Comments on Scientology Round-Up

You guys are so glib.

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "chafed their thetan".

"Hari Fishnuts, Hari Hari Fishnuts"
opus dancing to hari krishna music.

They ARE thetans... theta is their "life energy." As I wrote that sentence I was really wishing they wear special underpants like the Mormons...

The power of Xenu compels me:
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/03/battlefield_mir

Geesh, only five articles? You've been slacking!

Besides, everyone knows the only true religion is Pastafarianism. Now, get cracking on a story about how global warming is caused by a severe lack of Pirates and Pirate Fish! We have a world to save, or His Tentacledness will be severely disappointed in we not created in His Image.

You learn something new every day.

Is scientology really any stranger/inane than believing that 1) a dry bread wafer is actually the body of a man-god, 2) an evil satyr-like being will torment you after death unless you've had your soul cleansed by being wetted by a priest 3) the virgin mother of this man-god can be coaxed into soliciting favors for you by repeating a mantra praising her 50 time?

*LOL* @8

Yes, Kinaidos, it is.

Religious traditions that derive from long practice dating back to prehistory are inevitably going to contain some things that strike modern people as a little odd, out of context. Human attempts to understand existence are fascinating, even if you don't believe them. Religious traditions that are created out of whole cloth, all at once, IN the modern period, on the other hand, must be held to the modern standards out of which they were born.

Scientology doesn't use myth or prehistory to explain itself; it uses very specific and identifiable modern technological implements, dating from, oddly enough, the fifties and sixties time period during which L. Ron cooked it up.

Want an example? The souls were transported to the volcanos in DC-9s.

Myths cannot be disproven; they exist outside of the world of proof. Scientology's claims can be objectively disproven, because they exist completely in the world of the modern.

@8 has it right, IMO. Scientology isn't any stupider than most other religions. It just sounds that way to us because it's too new for most of us to have been taught it as toddlers, and is full of corny 50-year-old sci-fi imagery. At some point "corny" will become "ancient" and sound mysterious and wise. See also Mormonism.

Hee, Fnarf. Our posts crossed in the tubes.

The Stranger mocks Christianity at least 20 times more often, though.

No, actually fnarf has it right. Although the Latter Day Saint movement does walk a fine line between the two.

I agree with the above.

Scientology isn't any crazier than any of the other religions depriving oxygen to our collective brains in the US. You know we have the largest population of fundamentalist religious fanatics outside the Middle East, right?

Most Americans believe in angels, ghosts, pseudo-science, that the earth is 6,000 years old and also that a supernatural authority figure with an unusual interest in how often people masturbate has given them the moral authority to condemn anyone who isn't exactly like them.

Curiously, they all stress that we'll be better off after we're dead. Go figure.

We are so fucked.

"Modern" doesn't mean the claims aren't mythological. We can show many ancient religious claims are objectively impossible or ridiculous, but believers back-fill rationalizations for believing them anyway. I don't see any difference with Scientology.

At some point Scientology will be shrouded in the mists of time the same way the old religions are now and to the people of that time they will seem equally as reasonable.

Actually, it is crazier than most other religions. Back when folks were inventing Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zeus, Mars, Isis, etc., out of whole cloth, no one knew any better. What the fuck is that burning ball of light in the sky and how come it comes back every morning? WTF? And what the fuck happens to us when we die? So folks, absent any other info, made up shit -- creation myths, salvation myths, the afterlife. And it was comforting and, perhaps, necessary.

But to make up those myths now? Joseph Smith? L. Ron? To create, out of whole cloth, brand new total bullshit when -- guess what? -- we know better? When we know why the sun comes up? When we've got actual science, not BS scientology?

Sorry, to make up a religion in some harrowing desert 5 thousand years ago -- back when life was nasty, brutish and short -- is excusable. Even charming. Do do the same in LA 30 years ago? That's bullshit.

I agree, Mr. Savage, to a point. The people who made up those religions long ago maybe didn't know any better, but some of those religions have exponentially more followers now than they did back then - followers who have science and are supposed to know better. To believe ancient nonsense is exactly as reasonable as believing recent nonsense.

Agreed, pox. But we were discussing the relative loopiness of any given religion, with all being dismissed as equally loopy. Ancient religions have an excuse -- modern cults do not.

There is no excuse, of course, for being religious. That's another matter.

Sorry, to make up a religion in some harrowing desert 5 thousand years ago -- back when life was nasty, brutish and short -- is excusable. Even charming. Do do the same in LA 30 years ago? That's bullshit.

Heh. No, it's MARKETING.

The attraction of religion has nothing to do with the objective believeability of specific claims. Those claims have to be understood mythologically. They are no different than the origin stories of various American Indian tribes, or Zoroastrians, or whomever.

