backtop


Print 383 comment(s) - last by ThePooBurner.. on Feb 20 at 3:53 PM


Scientology's website was Google bombed, bringing it to the top of search results for "dangerous cult."
Scientologist wage war on a digital battle field

The Church of Scientology rarely sees a lot of respect from the press and general public.  Critics – a group that scales from individual citizens all the way up to entire nations – label it as a cult and unscrupulous enterprise, preying on the minds and pocketbooks of its followers. 

In the United States, however, the controversial religion has, for the most part, avoided outright attack; aside from the occasional tell-all website and snarky TV commentary, it enjoys considerable support from Hollywood and the its followers amongst the public. 

That is, until now. What started with a simple video has now stretched deep into the digital domain, and if the critics are to be believed then the War on Scientology has just begun.

The video, which stars a crazed Tom Cruise, appeared on YouTube late last month.  Intended for internal distribution and leaked by unknown sources, the Cruise video was created by the Church of Scientology to honor Cruise with its “Freedom Medal of Valor,” for his work in exposing a billion people to the Church’s beliefs.  

In the eight-minute clip, Cruise explains his faith in a crazed fervor, interspersing brief statements with fidgeting, maniacal laughter, and wild hand motions. “We are the authorities on getting people off drugs...we can rehabilitate criminals’ way to happiness (sic) … we can bring peace and unite cultures,” he says in one part. “I won't hesitate to put ethics on someone else as I put it ruthlessly on myself … [Scientology is] rough and tumble, it’s wild and wooly.”

Understandably displeased, the Church of Scientology allegedly forced YouTube to remove the video, threatening to sue if it refused.  Not wanting to start a fight with a group known for its penchant for lawsuits, YouTube caved and took the video offline.

Since then, the Cruise video has been parodied several times.

The move earned the ire of hackers and protestors, furious over for what they feel is the Church's suppression of free speech. Protestors claim the YouTube incident is merely the latest chapter in a long history of frivolous lawsuits and copyright/trademark disputes, designed specifically to suppress the proliferation of material that the Church finds embarrassing.

Online, hackers took their own revenge, with the Church’s web presence suffering a series of crippling attacks:  its international website was temporarily taken down, and its U.K. website remained crippled for days.  On a different front, computer guerillas “Google bombed” the Church of Scientology’s official website, bringing it to the top of search results for “dangerous cult.”

Back on YouTube, an activist group calling itself “Anonymous” posted its first online threat against Scientology two weeks ago, citing the Church’s alleged “campaigns of misinformation, suppression of dissent, and litigious nature.” Two more videos have been posted since, all of them featuring stock video of cities, clouds, and landscapes, with the group’s mysterious vendetta read by a computerized voice-over.

In Anonymous’ first video, titled “Message to Scientology” and speaking directly to the Church, the group pledges that it will “expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form.”

Whoever Anonymous is – the group claims its members include “lawyers, parents, IT professionals, members of law enforcement, college students, veterinary technicians and more” – it appears serious; Anonymous acknowledges the Church as a serious opponent and notes that “we are prepared for a long, long campaign.” A later video warns Scientologists to beware of February 10th, a date on which Anonymous will launch several protests at Scientology facilities around the world, coordinated by groups on Facebook and YouTube.

Anonymous’ organizers claim they wish to stay incognito for ethical reasons. One protester, explaining the campaign to the The Guardian, stated that he “[didn’t] want them to get a foothold in the UK the same way as they have in other countries. [The Church of Scientology claims] to be a church and a religion but they charge people to attend their sessions and they are a registered trademark – that doesn't strike anyone as a religion.  At the start this was a hacker operation but it is more than that now. Scientologists say it's just a bunch of hacker geeks but that's going to be proved wrong on February 10."

According to organizers, Anonymous started with a “youth movement” among online communities but is now drawing protesters from all walks of life.  It distributes Leaflets throughout the United States, questioning the true nature of Scientology and its tactics.

The Church of Scientology is trying to both downplay the movement and fight back.  It dismisses the protesters and hackers as a “pathetic” collection of “computer geeks.”  Janet Laveau, a spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology in Britain, says that “we don't get into responding to such threats on the internet, particularly anonymous ones.”

According to Laveau, the surge of negative publicity actually created a “surge of interest” in the Scientology, which she hopes will bring many new converts, although it denies forcing YouTube to take down the Cruise video despite numerous reports to the contrary. “These selective and out-of-context excerpts … nevertheless resulted in people searching for and visiting Church of Scientology websites,” says Laveau. “Those wishing to find out the Church of Scientology's views and to gain context of the video have the right to search official Church websites."

In the United States, Scientologists hired an unnamed internet company to defend its sites from attacks and fight back against the hackers. The move was financed in part by a $10 million donation from actress Nancy Cartwright, who voices Bart Simpson.

The Church of Scientology has a long history of waging expensive legal battles to suppress public criticism.  In 2005, the Church lost a 10-year battle in the Netherlands against a number of internet service providers as well as Dutch writer Karin Spaink, who posted numerous revealing documents online revealing alarming, secret teachings of the Church. 

Invented in 1952, The Church of Scientology is the brainchild of science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Based around 18 central religious books, Scientology believes that humans came to earth via an all-powerful alien being named “Xenu,” who stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Many accuse Hubbard of maintaining a religious façade for tax and legal purposes, and Hubbard once told Reader’s Digest that "if a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."  Together, the religion’s exotic believes, questionable history, and penchant for secrecy has made for excellent fodder from the Church’s many critics.

Andreas Heldal-Lund, a Norwegian free speech advocate applauds the grassroots movement and says they've “won” the war against scientology.  However, she denounces the internet attacks, stating that “one of the biggest arguments against Scientology is they are a threat to free speech and here they can say people are hitting back at their free speech. It ruins our argument.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/6/2008 1:48:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The religion is based around 18 central religious books, include one which states that 75 million years ago an all powerful alien being Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs
Put that way, it almost sounds as ridiculous as gigantic arks filled with all the animals on earth, or men parting the ocean with their bare hands, eh?




RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/6/2008 1:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They claim to be a church and a religion but they charge people to attend their sessions and they are a registered trademark...
By the way, most churches, including Catholics, Mormons, and many traditional Protestant religions, maintain trademarks-- and often sue other organizations for infringing upon them:

http://examiner.net/stories/080107/new_174057100.s...

"Tithing" -- or charging people to attend services -- is usually optional these days (though strongly enforced by peer prressure), but as any student of history knows, such charges were mandatory throughout much of the history of the Roman Catholic Church.


RE: Total nonsense
By alifbaa on 2/7/2008 9:27:26 AM , Rating: 5
You're absolutely correct on the trademarks issue. Every organization has one, and has the absolute right to defend its use.

As for tithing, there is a difference between the Mormons asking for donations to sustain the operation of a church that is run almost exclusively by volunteers and the scientologists demanding money before "helping" someone in their sessions. This practice is especially disturbing when so much of that money goes not to the ongoing operation of the church or helping people but to spying on opponents of the church, suing those you don't agree with for frivolous reasons, expensive vacations and massive salaries for church leaders, etc.

Go read the wiki for scientology, it'll blow your mind. My favorite part is when it talks about Hubbard living out his days on a yacht in the Mediteranean while being served by teenage girls in short shorts. If they didn't obey his "every wish," they would be locked in a small, dark, damp room. If they still refused, he'd dump these teenage girls off at the next port with no money and no one to help them. All this while he was married to a woman living in California.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By Rob Pintwala on 2/7/2008 10:43:09 AM , Rating: 5
I don't think that $100 or less for a wedding is comparable to the $360,000 you have to spend over time to be taught the story of Emperor Xenu.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By Rob Pintwala on 2/7/2008 11:01:34 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not talking about what happened hundreds of years ago. What I'm concerned with is the state of affairs currently. I realize that Scientology is in its infancy, but other religions should take a cue from, let's say, the Roman Catholics. Yes, the Catholic Church was rife with corruption in centuries past, but they eventually came to their senses and cleaned up their ranks. It's difficult to compare the ethical failings of the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago to Scientology now; times have changed.

My point is - just because the Roman Catholic Church purportrated crimes against the common man hundreds of years ago does not excuse Scientology's crimes.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By blowfish on 2/7/2008 11:49:34 AM , Rating: 3
Woohoo! Sounds like Masher, AKA I must always have the last word - is a Scientologist!


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 12:02:47 PM , Rating: 4
Who was it that said (paraphrasing):

"It has been said that we could give a million monkeys a million typewriters and eventually they'd reproduce all the works of Shakepeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now know that isn't true."

Sometimes I sadly find that to be a most accurate statement.


RE: Total nonsense
By rcc on 2/7/2008 12:45:07 PM , Rating: 3
I do believe the original version was an infinite number of monkeys, etc.


RE: Total nonsense
By littlebitstrouds on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By littlebitstrouds on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By Ryanman on 2/11/2008 3:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
Because the whole point is that we ARE arguing against religion. It's a form of power-grabbing and corruption, and you all know it.
On an individual level, I guess, you can take it as a way to live your life in a way that benefits humanity. The organization of Religion, however, has caused nothing but evil or at the very least good for its own good. And anyone who finds Scientology's tactics more repressive then Catholicism's needs a serious wake up call.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 1:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, my guess is athiest...


RE: Total nonsense
By jeff834 on 2/7/2008 10:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
As an atheist I'm moderately offended by that thought. My guess would be he thinks God tells him what to post.


RE: Total nonsense
By treehugger87 on 2/7/2008 11:50:24 PM , Rating: 3
Definately, Assholism.


RE: Total nonsense
By typo101 on 2/8/2008 3:40:09 AM , Rating: 5
Oh lets be fair. masher always uses facts and rationality in his posts, but he can have a rather extremist perspective with more than a touch of arrogance.

I really don't know what his religion is, and I don't care.

By the way, I thought one of the perks of being an atheist is we don't belong to a group. Each atheist can develop their own philosophies so their actions would not reflect other atheists actions/beliefs.


RE: Total nonsense
By maverick85wd on 2/9/2008 9:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh lets be fair. masher always uses facts and rationality in his posts, but he can have a rather extremist perspective with more than a touch of arrogance.


I can agree with that, one of the only things I disagree with potato-masher on is mp3 sharing... the religion thing I don't touch on public forums, I think it's a conversation reserved for having in person


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/8/2008 10:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but when it comes to these things there do seem to be some accurate stereo types involved... For instance:

Rabbid Southern Baptist: "Jesus is the only way to salvation, if you beleive anything at all you will burn in hell. In fact, if you beleive anything other than what I tell you to beleive you will burn in hell, there is no grey area, there is no margin for error, think what I tell you to think or burn" (actually pulling some of this from my very fustrated group of southern baptist friends who I got to listen to ranting for an hour last wed, throwing in the case of the S. Baptist minister/public school teacher).

Rabbid Athiest: "All religion is stupid, so I'm going to latch onto some serious bad mis-information about christianity to try and prove my point that there's no god. yes, I'll ignore the realities of the faith to make my point, because there's no god and everyone should beleive what I beleive or they're completely stupid". (this attitude is visible in this group).

Rabbid Catholic: "The church and pope are always correct. Everyone should always live their lives strictly by church doctrine, because that is how you get into heaven".

Personally I fall middle of the road. I am a roman cathlic, I do have deep faith in god. I don't however beleive everything the church teaches, and I even beleive that god hasn't given us all the answers in the bible like many seem to think because I don't think we're owed all the answers. For instance I beleive that there is intelligent life on other planets, and I think that such life would also be considered "gods childeren", and they probably think the same things about them selves that we think about our selves (created in image of god yada yada). I do even beleive in evolution, I see the creation of earth in this light. Was god planning to bring humanity to life in the same sense as parents trying to have a child, or were we an "accident" so to speak. Think that we may well be an accident, and I think that's fine, because in the end. Here we are. The "accident" would be evolution.


RE: Total nonsense
By ThePooBurner on 2/20/2008 3:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
The Bible makes it clear that God created worlds without end. So for anyone who calls themselves a Christian to not believe that there is life out there and that they are also God's children, as you do, isn't understanding the Bible. However, i would part with you on evolution. I'm a pretty strict creationist. From the sound of your post, though, you may want to check out www.mormon.org It sounds as though you have very common beliefs.


RE: Total nonsense
By AlphaVirus on 2/7/2008 11:23:53 AM , Rating: 1
*Imitates Catholic church*
*Sits down*
*Pays the church*
*Stands up*
*kneels down*
*Stands up*
*kneels down*
*Stands up*
*Sits down*
*Pays the church*
*Leave after 1 hour*

All joking aside I dont think its right for any religion to put its followers into a death grip. Whether they take their money, their freedom, or voice, religions should allow its followers to have some sort of their own personal opinion.


RE: Total nonsense
By sinjinx on 2/7/2008 12:48:59 PM , Rating: 5
I've spent quite a long time poking fun at various religions in the past. Fact is, they're pretty easy targets. And, as an athiest/agnostic, most of the stories that are supposed to explain the various religions seem far-fetched at best.

But, at some point I realized that there are people out there that need something that the church can provide. Some need a support network around them, some need to feel that there will be something for them in the afterlife. Some need contacts for business ventures. Some just want a feeling of belonging.

I know that when I lived in Northwest Florida, heart of the bible belt, that I felt tremendous pressure to attend a church. In fact, being somewhat athletic, I actually attended the baptist church on the corner because it had the best facility for miles. They even came to my house and asked me questions that made me a bit uncomfortable.

My opinion now continues to be that if someone can meet their needs (and yes, even at a cost) and gain some happiness by being a member of church, then who am I to judge? Just don't push it on me and I have no problem with it.


RE: Total nonsense
By FITCamaro on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 4:21:27 PM , Rating: 5
I hope you realize you pretty much described yourself as the definition of agnostic - you "don't know" or "can't know" if there is a god.


RE: Total nonsense
By Malhavoc on 2/7/2008 4:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I like the way that vampire in 30days of Night says, "no god". Gives me shivers of delight and fear at the same time, woot!


RE: Total nonsense
By Spyvie on 2/7/2008 7:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
For whatever reason, religious people are generally both healthier and happier than non religious people.

I'm sorry I don't have a link to post, but I clearly recall more than one legitimate study that reaches this conclusion. My own personal observations would also support this.


RE: Total nonsense
By 3v1lkr0w on 2/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 1:58:50 PM , Rating: 5
Call me a bad catholic, but I actually "pay the church", or more accuratly donate money durring collection very rarely actually. Something that I'm personally trying to work on because I do personally do look very favorably upon how the church (Disosis of Raleigh and my local church) are using donations.

The point is, you don't have to pay the Catholic church to learn about Christiantiy, attend services or do 99% of anything you could want to do. The few things where you do have to pay is more due to the fact that there are very real clerical duties associated with what it is you want done. I.e. marriage (which you have to pay no matter how you get married), burrial (you have to pay no matter what) and a host of other such things like this.


RE: Total nonsense
By redeem4god on 2/8/2008 2:39:16 AM , Rating: 1
Ok first of all both you and Masher are erroneously wrong on all of what you "think" are facts. Therefore, here is a little education.

Tithing is nothing like being charged and "entrance" or "attendance" fee. That is the equivalent of being charged for your presence at college. You pay for a seat there same difference. Tithing is written in the bible and states that 10% of everything you earn is rightfully gods. Whether you give it up is between you and him. A true non-denomination church only asks, never demands.

Second, not every religion and defiantly not the physical churches themselves have trademarks or copyrights. Go ahead Google cornerstone church and see how many churches show up with that name in different states with no relation to each other. Christian churches interweave their names without care and without suing each other. Third being a former catholic, I know for a fact, they do NOT have trademarks. People who write catholic books, design catholic cloths and items used in a church, possibly yes but not the Roman Catholic Church itself. They buy their items from private vendors just like any other business. THOSE are the ones with trademarks and copyrights. Furthermore, having written extensively on Martin Luther who originally exposed the Catholic Church for its iniquities, I can tell you that the same corruption is still there. They still put more faith in sacraments then in god and they allow the pope to be worshiped like a king among men. He even wears a crown out in public. I am continuously amazed at how people try to argue on a subject they no nothing about because they refuse to actually read the bible for themselves. Instead they have a biased one sided view. Athiests and Agnostics want christians to debate god, while we chose to declare him. Do your homework.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 5:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "Third being a former catholic, I know for a fact, they do NOT have trademarks..."

Oops -- the individual dicoese do most certainly maintain both copyrights and trademarks, and enforce them on occasion via lawsuit. See Archdiocese of St. Louis vs. Internet Entertainment Group for just such a suit.

Here's the specific legal verbiage on the Archdiocese of Detroit's site:
quote:
The Site and all audio and visual information, images, photographs, video, text, documents, products and other materials contained or displayed in, or made available through, the Site (the "Content") are owned by Archdiocese of Detroit, its affiliates and/or its third party licensors and are protected by U.S. and international copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws .


RE: Total nonsense
By Hoser McMoose on 2/7/2008 10:05:19 PM , Rating: 5
Yup, it was total crap when the pre-reformation Roman Catholics did it then and it's total crap when Scientology does it now.

The immoral behavior of one religion is no excuse for immoral behavior by another in my books.


RE: Total nonsense
By andyjary on 2/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By treehugger87 on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/8/2008 8:35:23 AM , Rating: 1
If you don't like his comments, simply don't read them.


RE: Total nonsense
By SavagePotato on 2/8/2008 10:22:15 AM , Rating: 1
A different kind of volunteer, one that has actually payed to be there in cash dollars.

I don't think the local catholic church charges it's parishioners thousands of dollars to man the church barbecue.

All religions are scary in their own way, Scientology is just the scariest freak show of the bunch. Why? the money and power they have. It's a rational fear that an organization with that much money behind it could come to even more power, power over governments etc.

I'm not particularly worried about the crazy Christian wife swap lady on youtube gaining the ear of presidents anytime soon. Something like Scientology though, makes me hope someone puts them down soon before they get the power to start forcing their perspective on others.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 8:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why? the money and power they have...I'm not particularly worried about the crazy Christian wife swap lady on youtube gaining the ear of presidents anytime soon."

I can promise you that Pope Benedict -- or Billy Graham for that matter -- gets far more ear time from Presidents than any Scientologist will this century.

Will Scientology one day become a major world religion? Possibly so...but it will be several hundred years away, if ever.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/8/2008 1:06:16 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, there's a big difference between having folks tell you to that paying tithing is a part of choosing between heaven and the alternatives, and what the Scientologists say to get their dollars. Mormons make billions of dollars. They're also the ones responsible for starting the drug war. A lot of these organizations are big on this war in Iraq, the propaganda campaign around Iran, create problems with nipple slips and paranoia around sexuality (it's ok that children learn how to kill with guns in games, but it's the end of the world should they see a naked breast!), discriminate openly against homosexuals, cry out whenever their rights are violated but are the first to come out against other people's rights. Did you know students at BYU aren't even allowed to have sex unless it's their spouse? How insane is that? The US allows such organizations to pull this kind of BS? Mormons are as big a part of the problem in the world as any organization. Some have said that Scientologists reject those who've been under psychiatric care. Did you know that Mormons will reject you for being homosexual, or having an abortion? I happen to know a bit more about that cult than others, having once been associated with them.

All religions cause problems. All religions discriminate. I don't see how Scientology stands out in the crowd in this regard. I remember awhile ago Tom Cruise got shot down for recommending that an actress - I forget her name - take vitamins instead of drugs (prescribed by a doctor). Looking at the girl you could see she was malnourished and probably hadn't seen a proper meal in ages. The vitamins probably would have helped her a lot more than those drugs.

Now, speaking of wild and wacky celebs and their religions, did anyone hear about what Mel Gibson was up to a year or two ago? Isn't he Catholic? I think he's gone Mad!


RE: Total nonsense
By skroh on 2/7/2008 9:37:20 AM , Rating: 4
I knew it was inevitable that someone would make a comment equating all religious belief with Scientology and implying that, since any belief in the spiritual or supernatural must be false, all religions are essentially cults. I just find it disapponting that such low-rent philosophy is posted by someone who represents DailyTech.

Whether or not one prefers an entirely naturalistic, materialist worldview, surely we can draw some distinction between a belief system that represents the shared experiences of millions of people over thousands of years who claim to have had meaningful encounters with an active, self-revealing deity, and a belief system created from whole cloth by a hack pulp sci fi author 50 years ago.


RE: Total nonsense
By Proteusza on 2/7/2008 9:49:20 AM , Rating: 3
Frankly, if we declare all religions as having unlikely, implausible and downright strange, that doesnt improve things for Scientologists.

It could be argued that people believe in the Abrahmic religions due to societal pressure to conform, and thus what we see as strange seems quite normal to those whose family and friends all accept such truths as true.

However, in the case of Scientology, because it is so new, there is no precedent, and therefore no societal pressure to conform. Anyone who therefore decides to believe in Scientology has either been brainwashed (we know that the "Church" of Scientology uses a form of hypnosis) or is simply lacking in grey matter.


RE: Total nonsense
By skroh on 2/7/2008 10:18:49 AM , Rating: 5
Well-said. I think another useful way to distinguish a cult from a religion is that, while representatives of religions may engage in criminal behavior from time to time, cults usually include criminal behavior--fraud, extortion, unlawful imprisonment, etc.--in their regular practices, something that Scientology certainly stands accused of.

By extension, a classical religion that turns to such behavior on an organized scale (such as the Spanish Inquisition and other episodes in Christian history) is choosing to become a cult, although they can clean up their act and regain their legitimacy (as in the Reformation).


