Users who Dugg This
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
MediaSight
13123 Followers
adam jones
12155 Followers
Gerakis100
2982 Followers
Naveed Javaid
8062 Followers
Robert Wright
7403 Followers
bobosmitor
5469 Followers
Skateboard
3879 Followers
macbookformeMar 17, 2011
LOL ... a bunch of wealthy nutters
inajeepMar 17, 2011
To be fair they have poor nutters in the org for the grunt work.
emfkMar 17, 2011
I heard someone railing about how "controversial" Scientology was on another thread. My thoughts are that most religions are controversial in one form or another. It is one of those subjects best left to people with too much time on their hands.
anomaly100Mar 17, 2011
Thing is, they aren't a religion. There is no religious aspect to them. They're a cult and take people's money, brainwash them, etc. BUT, there is no religion there. I choose my Christian faith, but these people are isolated when they join. I think they called it a religion for tax purposes. They make no sense, they're anomalous...oh wait..no...
nugz85Mar 17, 2011
Everything you just said about scientology I could also say about Christianity.
torxxMar 18, 2011
you need to read more on both. Scientology is the only 'religion' where you have to pay to learn the message. Christianity is free. You do not have to pay to go to church, but you do to join it. That is a huge distinction.
scooternrocketMar 19, 2011
@toxx you might want to read the bible in the NT where some ppl sold their house and promised to give the money to the church but didnt and god killed them.
torxxMar 19, 2011
that is not about being forced to give money to a church, that moral is about not telling the truth. that scientologists try to take their 'religious' material off the web should be enough to make my point.
I95guyMar 17, 2011
Doesn't exactly sound like a cult considering they have millions of members all over the world.
isaac7719Mar 17, 2011
"cult" and "religion" are almost always synonymous.
I95guyMar 17, 2011
I know what you're saying but the definitions of the words state otherwise.
bluecadenzaMar 17, 2011
One of the hallmarks of a cult is the shunning of people they don't accept. Scientology falls under this and calls the process "disconnection." A scientologist will believe that people they've disconnected from (oftentimes family members with different believes) aren't "real" people in the same plane as themselves.
Its a cult.
daimposterMar 18, 2011
@bluecadenza:
don't most religions 'shun people they don't accept'? Jews/Christians/Muslims believe you are going to hell if you don't believe. Many muslims (and also some very strict jews/christians) believe that defectors should be killed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I95guyMar 18, 2011
--->daimposter
I know lots of Christians and have never seen them shun anybody or use violence towards anyone. They are the only religion out of the top three that accepts anybody who's willing to believe. But that's my experience with them. What Christians are you talking about? The ones who live in the backwoods and play with fire and snakes?
scooternrocketMar 19, 2011
Cult is what outsiders call religions they dont like. Its just a derogatory label it doesnt actually mean anything different compared to religion.
comgenMar 18, 2011
" Adherents.com: an independent web site that specializes in publishing "adherent statistics and religious geography citations ... for over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups..." etc.....http://goo.gl/8Lgw
When comparing the main religions of the world, they estimate that Scientology has 500,000 members and ranks 22nd in size " http://goo.gl/Tw3OjComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I95guyMar 18, 2011
Wiki had different numbers. It would be nice to know exactly how many members they have. One place you go says millions, another says 500k and yet another says 25k. Looks like their numbers have been shrinking but it could be erroneous counting practices.
comgenMar 18, 2011
"erroneous counting" - yes
Its difficult if not impossible to get a clear and precise count, in regard to religion stats. I generally pull data from several sources and if the numbers are within range of each other, work out an average est. Millions for Scientology might be stretching it some, [ A ] million on the high-end is probable......
Useful sites:
http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/us/religion.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ7.htm
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/
-- best regards
ageofmasteryMar 17, 2011
Yes and Christianity takes people's money and brainwashes them that it's ok for their upper clergy to live in tax free luxury in the name of God as well.
Belief in a higher power is one thing, but organized religion a scam meant to give the clergy money and power.
Closed AccountMar 17, 2011
Meh.. it's really a question of interpretation and perspective.
Since you're obviously attacking Rome in your comment.. I'll use it as an example.
One interpretation in the Church is that poverty means not owning anything personally. The vow, however, doesn't prevent you from using what the community owns -- provided it is used to do "god's work". Rome pretty much falls in this category, since the pope doesn't own the Vatican personally or anything else belonging to the church. He is simply there to take care of it -- within limits. Interestingly, it also means that it isn't his to give away.
Other Catholics see the vow of poverty as much more than not owning anything.. but see it also as a deliberate choice to live as the poorest do. I have spent time with many Catholics in religious communities who live by providence alone.. that is.. they have no idea where their next meal will come from... and don't have much more than the most rudimentary of possessions (a few bits of clothes, a bible, rosary, dishes, etc). You don't really hear about these people in the media.. but it's quite common and inspiring to see...
Which view is the correct one is a debate that's been going on since the birth of Christianity. Personally, I think it's what's in the person's heart that counts more. The pope might argue, for example, that he needs the money to be an effective leader to those who look up to him for guidance. He also needs to be healthy to perform his role effectively. What good is an emaciated pope who doesn't have the necessary equipment to communicate his message globally?
The question is really one of motivation -- unfortunately, there's really no way of knowing what truly motivates a person to play a certain role. Is the pope genuinely interested in serving his god the best way he knows how? or is he simply looking for the life of a religious celebrity? It's probably a combination of both. We're all human after all -- including the pope.
Therefore, generalized statements like.. organized religion is meant to funnel money to the clergy.. are just that.. generalized statements. In some cases it's probably true, and in other cases it's probably not. But that's life in any society. Humans are social beings and naturally organize themselves when they come together. Humans are also easily corruptible. You can't separate the two.. and as an individual you have to find your way through it all... whether that's through church... government.. work.. whatever... but are you going to abandon these juste because of this?
ageofmasteryMar 17, 2011
No, not just Rome. The upper end of just about all religions be they Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell or the Archbishop of Canterbury all live very high end lives.
And no, they don't need to live a life of abject poverty either. A nice house in a good suburb should suffice, not the mansions, private jets, etc that are paid for with money that could easily go to really doing "God's work".
Closed AccountMar 18, 2011
Having a mansion doesn't necessarily mean excess.. neither does having a private jet... A house may be big.. but it might also be used for administration purposes.. it might also house multiple people.. etc.. owning a private jet might actually be cheaper in the long run.. especially if you have many people to transport at a given time.. need security.. and are making frequent flights around the world...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's all rooted in context and motivation... which are impossible to judge by looking from the exterior alone.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountMar 18, 2011
Is it really inspiring to watch people starving themselves on purpose? I don't see it.
Closed AccountMar 18, 2011
They're hardly starving.. somehow they manage to get what they need.. It's inspiring because they have so much faith in their god that they don't sweat over these things.. things just seem to work out for some reason. It's a really simple lifestyle..
scooternrocketMar 18, 2011
@intercon, dont many church leaders as mentioned above travel in private jets w/ gold toilets ?
Closed AccountMar 18, 2011
@cochonnier
The Roman Catholic is and always has been a political institution, created during the Roman Empire to control the growing cult of Christianity, and its refusal to participate in the Imperial cult or the polytheism that was then practiced, a large perceived problem for a population that believed in the direct intervention in human affairs by "the gods."
Christianity as a belief system didn't have a single unified doctrine until the Councils at Nicea, which were called by the Roman Emperor Constantine, the first Emperor to join the growing cult, though it wasn't established as state religion until 380, after his death. Thus began centuries of argument of what constitutes true canonical law.
Whether or not one believes in Jesus as Lord, one cannot deny the manner in which Roman Catholicism was used as the main excuse for centuries of armed conflicts and repression in the name of the Church. Because it is an institution of the State, and as such used to create and maintain the power of the State.
Would I give all that up in the name of a more humane society? Would I like to see an end to the petty bickering, xenophobia, ignorance, and outright suppression of science and knowledge that the RCC continues to propagate to this day? Would I welcome a world free from frightened people waiting for some supposed reward in "the afterlife," while ignoring the natural order of life on this planet, and fearing their own biology? Would I welcome the end of almost 2000 years of oppression that has killed millions of people needlessly, in a vain attempt to control the minds of the entire world's population? These are not exaggerations - this is the history of organized religion with RCC as the worst perpetrators.
