Sc1ent0l0gy - Why does anyone fall for it?

Going past a word or symbol for which one does not have a proper definition gives one a distinctly blank or washed-out feeling. The person will get a “not-there” feeling and will begin to feel a nervous hysteria. These are manifestations distinct from either of the other two barriers.

Cults specialize in attracting people who are in emotional pain or mental confusion, who are generally at the margins of society in some sense - not always poor, but never well-connected to a strong social group. Such people need help, but do not know where to find it. The cult offers them 'help' (which works like a charm) and then progressively isolates them from other sources of help or points of view, in order to create a crippling dependency. The key to the formula is getting your hooks into people who are peculiarly vulnerable.

Didn't Hubbard renounce the Sc1ent0l0gy movement before his death? And was hounded by them anyway? I thought I heard this somewhere, but I honestly have no idea.

http://www.state.ia.us/government/dps/dci/lab/drugchem/marijuana.jpg

ists

Know enough to google the word with threes for e's, etc? They are serious techies. They own Earthlink, if my own conspiracy theory is not mistaken. It was founded by S*********ists, sold to another group of S*********ists, and then, ACCORDING TO THEM, sold to non-S*********ists. Yeah right, sez I. Why would a gr33dball sect like that let go of a cash cow like 3arthl1nk?

Know enough to google the word with threes for e's, etc? They are serious techies. They own Earthlink, if my own conspiracy theory is not mistaken. It was founded by S*********ists, sold to another group of S*********ists, and then, ACCORDING TO THEM, sold to non-S*********ists. Yeah right, sez I. Why would a gr33dball sect like that let go of a cash cow like 3arthl1nk?

-- Beth Parker (marthasminion...), October 8th, 2005."

Worst e.e. cummings poem EVER.

-- sunny successor (he hates my guts, we had a fight) (gangstas@prankstas.org), October 9th, 2005.

well, its easier because most christians are born into some form of christianity.

Although apparently the Sc1ent0l0gy movement has found a cure for gayness. Allegedly.

-- latebloomer (posercore24...) (webmail), Yesterday 10:10 PM. (latebloomer) (later)

aliens + cult like recruitment + gimme money + no drugs VS spirit smiting and lovin (depending on affliation) from teh heaven + cult like recruitment + gimme money + no drugs

i dont see much difference except that kirk cameron doesnt have his own show on the scientology network.

and threats of hellfire mean nothing unless you're wlling to back them up, IYKWIM. blackmail, stalking, death threats, coded talk...and murder.

and comparing it to xtianity is standard practice. let's adapt and use some new diversionary tactics, shall we? because 'only the strong survive', sweetie.

its no diversion. i just dont understand how one can be considered more plausible than the other.

scientology uses veiled threats. they are an intelligence gathering organization, and you know it.

your argument isn't logic. you're just saying 'it just is'. that's not a logical response to my questions.

Where faith begins, logic ends - with faith people are capable of believing in anything.

This is informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

I think this article touches on that question. (I think it is the same as one I read a little while ago, but this is from a different page)
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/whoIsAChristian.htm

So something can be untrue just because not many people know about it?

I mean esoteric as it is used in that wikipedia article

Esoteric knowledge is knowledge that is secret or not generally known. Historically, esoteric knowledge is not generally known in large part because it is deliberately kept secret from those outside a select group.

(xpost)

This is ok:

http://pls.gospelcom.net/WhoisaChristian.html

(xpost)

I'd say "ok, you can use that word for that, but your Christianity is heretical and of a cult-like nature."

Maybe not a terrible one - just one that would define different things as cults depending on who is doing the considering.

I know he/she believes that some of the orthodox beliefs on that page are all wrong.

But is there any other reason for you to define his/her beliefs as cultish? Because if not, all you're saying is that *any* religion you disagree with is a cult.

so like... early christianity?

this is a better definition:
A religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy.

so like... early christianity?

A Nairn, I do truly respect your open-heartedness and would defend to my last breath your right to believe in and practice the religion of your choice. It is no doubt true that some religions are more reasonable than others according to the dominant values of our culture. Despite this, and to add to the definitions of religions/cults or whatever above, all religions have an element of faith to them and this calls upon their adherents to abandon reason.

This may be a rather hackneyed argument to say the least, but the onus is always on those who preach a certain faith to prove the validity of their beliefs in a relatively objective manner. An appeal to reason - if your position contains an element of religious faith - is in my view doomed, and let's please not get into a discussion of cosmological, ontological or teleological arguments for a creator-being.

I would suggest that to abandon reason in the context of this thread is to make yourself vulnerable to all sorts of dangerous things, so I accept that placing your faith in religion x which is not immediately destructive is better than religion y which takes you away from your family, steals all your money, and sends you to live on a big ship on a diet of beans.

But you will forgive me if I cast doubt on the suggestion that any religion is in essence reasonable without a severely restricted definition of the word reason.

Personally I would like to see all schools teach philosophy instead of any kind of religious education and thereby inculcate a heathy skepticism in their pupils. The French approach to state education compares very favourably to the UK system in this regard.

I guess not.

Granted, Christian churches need money, and their requests for money can sometimes seem like (or even be) coersion. But in general they'll also gladly accept poor members. Their mission actually is to "save" people altruistically (by some definition of altruistic).

Cults like $c1313nt010gy exploit their members for money, and if they take poor members, will do so to exploit them by "putting them to work" to make the organization money. It's a giant self-propagating money machine which isn't altruistic by any definition.

By this definition I think some sects of Christianity could be considered cults - for example, the organizations of some Christian televangelists.

Tell that to catholic charities.

Also doesn't every position contain an element of faith? I don't have enough faith in man's unaided ability to reason turths. I doubt the reasonableness of a lack of religious faith. So when a non-religious person apeals to their own or man's reason, I am skeptical. This is not totally a matter of the heart, but of the mind too. So my only response is to apeal to God's reason. Maybe the initial step is totally in the heart and not really of my own effort, but then though things like Holy Spirit and Scripture study my mind starts to slightly conform to God's reason. This slight wisdom I get from this is much more trustworthy to me than any of man's unaided understanding, but simultaneously my understanding of this wisdom is still of a man and lacking.

No cosmological or teleological distractions please! Three of Aquinas' five attempts to prove the existence of God are the same anyway... but his discussion of the nature of religious language is more pertinent.

People often disagree on what the "true" religion really means, but don't you think that whatever it is, it is the most reasonable?

I think the most reasonable response to the diversity of religions claiming to have the "truth" is not to believe in any of them.

I doubt the reasonableness of a lack of religious faith.

In a strictly limited sense, I think it is reasonable to have religious faith - if, for example, it is true that in some way our brains are 'hardwired' to have a religious impulse. That doesn't ipso facto amount to evidence for the existence of God, but it might go some way towards explaining why some people fall into destructive cults like the one under discussion.

Cult= small/fringe religion

All religions require something about them that makes you go "This is impossible and didn't happen."

I've always felt Sc1ent0l0gy functioned as more of a social club here in L.A., a way to make contacts and perhaps led on by the (false?) impression that being a Sc1ent0l0g1st will lead to an incredibly successful career a la Cruise and Travolta.

True.

This also...

http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/scien240.html

That's code, by the way, for Trayce OTM.

(By the way, Nairn, your trope of "I will slight you, and then immediately post an admission of my impassioned christian guilt" is getting OLD. You've already done it to me twice. Get a new schtick.)

xpost

gg scientology no rm

This clears up any confusion about this subject and why Tom Cruise is such a freakin' True Believer.

It's like NaNoStReMo.

I don't get how talking about cults and what makes religion when it is not a cult different from a cult is much of a derailment.