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By geddarkstorm on 2/7/2008 12:27:24 PM , Rating: 5
They don't teach that doing that is right. In fact it's wrong by their own beliefs (but of course laws and belief cannot alone stop crime). That's the difference.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 12:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
They covered up - and, in fact, aided in the continuance of - these crimes. If your best friend molested a kid and you helped him intimidate the witnesses and got him another job with accessible children, you would be able to discuss your beliefs with him in a jail cell.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 12:59:25 PM , Rating: 4
They were all acts committed by man. We are all sinners. That is what it means. They did not do those things in the name of God, but in the sins of man.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 2:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They were all acts committed by man. We are all sinners. That is what it means. They did not do those things in the name of God, but in the sins of man.
How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? A bunch of people at high levels in a religious organization knowingly allowed child molestation to occur. Why does "because they didn't say it was for God" give the organization a free pass?

Should Enron have been allowed to say, "But that wasn't in our mission statement" and gotten off with a wag of the finger?


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 3:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's entirely relevant. Only the people involved in the scandal at Enron were prosecuted. Maybe you'd like to imprison the janitor as well? What kind of logic is that?


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
>Whereas none of the enablers in the church were.

Never said that, did I?

>Straw man, I believe.

Likewise.


RE: Total nonsense
By VashHT on 2/8/2008 11:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
The point is the even though the church opposes molestation they did nothing to prosecute those in their ranks, in fact they helped them and protected them. If they put their own priests above their own laws then that leaves the floor open to anything, if they don't even have to follow the religion they preach how than even claim to be teaching anything that is belief based. Yes the catholic church officially opposes molestation of children, but they should have thrown the priests that did it out of the church and left them at the full mercy of the law. I come from a catholic family, and all of the catholics I know refuse to accept that those priests were actually molesting children. They all claim that the people who came out were lying and just hated the church. When people can't admit faults in their church then they can be lead to believe terrible things.


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/8/2008 11:44:32 AM , Rating: 2
That's incredible. Most of the Catholics I know were outraged and ashamed. Certain appeals now have to be clearly labelled as not to be used for the defense of preists charged with sex crimes in order to gain any traction.

That people would go to such lengths to deny that these things happened is damned scary.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 4:30:57 PM , Rating: 3
If it's so wrong and they acknowledge it, then why cover it up? Why not expose it and denounce it?

Then there's the case of the minister in Colorado last year who was a homophobe in his sermons that had a secret gay relationship.

We're all sinners, but people seem to be presenting the churches and organized religions of the world in a more respectable light than those of the cults. And really a religion is just a socially accepted cult. They both have systems of beliefs that are unprovable, they both have dirty little secrets and questionable practices, they both have legions of followers who maniacally follow their leaders, they both preach the way to "salvation" is through them and non-believers are at a disadvantage, etc. The only difference is that over time and by developing more followers, a religion has become socially accepted where a cult has not achieved that status.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:10:17 AM , Rating: 4
> "surely we can draw some distinction between a belief system...over thousands of years..., and a belief system created from whole cloth by a hack pulp sci fi author 50 years ago. "

That's just the point. At one point, Islam, Christianity, etc, were all newly "created from whole cloth". The primary difference between a cult and a major religion is in its age and number of adherents. The line between the two is not only extremely fuzzy, its erased automatically by time. Is Chondogyo -- the Korean religion founded 200 years ago -- a cult? How about Sikhism, founded 500 years ago, and with tens of millions of followers today? What about Rastafarianism, only a mere 70 years old?

I'm sure you realize from the early history of the Christian Church, it was widely considered a cult, and its members treated as such.

Did Hubbard fabricate "divine revelations" in order to gain fame and fortune? Almost certainly...but the same was said of Jesus Christ, Mohammed, and even Siddharta Gautama.

By the way, I don't represent DT. The views and opinions expressed herein are my own, and do not reflect those of DT, nor its owners or management.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 10:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, I was just about to post a similar statement. Then Firefox crashed.

To add to the idea that time transitions cults into religions is the number of followers. The more people that follow that system of beliefs, the more mainstream they become, and the more accepted they become by wider society.

And all religions/cults instruct their followers that theirs is the only "true" way to salvation (terminology varies, the idea is the same).


RE: Total nonsense
By Yawgm0th on 2/7/2008 1:01:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And all religions/cults instruct their followers that theirs is the only "true" way to salvation (terminology varies, the idea is the same).


Not all religions profess that their way is the only way to "salvation" -- in fact most don't. It is extremely ignorant to claim otherwise.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 1:24:33 PM , Rating: 1
Pretty much all monotheistic religions do-- Islam, Catholicism, all the various Protestant faiths.

You can find a little more slack in the Vedic and Far East religions, but still the central tenet is that those who don't adhere to the belief system are going to suffer additionally in some manner.


RE: Total nonsense
By Janooo on 2/7/2008 3:10:18 PM , Rating: 3
You are wrong about Catholicism. They do not comment on other religion's way of 'salvation'.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 3:23:29 PM , Rating: 3
Except the whole "no-one can get to God except through me" bit sure...


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, don't forget the whole 'I came not to change the law, but to fufill it' bit, either.


RE: Total nonsense
By Janooo on 2/7/2008 5:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
And how is that related to other religions?


RE: Total nonsense
By damncrackmonkey on 2/7/2008 10:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
If someone speaks of gods other than God, they are to be stoned to death. That relates to other religions, right?


RE: Total nonsense
By feraltoad on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By Iliketofrolic666 on 2/7/2008 7:30:32 PM , Rating: 4
You are incorrect as is much of the media. The popes statements were taken out of context. BTW I am an atheist, so no ad hominem attack for you.

The document said the Catholic Church alone has "the fullness of the means of salvation."

The Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches separated in the schism of 1054, and since then the Orthodox community does not recognize the pope's primacy - a defect, according to the document. Protestant denominations, meanwhile, lack "apostolic succession," the ability to trace their bishops back to the 12 Apostles, it said.

At the same time, the Vatican "would not deny that Lutherans or Methodists or Evangelicals ... have elements of the faith but do not constitute a church in the technical sense," Cunningham said.

Still, "not everyone's going to love this clarity," he said.

George Weigel, who has written biographies of Pope Benedict and his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, said the document contains nothing new, and questioned why it had been issued now.

It "does not deny the presence of God's grace in other Christian communions, but the Catholic Church is never going to say ... that it is anything other than the most properly ordered expression of the will of Christ for his church," he said.

--http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/bal-te.pope...


RE: Total nonsense
By feraltoad on 2/8/2008 4:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the better citation, the Catholic church states it is THE TRUE CHURCH of GOD, but they aren't going to say God can't give out grace as he so chooses to whomever he chooses, as is his wont. Just like everyone else they are saying, "we are the authority". They are all selling a product, and all claim their's is the soley unadulterated.


RE: Total nonsense
By Mojo the Monkey on 2/7/2008 2:28:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Funny, I was just about to post a similar statement. Then Firefox crashed .


Lies planted by Church of Scientology to confuse the issue.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 3:22:23 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe firefox decided it wanted feedback. Then crashed...


RE: Total nonsense
By exanimas on 2/7/2008 7:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, before I read your post I was about to make a joke about Firefox crashing being one of the signs of the Apocalypse... But yours is much better.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/8/2008 7:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
Its funny because it true...


RE: Total nonsense
By skroh on 2/7/2008 10:39:06 AM , Rating: 5
My contention is that such a depiction of all major religions is simplistic. Even a person of faith would consider most, if not all, belief systems other than his own to be incorrect. That is why he believes what he does rather than what they do. But not all truth claims are equally robust or equally sincere. It isn't just time and popularity that distinguishes them.

Let's take one example--Judaism--and contrast it to Scientology. The authors of Hebrew scripture are spread over hundreds of years, many if not most of them claiming that their accounts are based on recurrent personal encounters with the deity they describe. Those accounts, in most cases, describe events that were witnessed by thousands if not millions of people. Does anyone, even Hubbard, claim to have spoken with Xenu or seen (or even ridden aboard) the craft that brought humanity to Earth?

We have on the one hand a faith built upon experiences of many people, in many places, over many years; on the other hand a faith built on one book written by one man with no experiential evidence (as far as my limited knowledge of Scientology can say) to back it up. That is what I meant by whole cloth, and while we may not be able to make precise distinctions between more or less convincing beliefs, surely we can agree there is a spectrum and Scientology is near the bottom of that spectrum?


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:47:23 AM , Rating: 2
> "Those accounts, in most cases, describe events that were witnessed by thousands if not millions of people"

Barring purely secular events like the reign of Kings, and who begat whom, there are no events in the Judeo-Christian mythos that were "witnessed by thousands if not millions".

There are claims to such in certain points in the Talmud and particularly the Christian bible. However, those claims occurred long after the supposed events themselves.

That's the benefit of being an ancient religion. You can make up whatever you like about the early history, and no one can dispute it. In fact, if one traces the evolution of Judeo-Christian thought, you can see just this occurring many times throughout the ages. The early conception of "Sheol" (hell) was far different than what we believe today, for instance. The Judaic belief in an afterlife was fabricated from whole cloth after the Diaspora, for another...primarily because the original belief (that one received the rewards of a just life while still on Earth) were incompatible with a people that were getting their **** handed to them on the regular basis.


RE: Total nonsense
By murphyslabrat on 2/7/2008 3:06:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
That's the benefit of being an ancient religion. You can make up whatever you like about the early history, and no one can dispute it.

However, the Torah (the first five books in the traditional Christian bible) have the God-card: God guided the writers-through visions, dreams, or direct communication-in the writing of what happened. If you don't believe in God/a god, it is ridiculous; but otherwise, it makes sense. Not to mention, the facts were often in story already, and the writings were compilations of these oral/written traditions.

After that, the writings are either progressive and generational, such as the Kings and Chronicles, or the writings of prophets. Whether made up or not, the facts contained were experienced by most of the people of Israel, and are mostly relevant in terms of provability.

quote:
...primarily because the original belief (that one received the rewards of a just life while still on Earth) were incompatible with a people that were getting their **** handed to them on the regular basis.

In the very beginning, while not spoken of directly as "where you might go when you die," the scriptures do talk about Lucifer (the nice guy we know as Satan) being ejected from the presence of God. This is most likely a reference to the place, referred to throughout even the Jewish cannon, where God manifests himself in a special way.

The idea that the "rewards of a just life are experienced here on earth", is not one that was ever incompatible with the Jewish state. The scriptures are full of stories about good men being prosecuted wrongly, and they are not always vindicated. Stories like Joseph and Moses are there, but more often it plays out more like with Jezebel: quickly and brutally killed, and mostly because of here own affluence.

Despite that, this idea of earthly rewards for "good living" are expressed in peace and contentment. For instance, a proverb from Solomon: "better is the corner of a rooftop than a household with squabbling." This idea of contentment is directly the product of righteousness and wisdom, and often precludes expression of earthly wealth. Of course, this is not at all to detract from the promises of earthly wealth with the practice of wise business, just sometimes these rewards come in the form of realizing the wealth already possessed.

Basically, the promise of reward for a just life is as follows: righteousness brings peace with God, and anyone who is wise (not to be confused with intelligence) can see that as being worth far more than the riches of the greatest king.


RE: Total nonsense
By damncrackmonkey on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By LTG on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By TomZ on 2/7/2008 10:53:33 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know what Scientology has been up to lately, but in the 1970's they were a seriously scary organization. Kind of like a church/cult/mob/terrorist group combined into one.

And, as you probably know, top Scientology members were convicted of a number of very serious crimes in the 1970's and did jail time.

Reading about L. Ron Hubbard, he was also a seriously messed up guy. I would say he ranked right up there with Hitler and people like that. He could have been even more seriously dangerous had he been more successful. To base a "religion" on the "teachings" of such a person is unbelievable.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 12:07:10 PM , Rating: 1
Which is similar to how the Pharisees and Saducees (sp?) approached Jesus. You can draw all sorts of parallels to Scientology and any of the major religions in the world. Of course, the followers of any religion will tell you that theirs is different from the rest because it's what they believe.


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:07:42 PM , Rating: 3
Or because they'd rather think critically than simply accept that events two thousands years apart are entirely equivocal.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 11:30:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Did Hubbard fabricate "divine revelations" in order to gain fame and fortune? Almost certainly...but the same was said of Jesus Christ, Mohammed, and even Siddharta Gautama.
But I think it's way dumber for Scientology because, while the backstory is equally silly when taken at face value, at least nobody has direct quotes of Jesus saying how funny it would be to sucker people out of their money.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 1:40:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
at least nobody has direct quotes of Jesus saying how funny it would be to sucker people out of their money.


Jesus gets his tax money from the mouth of a fish. Don't you think that's funny?


RE: Total nonsense
By Noya on 2/7/2008 2:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 2:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
That was always one of my favorites too...


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 10:29:26 AM , Rating: 1
You have to understand that in todays world, it is popular to think of faith in God as 'mythology'. The truth is they are all suffering from hubris. They seem to believe that if God were real, he would show up at their door to prove it. But at the same time they doubt the existence of God, they believe that life just happened out of nowhere, and without a missing link, they believe we evolved from primates, some of who chose to stick around because it was just that fun to be a monkey. I see the world where everything has a purpose, everything from man to single cell organisms make this world into something habitable, each doing their part. but somehow, people believe it is more intelligent to have faith in an unproven theory than faith in God, and not even realize they don't have proof for their theory. To be completely honest, I struggle with my faith based purely on thinking that it's not possible, or logical for a being like that to exist. But that is just pride. To reiterate, everyone has faith in something unprovable.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:36:03 AM , Rating: 3
> " they believe we evolved from primates, some of who chose to stick around because it was just that fun to be a monkey."

Please. If you want to discuss evolution, at least represent it accurately.


RE: Total nonsense
By GreenyMP on 2/7/2008 10:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
I think that he represented evolution more accurately than you represented religion.


RE: Total nonsense
By EuroGamer on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 12:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "As far as facts go, could you give me the link to the article that proves human evolution?"

Sure:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/07081...

Molecular biology has proven evolution wholly independently of Darwin's theory of natural selection.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 1:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So your arguments are 1. I don't use my brain a whole lot. And 2. I must be a high school dropout.
It's also possible that you don't use your brain a whole lot because you went to a useless high school. Just as likely, I would say.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 2:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
"So your arguments are 1. I don't use my brain a whole lot. And 2. I must be a high school dropout. I'm guessing you were captain of the debate club. But I could be wrong too. As far as facts go, could you give me the link to the article that proves human evolution?"

There is numnerous ways it has been proven... DNA evidence, and fossil records are the top 2.

You mentioned the "missing link" above, and that is why you are being called uneducated. The "missing link" has been found, and many links in between, and scientifically classified with names... We are so past that argument that its not even funny. For you to even suggest that the missing link has not been found shows your lack of knowledge on the issue.

Please check this link, it will help you toward enlightenment....

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html#chart

did you know that yours, mine and any african, asian, native american indian on the planets DNA are 99.999% exactly alike?

did you know that all human DNA and chimpanzees are 99.2% exactly alike? And did you know that our DNA is 97% exactly alike with dogs? 77% exactly the same as any insect as well. Thats right, we are more alike an insect than we are different. DNA has also proven that we all decended from a small group of about 10,000 people that surviced 70,000 years ago.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 4:33:54 PM , Rating: 1
And your scientific explanation is, it just happened? What is it then that pushes life to change? You must believe DNA just happened too. I have a theory for you, a very plausible one. First there was nothing. then it blew up. Suspend your disbelief please. It will make sense. Now some things that weren't there before that have now blown up, and presumably away from each other now form together, while still moving away, from, well nothing. Fast forward through the stars and planets and solar systems just happening, and we look into a puddle of mud and again, seemingly from nothing, life starts. Then it changes, because the slime can see, although it has no eyes yet, that there are other things to do, places to see, of which it doesn't know that it wants to do, but it does try to get there so that someday it can become bi-pedal and have free will, so it can then point out each others differences and decide to destroy itself(humanity plus all living organisms) with total nucular (thx George) war, so that it can then turn back into slime.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 4:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now some things that weren't there before that have now blown up


How can something not there blow up?

quote:
presumably away from each other now form together, while still moving away


How can something be moving away from nothing, and from each other and still come together?


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 4:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "What is it then that pushes life to change?"

Do you truly not know even the basic summary of evolution? Animals within a species vary. Some of that variation is inherited. Some of that variation influences the ability to survive and reproduce. Therefore, over time, advantageous traits become more common.

We see evolution ocurring today, in real time. Man discovers antibiotics, uses them widely. Bacteria which happen to be more slightly resistant proliferate, spawning ever-more resistant species. Soon, we have "superbugs" -- new variants wholly resistant to antibiotics.

> "You must believe DNA just happened too"

You must believe God just happened too.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 5:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
I was speaking more in the very beginning, where it matters most, what pushes life to change. Why would life become more complex. Everything I see in nature tends to break down, become less over time. As far as your bacteria, has a bacteria ever decided to become something other than bacteria?I mean I f i was being hunted down by antibiotics, I would be like "screw this man, being a bacteria sucks. I'm gonna be a virus" or something like that. I can't even get my mind wrapped around God, much less on where God came from. You win on that one.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 5:39:31 PM , Rating: 3
> "has a bacteria ever decided to become something other than bacteria?"

Sure. The entire doman of Archea (extremophiles) originally evolved from bacteria. In fact, pretty much all animals did if you trace things back far enough.

> "Why would life become more complex"

Life doesn't automatically become more complex. By far the most succesful species ever are the single-celled organisms. There are far more of them alive than humans on earth.

Some species become more complex because an ecological niche exists in which a more complex organism can better filll it. Over time, the species evolves to fit the niche. And sometimes-- when conditions change, for instance -- a species can "devolve" to a less complex form.

And get off this "decides to become" kick. That's not how evolution works, and I think you know that.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 5:58:29 PM , Rating: 3
Bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes are believed to come from the same unknown(gotta love it) ancestor.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/archaea/archaea.html
http://www.earthlife.net/prokaryotes/archaea.html


RE: Total nonsense
By EuroGamer on 2/7/2008 4:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Just happened? The Universe has existed for BILLIONS of years (unless you believe in "creationsism" which says the Earth and the Universe is 2000 years old and that dinosaurs are a creation of Satan himself...

Primoridal soup (which is what I assume you're talking about with slime) is far more complex than you make it out to be, which given your blog of text, isn't surprising.

You cannot ever paraphrase a scientific theory in a few words. You can do that with religion and such but doing that with science is like saying (given that this is a tech site, so a computer analogy will be used) that a PC is a bunch of wires and soldering (while that isn't wrong, it's a gross simplification).

Evolution is proven on a micro scale. As for the macro scale, I doubt it'll stay a theory for long.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 4:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
Creationists believe that the Earth is about 6000 years old (or maybe 10000 years).


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 5:15:25 PM , Rating: 3
I knew someones panties would get in a knot. I was talking about the big bang. I thought that was obvious. I think it is interesting that the explanation for the universe is that it just happened, and the same for life. It just happened. And given the limited space, how could I not simplify it? Work with me here.


RE: Total nonsense
By Iliketofrolic666 on 2/7/2008 7:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Counter-argument:
I think it is interesting that the explanation for God is that it just happened.(See what I did there? :-) )

If your argument is that the universe needs a cause, than God needs a cause as well.

P.S.
My magic ball predicts that your response will contain special pleading.


RE: Total nonsense
By Iliketofrolic666 on 2/7/2008 7:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
*If your argument is that the universe needs a cause, than by your logic God needs a cause as well.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 11:10:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think it is interesting that the explanation for the universe is that it just happened, and the same for life. It just happened. And given the limited space, how could I not simplify it?
The difference between science and religion is that, if given more space, one could write several books on the reasons we believe the Big Bang "just happened". But there isn't anything you can add about God "just happening", other than the fact you believe it to be true.

If you want to have faith-- fine. But don't confuse it with science. Do we know what caused the Big Bang? No, but we have vast realms of data which support the fact that it did.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 4:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
And to answer your question, it sounds like an intelligent way to design things.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 5:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I believe it was Intelligent design, not that it just happened randomly... As for your other long winded question on the big bang, the truth is, no-one knows what was before that.

What is your point by all that? Are you still claiming to be ignorant enough to think some god just zapped us into being 7000 years ago?


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 5:46:08 PM , Rating: 3
Why do have to call my question long winded? Don't hate. At least someone gets my point, no one knows. I think it's unlikely that we were zapped into being, but I don't have so much faith in the scientific religion (or community) to say we weren't. I haven't read the part of the bible that says God zapped us into being 7000 years(give or take) ago. So I really am not the authority on that. Maybe there is a tree that has 7000+ rings on it somewhere that has I heart Adam buried in the layers. I do know that in evolution that we have come to the point now where Homo erectus and Homo habilis lived at the same time instead of the classic evolution of man from ape to briefcase. And it all gets shrugged off. I guess that's why it's called the ever-evolving theory of evolution.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 6:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
"Why do have to call my question long winded? Don't hate. "

Not hating... It was just your big bang comment/train of thought above was hard to follow when reading.

