TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- scientology
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On If I am to understand Scientology correctly, it centres around healing oneself through rigorous discipline. That doesn't say much in itself, but I don't think it's too far-fetched to assume that most people in this day and age are "damaged" in one way or another. I won't make claims to know "how it's always been", but it seems to me that overexposure to media such as television, internet, government, etc... is somehow draining the individuality and the spirit out of people. It's like people are controlled by mass media and are in need of some sort of salvation, and that Scientology delivers this on an individual level. I will not profess to claim whether this actually works or not, or is in fact the end-all solution to humanity's ailments, as I am not a Scientologist, but it seems to me that this is an answer to many people and for once it does not necessarily rely on archaic scribblings of long lost desert tribes with little relevance to the modern world...instead it is derived from science fiction novels by a mediocre author 50 some-odd years ago! It seems to me that scientology is, in essence, the anti-prescription, even though it is a prescription of thought, nevertheless. That is its blaring fault. Nevertheless, it is a leading force in denouncing the widespread prescription of psychotropic mind-control drugs on children (Ritalin, primarily) in the US and that is something I have not seen any other "religious" organization tackle. For this reason alone, I would gladly support them in their efforts to guide people to prescribing their own cures and looking inwards rather than blindly taking the prescriptions of some licensed drug pusher who has everything to gain from doping children into submission and non-thought. Is it right? Is it correct? It's so hard to pick and choose these days - sometimes you must side with the lesser of all evils.

there's a BIG difference between being against the overuse of prescription medication and ignoring the entire body of thought that psychology and psychiatry has given the human race. i find your selective emphasie rather disingenuous. even if drugs like ritalin werent being "pushed" onto children, they would still be against it. it, and any other mental medication.

turning your back on an entire body of scientific thought reeks of stupidity to me. and its pretty funny that the scientologists dont see the irony when they denounce "mind control" drugs

Well I was careful to say that I wasn't necessarily against the body of thought but rather the economics of the issue which seem to have taken precedence in America. Of course psychology and psychiatry have made their contributions towards improving human ailments. I'm not saying that either is entirely bunk in the least. But there comes a point where over-prescription of both drugs and of psychological remedy is merely a result of off-brand hysteria and misdiagnoses of the media.

I honestly don't know the situation of prescription drugs in Australia, but I know that in the US, it's an unsung issue that kids are being put onto Ritalin merely because 1) psychiatrists in the US are given generous incentives directly from pharmaceutical corporations and 2) because teacher is tired of trying at his or her job, so it's much easier just to recommend to the parents of any problem children that they see a Psychiatrist under the assumption that their child has some sort of "disorder".

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and its pretty funny that the scientologists dont see the irony when they denounce "mind control" drugs

Yeah, well, people who deal in absolutes often fail to see the irony in situations because they can see no farther than their own side. I wish this were merely restricted to religious organizations, but its an all too common precedent in any human endeavour.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I honestly don't know the situation of prescription drugs in Australia, but I know that in the US, it's an unsung issue that kids are being put onto Ritalin merely because 1) psychiatrists in the US are given generous incentives directly from pharmaceutical corporations and 2) because teacher is tired of trying at his or her job, so it's much easier just to recommend to the parents of any problem children that they see a Psychiatrist under the assumption that their child has some sort of "disorder".

oh yeah, im not denying theres a problem. but scientology certainly isnt the answer scientologists love to use these examples to slander the entire medical profession, which just isnt credible imo. it doesnt stop the fact that plenty of the people in "over-medicated america" get a huge benefit from psychological treatment(s), and this doesn't just mean pharmaceuticals.

to me, supporting scientology's attitudes to professional mental healthcare is kinda like praising hitler for the autobahns

It *is* a really nice road...

You won't get any argument from me about the prescription of drugs to kids, it's a hideous activity which masks a lot of unpleasantness about our societies lack of care, poor parenting and general ignorance about health.

Scientology is just still a cult made up as sort of a joke/bet between a couple of writers, if it matters any I think all the major organised religions are nothing more than cults as well. Replacing freedom of thought, actions, enforcement of ecclesiastical norms on their followers is just trading in a rather large part of self determination and responsibility along with 'tithes', for socially accepted ignorance. Pretty big trade in really when you think about it at it's extremes, sure they don't give their kids medicine but what do they lose in return?
Hubbard as a contemporary has nothing to give me about spirituality, just as a bunch of iron age goat herders 'god stories' about creation and my place in society, have any apparent relevance to modern life either.

I agree.

I've always considered the only major difference between what is considered a 'cult' and what is considered a 'religion' to be nothing more than the its numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On It *is* a really nice road...

Well... he is right, it is a really nice road you're allowed to drive really fast on in some places.

yeah, i know. but technically, those autobahns currently in operation didnt survive the war surely? so hitler didnt really build them

quote:

I've always considered the only major difference between what is considered a 'cult' and what is considered a 'religion' to be nothing more than the its numbers.

id like moral hazard's input on this one

People can believe what they want, it's just grossly unfair to inflict it on other people who aren't interested, too young to know the difference or simply don't really want to be emotionally bullied about their spiritual well being.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith People can believe what they want,

quote:

it's just grossly unfair to inflict it on other people

honestly, i really dont think you can reconcile these statements.

