Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

Scientology

Recommended Posts

Original Thread

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

None of this is considered "Unacceptable", but get excited about being in love, OMFG, that will DEFINITELY put you on the psycho list, add to that giving your opinions on your religious beliefs!!! That's it YOU ARE SOOOOOOOOO OUT BUDDY!!!!


YTMND: The unfunny truth about scientology

Everything in this is verifiable. Not to mention the lastes antics by them. Scary stuff. What's good for Mel Gibson is good for Tom Cruise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Everything in this is verifiable. Not to mention the lastes antics by them. Scary stuff. What's good for Mel Gibson is good for Tom Cruise.

Verifiable by what? They didn't give any links of any official newspapers or official city records, just other "home made" sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

L Ron Hubbard created the church on a bet.

A fellow author told him that he was such a terrible author, that he bet him that he couldn't even start a religion.

So, he created a religion, and won the bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

Wow! Thats some crazy shit!!

These guys use to hang out on the corner of 34th streeth and 8th ave right behind madison square garden with their tables and books dressed in suits. Even then, they creeped me out.

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Everything in this is verifiable. Not to mention the lastes antics by them. Scary stuff. What's good for Mel Gibson is good for Tom Cruise.

Verifiable by what? They didn't give any links of any official newspapers or official city records, just other "home made" sites.


I looked it them up myself and didn't rely on the links that were provided.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

L Ron Hubbard created the church on a bet.

A fellow author told him that he was such a terrible author, that he bet him that he couldn't even start a religion.

So, he created a religion, and won the bet.

Heh, he musta let it go to his to head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Everything in this is verifiable. Not to mention the lastes antics by them. Scary stuff. What's good for Mel Gibson is good for Tom Cruise.

Verifiable by what? They didn't give any links of any official newspapers or official city records, just other "home made" sites.


Right, because Carnegie Mellon University isn't a reputable source....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno much about scientology, but IMO it'd be pure and utter crap like any other religion. When belief becomes a doctrine, something goes wrong. When belief of one man becomes belief of many, we're going woods. Furthermore, when one religion thinks that other religions are wrong and unacceptable, we're in serious trouble.

Most chruches(be it christian or any other) are meant to fool people, to take their money and make the leading people of the church wealthy. If they're not for exploitation of people's wealth, then they're to control them.

Give away religions, think a bit with your own brains and find the true God.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Voli0:

I dunno much about scientology, but IMO it'd be pure and utter crap like any other religion. When belief becomes a doctrine, something goes wrong. ...

I'm no Scientology fan, but when Atheist, try to dismantle a peice of history, just because it's enshrined in religious symbolism, you don't find something wrong with that? The problem as I see it, is some groups like Scientologist trying to shove their "Beliefs" down my throat, and at the other end of the spectrum you have the Atheist trying to shove thier "Beliefs" down my throat.

I mean, come on, you've got Christans saying that the Universe was created by an all powerfull being, and Atheist saying that it all "Sprang out" of a little spot in a massive explosion. Which sounds Zanier to you? Which requires more "Belief", neither makes logical sense.

You want to believe that I'm a sucker for giving the church money to support their activities, fine, I don't care. I'll keep believing that you have no chance at an afterlife, either way, my beliefs don't hurt you and yours don't hurt me. If only the Atheists, the Radical Muslims and the radical Christians would listen to the words of a wise man who lived among us 2006 years ago. Something to the effect of, "If they don't want to listen, shake the dust off your sandles and keep moving". That would just save us all a lot of heartache and trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

The athiests are just as troubling as the Moslems fanatics IMO.

If you find interpreting prophecy interesting this online PDF book call "The False Prophet" I found the other day made for a interesting read.

Chapters 1 - 9

Chapters 10 - 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I wish everyone would just keep their religious or antireligious beliefs to themselves.

This country had a major historical religious foundation, and if the atheists don't like it, they can move out, if a religious fanatic doesn't like it, they can move too.

You have every right to believe as you wish, but I have every right to disagree with you, but I don't have the right to shove my beliefs down your throat, and you don't have the right to shove yours down mine.

If it makes you happy, GREAT, but don't think because it makes you happy, that it will make me happy.

If everyone would just tolerate others beliefs, and then leave everyone else alone, I would be one happy camper.

I will FIGHT for your right to be whatever religion you wish to be, but I will fight YOU if you attempt to force your religious, OR antireligious beliefs on me as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Jaguar:

I wish everyone would just keep their religious or antireligious beliefs to themselves.

This country had a major historical religious foundation, and if the atheists don't like it, they can move out, if a religious fanatic doesn't like it, they can move too.

You have every right to believe as you wish, but I have every right to disagree with you, but I don't have the right to shove my beliefs down your throat, and you don't have the right to shove yours down mine.

If it makes you happy, GREAT, but don't think because it makes you happy, that it will make me happy.

If everyone would just tolerate others beliefs, and then leave everyone else alone, I would be one happy camper.

I will FIGHT for your right to be whatever religion you wish to be, but I will fight YOU if you attempt to force your religious, OR antireligious beliefs on me as well.


I agree with damned-near everything you said in this post, Jaguar.

The only disagreement I *MAY* have is in leaving everyone else alone. The problem is that so many religions are partly BASED upon attempting to lead others into that system of belief. Therefore, by asking that they leave everyone else alone, you would fundamentally alter such a belief system, thereby interfering with the religion.

Catch-22, right?

Although, I'm fairly sure you meant: "leave me alone when I TELL you to".

If that's the case, then I agree with you 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I wish everyone would just keep their religious or antireligious beliefs to themselves.


I don't want for force every religion into the closet, but if you tell me what you believe, and I decide it's not for me, as I said before, Move on..

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

This country had a major historical religious foundation, and if the atheists don't like it, they can move out, if a religious fanatic doesn't like it, they can move too.

This is the part that REALLY bothers me about Atheist, if it were up to them, I'm sure they would want to rewrite the history books to make it seem like Atheist founded this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Although, I'm fairly sure you meant: "leave me alone when I TELL you to".

If that's the case, then I agree with you 100%.

And you would be correct..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I wish everyone would just keep their religious or antireligious beliefs to themselves.


I don't want for force every religion into the closet, but if you tell me what you believe, and I decide it's not for me, as I said before, Move on..

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

This country had a major historical religious foundation, and if the atheists don't like it, they can move out, if a religious fanatic doesn't like it, they can move too.

This is the part that REALLY bothers me about Atheist, if it were up to them, I'm sure they would want to rewrite the history books to make it seem like Atheist founded this country.


Yep, atheists are getting to be as militant as some of the right wing religious fundies.

I tire of their nonsense, sorry little atheists, but 90% minimum of this countries population is Christian, if you are offended, well too fricking bad.

Point to me in the bill of rights where it says you have the right to NOT be offended? It's not there.

The atheists and their militant BS with the socalled wall between church and state is a crock of crap, and if they don't like it, China, I am sure would be happy to have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by JUDGExKTF:

If you want everybody to be able to practice their believes in freedom, then you have to seperate religion from state. How can all religions be practiced in freedom if there is a state religion ?

There already IS a very strong seperation of Church & State in this country. What other country can you go to that provides as much religious tolerance as this country does? Not a single one. (I DARE you to say Europe or Australia). But at the same time, what is a country? Is it not a collection of it's peoples and those people's past? Are you now going to erase History, because it doesn't fit in with your mold of Zero Religion anywhere? The founding fathers themselves, used to pray before public meetings, before congress. Same with Judges, Police officers and Teachers. Why? Because our constitution PROVIDED THEM THAT FREEDOM. In Europe, if they were Catholic, but the state Protestant, they could be in serious trouble. Not here, THAT is why many of them came here. To be FREE. The founding fathers NEVER said public displays of Religion should be banned or suppressed because it may offend someone, if you didn't like it, too bad. YOU had the SAME freedome to express your views.

quote:

Originally posted by JUDGExKTF:

History has thought us all too well what can happen if one religion gets to much influence in the state. Does the word CRUSADE ring a bell ? Genocide, Raping and pillaging in the name of the Lord. Thank you catholic church....

Please, first of all those who TRULY believed they were doing the work of God were not out pillaging and raping, hell many were Warrier Monks. Of course, there's always bad apples in the bunch, and I'm not saying that it Didn't happen, but that leads me to my next point. Second, The main reason for the Crusades was to PROTECT Christians TRADERS who were getting Robbed, Beaten, Tortured and KILLED on the established trade routes through Jerusalem and the Middle East. Don't you find it a bit ODD that Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, Primarily CHRISTIAN Countries at the turn of the first Millenium, were all of a sudden crushed by Muslim armies? Oh I'm sorry, Don't want to offend, The Peacefull, Peace Loving Muslim Settlers Moved in By the 11th Century, As the Byzantine Empire, was reduced down to what is Greece today, they begged the west for help against the conquering Muslim Empires attempting to engulf them.

