View Full Version : Scientology
Josh Weinstein
08/04/09, 09:18 PM
I don't know if this has been discussed before in this forum, but I'm just curious as to why people devote themselves to Scientology. If you or a close friend/family member is a member of the church of Scientology, why do you or your acquaintance follow it? I'm not trying to stir up a debate but merely a discussion. As far as religion goes, I tend to disagree with all of them. But for the sake of this discussion, I'm not going to judge their belief in Xenu and thetans. My one gripe is the fact that the church charges quite a bit of money from members in order to continue their devotion to the church. This stems from the infamous quote by church founder L. Ron Hubbard: "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
BrennanHickson
08/04/09, 09:23 PM
I hear you receive free Shamwow products if you join. That's most likely the primary incentive.
mattmatumbo
08/05/09, 12:29 AM
Scam's a scam
Tom Cruise would know about money, science fiction oh and of course, MONEY!
I've never met a Scientologist, but you might as well be asking why anyone would devote themself to any religion.
IWasHerHorse
08/05/09, 02:15 AM
I'm not a expert on Scientology, but (as with any religion) beyond all the mythological bullshit, there are most likely wholesome values with which people would like to align themselves. I don't really see the harm but as far as an entrance fee, people will throw money at whatever they think will make them happy; so what's the difference between Scientology, Christianity, Fashion, Entertainment, or whatever else is selling at a mall?
thespearkid
08/05/09, 02:41 AM
Scientology has actually lead to the death of a few people though. Do your research.
BryterJonah
08/05/09, 02:43 AM
Beck had someone wacked.
It's true.
ERT5550
08/05/09, 03:38 AM
lol Project Chanology.
Inaction
08/05/09, 06:27 AM
Scientology has actually lead to the death of a few people though. Do your research.
The Crusades come to mind.
perceptrons
08/05/09, 06:34 AM
Scientology has actually lead to the death of a few people though. Do your research.
Haha...
I don't know if this has been discussed before in this forum, but I'm just curious as to why people devote themselves to Scientology. If you or a close friend/family member is a member of the church of Scientology, why do you or your acquaintance follow it? I'm not trying to stir up a debate but merely a discussion. As far as religion goes, I tend to disagree with all of them. But for the sake of this discussion, I'm not going to judge their belief in Xenu and thetans. My one gripe is the fact that the church charges quite a bit of money from members in order to continue their devotion to the church. This stems from the infamous quote by church founder L. Ron Hubbard: "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
Personally I don't know why Scientologists are Scientologists. I guess I ask the same question of every other religious person you know? I've read the whole "charging money" issue you referred to, and I'm not in the debating mood either, but I will say my father's a religious man of the Christian faith and tithe's a large portion of money as well as whatever he gives weekly in church. Same thing? L. Ron Hubbard is 100% correct. Look at all the people making sick bank from religion... maybe I don't find Scientologists so weird because I live about two minutes from Clearwater which is one of their Sea Org cities. I'm pretty used to them now.
jeremypeele
08/05/09, 07:09 AM
Most Scientologists (I think) can afford the money they are charged. That's why they stay in it. It all stems from the Elitist bullshit. Because they think they are better than everyone. They want a religion that is very much exclusive.
perceptrons
08/05/09, 07:33 AM
Most Scientologists (I think) can afford the money they are charged. That's why they stay in it. It all stems from the Elitist bullshit. Because they think they are better than everyone. They want a religion that is very much exclusive.
A lot can't actually, they pretty much sign their lives away to work for the church to pay for everything.
jawstheme
08/05/09, 09:40 AM
There was a good documentary about this where a reporter joined with a hidden camera on her everytime she went. She ended up spending 15 thousand dollars before she could afford no more and hardly got anywhere. She has footage of classic brainwashing techniques being used on the people, including spending several hours answering the same questions.
Animalhill
08/05/09, 09:46 AM
Scientology has actually lead to the death of a few people though. Do your research.
And Christianity hasn't...
Animalhill
08/05/09, 09:47 AM
I don't know if this has been discussed before in this forum, but I'm just curious as to why people devote themselves to Scientology. If you or a close friend/family member is a member of the church of Scientology, why do you or your acquaintance follow it? I'm not trying to stir up a debate but merely a discussion. As far as religion goes, I tend to disagree with all of them. But for the sake of this discussion, I'm not going to judge their belief in Xenu and thetans. My one gripe is the fact that the church charges quite a bit of money from members in order to continue their devotion to the church. This stems from the infamous quote by church founder L. Ron Hubbard: "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
Sir, I am going to go ahead and assume you, like me, are of Jewish heritage. In which case, I say welcome to the neo-Nazi cesspool. Really though, "GeeBee" hates our people.
Crowe41
08/05/09, 09:51 AM
There was a good documentary about this where a reporter joined with a hidden camera on her everytime she went. She ended up spending 15 thousand dollars before she could afford no more and hardly got anywhere. She has footage of classic brainwashing techniques being used on the people, including spending several hours answering the same questions.
Do you know what that documentary was called or who it was by? I was first introduced to Scientology in a Southpark episode. It seemed so outrageous, even for Southpark, but they kept flashing the text "this is what Scientologists actually believe". I decided to look into it after that...I think I would be more comfortable with it if Scientology was a challenge to modern religion, instead of people actually believing in Science Fiction. The scary part is in thousands of years, if it keeps up, Tom Cruise will be like Jesus. Mostly I'm just offended they use the term Scientology...should be SciFiology or fictionology, science gets a bad enough rap as it is.
rockxyourxhole
08/05/09, 09:57 AM
While I agree that the teachings of Dianetics probably wouldn't sound much crazier than the teachings of the Bible, the Torah, or any other major religion to someone who had never been exposed to them, the Church of Scientology requires you to cut off ties from anyone who is not a scientologist (they call them Suppressive Persons, or SPs). This, in addition to the fact that they force you to pay for classes (as opposed to donations or tithes that are not required by most religions), makes them a cult and not a religion.
Animalhill
08/05/09, 10:00 AM
While I agree that the teachings of Dianetics probably wouldn't sound much crazier than the teachings of the Bible, the Torah, or any other major religion to someone who had never been exposed to them, the Church of Scientology requires you to cut off ties from anyone who is not a scientologist (they call them Suppressive Persons, or SPs). This, in addition to the fact that they force you to pay for classes (as opposed to donations or tithes that are not required by most religions), makes them a cult and not a religion.
I agree with everything except what I bolded: relgions = cults. Same thing.
Crowe41
08/05/09, 10:03 AM
While I agree that the teachings of Dianetics probably wouldn't sound much crazier than the teachings of the Bible, the Torah, or any other major religion to someone who had never been exposed to them, the Church of Scientology requires you to cut off ties from anyone who is not a scientologist (they call them Suppressive Persons, or SPs). This, in addition to the fact that they force you to pay for classes (as opposed to donations or tithes that are not required by most religions), makes them a cult and not a religion.
A lot of religions begin as cults. Jehovah's, Mormons... It would be interesting to see how Scientology progresses over the next thousand years. I think it would give us good insight into how Christianity and a lot of religions were birthed. If I was around during the beginning stages of those religions I would be very, very skeptical.
rockxyourxhole
08/05/09, 10:09 AM
I agree with everything except what I bolded: relgions = cults. Same thing.
I get what you're saying, that all religions on some level influence how you think and act, but I still have to dissagree that they are the same thing.
From dictionary.com
Religion:
-Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
-A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Cult:
-A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
-The followers of such a religion or sect.
So while a cult is a religion, a religion is not necessarily a cult. A cult generally involves being cut off from non-members, and will sometimes involve some sort of scam to trick members out of money.
mattmatumbo
08/05/09, 10:10 AM
Another good question that comes to my mind is about the 7th Day Adventists, i heard they believe heaven is "full", but they still have followers.
Also, to the Cult vs Religion argument. For me, a cult is lead by someone who is alive, typically charismatic, and has some need they would be to be fulfilled. Typically, this is just being a leader of a group, for L. Ron Hubbard i think he wanted money. Then there's Joseph Smith who used Seer stones to find buried treasure, but then one day God showed him some golden tablets written in an unknown language to him, but he read them just fine. Then came polygamy (which Mormons claim he had no part in, but Emma Smith's diary and biography states he had a few other wives than her).
The most interesting cults for me are Jonestown, and the cult where all the followers wore matching jumpsuits then killed themselves to ever inhabit a comet. Now there's one in New Mexico with a man who states that he is the re-manifestation of Christ with his 30 or so followers. I watched a thing on them on Discover. Very interesting, their leader went to jail for molestation, he said he'd starve himself until God intervened with his jail sentence.
Animalhill
08/05/09, 10:53 AM
I get what you're saying, that all religions on some level influence how you think and act, but I still have to dissagree that they are the same thing.
From dictionary.com
Religion:
-Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
-A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Cult:
-A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
-The followers of such a religion or sect.
So while a cult is a religion, a religion is not necessarily a cult. A cult generally involves being cut off from non-members, and will sometimes involve some sort of scam to trick members out of money.
The only reason they are different is because of membership count.
My Broken Fever
08/05/09, 10:58 AM
I get what you're saying, that all religions on some level influence how you think and act, but I still have to dissagree that they are the same thing.
From dictionary.com
Religion:
-Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
-A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Cult:
-A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
-The followers of such a religion or sect.
Religion is just a cult on a bigger scale, there is virtually no difference. We're just accustomed to the ideas of Christianity that a supreme deity is watching them and that they have to pray and believe things in an old book. We just view cults with Christianity, or whatever religion it is that person believes in, as the norm. While really; the behavior of the norm is just as unconventional.
Also; priests, imams and rabbis are as much leaders of a cult as "an authoritarian, charismatic leader".
Animalhill
08/05/09, 11:08 AM
Religion is just a cult on a bigger scale, there is virtually no difference. We're just accustomed to the ideas of Christianity that a supreme deity is watching them and that they have to pray and believe things in an old book. We just view cults with Christianity, or whatever religion it is that person believes in, as the norm. While really; the behavior of the norm is just as unconventional.
Also; priests, imams and rabbis are as much leaders of a cult as "an authoritarian, charismatic leader".
haha exactly what I said in fewer, though admittedly in a less eligant and sourceful way.
Scientology has actually lead to the death of a few people though. Do your research.
This has to be a candidate for stupidest post in the history of this board. Not only was your initial comment hilariously oblivious, but then you followed it up with a 'Do your research'.
Sir, I am going to go ahead and assume you, like me, are of Jewish heritage. In which case, I say welcome to the neo-Nazi cesspool. Really though, "GeeBee" hates our people.
I have antique 1944 SS and Gestapo trading cards from all the major camps. I hate you guys THAT much.
I agree with everything except what I bolded: relgions = cults. Same thing.
Agreed.
A lot of religions begin as cults. Jehovah's, Mormons... It would be interesting to see how Scientology progresses over the next thousand years. I think it would give us good insight into how Christianity and a lot of religions were birthed. If I was around during the beginning stages of those religions I would be very, very skeptical.
Mormonism is every bit as supressive as Scientology, just on a much wider scale.
Another good question that comes to my mind is about the 7th Day Adventists, i heard they believe heaven is "full", but they still have followers.
Also, to the Cult vs Religion argument. For me, a cult is lead by someone who is alive, typically charismatic, and has some need they would be to be fulfilled. Typically, this is just being a leader of a group, for L. Ron Hubbard i think he wanted money. Then there's Joseph Smith who used Seer stones to find buried treasure, but then one day God showed him some golden tablets written in an unknown language to him, but he read them just fine. Then came polygamy (which Mormons claim he had no part in, but Emma Smith's diary and biography states he had a few other wives than her).
The most interesting cults for me are Jonestown, and the cult where all the followers wore matching jumpsuits then killed themselves to ever inhabit a comet. Now there's one in New Mexico with a man who states that he is the re-manifestation of Christ with his 30 or so followers. I watched a thing on them on Discover. Very interesting, their leader went to jail for molestation, he said he'd starve himself until God intervened with his jail sentence.
Hey there neighbor. You a former mo-mo, too? SLC ftw, eh?
The only reason they are different is because of membership count.
This.
Atticus_86
08/05/09, 12:32 PM
on the topic of scientology 95% of the world see it for what it is and that just a bunch of b.s. But actors like tom cruise give it notriety because people use to trust in him. this is why he gets his big pay check he draws people to whatever he's doing.it part of his charm.so natraullywhen he endorses scientology, more attention is being paid to be paid to it. and because of that, we are now having a discussion we might not have had if it werent for him(he's the anti christ and an idiot). on the debate on the diffrence between cult and religion, I believe there is a process one can go thru to get there cult seen as a certified religon.
