Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Scientology vs Socialism

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    smacl wrote: »
    Not sure how deep you've looked into Scientology, Marc Headley's book makes for an entertaining first hand account of how this cult operates. Their basic philosophy seems to be mushroom management, i.e. keep 'em in the dark and feed them bullshít. How they treat the massive lower echelon of their membership seems entirely deplorable. While I'm no huge fan of the Catholic church, I'd advise you to stay put.
    Again you are confusing the corruption with the original idea, which is that taking responsibility for yourself and going out of your way to help others is an honorable way to live ones life.


  • Options
    #33
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    BalcombeSt4 wrote: »
    Jesus was a socialist
    Not sure the trade union people would be too happy about the workers in the vineyard being paid less than their colleagues but Jesus was making the point that one must abide by what one agrees to.

    Also, the lazy servant who buried his one talent instead of investing it for his master was reprimanded and the talent was taken from him and given to the servant with ten talents. Jesus said those who have little will lose what they have and it will be given to those with plenty.

    I think capitalism is a very Christian philosophy.


  • Options
    #34
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Not sure the trade union people would be too happy about the workers in the vineyard being paid less than their colleagues but Jesus was making the point that one must abide by what one agrees to.
    I think the orthodox interpretation of the parable of the workers in the vineyard is that it's meant to illustrate the reckless generosity of God. He doesn't have to pay the workers who turned up in the last hour a full day's wage but he does anyway.
    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Also, the lazy servant who buried his one talent instead of investing it for his master was reprimanded and the talent was taken from him and given to the servant with ten talents. Jesus said those who have little will lose what they have and it will be given to those with plenty.
    You do get that the talent represent faith, not money, right?
    realitykeeper wrote: »
    I think capitalism is a very Christian philosophy.
    Or not.


  • Options
    #35
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,719 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Again you are confusing the corruption with the original idea, which is that taking responsibility for yourself and going out of your way to help others is an honorable way to live ones life.

    Or maybe you're confusing the marketing spiel with the reality. IMHO, Scientology has been a pretty nasty cult from day one primarily put in place to make its founders rich and powerful. Maybe have a scan of how charitable ex-Scientologists consider Scientology to be; http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?30825-Scientology-and-Charity


  • Options
    #36
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think the orthodox interpretation of the parable of the workers in the vineyard is that it's meant to illustrate the reckless generosity of God. He doesn't have to pay the workers who turned up in the last hour a full day's wage but he does anyway.


    You do get that the talent represent faith, not money, right?


    Or not.
    No the parable of the workers in the vineyard is about being honourable.

    Jesus would not use an inappropriate example so the talent could represent a talent, or faith.

    As for being rich, I think the issue is to do with the hoarding of wealth. By contrast, the Rockerfeller`s for example put their money to work for the benefit of humanity. They will be blessed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    smacl wrote: »
    Or maybe you're confusing the marketing spiel with the reality. IMHO, Scientology has been a pretty nasty cult from day one primarily put in place to make its founders rich and powerful. Maybe have a scan of how charitable ex-Scientologists consider Scientology to be; http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?30825-Scientology-and-Charity
    I don`t get bogged down in any of that.

    Taking responsibility is good. Helping others is good.


  • Options
    #38
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    No the parable of the workers in the vineyard is about being honourable.
    Well, obviously you have as much right to interpret scripture as anyone else. All I've said is that that's not the orthodox interpretation, which is that the parable illustrates the unmerited generosity of God's grace. As the parable-teller himself says on in the final line, "so the last will be first, and the first will be last".
    realitykeeper wrote: »
    As for being rich, I think the issue is to do with the hoarding of wealth. By contrast, the Rockerfeller`s for example put their money to work for the benefit of humanity. They will be blessed.
    Well, far be it from me to pronounce on the fate of the Rockefellers, but your interpretation of the advice given to the rich young man is a pretty strained one. The advice was not to put his wealth to work for the benefit of humanity; it was to sell all he had and give the proceeds away. There's no suggestion in the text that the young man was hoarding his wealth; he was already a faithful observer of Jewish law, and we can assume he dealt fairly with people, he gave alms, etc.