You know, if you're going to be quoting something from history, I would really rather that you research what you're talking about, instead of just using some misguided talking points put out there by the general Media. You might want to start Here, if you want to find out the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by JUDGExKTF:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

The atheists and their militant BS with the socalled wall between church and state is a crock of crap, and if they don't like it, China, I am sure would be happy to have them.

If you want everybody to be able to practice their believes in freedom, then you have to seperate religion from state. How can all religions be practiced in freedom if there is a state religion ?

History has thought us all too well what can happen if one religion gets to much influence in the state. Does the word CRUSADE ring a bell ? Genocide, Raping and pillaging in the name of the Lord. Thank you catholic church....


First off, in the United States, there is NO such thing as a wall between church and state.

An activist judge created it out of whole cloth.

The federal government is NOT allowed to create a state religion, it cannot interfere with peoples beliefs, BUT, the constitution says NOTHING about a church having influence on the federal government. NONE, notta, NOTHING.

Any church can become politically active and have it's parishioners makes it's wishes known, but the IRS now threatens and blackmails them with their nonprofit status.

BUT, no where in the constitution is it written that religion cannot have any dealings or control over the federal government, BUT, once that religion or belief system comes into power, constitutionally, it cannot declare itself the state religion. THAT IS unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

BUT, no where in the constitution is it written that religion cannot have any dealings or control over the federal government, BUT, once that religion or belief system comes into power, constitutionally, it cannot declare itself the state religion. THAT IS unconstitutional.

That's one *extremely* fine line you are walking there Jag. Isn't the idea behind that consitutional clause to prevent such religious zealotry influencing government to that degree in the first place?

What difference does it make if it's declared or not if the damage has been done?

I'd like to see how well that interpretation would fly if Islam (or any religion besides Christianity) was to exert itself on our government to the extent you describe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

Please, first of all those who TRULY believed they were doing the work of God were not out pillaging and raping, hell many were Warrier Monks.

Erm... wasn't it the Knights Templar that were doing the dirty work for the Church? You know those guys who were paid by the Church and took riches from those they conquered to build even more wealth for themselves and the Church too? They were as much the Church's army as our own armed forces are our governments army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

BUT, no where in the constitution is it written that religion cannot have any dealings or control over the federal government, BUT, once that religion or belief system comes into power, constitutionally, it cannot declare itself the state religion. THAT IS unconstitutional.

That's one *extremely* fine line you are walking there Jag. Isn't the idea behind that consitutional clause to prevent such religious zealotry influencing government to that degree in the first place?

What difference does it make if it's declared or not if the damage has been done?

I'd like to see how well that interpretation would fly if Islam (or any religion besides Christianity) was to exert itself on our government to the extent you describe...


Read the first amendment, then tell me if there is a "wall between church and state".

There is a wall between the state and it announcing a state religion, or attempting to force people to be of a certain faith, but that is it.

It's the way it works in the US.

Read the constitution, and you will see EXACTLY how it is SUPPOSED to be interpreted.

It means what it says, and says what it means, NO interpretation necassary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Read the first amendment, then tell me if there is a "wall between church and state".

There is a wall between the state and it announcing a state religion, or attempting to force people to be of a certain faith, but that is it.

It's the way it works in the US.

Read the constitution, and you will see EXACTLY how it is SUPPOSED to be interpreted.

It means what it says, and says what it means, NO interpretation necassary.

You are semantically correct, but ideologically wrong.

So what you are saying is that it would be OK for the government to pass a law requiring us to pray to Jesus each morning before work? After all as long as they don't literally 'establish' the official religion of the US as Christianity, then it's ok? If you argue that point and say no they can't because that would be considered an establishment, then aren't you also interpreting the amendment?

How about freedom of speech? Would it be ok for a law to be passed that stated those expressing dissent towards the government must be thrown into prison for life? I mean they aren't 'abridging' your right to speak freely because you can do so from prison too right?

The constitution was *meant* to be interpreted, there is simply no way a single line or two can cover each and every permutation of a given idea.

