Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok what about your traditional religions: Anglican, Martian, the usual?

GoFenris wrote:That's exactly why you should learn about it. Whether from him or somewhere/one else (preferably informed not media programmed).

It's true, that way you can lose even more respect for the guy.

I have researched it and I feel the same way you do LuciusAR. Honestly the more research one does the more likely they are to have a less than positive outlook on it. Of course this doesn't mean I'm going to be cruel or unfair to a person, it is their choice, but that doesn't mean i have to think it was a smart one.

In an old Disney documentary, White Wilderness, in which there is a scene of lemmings leaping to their death. It turned out later that really Disney actually pushed the Lemmings over the edge. Now I understand why they did, they wanted the shot and for it to look good. I understand they had good intentions; they were educating people. Still, having researched and understood it I still think it is wrong.

Maybe the problem is in the phrasing. If you are just saying look into things before coming to a conclusion I would agree. The problem is that you are coming off more as saying that if people would just look into Scientology then they would be ok with it. Those aren't the same points and I would agree with the former but not the latter.

Ahtman wrote:

GoFenris wrote:That's exactly why you should learn about it. Whether from him or somewhere/one else (preferably informed not media programmed).

It's true, that way you can lose even more respect for the guy.

Ahtman wrote:I have researched it and I feel the same way you do LuciusAR. Honestly the more research one does the more likely they are to have a less than positive outlook on it. Of course this doesn't mean I'm going to be cruel or unfair to a person, it is their choice, but that doesn't mean i have to think it was a smart one.

In an old Disney documentary, White Wilderness, in which there is a scene of lemmings leaping to their death. It turned out later that really Disney actually pushed the Lemmings over the edge. Now I understand why they did, they wanted the shot and for it to look good. I understand they had good intentions; they were educating people. Still, having researched and understood it I still think it is wrong.

Maybe the problem is in the phrasing. If you are just saying look into things before coming to a conclusion I would agree. The problem is that you are coming off more as saying that if people would just look into Scientology then they would be ok with it. Those aren't the same points and I would agree with the former but not the latter.

I actually agree with you, I don't care for Scientology at all. I was attempting to keep my phrasing non-biased because I feel it is very important for people to have an informed opinion and not a dissolution of other's opinions. The practice of getting our opinions from others, FOX News, ESPN and worst of all E! has become too pervasive in our society (at least in my corner of the U.S.).

I do stand by my, 'if it works for them...' comment, however.

Frazzled wrote:Ok what about your traditional religions: Anglican, Martian, the usual?

Generally yes you would win. if you bring some spurious claim--like the oft linked ( even/especially on Dakka) B.A. "I can't wear a cross even though I don't have too1111) or ... err... you can't apply to be a Bishop of Leeds if you're Jewish etc then you're pretty good.

It generally, much like 99% of the cases your side of the pond I'd imagine, comes down to a degreee of common sense. Sure we all hear and rage about the fething dumb decisions-- that's why there are news-- but don't bother or hear about the others. So, from the training course I was sent on last month :

In a kitchen it would be viewed as unfair if you employed a muslim or jewish chef and insisted that they work upon the LOVELY PORK counter...

IF ... and this is the key bit :

IF there was an alternative area which was equally as valid.

So if you could move them to ,say, the vegetarian food bar or the kosher/halaal food prep area (... which, oddly .. aren't next to each other ) then you should endevour to do so.

However if you are CAPT PORKYS ALL PORK BAR then you would not be expected to be providing a non pork handling area IF THERE WASN'T ONE THERE ALREADY.

EDIT : new bottle of vodka and Freebird on the tunes ! WIN !

Although, I will add that if you study about the various 'Hollow Earth' religions, you may find Scientology refreshingly normal.

reds8n wrote:EDIT : new bottle of vodka and Freebird on the tunes ! WIN !

GoFenris wrote:Although, I will add that if you study about the various 'Hollow Earth' religions, you may find Scientology refreshingly normal.

I won't disagree, though I don't think "well they are less nutty than others" is the best argument for them. Actually, it might be.

Scientology - Less nutty than the Hollow Earthers! C'mon, give us a try!

If you had a lot of respect for this guy prior, then he would seem like someone you could sit down and discuss it with? Either he would help you understand this very strange seeming religion or he'll shut you out of it, which will likely reinforce your (and my) dislike of it.

