# Chef is no more!



## midphase (Mar 13, 2006)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187756,00.html


I'm very bummed by this piece of news!


----------



## handz (Mar 14, 2006)

They are still making new episodes? :neutral:


----------



## Alex W (Mar 14, 2006)

I knew this would happen as soon as I saw that episode...  

"never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."

that's the best response

so true


it's a shame they had to part bitterly...


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 14, 2006)

I read about this before so I went to go watch the Scientology episode- it was great!


----------



## Alex W (Mar 14, 2006)

yeah it's awesome!

The walmart one's still my favourite


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 14, 2006)

Yeah Walmart might be my favourite too. I find south spark is really hit and miss. I much prefer Aqua Teen Hunger Force now.


----------



## Alex W (Mar 14, 2006)

hmmm... never heard of it...

then again, we've got bugger all tv channels in Oz and I don't have cable...


I might have to hit up the ol' shareza and uh... you know...


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 14, 2006)

I highly reccomend that.


----------



## Markleford (Mar 14, 2006)

(Heh, I'd originally thought this was in reference to Lenny Henry's show, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009NSCTY/qid=1142346083/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-3410871-3961439?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130 (&quot;Chef!&quot;), upon which I'd I puzzled, "But didn't it finish up quite a few years ago to begin with?")

Yeah, Scientology episode was fantastic, perhaps just narrowing out their Mormon episode thanks to the related Hollywood absurdity!

Chef's appearances had been pretty sparse on SP during the most recent run anyway, if I recall. Too bad Isaac couldn't handle it. But I suppose if the show could continue on after losing their lead multi-female voice to suicide, then they'll get through this with nary a bump of a press release.

- m


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 14, 2006)

Yeah I got the all the aqua teens, love em!

"My ass has finally decided to eat my hand! It hungers for more!"


----------



## tgfoo (Mar 14, 2006)

Uh... Didn't realize that Isaac Hayes was a Scientologist. I have to agree with Matt Stone. It's amazing how he complains about religion not when they make fun of Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Christains in general, and many other spiritual and religious beliefs, but when they poke fun at Scientology (which is just pure bullshit in my opinion... and also one of the funniest episodes I've ever seen...) he has to quit? What a bitch...


----------



## midphase (Mar 14, 2006)

Now the question is....how will they get rid of Chef? Will they kill him off? Will he leave SP to seek fame and fortune elsewhere? Will he get a sex change operation?

Knowing how Matt and Trey's sick minds work, I'm expecting a particularly harsh ending to chef.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 14, 2006)

midphase @ Tue Mar 14 said:


> Now the question is....how will they get rid of Chef? Will they kill him off? Will he leave SP to seek fame and fortune elsewhere? Will he get a sex change operation?
> 
> Knowing how Matt and Trey's sick minds work, I'm expecting a particularly harsh ending to chef.



Heh heh... that would solve a lot... this way they don't need that low voice anymore... and then they can really have a feild day... endless possiblilties   

T


----------



## José Herring (Mar 14, 2006)

tgfoo @ Tue Mar 14 said:


> Scientology (which is just pure bullshit in my opinion...



On Monday in Scientology I had an auditing session going over my entire education. We began with Theosophy and I finally understood the difference between that and Theology. Then, with my auditor we moved on to clearing up all the misunderstoods I had in trigonometry. I finally understood after 20 years of trying the difference between, sin, cosin, tanget, cotagent, cosequent, sequent. Then we took up calculus and I finally understood what Sigma stood for and what delta stood for.

Then, we moved on to clearing up some confusions I had in chemestry. Which I had a confusion on what Phenyl was and what a radical was, the difference between free radicals and radicals and how chemicals bonded.

Also, I cleared up some misunderstandings that I had in Basic as a kid which has renewed my interest and ability to understand other computing languages as in the process I had to clear what a computer is and how it works.

I still have about 20 subjects to go but, after about three hours of work I now understand about three years of education a lot better. And, I still have all my music eduction to clear up too.

So what you call Bullshit Tgfoo I call a quick and painless way to understand the universe better and the people in it. So maybe for some ignorance is bliss. For me it's not. I want to understand everything. 

Scientology is what it is. It's a complete workable system of Epistemology. An effective way to know the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. People misunderstand it because mankind isn't in a place anymore where he thinks knowledge of the methods and ways in which people think and feel is of any importance. I assure you that it is.

For you tgfoo to call any system that promotes a workable method of better education and enlightment for mankind BS is just showing the world that you like to bask in the darkest caverns of complete stupidity.

First there was the Dharma, then the Buddha then the Tao de Ching of Lao Tzi. Scientology finishes that which these great leaders started by applying a method to achieve the knowledge of spirit which underlies all knowledge.

The way is not easy. It takes a lot of work. It has to be earned. It takes a lot of carefull work in coordination with some very well trained people. So, I won't tolerate people who call it Bullshit. 

I've tried many times over more years than most of you are even aware of to climb this path and many times I've failed to escape the morass of confusion that pins the awareness to the brutal harshness of everyday life. Bit by bit and stably that morass is clearing up and for the first time in more years than most of you are aware of I'm climbing out rung by rung, step by step to a place of real joy and real peace that is promised in other religions but so seldom achieved. The real clincher and the hard thing to imagine is all that joy and peace is residual in understanding that which Lao Tzi described as the way, but sadly even he fell from grace as just before you reach enlightment there is a little band where you have to unknow before you can know truth and he never could penetrate that. Poor soul.

The old testament of the bible states that salvation lies in wisdom but then never points out how that wisdom is to be obtained. Scienotology is the method by which that wisdom is obtained. The wisdom spoke about in Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism and in may other religions. Scientology is a practical way. That's all it is. That's all it claims to be. Workable.

Good day gentlemen. I've considered many of you my friends. But, I feel the tide is turning on this place and far to much hate and far too little compassion has beset this place. That isn't the Way. At least not the Way as I see it.

I'm sure you'll come back and slam me. My religion and my efforts to finally solve the mystery that underlies all mysteries. Some will say what's the point. Others will call me crazy. Yet others will call my religion BS without even understanding one bit of it. You'll be bickering amongst yourselves as I won't be reading.

Perhaps someday I'll return when the good sensible people that I grew to know and love have come back. Until such time I bid you farewell.

Best to you all and to your careers and may you never be faced with the choice between your work and defending your friends honor and sticking up for something you believe in. It will test the best of your resolve and put you up for ridicule the likes of which I wouldn't wish on even the darkest souls.


Jose


----------



## synthetic (Mar 14, 2006)

3 years of education in three hours? What an amazing experience! Where can I sign up? There's a place in Los Angeles for this?


----------



## ComposerDude (Mar 14, 2006)

I've enjoyed Jose's compositions and been intrigued by his musical experiences; sorry to see him depart.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 14, 2006)

josejherring @ Tue Mar 14 said:


> tgfoo @ Tue Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientology (which is just pure bullshit in my opinion...
> ...



Dude  

You do realize tgfoo said "in my opinion" right?

Variety is the spice of life... we all have different opinions.... vive la differenace!!!

Don't leave Jose... we need our resident woodwind player!!

T


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 14, 2006)

Question- How many Scientologists does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer- None: the lightbulb must find $80,000 dollars to become clear, then it will have the selfdeterminism to change itself.

HAHAHA. Just kidding Jose...

I'm Agnostic and if someone said Agnostics are full of shit I wouldn't care at all...but that's just me.


----------



## Ed (Mar 14, 2006)

josejherring @ Tue Mar 14 said:


> So what you call Bullshit Tgfoo I call a quick and painless way to understand the universe better and the people in it. So maybe for some ignorance is bliss. For me it's not. I want to understand everything.



I would really like to know, just what IS the whole thing with Scientology and the aliens? 
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/263120
... Just tell me its just a urban myth, and scientology isnt anything to do with that. If not, its hard to take them seriously Im afriad. I'd rather just become a Taoist.


I also dont see the point in "religion", though I see a point in a philosophy. So thats only way someone can convince me any of this is a good idea.


----------



## Alex W (Mar 14, 2006)

josejherring @ Wed Mar 15 said:


> Perhaps someday I'll return when the good sensible people that I grew to know and love have come back. Until such time I bid you farewell.



Dude, they're your beliefs, how 'bout you just don't give a shit about what that bloke said and stick around instead 

There's people all over the world (not just this forum) who think scientology is wack, just as there are people all over the world who think christianity and all other religions are wack. Leaving this forum wont let you escape that...

