If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Xenophon vs. Xenu   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 181
    More: Cool, Church of Scientology, Australia, Xenu, Nick Xenophon, freedom of religion, l ron hubbard, criminal organizations, totalitarian regimes  
•       •       •

18855 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2009 at 9:54 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-18 01:15:53 PM
What Xenophon may look like:

p9.secure.hostingprod.com
 
2009-11-18 01:16:46 PM
8ace: 8ace: Yes there is. If your local (any denomination) church had only homeless and/or broke people popping through the door they would be gone.

Let's do this again, now that I notice the word "only." First of all, that's not a claim that can have its legitimacy demonstrated. You don't know any more than I do whether your statement is necessarily true. Second, the implication that this proves that religion rejects the poor/broke is faulty.

Scientology *requires* adherents to virtually merge their bank accounts and lives with the church. It sets up a hierarchy whereby your contributions of time and funding determine (not simply aid) your spiritual advancement.

Don't mistake me for something I'm not; there are absolutely tons of areas in which criticism of organized religion is valid, especially when it comes to money, and I'm guessing that you and I would agree on most of them. But even the church falls short of the audacity of scientology in this area and others too numerous to mention.
 
2009-11-18 01:17:15 PM
I actually came into this thread thinking someone was applying Xenophon's doctrines to fight Scientology.


/I am disappoint
 
2009-11-18 01:20:01 PM
8ace: It's worse than any other religion how?

Beeecause any other religion doesn't do that?
 
2009-11-18 01:20:46 PM
8ace: I am deliberately not taking the easy path on that one, btw

Yeah yeah, I thought of that as I writing my post. There's a reason I didn't use the Catholic Church as an example. In those cases, the same applies; those responsible for covering-up for the molestation, and the people who knew about it (however far up the ladder as that went) deserve condemnation and prosecution. The same goes for any other instances of collusion in criminal matters by religious figures of any religion.
 
2009-11-18 01:22:03 PM
Hey, if he can get his men back from Persia, then this should be no problem...
 
2009-11-18 01:23:07 PM
But other religions won't give you a free stress test...
 
2009-11-18 01:24:04 PM
holybull99: I agree with 8ace.

Just because something is "mainstream" doesn't make it any less ridiculous than something fringe. Just because a totally erroneous idea is held by many for a longer time, does not make it any more valid than a newer erroneous idea held by fewer. ALL religion of any kind is a at best a useless crutch and at worst deadly and malevolent.


Hey , If thats what you want to believe: now apply a rational standard, and you'll see most religions should fall into your 'crutch' category, but Scientology falsl definitely in the deadly and malevolent category.
 
2009-11-18 01:28:18 PM
Came to the thread hoping to hear from our resident apologists and leaving quite satisfied.
 
2009-11-18 01:28:48 PM
Wagnerian Omnibus: 8ace: 8ace: Yes there is. If your local (any denomination) church had only homeless and/or broke people popping through the door they would be gone.

Let's do this again, now that I notice the word "only." First of all, that's not a claim that can have its legitimacy demonstrated. You don't know any more than I do whether your statement is necessarily true. Second, the implication that this proves that religion rejects the poor/broke is faulty.

Scientology *requires* adherents to virtually merge their bank accounts and lives with the church. It sets up a hierarchy whereby your contributions of time and funding determine (not simply aid) your spiritual advancement.

Don't mistake me for something I'm not; there are absolutely tons of areas in which criticism of organized religion is valid, especially when it comes to money, and I'm guessing that you and I would agree on most of them. But even the church falls short of the audacity of scientology in this area and others too numerous to mention.


You may disagree but I think I answered this in the donation bowl comment. Most religions help people but would not survive without donations. Obvious. Every mainstream religion is now a business, with the helping people part as well. Audacity? At least the scientologists are honest, they give the church a load of money to feel better about themselves. If you are the sort of person who feels better by having a deity (NTTAWWT), do what your holy building asks of you.

I'll be here living my life according to what my family deserves
 
2009-11-18 01:30:02 PM
8ace: Wagnerian Omnibus: But almost any attempt to equate the tactics and intent of these organizations will not hold up under scrutiny.

