so, you're saying that atheism is for the strong at hear while religions are for the weak-minded? HOW METAL 
Religions.
- Thread starter Onyx
- Start date
right. you passed Hyena's Inflammable Test with flying colors. you didn't even tell me to go fuck myself, so WELCOME TO THIS FORUM!
rahvin
keeper of the flame
i think "some crap" will do just fine
no need for introductions: you post you take part in the discussion, you get sucked in by the sheer quantity of homo-love that is the backbone of this board.
rahvin.
no need for introductions: you post you take part in the discussion, you get sucked in by the sheer quantity of homo-love that is the backbone of this board.
rahvin.
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
Disclaimer: I do not want to hurt anyones feelings in religious matters with this post. I fully comprehend the importance certain religions have in today's society and I don't even dream of a world without them (unlike in the USA-issue many of are familiar with). Also, I realise the difference in thinking that leads people to "choose" their religion instead of choosing to live without one and the following culture-gap it creates; I can't claim that I understand the feelings of religious people and thus I can't expect those people to fully understand mine. My opinions here can be taken as aggressive attacks against two religions (rightfully so), but I hope no person (especially Hyena) would take them as aggressive against him/her.
Hyena: I might actually like to argue about this matter with you, but my time is currently very limited (I need to start working again tomorrow) and this would probably go pretty far (possibly way too far). However, I cannot but say that: I do find (and have found for 10 years or so) both Catholicism and Scientology to be very close to each other in methods of manipulating people, creating enormous psychological pressure on innocent beings, creating prejudices and intolerance, and virtually robbing people of not only their earthly possessions but of their pride, rights and humanity.
It might be that statistically a huge amount of those brainwashed into scientology are really suffering from it (as I have never heard of a "moderate scientologist" - there probably are some, but as media doesn't cover them much, I can't be sure), whereas nowadays possibly only a minority of those brainwashed into Catholicism are really suffering from it. However, historically, Catholicism has destroyed the lives of millions of people, whereas Scientology has done that to only, what, less than 100 000 people?
Perhaps after 1000 years I could put Scientology into an "even worse" cathegory, but at the moment, they are both standing in the same vague group (alongside with many other harmful-to-mankind isms like communism, fascism, kannibalism, islamism, judaism, etc).
You know, if I were as well-versed in Catholicism-lingo, I could very well compare all your silly religious activities, limitations and prejudices to those you mentioned. I find them all equally stupid and degrading (towards your person, that is) compared to the ones you listed. If you look into the bible or to the statements made by the leaders of your religion, you should easily notice that the history of Catholicism is full of idiotic orders, denials and commands that hinder people even today. If you say you don't follow all of them (as I assume), you should perhaps assume that an average Scientologist does not follow all the idiocies of his/her religion either (again, I might be completely wrong here, my knowledge of Scientologists is very limited).
Feel free to reply, but it may take some time for me to reply back.
-Villain
Hyena: I might actually like to argue about this matter with you, but my time is currently very limited (I need to start working again tomorrow) and this would probably go pretty far (possibly way too far). However, I cannot but say that: I do find (and have found for 10 years or so) both Catholicism and Scientology to be very close to each other in methods of manipulating people, creating enormous psychological pressure on innocent beings, creating prejudices and intolerance, and virtually robbing people of not only their earthly possessions but of their pride, rights and humanity.
It might be that statistically a huge amount of those brainwashed into scientology are really suffering from it (as I have never heard of a "moderate scientologist" - there probably are some, but as media doesn't cover them much, I can't be sure), whereas nowadays possibly only a minority of those brainwashed into Catholicism are really suffering from it. However, historically, Catholicism has destroyed the lives of millions of people, whereas Scientology has done that to only, what, less than 100 000 people?
Perhaps after 1000 years I could put Scientology into an "even worse" cathegory, but at the moment, they are both standing in the same vague group (alongside with many other harmful-to-mankind isms like communism, fascism, kannibalism, islamism, judaism, etc).
hyena said:definitely so. and we're not afraid to keep non-plasma screen tv's in our homes. and we're not supposed to spend an average of $800,000 to cross the bridge, which in scientology lingo corresponds to setting oneself free from their reactive mind and therefore becoming again a purely analytical being, as pre Xenu's invasion.
You know, if I were as well-versed in Catholicism-lingo, I could very well compare all your silly religious activities, limitations and prejudices to those you mentioned. I find them all equally stupid and degrading (towards your person, that is) compared to the ones you listed. If you look into the bible or to the statements made by the leaders of your religion, you should easily notice that the history of Catholicism is full of idiotic orders, denials and commands that hinder people even today. If you say you don't follow all of them (as I assume), you should perhaps assume that an average Scientologist does not follow all the idiocies of his/her religion either (again, I might be completely wrong here, my knowledge of Scientologists is very limited).
Feel free to reply, but it may take some time for me to reply back.
-Villain
rahvin
keeper of the flame
Villain said:
i see a definite difference between an "order" soliciting people not to have sex outside of marriage (which i don't agree with) and an order soliciting people to leave their children unattended to since the age of two (which i find criminal).
the "orders" issued by scientology have absolutely no reason nor rhyme nor reference to reality whatsoever - and they're also pretty harmful to boot.
the "orders" issued by the catholic church are, imo, outdated and often asinine, but they represent or represented a way to face a real social problem and they offered possible solutions to it. the fact that the quality of said solutions might be largely lacking is really not the same thing as the fact that scientology's "orders" never even addressed a topic remotely connected with an experience any human being living on planet earth might actually have had.
rahvin.
Steve
New Metal Member
I don't remember if I've responded but:
I'm Roman Catholic
I don't care what religion you are as long as you aren't an asshole about it.
Steve
I'm Roman Catholic
I don't care what religion you are as long as you aren't an asshole about it.
Steve
@villain: no, no, i'm not mad at you, relax
i pretty much agree with some of what rahvin said - although i am a bit surprised at the fact that in the last few days he's been deliberately dissing catholicism, which he doesn't do often. but no, i'm not mad at him, either. i resent the "asinine" part, but hey, freedom of speech.
back on topic: i don't think catholicism is as harmful as you make it to be. of course there has been and there is human error, but in present time i guess that catholic institutions try to preserve life: they try, if possible, to feed the poor, look after the orphans, hand out help in war theatres, etc. The general idea is that the main principle of catholicism is love thy neighbor, and as much as some people may not adhere to it (and i honestly don't feel up to singling them out, i have no right to judge) the general trend goes towards trying to do so. especially helping people in distress, trying to be a steady community pillar, trying to keep together families, and so on.
on the other hand, scientology has a selfish principle: make your life better. most religions imply that you will feel better after doing god's bidding, but in general the objective of "feeling well" is achieved in the afterlife, based on deeds in this mortal world. scientology places it in the center, and of course the way to feel better is giving all you have and all you are to them. which means, for instance, that you have to sever ties with your family if they're non-scientologists (whereas catholicism, and all of christian faith truly, is constantly trying to reach out to other people; we're so good at reaching out that we don't even want to bomb armed islamists. might have been different in the XVIth century, but then again, i wasn't a catholic at the time, i cannot say really how i would have felt about the church at that time). as rahvin said, scientology never gives you something remotely related to truth: sitting on a stool holding two empty cans of coke connected with electric wire is not, for most people, a recognizable way to feel happy, even if you believe that this very complicated machine is going to show if you're telling the truth or not. whereas, say, not having to divorce your partner is something that most people consider a sign of a good relationship.
what i am trying to say is that scientology thrives on selfish instincts legitimated by its doctrine, and then uses psychological techniques to obtain money. i don't see catholicism doing anything of the sort, at least not in principle.
this said, i'm open to discussion.
i pretty much agree with some of what rahvin said - although i am a bit surprised at the fact that in the last few days he's been deliberately dissing catholicism, which he doesn't do often. but no, i'm not mad at him, either. i resent the "asinine" part, but hey, freedom of speech.
back on topic: i don't think catholicism is as harmful as you make it to be. of course there has been and there is human error, but in present time i guess that catholic institutions try to preserve life: they try, if possible, to feed the poor, look after the orphans, hand out help in war theatres, etc. The general idea is that the main principle of catholicism is love thy neighbor, and as much as some people may not adhere to it (and i honestly don't feel up to singling them out, i have no right to judge) the general trend goes towards trying to do so. especially helping people in distress, trying to be a steady community pillar, trying to keep together families, and so on.
