Scientologists Shut Down ISP → Church members

said by mags2:

---

You know you opened yourself wide open for a flame by implying that anyone who disagrees with you and your bud is illogical so please, no whining. On second thought, nevermind; Don't bother replying.

---

Hmmm and what exactly did *you* do when you stated (in even less words) that anyone with religious beliefs are "weak willed" and obviously don't have a thinking mind? Pot calling the Kettle black a bit, eh? I mean you don't have to hold any religious beliefs at all to realize that being a hypocrite is an expression of character.... or lack thereof.

Nobody is perfect, but try not to shove your foot in your mouth if you can.

said by nc1165:

---

Religion is to spirituality what politics is to government.

---

Now THAT is something you'll find no argument from me about. It's what I believe, and a great quote. Mind if I steal it?

---

try not to shove your foot in your mouth if you can.

---

Thanks for chiming in, chum. I will if you will.

Ok, I am now finding myself more understanding of Mags statements as well. There is a great difference between an organized Religion and Spiritual Truth.

People who are exposed to too much organized religion actually usually are driven *away* because they get to experience firsthand the failings of man... the Saying one thing, Doing another, the false pretenses, the hypocrisy(sp?) and so on.

Nice editing!

Read my message again.. apparently you have problems reading what other people say. Apparently you only read THE PARTS YOU WANT TO OBJECT TO.. but maybe you will read this, since it was my point (I will put it in bold, maybe that will help you understand my point too).

No religion or belief has ever killed anyone.. the person killed the other.. Religion is a set of words .. words don't kill people.

See it that time? If you are still confused. That is to the response of you saying, religion has killed more people than anything else.

I didn't open myself wide open. As you can see no one else flamed me, you on the other hand are getting flamed up and down.

oh ya, I can reply to what I please, don't tell me what to do, kthx
[text was edited by author 2002-03-22 21:13:20]

The first one is free. (There's more where that came from.)

remember, there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over...sorry, I stole that from Frank Zappa, but isn't that what this is all about anyway ??

Hey, wasn't that a singing group from the 60's???
(Neal Down and Ben Dover!);)

said by Hop:

---

Hey, wasn't that a singing group from the 60's???
(Neal Down and Ben Dover!);)

---

Good one, Hop.

You want to know what it's like to BE a scientologist? How do they rationalize their actions?

I bet you that in the past 80 years capitalists have killed more than communists.

FDR
Truman
Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ
Nixon
Reagan
GB sr.
Clinton
GB jr.

Those are just some of the big american ones. Each have thousands of deaths in their name. Some have hundreds of thousands or more. As Americans, we love conflict, but we need to justify it with some moral conviction. We have so much faith that we're right that these killings don't even factor into our discussions of political deaths. I'm sure, as they read down the list, most people were already rationalizing what each of those men did. That's what faith does.

This is how people can join organizations like the scientologists. When you get brainwashed, how will you know whether you're really thinking or just rationalizing your faith.

Then one can throw in the "divine right of kings" and all that could lead too....

But as to Hitler and the Nazis, lets see the Swatsticka, where I have seen that before (not in Nazi Germany), but it's symbolic meaning....the origins of much of the symbology used. If some were right the Io Hitler might have had religious significance, and that there were those in the Nazi party practitioners of "black magic"... I won't state it is or isn't so as such, but if one were to look for the history of some of the symbology and the like, they might find something of interest in seeing what preceded some of what was presented....

You know what I find interesting, and some might chose to take it with a grain of salt without a provided reference, which I don't have in front of me (lets just say I've read a lot over the years, and even decades).

Purportedly, Mahatma Gahndi was considering converting to Christianity...but in the end he basically said to the effect of "Christians seem to take an innoculation of truth as testimoney against the real thing...." But he went on to say that even as the defects of Christianity were becomming apparent to him, so the defects of Hinduism were becoming increasingly apparent to him as well.... Supposedly (where did I see this), some weren't happy that he should have dared to say this...and yet one can also wonder who might have been closer to the source, if you will, in all this as well...

I also heard a quote attributed to Ghandi (and I also am not sure how true it is) but it went like this...

"If the world met the Christ of Christianity today, they would embrace him, but instead they meet the Christians of Christianity, and are turned away."

While I understand what he is saying, I'm still not so sure about the first part.

Yes, I think "Stranger in a Strange Land" is closer to the truth, sadly.

The majority rules mentality leaves out one thing... Just because the majority rules, doesn't mean the majority is right... Case in point, the Earth used to be thought of as the center of the universe.... Minority was right on that one.... Your logic is SEVERELY flawed...

said by BrianDamage:

---

I would have to agree. 95% of the world's population believes in a higher power in some form or fashion.
One cannot dismiss that as weak will. To do so is pretty shallow.

---

That's for my prior post...

The Swatsticka is actually a pagon symbol for war. Hilter was never a Christian, in fact one of Hitler's main objectives was to remove all religous beliefs and instate old pagon ideas and beliefs..And before you chastise others religous beliefs ask yourself this, what would the world be like without religon?
[text was edited by author 2002-03-24 18:26:53]

And I'm guessing that you are following your leaders WITHOUT question and that anyone who dares to question the current leadership should be hanged ?

Heres whats funny!

Earthlink Internet was founded by the same crackpot religion

Actually it was founded by Sky Dayton who coincidently is a member of the church of Scientology. A very huge and distinct difference from what you claim. The religious organization itself had nothing to do with it.

My logic is not flawed.
I never said the majority was "right", nor am I defending any religion. But, religion has brought out some good in people while bringing out the worst in others.
Also, I stick to the ideaology that religion has killed more people than any other single motivation, which "motivation" being the key word....sure, people kill people, but why? There are reasons hy people kill people, and religion has been the biggest reason throughout the history of humanity.
Governments are based on religious beliefs. Boundaries and borders are often defined by religious significance. Even today, governments are at war with each other because of religious differences. Israel and the PLO....Britain and Northern Ireland.....etc.
Christians and Muslims are killing each other in the Phillipines and Malaysia, Protestants killing Catholics in the British Isles, Christians and Muslims are killing each other in Asia, in America, in the Middle East....the list goes on and on.
I could make more examples, and the reference to "paganism" as posted further back in the thread serves to demonstrate the intolerance between religions that lead to underscore the motivation that leads to the deaths of people because of religious differences.
A "pagan" in Christian terms most often describes one who doesn't believe in Christ or the Holy Trinity, or was applied to the Native American peoples who were already here when the "Christians" landed....just because the "gods" of the indigenous peoples were different from theirs, they were branded "pagans", and were either converted to Christianity (the "correct" religion), or were killed....the Crusades were about perpetuating Christianity
against Islam....many died for the "religious" cause...
Infidels versus pagans....Christians versus Muslims, Muslims versus Christians, Christian versus Christian, Muslim versus Muslim, Hindu versus Muslim and vice versa, Buddhist versus Christian.....etc., etc., etc....
Where does it end? I don't see it ending anytime soon, but I have read the holiest of books from many religions as well as studied their varying histories, and I see NO distinct, solid, subsidy of violence to perpetuate the existence of one religion over another.
I have read the Bible, the Torah, the Quaran....not as thoroughly as I wanted but I have read them, as well as studied the varying histories of the governments founded on their principles, as well as the history of the religions themselves, both in college, and on my own out of sheer curiosity.
There are going to be those who want to inflame the topic based on their personal beliefs, but then that is what freedom is all about, isn't it?
I believe that if religion is going to continue to exist, then the peoples of the varying religion(s) need to realize that as a people, we must respect each other, and find a common ground. Believe it or not, for example, Christianity and Islam have a lot more in COMMON than they have different.
I, for one, believe that the events described by both religions respective holy books could have happened exactly the way they describe, given timelines and similarities of text.
Not that I specifically endorse either religion, or belong to any religion, because I don't, but, I will not readily dismiss religion on the whole, because there could be some significance to it (them).
They have defined the intolerance of the human race to this day more than any other factor.
Religion is the motivation for bloodshed, racism, intolerance, and hatred, as well as love, the world over.
We are missing, however, a link to tie them together, and that continues to drive the motivation that tears them apart even further.
That's what I think.

Again, very well said, BrianDamage. Your statements represent just one of the reasons why the symbol for peace is an upside down broken cross.

[text was edited by author 2002-03-25 09:32:48]

Thanks, I think.....

said by BrianDamage:

---

I stick to the ideaology that religion has killed more people than any other single motivation, which "motivation" being the key word....sure, people kill people, but why? There are reasons hy people kill people, and religion has been the biggest reason throughout the history of humanity.

---

I have to only partially agree with you on that statement. I feel religion has been the single strongest EXCUSE to kill people rather than the actual motivation.

The Crusades weren't about freeing the holy land. It was about the current church leaders wanting more wealth and land. They told the knights it is the will of God to slay the infidels. Some knights thought, "Isn't killing a sin?" so the excuse given to them was, "They are Muslims and not Christians. So it is okay to kill them." Religion wasn't the motivation. Greed was. You can probably attribute most of the killing in the name of religion to something other than the actual religion. Whether it be border disputes or cultural differences.

Look at the Bin Laden and other terrorist organizations. Most of them say they are doing it for their religion. I think we all know that's not the case. It's hate. Pure and simple. Again, religion is the excuse to carry it out. I believe ideology has taken a back seat to more secular desires when violence is involved.

said by mags2:

---

Again, very well said, BrianDamage. Your statements represent just one of the reasons why the symbol for peace is an upside down broken cross.

[text was edited by author 2002-03-25 09:32:48]

---

Interesting that you picked that up. Not many people figure that out. I think there is more to the peace symbol and why it's what it is than what's posted here.

An upside down broken cross is just one interpretation of the symbol. The origins of the logo date back to 1958 during the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in Britain. It is based in part on naval semaphore signalling the letters ND.

Point taken.
Even so, religion is a baseline justification for these things we've talked about-whether is was an excuse to kill or whether it was in defense of religious "right" as one sect would perceive it.
Either way, religion is a motivation, and not to say that it might not be used in conjunction with other ideas to perpetuate an agenda.

Motivation or excuse? You can't have it both ways. People kill people for internal emotional reasons--period. They then may attempt to use as an excuse things such as religion, land, honor, etc. Trying to say religion kills people in that context is a dead horse. The excuse and the reason are two different unrelated things.

Do you think there is a lot of theological debate in Northern Ireland over what the Pope said versus Martin Luther? Do you think in the Bosnia area between the Croats, Serbs and the such there are Catholic, Christian Orthodox, and Islamic slogans shouted over the sound of the AK-47?

To me, it seems that religion is as much an "internal" motivator as anything else.
Sure, people have killed over land, etc., I could point out in the Middle East, for example, the Israelis and Palestinians are killing themselves and each other over what? Land rights, among other things, but what else primarily? Freedom to have their own "domain" where their religious values are not compromised by the other party.
Palestinians don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and at one point, the "destruction of Israel" actually existed in the PLO charter.
It may exist still, but I know there was quite a movement by the US specifically, for the PLO (and Yasir Arafat) to have that provision removed, so that a real peace might eventually be brokered.
Sinn Fein, I believe, had similar mandates toward the British Commonwealth on the whole.
It was after the offering of a seat in the House Of Commons that Sinn Fein changed their position toward the British government.
There are other examples too numerous to mention.
I still believe, however, that even though you could convolute issues with land matters, power struggles, politics, etc., the basis of many of these struggles is religious intolerance.
It may manifest itself into who controls what borders, etc., but religion, in my opinion, is the greatest motivator, and that these parties use religion as the justification for what it is they do, wrong or right, true or false, real or fake.