Why is Scientology kookier than the Catholic church?

macpatti

You leave the Catholic Church, they believe you go to hell, but they can't stop you.

You obviously don't know much about the Catholic church.

macpatti

Meh... I find both to be rather "kooky"... From the outside looking in, both can look quite similar

There is a vast difference between them. Catholicism is the largest branch of Christianity, a religion that grounds itself in the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition that has proven its personal, social, and cultural power to provide meaning, structure, context/framework, moral guidance, etc., to human beings for thousands of years.

Scientology is a recent movement that is largely secretive (in contrast to the public nature of the contents of Catholic faith), unproven, and based on, apparently, a rather dubious collection of ideas and science fiction. The endurance and widespread appeal of the Christian world-view sets it apart from Scientology in a huge way.

You may not agree with Christianity and you might flippantly say Christianity is guilty of everything I’ve said about Scientology but I’m sure that is a surface response by someone who has not really familiar with the depths of Christianity. Christianity includes countless important ideas, events, persons, etc., that have shaped and provided the foundation for many of the deepest values of the modern world. I don’t find anything comparable in Scientology.

rml_16

Meh... I find both to be rather "kooky"... From the outside looking in, both can look quite similar

There is a vast difference between them. Catholicism is the largest branch of Christianity, a religion that grounds itself in the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition that has proven its personal, social, and cultural power to provide meaning, structure, context/framework, moral guidance, etc., to human beings for thousands of years.

Scientology is a recent movement that is largely secretive (in contrast to the public nature of the contents of Catholic faith), unproven, and based on, apparently, a rather dubious collection of ideas and science fiction. The endurance and widespread appeal of the Christian world-view sets it apart from Scientology in a huge way.

You may not agree with Christianity and you might flippantly say Christianity is guilty of everything I’ve said about Scientology but I’m sure that is a surface response by someone who has not really familiar with the depths of Christianity. Christianity includes countless important ideas, events, persons, etc., that have shaped and provided the foundation for many of the deepest values of the modern world. I don’t find anything comparable in Scientology.

I don't want to attack Christianity because, honestly, I don't have a problem with the faith itself. But there was a time when Christianity WAS all those things. It's entirely possible that 2,000 years from now, you could say the same about Scientology that you just said about Christianity and there will be a new religion with which to compare to Scientology, which by then might be the largest and most accepted religion in the world.

That's the thing about religion -- it all started somewhere.

But, as I said above, former Scientologists have exposed some very awful things about that faith and I can understand Katie Holmes not wanting her child raised in it as opposed to Catholicism.

k8blujay2

Meh... I find both to be rather "kooky"... From the outside looking in, both can look quite similar

There is a vast difference between them. Catholicism is the largest branch of Christianity, a religion that grounds itself in the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition that has proven its personal, social, and cultural power to provide meaning, structure, context/framework, moral guidance, etc., to human beings for thousands of years.

Scientology is a recent movement that is largely secretive (in contrast to the public nature of the contents of Catholic faith), unproven, and based on, apparently, a rather dubious collection of ideas and science fiction. The endurance and widespread appeal of the Christian world-view sets it apart from Scientology in a huge way.

You may not agree with Christianity and you might flippantly say Christianity is guilty of everything I’ve said about Scientology but I’m sure that is a surface response by someone who has not really familiar with the depths of Christianity. Christianity includes countless important ideas, events, persons, etc., that have shaped and provided the foundation for many of the deepest values of the modern world. I don’t find anything comparable in Scientology.

I am a Christian... Baptist in fact, and my dad was on par to become a Catholic Priest (but is obviously not). But when someone doesn't understand faith or subscribe to one, then it all looks the same from the outside. Personally, I find "praying" (using this term loosely) to statues as kooky (that is how I see the blatant praying to God through the Mother Mary as being), just as I do the belief that aliens are going to take you away to some obscure planet... but to someone that doesn't believe in God or space aliens, it can all look weird and kooky....

And yes, I realize that Christians, and particularly Catholics, have done a lot of great things for culture and society, things like hospitals and public education (shoot even women's rights stemmed from prohibition)... but those things almost always take a back seat to the infighting and wars that have been waged in the name of Christ.

EvanKeel

You may not agree with Christianity and you might flippantly say Christianity is guilty of everything I’ve said about Scientology but I’m sure that is a surface response by someone who has not really familiar with the depths of Christianity. Christianity includes countless important ideas, events, persons, etc., that have shaped and provided the foundation for many of the deepest values of the modern world. I don’t find anything comparable in Scientology.

I'm not sure it's all that valuable to even take a historical view when comparing the two. Mainstream Catholicism is a bit different today than it was centuries ago. For example, I assume Catholics no longer feel that murdering Protestants is justified through religious beliefs (or vice versa for that matter). There's a big cultural component that plays into religion and so religions change as culture changes.

Not to open another can of worms, but it's like saying that our founding fathers were Christian. Well yes, culturally they were Christian because of their education, but they were influenced just as strongly by the Enlightenment. So, to many people today, they might not qualify as "true Christians."

I assume Scientology seems stranger now because of it's connection to science fiction, but really that's just stories in the end. Much of Christianity is built on stories, stories and faith. Faith is faith. Once you get enough people to believe something is true, it's less strange.

macpatti

I am a Christian... Baptist in fact, and my dad was on par to become a Catholic Priest (but is obviously not). But when someone doesn't understand faith or subscribe to one, then it all looks the same from the outside. Personally, I find "praying" (using this term loosely) to statues as kooky (that is how I see the blatant praying to God through the Mother Mary as being), just as I do the belief that aliens are going to take you away to some obscure planet... but to someone that doesn't believe in God or space aliens, it can all look weird and kooky....
And yes, I realize that Christians, and particularly Catholics, have done a lot of great things for culture and society, things like hospitals and public education (shoot even women's rights stemmed from prohibition)... but those things almost always take a back seat to the infighting and wars that have been waged in the name of Christ.

I simply don’t know what you mean when you say that the good accomplished by the Church takes a “back seat” to the infighting and wars, etc. That strikes me as totally groundless. Every day there are countless good deeds done by Catholics. Yesterday millions of people went to Church. Today many people are serving the poor, the hurting, the dying, etc. Just because the media focuses on “infighting” and negative historical images doesn’t mean that this is what dominates the Catholic life. I live almost every day of my life without seeing any of what you refer to (as do most Catholics, I suspect). Outside perception of what is going on in the Catholic Church is largely fueled by media images that are nearly always designed to smear the Church and are simply not fair.

Concerning “prayer to saints,” I suspect that you as a Baptist don’t find it “kooky” to ask your other fellow Christians to pray for you. I think it is a natural thing for people to ask people they respect and admire to pray on their behalf. Catholics believe that death does not divide the unity created by the Holy Spirit and therefore we can ask holy people both in this world and those who have passed beyond it to pray for us. I don’t find anything particularly kooky about that. Regarding aliens, etc., I do find that kooky since it is not grounded in anything I have any reason to believe in. The saints are people whose lives continues to have effect in this world and I will say the same about Jesus, of course. Aliens, well, I don’t see any reason to think speculation on them is grounded in anything “real.”

KimmyEB

If I want to read the Bible, I can go to a Catholic church and sit down and read the Bible, for free. If I have questions, I can ask a member of the church, a priest (if one is there), people working or volunteering, other members, etc. If I want to start going to the Catholic church regularly, I am free to do so, by simply walking into the church, and attending services. And if I want to take it a step further, I can be baptized for free.

Can the same be said for Scientology?

EvanKeel

Can the same be said for Scientology?

Does that make Catholicism less kooky, though?

KimmyEB

Can the same be said for Scientology?

Does that make Catholicism less kooky, though?

