Moderator: Dictators in Training
Mindia wrote:L. Ron Hubbard even stated on a couple of occiasions that, "in order to make millions of dollars, you need to start your own religion."
Tuggan wrote:Strange. I was forced to go to church every Sunday morning til I was about 14, and never once did the priest ever say a bad word about another religion. Shouldnt you be talking about the Lord almighty, and learning some kind of lesson to relate to real life etc?
Perhaps the Catholics do have it right. Eh? WTF kinda religion wastes their sermon downtalking another religion?
Tuggan wrote:Strange. I was forced to go to church every Sunday morning til I was about 14, and never once did the priest ever say a bad word about another religion. Shouldnt you be talking about the Lord almighty, and learning some kind of lesson to relate to real life etc?
Perhaps the Catholics do have it right. Eh? WTF kinda religion wastes their sermon downtalking another religion?
Phlegm wrote:Scientology and Khabala seem to attract alot of celebrities.
Yamori wrote:Know whats funnier? Your religion is a crock of shit too! :D
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Lueyen wrote:I've read Dianetics (sp). It was an entertaining read in that he puts forth some interesting ideas, but it seemed more along the lines of science fiction to me. Some of it might be plausible, some of it I laughed at. As far as turning into a religious belief, I suppose you could consider it as such in the same light as science being a religion.
Previous to reading it I had heard many charges against it made by various Christian religions. From reading it I think the basis for many of these charges lies not in the text its self but in peoples application of it and the results from it. It's really nothing more then some proposed psychological ideas, and attempt at proof of those ideas, and various mental execrcises that supposedly take advantage of the ideas. Hubbard may have been a quack, may not have been legitimate however I did find his ideas interesting even if I didn't eat it all up. Honestly I think many who make accusations against him lend him to much credit. No where did I really see strong evidence of many of the charges made, I think these critisizims came more from the actions/reactions of individuals who "practiced" the ideas and methods. If you read a book then decide you are a diety, the book may not be what is to blame, but rather you interpretation and personal bias toward it.
That being said one of the main ideas throughout is that you can basically cause your mind to relive incidents in your life that may not be in your consious memory and are blocked out to avoid pain be it physical or emotional. I can definetly see this causing people with strong imaginations to "relive" things that never really happened and come to believe them. If these imagined events were of a negative nature concerning someone that was close to them this could cause serious problems. The author claims to believe that you can cause your mind to play back incidents as far back as before you were born and that people had done this and found out thier mother had made attempts to abort them. If by suggestion and imagination a person believed this was happening and believed that of their mother when the reality was that no such thing had ever happened, you can imagine the "evil" most would see as a result.
Personally I think the man is guilty of crap psychology, but personal responsibility must be layed at the feet of those stupid enough to swallow it all as fact, and not question it. I believe many of the people who bought into it and "relived" horrible events were most likely imagining things that didn't really happen... and they were essentially duped. I guess where I place the true blame is at the feet of those who read it and took it as fact not really considering its validity. There might be something to it, but to believe it all as absolute fact to me shows ignorance.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Jeddasbard wrote:Lueyen wrote:I've read Dianetics (sp). It was an entertaining read in that he puts forth some interesting ideas, but it seemed more along the lines of science fiction to me. Some of it might be plausible, some of it I laughed at. As far as turning into a religious belief, I suppose you could consider it as such in the same light as science being a religion.
Previous to reading it I had heard many charges against it made by various Christian religions. From reading it I think the basis for many of these charges lies not in the text its self but in peoples application of it and the results from it. It's really nothing more then some proposed psychological ideas, and attempt at proof of those ideas, and various mental execrcises that supposedly take advantage of the ideas. Hubbard may have been a quack, may not have been legitimate however I did find his ideas interesting even if I didn't eat it all up. Honestly I think many who make accusations against him lend him to much credit. No where did I really see strong evidence of many of the charges made, I think these critisizims came more from the actions/reactions of individuals who "practiced" the ideas and methods. If you read a book then decide you are a diety, the book may not be what is to blame, but rather you interpretation and personal bias toward it.
That being said one of the main ideas throughout is that you can basically cause your mind to relive incidents in your life that may not be in your consious memory and are blocked out to avoid pain be it physical or emotional. I can definetly see this causing people with strong imaginations to "relive" things that never really happened and come to believe them. If these imagined events were of a negative nature concerning someone that was close to them this could cause serious problems. The author claims to believe that you can cause your mind to play back incidents as far back as before you were born and that people had done this and found out thier mother had made attempts to abort them. If by suggestion and imagination a person believed this was happening and believed that of their mother when the reality was that no such thing had ever happened, you can imagine the "evil" most would see as a result.
Personally I think the man is guilty of crap psychology, but personal responsibility must be layed at the feet of those stupid enough to swallow it all as fact, and not question it. I believe many of the people who bought into it and "relived" horrible events were most likely imagining things that didn't really happen... and they were essentially duped. I guess where I place the true blame is at the feet of those who read it and took it as fact not really considering its validity. There might be something to it, but to believe it all as absolute fact to me shows ignorance.
<Center>
No
Lueyen wrote:lol
Oh no, Tom Cruise would say I'm wrong.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests