Scientology - WTF?

Off Topic
101

[quote]pookie wrote:
brucevangeorge wrote:
But I don’t think the original teachings meant to discriminate. They were just stating the roles of man and woman. Bible ex: Man goes works the field all day, woman stays at home takes care of land & house… etc.

You should try reading it some time… The Bible clearly states that a woman is subservient to the man.

[i]Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.[/i]

…and many, many more. The above is all from the New Testament. The OT is even worse. Just read the book before you go defending it.

[/quote]

I hate people that take everything at face value.
There is a word for it called “religious discrimination”, at least that is how psychologists describe it. Another form is “discrimination by religion”

By my definition, it is for people who get brainwashed in a religion and end up not thinking about anything deeply. Homophobics, people who think the new version of the Bible that includes gender-neutral words is “feminist” and are actually angry about it, people who think that how it was back in primitive times is exactly how it should be now.

The relationships where one gender submits to the other are more likely to have some form of domestic violence/abuse involved.

102

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
I can’t answer that question without somehow being wrong. I don’t date wimpy men. I appreciate a strong man.

That’s all I’m saying. The man has to be the leader (masculine) in the relationship… and take charge. Whereas the woman has to be submissive (feminine) and follow the man’s lead.

Which is what i meant by the bible enforcing those roles. its not descriminating (most passages anyway)… its just differentiating.
.[/quote]

No one has to be the leader and the follower in relationships.

103

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:

Doubtful. I actually hope to join the Freemasons one day

I just joined the StoneCutters.[/quote]

So, YOU rig every Oscar night?

YOU made Steve Guttenberg a star?

104

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
pookie wrote:
You should try reading it some time… The Bible clearly states that a woman is subservient to the man.

Yes. That’s the way it always was. For the past… 20,000 years. Give or take a couple of thousand.

Where is your argument?[/quote]

We are no longer a primitive species.
Just because a billion people do something doesnt make it the right thing to do. Just because something has been done for a long time doesnt mean it is the right thing to do. Just because something makes a person have a positive reaction to something, doesnt mean it is the right thing to do. Just because something seems OK on the surface doesnt mean it is when looking deeper into it. Just because you are winning in a situation doesnt mean it is right that you are.
thought this was common sense but I guess its not.

105

[quote]deputydawg wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
brucevangeorge wrote:
pookie wrote:
You should try reading it some time… The Bible clearly states that a woman is subservient to the man.

Yes. That’s the way it always was. For the past… 20,000 years. Give or take a couple of thousand.

Where is your argument?

Because that is how it was doesn’t mean that it wasn’t discriminating. Don’t you see that?

And in ancient civilizations women were equal to men and in many societies the rulers had to descend from the line of the royal woman. This way they new the child really had the royal bloodline in them.

I’ve digressed again.

Also reading my posts… I really do seem to be defending Scientology. Don’t know why guess I just stick up for the underdog.

Freedom to choose means freedom not to choose also.

Please list all of the ancient civilizations where women were equal to men. I read quite a bit of history and I haven’t encountered one yet. But maybe I have missed one. Descent thru the female line does not necessarily equal equality.
[/quote]

Civilizations evolve by ideaphoria, creativity of thought, new information being discovered and people becoming more knowledgable etc.
There will always be change-and we are all learning by seeing what was successful and what was not.

106

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:

Doubtful. I actually hope to join the Freemasons one day

I just joined the StoneCutters.

So, YOU rig every Oscar night?

YOU made Steve Guttenberg a star?

[/quote]

I control the British Crown.

I keep the metric system down.

107

Racism, ageism, and sexism are all institutionalized forms of violence and oppression. When religion is used to promote these types of oppressions it can be harder to detect.
Oppression is basically based on hierarchy, one person/group is more priviledged and others alientated or dispossessed.
If you have ever read the Bible or taken theology classes, you wold understand that the wife being put in a subordinate position is a hierarchial marriage/marital structure.

Corinthians 7:3-6 has Paul saying clearly that both wife and husband have expectations the other should meet, not just the husband. This is actually the only passage in the New testament that discusses the authority one partner has over the other. In…1 Corinthians 7:5 Paul also teaches that neither partner is to impose themselves as the “spiritual leader” over the other…stating decision-making as consensual.
Ephesians 5:22 is used to support doctrines of hierarchy in marriage and the way it is put in many Bibles makes it more for people to interprete it that way, the people who do not go and read upon anything liek this. The verse 22 is actually split. Verses 22 contains a verb but gets it from Ephesians 5:21, in which submission is put ontp all believers. Anyways, have to go

108

Since this has now turned into a discussion of Who should be submissive i think we need to take a look at whats goin on. Feminism is at a all time high and so is devorce. Concadince i think not. I have nothing against feminism but todays feminists are not wanting equal rights. For exaple a woman can be chattin with her office buddys and call all guys jackasses while a guy can be with his buddys and say all women are bitches.

Now someone hears both of these sayings why is it only the men who are forced to take sensativity training you ask, well its simple Todays Femonists want the same pay as men but want to be treated as a weaker sex, now none will admit it, but if you look at whats going on with these new ages you will find thats exactly what it is.

109

[quote]julia87 wrote:
deputydawg wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
brucevangeorge wrote:
pookie wrote:
You should try reading it some time… The Bible clearly states that a woman is subservient to the man.

Yes. That’s the way it always was. For the past… 20,000 years. Give or take a couple of thousand.

Where is your argument?

Because that is how it was doesn’t mean that it wasn’t discriminating. Don’t you see that?

And in ancient civilizations women were equal to men and in many societies the rulers had to descend from the line of the royal woman. This way they new the child really had the royal bloodline in them.

I’ve digressed again.

Also reading my posts… I really do seem to be defending Scientology. Don’t know why guess I just stick up for the underdog.

Freedom to choose means freedom not to choose also.

Please list all of the ancient civilizations where women were equal to men. I read quite a bit of history and I haven’t encountered one yet. But maybe I have missed one. Descent thru the female line does not necessarily equal equality.

Civilizations evolve by ideaphoria, creativity of thought, new information being discovered and people becoming more knowledgable etc.
There will always be change-and we are all learning by seeing what was successful and what was not.

[/quote]

Julia87 please don’t lump me in with the guys saying that’s they way its always been or that’s what the bible says. The point of my question is that Let’s not pretend there was some sort of great civilization of the past where women had the kind of equality they have today. It ain’t there. But I am all for legal equality. The technological improvements of the last 100 or 200 years is what has led to equality. But history and biology would seem to dictate that heirachies are inevitable. I take it you are a university student. Universities pretend they are democratic and equalitarian but they are quite heirarchical. As are all human endeavors. There is always a boss. Heirarchies always emerge.

110

I know someone who is in the process of infiltrating a religous groups some may consider a cult, not to ‘expose them’ or anything but to brainwash them all with nonsense. He is doing it for a psychology project.

All anything like this is, giving people something to believe in, as life can become unbearable for some without it.

111

[quote]julia87 wrote:
I hate people that take everything at face value.[/quote]

Are you telling me this to make conversation, or am I included in that group?

112

[quote]John S. wrote:
Since this has now turned into a discussion of Who should be submissive i think we need to take a look at whats goin on. Feminism is at a all time high and so is devorce. Concadince i think not. I have nothing against feminism but todays feminists are not wanting equal rights. For exaple a woman can be chattin with her office buddys and call all guys jackasses while a guy can be with his buddys and say all women are bitches.

Now someone hears both of these sayings why is it only the men who are forced to take sensativity training you ask, well its simple Todays Femonists want the same pay as men but want to be treated as a weaker sex, now none will admit it, but if you look at whats going on with these new ages you will find thats exactly what it is.[/quote]

and I thought I was dragging this thread way far from the initial post.