The question of whether Moses was actually spoken to by a burning bush, or whether Jesus actually physically rose from the dead is immaterial. These ideas come from culture; they were not "made up" by anyone.

Scientology didn't arise from myth, though. It was just made up by a guy one day. It's not going to be "shrouded in the mists of time", because we have a thing called history now.

Fnarf, how do you think myths start? They too are just "made up" one day. Scientology was started on a bet. Look it up. Never join a religion started on a bet.

I don't know how myths start, Tarminian, and neither do you. They certainly weren't "made up one day" though. One millennium, maybe, though that's probably way too short. And they certainly weren't started on a bet. Scientology wasn't either; that's an urban legend. One of us definitely needs to look some things up, and it isn't me.

Fnarf, if the attraction of religion isn't dependent on the objective believability of specific claims, it doesn't matter whether the claims were made up by long-term cultural consensus or by a guy bragging to a room full of sci-fi writers.

Myths provide the believer context and a way to understand his existence, and a story in which to place himself. If Scientology didn't provide this to its adherents, there wouldn't be any.

As you suggest, religious claims can be understood in this kind of mythological context, but not by the believer. He actually believes the claims are true, and that the specifics matter. For you and me and our modern neighbors considering whether to believe various religious claims, those of Scientology, Mormonism, and ancient cultural-consensus religions are for the most part equally ridiculous.

Good exercise, this. Thanks.

Most Christians, at least most educated Christians before the current rise of extreme fundamentalism, don't believe that their religion's claims are literally true. In fact, that's what fundamentalists ARE: people who believe the claims are literally true, as distinguished from the many others who don't. Most Christians are not fundamentalists. I think you have a very simplistic understanding of how religion works in most people's lives.

Note: I am not religious myself. In fact I am the opposite of what is a popular position to take: "I have spiritual feelings and beliefs, but I don't like ORGANIZED religion". I haven't a spiritual bone in my body, but I actually quite like organized religion of the traditional variety. The community gathering, the singing, the architecture, the ritual behavior, the taking a time to talk seriously about ethics. It's the God botherers I don't have any time for.

narf...you didn't get my post did you. stop being so serious...

And myths are being created everyday. Some will last a thousand years. Some will die tomorrow. I do hope the "Scientology was started on a bet" one lasts a good long time, because it is much more believable than anything in Scientology.

@8 (and others) - actually, more Americans believe in the Devil or Satan than believe in Christ.

Interesting statistic.

Tarminian, go look up "mythology" and do some reading. An urban legend is not a myth. Myths are not being created today; they can't be. Scientology is not mythic; it's just bullshit.

Religion has its place, but fundamentalist religion does not. To fundamentlist chistians the story of, say, Jesus feeding a bunch of people with only one fish, is a true story of Jesus magical powers, but to moderate (non-crazy) christians it is a metphorical story with a lesson about sharing the earth's bounty. While it is critical to the fundies that it really happened, To a moderate Christian, the message is what's important and it is understood that the story is metaphor. Ex: No one believes George Washington really chopped down a cherry tree, it is a metaphorical tale to support a philosophy that believes in honesty. Religion serves a purpose as philosophy, but when it tries to serve as science and history it is total nonsense. The rise of fundamentlaism is the death of religion. that may not be a bad thing, but it could be a bloody journey.

The beliefs of Scientology are, in terms of truth value and objective reality, no more ridiculous than many of the beliefs of Christianity. This is true, but it misses the point (as Fnarf, Dan, and others show above).

All belief is irrational. Belief in Scientology, however, is retarded.

Except that the George Washington tale, like Scientology, takes place in historical time and is thus bullshit. It's harmful to understanding George Washington. Historians do not make reference to it.

@28

You're really off the mark. Of course myths are being created today. Just like antiques, though, they aren't recognized as such until some time passes. The position that you've staked out for yourself here is patently absurd.

careful, FNARF is a myth

the topper to this post, the topper, is DAN had his kid baptized, a la Biggest Myth of All, eaters of the flesh of Jesus - Catholicism

read Dan's post # 17 and go figure

for the stylebook at Slog - fucking, fucking, bullshit, bullyshit, fuck-fuck and shit-shit, and my add on scrotum, scroaty, scrotal suckers.....

as i recall, dan only had his kid baptized to placate his catholic mother. he figured it couldn't hurt anyone (even tho it's superstitious nonsense), and it would make her happy, so why not. context is everything. and i'm sorry, rorry, but did you forget to take your meds today?

Hi Jim. You letter i received. Thanks! Photos is GREAT!!!!

Hi Jim. You letter i received. Thanks! Photos is GREAT!!!!

Hi Jim. You letter i received. Thanks! Photos is GREAT!!!!