Scientology

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Yeah. Loopers, the lot of them. At least there's one religion that makes some kind of sense.

liamo wrote:

At least there's one religion that makes some kind of sense.

LMAO Oh my God I want to be a Pastafarian!!!!

Though it sounds fairly male orientated:

The Pastafarian belief of heaven stresses two points. A) It has beer volcanos as far as the eye can see & It has a stripper factory.

At its most basic, many years ago L. Ron Hubbard, while sharing a house with a few odd types (Alister Crowley being one) stated that in order to make money in ameria you needed to start a religion. at the time he was a mildly successful sci fi author, published in Amazing Stories etc. He was no Heinliine or Asimov but ok. He was also a hypocondriac who was always looking for cure for his "ailments". He took a mishmash of psychobabble and new wave hippie ****e combined them together to get Dianetics (he's also mention By Colin Wilson in Supertnature claiming that his e-meter is so sensitive it can dtect the scream of a tree as it is being cut down....) A few more years and a bit more insanity he took the plot from one of his first Sci Fi novels (name escapes me - and cant put my hand om it still in a box after moveing house!) and convinced himself and others that it was a reveletion! lots more insanity on the run in the states, starting a sailing organisation - off shore only international law, promoted himself to commodore - peaked hat et al, young girls in hot pants uniforms etc. a few more years, a couple of break-ins to cia and fbi offices, lots of law suits, at one point trying to claim rights to children of parents who left! etc etc etc.

All mad, all daft. But as has been stated no more daft that him me I all in one, golden tablets that only one person saw, hoovering in the air etc.

Rock on rationality and a fully secular state!! (and proper critical thinking being taught in all schools!)

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Your confusion is contagious. Who said in this thread that loaves and fishes is believable?

It's not like the OP was looking for a believable religion or even commenting on the adsurdity of the Scientology beliefs; more that they are a weird cult with activities (brainwashing, robbery, intimidation) that most other churches don't regularly get accused of.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Those religions were battered into people for thousands of years. People didn't have much of a choice to believe them. Most people nowadays believe because their family does and it's handed down. Scientology is gibberish with no basis or history. They're both rubbish in the end, but one of them really is just taking the piss.

Binomate wrote:

It's not really to do with the story they believe in. It's more the fact that they are dangerous because of the morality of some of the things they believe in.

Like telling a continent riddled with AIDS not to use condoms, or moving peadophilic priests from parish to parish or just plain old promoting centuries of war and strife?

You're right! Scientology is WAY more evil.

Sangre wrote:

Maybe you should stop imaging and actual find out the reality. Catholicism is a becoming a huge force in Africa, with numbers increasing in astronomical numbers. The Church actively dissuades the use of contraception in a country with a terrifyingly high number of sufferors. Sure they promote no pre-martial sex, but that has never worked in the history of mankind. The huge rate of Aids isn't because of their Godless promiscuity (same as any developed country) but because of poor education and lack of protection.
It seems the Catholic Church will choose Aids over no pre-marital sex. Pretty wholesome. This is only made worse by the fact that this is a rule of the Church, not the Bible, that can be changed at any time.

You're living in a bit of a fantasy world Binomate, I don't know of one reported case of ex-communication of a priest before the huge scandal was discovered. It was only discovered because PEOPLE CAME FORWARD, not because the Church outed the priests. The Church wasn't negligence, it was actively covering the abuse up. Not by stopping the priest, but by merely moving him onto a different church. Any since ex-communicated priest is a bit of mis-nomer, it had to be done under severe political pressure.

On the grand scale of historical 'danger', Scientology doesn't even come close.

Well since Scientology is relatively new, you can't compare the two historically. The point being made is that the church doesn't tell it's followers to do whatever it takes to get rid of the oppostion.