Scientology

Fallen Seraph

Tim Robbins wrote:

One problem is how do you define a cult?
christianity has probably being the most violent religion ever in the history of supernatural beliefs systems. Most Christians are refined now, but go back into history and they burnt people alive for not converting, Scientology hasn't done that yet.
Christianity also preys on fear, using the concept of hell to scare people into believing and adopting their belief system. I could go on but I am preaching to the converted here.
the irish government could come down harder on scientology but it would unfair for it to do that and leave Christianity alone.

Oh very not so. Sure, bad things have been done in the name of christianity in the past, and its power was certainly abused; but it's absurd to doubt the sincerety of christians in ireland at the moment. Scientology appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a cynical, money making cult without scruples; while christianity, even if mistaken, does nothing remotely comparable.

rockbeer

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Oh very not so. Sure, bad things have been done in the name of christianity in the past, and its power was certainly abused; but it's absurd to doubt the sincerety of christians in ireland at the moment. Scientology appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a cynical, money making cult without scruples; while christianity, even if mistaken, does nothing remotely comparable.

Not sure I agree with you here.

Firstly, there's little doubt that most 'flock-variety' scientologists would be sincere in their beliefs, just as would most lower order christians.

Secondly, there's nothing illegal as far as I know about any religion making money out of its followers. Otherwise the collection plate would be banned on a Sunday. The Catholic church has arguably been a 'cynical money making cult' ever since its inception, regardless of the sincerity of belief or otherwise of its leaders.

Its the effects and activities of these organisations that should be considered, not their proclaimed beliefs. Or don't you agree that the Catholic church marching its way round the globe on an eternal mission to convert non-believers is way more insidious than whatever the whacko scientologists are up to? If only as a function of scale.

Winters

rockbeer wrote:

Secondly, there's nothing illegal as far as I know about any religion making money out of its followers.

There is one thing about making some sort of money and its another thing about draining people of money so much that they commit suicide as they feel there is no other way out of it.

karen3212

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Oh very not so. Sure, bad things have been done in the name of christianity in the past, and its power was certainly abused; but it's absurd to doubt the sincerety of christians in ireland at the moment. Scientology appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a cynical, money making cult without scruples; while christianity, even if mistaken, does nothing remotely comparable.

From what I understand scientologists at present are using coersive techniques to get members into their organisation. They haven't laid out all the beliefs before the people to judge. It seems to me they keep much of what they believe in secret until you reach a certain level. This is what I find disturbing, people could be having a look at the beliefs out of curiosity not knowing the whole philosophy before they go into the organisation. For me that is the difference just now between established religions and cults. I could be wrong though.

I'd say as cults get more members they don't have as much need to coerce so forcibly, they just use peer pressure more.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

when xtianity started out, most people didn't know what it was about either... the church was quite pissed off when people started to print the bible in english because then lay people would be able to form their own opinion on what was inside it, and church authorities (rightly) figured that would be very dangerous for church power.

the main difference 'tween scientology and the rest is that scientology is newer, given time it will be just as respectful and worthy of religious tolerance as any of the abrahamic religions or hinduism, buddhism or raelianism (not sure I spelled that right)

karen3212

Mordeth wrote:

when xtianity started out, most people didn't know what it was about either... the church was quite pissed off when people started to print the bible in english because then lay people would be able to form their own opinion on what was inside it, and church authorities (rightly) figured that would be very dangerous for church power.

the main difference 'tween scientology and the rest is that scientology is newer, given time it will be just as respectful and worthy of religious tolerance as any of the abrahamic religions or hinduism, buddhism or raelianism (not sure I spelled that right)

OK so as I understand it, christianity was a coersive cult once, but isn't now.

So should we just say give Scientology a few hundred years and it will be ok then, should we tell people not to worry about it? I suppose we just have to use the law when they break the law, does anyone know if brainwashin/mind control is against any laws?

Tim Robbins

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Oh very not so. Sure, bad things have been done in the name of christianity in the past, and its power was certainly abused; but it's absurd to doubt the sincerety of christians in ireland at the moment. Scientology appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a cynical, money making cult without scruples; while christianity, even if mistaken, does nothing remotely comparable.

You are arguing off perception, you can't legislate on subjective perception.
Let's take a look at each defintion posted by binomate:

1.a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
- applicable to Christianity and Scientology

2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

- applicable to Christianity and Scientology

3.the object of such devotion.

- applicable to Christianity and Scientology
4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

- applicable to Christianity and Scientology
5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

- applicable to Christianity and Scientology
6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

- applicable to Christianity and Scientology
7.the members of such a religion or sect.
- applicable to Christianity and Scientology
8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
- applicable to Christianity and Scientology

If Scientology was around for 2,000 years and all are parents told us it was ok, it would get a more favourable roll in the same way christianity does. If the bible was only written 50 years ago, but said exactly what it said, people would laugh at it.
Both belief systems have absolute no objective evidence, they both preach ridiculous scary stuff, burning in hell for example and only survive because the people who participate in them either suspend or are incapable of critical thinking.
Christianity promotes indoctrination, resulting in the silly labeling of people which causes political problems.
Do you think less or more people would have died in the North if there was no such thing as that?
Christianity is just hypocritical critizing Scientology. What ever happend to it's own maxims: "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone".

Zombrex

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Oh very not so. Sure, bad things have been done in the name of christianity in the past, and its power was certainly abused; but it's absurd to doubt the sincerety of christians in ireland at the moment. Scientology appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a cynical, money making cult without scruples; while christianity, even if mistaken, does nothing remotely comparable.

Is it not absurd to doubt the sincerity of Scientologists?

I've no doubt that most of them, including people like Tom Cruise and John Travolta, honestly believe this stuff.

Certainly the early founders, such as L. Ron Hubbard would have known it was nonsense, and used it to make money. But as a religion spreads the people "in the know" die off and are replaced by the early true believers who have moved up the ranks of the organisation. While these people lead the religion they also genuinely believe in the religion, giving the religion a self sustaining energy.

I suppose that could be one definition of the different between a cult and a religion. A religion is a cult that has had its leadership, who know it is nonsense, replaced by true believers.

Tim Robbins

karen3212 wrote:

OK so as I understand it, christianity was a coersive cult once, but isn't now.

So should we just say give Scientology a few hundred years and it will be ok then, should we tell people not to worry about it? I suppose we just have to use the law when they break the law, does anyone know if brainwashin/mind control is against any laws?

That's an excellant point. There is no way Christianity would be arund today if it didn't do the things it did to keep itself as a massive powerful instuition.
Demanding money, brainwashing, wars, supression of critism, you name it they are all there in the history of Christianity. If they didn't do all those things, Christianity would have died out a long time ago. It has only refined itself recently, due to the rise of skeptism and an education of the masses if you ask me.

5uspect

Mordeth wrote:

the main difference 'tween scientology and the rest is that scientology is newer, given time it will be just as respectful and worthy of religious tolerance as any of the abrahamic religions or hinduism, buddhism or raelianism (not sure I spelled that right)

The optimist in me says that people will be at least consistent and apply the fear and loathing they have of Scientology to all religions.

The cynic in me says people will compartmentalise this just like everything else.

karen3212

I was just looking to see if there was anything on cults/religions in ireland.

I found this on Dialogue Ireland. I am still looking for more information, but I was very surprised by it's mention of secularism. Just thought it was weird. Sorry if it's a bit off topic.

The 1978 ‘Jonestown’ massacre began a series of cult explosions which culminated in the September 11 suicide missions. In between these events there were outbreaks of cultist violence in 1993 in Waco, the Solar Temple in 1994, Aum Supreme Truth, killed people on the subway in Japan in 1995. 1997 saw the suicides in San Diego of ‘Heaven’s Gate’. Again 2000 there was the Marian Cult, ‘The Ten Commandments of God’ in Uganda which killed all its members. All the world’s religions have had cultist elements.

Even the cults of nationalism and secularism have contributed to this phenomenon.
edit link http://www.esatclear.ie/~dialogueireland/conferences/index.htm

kmick

My wife did the test while she was in Australia living it up, travelling, sunbathing and partying for a year. They told her she was depressed. She passed on buying the book and went back to living it up, travelling, sunbathing and partying for the remainder of the year.

Scientology is founded on the basis that aliens control our brains.

Nuff said in those two examples alone.

Makes Catholicism look kinda normal. Peace and Love instead of aliens and depressed girls.

Tim Robbins

karen3212 wrote:

I was just looking to see if there was anything on cults/religions in ireland.

I found this on Dialogue Ireland. I am still looking for more information, but I was very surprised by it's mention of secularism. Just thought it was weird. Sorry if it's a bit off topic.

The 1978 ‘Jonestown’ massacre began a series of cult explosions which culminated in the September 11 suicide missions. In between these events there were outbreaks of cultist violence in 1993 in Waco, the Solar Temple in 1994, Aum Supreme Truth, killed people on the subway in Japan in 1995. 1997 saw the suicides in San Diego of ‘Heaven’s Gate’. Again 2000 there was the Marian Cult, ‘The Ten Commandments of God’ in Uganda which killed all its members. All the world’s religions have had cultist elements.

Even the cults of nationalism and secularism have contributed to this phenomenon.
edit link http://www.esatclear.ie/~dialogueireland/conferences/index.htm

I just checked that link.
That's hillarious David Quinn is presenting a presentation on the cult of secularism. He is the head of Catholic Iona institute and he usually does anything possible to critise atheism or secularism.
Only one religion at most can be right, that would be a strong argument for saying at least all religions - 1 are cults.
I wonder does David Quinn point that out.

Tim Robbins

kmick wrote:

My wife did the test while she was in Australia living it up, travelling, sunbathing and partying for a year. They told her she was depressed. She passed on buying the book and went back to living it up, travelling, sunbathing and partying for the remainder of the year.

Scientology is founded on the basis that aliens control our brains.

Nuff said in those two examples alone.

Makes Catholicism look kinda normal. Peace and Love instead of aliens and depressed girls.

I disagree with that.
Catholism preaches that some people go to hell, it's based on a book that is exceptionally violent. It indoctrinates kids when they don't know any better or that there is another argument to all this.
Look at all the people that died up the North as a result of indoctrination.
The reality is you are just giving Catholism / Christiainity an easy time.
What's the difference between satan or the devils and the aliens after all?

Zombrex

kmick wrote:

Makes Catholicism look kinda normal. Peace and Love instead of aliens and depressed girls.

If Catholicism is about peace and love, Scientology is about good mental health, a successful life and happiness.

Catholicism, the religion, is actually about the concept of sin, God's punishment, hell and death.

They just have had a longer and more successful PR campaign

pH

kmick wrote:

Makes Catholicism look kinda normal. Peace and Love instead of aliens and depressed girls.

Catholicism. Let's see, we have some sort of experimenter God, who wants to see which of his creations deserve eternal life, so he creates billions of them on a planet, gives them about 70 years to test their worth by following a bizarre set of sometimes contradictory rules, but mainly to do with burning cattle and treating women badly. when they die they are judged and the wheat separated from the chaff as it were.

Then it gets weird ... for some reason he has to die himself (or his son has to it's kind of complicated don't ask), which is weird cos he made the universe and all its rules so why make that one? This dying is seen as the supreme sacrifice, yet he doesn't die permanently he comes back to life, well not life exactly - jesus isn't alive on the planet any more, but he did come back to life - he's God after all (or his son)

Hmmm, oh and then he changes most of the rules about burnt offerings and women whilst he was here, only from now on we have to pretend to eat his body and drink his blood from now on, oh yes, and we have a new prayer.

Oh and he's coming back.

You think thetans, auditing, Xenu and explosions in volcanoes make this seem normal?

rockbeer

Have a read of this and this for a more accurate perspective on where Dialogue Ireland are coming from.

The usual evangelical missionaries hiding behind a smokescreen of concern over cultism.

I could say more but I don't want to get banned.

5uspect

I nominate pH for post of the month!

Dades

rockbeer wrote:

I could say more but I don't want to get banned.

Excellent attitude.
Why say something to get banned when you're all in agreement anyway?

5uspect

The Mission Statement says it all:

Motivated by the inalienable right to religious freedom, inspired by Christian values, Dialogue Ireland is an independent Trust that seeks to promote people’s freedom to make informed choices about religious, spiritual and philosophical beliefs.

The role of Dialogue Ireland is:

* To promote the study and understanding of World Religions as the context for understanding Cultist New Religious Movements (NRMs). To provide pastoral support to members and former members of Cultist NRMs and their families according to their needs. Also to provide advice and information on NRMs to those affected and to the media.

* To provide information and educational service to schools, vocational groups and other establishments. Rather than warn or raise fears, our strategy is to inform and empower people making enquiries.

Looks like a preemptive strike to me.

Tim Robbins

rockbeer wrote:

Have a read of this and this for a more accurate perspective on where Dialogue Ireland are coming from.

The usual evangelical missionaries hiding behind a smokescreen of concern over cultism.

I could say more but I don't want to get banned.

Scary stuff Rockbeer, the evangelical world is certainly very scary.

rockbeer

Tim Robbins wrote:

the evangelical world is certainly very scary.

Yeah, what makes me laugh is the transparency of the disguise. How stupid do they think people are? The first couple of pages are full of apparently-reasonable statements like

"in many instances the Church has much to learn from [NRMs]"

But you only have to scratch the surface to see their true colours exposed. Two layers down they're talking about methods for gaining converts, and the threat posed to christianity by islam, and the benefits of infiltrating islamic communities "at their deepest level" so that "the Muslim [sic] can be integrated into an existing body of believers, who would have the maturity and understanding to cope with the unique problems which Muslim converts face".

Just the sort of stuff I expect to hear from somebody intent on trying to learn from other belief systems

Funny how it never occurs to them that if they hang around with muslims they might end up being converted themselves... a true sign of an open mind.

Don't believe anything these people have to say about cults, they are working to their own agenda. In my view they are no more acceptable in society than the scientologists.

@ The Atheist: Hope this isn't too close to the line

Dades

rockbeer wrote:

@ The Atheist: Hope this isn't too close to the line

Not at all. Reasoned opinion is welcome.

PoleStar

5uspect wrote:

The Mission Statement says it all:

Motivated by the inalienable right to religious freedom, inspired by Christian values, Dialogue Ireland is an independent Trust that seeks to promote people’s freedom to make informed choices about religious, spiritual and philosophical beliefs.

The role of Dialogue Ireland is:

* To promote the study and understanding of World Religions as the context for understanding Cultist New Religious Movements (NRMs). To provide pastoral support to members and former members of Cultist NRMs and their families according to their needs. Also to provide advice and information on NRMs to those affected and to the media.

* To provide information and educational service to schools, vocational groups and other establishments. Rather than warn or raise fears, our strategy is to inform and empower people making enquiries.




Looks like a preemptive strike to me.

Ha I absolutely love this stuff. HAd to read the first line again.

"Motivated by the inalienable right to religious freedom, inspired by Christian values"

Doesnt that just say : religious freedom, freedom to practice Chrisitianity.


