Scientology

[Susma Rio Sep]

Once there was this Evangelical pastor who was somewhat of a down to earth realistic chap. I happened to be one Sunday in his congregation, and after the loud fervent singing, this is what he said to the faithful:

"That was some very devout hearty singing; now let's see if you people are as good in giving as you are in singing!"

I was sure he looked at me with a wink in his eyes.

About the CoS being acronymed as the Co$, would you guys here agree with me that all successful religions make good money?

They make so good money, that just like us ordinary folks they get in trouble from having too much money, when not getting in troble with sex; or they get in trouble both from sex and money -- just like us ordinary people without the status of religion.

Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Once there was this Evangelical pastor who was somewhat of a down to earth realistic chap. I happened to be one Sunday in his congregation, and after the loud fervent singing, this is what he said to the faithful:

"That was some very devout hearty singing; now let's see if you people are as good in giving as you are in singing!"

I was sure he looked at me with a wink in his eyes.

About the CoS being acronymed as the Co$, would you guys here agree with me that all successful religions make good money?

They make so good money, that just like us ordinary folks they get in trouble from having too much money, when not getting in troble with sex; or they get in trouble both from sex and money -- just like us ordinary people without the status of religion.

Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

Sus, I don't know about others, but the fastest way to get me to walk out of a church, is for the pastor to demand money. The catholic church used to pass a basket around twice during services, once for the obligatory maintenance of the church and priests, and a second time for some obscure cause or another (the obscure cause always seemed more appropriate for giving money than to the church who's priest rode around in the latest Caddilac).

People (parishners) are naturally givers, but they are not stupid. They usually can discern between a ligitimate cause and bovine excrement. That may have alot to do with the declining numbers of church goers during the late 80s and 90s.

And when the church 'demands' a certain percentage of your pay check each week...well, I got two halves of a full moon I'll show. And I'll deliberately back against the church doors before I leave for the last time.

Now I've had the absolute pleasure of meeting a righteous priest with common sence. He would never push the money issue (make it a sermon all its own). He would simply state that the school's basket ball team needed upgrades for the equipment, or the convent needed repairs to the roof, or there was a plumbing problem in the girls locker room...

He never said give more money, he just stated the facts, and then got on with his sermon for the week. The church didn't always get boat loads of cash; sometimes they got 5 or six volunteers who repaired the problems and ate the cost (not really, since it is a tax write off). The point is that the local church and school were taken care of by the local people, without passing dollars over to the preacher. Besides, he got to drive a nice Ford every four or five years.

When a preacher implies that I should show him the money, I show him my backside instead. But when the preacher says that there are problems that he can't take care of, then I am more inclined to help (I have resourses and contacts that he doesn't). It's more efficient, and the kids do not suffer.

A preacher's income should not be lower than the poorest parishner, nor exceed the richest. It should be dab smack in the middle of the local income bracket for the area. House and car should be modest as well (unless he/she is a genius at investing...then more power to him/her). Of course on the sabbath, the preacher better give us our "money's" worth.

v/r

Q

[Susma Rio Sep]

A preacher's income should not be lower than the poorest parishner, nor exceed the richest. It should be dab smack in the middle of the local income bracket for the area. House and car should be modest as well (unless he/she is a genius at investing...then more power to him/her). Of course on the sabbath, the preacher better give us our "money's" worth. -- Quahom1

I am completely with you there, Quahom1.

But you know, there are such religions that are into what is known as the prosperity gospel, the more you make of money the more you are closer to religious perfection.

Now, Banabrain will be reacting with his data base of Judaism, from what I am going to say, namely, that Old Testament Jews -- I observe maybe wrongly, do have that kind of a religion: the more money you make or of earthly worth the more you are favored by Jahweh.

In effect Christ says someting similarly, rewards in the Kingdom and also on earth -- what is that text about that assurance? (I am sure it's somewhere in the gospels).

If you ask me, I think religion is all about being detached from material worth, but in practice it is all about material acquisition, if you look at if from the visible eyepiece. As I said, do you know of any successful religion that is not also financially loaded?

Who know about the financial compensation and lifestyle of fulltime Red Cross workers or the Medicins sans Frontiers people. United Nations workers sad to say are no different from senators and congressmen and cabinet secretaries we know about: they either are already wealthy or get more wealthy from public service or get wealthy thereby.

Pachomius2000

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

About the CoS being acronymed as the Co$, would you guys here agree with me that all successful religions make good money?

They make so good money, that just like us ordinary folks they get in trouble from having too much money, when not getting in troble with sex; or they get in trouble both from sex and money -- just like us ordinary people without the status of religion.

Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

Well, and again, this is my opnion (not to reflect Comparative Religion forum or website) the COS is all about money. Money to get in, money to get lessons, money to advance lessons, money to get OUT in many cases, etc. All churches take donations, only COS asks for an admission fee. You'd think if all souls were corrupted with alien spirits Hubbard would've offered his services free of charge, and made an effort to prove such contentions publically. But then you venture into the 'CIA, FBI, KGB role in the intergalatic conspiracy to silence the COS, and libel the brave war-hero, scientist, nuclear-physicist and (purely coincidentally) sci-fi author, L Ron Hubbard (PBUH) therefore making it necessary for Hubard to go into hiding, ingest massive amounts of antipsychotic drugs, and collect millions upon millions of tax exempt dollars, a portion of which to be used to harrass dissidents and critics' thing.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

A preacher's income should not be lower than the poorest parishner, nor exceed the richest. It should be dab smack in the middle of the local income bracket for the area. House and car should be modest as well (unless he/she is a genius at investing...then more power to him/her). Of course on the sabbath, the preacher better give us our "money's" worth. -- Quahom1

I am completely with you there, Quahom1.

But you know, there are such religions that are into what is known as the prosperity gospel, the more you make of money the more you are closer to religious perfection.

Now, Banabrain will be reacting with his data base of Judaism, from what I am going to say, namely, that Old Testament Jews -- I observe maybe wrongly, do have that kind of a religion: the more money you make or of earthly worth the more you are favored by Jahweh.

In effect Christ says someting similarly, rewards in the Kingdom and also on earth -- what is that text about that assurance? (I am sure it's somewhere in the gospels).

If you ask me, I think religion is all about being detached from material worth, but in practice it is all about material acquisition, if you look at if from the visible eyepiece. As I said, do you know of any successful religion that is not also financially loaded?

Who know about the financial compensation and lifestyle of fulltime Red Cross workers or the Medicins sans Frontiers people. United Nations workers sad to say are no different from senators and congressmen and cabinet secretaries we know about: they either are already wealthy or get more wealthy from public service or get wealthy thereby.

Pachomius2000

Evening Sus and Mus Z,

I really don't know about the inner workings of the COS except to observe similarities to the group known as Rosicrusions. (This is not a negative reference). As for your comment Sus, on rewards on the kingdom and also on earth, there is a phrase that states in part..."as it is in Heaven so it shall be on earth..." It goes on to say that what is forgiven (or loosed) on earth is forgiven (loosed) in Heaven, and what is bound on earth will be bound in Heaven.

Christian scripture, tells the story of the rich man who asked Jesus how he could become a disciple. Jesus told him to sell all his worth and come follow him. The rich man turned and walked away dejected. Then Jesus specifically stated to the crowd later, that it is far harder for a rich man to enter Heaven than it is for a poor man. (like trying to pass through the eye of a needle). Now the needle is the name of a door to the city walls, that loaded camels had difficulty passing through, unless the camel was relieved of all the goods it carried, wherein a man with nothing just breezed through. Scripture also exalted the poor woman who came up after all the town's richest folks gave to the churches and patted themselves on the back for their generocity, she gave two pennies (all she had in life). Jesus said she gave far more than the rich because she gave all she had...and her treasures in Heaven would be far more than the others.

The amount of charity we give is not important, but what our thoughts and intentions behind the giving are.