Scrutinise away, old chap. What has scientology done that all other 'major' religion's "good books" condone? Murder? Do scientologists condone murder? I don't know. I'll bet a scientologist has murdered someone. Is it ok by their "rules"?


Scrutinise away, old chap. What has kiwi done that all other 'major' fruit's "nutrition label" condone? Murder? Do kiwi's condone murder? I don't know. I'll bet a kiwi has murdered someone. Is it ok by their "rules"?
 
2009-11-18 01:32:45 PM
Most religions help people but would not survive without donations. Obvious. Every mainstream religion is now a business, with the helping people part as well.

WHOA WHOA WHOA.

Jump in logic.

How did you get from "religions can't survive without money" to "religion is now a business".

I can't survive without fruit that doesn't mean I'm a homosexual.
 
2009-11-18 01:35:22 PM
I can't survive without fruit that doesn't mean I'm a homosexual.

Already used that one.

I can't survive without fruit that doesn't mean I'm a illegal alien working for Sequoia.
 
2009-11-18 01:37:47 PM
8ace: Scrutinise away, old chap. What has scientology done that all other 'major' religion's "good books" condone? Murder? Do scientologists condone murder? I don't know. I'll bet a scientologist has murdered someone. Is it ok by their "rules"?

I'm a little confused by your argument, but I don't think I'm trying to draw a distinction between specific core principles. Basically, I'm disagreeing with what seems to be an absolutist argument on your part.

Let's use murder, or causing physical harm to others, as a baseline, since you mention it. Scientology's "fair game law" is considered to remain part of the core values of scientology. It justifies the use of harassment by physical or legal means intended to destroy those identified as enemies of the religion, including disaffected former members and/or outspoken public critics.

Before you jump in, yes, in the past, other organized religions have also attempted to rationalize aggression and direct physical harm towards their perceived enemies. So have governments and virtually any large, powerful organizations commanding the hearts and minds of large numbers of people. However, this principle no longer remains a core value of all sects of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. While human nature doesn't change and the desire to abuse power to suppress criticism still likely exists within the ranks, and occasionally becomes organized and effected (see: radical Islam), it's not a central and necessary codified value in these loose organizations as it is in scientology.

Whereas in major organized religions you would be required to generalize beyond the boundaries of fairness to apply this criticism, you would not have to do so with scientology, which holds this principle as a core value.
 
2009-11-18 01:37:57 PM
8ace: Wagnerian Omnibus: But almost any attempt to equate the tactics and intent of these organizations will not hold up under scrutiny.

Scrutinise away, old chap. What has scientology done that all other 'major' religion's "good books" condone? Murder? Do scientologists condone murder? I don't know. I'll bet a scientologist has murdered someone. Is it ok by their "rules"?


Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but one of the tenets of scientology (from the previously mentioned books I read): Tenet #4 is "To deter to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends.", so I would assume violence falls under allowable actions.
 
2009-11-18 01:40:57 PM
Apoth: 8ace: Wagnerian Omnibus: But almost any attempt to equate the tactics and intent of these organizations will not hold up under scrutiny.

Scrutinise away, old chap. What has scientology done that all other 'major' religion's "good books" condone? Murder? Do scientologists condone murder? I don't know. I'll bet a scientologist has murdered someone. Is it ok by their "rules"?

Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but one of the tenets of scientology (from the previously mentioned books I read): Tenet #4 is "To deter to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends.", so I would assume violence falls under allowable actions.


Gotcha by 10 seconds.
 
2009-11-18 01:41:01 PM
img.neoseeker.com

Perhaps the same could be said of all religions.

/Hotlinked
//Not Sparkly
 
2009-11-18 01:43:07 PM
Yay go Australia! You show 'em.
Still, got to admit that Hubbard was kind of a genius*, such a simple idea carried out with such chutzpah.

/*The evil kind to be specific.
 
2009-11-18 01:49:15 PM
8ace: You may disagree but I think I answered this in the donation bowl comment. Most religions help people but would not survive without donations. Obvious. Every mainstream religion is now a business, with the helping people part as well. Audacity? At least the scientologists are honest, they give the church a load of money to feel better about themselves.

It's a big jump from "religion requires money to operate" to "religion demands money to legitimize faith." The latter is easily and demonstrably applied to scientology. You have to really generalize and contort your argument in order to get this statement to fit all major organized religion.

