| Author |
Message
|
| SolomonGrundy |
 Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: New scinetist religion for you |
 |
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 244
Location: USA
|
http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/25044840.html?mode=reply
What is this religion all about?
_________________
Solomon Grundy
In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
It is the creation of the eptiome of self promotion, the pinnacle of cynicism, and the last Renaissance Man, L.Ron Hubbard.
I have vast admiration for someone who publicly declares he will con people, then publicly goes ahead and does it. I have a mix of pity and contempt for those who are taken in by it.(One might wish to contemplate an exercise in comparitive religion and see what one comes up with.)
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 1970
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
It is the creation of the eptiome of self promotion, the pinnacle of cynicism, and the last Renaissance Man, L.Ron Hubbard.
I have vast admiration for someone who publicly declares he will con people, then publicly goes ahead and does it. I have a mix of pity and contempt for those who are taken in by it.(One might wish to contemplate an exercise in comparitive religion and see what one comes up with.) |
Most of the intentional creators of successful religion eventually buy into their own spiel. I am thinking of Mohammed and Joseph Smith in particular. So what I am wondering is whether Hubbard was caught in his own web or whether he is now sitting back and laughing?
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:56 am Post subject: Re: New scinetist religion for you |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1167
|
| SolomonGrundy wrote: |
What is this religion all about? |
Well, basically that believe that a long time ago an alien tyrant took a bunch of people to earth in space ships, where he dropped them into volcanoes and launched nuclear bombs at them. Now the ghosts of all these dead beings are stuck here on earth, and they attach themselves to people and create problems. The religion is all about getting rid of the nasty ghosts that are stuck in your body, which is supposed to make your life better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1209
Location: Norway
|
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| Ophiolite wrote: |
It is the creation of the eptiome of self promotion, the pinnacle of cynicism, and the last Renaissance Man, L.Ron Hubbard.
I have vast admiration for someone who publicly declares he will con people, then publicly goes ahead and does it. I have a mix of pity and contempt for those who are taken in by it.(One might wish to contemplate an exercise in comparitive religion and see what one comes up with.) |
Most of the intentional creators of successful religion eventually buy into their own spiel. I am thinking of Mohammed and Joseph Smith in particular. So what I am wondering is whether Hubbard was caught in his own web or whether he is now sitting back and laughing? |
If I'm not mistaken, he did! He developed psychological problems as well.
_________________
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SolomonGrundy |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 244
Location: USA
|
Thanks for the update .
_________________
Solomon Grundy
In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
| You really haven't heard of scientology? Do you live under a rock? How do you fit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Doctor
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 3317
Location: England, UK.
|
I never heard of it until I joined this forum.
_________________
"Victory is in trying. Defeat is in not". - SVRDW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 1970
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
Most of the intentional creators of successful religion eventually buy into their own spiel. I am thinking of Mohammed and Joseph Smith in particular. So what I am wondering is whether Hubbard was caught in his own web or whether he is now sitting back and laughing? |
By way of contrast, as opposed to the intentional creator of a religion:
There are other types of religion founders:
The reformer: example - Jesus
These seem to be trying to reform a pre-existing religion. Sometimes Mohammed is thought of a reformer but I find it hard to classify a change from polytheism to monotheism as a reform movement.
The sucessful evangelist: example - Apostle Paul
By successfully spreading a pre-existing religion the evangelist can have such a big impact on the accepted teachings of the religion that they might seem more like a founder than a simply an evangelist. In the case of the Apostle Paul, for example, his writings are considered scripture.
The philosopher or writer: examples Lao Tsu and Confucius
These simply write a book or books that have such a great impact on its readers that it becomes a religion or like a religion. What is particularly characteristic of these is that they do not themselves live what others of the time would call a religious life but have completely secular positions.
The enlightened seeker: example - Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha)
This is a person, who after a long hard personal quest for the truth, has some revelatory event. The new religion that is created, however, does not seem intentional but is a product of this person sharing what he has discovered. Buddha has also been seen as a reformer at times but the denunciation of all the previous religious forms (and gods) makes this difficult to defend.
for completion:
The religion engineer: examples - Joseph Smith and Mohammed
These may have some characteristics of a reformer in that they see something wrong with the existing religious forms, but they condemn these existing forms from the beginning and seems to be trying to create something entirely different. They characteristically start out with a seperatist agenda, seek changes in social relationships and the create new holy texts.
It should be apparent that successful religions are not necessarily created by only one of these types of founders or even by only one person but is often the creation of several persons in different roles - like the Jesus and apostle Paul combination.
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| coltbishop |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: New scinetist religion for you |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 33
|
| Scifor Refugee wrote: |
| SolomonGrundy wrote: |
What is this religion all about? |
Well, basically that believe that a long time ago an alien tyrant took a bunch of people to earth in space ships, where he dropped them into volcanoes and launched nuclear bombs at them. Now the ghosts of all these dead beings are stuck here on earth, and they attach themselves to people and create problems. The religion is all about getting rid of the nasty ghosts that are stuck in your body, which is supposed to make your life better. |
Well put...this is scientology in a nutshell without going into the spy tactics and blackmail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1167
|
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
The reformer: example - Jesus
These seem to be trying to reform a pre-existing religion. Sometimes Mohammed is thought of a reformer but I find it hard to classify a change from polytheism to monotheism as a reform movement.
...
The religion engineer: examples - Joseph Smith and Mohammed
These may have some characteristics of a reformer in that they see something wrong with the existing religious forms, but they condemn these existing forms from the beginning and seems to be trying to create something entirely different. They characteristically start out with a seperatist agenda, seek changes in social relationships and the create new holy texts.
|
Hmm...while I agree with most of your post, I'm not sure about this one. The changes that Joseph Smith made to Christianity don't seem much greater than the changes that Jesus made to Judaism. He was also apparently into telling people to give up their possessions etc. so that they could come follow him. Martin Luther might have been a better "reformer" example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition wrote: |
| I never heard of it until I joined this forum. |
Scientology has been a hot topic of debate for years in the states, Mr. Grundy's purported locale. He really would have to be very disconnected from American culture not to have heard of them until very recently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 1970
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
| Scifor Refugee wrote: |
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
The reformer: example - Jesus
These seem to be trying to reform a pre-existing religion. Sometimes Mohammed is thought of a reformer but I find it hard to classify a change from polytheism to monotheism as a reform movement.
...
The religion engineer: examples - Joseph Smith and Mohammed
These may have some characteristics of a reformer in that they see something wrong with the existing religious forms, but they condemn these existing forms from the beginning and seems to be trying to create something entirely different. They characteristically start out with a seperatist agenda, seek changes in social relationships and the create new holy texts.
|
Hmm...while I agree with most of your post, I'm not sure about this one. The changes that Joseph Smith made to Christianity don't seem much greater than the changes that Jesus made to Judaism. He was also apparently into telling people to give up their possessions etc. so that they could come follow him. Martin Luther might have been a better "reformer" example. |
Well the there is of course nothing absolute about the categories I described BUT... these categories are about the nature of the particular founder and their apparent intentions as explained by them and if you talk to a jewish rabbi most will tell you that what Jesus actually taught was pretty traditional. The radical break from Judaism mostly came afterwards in response to Jesus' death.
As for Joseph Smith, it is true that what resulted may not seem all that different, especially to a non-Christian, BUT again I think the significant distinction here is the direct introduction of new scripture, the complete condemnation of the existing religion (as apostate) and the introduction of completely new social practices (polygamy).
Jesus certainly condemned the hypocrisy of certain religious leaders but not the actual forms of the jewish religion and this is typical of a reformer. It is only later in the Apostle Paul that we see an abandonment of most of the formal elements of Judaism. The leaving behind of wealth and following a new religious teacher is an almost universal feature of the beginnings of ALL new religons, but this is always a stage in the development of a religion because somehow it has to incorporate itself into a functioning human society. So the point is that this leaving behind and following is NOT the introduction of a new social practice. As for scripture, Jesus upheld and quoted existing scripture and did not claim to discover some new writing given by God as JS did, that His words later became scripture is quite another matter. Even the Apostle Paul as the actual writer of much of what became scripture in the New Testament did not himself suggest that his writings were scripture.
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1167
|
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
Well the there is of course nothing absolute about the categories I described BUT... these categories are about the nature of the particular founder and their apparent intentions as explained by them and if you talk to a jewish rabbi most will tell you that what Jesus actually taught was pretty traditional. The radical break from Judaism mostly came afterwards in response to Jesus' death.
As for Joseph Smith, it is true that what resulted may not seem all that different, especially to a non-Christian, BUT again I think the significant distinction here is the direct introduction of new scripture, the complete condemnation of the existing religion (as apostate) and the introduction of completely new social practices (polygamy).
Jesus certainly condemned the hypocrisy of certain religious leaders but not the actual forms of the jewish religion and this is typical of a reformer. It is only later in the Apostle Paul that we see an abandonment of most of the formal elements of Judaism. The leaving behind of wealth and following a new religious teacher is an almost universal feature of the beginnings of ALL new religons, but this is always a stage in the development of a religion because somehow it has to incorporate itself into a functioning human society. So the point is that this leaving behind and following is NOT the introduction of a new social practice. As for scripture, Jesus upheld and quoted existing scripture and did not claim to discover some new writing given by God as JS did, that His words later became scripture is quite another matter. Even the Apostle Paul as the actual writer of much of what became scripture in the New Testament did not himself suggest that his writings were scripture. |
While I am not by any stretch an expert on Judaism, just looking at the OT and NT there appear to be plenty of places where Jesus explicitly nullifies and replaces Jewish laws. Discussing things like religious laws about divorce, Jesus appears to introduce new rules that diametrically oppose the old rules. His statements along the lines of "You've heard it said X, but now I say to you Y" seem to indicate that he really was changing the rules, rather than simply reiterating existing laws.
Heck, just going from "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek" seems like a change in social practices that's at least on par with poligamy, even if so far as I know nobody has actually implamented it in a society.
Joseph Smith claimed to have talked with an angle and to have found some long-lost religious texts. Jesus claimed that he actually was god incarnate, that he was the key to anyone getting into heaven, and went on to explicitly make statements about religion and how people should live. While he might not have actually written down new scripture himself, claiming that you are god and then making statements about religion seems equivalent to creating new scripture.
Also, so far as I know Joseph Smith never claimed that anything in the Bible was wrong - he merely claimed to have additional important information. Jesus, on the other hand, appeared to actively change the existing religious law. I keep using words like "appeared to" and "so far as I know" because I don't really know the state of Jewish religious laws around the year 0 - this is just the impression that I get from the bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 1970
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
| Scifor Refugee wrote: |
While I am not by any stretch an expert on Judaism, just looking at the OT and NT there appear to be plenty of places where Jesus explicitly nullifies and replaces Jewish laws. Discussing things like religious laws about divorce, Jesus appears to introduce new rules that diametrically oppose the old rules. His statements along the lines of "You've heard it said X, but now I say to you Y" seem to indicate that he really was changing the rules, rather than simply reiterating existing laws.
|
His way of speaking on His own authority is certainly something that many people claim was unique about Jesus and that separated Him from the traditions of the rabbis - more in line with the Zaddik of Hassidic Judaism.
| Scifor Refugee wrote: |
Heck, just going from "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek" seems like a change in social practices that's at least on par with poligamy, even if so far as I know nobody has actually implamented it in a society.
|
That is the problem with popular Christian characterizations. They like to think that this is unique to Chrisitianity but Jewish rabbis dispute this.
| Scifor Refugee wrote: |
Joseph Smith claimed to have talked with an angle and to have found some long-lost religious texts. Jesus claimed that he actually was god incarnate, that he was the key to anyone getting into heaven, and went on to explicitly make statements about religion and how people should live. While he might not have actually written down new scripture himself, claiming that you are god and then making statements about religion seems equivalent to creating new scripture.
|
Well yes if you believe that Jesus made this claim then that certainly puts Him completely out of the category of a religious reformer. I mean as a Christian I believe that Jesus is God and thus I am all for putting Jesus in a completely different category. On the other hand I quite clearly see the subjective nature of this evaluation and I was trying to take a more academic historical view of Jesus (a product of my seminary education most likely). Perhaps complications like this does make Jesus a problematic example, but then I suspect that you are going to run into the same problem with all of these founders of religion when dealing with actual devout members of these religions. I must wonder if you yourself have a Christian background because of your objections.
| Scifor Refugee wrote: |
Also, so far as I know Joseph Smith never claimed that anything in the Bible was wrong - he merely claimed to have additional important information.
|
Well that is not my impression. The whole point of JS coming up with his own gospel and scriptures was to overcome what he felt was the corruptive influence of an apostate church. This way he could re-write the gospel as might be more convenient to his understanding of the truth without all the ambiguities and contradictions.
| Scifor Refugee wrote: |
Jesus, on the other hand, appeared to actively change the existing religious law. I keep using words like "appeared to" and "so far as I know" because I don't really know the state of Jewish religious laws around the year 0 - this is just the impression that I get from the bible.
|
Certainly Christians have liked for people to think that this is the case, but my impressions from my Old Testament teacher at seminary, who was a Jewish rabbi, was that this was not really true, and that Jesus' teaching was very much in line with the Pharisaical tradition, with only a few exception, such as not thinking that as a teacher he needed to keep himself pure and uncontaminated by associations with sinners.
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
