(This is gonna take a while...)
Yoshi525 said:
Yes, actually I do believe that a fiction writer, or anyone who concocts a religion in this day and age, is either certifiably unstable, or a con artist (Jesus with glasses FTW!)
I, in all honesty, think that humanity, as a species, has used religion as a crutch to explain the unknown so that we no longer fear it, even if the explanation is false, or ignorant.
However we are coming to a stage of development that we should start looking at our faiths and seriously question their existence, do we need them to explain why the sun is in the sky anymore? Do we need them to explain how we got here? Do we need them to explain what we should do with our lives?
There is a big, big difference between 'how' and 'why'. If you replace the former with the latter in your questions, the answer is clearly 'yes' for me. The fact that such a large percentage of the worlds population is religious speaks volumes really. Some people may not find a need for it, but many do. Anyway this isn't really anything Scientology related just religion in general which is a topic we could discuss forever.
The point I was making, that in the past, religion was used as a tool to present knowledge of phenomena that was otherwise unexplainable to the unwashed masses in a form that would not frighten them.
Without knowledge of gravity and orbits, one would believe that the giant ball of flame known as the sun would fall on our heads if some god didn't hold it up there by decree for example.
The large portion of the world that is still religious is in decline since the mid-80's, less and less young'uns are going to church and actually wanting to go there for whatever reason.
Science is slowly explaining the mechanics of the universe, they're a hell of a long way off, but it's better than saying some flaming chariot is flying through the sky daily piloted by a god.
As for the gene therapy to remove hostile elements from someone, it would have to be implemented to modify the person after they commit a crime, innocent until proven guilty is still the law after all, otherwise we'd all be senseless sheep with no drive to do anything.
That sounds nice and all but it simply is not true. Relating back to Psychology if there is reason to believe the mental state of someone will cause them to commit a crime then they can be detained and/or medicated against their will. What makes you think anything less would happen with gene tech?
I didn't say anything less would happen, except perhaps speed up the rehabilitation process without the draconian methods like electroshock therapy or heavy mind-altering drugs that damage more than they fix.
They're still going to medicate the psycho-crooks, the ones that are clinically insane, but a gene therapy treatment (ideally) would be a far better option than the rubber room and 10000 volts through the brain for 10 years to -try- and rehabilitate them.
Study of knowing, try study of knowledge, it'll get you further than believing that you're the only one that can help a crash victim rather than the paramedics. (Re: Tom Cruise Video where he acts all nutty)
There are million of scientologists in the world, we don't all have huge egos and super powers like Tom.
Granted he's probably got the biggest ego on the planet, but he IS the spokesperson, the face, chosen by CoS to represent the CoS, for good or for ill, he is what people see when they think of the CoS.
You can't use him as a figurehead when he's drawing people in, then deny he ever existed as such when he starts acting like a whackjob.
I don't assume that all Scientologists are crazy, but I do think that they are either being led astray by a dead con-man or simply just finding something to fill the void that the other religions have left behind because they've been disenchanted.
As for the charity work, I have never heard of CoS putting money into anything, don't you think they'd plaster it onto the walls and whatnot about their charitable work in order to try and repair their media appeal?
When they start funding Doctors without borders, then talk to me, but self-serving charities, don't make me laugh.
Trust me, the church does fund charitable work, loads of it. As far as i can tell you are not basing your view on it not doing on anything more than your dislike for it.
Perhaps it is my dislike for it, however as you said earlier, they've been through one hell of a PR wring washer, however, if they have this myriad of charities that they fund at their disposal, after taking all this flak, you'd think they'd try to show the humanitarian side of the CoS more in order to try and diffuse tensions?
Unless they either don't exist, or are self-serving, hell even Rotten Ronnies uses their own charities as PR to make them look better while fattening up north america like a bunch of cattle.
I wouldn't be learning the teachings of Jesus because you know what, I wouldn't listen to someone who proclaimed themselves as the son of god, I'd be calling the padded wagon!