If you are the sort of person who feels better by having a deity (NTTAWWT), do what your holy building asks of you.

I'm not religious at all, nor do I have any supernatural belief structure outside of any religion. Not that it should matter.
 
2009-11-18 01:52:57 PM
Thrashersk: kindms: incrdbil: kindms:

Actually it just makes YOU a person who values 1 set of myths more than another set of myths.


You can be a complete atherist, and still recognize that mainstream rleigions are not the predatory harmful organization that Scienology is. Scientology is a recent, purposeful creation exclusively aimed to rip people off. If you can't tell the difference between that and a real religion (regardless of your personal beliefs or not)--you are a fanaical asshat, a relative to religous extremsists you hate yet echo in so many ways.

Actually. IMHO most religions are predatory and harmful. If we were to examine early stages of all religions in their infancy to established I bet there would be a lot of similarities between Scientology and the rest.

Just because the Catholic church currently doesn't practice burning at the stake, selling indulgences etc etc does not make them any better. It just means they learned their lessons.

All religions were at 1 time considered cults by the mainstream at the time.


You're wrong on so many points. People have pointed these points out by pointing but you refuse to be pointed towards the right point. I've decided to just replace everything you say with fruit metaphors.

IMHO most fruits are predatory and harmful. If we were to examine early stages of all fruits in their infancy to establishment I bet there would be a lot of similarities between Apples and the rest.

Just because the apples currently doesn't practice burning at the stake, selling indulgences etc etc does not make them any better. It just means they learned their lessons. You know the saying one bad apple ruins the tree because it doesn't fall very far.

All apples were at 1 time considered bananas by the mainstream at one time.


Just gotta throw this out there...



"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all." ~ Harry Nilsson 1971

/gonna go play triangle toss with my arrow now. :)
 
2009-11-18 01:58:22 PM
FiatJustitia: I actually came into this thread thinking someone was applying Xenophon's doctrines to fight Scientology.


/I am disappoint



Me too. Some Socratic pwnage of scientology and spiritual snakeoil-ism in general is most certainly in order!
 
2009-11-18 01:58:23 PM
Wagnerian Omnibus:

Gotcha by 10 seconds.


*Shakes fist*
 
2009-11-18 02:00:56 PM
8ace: Apoth: Anyone have any idea?

No, they don't. To suggest any human has any idea of what an all-powerful being who could create what they claim HE created, is ridiculous. Some ego with these people. HE created the universe and these people think they have any clue what HE is up to?


You just got trolled, bro. Scientologists know exactly was that is:

It's shooting someone in the head with a colt 45 handgun.
 
2009-11-18 02:08:44 PM
holybull99: I agree with 8ace.

Just because something is "mainstream" doesn't make it any less ridiculous than something fringe. Just because a totally erroneous idea is held by many for a longer time, does not make it any more valid than a newer erroneous idea held by fewer. ALL religion of any kind is a at best a useless crutch and at worst deadly and malevolent.


i296.photobucket.com

"Bob" is not the answer.

Neither is anything else.
 
2009-11-18 02:11:14 PM
If you're considering taking the Church of Scientology up on their offer of a free IQ test I can save you the time and effort and tell you what it is WITHOUT A TEST.
 
2009-11-18 02:13:23 PM
FTFA Given religion status in many countries, it enjoys tax-free privileges - but revelations from former followers have sparked huge legal battles in Europe where in several countries it is deemed a sect, not a religion.

Wait, isn't a sect a religious institution that has branched-off from an earlier religion? Xenu's legend comes from nothing but the mind of a science fiction author, not from the doctrines of a pre-existing religion. Is this an innocent misspeak or are they actually trying to avoid using the appropriate word "cult"?
 
2009-11-18 02:14:50 PM
Thorndyke Barnhard: FTFA Given religion status in many countries, it enjoys tax-free privileges - but revelations from former followers have sparked huge legal battles in Europe where in several countries it is deemed a sect, not a religion.

Wait, isn't a sect a religious institution that has branched-off from an earlier religion? Xenu's legend comes from nothing but the mind of a science fiction author, not from the doctrines of a pre-existing religion. Is this an innocent misspeak or are they actually trying to avoid using the appropriate word "cult"?


