Why is Scientology kookier than the Catholic church?

adrian_indy

Comparing Catholocism to Scientolofy is apple and oranges. First, the Scientologists have no power to speak of besides their lawyers. Then have none of the history of the catholics, we can't see into the future to see what they will be capable of when they are nearly 2 millenia old.

Also, the Catholic religion was created in times of great turbulence when government institutions were less powerful as our federal government. It is not as if the Scientologists could have an inquistion because of modern man made, american laws. But we have also never seen them or their morality tested as the christians did when the Muslim Moors invaded spain and so on.

As far as them being a scam because they ask for money....the greek orthodox church does that in the form of yearly dues. And I am pretty sure that Catholics believe in a 10% tithe, it just can't be enforced because we are not a christian nation and have freedom of religion.

kyle4jem

Oh! Oh! Funny story about Scientology.

They had a little headquarters type place in my town when I was growing up. I was quite young at the time, so all I know is it was this green house and they would stand outside and beckon people in to take their personality tests. My parents have a very strange sense of humor, so one day I was walking with my dad and they called him in and he went. (I just remember being really bored and they gave me a balloon.)

Anyway, this test was multiple choice where you answered the questions by filling in those little bubble scanner sheets. My father didn't actually read any of them and just randomly filled in bubbles. The assessment they gave him was that he was unconscious.

This reminds me of my first encounter with Scientology. I was in Amsterdam on holiday and I was stopped in the street one morning by a nice friendly bloke with a clipboard who said he was doing some market research and would I be available to answer a few questions. I thought, oh what fun, but then instead of asking me questions, I was ushered to a nearby building (not unsubstantial and in central Amsterdam, it must've been worth a few bob!) where I was given this huge booklet almost like an exam book with about 100 multiple-choice questions and they were strange questions, not like market research at all. Once I'd completed the questionnaire I handed it in, but rather than being thanked and sent on my way, they proceeded to mark the questions and plotted a graph and proceeded to inform me I had had an unhappy childhood and I should attend their seminar. I politely informed them I was on holiday and leaving later that day and then I was given some hard sell to buy a copy of Dianetics. I had only a few guilders on me so again I declined and then having spent over an hour there, I left.

It was only after I got home that I discovered what Scientology was and that these were not the actions in my mind of any evangelists I've ever encountered. Evangelists will make it clear from the start more or less that their mission is to make you question your faith and beliefs but I've never had an evangelist come to my door or greet me in the street and ask me to take part in market research.

EvanKeel

Give me a break. Calling my religion kooky warrants a reply. And I've already pointed out the false statement made which I corrected. I probably know a little more about the Catholic faith than your average person, so I don't see why my clearing up something is negative.

Obviously we disagree. And your religion, along with all the others, is a bit kooky in its own way. Your perspective on the Catholic faith doesn't mean much compared to someone else's experiences.

The fact that you think it warrants a reply speaks volumes, not that it was surprising.

MoveTheMountain

Well, the whole planet Nibiru is a bit much. But hey, Catholicism certainly has its downsides, as well.

MoveTheMountain

And yet the Catholics did kill Protests and Protestants did kill Catholics for no reason other their religious affiliations in a systematic sort of way. if you want play games of semantics, I can't say that I care much. Regardless of the name, are you going to tell me that the Church doesn't find that part of their history reprehensible by contemporary standards. It doesn't discount positive influences of the Church now necessarily, but it is an example of how the Church changes. And it's a pretty significant change. That is of course not the only example of actions that we would consider horribly violent and unjustifiable now, but were officially sanctioned at the time. I'm assuming that rounding up Jews and torturing them would be frowned upon now, but it was sanctioned at the time when it happened. Diametrically opposed stances on killing and torturing seem like pretty big conflicts when it comes to the core of Christ's teachings. It was a more barbaric time (arguably), and so religions of all sorts were more barbaric as well.
I also don't really care what you view as a jab against Christianity or Catholicism specifically. For reasons I've already stated, I think you're being paranoid on that count. My intention behind referencing questionable actions as commonplace would apply to any large organization, religious or otherwise. The more people involved, the more opportunity there is for divergent views on acceptable behavior regardless of official stances. I would apologize for not stating that specifically, but I don't feel so obliged.
I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic about the future of Scientology. I see no reason to speculate on its future given the question that was put forth.
I was referencing a differing conclusion based on the same evidence. We obviously disagree about the possible conclusions one could draw. Again, I have no desire to go into specifics of that with you again. Suffice to say I find your analysis wanting. Not only that but I find your defense of something that didn't need a defense in the first place both pedantic and patronizing.

