Scientology - Church, Cult or Cancer?

[_avg_]

The reason I say this is that they usually don't have a conference or an archdiocese to report to. This provides an open door for each church to make their own rules and doctrine.

Sorry if I have offended anyone here, that was not my intent.

I appreciate your answers, thank you. (And I notice you left the Mormons off your list...interesting :biggrin1: )

But another question: Do not all churches, nay all *people* make up their own rules and doctrines? Who do the conferences or archdioceses answer to? Does not the truth stand regardless of what a group of people or one person has to say? And is it not up to the individual to determine that "truth"?

(again, this is not meant to be antagonistic; it's a question for everyone to address, as I try suggest above)

 

[BigDuder]

all churches are cults

 

[Principessa]

When there is no governing body is when you are most apt to have financial funny business and reverands who boink any and everything be they male or female married or single. They know the buck stops with them so why not steal and commit adultery.

I appreciate your answers, thank you. (And I notice you left the Mormons off your list...interesting :biggrin1: ) Crap! I knew I would forget a major religion. I also forgot to mention Quakers.:redface:
But another question: Do not all churches, nay all *people* make up their own rules and doctrines? No, Islam Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orhodox, Armenian Orthodox, Protestants: Episopalian, AME, AME Zion, Lutheran, Presbyterian all have a structure/doctrine/rules which go back over 300 years. (I'm a big fan of tradition)
Who do the conferences or archdioceses answer to? Not sure, I think there may be a cross check policy Does not the truth stand regardless of what a group of people or one person has to say? No it does not and I'm not sure why that is butthat is my definitive answer. And is it not up to the individual to determine that "truth"? I have had my own crises of faith over the years but when all is said in done I'm a believer.
(again, this is not meant to be antagonistic; it's a question for everyone to address, as I try suggest above)

 

[Principessa]

Hi _avg_,

You didn't ask what I believe; but I'll tell you anyway. :tongue:


As you may have noticed, I tend to believe everyone is entitled to my opinion even if it's wrong or unpopular.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. ​

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. ​

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.​

 

[B_tallbig]

Is a religion and a cult too. Religions shouldnt exit, all of them are a way to control the masses.

 

[Principessa]

ChangePoint, a nondenominational ministry, might not be a cult but I am not comfortable calling it a religion either. Basically anything that describes itself as being nondenominational I avoid and take with a grain of salt.

link

 

[Mr. Snakey]

ChangePoint, a nondenominational ministry, might not be a cult but I am not comfortable calling it a religion either. Basically anything that describes itself as being nondenominational I avoid and take with a grain of salt.

link

No i cant say that. I respect all the different faiths. Scientology on the other hand is nothing but a 12 step program for the rich. A big A.A. rip off. If only Bill W. were alive. What a great man he was.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Scientology - Church, Cult or Cancer?

If I had to pick one for myself, I'd choose cancer.

 

[snoozan]

NJQT, you left the LDS (Mormon) church out of your list. Do you not consider than a religion?

 

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

Any "church" that requires you to pay and to pay more and more to become closer to a higher power is a cult. Period.

I vote for it's a cult and a cancer.

 

[Principessa]

NJQT, you left the LDS (Mormon) church out of your list. Do you not consider than a religion?

I consider them a religion/cult. :biggrin1:

*SNIP*

I appreciate your answers, thank you. (And I notice you left the Mormons off your list...interesting :biggrin1: ) Crap! I knew I would forget a major religion. I also forgot to mention Quakers.:redface:
But another question: Do not all churches, nay all *people* make up their own rules and doctrines? No, Islam Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orhodox, Armenian Orthodox, Protestants: Episopalian, AME, AME Zion, Lutheran, Presbyterian all have a structure/doctrine/rules which go back over 300 years. (I'm a big fan of tradition)
Who do the conferences or archdioceses answer to? Not sure, I think there may be a cross check policy Does not the truth stand regardless of what a group of people or one person has to say? No it does not and I'm not sure why that is butthat is my definitive answer. And is it not up to the individual to determine that "truth"? I have had my own crises of faith over the years but when all is said in done I'm a believer.
(again, this is not meant to be antagonistic; it's a question for everyone to address, as I try suggest above)

 

[JustAsking]

I appreciate your answers, thank you. (And I notice you left the Mormons off your list...interesting :biggrin1: )

But another question: Do not all churches, nay all *people* make up their own rules and doctrines? Who do the conferences or archdioceses answer to? Does not the truth stand regardless of what a group of people or one person has to say? And is it not up to the individual to determine that "truth"?

(again, this is not meant to be antagonistic; it's a question for everyone to address, as I try suggest above)

avg,
This is a very interesting question which I don't think people think through very much. The typical answers are:

1) The individual.
2) The congregation.
3) The congregation leader (e.g Pastor).
4) The denomination
5) The denomination leader (e.g Pope).

The usual default answer for an unchurched American is #1. It seems obvious to most that one's faith and one's relationship with God is a personal thing. But there are problems with that model, since Jesus had an annoying way of being very counter-cultural.

The problem with #1, is that left to ourselves, we usually just invent the God we want. I, for one, dont' feel that I am qualified to go off and read the Bible by myself, or just 'figure out' God by myself. Secondly, as an American, my default cultural position would be mostly derived from self-interest. Left to my own devices, I would probably invent some kind of success oriented self-absorbed theology that was all about my own salvation and the quality of life on this earth.

If I were a Law and Order Right wing Republican, I might invent a theology that is heavily transactional, where my good behavior is rewarded by God now and in the hearafter, and the bad behavior of others is punished now and in the hereafter. In other words, God as Santa Claus. Making a list and checking it twice.

If I had sexual issues, I might invent a theology with a God who is mostly concerned with sexual morality. This God would constantly on the hunt for gays or other deviants and would want them to burn in hell. I would be God's soldier on earth and vocally condemn homosexuals and actively work for their discrimination and limited human rights.

If I were very fearful or insecure, I would probably invent a theology with a personal God who watches out for my well being. This God would manipulate events around me to aid and abet his personal plan for me. I would ensure that God can work his plan by making sure I was sensitive to his will and giving over to it whenever I could. You would hear me saying frequently, "everything happens for a reason and it is according to God's plan for me and you." (In doing so, I would surely try to forget the question of God's plan for 6 million Jews during the holocaust.)

If I were a left wing liberal I might invent a theology where God forgives everyone and ensures the minimum amount of misery and suffering in the world and the maximum amount of social justice.

If I were Einstein I would invent a God that is more like Spinoza's pantheistic God, where God is merely the essence of the universe.

And so on. The problem with all this is that these God's are merely reflections of our own desires and fears. We are not objective enough to figure out who God really might be, unless we have some help.

My answer to the question is #4, the denomination. This is not the same as edict, dogma, or indoctrination. This can come in the form of a great body of theology as understood and interpreted by great theologians such as Barth, Tillich, Bonhoffer, etc. (Read the wikip on Bonhoffer, for example.). Following the theology of a denomination involves a lifetime of study and participation in the ever growing maturity of the denomination's beliefs. It is predicated on the fact that the Bible is all about relationships within one's faith community and with that community and the world.

Its not what I think about God that is important. It is what Jesus thinks about God that is important. And it takes something the size of a worldwide denomination working over hundreds of years to understand something like that.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Good post JA, except at the end I think it breaks down. Do you honestly believe that all Christians working over hundreds of years to understand the relationship between Jesus and God is in any way less prone to personal biases and prejudices than one person attempting to understand God by him or herself? I don't see the difference. You still have humans attempting to force meaning out of their own narrow interpretations. Some of these humans will have stronger personalities than others and have greater influence over the general consensus regarding that interpretation. Individuals like Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, or Paul. Or even Jesus Christ himself, if you're not going to take the leap of faith necessary to accept that he was something other than human. The rest of us who don't have such strong personalities will be greatly influenced by these others' interpretations, though we also get a vote in how religion is commonly understood because if we don't like the message of a particular church or the interpretation of a particular pastor we can go to a different church. Still, it all boils down to individuals' interpretation of faith, averaged out and spread over the course of centuries, and often radically changed whenever tangential social pressures change the way people think (such as the rise of capitalism, individualism, and consumerism in the west)

 

[D_golden parachute]

The Church of Scientology is just an example of what people would have thought of Christianity had it just recently started

an invisible man that will send me to an eternity of flames if I don't believe in his unjustified word?!

 

[B_tallbig]

The Church of Scientology is just an example of what people would have thought of Christianity had it just recently started

an invisible man that will send me to an eternity of flames if I don't believe in his unjustified word?!

Yep even the jews thought that of christianity 2000 years ago.

 

[JustAsking]

Good post JA, except at the end I think it breaks down. Do you honestly believe that all Christians working over hundreds of years to understand the relationship between Jesus and God is in any way less prone to personal biases and prejudices than one person attempting to understand God by him or herself? I don't see the difference. You still have humans attempting to force meaning out of their own narrow interpretations. Some of these humans will have stronger personalities than others and have greater influence over the general consensus regarding that interpretation. Individuals like Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, or Paul. Or even Jesus Christ himself, if you're not going to take the leap of faith necessary to accept that he was something other than human. The rest of us who don't have such strong personalities will be greatly influenced by these others' interpretations, though we also get a vote in how religion is commonly understood because if we don't like the message of a particular church or the interpretation of a particular pastor we can go to a different church. Still, it all boils down to individuals' interpretation of faith, averaged out and spread over the course of centuries, and often radically changed whenever tangential social pressures change the way people think (such as the rise of capitalism, individualism, and consumerism in the west)

Nic,
Yes, I can't disagree with you, Nic. Its the same thing they say about democracy: "Its the worst form of government there is, except for all the others."

Hundreds of years of tradition formulated and modified by many people bears a better chance of having any validity than anything you or I would come up with by ourselves.

As for strong personalities, this is also something I can't disagree with. We rely on the opinions of a lot of strong minded articulate people in all aspects of life except for science, where objective verification is possible and necessary. In everything else, we are cast adrift in the great ambiguity of life, relying on each other to figure out theologies, codes of ethics, law, art, style, culture, etc.

What else do we have but the choices I listed in my previous post.

By the way, NJ's post just before my last one says pretty much the same thing but with a bit more brevity (a skill that I lack).

Jesus was a Jewish reformer, NIC, and on his departure he asked us to work in his behalf. Paul calls "the church" the body of Christ, and it is that body that is asked to continue to be countercultural and reforming.

So yes, one expects tradition to transform itself over time. In order to reform a constantly changing culture, one must constantly reform the reform movement.

 

[JustAsking]

Oh, one more thing, NIC. When Jesus is departing, he deputizes Peter to create God's church on earth. Peter, as you know, is the one who denies Christ three times. Of all the inconstant clueless disciples, Peter, is right up there with the rest of them.

Its obviously a pun when Jesus says, referring to Peter, "Upon this rock I build my church.", where Peter, Greek for rock, is Jesus' nickname for Simon, called Peter.

Its pretty obvious that Jesus is passing the mantle on to a very fragile clueless humanity to be His hands and feet. He is asking the foxes to watch the henhouse. So for better or worse, we are it.

 

[B_tallbig]

Oh, one more thing, NIC. When Jesus is departing, he deputizes Peter to create God's church on earth. Peter, as you know, is the one who denies Christ three times. Of all the inconstant clueless disciples, Peter, is right up there with the rest of them.

Its obviously a pun when Jesus says, referring to Peter, "Upon this rock I build my church.", where Peter, Greek for rock, is Jesus' nickname for Simon, called Peter.

Its pretty obvious that Jesus is passing the mantle on to a very fragile clueless humanity to be His hands and feet. He is asking the foxes to watch the henhouse. So for better or worse, we are it.

Cool i wish you post a comment in Jesus isnt the Messiah thread.
I like reading your posts. I wish more christians were like you.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Good post JA, except at the end I think it breaks down. Do you honestly believe that all Christians working over hundreds of years to understand the relationship between Jesus and God is in any way less prone to personal biases and prejudices than one person attempting to understand God by him or herself? I don't see the difference. You still have humans attempting to force meaning out of their own narrow interpretations.

Absolutely, NIC.
But even prior to that, the fact is that all denominations come up with their own ... and therefore diverging ... versions of the truth.
So why should a man emerging blurry-eyed from a cave look at the huge range of demoninational takes on religion, and believe for a moment that any of them have the truth.
Truth being constant and a thing quite separate from belief, his only logical conclusion would be that it is all guesswork, projection, and self-delusion. A product of the human need to create understanding, especially in matters that touch on morality and mortality ... but no proof that humans have the capacity to reach such understanding.
This is a soft argument, I know. Because you could have 4,999 false versions of the truth, without in any way prejudicing the possibility that a 5,000th version might win 'bingo!'
But the very great majority of believers would have had probably astonishing faith in something that must have been false.
For me, a Buddhist who has no belief in god, the most sensible thing is to assume that this matter is beyond the human ken.
I know this is almost too simple a point to make ... maybe not really interesting.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

You forgot to include "Con" in your choices.