Scientologic offensive in Germany

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473896,00.html

Scientology moves aggressively on offensive. If somebody would please mind to send a TLAM into this building, I think we would owe him a big cold beer.

Beside Nazism, Islam and organized crime like the "Russian Mafia", I consider Scientology to be one of the four most lethal archenemies to Western societies. It must be fought against by all means needed to guarantee success, without mercy or compromise. Else the cancer will live on to infest human minds.

But such fighting spirit without doubt is too much demanded from my reasonable, well-meaning countrymen.

An German Islamic organization with seat in berlin laready has publicly hailed scientology for it's "constructive impulses to increase life quality of the public social community", and "helping to solve the drug problem."

Two brothers in mind finally have found each other.

[nikimcbee]

Will there be a couch for Tom Cruise to jump on?

[kiwi_2005]

One time there the Catholics with their Pope had alot of power over the world, there days are numbered. Tis the 'End of Days' for the drunken prostitute (Book of Revelations) and her followers.
The pope will be watching closely with this Scientology movement.

PS i have no idea what im going on about - Its early i need a coffee...:D

[joea]

One time there the Catholics with their Pope had alot of power over the world, there days are numbered. Tis the 'End of Days' for the drunken prostitute (Book of Revelations) and her followers.
The pope will be watching closely with this Scientology movement.

PS i have no idea what im going on about - Its early i need a coffee...:D

Neither do I. :doh:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

them is neo nazis undercover striving for world domination i tells you!:nope::nope:

"Scientologists believe theirs is the only doctrine leading to salvation and they strive for world domination,"

[Ishmael]

Hey! If you choose to believe bad 40's pulp science-fiction as the basis of your personal & religious philosophy that's your business. If you choose to squander your money on these bunco artists, that's also your business. It's just a variation of what my Daddy called,"Gettin' to Heaven on the Installment Plan". I find it interesting that the people they seem to target are actors & politicians, two groups not known for their intellectual curiosity or acumen. I have an idea though. Let's only allow Scientology "churches" to be built next door to militant Islamic mosques. Then they can kill each other & leave the rest of us in peace.

[Skybird]

Hey! If you choose to believe bad 40's pulp science-fiction as the basis of your personal & religious philosophy that's your business. If you choose to squander your money on these bunco artists, that's also your business. It's just a variation of what my Daddy called,"Gettin' to Heaven on the Installment Plan". I find it interesting that the people they seem to target are actors & politicians, two groups not known for their intellectual curiosity or acumen. I have an idea though. Let's only allow Scientology "churches" to be built next door to militant Islamic mosques. Then they can kill each other & leave the rest of us in peace.
They don't kill each other. They tend to cooperate. Their goals are the same: taking over control of economy, education, politics, wiping out different views in philosophy and science, destroying basic values and social orders of our constitutions, and enforce their selfish and self-centred totalitarian views on us.

[bookworm_020]

Not all scientologists are jumping on couch's!!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/unwitting-highschoolers-lured-to-forum-run-by-scientologists/2007/03/27/1174761471748.html

I believe that in Germany they don't consider scientology a religion. Is that correct???

I may want to move ther if that is the case!:yep:

[RedMenace]

May I ask, what's the difference, in essence, between scientology and every other religion ever? You look at scientology and hiss, but I don't think scientology is a problem in particular. It's religion in general.

[UglyMowgli]

In Germany to enter in the public service and army you should certify you are not a scientologist.

In France tey are considered as a sect and under heavy surveillance by watching commission.

[joea]

In Germany to enter in the public service and army you should certify you are not a scientologist.

In France tey are considered as a sect and under heavy surveillance by watching commission.

Unlike Canada where every nut and his dog can come to set up a cult, like one of your countrymen Rael. :nope:

[KevinB]

Scientology brainwashes you. Any cult (or religion) that asks for a percentage of your salary is out of order. I'm not sure the Kabbalists fall into this category but maybe Madonna can answer this. Isn't she leaning towards Scientology as well?

[Skybird]

Not all scientologists are jumping on couch's!!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/unwitting-highschoolers-lured-to-forum-run-by-scientologists/2007/03/27/1174761471748.html

I believe that in Germany they don't consider scientology a religion. Is that correct???

I may want to move ther if that is the case!:yep:
It is not recognized as a religion. For reasons of tax relieves, it fights to get that recognition, but so far failed. The Bundesverfassungsschutz has a close eye on it, and most observers rate it as hostile to the constitution. I also point psychological arguments against their techniques of manipulating people and making them dependant of them into play.It is no religion like any other. It is no religion at all. Tolerance against these people is the worst of all options. They are dangerous, aim at power and controlling people, and want to overcome the state as defined by our constituions. They are a sect trying to maximize their monetarian income by infesting and controlling growing parts of the economy.

[Skybird]

In Germany to enter in the public service and army you should certify you are not a scientologist.
</p>Really? That is new to me. Scientology at schools is a growin problem here.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,422970,00.html
Even after school.

[The Avon Lady]

Scientology brainwashes you. Any cult (or religion) that asks for a percentage of your salary is out of order. I'm not sure the Kabbalists fall into this category but maybe Madonna can answer this.
Kabbalism is a spiritual trend. It is not a religion on its own. It is the mystical part of Judaism.

And the ones who are dishing out all over the place are just out to make a buck. However, I don't see anything wrong with it overall, as it's simply a trendy fad and method taught generically to supposedly deal with the spiritual side of life, regardless of one's religious affiliation.

There is a tremendous amount of contradiction in saying one believes in what is supposedly Kabbalah, while not being Jewish.

I view it as no different than the trend in major corporations nowdays to attend Indian guru and swahmi get-togethers for various management disciplines. Will it help? Could be. Could be not. :roll:

[The Avon Lady]

May I ask, what's the difference, in essence, between scientology and every other religion ever? You look at scientology and hiss, but I don't think scientology is a problem in particular. It's religion in general.
many governments rightfully so recognize Scientology for the business scam based cult that it is.

Otherwise, in contrast to you, I think the problem is aetheism in general.

[UglyMowgli]

In Germany to enter in the public service and army you should certify you are not a scientologist.
</p>Really? That is new to me. Scientology at schools is a growin problem here.


One of my friend must sign a delcaration saying he was not in contatc with the Scientotlogy when he had to work with the german army as contractor.

Here a text about this, sorry iin french

http://www.prevensectes.com/ac1999.htm#allemagne091

[Letum]

I think the problem is aetheism in general.

I'm not a atheist, but I don't see any problem with atheism.
What do you think is wrong with it?

[elite_hunter_sh3]

seriously after reading these news articles.. someone is getting angry...:x:x:x, but i aint gonna unleash it out on the forums here.. im already on thin ice aftewr my last few escapades:arrgh!:, time to go find te scientology church and egg it:up:.


a for the hell of it


permission to to talk really badly about scientology and how they are *************************************??

[The Avon Lady]

I think the problem is aetheism in general.
I'm not a atheist, but I don't see any problem with atheism.
What do you think is wrong with it?
Its' not just atheism but that's the ultimate belief which essentially negates the possibility of objectively defining what is good or bad. There are no holds barred. Morals and laws can be created, changed and dismissed at anyone's whim, with the only limitation being what might the fellow next to me do if anything goes.

Law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest. That's what life boils down to.

[Bertgang]

It is not recognized as a religion. For reasons of tax relieves, it fights to get that recognition, but so far failed.

Sad to say, by decision of an idiot sitting in a fiscal commission, they reached this goal in Italy. So they can say "the our is a religion" and think "so we save money".

Anyway, the best description of Scientology was given by Isaac Asimov, in an old rewiew maybe still available on the web.
Nothing more than a sort of slot machine for rich and stupid people, as development of a not-so-great-background-idea for science fiction novels.

[Tchocky]

Its' not just atheism but that's the ultimate belief which essentially negates the possibility of objectively defining what is good or bad. And religion offers an objective point of view?
This may be aa problem with atheism, but organised religion doesn't solve it.

[The Avon Lady]

Its' not just atheism but that's the ultimate belief which essentially negates the possibility of objectively defining what is good or bad. And religion offers an objective point of view?
It potentially could, if a given religion is absolute truth. :hmm:
This may be aa problem with atheism, but organised religion doesn't solve it.
Mine does.

But that's another story. ;)

My main point here was negating religion does not instantly make atheism smell like roses, that's all.