If your point is that Catholics can be inconsistent and hypocritical, you will find no argument from me. If you are wanting to say that sometimes Catholics have been paranoid and persecuted people and accused them of crimes that they may not have been guilty of, you will have no argument from me. If you are wanting to say that these crimes are peculiar to Catholics and that any other society of people that has endured for any length of time is not guilty of the same, I’d like to see your evidence. What you are describing is not unique to religions, it is characteristic of human beings. There are all kinds of psychological reasons why people “fear” outsiders or those who try to overthrow the status quo or whatever. Again, these are issues of human psychology and not the fault of religion. The Catholic Church has never endorsed murder. Further, this is not a game of semantics. There are legitimate issues of the morality of warfare, social cohesion, self-defense, defense of the state, etc., that often get mixed up with religious matters in conflicts between nations. To make a quick judgment on such things and say the Church endorsed murder is simply unfair. Your second paragraph seems to grant the points I’m making in this paragraph although they are the points I’ve been making all along.

Concerning Scientology and your optimism about it, I make that remark because you seem to express confidence that Scientology will develop a “sound” historical defense of itself, etc. I find no reason for this optimism based on the history of religions. Most of them die and do not develop an enduring defense of themselves.

Your last paragraph is still confusing. I was actually seeking clarification since it seemed to me that you were suggesting that the arguments for God can just as easily be interpreted as arguments for a super alien intelligence, or something of the sort. I deny that is the case. The arguments for God conclude to a reality that simply can’t be a super alien intelligence since such a being would still require a reason for its being just like all other dependent beings in this universe require one.

You had me up until the last sentence... the flaw in your conclusion is that the first cause (since it seems logical that there needed to be a first cause) has to be a single being called 'god' - omnicient, omnipotent, etc. While yes, it seems logical that there would need to be a first cause, it might not be the being called 'god' that you describe, or the one described in the new testament. Maybe for our purposes, it was a super intelligent alien that has it's own first cause or god, and that god is nothing like the one that Christians pray to.

At the end of the day, we just don't have a clue.

KimmyEB

And I am pretty sure that Catholics believe in a 10% tithe, it just can't be enforced because we are not a christian nation and have freedom of religion.

It's not just Catholics that believe that though, is it? I dated a guy a while back whose parents both gave 10% of their income to whatever church they belonged to, but I do know they weren't Catholic.

Almost all of my family is Catholic, but they were never told that they weren't REAL Catholics, or that they weren't welcomed in the church, because they were poor and couldn't donate that 10%. I think Scientology is pretty much "you pay, or you GTFO." At least that's my understanding...which may not be correct.

adrian_indy

And I am pretty sure that Catholics believe in a 10% tithe, it just can't be enforced because we are not a christian nation and have freedom of religion.

It's not just Catholics that believe that though, is it? I dated a guy a while back whose parents both gave 10% of their income to whatever church they belonged to, but I do know they weren't Catholic.

Almost all of my family is Catholic, but they were never told that they weren't REAL Catholics, or that they weren't welcomed in the church, because they were poor and couldn't donate that 10%. I think Scientology is pretty much "you pay, or you GTFO." At least that's my understanding...which may not be correct.