I am glad to see you do know a bit more than you originally let on... But if you know what Homo erectus and Homo habilis are, how can you question evolution, and say "where is the missing link"? They are a part of the procession from ape to man, they are a very big part of what used to be considered the missing link. Now it is no longer missing, and I think you know that... You are just posting as if you dont... Not sure why


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 6:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
I have a hard time following my train of thought quite a bit. Something is always running through there. I read up on all sorts of things that interest me. Evolution is one of them. I like to know all sides and the more I read about evolution, the less convinced I am. But then again I don't need to believe it. If you don't like the term missing link, call it what you want. Some theories in evolution still have Homo sapiens appearing spontaneously. To have believable science, you can't prove it with "let's just assume man evolved from some unknown" and call it fact.
Did you read this story last year? If you don't like the source, you can google it elsewhere.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Aug09/0,4670,Huma...


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 6:57:02 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry man... Fox news = zero credibility. It is an irrelevant right wing ragnews organization puching lies like this, and will do anything to discredit free thinking and puch its right wing religios agenda.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 7:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
You need to get off the Fox news isn't credible kick. If you were a conservative, you would know they don't lean this way, they just decided not to follow the big 3 and you got sucked into the hype. Stop drinking the kool-aid. Seriously. Like I said, if you don't like the source, research the material. I originally read it on yahoo when it came out, but look into it. Get your head out of the sand and don't be so afraid of Fox news, and I can tell that you don't because of your ignorance of it's political leanings. At least they tell you the political affiliation of the reporters/hosts/guests, and yes they do get left and right wingers. Can't say as much for the other channels. And I am one of the 4 people that watches MSNBC on occasion.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 7:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, and it's an AP story.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 8:29:30 PM , Rating: 1
OK, you are right, I saw FOX and I didn't look, assuming it was more of the crud they put out. I read it, and yes, it makes sense. Dating bones is difficult and new finds change the thoughts on the exact lineage we came from and time in which we think certain species lived...

none of this changes the absolute rock hard fact that we evolved from Apes... Just our knowledge of precisely when, and how on each branch of our family tree.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/8/2008 8:16:04 AM , Rating: 2
Fox news fair, unbiased and no evidence of hypocrisy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whYi8sCF5Pg


RE: Total nonsense
By adiposity on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 11:47:32 AM , Rating: 3
For the record, monkeys do look like they have fun. Maybe they stuck around because it's not socially acceptable for humans to throw their own feces.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 2:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
I should also point out that your "why are there still monkeys" comment further shows your ignorance. Not every group changed, or had the need to change. Keep in mind it takes millions of years.

Think of cats, for example. Why are there so many species? Because different groups in different areas developed different needs, and evolved accordingly.

Let me give you a quick run down of what science has proven on human evolution.

millions of years ago the Indian plate began pushing into Asia pushing the himalayans upward, disrupting global wather patterns and making much of Africa's jungles into savannas over many millions of years.

Eventually the apes that were living in trees in some areas had little trees left so they had to leave the safety of the trees to go onto land, and these apes developed the ability to walk upright. Not all apes were in this situation - and not all evolved the same

Food became more and more scarce and our plant eating ancestors had to improvise and start scavenging meat. The addition of the high protein content from meat made their brains grow (again over hundreds of thousands of years) and they got smarter and smarter and learned to hunt and make crude weapons out of stone.

Later still, fire was invented (or I should say they learned to harness fire) and they went from huddling scared and cold in the dark to being warm and safe, as animals that hunted them are afraid of the fire... and soon enough became the head of the food chain. Now that primitive ape-man was no longer spending 100% of his time surviving, and huddling in the dark, he had time to relax, and dream, and imagine, giving rise to even larger brains and smarter hominids that we are today.

Modern man appeared on the scene appx 150,000 years ago and began to prosper. Earlier versions of apelike man died off. Appx 70,000 years ago there was a global event, most scientists beleive to be the massive supervolcano in Toba disrupted global wather patterns and killed off many species. Man was down to about 10,000 people. Easily on the endangered species list if one existed. Of those 10,000, we are all descendants, some left africa and went into the middle east, then india, south asia, australia and north asia, some went into Europe and met up with Neanderthol, another humanoid species that was dying out. Some even crossed the bering straight from Asia to Alaska and thier descendants became what we call native americans. The human genome project analyzed DNA from people all over the world from all races and it proved that we all came from about 10,000 african people that survived 70,000 years ago. Some left africa, and thier descendants populated the rest of the globe

This is all proven science, not a theory. As ignorant as it is to ask why are there still apes is, another ignorant comment from uneducated people is "well if they found the missing link I'd believe it"... The missing link was what it was called when it was missing, 100 years ago. It has long since been found and mapped out.


RE: Total nonsense
By jimbojimbo on 2/7/2008 3:13:31 PM , Rating: 3
You guys are all wrong. Xenu brought us here on giant DC-8 ships. If you all pay me $1000 up front I'll prove it to you.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 4:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
I love it. In all of the different articles on evolution I read, there is not a unified theory. Now that I think about it, the only thing that evolves is the theory. If the missing link was taken care of years ago, why do scientists keep thinking they've found it, then sweep the evidence to the contrary under the rug?


RE: Total nonsense
By EuroGamer on 2/7/2008 4:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
Want a missing link? The platypus. Now if that isn't a link to something (which people like you can VISIBLY see), then I don't know what is.

Anyways, every creature on Earth is a missing link. We are constantly evolving into the next species.

Please straycat, find your home alley, get on google and read up on evolution thouroughly.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 5:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
"If the missing link was taken care of years ago, why do scientists keep thinking they've found it, then sweep the evidence to the contrary under the rug?"


Your question makes no sense. Then again, neither do you.

Unified theory? Either you have heard zero of the theory of evolution, or are too dimwitted to pay attention to how we evolved. Get your head out of the bible and try to educate yourself man !!!


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 6:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
What color is the evolutionary kool-aid anyhow? By the way, name calling means I win.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 10:36:33 AM , Rating: 2
So if they are all "unprovable", what makes it better to believe in an "unprovable" God versus an "unprovable" evolution, for example. Other than hubris to believe that a theory involving God is more respectable than a theory involving science? The "threat" that not believing in not only God, but God as religion X defines God will damn the non-believer to eternal damnation while evolution doesn't threaten the non-believer with fire and brimstone?


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 10:41:19 AM , Rating: 4
Last time I checked, God and science were not mutually exclusive.


RE: Total nonsense
By James Holden on 2/7/2008 10:45:23 AM , Rating: 1
Don't tell that to theoretical physicists ....


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 10:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
Don't even get me started on the theory of physics!


RE: Total nonsense
By LTG on 2/7/2008 10:53:21 AM , Rating: 5
Many of the greatest scientists in history have been and will continue to be devout religious people.

Just because you don't believe the earth is only 5000 years old doesn't mean you don't believe in God.

Many physicists consider themselves to be discovering God's creations.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 5:34:18 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. There are 3 schools of thought on this.

1. We evolved totally at random.
-this is what an athiest thinks
2. We evolved based on the laws of nature that are governed by an unknown higher intellegence that many would call god.
- this is intelligent design.
3. We were zapped into being appx. 7000 years ago by go
- this would be what an uneducated, narrow minded ignorant Christian would think. Anyone that thinks this in this day and age has no place in an intelligent conversation.


RE: Total nonsense
By Xerio on 2/7/2008 6:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
You are as bad as the religious nuts that say, "Join my church or you're going to hell."

Either people believe the same things you do or they are unintelligent? Nice.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 8:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
If you are referring to the fact that I said "anyone who thinks we were zapped into being appx. 7000 years ago by god is an uneducated, narrow minded and ignorant." then I disagree. I stand behind that comment. I stand in front of it all wrap myself all around it.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 7:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
I knew it-you're a hater.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 12:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
I never said they were. Please read the post. The OP discussed evolution and God as both being unprovable and I was discussing his post in context.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 3:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
Neither is unprovable, an argument has been laid out for evolution. All you have to do to prove God exists is find the Babel fish.


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
>Neither is unprovable [if you have the right axioms in place]

The ability to prove anything hinges on axioms. Those of science and religion often differ, but they reach the same critical point if you consider the underpinnings of the universe.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 4:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
Go on...


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 5:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sure. So evolution can be regressed all the way to the big bang - then the question becomes 'How did the big bang happen?' and we've 'answered' that. Then we move on to 'why was there a super-heated very dense mass of matter sitting out in the middle of the universe to begin with? How did it get there?' again, we have an 'answer' - The Uncertainty Princple (an uncertain theory, at best, though). But then the question just becomes 'How did the Uncertainty Principle get there? Maxwell's Equations? Einstein's Special relativity? The laws of Quantum Physics? Where is Schroedinger's cat? etc.' And,we're not really sure about those.

Now, I won't really touch the religious view because 1. I don't think it's eclusive of any of those I just outlined and 2. there's way too many versions.

In the end, both theories have unanswered questions, and have to take things for granted - axioms. People use axioms everyday - they're essential to make any kind of sense out of the world. Some may be inconsistent, or less plausible, but everyone uses them.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 5:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
'why was there a super-heated very dense mass of matter sitting out in the middle of the universe to begin with? How did it get there?


One theory is that two or more membranes collided. As a theory it will be tested and accepted or rejected, I don't think that counts as an axiom.

PS there wasn't any matter involved in the big bang, that came later as the universe cooled.

I suppose the axiom is if there was "something" be it God or the big bang (whatever caused it) what caused what something?


RE: Total nonsense
By DASQ on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 2:02:45 PM , Rating: 2
So, some being must have created mankind. Then what, do tell, created God? People believe in God because they're afraid of death. I'm not afraid of death.

If someone gets a part of their brains destroyed, often they can become completely different people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injur...
In death, the brain is completely gone. If losing half the mind can change the person, even to the point of being child-like or like that of a vegetable, then the death of the mind must surely mean an end to that person altogether. If it was purely a matter of spirit, then brain injury alone wouldn't be able to affect personality or identity. The spirit, after all, would be the prop under such reasoning.

Since you like Socrates so much, I'll pull my favorite of his and paraphrase - All the world's a television, and everyone in it merely actors - So, even actors like Adolph Hitler, who inadvertently set India free from England while putting another in a series of camps, must be seen as what they really were: actors on a stage, not to be despised or hated, but merely actors following a script.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 2:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "Since you like Socrates so much, I'll pull my favorite of his and paraphrase - All the world's a television, and everyone in it merely actors "

Err, aren't you paraphrasing Shakespeare there, not Socrates? :)


RE: Total nonsense
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/7/2008 2:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts.

Shakespear didn't coin it either. But he did use as a central theme in "As You Like It."


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 3:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Err, aren't you paraphrasing Shakespeare there, not Socrates? :)


I wish it was fresher in my mind than it is. The quote, roughly, is that of Shakespeare's, but the philosophy is much older. I know I've read it somewhere in Plato's dialogues. I'll have to wring it out of my volume sometime tomorrow. It's got something to do with people, in the pre-mortal life, choosing which parts they would play. The first would quickly choose the tyrant. He then goes on to show how foolish such a wish would be. When I read it, I was struck by how similar it was in meaning to what Shakespeare said.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 11:24:23 AM , Rating: 4
I am so glad you have life dialed in. You seem so at peace, very little anger there. I for one am with Socrates "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing"


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 11:57:34 AM , Rating: 2
And "All I really know is I don't wanna know"


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 12:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I appreciate your compliment. Anger is definitely a wasted emotion. I often look at Socrates as, perhaps, the prototypical Christian. Rather than spend time thinking about the body and earthly concerns, he tried to think of heavenly things. I think his reason was that when death came to him the body would stay with the earth and his mind would ascend to heaven.

However, I differ with him strongly with his beliefs in the gods. For someone who knew nothing, as he claimed at one point (I can't recall which of the stories your quote is from), he seemed awfully sure of himself even unto the end.

My father is agnostic, my mother Buddhist, and I'm an atheist. God is a figment of our imagination, created to give us comfort with our final hour. By opening my senses and sensing, the world exists for me. Even if the fiction were true, and there was a God, then surely it created itself in the same instant that it created me.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 12:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
So everything was created at the same time? Then we shall surely be brothers to the end of time!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZKtACxZcM


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 12:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
"I think, therefore I am" never really answered the question as to whether or not 'you' exist.

In any case, just to play with what you said a little, one of the basic laws of physics is that matter cannot be destroyed or created.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 12:33:12 PM , Rating: 5
> "one of the basic laws of physics is that matter cannot be destroyed or created. "

To be precise, the statement is that, outside a singularity, matter-energy is conserved.

Inside the singularity known as the Big Bang, both matter and energy were created in great quantities.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 1:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
If you would follow the link, we could experience the joy together brother!


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 1:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
Do I have to watch all of it? It was a bit painful.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 1:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
Wait till it hits the radio, unless it already has........


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 10:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it couldn't be any worse than what's on the radio now.


RE: Total nonsense
By rug47 on 2/7/2008 7:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
wow....that actually made my wiener smaller :(


RE: Total nonsense
By Dharl on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 2:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the Christian religion this promotion of cannibalism and blood drinking, as you so eloquently put it, is the breaking of bread, and drinking of the fruit of the vine. One a physical representation of the body of Christ hung on the cross.


Christians believe that the body and blood of Christ are represented in the bread and water/wine. By eating it, they are symbolically eating the flesh and blood of a person. This is symbolic cannibalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament

It's an ancient belief and custom, older than the Old Testament: cannibalism was believed to imbue the eater with immortality. This is nothing new: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Cannibalism_-_...

I am well aware of the fact that OT God commanded genocide (Canaanites) as well as infanticide (ok, I know Abraham wasn't a baby, and it was stopped before it was carried out). Were God alive and well today, certainly he could be tried for crimes against humanity, if fetters could be fitted and punishment meted.

A big reason I rejected Christianity was because I came to the realization that the God of the Bible, OT and NT, was a terrible deity - worse than any the earth has known in history, regardless of whether or not It exists.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 3:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His noodly appendage will strike you down...


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
>The Catholic Church refers to itself as a cult. Examine the following excerpted from dictionary.com :

How in the name of sanity does an excerpt from dictionary.com prove that the Catholic Church refers to itself as a cult?


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 11:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the way, most churches, including Catholics, Mormons, and many traditional Protestant religions, maintain trademarks-- and often sue other organizations for infringing upon them
I think that any religion that wants tax-free status should not be allowed to have trademarks, copyrights, etc.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 12:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think that any religion that wants tax-free status should not be allowed to have trademarks, copyrights, etc.
Can you give me an example of a religion that doesn't have a TM or copyright to its name?


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 12:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you give me an example of a religion that doesn't have a TM or copyright to its name?
None that I can think of. What's your point?


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 1:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I don't feel any organization should be free from taxation. I figure a religion isn't much different from a club. It should be required to pay all the same taxes as any other organization. In any case, I had thought you were saying that Scientology in particular shouldn't enjoy the same tax free status as other religions/cults.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 1:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think the reason why religious organizations is free of taxation is to help enforce our beleif in freedom of religion. It's seen as a safe guard against the government waging war on a relgious orginization through taxation.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 2:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's because religions are supposed to (at least in theory) be a benefit to society, and that taxing them would hinder their ability to do good. There are certainly a lot of good things that go on in the name of religion, just because some church builds houses for the homeless doesn't make it reasonable for the MegaChurch down the street to not get taxed on the profits they make from their in-house coffee shop and money changers.

I feel that much of the good stuff (as well as the bad) would go on with or without faith. Good people would still form community groups that would help each other, and those in need. Bad people would make up some other justification for arbitrary hatred of groups of people that did nothing to them.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 2:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well at a certain point, even a church can cross the line between religion and fraud. Just ask Tammy Fea Baker. Perhaps this is why I stick to my roman catholisism, the church may not be perfect, but they're not out to defraud anyone... I'm not so sure about the mega churches, and deffonetly not at all sure about the sciontologists (sp?)


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 1:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
Having trouble remembering the last time the Catholic Church sued over a trade mark, at least off hand here... And I think the last time the Catholic Church waged any sort of war against anti-catholics was in the middle ages when such things were common and supported by the royalty of the day.

It also should be noted that you can learn everything about the catholic church, and teachings with out having to "donate" a single cent to the church.

I won't bother debating points of faith (i.e. your incorrect comment about Moses parting the red sea with his bare hands) since I'm going to guess you don't have any sort of faith or religion.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 2:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
> "Having trouble remembering the last time the Catholic Church sued over a trade mark"

They do so quite often. Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Internet Entertainment Group is just one such example.

Here's a trademark suit by the Jehovah's witnesses:

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCateg...

A trademark lawsuit by the Adventists:

http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/0991165967/ind...

One by the Lighthouse Ministry;

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon237...

And a couple by the Mormons:

http://www.okpatents.com/phosita/archives/2007/03/...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20...

> "It also should be noted that you can learn everything about the catholic church, and teachings with out having to "donate" a single cent to the church."

In theory. In practice, you'll be under severe peer pressure to donate if you attend on a regular basis.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 2:23:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In theory. In practice, you'll be under severe peer pressure to donate if you attend on a regular basis.


You should try actually attending catholic services, I very rarely donate any sort of money to the church (though on my own volition, I am working on donating more because the my disosis does great things with donations). I do not attract the ire of my fellow church goers, not so much as a funny look. When my church asks for money, it's usually attached to a presentation as to what the money they are asking for is going to be used for, many times bringing in guest speakers from other local catholic churchs or in some cases international disosis.

quote:
They do so quite often. Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Internet Entertainment Group is just one such example.


It didn't take me very long to figure out why the church *REALLY* decided to sue these people.

quote:
Plaintiffs Archdiocese of St. Louis ("Archdiocese") and Papal Visit 1999, St. Louis owned common law trademarks in a number of marks including "Papal Visit 1999," which marks they used to promote the Pope's January 1999 visit to St. Louis, Missouri. Defendant operated websites at the domain names "papalvisit.com" and "papalvisit1999.com." These websites provided limited information about both the Pope's then upcoming visit and St. Louis in general. In addition, they "provided advertising for defendant's adult entertainment websites, hyperlinks to these other websites, and an assortment of 'off-color' stories and jokes regarding the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church."


Using a papal visit to adverstis porn? Ummm, yeah I have more understanding regarding this then suing for no reason other than "we don't want you distributing materials for free materials that we charge our members out the buttox for" and "You published a story based on verifiable facts in your news paper that make us look silly".


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 2:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
Just in case, since I know you might want to argue the law suiets more, here are further quotes from my source (linked below quotes).

quote:
actively not only provides information about the papal visit and St. Louis, but aggressively encourages users to hyperlink to other websites which advertise, promote and sell adult entertainment services and products. It is clear to this Court that [defendant] may have been communicating its activities globally, but by specifically utilizing the papal visit to St. Louis, using domain names which mirrored the alleged trademarks consistently publicized by the Archdiocese of St. Louis throughout St. Louis and the immediate metropolitan area, and providing information about St. Louis, [defendant] intended to reach Internet users in Missouri. ... [and] availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Missouri.


http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case83.cf...


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 2:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
> "It didn't take me very long to figure out why the church *REALLY* decided to sue these people."

They sued because their trademarks were being used in a manner they didn't like. Obviously, if those marks were being used in a way they considered acceptable, they wouldn't have sued.

> "then suing for no reason other than "we don't want you distributing materials for free materials that we charge our members..."

Oops -- you've confused trademark with copyright suits. Churches engage in plenty of those as well:
quote:
The LDS Church last year filed a copyright infringement suit against the Tanners after they put 17 pages of the Church Handbook for Instruction on their Utah Lighthouse Ministry Web site. The Tanners removed the pages but then put a note on their Web site referring to a Web site in Australia containing the entire 160 page handbook.


Trademarks persist forever; copyrights do not. As the copyrights on the primary religious writings of the Roman Catholic church all expired long ago, obviously they're going to have trouble pursing copyright actions.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 2:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
Nice way to side step the issue that the Catholic Church doesn't go around sueing people for no reason what so ever. In this case the reason was clear, the defendant was using a paple visit to push porn. This is no different than when the Clintan Administration sued the operators of www.whitehouse.com because they were actually running a porn site.

Now I don't doubt with in christindom you can find modern examples of legal abuses similar to what the church of scientology is being accuesed of, at least if you lump in dubious mega churches and ghetto churches that exist soly to rob people of their every last dollar (unforutunetly, you must lump them in since they do this "in the name of christ").

I'm sorry Marsher, but your standing on thin ice when you try to compare Scientology to legitimate, established churches and religious like Judism, Islam, Eastern Orthadox and the Roman Catholic Church.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 3:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nice way to side step the issue that the Catholic Church doesn't go around sueing people for no reason what so ever"

Nice way to sidestep the fact the Catholic Church does protect its trademarks via legal action, as well as many other "legitimate, established" Churches.

The fact that you find one suit "valid" because you agree with its motivation, and the other invalid because you disagree, just proves the point further.

In the final analysis, the acts of both organizations are identical. They both own certain trademarks, and if you use those marks in a manner that, in their opinion , is unsavory, they're going to pursue legal action.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 3:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
So in your opion, it's good to bait people including small childern to porn sites by posing as an official religious or governmental website? Remember, I didn't find this example *YOU* found it... I just bothered reading up on *YOUR* example and found that it does not support your point.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 10:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
When did small children get involved? Are you bringing small children to religious pornographic websites?

In any case, I think bringing kids to porn is by far more savory than bringing kids to church and Christianity. Sexuality is a natural thing. Since many of them are too young to 'appreciate' any of it, they won't really care, they'll be bored, and they'll go clicking on something they find more interesting, like a purple dinosaur. Christianity is a nasty distortion of reality that can lead to schizophrenia (belief that a deity talks to you, talking to a deity that isn't there), symbolic cannibalism, discrimination against people not of the faith, religious wars, discrimination against homosexuals, etc. However, for the most part, the kids will likely be bored of it too, and go looking for the purple dinosaur. The tragedy comes when the parents force the kids to go to church for their weekly dose of brainwashing.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/8/2008 10:05:21 AM , Rating: 2
Small childern get involved when you use soemthing like the papal visit to your home town to sell porn. Small childern also get involved when you put a website up on the domain "www.whitehouse.com" and dedicate it to selling porn, I'm not sure how you can possibly miss that...

As far as your further comments about prefering to expose your childeren to smut rather than religion... All I have to say is I can respect people who make the choice that they don't beleive in religion them selves, and I can understand that if that is how you feel you would want your childeren to share those values. I don't agree with it, but I do respect it.

What I don't respect is your twisted view that porn is some how better for childern than church, I also don't respect your uninformed, ignorant and misguided comments about canablism. The church doesn't promot canabalism (in fact, no christian church does) you know this as well as I do... But you've latched onto the whole "body and blood of christ" aspect of holy communion to push a sensationalist idea for what purpose I don't know... So that a christian will decide will suddenly be disgusted by their faith? Seriously, we christians grew up with this, we do understand it. If you don't, then whatever but please stop making your self look silly by posting this misguided stuff to the internet.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/8/2008 11:24:24 AM , Rating: 3
I guess you don't know what the sacrament is supposed to symbolize. The body and blood of Christ. Eating a person is cannibalism. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Oh, wait. I know the problem. You don't like admitting that you participate in what is symbolically one of the most diabolical and standard practices of Christian churches. It's not sensationalism to find the barbaric ritual abhorrent. Wake up dude. Christianity is really, really messed up. It might make you feel good to associate with a bunch of people who follow the same cult as you do. Being a Christian is a lot easier than being an atheist. If you're a Christian you've instantly got a social network around you. Social networks are powerful. This is the reason why religion is so successful. But I refuse to substitute truth for it. Why don't you go talk to your priest and ask him, "Does the bread and wine/water symbolize the flesh and blood of Christ" without asking if that's symbolically cannibalistic. The priest will just give you a runaround explanation as to why eating something that is symbolically a demi-god's flesh isn't symbolically cannibalism, since the word 'cannibal' is such a nasty one.

I think churches are very twisted places, and I think of sexuality as a natural thing that children aren't terribly interested in. I think churches are places where brainwashing takes place. I think most porn sites are bloody boring garbage that most kids will click off from in less than a few seconds. Brainwashing, teaching hate, these things I find far more appalling, not to mention dangerous to those young, easily influenced minds.


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/13/2008 2:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
You might try reading Aquinas sometime and then consider coming back and making an educated argument instead of quoting some Protestant talking points that have been beaten to death for centuries.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/14/2008 7:13:10 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe you ought to accept that sacrament is a cannibalistic ritual. I was not quoting any Protestants. Any reference to their preachings or teachings has been entirely accidental. It is merely an obvious assertion that most Christians deny.


RE: Total nonsense
By notfeelingit on 2/7/2008 10:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So in your opion, it's good to bait people including small childern to porn sites by posing as an official religious or governmental website?

Absolutely nothing in his post proposed an opinion. He simply presented a comparison of the two circumstances, which in reality are nearly identical.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/8/2008 10:16:06 AM , Rating: 2
Except the reality was not nearly identical, certianly not in the case of the Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Smut pedlers... He was trying to compare Scientology sueing individuals and orginizations into submission for critisising the "church" to the Catholic church defending Catholic childeren and adults alike from being lured into a smut website when they were trying to find information about the papal visit to St. Louis.

These are two wholly and completely different things, I can respect what the catholic church did, just like I respected the clinton administration for going after the operators of www.whitehouse.com. I have no respect for a "religion" or "church" which in this day and age will literally do all it can to destroy the lives of individuals for critisising the "church" (or freely publishing their works that they charch church members hudreds of thousands of dollars for).


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 6:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "He was trying to compare Scientology sueing individuals and orginizations into submission for critisising the "church""

Oops -- you misread plain English. The suit I quoted, and the point I made, referred to protecting trademarks via legal action. As I clearly demonstrated, such acts are common by many different mainstream churchs as well.

Scientology did bring a different suit against Time Magazine for criticizing them. They lost that suit quickly, as they should have.


RE: Total nonsense
By robinthakur on 2/8/2008 6:48:17 AM , Rating: 2
Or maybe its that all religions are scams and confidence-tricks perpetuated over many hundreds of years and really no better than 'established' successful cults. 'Deluded' does not quite capture the sheer idiocy. However, I can tolerate religious people in general, they tend to generally be a decent bunch, and they aren't really hurting anybody. However I can't stand it when they use their fictitious beliefs to justify Laws or Wars. That's crossing the line into the lunatics running the asylum, interpreting modern life literally through allegory to a book written, rewritten and reinterpreted over the centuries! A BOOK! Regardless of the religion, this is plain nuts by most sane people's standards. Luckily, nobody I come into contact with in my daily life since I left school about 10 years ago in the UK either a) is religious or b) is willing to admit to being religious. It just makes you a social leper here regardless of which religion people associate it with being mindless or being a suicide bomber (if you're a muslim) I'm not necessarily saying this opinion is wrong. The mental state required to believe strongly in fantasy reflects an unbalanced mind in the first place. The next step is blowing yourself up because the rest of the sane world does not agree with you. To which I say "At least do it in the privacy of your own home"


RE: Total nonsense
By mdogs444 on 2/7/2008 8:57:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Put that way, it almost sounds as ridiculous as gigantic arks filled with all the animals on earth, or men parting the ocean with their bare hands, eh?

I agree about the "parting oceans with their bare hands" part - I was raised catholic until I was about 14, but havent practiced since - but I'm not so sure if that was to be taken literally, or more of a symbolic writing.

As far as the Ark - yeah, I dont think there were pairs of every animal on a boat. However, there are writings in more than just the bible that explain a huge storm, or flood, and discovery channel has even shown a place in the mountains in europe or asia which they say may be the "ark", or the large boat they used, frozen in the ice.

As with everything in history, I'm sure there is a bit of truth, to each exaggeration. Large flood from rain, sure. Build some sort of boat, sure. Put each pair of animals in it...doubtful. Parting the water with your hands...yeah right.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 10:05:32 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, flood stories are in human mythos all over the world, in most near sea cultures... It is not about an arch or any silly tale like that, but about the last ice age. 15,000 or so years ago, the polar caps were as far south as Central Europe and New York City. As things warmed up ice caps melted and sea levels rose well over 100 feet. Many early cities and smaller clan type encampments were drowned out. Although water levels rose little by little, it is always a big storm surge or water breaching a natural barrier and flooding into lower lying land that makes the flood appear to be a rapid thing to the early unscientific minds...


RE: Total nonsense
By James Holden on 2/7/2008 10:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As things warmed up ice caps melted and sea levels rose well over 400 feet.

Fixed that for you.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 10:13:20 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks... You are correct, 400 feet.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 11:35:34 AM , Rating: 2
Most estimates suggest that if you were to melt everything, the sea would rise about 120 meters. http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

In any case, that's not nearly enough to cause all land to become swallowed up by the sea. I think the reason the global flood myth is common to all cultures is because all cultures have faced major floods.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 11:50:49 AM , Rating: 2
No-one said all land was, or would be swallowed up. Its just that some settlements that were close to the sea were. This is true all over the world, and thus the universal flood stories.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 10:13:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No-one said all land was, or would be swallowed up.
According to the flood myths, the water swallowed up the world. That's why Noah had to save all the animals. Surely you remember this. I'm not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, but I thought everyone knew this.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:32:31 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I was raised catholic until I was about 14, but havent practiced since - but I'm not so sure if that was to be taken literally, or more of a symbolic writing.
500 years from now, Scientologist priests will be telling us silliness such as hydrogen-bomb using aliens was meant "symbolically". You can rationalize anything if you want to believe in it.

Let's just keep freedom of religion a stalwart principle of the land, eh? Else when that time comes, it might be against the law to not be a Scientologist.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 10:51:02 AM , Rating: 5
Yup. We are all free to believe what we want to believe. If you don't like a particular religion, don't attend their services, and don't send your children to them either. Its as simple as that.

I believe that Mother Earth created us, (through evolution) because she wanted plastic, and she couldnt create it on her own. Once she has enough plastic, she will shake us off and she will be as she intended... Earth+plastic. =)


RE: Total nonsense
By Rob Pintwala on 2/7/2008 10:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
Everything L. Ron Hubbard wrote is to be taken literally by Scientologists. It's one of their cardinal rules.

As for freedom of religion, Anonymous is not trying to shut down Scientology. They're not trying to crush it or destroy it. They're trying to expose to the public the countless crimes and atrocities that Scientology has committed over the years.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 11:18:42 AM , Rating: 4
> "Everything L. Ron Hubbard wrote is to be taken literally by Scientologists"

Judeo-Christian writings were originally taken literally also. It's only been in later years that people were told events like the seven-day creation were meant to be "taken symbolically".

> "They're trying to expose to the public the countless crimes and atrocities that Scientology has committed "

Atrocities like the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre? The Children's Crusade? Or more recently, like the Sabra and Shatila Massacres, conducted by Christian Phalangrists?


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 11:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
For arguments sake, could you tell me how long is a day to God? And all of the atrocities were committed by men, not God. Just like when religious figures get busted for doing wrong or evil. I think it should serve as a reminder to follow God, not man.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 11:39:08 AM , Rating: 3
> "For arguments sake, could you tell me how long is a day to God?"

That's an excellent example of rationalizing to fit a belief

If the word "day" means something different to "God", why can't every other word in the Christian bible mean something else as well? Perhaps "love thy neighbor" really means "kill the infidel", or "You shall not make idols" really means "Don't make idols except of the Virgin Mary".

You've just opened the door to interpeting the text in any way you damn well please.

Which is, in fact, what Christians have been doing since the 3rd Century AD. Study the history of the faith; you'll be amazed by the transformations the belief system has undergone.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 12:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
Let's play that game, shall we? What does the word "kill" mean to God? After all, souls are immortal, right? So maybe God defines "death" as your soul going to hell.

Therefore, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" really means one should chop off the heads of heathens, to save them from further sin, thereby saving their lives!

Wow, this game is fun. Interpreting words to mean what we WANT them to mean, rather than what they really do, and we can make the Bible say whatever we want.


RE: Total nonsense
By uhgotnegum on 2/7/2008 12:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
http://eastonsbibledictionary.com/d/day.htm

I love that I can google "bible dictionary" and find out what "day" means according to the bible.

I love it even more that the word means more than one thing...sounds crazy, I know.

Of note, "death" means http://eastonsbibledictionary.com/d/death.htm

"kill" is not defined...I guess there is no meaning to that word

Ahh the inherent flaw of using words to communicate...Actually Masher, I personally think that the fun game is when people debate religion. I wonder why we do it, because I've never heard of anyone winning the argument (or maybe a better way to say it is that each person always thinks he won the argument...).

Reasoning be damned, let's just keep playing this game anyway, because regardless of who wins, I'm having fun.

(do I have to explain that I'm being light-hearted or is that self-explanatory??)


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 12:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
So I guess you concede my point then, since you still haven't answered. The correct answer is "I don't know", but I have a feeling you haven't said those words together in a long time. By the way, the commandment is not thou shall not kill, but thou shall not murder. Very important difference. Maybe you should study the bible, not religion instead of attacking what you don't understand. And I have often wondered what the meaning of life is, but I don't believe it is getting my head chopped off by some psycho.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 12:46:39 PM , Rating: 4
> "So I guess you concede my point then, since you still haven't answered"

The word "day" means "a period of 24 hours" -- in Hebrew, Aramaic, and English. It doesn't mean "the time it takes some sun in another galazy to revolve".

For many centuries, the seven-day creation was taught literally as such. It wasn't until science started showing holes in the belief that a new "interpretation" was developed to shore things up.

Now answer my question. What does the word "murder" mean to God? Or "love"? Or "worship? If you start redefining words to fit your own beliefs, you can make the Bible say whatever you wish.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 12:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
Say it with me...I (pause) don't (pause) know. I think you will have a huge weight (i.e. chip) lifted off of your shoulders. My point was perspective. A day to man is 24 hours here on Earth. I asked what Gods perspective was. What does love mean to God? God is love.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 1:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
> "A day to man is 24 hours here on Earth. I asked what Gods perspective was"

I rest my case.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 1:23:56 PM , Rating: 1
Are you serious? I am disappointed.


RE: Total nonsense
By Noya on 2/7/2008 3:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
You're delusional.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 4:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
Communication: It is the act of passing information and the process by which meanings are exchanged so as to produce understanding .

So let us say a hyperdimensional being of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (a God), were to drop by and say "I have built you gayatricrity device, which will greatly improve the lives of all humanity, it will end war, prevent disease, cure cancer, etc.. All you have to do is go and get it".

A sensible answer would be "Great, where do I get it?".

Would you expect the being to say "All you have to do is travel 0.073742 astrobits in the plain of zocud when the time is 430 macrogons. There you will find the gayatricrity device, and you will know it by its size and shape. For it is 30 echobits long by 3 acharbits by 3 acharbits, and its colour is that of Antares 3 million years ago viewed from a distance of 4.98 astrobits." With that the being vanishes.

Or would you expect the being to know what you would/could understand (it's omniscient) like "From your current location travel to Jupiter, land on the side of Amalthea facing jupiter, travel to the mid point on the surface of the moon. There you will find a giant red box, about 15 times your height; that is the gayatricrity device. To make it work, press the button with the glyph that looks like this ?. Hope that helps, and look me up if you are ever in my dimension :)". They then vanish.


RE: Total nonsense
By geddarkstorm on 2/7/2008 12:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
You do a wonderful job at that in reveres though. Watching all the nonsense thrown around in this comment thread really make me feel great about people's ability to sit down and discuss ideas. But then again, if people could do that there wouldn't be so many wars, political bickering, and other such tomfoolery.

Just don't think you're behaving in some good or rational way. Your current misinterpretations, blatant or naively, of different religions is almost humorous. Like the whole comment of the Red Sea being parted by bare hands? Do you even know at a basic level what the story in the bible says? You can totally disagree with something, but misrepresenting it out of ignorance (to the level of flat out lie) just to make a point is a sad thing, and no different than how the people you'd classify as "religious nuts" treat science. You are being absolutely no different, Masher, which doesn't even begin to set a good example.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 12:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "Like the whole comment of the Red Sea being parted by bare hands? Do you even know at a basic level what the story in the bible says?"

Exodus 14:
quote:
Then the LORD said to Moses...Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground.

...21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left...
Which part exactly did I misinterpret?


RE: Total nonsense
By rtrski on 2/7/2008 4:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not being Catholic myself (despite attempted brainwashing at an early age), I'll assume you quoted the entire pertinent parts and didn't leave anything out. But it's pretty clear from what you quoted that 'God' parted the sea, Moses just waved his hand as commanded.

His 'bare hands' didn't do anything but demonstrate his obedience, or at most indicate the preferred direction, at which time 'God' did whatever gods do.

But I also seem to recall Moses got his fanny spanked for later claiming his staff got water from the stone in the desert, not 'God' doing it in response to his gesture, or something, so I'm pretty sure I'm interpreting what I'm reading in appropriate context.

I'm also positive someone who reads everything as critically (by which I mean thoroughly, not some sort of value judgement) already knows that, and you're just being a bit obfuscatory. You really do hate backing away from any statement, don't you?


RE: Total nonsense
By Fritzr on 2/12/2008 3:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
A year or so ago I found a reference to the scientific research on this one. The theory was that a copyist named the wrong sea. The Israelites crossed the Reed Sea not the Red Sea according to the theory. With this change and evidence of a volcano destroying an island in the Mediteranean at about the right time (Thera I think it was) the quake/tsunami effect would have drained the Reed Sea for a brief time allowing the Israelites time to cross. The Egyptians trying to cross at a later time got caught by the returning water.

A similar archeological study of the Dead Sea are shows that the literal story of Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed could be truth. This area has naturally occurring deposits of sulphur (brimstone) and natural gas. Light off an underground natural gas explosion in ground that contains sulphur nuggets and your get destruction by fire and flaming brimstone raining from the sky. The illness now known as Stroke produces paralysis turning the victim into a "Pillar of Salt". It is possible to fit a camel through the eye of a needle, but if it is carrying packs then it won't fit. The eye of a needle is the night gate to a walled city.

When interpreting passages that use popular sayings it is helpful to know when you are reading slang and when it is literal :) Think about your everday speech. "Drop dead", "Jump in the lake", etc. In a couple of thousand years would the reader know that you didn't intend the person you were speaking to to die or go for a swim? :P

The biblical text is the eyewitness testimony that has been written by someone who was told the tale by someone else who heard it from the witness. As the police can tell you today, even getting the testimony directly from the eyewitness results in very unreliable evidence. The tale is filtered through the speaker's understanding of what was seen or experienced. Once it is written down you then have to find and correct copyist errors (very difficulr when the source text no longer exists) and translation errors. (Is lapin (French) a hare or a rabbit when translated to English--it could make a difference in meaning)

I met this kind of difficulty speaking English in Philippines. Filipino English is very different compared to American, though I have been told by an Aussie that to that individual they are the same. Ozzie English is a different language again :D

Most people wouldn't realize that when taking an English text from one country, that it might be necessary to translate it to English when publishing in another country. Imagine the additional headaches when there are no living speakers of the language being translated and the text contains slang that was common knowledge so no explanation of meaning was recorded.

Other errors creep in that indicate that the editors of the bible weren't perfect. Two different people are blamed for being the single person killing Goliath for instance.

Another one that is rarely looked at is that Adam and Eve had two sons. One died childless, the other found a wife in the land of Nod. Also at this time there were 3 people on Earth according to the story of Genesis, but Cain was marked so that in his exile no one he encountered would kill him.

Questions here are
Who did God expect Cain to meet since the only people were Adam, Eve & Cain?
How did Cain come to find a wife in the land of Nod when there were no people other than Cain and his parents.
How did Cain's sons find wives in surrounding lands when there were no other people?

Here is a link to the portion of Genesis that tells this tale. As a matter of interest there are three translations of the section at this link written in English, English & English :P
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/g4.html

The bible version doesn't mention sisters, but this answer from Rabbi Simmons seems to say that the Talmud version of Genesis 4:1 says that Eve had 2 sets of twins with Cain and Abel each having a twin sister.
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_s...

Another answer given in a Christian biblestudy webpage says that after their third child was born, Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters who married Cain and the children of Cain. The problem with this answer is that according to Genesis Chapt. 4, the grandkids & greatgrandkids went forth and found husbands and wives prior to the birth of Seth
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/cainwife.html

Finally the question I find most entertaining :D
If creation is too complex to have evolved on it's own, then can you imagine the complexity of the a being who can plan and execute the construction of the universe that our science is examining--This question now becomes recursive. Since the Universe is so complex that it could only exist if God created it, then God is so complex that he could not have come into existence without help, so who created God?

The recursion comes in when you realize that the Creator who created the God who created the Universe cannot be an accident. So who created the creator resposible for creating the God who created the Universe. Keep tacking on the question of who created the creator whose existence is implied by the need for the creation to have a Creator :P

A universe that exists as a bubble in an unknown external universe is much easier to believe in. Simplest of all is to ignore the questions of why and who and simply study what is and the mechanical process used to form what is. Physics doesn't explain why things were created, it just explains the physical mechanism that exists. Evolution has nothing to say about who or why, the theory just explains the method used without commenting on who was responsible.


RE: Total nonsense
By Fusible on 2/7/2008 1:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Your in a sense correct, Constantine used the Christian faith to gain power in the Roman empire. And made it the official Roman religion, but the way he practiced he still acted more as a pagan than a Christian. He did more for gaining control of Rome, than his actual belief in it. Now the result is this evolved Christianity which has thousands of denominations. The Christian faith changed when the Romans oversaw it's growth and spread it using it's name to conquer other lands for the excuse that they had to spread Christianity. I myself am a Catholic and am well aware of atrocities committed by certain members of these denominations. You can also say Hitler had his own cult in his beliefs that they were the pure supreme Aryan race, they actually twisted the facts of these old writings of this Aryan race they spoke off. Which actually Himmler interpreted these writings in this form to install in the Schutstaffel training or as we all famously know as the SS or Shock Troops. I mean these guys were so brainwashed that they fought bravely and mercilessly for their cause, even though they were completely wrong. Hitler came into power and installed his ways overtime to gain control of Germany since because of the Versailles Treaty it almost completely ruined them. So the people backed him because there really was no hope at the time with the inflation of their currency was ridiculous. I can keep going but this should be more than enough. But people lets not forget Lisa McPherson.


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, of course, neglecting the intricacies of many translations from different languages and the context of the religion at the time the writings were originally made. And then taking a Sola Scriptura approach to faith, you can rationalize your comments as well, Masher.


RE: Total nonsense
By radializer on 2/8/2008 7:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"For arguments sake, could you tell me how long is a day to God?"


Interestingly enough, this is defined quite clearly for the god Brahma (the creator in Hindu mythology) as 4.32 billion solar years - and the night is equally long. So, in the conventional sense, a "day" (day+night) would be 8.64 billion solar years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_units_of_measur...

http://indiaheritage.org/rendez/article1.htm

Hindus believe in a cyclical universe concept, where the universe is "created" at the beginning of Brahma's day and is "destroyed" at the end of it.