I personally also hold the JWs in a very poor light due to my experiences with them during my time with the child protection arm of the UK social services and an exgirlfriend of mine who was raised a JW also suffered some very unpleasant things during her childhood with them.

Wait, you have them there too? I am so sorry....

Frazzled wrote:Wait, you have them there too? I am so sorry....

This isn't really a surprise. Someone turned off the containment grid.

So thats why Aunt Myrna was at the dinner...

Thing is, to the Scientologist you're just some guy at work. If this guy's involvement in Scientology is really harming his life and his friends and family aren't doing anything to get him out (or what they're doing isn't working) then some guy at his workplace isn't going to change anything.

It might be interesting to talk to him, just to get some insight into how Scientology really works for basic members. But you aren't going to change him.

Frazzled wrote:You don't need respect Lucius, just don't broach the topic. Its not neccessary. On the positive you should research Jehovah's Witness literature a little bit, and better yet get some. If he says anything ask him if he would like to have a little discussion about his personal relationship with J and proffer him some of your materials. Funfilled hilarity should ensue.

Frazzled in action... camo is always the key to success on these type of things.



Here is a bit of interesting and professional insight into the nature of Scientology, I put this here so you can refer your co-worker to it if need be

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/irving/scient.html.

And this too...

http://www.osnews.com/story/21587

Banned from editing Wiki... think about that for a minute.

osnews.com wrote:It remains to be seen if the massive IP ban will actually stop individual members of Scientology from abusing Wikipedia as the information war continues. It's not difficult to cheat your way around IP bans, so it most likely will be a temporary nuisance and symbolic measure, not an actual solution to the problem.

I want to see what happens with this one, how can they defend themselves when they do stuff like this on a regular basis? Madness...

Speaking as someone with a theological background, practicers of Scientology have every right and reason to consider their group a religion.

In fact it is a religion in every sense from the point of view of the worshipper.

This leaves aside very obvious claims that indicate that the source behind Scientology did not have the welfare of its worshippers in mind, under any paradigm.

Essentially Scientologists per se are not responsible for the deceptions of Hubbard.

Speaking as fairly as possible according to the accumulation of nearly all religions in the world today they are almost all mutually exclusive and therefore only one can be a True Faith. Under this notion a Scientologist has at face value at least as much right to hold a platform and prostheletise their belief as much as a Christian, Jew, Moslem, Moonie, Hindu, Mormon, JW, etc etc.
It is also quite fair for someone else to argue against these beliefs in a way that is respectful of the person.

Simply put worshippers of any religion have the right to consider their faith as True, and that includes the religion of atheism. They also have right to argue their point with persons of opposing faiths, what they do not have the right to do is deny others the right to beleive that their faith is instead True, no matter how obviously wrong it might be from another perspective.

Orlanth wrote:Speaking as someone with a theological background

Going to need a bit more info before I can put any weight behind that. It is such a broad area that it could mean almost anything. You have a dgree in Religious Studies? You went to a Seminary? Just read a lot in Sunday School?

Orlanth wrote:the religion of atheism

Oh that old chestnut?

Besides, Scientology is not (supposed to be) exclusive.

GoFenris wrote:Besides, Scientology is not (supposed to be) exclusive.

That is true. They tell people they can be a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu and a Scientologist.

But if you try to be all five your head will explode

The powers UNITE!

I'm all five! Here is a photo of the front of my church...

GoFenris wrote:I'm all five! Here is a photo of the front of my church...

Is that picture from the Simpsons?

GG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amalgamated_Church

Yeppers, such a funny idea. You got to have a bit of respect for Futurama, even though it was pretty short lived in entertainment value.

Futurama

Orlanth wrote:Speaking as someone with a theological background, practicers of Scientology have every right and reason to consider their group a religion.

In fact it is a religion in every sense from the point of view of the worshipper.

The problem is that Scientology doesn't make any overt, metaphysical claims. Instead, it consists of a large number of doctrinal beliefs predicated on decidedly physical phenomenon. Now, you can consider any idea which cannot be proven through physical observation metaphysical, but then metaphysics would be inclusive of classically physical disciplines like cosmology (though I wouldn't necessarily frown on that).

Alternatively, you could define religion as a set of information which people engage with in a certain way. Essentially expanding the definition to include any ideological construct which inspires a faith reaction. This shifts the onus of delineation away from any articulated belief, and onto self-professing worshipers.