Animalhill
08/05/09, 01:00 PM
on the topic of scientology 95% of the world see it for what it is and that just a bunch of b.s. But actors like tom cruise give it notriety because people use to trust in him. this is why he gets his big pay check he draws people to whatever he's doing.it part of his charm.so natraullywhen he endorses scientology, more attention is being paid to be paid to it. and because of that, we are now having a discussion we might not have had if it werent for him(he's the anti christ and an idiot). on the debate on the diffrence between cult and religion, I believe there is a process one can go thru to get there cult seen as a certified religon.
Christianity is no less fantastical than Scientology given the context of the era in which they were created.
I despise religion just as much as the next atheist, but a religion is not the same thing as a cult.
Yes, many parts of some modern religions resemble certain aspects considered to be "cult-like," but some (Buddhism comes to mind) bear no resemblance to cults. Cults tend to focus their power inward, glorifying some figure or thing. A religion tends to focus power outward, using some philosophical school to aid personal growth and/or to better the world. That's basically the biggest difference. I will admit, however, it's a fine line and all in how you define them.
If you think the only difference between Jonestown and Buddhism/Christianity/Shintoism is membership, well, then, you're wrong.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 01:28 PM
This has to be a candidate for stupidest post in the history of this board. Not only was your initial comment hilariously oblivious, but then you followed it up with a 'Do your research'.
And Christianity hasn't...
The Crusades come to mind.
Haha...
Should've worded my post better but I wasn't trying to imply Christianity hasn't lead to anyone's death. The situations are pretty different though.
Animalhill
08/05/09, 01:31 PM
Should've worded my post better but I wasn't trying to imply Christianity hasn't lead to anyone's death. The situations are pretty different though.
How so? I feel like if you consider the context of the current century we are living in, scientology is like a new Christianity and really not much more fantastical.
How so? I feel like if you consider the context of the current century we are living in, scientology is like a new Christianity and really not much more fantastical.
Yeah, this is true. If this was 2000 years ago and we had the internet, we'd all be laughing at the silly "Christians" throwing away their money at their silly "Christ."
Animalhill
08/05/09, 01:40 PM
Yeah, this is true. If this was 2000 years ago and we had the internet, we'd all be laughing at the silly "Christians" throwing away their money at their silly "Christ."
Exactly. I don't understand when modern Christians scoff at the idea of both Scientology and Greek Gods.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 01:41 PM
How so? I feel like if you consider the context of the current century we are living in, scientology is like a new Christianity and really not much more fantastical.
The church has refused to let members in desperate need of medical attention see a doctor and have a nasty habit of suing/threatening anyone who speaks out publicly against them. The church of Christianity isn't perfect but to compare it to scientology (or to compare ANY religion to scientology) just ignores how vicious scientology really is.
Animalhill
08/05/09, 01:43 PM
The church has refused to let members in desperate need of medical attention see a doctor and have a nasty habit of suing/threatening anyone who speaks out publicly against them. The church of Christianity isn't perfect but to compare it to scientology (or to compare ANY religion to scientology) just ignores how vicious scientology really is.
I am sure that two hundred years ago, many Christians denied their family medical attention for faith in the lord healing them. You need to consider context of time. It is no more viscous than Christianity,Islam, etc.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 01:48 PM
I am sure that two hundred years ago, many Christians denied their family medical attention for faith in the lord healing them. You need to consider context of time. It is no more viscous than Christianity,Islam, etc.
Firstly, you don't have a source for that. Secondly, if it were true, that would be an example of a family denying medical care, not the church itself. Thirdly, medical care now is about 100x better than medical care two hundred years ago. People didn't understand the way the human body works and if they denied their family medical care, it was probably because they legitimately thought God could heal their family members. Lastly, the church of scientology didn't deny those people medical care because they thought God could heal them. They just didn't want to let members see doctors and confirm that the church was brainwashing them, leading to their mental disorders.
Animalhill
08/05/09, 01:50 PM
Firstly, you don't have a source for that. Secondly, if it were true, that would be an example of a family denying medical care, not the church itself. Thirdly, medical care now is about 100x better than medical care two hundred years ago. People didn't understand the way the human body works and if they denied their family medical care, it was probably because they legitimately thought God could heal their family members. Lastly, the church of scientology didn't deny those people medical care because they thought God could heal them. They just didn't want to let members see doctors and confirm that the church was brainwashing them, leading to their mental disorders.
Source?
thespearkid
08/05/09, 01:55 PM
Source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#Wikipedia _ban_of_CoS-owned_networks
Crowe41
08/05/09, 01:56 PM
Firstly, you don't have a source for that. Secondly, if it were true, that would be an example of a family denying medical care, not the church itself. Thirdly, medical care now is about 100x better than medical care two hundred years ago. People didn't understand the way the human body works and if they denied their family medical care, it was probably because they legitimately thought God could heal their family members. Lastly, the church of scientology didn't deny those people medical care because they thought God could heal them. They just didn't want to let members see doctors and confirm that the church was brainwashing them, leading to their mental disorders.
What about Jehovah's refusing blood transfusions due to faith?
Animalhill
08/05/09, 01:58 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#Wikipedia _ban_of_CoS-owned_networks
haha I don't consider wikipedia a source.
In any event, this is deviating from the initial argument of people scoffing at the ideology of Scientology, and then practicing Christianity/Islam/Judaism, which is really no more plausible.
Animalhill
08/05/09, 01:59 PM
What about Jehovah's refusing blood transfusions due to faith?
Good point.
Scientology is awesome! Ripping off annoying celebrities! Its like Zen Buddhism but this religion goes the extra mile to kick its celebrity followers in the nuts for us!
thespearkid
08/05/09, 02:04 PM
What about Jehovah's refusing blood transfusions due to faith?
Again, those are examples of individuals refusing treatment based on their personal faith, not the church refusing to allow them to be treated.
haha I don't consider wikipedia a source.
In any event, this is deviating from the initial argument of people scoffing at the ideology of Scientology, and then practicing Christianity/Islam/Judaism, which is really no more plausible.
I know wikipedia isn't a source but it's the only place where all the information is put together. Feel free to check their references.
I agree. One isn't more plausible than the other. I don't scoff at people who are scientologists but I do recognize that the church is an awful institution. To equate it to all other religions is just ignorant.
Animalhill
08/05/09, 02:11 PM
Again, those are examples of individuals refusing treatment based on their personal faith, not the church refusing to allow them to be treated.
I know wikipedia isn't a source but it's the only place where all the information is put together. Feel free to check their references.
I agree. One isn't more plausible than the other. I don't scoff at people who are scientologists but I do recognize that the church is an awful institution. To equate it to all other religions is just ignorant.
I disagree. The institution of the Christian church has done much, much worse things in the past.
Crowe41
08/05/09, 02:12 PM
[quote=thespearkid;50615322]Again, those are examples of individuals refusing treatment based on their personal faith, not the church refusing to allow them to be treated.
No it's the church that doesn't allow them to receive blood transfusions. Has resulted in many deaths, they consider themselves Christians I believe. Not an expert on religion.
Crowe41
08/05/09, 02:14 PM
On Jehovah's
Their objections are based
primarily on Old Testament passages, particularly Lev. 17:10-14
wherein the following appears: "I [God] will even set my face
against that soul that eateth blood [takes blood into his body],
and will CUT HIM OFF FROM AMONG HIS PEOPLE..." The Jehovah's
Witnesses regard the receipt of blood as prohibited by God with
the punishment being that of being denied any opportunity for
resurrection.
...sorry back to scientology
myplanforescape
08/05/09, 02:21 PM
No it's the church that doesn't allow them to receive blood transfusions. Has resulted in many deaths, they consider themselves Christians I believe. Not an expert on religion.
Actually the person could still go to the hospital and get the blood transfusion if they desired to, its just against their beliefs. On the other hand there are cases where The Church of Scientology have locked people into rooms and didn't seek proper care for them.
Should've worded my post better but I wasn't trying to imply Christianity hasn't lead to anyone's death.
Yes, you were. That was the absolute only conclusion that could be drawn from 'scientology has actually led to the death of a few people though'. It implies that other religions haven't.
The situations are pretty different though.
No, they're not. You're talking about things condoned by the church. You're essentially arguing that what the Church of Scientology has done is worse than the Crusades.
Animalhill
08/05/09, 02:29 PM
Actually the person could still go to the hospital and get the blood transfusion if they desired to, its just against their beliefs. On the other hand there are cases where The Church of Scientology have locked people into rooms and didn't seek proper care for them.
I have witnessed a J. Witness deny her son a blood transfusion which resulted in the amputation of his leg.
Animalhill
08/05/09, 02:31 PM
Yes, you were. That was the absolute only conclusion that could be drawn from 'scientology has actually led to the death of a few people though'. It implies that other religions haven't.
No, they're not. You're talking about things condoned by the church. You're essentially arguing that what the Church of Scientology has done is worse than the Crusades.
Exactly.
Which makes me consider just how volitile most religions are near their inception.
Crowe41
08/05/09, 02:33 PM
Actually the person could still go to the hospital and get the blood transfusion if they desired to, its just against their beliefs. On the other hand there are cases where The Church of Scientology have locked people into rooms and didn't seek proper care for them.
If you are a young person and are hospitalized and your parents deny you a blood transfusion based on their faith, you would be as helpless as getting locked up by the Church of Scientology.
IWasHerHorse
08/05/09, 02:33 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8180116.stm
You can find stupid people in every religion, you can find stupidity in any large group of people, being a moron is an independent problem.
myplanforescape
08/05/09, 02:36 PM
I have witnessed a J. Witness deny her son a blood transfusion which resulted in the amputation of his leg.
If you are a young person and are hospitalized and your parents deny you a blood transfusion based on their faith, you would be as helpless as getting locked up by the Church of Scientology.
Both very good points, I admit I didn't think of that aspect.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 02:46 PM
Yes, you were. That was the absolute only conclusion that could be drawn from 'scientology has actually led to the death of a few people though'. It implies that other religions haven't.
No, they're not. You're talking about things condoned by the church. You're essentially arguing that what the Church of Scientology has done is worse than the Crusades.
That's not what I'm saying at all but you have to put the situations in a modern context.
That's not what I'm saying at all but you have to put the situations in a modern context.
Hahahahahahaha, no you don't. You're discrediting the Church of Scientology on the basis that a few people died because of some of the ridiculous things they believe.
On that premise, the Church of Christianity would've been discredited long ago, yet you choose to belong to it in the present. Why? Because you think the fact that it's been around for thousands of years lends credence to it.
That's not what I'm saying at all but you have to put the situations in a modern context.
Gotta disagree. You can't pin "deaths" on Scientology and then say that any deaths as a result of Christianity are simply being "taken out of context".
thespearkid
08/05/09, 03:20 PM
Hahahahahahaha, no you don't. You're discrediting the Church of Scientology on the basis that a few people died because of some of the ridiculous things they believe.
On that premise, the Church of Christianity would've been discredited long ago, yet you choose to belong to it in the present. Why? Because you think the fact that it's been around for thousands of years lends credence to it.
That's not what I'm saying. There's a difference between individuals deciding to ignore blood transfusions based on their faith and a group of church officials refusing to allow people to receive medical treatment while holding them basically captive. No, I'm not excusing the crusades but they're honestly two different situations.
Gotta disagree. You can't pin "deaths" on Scientology and then say that any deaths as a result of Christianity are simply being "taken out of context".
They're two very different scenarios though.
That's not what I'm saying. There's a difference between individuals deciding to ignore blood transfusions based on their faith and a group of church officials refusing to allow people to receive medical treatment while holding them basically captive. No, I'm not excusing the crusades but they're honestly two different situations.
No, they're not. And you've failed to make that argument. You just keep saying they're different.
They're two very different scenarios though.
I'm willing to concede the point if you make a good case as to why. As far as I'm concerned, the Crusades and witch hunts are in the same arena as any deaths related to Scientology.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 03:43 PM
No, they're not. And you've failed to make that argument. You just keep saying they're different.
I'm willing to concede the point if you make a good case as to why. As far as I'm concerned, the Crusades and witch hunts are in the same arena as any deaths related to Scientology.
The difference is in the crusades and the witch hunts, you have people with very little knowledge of the world around them acting based on their belief system. The scientologists exist in the modern world and it's not their individual members who are deciding against treatment, but the church itself is refusing to allow them to be treated, practically holding them against their will. You really can't compare the intentions of people from hundreds to thousands of years ago to the intentions of people in the modern world.
The difference is in the crusades and the witch hunts, you have people who cast aside their knowledge of the world around them and instead acting based on their belief system. The scientologists exist in the modern world and it's not their individual members who are deciding against treatment, but the church itself is refusing to allow them to be treated, practically holding them against their will. You really can't compare the intentions of people from hundreds to thousands of years ago to the intentions of people in the modern world.
Fixed.
You're performing mental gymnastics, and doing a discredit to the intellect of Christians both past and present. This argument holds no water whatsoever.
People who have been hoodwinked doing stupid things as a result of said hoodwink. There's no difference whatsoever between crimes committed in the name of Christ or Hubbard.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 03:51 PM
Fixed.