(I hope you don't leave the forum)


----------



## Niah (Mar 14, 2006)

If you run now, you'll run 'till you die.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 14, 2006)

jose- I dont understand this.


Why are you leaving because someone doesnt agree with a part of you? There would be NOONE here if we all did that.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 14, 2006)

Ed @ Tue Mar 14 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > So what you call Bullshit Tgfoo I call a quick and painless way to understand the universe better and the people in it. So maybe for some ignorance is bliss. For me it's not. I want to understand everything.
> ...



oh and here is an explanation of the aliens

"Among these advanced teachings, one episode that is revealed to those who reach OT level III has been widely remarked upon in the press: the story of Xenu, the galactic tyrant who first kidnapped certain individuals who were deemed "excess population" and loaded these individuals into space planes for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). These space planes were said to have been copies of Douglas DC-8s, except with rocket engines. He then stacked hundreds of billions of these frozen victims around Earth's volcanoes 75 million years ago before blowing them up with hydrogen bombs and brainwashing them with a "three-D, super colossal motion picture" for 36 days, telling them lies of what they are and what the universe should be like and telling them that they are 3 different things: 'Jesus, God, and The Devil.' The traumatized thetans subsequently clustered around human bodies because they watched the motion picture together, making them think they are all the same thing, in effect acting as invisible spiritual parasites known as "body thetans" that can only be removed using advanced Scientology techniques. Xenu is allegedly imprisoned in a mountain by a force field powered by an eternal battery. He is said to be still alive today."

-Personally I dont agree with this and dont think that an e-meter works and that all this knowledge can be obbtained without having to pay a trained scientologist who is at a higher "level" than you.

But this is just my humble opinion-i do hope you come back jose, it doesnt help scientology either if whenever someone doesnt like it the members just run away.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 14, 2006)

josejherring @ Tue Mar 14 said:


> tgfoo @ Tue Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientology (which is just pure bullshit in my opinion...
> ...



I was born under a very diverse living environment Jose - my mother is oriental and my father caucasion. There were tremendous cultural differences yet in all the diversity we found it worked. Today it seems that the whole argument here boils down to intolerance regarding diversity. Countering one brand of intolerance (religious) with another brand of intolerance (social) doesn't magically make Scientologists right and those who disagree wrong. It's not for everyone. Conversely those (who are part of that religion aren't magically made wrong either. It's a deeply personal choice - right for some, wrong for others. 

I believe there is no need to leave because some disagree and I personally find it sad to see you go under these circumstances. Regarding diversity: one person's negative opinion regarding religion is valid; another person's right to exercise that religion and defend it is valid. But to leave and brand the entire community as being absent of "good sensible people" simply because some do not agree with one's choice of religion is every bit as harsh as being questioned about one's deepest beliefs. 

Personally I believe we all need to be more tolerant with one another and learn to get along. The higher road is to choose to embrace diversity while learning to see and respect both the beauty in our differences as well as the glory of our unity as a community. Yet how many times have we prevented ourselves from completing unfinished business? Leaving (before the job of finding the pearl in the most unlikely places is done and the subsequent inner resolutions are made) seems counterproductive to one's own growth as a person - and as a friend.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 14, 2006)

Jose, you know that Scientology has reputation for being a strange cult. As you may remember, I don't know enough about it to have formed any opinion; all I'm saying is that the widespread *perception* is that people give the church lots of money and that it has some bizarre ideas.

Surely you've heard that many times. So I don't understand why you'd find it so upsetting, because I don't think anyone intended to offend you. I'm sorry that you are offended, but it really shouldn't be a shock. If that's just ignorance, why not just write an explanation that you can cut and paste.

Now, I'm sure that all of us who have met Jose found him a nice guy in person and no more bizarre than anyone else here...which of course isn't saying much.  But I can tell you that he wasn't hanging from the ceiling, wearing a lampshade, or speaking in tongues.

***

Frederick, I've often wondered why Asian people find the term "Oriental" so offensive. It never meant tchotchkes on a shelf to me, it meant "from the Orient" - the East in other words. The first I heard of that was around 1980; before then nobody thought anything of it. In fact there were derogatory terms, and that wasn't one of them.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 14, 2006)

Hey Jose,

just to make it "short", i could write books about that topic, but there are different people all over the world and different religions.

In the end every religion has the SAME effect and same goal. To believe in yourself and believe in what you do. To believe in having the powers and the discipline to reach something and to respect other people no matter what skin colour and where they were born.

If you look at the catholics, the moslems, the buddhists, etc. etc., every different religion has it's own god, their own rules or to bring it really down to one point - to never loose hope in someone (or maybe yourself?).

I am a christ for about the day when i was born and in school they told us all those things about god and angels and the bible etc. ... when i was a little older and by exploring more and more about all those religions and cults and whatever exists on earth i really came to the point that i can't live with that thought that someone build the earth in 7 days, that someone creates humans out of his own bodyparts, that there was a guy who separated the sea, that someone like Jesus brought back people to live and made water out of wine.

I would say all this is bullshit and i came to the conclusion that these are all alegories and trying to explain the stuff in "word-pictures" to the people.

What do you think would be the easiest thing to explain somebody volcany activity back then?
Would you say it is easy to explain scientific knowledge about earth and it's behaviour with magma etc. or you would say it is the most easiest thing to tell somebody that the earth is angry and spits fire and it falls down like thousands of stars? I think the 2nd one.

When i see all the stuff which happened in the past, that it would be okay to kill people in the name of god, that it would be okay to steal, cheat, lie and you could come back in church and pay and pray for forgiveness, something was not right for me. Even today or back a few years, i see all those people going into church in our hometown, dude, they look holy, they are sooooo important and holyholy. Then they are in church, praying, nearly crying, ".....oh i was soooo unworthy...." BLABLABLA... then they come out of church, they start with the same shit they do every day. Lying, stealing, cheating, telling shit, hurting people.

Why do i write this? Because religions, cults and other communities try and tried you to make you believe the easiest possible way. And it is definitely on you what you believe or not, thats for sure, but there are always people who want to convince your for something better, better than you are now ... and most of the religions think like this.

Especially THOSE religions who want money. What has money to do with a GOD????? 

I honestly have to say i am not that deep in Scientology, but one of the main basic things they use for their religion is or at least thats what they say about themselves, that everyone who is rich and wealthy is something better on this world and in my opinion this is not really fair.

I think now a days everyone knows that it is the most important thing to respect humans, to be honest, to believe in something and manage your live by respecting people around you. Even today it is more important than everything else. Everyday you hear about war, assassinations etc. only because of religion. Only because of people who think different. But some people think too fanatic and some people don't believe.

All in all i just wanna say, that it is cool to talk about this in a musicians forum, but we all follow one common thought, to make music and believe in what we do.

If somebody doesn't like Scientology, okay. If somebody doesn't like christians, it is fine for me also, but to leave a forum because you are so upset that somebody doesn't like your religion or what you are following, would be as childish as if i would leave this forum because somebody would not respecting me using Cubase or Logic.

We all spent a lot of time being together on this forum here ...... and NOW????, as soon as you see someone writing who doesn't fit your style, suddently everybody is stupid and missunderstanding things and you just go away? We did fine for months or years and now, suddenly you just wanna loose buddies or same categorized people only because they think different about something????

I would say again there is something which is much more important than any religion shit on this earth - just respect others and believe in yourself! that's what it's all about.

Think about that, do you want to turn your back on everyone who is not thinking like you about Scientology? I bet you loose a looot of friends, or those who could be it, over time.


----------



## tgfoo (Mar 14, 2006)

Jose,

Please don't leave these forums on account of something I said. As Thonex said, I was just stating my opinion. Regardless of my opinion, I don't think that you should let what I say affect you so much. For your sake and for others, I'll try to refrain from such comments in the future. Again, I really hope you reconsider and do not leave this community based on comments made by me (I mean really, I'm nobody...).

-Tim


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 14, 2006)

by the way, Evan said it all nicely in one little sentence:

"Why are you leaving because someone doesnt agree with a part of you? There would be NOONE here if we all did that."


----------



## Doug Wellington (Mar 14, 2006)

Waywyn @ Tue Mar 14 said:


> Especially THOSE religions who want money. What has money to do with a GOD?????


"God needs your financial aid in the struggle against the atheistic, communistic conspiracy..." "send whatever you can, be it a penny, a dime, or a dollar to "Kill a Commie for Christ", box 224,..." -Burns and Schreiber, The Faith Healer, _In One Head and Out the Other_, 1960's (It's been a long time since I've listened to that, but I think the quotes are pretty close.) :lol:

BTW, I don't think you can truly call Buddhism a religion. Buddha was human, not a decendent of God, an incarnation of God, or a prophet of God. Buddhism pretty much sidesteps the whole issue of creation, existence of God, etc. So, it is quite possible for someone to be Buddhist and Christian, or Buddhist and Jewish, etc.

There are many roads to the top of the mountain...


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 14, 2006)

yeh you right, it is more of an attitude or way of living, but i just wanted to name it since there are so many "options" to arrange your life


----------



## Doug Wellington (Mar 14, 2006)

Waywyn @ Tue Mar 14 said:


> there are so many "options" to arrange your life


Eeek, you mean I have to arrange my life? I can barely arrange a song...! :mrgreen:

...oh, the pressure!


----------



## neoTypic (Mar 15, 2006)

Buddhism doesn't have a god. :roll:

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."


----------



## midphase (Mar 15, 2006)

> Good day gentlemen. I've considered many of you my friends. But, I feel the tide is turning on this place and far to much hate and far too little compassion has beset this place. That isn't the Way. At least not the Way as I see it.



Jose,

I hope you realize that this type of behavior is exactly what is giving Scientology a bad name. The idea that Scientologists are easily offended (but in the case of Isaac Hayes have no problem dishing it out), and that they view themselves on a higher quest than the rest of humanity.

The general consensus is that Scientology is a very money driven organization is also hard to dispute. If the message that Scientology is so incredibly powerful, why not share it with the masses at no charge?

Nonetheless, if you feel that any of those perceptions are misconstrued, you should take the time to explain rather than reniforcing the stereotype.

If you're seriously leaving VI because of this, then it will be a great loss, although I suspect the damage will be on both sides.

Best to you.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 15, 2006)

Thonex @ Wed Mar 15 said:


> Actually Jose... you should be bannished for that.... :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Hmmm . . . maybe that's an idea. Ban Jose. That way he'll be pissed and scream bloody murder about being banned. We apologize and lift the ban . . . and everything's back to normal!  

- Mike Greene


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 15, 2006)

Yeah if we ban him he will come back as Arsnova and all will be back to normal.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 15, 2006)

It's still my community. It's still the best place on the web for VI's. I won't leave it, but I got upset at where all the talk is going these days and the amount of intolerance and cruelty that is being thrown about.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So a few people have asked me to explain Scientology. To explain it would take for ever as it embraces all of life and many years to complete the training and auditing in Scientology. But let's attempt to explain what it's not.

It's not a faith based religion. It's not a belief in aliens. There is no worship of some make believe alien God. There is no worship at all. It's a study and a practice that leads to better understanding of man's spiritual nature and a better understanding of people and the world around.

*How does Scientology differ from other religions? *

Scientology is based on workable axioms. The sole basis of the techniques and practices of Scientology are based on workable solutions that can be verified in real life. There's nothing to believe. It either works or it doesn't work.

That appoach alone is new to religion. That's why Scientology is called an applied religious philosophy. It's workable system and that's all it is.

*How can Scientology help you?*

http://www.scientology.org/html/opencms/cos/scientology/en_US/religion/description/scientology/pg006.html (ARC Triangle)

You can go on believing the alien bull shit lies that people spread through the rumor mill of the internet and the so called legit media or you can actually look at Scientology for what it really is-- a practical way to apply the religious teachings of the wisest sages in human history. 

I know for some here actually getting along with people may not seem very important. Being happier and healthier or more intelligent or more successful may not seem that important either. But for most people these things are important. So if you actually look through the site above you'll find the truth about Scientology. If you just want to spread the lies and false rumors and hit the gossip sites about Scientology then you deserve to live in the darkness of your own dim thoughts.

Here's a few more links about some of the more out there stuff that some people take issue with, but if you really read it you'll find that it's not so far out there.

Past lives
http://www.exacttraining.net/ (Space Energy Time and Thought)

Either way you decide doesn't really matter to me. You can be a prisoner of your own ignorance and a slave to lies of others or you can at least find out about that which you're protesting. As for me I'll just stick to the music side of the board from now on.

Best,

Jose


----------



## midphase (Mar 15, 2006)

> You can be a prisoner of your own ignorance and a slave to lies of others or you can at least find out about that which you're protesting.



Although I appreciate your explanation, that last statement is a bit uncalled for IMHO. Some of us (myself included) have had experiences with Scientology and ultimately made up our minds and feel the way we feel towards it for valid and educated reasons.

But I agree with you, politics and religion are always a bad topics for discussion and never, ever end up well!


----------



## Alex W (Mar 15, 2006)

josejherring @ Thu Mar 16 said:


> I don't mind the disagreements is the broad uneducated statements like saying it's all BS when you don't know anything about it. After a while you gotta admit it get's pretty annoying.



Dude, the easiest way is to just not give a shit


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 15, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 15 said:


> I even got along with Brian R. when I met him in person!



That's because he's bigger than you and looks like he could throw a pretty mean right hook


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 15, 2006)

Didn't you meet him, Frederick? We're about the same size.

But his girlfriend - that's another story...


----------



## Brian Ralston (Mar 15, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 15 said:


> Didn't you meet him, Frederick? We're about the same size.
> 
> But his girlfriend - that's another story...



I don't know Nick. Don't underestimate her 5'1" stature. She has a black belt in Taekwando and her father is an ex green beret and also a black belt who survived the front line in 2 tours of Vietnam. She can take care of herself. (One of the many things I like about her).  

(Of course...I have a black belt in Shotokan Karate as well. Got it when I was 16. Oh God....that was 15 years ago.... :shock: )

:wink:


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 16, 2006)

midphase @ Thu Mar 16 said:


> > It's not like somebody took you into a room and beat you with a bat.



Actually, since you mentioned it, someone took me into a room, and managed to beat me up (psychologically) for 2 ò=h   4{}=h   4{~=h   4{=h   4{€=h   4{=h   4{‚=h   4{ƒ=h   4{„=h   4{…=h   4{†=h   4{‡=h   4{ˆ=h   4{‰=h   4{Š=h   4{‹=i   4r&=i   4r'=i   4r(=i   4r)=j   4r=j   4r=j   4r=j   4r=j   4r =j   4r!=j   4r"=j   4r#=j   4r$=j   4r%=j   4s=j   4s=j   4s=j   4s=j   4s=j   4s=j   4s=j   4s=j   4s=j   4s=j   4s=j   4s=j   4s =j   4s!=j   4s"=j   4s#=j   4s$=j   4s%=j   4s&=j   4s'=j   4s(=j   4s)=j   4s*=j   4s+=j   4s,=j   4s-=j   4s.=j   4s/=j   4s0=j   4s1=j   4s2=j   4s3=j   4s4=j   4s5=j   4s6=j   4s7=j   4s8=j   4s9=k   4s=k   4s=k   4s=k   4s=k   4s=k   4s	=k   4s
=k   4s=k   4s=k   4s =k   4s=k   4s=k   4s=k   4s=k   4s=k   4s=k   4|¨=k   4|©=k   4|ª=k   4|«=k   4|¬=k   4|­=k   4|®=k   4|¯=k   4|°=k   4|±=k   4|²=k   4|³=k   4|´=k   4|µ=k   4|¶=k   4|·=k   4|¸=k   4|¹=k   4|º=k   4|»=k   4|¼=k   4|½=k   4|¾=k   4|¿=k   4|À=k   4|Á=k   4|Â=k   4|Ã=k   4|Ä              ò=k   4|Æ=k   4|Ç=k   4|È=k   4|É=k   4|Ê=k   4|Ë=k   4|Ì=k   4|Í=k   4|Î=k   4|Ï=k   4|Ð=k   4|Ñ=k   4|Ò=k   4|Ó=k   4|Ô=k   4|Õ=k   4|Ö=k   4|×=k   4|Ø=k   4|Ù=k   4|Ú=k   4|Û=k   4|Ü=k   4|Ý=k   4|Þ=k   4|ß=k   4|à=k   4|á=k   4|â=k   4|ã=k   4|ä=k   4|å=k   4|æ=k   4|ç=k   4|è=k   4|é=k   4|ê=k   4|ë=k   4|ì=k   4|í=k   4|î=k   4|ï=k   4|ð=k   4|ñ=k   4|ò=k   4|ó=k   4|ô=k   4|õ=k   4|ö=k   4|÷=k   4|ø=k   4|ù=k   4|ú=k   4|û=k   4|ü=k   4|ý=k   4|þ=k   4|ÿ=k   4} =k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}	=k   4}
=k   4}=k   4}=k   4} =k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k   4}=k


----------



## midphase (Mar 16, 2006)

> however, i respect all kind of religion and i really appreciate if someone is happy with what he believes in or doing



I think it's also important to differentiate between a religion and a cult. Religions usually don't openly charge money to join, cults usually do!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 16, 2006)

More important to differentiate between someone whose face you have no compunctions about getting in and a chop sockyist....


----------



## José Herring (Mar 16, 2006)

midphase @ Wed Mar 15 said:


> > It's not like somebody took you into a room and beat you with a bat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your story has so many wholes in it Kays. Give me a break. :roll: 

First, of all you would have never seen a recruiter to sell you a course. The recruiters work to hire people to work for Scientology which doesn't require you to pay. 

Second: The people that sell you the courses are out in the open not behind some close doors. 

Third: The first courses in Scientology cost about $35. So the argument that he was "after your money" doesn't stand up. 

Fourth, if it where true then why didn't you leave? Two hours? Gimme a break man. 

*Quit lying*. You have nothing to gain by this other than to scare people from something that might help them.

Since joining Scientology my income in music has shot up 1000%. Next I'm working on a plan with the staff and other Scientology musicians to help me boost my career even further.

Paul Haggis who wrote and directed Crash is a dedicated Scientologist and teacher of Scientology. You think he was psychologically tortured in a small room and brainwashed into winning best picture? Oooo I can't wait for that course. :lol: 

Best,

Jose


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 16, 2006)

The psychologically tortured can make pretty good art.


----------



## Markleford (Mar 16, 2006)

Waywyn @ Thu Mar 16 said:


> the other thing is, that a religion which makes you something better by paying and financing this church, tells me that FOR ME PERSONALLY something is not right.


Totally with you there, man.

- m


----------



## José Herring (Mar 16, 2006)

Markleford @ Thu Mar 16 said:


> Waywyn @ Thu Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > the other thing is, that a religion which makes you something better by paying and financing this church, tells me that FOR ME PERSONALLY something is not right.
> ...



http://www.volunteerministers.org/eng/n ... 22605.html

You pay so that you can support efforts around the world like those in the link above. Tell me what's wrong with that?

I'm a volunteer minister too. I've used Scientology to help a person with back injuries. A women recover from stroke. A man get over being sexual abused as a child.

I helped an illeterate woman learn to read. I'm helping a guy off drugs. I helped a guy that hadn't worked in 7 years get a job.

I've helped children do better in school. I helped an 11 year old boy increase his reading level from 4th grade level to where it should be.

I've helped a dentist build a $1,000,000 a year practice. When he came into Scientology he had $70 in his checking account which he used to pay for his first course. Now he makes litterally $1,000,000 a year in a bevhills practice.

I've helped kids get along better with their parents. I've helping a woman get over a nasty ass divorce.

I've helped a women get along with her employees better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When's the last time you helped anybody with their life?

Jose


----------



## Markleford (Mar 16, 2006)

josejherring @ Thu Mar 16 said:


> You pay so that you can support efforts around the world like those in the link above. Tell me what's wrong with that?


Given the extolled virtues of the program, one would think that the profitability would be self-perpetuating, such that the benefits of "advanced thinking" techniques are invested back into outreach and ministry.

Considering demonstrable Scientology land-grabs around the world, it's obvious that the group has sufficient capital behind it for any number of secular ventures to produce revenue such that payment should never be required.



> When's the last time you helped anybody with their life?


Every day, in many ways: one does not need to be "special" to make a difference. I'm sure you've learned that much.

- m


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 16, 2006)

Markleford @ Thu Mar 16 said:


> Considering demonstrable Scientology land-grabs around the world, it's obvious that the group has sufficient capital behind it for any number of secular ventures to produce revenue such that payment should never be required.


I saw a map once that showed how much Hollywood real estate they own. It was scary.

Scientology may very well be a great religion/philosophy. But the way they run it is a serious turn off for me.

- Mike Greene


----------



## midphase (Mar 16, 2006)

> Quit lying. You have nothing to gain by this other than to scare people from something that might help them.




Jose....back off right now dude...I've been friendly with you and I have no objections to you defending your own beliefs, but don't even fucking call me a liar again!

I'm dead serious!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 16, 2006)

Jose, I'm interested in the part about calculus or whatever it was you learned properly in three hours. How does that work? Is it a matter of clearing up mental stumbling blocks, perspective, or just review many years later?


----------



## TheoKrueger (Mar 16, 2006)

Waywyn @ Wed Mar 15 said:


> In the end every religion has the SAME effect and same goal. To believe in yourself and believe in what you do. To believe in having the powers and the discipline to reach something and to respect other people no matter what skin colour and where they were born.



I think the opposite is happening in most religions... they take advantage of our fear for death and offer us the choice to place faith in something above ourselves, something more important except our selves. Having something higher to believe in can bring a inner peace from believing that there might be an afterlife and our precious ego's won't dissapear after we die. And if everyone believed in their selves and were autonomous the powerful people wouldn't have so much control over us.

But there is good in religions as well, like all the restrictive mechanisms introduced in the writings and trying to teach some truths. Like the "Kill someone and burn in hell" etc things... it's good for people who would be stupid enough to kill someone in the first place.

That's just me though so no offence.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 16, 2006)

josejherring @ Thu Mar 16 said:


> Quit lying.



Imagine how you would feel if I said the same thing about your beliefs. I'd appreciate it if you would modify this statement please plus contact me as soon as you can by pm.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 17, 2006)

Whatever your opinions are about various religions, I don't like seeing so many "ganging up" on Jose. For many reasons. One being I don't want this escalating to a point where he actually will leave VI. 

Also, a deep believer of any religion would react the same way. And what is religion? Only the person devoted to a specific belief can define that for himself.

Can't we just all get along? :wink:


----------



## Doug Wellington (Mar 17, 2006)

josejherring @ Thu Mar 16 said:


> First, of all you would have never seen a recruiter to sell you a course. The recruiters work to hire people to work for Scientology which doesn't require you to pay.
> 
> Second: The people that sell you the courses are out in the open not behind some close doors.
> 
> ...


This sounds nice in theory. Do you know if it is truth at every Scientology location? Many (all?) religions/philosophies have had bad things happen in their names. Catholics and molestation, Muslims and subjugation of women, crusades, jihads, etc. Even the ideas of communism can be looked upon as idylic even though the reality hasn't matched the theory. In my own case, professing to be a Zen Buddhist, I came across a book discussing how Zen was used to incite a particularly warlike group in WWII. It seems to me that we've all run into situations that fall short of ideal with our particular belief systems. Does that mean others have had legitimately bad experiences with members of our groups? Yes. Does that mean all members of our groups are bad? No. Do many members of belief systems blindly defend their faiths? Yes... Is that bad?

I think we have to remember that there is a difference between our ideals and what some of us are capable of achieving. I think we also have to remember that others don't necessarily see our belief systems in the same way we do. I've been reading about the "synoptic problem" lately. (I was inspired by a friend of mine who claimed that "Scripture is inerrant".) I came across this great quote:



> Faith is no excuse for ignorance!
> Adherence to any tradition in disregard for textual evidence is sheer superstition.
> _http://virtualreligion.net/primer/_


Do I think there are superstitious people out there? Yes. Is it my place to try to change their minds? Hmmm, maybe not... Where is the line between superstition and belief? Isn't that an individual decision to be made?


----------



## Markleford (Mar 17, 2006)

Doug Wellington @ Fri Mar 17 said:


> This sounds nice in theory. Do you know if it is truth at every Scientology location?


There was a http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology?rnd=1141585475703&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212 (recent article on Scientology in Rolling Stone) that described a few different locations. In the Manhattan location the reporter was encouraged to spend far more than $35.



josejherring said:


> *Quit lying.* You have nothing to gain by this other than to scare people from something that might help them.


I don't think anyone has much to gain by "lying" about the situation, all things being equal. But there are many people who have broken from the Church and feel the need to talk about it: embittered, perhaps? Sure, everyone who does not reach their goals or are somehow disillusioned from a process that they see others succeeding with are more likely to harbor some resentment.

But there are many stories, and it's up to the reader to decide upon the veracity behind them. One source of Scientology stories is Operation Clambake, which proports to have many internal documents that the Church wants censored from the public eye.

In fact, they have the Scientology episode of South Park that started this whole thread, available for free download!  Yes, the CoS has worked their magic and had it censored in various places. Why a half hour cartoon is such a threat to warrant such extreme action is highly questionable. Then again we had the rioting in Denmark over cartoon depictions of Allah, so this is definitely not limited to Scientology where fundamentalist beliefs are in play.



Doug Wellington said:


> Many (all?) religions/philosophies have had bad things happen in their names.


Including a fun little genocidal party called... "The Crusades"! 

Closed religions and social groups always have people breaking away, eager to tell their stories. My wife has even read a few about http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006052992X/sr=8-2/qid=1142610764/ref=sr_1_2/103-3410871-3961439?%5Fencoding=UTF8 (Amish women escaping their upbringing). Same with women finding their freedom from various oppressive misogynist cultures throughout history, from Japan, China, to the Middle East.

Of course, the Amish aren't a group to use their "money and power" to try to censor such stories! 



Hans Adamson said:


> Whatever your opinions are about various religions, I don't like seeing so many "ganging up" on Jose.


I don't think there's any "ganging up", simply people relating experiences, opinions, or merely asking questions. It's the same as anyone who espouses a strong opinion on a forum: he may be called to defend it.



> One being I don't want this escalating to a point where he actually will leave VI.


I don't think anyone wants him to leave, as evidenced by the pleas the first time he did. But people *do* want the chance to discuss opinions on equal footing without threats or name calling or being called a liar: again, that's no different than any other topic. And we'll respect his right to say, "I don't feel confortable talking about this anymore". No problem.



> Also, a deep believer of any religion would react the same way.


I have a friend that's an Episcopal priest that would claim otherwise. 

A "deep believer" is immovable and lets "attacks" flow around him like air currents: external forces do not change his solidity. Their grasp upon their faith is so true to their core being that mere words are but a passing amusement.

An adherent to strict doctrine and dogma, on the other hand, is more likely to lash out at an opposing view that subverts the literal interpretation of their founding work, with no room for alternative or ambiguous interpretation. This is fundamentalism, in all of its religious and cultural flavors. To them, there is no room for discussion or opinion: others are merely wrong, liars, "infidels", or even "evil".



> Can't we just all get along?


Hey, that's *my* line! :D

"Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Moslems
And everybody hates the Jews"
_-- Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"_ :mrgreen: 

- m


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2006)

Actually that's Rodney King's line, which is why I would never use it.  (He's both a victim of sick abuse and a total loser.)

I for one am not ganging up on Jose, I'm asking him questions. But anyone is welcome to attack my beliefs - it wouldn't bother me in the least.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Mar 17, 2006)

Damn you NIck, why do you Like CATS!!!


dogs own :razz:


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 17, 2006)

No one seems to be able to read my post properly.... :???: 

I wrote: ""ganging up"" not "ganging up". Maybe I should have written: "outnumbering him" in a matter that is important to him.


----------



## joaz (Mar 17, 2006)

About 18 months ago, I was in hospital in London, for a month having an operation.
For the last week I was able to get out and walk around the streets in the daytime.
On the Tottenham Court rd. there is a Scientology centre that had some kind of Photo exhibition in the window, featuring shots of Chick Corea.This led me into the place where I was invited to do a free personality test.

About 200 questions.
In the analysis of this, my interviewer said that in 7 of the 8 categories, I was doing well, it appears that I am a happy, productive person. :razz: 
The one category I fell down on.???
It appears that I am *too* critical.  

I am prepared to concede that they *may* be right. 
Although I believe the ability to be self-critical, is a useful ability, when you want to improve at music. The ability to criticise others,(Constructively) is also useful, as a strong set of likes and dislikes can be useful in composition, for finding your own voice. My likes and dislikes are not carved in stone, and are subject to change at the drop of a hat.

Here is where it is all down to perception.
Perphaps my interviewer was correct, and I overuse my critical sense to my own detriment.
Perhaps those who are suspicious of Scientology are correct, and like all cults, the first thing they would seek to erode, are your critical faculties, the better to insert their own dubious premises.
I make no judgement on the matter , but merely offer it up for the Forum's consideration.

I would be very curious to know, if my falling down on this personality test, in the critical department, is a common experience, above the statistically average. Or just an honest reading of the quirks of my personality.
For the record, my polite young interviewer, tried to sell me a few books, and I left with a pamphlet which cost Â£3, and which I must confess I have never read.

Has anyone else here taken the test???

Regards


----------



## Markleford (Mar 17, 2006)

joaz @ Fri Mar 17 said:


> Has anyone else here taken the test???


There was a printed copy distributed on the street while I was at university. Interestingly, the lyrics to the Faith No More song "Land of Sunshine" were culled from these questions and collected fortune cookie slips!

Of course you're supposed to send it into the center for analysis, which I didn't do, but I had the same objections to it that I typically do with personality tests: a person will change their answers based upon context. Even the Myers-Briggs personality test is like this for me, in which my first answer to a yes/no question is, "Well, it *depends*..." 

- m


----------



## joaz (Mar 17, 2006)

Well , I agree that the whole notion of measuring the personality, is a contentious issue.
My concept of personality comes from the greek word persona, which was the mask used by actors at the sacred festival of Dionysus.
So it is something we present to the world.

Some people are good actors and wear their mask with conviction and authority.
Some people end up with what is left at the bottom of the props box.

Some believe that when you strip away all the masks, you are left with the authentic self. The soul, etc, etc,

I like the idea...."What lies beneath the mask?....... Another mask."

regards


----------



## Chrislight (Mar 17, 2006)

Markleford @ Fri Mar 17 said:


> A "deep believer" is immovable and lets "attacks" flow around him like air currents: external forces do not change his solidity. Their grasp upon their faith is so true to their core being that mere words are but a passing amusement.
> 
> An adherent to strict doctrine and dogma, on the other hand, is more likely to lash out at an opposing view that subverts the literal interpretation of their founding work, with no room for alternative or ambiguous interpretation.



Very well put. I have found that my own deep beliefs are most definitely a part of my core being. Given that, I have no need to try and convince others to believe like I do nor to expose those beliefs to the general public. They are my beliefs and I am perfectly content to let others believe whatever they wish. My father told me when I was very young that different religions, spiritual groups and beliefs exist because people have a need for them at that point in their journey. So to try and convince others their beliefs are wrong is pointless and not in their best interest. I have found that to be very good advice.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 18, 2006)

aybe slightly offthread, but that just came to my mind:

you are kinda right, a religion would be only a real religion when there is a god behind or something, but in truth you just need, i don't know the exact number of people but i think, around 100 people to found a religion when everyone of these 100 sign some papers that they believe in this god or this religion.

... and so now we have a religion called "jedi knights" in canada 

without sounding offening and like i stated before. i respect everyone's belief, but this is how you can found something without a big problem. so you could make "everything" religious at least on paper.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 18, 2006)

...sort of like how "professional wrestling" can call itself a sport. :???:


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 18, 2006)

Waywyn @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> aybe slightly offthread, but that just came to my mind:
> 
> you are kinda right, a religion would be only a real religion when there is a god behind or something, but in truth you just need, i don't know the exact number of people but i think, around 100 people to found a religion when everyone of these 100 sign some papers that they believe in this god or this religion.
> 
> ...



Heh - would-be jedi knights tried this in the UK by putting "jedi knight" as their religion. The census made a statement beforehand that in order to be recognized as a real religion they needed a certain number of people doing this - so when they tallied it up later and the census revealed that they had more than enough to validate jedi knight as a religion, they arbitrarily replaced each jedi entry with "atheist" - so much for paper-validated religions.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 18, 2006)

oops, didn't know that not everything is possible - at least in UK.
or wait, but in canada this "religion" still exists? or was it generally forbidden then?


----------



## Markleford (Mar 18, 2006)

Journeyman @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> I find it interesting that (going by Jose's posts), Scientology is willing to consider itself _a religion_ at all. To me, a religion is a belief in a "higher power or diety". Since Jose's posts seem to indicate otherwise, wouldn't it more likely fit under the heading of "philosophy" or "alternative education"?


An important thing to remember is that if you call yourself a "philosophy" or "alternative education", you *cannot* do any of the following (at least in the US):

1) Claim tax-exempt status from your government

2) Force the courts into protecting you from the media via censorship under the guise of "religious persecution"

3) Keep internal records a secret due to reasons of "privileged sanctity"

- m


----------



## Markleford (Mar 18, 2006)

Journeyman @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> ...sort of like how "professional wrestling" can call itself a sport. :???:


"Sports entertainment", I believe is the term. 

Or more correctly, "a soap opera with stunts!" :mrgreen: 

(okay, I'll admit to watching some...  )

- m


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 18, 2006)

Markleford @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> 1) Claim tax-exempt status from your government
> 
> 2) Force the courts into protecting you from the media via censorship under the guise of "religious persecution"
> 
> 3) Keep internal records a secret due to reasons of "privileged sanctity"



VI should be a religion  I can hear Finlay Currie now (narrator for 1959 version of Ben Hur) reading each post aloud to a captive audience with the muscular music strains of MiklÃ³s RÃ³zsa as accompaniment.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 18, 2006)

:wink:


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 18, 2006)

Actually you'd be surpised how close some of the philosophy of the Jedi is close to that of the Buddhist. Yoda's advice to Anakin about non attachment and letting go of the things he loves in ROTS is almost word for word the same idea as is fundamental to Buddhism.

But Buddhists don't get light sabres :cry:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 18, 2006)

> a religion would be only a real religion when there is a god behind or something



That's highly presumptious and with all due respect seriously misguided, from my non-religious point of view. Who is anyone to say that what Jose believes in is religious entertainment and not a "real religion" just because it doesn't have a deity? Not all religions do.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 18, 2006)

Nick,

That's a little strong; I don't know that it's necessarily presumptuous. It just means that someone is unfamiliar with the concept of a religion without belief in a higher power, that's all.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 18, 2006)

And it means someone is being a little unfair about Jose's beliefs. I don't know enough about Scientology to write it off completely as a bizarre money-grabbing cult, and my hunch is that nobody here other than Jose does either.

What I wonder is whether there are two levels: the worker bee level and the "Celebrity Center" level. But I don't know that.


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 18, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> > a religion would be only a real religion when there is a god behind or something
> 
> 
> 
> That's highly presumptious and with all due respect seriously misguided, from my non-religious point of view. Who is anyone to say that what Jose believes in is religious entertainment and not a "real religion" just because it doesn't have a deity? Not all religions do.



sorry, you maybe got me a little wrong there and i wasn't maybe clear enough.

i should have said, a "real" religion, a "classic" religion in the way everybody knows, has even one or more gods, or other higher creatures or powers involved.
but today you can form or create a religious cult by only having 100 or more people involved. i just wanted to say that it is easy to create something, which is then a new formed religion, even jedi knights.
like i said before i respect almost any kind of religions and cults but i think scientology is not a religion in the classic way, by existing over thousands of years etc.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 18, 2006)

Journeyman @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> Nick,
> 
> That's a little strong; I don't know that it's necessarily presumptuous. It just means that someone is unfamiliar with the concept of a religion without belief in a higher power, that's all.



The original Buddhism does not present a higher power. Neither does traditional Chinese religion if I remember correctly. Teosophy, and Anthroposophy? I don't think so. Correct me if I am wrong. These religions put the human being at center, not a divinity.


----------



## Markleford (Mar 18, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> What I wonder is whether there are two levels: the worker bee level and the "Celebrity Center" level. But I don't know that.


That's pretty much how it is: a few levels, actually. Read some of those links I posted earlier for an outline of them.

At any rate, I think much of this is just a semantic issue of determining "religion" versus "philosophy" vs "doctrine". I do think that what most people consider to be "religion" does indeed revolve around a central "creator" entity, at the very least, but that leaves out an entire spectrum of religions, both modern and archaic.

Oh, and Buddhists don't need the light sabres: they get Kung Fu!  

- m


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 18, 2006)

Markleford @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > What I wonder is whether there are two levels: the worker bee level and the "Celebrity Center" level. But I don't know that.
> ...



By "most people" I take it you mean most westerners? Or are you speaking on behalf of Americans?


----------



## midphase (Mar 18, 2006)

religion |ri?lij?n| noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion.




cult |k?lt| noun a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object : the cult of St. Olaf. â€¢ a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister : a network of Satan-worshiping cults. â€¢ a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing : a cult of personality surrounding the leaders.


Seems pretty clean cut to me!


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 18, 2006)

Hans,

Try to contain the condescension. We're only aware of what we're aware of. If something is outside of our field of knowledge, then conversations like these will enlighten us. Try not to sound so insulting.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 18, 2006)

Journeyman @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> Hans,
> 
> Try to contain the condescension. We're only aware of what we're aware of. If something is outside of our field of knowledge, then conversations like these will enlighten us. Try not to sound so insulting.



I am sorry if I insulted you. I tried to share from the limited knowledge I have of the world religions. What in my post do you find insulting? 

Claiming the word "religion" for your own set of beliefs, but denying it to others is condescending from my point of view. "Religion" is just a word to be used or misused.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 18, 2006)

Hans,

I wasn't insulted. But your implication is that all Americans are ignorant. I'm certain that ignorance exists in all countries. I don't know that anyone is "claiming" a particular word or denying it to others, but merely discussing the subject. If you have superior knowledge, then impart in such a way that doesn't condescend. Of course it would help if you didn't make the aggressive assumption that anyone was "claiming" a particualr word for themselves and denying it to others.

How about, "You may be unaware of it, but in my study of world religions, there are in fact some that have no overiding diety." Would that be too diffiicult?

Your posts send a message that you claim to be tolerant of other religions but not other nationalities.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 18, 2006)

Journeyman @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> Hans,
> 
> I wasn't insulted. But your implication is that all Americans are ignorant. I'm certain that ignorance exists in all countries. I don't know that anyone is "claiming" a particular word or denying it to others, but merely discussing the subject. If you have superior knowledge, then impart in such a way that doesn't condescend. Of course it would help if you didn't make the aggressive assumption that anyone was "claiming" a particualr word for themselves and denying it to others.
> 
> ...



Journeyman,

I don't know if Markleford is an American and hence the question. He is definitely not speaking for "most people" of the world, as far as I understand.

I have not studied world religion, and I don't know these things for a fact, hence my : "correct me if I am wrong".

If no one in this thread is claiming the word religion for beliefs in a deity, then I was misunderstanding what I was reading.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 18, 2006)

As a friend of Hans I think all worries could be set aside if you knew him or if this conversation were being held in a living room - he's perhaps one of the most tolerant people I know. This is the unfortunate drawback of internet communication - a lot gets lost in the delivery as well as in the interpretation.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 18, 2006)

> If no one in this thread is claiming the word religion for beliefs in a deity, then I was misunderstanding what I was reading.



Perhaps you have. Let's move on, shall we?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 18, 2006)

Kays, that dictinionary definition is clear-cut (and incorrect about belief in a deity), but in reality the lines between religion and cult are very subjective.

Alex - fair enough.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 18, 2006)

midphase @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> religion |ri?lij?n| noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion.



Unfortunately it appears that clear-cut definitions of what defines a religion (and what does not) is somewhat foggy.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm


----------



## Markleford (Mar 18, 2006)

Hans Adamson @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> By "most people" I take it you mean most westerners? Or are you speaking on behalf of Americans?


More specifically: "Most people who are bound to participate in such a discussion as this, in an online forum that happens in the English language."

Though yes, I'd might venture to say most Westerners as well, and that my implication is indeed that the general populace holds this particular ignorance (or merely "unthinking self-centered-ness").

Given what I believe is the prevelence of monotheism in this day and age (and someone with the numbers correct me if I'm wrong, though do consider their source if cited), particularly with evangelistic efforts of Christian denominations throughout Africa and Asia, I don't think it's particularly inconceivable that this is a dominant mindset, is it?

- m


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 18, 2006)

According to the almanac, something like 10% of the world (I assume most of them Westerners) is atheistic or nonreligious. That's a pretty large group of people - about 650 million - whose mindset isn't dominant. 

In other words, you can't just take it for granted that everyone is Christian.


----------



## Markleford (Mar 18, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> According to the almanac, something like 10% of the world (I assume most of them Westerners) is atheistic or nonreligious. That's a pretty large group of people - about 650 million - whose mindset isn't dominant.


Indeed a large number of people, but still only a minority percentage of the whole. We're interested moreso in ratios than outright quantity, which is only meaningful in a particular context: 100 apples are a lot, but 100 grains of sand are not! (Or the reverse is true, if the context is an orchard versus your sock!  )



> In other words, you can't just take it for granted that everyone is Christian.


No one is contesting that everyone is of a particular belief system (which is obvious), but rather entering conjecture upon what they believe the definition of "religion" is. My citing Christian evangelical efforts is only to demonstrate that the concept or relgion is spreading to "godless" regions of the planet (which are not necessarily without a deep spiritual tradition of their own!).

What is perhaps eluding people here is that even atheists have a *concept* of what "religion" means, though lacking a religion in and of itself. Though they don't believe in something, it's likely they've encountered the term "religion" and have formulated a stance on the subject. Namely that they don't believe in something. But what is that "something"?

Furthermore, to cite a dominant mindset isn't a claim that it's *correct*.

So all I'm claiming here is that if you go to New York, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, London, Paris, Munich, Moscow, Beijing, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Syndey, New Delhi, Rabat, etc and ask what "religion" is to a sizeable sample set (no, not audio samples! ), good money is on most of the people who have any knowledge of the concept at all mentioning a "higher power" (mono or poly) typically associated with a creation mythology. They're certainly not going to be the same story (depending on region), and the person describing it doesn't even have to believe it, but its existence as a dominant concept will likely become statistically apparent (but by no means 100% universal).

Of course, this notion also allows for people who *do* follow a theistic religion to have a concept of "religion" that encompasses non-theistic doctrines. But the foremost, simplest explanation of "religion" will be what has been mentioned here. On venturing into the depths of the matter, however (as Frederick alluded), is to cloud the issue, which really is what makes it fascinating stuff: if it were black and white, if everyone's definition was the same, then there would be nothing to talk about.

So I'm not surprised when people say "Scientology really doesn't sound like a religion". I'm not saying they're right, however: it's only their opinion, whether it is or isn't in the majority. What's perplexing is when this opinion is perceived as some sort of definitive assertion or personal attack, which it likely isn't: as Journeyman put it, "We're only aware of what we're aware of."

- m


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 18, 2006)

Fair enough.

I think that what makes something a religion is that it's a practice, by the way, not just teachings and beliefs.

What I wonder is why going to church regularly makes a person far more likely to have commited the deadly sin of voting for George Bush.


----------



## Markleford (Mar 18, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> I think that what makes something a religion is that it's a practice, by the way, not just teachings and beliefs.


Sometimes people differentiate such as "philosophy" if there's no practice/worship/ritual/whatnot. And "meditation" is also on that fuzzy line...

My brother invited a co-worker to his Tai Chi school once (to help him relax), and the devoutly Christian fellow politely declined, citing: "I don't have room in my life for another belief system." 



> What I wonder is why going to church regularly makes a person far more likely to have commited the deadly sin of voting for George Bush.


Along similar lines, I wonder why Bush and his church-goer followers think that their own belief of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is okay so long as it's for revenge and keeping gas prices artificially low. :mrgreen: 

(uht-oh, religion *and* politics now? prepare for the deluge...)

- m


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 18, 2006)

Well, if I'm not visiting OT at NS anymore, I gotta have some fun...

(And I should have added that going to synagogue regularly seems to have the same effect, or at least people who do have the same propensity.)


----------



## joaz (Mar 19, 2006)

I heard a Rabbi on the radio the other day, contrasting Christianity's obsession with theological disputation, (How many Angels on a pinhead etc, etc,) with Judaism's obsession with Law.
He then came up with this cute maxim..........
" (In Judaism)... you don't have to believe in god........ you just have to do as he says........"
:mrgreen: 

regards


----------



## Ed (Mar 21, 2006)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/20 ... rk_repeat/

"Comedy Central canned a repeat of the offending programme due to air last Wednesday, provoking the show's creators to declare to Variety: "So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies.
"Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!"
"


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## tgfoo (Mar 22, 2006)

huh, so that's why they didn't air the episode last week (even though the description said they were...). Too bad comedy central let themselves get pushed around like that... Oh well, luckily I got to watch the episode the other day anyways, so I got my fill.


----------



## IFM (Mar 22, 2006)

The real reason was Tom Cruise was going to refuse to promote MI3 unless the episode was pulled. Seeing as Comedy Central is owned by the same folks (Viacom) the episode was pulled.

One of the many articles about it:
http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/2006/03/17/tom_cruise_has_no_sense_of_hum_1.html

Chris


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Mar 22, 2006)

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060321f.php

?


----------



## Hermitage59 (Mar 22, 2006)

This farce about a character in a cartoon is nothing more than IH confirming to the viewers that he is superstitious, narrowminded, and belligerent in his intent to prevent criticism of 'his' religion, or sect, or whatever label you wish to apply.
Does that represent a view of humour, tolerance, and understanding? Or acceptance that others don't share his view?
He's confirmed to me that he is a slave of a system, based on superstition and fear.

Shame really. 


Regards,

Alex.

Atheist, and free of reliance on a man made belief/control system.


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 22, 2006)

> Aside from the tribal group instinct, is it possible that religion, undeniably a man made system, is a reflex defence against the possibility that our species, sentient, adaptable, and for many superstitious, may in fact be alone in this galaxy, or so far from other life forms as to create a sense of being alone? Is this the real reason for a perceived need to believe in an 'all powerful protector?'



Alex,

A lot of how I might interpret your potentially inflammatory post depends on your definition of religion. Some define it as the man-made organization that surrounds the belief system, while others use the more generic definition of the belief system itself. If you're referring to the latter definition, then I strongly disagree with you, while if you're referring to the former definition, then my argument becomes a little less vehement.

If like me, one has personally experienced God, and knows His existence to be real, then this renders your argument moot, since His existence (for me) obviates your above arguments. I realize that YMMV, so please don't start a flame war over this. If on the other hand, you definition encompasses only the man made constructs that surround the belief system, then your argument has some validity.


----------



## Markleford (Mar 22, 2006)

Journeyman @ Wed Mar 22 said:


> If like me, one has personally experienced God, and knows His existence to be real, then this renders your argument moot, since His existence (for me) obviates your above arguments. I realize that YMMV, so please don't start a flame war over this. If on the other hand, you definition encompasses only the man made constructs that surround the belief system, then your argument has some validity.


I imagine he meant it as a generalized phenomena where experience is defined via context and individual frame of reference.

Namely, someone can "experience God", but it is defined by the persons previous experiences and knowledge, *or* later filled in with new knowledge. "I just lived a powerful experience: to whom may I attribute it?" A group that experiences the same event or feeling will attribute it to different gods or powers or forces depending on their culture or historical era. YMMV, indeed!

So an ancient Viking might have said he was touched by Odin, the Chinese of centuries past may attribute to a "kitchen god", to all cultures of the world across time: Zeus, Horace, Allah, Jehovah, nature spirits, etc.

So does an individual's personal truth mean it's an absolute truth? I don't think so. Man made? Yes, I believe that's also the case, but it does retain it's power. So I'd have to agree with Alex to a large extent: religions merely give us a label, a mythology to explain the unexplained, which gives us comfort. Because humans are worrisome little creatures that can't leave things unexplained: that's why a giant snake in the sky would occasionally eat the sun, requiring the sacrifice of a virgin to release it. (solar eclipses were kinda scary back then)

Of course, someone may choose to scoff at another's experience through different eyes. "You believe you had an alien abduction? What a stupid thing to say! Now let me tell you about my personal relationship with Jesus..."

The two obvious solutions are to either discount the lot as a cultural influence on the impressionable human mind, or to include everything as different facets of the same cosmology (which I'm more likely to do, at least from a perspective of idle amusement and quaint comforts).

The unreasonable solution is to say that there is one truth, and everyone else throughout time was foolishly misguided. Unfortunately, people have fought wars for this point of view.

- m


----------



## Hermitage59 (Mar 22, 2006)

Journey,
I would be the first to defend your right to believe whatever you wish, so no flame, just a strong opinion.
My views tend towards the former, and that is the man made organisations. A belief structure has almost infinite variability of definition, from the scientist who fundamentally believes in his path of system, to the follower of a brand of religion.
I could say i have a belief too, but if i were frankly objective with myself, it's more a series of conclusions and interpretations of fact and event that guide me in principle. Is that collection a belief? To me, no. Maybe to you, yes.

You have what seems an unshakable belief in a god. If that helps you through each day, guides you in moments of stress, gives you strength when you are weak, then my view of the existence of a god or not will have no effect in shared discussion with you, and the reality is, if your perception of that belief gives you the characteristics and behaviour of a decent civilised fellow, then one could hardly say that your belief is wrong for you. 
The point was made in an earlier post about numbers, and cited atheists as in the minority by some margin. I got the impression the writer was somehow trying to use this majority/minority equation as 'proof' that religion is the 'more right' answer. 
I'm opposed to this view strongly, as history tells us that the few often determine the fates of the many. Indeed, you could say that about modern politics, when even a majority disagree with a point of view, that the view still comes into existence as law or policy to satisfy the aspirations of the few.

And the quote you use from my unedited post is a question, not an attempt to inflame a religious/non religious war. I don't beleive in the idea of an all powerful protector at all, and fail to see the attraction. To me, (and i express only my view) it's an admission that civilisation has some way to go before getting out of the cave/tribal mentality, and gazing unafraid at the stars, accepting in the knowledge that we may or may not be alone in this galaxy and universe, and comfortable with that.
I don't confuse this with the curiosity of new discovery, just the decision collectively, that we no longer need to fear our existence on human terms without relying on some form of 'minder'. I've expressed this view as one who sees belief as something personal, and religion as a business, and nothing more. Even as a statistic of minority, i have no fear questioning the existence of a god in whatever religion, and fail to be overwhelmed with an assumption by the majority that because there's more of you, I have to keep quiet and 'respectful', (which translates to me as shut up and do as we do cos there's more of us than you).
Majority doesn't always mean right. (IMHO) You made the remark that my post could be potentially inflammatory. Why? I have a differing opinion, that's it. We're unlikely to sway each other's view from a forum discussion.

I don't need to be so careful though when i express a strongly opposing point of view to the construct that is religion. History, past and present, is my proof of a man made system that has little to do with belief, and everything to do with power, and control.


Thanks for being civilised in your response to what could be a 'passionately' expressed opinion.

Regards,

Alex.


----------



## Hermitage59 (Mar 22, 2006)

Markleford @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that what makes something a religion is that it's a practice, by the way, not just teachings and beliefs.
> ...



M.
I've used this quote instead of your other excellent posts, because of the profound truth in your line ,
'No thanks. I don't have room in my life for another belief system.'

Is this indicative of a state of mind or feeling? That the person you mentioned has a perception that he must have a belief system of one form or another with which to operate? 
Does this mean he thinks or 'believes' that those who don't have a belief system are somehow incomplete, and unable to function properly?

And, does this mean a belief system is a rigid structure that actually inhibits an open mind, or discourages discussion outside the parameters prescribed by the 'interpreters' of that system, namely priests, preachers, rabbi's and immams?

Again, i've enjoyed your civilised and intelligent muse.

Regards,

Alex.


----------



## Markleford (Mar 22, 2006)

Hermitage59 @ Wed Mar 22 said:


> Is this indicative of a state of mind or feeling? That the person you mentioned has a perception that he must have a belief system of one form or another with which to operate?
> Does this mean he thinks or 'believes' that those who don't have a belief system are somehow incomplete, and unable to function properly?


Oh, you're definitely reading more into this than there actually is... 

Certainly, the person most likely thinks that belief systems are contradictory and therefore must be mutually exclusive.

The most telling aspect of this anecdote, though, is that because the practice of this martial art/relaxation exercise approaches the outward appearance of a "ritual", then it *must* have a relgious component. Which is of course not true: there are religions without rituals, and rituals without religion.



> And, does this mean a belief system is a rigid structure that actually inhibits an open mind, or discourages discussion outside the parameters prescribed by the 'interpreters' of that system, namely priests, preachers, rabbi's and immams?


Most religions do count on a lot of memetic transfer to gain followers, and many religions do their best to eliminate competing memes from the environment of their followers. Thus the existence of "prohibited readings" and various verbotten media that is deemed "unholy" or "sacrilege".

(Remember all that nonsense about Copernicus claiming that the earth revolved around the sun? Blasphemy!)

Control and censorship of a supposedly free media is an important tool, because you don't want reason and logic or a breadth of ideas available to someone already holding a tenuous grasp on a faith with little basis but familial tradition.

The same goes for cultures who won't allow education of women (or other "second-class citizens"), lest they get "improper ideas" and demand equal rights as human beings. And any oppressive political ideology will attempt the same thing: if you eliminate knowledge of other choices available to them, they won't demand changes with the status quo.

I've seen adverts for religious seminars for college-bound youth, because "their beliefs will be under attack in this hedonistic environment". It teaches them to "stay true to their faith", which I perhaps jadedly interpret as "close their mind to different religions, cultures, and logical beliefs from around the world".

I do think that religion as a man-made construct inhibits an open mind: otherwise parents would let their children make up their own minds about the nature of their existence.

That said, must not man have an *open* mind to entertain the belief in a creator/deity? It's equally unfair to say that *all* religious people are closed-minded, and we should always be cautious of making judgments of extremes or absolutes in either direction, as many times the ideal stance is balanced somewhere in the middle. By way of example, there are plenty of scientists who came out against the whole US "intelligent design" movement despite having their own religious beliefs: science and faith *can* co-exist!

- m


----------



## Ed (Mar 22, 2006)

Markleford @ Wed Mar 22 said:


> By way of example, there are plenty of scientists who came out against the whole US "intelligent design" movement despite having their own religious beliefs: science and faith *can* co-exist!



You should check this out! Long but cool if you're interested in the topic.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01/ken_miller_webc.html (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/200 ... _webc.html)


----------



## Markleford (Mar 22, 2006)

Wow, that was intensely cool. Sort of like science-education social-theory pr0n to me.  I had a professor at university for a class on "Science, Technology, and Human Values" that was a Methodist minister and biochemist, who was similarly entertaining and insightful.

I also followed up on the Americans United site that Miller mentioned and found that the Ohio Board of Education did http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr010=xgdnr8u1a2.app7b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7937&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 (vote to remove the ID/&quot;critical analysis&quot; lesson plan) after all. Good that they made the right decision, but certainly makes me a bit happier that I moved from Ohio two months ago. 8)

(Unfortunately, now I'm smack in the middle of the "Bible Belt"!)

- m


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 22, 2006)

> (Unfortunately, now I'm smack in the middle of the "Bible Belt"!)


Where's that?


----------



## Markleford (Mar 22, 2006)

Pretty much what formerly comprised the Confederate States of America in the US Civil War.

(Wikipedia on "Bible Belt": interesting in how the entry points out bible belts in other countries, too)

- m


----------



## jc5 (Mar 22, 2006)

I have heard enough.
The *truth* must out.
And the truth is... that Bruckner is god! And he hath handed down the holy word to us in his nine symphonies. Praise be!
Let the survey be sent out so that "Brucknerian" can be made an official denomination, with all the tax benefits and legal protection that goes with it! Hallelujah!

I once was lost - I once followed the way of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I believed his noodly appendage had touched me, and had even bought an eye patch. But then the true word was revealed to me in the Te Deum! Praise be!

We shall all await in perpetual praise for the second coming of the holy prophet Wagner who shall set the musical world to rights once more.

For what was set out by Bach and Beethoven was brought to full fruition by the mighty one, Wagner, in his well known infinite humility. 
Do not let yourselves be deceived by the Brahmsian heretics!


----------



## jc5 (Mar 22, 2006)

Frederick Russ @ Sat Mar 18 said:


> Markleford @ Sat Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Claim tax-exempt status from your government
> ...



So long as we don't have to all commit mass suicide in a concert hall in Utah after a ten day stand off with government forces, I'm right behind you. :lol: :wink:


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 22, 2006)

I've been in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster for a while. Thier pirate chart is what won me over.


----------



## Markleford (Mar 22, 2006)

(For the confused: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and Wikipedia entry))


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 25, 2006)

Has anybody been keeping up with South Park? There's some video of the episode where Chef comes back but all his dialogue is glued together from older episodes.


----------



## midphase (Mar 25, 2006)

Yeah, it was pretty awesome!


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 26, 2006)

Oops forgot to mention that video is on youtube.


----------



## Ed (Mar 26, 2006)

choc0thrax @ Sun Mar 26 said:


> Oops forgot to mention that video is on youtube.



link?


----------



## Alex W (Mar 27, 2006)

saw the episode... was a bit sad actually... :cry: ...


----------



## danimal (Apr 24, 2006)

josejherring @ Thu Mar 16 said:


> I helped an illeterate woman learn to read.



Hey Jose, I won't poke fun at what you believe, but the statement written above is classic. Take care, Jose.

Dan (a member of the spelling and grammar police)


----------



## choc0thrax (Apr 24, 2006)

Damn I didn't even see that.


----------



## Thonex (Apr 24, 2006)

danimal @ Mon Apr 24 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > I helped an illeterate woman learn to read.
> ...



Well, in his defense... he did say "read" and not "spell". :wink: 

T


----------