Let me put it to you this way, the bible hates me because I'm a bastard child, the mormon Bible hates me because I refuse to procreate, I just think the Jehovan bible is crazy, the Koran I have no bloody clue about, Buddhism is a neat idea but I have yet to see anyone return again due to karma points, and CoS hate me because I question my surroundings and everything that is told to me.
Again, not really much to do with my faith rather than faith in general. You can say as much as you like how crazy you think religious belief is, that's fine i appreciate some people don't want religion in their lives. The fact is though billions of people do have a faith.
True it's about faith in general but note that last one, they're a series of comments about religion in general and I may believe that it was all made up by whackjobs but at the same time, some people need those kinds of supports to explain the world they live in, I admit that.
Aliens coming to earth, killing off a large chunk of their civilization, and dumping their spirits into the Neanderthals?!?
Sounds like a 70-80's B movie!
So who's the hero of this storyline, who saves the spirits of these blokes, or the people whoever is less evil by the storyteller's perspective... oh I forgot, the writer himself, Hubbard.
I would seriously take two steps back and analyse everything you're being told by the CoS, rather than swallowing it up without thinking, and I mean don't just look it over as a Scientologist, if you can find an answer to why for every single item of faith including the donation amount, which sounds a hell of a lot like the old catholic church (I believe I made this parallel before...)
As i have already said the VAST VAST majority of Scientologists would share your scepticism about some of the stories present by Hubbard. Similarly many Christians would question many stories in the Old Testament. This doesn't subtract from the religion itself, it just teaches a valuable lesson - don't take everything in the most literal sense. As much as people like to raise the issue of crazy Sci-Fi stories in Scientology, there is almost no mention of ay of it in any Scientology work. Yes, really.
Ok sorry for making you repeat yourself, however a religion based on dianetics that lead to the discovery of this Xenu character, and created the religious version of 'We sleep, they live' with parasitic spirits inhabiting our corporeal being you have to admit, it certainly calls into question the sanity of the person who came up with it if they believed this tripe.
That's what I find most offensive about the lot, is that a religion that's name is derived from the word Science, the pursuit of true knowledge, quashing free speech and thought because it is or may be a dissenting opinion.
You only say that because you don't have a faith. I know how it feels as i was in a similar position for many years. The world around us presents Science as a single objective truth. This may seem reasonable to you as it did, and still does to me. But truth me, this is only because that is the perspective our society presents us.
I only say that because it is the root word, it has nothing to do with faith, and from the fact that they do use copyright to quash independent thought on a regular basis.
Don't you think that the Roman Catholic church would have loved to be able to pull that card during the Protestant revolution?
A belief is based on personal choice, if that is taken away from people than the religion is a sham, if you don't have a choice, and are forced to dance to the CoS tune due to fear of copyright litigation then there's something damn wrong with that picture.
As for Scientific truth, it's tangible truth to me, it's something that can be proven, or theorized through mathematical truth, through observation, and through experimentation.
How the blue bloody hell do you know these 'thetans' exist, seriously, just 'cause a book on Dianetics made you feel better or some crazy tonal color or whatever device you use to measure your lack of inhabiting spirit can easily be duplicated by the Rastafarians for example, or the elation of those who devoutly believe in Christianity when praying at around 10:00 AM in an eastward facing chapel!
Mental chemical or external stimuli can easily replicate the Dianetics tomfoolery without all this religious mumbo jumbo, all it takes is *gasp* a Psychiatric Researcher to reverse engineer the sensations.
Scientology however attempts to quash free speech through copyright laws (as it is based on a legally fictional novel by Hubbard whom his estate holds the copyright for anything Scientology based.) I also believe that Scientology is detrimental to it's followers as far as their 'donations' that are required to advance through the CoS.
The use of copyright laws is to protect. Many 'split off' groups which are indeed cons have been established base on Dianetics. It is perfectly possible to be an active Scientologist and NOT PAY A PENNY.
But can they be part of the main CoS by doing so, can they be part of the clergy without paying a penny, as for 'protection' why did alt.scientology.net get shut down with a copyright litigation when all it was about was discussion of Scientology.
I don't buy the 'protection' spiel, there's no reason to quash discussion groups about the subject unless they're trying to hide something.