I personally don't think Scientology is a religion, but it IS a cult - a really screwy way of thinking. But then, I am a Christian and find the talking snake and magical tree reference offensive. so perhaps the Scientologist is offended by my feelings .... everyone is entitled to their own way of thinking and living.

A lot of fake religions out there.

When you stand for nothing you'll fall for anything.

aren't ALL religions fake??

not to mention EXTREMELY dangerous to society??

cuz,after all most of the wars that have ever been fought on this planet have had some sort of religious overtones to them,and MILLIONS/BILLIONS of people have been hurt and killed over somebody trying to prove that THEIR god has a bigger *@#* than the other persons god of choice!!
[of which there are THOUSANDS of them to choose from!!!!]


I would post a list of all of the gods/religions that have existed on this planet,but it would crash the internet,because there are SO MANY of them!!
[here is a link to a PARTIAL list,if you want to do your own research into how many different gods/religons there are.]
http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm


I know...I know...ALL of those OTHER RELIGIONS that OTHER people believe in are ridiculously absurd fantasies that nobody in their right mind could possibly fall for,or believe in,but YOURS is real,right?

and,lets not forget about a couple of the more recent ones to pop up,and become a GENUINE, RECOGNIZED religions,such as

JEDI
[which we all know is from a little science fiction movie called 'STAR WARS']

and
KLINGON
[which we all know is from a science fiction TV series called 'STAR TREK' from the 60's]

but,even though they are a product of science fiction,they are both now RECOGNIZED RELIGIONS!!

it makes the idea of 'religion' sound ridiculous,doesnt it???

Well, no, I don't think all religions are dangerous at all.

Especially in that, historically, most of them were begun specifically as an effort to try to help each other get through life as successfully as possible.

The trick with all "this is a good idea" concepts, is in what individuals end up trying to do with them. What starts out as a suggestion, can turn into marching orders. Blessings turn into magic spells, and shortcuts to peace and cooperation are turned by over-eager people into oppressions.

I find that most of the bigger, well-known religions are VERY effective at doing what they are meant to do.
Religions bring order to chaos.
They give a person focus of thought.
They establish protocols that promote unity (within the religion).
For the very suggestible, they give a person a purpose for living, a quest for life and comfort in death.
Yes, religions, for the most part, are very effective social constructs.

The problems rise when the person finds what they need within the reality around them.
Religions are most effective on people that have a fear of the unknown.
When someone gains the ability to understand the reality of the life they live and the capacity to make planned actions to manipulate that reality the effectiveness of religion loses its power.
The tree of knowledge truly does threaten God.
The more you understand about reality the less the religion persuades you to act against your own endeavors. Hence, the less religion has control over how you think, believe.

As communication gets more widespread, people gain more and more understanding of how things actually work in real life. As this happens, knowledge threatens religion and religion needs to change accordingly or be left behind.
People don't have the fears they used to.
The things religions were used for in the past, are no longer effective because the target audience is more intelligent.

In a perfect religion, nobody asks "Why?".

Its obvious that Scientology and all those 'other' religions you scratch your head about provides something to their followers that they can't find within themselves.

There is a lot to say about this. This is not the place.

Dave, in the 1940's when he was in the Navy he told another Officer that the way to become a millionaire was to invent a religion. Ten years later, BAM he did! That's after he participated in Sex Magic rituals and orgies with Jack Parsons. Hubbard was soo extreme that Parsons close friend and mentor Aleister Crowley advised Parsons to cut ties with Hubbard.

That movie was one of the biggest box office bombs in history and caused the production company that was pretty successful up to that point into bankruptcy.

I hate that movie but I liked the book.

I think that you hit the nail on the head when you say that religion works best on people who are frightened!!

because religion is based on trying to make people afraid of what will happen to them,either here on the mortal plane,and especially in the 'afterlife' if they do not blindly accept,and follow a religion's doctrines.

anybody that knows anything about even the most basic psychology knows that anytime somebody tries to frighten you,or make you afraid of something,they are trying to control you,and that is the true purpose of religion...to try to control people for its own purposes,and keep it in a position of power.

it is not worried about your 'soul'..religion NEEDS people to do its bidding for it,because when a religion loses its worshippers,it loses its POWER,and its ability to influence people to do the things that it wants done to KEEP it in a position of power,which is the main goal of ANY religion.