on the other hand, scientology has a selfish principle: make your life better. most religions imply that you will feel better after doing god's bidding, but in general the objective of "feeling well" is achieved in the afterlife, based on deeds in this mortal world. scientology places it in the center, and of course the way to feel better is giving all you have and all you are to them. which means, for instance, that you have to sever ties with your family if they're non-scientologists (whereas catholicism, and all of christian faith truly, is constantly trying to reach out to other people; we're so good at reaching out that we don't even want to bomb armed islamists. might have been different in the XVIth century, but then again, i wasn't a catholic at the time, i cannot say really how i would have felt about the church at that time). as rahvin said, scientology never gives you something remotely related to truth: sitting on a stool holding two empty cans of coke connected with electric wire is not, for most people, a recognizable way to feel happy, even if you believe that this very complicated machine is going to show if you're telling the truth or not. whereas, say, not having to divorce your partner is something that most people consider a sign of a good relationship.
what i am trying to say is that scientology thrives on selfish instincts legitimated by its doctrine, and then uses psychological techniques to obtain money. i don't see catholicism doing anything of the sort, at least not in principle.
this said, i'm open to discussion.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
hyena said:
i beef up my tragic idea that catholicism is a vehicle for some asinine opinions by pointing out that "not having to divorce" and "having not to divorce" come out as quite different, and - i must say - from the latter one could hardly infer anything about the state of a relationship.
then again, i purposefully avoided to comment most of the issues raised by villain as i thought you'd be much more fit than me to, not because i agree on an overall negative opinion of a specific religion.
rahvin.
rahvin said:i beef up my tragic idea that catholicism is a vehicle for some asinine opinions by pointing out that "not having to divorce" and "having not to divorce" come out as quite different, and - i must say - from the latter one could hardly infer anything about the state of a relationship.
yeah. you are right. but i also suppose that for most people knowing that you have a moral right to break a marriage is one more strong temptation to have unstable relationships. unfortunately, we've both come across several people of this kind in our life, and i would also say that they are the majority. sensible people, when entering a stable relationship, hope they won't have to walk away; most people are not sensible, and they enter a stable relationship without much thought because "hey, i can walk out on you any time". i think that the having not to divorce part is a deterrent for such individuals. also, i think everyone, idiot or not, can be tempted to try their luck with various destabilizing activities if they think they might walk away with no consequences, and absolved by the common morality.
this said, i am fully in favor of legal divorce; a country's set of laws should not be religion-based.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
this is quite tricky in terms of "pre-conditions vs. effects" theory.
on the one hand, a line of reasoning would lead to think that making it harder for people to adopt a rather disruptive, cop-out course of action would foster responsibilitied. on the other, assuming that most individuals feel justified for being disruptive by a convenient, condescending moral stance skirts the issue of what said individuals would do when they are forced into the dreaded position by an uncomfortable, rigorous moral stance. it doesn't take much creativity to imagine them doing something which is actually much worse, such as running away, mistreating partner and kids, creating huge castles of lies to hide a double agenda, and oftentimes plain simply making their own lives miserable for ages to come.
this is also restricted or prohibited by other ethical rules belonging to the same confession, yet the escalation of hinderances and prohibitions seems to me to forget the "realpolitik" issue you mention yourself: people are quite often not sensible. so if they're hindered in taking a decent, not very abusive way out (divorce) they're prone to give in to something much worse.
i think this applies to a good number of moral standards set by many religions in a struggle to turn human beings into individuals as close to perfect as possible: the standards say be right from the start or everybody dies. now, speaking on behalf of "everybody" (heh), i'd much rather like a compromise.
rahvin.
on the one hand, a line of reasoning would lead to think that making it harder for people to adopt a rather disruptive, cop-out course of action would foster responsibilitied. on the other, assuming that most individuals feel justified for being disruptive by a convenient, condescending moral stance skirts the issue of what said individuals would do when they are forced into the dreaded position by an uncomfortable, rigorous moral stance. it doesn't take much creativity to imagine them doing something which is actually much worse, such as running away, mistreating partner and kids, creating huge castles of lies to hide a double agenda, and oftentimes plain simply making their own lives miserable for ages to come.
this is also restricted or prohibited by other ethical rules belonging to the same confession, yet the escalation of hinderances and prohibitions seems to me to forget the "realpolitik" issue you mention yourself: people are quite often not sensible. so if they're hindered in taking a decent, not very abusive way out (divorce) they're prone to give in to something much worse.
i think this applies to a good number of moral standards set by many religions in a struggle to turn human beings into individuals as close to perfect as possible: the standards say be right from the start or everybody dies. now, speaking on behalf of "everybody" (heh), i'd much rather like a compromise.
rahvin.
veil the sky
Lexicon V
rahvin
keeper of the flame
veil the sky said:didn't they guess from your avatar? jees!!
maybe they thought he was an actor. you know, weird people.
rahvin.