You're performing mental gymnastics, and doing a discredit to the intellect of Christians both past and present. This argument holds no water whatsoever.
People who have been hoodwinked doing stupid things as a result of said hoodwink. There's no difference whatsoever between crimes committed in the name of Christ or Hubbard.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that the CHURCH of scientology can't be compared to the CHURCH of Christianity based on the fact that the church of Christianity's most egregious crimes took place in a different time era. It would be like me equating all white people to the white people who condoned slavery.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that the CHURCH of scientology can't be compared to the CHURCH of Christianity based on the fact that the church of Christianity's most egregious crimes took place in a different time era. It would be like me equating all white people to the white people who condoned slavery.
And this has to be a candidate for most retarded analogy in the history of this board.
Nobody is blaming current Christians for the Crusades. They're blaming the entity that is the church, just like you're blaming the entity that is the Church of Scientology. The difference is you're willing to slander and discredit the Church of Scientology for it's actions, but are unable to grasp the fact that the same things would've been said about the Church of Christianity long ago.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:06 PM
And this has to be a candidate for most retarded analogy in the history of this board.
Nobody is blaming current Christians for the Crusades. They're blaming the entity that is the church, just like you're blaming the entity that is the Church of Scientology. The difference is you're willing to slander and discredit the Church of Scientology for it's actions, but are unable to grasp the fact that the same things would've been said about the Church of Christianity long ago.
Exactly. Again, I'm not excusing the crusades but they took place in a completely different time period.
Crowe41
08/05/09, 04:13 PM
I'm not a expert on Scientology, but (as with any religion) beyond all the mythological bullshit, there are most likely wholesome values with which people would like to align themselves. I don't really see the harm but as far as an entrance fee, people will throw money at whatever they think will make them happy; so what's the difference between Scientology, Christianity, Fashion, Entertainment, or whatever else is selling at a mall?
Scientology has actually lead to the death of a few people though. Do your research.
Well I think you lost that argument...
Exactly. Again, I'm not excusing the crusades but they took place in a completely different time period.
So what exactly does "time period" do to change the severity of a misdeed? A murder then is as bad as a murder now. I'm still failing to see what you're arguing.
A priest in 1640 decides a woman needs to be burned at the stake for witchcraft.
A scientologist decides a child needs to refuse vaccination.
Both are equally stupid, and are done out of devotion to a belief system.
Exactly. Again, I'm not excusing the crusades but they took place in a completely different time period.
It's unbelivable how over your head most arguments on this board go. You're so far out of your league it's ridiculous.
If you had slandered and discredited the Church of Christianity long ago, you wouldn't be able to bring yourself to take it seriously now. The actions of the Church are the actions of the Church, regardless of when they occured. You had no problem referring to the Church of Scientology as vicious, but are unable to bring yourself to admit the Church of Christianity deserves, at minimum, the same treatment for having committed far worse acts.
The only difference is the Church of Christianity has had thousands of years to work itself into the mainstream.
My Broken Fever
08/05/09, 04:19 PM
Exactly. Again, I'm not excusing the crusades but they took place in a completely different time period.
More people die in the name of Christianity each day than they do in an entire year for Scientology. The christian church still preaches that condoms are a bad thing in countries where one-third of the population has AIDS. And no, it really isn't as simple as getting a condom in those countries. Christianity still kills people by the thousands.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:20 PM
So what exactly does "time period" do to change the severity of a misdeed? A murder then is as bad as a murder now. I'm still failing to see what you're arguing.
A priest in 1640 decides a woman needs to be burned at the stake for witchcraft.
A scientologist decides a child needs to refuse vaccination.
Both are equally stupid, and are done out of devotion to a belief system.
Because we have more understanding about medicine now than the Priest in 1640 did. Again, I'm not excusing it. I'm just arguing it isn't a totally fair to equate a crime of ignorance to a crime of omission.
Crowe41
08/05/09, 04:22 PM
More people die in the name of Christianity each day than they do in an entire year for Scientology. The christian church still preaches that condoms are a bad thing in countries where one-third of the population has AIDS. And no, it really isn't as simple as getting a condom in those countries. Christianity still kills people by the thousands.
Boom!
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:24 PM
More people die in the name of Christianity each day than they do in an entire year for Scientology. The christian church still preaches that condoms are a bad thing in countries where one-third of the population has AIDS. And no, it really isn't as simple as getting a condom in those countries. Christianity still kills people by the thousands.
But they don't go around forcing people to not wear condoms. That's the difference in the two churches.
Because we have more understanding about medicine now than the Priest in 1640 did. Again, I'm not excusing it. I'm just arguing it isn't a totally fair to equate a crime of ignorance to a crime of omission.
If you don't believe there's a modern day war on science that is still being perpetrated by religion, you're the ignorant one.
My Broken Fever
08/05/09, 04:26 PM
But they don't go around forcing people to not wear condoms. That's the difference in the two churches.
They indoctrinate the population from birth that condoms are horrible, the only difference is that they have the right to brainwash people so early they don't even have to force people not to wear condoms anymore. It's exactly the same.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:27 PM
They indoctrinate the population from birth that condoms are horrible, the only difference is that they have the right to brainwash people so early they don't even have to force people not to wear condoms anymore. It's exactly the same.
By that logic, they're also brainwashing them not to have sex until they're married anyway.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:28 PM
If you don't believe there's a modern day war on science that is still being perpetrated by religion, you're the ignorant one.
A bunch of ignorant rednecks who want to teach intelligent design does not a "war" make.
Because we have more understanding about medicine now than the Priest in 1640 did. Again, I'm not excusing it. I'm just arguing it isn't a totally fair to equate a crime of ignorance to a crime of omission.
This argument reeks of desperation.
Understanding of medicine has nothing to do with thinking someone is a witch. It took a religion to burn people for witchcraft. That particular religion was Christianity. Just like it takes a religion to declare Jihaad. Just like it takes a religion to believe American Indians descended from Jews. Just like it takes a religion to tell people that condoms won't help against AIDS. I could go on...
More people die in the name of Christianity each day than they do in an entire year for Scientology. The christian church still preaches that condoms are a bad thing in countries where one-third of the population has AIDS. And no, it really isn't as simple as getting a condom in those countries. Christianity still kills people by the thousands.
Well put.
My Broken Fever
08/05/09, 04:28 PM
By that logic, they're also brainwashing them not to have sex until they're married anyway. Because if you marry, you don't need to wear a condom anymore, because you will stop being HIV-positive once the marriage is done! Yeah!
But they don't go around forcing people to not wear condoms. That's the difference in the two churches.
Of course they do. They push for it in legislation. What rock do you live under?
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:30 PM
Of course they do. They push for it in legislation.
Source?
A bunch of ignorant rednecks who want to teach intelligent design does not a "war" make.
Except those ignorant rednecks are motivated DIRECTLY by the dogma put forth in the christian faith, and the silence from other "smarter" christians amounts to acceptance.
Source?
Sarah Palin? George Bush? Both proponents of abstinence-only education. "Put your head in the sand and all will be well". Motivated by the "virtue" put forth in Christian circles.
A bunch of ignorant rednecks who want to teach intelligent design does not a "war" make.
1. It's rooted in Christianity.
2. It's considerably more than just a bunch of ignorant rednecks. The Kansas Board of Ed. already approved it and I know in Texas, Rick Perry picked a creationist to run the state's board of education.
EDIT: Apparently Perry's choice got denied. Thank goodness.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:33 PM
Except those ignorant rednecks are motivated DIRECTLY by the dogma put forth in the christian faith, and the silence from other "smarter" christians amounts to acceptance.
That's still not a war on science.
Crowe41
08/05/09, 04:33 PM
That's still not a war on science.
A war on science is trying to remove the theory of evolution from school curriculum.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:34 PM
Sarah Palin? George Bush? Both proponents of abstinence-only education. "Put your head in the sand and all will be well". Motivated by the "virtue" put forth in Christian circles.
We've argued this before and I still don't think religion can be blamed for the actions/thoughts of individuals. The bible is a catalyst and what one chooses to do with it is strictly their personal choice.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:35 PM
1. It's rooted in Christianity.
2. It's considerably more than just a bunch of ignorant rednecks. The Kansas Board of Ed. already approved it and I know in Texas, Rick Perry picked a creationist to run the state's board of education.
EDIT: Apparently Perry's choice got denied. Thank goodness.
You can't equate those actions to the whole of Christianity.
We've argued this before and I still don't think religion can be blamed for the actions/thoughts of individuals. The bible is a catalyst and what one chooses to do with it is strictly their personal choice.
I somehow doubt you'd allow for the same margin of error in our public schools. I, too, ultimately find that blame for bad actions lies with the perpetrator, but ultimately, a perpetuated set of simply bad ideas bears some of the blame, as do its adherents who look the other way at such atrocity.
jawstheme
08/05/09, 04:36 PM
Do you know what that documentary was called or who it was by? I was first introduced to Scientology in a Southpark episode. It seemed so outrageous, even for Southpark, but they kept flashing the text "this is what Scientologists actually believe". I decided to look into it after that...I think I would be more comfortable with it if Scientology was a challenge to modern religion, instead of people actually believing in Science Fiction. The scary part is in thousands of years, if it keeps up, Tom Cruise will be like Jesus. Mostly I'm just offended they use the term Scientology...should be SciFiology or fictionology, science gets a bad enough rap as it is.
I don't remember the name of it, but it was on netflix instant que.
You can't equate those actions to the whole of Christianity.
But you CAN say that alot of bad ideas that LEAD to those actions do not exist OUTSIDE christianity/religion.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:37 PM
I somehow doubt you'd allow for the same margin of error in our public schools. I, too, ultimately find that blame for bad actions lies with the perpetrator, but ultimately, a perpetuated set of simply bad ideas bears some of the blame, as do its adherents who look the other way at such atrocity.
I would honestly blame the school system before I would blame Christianity.
That's still not a war on science.
It's a war between bad ideas that are exclusive to Christianity/religion and good ideas.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:37 PM
But you CAN say that alot of bad ideas that LEAD to those actions do not exist OUTSIDE christianity/religion.
I'll agree to that.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:39 PM
It's a war between bad ideas that are exclusive to Christianity/religion and good ideas.
Again, I'll concede that point. Ignorance, however, is not exclusive to Christianity.
I would honestly blame the school system before I would blame Christianity.
No one's asking you to blame Christianity for anything. You're simply refusing to acknowledge that ideas inherent to Christinanity, and sometimes even exclusive to it, have lead to atrocities.
Crowe41
08/05/09, 04:40 PM
We've argued this before and I still don't think religion can be blamed for the actions/thoughts of individuals. The bible is a catalyst and what one chooses to do with it is strictly their personal choice.
Can you clarify this for me: if you become a scientologist are you forced to be a scientologist for the rest of your life? Or can you have the personal choice to quit the church...
Again, I'll concede that point. Ignorance, however, is not exclusive to Christianity.
Ignorance is not exclusive to christianity, but is made a virtue by christianity. Holding up "faith", an idea that has no rational basis, as a virtue, leads to the very ignorance you speak of.
You can't equate those actions to the whole of Christianity.
Silly me. I thought religions were responsible for the ideas they preach and implant in people's heads. If that's not the case, I think it's safe to say Hitler got a raw deal. I mean, he wasn't the one down there getting his hands dirty.
Silly me. I thought religions were responsible for the ideas they preach and implant in people's heads. If that's not the case, I think it's safe to say Hitler got a raw deal. I mean, he wasn't the one down there getting his hands dirty.
One instance where I find Godwin's law to have been aptly instituted!
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:48 PM
Can you clarify this for me: if you become a scientologist are you forced to be a scientologist for the rest of your life? Or can you have the personal choice to quit the church...
That's the point I'm trying to make. These people who died at the hands of the church of scientology did not have a choice. They were held against their will while they died.
mattmatumbo
08/05/09, 04:48 PM
Hey there neighbor. You a former mo-mo, too? SLC ftw, eh?
Nope, never have been, never will be.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:50 PM
Silly me. I thought religions were responsible for the ideas they preach and implant in people's heads. If that's not the case, I think it's safe to say Hitler got a raw deal. I mean, he wasn't the one down there getting his hands dirty.
Would you blame Karl Marx for all the people who starved to death in North Korea last year?
jawstheme
08/05/09, 04:51 PM
It's unbelivable how over your head most arguments on this board go. You're so far out of your league it's ridiculous.
If you had slandered and discredited the Church of Christianity long ago, you wouldn't be able to bring yourself to take it seriously now. The actions of the Church are the actions of the Church, regardless of when they occured. You had no problem referring to the Church of Scientology as vicious, but are unable to bring yourself to admit the Church of Christianity deserves, at minimum, the same treatment for having committed far worse acts.
The only difference is the Church of Christianity has had thousands of years to work itself into the mainstream.
