why does Co$ have a GO/OSA (a mere name change) secret service and dirty
tricks squad?
Why has Co$ been busted in a number of countries for Snow White operations
of infiltrating government and private organizations and stealing documents?
Why was the "Church" of Scientology criminally convicted as an organization
in Canada? (Not just members or officers of the corporation, understand:
The *entire* "Church"!)
Why does Co$ have razor wire around the "Happy Valley" compound? Is it to
stop people from entering or from leaving? (Sometimes Co$ compares RPF to
monastic discipline. I don't know of any monasteries with razor wire and
[armed?] guard posts.)
>Finally, get off of the money kick. I am sure that you don't begrudge
whatever
>you have spent for your church. I don't begrudge a cent of what I have
spent
>either.
Okay, but don't you think that there's a difference between a "give what you
can" collection plate system, and $400/hr auditing charges (or whatever,
depending on your level on the "bridge"), endless layers of expensive
courses, freeloader debt, etc? And the massive amount of policies and staff
positions that seem oriented towards keeping the money flowing uplines
(stats) rather than uplifting the membership?
Does Co$ tell new members the aprox. cost to get to the "top" of the bridge?
/\< of that ilk.
Frisbeetarianism, n.:
The belief that when you die, your soul goes up the on roof and
gets stuck.
eshra
> I'll disagree with parts of what you say. Christians did hide at one time.
> But it was a fear of harm from society that caused that hiding. The CoS had
> ads, and books, and big chruches. It is _what_ they believe that they hide.
> Both from their own members as well as from outsiders. I feel it is very
> similar to a bait-and-switch scam.
I'm certain that scientologists would say that they are hiding because of fear of
you.
>
>
> A) Remember that a number of the founders of the US where Diests and not
> Christians.
And yet this is not something that is heard often. The typical line is that the US
is a christian based country.
> B) Most of those things you mention (God's name on coins etc.) are fairly
> generic to most religions. Jews, Muslims, Christians. Perhaps others.
Not certain what point you're making here except perhaps the same one I was making.
Regardless of the religion the implication is that we are ALL followers of one
religion or another.
> C) You are right. Christianity can be very scary. I actually hadn't
> thought about it in those terms. Interesting.
Think of it in these terms. Imagine for a moment that every judeo/christian
reference, symbol, holiday and practice in America were suddenly Scientologist
instead. Imagine 'In Hubbard we Trust' on all money. All sessions of congress which
is making decisions that will affect you and your children is opened with a
scientology ceremony. Imagine a poll which said that you were one of only 5% of
America that doesn't believe in scientology like beliefs. Imagine that the COS is
almost completely controlling one of the two largest political parties in America.
Imagine national holidays glorifying Hubbard. And worse imagine countries being
devastated because of two scientologist factions at war with one another.
> As a Computer Scientist I would say I'm out numbered by the
> non-Christians in my dept. I'd guess we are about 10% active Christians
> with another 10% "inactive" Christians. I'd say we have more diehard
> athiests than Christians. In fact of my close friends here, 4 are
> very athiest, while 2 are very Christian. And I think I'm one of the only
> two Christians on my Ultimate team (the other I know of being my wife).
> Just pointing out that the whole US isn't as Christian dominated as you seem
> to believe.
Then your department doesn't reflect society. This is not my belief but the results
of numerous polls in which 90 - 95% of Americans say they believe in a god. You will
no doubt argue that this doesn't mean they believe in a christian god but I think we
can agree that the majority believe in a judeo/christian/islamic god, which have the
same origins.
> I'd say that society is much more open to hearing the views of an athiest,
> or even a Scientologiest, than a Christian.
This is your opinion, mine is different. I may be wrong but you seem to be using
atheist in terms of an organized group. I want to clear up a misconception here that
while there is a group that uses the word for the name of their group they by no
means represent the majority of atheists.
> As a member of a group I have some responsiblity for the actions of that
> group. But to hold me accountable for any action taken "in the name of
> Christ" would be like holding you accountable for every action taken to stop
> Christianity and religion (Stalin comes to mind.)
And you would be wrong to do so since I belong to no religious or anti-religious
group. I'm not asking you to take responsibility for anything, only to recognize
where your religion came from and the things it did to get where it is, wars,
torture, genocides... Using your own argument you must excuse the COS for the
actions taken by certain members that the church says was not authorized by them.
Also you have to pardon them for actions taken early in their development since they
claim to have reorganized and are now 'different' than they were. Just as you have
to excuse the later for anything they do now or else be a hypocrite.
I'm sorry Mark but again it sounds like you're just angry because the
scientologists are using the tactics of other religions. They're playing the tax
exempt & charity game as well or better than other religions.
>
>
>
>
> Yes, one (new) guy has been calling the CoS Satanists. I choose to ignore
> him as clueless. I have no real problem with non-Christian religions. I
> do disagree with them. I will even explain why. But I recognize their right
> to exist. And I value it, because I'm afaid of people like you, who seem to
> desire to eliminate all religion. However that does not protect the CoS (or
> any other religion, including my own) from critisism when they harm or
> intentionally mislead others.
I'm not looking to eliminate anything. You seem to be projecting your own intentions
onto me. I have no desire to eliminate any religion. It's obvious that this is
impossible as long as the majority of humanity insists on dragging around religious
baggage. Nothing I have done is protecting them. What protects them is the elite
status created by religions like your own. They say they are a religion and it would
be better for a legal authority or politician to be called a child molester than be
accused of impeding someone's religion. Don't blame me, I'm only trying to survive
in your world Mark.
eshra
> (quote cut)
>
> I agree with you in that a religious-based counter-argument to $cientology
> is ineffective and smacks of sectarian motives. However, most of the
> folks 'round these parts oppose $cientology from a civil liberties
> perspective. The cult's policies of launching vicious attacks on critics
> who quote seekrit skripture, the harassment and illegal operations against
> former members, judges, journalists, and others, etc., etc., ad nauseum -
> all of this is reprehensible, and it has nothing to do with any religious
> objections.
>
> $cientology is a cult, yes, but more importantly it is Organized Crime.
I oppose these things also but I have a difficult time seeing their actions as any
worse than other religions at some point in their evolution. All Judeo/Christian
religions hung a few heretics (at the very least) along the way to becoming holier
than thou. This is not intended to excuse them but the loudest arguments seem to be
that they are not a 'true religion', former members complaining that after spending
a lot of money they can't read minds or that someone's favorite actor is 'one of
them'.
Let me ask this of everyone here - If the scientologists gave up their illegal
activities and in the process became the largest religion in the world and 'In
Hubbard we Trust' was printed on all US money, and Congress opened with a COS
ceremony, and Hubbardmas as the largest holiday of the year - would you accept
them or still oppose them? Answer honestly.
Lastly I came here expecting to hear arguments from a legal point of view. And
what do I see? Religious hypocrisy, petty insults, names and addresses of COS
members posted, calls for christians to 'rise up' to oppose them.
eshra
eshra
eshra
eshra
eshra
> > I'm certain that scientologists would say that they are hiding because of
> > fear of you.
>
> I'm fairly sure that isn't true. Perhaps one of the CoS for Freezone
> members could comment? In all cases I object to them hiding _what_ it is
> they believe from the general public.
I'm certain this came out differently than you meant - must everyone declare their
beliefs to the general public? I've seen some very personal information given out
in this NG, this made me more than a bit leery of posting here. I would also like
to hear from a CoS member on this.
> > Think of it in these terms. Imagine for a moment that every
> > judeo/christian reference, symbol, holiday and practice in America were
> > suddenly Scientologist instead. Imagine 'In Hubbard we Trust' on all
> > money. All sessions of congress which is making decisions that will
> > affect you and your children is opened with a scientology ceremony.
> > Imagine a poll which said that you were one of only 5% of America that
> > doesn't believe in scientology like beliefs. Imagine that the COS is
> > almost completely controlling one of the two largest political parties in
> > America. Imagine national holidays glorifying Hubbard.
>
> If these folks were:
> * Willing to allow freedom of religion
> * From a wide number of different "denominations"
> * No more "totalitarian" than modern Christianity
> I would only be very uncomfortable.
Just as I am very uncomfortable now. Christianity has immense power and influence
in this country. There are many occasions when I am made very uncomfortable and
feel stifled by it.
> > And worse imagine countries being devastated because of two scientologist
> > factions at war with one another.
>
> Name a religious war in modern times which isn't _really_ about something
> else.
There are many wars with two or more religious factions attempting to eliminate each
other.
> > Then your department doesn't reflect society. This is not my belief but
> > the results of numerous polls in which 90 - 95% of Americans say they
> > believe in a god. You will no doubt argue that this doesn't mean they
> > believe in a christian god but I think we can agree that the majority
> > believe in a judeo/christian/islamic god, which have the same origins.
>
> True. However, my point is that in my day-to-day world Christianity is the
> exeption rather than the rule. And I can, and do, live with that.
>
> That 90% of Americans believe in a god is not hard to believe at all.
> But most of them are not even sure what they believe, let alone are active
> Christians.
Perhaps we should let them speak for themselves and not presume to know what they
believe
> > And you would be wrong to do so since I belong to no religious or
> > anti-religious group.
>
> And I do not belong to any religious group either. I haven't for years.
> I go to church on a regular basis, but am not a member anywhere. Does that
> let me off the hook?
Well I suppose I must since I have no idea what your statement means. Are you a
Christian or not?
> My point was that wars and mass destruction have been done by atheists, in
> the name of atheism. Just as it has been done by Christians, in the name of
> Christianity. We both have the same burden IMO.
>
> > I'm not asking you to take responsibility for anything, only to recognize
> > where your religion came from and the things it did to get where it is,
> > wars, torture, genocides... Using your own argument you must excuse the
> > COS for the actions taken by certain members that the church says was not
> > authorized by them. Also you have to pardon them for actions taken early
> > in their development since they claim to have reorganized and are now
> > 'different' than they were. Just as you have to excuse the later for
> > anything they do now or else be a hypocrite.
>
> No. I do not need to excuse the actions of those who do the act. Just as I
> do not excuse those who are killing in Ireland. But neither do I hold a CoS
> member responsible for the actions of Mary Sue Hubbard.
I notice you said nothing about recognizing where your religion came from and its
actions.
> > I'm sorry Mark but again it sounds like you're just angry because the
> > scientologists are using the tactics of other religions. They're
> > playing the tax exempt & charity game as well or better than other
> > religions.
>
> I believe that a lot of religions do actual charity work. Those other
> religions are generally accountable for the money they get and spend. While
> I may not agree with some religions, I do greatly respect the charitible
> works of many of those religions.
>
> I've not yet seen a CoS charity that doesn't involve _teaching_ CoS
> material. The Catholics and the Muslims give out food and alms to the poor.
> As do many non-"God" based religions. I've yet to hear of the CoS ever
> doing such a thing.
I've never had a CoS member knock on my door at 6am on a Saturday to ask me if
I've accepted christ as my savior. I don't see a lot of scientology programs on TV
Sunday morning. And I don't get much mail from them asking for donations for their
church. The 'fisherman of souls' thing can be overdone.
> > I'm not looking to eliminate anything. You seem to be projecting your own
> > intentions onto me.
>
> No, it is YOU projecting onto ME. (joke)
>
> My point is that I don't want to eliminate any religion either. The abuses
> of religions, yes. You seem conserned about living in a religious world. I
> assume you would be happy if all the religions went away. And please note I
> said "Seem to desire to eliminate all religion". I don't KNOW what you
> want, but from what you had written seemed that was your desire.
Eliminating it and it going away are very different things. Would I be overjoyed
if humanity shed itself of superstition in general? Do I wish to live in a world
where outlandish claims are questioned instead of embraced with fervor? Of course.
If humanity manages to not destroy itself I think some century we will move past the
need to create religions.
> > I have no desire to eliminate any religion. It's
> > obvious that this is impossible as long as the majority of humanity
> > insists on dragging around religious baggage. Nothing I have done is
> > protecting them. What protects them is the elite status created by
> > religions like your own. They say they are a religion and it would be
> > better for a legal authority or politician to be called a child molester
> > than be accused of impeding someone's religion. Don't blame me, I'm only
> > trying to survive in your world Mark.
>
> Our world. And it is becoming more "your" world every day. In my small
> part of the world it is already much more yours than mine.
Perhaps it is but I don't see it happening. 'My' world is where believing in a
thing requires hard proof of that thing. Proof that is equal in stature to the
claim. 'My' world is where critical thought is the norm instead of the exception.
Is there anything wrong with the world becoming mine?
The only thing wrong is that it won't happen in my lifetime or my children's or
theirs or theirs...
> Mark
Podkayne-Xenu
> I oppose these things also but I have a difficult time seeing their
actions as any
> worse than other religions at some point in their evolution.
That's no excuse, quite the contrary - they ought to *learn* from the
past, not use it as justification.
--
"Dear Joe. I'm sorry but no go on coming out of isolation yet"
-- Sacred Co$ Scripture
Read more Heinlein
Podkayne-Xenu
> Mark W Brehob wrote:
>
> > I'll disagree with parts of what you say. Christians did hide at one time.
> > But it was a fear of harm from society that caused that hiding. The CoS had
> > ads, and books, and big chruches. It is _what_ they believe that they hide.
> > Both from their own members as well as from outsiders. I feel it is very
> > similar to a bait-and-switch scam.
>
> I'm certain that scientologists would say that they are hiding because
of fear of
> you.
Scientologists are *not hiding*. They're right out in the open (except
when they hide behind tarps so as not to see picket signs). What they
*do* hide is the cost, the last 3 days of Lisa's logs, the Xenu story,
Hubbie's true war & school record...
Podkayne-Xenu
> Mark W Brehob wrote:
>
> > > I'm certain that scientologists would say that they are hiding because of
> > > fear of you.
> >
> > I'm fairly sure that isn't true. Perhaps one of the CoS for Freezone
> > members could comment? In all cases I object to them hiding _what_ it is
> > they believe from the general public.
>
> I'm certain this came out differently than you meant - must everyone
declare their
> beliefs to the general public?
The Co$ is hiding most of what a Scn who's been through all the levels is
expected to believe in. If you want to find this out, you have to be a
Co$ member, you have to pay, you can't ask questions. If perchance you
happen to find out on your own and ask them if it's true, they'll deny it.
If you want to know what Catholics believe in, you can go to any
bookstore, or websearch, and find the complete text of the Bible and the
catechism. Ditto for most other religions.
Mark W Brehob
eshra <es...@usa.net> wrote:
: Mark W Brehob wrote:
:> I'll disagree with parts of what you say. Christians did hide at one time.
:> But it was a fear of harm from society that caused that hiding. The CoS had
:> ads, and books, and big chruches. It is _what_ they believe that they hide.
:> Both from their own members as well as from outsiders. I feel it is very
:> similar to a bait-and-switch scam.
> I'm certain that scientologists would say that they are hiding because of
> fear of you.
I'm fairly sure that isn't true. Perhaps one of the CoS for Freezone
members could comment? In all cases I object to them hiding _what_ it is
they believe from the general public.
>> B) Most of those things you mention (God's name on coins etc.) are fairly
>> generic to most religions. Jews, Muslims, Christians. Perhaps others.
> Not certain what point you're making here except perhaps the same one I
> was making. Regardless of the religion the implication is that we are ALL
> followers of one religion or another.
>> C) You are right. Christianity can be very scary. I actually hadn't
>> thought about it in those terms. Interesting.
> Think of it in these terms. Imagine for a moment that every
> judeo/christian reference, symbol, holiday and practice in America were
> suddenly Scientologist instead. Imagine 'In Hubbard we Trust' on all
> money. All sessions of congress which is making decisions that will
> affect you and your children is opened with a scientology ceremony.
> Imagine a poll which said that you were one of only 5% of America that
> doesn't believe in scientology like beliefs. Imagine that the COS is
> almost completely controlling one of the two largest political parties in
> America. Imagine national holidays glorifying Hubbard.
If these folks were:
* Willing to allow freedom of religion
* From a wide number of different "denominations"
* No more "totalitarian" than modern Christianity
I would only be very uncomfortable.
> And worse imagine countries being devastated because of two scientologist
> factions at war with one another.
Name a religious war in modern times which isn't _really_ about something
else.
:> As a Computer Scientist I would say I'm out numbered by the
:> non-Christians in my dept. I'd guess we are about 10% active Christians
:> with another 10% "inactive" Christians. I'd say we have more diehard
:> athiests than Christians. In fact of my close friends here, 4 are
:> very athiest, while 2 are very Christian. And I think I'm one of the only
:> two Christians on my Ultimate team (the other I know of being my wife).
:> Just pointing out that the whole US isn't as Christian dominated as you seem
:> to believe.
> Then your department doesn't reflect society. This is not my belief but
> the results of numerous polls in which 90 - 95% of Americans say they
> believe in a god. You will no doubt argue that this doesn't mean they
> believe in a christian god but I think we can agree that the majority
> believe in a judeo/christian/islamic god, which have the same origins.
True. However, my point is that in my day-to-day world Christianity is the
exeption rather than the rule. And I can, and do, live with that.
That 90% of Americans believe in a god is not hard to believe at all.
But most of them are not even sure what they believe, let alone are active
Christians.
:> I'd say that society is much more open to hearing the views of an athiest,
:> or even a Scientologiest, than a Christian.
:> As a member of a group I have some responsiblity for the actions of that
:> group. But to hold me accountable for any action taken "in the name of
:> Christ" would be like holding you accountable for every action taken to stop
:> Christianity and religion (Stalin comes to mind.)
> And you would be wrong to do so since I belong to no religious or
> anti-religious group.
And I do not belong to any religious group either. I haven't for years.
I go to church on a regular basis, but am not a member anywhere. Does that
let me off the hook?
My point was that wars and mass destruction have been done by atheists, in
the name of atheism. Just as it has been done by Christians, in the name of
Christianity. We both have the same burden IMO.
> I'm not asking you to take responsibility for anything, only to recognize
> where your religion came from and the things it did to get where it is,
> wars, torture, genocides... Using your own argument you must excuse the
> COS for the actions taken by certain members that the church says was not
> authorized by them. Also you have to pardon them for actions taken early
> in their development since they claim to have reorganized and are now
> 'different' than they were. Just as you have to excuse the later for
> anything they do now or else be a hypocrite.
No. I do not need to excuse the actions of those who do the act. Just as I
do not excuse those who are killing in Ireland. But neither do I hold a CoS
member responsible for the actions of Mary Sue Hubbard.
> I'm sorry Mark but again it sounds like you're just angry because the
> scientologists are using the tactics of other religions. They're
> playing the tax exempt & charity game as well or better than other
> religions.
I believe that a lot of religions do actual charity work. Those other
religions are generally accountable for the money they get and spend. While
I may not agree with some religions, I do greatly respect the charitible
works of many of those religions.
I've not yet seen a CoS charity that doesn't involve _teaching_ CoS
material. The Catholics and the Muslims give out food and alms to the poor.
As do many non-"God" based religions. I've yet to hear of the CoS ever
doing such a thing.
:>
:>
:>
:>
:> Yes, one (new) guy has been calling the CoS Satanists. I choose to ignore
:> him as clueless. I have no real problem with non-Christian religions. I
:> do disagree with them. I will even explain why. But I recognize their right
:> to exist. And I value it, because I'm afaid of people like you, who seem to
:> desire to eliminate all religion. However that does not protect the CoS (or
:> any other religion, including my own) from critisism when they harm or
:> intentionally mislead others.
> I'm not looking to eliminate anything. You seem to be projecting your own
> intentions onto me.
No, it is YOU projecting onto ME. (joke)
My point is that I don't want to eliminate any religion either. The abuses
of religions, yes. You seem conserned about living in a religious world. I
assume you would be happy if all the religions went away. And please note I
said "Seem to desire to eliminate all religion". I don't KNOW what you
want, but from what you had written seemed that was your desire.
> I have no desire to eliminate any religion. It's
> obvious that this is impossible as long as the majority of humanity
> insists on dragging around religious baggage. Nothing I have done is
> protecting them. What protects them is the elite status created by
> religions like your own. They say they are a religion and it would be
> better for a legal authority or politician to be called a child molester
> than be accused of impeding someone's religion. Don't blame me, I'm only
> trying to survive in your world Mark.
Our world. And it is becoming more "your" world every day. In my small
part of the world it is already much more yours than mine.
Mark
Feadog
actions as any
Judeo/Christian
> religions hung a few heretics (at the very least) along the way to
becoming holier
> than thou.
>This is not intended to excuse them but the loudest arguments seem to be
> that they are not a 'true religion', former members complaining that
after spending
> a lot of money they can't read minds or that someone's favorite actor is
'one of
> them'.
Its the *CO$* that claims that they are a "modern science" on one hand, and
a "faith" on the other. They can't have it both ways; either they are
faith-based or scientific-method based. And I think the former members who
post here have a lot more to argue that mere dissappointment at not
receiving god-like powers. They have witnessed real abuses, and real
fraud.
> Let me ask this of everyone here - If the scientologists gave up their
illegal
> activities and in the process became the largest religion in the world
and 'In
> Hubbard we Trust' was printed on all US money, and Congress opened with a
COS
> ceremony, and Hubbardmas as the largest holiday of the year - would you
accept
> them or still oppose them? Answer honestly.
As long as they didn't break the law, or subvert the justice system, I
could live with a space opera religion on the floor of Congress. But the
chances of your straw man actually coming to life are slim to none.
Feadog
--
Critical Scientology Links:
http://www.xenu.net/
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/
http://www.bostonherald.com/scientology/
Rob Clark
>Mark Dallara wrote:
> Let me ask this of everyone here - If the scientologists gave up their illegal
>activities and in the process became the largest religion in the world and 'In
>Hubbard we Trust' was printed on all US money, and Congress opened with a COS
>ceremony, and Hubbardmas as the largest holiday of the year - would you accept
>them or still oppose them? Answer honestly.
i'd oppose putting "in *anyone* we trust" on money and think money
should reflect a secular state. i'd also still oppose them on
commonsense grounds, but i would no longer think the organization
needed to be destroyed.
i would then oppose it on the same level as i oppose astrology, ESP,
and most other forms of religion and cozmik debris.
rob
Mark W Brehob
<clip>
> Lastly I came here expecting to hear arguments from a legal point of
> view. And what do I see? Religious hypocrisy, petty insults, names and
> addresses of COS members posted, calls for christians to 'rise up' to
> oppose them.
A) Cope with the religious hypocrisy. I don't feel I'm being hypocritical.
I feel I have explained myself. I reject your basic claim that no
religious person can criticize the actions of a religion without being
hypocritical. By that argument no American could criticize the actions of
any other government. Instead we would just ignore the rest of the
world's human rights abuses.
B) The petty insults happen in any newsgroup. Even in comp.arch we get
a little heated sometimes :-)
C) The names and addresses of the CoS members being posted is opposed my
many. However a lot of folks feel that it is OK because the CoS has been
doing it for years. I, and many others, don't think that justifies the
response.
D) The calls for Christians to "rise-up" is from one lone new guy. Whom _I_
suspect is actually a CoS person. No proof, but we have seen a lot of
wacky people here in the last few days, posting lots of short messages.
The CoS has done things like that before. In all cases he can be safely
ignored as clueless.
Hope that addresses your concerns.
So you know this group isn't filled with too large a portion of Christians
either. We have a fair number of Sub-Geniuses around.
Mark Brehob
Mark W Brehob
: Mark W Brehob wrote:
> I'm certain this came out differently than you meant - must everyone
> declare their beliefs to the general public? I've seen some very personal
> information given out in this NG, this made me more than a bit leery of
> posting here. I would also like to hear from a CoS member on this.
As well you should. CoS members and critics have been "outed" here by both
sides. Either be careful or don't post. (Or post with your real name and
don't care like I do.)
<clip>
:>
:> If these folks were:
:> * Willing to allow freedom of religion
:> * From a wide number of different "denominations"
:> * No more "totalitarian" than modern Christianity
:> I would only be very uncomfortable.
> Just as I am very uncomfortable now. Christianity has immense power and
> influence in this country. There are many occasions when I am made very
> uncomfortable and feel stifled by it.
I understand. And I am indicating I would feel the same way you do now.
:> > And worse imagine countries being devastated because of two scientologist
:> > factions at war with one another.
:>
:> Name a religious war in modern times which isn't _really_ about something
:> else.
> There are many wars with two or more religious factions attempting to
> eliminate each other.
Didn't answer the question.
Name a _modern_ religious war that isn't really a war between cultures. The
last "great war of religion" was some 300 years ago. (Or so say most history
books)
<clip>
:> That 90% of Americans believe in a god is not hard to believe at all.
:> But most of them are not even sure what they believe, let alone are active
:> Christians.
> Perhaps we should let them speak for themselves and not presume to know
> what they believe
That's fine. But I'm just saying your facts (90%+ of folks believe in a
god) does not conflict with my belief that most of them are not sure exactly
what they believe, let alone that they are active Christians.
:> > And you would be wrong to do so since I belong to no religious or
:> > anti-religious group.
:>
:> And I do not belong to any religious group either. I haven't for years.
:> I go to church on a regular basis, but am not a member anywhere. Does that
:> let me off the hook?
> Well I suppose I must since I have no idea what your statement means. Are
> you a Christian or not?
Sure. But I'm not a member of any Christian group. Just as you are not a
member of any anti-religous group. But if you are going to claim I'm a part
of the large "Christian group" than I can claim you are a part of a large
"Athiest group." Never mind that neither of us are actually members of
anything.
:> My point was that wars and mass destruction have been done by atheists, in
:> the name of atheism. Just as it has been done by Christians, in the name of
:> Christianity. We both have the same burden IMO.
:>
<clip>
:>
:> No. I do not need to excuse the actions of those who do the act. Just as I
:> do not excuse those who are killing in Ireland. But neither do I hold a CoS
:> member responsible for the actions of Mary Sue Hubbard.
> I notice you said nothing about recognizing where your religion came from
> and its actions.
A lot of very VERY bad things have been done in the name of Christianity.
A lot of very VERY bad things have been done in the name of the USA too.
I recognize both things as true. That doesn't mean that I cannot critisize
other religions and governments for their abuses. In fact I feel it means
that I have a larger responsibity to do so than most.
:>
:> I've not yet seen a CoS charity that doesn't involve _teaching_ CoS
:> material. The Catholics and the Muslims give out food and alms to the poor.
:> As do many non-"God" based religions. I've yet to hear of the CoS ever
:> doing such a thing.
> I've never had a CoS member knock on my door at 6am on a Saturday to
> ask me if I've accepted christ as my savior. I don't see a lot of
> scientology programs on TV Sunday morning. And I don't get much mail
> from them asking for donations for their church. The 'fisherman of
> souls' thing can be overdone.
Yep. It sure can. Allthough if you show up to a CoS Chruch and give them
your name you will be getting ads for the rest of your life :-)
:> > I'm not looking to eliminate anything. You seem to be projecting your own
:> > intentions onto me.
:>
:> No, it is YOU projecting onto ME. (joke)
:>
:> My point is that I don't want to eliminate any religion either. The abuses
:> of religions, yes. You seem conserned about living in a religious world. I
:> assume you would be happy if all the religions went away. And please note I
:> said "Seem to desire to eliminate all religion". I don't KNOW what you
:> want, but from what you had written seemed that was your desire.
> Eliminating it and it going away are very different things. Would I be
> overjoyed if humanity shed itself of superstition in general? Do I wish
> to live in a world where outlandish claims are questioned instead of
> embraced with fervor? Of course. If humanity manages to not destroy
> itself I think some century we will move past the need to create
> religions.
A) Outlandish claims are questioned as well as embraced with fervor.
That is what a free society is all about. Without folks having the right
to be kooks we wouldn't get anywhere.
B) I believe that religions will always continue to exist. They do serve a
very useful purpose as a good source of ethics training and of personal
history. Even my sister, devout athiest that she is, is planning on
raising her children in a religion. She thinks it played an important
part in her being who she is.
:> Our world. And it is becoming more "your" world every day. In my small
:> part of the world it is already much more yours than mine.
> Perhaps it is but I don't see it happening. 'My' world is where
> believing in a thing requires hard proof of that thing. Proof that is
> equal in stature to the claim. 'My' world is where critical thought is
> the norm instead of the exception. Is there anything wrong with the
> world becoming mine?
A) Critical thought is the norm. At least in my experiance. In all cases
take a look at Pascal's wager. (If your aren't farmilar with it any good
book on Pascal, christianity and science, or athiesm should have it.)
B) A world void of religion would be a bad thing indeed. Think of the great
art and music inspired by religion. Think of the great cultures built on
religion. Name a great athiest humanitarian. (I'm sure there is one
but I can't think of who) Religion is the basic motivation for us to
help our fellow man.
<clip>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bre...@cps.msu.edu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| | The reports of SIMD's death have been greatly exaggerated | |
| -=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |
JimDBB
>From: eshra <es...@usa.net>
>Date: 3/21/99 12:10 AM Central
> I don't see scientology as being an original threat but the same one
>that mankind has been dragging around like luggage for centuries. The
>first time you believe in anything without proof you start down that
>slippery slope to believing in anything you're told.
>
Very well put.
JImDBB
Dave Bird
> I have seen many posts which in one way or another present a
>christians vs. scientology view. I see this as a 'pot calling the
>kettle black' statement. Most religions are based in teachings which
>have little or no proof.
Keee-rect. All religions are without factual proof.
All religions are, in my opinion, false statements about reality.
What I am more concerned about is.... how do the corresponding
religious movements BEHAVE THEMSELVES? are they a good or harmful
influence in society?? Here, there is a very good case of
comparing CofS with Christian churches. To the detriment of CofS.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP5
eshra
> eshra <es...@usa.net> wrote:
> : Mark W Brehob wrote:
>
> > I'm certain this came out differently than you meant - must everyone
> > declare their beliefs to the general public? I've seen some very personal
> > information given out in this NG, this made me more than a bit leery of
> > posting here. I would also like to hear from a CoS member on this.
>
> As well you should. CoS members and critics have been "outed" here by both
> sides. Either be careful or don't post. (Or post with your real name and
> don't care like I do.)
I'm not too worried I'm no threat to them.
> > Just as I am very uncomfortable now. Christianity has immense power and
> > influence in this country. There are many occasions when I am made very
> > uncomfortable and feel stifled by it.
>
> I understand. And I am indicating I would feel the same way you do now.
> > There are many wars with two or more religious factions attempting to
> > eliminate each other.
>
> Didn't answer the question.
Your question was a twisting of my original statement implying that I said
something I didn't - so I all but ignored it. I won't play that game.
> Name a _modern_ religious war that isn't really a war between cultures. The
> last "great war of religion" was some 300 years ago. (Or so say most history
> books)
>
> > Perhaps we should let them speak for themselves and not presume to know
> > what they believe
>
> That's fine. But I'm just saying your facts (90%+ of folks believe in a
> god) does not conflict with my belief that most of them are not sure exactly
> what they believe, let alone that they are active Christians.
It may not conflict with your belief but you didn't say it was your belief. You
said, "But most of them are not even sure what they believe, let alone are active
Christians." Get back in the boat you can't change halfway across.
> > Well I suppose I must since I have no idea what your statement means. Are
> > you a Christian or not?
>
> Sure. But I'm not a member of any Christian group. Just as you are not a
> member of any anti-religous group. But if you are going to claim I'm a part
> of the large "Christian group" than I can claim you are a part of a large
> "Athiest group." Never mind that neither of us are actually members of
> anything.
Just my opinion but I feel a shared belief makes one a part of a group in ways
that a lack of that belief does not.We may have to disagree I suppose.
> > I notice you said nothing about recognizing where your religion came from
> > and its actions.
>
> A lot of very VERY bad things have been done in the name of Christianity.
> A lot of very VERY bad things have been done in the name of the USA too.
> I recognize both things as true. That doesn't mean that I cannot critisize
> other religions and governments for their abuses. In fact I feel it means
> that I have a larger responsibity to do so than most.
I never said you couldn't or shouldn't criticize anyone, anything or anyplace. I
think that's why many of us are here, either giving it or getting it. Been that way
since the lovely days when it was hard to get on the internet - oh wait it still
is, just for different reasons now. I'm uncertain about your responsibility,
that's not for me to say and I'm not too concerned about it.
If someone makes a mistake I'm not certain they would have better advice than
someone who avoided the mistake. Just a philosophical musing it's not meant to you
personally.
> > I've never had a CoS member knock on my door at 6am on a Saturday to
> > ask me if I've accepted christ as my savior. I don't see a lot of
> > scientology programs on TV Sunday morning. And I don't get much mail
> > from them asking for donations for their church. The 'fisherman of
> > souls' thing can be overdone.
>
> Yep. It sure can. Allthough if you show up to a CoS Chruch and give them
> your name you will be getting ads for the rest of your life :-)
As long as they don't hand deliver them while I'm sleeping. But all I have to do
is not buy. And since I'm not looking for spiritual enlightenment it'll go out with
the ads for the whopper chopper. But seriously as an insider can you, or anyone
for that matter, at least tell me why in the world they do this?
> > Eliminating it and it going away are very different things. Would I be
> > overjoyed if humanity shed itself of superstition in general? Do I wish
> > to live in a world where outlandish claims are questioned instead of
> > embraced with fervor? Of course. If humanity manages to not destroy
> > itself I think some century we will move past the need to create
> > religions.
>
> A) Outlandish claims are questioned as well as embraced with fervor.
> That is what a free society is all about. Without folks having the right
> to be kooks we wouldn't get anywhere.
And yet outlandish claims are a multi-billion dollar, mark, frank,
peso...industry. I said nothing about rights in general. What I was speaking of
was humanity as a whole deciding not to be kooks, even the Satin (intentional
misspelling) and antichrist guy in this NG can't argue against that..
> B) I believe that religions will always continue to exist. They do serve a
> very useful purpose as a good source of ethics training and of personal
> history. Even my sister, devout athiest that she is, is planning on
> raising her children in a religion. She thinks it played an important
> part in her being who she is.
We can come close to an agreement on the first belief. I believe that religion
will be with us a very very long time. And to those who feel a need to rely on
them I'm sure they do serve a purpose. Ethics can come from many places, I believe
philosophy is a much better source since it urges a person to question and find
answers instead of claiming to be the source of all answers.
> > Perhaps it is but I don't see it happening. 'My' world is where
> > believing in a thing requires hard proof of that thing. Proof that is
> > equal in stature to the claim. 'My' world is where critical thought is
> > the norm instead of the exception. Is there anything wrong with the
> > world becoming mine?
>
> A) Critical thought is the norm. At least in my experiance. In all cases
> take a look at Pascal's wager. (If your aren't farmilar with it any good
> book on Pascal, christianity and science, or athiesm should have it.)
I see it differently than miseur Pascal. There are indeed 2 possibilities and yes
either we believe or we don't. But I don't see belief as something you can just
decide to do. If I said I believe I would be lying and I would lose a great deal.
I would lose my self respect. I hardly see his statements as critical thought, on
the contrary it is circular and incompatible with critical thought.
I have never killed anyone, If I have stolen it has at most been a pen from work,
I chase down people who drop coins. Even from a christian perspective my sin-load
is pretty light. If god does exist and he/she/it decides to toss me into the pit
for what little I have done and yet Jeffrey Dahmer may walk through the gate by
simply believing in him/her/it before he was killed - then he/she/it wont have to
toss me I'll walk to the pit and jump in myself because he/she/it is a small and
petty being whom I wouldn't want to spend eternity with.
> B) A world void of religion would be a bad thing indeed. Think of the great
> art and music inspired by religion. Think of the great cultures built on
> religion. Name a great athiest humanitarian. (I'm sure there is one
> but I can't think of who) Religion is the basic motivation for us to
> help our fellow man.
We will have to agree to disagree on B entirely. My opinion - An atheist
humanitarian would have no reason to wear a lack of belief on their sleeve. And
yet any theist humanitarian will start by telling you their belief.
Lastly, I would direct you to a more contemporary thinker. Carl Sagan -
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And it may very well be last, I
think we've veered far enough from the business of the NG. Since I started this
thread, the final thought goes to you my good man.
Gloria Eshra - not signing off, but no longer sounding off, good day...
eshra
Podkayne-Xenu wrote:
> In article <36F58FDE...@usa.net>, eshra <es...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > Mark W Brehob wrote:
> >
> > > I'll disagree with parts of what you say. Christians did hide at one time.
> > > But it was a fear of harm from society that caused that hiding. The CoS had
> > > ads, and books, and big chruches. It is _what_ they believe that they hide.
> > > Both from their own members as well as from outsiders. I feel it is very
> > > similar to a bait-and-switch scam.
> >
> > I'm certain that scientologists would say that they are hiding because
> of fear of
> > you.
>
> Scientologists are *not hiding*. They're right out in the open (except
> when they hide behind tarps so as not to see picket signs). What they
> *do* hide is the cost, the last 3 days of Lisa's logs, the Xenu story,
> Hubbie's true war & school record...
Well are they hiding or not people? PLease decide.
eshra
Podkayne-Xenu wrote:
> In article <36F5E28D...@usa.net>, eshra <es...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > Mark W Brehob wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm certain that scientologists would say that they are hiding because of
> > > > fear of you.
> > >
> > > I'm fairly sure that isn't true. Perhaps one of the CoS for Freezone
> > > members could comment? In all cases I object to them hiding _what_ it is
> > > they believe from the general public.
> >
> > I'm certain this came out differently than you meant - must everyone
> declare their
> > beliefs to the general public?
>
> The Co$ is hiding most of what a Scn who's been through all the levels is
> expected to believe in. If you want to find this out, you have to be a
> Co$ member, you have to pay, you can't ask questions. If perchance you
> happen to find out on your own and ask them if it's true, they'll deny it.
Then wouldn't it be foolish to join? My advice to you - don't - then you won't have
to complain about it later.
> If you want to know what Catholics believe in, you can go to any
> bookstore, or websearch, and find the complete text of the Bible and the
> catechism. Ditto for most other religions.
>
eshra
> > I oppose these things also but I have a difficult time seeing their
> actions as any
> > worse than other religions at some point in their evolution. All
> Judeo/Christian
> > religions hung a few heretics (at the very least) along the way to
> becoming holier
> > than thou.
> But not Muslims... or Buddists... or Hindus... ;-)
>
> >This is not intended to excuse them but the loudest arguments seem to be
> > that they are not a 'true religion', former members complaining that
> after spending
> > a lot of money they can't read minds or that someone's favorite actor is
> 'one of
> > them'.
>
> Its the *CO$* that claims that they are a "modern science" on one hand, and
> a "faith" on the other. They can't have it both ways; either they are
> faith-based or scientific-method based. And I think the former members who
> post here have a lot more to argue that mere dissappointment at not
> receiving god-like powers. They have witnessed real abuses, and real
> fraud.
A lot of people claim a lot of things. Abuse and fraud - yep it happens in
cults, religions, politics, telemarketing... But as long as this fight is
against them in religious terms it will fail. Forget the cries of CHRISTIANS
AGAINST $CIENTOLOGY and focus microscopically narrow on the legal aspect. Who
did what to whom and when. Stray from that and you'll lose.
> > Let me ask this of everyone here - If the scientologists gave up their
> illegal
> > activities and in the process became the largest religion in the world
> and 'In
> > Hubbard we Trust' was printed on all US money, and Congress opened with a
> COS
> > ceremony, and Hubbardmas as the largest holiday of the year - would you
> accept
> > them or still oppose them? Answer honestly.
>
> As long as they didn't break the law, or subvert the justice system, I
> could live with a space opera religion on the floor of Congress. But the
> chances of your straw man actually coming to life are slim to none.
>
My straw man?? I have no idea what you mean, but it sounds weird.
eshra
AndroidCat wrote:
um, venal corrupt, on the take that sort of thing.
>
>
> Personally, as an agnostic, I know I don't have the answers to the Big
> Questions, but I won't make any claims for anyone else. (I'm as
> uncomfortable around Fundamentalist Atheists as around Bible Humpers.)
>
> So why do I criticize the "Church" of Scientology? Part of it is the "it's
> a dessert/floor wax" claims to be a religion AND a science. Religion is a
> matter of belief and faith--and that's someone's own business, and quite
> subjective. But science is measurement of objective reality. It's only
> true if it can duplicated by anyone else under controlled conditions.
>
> If it's science, show us the scientific studies continually refered to that
> prove dianetics and scientology work. Demonstrate the powers that dianetics
> clears or scientology OTs are supposed to have. (Big bucks from James Randi
> if Co$ does! Hell, I'd join.) Find evidence of previous civilizations on
> Teegeeak. Build a DC-8 space plane. Read the contents of a closed
> envelope, leave your body and descibe what's behind a solid wall, knock
> someone's hat off from 40 feet away, fry a cockroach, throw away your
> glasses, demonstrate perfect memory... (Controlled conditions in front of
> skeptics however.)
Hey I'd like to see that space plane too but, um, but what if they say no?
Dave Bird
> Let me ask this of everyone here - If the scientologists gave up their
>illegal
>activities and in the process became the largest religion in the world
>them or still oppose them? Answer honestly.
If they gave up their illegal activities and behaved like normal
people, I would be happy to let them get on with it.
>what do I see?
[............]
> names and addresses of COS
>members posted,
could you just give the examples of this please,
I must have missed them. (*)
>calls for christians to 'rise up' to oppose them.
But this is an idiot newcomer who arrived around the same time
as you, and quite probably is you under another account-name.
(*) OK, you got me. Another new person, and for all I know a crony
of yours, is posting PUBLIC RECORD INFORMATION HONESTLY GOT about
the home locations of Monique Yingling and suchlike other bivalves.
I wish they wouldn't do it.
Bernie
> I have seen many posts which in one way or another present a
>christians vs. scientology view. I see this as a 'pot calling the
>kettle black' statement. Most religions are based in teachings which
>have little or no proof. In fact it is the very definition of a
>religion to be based on faith or belief without proof.
>
> Like most cults they will go through many reincarnations as they
>evolve into an accepted religion. This is done so that a religion can
>shed responsibility for their past actions by claiming to be 'a
>different church now'. A perfect example is the catholic church which
>has reinvented itself many times for just these reasons. Another
>example will be the numerous flames I receive from those claiming that
>'their' religion has never done anything like 'them'. The truth is of
>course that their religion started from a group who was also called a
>cult and at some point reinvented itself to become acceptable and avoid
>responsibility for its past actions.
>
> I don't see scientology as being an original threat but the same one
>that mankind has been dragging around like luggage for centuries. The
>first time you believe in anything without proof you start down that
>slippery slope to believing in anything you're told.
Well said.
gerry armstrong
wrote:
No. Not well said. So don't believe it.
No, it's not belief which is the culprit, because we will always
believe. The issue is what the God-given faculty of belief is used
for. Believing lies sends one down the slippery slope. Believing the
truth doesn't; and in fact keeps lies from being believed, and keeps
one off the slippery slope.
If you look you will find that there is ample proof of this.
If we did not believe what could not be proven, there could be little
scientific advance, nor much of an advance in any other field. If
everyone had refused to believe that man could get into space, we
would never have done so. Yet before man did get into space, there was
no proof whatsoever of his belief that he could.
Belief is not a bad thing at all. The issue on this newsgroup is L.
Ron Hubbard's and $cientology's perversion of that God-given ability
or power for corrupt ends -- money, power, slavery. That is done by
getting people to believe lies.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Mark W Brehob
<clip>
:> > There are many wars with two or more religious factions attempting to
:> > eliminate each other.
:>
:> Didn't answer the question.
: Your question was a twisting of my original statement implying that I said
: something I didn't - so I all but ignored it. I won't play that game.
OK. I looked back at your post and I'd say you are right. Didn't mean to.
<clip>
:> > Perhaps we should let them speak for themselves and not presume to know
:> > what they believe
:>
:> That's fine. But I'm just saying your facts (90%+ of folks believe in a
:> god) does not conflict with my belief that most of them are not sure exactly
:> what they believe, let alone that they are active Christians.
> It may not conflict with your belief but you didn't say it was your
> belief. You said, "But most of them are not even sure what they believe,
> let alone are active Christians." Get back in the boat you can't change
> halfway across.
Again, I see your point. So lets try again.
"I believe, from memory, that those same surveys indicate that the majority
of those that believe in God do not have concrete views of what God/gods
is/are. Further I'm darn sure (again from memory) that those surveys
indicate that very few of them are active Christians (ie. regular church
goers.)"
If you disagree with that statement, just supply me a source for your
orignal statement, and I'll find the rest.
>> > Well I suppose I must since I have no idea what your statement means. Are
:> > you a Christian or not?
:>
:> Sure. But I'm not a member of any Christian group. Just as you are not a
:> member of any anti-religous group. But if you are going to claim I'm a part
:> of the large "Christian group" than I can claim you are a part of a large
:> "Athiest group." Never mind that neither of us are actually members of
:> anything.
> Just my opinion but I feel a shared belief makes one a part of a group in
> ways that a lack of that belief does not.We may have to disagree I
> suppose.
Suppose so. I'd certianly claim that sharing the belief that religions are
wrong/bad (I _think_ that is your position) is a shared belief system. But
no biggy.
:> > I notice you said nothing about recognizing where your religion came from
:> > and its actions.
:>
:> A lot of very VERY bad things have been done in the name of Christianity.
:> A lot of very VERY bad things have been done in the name of the USA too.
:> I recognize both things as true. That doesn't mean that I cannot critisize
:> other religions and governments for their abuses. In fact I feel it means
:> that I have a larger responsibity to do so than most.
> I never said you couldn't or shouldn't criticize anyone, anything or
> anyplace. I think that's why many of us are here, either giving it or
> getting it. Been that way since the lovely days when it was hard to get
> on the internet - oh wait it still is, just for different reasons now.
> I'm uncertain about your responsibility, that's not for me to say and
> I'm not too concerned about it. If someone makes a mistake I'm not
> certain they would have better advice than someone who avoided the
> mistake. Just a philosophical musing it's not meant to you personally.
<from a previous message>
> >Using your own argument you must excuse the COS for the actions taken by
> >certain members that the church says was not authorized by them. Also
> >you have to pardon them for actions taken early in their development
> >since they claim to have reorganized and are now 'different' than they
> >were. Just as you have to excuse the later for anything they do now or
> >else be a hypocrite.
<end addition>
It was the above I was responding to.
> As long as they don't hand deliver them while I'm sleeping. But all I
> have to do is not buy. And since I'm not looking for spiritual
> enlightenment it'll go out with the ads for the whopper chopper. But
> seriously as an insider can you, or anyone for that matter, at least tell
> me why in the world they do this?
No chruch I've gone to does this. Well one does, but only if you have shown
up to Chruch.
It is because we, as Christians, believe we have been told to spread the
word of God. Some of us (most?) think the best way to do that is by
example. Be a good person and when people ask, let them know you are a
Christian. Others like to knock on doors. Thats about all I know.
:> > Eliminating it and it going away are very different things. Would I be
:> > overjoyed if humanity shed itself of superstition in general? Do I wish
:> > to live in a world where outlandish claims are questioned instead of
:> > embraced with fervor? Of course. If humanity manages to not destroy
:> > itself I think some century we will move past the need to create
:> > religions.
:>
:> A) Outlandish claims are questioned as well as embraced with fervor.
:> That is what a free society is all about. Without folks having the right
:> to be kooks we wouldn't get anywhere.
: And yet outlandish claims are a multi-billion dollar, mark, frank,
: peso...industry. I said nothing about rights in general. What I was speaking of
: was humanity as a whole deciding not to be kooks, even the Satin (intentional
: misspelling) and antichrist guy in this NG can't argue against that..
OK, I seem to have a gift for not writing what I mean. Try this.
A) Outlandish claims are questioned as well as embraced with fervor.
That is what a free society is all about. Without some kooks we wouldn't
get anywhere.
Better?
:> B) I believe that religions will always continue to exist. They do serve a
:> very useful purpose as a good source of ethics training and of personal
:> history. Even my sister, devout athiest that she is, is planning on
:> raising her children in a religion. She thinks it played an important
:> part in her being who she is.
> We can come close to an agreement on the first belief. I believe that
> religion will be with us a very very long time. And to those who feel a
> need to rely on them I'm sure they do serve a purpose. Ethics can come
> from many places, I believe philosophy is a much better source since it
> urges a person to question and find answers instead of claiming to be the
> source of all answers.
Well I'll disagree. Pure philosophy is at least as bad as religion in this
respect. Because first you have to determine what is important. And "Love
your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind; love your
neighbor as yourself" is a lot better starting point than "Selfishness" (Ayn
Rand (sp)) or "to hold power" (Machiavellie (again spelling is wrong).
I do understand your point, but I think that ethics needs a fundemential
assumption. ("The greatest good for the greatest number" is where the CoS
tries to start.)
:>
:> A) Critical thought is the norm. At least in my experiance. In all cases
:> take a look at Pascal's wager. (If your aren't farmilar with it any good
:> book on Pascal, christianity and science, or athiesm should have it.)
> I see it differently than miseur Pascal. There are indeed 2
> possibilities and yes either we believe or we don't. But I don't see
> belief as something you can just decide to do. If I said I believe I
> would be lying and I would lose a great deal. I would lose my self
> respect. I hardly see his statements as critical thought, on the
> contrary it is circular and incompatible with critical thought.
I disagree. If you are sure that there is no God, then you are correct.
But for a fence sitter it is a perfectly valid argument. However I would
certainly call it a non-ethical argument.
> I have never killed anyone, If I have stolen it has at most been a pen
> from work, I chase down people who drop coins. Even from a christian
> perspective my sin-load is pretty light. If god does exist and
> he/she/it decides to toss me into the pit for what little I have done
> and yet Jeffrey Dahmer may walk through the gate by simply believing in
> him/her/it before he was killed - then he/she/it wont have to toss me
> I'll walk to the pit and jump in myself because he/she/it is a small and
> petty being whom I wouldn't want to spend eternity with.
Yep. This is an argument I have with my more Fundementalist friends all of
the time. My belief is that if you do love your neighbor and take actions
to help them, you do love God. Maybe not _as_ God, but rather His
creations. Of course I realize this argument upsets both the Christians and
the Pagans (Hey that would be a great song title) not to mention the
Athiests, but tough :-)
:> B) A world void of religion would be a bad thing indeed. Think of the great
:> art and music inspired by religion. Think of the great cultures built on
:> religion. Name a great athiest humanitarian. (I'm sure there is one
:> but I can't think of who) Religion is the basic motivation for us to
:> help our fellow man.
> We will have to agree to disagree on B entirely. My opinion - An atheist
> humanitarian would have no reason to wear a lack of belief on their
> sleeve. And yet any theist humanitarian will start by telling you their
> belief.
Generalization. Use of "any" 5 yard penalty.
For example Mother T. rarely invoked her religion and spent most of her life
helping those who are NOT Christians. She didn't try to convert.
> Lastly, I would direct you to a more contemporary thinker. Carl Sagan -
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Yep. But there is also the issue of faith. Not just of the religious type.
I have _faith_ that my government isn't going to blow us all up, and I run
my life on that basis. Given the raw number of bombs pointed at us and
others, I'd say that is an extraordinary claim and there isn't extraordinary
proof. But I, and most folks, hold to that faith. We believe in it.
Sometimes, in order to make progress you need to have faith in something.
Your spouse. Your family. Even if pure logic indicates you are likely
wrong. Faith can move mountians. Not by force of will, but by the ragged
determination to MOVE that mountian.
Mark
> And it may very well be
> last, I think we've veered far enough from the business of the NG. Since
> I started this thread, the final thought goes to you my good man.
Thanks.
: Gloria Eshra - not signing off, but no longer sounding off, good day...
See ya Gloria. Glad to have had this discussion. My thesis calls (so does
my wife for supper actually!)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bre...@cps.msu.edu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Reuss
>> Mark Dallara wrote:
>> most of the folks 'round these parts oppose $cientology from a civil
>> liberties perspective. The cult's policies of launching vicious attacks on
>> critics who quote seekrit skripture, the harassment and illegal operations...
>> $cientology is a cult, yes, but more importantly it is Organized Crime.
> I oppose these things also but I have a difficult time seeing their actions as any
>worse than other religions at some point in their evolution.
This is such an inane argument. If you believe that your Christian
outlook gives you insights into wrong doings and righteousness, then to
simply dismiss religiously inspired wrongdoing as nothing more than an
insignificant phase which should be allotted to all evolving political
organizations is to completely abdicate your responsibility to the
people who suffer for that institutional wrongdoing.
Any Christian who cannot condemn the Inquisition or the Crusades as
heinous and barbarous, (and unChristian) cruelties, is no Christian in
my book. We are simply opposing the political development of a nasty
organization. That a group calls itself a religion in no way excuses bad
behavior.
>All Judeo/Christian
>religions hung a few heretics (at the very least) along the way to becoming holier
>than thou. This is not intended to excuse them but the loudest arguments seem to be
>that they are not a 'true religion',
How about this reasoning. Who gives a damn what a group calls itself;
when they embrace the practice murdering people they believe to be
heretics, they are in the wrong, and should be opposed by all
right-thinking people.
> Let me ask this of everyone here - If the scientologists gave up their illegal
>activities
... and gave up their legal, yet unethical activities....
>and in the process became the largest religion in the world and 'In
>Hubbard we Trust' was printed on all US money, and Congress opened with a COS
>ceremony, and Hubbardmas as the largest holiday of the year - would you accept
>them or still oppose them? Answer honestly.
Your question is ludicrous for it's speculation, lacking detail. How did
they hypothetically get to be so popular? What new values did they
embrace when they gave up "fair game" and "make money, make more money"
and "always attack, never defend" and "ruin your enemies utterly?"
It is my contention that if you remove the anti-social aspects of
Scientology, it will lose its appeal for those insecure people wanting
to be included in a group promising to make them powerful. Without those
choice, vulnerable, power hungry prime-cut raw meats, the Co$ will
dwindle away to nothing. It will not become the most popular religion in
the world.
--
Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
Honorary Kid
Bernie
armstrong) wrote:
>No, it's not belief which is the culprit, because we will always
>believe. The issue is what the God-given faculty of belief is used
>for. Believing lies sends one down the slippery slope. Believing the
>truth doesn't; and in fact keeps lies from being believed, and keeps
>one off the slippery slope.
That's contradictory. You start of saying it's not belief which
is a problem, then you say the problem is "wrong" beliefs versus
"good" beliefs.
gerry armstrong
wrote:
It's not contradictory. You didn't understand.
We have a God-given ability to believe. And without giving credit to
God, for the sake of this argument, I'm sure you can accept that you
have an ability to believe. You can believe that or not, but you can't
jettison belief itself. It is not belief itself which is at fault in
the human being, and it makes no sense to believe it is. You still
cannot get rid of it. You will believe. If you don't believe that
consider belief's absence, utter doubt. That, believe it or not, is
utter nonsense as a better idea than belief.
Hubbard lied when he said $cientology didn't depend on belief.
It is a Hubbardian error, arising I think from the level of
understanding he apparently never rose above. Throughout $cientology
there is the misinterpretation of phenomena which leads to the
erroneous conclusion that aspects of humans which are God-given and
potentially extremely beneficial are viewed as useless or dangerous or
aberrated and targeted for erasure.
The reactive mind itself (Hubbard admits he's talking about the
subconscious mind) is a good example. Current wisdom acknowledges the
subconscious mind as a source of great art, great inspiration, great
intuition and a great many other things. Hubbard understanding, and
tech, is to treat the unconscious mind as a snake pit, the source of
all kinds of evils, and in dire need of erasure.
$cientology's understanding and wisdom, being the highest level
Hubbard ever achieved (even lower if his demonstrated example is
considered), cannot reach a higher level of understanding without
$cientology becoming something different from $cientology. But the
recognition that Hubbard wasn't as smart as he wanted us to believe he
was might signal the dawn of a new age of wisdom for $cientologists
too. It's quite freeing to know that Hubbard was wrong.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Bernie
> I oppose these things also but I have a difficult time seeing their actions as any
>worse than other religions at some point in their evolution. All Judeo/Christian
>religions hung a few heretics (at the very least) along the way to becoming holier
>than thou. This is not intended to excuse them but the loudest arguments seem to be
>that they are not a 'true religion', former members complaining that after spending
>a lot of money they can't read minds or that someone's favorite actor is 'one of
>them'.
>
> Let me ask this of everyone here - If the scientologists gave up their illegal
>activities and in the process became the largest religion in the world and 'In
>Hubbard we Trust' was printed on all US money, and Congress opened with a COS
>ceremony, and Hubbardmas as the largest holiday of the year - would you accept
>them or still oppose them? Answer honestly.
>
> Lastly I came here expecting to hear arguments from a legal point of view. And
>what do I see? Religious hypocrisy, petty insults, names and addresses of COS
>members posted, calls for christians to 'rise up' to oppose them.
BINGO! Glad to see there are still some thinking and perceptive
individuals out there.
Thanks for your short time in ars.
DeoMorto
>>eshra posted
>>> Lastly I came here expecting to hear arguments from a legal point of view.
And
>>>what do I see? Religious hypocrisy, petty insults, names and addresses of
COS
>>>members posted, calls for christians to 'rise up' to oppose them.
>>BINGO! Glad to see there are still some thinking and perceptive
>>individuals out there.
>>Thanks for your short time in ars.
Unfortunately I seem to have missed eshra's original post and only got to see
your reply Bernie.
First of all "Lastly, I came here expecting ti hear arguments from a legal
point of view" - is a flawed piece of reasoning or expectation based on what?
But I digress from my main point.
To whom is this missive addressed (the original from eshra and, in part, your
reply Bernie) - the only debate on this newsgroup is between critics - not
between on-lines scientologists and ex scientologists and others. As an ex GO
staffer Bernie you know full well that no on lines scientologist is going to
come here to debate anything about scientology - the only people from the
:officials" posting here are posting based on "How to handle Black Propaganda
and "the enemy line" and that is all that they are doing.
So lets look at the newsgroup in reference to terms of debates amongst
critics - because it is the only debate, per se, that is going on.
And yes there are definitely a fair share of slagging matches going on but
even the Mirele/Bob nasty-thon is at least a debate about demands for full data
from a critic who had launched an attack on someone he claimed was a
scientology undercover agent.
Please note that throughout that long and tedious back and forth many things
came to light - Karen's painstaking work exposed the holes in the stories, the
inconsistancies and the doubts. Follow up by many different people brought
forth a lot of cross checking and so on - enabling people to make up their own
minds about whether or not the person in question a) was an undercover agent
and b) whether or not they did any significantr damge if they were one.
Yes we can argue about whether the evidence provided and/or dug up
conclusively proves anything at all but the argument is being conducted because
of the data discovered by people debating on here.
As for eshra's points - I do not see him roundly criticizing the rather poor
and inept postings by on line scientologists - now I am not saying that either
eshra or you has to be even handed, not at all - but in a thread entitlked
/Pot/Kettle it behooves you to at least take a look about your own stance and
your own writing.
I am sure that you are heartily sick of being talked out as though you were
an apologist for the cofs - I know , or rather I should say I feel, that this
is far from the case , you and I have agreed on some things and disagreed on
others but the agreement/disagreement doesn't mean that one of is pro and one
anti the cofs and I agree with you that far too often labels are bandied around
for no other reason than to provide a target for people to attack.
To gradually get around to my point - I think both you and eshra have some
seriously flawed thinking as regards ARS .
This newsgroup is the very antithesis of an organized, hierarchal type
structure. This newsgroups encompasses the bombast of both Roland and
scientologyPR, the careful work of Karen and Newman and the character
assasinations of wgert and "erin" the sniping of enzo and warrior, there is no
moderator, no paternal overlooker to take away those who's styles you do not
like or who's attitudes you find repulsive or silly.
But both of you try to categorize the entire newsgroup with your own
preconceived ideas of what it should be and both of you are whining (forgive
the perjorative term if you would be so kind) about how "ars is this" and "ars
is that" "I find this..." - ARS is a wall upon which anyone can post their
opinion - unlike the Cofs it requires no IA, no AVC - it merely requires that
you type it and post it.
and both of you are berating a wall for not conforming to your wishes and
desires - perhaps some upper indocs are needed???
If you would have serious debate - the only debate you are going to find is
with other critics. Thats because the cofs does not allow - and yes I use that
word deliberately - people who wish to remain in it to indulge in free debate
with critics. Period.
DeoMorto - the truly censored.
DeoMorto
> I oppose these things also but I have a difficult time seeing their actions
as any
>worse than other religions at some point in their evolution. All
Judeo/Christian
>religions hung a few heretics (at the very least) along the way to becoming
holier
>than thou. This is not intended to excuse them but the loudest arguments seem
to be
>that they are not a 'true religion', former members complaining that after
spending
>a lot of money they can't read minds or that someone's favorite actor is 'one
of
>them'.
Excuse me - I have been reading and posting on ars for quite a while - I hope
you dont mind but I have some nitpicking to do with your post
"The loudest arguments seem to be that they are not a true religion" - sorry
but you seem to have missed quite a few postings - several critics do subscribe
to the notion that scinetology is not a religion - in this newsgroup it is not
a given that scientology is a religion at all - some here think that despite
their disagreements, it is a religion in the broadest sense of the word and
some think it is merely a scam. There are very few posters that claim it is not
a "true" religion.
Secondly your point about "All Judeo/Christian religions hung a few heretics
(at the very least) along the way to becoming holier than thou." - no they did
far mmore than that - they fought long and bloody wars that cost the lives of
hundreds of thousands of people. Are you seriously suggesting that this is a
legitimate mode of operation for a "religion"? Is it your contention that,
following in the footsteps of other religions, the scinetologists and the
critics should actually be taking up arms against each other?
The fact that scientology acts like the catholic church acted in its past
doesn't make scientology a religion - its actions also closely parallel the way
the NAZI party operated in Germany in the thirties and the communist party in
Russia in the 30's and 40's.
as for the final point out of the excerpt above "former members complaining
that after spending
a lot of money they can't read minds or that someone's favorite actor is 'one
of them'." - again I have a hard time trying to dredge up one posting that
deals with the first part of the assertion and I can think of two postings that
mentioned the second.
I am a former member - I could, for example state that Hubbard stated many
times that "OTs" could read minds and far more, I could state that a) I have
never once seen any evidence of it and b) I certainly can't do it - and I can
say both of those things without "complaining" but merely to use my personal
and extensive experience in the cofs to demonstrate that it lies.
I have no problem with the assertion that there is, or should be, a code of
good manners and behaviour that governs all who take part in this debate.
Simple things like - respecting the privacy of individuals, attempting to
stick to cases and to issues and not ad hominem attacks and, in a lot of cases
I have seen many critics of scientology attempting to do just that - Mirele has
been vociferous and ( once in a while) very persuasive about the whole
CAN/Minton/Infiltration thing and I think she has made some very valid points.
A while back both Bernie and I were loudly criticizing the fact that a
scientologist who worked in a nuclear plant in France had had his carreer upset
because he had been outed and "denounced" by some anonymous person, A
despicable act all round IMHO.
But in your posting you have seen fit to paint a broad and nasty picture of
ARS - what seems to have escaped you is the following;
Throuhgout its existence as a public debate area the CofS has done everything
it can to try and destroy it - even though it does not belong to them and they
have no right to do so. (and no I do not include the latest weeks of sporgeries
in that comment because I have no proof that it is them doing it) - the CofS,
not ARS pioneered posting peoples names and adresses, it is the cofs that goes
to peoples private homes and tries to create threat in the environment, it is
the cofs that tries to use intimidation on people's families - there are many
postings conatining this information that you seem to have missed BTW.
The remarkable thing is not that there have been wild accusations by critics,
over the top criticisms - no the remarkable thing is that there are many
posters on this newsgroup - Newman, Tilman, Mirele, Karen, Warrior and many
many others who actually take the time to try and get it right.
Please name one on-lines scientologist posting here who can say then even
come close to that. Just one.
DeoMorto
> Let me ask this of everyone here - If the scientologists gave up their
illegal
>activities and in the process became the largest religion in the world and 'In
>Hubbard we Trust' was printed on all US money, and Congress opened with a COS
>ceremony, and Hubbardmas as the largest holiday of the year - would you
accept
>them or still oppose them? Answer honestly.>>
Yes I would - but there again you could have guessed that from my nick :) I
object to seeing "In god we trust" because I certainly dont.