Scientology is a con?

[Syne]

Check out there official website and watch a few of the free videos to find out more.

If you have got experience I'd love to debate with you.

I am not looking to "debate" anything here. My experience is my interest in understanding all religions.

I suppose you are referring to this:
http://www.lronhubbard.org/articles-and-essays/what-is-greatness.html

This seems poorly characterized by your: "Basically it says that no matter what people do to you never stop loving, never fall foul to hatred as you will become insane with anger." This seems to simply be an appeal to understand other people rather than retaliate against them.

Most religions/philosophies have always shared such a sentiment.

Medieval philosophers such as Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas maintain that it is always evil to hate other people as a whole - nevertheless, our love for others might make it good to hate their vicious acts and habits (but not their nature and grace). Aquinas considers hatred a vice directly opposed to charity, which he holds as the most excellent virtue, as without charity neither happiness nor true virtue is possible (charity is not limited to the donation of money). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred#Philosophical_views​

 

[Balerion]

I think it was pretty clear, he was suggesting that you join Scientology and find out first hand what it is. I have a better understanding of Islam because I practiced it. I have a better understanding of Christianity because I practiced it. I don't know squat about Judaism because I didn't practice it. I have studied many religions however, but until you submerse yourself in one and actually practice it, you can never really have any grasp of what it is about.

I could not disagree more. By that logic, you can't understand medicine unless you're a doctor, and you can't understand history unless you were there.

 

[davewhite04]

Been wondering about this and would like some input from anyone who is in, or has been in this cult/religion if possible.

It has a very strong message, well it's "greatest knowledge" message. Basically it says that no matter what people do to you never stop loving, never fall foul to hatred as you will become insane with anger. Pretty simple in theory, but bloody hard in practice.

Thing is is that I agree with this, BUT...

It was said 2000 yrs ago by Jesus, almost to the T.

The rest of Scientology goes from spending alot of money to UFOs, to maybe helping the less unfortunate out(think Salvation Army).

Some new ideas sure, but all crap if you ask me.

I am a member of no Church, I just try to follow Jesus' example when I can, doesn't cost a penny and has real benefits.

So, are you guys getting value for money?

Is there any Scientology believers/members who can give their side of the story?

Others who have tried to hijack this thread. and who obviously have no first hand experience of the religion/cult please go and derail another thread.

I have no questions for you - and won't be giving you any replies.

 

[Syne]

Seems you are just itching for a target, whether Scientologists or "hijackers". I can see why you find avoiding hatred so daunting.

I know enough about Scientology to answer your questions, but if you are specifically looking for someone to defend it against whatever you may have in mind, good luck.

 

[Balerion]

Is there any Scientology believers/members who can give their side of the story?

Others who have tried to hijack this thread. and who obviously have no first hand experience of the religion/cult please go and derail another thread.

I have no questions for you - and won't be giving you any replies.

It's okay, this thread isn't dependent on you. We've been getting along just fine without you.

 

[davewhite04]

*bump*

If there is no one with first hand experience, fair enough.

Others, please debate something else instead of gluing on to people for some strange reason.

I get a guy who doesn't want to debate but will answer all my questions even though he was never a member of the religion/cult, eh?
`

 

[Syne]

Here I agree with Balerion. One does not need to drink the kool-aid to know a very great deal about any subject. I do have some first hand experience, but that does not mean I was a "believer" or "a member". I have first hand experience of many things I am interested in, otherwise what is the point of being interested.

 

[davewhite04]

Here I agree with Balerion. One does not need to drink the kool-aid to know a very great deal about any subject. I do have some first hand experience, but that does not mean I was a "believer" or "a member". I have first hand experience of many things I am interested in, otherwise what is the point of being interested.

Okay, what first hand experience have you got?

 

[Syne]

Okay, what first hand experience have you got?

I am not going to write a book detailing on my experiences. If you want that sort of general answer then do as others have suggested and go find out for yourself. Now if you have specific questions then go ahead and ask. I assume you started this thread because you have questions.

 

[davewhite04]

I am not going to write a book detailing on my experiences. If you want that sort of general answer then do as others have suggested and go find out for yourself. Now if you have specific questions then go ahead and ask. I assume you started this thread because you have questions.

Okay, thanks for this.

When were you member? Why did you leave? What level did you get to?

 

[Syne]

Okay, thanks for this.

When were you member? Why did you leave? What level did you get to?

You have an awfully short memory.

One does not need to drink the kool-aid to know a very great deal about any subject. I do have some first hand experience, but that does not mean I was a "believer" or "a member".

 

[davewhite04]

I am not going to write a book detailing on my experiences..

Looks like you have too.

End of hand bags, I'll wait for a past or present member.

 

[Syne]

Looks like you have too.