The Church of Chrisitianity is extremely broad. Do you mean Catholics? Every church of any religion that has mixed itself in state affairs has done horrible things, however, for christianity especially, those things are not in line with the religion itself.
If you want to learn about christianity pick up a bible and read it. Christ's teachings are all there. It's not the same for scientology. That's why I discredit scientology, it's a business in it's roots. Sure people have turned christianity into a business, and a political movement to push agendas that most of time aren't even rooted in christianity, but that doesn't make it a bad religion. I am a christian and I am not affiliated with any church. People will twist anything to push agendas. If it wasn't christianity that was used to condone wars or killing, it would have been something else to push the agenda and make it seem right. In no way would christianity itself ever condone the killing of another human being. We are told that it is an order to love our enemies.
Is there one scientologist out there that isn't a member of their church or organization? Can you even be one if your not?
Nope, never have been, never will be.
Haha, my congrats! Don't see many fellow SLC-ers around here.
Would you blame Karl Marx for all the people who starved to death in North Korea last year?
Apple and Orange. Religion is not politics, and politics is not religion.
mattmatumbo
08/05/09, 04:54 PM
Haha, my congrats! Don't see many fellow SLC-ers around here.
I know, there's one other on here that i've seen. So you were a Mo? What made you change your mind?
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:55 PM
Haha, my congrats! Don't see many fellow SLC-ers around here.
Apple and Orange. Religion is not politics, and politics is not religion.
They're both ideas/worldviews at their root. If one can be blamed for what it's subscribers do, why can't the other?
My Broken Fever
08/05/09, 04:55 PM
The Church of Chrisitianity is extremely broad. Do you mean Catholics? Every church of any religion that has mixed itself in state affairs has done horrible things, however, for christianity especially, those things are not in line with the religion itself.
If you want to learn about christianity pick up a bible and read it. Christ's teachings are all there. It's not the same for scientology. That's why I discredit scientology, it's a business in it's roots. So you just throw the teachings of the old testament out of the window for convenience? Because I'm sure that is all in favor of racism, slavery, murder, rape, genocide and general bigotry.
The Church of Chrisitianity is extremely broad. Do you mean Catholics? Every church of any religion that has mixed itself in state affairs has done horrible things, however, for christianity especially, those things are not in line with the religion itself.
If you want to learn about christianity pick up a bible and read it. Christ's teachings are all there. It's not the same for scientology. That's why I discredit scientology, it's a business in it's roots. Sure people have turned christianity into a business, and a political movement to push agendas that most of time aren't even rooted in christianity, but that doesn't make it a bad religion. I am a christian and I am not affiliated with any church. People will twist anything to push agendas. If it wasn't christianity that was used to condone wars or killing, it would have been something else to push the agenda and make it seem right. In no way would christianity itself ever condone the killing of another human being. We are told that it is an order to love our enemies.
Is there one scientologist out there that isn't a member of their church or organization? Can you even be one if your not?
And a well-reasoned Christian you are. However, I have to disagree with the bolded. It's not necessarily true, and Christ came not to bring peace, but a sword, by his own admission.
Hence why I think it's dangerous to ascribe to ANY set of ideas that demands such a high level of devotion.
They're both ideas/worldviews at their root. If one can be blamed for what it's subscribers do, why can't the other?
Religion purports to be a tad more than simply a worldview or an idea, no? And there's a big difference between blaming Marx/Christ for the crimes of Marxism/Christianity, and simply blaming Marxism/Christianity.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:58 PM
And a well-reasoned Christian you are. However, I have to disagree with the bolded. It's not necessarily true, and Christ came not to bring peace, but a sword, by his own admission.
Hence why I think it's dangerous to ascribe to ANY set of ideas that demands such a high level of devotion.
Not a sword to human beings though, but a sword to old way of thinking (the old testament, for my broken fever). At the center of His message was love. If some Christians manipulate other aspects of His message and ignore the most important part, it really isn't fair to blame Christianity itself for that.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 04:59 PM
Religion purports to be a tad more than simply a worldview or an idea, no? And there's a big difference between blaming Marx/Christ for the crimes of Marxism/Christianity, and simply blaming Marxism/Christianity.
In the end, no matter what either purports itself to be, they're both worldviews.
Crowe41
08/05/09, 05:02 PM
The Church of Chrisitianity is extremely broad. Do you mean Catholics? Every church of any religion that has mixed itself in state affairs has done horrible things, however, for christianity especially, those things are not in line with the religion itself.
If you want to learn about christianity pick up a bible and read it. Christ's teachings are all there. It's not the same for scientology. That's why I discredit scientology, it's a business in it's roots. Sure people have turned christianity into a business, and a political movement to push agendas that most of time aren't even rooted in christianity, but that doesn't make it a bad religion. I am a christian and I am not affiliated with any church. People will twist anything to push agendas. If it wasn't christianity that was used to condone wars or killing, it would have been something else to push the agenda and make it seem right. In no way would christianity itself ever condone the killing of another human being. We are told that it is an order to love our enemies.
Is there one scientologist out there that isn't a member of their church or organization? Can you even be one if your not?
I got to this part and remembered why I joined this site. Great band! Check you all in the music forum haha.
My Broken Fever
08/05/09, 05:07 PM
Not a sword to human beings though, but a sword to old way of thinking (the old testament, for my broken fever).
That's just your interpretation that enables you to ignore the old testament because it is inconvenient.
thespearkid
08/05/09, 05:07 PM
That's just your interpretation that enables you to ignore the old testament because it is inconvenient.
Cool story.
Would you blame Karl Marx for all the people who starved to death in North Korea last year?
I didn't realize Karl Marx had alienated North Korea from the rest of the world, hampering it's ability to trade and crippling it's economy.
The Church of Chrisitianity is extremely broad. Do you mean Catholics? Every church of any religion that has mixed itself in state affairs has done horrible things, however, for christianity especially, those things are not in line with the religion itself.
If you want to learn about christianity pick up a bible and read it. Christ's teachings are all there. It's not the same for scientology. That's why I discredit scientology, it's a business in it's roots. Sure people have turned christianity into a business, and a political movement to push agendas that most of time aren't even rooted in christianity, but that doesn't make it a bad religion. I am a christian and I am not affiliated with any church. People will twist anything to push agendas.
1. I wasn't arguing it was a 'bad' religion. There's been plenty good done in the name of Christianity. I just don't care for organized religion in general. I will explain that in point #2.
2. The argument you're making is a complete non-starter. I'm well acquainted with Christianity. What you're giving me is your own interpretation of it. That's all there are with organized religions: interpretations. It's not something understood the same way universally. That's an inherent flaw in organized religion and it's something that each one should be held responsible for. If you want credit for the good things people will do in the name of your religion, you have to accept the bad things done in the name of your faith as well. That's what you sign up for when you choose to align yourself with a particular religion. Hell, it was the far right Christians in this country who demanded moderate Muslims apologize for and distance themselves from the actions of radical Muslims.
If it wasn't christianity that was used to condone wars or killing, it would have been something else to push the agenda and make it seem right. In no way would christianity itself ever condone the killing of another human being. We are told that it is an order to love our enemies.
Is there one scientologist out there that isn't a member of their church or organization? Can you even be one if your not?
an eye for an eye
Love As Arson
08/05/09, 06:40 PM
Christianity doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's values are always changing in accordance with a shift in relations in a society. During the feudal era, we had the divine right of kings and with the rise of the bourgeois, all of a sudden, we had god-given rights.
Not a sword to human beings though, but a sword to old way of thinking (the old testament, for my broken fever). At the center of His message was love. If some Christians manipulate other aspects of His message and ignore the most important part, it really isn't fair to blame Christianity itself for that.
Yes it is...for being such an ambiguous and open-to-interpretation worldview that people can't decide whether it's a tool for love or for hate. I blame Christianity for not being clear at all on any of that.
In the end, no matter what either purports itself to be, they're both worldviews.
Pretty sure religion entails a little more than a worldview.
That's just your interpretation that enables you to ignore the old testament because it is inconvenient.
This.
I didn't realize Karl Marx had alienated North Korea from the rest of the world, hampering it's ability to trade and crippling it's economy.
1. I wasn't arguing it was a 'bad' religion. There's been plenty good done in the name of Christianity. I just don't care for organized religion in general. I will explain that in point #2.
2. The argument you're making is a complete non-starter. I'm well acquainted with Christianity. What you're giving me is your own interpretation of it. That's all there are with organized religions: interpretations. It's not something understood the same way universally. That's an inherent flaw in organized religion and it's something that each one should be held responsible for. If you want credit for the good things people will do in the name of your religion, you have to accept the bad things done in the name of your faith as well. That's what you sign up for when you choose to align yourself with a particular religion. Hell, it was the far right Christians in this country who demanded moderate Muslims apologize for and distance themselves from the actions of radical Muslims.
an eye for an eye
All this.
jawstheme
08/05/09, 08:21 PM
an eye for an eye
That's old testament. Think love your enemy and turn the other cheek. Think Jesus.
jawstheme
08/05/09, 08:22 PM
It's not about ignoring the OT, it's about recognizing the obvious changes Christ brought.
That's old testament. Think love your enemy and turn the other cheek. Think Jesus.
See: Dom's post.
peder458
08/05/09, 09:46 PM
so this is the new god thread? ok.
The supposed God of the Old Testament is such a different character as opposed to the supposed God of the New Testament (at least from the mouths of these Christians) that one can only assume he has a severely untreated case of bipolar mood disorder, or that he happens to be so conveniently prone to changes of heart that his whole little story makes just perfect sense.
Seriously, to all you Christians, to anybody that has even the most remote faith in the Christian religion, or even Scientology for that matter, how the fucking fuck do you buy into this shit? Like, after just looking over this whole story for like 10 minutes--not to mention that big fucking wrench Mormons are trying to throw into the whole equation--how the fuck?
Faith? Really? And you're supposed to think that is an acceptable answer, at that? Faith in what? Faith in giving your ultimately meaningless existence validation? Faith in your shitting pants-like fear of death? Faith in a replacement for your childhood caregiver who you sometime, a ways back, realized was not perfect, was not all good and great? Or is it something that you feel in your heart, something that a God-forsaken atheist like me could never even begin to understand or comprehend? That we just simply don't get?
'Cause really, we've all seen you stumble over your embarrassingly fallacious philosophical justifications for your stance, and it's like a big fucking blind retard bumping into trees in the dark.
To be honest, it's really pathetic how the monotheists latch and cling to the idea of God. Get with the program. God--no, not just the Victorian one--never died, and it's obvious why (Pssst... 'cuz he didn't ever exist to begin with).
God damn that feels good. I'm going to go make some lemonade.
jawstheme
08/05/09, 10:37 PM
The supposed God of the Old Testament is such a different character as opposed to the supposed God of the New Testament (at least from the mouths of these Christians) that one can only assume he has a severely untreated case of bipolar mood disorder, or that he happens to be so conveniently prone to changes of heart that his whole little story makes just perfect sense.
Seriously, to all you Christians, to anybody that has even the most remote faith in the Christian religion, or even Scientology for that matter, how the fucking fuck do you buy into this shit? Like, after just looking over this whole story for like 10 minutes--not to mention that big fucking wrench Mormons are trying to throw into the whole equation--how the fuck?
Faith? Really? And you're supposed to think that is an acceptable answer, at that? Faith in what? Faith in giving your ultimately meaningless existence validation? Faith in your shitting pants-like fear of death? Faith in a replacement for your childhood caregiver who you sometime, a ways back, realized was not perfect, was not all good and great? Or is it something that you feel in your heart, something that a God-forsaken atheist like me could never even begin to understand or comprehend? That we just simply don't get?
'Cause really, we've all seen you stumble over your embarrassingly fallacious philosophical justifications for your stance, and it's like a big fucking blind retard bumping into trees in the dark.
To be honest, it's really pathetic how the monotheists latch and cling to the idea of God. Get with the program. God--no, not just the Victorian one--never died, and it's obvious why (Pssst... 'cuz he didn't ever exist to begin with).
God damn that feels good. I'm going to go make some lemonade.
I won't warrant this complete condescending bullshit with a response.
The supposed God of the Old Testament is such a different character as opposed to the supposed God of the New Testament (at least from the mouths of these Christians) that one can only assume he has a severely untreated case of bipolar mood disorder, or that he happens to be so conveniently prone to changes of heart that his whole little story makes just perfect sense.
Seriously, to all you Christians, to anybody that has even the most remote faith in the Christian religion, or even Scientology for that matter, how the fucking fuck do you buy into this shit? Like, after just looking over this whole story for like 10 minutes--not to mention that big fucking wrench Mormons are trying to throw into the whole equation--how the fuck?
Faith? Really? And you're supposed to think that is an acceptable answer, at that? Faith in what? Faith in giving your ultimately meaningless existence validation? Faith in your shitting pants-like fear of death? Faith in a replacement for your childhood caregiver who you sometime, a ways back, realized was not perfect, was not all good and great? Or is it something that you feel in your heart, something that a God-forsaken atheist like me could never even begin to understand or comprehend? That we just simply don't get?
