|
Post by Del on Sept 22, 2008 22:57:16 GMT -5
OK...so.....I am not a religious person... I recently joined the Theosophical Society so that I can have access to their library...and most of what Theosophy is composed of I already do and have....I take from various world religions what's best for me and move forward from that...I can thank my school work for the expanded eye sight... Heck, my galaxy lesson plan has a theosophical taste to it if you were to compare it side to side, though done unintentionally. Now this bit about Scientology.... I cannot bear to read what's on the website, or watch the video that explains what Scientology is about. It doesn't feel sincere. www.scientology.org/?source=ga&gclid=CJ6f3_yB8ZUCFQNvHgodhQ-afAI am curious to hear your thoughts on Scientology and the every expansion of man's creativity.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kata Samoes on Sept 23, 2008 10:25:59 GMT -5
Haha...
Im not posting my thoughts. Requires ranting and effort. lol
|
|
|
Post by Del on Sept 23, 2008 16:48:42 GMT -5
Haha... Im not posting my thoughts. Requires ranting and effort. lol Oh come on Kata...pwease!!! ?
|
|
|
Post by Ko'an Noi on Sept 26, 2008 7:00:25 GMT -5
Too many damn videos that I don't feel like watching.
From what I've heard, I don't like Scientology. Nor do I understand how the F**k anyone could believe it.
|
|
|
Post by KG on Sept 28, 2008 1:10:09 GMT -5
Any religion is no more or less than the individual practicing it makes of it. I don't think these religions have much in common, but overall, no religion has all the answers. Some have more to offer than others of course.
If Scientology is stupid, it is because many Scientologists are stupid, That obviously includes some of their leadership... and they charge a good bit for some of their literature and information. Some of their information is good, and very interesting and thought provoking... I like to read L. Ron Hubbard's books, but what they do with them, is kind of weird sometimes. Of course one could say the same of Christians, and the Bible... not that L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote anything that compares to a spiritual text.
IMHO L Ron Hubbard was a genius, and he made some vary useful obeservations. I think of Hubbard as more of a psychologist, educator, and behaviorist, than a prophet or religious leader. Hubbard's work is intersting, but not preticularly spiritual. His work is concice, to the point and has no hidden meaning, shades of meaning, or any of the earmarks of a sacred text. Instead his writing has an informative, and logical style, which explains his ideas without double meanings or symbolism.
I respect Hubbard as a psychologist, and a teacher who is able to explain many complex psychological ideas in terms anyone could understand. I agree with many of his psychological theories, and truely he has been proven correct on many of his theories. I consider some of his work groundbreaking, but not spiritual exactly... or at all.
H. P. Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy, on the other hand is cryptic, mystical, and presents grand spiritual ideas, which in broad terms I agree with, but I vary with them on the details... but Blavasky's views aren't broad, they are grunular, specific, and somewhat dogmaticm plus Blavatsky's rambling style is hard to understand and follow.
Frankly the church of Scientology has very little to do with religion. It is more about health, and wellness, of mind and body... which isn't a bad idea. They do encourage people to follow a belief system and adhear to it, but they do not dictate the beliefs of their members in the least, they only suggest that members have one, and that they try to progress spiritually in whatever way they choose.
Overall though the Church of Scientology does tend to grasp at fads, when really... their basis is simple. Keep on believing what you believe. You can be any faith and still be a Scientologist. I like them because they are all inclusive and don't down people for their beliefs, but I do think that some of their ideas like spending days in saunas, might be over the top. Plus the idea that they are using it as a tax dodge for what is more of a club than a religion aren't completely ill founded.
Still they are a great refuge for couples who have conflicting beliefs so that a Catholic and aBaptist, or a Wiccan and a Jew can all attend "church" together at the same place without either one compromising their beliefs.
Theosophy looks interesting till I start reading, and then their litterature puts me to sleep. Even I can't force my way through all of it, though I am interested in their subject matter. They look a little dogmatic in spots and that always looses me... I find I can agree with them on some points, but not all. They do have a lot of interesting theories, and ideas though. I just wish they'd give an overview of a topic, and then get into details for those who are interested... and not be so granular over every topic. Their ideas are put in a rambling style, and it is hard to pay attention, plus they tend to present their ideas in a grand fashion, as if it was the be all end all of knowledge... and it isn't.
Anyway I have always thought that I would probably agree with a lot of theosophy, if I could somehow wade through their litterature enough to know what they believe, but I really don't know because my attention span gives out long before I can figure out exactly what it is they believe.
In general the downside of both religions is that they uphold the teachings of a single teacher to be infalable. Blavansky, was a mystic obviously, but that doesn't mean she is unquestionably right about everything. Their dogmatic adhearance to her written word to the point they don't try to explore beyond it, when in fact mysticism is by nature exploritory bothers me more than anything else about them. Instead of seeking their own visions, as truth, they doggedly adhear to hers, and that seems like a failing to me.
Scientology is... well it has been called a con, it has been called quackery, and I am certain it has it's abuses. Sound theories stated plainly somehow occasionally become... nutty seeming in practice. Good books, overcharged for can seem like profiteering. In general I think it is the duty of a real religious organization to make their materials affordable, and not overtax members with fees and costs, when poor people need help too.
Overall I see the work of a long dead mystic, and a more recently dead, brilliant man being exploited, misunderstood, and generally misued, and I see times when both were correct in their thinking, and other instances where you wonder what both of them were smoking. They were both gifted people in their own way, but both were very much human, and falable. Neither of them are some sort of unquestionable, last word on anything. They were both human and getting dogmatic about their teachings, to the exclusion of other teachings is the single major problem with both organizations.
I don't feel that either one of these religions are what I would pick for myself, nor do I think they are even among the best ones out there, but some people are helped by both groups, so I can't knock it as long as it is helping some of the people.
Kim
|
|
|
Post by Del on Sept 28, 2008 23:50:24 GMT -5
Your reply is very well stated Kim, and I agree on a lot of points, especially the points on the personal interpretation bit.
As with any religion, and any human being that stands behind it, many things are lost in translation and interpretation. The presentation of such things, I think, has a lot to do with how people take to it. My introduction to the Church of Scienetology wasn't so pleasant, whereas the idealistic nature of it isn't so bad....same as with Theosophy, Christianity, Yoruba, etc, etc.
Even in reading my Theosophy books, I find certain things that feel very dogmatic, but yet the author seems to be contradicting his/herself because then it is stated to not take anything to heart and to decide what's right for yourself. It's a funny push and pull relationship, and I find it rather annoying to read through stuff like that.
I am trying to find what I can relate to and where the affirmations and confirmations are. I'd like to see for myself that I am not the only one to think a certain way or of certain things, and it is like that for everyone. I just remain open-minded and true to myself, never compromising my individuality, of which many people tend to do.
The presentation of the Church of Scientology, for me, felt very insincere. Then again, I am not like most people, nor are most people like myself, and I understand that....it's just...eh, whatever.
I never heard of scientology until two weeks ago, and it's been around for ages. I think I'll go buy a book or two.
I am just a wallowing vessel...har har.
|
|
|
Post by KG on Sept 30, 2008 22:53:00 GMT -5
I recomend Hubbard's book "DIANETICS" It is very helpful in self understanding. I'd really like to go back and read it again myself. It helped me a lot when I read it the first time. Hubbard is very good at writing readable books. They aren't hard to understand at all, and though it is long, it is a fast read, because he does know how to express himself clearly. Hubbard was so good at this that the Army hired him to write some training manuals because soldiers weren't able to understand the old ones, and they were getting hurt because of it. This was before Scientology and all though, when he was young. I think Hubbard is easy to understand, and very clear cut. Reading his book should be a breath of fresh air after wading through Theosophy. You may or may not agree with him, but at least you will know what he said when you finish reading. LOL
I might try to read more theosophy sometime... I just haven't had much time lately.
|
|