Given enough time, how will this 'sect' differ from any other?

Your beliefs + thousands of years = someone else's 'myths'
 
2009-11-18 02:20:09 PM
scalpod: If you're considering taking the Church of Scientology up on their offer of a free IQ test I can save you the time and effort and tell you what it is WITHOUT A TEST.

i just want to get my hands on one of those readers so i can take it aparet in front of the people administrating the test

if i feel like it i may tell them why it doesn't work
 
2009-11-18 02:21:55 PM
scalpod: Given enough time, how will this 'sect' differ from any other?

Your beliefs + thousands of years = someone else's 'myths'


It's really a semantic point I'm trying to make, meant to highlight some hypocrisy.

From what I understand a "sect" is the product of a religious schizm.

This is not the case with Scientology so it is either a mistake or deliberate deception to avoid the negative connotations that are implied by the appropriate label: "cult".
 
2009-11-18 02:24:09 PM
karlo: 8ace: Apoth: Anyone have any idea?

No, they don't. To suggest any human has any idea of what an all-powerful being who could create what they claim HE created, is ridiculous. Some ego with these people. HE created the universe and these people think they have any clue what HE is up to?

You just got trolled, bro. Scientologists know exactly was that is:

It's shooting someone in the head with a colt 45 handgun.


While I find the possibility of your answer comical, I take offense to being called a troll, sir. (or madam, whiever you prefer) He actually just took it out of context, I meant does anyone know what that step consists of. And you came up with the first answer.

/A plausible one at that!
 
2009-11-18 02:32:34 PM
scalpod: Given enough time, how will this 'sect' differ from any other?

I won't be alive in a thousands years so your argument is stupid.
 
2009-11-18 02:46:55 PM
Thrashersk: I won't be alive in a thousands years so your argument is stupid.

By then all the fruit will be rotten anyway.
 
2009-11-18 02:59:58 PM
Thorndyke Barnhard: It's really a semantic point I'm trying to make, meant to highlight some hypocrisy.

From what I understand a "sect" is the product of a religious schizm.

This is not the case with Scientology so it is either a mistake or deliberate deception to avoid the negative connotations that are implied by the appropriate label: "cult"


I agree that would be the appropriate label, but the BBC is trying to communicate what other countries call it, not what it is. The countries in question are mostly non-English speaking, so translation is an issue.
 
2009-11-18 03:07:15 PM
Somacandra: Actually, Scientology church services are free to attend. Most decent libraries have copies of Hubbard's books and getting them free or cheap at any used bookstore is not hard. You usually don't go around finding free Qurans, Guru Granth Sahibs, the Lotus Sutra or actual Tanakh's. Getting a Catholic Catechism is not free. Just because the Gideons pass around a shiatty 17th century translation of the New Testament for free in different colored jackets doesn't make any difference. If you want advanced training or ministerial credentials in any religion, you have to pay for it.

Here's a difference:

Scientologists get to write off the costs of their "religious training" on their taxes. No other "religious group" gets to do that.

And that's only because of a massive wave of lawsuits filed against the IRS in every state and $cientology digging up the dirt on the then-directors of the IRS.

Google Skalr v. IRS for information on this.
 
2009-11-18 03:07:48 PM
colatf: What's really pathetic are minor Australian celebrities like Kate Cerberano converting to Scientology, like their career would get a boost and they had the money to spare anyway.

Actually Kate Cebrano was brought up as a Scientologist as her grandmother was in the 'church' and was Hubbard's governess. That makes her third generation scientologist.

....It's sad the only wins I can get is on knowledge of Scientology and celebrities who are into it. But I'll take a win wherever I can get it.
 
2009-11-18 03:11:19 PM
...funny, I just started reading Xenophon's Anabasis.
 
2009-11-18 03:16:14 PM
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Has anyone heard of scientology doing anything with its money except for maybe using it to sue people for more money and pay itself?

What has scientology done that can be seen as selfless and charitable?


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 
2009-11-18 03:27:30 PM
Raharu: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Has anyone heard of scientology doing anything with its money except for maybe using it to sue people for more money and pay itself?

What has scientology done that can be seen as selfless and charitable?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


How is your obnoxiously formatted (dude, you've been here long enough to know the protocol) question relevant?