just look back at the 'crusades',and all of the religious wars that were fought,where each religion threw HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of its followers against each other to be killed off 'in the name of god',in an effort to advance the power that it controlled by FORCING people in other areas to adopt their own views,and become followers of it,so it could become more powerful,no matter what the cost.

if their 'god' was REALLY everything that they claim it is,they would not need to FORCE people to become followers to have power,because their 'god' would give that power to them if what they were claiming was true.
but (for SOME reason),no matter what a religion CLAIMS,he/she/it DOESNT give them any powers...it has to take its power strictly by the number or worshippers that it can control,without any divine interventions.

every time you research a religion,you can find where they have done everything that they possibly could to do things that both CONTROL PEOPLE,and grow the level of power that they are so desperate to keep,and FEAR is the only tool that they have in their arsenal to do it.

and,as you pointed out,knowledge is the true enemy of a religion,because,once a person has the knowledge to see through the ridiculous claims of a religion,they lose their fear of it,because they see it for what it is,and the religion no longer has any power over them.

[that's why adam&eve were banished from the garden of eden...because they ate the fruit from he tree of knowledge,which is about as apt of a metaphor as you can get to prove that knowledge and religion can not coexist in the same space,because the power of knowledge is greater than the power of ANY 'god'!]

of course there are no absolutes that apply to everyone but speaking for THIS Christian

I think many who slam religion are fearful of the reality of 'consequence'.

a consequence is a reaction from an action, and can be a good desirable thing or bad undesirable thing. If I were to tell someone that selling cocaine could wind them in jail, do I want them to be scared? Maybe? But does that mean what I am saying is not a TRUE CONSEQUENCE? No. Is a warning not a way to inform people of things they may be afraid of? Yes. So, the idea that religion or any other belief that explains good and bad is merely about 'controlling with fear', misses the mark in my opinion.

another point that misses the mark is that although I am sure some go through life from a place of paranoia and 'fear', there are others who use logic that also are capable of rightfully 'fearing' what could be dangerous or harmful. This presence of the capability of fear is quite different than the weakness of being 'controlled' by it. The story about the tree, for those looking to criticize, may be interpreted as proof that 'knowledge' and religion cannot co exist. For those looking more deeply, it may be another story about REALITY., that the more we know the more we are held accountable for what we know, and the REALITY that poor choices can have negative consequences.

As I said before, I cannot speak for all Christians, we are individuals first all coming from different individual perspectives. but I and other Christians I know dont harbor on Hell nearly as much as religious critics seem to. In fact, my faith is about trust and not fear. Id compare it to the trust in Parents who have provided and sacrificed and more than shown their love for you. They may discipline you for different things, and the world beyond them will DEFINITELY punish you for choices outside its rules. But the bond of trust in the love that motivates your parents (at least for me) causes a reciprocal interest in 'giving' back to them through your actions, including the terrible 'obedience' that so many rebel against, which also comes from trusting that they have lived longer, might know more, and have these 'rules' for good reason.

speaking for yourself,you have a valid opinion about what YOU personally believe,but you are only speaking for an individual,not for the concept of RELIGION as an institution,which is something that is on a totally different level than a single individual's opinion,and is governed by a totally different agenda,as the institution is bigger than any single person,and is more concerned with the big picture.

because,when you look at the bigger picture,i am sorry to say that your opinions are not the norm to the people who are actually in a position of power,and are more concerned with staying in that position of power,no matter what the cost.

just look at the 'office' of the pope,and the catholic church....
they are the ones who sent the crusaders out to 'convert' anybody who was not 'christian' by force,and they were willing to send hundreds of thousands of people to die in meaningless battles trying to expand their flock at all costs.

BUT,since they were killing off their followers,they decreed that birth control was 'an affront to god',and all of the followers should have as many children as they possibly could,lest their numbers shrink,and they would lose the power that they enjoyed.

TO THIS DAY,the catholic church still decrees that any form of birth control is a sin,and they go into the worst AIDS infected regions of the world,and tells them that if they use condoms to stop the spread of this terrible deadly disease that 'it will make jesus cry'.