I know you claim to be a constitutionalist but taking such a literal interpretation is no different than those doing the same with the religious texts of the world. You won't find a single constitutional scholar that states there is no room for interpretation, not only is it impractical it's impossible because there isn't a language in existence that can communicate such ideas with absolute infallibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

Please, first of all those who TRULY believed they were doing the work of God were not out pillaging and raping, hell many were Warrier Monks.

Erm... wasn't it the Knights Templar that were doing the dirty work for the Church? You know those guys who were paid by the Church and took riches from those they conquered to build even more wealth for themselves and the Church too? They were as much the Church's army as our own armed forces are our governments army.


War is War, no way around that and back in those days part of the way you FUNDED a war, was to pillage from those that you conquered, However, you miss the whole point of my post.

The Muslims act as if they were peaceniks going about their daily business when the "All Conquoring Chirstians came in Robbing & Pillaging". Right around 1000 AD, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Pretty much almost ALL the remnants of the Roman & Byzentine Empire were ALL predominiately Christian. These Christian Empires were CONQUERED by Muslims, who robbed, Pillaged and BRUTALIZED the Christian Populace into submission. Do you think these Muslim Kings came in and said, "Oh, we just want the land and your people, here, take your wealth and go, ye former Kings". I think not. So when you say that the Knights Templars came in a Pillaging, they were basically stealing back, what was stolen from Christian Kings to begin with.

Truth is, these guys thought they were doing the will of God, by retaking the Holy Lands that were taken by the Muslims. Don't you ever wonder to yourself, how is it that "The Temple of The Rock" or whatever it's called that's over in Jerusalem got to be built? Jerusalem was a Jewish State, that was conquered by the Roman Empire, who was later converted to Christianity by formerly Jewish Citizens. How did the Muslims end up in control of that area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Read the first amendment, then tell me if there is a "wall between church and state".

There is a wall between the state and it announcing a state religion, or attempting to force people to be of a certain faith, but that is it.

It's the way it works in the US.

Read the constitution, and you will see EXACTLY how it is SUPPOSED to be interpreted.

It means what it says, and says what it means, NO interpretation necassary.

You are semantically correct, but ideologically wrong.

So what you are saying is that it would be OK for the government to pass a law requiring us to pray to Jesus each morning before work? After all as long as they don't literally 'establish' the official religion of the US as Christianity, then it's ok? If you argue that point and say no they can't because that would be considered an establishment, then aren't you also interpreting the amendment?

How about freedom of speech? Would it be ok for a law to be passed that stated those expressing dissent towards the government must be thrown into prison for life? I mean they aren't 'abridging' your right to speak freely because you can do so from prison too right?

The constitution was *meant* to be interpreted, there is simply no way a single line or two can cover each and every permutation of a given idea.

I know you claim to be a constitutionalist but taking such a literal interpretation is no different than those doing the same with the religious texts of the world. You won't find a single constitutional scholar that states there is no room for interpretation, not only is it impractical it's impossible because there isn't a language in existence that can communicate such ideas with absolute infallibility.


Complete and utter rubbish!!

quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Pretty simple....

No Interpretation necassary....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

WE have an antidiscrimination law, it is not written in the constitution, because 200 and some odd years ago, it wasn't thought about.

Yeah, I wouldn't live in the Netherlands on a bet, sorry, but that's just the way I feel about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, to add my thoughts:

There IS a wall between a CHURCH and the state

(read: "ESTABLISHMENT of religion"). The purpose of this wall is to prevent any legally binding INFLUENCE of a CHURCH upon the nation.

HOWEVER, this does NOT bar a MEMBER of a church from making legal policy if so elected, nor does it separate symbols of religion from public property. To do so would be ludicrous - "thou shalt not kill" isn't a bad idea just because it comes from religion.

The purpose of this portion of the First Ammendment is to prevent the Church from having authority over the government, and therefore the people whereas the purpose of the Constitution is to rest the seat of power WITH the people.

The bottom line is that the Church is not granted legislative authority, whereas the people are, REGARDLESS of their religious viewpoints (hence: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). Furthermore, as the goverment is democratically REPRESENTATIVE, the majority CAN elect to display its symbols ANYWHERE IT CHOOSES, as well as using religious influence in law making.

See, too many people twist the meaning of the Constitution, and specifically, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights doesn't really "outlaw" anything, including public display of religion.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to PROTECT the inherent rights of the MINORITY while allowing MAJORITY rule.

In other words, the majority can't simply elect itself and legislate that everyone agrees.

It has NOTHING to do with the church, really, when you think about it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×