Brahma is said to live for a 100 of his years which is about 312 trillion solar years ... but what makes this more interesting is that the title Brahma is only the name of the position and not the person himself.

So once the current Brahma's 100 years are up, he will be replaced by the next one and the process continues.

Quite trippy indeed :-)


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
>Atrocities like the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre? The Children's Crusade? Or more recently, like the Sabra and Shatila Massacres, conducted by Christian Phalangrists?

What's your point there, Masher? All atrocities should be brought to light, regardless of their origins.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 4:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but how long do you plan holding the church responsible for crimes commited *HUNDEREDS* of years ago. This is a bit like a story I heard about an attorney sueing a souther US insurance company for insuring black slaves as cattle prior to the civil war. yes it's distasteful, yes it's disgusting, but you know what. It happend a long time ago by people who are no longer alive...

Sins of the father Marsher.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/9/2008 2:13:43 AM , Rating: 2
It's no different than becoming a Neo-Nazi. Sins of the grandfather, right?


RE: Total nonsense
By beckster02 on 2/12/2008 5:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
No, it has not "only been in later years" that allegorical interpretation was used. Philo of Alexandria (20 BC - 50 AD) , a Jewish philosopher, used allegory to interpret scriptures, as did the early Christian theologian Origen (185-254 AD).

And would people stop throwing around evils committed in the name of Christianity as if self-professed Christians are the only people in the world who do bad stuff?


RE: Total nonsense
By Xenoterranos on 2/7/2008 11:23:22 AM , Rating: 3
Completely of-topic, but I think TLC did a special on the whole red sea parting thing a good many years back that determined it was plausible the parting of the red sea could have been a natural event caused by out rushing waves or an earth quake or something completely unrelated like that.

On topic: His Dianetics scam failed, he realized forming a religion would have more sway, birthed Scientology, became a gajillionair, and is now laughing in his grave at how easy it was to socially engineer so many rich people.
How many people can you list that started fake religions that didn't end in shootouts? The genius of it was that he went specifically after the rich and powerful, lending his philosophy instant credience with even richer, more powerful people, almost insuring prorogation and longevity of the scam. Scientology is like if Social Darwinism was an actual virus, genetically engineered to only kill off the rich idiots. I, for one, applaud his accomplishments
:D


RE: Total nonsense
By ricleo2 on 2/7/2008 10:51:54 AM , Rating: 2
What a disappointing statement.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 11:09:59 AM , Rating: 2
"What a disappointing statement."

What a vague response... Do you actually have a point to make?


RE: Total nonsense
By Symmetriad on 2/7/2008 11:44:00 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but the content of the beliefs really isn't what's at issue here. What's really at stake is the fact that the Church of Scientology is run purely as a vehicle for the gain of profit and power, and that its founders and administrators are willing to ruin lives - through deception, slander, libel, financial manipulation, intimidation and even murder - in order to secure their "investments" and silence dissent. Scientology is not considered a cult because of its absurd beliefs, but because of the personally and financially destructive manner in which it operates.

The belief system of Scientology doesn't need to be discredited, but the Church of Scientology needs to be held accountable for its reprehensible deeds and, at the very least, have its tax-exempt status in the United States revoked. Your post completely misses the point of this movement and I'm disappointed that one of the DT staff feels the need to reduce this matter to a petty, adolescent point about "lol all religions are bunk"


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 11:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Murder is a crime...in most jurisdictions, so is slander, libel, fraud and intimidation. If an organization is guilty of such acts, it should be prosecuted as such.

But what you're advocating here is a lynch mob mentality. Let's ignore due process and bring out the vigilantes for a little "wild west" style justice! Hyah! Hyah!

As another poster pointed out, that's a very dangerous road to start down.


RE: Total nonsense
By Symmetriad on 2/7/2008 11:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
I never said I advocated lynch mob mentality - don't put words in my mouth. But after a few close calls in the 70s, they started really trying to keep some of their actions hush-hush. So all most people are exposed to these days are guys like Tom Cruise and John Travola and the Xenu story, while the CoS continues to commit fraud and other crimes on a massive scale without much exposure.

I don't advocate violent or illegal action against the CoS. What I DO advocate is increasing public awareness - which is what the upcoming protests are about - and writing to representatives in local, federal and state government asking to revoke the CoS's tax-exempt status. Illegal action merely hurts this cause, and there are plenty of legal ways to inform people and provide a greater impetus to take legal action against the CoS.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By Symmetriad on 2/7/2008 12:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
Read some of the material on Xenu.net, research individuals such as Lisa McPherson and Paulette Cooper, and find out for yourself. There are well-documented cases of the CoS's illegal actions.

And how is writing to our representatives a "lynch-mob" action? I think the fact that the CoS acts as a profit-gaining organization without having to pay taxes is something that's worth pointing out to our representatives, and I would write such a letter to provide information and recommend action based on that information, not to bully or demand anything. I ask that you stop constantly using loaded language when addressing disagreements like this.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 12:29:59 PM , Rating: 1
> "Read some of the material on Xenu.net"

Surely you're not presenting this as an unbiased source? An anti-CoS website run by a person who admits right in his FAQ that "I do not state anywhere that I am objective"?

> "CoS acts as a profit-gaining organization without having to pay taxes "

Again, that's no different than any other religion. They all raise money from adherents, and all spend it as they wish, on goals that many outside the organization would consider to be dubious ends.


RE: Total nonsense
By Symmetriad on 2/7/2008 12:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
No, but I would recommend it as a jumping-off point to do some independent research, especially if you have access to a legal database like Lextranet. I don't have all my materials handy, but I'm sure others can give you some recommendations as well.

And I personally think you're oversimplifying the matter of how the CoS's profit-gaining nature compares to that of other religious organizations.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By Symmetriad on 2/7/2008 12:11:20 PM , Rating: 1
The primary differences being:

1) The most dire and reprehensible actions directly attributable to the organization of the Catholic Church were committed centuries ago. The Church of Scientology, however, is committing its crimes right now. There's no sense in letting lives be destroyed and lost if we can help it.

2) Other than the Catholic Church, few religions have one overarching authority that can dictate terms in such a way that it can be held directly accountable for such actions. Individuals, parishes or offshoots can be held accountable for negative deeds, but the religion as a whole cannot be indicted because there's no singular authority pulling the strings. The Church of Scientology, meanwhile, is such a singluar entity and authority, and as such can be held accountable for such negative actions.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 12:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
"1) The most dire and reprehensible actions directly attributable to the organization of the Catholic Church were committed centuries ago. The Church of Scientology, however, is committing its crimes right now. There's no sense in letting lives be destroyed and lost if we can help it."

Agreed, much of the nastiness of the catholic church was in the past... But not all of it. Are you saying that turning a blind eye to dozens of Priests molesting children and letting them continue is not destroying lives? That is current, and unforgivable.


RE: Total nonsense
By Symmetriad on 2/7/2008 12:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
It is current and unforgivable, but that action is being committed at an individual level, and as such those individuals - and the archdioscese that allow their actions to continue - must be held accountable. The Catholic Church does not have a policy saying to molest children. However, the Church of Scientology's actions seem to be committed as a matter of organizational policy and practice, and I believe the organization as a whole can be held accountable for them.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 1:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
"The Catholic Church does not have a policy saying to molest children."

Of course they dont, but they do turn a blind eye to it. They know its happening, they had high level meetings on it, and did nothing to stop it. Its just as bad.

Dont get me wrong, I am not into Scientology, nor am I defending it. I couldnt care less about those nutbags either. I am just pointing out similarities.


RE: Total nonsense
By zerocool84 on 2/7/2008 3:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
All this bickering if funny. More people have died in the name of God than for anything else. Differences between religion has killed more than racism or sexism. I went to Catholic school my whole life and have come to the conclusion that all religion is BS. But hey, people are free to believe what they wish.


RE: Total nonsense
By Symmetriad on 2/7/2008 5:03:22 PM , Rating: 3
I'm really tired of this "ALL RELIGION = EVIL" thing popping up in so many different debates and missing the point the entire time.

Religion can inspire people to do good things, and influence them to do bad things. Ultimately, it's the individual who has the idea and impetus to do these things. People can and will use any idea to justify their actions, and while that idea or ideas may have influenced them, it's ultimately that individual who made the decision to do that action.

Getting rid of religion wouldn't suddenly make the world a happy, perfect place, any more than getting rid of politics would. Ultimately, people would find some new justification for their actions, whether good or bad. Religion tends to act more as a signifier of class, economic or cultural issues in larger modes of conflict anyway.

These blanket statements of "[X] IS BAD AND ONLY DOES BAD THINGS" are both ignorant and completely useless in solving problems or furthering any kind of real discourse or analysis. The world is never that black and white, and such polarized thinking tends to cause more problems than it solves.


RE: Total nonsense
By Symmetriad on 2/7/2008 5:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
And before somebody accuses me of regarding all Scientology as an inherently bad thing, it's the actions of the Church of Scientology as an organization that I'm criticizing - not the belief system itself. I'm willing to grant that Scientology, as a belief system, may have legitimately helped some people achieve happiness and prosperity.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 5:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
Here here, let's not forget all the attrocities commited by athiests and athiest regimes... The seeds for evil are sown in all of us, IMHO relegion gives us the tools we need to be aware of it and deal with it.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/9/2008 2:32:24 AM , Rating: 2
That's a real funny joke. You say that as if atheists have a church that we go to so that we can conspire together. We don't even have a holiday (which is something that would be cool).

But let's take a look at the last 20 years of 1 country attacking another for the fun of it. Iran (Islamic), wars 0. Iraq (Islamic) 1. US (Christian) 3. China (atheist) 0. France (atheist) 0. Wow, out of all those countries, the US has gone into 3x more wars than all others put together!

God and religion are ways we deal with being evil, of dealing with doing evil acts. If it's god that tells one to kill another, or drop a bomb, then it eases the conscience. It's religion that gives people the feeling that they have the right to commit atrocity.

Think about what Abraham almost did to Isaac. Michael Jackson held his baby out over a balcony and people freaked out at him. Abraham puts his son on the altar and he's a hero? What's wrong with the picture here?


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/8/2008 6:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
He said its BS, not that its evil. There is quite a difference.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 5:15:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The most dire and reprehensible actions directly attributable to the organization of the Catholic Church were committed centuries ago.
Not so, the church is in a lot of trouble in Ireland right now for its role in protecting paedophiles, and also in interfering with investigations despite saying they would cooperate: legal documents have been requested from senior members regarding certain incidents and the clergy will not produce them.

quote:
The Church of Scientology, however, is committing its crimes right now.
Prove it.


RE: Total nonsense
By AvidDailyTechie on 2/7/2008 6:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
+6

I actually did an interesting experiment with a religious text:

One day I was reading on campus in an outside area when a delusional student came up to me and told me that Jesus had actually spoken to her and told her to come speak with me and tell me to read the Bible. At first I got the chills and thought I should probably take her advice, as one possibility is that divine intervention had just occurred.

I’m a Nuclear Engineering student, and just as I would read a text book on quantum physics or mathematics, I started to study and take notes on this Bible she gave me.

I got to about page 3 when I begun to smile, made sure that girl wasn’t following me, left the Bible on the table and went to a class. Do just as I did and find out why I stopped after just the third page…


RE: Total nonsense
By PWNettle on 2/7/2008 6:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
I have a hard time seeing Cruise as any more crazy than my fundamentalist christian mother in law who holds a birthday party for jesus every year. Both types should be locked up before they fully snap and hurt someone.

I find it interesting that man is the animal with the power to reason and so many disregard that power in favor of believing in blatant and weak fantasy.


RE: Total nonsense
By Chiisuchianu on 2/10/2008 1:08:25 AM , Rating: 2
Or how about the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs?

Almost sounds as ridiculous as the two you mentioned, eh?


RE: Total nonsense
By Tamale on 2/11/2008 1:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
that doesn't sound too unbelievable when you understand all the data out there that backs it up and where it comes from..


RE: Total nonsense
By Jellodyne on 2/11/2008 2:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, those also seem pretty rediculous.


Cults
By Fnoob on 2/7/2008 10:03:48 AM , Rating: 2
Hubbard was a decent science fiction writer, who became disillusioned with the gullibility of the average person :

"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

-He then set about proving his point. What rubes.

Mormonism isn't quite as blatant, but still in the same camp. See "All about the Mormons" at : allsp.com Season 7 - for a comprehensive guide ;) Seriously, if you visit the Tabernacle in SLC, at the end of the tour you end up in a dark little room getting the sh*t scared out of you in a truly WTF kind of way.

Since the Branch Dividian compound was burned to the ground, there aren't too many extremist cults left in the US. The best I can say about the few that remain is that they don't strap bombs to woman and children and send them into crowded markets.




RE: Cults
By James Holden on 2/7/2008 10:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't put Mormons and Branch Davidians in the same context at all. They have a different version of the Bible -- so what. ]

I have a Muslim friend. I explained communion to him once and he freaked out. "Why would you symbolically eat the body of your prophet?" he asked.

All religions have some odd quirks. Mormonism and Scientology are more like corporations than religions, but even then I would not consider any religion a problem until they infringe on the law, or when religions proclaim their knowledge of God is superior to anyone else's.

Scientology does this. It is not a healthy social dynamic to proclaim yourself superior to others.


RE: Cults
By GreenyMP on 2/7/2008 10:36:58 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that most religions have some things that don't make a lot of sense. But Mormons use the same King James version of the bible that most of the Christian world uses. They just also believe in the Book of Mormon (thus the nickname "Mormon"). They don't take you into a dark room after a tour of the sites in Salt Lake City, the missionaries just ask to come to your house and tell you more about the beliefs. And I would say they are less like a corporation than most religions because the clergy are all unpaid volunteers. You never have to pay to get married, get baptized, or bless a baby, etc.

Just glad to straighten out some of the facts.


RE: Cults
By Fnoob on 2/7/2008 11:23:39 AM , Rating: 2
"They don't take you into a dark room after a tour of the sites in Salt Lake City"

Errr.... they certainly did to us while we were there. At the Tabernacle, SLC, at tours' end we were guided to a small, dark room with a projection screen that flashed almost incomprehensible images of fear/guilt driven damnation. Then they asked for a donation and a chance to visit us at home.

Pass.

Perhaps I should have joined though. While working as a regional field service technician, overwhelmingly the first question I was asked was "are you a member?" After which I could do nothing right. This contrasts with every other state I covered, which normally asked "how long have you been working for XYZ?" There was a general animosity towards anyone who wasn't part of the church there, both in the workplace and in neighborhoods.

One thing that really shocked me though (for a religion that pushes strong family values) was how many 18yr old unmarried girls with 5 kids there were out there. WTF?


RE: Cults
By Xerio on 2/7/2008 2:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Errr.... they certainly did to us while we were there. At the Tabernacle, SLC, at tours' end we were guided to a small, dark room with a projection screen that flashed almost incomprehensible images of fear/guilt driven damnation. Then they asked for a donation and a chance to visit us at home.


The only part about your rant that is true is that they ask you if you would like to be visited in your home. "Incomprehensible images of fear/guilt driven damnation"? I think you are trying to spread FUD about a religion you know nothing about.


RE: Cults
By Fnoob on 2/7/2008 4:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are trying to spread FUD about a religion you know nothing about.

Um, no. Sorry, thanks for playing. I have been there, seen that... have you? My mom had the same experience when she visited. As did my sister and her friend. 3 separate trips with the same result. Sorry if the truth offends your delicate sensibilities.


RE: Cults
By Xerio on 2/7/2008 5:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
Delicate sensibilities? I have delicate sensibilities because I am calling out your lies?

I have been to SLC many times and NEVER have I been taken to a dark room and shown a video of "fear/guilt driven damnation". I have NEVER been asked for donations, either.


RE: Cults
By Fnoob on 2/7/2008 6:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
No, delicate sensibilities because of your clear outrage. Do you suppose it's possible that your experiences in life differ from mine? Do you really assume that since you have NEVER experienced something, that it must NEVER occur? Have you actually even been to visit the Tabernacle? I assure you that the experience I had, as well as my family and friends (on separate occasions) was quite real. Calling out my lies? Stick your head back in the sand.

While you visited 'many times', I lived there. I was deeply involved in the community and counted the Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune, and BYU among many others as clients. My opinion of Mormonism, based upon my own experience in personal and business affairs, is that it is a cult.



RE: Cults
By Xerio on 2/7/2008 6:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
You do have a point. I will tell you, though, that I was born in Utah, and lived there until high school. I graduated from BYU-Idaho, a few hours north of SLC. My mom and all my siblings live in Utah and I visit there often. I am a Mormon. I have been to Temple Square (the Tabernacle) many times and been on that same tour and never experienced what you did.

I can tell you that the LDS church does not preach hell and damnation, nor do we ask for donations from people that are not members of our faith. I know missionaries that have served on Temple Square and have never heard of visitors being taken to "a small, dark room with a projection screen that flashed almost incomprehensible images of fear/guilt driven damnation."

I can't tell you that you did not experience what you did, but I can tell you that that is not how things are typically done.

I don't know how you can know so many members of the LDS church and believe that it is a cult. I am biased, though, I will admit. I am sorry that some Mormons have treated you badly. Some of the worst and some of the best Mormons live in Utah. It is a joke for those of us that do not live there. They live in "the bubble." We are all human and have our faults. No one should base a religion on its members.

By the way, you post on Hell at the bottom is hillarious.


RE: Cults
By Fnoob on 2/7/2008 8:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
Hard as it may be to believe, I meant no offense. That's why I had to include the caveat "in general". I have a few very good Mormon friends. I would have voted for Romney over McCain in a heartbeat. Sad that we won't have that choice.

Perhaps I should conceed that while it may have begun as a cult (as could be said of many other religions), it has grown beyond that based upon the character of it's members (if not it's founder).

The shared tenant of 'do unto others', irrespective of denomination, is what will ultimately separate US from the jihad. Hopefully this will inspire unification against what can truly be called 'evil'.


RE: Cults
By Xerio on 2/7/2008 8:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I will call this one a victory. Not because I feel I won the argument, but because it ended on a good note. I agree that unification as a country is more important than an argument about religion. I don't know how we can accomplish this unity, but we can start here.w2


RE: Cults
By Xerio on 2/7/2008 8:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
w2 = my kid hitting the keyboard before I hit "Post" :)


RE: Cults
By Cygni on 2/7/2008 6:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Uhoh, weve got an angry momo!

Probably just upset about poor ol Mittens Romney dropping out of the Presidential race today.


RE: Cults
By Xerio on 2/7/2008 6:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe a little. Stinkin' McCain.


RE: Cults
By adiposity on 2/7/2008 11:58:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But Mormons use the same King James version of the bible that most of the Christian world use


Actually Joseph Smith wrote his own translation of the Bible known as the "Inspired Version." While this version is not used officially by the Utah sect (only because the copyright is owned by the Reorganized sect), their "same King James version" contains vast numbers of footnotes taken from said "Inspired Version." And trust me, Mormons rely on these footnotes to understand the "correct" meaning of the KJV on a regular basis. On a regular basis Mormon readers will read in the footnote a completely alternate translation of the text in the footnote, which often completely changes the meaning. Just two example of the footnote:

John 1:18 states "No man hath seen God at any time"
Smith, who claimed to see God in the vision that was his basis for beginning the religion, conveniently changed the verse to: "No man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son"
(see footnotes on http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/1/18b)

Smith also changed 1 John 4:12 from
"No man hath seen God at any time"
to
"No man hath seen God at any time, except them who believe"
(see http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_jn/4/12b)
(also see RLDS site: http://www.computercontrolsystems.com/Scriptures/R...

As long as we're setting things straight, lets be honest. Mormons do not believe the KJV as written. They believe it has errors and their prophet received "fixes" for those errors direct from God. Said changes always conveniently ended up being more compatible with Mormon belief.

quote:
You never have to pay to get married.


Well, that's somewhat true (if you want the Bishop might perform a "worldly" marriage in the Church) but if you want a Temple marriage (the only kind that is truly recognized as a church marriage), you have to be a full Tithe-payer. Which means you have to donate 10% of your earnings. Which means it isn't really free, am I right?

For the record, I am an ex-mormon agnostic. I spent the majority of my life as a Mormon. While I have no problem with Mormons and their beliefs, it sort of disgusts me to hear them claim to be "just like" other Christians when they used to proudly proclaim they were a "peculiar people" and condemned the world of "Christiandom" for having such different beliefs.

-Dan


RE: Cults
By halcy on 2/7/2008 12:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As long as we're setting things straight, lets be honest. Mormons do not believe the KJV as written. They believe it has errors and their prophet received "fixes" for those errors direct from God. Said changes always conveniently ended up being more compatible with Mormon belief.


Apparently you lack serious understanding of the history of the Bible. If you believe *everything* word for word in any of the *numerous* translations over the last 1700 years then you have a serious lack of judgment.


RE: Cults
By Xerio on 2/7/2008 2:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you. That is exactly what I was going to say. And for the record, I am a Mormon in good standing. I do not see my payment of tithing as a fee to be able to be baptized, married, etc. Tithing is part of many religions. It is a way that the members of a church help pay for the many expenses. I believe that God demands it of us, not some man trying to pad his pockets. Call me disillusioned if you want.

Also, I do not profess to be "'just like' other Christians." Nothing could be further from the truth. But that does not mean that I am not a Christian. I profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that is the definition of a Christian. Argue what you want about Mormons, but we are Christians.