    The advice given to the young man is the same as the advice offered in Jesus' public preaching in Lk 12:33 - "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys." And in his instructions to the disciples in Lk 14:33 - "Those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples".

    Jesus was generally pretty negative about the value of wealth; it's hard to argue otherwise. In the parables the most virtuous way of dealing with wealth is always to give it away - paying people money that you don't have to pay them, throwing huge banquets and inviting the public; giving money to whoever asks for it - and specific real-world problems involving wealth ("Tell my brother to share his inheritance with me!") are always answered with some variation on "wealth is unimportant, if not positively dangerous. Get rid of it."


  • Options
    #39
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,719 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Taking responsibility is good. Helping others is good.

    I agree, but neither of these things would spring to mind when talking about Scientology. As hoarding wealth, I would note that the net worth of the current head of $cientology, David Miscavige, stands at $50 million.


  • Options
    #40
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, obviously you have as much right to interpret scripture as anyone else. All I've said is that that's not the orthodox interpretation, which is that the parable illustrates the unmerited generosity of God's grace. As the parable-teller himself says on in the final line, "so the last will be first, and the first will be last".


    Well, far be it from me to pronounce on the fate of the Rockefellers, but your interpretation of the advice given to the rich young man is a pretty strained one. The advice was not to put his wealth to work for the benefit of humanity; it was to sell all he had and give the proceeds away. There's no suggestion in the text that the young man was hoarding his wealth; he was already a faithful observer of Jewish law, and we can assume he dealt fairly with people, he gave alms, etc.

    The advice given to the young man is the same as the advice offered in Jesus' public preaching in Lk 12:33 - "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys." And in his instructions to the disciples in Lk 14:33 - "Those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples".

    Jesus was generally pretty negative about the value of wealth; it's hard to argue otherwise. In the parables the most virtuous way of dealing with wealth is always to give it away - paying people money that you don't have to pay them, throwing huge banquets and inviting the public; giving money to whoever asks for it - and specific real-world problems involving wealth ("Tell my brother to share his inheritance with me!") are always answered with some variation on "wealth is unimportant, if not positively dangerous. Get rid of it."
    That is precisely what the rich do. They give everything they have to others by way of setting up businesses, providing employment and what not. The poor do nothing but complain and they give nothing back. No wonder God will take from those who have little and give to those who have a lot.


  • Options
    #41
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,418 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    That is precisely what the rich do. They give everything they have to others by way of setting up businesses, providing employment and what not. The poor do nothing but complain and they give nothing back. No wonder God will take from those who have little and give to those who have a lot.

    Utter tosh :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, obviously you have as much right to interpret scripture as anyone else. All I've said is that that's not the orthodox interpretation, which is that the parable illustrates the unmerited generosity of God's grace. As the parable-teller himself says on in the final line, "so the last will be first, and the first will be last".


    Well, far be it from me to pronounce on the fate of the Rockefellers, but your interpretation of the advice given to the rich young man is a pretty strained one.
    God`s generosity is already accepted by the faithful so what is left to be learned from the parable if not the requirement to be honourable.

    I just read David Rockefeller has died, aged 101. R.I.P.


  • Options
    #43
    BalcombeSt4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭BalcombeSt4


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    No the parable of the workers in the vineyard is about being honourable.

    Jesus would not use an inappropriate example so the talent could represent a talent, or faith.

    As for being rich, I think the issue is to do with the hoarding of wealth. By contrast, the Rockerfeller`s for example put their money to work for the benefit of humanity. They will be blessed.

    What about people living in poverty who if they had they had the Rockerfeller's money would give a even high % of it to hummanity.

    "Blessed are the meek, for they as heirs shall obtain possession of the earth"

    “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.


  • Options
    #44
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    That is precisely what the rich do. They give everything they have to others by way of setting up businesses, providing employment and what not. The poor do nothing but complain and they give nothing back. No wonder God will take from those who have little and give to those who have a lot.
    I think you have rather missed the point of these passages, realitykeeper. "Those who have little" are the rich, because what they have is ephemeral and basically worthless. They have put their faith in entirely the wrong thing, and will lose everything that is important to them.