Selflessness and charitability are not necessary conditions for religion.
 
2009-11-18 03:31:06 PM
Thorndyke Barnhard: scalpod: Given enough time, how will this 'sect' differ from any other?

Your beliefs + thousands of years = someone else's 'myths'

It's really a semantic point I'm trying to make, meant to highlight some hypocrisy.

From what I understand a "sect" is the product of a religious schizm.

This is not the case with Scientology so it is either a mistake or deliberate deception to avoid the negative connotations that are implied by the appropriate label: "cult".


Oh, I understand what you're getting at and as someone who joined a Texas UFO death cult I'm getting a kick out of your replies.
 
2009-11-18 03:33:11 PM
Thrashersk: scalpod: Given enough time, how will this 'sect' differ from any other?

I won't be alive in a thousands years so your argument is stupid.


Nobody walks around fretting about whether or not they offend anyone when they make fun of the Greek gods, so no, it isn't. You just completely missed my point.
 
2009-11-18 03:38:31 PM
Thorndyke Barnhard: Raharu: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Has anyone heard of scientology doing anything with its money except for maybe using it to sue people for more money and pay itself?

What has scientology done that can be seen as selfless and charitable?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

How is your obnoxiously formatted (dude, you've been here long enough to know the protocol) question relevant?

Selflessness and charitability are not necessary conditions for religion.


I was just wondering if anyone has ever seen $cientology do anything good. I mean I hear some positive things about the catholic church from time to time, but never it seems anything positive about $cientology.

Also sorry for the way I formatted that, I just though it was a good point to bring up.
 
2009-11-18 03:42:47 PM
scalpod: Oh, I understand what you're getting at and as someone who joined a Texas UFO death cult I'm getting a kick out of your replies.

Please let you not be kidding! :) I've always wanted to meet one of those!
 
2009-11-18 03:48:32 PM
Raharu: I was just wondering if anyone has ever seen $cientology do anything good. I mean I hear some positive things about the catholic church from time to time, but never it seems anything positive about $cientology.

Also sorry for the way I formatted that, I just though it was a good point to bring up.


Ok, I think I understand your question now. Basically I think they'd argue that their value lies in helping the individual to improve themselves. It's essentially a fundamentally individualist incarnation of religion. I'd say a lot of Scientologists are probably Randian Objectivists too (and, yes, I'm aware that Rand idiot was an atheist).
 
2009-11-18 04:04:14 PM
Xenophon vs. Xenu vs. Omarion would be better.

/Tonight on 'the Epilogue'
 
2009-11-18 04:04:38 PM
8ace: incrdbil: 8ace:

I'm a troll? I give all religions the same amount of legitimacy as scientology. You tell me what the difference is. I laugh at the brain-washed masses

Intolerant prejudiced douchebag, troll, or jackass, take your pick. Failing to acknowledge a difference between mainstreat modern organized religion and scientology solidly puts you in all three of those categories.

Here here

Main Street

/pet peeve


....Did you just respond to yourself?

/scilon detected
 
2009-11-18 04:19:13 PM
Wagnerian Omnibus: So have governments and virtually any large, powerful organizations commanding the hearts and minds of large numbers of people. However, this principle no longer remains a core value of all sects of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

I think it does. I believe it does. I have faith that it does
 
2009-11-18 04:36:49 PM
8ace: Wagnerian Omnibus: So have governments and virtually any large, powerful organizations commanding the hearts and minds of large numbers of people. However, this principle no longer remains a core value of all sects of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

I think it does. I believe it does. I have faith that it does


You think that all branches of organized religion have as a core value the defamation and destruction of those who criticize them? If so, that's paranoid, conspiracy theory-level stuff.
 
2009-11-18 04:42:39 PM
Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit...
 
2009-11-18 04:47:45 PM
We done the passion fruit.
 
2009-11-18 05:03:34 PM
Wagnerian Omnibus: You think that all branches of organized religion have as a core value the defamation and destruction of those who criticize them? If so, that's paranoid, conspiracy theory-level stuff.

No, I think they want money. I honestly don't believe any religion is out to "save" anyone. Why would I think that? There's no one directing them to do so. I can love mankind without a pretty good, centuries old author telling me to.
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report