John… If I do the same job I want the same pay. If I can’t do the job, don’t pay me the same. I also don’t agree with gender-norming. Have one standard, if I cannot do the job, don’t give me the job.

as for the social aspects… I don’t even go there. Too many things work for too many people. We see different relationships right here with our members… (haha I typed members) sorry…

113

[quote]deputydawg wrote:
julia87 wrote:
deputydawg wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
brucevangeorge wrote:
pookie wrote:
You should try reading it some time… The Bible clearly states that a woman is subservient to the man.

Yes. That’s the way it always was. For the past… 20,000 years. Give or take a couple of thousand.

Where is your argument?

Because that is how it was doesn’t mean that it wasn’t discriminating. Don’t you see that?

And in ancient civilizations women were equal to men and in many societies the rulers had to descend from the line of the royal woman. This way they new the child really had the royal bloodline in them.

I’ve digressed again.

Also reading my posts… I really do seem to be defending Scientology. Don’t know why guess I just stick up for the underdog.

Freedom to choose means freedom not to choose also.

Please list all of the ancient civilizations where women were equal to men. I read quite a bit of history and I haven’t encountered one yet. But maybe I have missed one. Descent thru the female line does not necessarily equal equality.

Civilizations evolve by ideaphoria, creativity of thought, new information being discovered and people becoming more knowledgable etc.
There will always be change-and we are all learning by seeing what was successful and what was not.

Julia87 please don’t lump me in with the guys saying that’s they way its always been or that’s what the bible says. The point of my question is that Let’s not pretend there was some sort of great civilization of the past where women had the kind of equality they have today. It ain’t there. But I am all for legal equality. The technological improvements of the last 100 or 200 years is what has led to equality. But history and biology would seem to dictate that heirachies are inevitable. I take it you are a university student. Universities pretend they are democratic and equalitarian but they are quite heirarchical. As are all human endeavors. There is always a boss. Heirarchies always emerge. [/quote]

I did list the civilizations, that isn’t including the asian countries. Perhaps I have had the benefit of taking a women in history class and you haven’t. I don’t know you so perhaps you have taken the class. There are also polyandry societies… gotta love em although too many men are trouble.

I never said it was the norm. Perhaps that is what you thought I was stating.

114

[quote]Dr Stig wrote:
I know someone who is in the process of infiltrating a religous groups some may consider a cult, not to ‘expose them’ or anything but to brainwash them all with nonsense. He is doing it for a psychology project.

All anything like this is, giving people something to believe in, as life can become unbearable for some without it.
[/quote]

Now that sounds like an interesting exercise in life. Does it count that I sat through a hari krishna seminar for the free lunch and tour through the gardens?

and I agree with you in what gives a person comfort is singular to that individual.

115

[quote]julia87 wrote:
Racism, ageism, and sexism are all institutionalized forms of violence and oppression. When religion is used to promote these types of oppressions it can be harder to detect.
Oppression is basically based on hierarchy, one person/group is more priviledged and others alientated or dispossessed.
If you have ever read the Bible or taken theology classes, you wold understand that the wife being put in a subordinate position is a hierarchial marriage/marital structure.

Corinthians 7:3-6 has Paul saying clearly that both wife and husband have expectations the other should meet, not just the husband. This is actually the only passage in the New testament that discusses the authority one partner has over the other. In…1 Corinthians 7:5 Paul also teaches that neither partner is to impose themselves as the “spiritual leader” over the other…stating decision-making as consensual.
Ephesians 5:22 is used to support doctrines of hierarchy in marriage and the way it is put in many Bibles makes it more for people to interprete it that way, the people who do not go and read upon anything liek this. The verse 22 is actually split. Verses 22 contains a verb but gets it from Ephesians 5:21, in which submission is put ontp all believers. Anyways, have to go[/quote]

damn Julia schooled us all. Good job!

116

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
julia87 wrote:
Racism, ageism, and sexism are all institutionalized forms of violence and oppression. When religion is used to promote these types of oppressions it can be harder to detect.
Oppression is basically based on hierarchy, one person/group is more priviledged and others alientated or dispossessed.
If you have ever read the Bible or taken theology classes, you wold understand that the wife being put in a subordinate position is a hierarchial marriage/marital structure.