I also pointed out the greek orthodox church. It's not a complaint or a judgement, they just all go about making their money in different ways for various reasons. I think all churches have a tithe.

KimmyEB

And I am pretty sure that Catholics believe in a 10% tithe, it just can't be enforced because we are not a christian nation and have freedom of religion.

It's not just Catholics that believe that though, is it? I dated a guy a while back whose parents both gave 10% of their income to whatever church they belonged to, but I do know they weren't Catholic.

Almost all of my family is Catholic, but they were never told that they weren't REAL Catholics, or that they weren't welcomed in the church, because they were poor and couldn't donate that 10%. I think Scientology is pretty much "you pay, or you GTFO." At least that's my understanding...which may not be correct.

I also pointed out the greek orthodox church. It's not a complaint or a judgement, they just all go about making their money in different ways for various reasons. I think all churches have a tithe.

I don't know why, but I guess I assumed Greek Orthodox was a Catholic church...in Greece?

Clearly I know my religious stuff. :laugh:

Since I live near the Scientology headquarters, I'm tempted to go in and see firsthand just how kooky they are.

rml_16

And I am pretty sure that Catholics believe in a 10% tithe, it just can't be enforced because we are not a christian nation and have freedom of religion.

It's not just Catholics that believe that though, is it? I dated a guy a while back whose parents both gave 10% of their income to whatever church they belonged to, but I do know they weren't Catholic.

Almost all of my family is Catholic, but they were never told that they weren't REAL Catholics, or that they weren't welcomed in the church, because they were poor and couldn't donate that 10%. I think Scientology is pretty much "you pay, or you GTFO." At least that's my understanding...which may not be correct.

I also pointed out the greek orthodox church. It's not a complaint or a judgement, they just all go about making their money in different ways for various reasons. I think all churches have a tithe.

I don't know why, but I guess I assumed Greek Orthodox was a Catholic church...in Greece?

Clearly I know my religious stuff. :laugh:

Since I live near the Scientology headquarters, I'm tempted to go in and see firsthand just how kooky they are.

Greek, Russian and Eastern Orthodox split with what is now the Catholic Church centuries ago. It had something to do with the Pope, or not allowing priests to marry -- something like that. They're very similar, though.

macpatti

The fact that you think it warrants a reply speaks volumes, not that it was surprising.

I'm glad it speaks volumes. Anyone who knows me a little- even on here- knows I'm Catholic and my husband and I spend our lives teaching the Catholic faith. I wouldn't think it would be any surprise that I'd reply. Not sure why that bothers you so much.

rml_16

That was pounded into the heads of children in Catholic school for decades, but now it's not the Church's teachings?
I may not BE a Catholic, but I did grow up in a Catholic family and know a thing or two about it.

Perhaps you're confusing the rejection of Christ and the Catholic church? One can leave the Catholic church and still be a Christian.

I'm not confusing anything. My grandmother has been a devout Catholic for 96 years. I'm not ignorant of the faith or its teachings.

MaraDiaz

I think Adrian is right, the history is the difference. When I was a Christian I once looked down on Scientology somewhat. That was foolish of me, and I'm sorry for it. As an atheist, I can either look down on all religions (also foolish) or see them as a way to show what we value as human beings and what we lack and long for. I choose the latter. Mostly. Unless I'm in a snarky mood, and then I try to back slowly away from the keyboard.

macpatti

I'm not confusing anything. My grandmother has been a devout Catholic for 96 years. I'm not ignorant of the faith or its teachings.

The Church (Catholicism) has never taught that people who aren't Catholic go to hell. Im not sure where decades and decades of children had that drilled into their heads. It's false and unfortunate that any priest would say that in his parish or school.

EvanKeel

The fact that you think it warrants a reply speaks volumes, not that it was surprising.

I'm glad it speaks volumes. Anyone who knows me a little- even on here- knows I'm Catholic and my husband and I spend our lives teaching the Catholic faith. I wouldn't think it would be any surprise that I'd reply. Not sure why that bothers you so much.

That was covered, but whatever. I was fairly certain I said I disagreed with you that your reply was warranted. The maelstrom of "Rawr, you're wrong about Catholicism and your experiences don't mean jack!!" --loose interpretation, but I'm allowed--- was irritating. In like fashion, I imagine you were irritated and felt the need to reply in the first place. The fact that I know that doesn't make me less annoyed by your attitude.

Not sure why you're unsure about why I'd be bothered. I'm just as predictable as you are.

rml_16

I'm not confusing anything. My grandmother has been a devout Catholic for 96 years. I'm not ignorant of the faith or its teachings.

The Church (Catholicism) has never taught that people who aren't Catholic go to hell. Im not sure where decades and decades of children had that drilled into their heads. It's false and unfortunate that any priest would say that in his parish or school.

It's in the Catechism. It is a teaching of the Church. You don't seem to know as much about your own religion as you think you do.

macpatti

It's in the Catechism. It is a teaching of the Church. You don't seem to know as much about your own religion as you think you do.

That is a lie. Provide me the paragraph number.

macpatti

That was covered, but whatever. I was fairly certain I said I disagreed with you that your reply was warranted.

So, let's see. This is a debate group, that I've been pretty active in and you disagree that my reply was warranted? On a subject that is important to me?

macpatti

It's in the Catechism. It is a teaching of the Church. You don't seem to know as much about your own religion as you think you do.

I'm really waiting for a reply on where in the Catechism we can find this statement!

MaraDiaz

Not sure how reliable this site is, but:

The following is from the Catechism approved by the late Pope John Paul II:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

...

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Heaven-Hell.htm

The definition of 'knowing' would be important here, as would be the clarification that all who are not saved suffer hell.

macpatti

The following is from the Catechism approved by the late Pope John Paul II:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
The definition of 'knowing' would be important here, as would be the clarification that all who are not saved suffer hell.

Thank you. This is what I was expecting to be quoted. However, it merely takes turning to paragraph 847 (the immediately following paragraph to the one cited) to see how this statement is qualified and explained. The point is that Christ is the way of salvation and that the normal way Christ's salvation is received is through the word of God and sacraments but that those who do not have legitimate access or understanding of these realities may experience God's salvation through other means. Nothing here says that no one except Catholics will be saved nor does it suggest that a Catholic who does not understand his faith and leaves it will definitely go to hell. It is important that those who cite the Catechism be sure and read the context and all that the Catechism says on a given subject before drawing conclusions.

MaraDiaz

The following is from the Catechism approved by the late Pope John Paul II:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
The definition of 'knowing' would be important here, as would be the clarification that all who are not saved suffer hell.

Thank you. This is what I was expecting to be quoted. However, it merely takes turning to paragraph 847 (the immediately following paragraph to the one cited) to see how this statement is qualified and explained. The point is that Christ is the way of salvation and that the normal way Christ's salvation is received is through the word of God and sacraments but that those who do not have legitimate access or understanding of these realities may experience God's salvation through other means. Nothing here says that no one except Catholics will be saved nor does it suggest that a Catholic who does not understand his faith and leaves it will definitely go to hell. It is important that those who cite the Catechism be sure and read the context and all that the Catechism says on a given subject before drawing conclusions.

Now the definition of 'understanding' is important.

I was raised with a traditional Lutheran teaching that those who heard the teaching of Christ yet rejected it are damned to hell.

However, someone could easily hear the words, even hear them all of their lives, and not understand them. So there's some wiggle room in the definition, as there almost always is with human language.

I've known people of various demoninations who hold to the traditional, stricter view, and people of various denominations who hold to a more merciful definition.

macpatti

Now the definition of 'understanding' is important.

I was raised with a traditional Lutheran teaching that those who heard the teaching of Christ yet rejected it are damned to hell.

