Scientologists In Row With BBC

CmdrGravy writes "The Church Of Scientology is currently engaged in a row with the BBC, a result of an investigation by reporter John Sweeney. Sweeney is investigating the Church Of Scientology, trying to judge changes in the organization over the last few years; He's trying to discover if they've moved away from the questionable practices and secrecy they have employed in the past. The conflict centers around a YouTube video posted by the scientologists. It shows Mr. Sweeney losing his temper with a scientology spokesman. Mr. Sweeney's outburst came at the end of a tour of a scientology exhibition which attempts to portray psychiatrists as evil nazi type torturers entitled 'Psychiatry: Industry of Death' which is both gruesome and utterly unconvincing. The BBC appears willing to stand behind its reporter, in spite of the pressure brought to bear by the scientologist organization."

Comments

So? Most religions are nutty.

[Animats]

Yes, Scientology is nutty, but that's about normal for a religion. Could be worse. They don't have a big pedophile problem, suicide bombers, or televangelists, like some of their competitors.

How about we start our own cult?

[AlXtreme]

I'm all for the 'Church for the destruction of the Church of Scientology'. Fight fire with fire. Anyone who doesn't agree that the CoS is an evil pyramid-scheme should be sentenced to death (or an atomic wedgie).

All hail lord Xenu!

Re:So? Most religions are nutty.

[Opportunist]

Well, technically that's the same here if you happen to be a Roman Catholic, you "owe" them part of your income. But compared to what Scientology wants from you, we're talking peanuts here.

Re:Why

[humina]

"Paying one's way into heaven was never a fundamental part of Christianity; the closest thing that happened historically was the selling of indulgences"

Well you provided the example that proves your point wrong right after stating your point. Indulgences were historically a fundamental part of Christianity (western and not eastern). Paying indulgences was a way of avoiding purgatory and going to heaven sooner after you died. It is completely correct to state that paying your way into heaven was historically a fundamental part of Christianity. You can place qualifiers on that statement such as "it only happened for a certain period of that history", but that doesn't change the fact that it happened and that "Paying one's way into heaven was a fundamental part of Christianity".

the two religions (if Scientology can be called that) differ greatly in their fundamentals...how many Christians (particularly the leadership!) could expect to be (and generally were) killed for their religion? Money really was the least of their concerns...

Let me get this straight. They both had false beliefs, one group made money and another died. The conclusion is that Christianity is better? It sounds like Scientologists' leaders know that their false belief system is not worth dying over and is incredibly profitable. It sounds like you providing proof for the exact opposite point that you were trying to make.

Hell. Scientology in principle (and not practice... in practice is debatable which one comes on top) is BETTER than Christianity. Scientology does not tell you that other belief systems are wrong because they are different. You could have other beliefs and to be a Scientologist you simply have to believe their crazy ideas (don't take certain drugs etc.). In that way Scientology is more tolerant and less prone to violence.

I think Scientology can be described as a religion. There is little that can be said that proves one more right than the other. Christianity, Scientology and unicorns are all equally improbable. Belief in any must be faith based and faith based belief systems are religious. Belief in unicorns is probably the most moral of the 3.

Re:Why

[humina]

It's important to distinguish between paying for indulgences and obtaining indulgences in another fashion (i.e. performing acts of piety, as one can still do today), as what I wrote makes sense only when that distinction is made. Additionally, as they are not a characteristic of Eastern Christianity, one cannot describe them as fundamental to Christianity as a whole. Are they fundamental to Western Christianity specifically? Even that is a very difficult argument to make, as there they are considered neither sufficient nor even necessary for salvation. Indulgences are not needed for salvation. Indulgences were little slips of paper that the catholic church would give you after you paid money to the church and were not acts of piety. These slips of paper would forgive you in the eyes of god for sins you had committed. For every sin that you committed you would be sent into purgatory. In purgatory you would burn for a sufficient amount of time (determined by your loving God) and then sent up to heaven for your eternal salvation. Rich men could therefore sin away as long as they paid the church to give them indulgences and thus buy their way out of purgatory. The poor could not pay their way out of purgatory. This is part of the reason Martin Luther was mad at the church. The reason that I singled out western Christianity is because Western Christianity is found in most of Europe and in the US. Eastern is in places like Russia. You appear to be attempting to disregard my point arguing a technicality instead of attempting to understand it. If I need to provide evidence that the Eastern Orthodox church did bad things too in order to fully prove my point then I guess I can. Hopefully you will research the issue so that I don't have to.

It does sound like I successfully made my point that the early Christians weren't in it for the money. You are correct. The early Christians were in it for the stupid instead of the money.

It sounds like Scientologists' leaders know that their false belief system is not worth dying over and is incredibly profitable. ...and you find this admirable? It makes more sense to make money off of something that is false than to die for something that is false. My point was that the early scientologists appeared to be making money instead of dieing. If I had a choice between starting a religion where I must die and one where I am rich and get to live how I want, I'll take the second.

Perhaps Scientology entirely rejects reason, but Christianity does not. Mutually exclusive propositions cannot simultaneously be true, and belief systems containing mutually exclusive propositions are necessarily incompatible, though one remains free to acknowledge common ground. Scientology states that you can believe in god, original sin, the virgin birth, resurrection of Jesus, the devil, or whatever other religious beliefs you want so long as you also believe in Xenu the alien that killed other aliens and dumped their souls into a volcano in Hawaii. You can just as easily believe in Zeus, unicorns, Jihad, the torrah. You can chose any other religion even if it say not to believe in other gods. The reason is because Scientology does not have a god. Xenu is an alien and you could simply say god made Xenu. Yes you could be an intolerant Scientologist if you were also Christian, but that is due to your Christianity not your Scientology.

Scientology's positions are a lot more comprehensive than simply avoiding certain drugs. Perhaps I wrote something after drugs.... Oh yeah. I wrote etc. That is because I didn't feel like writing out all the crazy crap they believe.

I do not think most people who have tried to leave Scientology would describe the organization as "tolerant". I said Scientology was better in theory and it was debatable between which was worse in practice between Scientology and Christianity. If you want to misread what I said as defending Scientology as a tolerant religion when it is put into practice then I guess my only response is to ask you to reread what I wrote and understand it this time.