[porphy]

My main point here was negating religion does not instantly make atheism smell like roses, that's all.

Very true, some philosophers associated with logical positivism used to point out that the statement "there is a god" is meningless in an empirical sense, and so is "there is no god". Which makes perfect sense. ;)

Scientology is blasphemy to every sound mind. I have personally seen a family father waste all his money, including his wife and childrens personal savings, and what not to, feed that greedy organisation. He ended up on the sofa feeling "good" and Clear (concept within Scientology) with lifeless eyes, and doing nothing. :down:

cheers porphy

[Fish]

Its' not just atheism but that's the ultimate belief which essentially negates the possibility of objectively defining what is good or bad. There are no holds barred. Morals and laws can be created, changed and dismissed at anyone's whim, with the only limitation being what might the fellow next to me do if anything goes.

Law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest. That's what life boils down to.

What a bull! :nope:

I am atheist, my children are and they are perhaps better in moral as you are.

[The Avon Lady]

Its' not just atheism but that's the ultimate belief which essentially negates the possibility of objectively defining what is good or bad. There are no holds barred. Morals and laws can be created, changed and dismissed at anyone's whim, with the only limitation being what might the fellow next to me do if anything goes.

Law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest. That's what life boils down to.
What a bull! :nope:

I am atheist, my children are and they are perhaps better in moral as you are.
I was referring to logical and rational potential, not stating that one's being an atheist asures their being immoral.

I'm sure your kids are tops! :up:

[Skybird]

May I ask, what's the difference, in essence, between scientology and every other religion ever? You look at scientology and hiss, but I don't think scientology is a problem in particular. It's religion in general.
many governments rightfully so recognize Scientology for the business scam based cult that it is.

Otherwise, in contrast to you, I think the problem is aetheism in general.
the problem is materialism, I think. It is very earthly powers and goals the >organisation< of scientology is looking for - while it is covered by brainwashing the >individual< to make it believe it is about his/her individual spiritual wellbeing and that for that submitting to the mindcontrol of the organisation is a must. Many atheists nevertheless are highly religious people - and still are hostile towards institutions like scientology.

[Tchocky]

My main point here was negating religion does not instantly make atheism smell like roses, that's all.
Of course. What i like about atheism is that it doesn't have the weighty significance of theism. I don't believe there is a God, I had a cheese salad yesterday.
Fundie atheists are just as irritating as fundie theists

http://xkcd.com/c154.html

[The Avon Lady]

What i like about atheism is that it doesn't have the weighty significance of theism.
If atheism is the truth, then you can like or dislike it - everything goes. But if some form of theism is the truth, then you may have to weigh differently your likes and dislikes in relation to such truth.

Which is somewhat my earlier point.

[Skybird]

What i like about atheism is that it doesn't have the weighty significance of theism.
If atheism is the truth, then you can like or dislike it - everything goes. But if some form of theism is the truth, then you may have to weigh differently your likes and dislikes in relation to such truth.

Which is somewhat my earlier point.

If I may quote from one of my former works:

"Paul Watzlawick, a communication theorist and psychoanalyst who represents the school of so-called radical constructivism , describes a person who has broken through to a higher level of understanding of reality, explaining that such a person has achieved that by thoroughly understanding and seeing through the process by which he creates his perceived realities by himself, and frees himself of that process - which is the central conclusion of radical constructivism: reality gets not perceived, but created by the observing mind.

Watzlawick attributes three qualities to such a man: First, such a person would be free in a very fundamental understanding, because it is completely up to him what kind of constructions for his reality he wants to choose. Second, such a person would feel himself truly responsible, because to someone who knows that he is the constructor of his realities, the cheap excuse of holding other people, circumstances or practical constraints guilty of the situation he or others are in, no longer would be available. And third, such a person necessarily would be deeply tolerant, because he necessarily needs to grant the freedom of choosing constructions at will to other people as well."

from: "What it's about", page 20.

[The Avon Lady]

reality gets not perceived, but created by the observing mind
That does not compute.

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/9739/lostinspace2wt9.jpg

[waste gate]

What i like about atheism is that it doesn't have the weighty significance of theism.
If atheism is the truth, then you can like or dislike it - everything goes. But if some form of theism is the truth, then you may have to weigh differently your likes and dislikes in relation to such truth.