'Cause really, we've all seen you stumble over your embarrassingly fallacious philosophical justifications for your stance, and it's like a big fucking blind retard bumping into trees in the dark.
To be honest, it's really pathetic how the monotheists latch and cling to the idea of God. Get with the program. God--no, not just the Victorian one--never died, and it's obvious why (Pssst... 'cuz he didn't ever exist to begin with).
God damn that feels good. I'm going to go make some lemonade.
I won't warrant this complete condescending bullshit with a response.
Wow. Anti-Religious Rant of the year. Can't say I agree, but a person would HAVE to feel better after that diatribe.
jawstheme
08/05/09, 10:42 PM
2. The argument you're making is a complete non-starter. I'm well acquainted with Christianity. What you're giving me is your own interpretation of it. That's all there are with organized religions: interpretations. It's not something understood the same way universally. That's an inherent flaw in organized religion and it's something that each one should be held responsible for. If you want credit for the good things people will do in the name of your religion, you have to accept the bad things done in the name of your faith as well. That's what you sign up for when you choose to align yourself with a particular religion. Hell, it was the far right Christians in this country who demanded moderate Muslims apologize for and distance themselves from the actions of radical Muslims.
Let me try an analogy. Say you give a kid money to go get you a sandwich. That kid takes that money, goes in and shoots the clerk in the head and takes the sandwich and gives it to you. Would it be fair for people to call you a murderer?
You are condemning christianity for what people do with it. By your standards science should banned because it creates super destructive things like the atom bomb. Let's talk about how many people science has killed.
Let me try an analogy. Say you give a kid money to go get you a sandwich. That kid takes that money, goes in and shoots the clerk in the head and takes the sandwich and gives it to you. Would it be fair for people to call you a murderer?
You are condemning christianity for what people do with it. By your standards science should banned because it creates super destructive things like the atom bomb. Let's talk about how many people science has killed.
I see what you're saying, but science is not a worldview. It makes no claims, has no leaders, and is not dogmatic or authoritative in any way. The same cannot be said of religions.
jawstheme
08/05/09, 10:45 PM
See: Dom's post.
I read through the posts, didn't see a "Dom", and also didn't see a response to my post.
jawstheme
08/05/09, 10:45 PM
I see what you're saying, but science is not a worldview. It makes no claims, has no leaders, and is not dogmatic or authoritative in any way. The same cannot be said of religions.
Science makes plenty of claims
P.S. your new avatar is awesome
jawstheme
08/05/09, 10:49 PM
GeeBee, I see your point, but wars are potentially fought over science. Didn't we go to war with Iraq because we thought they had the scientific capabilities of WMDs (or so we were told)? And aren't we close to conflict with Iran and North Korea for the same thing?
Crowe41
08/05/09, 10:51 PM
Let me try an analogy. Say you give a kid money to go get you a sandwich. That kid takes that money, goes in and shoots the clerk in the head and takes the sandwich and gives it to you. Would it be fair for people to call you a murderer?
You are condemning christianity for what people do with it. By your standards science should banned because it creates super destructive things like the atom bomb. Let's talk about how many people science has killed.
Did you say science? I'm back...
The thing about science is, even if you don't believe in it, it can save your life. I can't remember a recent case of religion saving an atheists life.
Science makes plenty of claims
P.S. your new avatar is awesome
I disagree with you there, but I no longer have any bones to pick with religion. The horse has been beaten dead. Look what it did to "bung". I don't wanna go there.
P.S. inorite? I finally found the ultimate avatar for meself.
GeeBee, I see your point, but wars are potentially fought over science. Didn't we go to war with Iraq because we thought they had the scientific capabilities of WMDs (or so we were told)? And aren't we close to conflict with Iran and North Korea for the same thing?
Valid point. I think we're in two different arenas, though.
Did you say science? I'm back...
The thing about science is, even if you don't believe in it, it can save your life. I can't remember a recent case of religion saving an atheists life.
You won't find a more strident atheist on AP than me,...but I don't think this is necessarily true. I've seen religion pull plenty of lives out of the gutter. I'd be the first to tell them it was BELIEF in god, and not god himself, that did it, but nonetheless...
Crowe41
08/05/09, 10:55 PM
Valid point. I think we're in two different arenas, though.
You won't find a more strident atheist on AP than me,...but I don't think this is necessarily true. I've seen religion pull plenty of lives out of the gutter. I'd be the first to tell them it was BELIEF in god, and not god himself, that did it, but nonetheless...
Ya bad attempt at trying to write down my thought...I was trying to say someone who doesn't find god...but fuck it that doesn't even make sense. It's late. You're right about the dead horse.
jawstheme
08/05/09, 10:55 PM
Valid point. I think we're in two different arenas, though.
You won't find a more strident atheist on AP than me,...but I don't think this is necessarily true. I've seen religion pull plenty of lives out of the gutter. I'd be the first to tell them it was BELIEF in god, and not god himself, that did it, but nonetheless...
Right. Even I think that it is more psychological than anything else. Placebo effect.
jawstheme
08/05/09, 10:58 PM
I disagree with you there, but I no longer have any bones to pick with religion. The horse has been beaten dead. Look what it did to "bung". I don't wanna go there.
P.S. inorite? I finally found the ultimate avatar for meself.
hahahaha. well hopefully it was therapeutic for him, if nothing else.
Let me try an analogy. Say you give a kid money to go get you a sandwich. That kid takes that money, goes in and shoots the clerk in the head and takes the sandwich and gives it to you. Would it be fair for people to call you a murderer?
I think this thread has had enough terrible analogies. Preaching a superior set of morals is not equivalent to giving a kid money to buy something for you.
You are condemning christianity for what people do with it.
Do Christians not celebrate their faith when someone does something positive with it?
By your standards science should banned because it creates super destructive things like the atom bomb. Let's talk about how many people science has killed.
Where the hell did I say Christianity should be banned?
I read through the posts, didn't see a "Dom", and also didn't see a response to my post.
Love As Arson. The point about religions moving their moral goalposts as society's evolve.
jawstheme
08/05/09, 11:19 PM
I think this thread has had enough terrible analogies. Preaching a superior set of morals is not equivalent to giving a kid money to buy something for you.
Do Christians not celebrate their faith when someone does something positive with it?
Where the hell did I say Christianity should be banned?
Love As Arson. The point about religions moving their moral goalposts as society's evolve.
-So preaching morals is wrong? How is anyone supposed to be a parent without teaching their kids any set of morals?
My point is that it's killing out of context. If you say love your neighbor and don't kill anybody, and that person kills somebody for not loving their neighbor, should that go back to the original teaching even though the original teaching said don't kill anybody?
-What? Doesn't science celebrate with every breakthrough?
-You are saying that it is extremely harmful, are you not?
- That was a very short lesson of christianity moving their "goalposts" as societies evolve. In fact I think it was only one example. Also, the basic teachings of christianity are always the same. It's the churches that have political and business ties that change their goalposts.
Edit: After reading through your posts, it seems like your main problem is with organized religions and churches, which I pretty much agree with you on. In this case some of my responses don't fit in with your arguments and I apologize. I think we are actually more on the same page than I thought.
-So preaching morals is wrong? How is anyone supposed to be a parent without teaching their kids any set of morals?
There's nothing wrong with instilling a set of morals in your kid. I think the organized religion approach is far different. You're preaching morals broadly and implying that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your sense of morality is ultimately inferior. That's why most of these cultural issues get out of hand, particularly abortion and gay rights. These people fight in the manner they do because they believe they're doing God's work.
My point is that it's killing out of context. If you say love your neighbor and don't kill anybody, and that person kills somebody for not loving their neighbor, should that go back to the original teaching even though the original teaching said don't kill anybody?
I've been arguing against an inherent flaw I see in the idea of organized religion(that people will ultimately use it for bad just as much as it will be used for good), not against Christianity or any teaching of Jesus's in particular. I don't think anyone's arguing that the New Testament advocates people go out and commit heinous acts in the name of their religion, I've just been arguing what is inevitable given human nature. When you make religion public instead of keeping it private, it increases the likelihood of bad things happening because of it. I'm all for religion on an individual scale. Keep it private/to yourself.
-What? Doesn't science celebrate with every breakthrough?
You failed to answer my question. You said it's wrong to condemn a religion for a bad thing someone does in the name of it. So then why are positive things celebrated when they're done in the name of a particular faith?
I already said the good things and the bad things are both unavoidable byproducts of organized religion, but you only want to take one of the two.
-You are saying that it is extremely harmful, are you not?
Science in the wrong hands can certainly be harmful. I never suggested banning Christianity though so I have no clue what your point was.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 08:26 AM
Science has killed no one, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
jawstheme
08/06/09, 08:55 AM
Science has killed no one, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Chernobyl.
jawstheme
08/06/09, 09:00 AM
There's nothing wrong with instilling a set of morals in your kid. I think the organized religion approach is far different. You're preaching morals broadly and implying that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your sense of morality is ultimately inferior. That's why most of these cultural issues get out of hand, particularly abortion and gay rights. These people fight in the manner they do because they believe they're doing God's work.
I've been arguing against an inherent flaw I see in the idea of organized religion(that people will ultimately use it for bad just as much as it will be used for good), not against Christianity or any teaching of Jesus's in particular. I don't think anyone's arguing that the New Testament advocates people go out and commit heinous acts in the name of their religion, I've just been arguing what is inevitable given human nature. When you make religion public instead of keeping it private, it increases the likelihood of bad things happening because of it. I'm all for religion on an individual scale. Keep it private/to yourself.
You failed to answer my question. You said it's wrong to condemn a religion for a bad thing someone does in the name of it. So then why are positive things celebrated when they're done in the name of a particular faith?
I already said the good things and the bad things are both unavoidable byproducts of organized religion, but you only want to take one of the two.
Science in the wrong hands can certainly be harmful. I never suggested banning Christianity though so I have no clue what your point was.
Again, I didn't realize you were talking about organized religions, and I agree with you.
Crowe41
08/06/09, 09:13 AM
Chernobyl.
Before this gets out of hand. I'm going to recommend reading the book "Rocks of Ages" by Stephen J. Gould. Or just read the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocks_of_Ages).
I'm not sure the Scientology thread is the place for discussing science vs. religion. Once again I'm offended when science gets linked to scientology, the science in scientology is from "Science Fiction".
perceptrons
08/06/09, 09:24 AM
Chernobyl.
Yeah, human error sucks, doesn't it? Were you going to give me an example of science killing, though?
perceptrons
08/06/09, 09:41 AM
Before this gets out of hand. I'm going to recommend reading the book "Rocks of Ages" by Stephen J. Gould. Or just read the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocks_of_Ages).
I'm not sure the Scientology thread is the place for discussing science vs. religion. Once again I'm offended when science gets linked to scientology, the science in scientology is from "Science Fiction".
I don't anyone is linking science with Scientology, actually.
jawstheme
08/06/09, 09:50 AM
Yeah, human error sucks, doesn't it? Were you going to give me an example of science killing, though?
That's my point. Anything put in the wrong hands is dangerous. You can't blame christianity, which is trying to help people at it's core, not harm them. You also can't blame science itself, because the goal of science is also to help people.
jawstheme
08/06/09, 09:53 AM
Before this gets out of hand. I'm going to recommend reading the book "Rocks of Ages" by Stephen J. Gould. Or just read the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocks_of_Ages).
I'm not sure the Scientology thread is the place for discussing science vs. religion. Once again I'm offended when science gets linked to scientology, the science in scientology is from "Science Fiction".
I'm not trying to pit science against religion. I'm just trying to say that they can both be used to help and harm people. This discussion has pretty much strayed away from sceintology.
Crowe41
08/06/09, 10:11 AM
I'm not trying to pit science against religion. I'm just trying to say that they can both be used to help and harm people. This discussion has pretty much strayed away from sceintology.
Fair enough. Just to tie it all together, scientology can also be used to help and harm people. Personally, I don't always agree with people seeking medication to alter their moods. Obviously there are cases where it's necessary, but there are also alternative ways to address those issues and maybe that is a positive from scientology.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 10:12 AM
That's my point. Anything put in the wrong hands is dangerous. You can't blame christianity, which is trying to help people at it's core, not harm them. You also can't blame science itself, because the goal of science is also to help people.
Scientific advances =/= science. I don't think you understand that science is just a process of discovery.
Science and religion are so far removed from each other in this context it's mind numbing that they are being compared here.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 10:14 AM
Fair enough. Just to tie it all together, scientology can also be used to help and harm people. Personally, I don't always agree with people seeking medication to alter their moods. Obviously there are cases where it's necessary, but there are also alternative ways to address those issues and maybe that is a positive from scientology.
Scientology argues against the entire field. That doesn't bring awareness to alternatives, that brings stupidity. It's not like psychiatrists and psychologists love giving out drugs all the time, either.