Orlanth wrote:
This leaves aside very obvious claims that indicate that the source behind Scientology did not have the welfare of its worshippers in mind, under any paradigm.

Essentially Scientologists per se are not responsible for the deceptions of Hubbard.

Similar claims can made about the leaders of the early Christian Church, so I'm with you on this one.

Orlanth wrote:
...and that includes the religion of strong atheism.

Fixed.

Wrexasaur wrote:You got to have a bit of respect for Futurama, even though it was pretty short lived in entertainment value.

Okay, that actually is blasphemous. How long do we have to suffer these meritless attacks on TV shows that I think are quite good? Lock the thread.

dogma wrote:Similar claims can made about the leaders of the early Christian Church, so I'm with you on this one.

At a risk of derailing the thread....can you site a source? I'm just curious which era you are refering to, and which, if any, subset. We all know about the certain heresies that arose, and were debated, in the early Church. The problem with your sentence is, it makes it look you are saying "all" the leaders of the early Church were corrupt.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
At a risk of derailing the thread....can you site a source? I'm just curious which era you are refering to, and which, if any, subset. We all know about the certain heresies that arose, and were debated, in the early Church. The problem with your sentence is, it makes it look you are saying "all" the leaders of the early Church were corrupt.

GG

Corrupt? No, but I think its difficult to eliminate the inherent motivation of profit from the equation. Like it or not, when you advocate a singular opinion on any subject your own profit becomes intrinsically tied to that opinion. This applies to pretty much anyone who ever threw themselves behind any kind of theological perspective, from Paul to Luther. I simply referenced the early Church in order to clarify the reference between believers, and originators of the belief.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
At a risk of derailing the thread....can you site a source? I'm just curious which era you are refering to, and which, if any, subset. We all know about the certain heresies that arose, and were debated, in the early Church. The problem with your sentence is, it makes it look you are saying "all" the leaders of the early Church were corrupt.

GG

Corrupt? No, but I think its difficult to eliminate the inherent motivation of profit from the equation. Like it or not, when you advocate a singular opinion on any subject your own profit becomes intrinsically tied to that opinion. This applies to pretty much anyone who ever threw themselves behind any kind of theological perspective, from Paul to Luther. I simply referenced the early Church in order to clarify the reference between believers, and originators of the belief.

Wow Dogma....you can't site a source so the source must be Dogma himself? How cool to be able to spout psyco babble that can't be backed up and claim things like "inherent motivation of profit".

Pauls Inherent motivation was the advancement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the only inherent motivation of profit was his treasure in heaven. The people in the early Church(I'm talking about the first Church in Jerusalem) gave up everything they had for the gospel, inculding the leaders like Peter and the Apostles.

I have heard some interesting stories of Martin Luther, but haven't researched it myself so can't comment.

You really need to be careful about your generalizations and then attempt to back up the generalization with psyco babble.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
Wow Dogma....you can't site a source so the source must be Dogma himself? How cool to be able to spout psyco babble that can't be backed up and claim things like "inherent motivation of profit".

What psycho babble? When you set yourself up as the leader of a movement, that movement's prosperity translates into your own prosperity. This can be represented by monetary acquisition or alternative forms of benefit, but can be broadly described as profit. Just because you believe something to be true, and pursue it for the sake for the sake of that truth, it does not follow individual matters of ego are removed from the equation. Hell, claiming to know the truth of God is an egotistical act in and of itself; regardless of the rightness of the claim.

generalgrog wrote:
Pauls Inherent motivation was the advancement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the only inherent motivation of profit was his treasure in heaven.

How can you be so certain? In the absence of definitive evidence any given historical figure must be viewed in a manner consistent with the broadest possible range of motivations.

generalgrog wrote:
The people in the early Church(I'm talking about the first Church in Jerusalem) gave up everything they had for the gospel, inculding the leaders like Peter and the Apostles.

They also gained a great deal of communal renown as a result of their actions. You can't simply ignore that fact when examining their lives.

generalgrog wrote:
You really need to be careful about your generalizations and then attempt to back up the generalization with psyco babble.

GG

I'm not entirely sure what you think psycho babble is, but it certainly isn't anything I've attempted in this thread.

I once bellowed abuse at an old church lady until she peed herself. I can't wait until one of these Scientologist wack-jobs dares bringing that crap to my door. It would be almost as fun as the time I encountered this crusty old homeless street-preacher who tried to perform an impromptu exorcism on me. I played along and nearly had him convinced he was possessed!