Hmm, sounds a bit like this to me "you're free to do whatever you want, as long as its what I say". I think Metallica said it better in song form, think it was on the And Justice For All album!!!

karen3212

I was just reading tolerance.org and it seems there really is no such thing as brainwashing/mind control, as in the sophisticated non physical techniques that can convert someone to a new religion in a few weeks. I really thought there was, my ignorance.
Anyway they don't mention scientology as a dangerous organisation, I think it would be classified as a high demand religion by them, as far as I can see they don't mention it at all.

Edit sorry the name of the website is religioustolerance.org

PDN

PoleStar wrote:

Ha I absolutely love this stuff. HAd to read the first line again.

"Motivated by the inalienable right to religious freedom, inspired by Christian values"

Doesnt that just say : religious freedom, freedom to practice Chrisitianity.

No, that isn't what it says at all. Most Christians I know would passionately defend the right of people to believe whatever they want and to practice whatever religion they want. That is, I believe, the unavoidable consequence of true Christian values.

Of course if the organisation in question was advocating a ban or legal restrictions against Scientology then they would be complete hypocrities. However, if they are simply informing people of the real nature of NRMs then that is entirely consistent with their Mission Statement.

Also, their desire to evangelise Muslims, providing it is done ethically, is in no way contradictory to their Mission Statement. Evangelical Christians believe that their message is strong enough to stand on its own two feet in the marketplace of ideas, but that it suffers when the civic powers discriminate against any religion or promote any religion. They would, for example, believe that Christianity was severely damaged by previous regimes that attempted to make Christianity a State religion or force it down people's throats. That was a denial of the "Christian values" referred to in the Mission Statement.

So, if an evangelical Christian is really committed to evangelism of Muslims and others, they will consequently seek a society with complete separation between Church and State, and where all religions, together with other philosophies, may compete for hearts and minds on an equal footing.

This is why, whilst you might find evangelical Christians annoying because they keep asking you if you want to be saved, they never hold a sword to your throat and tell you that if you don't get saved they will cut your head off. Neither, even in countries where evangelical Christians form the majority, do you risk execution if you practice another religion, or become automatically subject to the death penalty if you enter their holy cities.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

They would, for example, believe that Christianity was severely damaged by previous regimes that attempted to make Christianity a State religion or force it down people's throats. That was a denial of the "Christian values" referred to in the Mission Statement.

So, if an evangelical Christian is really committed to evangelism of Muslims and others, they will consequently seek a society with complete separation between Church and State, and where all religions, together with other philosophies, may compete for hearts and minds on an equal footing.

That would be secularism then? So why do these guys refer to secularism is a cultist movement?

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Funny how it never occurs to them that if they hang around with muslims they might end up being converted themselves... a true sign of an open mind.

Yes, that is possible, although unlikely. Evangelical Christianity is something that is embraced by a conscious choice, usually as an adult, therefore you get very few nominal Evangelicals since this is not something you can be "born into." Now, it is not uncommon to hear of nominal Catholics, Protestants etc. to be converted to Islam. However, I have never heard of a case where an Evangelical converted to Islam (that, of course, is not to say that such conversions never take place - simply that they are very rare). Muslims are converting to Christianity, on the other hand, at the rate of approximately 6 million every year.

I've never heard of this Dialogue group before, so I'm not sure if they actually are Evangelicals. However, if they are then I don't think the prospect of being converted by Muslims would be seen as a threat or something to be feared. As an Evangelical Christian I would defend to the last breath in my body the right of Muslims to attempt to persuade me (by peaceful means rather than the sword) to join their religion.

PDN

5uspect wrote:

That would be secularism then? So why do these guys refer to secularism is a cultist movement?

I haven't a clue. That sounds pretty bizarre to me. Nationalism has certainly operated as a cult several times in history, but secularism?

Having read the link, I think he's referring to aggressive atheism as espoused by Richard Dawkins that tries to paint religion as being uniformly evil and delusional. The problem is that once you convince the majority of people that a religion is evil, then persecution against that religion usually follows. The logical flaw here, of course, is that in portraying Scientology as evil Diaologue run the risk of doing the same thing themselves.

Either way, to jump from that to portraying secularism as a cult is quite a leap of logic. Of course David Quinn is a Catholic rather than an Evangelical and Catholicism has always had a tendency to feel threatened by secularism.

PDN

5uspect wrote:

The optimist in me says that people will be at least consistent and apply the fear and loathing they have of Scientology to all religions.

The cynic in me says people will compartmentalise this just like everything else.

Yes, you're always going to get some nutcase who tries to pretend that Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa were somehow different from the Scientologists. Crazy theists.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

No, that isn't what it says at all. Most Christians I know would passionately defend the right of people to believe whatever they want and to practice whatever religion they want. That is, I believe, the unavoidable consequence of true Christian values.

Is that right? Without going back over the whole burning-heretics-at-the-stake thing (not because I don't think it's important but to try and stay somewhere near the topic) - you sound like you're saying christians want it both ways. "Our religion is the only truth - but you can believe what you want."

Most christians I know don't live comfortably with such contradictions. In fact most christians I know don't think too much about such things at all.

PDN wrote:

However, if they are simply informing people of the real nature of NRMs then that is entirely consistent with their Mission Statement.

And how, exactly, does the "real nature" of NRMs differ from the "real nature" of christian churches. Both proclaim to save the individual from themselves. Both are happy to take the individual's money. Both are based on lies. Both are inherently divisive...