Oops. My post was meant to reply to an earlier post that basically stated they were both cults. My bad!:blushing:

Personally, Catholicism is less kooky to me than Scientology. I have many reasons why, but, they're all personal reasons, through both life experiences and through education. Finding something kooky is an opinion...there is no right or wrong answer.

macpatti

I'm not sure it's all that valuable to even take a historical view when comparing the two. Mainstream Catholicism is a bit different today than it was centuries ago. For example, I assume Catholics no longer feel that murdering Protestants is justified through religious beliefs (or vice versa for that matter). There's a big cultural component that plays into religion and so religions change as culture changes.

Not to open another can of worms, but it's like saying that our founding fathers were Christian. Well yes, culturally they were Christian because of their education, but they were influenced just as strongly by the Enlightenment. So, to many people today, they might not qualify as "true Christians."

I assume Scientology seems stranger now because of it's connection to science fiction, but really that's just stories in the end. Much of Christianity is built on stories, stories and faith. Faith is faith. Once you get enough people to believe something is true, it's less strange.

I have problems with almost everything your wrote. Your first paragraph is almost like me saying: “I assume Baptist don’t think it’s okay to torture animals and beat their wives anymore, but…” Where in the world did you get the claim that Catholics once thought it was okay to “murder” Protestants? I do recall some wars where Catholics and Protestants fought against each other (always connected with very intricate political conflicts and otherwise). Your comments only reinforce my suspicion that you are arguing against “Catholicism” without really understanding what it is.

Of course if someone grows up being told something that others think is “strange” he/she will not think it is strange. That’s precisely the point, though. Christianity is based on stories that are grounded in history. Furthermore, Christian faith is not merely a collection of stories but stories that communicate truths that provide a meaningful and compelling world-view. I do not think every viewpoint can be as compelling, consistent and meaningful and that is why most religious perspectives that have existed in the past have simply died. I think equating all religious perspectives and not seeing that they have varying levels of explanatory power and meaningfulness is just wrong.

EvanKeel

I'm not sure it's all that valuable to even take a historical view when comparing the two. Mainstream Catholicism is a bit different today than it was centuries ago. For example, I assume Catholics no longer feel that murdering Protestants is justified through religious beliefs (or vice versa for that matter). There's a big cultural component that plays into religion and so religions change as culture changes.

Not to open another can of worms, but it's like saying that our founding fathers were Christian. Well yes, culturally they were Christian because of their education, but they were influenced just as strongly by the Enlightenment. So, to many people today, they might not qualify as "true Christians."

I assume Scientology seems stranger now because of it's connection to science fiction, but really that's just stories in the end. Much of Christianity is built on stories, stories and faith. Faith is faith. Once you get enough people to believe something is true, it's less strange.

I have problems with almost everything your wrote. Your first paragraph is almost like me saying: “I assume Baptist don’t think it’s okay to torture animals and beat their wives anymore, but…” Where in the world did you get the claim that Catholics once thought it was okay to “murder” Protestants? I do recall some wars where Catholics and Protestants fought against each other (always connected with very intricate political conflicts and otherwise). Your comments only reinforce my suspicion that you are arguing against “Catholicism” without really understanding what it is.

Of course if someone grows up being told something that others think is “strange” he/she will not think it is strange. That’s precisely the point, though. Christianity is based on stories that are grounded in history. Furthermore, Christian faith is not merely a collection of stories but stories that communicate truths that provide a meaningful and compelling world-view. I do not think every viewpoint can be as compelling, consistent and meaningful and that is why most religious perspectives that have existed in the past have simply died. I think equating all religious perspectives and not seeing that they have varying levels of explanatory power and meaningfulness is just wrong.

So you're suggesting that Catholics and Protestants killed each other but felt it wasn't justified by their faith? Sorry, don't buy it. If two religions fight and target each other, their respective religions don't get to later point the finger at politics and say "Oh no, it's was his fault." Religion had a dog in that fight. European history simply disagrees with you, if I understand your objection correctly.

I'm not arguing "against" Catholicism. There's nothing to argue against. There was no premise here other than claiming one religion is kookier than another, which is obviously subjective. You can't argue "against" a religion in a general sense, only specific aspects of religion and then only if some sort of claim is made. It's a matter of historical record that Catholicism has changed through history (even reversed it's stances on issues), though I'm sure one can debate the degrees. That's not the same thing as "arguing against Catholicism," though.

As it happens, you can't actually tell anyone their view of Catholicism lacks understanding. It's not as if you have the One True View of Catholicism. At most you can say I don't understand your view of Catholicism, but that hardly seems relevant even if it's accurate.

And once Scientology has a chance to develop it's own history, it will have historical facts along with history--this assumes it survives, which is another discussion entirely.

Really, all I'm saying is that if we're looking at kookiness here, we need to take a look at current beliefs of the two religions, rather than history.

To an agnostic, subjective reality being what it is in this instance, believing the incarnation of a God that may or may not exist coming back to life kind of counts as science fiction. I have no more difficulty accepting that as a possibility than crop circles may serve as evidence of the existence of aliens. Note, I haven't actually looked at the science behind the causes for crop circles, it was just the first thing that popped into my mind. You could try to post your evidence of all this factual data that backs up your faith, but that wasn't super productive last time, now was it? More over, even if I accepted your evidence of a Supreme Being, there's nothing to suggest that just isn't a more evolved alien....apart from faith telling me otherwise, that is.

k8blujay2

I am a Christian... Baptist in fact, and my dad was on par to become a Catholic Priest (but is obviously not). But when someone doesn't understand faith or subscribe to one, then it all looks the same from the outside. Personally, I find "praying" (using this term loosely) to statues as kooky (that is how I see the blatant praying to God through the Mother Mary as being), just as I do the belief that aliens are going to take you away to some obscure planet... but to someone that doesn't believe in God or space aliens, it can all look weird and kooky....
And yes, I realize that Christians, and particularly Catholics, have done a lot of great things for culture and society, things like hospitals and public education (shoot even women's rights stemmed from prohibition)... but those things almost always take a back seat to the infighting and wars that have been waged in the name of Christ.

I simply don’t know what you mean when you say that the good accomplished by the Church takes a “back seat” to the infighting and wars, etc. That strikes me as totally groundless. Every day there are countless good deeds done by Catholics. Yesterday millions of people went to Church. Today many people are serving the poor, the hurting, the dying, etc. Just because the media focuses on “infighting” and negative historical images doesn’t mean that this is what dominates the Catholic life. I live almost every day of my life without seeing any of what you refer to (as do most Catholics, I suspect). Outside perception of what is going on in the Catholic Church is largely fueled by media images that are nearly always designed to smear the Church and are simply not fair.

Concerning “prayer to saints,” I suspect that you as a Baptist don’t find it “kooky” to ask your other fellow Christians to pray for you. I think it is a natural thing for people to ask people they respect and admire to pray on their behalf. Catholics believe that death does not divide the unity created by the Holy Spirit and therefore we can ask holy people both in this world and those who have passed beyond it to pray for us. I don’t find anything particularly kooky about that. Regarding aliens, etc., I do find that kooky since it is not grounded in anything I have any reason to believe in. The saints are people whose lives continues to have effect in this world and I will say the same about Jesus, of course. Aliens, well, I don’t see any reason to think speculation on them is grounded in anything “real.”

My point is and always be that to an outsider either can be equally as kooky...

macpatti

My point is and always be that to an outsider either can be equally as kooky...

I suppose if you mean an outsider who has zero knowledge of either one, and is being educated on both by people similar to those in this thread, then maybe.

EvanKeel

My point is and always be that to an outsider either can be equally as kooky...

I suppose if you mean an outsider who has zero knowledge of either one, and is being educated on both by people similar to those in this thread, then maybe.

Are you saying that people who hold different opinions than yours about something that's completely subjective are now uneducated? Doesn't that seem a tiny bit arrogant?

macpatti

You could try to post your evidence of all this factual data that backs up your faith, but that wasn't super productive last time, now was it?