Which is somewhat my earlier point.

If I may quote from one of my former works:

"Paul Watzlawick, a communication theorist and psychoanalyst who represents the school of so-called radical constructivism , describes a person who has broken through to a higher level of understanding of reality, explaining that such a person has achieved that by thoroughly understanding and seeing through the process by which he creates his perceived realities by himself, and frees himself of that process - which is the central conclusion of radical constructivism: reality gets not perceived, but created by the observing mind.

Watzlawick attributes three qualities to such a man: First, such a person would be free in a very fundamental understanding, because it is completely up to him what kind of constructions for his reality he wants to choose. Second, such a person would feel himself truly responsible, because to someone who knows that he is the constructor of his realities, the cheap excuse of holding other people, circumstances or practical constraints guilty of the situation he or others are in, no longer would be available. And third, such a person necessarily would be deeply tolerant, because he necessarily needs to grant the freedom of choosing constructions at will to other people as well."

from: "What it's about", page 20.

And that is the problem. When you place a person above God you have made him and by extrapulation yourself the diety. How does it feel to be god skybird?

[kiwi_2005]

While diggin into the weird and wonderful i stumble along a Le vay site on satanism Le vay was the first to startup satanism in the US during the 60's Theirs been alot of wannabies since but the true satanist are the le vay clan (le vay died awhile back)

Levay and the founder of Scientology were friends.


Some of their commandments:

Do whateva you want as long as it doesn't harm others.
Well ok i can dig that :cool:

In this world there are the hunters and the hunted, if you see a situation arise where a fool is not watching his belongings and you see the opertunity to take it from him then do so as this is not your fault but his. He is the hunted. Do not harm him in the process though, if it comes to violence then cease the desire to steal from him.

Err ok . :huh:

If someone annoys you say to them politely please stop what you are doing, if he/she doesn't then destroy him. :huh: :huh:

Have no guilt whatsoeva that is for the weak who follow God. :dead: :nope:

:roll:

[Wim Libaers]

I think the problem is aetheism in general. I'm not a atheist, but I don't see any problem with atheism.
What do you think is wrong with it? Its' not just atheism but that's the ultimate belief which essentially negates the possibility of objectively defining what is good or bad. There are no holds barred. Morals and laws can be created, changed and dismissed at anyone's whim, with the only limitation being what might the fellow next to me do if anything goes.

Law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest. That's what life boils down to.

Indeed, that is the correct situation. But I do not see a problem with that, that is not also present in religion.

The idea of allowing some restraints on your own freedom (such as the freedom to randomly murder people) is generally considered acceptable if the restriction also applies to others within the community. You do not need a deity for a community to realize that some acts should be discouraged to get a reasonably safe situation.

The problem an atheist has in finding some objective, ultimate truth about what is good or bad is real (at least if the atheist feel the need to think about that, for some the practical conventions that make things a bit safer for everyone are adequate). However, this is no more complicated than the problem of deciding if one religion is completely true, and if such a religion exists, which of the mutually contradictory religions is the true one. As long as there is no unanimous agreement on how to decide this, you just end up with different people with different ideas about the absolute truth. But unlike the atheist, who is more likely to realize the difficulty of the question, many of the religious ones may be fanatical in their belief of their specific true religion, and get in conflicts with others who equally fanatically believe in a different absolute truth.

[Skybird]

What i like about atheism is that it doesn't have the weighty significance of theism.
If atheism is the truth, then you can like or dislike it - everything goes. But if some form of theism is the truth, then you may have to weigh differently your likes and dislikes in relation to such truth.

Which is somewhat my earlier point.

If I may quote from one of my former works:

"Paul Watzlawick, a communication theorist and psychoanalyst who represents the school of so-called radical constructivism , describes a person who has broken through to a higher level of understanding of reality, explaining that such a person has achieved that by thoroughly understanding and seeing through the process by which he creates his perceived realities by himself, and frees himself of that process - which is the central conclusion of radical constructivism: reality gets not perceived, but created by the observing mind.

Watzlawick attributes three qualities to such a man: First, such a person would be free in a very fundamental understanding, because it is completely up to him what kind of constructions for his reality he wants to choose. Second, such a person would feel himself truly responsible, because to someone who knows that he is the constructor of his realities, the cheap excuse of holding other people, circumstances or practical constraints guilty of the situation he or others are in, no longer would be available. And third, such a person necessarily would be deeply tolerant, because he necessarily needs to grant the freedom of choosing constructions at will to other people as well."

from: "What it's about", page 20.

And that is the problem. When you place a person above God you have made him and by extrapulation yourself the diety. How does it feel to be god skybird?
It feels like being beyond your conceptions of profane versus sacral, human versus idol, nihilistic versus divine. In other words: it feels like being what Nietzsche called the Übermensch.

You never red about radical construcivism, did you? Where have I spoken about gods in that quote above? You attempt says more about your view of life, than about mine. ;)

To me, all what humans call gods and dieties, is man-made: idols only. Human concepts, in other words.

[Skybird]

reality gets not perceived, but created by the observing mind
That does not compute.



then try again, if you wish:

http://freenet-homepage.de/Skybird/Whatitsabout.pdf

[Letum]

reality gets not perceived, but created by the observing mind That does not compute.


then try again, if you wish:

http://freenet-homepage.de/Skybird/Whatitsabout.pdf

Cheers Skybird!
Are you up to answering questions about that text in a different thread if I have any one I have read through it?
Looks like a good read from the first page.

[waste gate]

What i like about atheism is that it doesn't have the weighty significance of theism.
If atheism is the truth, then you can like or dislike it - everything goes. But if some form of theism is the truth, then you may have to weigh differently your likes and dislikes in relation to such truth.

Which is somewhat my earlier point.

If I may quote from one of my former works:

"Paul Watzlawick, a communication theorist and psychoanalyst who represents the school of so-called radical constructivism , describes a person who has broken through to a higher level of understanding of reality, explaining that such a person has achieved that by thoroughly understanding and seeing through the process by which he creates his perceived realities by himself, and frees himself of that process - which is the central conclusion of radical constructivism: reality gets not perceived, but created by the observing mind.

Watzlawick attributes three qualities to such a man: First, such a person would be free in a very fundamental understanding, because it is completely up to him what kind of constructions for his reality he wants to choose. Second, such a person would feel himself truly responsible, because to someone who knows that he is the constructor of his realities, the cheap excuse of holding other people, circumstances or practical constraints guilty of the situation he or others are in, no longer would be available. And third, such a person necessarily would be deeply tolerant, because he necessarily needs to grant the freedom of choosing constructions at will to other people as well."

from: "What it's about", page 20.

And that is the problem. When you place a person above God you have made him and by extrapulation yourself the diety. How does it feel to be god skybird?
It feels like being beyond your conceptions of profane versus sacral, human versus idol, nihilistic versus divine. In other words: it feels like being what Nietzsche called the Übermensch.

You never red about radical construcivism, did you? Where have I spoken about gods in that quote above? You attempt says more about your view of life, than about mine. ;)

To me, all what humans call gods and dieties, is man-made: idols only. Human concepts, in other words.

Sounds like you have also determined who the Üntermensch will be. Anyone who doesn't hold your views. Sorry pal but making yourself a devine being only isolates yourself and any others of the same view.

That is the problem. Once you set yourself above people everyone else is of lower value. See Adolf Hitler and his ideas about the Übermensch.

[Tchocky]

Very funny, waste gate.

[Letum]

Sorry pal but making yourself a devine being only isolates yourself and any others of the same view.

Wouldn't that unite him with any others of the same view and isolate you? :hmm:

[Skybird]

Waste Gate, I have my doubts that you even read some of the postings you feel fit to respond to. that does not hinder you to become offending whenever you feel rethorics would compensate your lack of arguments.

And since this is for the repeated time now, and since I saw you doing this towards others as well, you have the honour to be put on my to-be-ignored list from now on, so better don't waste your time with me anymore.

[waste gate]

Waste Gate, I have my doubts that you even read some of the postings you feel fit to respond to. that does not hinder you to become offending whenever you feel rethorics would compensate your lack of arguments.

And since this is for the repeated time now, and since I saw you doing this towards others as well, you have the honour to be put on my to-be-ignored list from now on, so better don't waste your time with me anymore.


OK. :D