PDN wrote:

Also, their desire to evangelise Muslims, providing it is done ethically,

IMO, evangelising is inherently unethical so there's no point in pursuing this line of thinking.

PDN wrote:

This is why, whilst you might find evangelical Christians annoying because they keep asking you if you want to be saved, they never hold a sword to your throat and tell you that if you don't get saved they will cut your head off.

No. They used to, but these days they leave the meting out of punishment to their vindictive, petty minded little deity.

PDN wrote:

Neither, even in countries where evangelical Christians form the majority, do you risk execution if you practice another religion, or become automatically subject to the death penalty if you enter their holy cities.

So would you have defended christianity in the middle ages when non-believers were routinely slaughtered? Are you saying islam shouldn't be given the same opportunity to grow up that christianity took advantage of?

Disclaimer: I have no more time for islam than for the silly christianity-brand superstition. But why claim one is better than the other? Neither has exactly covered itself in glory. The only reason christianity dominates today is because it established its dominance by extreme violence towards dissenters: it has little to do with the message. Go and learn your history.

pH

PDN wrote:

Yes, you're always going to get some nutcase who tries to pretend that Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa were somehow different from the Scientologists. Crazy theists.

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Having read the link, I think he's referring to aggressive atheism as espoused by Richard Dawkins that tries to paint religion as being uniformly evil and delusional. The problem is that once you convince the majority of people that a religion is evil, then persecution against that religion usually follows.

I'm not quite sure why people paint Dawkins as an aggressive atheist. If there came a situation where religion was being legislated against Dawkins himself would be the first to object -

Guardian wrote:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,892521,00.html
I tell him I've been thinking about his point that children should not be defined by religion, and that I have a solution. Why not ban religion till you're 18? I expect him to be delighted by my initiative, but he looks horrified. "Oh no. I don't want to lay down a law that says when you get a driving licence, you can call yourself anything you like. It's a consciousness-raising issue."

What would he do if he had the powers of a dictator? He looks positively frightened now. He starts to stutter. "I, I, I don't want to be dictatorial about this, I don't want to legislate about this, I do think the nearest approach I would get to being, if you put me in the position of being a dictator, I would certainly abolish... " He pauses, and starts again. "I think I would abolish schools which systematically inculcate sectarian beliefs." But you've still got parents infecting the kids with their dogma, I say, playing devil's chaplain. "Well, I wouldn't want to have the thought police going to people's homes, dictating what they teach their children. I don't want to be Big Brotherish. I would hate that." He's talking faster and faster. "So I don't want to legislate about this, I keep coming back to this consciousness-raising thing. All I can do is write books and write articles."

Its funny, if you are a theists and you build a church in an area, leave Bibles in hotel rooms, putting posters up around the place with religious messages, pledge support for politicians that agree with your religion, spread the "truth" to others not of your religion, etc etc you are simply a devoted theist. People might even admire you for that.

If on the other hand you are an atheist and write a book about why you are an atheist that people are free to read or not read if they wish, you are an aggressive atheist

:rolleyes:

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Is that right? Without going back over the whole burning-heretics-at-the-stake thing (not because I don't think it's important but to try and stay somewhere near the topic) - you sound like you're saying christians want it both ways. "Our religion is the only truth - but you can believe what you want."

Most christians I know don't live comfortably with such contradictions. In fact most christians I know don't think too much about such things at all.

That probably says more about your knowledge of Christians than anything else. This is certainly a very live issue among the Christian circles that I move in.

I would certainly have been burnt at the stake for my beliefs under the rule of either the Spanish Inquisition or under Luther's Reformation.

Yes, Evangelicals believe that our faith is true, that truth is objective, and that therefore other religions are mistaken. However, we believe that others should have an equal right to believe whatever they want, because religion is a matter of personal choice. I fail to see why you think that is a contradiction. Atheists, for example, believe that they are right and that I am deluded, but hopefully they are tolerant enough to allow me the freedom to practice my faith without harming anyone else. What's the difference?

And how, exactly, does the "real nature" of NRMs differ from the "real nature" of christian churches. Both proclaim to save the individual from themselves. Both are happy to take the individual's money. Both are based on lies. Both are inherently divisive...

That is your opinion, and in a democratic society you are perfectly free to express it. There are actually real differences between world religions (not just Christianity) and certain NRMs that have been studied extensively by sociologists of all faiths and of none. I could hijack this thread by going through them one by one, but I suspect that would be a waste of time with someone as obviously hostile to Christianity as yourself.

IMO, evangelising is inherently unethical so there's no point in pursuing this line of thinking.

Would you feel the same about an atheist attempting to persuade a Christian that God does not actually exist? If you believe something to be true then, in a democratic society, you should have a perfect right to impart that to others, providing it is done peaceably, within the law, and without using deception or coercion.

No. They used to, but these days they leave the meting out of punishment to their vindictive, petty minded little deity.

Maybe you could cite some instances when Evangelical Christians used to threaten to cut peoples' heads off if they refused to convert?

So would you have defended christianity in the middle ages when non-believers were routinely slaughtered? Are you saying islam shouldn't be given the same opportunity to grow up that christianity took advantage of?