Corinthians 7:3-6 has Paul saying clearly that both wife and husband have expectations the other should meet, not just the husband. This is actually the only passage in the New testament that discusses the authority one partner has over the other. In…1 Corinthians 7:5 Paul also teaches that neither partner is to impose themselves as the “spiritual leader” over the other…stating decision-making as consensual.
Ephesians 5:22 is used to support doctrines of hierarchy in marriage and the way it is put in many Bibles makes it more for people to interprete it that way, the people who do not go and read upon anything liek this. The verse 22 is actually split. Verses 22 contains a verb but gets it from Ephesians 5:21, in which submission is put ontp all believers. Anyways, have to go

damn Julia schooled us all. Good job!
[/quote]

I had to edit this again.

no, I didnt finish all of it. Ive been forced to study all of it so much. Maybe it was for some good. Stupid private schools and my dad forced all this down my throat growing up, making me go to all these classes and stuff.

If I finished it would be way too comprehensive and drawn out. Basically, there are a lot of things that are paradoxical. Mostly becasue of the time periods. But at the time Jesus cme it was a rabbanic custom to thank God everyday as a man that you werent born a slave, foreigner to where you were currently, or a woman.

one of the writers of one book specifically writes what was actually stupid to write at the time (I cant remember where, there are many lines) that women should be submissive to their husbands (it was a given), which was extremely true at that period of time (Rabbis werent even allowed to talk to women, Torah was not taught to women) and you must remember these are everyday men writing from that period.

Some people, even followers of change, do not fully adapt to change that well. So when Jesus came around and started making these big waves-challenging the practices of what was accepted by mass majority and talking/eating with/treating women not like the second class citizens they were normally thought of as-all the while making himself noticed as someone very special by religious leaders-relating to being spiritual/religious in his own fashion, challenging religious leaders and declaring himself as Son of God…it is not human nature, unless your very impulsive, to follow a huge wave of lifestyle change when you are naturally uncertain of it especially regarding serious issues concerning with gender. All of the other quotes pookie made save one are misinterpreted by man saying the Lord was telling one gender to exercise dominance/authority over the other gender. Those were misinterpreted because they conflicted with the teachings of Jesus.
But there is that One little line written by one man that contradicts everything Jesus taught that cannot be interpreted any differently by wording than how it stands currently in the New Testament. That is why I pointed out that these were written by mortal men.
I think if I was normally having control and power over one group of people and enjoyed it then I would insert something that goes against the equality Christ taught too.

Sorry that last bit was confusing for that moment.

117

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
deputydawg wrote:
julia87 wrote:
deputydawg wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
brucevangeorge wrote:
pookie wrote:
You should try reading it some time… The Bible clearly states that a woman is subservient to the man.

Yes. That’s the way it always was. For the past… 20,000 years. Give or take a couple of thousand.

Where is your argument?

Because that is how it was doesn’t mean that it wasn’t discriminating. Don’t you see that?

And in ancient civilizations women were equal to men and in many societies the rulers had to descend from the line of the royal woman. This way they new the child really had the royal bloodline in them.

I’ve digressed again.

Also reading my posts… I really do seem to be defending Scientology. Don’t know why guess I just stick up for the underdog.

Freedom to choose means freedom not to choose also.

Please list all of the ancient civilizations where women were equal to men. I read quite a bit of history and I haven’t encountered one yet. But maybe I have missed one. Descent thru the female line does not necessarily equal equality.

Civilizations evolve by ideaphoria, creativity of thought, new information being discovered and people becoming more knowledgable etc.
There will always be change-and we are all learning by seeing what was successful and what was not.

Julia87 please don’t lump me in with the guys saying that’s they way its always been or that’s what the bible says. The point of my question is that Let’s not pretend there was some sort of great civilization of the past where women had the kind of equality they have today. It ain’t there. But I am all for legal equality. The technological improvements of the last 100 or 200 years is what has led to equality. But history and biology would seem to dictate that heirachies are inevitable. I take it you are a university student. Universities pretend they are democratic and equalitarian but they are quite heirarchical. As are all human endeavors. There is always a boss. Heirarchies always emerge.

I did list the civilizations, that isn’t including the asian countries. Perhaps I have had the benefit of taking a women in history class and you haven’t. I don’t know you so perhaps you have taken the class. There are also polyandry societies… gotta love em although too many men are trouble.

I never said it was the norm. Perhaps that is what you thought I was stating.

Uh. No you didn’t. You listed the societies where the rulers descended thru the female line. Not the same thing as equality between the sexes. But then again Ive never had a “Women’s Studies” class.

[/quote]

118

[quote]deputydawg wrote:
Julia87 please don’t lump me in with the guys saying that’s they way its always been or that’s what the bible says. The point of my question is that Let’s not pretend there was some sort of great civilization of the past where women had the kind of equality they have today. It ain’t there. But I am all for legal equality. The technological improvements of the last 100 or 200 years is what has led to equality. But history and biology would seem to dictate that heirachies are inevitable. I take it you are a university student. Universities pretend they are democratic and equalitarian but they are quite heirarchical. As are all human endeavors. There is always a boss. Heirarchies always emerge. [/quote]

Yup. Just like you always have leaders and you have followers. Where you have the dominant person being in charge of another or others.

The only true equality you can have is before the law… and that’s still kind of skewed.

119

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Don’t call stating the truth bad mouthing. It has all been true. I haven’t spread rumors… I haven’t made up stories. I don’t care if you don’t like it. It is the truth. My only apologies are that some of those truths may hurt those of that faith. It doesn’t make my statements untrue.[/quote]

I know its the truth but you are focusing only on the negative aspects.

[quote]
I don’t have an opinion on Scientology. I don’t care about Scientology. As I stated, I am not sure why I am debating this issue. You may have missed that.[/quote]

Then what the fuck were you thinking posting in a thread called “Scientology”?

If you have no opinion about it… why bother?

[quote]
I never stated other religions are evil. Please do not put words in my mouth.[/quote]

Yeah. I was assuming from all the negative tones in your posts. My bad.

120

[quote]julia87 wrote:
Racism, ageism, and sexism are all institutionalized forms of violence and oppression.[/quote]

I don’t think its just institutionalized. Its a fear of the unknown. Of something different. Its “built in” naturally. (Not that I agree its right.)

[quote]
When religion is used to promote these types of oppressions it can be harder to detect.[/quote]

Its not meant to promote it. When the Bible was wirtten racism and other forms of opression were ALOT worse than what we have today. Its amazing the bible doesn’t reek of it.

But there are passages few and far between where it is present.

[quote]
If you have ever read the Bible or taken theology classes, you wold understand that the wife being put in a subordinate position is a hierarchial marriage/marital structure.[/quote]

So what you are arguing is that it should be Just as acceptable for Women to be put in the place of power in the relationshi as Men? And not follow the hierarchial structure at all?

For example: Women as heads of the household should be widely accepted as much as a Men being the heads of the household?

[quote]
In…1 Corinthians 7:5 Paul also teaches that neither partner is to impose themselves as the “spiritual leader” over the other…stating decision-making as consensual.[/quote]

Decision making is always consentual. But its just like a dance.

You have two people dancing. Man and woman. The man leads, the woman follows if she chooses to and continue the dance.

But it should always be the Man who leads.

You can’t have two leaders in a dance, nor can you have two followers. Although “equal” when you look at it in the form of hierarchy… it does not work. It screws up the entire dance.

Its nice on paper and in Phylosophy discussions, but practically, it does NOT work.

Just like Commmunism (the ideal form… Marxism). They tried to remove all hierarchies and make the people equal to each other. They all wore the same stuff, got the same wages, and all owned the same things eg:nothing. And did it work?

No. The actual application was completely fucked up.

There has to be a hierarchy, and if there isn’t… one will form eventually.