I think THAT is pretty strong proof that they do not care about the welfare of people....only in bringing as many worshippers into their church to increase their numbers,and their power to control things in this mortal world at all costs.

and,if you dig further into the POLITICS that are practiced by the Vatican,unfortunately,you will discover A WHOLE LOT MORE things that prove that they do not care very much about their worshippers...
only in staying in a position of power at all costs,whether it is allying themselves with the NAZI party during WW2,and allowing them to both shelter themselves,and their stolen wealth in their 'off limits' areas,to giving shelter,and protection to child molesting priests,just to name a couple of things.

and THEY are pretty much the largest religious organization on the planet!!
seems that there isn't much difference in them,and any other power hungry organization,doesnt it??

so,please tell me how an organization that does such evil things has only the best interests of its followers at heart,or is good or healthy for humanity.

because,while there ARE LOTS of individuals like you who do not have evil in their hearts,and truly believe in the good parts of what religion is SUPPOSED to be,they are not the ones in a position of power who directs what their agendas ACTUALLY are behind the scenes,and out of sight of the masses.

organizations and religions dont do 'evil' things, people do.

and power can corrupt PEOPLE anywhere they get it, it doesnt, to me, condemn an entire demographic or organization or religion of individuals, to find that some in power have become corrupt ...

I wont read it. I wont pay money for it so the Church of Scientology makes money. No way!

like the old saying goes,power corrupts,and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

to try to claim that an organization that does evil things isn't evil just because a few people who don't hold any position of power in it don't do evil things is illogical!!

by that logic,the NAZIS weren't evil because oskar schindler saved a few jews from being executed.

when an institution like a religion is more concerned with controlling people,and staying in power at all costs,and does evil things in secret while it hides behind its position of power,that DOES make it evil,whether you want to admit it,or not.

if it were any organization besides institutionalized religion,we would criminally prosecute them under the RICO act for the things that they have done,but institutionalized religion puts itself ABOVE the law,and THAT is just one of the MANY reasons that institutionalized religion is evil.

NAZIS are not quite the same,

first, because the 'evil' part is defined by the actions of the individuals
second, because, as a group/organization, the ACTUAL promotion of evil was a part of being recognized in the group

so to say NAZIS were evil, is to generalize how the INDIVIDUALS were encouraged to and MOSTLY behaved.

this is not the true with religion, evil people are the outlier and not the basic tenet, philosophy, or encouragement for which the groups are created or run ...

to summarize, an institution can PROMOTE and ENCOURAGE people to do evil, and should be held accoutnable if that is the case

BUT

an institution is not accountable if there happen to be amongst them people that choose to exploit or promote/encourage their own agendas ,,, in which case only those individuals should be accountable

sorry,but I disagree with that!

when the people who are IN CHARGE of the organization use their position of power to do evil,and use their organization to knowingly assist the people doing the evil,and knowingly shield them from the consequences for their actions,and then knowingly allow them to continue to do the evil things that they are doing,then that organization IS evil,no matter what the people who are not in charge of that organization think or do.

its not like it is a few minor members of the organization,such as just someone who happens to attend a service,it is the people who are IN CHARGE who are committing these crimes,so your argument is invalid.

there is an overabundance of proof and public knowledge that the catholic church knowingly looks the other way when it comes to the pedophiles they have placed in a position of power,and then uses their organization to protect those pedophile priests from the consequences of their heinous crimes....

but,yet..all of those people who are members of that organization who might not be evil themselves do not do anything to change what their organization is doing are just as evil as the ones who are in charge of the organization,because they are enabling it to continue doing the things they do,and are publically ,and financialy supporting them.

because,if you do not openly oppose evil,then you are silently condoning it!!

if those people are indeed 'not evil',they they would withdraw themselves from participating in,and supporting that organization.

but,they don't,because they look the other way because supporting that organization is more important to them than trying to stop the horrors that that organization is committing.

supporting something that is inherently evil is just as bad as doing he evil yourself.

you posted "when the people who are IN CHARGE o"


the operative word here is the PEOPLE ... not the organization.

once again. the banking instutution has people in power who abuse that power (it calls for people to be in 'charge' to exploit that power, which I have already stated awareness that power corrupts PEOPLE)


That does not make the 'institution' evil. It is like saying a chair is evil. it cannot be. a chair is a tHING. there is not 'evil' without humans, because it takes humans making their own INDIVIDUAL choice to do evil for evil to exist.

as far as turning an eye. I also disagree. It is totally possible to want consequences for INDIVIDUALS doing wrong, and to want to continue to be included in all that is RIGHT within that same organization those individuals are involved with.

there is a difference between supporting what an INDIVIDUAL has done, which deserves consequence for that INDIVIDUAL

and supporting an organization, which is not responsible for the choices of the individuals who are a part of it UNLESS there is explicit instruction or guidelines requiring that/those actions