Disclaimer: I have no more time for islam than for the silly christianity-brand superstition. But why claim one is better than the other? Neither has exactly covered itself in glory. The only reason christianity dominates today is because it established its dominance by extreme violence towards dissenters: it has little to do with the message. Go and learn your history.

I have consistently, both in this forum and the Christianity forum, stated that Islam and Christendom have been equally bad and evil, and that the use of violence in the name of God is a perversion of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

We are talking about Evangelical Christianity here. There are actually very few areas in the world where this form of Christianity dominates, although it is the most rapidly growing form of religion, particularly in China, sub-Saharan Africa, parts of India, and Latin America. In fact, far from establishing itself by violence towards dissenters, Evangelicals have usually been among the dissenters who have suffered violence. They were burned at the stake under Catholicism, drowned under Luther (in a cruel mockery of their baptismal beliefs), denied legal status in Ireland under the penal laws, thrown into concentration camps by Hitler and Stalin, and are still being tortured and executed in China today.

Maybe you should go and learn your history?

eth0_

Wicknight wrote:

Is it not absurd to doubt the sincerity of Scientologists?

I've no doubt that most of them, including people like Tom Cruise and John Travolta, honestly believe this stuff.

There's a rumour (which sounds pretty believable) that these celebrities are in fact _paid to endose a product_ i.e. scientology.


With regard to Panorama....what a terrible, dumbed-down documentary. They concentrated on the fact the lovely Tommy kept following the interviewer around. The best information they could come up with was the Xenu thing and "fair game".

Half an hour on the internet would give you ten times this information. They really did not delve deep enough into this cult.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Its funny, if you are a theists and you build a church in an area, leave Bibles in hotel rooms, putting posters up around the place with religious messages, pledge support for politicians that agree with your religion, spread the "truth" to others not of your religion, etc etc you are simply a devoted theist. People might even admire you for that.

If on the other hand you are an atheist and write a book about why you are an atheist that people are free to read or not read if they wish, you are an aggressive atheist

:rolleyes:

I think the issue is in how some atheists mocks theists and portray them as simple minded hypocrites. This is similar to some posters on this board who, rather than stating their objections to theism in a calm and rational way, appear to be unable to resist launching into insults and abuse ("spleen" I think was a word used by Scofflaw, whom I consider to be a cordial atheist).

For example, I have done most of the things you mention above (with the exception of the politicians bit). And, yes, I would consider myself to be a devoted, and very active, Christian. But I do not make a practice of abusing atheists, or going around mocking those who believe differently from me (even though it's hard to keep polite on these boards at times!)

I am aware of some Christians who resort to personal abuse and are extremely disrespectful to those who believe otherwise than themselves. I consider their actions to be shameful and think they should indeed be labeled as "aggressive" theists. On a topical note, I would consider the recently deceased Jerry Falwell to most definitely be an aggressive Christian.

I have no problem with devoted atheists who are passionate about spreading their beliefs. I deplore those, of whatever religion and philosophy, who think that they further their cause by demeaning and belittling others.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I think the issue is in how some atheists mocks theists and portray them as simple minded hypocrites.

Does Richard Dawkins portray theists as simple minded hypocrites. I mean that ones that aren't actually simple minded hypocrites?

PDN wrote:

But I do not make a practice of abusing atheists, or going around mocking those who believe differently from me (even though it's hard to keep polite on these boards at times!)

Didn't you write a long post about why you think your grandmother is in hell?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

This is why, whilst you might find evangelical Christians annoying because they keep asking you if you want to be saved, they never hold a sword to your throat and tell you that if you don't get saved they will cut your head off. Neither, even in countries where evangelical Christians form the majority, do you risk execution if you practice another religion, or become automatically subject to the death penalty if you enter their holy cities..

Christians just tell you about a place that will do all that and much worse to you if you do not become a Christian.
Ah - the irony.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Didn't you write a long post about why you think your grandmother is in hell?

Yes indeed, I answered as fully as possible some demands from atheists who appeared to be very anxious to hear a Christian state what they actually believed about individuals going to hell.

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with mocking anyone or abusing anyone.

rockbeer

Great posts PDN - assuming you think that hiding behind the "evangelist" label and declining to answer any of the difficult questions will impress us.

BTW, how do you christians cope with the knowledge that you almost certainly wouldn't be christians at all but for the early catholic church's ruthless dedication to the acquisition of wealth and suppression of dissent?

And why do you think it matters to non-believers whether you happen to wear the evangelist badge or some other? It doesn't exempt you from culpability for the evil inherent in your religion, however much you would like it to.

And why doesn't it bother you that the mission statement of Dialogue Ireland concerns itself with NRMs yet the real (half-buried) content on its web site is all to do with evangelising. Is this an example of the kind of "ethical" evangelism you mentioned before?

If you don't want to be mocked then start answering adult questions in an adult way rather than hiding behind your cloak of denial.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Yes indeed, I answered as fully as possible some demands from atheists who appeared to be very anxious to hear a Christian state what they actually believed about individuals going to hell.

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with mocking anyone or abusing anyone.

Well I suppose it depends on how one defines "mocking" and "abusing"

For example, I would imagine that to you the idea of a Christian explaining the "good word" to a Muslim or Hindu, explaining that they are sinful by their nature, that their religion is ultimately a deception by Satan and that unless they give themselves to Jesus Christ they will find themselves in hell, is not considered mocking or abusing them or their own faith or beliefs, it is simply stating a fact.

On the other hand, an atheist explaining to a Christian (or Muslim or Hindu) that their god isn't actually talking to them because he doesn't actually exist, and what ever reason they have convinced themselves that he does exist that is at the end of the day a delusion caused by a number of evolutionary systems misfiring, that is mocking and abusing them and their faith?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Christians just tell you about a place that will do all that and much worse to you if you do not become a Christian.
Ah - the irony.

Now this raises a point that I always find fascinating. Christians, of various stripes, get roundly abused for telling others what they believe to be the truth about hell. For example, a recent Irish newspaper editorial blasted the Pope as "severely lacking in compassion" because he restated his belief in hell. Yet, if we leave aside the actual matter of whether hell exists or not, surely it would be a lack of compassion to keep quiet about a danger that you sincerely believe to be imminent?

Let's use the movie "Jaws" as an example. If you really believed, as Sheriff Brody did, that a Great White Shark was lurking in the waters ready to devour bathers, then what is the compassionate course of action to take? If you keep silent, believing that by so doing you will cause someone to be eaten, then that would certainly demonstrate a lack of compassion.

So, if Christians are correct about the existence of hell, then they are being very responsible and loving in warning others about that fact. If they are wrong, then add them to the long list of people who issued sincere, but ultimately false, warnings. I can certainly see that would be annoying, but no more so than a weather forecaster predicting a hurricane that fails to materialise. To accuse anyone of lacking compassion, or of being hateful and judgmental, would only make sense if, as with the nutjobs like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, they were actually gloating and rejoicing over the idea of people going to hell.

It would require a feat of breathtakingly incredible logical acrobatics and sophistry to try to make the Christian belief in hell somehow comparable to any religionist who demands conversion at the point of a sword.

humanji

eth0_ wrote:

There's a rumour (which sounds pretty believable) that these celebrities are in fact _paid to endose a product_ i.e. scientology.

Well there's also the rumours that they are being blackmailed into staying in the cult. One example (and I've no idea if it's true, so it probably isn't), is about John Travolta joining because his wife was one, and when he tried to leave, rumours of him being gay appeared everywhere. Then he decided to stay and the rumours suddenly stopped. He did want to leave and changed his mind, and there were rumours about him being gay, but as for the link between the two? Well that's what makes rumours fun

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

It would require a feat of breathtakingly incredible logical acrobatics and sophistry to try to make the Christian belief in hell somehow comparable to any religionist who demands conversion at the point of a sword.

That is kind of ignoring the issue of why the concept of "hell" exists in the religion in the first place.

The concept of hell exists to scare people into joining the religion and also to reassure the people in the religion that there is a reason for being there. There must be a down side to not joining the religion. To believe that you are saved there must equally be people who are not saved, and something bad has to happen to them, otherwise what is the point of going to the trouble of joining the religion.

I think it is more this idea, the idea that there are people out there continuing to use this scare tactic, that unnerves people in this day and age when it comes to concepts like hell.

Of course you are right, people like the Pope might genuinely believe this stuff. Which is why people like myself attack the religion itself as well as people who use the religion to manipulate people.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

So, if Christians are correct about the existence of hell, then they are being very responsible and loving in warning others about that fact. If they are wrong, then add them to the long list of people who issued sincere, but ultimately false, warnings. I can certainly see that would be annoying, but no more so than a weather forecaster predicting a hurricane that fails to materialise.

Not the same thing at all - I might spend a day or two worrying unnecessarily about a hurricane which is anticipated on some reasonable if erroneous grounds, but you want me to spend my entire life in fear of - and construct my lifestyle/beliefs around the possibility of - something for which you have no proof, no objective evidence, not even a reasonably cogent logical argument, simply because it might be true. In fact, the only things you have to support this possibility are a selectively edited old book and your opinion.

What if I told you that you should spend your life in fear of being abducted by aliens? It's possible - but would you think it reasonable for me to ask you to dedicate your entire lifestyle to avoiding this remote possibility, based entirely on my subjective opinion with no supporting evidence?

How many other remotely unlikely possibilities would you suggest I spend my life going to extreme lengths to avoid?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Well I suppose it depends on how one defines "mocking" and "abusing"

For example, I would imagine that to you the idea of a Christian explaining the "good word" to a Muslim or Hindu, explaining that they are sinful by their nature, that their religion is ultimately a deception by Satan and that unless they give themselves to Jesus Christ they will find themselves in hell, is not considered mocking or abusing them or their own faith or beliefs, it is simply stating a fact.

On the other hand, an atheist explaining to a Christian (or Muslim or Hindu) that their god isn't actually talking to them because he doesn't actually exist, and what ever reason they have convinced themselves that he does exist that is at the end of the day a delusion caused by a number of evolutionary systems misfiring, that is mocking and abusing them and their faith?

I would have no problem with a Muslim explaining the Koran to me, telling me that I am an apostate, and that I am going to hell because I reject Mohammed as a prophet. I have a number of Muslim friends who have had such conversations with me and neither of us felt the other was being mocking or abusive - but we did agree to disagree.

Similarly I have no problem with an atheist who is capable of engaging in rational conversation and making the points you mention. I would not see that as mocking or abusive at all. If they began making silly claims about Christianity being a virus that is really a form of child abuse, then that would be a different matter.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

If they began making silly claims about Christianity being a virus that is really a form of child abuse, then that would be a different matter.

Why are those "silly" claims? You don't consider indoctrinating children, too young to understand what they are being told, into a religion or cult a bad thing?

Is that not just because you would consider that a bad thing to do yet you don't want to think that your own religion would do that since you are convinced your religion is a good thing?

5uspect

PDN wrote:

Let's use the movie "Jaws" as an example. If you really believed, as Sheriff Brody did, that a Great White Shark was lurking in the waters ready to devour bathers, then what is the compassionate course of action to take? If you keep silent, believing that by so doing you will cause someone to be eaten, then that would certainly demonstrate a lack of compassion.

You see now I see the church as being more like the Mayor and the tourist industry. The Sheriff has some evidence that there was something out there. The dead orca, the dead girl etc. He enlists the help of a marine biologist to prove the existence of the shark, and only when the evidence is so overwhelming resulting is terrible consequences is the "Church" forced to take action.

Now the town needs tourism to survive, just like a church needs believers to survive. Evidence that there is a shark or some danger is like evidence that evolution is a valid theory for example or any piece of science that any particular religion says is "just a theory". People are not going want to holiday/worship where the evidence shows thats its not safe to do so or in the case of the church is just pointless.

Christians believe in Hell, they have no evidence for this. It is what they inherited through the generations, just like prosperous summers in JAWS.
By sticking to their beliefs, and not acknowledging that they are simply that, just beliefs, they put people at risk into thinking that they won't end up eaten by the very real shark, or ruining the lives of millions by, say, not encouraging safe sex.

now there's a turn around!

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Not the same thing at all - I might spend a day or two worrying unnecessarily about a hurricane which is anticipated on some reasonable if erroneous grounds, but you want me to spend my entire life in fear of - and construct my lifestyle/beliefs around the possibility of - something for which you have no proof, no objective evidence, not even a reasonably cogent logical argument, simply because it might be true. In fact, the only things you have to support this possibility are a selectively edited old book and your opinion.

What if I told you that you should spend your life in fear of being abducted by aliens? It's possible - but would you think it reasonable for me to ask you to dedicate your entire lifestyle to avoiding this remote possibility, based entirely on my subjective opinion with no supporting evidence?

How many other remotely unlikely possibilities would you suggest I spend my life going to extreme lengths to avoid?

So you don't believe them when they talk about hell. That's fine.

You think the idea of hell is without any objective support. That's fine.

You think that living life as a Christian is going to extreme lengths. That's fine.

You have a perfect right to hold those beliefs. I have a perfect right to hold opposing beliefs. But none of that makes it logical for anyone to accuse me of lacking compassion because I like to talk about my beliefs.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Now this raises a point that I always find fascinating. Christians, of various stripes, get roundly abused for telling others what they believe to be the truth about hell. For example, a recent Irish newspaper editorial blasted the Pope as "severely lacking in compassion" because he restated his belief in hell. Yet, if we leave aside the actual matter of whether hell exists or not, surely it would be a lack of compassion to keep quiet about a danger that you sincerely believe to be imminent?

Let's use the movie "Jaws" as an example. If you really believed, as Sheriff Brody did, that a Great White Shark was lurking in the waters ready to devour bathers, then what is the compassionate course of action to take? If you keep silent, believing that by so doing you will cause someone to be eaten, then that would certainly demonstrate a lack of compassion.

So, if Christians are correct about the existence of hell, then they are being very responsible and loving in warning others about that fact. If they are wrong, then add them to the long list of people who issued sincere, but ultimately false, warnings. I can certainly see that would be annoying, but no more so than a weather forecaster predicting a hurricane that fails to materialise. To accuse anyone of lacking compassion, or of being hateful and judgmental, would only make sense if, as with the nutjobs like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, they were actually gloating and rejoicing over the idea of people going to hell.

It would require a feat of breathtakingly incredible logical acrobatics and sophistry to try to make the Christian belief in hell somehow comparable to any religionist who demands conversion at the point of a sword.

Argument by analogy once again - not valid PDN, and a very good example of sophistry.

Your analogies are just ridiculous, you are comparing a mass movement to an 80s movie or something with no scientific evidence (Hell) to something with a lot of scientific evidence, the weather forcast.

I don't think people with any logical ability would fall for those arguments.

Why do you continue to use such a bad arguing technique?

What does bother me, is the way Christians use Hell to scare other people who may not be in a position to hear a counter argument. Some of these people are not well educated or just quite young for example.

There is no logical acrobats required to see the hypocriscy of christianity here.
Your arguments, of warning people and saving people and hell talk are only valid if Christianity is right. Scientologies arguments are valid if they are right. Extreme Islamic arguments are valid if they are right. Problem is, none of you have any evidence to support your claims and furthermore you can't all be right.

You are all cults, or at best, all of you are cults minus the one that is right.

No logical acrobatics required.