RE: Cults
By Cygni on 2/7/2008 6:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
Oh you are Christians alright... but most Christians really wish you wouldn't associate with them because, well, its like hanging out with that really nerdy, annoying, fat guy in your group of friends.

He doesnt even have to say anything to embarrass everyone else.


RE: Cults
By Xerio on 2/7/2008 6:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty funny. Never thought of it that way.

So, that's why we get so much negative attention.

"Nerdy, annoying, fat guy." Hillarious.


RE: Cults
By adiposity on 2/8/2008 4:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing wrong with Tithing if you want to donate to your church. Have at it! But parent was "setting the record straight" by saying the ceremonies don't cost money. They do cost money, because somehow the temples, etc. have to be kept powered and so on. This money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from Tithing. Others have criticized churches for demanding money for ceremonies, but is it really any different to pay directly for a church wedding than to be required to be a "full tithe payer" in order to get a Temple wedding? The end result is the same: churches need money to run, and the members are forced to give it one way or another.

I'm just saying you shouldn't pretend Mormonism is somehow elevated above other religions because ceremonies are "free" as in beer, when in reality Mormons are expected to donate far more than most churchgoers.

-Dan


RE: Cults
By adiposity on 2/8/2008 3:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
No, I've studied it extensively. I consider all translations imperfect, not just the KJV. However, the parent claimed Mormons use the "same" KJV as most other Christians. They don't. They use a special, footnoted version which frequently changes the wording and meaning of the verses.

Apparently you missed the part that I'm agnostic. I don't believe hardly anything in the Bible. But let's not pretend Mormons believe the same Bible as other Christian sects. They have their own translation which is unique to their sect. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Every religion is free to have what ever beliefs it likes.

-Dan

-Dan


RE: Cults
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:39:41 AM , Rating: 4
> "I explained communion to him once and he freaked out. "Why would you symbolically eat the body of your prophet?"

Err, according to Catholic belief, you're not "symbolically" eating the body of Christ. Transubstantiation is considered a miracle, by which the bread and wine are transmuted into the body and blood of the Savior.

In other words, you're eating the real thing-- according to the ritual, that is.


RE: Cults
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:55:46 AM , Rating: 2
I was wondering why that wine was so unpalatable and that strange salty aftertaste. That explains everything!


RE: Cults
By stonemetal on 2/7/2008 10:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
Joe smith claims to have: found gold tablets, taken them home, put them in a room, gone in the next room, put his head in a hat with a magic rock(his wife took dictation) and translated said gold tablets, when he was done the tablets magically vanished. So yeah BDs and Mormons both have their nuttier moments. In fact most religions have their nuttier moments, so mostly I rate them on how their members treat others. In which case the "church" of Scientology scores pretty lowly.


RE: Cults
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/7/2008 11:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
Also, according to Mormon teachings, in the war between God and Lucifer, some angels refused to fight. When God won, he cast Lucifer down into hell. The pacificistic angels were punished afterwards by God as well.

How did he punish them? He turned his scorn upon these angels and turned their skin "dark" and he cast them down to Earth.

Does something about this Mormon story strike you as a bit off?? Naw that's just your imagination.


RE: Cults
By Fnoob on 2/7/2008 11:26:23 AM , Rating: 2
They give the black mormon converts a slightly different copy of the Book of Mormon?


RE: Cults
By halcy on 2/7/2008 11:36:36 AM , Rating: 2
Uh I hate to tell you but you are grossly misinformed. If you want to see the wikipedia treatise on it it is available here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cai...

But the fact is as is stated there, Mormons believe in continuing revelation given by God. Thirty years ago revelation was given that all the blessings of the church were to go to all nations and people of the earth, much as when the revelation came to Paul in the New Testament that it was time to take the church to the Gentiles. And so now it is.


RE: Cults
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/7/2008 12:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe now the church is admitting its mistake, but until 1978 it considered people of dark skin, inferior and denied them priesthood. Throughout the church's history its leaders have made unnecessary bigoted remarks, refering to both the Curse/mark of Cain and the Curse of Ham, which you neglected and is also a very widespread justification for racism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

Joseph Smith Jr. son of the Church's founder stated,
"A]ny man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ...."

Brigham Young said,
"What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see.... I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain"

Oh but wait, were these just people from a misinformed era??

What about ... in 1954 church leader of the LDS David O. McKay said,
"‘We believe’ that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro."

The Church of LDS today allows black priests, but it still has refused to release a repudiation of the doctrine, or an admission that it was a mistake, as noted on the wikipedia link you provide.

Also there is a number of racist sections in the book of mormon.

From Wikipedia:
Those critics also illustrate church racism by quoting sections of the Book of Mormon which describe dark skin as a sign of a curse and a mark from God to distinguish a more righteous group of people from a less righteous group, and by citing passages describing white skin as "delightsome" while dark skin is portrayed as un-enticing (2 Nephi 30:6). Joseph F. Smith, president of the church, published his views that people with dark skin were less faithful in the pre-existence, and as such, did not warrant the blessings of the priesthood.[125][126] Many other church leaders, historical and modern have spoken in favor of segregation and restrictions of the priesthood for men of African descent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mormonis...

Honestly I think that you are grossly misinformed. You might be in for some surprises, I think.


RE: Cults
By halcy on 2/7/2008 1:16:12 PM , Rating: 1
The 'misinformed era' continued until revelation was given to the Prophet of the LDS church in 1978.

But despite your disdain for so called 'biggoted' remarks and 'justifaction for racism', the church had missionaries in countries such as Samoa as early as 1843 just 13 years after officially establishing the church, and Africa in 1853 a scant 10 years later. The church has always believed its message and membership should cover the earth, the only question was ever on whom should hold the specific Priesthood rights, and that has been clarified by God 30 years ago to include all worthy men regardless of race or color.


RE: Cults
By Entropy42 on 2/7/2008 4:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 'misinformed era' continued until revelation was given to the Prophet of the LDS church in 1978.

With all the stuff in this thread, this is the first one that actually made me laugh out loud. You don't find it even the *least* bit suspicious that a revelation was given to the Prophet regarding skin color at a time when it was becoming socially unacceptable to hold those beliefs?


RE: Cults
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 11:18:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
this is the first one that actually made me laugh out loud. You don't find it even the *least* bit suspicious that a revelation was given to the Prophet regarding skin color at a time when it was becoming socially unacceptable to hold those beliefs?
Interestingly enough, this negative view of blacks was also widespread at various points in the early history of the Christian Church, and even considered to be specifically noted in the Bible...see the "Curse of Ham" for details.


RE: Cults
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 11:31:33 AM , Rating: 2
> "Hubbard was a decent science fiction writer, who ..."

Come now. I can swallow tales of us being brought to earth by alien spacecraft, but you're really asking for a leap of faith with this!


RE: Cults
By Fnoob on 2/7/2008 11:38:18 AM , Rating: 2
Faith = Suspension of disbelief ?


RE: Cults
By Fnoob on 2/8/2008 10:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
True, 'decent' is a stretch. But how he managed to get people to buy into this drek is more confusing than Alan Greenspan skiing backwards down a black hole filled with laffer curves.


2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By uhgotnegum on 2/7/2008 9:57:00 AM , Rating: 3
2 comments:

1.) I watched the "Anonymous" video, and I felt like I was being bombarded with a whole bunch of cliche-ish statements. They (it?) kept saying all this stuff about how Scientology does a bunch of evil stuff, and seemingly expects me to believe it because they said so (maybe I'm supposed to be held in suspense until the 5th of November...er...the 10th of February). I really don't like Scientology's belief system and the way some of its members (Ethan Hunt) seem to push it onto others, but I'm not about to just accept "Anonymous" based on a Max Headroom monologue and screen saver video.

2.) I doubt that society would really mind Scientology, or more appropriately care about it, if it weren't for our seemingly endless need to know what's going on in the lives of our movie, music, tv stars. I bet Tommy Cruise's influence would be nothing if it weren't for the fact that people religiously (intentionally used that word) follow his every move, interview, and wacked out acts. While I don't agree with Scientology, I personally couldn't care less about people practicing it...just don't bother me/infest my life with it.

Discussion?




RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By System48 on 2/7/2008 10:03:07 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout

Don't just believe what the video says look it up for yourself, this "church" shouldn't have been allowed to continue.


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:13:18 AM , Rating: 5
> "this "church" shouldn't have been allowed to continue."

Damn right! Freedom of religion is an outmoded concept anyway. Burn a few of these scientologists at the stake, and that'll straighten the rest of them out.


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By James Holden on 2/7/2008 10:19:04 AM , Rating: 3
Freedom of religion is healthy and necessary. People like you and I can justify our existences without the need of a church, but that doesn't mean everyone in the world can.

However, it is abundantly clear to me that Scientology is not a religion. It's a well run corporation designed for self preservation at the expense of a very powerful and very easily influenced demographic (Hollywood).


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 10:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
"it is abundantly clear to me that Scientology is not a religion. It's a well run corporation designed for self preservation at the expense of a very powerful and very easily influenced demographic"

How is that different from the catholic church? Or many other christian churches for that matter?

That is a serious question.... How?


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By Vinnybcfc on 2/7/2008 11:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
They dont encourage people to bankrupt themselves quite simply


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 11:58:32 AM , Rating: 2
" They dont encourage people to bankrupt themselves quite simply"

Your statement is partially true, if referring to the current state of the church. They are filthy rich now. In the past, over the centuries they took much more and ruined many lives. Today they dont do that.


By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 5:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
You are still technically supposed to give 10% of your earnings to the church.


By notfeelingit on 2/11/2008 3:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
Mark 12:41-44

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."


Sounds like encouragement to me.


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
> " is not a religion. It's a well run corporation designed for self preservation..."

Ah, we're discussing Oral Roberts University now?
quote:
Roberts is accused of illegal involvement in a local political campaign and lavish spending at donors' expense, including numerous home remodeling projects, use of the university jet for his daughter's senior trip to the Bahamas, and a red Mercedes convertible and a Lexus SUV for his wife...


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By 1078feba on 2/7/2008 3:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
Asher, been looking for somewhere in this thread that I could reply directly to you, maxes my chances you will see this.

Logically and historically, nothing about your general argument can be refuted (then Chritianity vs. now Scientology). I grant you that.

Yet everyone continues to try.

And I think I know why. It's what everyone has been tap dancing around and means to say, but never quite seem to nail.

The reason why Scientology needs to be exposed for what it is and strangled is b/c, of all the more serious threats to the American Big 3 (life, libbo, etc), this tumor is generally perceived as most likely to succeed. And due to it's nature, that same nature that you have spent post after post after post driving home as an almost exact incarnation of early Christianity, if successful, logically also has the best chance at destroying our Big 3, either through attrition or more immediate and violent means.

More succintly, threats to our way of life:
1. Radical Islam - pretty bad, but we are fighting them on their turf right now, so not an immediate threat, per se. Normal Islam, hey, we're pretty cool.
2. Buddhism/Hinduism/Sikh(ism)/yada-yada - dude, they're pacifist.
3. Judaism - um, allies, in the general sense.
4. Taoism - they still around?
5. Shintoism - outlawed after the end of WWII.
6. Communism - D.E.A.D.
7. Socialism - creeping, and a threat, but at least civilized people can talk about this.
6. Smattering of others - too small to worry about
7. Scientology - secretive, pernicious. perhaps most alarmingly, home grown. reports of family members who have joined and no one hears from them for 3-5 years, then one day they show up on our doorstep penniless and suffering from PTSD. reports of the church not letting members in need of serious medical attention seek out such services outside of the church, and actually letting said members die. Whenever any sort of info about the church does reach the public domain, whether generally perceived as good or bad, the church squashes it, most riky-tik. strange behavior.

I spent 3 years living in Clearwater, FL, and worked right down the street from their World HQ. All times of the day and night, you'd see them all over that 4-5 blocks, like ants on a mound, looking like Air Force enlisted in their little powder blue blouses and navy blue pants. I can recall trying to talk to a few of them a few times, but I wouldn't even get a response to a friendly "hello", or "Hi, my name's XXX, what's yours?" And the comment about letting a member die happened while I was living there. Bubba the Love Sponge had a field day with it.

Now, all this is not to say that I think that people can't believe what they want to believe. Xenu and me, hey, we can live and let live.

I guess the issue is, just b/c the histories of the 3-4 major religions are littered with death and destruction is no reason to sit back and let it happen again right here in our own back yard through some misplaced sense of civic duty.

Last time I checked, here in the US anyway, their right to believe what they want stops when people die, be it them or us.


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 4:06:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
More succintly, threats to our way of life:
1. Radical Islam - pretty bad, but we are fighting them on their turf right now, so not an immediate threat, per se. Normal Islam, hey, we're pretty cool.
That must be some good kool-aid you're drinking. Remind me again why occupying Iraq makes life harder on sleeper cells here?
quote:
2. Buddhism/Hinduism/Sikh(ism)/yada-yada - dude, they're pacifist.
Not that any of their practitioners have nuclear weapons or anything.
quote:
3. Judaism - um, allies, in the general sense.
Yeah, we all remember the treaty George Washington signed with Moses.
quote:
4. Taoism - they still around?
In relation to the others, what would make them less likely to be? Hell, apparently there are Zoroasterans around.
quote:
5. Shintoism - outlawed after the end of WWII.
Really, now?
quote:
6. Communism - D.E.A.D.
I'll inform Zombie Castro.
quote:
7. Socialism - creeping, and a threat, but at least civilized people can talk about this.
Huh?
quote:
6. Smattering of others - too small to worry about
Small ones worry me more.
quote:
7. Scientology - secretive, pernicious. perhaps most alarmingly, home grown. reports of family members who have joined and no one hears from them for 3-5 years, then one day they show up on our doorstep penniless and suffering from PTSD. reports of the church not letting members in need of serious medical attention seek out such services outside of the church, and actually letting said members die. Whenever any sort of info about the church does reach the public domain, whether generally perceived as good or bad, the church squashes it, most riky-tik. strange behavior.
Certainly sucks for those people, but I hardly see how that threatens our way of life. Do you really see it as more likely that Tom Cruise will be our 45th president than some Christian Taliban type?


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By 1078feba on 2/8/2008 3:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That must be some good kool-aid you're drinking. Remind me again why occupying Iraq makes life harder on sleeper cells here?

Snarkiness aside, it should be plainly obvious. But if the fact that no terrorist acts have happened in the US since 9/11 isn't enough evidence in and of itself for you, let me try to explain.

Note the geographical position that Iraq occupies on the map. Within a stone's throw from all the major terrorist players, thus making the gathering of HUMINT, and to a lesser extent SIGINT, a galactically more palatable proposition. This alone makes the mission of operating a cell anywhere in the world more difficult. We've strangled their COMM and their money, and the longer we stay & the more ingrained our presence becomes to the locals, the easier to gather said intel.

quote:
Not that any of their practitioners have nuclear weapons or anything.

And this changes the fact that those religions are fundamentally pacifist how? Are we currently even diplomatically peeved at any nation-states who have a good percentage of their populations as adherents? When was the last time a Buddhist/Hindi/Sikh nation state even declared war? On anyone? On anything? I'm thinking possibly India during WWII, but prior to that...?

quote:
Yeah, we all remember the treaty George Washington signed with Moses.

OK, more snark. Unless you perhaps think all the Jews in America are actually part of a vast conspiracy to act as saboteurs once Israel invades?

quote:
In relation to the others, what would make them less likely to be? Hell, apparently there are Zoroasterans around.

Aaahhh, Pitt? My point is that they pose no credible threat to us, as in, not only are they not a threat, but as a "religion", are there any left? And BTW, it's Zoroastrian...ism.

quote:
Really, now?

Yes, it was outlawed by the Allied Occupational Forces post WWII. But it was hardly necessary. Being as Shinto is very largely intertwined with Samurai, and the Japanese felt very strongly that Shinto had bred hubris, which led to them letting their reach exceed their grasp, and a loss in WWII. It was dethroned as the national religion, and has morphed considerably since. Clear enough? Want more?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shintoism#Post-war
And again, not a credible threat.

quote:
I'll inform Zombie Castro.

You don't have to, he already knows it. Again though, the point is that Communism is no longer a credible threat. I sincerely hope that you are not harboring some secret suspicion that Cuba is going to invade.

quote:
Huh?

A well observed phenomenon. Historically speaking, Socialism tends to creep into gov'ts. Take Social Security here in our own nation. It has suffered a text book case of mission creep. Notwithstanding the fact that both Communism and Socialism aren't religions, though adherents display a definitive religious fervor about them, I included them for the sake of completeness, and stated that at least civilized persons can discuss the merits or lack thereof of those philosophies.

quote:
Small ones worry me more.

Goodonya. I have no problem with that. Interesting to note though, that Scientology could definitely be categorized as a "smaller one". At least right now....

quote:
Certainly sucks for those people, but I hardly see how that threatens our way of life. Do you really see it as more likely that Tom Cruise will be our 45th president than some Christian Taliban type?

A "Christian Taliban type". Wow. What is that, exactly? Christian, or Muslim? They are extremely mutually exclusive. And yeah, it sucks for those people, right up until "those people" is one of your loved ones. Like a little sister who, while very sweet and caring, was never really a strong person.

I've seen you post a goodly amount around here Pitt, and usually you're better at it than this attempt to rebut. Pls put aside your emotions and use your head. My post was pretty self evident.


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 4:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "this changes the fact that those religions are fundamentally pacifist how? ...When was the last time a Buddhist/Hindi/Sikh nation state even declared war?"

Err did you forget about the Tamil Tigers, one of the most violent terrorist groups in history, currently engaged in a war over control of Sri Lanka? Or the Bangladesh Liberation war in the 1970s? Or the division of the Hindi subcontinent after WW2, the event that spawned the single largest refugee mass migration in all of human history?

Trying to claim that these regions are somehow "more pacificist" because of their religion is on very, very shaky ground indeed.


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By 1078feba on 2/8/2008 5:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
I am speaking strictly from a doctrinal point of view of religion, which is where this discussion centers.

My point in that particular bullet is that not only do they not practice religious intolerance, but they have rarely, in the modern era, say mid 20th century (post WWII)up to the present, even gotten into conflicts over politics, much less religion. Definitely not like we in the West, be that good or bad, not making a value judgement there.

The Buddhist/Hindi religion(s) are vastly more pacifistic, doctrinally speaking, than all the others. This is just fact. I don't know how to put it anymore plainly. And what's more, you already know this.

I will grant you that perhaps I didn't do as good a job as I thought I had stating it clearly, and if so, apologies.

But since you've brought up examples, allow me a bit of latitude:
1. Tamils - Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't they a political organization? And do they not share the same religion as the rest of Sri Lanka?
2. Bangladesh - Ah. An Indian proxy fights Islam. You've read the Koran. Religious intolerance abounds. There is a difference between fighting to stem the tide of religious intolerance, and religious intolerance itself.
3. Hindi division - See above concerning Islam.

An interesting diversion, but it's window dressing to my original point.

Thanks for the repsonse Ash, I value your point of view.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 6:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
> "I am speaking strictly from a doctrinal point of view of religion"

No you weren't. You were insinuating that no Buddhist/Hindu/Sikh could possibly be a threat, because the religions espouse pacifism. As I demonstrated, this viewpoint is clearly false. Sikh and Hindu adherents are members of some of the most bloody, violent conflicts on Earth.

Of the three Buddhism is the only religion which could truly be called pacifistic...and yet I remind you that it was the national religion of Japan when it attacked Pearl Harbor and participated in atrocities like the Rape of Nanking.


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By Fritzr on 2/12/2008 5:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
Taliban translates as "Religious Student"

From Answer.com is this definition:
Talib is an Arabic word meaning "one who is seeking" but the word has evolved to mean "someone who is seeking religious knowledge."

That definition does not specify which faith is studied. The Afghan Taliban are Fundamentalist Moslem. There are Fundamentalist Christians in the US who have almost identical goals. The primary difference being which religion they will allow you to practice. In Kansas for instance the Christians wish to outlaw science whereever there is a conflict between science and the preacher's version of biblical teachings.

Jewish Taliban are fairly common also. They aren't as aggressive as their Christian & Moslem counterparts, but they are excused from many duties to allow more time for study.

Radical (insert religion) extremists are extremely nasty to deal with. This is simply because they are trying to convert unbelievers to the true faith and their handlers have them convinced that in this great cause anything is justifed if done in the name of The Cause. Doesn't even have to be a religion--GW & "The War On Terror" for one example

Since I visited a Taoist Temple in Cebu City that was a functioning religious center, I can only assume that Tao as a religion still exists.

It might be illegal for Shinto priests to run the country, but Shinto as a living religion is practiced openly and is very much a dominant faith in Japan. Google Shinto for links to services & festivals :)

As for the Iraq occupation stopping terrorism, Al-Quaeda simply moved GHQ to an undisclosed location :P Security in US has caught several attempts since 9/11. Europe & Pakistan haven't been quite as lucky. Madrid's train, London's underground, multiple attacks in Pakistan where Al-Quaeda is now said to control the "Tribal Regions", Bali nightclubs. In addition to the successful attacks that Al-Quaeda and it's affiliates claim, there have been many attacks that were stopped by security forces around the world. Many of the thwarted attempts have likely never been publicly admitted since for Al-Quaeda it would look bad and for the security forces it could give away tactics.