However, someone could easily hear the words, even hear them all of their lives, and not understand them. So there's some wiggle room in the definition, as there almost always is with human language.

I've known people of various demoninations who hold to the traditional, stricter view, and people of various denominations who hold to a more merciful definition.

Exactly! And the Catechism recognizes the "wiggle room" and has a more merciful approach.

EvanKeel

That was covered, but whatever. I was fairly certain I said I disagreed with you that your reply was warranted.

So, let's see. This is a debate group, that I've been pretty active in and you disagree that my reply was warranted? On a subject that is important to me?

Essentially yes. I've found nothing substantive in what you've said thus far because I find that it's entirely based on your inability to accept that someone else's view of Catholicism may differ from yours and be equally valid.

This thread isn't a something that's really all that debatable because it's an opinion. Even when you state that someone was saying something incorrect about Catholicism and "that's not what the Church teaches."

It seems that the Church did teach it to someone. The fact that it's not "official" in your estimation doesn't mean anything because we're talking about individual perspectives here. It's all fine and dandy to say "hey my experience with the Catholic Church says this, so it's interesting that you had such a different opinion." But no. You went to the "your view is wrong because the Church (by way of me) says something different."

How is that you participating in a debate again?

macpatti

This thread isn't a something that's really all that debatable because it's an opinion. Even when you state that someone was saying something incorrect about Catholicism and "that's not what the Church teaches."

This debate, if you will, is totally based on opinions. Everyone has got one. However, when someone is saying "the Church" teaches something that is false, I will debate that. I'm not disputing the fact that a priest may have told them that. I'm stating that priest was incorrect in doing so.

EvanKeel

This thread isn't a something that's really all that debatable because it's an opinion. Even when you state that someone was saying something incorrect about Catholicism and "that's not what the Church teaches."

This debate, if you will, is totally based on opinions. Everyone has got one. However, when someone is saying "the Church" teaches something that is false, I will debate that. I'm not disputing the fact that a priest may have told them that. I'm stating that priest was incorrect in doing so.

And? It doesn't change the fact that the Church taught it. The person who taught that represented the Church. The Church, Catholic or otherwise, can't rewrite history, or simply define murder away, for that matter, to suit its whims. Sometimes agents of the Church mess up. We're human and that's it's expected. But it gets to take accountability for that, instead of just saying, "oh well. We didn't approve that message."

bathsheba_c

I'm gonna take a popcorn break here to enjoy the two Catholics duking it out over what the Jewish chick asserted about Catholic theology. Anyone know where I can get the animated macro?

macpatti

And? It doesn't change the fact that the Church taught it. The person who taught that represented the Church.

There is a huge difference between saying "the Catholic church" teaches this and "a Catholic church " teaches this. My correction was that the overarching Church never says if you're not Catholic you're going to hell.

TheRoadDog

This thread is a perfect example of how religion is at the root cause of most conflicts in the world.

Windchild

This thread is a perfect example of how religion is at the root cause of most conflicts in the world.

I agree!

Windchild

While I stated I agreed with TheRoadDog's statement, I'm going to add in my own opinion and experiences. Take it with a grain of salt, as every opinion should be.

I think ALL religions are kooky. That is my opinion. I DO, however, believe that all religions have a few things in common, which has cemented MY BELIEF in the existence of God and "A great teacher/sacrifice," no matter what name you choose to give both entities.

Now, a little side story: My grandmother was raised in the Catholic church. She went to Catholic schools as soon as she was old enough to attend to the day she graduated. She went through all the ceremonies, was given a catholic name, all that stuff. She remained in the Catholic Church until she met my grandfather. My grandfather was definitely not a catholic(He later became a preacher though.) My grandmother went to the church to get permission to marry a non-catholic. They refused her. She married him anyway, and they excommunicated her and told her that she had condemned herself and any children she might have to burn in hell with her husband. My mother still has the paperwork for all of this somewhere. I know this was close to a hundred years ago and that times might have changed, but that is kooky to me.