    And your view that the rich "give away everything they have" by setting up business and providing employment defies common sense and common experience.


  • Options
    #45
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    And your view that the rich "give away everything they have" by setting up business and providing employment defies common sense and common experience.
    Not at all, in fact Balcombe demonstrates the point quite nicely by saying what the the poor would do if they had rich people`s money. The rich use their money to help people. They rarely have it sitting in the bank which is what poor people tend to assume. The poor would probably do a lot of harm to themselves and others if they suddenly had a lot of money at their disposal.


  • Options
    #46
    Owryan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Owryan


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Not at all, in fact Balcombe demonstrates the point quite nicely by saying what the the poor would do if they had rich people`s money. The rich use their money to help people. They rarely have it sitting in the bank which is what poor people tend to assume. The poor would probably do a lot of harm to themselves and others if they suddenly had a lot of money at their disposal.

    You really have something against those less well off, dont you? Assuming that if they had money they would not be able to use it wisely. In a previous thread you wanted the low paid to take pay cuts and be evicted from their homes so those in better paid jobs could buy them.

    How long before you start advocating camps for the poor?


  • Options
    #47
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,838 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Not at all, in fact Balcombe demonstrates the point quite nicely by saying what the the poor would do if they had rich people`s money. The rich use their money to help people. They rarely have it sitting in the bank which is what poor people tend to assume. The poor would probably do a lot of harm to themselves and others if they suddenly had a lot of money at their disposal.

    many rich people 'invest' their money in money making money schemes such as stock, shares and bonds etc. some, including myself, beleive this doesnt help the majority, in particular the less well off. since we have been moving towards financialisation of our economies, these issues are actually accelerating.


  • Options
    #48
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Not at all, in fact Balcombe demonstrates the point quite nicely by saying what the the poor would do if they had rich people`s money. The rich use their money to help people. They rarely have it sitting in the bank which is what poor people tend to assume. The poor would probably do a lot of harm to themselves and others if they suddenly had a lot of money at their disposal.
    The reality is precisely the opposite of what you believe, realitykeeper. (Youre name is strikingly ironic, by the way.) It has long been observed that the rich have a higher propensity to save than the poor. If you're seekign to generate economic activity, then a tax cut which puts an extra euro of income in the hands of the low-paid is much more effective than a tax cut which puts an extra dollar of euro in the hands of the wealthy. The revenue cost of both tax cuts is, obviously, one euro, but the low-paid will spend it, generating economic activity, whereas the high-paid are more likely to save it.

    Neither, for the record, is "giving it away"; both expect something (material) in return for their euro, however they use it, and the notion that "sell all you have, and give to the poor" is an endorsement of capitalism is just delusional.


  • Options
    #49
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The reality is precisely the opposite of what you believe, realitykeeper. (Youre name is strikingly ironic, by the way.) It has long been observed that the rich have a higher propensity to save than the poor. If you're seekign to generate economic activity, then a tax cut which puts an extra euro of income in the hands of the low-paid is much more effective than a tax cut which puts an extra dollar of euro in the hands of the wealthy. The revenue cost of both tax cuts is, obviously, one euro, but the low-paid will spend it, generating economic activity, whereas the high-paid are more likely to save it.

    Neither, for the record, is "giving it away"; both expect something (material) in return for their euro, however they use it, and the notion that "sell all you have, and give to the poor" is an endorsement of capitalism is just delusional.
    There are so many errors here, not sure where to begin. Yes it is true the rich are less likely to squander, do drugs, smoke, binge on alcohol, gamble etc and are more likely to save a portion of their income instead. Contrary to Keynesian notions, saving is in fact good for the economic future of a country and everyone in it.


  • Options
    #50
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    many rich people 'invest' their money in money making money schemes such as stock, shares and bonds etc. some, including myself, beleive this doesnt help the majority, in particular the less well off. since we have been moving towards financialisation of our economies, these issues are actually accelerating.
    It is important to separate those who are rich from those who steal for a living. Thieves do not own what they steal even if the law endorses their crimes. Politicians and top civil servants fall into this category.