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 4:10:44 PM , Rating: 1
> "you have spent post after post after post driving home as an almost exact incarnation of early Christianity, if successful, logically also has the best chance at destroying our Big 3, either through attrition or more immediate and violent means."

True enough.

> "I guess the issue is, just b/c the histories of the 3-4 major religions are littered with death and destruction is no reason to sit back and let it happen again right "

Again, true. And what does history teach us the best way to defeat a religion is? By ignoring it.

Look at some of the proposals being bandied around here, many of which seem tailor-designed to make martyrs out of Scientologists, and also setup a slippery slope by which our valuation of the freedom of religion is destroyed.

Right now, Scientology is a silly, minor religion. Treat it as a powerful, evil force...and you're likely to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're certainly just reinforce its own self-image in the minds of its believers.

Did Nero's persecution of Christians erase the religion...or just reinforce it? Did Diocletian's anti-Christian edicts halt the spread of the religion?

Ignore Scientology...laugh at it if you wish. Preserve our belief in freedom of religion. But fighting directly against Scientology is most certainly the worst possible course of action.


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By 1078feba on 2/8/2008 3:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, true. And what does history teach us the best way to defeat a religion is? By ignoring it.


Ash, I really have to take issue with this assumption. When, in the history of humankind, has ignoring any evil/threat made it go away?

You are proposing treating it like a tempermental 3 year old.

Look, I agree with you fundamentally. All your arguments about a slippery slope, freedom of religion, effective martyrdom, etc. I said it in my original response to you, however, let me reiterate.

As long as this "religion" is not bilking people out of their homes and life savings, or, you know, their lives, it's all good. Believe what you want. Xenu, Xena, whatevers. But there are credible reports, by very credible people, saying something else entirely. And "ignoring" it, at best, is a historically unsound course of action.

Sooner or later, Scientology as a whole is going to have to come clean, have a "Come to Jesus" sort of conversation with the rest of the western world. It's going to be ridiculously interesting & I will reserve my own personal judgement until then.

But in the interim, ah'm a keepin' mah hand on mah gun...


By 1078feba on 2/8/2008 4:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Scientology...is going to have to...have a "Come to Jesus" sort of conversation with the rest of the western world.


I just realized that I wrote that. that's quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever siad or written.

How do I vote myself up?


By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 4:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "When, in the history of humankind, has ignoring any evil/threat made it go away"

In the case of religion-- many, many times. History is littered with literally tens of thousands of cuts and minor religions, which lost sway when their members

Learn your history. Creating a martyr figure is one of the strongest methods for increasing the power of a religious movement. In anything from Zoroastrianism to ancient Christianity to the Dalai Lama today-- persecution strengthens a religion, it doesn't hurt it.


By System48 on 2/7/2008 10:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
I put "church" in quotes for a reason. It's not run at all like a church or even a nonprofit org yet they're still getting by tax free. You should read some of their OT training books, it's hilarious. It's almost as if people forgot that LRH was a science fiction writer.


By FITCamaro on 2/7/2008 10:58:06 AM , Rating: 1
Since when is a group, formed by a science fiction writer based on his own book and who has even been quoted saying that the best way to make money is to start a religion, a religion?

Scientology is nothing but a cult who's goal is to make money. The idea of a higher power has been around since the dawn of mankind. The idea of an alien bringing billions of people to Earth and blowing them up, which makes us unhappy, is the story of a very good science fiction writer.

It almost makes me sad that L. Ron Hubbard got this thing started as his book Battlefield Earth was incredibly good (not to be confused with the shitty ass movie that pretty much just got the characters names right and only covered 1/3 of the book).


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By marvdmartian on 2/7/2008 4:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting point you make there.....

While I'm the first to agree that freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our American society, you must also realize that we are the exception in this world, not the rule. Many places and cultures are the exact opposite, and many people have been killed or downtrodden throughout the years for their beliefs. But let's get beyond that.

In so far as freedom of religion is an important, even necessary, part of American culture, and a building block of our society, should it always be unlimited? Or, as responsible citizens of not only our nation, but the world, aren't we responsible to make certain that there be limitations to what any religion claim as it's "right"?? For instance, say you're a person who hates people that are left handed (for whatever reason). You decide to start up your own "religion", which basically says that God only loves right handed people, and that if you're left handed, you're an abomination before God, and must be either converted or killed!!
While this is an extreme example, it serves my purpose to show that just because a group of people (or a business entity) calls themselves a religious group, if they fall so far outside the norm of society that they endanger that society by their very existance, then they are a danger to that society, and must be dealt with accordingly.

A good example of this would be the rise of the Nazi's in Germany in the 30's. While not recognized as a religion, it certain could fall into the definition of a cult. A fringe group, led by a megamaniacal leader, which would do whatever he asked of them. Due to the strength of this cult leader's personality, and the "whatever" attitude of the German populace, the next thing you knew, the Nazi's were in charge, they were putting the blames of not only their economy but also their society on the heads of an innocent group of people, and they were at war with the world! And yet, most people in Germany never became part of the Nazi party, and if you asked most of them after the war why they went along with the Nazi's, they couldn't give you a reason why. There were, in fact, Germans that lived in close proximity to the death camps, that refused to believe that they even existed!!

I personally don't know if Scientology is a cult or a religion, and I really don't care. In my beliefs, they're as lost as some other wanna-be religions out there, but there's plenty of folks around that would probably say the same thing about the way I believe. What I do know is this:

If scientology, or any other religion or cult, threatens the very society we live in, we have not only the permission, but the right, to place controls on them, or even eliminate them, to protect our society. Otherwise, we fall into chaos, and might as well extinct ourselves from this world.


By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 4:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I'm the first to agree that freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our American society...
quote:
If scientology, or any other religion or cult, threatens the very society we live in, we have not only the permission, but the right, to place controls on them, or even eliminate them, to protect our society.
No comment, just wanted to highlight that impressive contradiction.

Would you like to give us your views on free speech, as well?


By uhgotnegum on 2/7/2008 10:26:46 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe I should clarify a little...

I really wasn't commenting on the truthiness (used with permission of Steven Colbert) of "Anonymous'" statements, but I was commenting on the general lack of support to those statements. Sure, the vid mentions stuff like "Operation Snow White" and others, but if the goal is to expose me to the evils of Scientology, actually report it to me.

I did skim those wiki links, and each sounds like it's a pretty rotten, illegal, deceptive, etc. thing to, but just like the "Anonymous" video, I'm not going to just accept something because it's written on Wikipedia, either. Some, not all, of those sources are editorial papers, books that seemingly are written to "expose" Hubbard, and cites to other wiki articles. These then seem to be used to prove that these operations were done.

I don't claim to know whether Scientology is an evil organization, and all my information comes from sources like these, the news (which doesn't necessary represent the truth, though it may try), and discussion forums like this. All I was trying to point out is that this Youtube video doesn't strike me as being any more reliable, honest, factual, or correct than the organization it's attempting to expose.

p.s., I reply to you because you provided the links, not because I feel I need to oppose your stance on this...


RE: 2 cents b/c I think I'm special
By Chris Peredun on 2/7/2008 10:07:44 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
They (it?) kept saying all this stuff about how Scientology does a bunch of evil stuff, and seemingly expects me to believe it because they said so ... I'm not about to just accept "Anonymous" based on a Max Headroom monologue and screen saver video.


No, Anonymous expects you to do some research, look into the events and names they mention, and draw your own conclusions based upon the information available.


By uhgotnegum on 2/7/2008 10:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that it's always important to research something and not to just blindly follow what's told to me, but "Anonymous" said that it wants to "expose me to" all of those evil things, but they didn't; they named operations and used words like "gulag" and provided no exposure other than that.

Sure, naming them may be considered "exposing," but you'd think that if "Anonymous" was really interested in educating me on the dark side of Scientology, it would have made more of effort to do so...that's all.

I admit that I'm splitting hairs on some of this stuff, but I enjoy doing it...I just play devil's advocate with everything.


By James Holden on 2/7/2008 10:08:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with you on the video. It was very "delusions of grandeur" to me. You can tell whoever made it has a huge ego trip.

I don't get the anonymous thing either. When I protest something, I put my name all over it. I want to attract attention, not deflect it.

You want to take down Scientology? Put someone's name to it. Get a movie star or someone to do it. Make it so theres so much media attention that Scientology can't make it go away.

Pulling down their websites just to attract attention will have a negative effect.


No, this was not "Hackers."
By Chris Peredun on 2/6/2008 1:55:05 PM , Rating: 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrkchXCzY70

Transcript:
quote:
It has come to the attention of Anonymous that there are a number of you out there who do not clearly understand what we are or why we have undertaken our present course of action. Contrary to the assumptions of the media, Anonymous is not "a group of super hackers".

Anonymous is a collective of individuals united by an awareness that someone must do the right thing, that someone must bring light to the darkness, that someone must open the eyes of a public that has slumbered for far too long. Among our numbers you will find individuals from all walks of life - lawyers, parents, IT professionals, members of law enforcement, college students, veterinary technicians and more.

Anonymous is everyone and everywhere. We have no leaders, no single entity directing us - only the collective outrage of individuals, guiding our hand in the current efforts to bring awareness.We want you to be aware of the very real dangers of Scientology.

We want you to know about the gross human rights violations committed by this cult. We want you to know about Lisa McPhearson. We want you to know about former members of Scientology's private navy, SeaOrg, who were forced to have abortions so that they could continue in service to the church. We want you to know about Scientology's use of child labor and their gulags. We want you to know about Operation Freakout and Paulette Cooper. We want you to know about Operation Snow White and Scientology's efforts to infiltrate the government of the United States of America.

We want you to know about all of these things that have been swept under the rug for far too long. The information is out there. It is yours for the taking. Arm yourself with knowledge.

Be very wary of the 10th of February.

Anonymous invites you to join us in an act of solidarity. Anonymous invites you to take up the banner of free speech, of human rights, of family and freedom. Join us in protest outside of Scientology centers world wide.

We are Anonymous.

We are Legion.

We do not forgive.

We do not forget.

We will be heard.

Expect us.




RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By James Holden on 2/7/2008 9:07:33 AM , Rating: 2
The one thing I don't like about that video is that it sounds a little cultish itself. Does anyone even know what "I am legion" means?

Interesting story though -- and I'm glad it's being told on DT


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By TheDiceman on 2/7/2008 9:18:16 AM , Rating: 3
"We are Legion", I beleive, is a Bilical reference to a person(s?) who were suppose under the posession of a host of demons that had created one sentient mind.


By AmbroseAthan on 2/7/2008 9:26:15 AM , Rating: 2
Was just about to write that. Surprisingly, Wikipedia has a good write-up on it and matches what I remember from my youth days in CDC (Catholic classes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_%28demon%29


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By SanLC504 on 2/7/2008 9:23:25 AM , Rating: 5
"I am legion" will be Will Smith's new movie where only he will still be the last man on Earth, but Xenu will drop off a new race.

Do I smell an Oscar???


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By James Holden on 2/7/2008 10:21:16 AM , Rating: 2
Ever seen Battlefield Earth?


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By Mitch101 on 2/7/2008 10:32:35 AM , Rating: 2
Never speak of that movie again. If there is anything to remove from the archives of the movie industry as it never happened it is that movie.


By Xenoterranos on 2/7/2008 11:27:53 AM , Rating: 2
Leverage! Leverage! Leverage! Leverage!Leverage! Leverage! Leverage! Leverage!Leverage! Leverage! Leverage! Leverage!Leverage! Leverage! Leverage! Leverage!Leverage! Leverage! Leverage! Leverage!Leverage! Leverage! Leverage! Leverage!Leverage! Leverage! Leverage! Leverage!

and also, John Travolta, 7' tall.


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By Suomynona on 2/7/2008 10:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like those pesky kids over at Ebaum's World ;)


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By Rob Pintwala on 2/7/2008 10:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, Anonymous doesn't operate out of Ebaumsworld.


By Hoser McMoose on 2/7/2008 9:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, Anonymous doesn't operate out of Ebaumsworld.

Nope, Suomynona was right, definitely e/b/aums!

Psst.. rules 1 and 2 still apply :)


By VahnTitrio on 2/7/2008 11:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
Anonymous comes from the invasion board of 4chan.org (or 12chan or however many of those things there are). I highly recommend not going there, your IQ will fall 10-20 points.


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By TomZ on 2/7/2008 9:12:05 AM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately, picketing their churches only brings more publicity, and many times even "bad" PR is still "good" because it gives the Church a platform and amplifier for their message. In addition, an "attack" like this on the Church may strengthen the resolve of its members (basic human psychology). So it is quite possible their plan backfires entirely.

I think it's better to just ignore these people and let them live their lives if you disagree with them. If you think Scientology is a load of crap, then don't join them. It's really as simple as that.


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By Kaldskryke on 2/7/2008 9:41:58 AM , Rating: 3
Initially, I was content to ignore Scientology, but a bit of curiosity led me to read about dissenting members that they have so obviously killed off. Add to this the irrational hatred of psychiatry: it seems scientologists really believe that psychiatrists caused the holocaust. I really wanted to protest somehow, and being able to collaborate with others in a very anonymous way is quite appealing. You can have your say but without any negative consequences.

But the problem is not just Scientology - there are many other dangerous organizations that have deluded more people, caused more murders. Religious or otherwise. I ask you that instead of going out Sunday with anti-Scientology materials that you instead do whatever you can to promote rational thought.

Too many people are getting suckered into grandiose lies and fanciful tales designed to take advantage of people for wealth or power. We are not sheep, it's about time we started acting like it.

Learn about rational logic. Learn about the scientific process. Learn about history and the techniques leaders have used to control the masses. Examine your own beliefs first!

I'm not saying to reject religion or to reject your government. All I ask is that more people start thinking and asking questions instead of just taking everything at face value.


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By tedrodai on 2/7/2008 10:33:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Too many people are getting suckered into grandiose lies and fanciful tales designed to take advantage of people for wealth or power. We are not sheep, it's about time we started acting like it.


Face it: those people are sheep, and there are plenty more human 'sheep' out there. It's never a bad thing to attempt to educate others, but good luck with that.


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 10:39:07 AM , Rating: 2
Try to remember that religion was invented by man. Jesus didn't come here and set up a religion. He came to bring all of Gods people together. Do research on that part of history. And if you really think people should use logic, research both sides of evolution. Not the religious rebuttals, but the scientific ones. There are actually people out there trying to find the links and prove it. They haven't yet. It is fact. Hence the 'theory' of evolution. So by all means use logic. "No faith in evolution for you!" -The evolution nazi


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By Noubourne on 2/7/2008 1:16:05 PM , Rating: 3
As to doing research on that part of history, it would be nice if your church would release the other documents they hold which describe different points of view about that period of history. Obviously nothing can be done about the ones they have already destroyed...

Gravity is also "just" a theory. Lucky for everyone on earth that we all "have faith" and "believe" in it, lest we all start floating off into space!!!


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By GreenyMP on 2/7/2008 10:46:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
but a bit of curiosity led me to read about dissenting members that they have so obviously killed off


C'mon! Who's the freak now. I really doubt that they are killing people off.


By i3arracuda on 2/7/2008 9:26:08 AM , Rating: 5
quote:

We are Anonymous.

We are Legion.

We do not forgive.

We do not forget.

We will be heard.

Expect us.


...and we will, we will

ROCK YOU!


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By VahnTitrio on 2/7/2008 10:12:18 AM , Rating: 2
Anonymous is about 0.1% people with hacking skills and 99.9% people who follow along and protect the hackers via numbers. As part of this "war" they were able to obtain the personal information (including social security numbers) of a couple lawyers for scientology. I'm sure that sort of information is not freely available.

I'm at work now so I can't browse youtube but someone can find the "They call themselves Anonymous, they're hackers on steroids..." news report done by a fox news affiliate. Hackers on steroids still cracks me up every time.


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By goatbear on 2/7/2008 10:20:58 AM , Rating: 4
Back in 1991 Time Magazine had a very informative article on Scientology...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,9...

My favorite line in it is:
"In my opinion the church has one of the most effective intelligence operations in the U.S., rivaling even that of the FBI," says Ted Gunderson, a former head of the FBI's Los Angeles office.


By Hoser McMoose on 2/7/2008 9:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
Anonymous is about 0.1% hackers, 99.9% for the lulz.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go blow up more yellow vans! Sure hope I don't run into any dogs along the way!


RE: No, this was not "Hackers."
By Pezman37 on 2/7/2008 11:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
Right click/Scroll down once/Hack the Gibson.


Religion
By BruceLeet on 2/7/2008 10:19:33 AM , Rating: 5
Catholics think Muslims are wrong, Mormons think Catholics are wrong, Jews think Catholics are wrong, Muslims think Jews are wrong, who the hell knows what Buddhists think. I as an Atheist, think you're all wrong. Scientology? Anyone take that serious? lol.

If you Religious buffs think something of me well how about when I die and become one with the Earth and become Earths Fertilizer you can cut down the tree I fertilized and make some religious paper and print the Holy Bible on me? I think that will even us up :P




RE: Religion
By nekobawt on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Religion
By Noubourne on 2/7/2008 3:24:16 PM , Rating: 3
His instructions were that you wait until he die, and then wait for a tree to grow out of the ground above his grave, and then print something on paper made from that tree.

Calm down? Is the course of action he suggested too rushed for you?


RE: Religion
By IronReda on 2/7/2008 11:02:22 PM , Rating: 4

quote:


I die and become one with the Earth and become Earths Fertilizer you can cut down the tree I fertilized and make some religious paper and print the Holy Bible on me? I think that will even us up :P


I never knew someone can get rated up to 5 for stealing and not giving credit to Dane Cook and his stand-up, "Vicious Circle".


RE: Religion
By BruceLeet on 2/9/2008 7:34:11 PM , Rating: 3
and I cant believe his PR people scroll these boards


RE: Religion
By treehugger87 on 2/7/2008 11:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
Okay Dane Cook.


RE: Religion
By BruceLeet on 2/9/2008 7:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
Dont take it to the heart, it was written and posted as it was meant to be, a joke. Calm yourself down don't put the shini curse on me.

:D


Beware the ides of February
By Sulphademus on 2/7/2008 12:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The move was financed in part by a $10 million donation from actress Nancy Cartwright, who voices Bart Simpson.


Et tu, Barte?




RE: Beware the ides of February
By B3an on 2/7/2008 12:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
Thats kind of put me off watching the Simpsons.

I heard that Scientology is actually officially recognised in the US as a religion? Is that true??
Because in sane countries like the UK it's recognised as a cult.


RE: Beware the ides of February
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 2:12:28 PM , Rating: 3
> "Because in sane countries like the UK it's recognised as a cult. "

Until fairly recently, any religion in England other than the Anglican was considered a cult, and its members dealt with very sternly indeed.


RE: Beware the ides of February
By Noubourne on 2/7/2008 3:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
You say "fairly recently" as if there is some sort of timer on morality, and Scientology is so new as to not have run their clock out on harming others to further their cause.

"Other religions do it" is not a valid argument. It's like saying murder is OK because someone got away with it in the past.

I don't see a lot of people here saying that Scientology doesn't have a right to exist as a religion, which is the strawman argument you keep "debunking". Most of what I see is logical individuals stating that some tactics that Scientology uses are harmful and should not be allowed. I don't see how anyone could argue with that.

One main difference between Scientology and some of the examples you have cited (e.g., religious extremists performing acts of mass murder) is that many of those extremists do not represent the general consensus about how non-believers should be treated in mainstream versions of religion (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism). Many incidents of mistreatment involving Scientology (spying, threats and lawsuits) are actually being sanctioned by the organization.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 3:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
The original text to which I responded was the article itself, which insinuates the beliefs of Scientology are ridiculous. My post agreed, but pointed out they're no more silly than those of mainstream, established religions.

> "many of those extremists do not represent the general consensus about how non-believers should be treated.."

I don't see *any* Scientologists advocating death for nonbelievers. In various parts of the world, though, I do see plenty of Muslims and even Christians and Jews doing just that.

> Most of what I see is logical individuals stating that some tactics that Scientology uses are harmful"

I see a lot of people arguing that. I don't see anyone offering hard evidence to support the claim though.

New religions always use hard-sell tactics. Scientologists appear no more aggressive to me in pursuing followers than the LDS Church.


RE: Beware the ides of February
By Sulphademus on 2/7/2008 2:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I heard that Scientology is actually officially recognised in the US as a religion? Is that true??


No idea. But I'm sure its better than how Germany seems to be looking at it recently.


By Sulphademus on 2/7/2008 2:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
Did some research and found some. Yes, according to the IRS a number of Scientology churches are in their listing of Tax-Exempt charitible or religious organizations.

Church of Scientology of Nevada
Las Vegas NV
Church of Scientology of New York
New York NY
Church of Scientology of Portland
Portland OR
Church of Scientology of Sacramento
Sacramento CA
Church of Scientology of Texas
Austin TX
Church of Scientology of Washington State
Seattle WA
Church of Scientology Religious Trust
Los Angeles CA
Church of Scientology Western United States
Los Angeles CA

And there's a bunch more.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96136,0...


hm
By legoman666 on 2/7/2008 10:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
My girlfriend and I decided that it would be fun/interesting to visit a few local "churches" of the different religions. We hit up a Buddhist temple, a mosque and the Scientology building down town. The folks at the Buddhist temple and the mosque were nice enough to give us a tour and answer any questions we had. We even signed up for a short course on karma at the Buddhist temple.