I have no desire to do this again. But, actually, yes it was productive. Maybe not to you, but I received some PM's that suggest it was.

macpatti

Are you saying that people who hold different opinions than yours about something that's completely subjective are now uneducated? Doesn't that seem a tiny bit arrogant?

Not at all. I'm saying people who are biased against Christianity aren't the best source of the subject.

EvanKeel

Are you saying that people who hold different opinions than yours about something that's completely subjective are now uneducated? Doesn't that seem a tiny bit arrogant?

Not at all. I'm saying people who are biased against Christianity aren't the best source of the subject.

Why? You'd have to say that same thing about people who are biased in favor of Christianity or opposed to Scientology. We can't get away from bias. By extension you might as well say we shouldn't talk about it at all because everyone has a bias. That's just silly.

Again, we're talking about opinions here. Your lack of agreement doesn't invalidate someone else's opinion of what constitutes kooky.

macpatti

Why? You'd have to say that same thing about people who are biased in favor of Christianity or opposed to Scientology. We can't get away from bias. By extension you might as well say we shouldn't talk about it at all because everyone has a bias. That's just silly.

I would never suggest that someone learn about Scientology from me. In fact, my usual advice to someone for wanting to understand or learn a religion is to do their own research and reading.

We're talking about opinions here. Your lack of agreement doesn't invalidate someone else's opinion of what constitutes kooky.

I never said my lack of agreement doesn't invalidate someone's opinion. :huh:

EvanKeel

Why? You'd have to say that same thing about people who are biased in favor of Christianity or opposed to Scientology. We can't get away from bias. By extension you might as well say we shouldn't talk about it at all because everyone has a bias. That's just silly.

I would never suggest that someone learn about Scientology from me. In fact, my usual advice to someone for wanting to understand or learn a religion is to do their own research and reading.

We're talking about opinions here. Your lack of agreement doesn't invalidate someone else's opinion of what constitutes kooky.

I never said my lack of agreement doesn't invalidate someone's opinion. :huh:

Uhhh...

Not at all. I'm saying people who are biased against Christianity aren't the best source of the subject.

The implication is that you either are, or have, a superior source on the subject (which may itself be in contention) because you obviously don't have a bias against Christianity. So yes, you're claiming some sort authority over the subject because you claim to have more information about it...which is irrelevant even if it's true.

So, you claim not to have the answers about Scientology, or at least you're not a great source for information. That's fair. And yet you still feel justified in making comparisons...just like the other people who you imply are ill-informed about Catholicism, who you seem to feel should get more information before sharing their opinion?

Let's face it. You're annoyed at the slightest hint of Catholicism being marginalized and you're over-sensitive to it. It's natural. We all have chips on our shoulders. This is just one of yours.

k8blujay2

My point is and always be that to an outsider either can be equally as kooky...

I suppose if you mean an outsider who has zero knowledge of either one, and is being educated on both by people similar to those in this thread, then maybe.

I mean an outsider that doesn't practice either... or any religion... let alone believe in them... to an atheist or an atheistic agnostic, both are just as crazy... both are just as unprovable... both are just as "dangerous"....

Of course Catholicism... or more broadly Christianity makes sense to us... It's how we grew up....

But besides the anti-social nature of Scientology... Both religions require faith in something unseen and unproven... both are propelled by a series of stories by authors... both even try to project some type of moral code (regardless of whether it's a code we believe in, as that is a moot point) and social change.

The only real differences are the size and age of the two... Does that mean that I personally believe that Christianity is crazy and kooky... No, because that's the faith that has proven itself to me and it's the one that I know can prove itself to others too... But, there are a ton of other faiths that I find crazy.... but I have to realize that just because I believe Christianity to be the true faith, doesn't mean someone else isn't going to think it weird also.

Hell, Scientologist probably think we are all weird because we believe that God gave man the knowledge to heal ourselves through many forms of science...