End of hand bags, I'll wait for a past or present member.

Yeah, I figured you were more interested in antagonizing people than actually finding out anything.

Some new ideas sure, but all crap if you ask me.

Seems you already think you have your answer, so this thread must be a trolling attempt to ambush someone.

Good luck with that.

 

[davewhite04]

If there's any members of the religion, please could you simply read my opening post, as the rest is trash.

It is unlikely I'll get a genuine reply here, but I believe Cris does have some experience?

 

[Neverfly]

You're right. See, outside of their recruiting stations, members are disallowed from discussing Scientology affairs to general public. They are not permitted to discuss it on forums. Even, as the video showed, they are barely allowed to talk to the media and are still very secretive.

You're asking it at all completely contradicts their doctrine. You cannot get 'genuine' answers from an active member.

 

[seagypsy]

I could not disagree more. By that logic, you can't understand medicine unless you're a doctor, and you can't understand history unless you were there.

Can you honestly say you have a firm understanding of medicine without doing what doctors do? Going to medical school? Part of being a doctor is getting the education in the field and living it. A med student will not understand medicine as well as a doctor who has been practicing in the field for 20 years. There are somethings you can only learn through experience. And we learn about history through the eyes of those who write about it. And the current history text books were not written by people who were there. You could read my diary and get what seems to be an understanding of who I am, but the understanding you gain from my diary is dependent on my ability to accurately communicate my thoughts through words. Something I know I have trouble with sometimes. So in order to understand me, you would have to be me.

I am using a very strict definition for the word "understand" perhaps your definition is less strict, in which case, I can understand your disagreement.

I'm thinking you can never understand what it is like to be pregnant or to have a menstrual cycle because you are not a woman. As a woman I never understood what it was like to be a mother until I became one myself. Am I mistaken?

 

[James R]

Want first-hand accounts of Scientology?

There are plenty all over the internet. You could start here if you like:

Ex Scientologist

They also have a forum (click on "Message board" link at the top of the home page).

 

[Balerion]

Can you honestly say you have a firm understanding of medicine without doing what doctors do? Going to medical school?

Of course. You realize it's chemists, and not doctors, who create medicine, don't you?

Part of being a doctor is getting the education in the field and living it. A med student will not understand medicine as well as a doctor who has been practicing in the field for 20 years.

I don't know that their understanding of medicine would be less--quite the opposite, in fact; their heads are full of fresh information coming out of school--what they wouldn't be so great at is being a doctor. That is, diagnosis, bedside manner, protocols etc.. That kind of stuff takes practice. But all you need to understand how medicine works is an understanding of biology and chemistry.

There are somethings you can only learn through experience. And we learn about history through the eyes of those who write about it. And the current history text books were not written by people who were there.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

You could read my diary and get what seems to be an understanding of who I am, but the understanding you gain from my diary is dependent on my ability to accurately communicate my thoughts through words. Something I know I have trouble with sometimes. So in order to understand me, you would have to be me.

I think you overestimate the "you" in this equation. But first let me say that if the only historical record we had of seagypsy was her own writings, and those writings were sometimes confused and opaque, no one would claim to have an understanding of her. However, it's entirely possible to understand someone even without their own input. By considering actions and third-party accounts in context, it's possible to get an accurate picture of historical figures even when there aren't private letters or diaries to fill in the blanks.

As far as the "you" thing goes, I think you're under the misapprehension that you're this totally unique being floating around in the world. In reality, you're just another mammal. Your motives are probably no different than someone else's who behaves like you do, and your actions probably follow a logical path that make sense when taken as a whole. (there are other implications if they do not, of course) Obviously, if this is your belief, you're welcome to it, but I'm always going to take exception to it.

I am using a very strict definition for the word "understand" perhaps your definition is less strict, in which case, I can understand your disagreement.

Four of the five definitions of "understand," including the first definition, do not fit your own. The other is close, but I don't think it applies to something like faith. I do think, however, that you have your own personal definition that is probably creating the confusion here. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it tends to lead to disagreements and, as I said, confusion.

I'm thinking you can never understand what it is like to be pregnant or to have a menstrual cycle because you are not a woman. As a woman I never understood what it was like to be a mother until I became one myself. Am I mistaken?

I think so, yes. Can I "feel" it? Can I live it? No. But I can understand it. I know what happens, I know what to expect and what the various difficulties can be. Perhaps you have included "feeling" and "living" in your definition of "understand," but I don't find that to be fair or accurate. Imagine the implications a benign statement such as "Do you understand me?" takes on in that context!