But the people at the Scientology place were just.. different. To me it seemed more like a business, there is a receptionist at the door. On the wall of the building outside, there is a huge gaudy "Scientology" neon sign. After our "interview" our guide tried to sell us books, dvd's and have us come back for a paid visit.

Not only that, but she refused to give us a tour of the building and would not explain how the e-meter works. She told me that it sends electrical pulses through my body to measure the "size/importance" of ideas/events in my life. For example, she asked me to remember a time when I was angry and the little dial on the display moved a bit. It is of my opinion that the machine just measures the resistance between the two hand held metal tubes. Then when the auditor asks a "hard" (for lack of a better work) questions, your hands start to sweat, thus reducing the resistance between the two nodes and moving the dial. She also made me take off my ring before handling the two nodes, O.o.

Anyway, she gave my girlfriend a free dvd; "Psychiatry, THE INDUSTRY OF DEATH." I'm not kidding. It was one of the most rediculous things I have ever seen. We watched the thing too.

It might be fun to go picket the place on the 10th... Bunch of loons.




RE: hm
By GreenyMP on 2/7/2008 10:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
I have a better idea. Why don't you just let them exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in peace. I know that you have your freedoms, but why not use them constructively instead of destructively. I guess I understand why people attack people who don't think like them, but it doesn't make it right.

Take the higher road people. People have a right to be different.


RE: hm
By RandallMoore on 2/7/2008 11:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
I don't need to get into a huge debate to know what some of the truths of this world are. You confirmed my opinion of "scientology". Load of blasphemous crap. I'm glad that I am not responsible for the decisions of others.


RE: hm
By FITCamaro on 2/7/2008 1:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
Was this in Tampa? I was in downtown Tampa a few years ago with my girlfriend at the time. There was a scientology building there offering free Thetan (sp?) tests. We thought about going in as a joke but didn't cause I didn't want to be mean.

I did look in though and it was almost like looking at a bunch of children's toys. The little machines they have look like a stage prop from a ghostbusters movie.

But seriously, in the area they're based out of, they're scary. They're slowly buying up all the real estate due to all the money they're suckering out of the idiots stupid enough to join them. The crap that has happened to people who've joined the "church" is well documented. Including deaths. Anyone who joins that group is two cents short of a happy meal in my opinion. You have to be seriously deluded, lonely, or insane to join those people.


RE: hm
By legoman666 on 2/7/2008 2:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
Nah we went to the Cincinnati, Ohio location. My girlfriend and I took the free IQ test and the personality it test. I failed both.


RE: hm
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 5:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
You failed an IQ test and a personality test?

Sounds weird. So I guess you can say you have no intelligence or personality, should the situation ever call for it...


HELL : Is Hell exothermic or endothermic
By Fnoob on 2/7/2008 11:36:26 AM , Rating: 6
Until we get a definitive answer from Masher, the following will have to do :

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."




By AvidDailyTechie on 2/7/2008 6:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
This was an answer to a test given where the only A was this student.

Why did you leave that part out?


RE: HELL : Is Hell exothermic or endothermic
By Fnoob on 2/7/2008 8:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, an A+ actually. University of Washington Chemistry Midterm. Pure brilliance.


By Fnoob on 2/7/2008 8:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
It was the Bonus Question.

That Prof. loved to stir the puddin'.


I Think People Are Missing The Point...
By crfog on 2/7/2008 5:14:25 PM , Rating: 4
Okay, I want to clarify this since, from reading the wealth of comments which are hateful, rude and ignorant, people seem to misunderstand the idea of the revolt against Scientology. Everyone seems to be focusing on what Scientology is. Anonymous as a group has no problem with the faith of Scientology, just as they have no problem with any other faith. I have talked to people helping organize the Anonymous events and conduct them. I also have copies of their major press releases. You may find them for yourselves on youtube, as well as some other news sites.

The beef that Anonymous has with Scientology is the thirst for power which ahs been documented over and over again. In other religions, TODAY (not hundreds of years ago, as I know masher or someone will start to jump all over the historical perspective), you receive the spiritual teachings for free. Or the cost of the relevant spiritual books. You can attend services for free and can DONATE if wanted. In Scientology, there are many OT levels (Operating Thetan). You start out at the bottom and work your way up. At each new level, you are given sessions which are meant to cleanse you and you are taught a bit more of the Scientology beliefs. You pay for each of these sessions in advance and each level costs more than the last. The most important thing to note is that the story of Xenu, which is documented in this article, is withheld until you have reached the highest level, doling out over $300k to finally find out the true basis of this "religion". This is clearly not in line with the way other religions operate.

As well, there are all sorts of documented human rights abuses which are an integral part of Scientology. If you really want to learn about this topic and not look ignorant posting hateful remarks in these comments comparing Scientology to other religions, then go look up Lisa McPherson. Look up the Sea Org. Do some research into the way that Scientology works and I think (I hope) you will begin to understand that this is not a religion. This belief system abuses those who look to it or help, taking money before providing the truth. They condone many other horrible tactics and abusive methods to keep members and gain more.

Please, do some research, and stop attacking religions. You don't have to hate and abuse others because of their beliefs. As long as they aren't harming you, then leave them alone. However, if you can see that THEY are being harmed because of their beliefs, then step up and make a stand. Point these issues out. The real point of these demonstrations is to show that the very basis of Scientology is founded upon abuse of those who look to it for help and as a guide to life. Religions are not meant to abuse the believers, but instead to enrich their lives, give them meaning, direction, etc.




By crfog on 2/7/2008 5:43:06 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, I forgot to say, if you were to go to a Scientologist and ask them about Xenu, you would be laughed at. When you join Scientology, you are denied the truth until you pay, even if you ask. There are many videos of protesters asking Scientologists about Xenu. The typical response is "you've been lied to" or "someone has tricked you". However, there are people who have left Scientology after reaching the highest OT level who can verify that they went through the same process. They were told that story was a lie or that Xenu has nothing to do with Scientology until they finally paid their dues. Last time I checked, it was important for religions to have their faithful believing the proper story. This leads me to believe that the "religious" side of Scientology isn't important then. The money is what matters most.


By Symmetriad on 2/7/2008 5:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. It's not Scientology as a belief system that is the focus of all this, but the actions of the Church of Scientology as an organization. The validity of religion as a system of belief is functionally irrelevant to this issue.


By wordsworm on 2/9/2008 2:53:40 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of religions extract a tithing. A tithing is usually calculated at 10% of net or gross income. So, let's play with Mormons since I was one and therefore know more about that cult than any other: 10% of an average middle class income of average working years ($50,000 x 30 years)x10% + average retirement income ($25,000 x 20 years)x10%=$200,000 per couple (since women aren't supposed to work). In addition to this, let's not forget that you must buy your underwear, propaganda, and a large collection of Books of Mormon to distribute, from the collective headquarters. True, 200k does not equal 300k, but it's not all that far off either. And yes, you must fork over your 10% per year and buy your special underwear to enter their special temple which was built using billions of dollars worth of tax free money.

No one is posting hateful remarks. We're just saying that Scientology is neither better nor worse than any other religion. No matter what bad things might be said of it, the same mud can be brought out for any other religion.

Now, your assumption that other religions don't harm people. Well, again I'd like to mention the fact that it was a Mormon who started this whole drug war which has cost millions of lives, the civil rights and liberties of millions, and trillions of tax dollars. Constantly religious organizations attack freedom of speech, different religions, and promote hatred and bigotry.

Someone said that some Christians are good while others are bad. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the same can be said of Scientologists. I'm not one, and I have no interest to become one. My point is simply this: it's neither worse nor better than any other religion. Whatever rights any religious organization enjoys it too should enjoy (whether or not any of these organizations should have these rights is another debate, to which I'd argue they shouldn't). Therefore, just leave them alone, let them practice their religion and their culture within the limits which the laws allow, and don't cast stones.

As Shakespeare once said, "He who is perfect should cast the first stone."


Wolf in Wolf's Clothing
By paydirt on 2/7/2008 9:50:11 AM , Rating: 3
I began reading about Scientology on Monday and the more that I read, the more I was disturbed by what I read. One of the tenants of Satanism is to "destroy your enemies" (anyone who stands in your way), one of the tenants of $cientology is to 'defame' your enemies and if they don't go away then "dispose" of them (L Ron Hubbard uses these words). According to the law of Scientology, disposing of your enemies is not punishable by "ethics" (which is Scientology's cruel version of "timeout").

I saw the similarities before I read this article from Penthouse (yeah, I know) where L Ron Hubbard Jr. was interviewed in 1983. In a nutshell, Jr. claims that his dad created the religion to make money, he was a satanist, gave information on his cultists to the Russian gov't, took drugs (which is ironic to the church, but not to Satanism), and heavily abused women. Jr. later recanted his interview, but that was so he could claim his father's inheritance (which the church was squirreling away) and get back into the cult.

http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/penthouse-... (warning, first pic on this page is a Penthouse cover)

There is also a stories all over the 'net about the lengths that Scientology will go to to literally silence its critics.




RE: Wolf in Wolf's Clothing
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 11:02:30 AM , Rating: 1
> "one of the tenants of $cientology is to 'defame' your enemies and if they don't go away then "dispose" of them "

There are similar statements in most religious works. How do you think Christians rationalized the Crusades, or burning heathens at the stake, or some Muslims rationalize jihad today?


RE: Wolf in Wolf's Clothing
By Xenoterranos on 2/7/2008 11:36:21 AM , Rating: 1
Because in any given group of people, the intersection of charismatic-and-convincing and bat-shit-insane stays is never null?

Damn, I'm making that the topic for my Ph.D thesis.


RE: Wolf in Wolf's Clothing
By paydirt on 2/7/2008 12:40:41 PM , Rating: 3
Correct. There is a difference between defending yourself and going out of your way to do harm to others. Crusades, Jihad, and LRH's Satanology "silencing" operations are all definitely going out of your way to do harm.


Persecution
By saiga6360 on 2/7/2008 2:54:12 PM , Rating: 4
If Scientology is no different from any religion then I guess it is only fair that they suffer through this phase. Every religion did at some point, and some still do. Why should we cut them any slack?




RE: Persecution
By paydirt on 2/7/2008 7:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
it is different in that they "utterly destroy" those who oppose them, and "ruin" those who leave their ranks.


The not so secret plans.
By VahnTitrio on 2/7/2008 11:12:20 AM , Rating: 3
RE: The not so secret plans.
By OblivionMage on 2/7/2008 4:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Their goal is not to be secret..


oh, boy...
By cscpianoman on 2/7/2008 12:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of people need to sit down and do some deep breathing. Relax, go for a walk, eat a bowl of Cheerios.

We can all point fingers at such and such until we all turn gray, global warming creates more deserts and Anandtech rules the world. You can point out flaws and problems in any and all religions, because they are there. Every religion that is different than what you believe is weird and different because guess what? it is different and weird. At least according to each of us.

The fact is there are many things that are done in the name of religion that should not be done or ever be done. If a religion works like a business then fine, that is their prerogative, but if a religion goes about destroying the laws of the land by thievery and treachery then something needs to be done.

If you were thrown in a dark room, why didn't you do something? If you were being sued for libel then why not do something? If someone robs you, why don't you do something? We all are just too happy and content posting argument this and that and I heard this and I heard that. Come on... I thought we were all better than this.




RE: oh, boy...
By SlipDizzy on 2/7/2008 1:04:14 PM , Rating: 3
How'd the quote in Dogma go? I think it was, "It's better to have an idea then to have a belief. Changing an idea is easy. Changing a belief.... not so much."


About..
By MatthewAC on 2/7/2008 11:43:16 AM , Rating: 2
About 50 people just un-anomynied themselves in this story...




RE: About..
By Xerio on 2/7/2008 4:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. I was thinking that, too. I was one. :)


My take on this
By Canizorro on 2/7/2008 12:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
Reading through the comments, everyone has good points. Although scientology sounds crazy with how they operate and what they believe in, it does sound similar to how the christian/catholic religions came to be.

Believing in a religion back then is far different from what it would take to believe in a proposed religion now. We are much more informed and better knowing of what is possible in this world. So to compare the religions isn't all that equal.

So this reminds me of (It's probably a terrible analogy) of the grandfather clause. We let the christian/catholic religion become a significant part of our lives because it was much easier to believe in this religion many years ago than now. If the christian/catholic religion had been presented to us now, we would have the same reaction as we do with scientology. However, it was presented a long time ago before we had the information rich society we have now that would give us the know how to question it. The majority lived with the acceptance of this belief and as such the religions have grown too large to try to subject it to the new questioning we have now. And so as the clause goes, since this religion was created before the "new law" came into place (Our new way of thinking and questioning), it is exempt.

I don't think they should be attacked. I do think the questioning of their beliefs and of it being a religion is valid. Whether the christian/catholic is based on craziness or fact, the point of questioning scientology is, I hope, is so that we do not let another religion gain so much power and members without knowing the full intention of it's beliefs and goals and the validity of it's claim of origin.




RE: My take on this
By paydirt on 2/7/2008 7:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you actually read up on the Internet about Satanology, then you would see why it is attacked. Not that other religions don't do evil stuff... Satanology is the same. Their mandate is to "utterly destroy" their enemies (ala satanism), they "ruin" those who leave their ranks (which they term "squirrels"), it's founder was a satanist and even gave away confidential secrets of his followers to the Soviets during the Cold War. try google: 1983 penthouse hubbard You might feel a little different after reading that.


Was the Bible based on a bedtime story?
By parish on 2/7/2008 1:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
Was the Bible based on a bedtime story? The simple answer is no it was not. So how is it that Mr. Hubbard can concoct a religion based on ideas that are perceived to be true that are derived from a book that is fictitious? I just cannot wrap my head around this. How can you possibly trust someone who claims to have anything to do with "Science" that believes in something that cannot be proven possible and often is shown to be false?

I don't have anything against any religion, but this "Scientology" is not a religion, it's a business. It is a clever attempt to guise a money making machine in the robes of a religious pursuit. I take pity on people so weak minded that they not only thrive on its beliefs, but actually try to defend it to people with average intellect.

I feel sorry for you Mr. Cruise. What happened to you that made you become a crazed marketing tool for a religion based on science fiction and fantasy? Your life must be wrought with pain and confusion trying to figure out when "Xenu" is coming by for dinner. Between laying awake at night wondering about that and your brainwashed wife, you must be proud of yourself.

I can only imagine the hard work Mr. Cruise put in to win this award. All the speaking tours, private functions and house to house sales pitches for Scientology. Wait a second... he did none of that. Hmmmm... I wonder how he reached all those people? I guess if by "reach" you mean "donated" and by "people" you mean "$$$$" then I guess they owe him an award for letting the founders buy a bigger house.

This whole thing is both pathetic and sad. I can't wait to look back at this "religion" and laugh about the exploits of it's members some day.




By wordsworm on 2/8/2008 3:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So how is it that Mr. Hubbard can concoct a religion based on ideas that are perceived to be true that are derived from a book that is fictitious?
I don't know how you can prove the whole thing to be false any more than you can prove that Star Trek isn't prophetic. How do you really know that we aren't being studied by a superior life form that is far greater than our own, yet not a god? How do you know we're not just some kind of lab experiment? How do you know that the real God isn't a giant turtle which supports the universe? The whole crux of it is faith in something for which no proof exists. That's why they call it 'faith' and not 'knowledge.'

The Bible (include or don't include the NT) is a combination of many different scripts into one which is held together only by this belief in this all-powerful father who will throw your enemies into the pit of hell whilst elevating you and your loved ones to eternal happiness.

Now, I don't know about Xenu, but I do believe Xena was pretty hot when she was in the jacuzzi with Gabriel.

In any case, Mr. Cruise's life, though I don't appreciate his art, is far more significant than either of ours. I don't know how he came to be America's sweetheart, but millions of people love him. Now, if he was going off the rocker about how great God is, and how he's sending armies into foreign lands because God told him to do it, that is what I call wacky-mad. And no, I don't think the Mad Emperor GWBII is reading this. I don't think he can read at all.


A matter of belief
By dflynchimp on 2/7/2008 10:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
"I don't care what you believe, just believe it" -Booker, Serenity(2005)

Personally I think Scientology is a lost cause. I mean agnostics and atheists may gripe that the bible is phony/silly/outrageous, but come on, to base a religion off a series of Science Fiction books is...pardon my planet...a little stretching it. I've read one of the books...it's one of the most boring pieces of junk that me as an avid sci fi fan ever set eyes upon.

Thousands of years ago we could claim that the less informed and superstitious people can't be blamed for joining cults or believing piles of bull because they didn't know better, but come one, it's 20th/21th century, and have all our educational resources gone to waste to produce these generations of blow-hards who'll follow (and pay) a phony church to hand them this absurd crap...

However, in the defense of the believers, it is scientifically proven (not scientologifically proven, lol) that people with a faith are healthier than people without. It's a matter of mindset. If you believe there is a greater power capable of healing you or grant you salvation, chances are you'd be a little more motivated or stronger in whatever you do, be it fighting illness or going about your life.




RE: A matter of belief
By andrinoaa on 2/8/2008 5:05:53 AM , Rating: 2
You are correct and so is my mate masher2.
Masher2 you are so pedantic at times, but I have to admit you are right this time.
People in religions are healthier because they have stopped the fight. It is easier to follow, you don't have to think or get caughtup in the grandness of thinks. Its in "gods" hands or "Allah willing". You don't have to take responsibility.! Besides, people believe what they want to believe and you will always have a proportion that is happy to follow ,no matter how irrational. Thats just human nature.
My main gripe is that nobody has come back from the other side, yet, some people are so sure. It must be in the water. lol


By adrift02 on 2/7/2008 11:14:13 AM , Rating: 3
It's funny how many people here are saying that Christianity and other religions have somehow been validated by how long they have been around or how many people follow them. The fact is that these religious claims are not only unsubstantiated but based off fallacious arguments. Don't Appeal to the Masses, Appeal to Ignorance, or Appeal to Tradition while making an argument and somehow think you have shown anything. Both Scientology and other religions require a suspension of rational logic (i.e Faith) so who cares how far you decide to climb that tree?




*sigh*
By TomCorelis on 2/7/2008 4:41:10 PM , Rating: 3
You know, just for once I would like to see people read an article centering on religion without taking swipes at other peoples' faith.




we came by..
By raphd on 2/7/2008 11:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
We were brought here by our ship. The Battlestar Galactica. Thanks.




RE: we came by..
By wordsworm on 2/8/2008 3:42:51 AM , Rating: 1
No... what happened was that we were brought here by space-roaches in their roach mobiles. They brought Adam and Steve via a megaship before they'd realized their mistake. The sex change, fortunately, went well. Steve didn't even know what hit him. Unfortunately, he still couldn't have children. It was the Miceonauts who crawled up through Hisanus (as opposed to Uranus) which deposited the seed of Adam in Steve (later known as Eve) which grew into Cane and Able. Thanks to the greasy appetite of North Americans, the cockroaches have granted us technology that has allowed us to dominate our peers. We have paid back the mice by finding a cure for every disease - yup, we can cure them of cancer and whatever else nature has thrown at them.

Pray to the father cockroach!

For more information about the way that man came into existence, just send $9.95 to adamandsteve's Bible administration to get yourself started on ... THE REAL TRUTH!


The Church of She....
By SilthDraeth on 2/7/2008 10:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
The Church of She denies that the church forced YouTube to take down the video despite numerous reports of this occurring.

Thanks that made me laugh for the first time today.




I give it a year or two...
By 67STANG on 2/7/2008 10:57:17 AM , Rating: 2
before FBI agents storm Tom Cruise's compound in Waco, Tx. Everyone inside will die in a fiery inferno just before they can down their kool-aid.

Seriously, standardized regligion is hard enough for some people to believe... but a religion involving aliens and spaceships? Who the f believes this s?

Perhaps having too much money makes you crazy... makes me somewhat content being mildly poor.




Typo
By bobobeastie on 2/7/2008 11:45:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However in the U.S., the controversial religion has mostly avoided outright attack the organization -- until now.


Eh? Which "organization" has not been attacked by "the controversial religion"?




By Lastfreethinker on 2/7/2008 12:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The religion is based around 18 central religious books, include one which states that 75 million years ago an all powerful alien being Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs.


The volcanoes in question did not exist 75 million years ago. Also if you were to detonate a hydrogen bomb inside volcanoes you would DESTORY said volcanoe! Let us not forget that the Cretaceous Period ended 65 Million years ago. For a catastrophe on the scale the Scientologists are talking about it would have wiped the dinosaurs out 10 million years in advance!

A little about myself, I am an atheist so I am not saying that Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Wicka, Buddhism, Taoist, or Zoroastrians are the correct religion. I am pointing out the falsehoods in Scientology.




Well, I won't disagree there.
By senbassador on 2/11/2008 2:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
“We are the authorities on getting people off drugs...we can rehabilitate criminals’ way to happiness (sic) … **we can bring peace and unite cultures,”**

I won't argue against their the last point. Scientologists certainly DO unite various cultures. People from diverse cultures and walks of life, who oftentimes don't even like one another, unite against Scientology. They do get the job done in that facet. They're uniters, not dividers.




By notmycupotea on 2/19/2008 6:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/enggulag.html
Things like this are more like what Scientology is about, and why people are scared of the organization. Also check out http://www.youfoundthecard.com , good site that has links to others full of information. Unlike many (not all) of the things that other people have brought up about other religions (Children's Crusade, etc.) these things are still happening TODAY. In OUR COUNTRY.




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki