What is Scientology?

I’m aware they believe that human beings are immortal and they use auditing to heal themselves.

Also that the practice of psychiatry is destructive, abusive and must be abolished.

If you have a good reason to want to know, go get their book Dianetics, and find out for yourself. If you don’t have a good reason, don’t trouble yourself. But I can, in any case, tell from what you said that you have a paltry and faulty idea of what they are about. Overall, better to not go there.

I don’t have a reason personally other than all religions/cults etc interest me. My friend from university days just joined them and most of what she tells me doesn’t gel with what I have read, albeit in the celebrity magazines.

She said the auditing is like the Catholics Confession. Catholics are encouraged to confess their sins and work on not repeating them which is similar to what they do in auditing.

They are encouraged to live to their highest potential and work on bringing their characters up to it’s highest potential.

Will have to buy that Dianetics book, I wonder if my friend will give me mates rates. :stuck_out_tongue:

The difference between auditing and confessing is that they record your auditing sessions, and will use them against you later if you choose to criticize them. I wouldn’t waste your money on Dianetics as you’ll be directly funding them. Instead I highly recommend Lawrence Wright’s Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief. Wright is a Pulitzer Prize winning author who presents the history and current state of Scientology objectively and clearly.

My thought is that one must be very careful with the ways of the spirits of darkness, which are not only extreme in their intelligence, but cunning. Why bother reading a book about a religion founded by a science fiction writer when here we are blessed to be among those who follow the Catholic Church, the religion founded by God Himself in the form of Jesus Christ (Mt. 16:18)?

I remember when the book first came out. They were passing out free copies in the cafeteria of the college I went to. I was told not to go past any words I didn’t understand and the glossary would be in the back. I kept having to go to the glossary so I gave up.

I don’t believe in any practice that rebukes physicians. I guess because I’ve worked in the health care industry, in Catholic hospitals, and believe that God made physicians and nurses to help us heal along with prayer. God made Veterinarians, God made store owners, God made policemen… for reasons, and that’s to help one another…

I have been to confession all through my time as a practicing Catholic. I’ve done auditing, both sides, as though I’m not a Scientologist, I took that course and was a certified auditor. It is not remotely like confession as it is practiced in the Church. Not even related. I think your friend is trying to make a big stretch to accommodate what she thinks could be the nearest thing in your experience.

Your friend may soon find out that Scientology has some very effective protocols. The main protocol in Scientology is extracting money from Scientologists. And they are good at it and jealous of their members. They don’t like to let go. Before you buy Dianetics, you might want to check into L Ron Hubbard’s biography. Lawrende Wright is a good bet, too.

Gotta say, that while some of the publicly available protocols work and are of practical value, some of the premises are not, uh, sound. Be careful, as they have a subtly effective recruitment program. You think you know yourself? I guarantee you you haven’t a clue. Work on that first. Then, if you are still motivated, you might look at other ways, including the Church.

As for some other ides on here, yes, LRH was a science fiction writer. He was friends with RA Heinlien, who is very worth reading as he includes names worthy of pursuite, and portrays some very interesting social considerations.

“Dark forces?” “Intelligent and cunning?” Look again at yourself and your self deceptions. Ever read CS Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters? Never mind cults, etc, you are your own very worst enemy, I guarantee.

Oh, and Karen 107 might note that God “made” Scientologists, too. And for my part, I have a few things to say about the AMA that are far less than complimentary.

Ultimately, faith and belief are the enemy. Many on here will be shocked and repelled by that statement, but think about what it means–beyond having a pious reaction about it. Holding stricktly to a belief–as distinct from looking for knowledge–assumes you have an answer. In other words, it is the end of curiosity and the beginning of false comfort. This is true in any area of human effort, so my remark should not be taken as a slam on religion, but as an observation regarding the dynamic of growth and alignment with actuallity, as distinct from an ideology that excludes relevant data.

Nuf said for now.

My reply to God made scientologists is that if you didn’t believe in God, how would you even know that God made scientologists. Health care workers are gifts from God… We should also have faith which helps us heal and maybe helps us with miracles Lord willing… :slight_smile:

Faith and belief arent the enemy… Faith, hope and love are gifts from God and there’s no way I’m going to give them up…

Scientology is the result of a bet L. Ron Hubbard made that he could create a new religion.

Hehe, I’ve heard that one before too. The way I heard it, Hubbard himself wasn’t religious and had such scorn for people of faith that he bet another guy he could use his imagination as a writer and make up a brand new religion out of nothing and gain fervent believers that would donate their money to him. If it’s true, he clearly won the bet!

The whole thing to me looks to me like a money making racket.

Ah the circular reasoning of scientism (from a guy slamming Scientology, no less!).
Saw lots of this in college. One starts with the presumption that everything that occurs in the universe does so in accordance with the natural laws of the universe. Then one applies reason and experimentation to said universe and finds that in the vast majority of cases, this is demonstrably true. Since science has had such success in explaining the natural laws of the universe, it must be capable of explaining God too. God, however, fails to exhibit reproducible results in the scientist’s petri dish, therefore he doesn’t exist. Poof!

Lost in the mix is the fact that the Supernatural is, by definition, NOT something that can be explained by science. It’s like trying to use a screwdriver to understand computer software.

I remember that South Park did an episode poking fun at Scientology a few years ago. When they were describing the Scientology “origin story,” it was so wacky that the show’s writers placed a notice at the bottom of the screen that said, “This is what Scientologists actually believe.” It was pretty funny. :slight_smile:

It went something along the lines of a million years ago there was an evil alien named Lord Xenu who was the dictator of the “Galactic Confederacy.” Because of overpopulation in his galaxy, Xenu had aliens rounded up, frozen, and sent to Earth in spaceships. These frozen alien bodies were then dumped into Hawaiian volcanoes. Of course, this then killed the frozen aliens, but their souls lived on and inhabit humans. It is the souls of these dead aliens that cause all of humanity’s problems and fears.

Apparently, all the auditing and stuff that you buy from Scientologists is supposed to help you get rid of the evil effects of these lingering ancient alien souls.

Yeah, its pretty wacky. Just to prove that I’m not making this up, check out the Wikipedia article, “Xenu.”

Ah…you kind of said what I’m saying: The alleged god of any religion cannot be proved or disproved by arguments or logic. “God” is not the province of science or argument. To say that there isn’t a proof for god doesn’t constitute denial, unless you are being defensive. It is only to say that there is no materially acceptable proof, unless bent by piety and inculcation. If a scientist or other decides to not believe, they have good reason not to on grounds of measurability. But on the same token religionsists have not a good reason to believe, save for that the mind wants an explanation–so it uses a place holder for the unexplained, eg “god.”

This is the same thing I have heard from multiple sources. Not saying it’s what happened, but I have definitely heard this before.

Unless, of course, one considers a solid historical record to be a “good reason to believe” in which case we have an excellent reason to do so: the empty grave of a crucified man.

The scientismist, on the other hand does NOT have a “good reason not to.” What he has is circular reasoning. The supernatural cannot, by definition, be demonstrated by the scientific method. Asserting that there IS nothing beyond the natural (i.e. repeatable) is nothing more than naked assertion relying on itself. Christians at least have the synchronicity between reason, the historical record and observable human nature to rely upon. Scientismists have nothing but blind faith to back up their assertion that repeatability is the only test of truth.

I’m sorry, I missed where that is? And I am really not certain what you are reading that would have you conclude that Church history is “solid.” Actually, far from that. Even Eusebius said that he omitted what made the Church look bad and magnified what enhanced its reputation. The “standards” of journalism were sketchy at best in those times. On the other hand, there is this: stephen-knapp.com/visiting_the_grave_of_jesus_in_srinagar.htm

And I suppose Josephus was just an dastardly pawn of the Vatican Illuminati too, eh?

Jesus’ death and accounts of resurrection are about the most solidly documented historical events in human history of that era. Discounting that level of historical documentation and account corroboration requires a conspiracy theory that would embarrass most alien abduction enthusiasts.

Matthew 24:24-25
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 Lo, I have told you beforehand.

Through Jesus Christ, we have been given further proofs of His existence and warnings.
There is the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Divine Mercy apparitions, to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque and St. Faustina Kowalska, respectively. There have been the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Lourdes, France and Fatima, Portugal. At the end of the first, we were left with a healing spring and at the end of the second, there was the Miracle of the Sun. All of these apparitions have been approved by the Church Jesus Christ founded and against which he promised the gates of Hell would not prevail (Matthew 16:18).

Scientology is considered a Cult. Tom Cruise and John Travolta were both Catholic, and Tom Cruise even wanted to be a priest. Were they not deceived? I truly believe so because it is not Christ they’re following, but a false one.

Yes, you are right, if you go unquestioningly with the questionable assumption that the Gospels are historical documents exactly portraying events. But unless one tortures their mind into a pious pretzel, that doesn’t line up with the fact that there are many questions about that.

Regarding Josephus and the “testimonium Flavianum:”

The problem with the copies of Antiquities is that they appear to have been rewritten in favor of Jesus as they are very favorable, some say too favorable to have been written by a Jew. Add to this that the Christians were the ones who kept and made the copies of the Josephus documents throughout history and you have a shadow of doubt cast upon the quotes.

Hmmm…Vatican Illuminati? Don’t personally know of any, or of abductions, save by the accounts of one friend. In the days of Josephus, the vatican was still a swamp and a burial ares, if I’m not mistaken, so attributing such an allegiance or puppetry to Josephus is highly improbable. It’s like I said: journalistic standards at that time were rather slack, and often were, to the dismay of scholars, i’m sure, more propaganda then accurate reportage.

On the other hand, as Mr Hume said:

"It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation…

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish…’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence."

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.