Can you expand on that? Not sure what you're about.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Can you expand on that? Not sure what you're about.

it is impossible for people to have these beliefs without inflicting it on those around them. im speaking generally here obviously, there are exceptions- just not where they count for much.

there are so many damned ways for people to hate each other, i dont see why we need to invent any more!

Well, now that come down to a distinct lack of personal accountability and moral freedom when you're divorced from having your very conscience telling you "it's in the name of or will of god rather than my own hands guiding my destiny and those around me"
Dunno about spiritual freedom, freedom from guilt perhaps which lets some people rest easily at night.

Way I figure it, I've got my own ideas and other people have their own and provided no one gets hurt or upset because of them, its fine. We might not agree but that's their prerogative and I'm not going to knock your nose out of joint because you believe in god or martians, or whatever! Heck, I'll hedge a 10,000-1 bet they aren't showing up tomorrow to save or damn us any time soon
I've said it before a few times, I equate organised religion as very much the antithesis of democracy and libertarian forms of government find things like totalitarian regimes and fascism. We find it easy in our western, somewhat spoilt lifestyles now to forget the distance of church and state but it wasn't always like that and it was quite terrible for a lot of people who just wanted to be themselves without both church and state telling them how to lead their lives, condemning and demonising those who dared to try an alternative from the religious norm.

500 years from now, people are going to look back on us, assuming we haven't wiped ourselves out in a 'vigorous' debate about who's invisible god has a tail or not and they're going to compare us much the same way we view Spain under the inquisition is seen today.
Furtive, power hungry people hunting down the enemies of the state and god, rooting out deviants that pose a threat to life, liberty and hold the key to our civilisations damnation because they hate everything we represent.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN id like moral hazard's input on this one

And so you shall...

Distinguishing a cult from a religion can be a difficult task as the two have very similar, moreover, the terms religion and cult are often misused for connotative reasons. A religion, in essence, is a dogmatic system of belief and perscribed practices based on faith in something that cannot be proven. Generally, religions will contain a method of worship in devotion to a deity(or deities), who's example or directives are used as the basis for a moral code or laws governing behaviour. Cults are also a dogmatic system of belief and perscribed practice based on faith in something that cannot be proven. Generally, cults will also contain a method of worship in devotion to a deity/deities; however, they will also contain methods of worship in devotion to objects or leaders that may be used as the basis for a moral code or laws governing behaviour. The key here is that the deity is replaced by either an object or individual as the basis for authority and object of worship. The difference can be very subtle or glaring and quite often religion and cults will intertwine.

A good example of a glaring difference between cult and religion can be seen in the Branch Davidian cult. This cult group (while based on christianity) worshiped a single person as a diety and that individual was held as the authority on everything, unfallable, unquestionable. Because David Coresh became the only source for believe, the sole holder of authority and the object of worship, it is safe to say this group was a cult.

Many would argue that the Roman Catholic Church is also a cult in that it holds the pope to be an ultimate authority. In many ways the RC could be viewed as a cult, however, such a view would be based on only a superficial understanding of the church (as a deeper exploration of the church doctrine reveals that the pope's authority is only absolute if his missives are valid.... they can only be valid if the chuch, ie. followers of christ, accept it as such). While the RC church as a whole cannot be considered a cult, there are many sects within catholocism that can be. There are a multitude of catholic sects that have a fierce devotion to various saints, objects considered holy, plots of land, even persons thought to be prophets, which could be considered cults, as they base their practice not on the faith but on the individual person or object. Historically, the Knight's Templor are possibly Catholocism's largest and most famous cult.

Another good example of a subtle cult would be the jewish sect found in Ethiopia, unfortunately I cannot recall their name. Rather then worshiping Yahweh these jews worship an object they believe to be the arc of the covenent. Many of the generally accepted practices of Judeism are abandoned in favour of devotion to the arc. In worshiping this object rather then the diety of Yahweh they become a cult within the larger religion.

With regard to scientology specifically, I would deem it to be a religion rather then a cult. Many people characterize scientology as a cult because it is very guarded and very aggressive in its recruitment of potential followers but this is a misunderstanding of what a cult is and the use of the term is an attempt to evoke a connotative response rather then due to it's dictive accuracy. Scientology has a perscribed set of practices (although less rigid then most religions) based on faith in an unprovable position. The do not have a system of belief based on the authority of a person or object, which is essentially the dividing point between cult and religion.