    Those who understand the original and intended nature of investing tend to do very well for themselves and they often help a lot of other people in the process. The people who are out to make a buck tend to think as you do and in the long run they lose their money and then look to be bailed out by the taxpayer. The reason bailouts happen is because politicians are so often among those who make unwise investments.


  • Options
    #51
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Owryan wrote: »
    You really have something against those less well off, dont you? Assuming that if they had money they would not be able to use it wisely. In a previous thread you wanted the low paid to take pay cuts and be evicted from their homes so those in better paid jobs could buy them.

    How long before you start advocating camps for the poor?
    I have already advocated for the return of the workhouses but that is another days work.

    I do want the low paid to take massive pay cuts and the dole to be reduced to a pittance but to be fair to me I also said the politicians and civil servants need to lead by example before that can happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    BalcombeSt4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭BalcombeSt4


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    There are so many errors here, not sure where to begin. Yes it is true the rich are less likely to squander, do drugs, smoke, binge on alcohol, gamble etc and are more likely to save a portion of their income instead. Contrary to Keynesian notions, saving is in fact good for the economic future of a country and everyone in it.

    Well you must be poor then because you are an absoulte ****


  • Options
    #53
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    I have already advocated for the return of the workhouses but that is another days work.

    I do want the low paid to take massive pay cuts and the dole to be reduced to a pittance but to be fair to me I also said the politicians and civil servants need to lead by example before that can happen.
    Although I recall that previous suggestions that you yourself might lead by example have been met with deafening silence.


  • Options
    #54
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Although I recall that previous suggestions that you yourself might lead by example have been met with deafening silence.
    I am not a leader so it is not my job to lead. It is the job of leaders to lead and the best way to do that is by example. Unfortunately, Irish politicians do not excel at leadership.


  • Options
    #55
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Leaders lead by exemplifying the behaviour that they think is needed. A leader who fails to exemplify the behaviour that realitykeeper thinks is needed is not failing in leadership; he's failing to take seriously the nonsense pedalled by realitykeeper, but that's the kind of failure that I like to encourage.

    These are your ideas, realitykeeper. If you are not prepared to take the lead in making them a reality, who else will? If you excuse yourself from this burden, how can you criticise others, who do not even share your bizarre ideas, for not doing what you choose not to do?


  • Options
    #56
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Leaders lead by exemplifying the behaviour that they think is needed. A leader who fails to exemplify the behaviour that realitykeeper thinks is needed is not failing in leadership; he's failing to take seriously the nonsense pedalled by realitykeeper, but that's the kind of failure that I like to encourage.

    These are your ideas, realitykeeper. If you are not prepared to take the lead in making them a reality, who else will? If you excuse yourself from this burden, how can you criticise others, who do not even share your bizarre ideas, for not doing what you choose not to do?
    So what you are saying is if a leader thinks he should pay himself a ridiculously large salary, thats fine because he thinks he should.


  • Options
    #57
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    So what you are saying is if a leader thinks he should pay himself a ridiculously large salary, thats fine because he thinks he should.
    No, I'm not saying anything remotely like that. Are you not reading my posts before you reply to them?


  • Options
    #58
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, I'm not saying anything remotely like that. Are you not reading my posts before you reply to them?
    Indeed I do and I respond accordingly, n`est-ce pas?


  • Options
    #59
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Indeed I do and I respond accordingly, n`est-ce pas?
    Non. What you say in post #56 is not in any sense a response to anything I wrote. I didn't express any view, one way or the other, about what "leaders" should do by way of implementing your beliefs; I expressed a view about what you should do by way of implementing them.


  • Options
    #60
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Non. What you say in post #56 is not in any sense a response to anything I wrote. I didn't express any view, one way or the other, about what "leaders" should do by way of implementing your beliefs; I expressed a view about what you should do by way of implementing them.
    Yes and I tactfully maneuvered you back to what leaders should do.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Ignoring completely what I have said, and ascribing to me opinions which I have never expressed and which you have no reason to believe that I hold, is hardly "tactful".


Advertisement