To the point, I can understand both what Islam says in its scripture and how it is practiced by its adherents without being one myself. I can understand what it means to be a Muslim, what is sacrificed and what is gained. This simply requires inquiry and observation, not first-hand experience. I can also understand what prayer does to the mind even though I don't pray. I may not know exactly how it feels (or I might, depending on how the experience is framed by actual theists; for instance, if they say it's like being wrapped in a warm blanket, that's a feeling I experienced just last night) but I can understand what it means to them.

 

[seagypsy]

Of course. You realize it's chemists, and not doctors, who create medicine, don't you?



I don't know that their understanding of medicine would be less--quite the opposite, in fact; their heads are full of fresh information coming out of school--what they wouldn't be so great at is being a doctor. That is, diagnosis, bedside manner, protocols etc.. That kind of stuff takes practice. But all you need to understand how medicine works is an understanding of biology and chemistry.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.



I think you overestimate the "you" in this equation. But first let me say that if the only historical record we had of seagypsy was her own writings, and those writings were sometimes confused and opaque, no one would claim to have an understanding of her. However, it's entirely possible to understand someone even without their own input. By considering actions and third-party accounts in context, it's possible to get an accurate picture of historical figures even when there aren't private letters or diaries to fill in the blanks.

As far as the "you" thing goes, I think you're under the misapprehension that you're this totally unique being floating around in the world. In reality, you're just another mammal. Your motives are probably no different than someone else's who behaves like you do, and your actions probably follow a logical path that make sense when taken as a whole. (there are other implications if they do not, of course) Obviously, if this is your belief, you're welcome to it, but I'm always going to take exception to it.



Four of the five definitions of "understand," including the first definition, do not fit your own. The other is close, but I don't think it applies to something like faith. I do think, however, that you have your own personal definition that is probably creating the confusion here. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it tends to lead to disagreements and, as I said, confusion.



I think so, yes. Can I "feel" it? Can I live it? No. But I can understand it. I know what happens, I know what to expect and what the various difficulties can be. Perhaps you have included "feeling" and "living" in your definition of "understand," but I don't find that to be fair or accurate. Imagine the implications a benign statement such as "Do you understand me?" takes on in that context!

To the point, I can understand both what Islam says in its scripture and how it is practiced by its adherents without being one myself. I can understand what it means to be a Muslim, what is sacrificed and what is gained. This simply requires inquiry and observation, not first-hand experience. I can also understand what prayer does to the mind even though I don't pray. I may not know exactly how it feels (or I might, depending on how the experience is framed by actual theists; for instance, if they say it's like being wrapped in a warm blanket, that's a feeling I experienced just last night) but I can understand what it means to them.

I think I understand (by your explanation of "understand")what you mean. But in terms of the guy asking about Scientology, he is rejecting the means of gaining understanding that you suggest. So he is limited himself to first hand understanding. He also seems to just be looking for a target to dissect and ridicule. Its a shame really, I mean whats the use of making fun of Scientologists. It doesn't prove one to be clever because it is simply too easy to do. Even Christians and Jehovahs Witnesses make fun of them. Who doesn't.. oh that's right Scientologists are the only people that seem to take Scientologists seriously. Even Hollywood mocks them. And they embrace nearly EVERY eccentricity.

I don't tend to make fun of Scientologists specifically, only in they are a religion based on some imaginary being of some kind. But I make fun of all religions for that. I don't really know any specific details of Scientology other than they claim Tom Cruise and I have a low opinion of him so their judgement can't be in line with mine.

 

[Balerion]

But in terms of the guy asking about Scientology, he is rejecting the means of gaining understanding that you suggest. So he is limited himself to first hand understanding. He also seems to just be looking for a target to dissect and ridicule.

It could be that, or maybe he thinks he can get some super-secret information from a former or current member of the church. In the case of Scientology, it makes more sense because it is such a secretive and, perhaps more importantly, new religion.

Its a shame really, I mean whats the use of making fun of Scientologists. It doesn't prove one to be clever because it is simply too easy to do. Even Christians and Jehovahs Witnesses make fun of them. Who doesn't.. oh that's right Scientologists are the only people that seem to take Scientologists seriously. Even Hollywood mocks them. And they embrace nearly EVERY eccentricity.
I don't tend to make fun of Scientologists specifically, only in they are a religion based on some imaginary being of some kind. But I make fun of all religions for that. I don't really know any specific details of Scientology other than they claim Tom Cruise and I have a low opinion of him so their judgement can't be in line with mine.

Hollywood also accounts for quite a large number of prominent Scientologists, which is probably why the religion has become such a popular target. As for what the point is, I think Scientology lends itself to satire and ridicule because, like Mormonism, it's an obvious scam. Whatever you want to say about con artists within the various monotheistic faiths, it's safe to assume that their founders were genuine, or at least working at purposes they believed in. Mormonism and Scientology (the latter just being a more modern version of the former) are merely attempts to cash in on faith.