Alas, thanks to the general watering down of the English language the line between cult and religion becomes blurrier with each passing day. For most people it comes down to connotation... if they believe a system of believe to be insideous, toxic, or invalid they deem it a cult. In truth, the similarities between cults and religions are far more numerous then the differences... so much so that I would speculate all religions have cults within them.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN to me, supporting scientology's attitudes to professional mental healthcare is kinda like praising hitler for the autobahns

+100000000

couldn't agree more with this statement

with regards to what moral has said i think its pretty ridiculous to go as far to classify Scientology as a bonafied religion. I mean based on SO many articles, reportings and just overall suspicion that Scientology IS in fact a cult kinda makes me a little suspiscios. not to mention just how fucking insane their followers are and the scare tactics and legal action they maliciously use against 'wogs' (their term for anybody who is not a Scientology's!) is pretty outrageous. I mean we can argue til we're blue in the face about them fitting the technical definition...but i know thats a load of crap. I trust most people would come to the same conclusion based on what they see and feel for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Spike with regards to what moral has said i think its pretty ridiculous to go as far to classify Scientology as a bonafied religion. I mean based on SO many articles, reportings and just overall suspicion that Scientology IS in fact a cult kinda makes me a little suspiscios. not to mention just how fucking insane their followers are and the scare tactics and legal action they maliciously use against 'wogs' (their term for anybody who is not a Scientology's!) is pretty outrageous. I mean we can argue til we're blue in the face about them fitting the technical definition...but i know thats a load of crap. I trust most people would come to the same conclusion based on what they see and feel for themselves.

While I agree with you that they are very zeallous in their convictions and very protectionist that does not make them a cult. It may even be correct to say that it is an insideous belief system, maybe even an out and out fraud perpertrated by the elite within the "church"; however, none of that would qualify it as a cult. To those that believe the "church" is valid, follow it's teachings and practices it is a religion. Truth or validity do not make something a religion, faith and adhearance do.

I think it should be pointed out that no person should ever make a decision or take a definitive position based exclusively on articles by journalists. Jounalists are not theologists and rarely are they even scholars. A jounalistic review of anything should at very best be taken to be a starting point for further study as jounalists rarely do exhaustive studies and their publications are summaries.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While I agree with you that they are very zeallous in their convictions and very protectionist that does not make them a cult. It may even be correct to say that it is an insideous belief system, maybe even an out and out fraud perpertrated by the elite within the "church"; however, none of that would qualify it as a cult. To those that believe the "church" is valid, follow it's teachings and practices it is a religion. Truth or validity do not make something a religion, faith and adhearance do. I think it should be pointed out that no person should ever make a decision or take a definitive position based exclusively on articles by journalists. Jounalists are not theologists and rarely are they even scholars. A jounalistic review of anything should at very best be taken to be a starting point for further study as jounalists rarely do exhaustive studies and their publications are summaries.

well of course it should be taken as a starting point, but when people try to 'study' further it seems they are threatened, harassed, bullied, followed, spied on, in some cases assaulted, sued etc...come on now.

my gut tells me they're sick, twisted and deranged and in MY dictionary they fit the definition pretty well

quote:

Originally posted by Spike my gut tells me they're sick, twisted and deranged and in MY dictionary they fit the definition pretty well

You fall right into what I said earlier about connotative rather then dictive meaning. You consider them a cult because you find them to be unsavory.... that does not make it a cult; however, you're more comfortable saying that they are because cult implies evil in common use. It's kind of how people use the word fascist in place of authoritarian to cast a government in a negative light when in truth that government is in no way related to the political ideology that is fascism.

the term cult is pretty subjective and leaves room for debate in my opinion. its like arguing about what is art; not everybody is going to agree and have the same opinion. and that is what is so scary in how scientolgists know this, and can manipulate and twist things in their favor

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard however, they will also contain methods of worship in devotion to objects or leaders that may be used as the basis for a moral code or laws governing behaviour. The key here is that the deity is replaced by either an object or individual as the basis for authority and object of worship. The difference can be very subtle or glaring and quite often religion and cults will intertwine.

the line isblurry as you said, et i find the destinction you are making lacking. religion also falls into that path no? the one quoted above. in lesser terms, but it does.

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 the line isblurry as you said, et i find the destinction you are making lacking. religion also falls into that path no? the one quoted above. in lesser terms, but it does.

As I stated, most religions will also contain sects that can be considered to be cults. A good example would be the Cult of The Holy Mother that exists within Catholoicism. While the Roman Catholic church cannot be consided a cult as a whole (for reasons I discussed earlier and could expand on if required) there is a sect that has elevated Mary to the level of a diety. This sect worships Mary (an individual) and uses her life/example as a moral guide and authority over and above the church in inself. Another good example is the Knights Templar - which worshiped John the Baptist as a deity as well as an object (of which no one is certain what exactly it was although it is speculated it may have been the remains of John the Baptist). The example of John the Babtist and this object became the basis for their practices and the object of their worship. Both these sects replaced the holy trilligy as the object of worship and source of authority in their beliefs, in this respect they became cults despite being largely based on a religion. The major religions do not fit into the cult catagory because the worship is of a deity, not an object or individual, and authority is vested in the deity not a person.

A common (though maybe not universal) feature of cults is that they have a charismatic, overbearing human leader who wants to control every aspect of the lives of believers.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On This thread is a true testament to the fact that people both fear and hate that which is unfamiliar to them.

ummmm...it was invented by a guy in i believe 1950s who was quoted saying that his purose is to:"Make money. Make more money. Make other people make money" which probably explains why to be part of their "church" you have to pay a shit load of money...(i'm sure tom cruise has no problem affording it) i see no spiritual purpose in this religion

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.