Now as for your comments about building riches on earth, yes there is scripture on that as well. Remember the three servants who's master left for a time and made them stewards of three talents, two talents and one talent respectively? The allusion is that the Master gave them his property for them to keep safe while he was away. The first two however, invested the talents and doubled the amount they had, thus pleasing the Master, but the third buried his keep and this angered his boss, because he wasted opportunity to enrich the Master.

I don't want to lecture two intelligent people here, I just wish to point out that what may be practiced today by some people is not what was taught in scripture. Thats why "religion" (man's invention) should be taken with a grain of salt.

I also bet B-Brain will point out that the Jews had three or four sects which did not believe the same way (collecting riches on earth).

v/r

Q

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day...teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

[Susma Rio Sep]

First, a humor aside:

In my First Communion class, the sister was talking about being like little children if you want to get to heaven.

So I told her that I could see why it is so, because considering that most adults are over-weight, and she said the gate to heaven is narrow, it makes sense that only little children stand a chance of getting in.


About the CoS really going after money every step of the way, I think in the course of time it will refine its methodology so that it will get the money also, but without being obstreperous about it.

No, I am not any kind of paid or unpaid apologist or polemicist for the CoS. I tend to see religion as a supply to a demand. If there is a demand there will be a supplier.

The more serious study is whether members of CoS are getting their demand satisfied for all the money they are shelling out to the management of the CoS.

And who get to enjoy all that money, considering that the founder is dead -- and during his lifetime.

Also very interesting, what are the members of good standing and steadfast faith getting in return for the money they are putting into the CoS?

I think the Christian Church was also very strong about turning in everything into the community, at the very start of its founding.

You remember Peter bringing about the immediate death of Ananias and Saphira for keeping something and dishonestly at that from the community...

Again: Paging Scientologists here, please speak up.

Pachomius2000

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

First, a humor aside:

In my First Communion class, the sister was talking about being like little children if you want to get to heaven.

So I told her that I could see why it is so, because considering that most adults are over-weight, and she said the gate to heaven is narrow, it makes sense that only little children stand a chance of getting in.


About the CoS really going after money every step of the way, I think in the course of time it will refine its methodology so that it will get the money also, but without being obstreperous about it.

No, I am not any kind of paid or unpaid apologist or polemicist for the CoS. I tend to see religion as a supply to a demand. If there is a demand there will be a supplier.

The more serious study is whether members of CoS are getting their demand satisfied for all the money they are shelling out to the management of the CoS.

And who get to enjoy all that money, considering that the founder is dead -- and during his lifetime.

Also very interesting, what are the members of good standing and steadfast faith getting in return for the money they are putting into the CoS?

I think the Christian Church was also very strong about turning in everything into the community, at the very start of its founding.

You remember Peter bringing about the immediate death of Ananias and Saphira for keeping something and dishonestly at that from the community...

Again: Paging Scientologists here, please speak up.

Pachomius2000

No Sus, I did not realize Peter ordered the death of anyone. I thought Paul/Saul did that, but then the disciples realized that death was not something they could order of people. I'll have to intensify my research into Christian history. I must find where Peter ordered the death of anyone (after being a Christian). If I am not mistaken Sus, the couple fell down dead without being touched by any human??? Surely Peter did not order the death, but merely 'prophesised' at their death. We are quite capable of killing ourselves with remorse, grief, and guilt Sus (consider my grand mother's choice to die rather than live without her man...eight months. She told us when she was checking out, and actually did so within 24 hours of her declaration).

v/r

Q

p.s. I like the first communion story...how true it is.

[Mus Zibii]

Well, I don't know of a religion that doesn't have a degree of lunacy, and methodology that makes me scowl from the bad taste. But I haven't been around for the foundation of those faiths. Maybe I'd think the start of Christianity was fraudulent if I'd been there to be called a goyim by Saint Peter or burnt at the stake by the Inquistion.

I think I might've had a point at one point. Anyway, like Sus kinda said, there aren't enough people here familiar with Scientology to defend it and I don't come here to criticize (though I made a brief exception for COS). Moreover, all I could say in criticism I got from available resources.

But now I gotta go float m'needle to get rid of these Body Raisins.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Well, we are reduced to three here; no Scientologists participating, either not in this forum or not interested in speaking out to explain their faith.


I am myself a postgraduate Catholic, brought up from cradle to until I decided to declare some kind of autonomy as regards doctrines and morals, but still maybe what I might consider myself to be socially and culturally as yet Catholic.

In regard to religion generally, if it does not cause any disturbance to law and order and no alarm in the community, which of course the civil authorities are the ones to decide, any religion is all right with me.

But I am talking in terms of a secular society that still subscribes to freedom of religion as it would understand what is religion for it to grant or tolerate freedom for.


I used to read the Bible a lot; I must have read it maybe twice the whole from the first line to the last, the Catholic version, which is of course larger than the standard Protestant one.

Why do Catholics have a larger Bible than Protestants? According to Sus, it is because there are much more Catholics than all the Protestants together. Hehehehe.

Religion for me is a source of my own continuous and even irreverent
humor insights. Quahom1, what is your attitude in this regard? Some devoutly religious people find my attitude annoying, if not offensive.

But if God is God and Jesus is a bright guy, they should be rocking with laughter like me, if not severely depressed.

About the promise in the Gospel of earthly goods aside from heaven in the next life, I have located the exact lines apropos, here:

Luk 18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,

Luk 18:30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

The above text can be profitably employed by any itinerant preacher to start his own prosperity gospel church, all in the spirit of the good husbandman who brings out from the cupboard good things old and new.


About Peter, you are right, Quahom1, I can't ascribe the death of Ananias and Saphira to Peter, not if I am a member of a jury properly instructed by the judge and acting strictly according to instructions from the judge.

Yet, I can imagine after that incident the Community gained a lot of members from the dispossessed of the earth, but frightened away a good number of the privileged wealthy classes -- to the financial straits of the community.

I still have this impression about the man Peter: a headstrong pretentious fellow, and ambitious, but with little intellectual finesse, unlike Paul, and quick to flee at the first sign of trouble.

Wasn't he the guy who wanted to build three temples, one for Jesus and the other two each for Moses or Elias. What bravado!

And then also didn't he want to bring down fire from heaven to burn the town folks who did not receive Jesus.

What about his clumsy skill with the sword, swinging it awkwardly as to slit off the ear of some high priest's servant?

Is it any wonder, Jesus calls him Satan and to get behind Him.

Please, I am just talking from a wicked sense of wit and humor; don't take me too seriously.

I am through with this thread, seeing that no Scientologists are joining in.

Pachomius2000

[Quahom1]

Hello Sus,

Even though you stated finality in dealing with this thread I don't believe your questions to be rhetorical, therefore I'll do my best to answer in the same light heart as you presented them. ;-)

Why do Catholics have a larger Bible than Protestants? According to Sus, it is because there are much more Catholics than all the Protestants together. Hehehehe.

Or it could be that the Vatican has a love for the overly verbose...

Religion for me is a source of my own continuous and even irreverent
humor insights. Quahom1, what is your attitude in this regard? Some devoutly religious people find my attitude annoying, if not offensive.

From my own life I've noticed that God has a grand sense of humor, sometimes dry, but never condescending toward the recipient.

I still have this impression about the man Peter: a headstrong pretentious fellow, and ambitious, but with little intellectual finesse, unlike Paul, and quick to flee at the first sign of trouble.

Try walking the docks of today's fishing and shrimping villages, you might find Peter in good company. But Peter ran once, and never again. In fact in his "bravado" he demanded to be crucified on and x type cross with his body inverted, because he did not feel worthy to die like Jesus did.

Wasn't he the guy who wanted to build three temples, one for Jesus and the other two each for Moses or Elias. What bravado!

Peter did not fully understand the purpose of Jesus' work here, nor the person Jesus (his 'suggestion' was very early in his relationship with Jesus).

And then also didn't he want to bring down fire from heaven to burn the town folks who did not receive Jesus.

I've heard similar arguments from some of the good folk living in the Bronx, but it is usually an expression of anger and not intended to be carried out literally.

What about his clumsy skill with the sword, swinging it awkwardly as to slit off the ear of some high priest's servant?

Had he cleaved the man's skull in two, Jesus' persona as a peaceful, beneign saviour most likely would have suffered. Who's to say Jesus didn't wiggle his nose to change the arc of Peter's sword, just so he could 'repair' the damaged ear, as opposed to a split skull (which of course Jesus did repair, right then and there).

Is it any wonder, Jesus calls him Satan and to get behind Him.

It wasn't Peter that Jesus called Satan, it was Lucifer influencing Peter that Jesus was addressing directly, sort of like calling the demons (named 'Legion') to come out of the afflicted man, and enter the herd of pigs, which consequently hurled themselves off the cliff. Jesus was looking through Peter and spotted Satan's influence.

As for humor in the church, and church ways, you might appreciate the following anecdote:

SIPPING VODKA

A new priest at his first mass was so nervous he could hardly speak.



After mass he asked the monsignor how he had done.



The monsignor replied, " When I am worried about getting nervous On the pulpit, I put a glass of vodka next to the water glass. If I start to get nervous, I take a sip."

So next Sunday he took the monsignor's advice.

At the beginning of the sermon, he got nervous and took a drink.

He proceeded to talk up a storm.

Upon his return to his office after the mass, he found the following note on the door:

1)Sip the vodka, don't gulp.

2)There are 10 commandments, not 12.

3)There are 12 disciples, not 10.

4)Jesus was consecrated, not constipated.

5)Jacob wagered his donkey, he did not bet his ass.

6)We do not refer to Jesus Christ as the late J.C.

7)The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not referred to as Daddy, Junior and the spook.

8)David slew Goliath, he did not kick the sh*t out of him.

9)When David was hit by a rock and was knocked off his donkey, don't say he was stoned off his ass.

10)We do not refer to the cross as the "Big T."

11)When Jesus broke the bread at the last supper he said, "take this and eat it for it is my body." He did not say " Eat me" .

12)The Virgin Mary is not called " Mary with the Cherry,.

13)The recommended grace before a meal is not: Rub-A-Dub-Dub thanks for the grub, Yeah God.

14)Next Sunday there will be a taffy pulling contest at ST. Peter's not a peter pulling contest at St. Taffy's.

Good day all.

v/r

Q

"Laugh at self, and others will laugh WITH you...

[Mus Zibii]

7)The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not referred to as Daddy, Junior and the spook.

AHAHAHA! That's going to end up in my vocabulary, I know it. Why is spook lower case, blasphemer! LOL

[joseftu]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

But you know, there are such religions that are into what is known as the prosperity gospel, the more you make of money the more you are closer to religious perfection.

Now, Banabrain will be reacting with his data base of Judaism, from what I am going to say, namely, that Old Testament Jews -- I observe maybe wrongly, do have that kind of a religion: the more money you make or of earthly worth the more you are favored by Jahweh.

I'm not Bananabrain, and my knowledge (from what I've seen of his posts in my brief time here) is far more limited. But from what I do know of Judaism your observation is completely wrong. Judaism has absolutely no "prosperity gospel" of any kind.

As for Scientology, it's probable that the story about its founding (a bet by L. Ron that he could make more money by starting a religion than he was making as a mediocre SF writer) is apocryphal, or at least that we'll never know, but the story certainly illustrates neatly how and why the "church" seems to operate.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste joseftu,

thank you for the post.

whilst it may be apocryphal, here's the source article for that particular aspect:

http://www.skeptictank.org/readdig.htm

[I, Brian]

Thanks for that, Quahom1.

[joseftu]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste joseftu,

thank you for the post.

whilst it may be apocryphal, here's the source article for that particular aspect:

http://www.skeptictank.org/readdig.htm

Yes, that's the story, Vajradhara. Thanks for the link. I've heard the story repeated from many different sources, with enough variations (it was in a letter to John W. Campbell, at a party with Isaac Asimov, in a bar with Robert Heinlein), none of which have reliable confirmation, to make me fairly sure that it's SF lore. It's just too perfect a story.

But there's a reason, of course, why it's repeated--because even if he never did actually say it, he might as well have!