Scientology contract leaks

[Gorgon]

To be clear, I'm not saying 'brainwashing' is any kind of broad problem for Christianity, but you do wonder about peer pressure in very religious communities/families. Some people, I'm willing to bet, simply play along to fit in.

 

Of course there are plenty of bonified Christian cults like Jehovah's Witnesses whose practices are potentially lethal. (they don't believe in blood transfusions, so if you have been in a serious accident or the like you are basically out of luck)

[kirottu]

I'm a secular humanist.

 

I want to be a wikipage too when I grow up.

[Morgoth]

How the hell is someone 'stronger' not taking their medicine for bi-polar disorder. What the hell?

 

 

They do not belive in psychiatry and think that psychiatrists are trying to take over the world. Thus treating metal problems is aiding their foes.

 

Haha, the Brits. They got humour at least I've to give them that much credit.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'm a secular humanist.

 

So am I (for the most part, as much as I am anything).

Edited July 28, 2009 by Deadly_Nightshade

[taks]

it's up to you if you believe that the Catholics are members of a cult; it's really a matter of definitions

it's not really a matter of definitions, it is a matter of magnitudes. most christian religions, most religions for that matter, allow their worshippers to come and go as they please (though they clearly don't want you to leave). you are not harrassed to the point of fear for your life if you choose not to continue to follow. they are also not specifically concerned with taking money from their flock either (though clearly all religions would like something in this regard). you can worship all day, and take advantage of the services they offer, without donating a single penny. neither of these is true of scientology, not even remotely.

 

cults operate at the detriment to their followers and to the benefit of only their leaders. this is not true of most religions. certainly all religions have some cult-like aspects (any worship fits the definition of cult), but they simply do not meet the conditions generally thought of as a true cult. it's like shades of gray. some are a bit more extreme, mormon and/or latter day saints, for example (no, they are not the same thing), and others are very extreme to the point of actually being what we would normally refer to as a cult, jehova's witnesses, for example.

 

generally, it comes down to the level of control over followers' lives that is in place.

 

taks

Edited July 28, 2009 by taks

[Walsingham]

i disagree. It's like all this garbage about terrorists being soldiers. No. No they aren't. Or a cat is a dog because it's furry and has four legs, and is kept as a pet.

[HoonDing]

I guess everyone in this thread is now marked as "Fair Game"?

[kingofsquid]

it's up to you if you believe that the Catholics are members of a cult; it's really a matter of definitions

it's not really a matter of definitions, it is a matter of magnitudes. most christian religions, most religions for that matter, allow their worshippers to come and go as they please (though they clearly don't want you to leave). you are not harrassed to the point of fear for your life if you choose not to continue to follow. they are also not specifically concerned with taking money from their flock either (though clearly all religions would like something in this regard). you can worship all day, and take advantage of the services they offer, without donating a single penny. neither of these is true of scientology, not even remotely.

 

cults operate at the detriment to their followers and to the benefit of only their leaders. this is not true of most religions. certainly all religions have some cult-like aspects (any worship fits the definition of cult), but they simply do not meet the conditions generally thought of as a true cult. it's like shades of gray. some are a bit more extreme, mormon and/or latter day saints, for example (no, they are not the same thing), and others are very extreme to the point of actually being what we would normally refer to as a cult, jehova's witnesses, for example.

 

generally, it comes down to the level of control over followers' lives that is in place.

 

taks

 

True. My church (now I am speaking for myself) does not try to control my life besides what every religion or cult does (by teaching). In fact, I am like a friend to my preacher. Heck, I am his friend.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

As a brainwashed devotee of The Church of Scientology, the bah-humbugy Elfman stated that she couldn't support any organization that raised money for AIDS research or relief because 'AIDS is a state of mind, not a disease

 

http://www.scientology-kills.org/celebrities/elfman.htm

 

FUUUUUUUU-

 

Also:

thats a BBC's documentary about scientology, for those interested. 4 parts.

[Gorgon]

I've changed my mind, these people are just plain stupid and need the company of other stupid people to fit in.

[Oner]

Look at the fun side, take away all their money and what do we get?

Living, breathing zombies! Yayness!

[lord of flies]

it's up to you if you believe that the Catholics are members of a cult; it's really a matter of definitions

it's not really a matter of definitions, it is a matter of magnitudes. most christian religions, most religions for that matter, allow their worshippers to come and go as they please (though they clearly don't want you to leave). you are not harrassed to the point of fear for your life if you choose not to continue to follow. they are also not specifically concerned with taking money from their flock either (though clearly all religions would like something in this regard). you can worship all day, and take advantage of the services they offer, without donating a single penny. neither of these is true of scientology, not even remotely.

 

cults operate at the detriment to their followers and to the benefit of only their leaders. this is not true of most religions. certainly all religions have some cult-like aspects (any worship fits the definition of cult), but they simply do not meet the conditions generally thought of as a true cult. it's like shades of gray. some are a bit more extreme, mormon and/or latter day saints, for example (no, they are not the same thing), and others are very extreme to the point of actually being what we would normally refer to as a cult, jehova's witnesses, for example.

 

generally, it comes down to the level of control over followers' lives that is in place.

 

taks

Wrong, the definition of the word "cult" is a religion with a charismatic founder who teaches a way of life very different from the cultural norm. By this definition, Christianity is a cult, or at least was while Jesus was alive. And L. Ron Hubbard is not alive. The word "cult" has nothing to do with how whiny they get when you don't donate or leave the church.

[taks]

teaches a way of life very different from the cultural norm.

christianity is hardly "very different from the cultural norm." in the americas, europe, and australia, christianity is the cultural norm (and at the very least, the vast majority).

 

And L. Ron Hubbard is not alive.

by your own definition, nowhere is there a requirement for the "charismatic leader" to be alive. edit: for that matter, l. ron hubbard is no longer the leader anyway.

 

by any definition, you're pretty much a moron for failing to understand your own argument.

 

there are actually about 8 "definitions" of "cult" in the dictionary, all of which differ almost solely in magnitude of influence - which was my point, i.e., that the "definitions" are really a matter of magnitude of influence on the members' lives. the two concepts i cited certainly fall under the realm of control and/or magnitude of influence. furthermore, i made it VERY clear that i was referring to what is generally thought of as a true cult. but, you being the simpleton that you are, cannot understand that and would rather sit in here and bicker over semantics that i thoroughly explained in my original post.

 

reading comprehension, it should be your friend.

 

taks

Edited July 28, 2009 by taks

[kingofsquid]

Nice job, taks.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

My church [...] does not try to control my life besides what every religion or cult does (by teaching).

 

Yeah... Some of us think that pushing false or harmful dogma is a bad thing (and I am not saying your church does, but fundies often do and I suspect yours does as well)...

 

In fact, I am like a friend to my preacher.

 

So?

 

Heck, I am his friend.

 

Again, so?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

in the americas, europe, and australia, christianity is the cultural norm (and at the very least, the vast majority).

 

No it is not. People might be Christians but the faith is not followed in much of Europe and in many other places. Just because you say you are something does not mean that you actualy are.

 

...i was referring to what is generally thought of as a true cult.

 

So now we have "cult" and "true cult"... What's next, "very, very true cult or cultness"? All religions are cults, but, as I have said, the negative connotations have been added and should not be there.

[taks]

an explanation of how the word is used can be found here. negative, particularly the usage by the "anti-cult movement" and/or extremely negative usage is the typical usage when people are referring to scientology as a cult.

 

taks

[taks]

All religions are cults

by only the most antiquated of definitions.

 

but, as I have said, the negative connotations have been added and should not be there.

i disagree, and there is good reason the other definitions are there. read my link (it actually mentions 9 definitions, though dictionary.com has 8 of them). the word means what people thinks it means. when you ask the average person what a cult is, i.e., a "true cult" in my nomenclature - a qualifier i added merely for distinction from the original definition, they will likely say something like moonies, or scientology, etc.

 

taks

[Deadly_Nightshade]

by only the most antiquated of definitions.

 

But it is a true definition.

 

the word means what people thinks it means.

 

And it also means what I think it means.

 

when you ask the average person what a cult is, i.e., a "true cult" in my nomenclature - a qualifier i added merely for distinction from the original definition, they will likely say something like moonies, or scientology, etc.

 

So? They could also say that Obama is not a citizen of the of the U.S, but it would not change the fact that he is one. The whim of the general public is, at best, fickle and, at worst, utterly incorrect.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

an explanation of how the word is used can be found here.

 

That says the same thing I have been saying - cult can be used as a pejorative but does not have to be. However, since the pejorative meaning has taken over some people might not like the non-pejorative use. Thus does not, however, change the fact that it exists and is a true meaning.

[kingofsquid]

[Deadly_Nightshade]

 

Oh noes, the "smilie" - whatever shall I do? Come on, grow a backbone and actualy write something for once that's longer than a few words that ammount to "na-uh."

[Oner]

teaches a way of life very different from the cultural norm.

christianity is hardly "very different from the cultural norm."

It was different enough back in the day to earn a certain Son of God an execution.

Just sayin'.

 

 

By the way, the religioustolerance.com link has positive and neutral definitions of 'cult' and at least one can easily be applied to christianity,

Positive Meaning:

* Theological usage: Oxford English Dictionary defined "cult" as:

o "worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings"

so I don't get what the debate is about.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Oner

[taks]

It was different enough back in the day to earn a certain Son of God an execution.

we're not talking about 2000 years ago, we're talking about today.

 

By the way, the religioustolerance.com link has positive and neutral definitions of 'cult' and at least one can easily be applied to christianity,

i never said otherwise. you have read my posts, correct? i made it clear in my first post that i see the various definitions as distinctions in magnitude, rather than distinct definitions. the most benign, of course, would be the "cult of personality" type definitions, and the most malign would be "doomsday (suicide) cults" in which everyone dies, e.g., jonestown. scientology falls into the extreme mind control spectrum with some documented loss of life occurrences.

 

so I don't get what the debate is about.

people that think they're being smart by bickering over semantics when they fully know what is meant by the usage, particularly after numerous posts detailing the meaning. words are funny, they often have multiple definitions, each of which is equally valid, and context differentiates the distinct usage. sometimes the differences are vast, e.g., the word lie, and other times they are nothing more than variations on a theme, as in this case. that anybody would sit an argue such a point is nothing but assinine, and is indicative of a lack of any real argument.

 

But it is a true definition.

and also the one that is least used today. words change in their meaning over time. when you say "cult" in any modern usage, everyone knows what you are referring to within the context of your statement. that fact that you, and others, would argue these semantics is nothing more than being argumentative for the sake of argument, i.e., you're being assinine because you know i've never denied the original usage and you know exactly what i mean (it's not as if i haven't explained myself pretty well). you're better than lof.

 

taks

Edited July 28, 2009 by taks

[kingofsquid]

Amen.