For example, for OCD, anti-depressants have been shown to help some, but the championed treatment by the mental health community is CBT.
Crowe41
08/06/09, 10:27 AM
Scientology argues against the entire field. That doesn't bring awareness to alternatives, that brings stupidity. It's not like psychiatrists and psychologists love giving out drugs all the time, either.
For example, for OCD, anti-depressants have been shown to help some, but the championed treatment by the mental health community is CBT.
It's not like psychiatrists and psychologists love giving out drugs all the time, but people that are depressed or have anxiety issues can sometimes be a little too quick to accept medication. At least in my personal experience. I like the scientology method of 'auditing' or whatever, confronting problematic issues of the past instead of suppressing them and numbing them with chemicals. The claim to dismiss the entire field of pschology yet you could argue that some of their methods are psychiatric.
Don't get me wrong, I think scientology is a joke, but there are also some positives with it to coincide with the negatives.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 10:36 AM
It's not like psychiatrists and psychologists love giving out drugs all the time, but people that are depressed or have anxiety issues can sometimes be a little too quick to accept medication. At least in my personal experience. I like the scientology method of 'auditing' or whatever, confronting problematic issues of the past instead of suppressing them and numbing them with chemicals. The claim to dismiss the entire field of pschology yet you could argue that some of their methods are psychiatric.
Don't get me wrong, I think scientology is a joke, but there are also some positives with it to coincide with the negatives.
The problem is with people, and it is a very big problem. However, placing distrust in practitioners of clinical psychology and psychiatry by saying that they do nothing but harm the people that need help.
Their auditing is closer to an interrogation than any sort of treatment. The people in Scientology that give these audits know nothing about what they are doing, they are not trained. That's not helpful, that's not healthy.
If you think auditing sounds good, read up on CBT (cognitive-behavioral therapy).
Crowe41
08/06/09, 10:52 AM
The problem is with people, and it is a very big problem. However, placing distrust in practitioners of clinical psychology and psychiatry by saying that they do nothing but harm the people that need help.
Their auditing is closer to an interrogation than any sort of treatment. The people in Scientology that give these audits know nothing about what they are doing, they are not trained. That's not helpful, that's not healthy.
If you think auditing sounds good, read up on CBT (cognitive-behavioral therapy).
Will do. Thanks... I was always more into sociology than psychology but it's definitely an interesting field.
jawstheme
08/06/09, 10:58 AM
Scientific advances =/= science. I don't think you understand that science is just a process of discovery.
Science and religion are so far removed from each other in this context it's mind numbing that they are being compared here.
No, I'm a moron. I had no idea science and discovery are tied together. It's hypocritical of you to say that scientific discovery doesn't lead to murder but christianity does.
How are scientific advances not science?
You say scientific advances =/= science, and I say Roman Catholocism =/= Christianity.
My Broken Fever
08/06/09, 11:05 AM
No, I'm a moron. I had no idea science and discovery are tied together. It's hypocritical of you to say that scientific discovery doesn't lead to murder but christianity does.
How are scientific advances not science?
You say scientific advances =/= science, and I say Roman Catholocism =/= Christianity. Science doesn't tell people to go somewhere and commit genocide, sects/cults of Christianity however have done exactly that. Science doesn't have an opinion, it doesn't tell people what to do with discoveries; religions on the other hand do. It might offer weapons to kill people, but it doesn't tell people directly to go out and commit that act.
jawstheme
08/06/09, 11:06 AM
Science doesn't tell people to go somewhere and commit genocide, sects/cults of Christianity however have done exactly that. Science doesn't have an opinion, it doesn't tell people what to do with discoveries; religions on the other hand do. It might offer weapons to kill people, but it doesn't tell people directly to go out and commit that act.
Please show me how Christ told people to commit genocide.
My Broken Fever
08/06/09, 11:09 AM
Please show me how Christ told people to commit genocide.
The crusades were done in the name of Christ. I'm not talking about some individual, I'm talking about the religion of Christianity.
Animalhill
08/06/09, 11:14 AM
It's not like psychiatrists and psychologists love giving out drugs all the time, but people that are depressed or have anxiety issues can sometimes be a little too quick to accept medication. At least in my personal experience. I like the scientology method of 'auditing' or whatever, confronting problematic issues of the past instead of suppressing them and numbing them with chemicals. The claim to dismiss the entire field of pschology yet you could argue that some of their methods are psychiatric.
Don't get me wrong, I think scientology is a joke, but there are also some positives with it to coincide with the negatives.
Do you have any experience with this? I do. And yes, they will literally write you a script after 2 minutes of talking to you.
jawstheme
08/06/09, 11:15 AM
The crusades were done in the name of Christ. I'm not talking about some individual, I'm talking about the religion of Christianity.
There were large number of christians against the crusades at the time. Nothing in Christ's life suggested anything like the crusades. If I go out and kill someone in your name, should you be blamed?
I think what you're talking about is christianity being mixed with state and political affairs, in which case I agree with you.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 11:16 AM
No, I'm a moron. I had no idea science and discovery are tied together. It's hypocritical of you to say that scientific discovery doesn't lead to murder but christianity does.
How are scientific advances not science?
You say scientific advances =/= science, and I say Roman Catholocism =/= Christianity.
Scientific advances come from the scientific process. Scientific advancements/knowledge, in the wrong hands, can be used for harm, yes. Science itself? No. Religion has claims, teachings, rules, etc., science does not. If people follow and do as their religious texts instruct them to do, they would (probably), eventually, do harm to themselves or another (mentally or physically). There is nothing to follow or instructions to carry out in science. If people were to use scientific advancements or knowledge for foul purposes, I doubt it would be "to advance scientific process," except in extremely rare situations.
I would agree that Roman Catholicism is not Christianity.
I think you will find that I was not one of the posters in this debate, until just now.
jawstheme
08/06/09, 11:16 AM
Do you have any experience with this? I do. And yes, they will literally write you a script after 2 minutes of talking to you.
Truth. Most of this country is on medication.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 11:17 AM
Do you have any experience with this? I do. And yes, they will literally write you a script after 2 minutes of talking to you.
In general, the community would rather move away from this dependency on drugs.
My Broken Fever
08/06/09, 11:18 AM
There were large number of christians against the crusades at the time. Nothing in Christ's life suggested anything like the crusades. If I go out and kill someone in your name, should you be blamed?
I think what you're talking about is christianity being mixed with state and political affairs, in which case I agree with you. It doesn't matter if it's mixed. It's still Christianity that has the blood of millions sticking to it.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 11:18 AM
Truth. Most of this country is on medication.
Because people demand a pill, not because doctors (good ones) get their jollies from drugging everyone up.
jawstheme
08/06/09, 11:22 AM
Because people demand a pill, not because doctors (good ones) get their jollies from drugging everyone up.
You don't think the pharmaceutical companies have anything to do with how easy it is to get a prescription?
jawstheme
08/06/09, 11:28 AM
It doesn't matter if it's mixed. It's still Christianity that has the blood of millions sticking to it.
It does matter if it's mixed because the state will want to conquer lands for their own purposes and use the popular religion of the land to get this done. In this case religion is extremely harmful because it leads to a false notion of doing something right even though you're doing something very, very wrong.
There is nothing wrong with the teachings of christianity though, and if it makes someone happier with their life you should have no problem with it either. Jesus wanted to spread his word through love, not through force. When it get's mixed with politics, which usually end up pushing agendas through force and killing, it is no longer christianity.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 11:28 AM
You don't think the pharmaceutical companies have anything to do with how easy it is to get a prescription?
Of course they do, hence why I said "(good ones)".
Animalhill
08/06/09, 11:28 AM
Truth. Most of this country is on medication.
True, and while some people really do need it, the vast majority is because of pharmecutical vendor incentives.
In general, the community would rather move away from this dependency on drugs.
Which community?
jawstheme
08/06/09, 11:31 AM
Of course they do, hence why I said "(good ones)".
Haha, I didn't even catch that. I agree.
My Broken Fever
08/06/09, 11:43 AM
It does matter if it's mixed because the state will want to conquer lands for their own purposes and use the popular religion of the land to get this done. In this case religion is extremely harmful because it leads to a false notion of doing something right even though you're doing something very, very wrong.
There is nothing wrong with the teachings of christianity though, and if it makes someone happier with their life you should have no problem with it either. Jesus wanted to spread his word through love, not through force. When it get's mixed with politics, which usually end up pushing agendas through force and killing, it is no longer christianity. The teachings of Christianity are full of bigotry, racism and genocide. Just because the Old Testament doesn't fit your interpretation doesn't mean it's not a part of Christianity. Also Jesus for all his 'love', is the first to mention hell. At least the divine totalitarian dictator in the Old Testament had the decency to leave the people killed in his name alone once they were dead. The Old Testament is a part of Christianity, whether you like it or not. Your is just another interpretation of an ancient book that should have been disregarded long, long ago.
Also; it doesn't stop being Christianity because you happen to disagree with that version, Roman Catholicism is just another cult/sect of Christianity.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 11:49 AM
Which community?
The medical community.
One of the problems is that when a place is underfunded, pharmacutical incentives an easy route to go to get more money.
Crowe41
08/06/09, 11:53 AM
It does matter if it's mixed because the state will want to conquer lands for their own purposes and use the popular religion of the land to get this done. In this case religion is extremely harmful because it leads to a false notion of doing something right even though you're doing something very, very wrong.
There is nothing wrong with the teachings of christianity though, and if it makes someone happier with their life you should have no problem with it either. Jesus wanted to spread his word through love, not through force. When it get's mixed with politics, which usually end up pushing agendas through force and killing, it is no longer christianity.
...just wanted to comment that you present yourself well. Unfortunately I have a hard time believing that your voice stands for the majority of Christians. It seems like you are in the minority of those who 'get it'.
Animalhill
08/06/09, 12:01 PM
The medical community.
One of the problems is that when a place is underfunded, pharmacutical incentives an easy route to go to get more money.
Do you have any first-hand experience in psychiatric aid? Becuase if you did, you would know the medical community is doing anything BUT trying to write less scripts. Overprescribing, and REWIRING people's brains is not justified by lack of "funds". Its fucking disgusting.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 12:07 PM
Do you have any first-hand experience in psychiatric aid? Becuase if you did, you would know the medical community is doing anything BUT trying to write less scripts. Overprescribing, and REWIRING people's brains is not justified by lack of "funds". Its fucking disgusting.
I have some. Perhaps we are not referring to the same thing when we say medical community? I'm fully aware that there is a large pharmacutical machine that influences a lot, and pushes for more medicating, but there is also a large push against it. When I say medical community, I'm not referring to the whole medical/pharmacutical business, but the practicioners themselves.
.invisible ink.
08/06/09, 12:10 PM
Do you have any first-hand experience in psychiatric aid? Becuase if you did, you would know the medical community is doing anything BUT trying to write less scripts. Overprescribing, and REWIRING people's brains is not justified by lack of "funds". Its fucking disgusting.
this. The medical schools are highly funded by the pharmaceutical companies so what you end up with is a generation of doctors who have not been trained to evaluate a whole body approach to treatment, but rather to treat by prescribing pharmaceuticals to attempt to manage symptoms rather than causes. it's a travesty.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 12:13 PM
this. The medical schools are highly funded by the pharmaceutical companies so what you end up with is a generation of doctors who have not been trained to evaluate a whole body approach to treatment, but rather to treat by prescribing pharmaceuticals to attempt to manage symptoms rather than causes. it's a travesty.
This is also true, which is why I hope the current push against it can make some impact. It doesn't help though when public support is so minimal, as people aren't aware of the problem.
Animalhill
08/06/09, 12:15 PM
I have some. Perhaps we are not referring to the same thing when we say medical community? I'm fully aware that there is a large pharmacutical machine that influences a lot, and pushes for more medicating, but there is also a large push against it. When I say medical community, I'm not referring to the whole medical/pharmacutical business, but the practicioners themselves.
But the practicioners are trained and molded by said pharme-machine. I've been written script after script, from various doctors, for medication brand names that match the logo on the pen they are using to write it, at which point I tell them to go fuck themselves.
.invisible ink.
08/06/09, 12:25 PM
This is also true, which is why I hope the current push against it can make some impact. It doesn't help though when public support is so minimal, as people aren't aware of the problem.
"the current push against it" by whom and in what capacity? if you're speaking strictly about those individuals who do their own research to educate themselves about alternative treatments and therapies, we've got a long way to go. There are few lobbyists pushing this agenda because there's no money in it and the government is in bed with big pharma not to mention the FDA earns more and more control every day as to what alternatives will even be available on the open market in this country.
perceptrons
08/06/09, 12:39 PM
"the current push against it" by whom and in what capacity? if you're speaking strictly about those individuals who do their own research to educate themselves about alternative treatments and therapies, we've got a long way to go. There are few lobbyists pushing this agenda because there's no money in it and the government is in bed with big pharma not to mention the FDA earns more and more control every day as to what alternatives will even be available on the open market in this country.
Admittedly, I don't know much of the political side of the issue, so I could be over-estimating the amount of push against it there is. When I say the push against it, I'm just going off the articles I read, and doctors I've spoken to on the issue. If I've been over-estimating, then that would be quite sad news indeed.
.invisible ink.
08/06/09, 12:50 PM
Admittedly, I don't know much of the political side of the issue, so I could be over-estimating the amount of push against it there is. When I say the push against it, I'm just going off the articles I read, and doctors I've spoken to on the issue. If I've been over-estimating, then that would be quite sad news indeed.
i believe that more and more people are getting fed up with the bullshit being fed to them by the western medical community but i think a lot of them a) don't have the time to become their own advocate b) are not savvy enough to fully understand what non-medical alternatives are capable of and how to apply them to their specific situations , and c) are afraid to do something that goes against what their doctor has prescribed as treatment. Those are a lot of hurdles to overcome, especially when society is bombarded with ads for medicines which make it seem like all that is necessary is to pop a pill and be saved, which is unfortunately rarely the case.
in order for a real change to be made in the medical community and in the overall health of this country, the government needs to step back and remove itself from the food and drug industries. I'm not stating that we should have no checks and balances over what products are sold by any means, but when you really step back and examine who is really running this country - it's the chemical companies who do not have our best interest in mind. (I'm happy to expound on this.)
jawstheme
08/06/09, 01:56 PM
The teachings of Christianity are full of bigotry, racism and genocide. Just because the Old Testament doesn't fit your interpretation doesn't mean it's not a part of Christianity. Also Jesus for all his 'love', is the first to mention hell. At least the divine totalitarian dictator in the Old Testament had the decency to leave the people killed in his name alone once they were dead. The Old Testament is a part of Christianity, whether you like it or not. Your is just another interpretation of an ancient book that should have been disregarded long, long ago.
Also; it doesn't stop being Christianity because you happen to disagree with that version, Roman Catholicism is just another cult/sect of Christianity.
-The whole purposes of Jesus and the New Testament was to redefine the Old Testament. Nobody is ignoring it.
-Jesus spoke of "Gehenna" which does not mean hell in the sense that you're thinking. It is a place where dead bodies of wicked people were thrown. He was saying that if you live as a sinner your death will be shameful and you will not have a resurrection. You will just be one in a pile of dead bodies. He never condemned people to a place of eternal torture, instead he invited salvation. Latin translators substituted the word hell to replace gehenna and hades for some unknown reason, most likely for fear mongering purposes.
-It stops being christian once there is corruption and murder because the teachings of christianity would never condone such things.
I'm honestly done with this discussion. I agree with you that religion can be bad and can be used to lead people to do horrible things. I don't agree that the Bible is a worthless book. Let's just leave it at that.
jawstheme
08/06/09, 02:00 PM
...just wanted to comment that you present yourself well. Unfortunately I have a hard time believing that your voice stands for the majority of Christians. It seems like you are in the minority of those who 'get it'.
Thanks, and I agree that I'm in the minority of christians. Most people consider themselves christian because that's how they were raised and they celebrate Christmas. I think that there should be much more of a questioning struggle. Most christians I know haven't even read the entire Bible.
xfantabulousx
08/06/09, 02:54 PM
i believe that more and more people are getting fed up with the bullshit being fed to them by the western medical community but i think a lot of them a) don't have the time to become their own advocate b) are not savvy enough to fully understand what non-medical alternatives are capable of and how to apply them to their specific situations , and c) are afraid to do something that goes against what their doctor has prescribed as treatment. Those are a lot of hurdles to overcome, especially when society is bombarded with ads for medicines which make it seem like all that is necessary is to pop a pill and be saved, which is unfortunately rarely the case.
in order for a real change to be made in the medical community and in the overall health of this country, the government needs to step back and remove itself from the food and drug industries. I'm not stating that we should have no checks and balances over what products are sold by any means, but when you really step back and examine who is really running this country - it's the chemical companies who do not have our best interest in mind. (I'm happy to expound on this.)
Please do expound. How is it that "chemical companies" are running our country? I'm not angry, just curious.
xfantabulousx
08/06/09, 02:59 PM
"the current push against it" by whom and in what capacity? if you're speaking strictly about those individuals who do their own research to educate themselves about alternative treatments and therapies, we've got a long way to go. There are few lobbyists pushing this agenda because there's no money in it and the government is in bed with big pharma not to mention the FDA earns more and more control every day as to what alternatives will even be available on the open market in this country.
Haha never mind about my last post. I already know where you're going with this...
.invisible ink.
08/06/09, 03:37 PM
Please do expound. How is it that "chemical companies" are running our country? I'm not angry, just curious.
Ok, it's a big web which I will try to make pretty simple so i don't end up writing a book. The big chemical companies like Dow and Monsanto have a vested interest in our food supply in order to sell more product and make more profit, obviously. These companies have strong political ties and connections with the FDA and USDA. The industrialized agriculture in this country (one of the major contributors to the obesity epidemic, which by the way, is totally relevant to this discussion) was brought about by the government in the 1970s deciding to subsidize the production of crops because their buddies at the chemical companies wanted more business. The government pays farmers to grow more and more cheap crops whether they're needed or not. If you think about it on a lower level, the family farm is now gone. Farmers can no longer feed themselves off of what they produce. Farming has become big business. Generally the majority of crop producers are producing only between one to three different crops: industrial corn (not the sweet corn that you can pick up and eat), wheat, and soybeans. Farmers grow more with the help of chemicals (pesticides). The excess crops are then used as animal feed and cheap sources of sugar (high fructose corn syrup). These crops which have extremely low levels of any nutrients have completely infiltrated our food systems because they're cheap and profitable to the guys at the top.
Here's where I'm sure I come off as more of a conspiracy theorist, so feel free to disagree with my inference...Why do you think this cycle of factory farming is still being funded by our government and allowed to proliferate when we know it's so destructive to our health and well being as a society? Look at the profits that are being turned to not only create but to treat this epidemic! Here's where the pharmaceutical companies (who also have armies of lobbyists) come in. Why should we break a cycle that creates so much wealth?
Basically that's the abridged/simplified version of why I say the chemical companies run this country.
Oh and don't believe me that politics and chemicals are strongly linked? Take a look at good ol' Donald Rumsfeld for example (and he's not the only one):
(from wikipedia): From 1977 to 1985 Rumsfeld served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G. D. Searle & Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._D._Searle_%26_Company), a worldwide pharmaceutical company based in Skokie, Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skokie,_Illinois). During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld led the company's financial turnaround, thereby earning awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, Searle was sold to Monsanto Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Company).
Don't even get me started on the link between aspartame and the government, lol.
anyway i hope that was helpful. i'm really passionate about this topic (and don't really care that i've totally threadjacked the Scientology thread) and would love to have a good conversation on here about this sort of thing.
Edit: I have my dates wrong. The government getting involved in agriculture began in the 1930s and really got booming in the 1950s. Here's an interesting article regarding the commodification of agriculture in the US. http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=656
.invisible ink.
08/06/09, 03:37 PM
Haha never mind about my last post. I already know where you're going with this...
too late, you got a small book.
xfantabulousx
08/06/09, 04:11 PM
Ok, it's a big web which I will try to make pretty simple so i don't end up writing a book. The big chemical companies like Dow and Monsanto have a vested interest in our food supply in order to sell more product and make more profit, obviously. These companies have strong political ties and connections with the FDA and USDA. The industrialized agriculture in this country (one of the major contributors to the obesity epidemic, which by the way, is totally relevant to this discussion) was brought about by the government in the 1970s deciding to subsidize the production of crops because their buddies at the chemical companies wanted more business. The government pays farmers to grow more and more cheap crops whether they're needed or not. If you think about it on a lower level, the family farm is now gone. Farmers can no longer feed themselves off of what they produce. Farming has become big business. Generally the majority of crop producers are only producing only between one to three different crops (industrial corn (not the sweet corn that you can pick up and eat), wheat, and soybeans. Farmers grow more with the help of chemicals (pesticides). The excess crops are then used as animal feed and cheap sources of sugar (high fructose corn syrup). These crops which have extremely low levels of any nutrients have completely infiltrated our food systems because they're cheap and profitable to the guys at the top.
Here's where I'm sure I come off as more of a conspiracy theorist, so feel free to disagree with my inference...Why do you think this cycle of factory farming is still being funded by our government and allowed to proliferate when we know it's so destructive to our health and well being as a society? Look at the profits that are being turned to not only create but to treat this epidemic! Here's where the pharmaceutical companies (who also have armies of lobbyists) come in. Why should we break a cycle that creates so much wealth?
Basically that's the abridged/simplified version of why I say the chemical companies run this country.
Oh and don't believe me that politics and chemicals are strongly linked? Take a look at good ol' Donald Rumsfeld for example (and he's not the only one):
(from wikipedia): From 1977 to 1985 Rumsfeld served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G. D. Searle & Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._D._Searle_%26_Company), a worldwide pharmaceutical company based in Skokie, Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skokie,_Illinois). During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld led the company's financial turnaround, thereby earning awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, Searle was sold to Monsanto Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Company).
Don't even get me started on the link between aspartame and the government, lol.
anyway i hope that was helpful. i'm really passionate about this topic (and don't really care that i've totally threadjacked the Scientology thread) and would love to have a good conversation on here about this sort of thing.
I'm also fairly interested in the FDA, but I unfortunately know very little about the agricultural part of it (though your post is getting me interested in it). I just get a little defensive about statements like "Big Pharma's in bed with the FDA" because a lot of times it's followed with wild claims about FDA employees getting gifts from drug companies to approve drugs and all sorts of other crazy accusations. I'm going to do my reading on the agriculture stuff you talked about though, it's very interesting.
And my opinion on Scientology? I have absolutely nothing good to say about it.
.invisible ink.
08/06/09, 04:27 PM
I'm also fairly interested in the FDA, but I unfortunately know very little about the agricultural part of it (though your post is getting me interested in it). I just get a little defensive about statements like "Big Pharma's in bed with the FDA" because a lot of times it's followed with wild claims about FDA employees getting gifts from drug companies to approve drugs and all sorts of other crazy accusations. I'm going to do my reading on the agriculture stuff you talked about though, it's very interesting.
And my opinion on Scientology? I have absolutely nothing good to say about it.
i'm not well-educated on the gifting practices of pharmaceutical companies but i wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to be quite honest. why do you feel so strongly that these claims are "crazy" ? do you have substantiated evidence against them?
ghostyouare
08/06/09, 04:35 PM
Christianity doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's values are always changing in accordance with a shift in relations in a society. During the feudal era, we had the divine right of kings and with the rise of the bourgeois, all of a sudden, we had god-given rights.
Ehh, yes and no. The Christian laws/rights are never changing. What the church and people want to focus on and hype is in accordance to time and culture.
Thats what annoys me with this thread. "THE CRUSADES WERE HORRIBLE, THEREFORE CHRISTIANITY AT ITS MOST FUNDAMENTAL IS WRONG!"
Josh Weinstein
08/06/09, 08:11 PM
Okay, it looks like my idea with this thread turned out to go in the opposite direction. I did not meant it to turn into a Scientology vs. Christianity debate or a Christianity vs. science debate. Again, I'll restate my intention that I wanted to know why people followed and devoted their income to the church of Scientology. I understand most, if not all, users on ap.net are not scientology followers, but I wanted an understanding why members were members.
peder458
08/06/09, 08:17 PM
Okay, it looks like my idea with this thread turned out to go in the opposite direction. I did not meant it to turn into a Scientology vs. Christianity debate or a Christianity vs. science debate. Again, I'll restate my intention that I wanted to know why people followed and devoted their income to the church of Scientology. I understand most, if not all, users on ap.net are not scientology followers, but I wanted an understanding why members were members.
it would be pretty interesting if someone was a follower.
ghostyouare
08/06/09, 08:23 PM
Okay, it looks like my idea with this thread turned out to go in the opposite direction. I did not meant it to turn into a Scientology vs. Christianity debate or a Christianity vs. science debate. Again, I'll restate my intention that I wanted to know why people followed and devoted their income to the church of Scientology. I understand most, if not all, users on ap.net are not scientology followers, but I wanted an understanding why members were members.
I think scientology does an amazing job of making lonely people feel some where they belong.
I think scientology does an amazing job of making lonely people feel some where they belong.
Reminds me of that Boy Meets World episode where Shawn joins a cult and Turner wrecks his motorcycle.
peder458
08/06/09, 10:18 PM
Reminds me of that Boy Meets World episode where Shawn joins a cult and Turner wrecks his motorcycle.
great fucking episode....
quality comparison.
whataclush
08/06/09, 11:01 PM
I agree with everything except what I bolded: relgions = cults. Same thing.
I get what you're saying, that all religions on some level influence how you think and act, but I still have to dissagree that they are the same thing.
From dictionary.com
Religion:
-Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
-A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Cult:
-A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
-The followers of such a religion or sect.
So while a cult is a religion, a religion is not necessarily a cult. A cult generally involves being cut off from non-members, and will sometimes involve some sort of scam to trick members out of money.
basically, pot kettle black since all religions will claim all of the other one's to be scams. looking at merriam's definition, cult and religion are the same fucking thing. the word "cult" is used for minority religions ive noticed, and 99% of the time, the word is used by the religious themselves since the rest of us in common sense land know its the same thing.
caveBEAR
08/06/09, 11:22 PM
basically, pot kettle black since all religions will claim all of the other one's to be scams. looking at merriam's definition, cult and religion are the same fucking thing. the word "cult" is used for minority religions ive noticed, and 99% of the time, the word is used by the religious themselves since the rest of us in common sense land know its the same thing.
Actually, he was right. Cults remove people from their friends, family, usually have one enigmatic leader, and generally believe something that flies in the face of the norm. Religions, however, don't steal people from their friends and families, don't really have one leader (beyond their gods, but I mean a tangible human) and their beliefs, whether you also believe them or not, are within the norm. Now...SCIENTOLOGY...a little close to the cult line, but main religions? Nah.
whataclush
08/06/09, 11:31 PM
Actually, he was right. Cults remove people from their friends, family, usually have one enigmatic leader, and generally believe something that flies in the face of the norm. Religions, however, don't steal people from their friends and families, don't really have one leader (beyond their gods, but I mean a tangible human) and their beliefs, whether you also believe them or not, are within the norm. Now...SCIENTOLOGY...a little close to the cult line, but main religions? Nah.
as long its the service and worship of the supernatural and/or god/s....its a religion = cult. everything you said about a cult, can be applied to most mainstream religions.
caveBEAR
08/06/09, 11:36 PM
as long its the service and worship of the supernatural and/or god/s....its a religion = cult. everything you said about a cult, can be applied to most mainstream religions.
Yup. Except for the removal from friends/family, enigmatic leader, and strange, against the grain beliefs, which would be my three points, my only three points, all the other points I made are pretty much interchangeable between religions and cults.
whataclush
08/06/09, 11:46 PM
Yup. Except for the removal from friends/family, enigmatic leader, and strange, against the grain beliefs, which would be my three points, my only three points, all the other points I made are pretty much interchangeable between religions and cults.
thats very subjective. every religion will consider the other one to be strange. every religion had a leader at some point to get the ball rolling. every religion still has leaders in some shape or form (i.e. pastors, rabbis). oh and martyrdom definitely doesnt remove you from family and friends.
caveBEAR
08/06/09, 11:54 PM
thats very subjective. every religion will consider the other one to be strange. every religion had a leader at some point to get the ball rolling. every religion still has leaders in some shape or form (i.e. pastors, rabbis). oh and martyrdom definitely doesnt remove you from family and friends.
No, it's really not all that subjective. Muslims look at Christians as strange. Jews look at Muslims as strange. Christians look at Jews as strange. In the end, however, Muslims, Jews and Christians all agree that a group who thinks alien warlords dropped beings in a volcano to kickstart humanity is FUCKING S-T-R-A-N-G-E. Just because you look at god as an abstract or unreal thing, doesn't mean the mainstream does. Cults generally have only one leader, and that's it. You'd be hard pressed to find a church outside of Wyoming that doesn't have at least 5 priests, let alone the entire power structure above that. Cults, as well, don't let you talk to friends or family while you are in the cult. You know...alive. Death, no matter what your religion, removes you from your family and friends. Just because there have been martyrs doesn't mean religions are cults. As a matter of fact, the ratio of martyrs to non-martyrs in the history of religion...pretty staggering difference there. Martyrs do not make all religions cults. If I thought your argument was stupid, so I lit myself on fire, it wouldn't make ap.net a fire hazzard. It would just make me a martyr.
whataclush
08/07/09, 12:00 AM
No, it's really not all that subjective. Muslims look at Christians as strange. Jews look at Muslims as strange. Christians look at Jews as strange. In the end, however, Muslims, Jews and Christians all agree that a group who thinks alien warlords dropped beings in a volcano to kickstart humanity is FUCKING S-T-R-A-N-G-E. Just because you look at god as an abstract or unreal thing, doesn't mean the mainstream does. Cults generally have only one leader, and that's it. You'd be hard pressed to find a church outside of Wyoming that doesn't have at least 5 priests, let alone the entire power structure above that. Cults, as well, don't let you talk to friends or family while you are in the cult. You know...alive. Death, no matter what your religion, removes you from your family and friends. Just because there have been martyrs doesn't mean religions are cults. As a matter of fact, the ratio of martyrs to non-martyrs in the history of religion...pretty staggering difference there. Martyrs do not make all religions cults. If I thought your argument was stupid, so I lit myself on fire, it wouldn't make ap.net a fire hazzard. It would just make me a martyr.
name these so called "cults?" also, i was only giving you an example on how islam is a religion, and can cut you off from from family and friends, dead or alive. you ever heard of terrorists? many of them leave their families and/or become martyrs.
caveBEAR
08/07/09, 12:10 AM
name these so called "cults?" also, i was only giving you an example on how islam is a religion, and can cut you off from from family and friends, dead or alive. you ever heard of terrorists? many of them leave their families and/or become martyrs.
No shit, but a terrorist is like the Jerry Falwell of Islam; not everyone in that religion are like that. As a matter of fact, the number of people who take their religion to the extreme like that compared to the number who are just religious? Big difference. Now, if you wanted to argue that terrorism is a cult, then that would be one thing, but you went after religion as a whole.
Look, you obviously have your disdain for religion, and that's cool, but you really need to get a more realistic grasp on the situation. Religion is a much healthier and normal thing than you are making it out to be. (Keep in mind, I am not religious, and if I had to define myself it would be agnostic, so don't think I'm just a brainwashed cult member.)
whataclush
08/07/09, 12:19 AM
No shit, but a terrorist is like the Jerry Falwell of Islam; not everyone in that religion are like that. As a matter of fact, the number of people who take their religion to the extreme like that compared to the number who are just religious? Big difference. Now, if you wanted to argue that terrorism is a cult, then that would be one thing, but you went after religion as a whole.
Look, you obviously have your disdain for religion, and that's cool, but you really need to get a more realistic grasp on the situation. Religion is a much healthier and normal thing than you are making it out to be. (Keep in mind, I am not religious, and if I had to define myself it would be agnostic, so don't think I'm just a brainwashed cult member.)
i never claimed that, note how i said CAN cut you off from family and friends on my last post. any religion CAN do that, and it happens a lot, they have their interpretations of their holy texts, and every side belives it to be true. again i say, by definition, religion = cult.
caveBEAR
08/07/09, 12:28 AM
i never claimed that, note how i said CAN cut you off from family and friends on my last post. any religion CAN do that, and it happens a lot, they have their interpretations of their holy texts, and every side belives it to be true. again i say, by definition, religion = cult.
There's your problem right there. You act like I am coming up with these absolutes out of no where, but then you say 'religion = cult'. Do you see how ass-backwards that is? You literally are saying in your post religions CAN cause you to cut yourself off from family/friends, so religions ARE a cult. If you wanted to say 'religions can cause people to cut themselves off from friends/family, so religions can cause people do take part in cult like actions', then that's cool. Do you agree that since a Big Mac CAN make you fat, McDonald's will shove lard under your tits as you walk in?
"any religion CAN do that, and it happens a lot" <-- What? This happens a lot? Proof?
jawstheme
08/07/09, 12:40 AM
Ok, it's a big web which I will try to make pretty simple so i don't end up writing a book. The big chemical companies like Dow and Monsanto have a vested interest in our food supply in order to sell more product and make more profit, obviously. These companies have strong political ties and connections with the FDA and USDA. The industrialized agriculture in this country (one of the major contributors to the obesity epidemic, which by the way, is totally relevant to this discussion) was brought about by the government in the 1970s deciding to subsidize the production of crops because their buddies at the chemical companies wanted more business. The government pays farmers to grow more and more cheap crops whether they're needed or not. If you think about it on a lower level, the family farm is now gone. Farmers can no longer feed themselves off of what they produce. Farming has become big business. Generally the majority of crop producers are producing only between one to three different crops: industrial corn (not the sweet corn that you can pick up and eat), wheat, and soybeans. Farmers grow more with the help of chemicals (pesticides). The excess crops are then used as animal feed and cheap sources of sugar (high fructose corn syrup). These crops which have extremely low levels of any nutrients have completely infiltrated our food systems because they're cheap and profitable to the guys at the top.
Here's where I'm sure I come off as more of a conspiracy theorist, so feel free to disagree with my inference...Why do you think this cycle of factory farming is still being funded by our government and allowed to proliferate when we know it's so destructive to our health and well being as a society? Look at the profits that are being turned to not only create but to treat this epidemic! Here's where the pharmaceutical companies (who also have armies of lobbyists) come in. Why should we break a cycle that creates so much wealth?
Basically that's the abridged/simplified version of why I say the chemical companies run this country.
Oh and don't believe me that politics and chemicals are strongly linked? Take a look at good ol' Donald Rumsfeld for example (and he's not the only one):
(from wikipedia): From 1977 to 1985 Rumsfeld served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G. D. Searle & Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._D._Searle_%26_Company), a worldwide pharmaceutical company based in Skokie, Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skokie,_Illinois). During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld led the company's financial turnaround, thereby earning awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, Searle was sold to Monsanto Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Company).
Don't even get me started on the link between aspartame and the government, lol.
anyway i hope that was helpful. i'm really passionate about this topic (and don't really care that i've totally threadjacked the Scientology thread) and would love to have a good conversation on here about this sort of thing.
Edit: I have my dates wrong. The government getting involved in agriculture began in the 1930s and really got booming in the 1950s. Here's an interesting article regarding the commodification of agriculture in the US. http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=656
I agree
whataclush
08/07/09, 12:41 AM
There's your problem right there. You act like I am coming up with these absolutes out of no where, but then you say 'religion = cult'. Do you see how ass-backwards that is? You literally are saying in your post religions CAN cause you to cut yourself off from family/friends, so religions ARE a cult. If you wanted to say 'religions can cause people to cut themselves off from friends/family, so religions can cause people do take part in cult like actions', then that's cool. Do you agree that since a Big Mac CAN make you fat, McDonald's will shove lard under your tits as you walk in?
"any religion CAN do that, and it happens a lot" <-- What? This happens a lot? Proof?
the dictionary definition of cult IS religion according to merriam, they are the same thing. im stating that YOUR definition of cult, which you made up, CAN apply to many aspects of mainstream religions here and there. youve subjectively singled out whatever religion you are trying to describe, because it doesnt fit your realm of what a religion should be....when all religion means is the service and worship of god/s and or the supernatural, which is another word for cult. as long as you fit that very simple definition, its a religion, regardless of whatever nonsense you want to add onto it.
do i really need to point out terrorism and the crusaides, to prove that extremism CAN happen?
caveBEAR
08/07/09, 12:45 AM
the dictionary definition of cult IS religion according to merriam, they are the same thing. im stating that YOUR definition of cult, which you made up, CAN apply to many aspects of mainstream religions here and there. youve subjectively singled out whatever religion you are trying to describe, because it doesnt fit your realm of what a religion should be....when all religion means is the service and worship of god/s and or the supernatural, which is another word for cult. as long as you fit that very simple definition, its a religion, regardless of whatever nonsense you want to add onto it.
do i really need to point out terrorism and the crusaides, to prove that extremism CAN happen?
OK, not gonna lie, don't care any more. You have a lovely evening. Goodnight.
Animalhill
08/07/09, 06:35 AM
basically, pot kettle black since all religions will claim all of the other one's to be scams. looking at merriam's definition, cult and religion are the same fucking thing. the word "cult" is used for minority religions ive noticed, and 99% of the time, the word is used by the religious themselves since the rest of us in common sense land know its the same thing.
...Thats exactly what I said.
Z-train
08/07/09, 05:59 PM
Scientology is no more of a scam than any other church.:-p
Closet Fan
08/07/09, 06:54 PM
I am a Christian. I follow the lessons of scripture, but denounce institutionalized religious practices.
whataclush
08/07/09, 07:29 PM
I am a Christian. I follow the lessons of scripture, but denounce institutionalized religious practices.
so youre against churches? as am i.
ghostyouare
08/07/09, 07:32 PM
Scientology is no more of a scam than any other church.:-p
If you believe that then you are dumb. I dont even mean that as an attack on but if you came to that conclusion by yourself then you are, without question, dumb.
Closet Fan
08/07/09, 07:59 PM
so youre against churches? as am i.
I am more or less against churches, yes. Ever heard of 501(c)(3)?
If you care to, check out http://www.theantichurch.org/501c3churchinfo.htm
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.