Yes. Yes I would welcome it. People have and need to exercise their spirituality. That they should have to give up knowledge and science in order to do so, defeats the entire purpose of seeking truth. With a few notable exceptions - the Society of Friends, Sufism, Shinto...) the multinational institutions of the more powerful 'religions' on this planet, have always been the enemies of real spirituality (a personal, private experience by its nature) and at their current political dimensions, have become little more than faded relics of humanity's ancient superstitions, and, yes, a way to make money for unscrupulous zealots.
macromorganMar 18, 2011
Power over a man's soul is an absolute power. As George Orwell said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Closed AccountMar 19, 2011
Thanks for the interesting response and for taking the time to write so much!
I really just have a couple things to say. First, I think we have to keep in mind that the Catholic Church is much, much more than just Rome. There is so much diversity within the church it's difficult to pinpoint one problem and attribute it to the entire organization. There are many catholics today doing wonderful things for people. There are also many bad apples who are giving the church a bad name. This isn't entirely surprising given that the Church lives and breathes through people -- all of whom fall short in some way to what the Church aspires to be. Does that invalidate the Church? I don't think so.. in fact.. I think it just reaffirms it... given that a central tenet of the church is that humans are inherently going to mess up.. etc. It's a fact of life and the church can do nothing to prevent it.
Also, I think it's difficult to judge what constitutes as corruption, since it's impossible to tell what motivates a person to behave the way they do. Is someone who does wrong out of a sincere desire to do good really corrupt? I don't think so. There are so many ways to interpret a situation and different people have access to different kinds of information. Sometimes people do things in our best interest, even though we don't understand why it is in our best interest. I'm not apologizing for the church, and am not saying that it has done no wrong... all I'm saying is that these sort of judgements are difficult ones to make. Questioning/Criticizing is one thing.. condemning is another. Personally.. I think this is why Christian are asked not to judge other people.. it's impossible to judge without all of the facts... and we never have all of the facts... and even if we did.. we'd still probably be confused.
Rome, as head of the church, is also in a difficult position. Christianity sets up some pretty lofty goals... which are difficult even for the most "holy" to achieve. When the Church talks about ethics, for example, it doesn't have a choice but to shoot for the moon. There's no "almost there". Abortion is a pretty good example of this. I don't think there's a caring person in the world who thinks abortion is a good thing. I'm pro-choice personally, yet I can't imagine a more loving action than bringing a baby to term, even in cases of rape. I'm mindful, however, that this is an especially difficult burden to bear and would never force someone to do it. But as Christians, you are asked to do the loving thing -- even if it cost you your life. You have to do what Christ would do... and the Church doesn't really have a choice but to teach that doctrine. It's idealism. Many people who criticize the Church, do so on realistic terms... which isn't what the church is about.
Finally, Christianity is not a do-it-in-private religion. It's a social religion and inherently includes other people. Christians aren't asked to love themselves.. they're asked to love god and other people. As I've mentioned before, however, humans inherently organize when they group together. Even if you removed religion, people would still find ways to organize themselves into groups.. and the same problems you attribute to religion would exist: bickering, xenophobia, ignorance, etc. So I'm not sure what that would solve. Interestingly, I think Christianity provides a solution to the problems you pose.. namely loving your neighbour.. not judging.. forgiving.. non-violence.. simplicity.. etc. Does that mean every Christian practices this perfectly? Nope.. But that's not really the point.. you can only decide your owns stance vis-Ã -vis this problem of human nature. The rest is out of your hands.
Closed AccountMar 19, 2011
Thank you for responding with such well written and sincere blather. The Church and the laity are not identical - you speak of the cult of Christianity as a belief system - but this is merely hypothetical.
I'm speaking of the real world - one in which the Roman Catholic Church burned proto-scientists at the stake for speaking the truth, one in which millions were put to the sword for being Jews, Muslims and heretics, where women were burned as witches, towns razed, children slaughtered, and all in the name of Our Lord God Jesus Christ.
All that ended with the Middle Ages, you say? All right - how about the systemic aiding, abetting, and concealment of the crimes of known repeat sex offenders in the thousands?
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/Who_We_Are/
I understand that humans are fallible, and that the words contributed to Jesus decades after his death amount to a very humane world view and a noble code of conduct. And I understand that some people try to live by these standards, and I think they should be commended for it, even when they fall short, as we all so often do.
But to address your points: Many people in the world are doing many wonderful things for other people who are not catholics. I submit, that it is these persons' inherent goodness that motivates them, and not their beliefs in who they ultimately serve: be they Catholic, Buddhist, Mormon, Muslim, or Atheist or simply sitting this one out. Catholics don't get some special recognition in this category.
As to not being able to judge corruption, I judge all men and women on their actions - as it is the only measure any of us have. Did the priests who betrayed the trust of these young boys and raped them and destroyed their lives - did they regret it sincerely afterwards? Perhaps. But where does that leave those thousands of young boys?
Sorry if it is considered ill to mention, but I consider this to be a systemic flaw in the very nature of the Bible and its contradictions as a document and creed, perfectly reflected in the power dynamics of the Church as an institution. It represents an impossible chasm between the real conduct of the RCC versus its stated aims. A civil society governed by the rule of law would have these men in shackles long ago, or at the very least, put them somewhere they can't continue their crimes. And yet they walk free, despite the knowledge of these crimes in the Church hierarchy all the way up to the Pope. It has a name - complicity. Is this the justice espoused by Jesus Christ?
In the end, your friendly, carefully considered platitudes about personal failings are just a warm, smary, fake, group hug meant to weaken the truth - that the institutional religions of this world are standing in the way of a brighter future for all humans everywhere, and stalling our overall development as a specie. I for one, long for a day when all this nonsense about who owns God and understands the most about the mystery of life will be revealed for what it is - the vain attempts at comfort of children afraid of the unknown, and the stupid bickering and incessant pettiness of fools who know less than a donkey about the miracle of existence.
Closed AccountMar 20, 2011
Thanks for responding!
"All that ended with the Middle Ages, you say?"
I don't think I said this.. and if I implied it, it wasn't intentional. In fact, I think I said the opposite. Whatever corruption existed then, still exists today for the simple fact that humans are prone to corruption. The fact that there are Catholics who are corrupt has nothing to do with their religion. It's a human weakness. Catholicism doesn't make people corrupt -- their individual choices do. Say what you want about pedophile priests and Rome's supposed complicity.. it has nothing to do with the Church itself.
"I submit, that it is these persons' inherent goodness that motivates them, and not their beliefs in who they ultimately serve: be they Catholic, Buddhist, Mormon, Muslim, or Atheist or simply sitting this one out. Catholics don't get some special recognition in this category."
Of course.. and I wouldn't say otherwise. I never said you had to be Catholic to be a great person. There are many lovely people who aren't Catholic, and there are many horrible people (if you want to call them that) who are. But again, this has nothing to do with Catholicism. It's human nature/weakness.
"A civil society governed by the rule of law would have these men in shackles long ago, or at the very least, put them somewhere they can't continue their crimes. And yet they walk free, despite the knowledge of these crimes in the Church hierarchy all the way up to the Pope. It has a name - complicity. Is this the justice espoused by Jesus Christ?"
You could say the same thing about any other human organization. There's no such thing on this planet as perfect justice. Is a poor person who can't afford a lawyer going to get the same treatment as a rich person who can hire the very best? Is a well connected politicians going to be limited in the same way as a lonely tax payer with no connections at all? Of course not. In none of these situation is it the system's fault -- it's human nature. There's no way around it.
"group hug meant to weaken the truth - that the institutional religions of this world are standing in the way of a brighter future for all humans everywhere, and stalling our overall development as a specie."
Again.. human nature stands in the way... not religious institutions. Everything you've said about the RCC, I could say about science or any civic institution. Some humans have used science to bring considerable good to the world.. medicine.. food.. and others have used science to bring considerable bad to the world.. the atomic bomb.. pollution.. I could say the same about the US as an institution. Eliminating religion won't change this fact.
I think what makes Christianity, or the Church, so interesting is that it's ultimate aim is to bring people closer to love. I'm not talking about the people who lead the church or those who belong to it.. but the church itself: the idea, the concept. In the same way science is about uncovering knowledge, the church is about uncovering the nature of what it means to love. By being Christian.. I participate in a long and continuously evolving history of people who have tried to understand this concept. I will probably never succeed in this endeavour, in the same way a scientist will never truly understand everything.. but by aiming I will continuously walk in that direction and hopefully get closer to it. As for those things that I have no control over.. like the corruption you talk about... or human nature... I will try my best to react to it in a loving way. That's all I can do... and while you may think this is "smarmy".. which is fine.. you're perfectly entitled to your opinion.. I personally believe that the act of loving represents the most beautiful thing a human being can do.
scooternrocketMar 18, 2011
But why does anyone join them to begin w/ ?
macromorganMar 18, 2011
Scientology? Because they want to star in a movie with John Travolta or Tom Cruise.
scooternrocketMar 19, 2011
Why dont they all become jews, jews have a considerably larger influence in hollywood than scientologists. If you dont believe look at all the bible stories and hitler bashing movies that come out.
theonewhoknowsMar 17, 2011
You must not know what goes on in the world of scientology.
goweigusMar 17, 2011
yeah but most controversy revolving around religions doesn't include religions made up by Sci-Fi authors from the last 100 years who admit to plans of making up a religion to get rich or past taxes.
At most religions were made up thousands of years ago! lol
daimposterMar 18, 2011
Islam: made up about 1300 years ago
Christianity: made up about 2000 yrs ago
Judaism: made up a few centuries before Christianity
Scientology: less than a century old
that's really the only difference between them, how long ago they were made up. They were all invented as a way to control people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pinkfish411Mar 18, 2011
There is absolutely no historical evidence that they were invented as means to control people. I'm sorry, but historical studies of religious origins just don't bear out that oft-repeated but baseless claim. Most religions arise organically; they're not just invented by some group of people for personal gain.
goweigusMar 18, 2011
look at Christianity period, what happened after jesus died? An organized church was built which created its own new rules and codes and forced them upon the world
I think its pretty obvious that religion has been used to control people since its authors (well most of them) died in the distant past. This is one reason I no longer attend church or consider myself 'Catholic', because 'church' is not what religion is about, church/what most Christians practice today was invented to control them post Jesus. If anything I should be as Jewish as Jesus was, but I turned out Christian (and not the kind I imagine they were aiming for back then).
daimposterMar 18, 2011
exactly! Christianity was started/created/invented after Jesus died. The Catholic church created their own rules after Jesus died and have changed and created even more rules in the centuries since the founding of Christianity.
"if anything I should be as Jewish as Jesus was"
great point
pinkfish411Mar 18, 2011
Religions being used to control people and religions being invented to control people are two different things. There's no doubt that religions (Christianity included, to go by this example) have been used to control people in some times and in some places; but there's also no evidence to conclude that the majority of them (Christianity included) were "invented" for that purpose. None.
I'm a professional historian of Christianity, so I read about this stuff 40+ hours a week. The bulk of the evidence points to a gradual, organic development of the "Jesus movement" into organized Christianity over the course of a few centuries, and there's no evidence to suggest that the majority of the people involved in that development were primarily interested in "inventing" something to control people. Even when Christians in the fourth century started wedding themselves closely to Roman imperial power, it was at first a sincere religious sentiment, not simply a power grab. "Control" didn't become a serious problem for Christianity until well into its development, well after the religion emerged.
goweigusMar 18, 2011
It doesn't take a majority of Christians to change and set rules for all of them. People high up in the Church (again a whole bunch of stuff made up after Jesus died and surely not part of what he hoped we would do) can change things for everyone.
Just like with fewer than 1% of people in America screwing things up for 99% of America.
Yes I believe most religions were not created to control people, but it seems plenty of them evolved to control them (esp with Christians). It doesn't take many people to corrupt a system for centuries.
scooternrocketMar 18, 2011
This is true, the roman emperors eventually realised when Christianity became large, that this could be used a wonderful communication and control mechanism. Its like today, where pollies use TV because everyone watches TV to make statements.
The great thing w/ religion is if you foloowers here its the law, then many will follow which makes life much easier. If you can get the Pope to say pay more tax and dont cheat the state, then you have just made your tax collection problem a little easier, which can only help.
anomaly100Mar 19, 2011
Notice how you'll always get dugg down here for saying you're a Christian. I have received some nasty comments & I don't shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. I am not part of the fringe element and my faith is not the same as the institutionalized form, meaning the religious right. But say the word Christian and you get down voted on sites.
inajeepMar 17, 2011
So you take the role of the metaphoric ostrich by sticking your head in the sand and pretend they do not exist. Careful, they tried to get into the government once already. Ignorance is never a good defense.
sandersdamnitMar 17, 2011
Religion is religion. It's all made up bulls**t.
fadetooneMar 17, 2011
I just like the summary: "Over the weekend, notorious Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard celebrated what would have been his 100th birthday"
He celebrated it? Oh really?
Closed AccountMar 18, 2011
He celebrated with Zombie Jesus. I saw them down at the bar, drinking Irish Carbombs - they did a karaoke duet of Say Say Say. Jesus took Michael's part. It was rad until Ron puked on the barmaid, and Jesus got in a fight with the bouncer. Those charming rapscallions...
darwininmotionMar 18, 2011
Probably celebrated in the form of Suri - isn't she meant to be the 2nd coming?
mariocarrascoMar 17, 2011
Nothing, no level 3 Thetan Overlord is scarier than Pope Benedict XVI
greedonvrfiredMar 17, 2011
I skimmed the article and am not sure if it came right out and said this but here is the answer that I have always given to people on "Why Celebrities Love Scientology?"
Being a celebrity is a sort of accomplishment. Everyone knows your name and it is often because of a "talent" you believe you may have. You tell yourself I am a celebrity because I am an amazing actor, I am a celebrity because I am an amazing singer and so on. But, not so deep inside you say "Am I that good?" Or am I just lucky. Am I that good or is the public that easy. Was it my doing or the movie execs. You can never be sure if you are any good. Take Tom Cruise. We all know he is an OK actor. Somewhere between OK and bad. Deep down he suspects it too, but he is sooo successful, yet he is still insecure. Then these guys come along and tell him "we can measure your awesomeness. We can scientifically confirm your suspicions that you are f**king amazing, Tom. I am looking at the meter right now and you are off the charts. Tom says "I knew it!" and he is in hook, line and sinker.
Of course there are exceptions but some are so obvious. The world treats you like you are special, but you know you are really just Vinny Barbarino, Tony Manero and that guy from Pulp Fiction. If only someone could confirm that you really are special.
brucealmightyMar 17, 2011
Especially when people are all laughing at you after a stinker like "Battlefield Earth" is released and it makes everyone wonder why they ever thought you had any talent in the first place.
darwininmotionMar 18, 2011
And that once you're known to be a member that everyone puts you in the crazy bucket, so you're no better off afterwards.
camilos007Mar 18, 2011
The comment below applies to all cults : Jehova's witnesses, The moonies, etc.
"I think it's true with any true believer, when you believe that your organization has the truth, the only truth that's going to save the planet, you're going to forgive that organization a lot of things."
No matter what reason and logic you give these people, they refuse to believe. Because obviously we are wrong because we are non-believer and their leaders have already told them we would try to misguide them.
scooternrocketMar 18, 2011
Icant but help think that Scientology is like pokemon. The more you play the higher or more points and character.
darwininmotionMar 18, 2011
Perfect description.
real15worldMar 18, 2011
Good Qus But Ans is all are lolzzzzzzz.......
scooternrocketMar 19, 2011
Maybe Scientology is the worlds biggest pedophile network.. or something
jacleseauMar 20, 2011
Interesting comment from Tony Ortega:
"... what you have to understand is that actors and actresses are among the most fragile human beings on the planet, and it's not really hard to convince them they're the center of the universe."