Scientology

I heard that Scientology is just a scam to get money. What do you think?

Admin wrote:I heard that Scientology is just a scam to get money. What do you think?

It may be a scam to get money, but most religions are what could be considered "scams" depending on your viewpoint, to gain power. If money, in today's world, equals power, then is Scientology not just another typical religion?

But they always ask for donations from people.

Admin wrote:But they always ask for donations from people.

Yes, so do most branches of Christianity, just to name one religion.

Well, other religions uses the money wisely (I think) and Scientology use it as a personal gain.

Admin wrote:Well, other religions uses the money wisely (I think) and Scientology use it as a personal gain.

Would you define building sites of worship that cost tens of millions of dollars as a wise use of money? That's what a lot of religions use it for. Fancy worship sites.

well, true.

russell wrote:Would you define building sites of worship that cost tens of millions of dollars as a wise use of money? That's what a lot of religions use it for. Fancy worship sites.

Ignorance Roofusta...

They actually send Youth to poverty stricken countries to provide food for the dying. They also build Schools, Hospitals and Worksites in Africa for the poor and homeless. All of the non-profit "Child Sponsor" things come from the donation money. Mrs. Busby is ignorant in saying that only a few dollars of the money donated gets to the family. The Christian, non-profit organizations donate all of the money received to whom they say they are giving it to. Hence the "non-profit".

Skiyk wrote:
They actually send Youth to poverty stricken countries to provide food for the dying. They also build Schools, Hospitals and Worksites in Africa for the poor and homeless. All of the non-profit "Child Sponsor" things come from the donation money. Mrs. Busby is ignorant in saying that only a few dollars of the money donated gets to the family. The Christian, non-profit organizations donate all of the money received to whom they say they are giving it to. Hence the "non-profit".

I see your point, they do have the capacity to do good things. Still, they spend millions on visual extravagances. Think of all that money that could be going to good causes, instead spent on aesthetic frills.

They just use a little bit of that but a lot on themselves.

They don't get very much and the stuff I mentioned does cost a lot. I don't know where you are getting your info but the churches are quite plain. Have you ever been in one?

Skiyk wrote:They don't get very much

Actual missionaries abroad do not appear to have much, yes. It's their home bases where they splurge.

Skiyk wrote:I don't know where you are getting your info but the churches are quite plain. Have you ever been in one?

I do not know what branch of religion you are referring to, so I cannot answer your question.

Protestant churches are very plain. The Catholic ones are, yes, quite extravagant. That is like telling people not to buuild Mosques. It is part of their religion to have those decorations and many of the donations come from Christians who go to that church. If they want to pay for a nice church then we have no right to tell them otherwise.

Skiyk wrote:Protestant churches are very plain.

I disagree. This bad boy cost over $10 million: http://www.crystalcathedral.org/about/ministry.php
I bet this one wasn't cheap either: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIxhIdeqKb0
There are many, many more examples of extravagant places of worhsip.

That is like telling people not to build Mosques. It is part of their religion to have those decorations and many of the donations come from Christians who go to that church. If they want to pay for a nice church then we have no right to tell them otherwise.

I realize that nobody has the right to tell them not to build them. That doesn't change the fact that the money could be better used. I never said not to build them, I just think that they shouldn't waste money on them. I don't want to pick on Christianity, but it is the religion that you mentioned, that's why my examples used it.

What more important things? They are already dishing out bucket loads for others so if they want to pay out of their own money for a nice place then there is nowhere better for it to go. Another example is like saying, you should like in a crappy house because the money could go to better use.

Skiyk wrote:What more important things? They are already dishing out bucket loads for others so if they want to pay out of their own money for a nice place then there is nowhere better for it to go.

Nowhere better for it to go? So you're saying that they have enough money to solve all of the problems that they try to (famine, or poverty, for example)? If they had enough money to solve those problems, then I think they would have stopped asking for it by now.

You can't just cure poverty. It's not a disease. Every day kids are born and they need food. Our population is growing.

Skiyk wrote:You can't just cure poverty. It's not a disease.

Oh, I know that. My point is that the money would be better spent helping people than building extravagant sites of worship.

That is valid but remember that Christianity is not a World Aid Agency, its number one role is to be a 'path' for people to follow. The churches come first and their helping the needy is just enacting their religion. Back to my point on a house. You shouldn't deny your right to have a nice house because it could be used better helping others.

Well instead of doing all that to give the developing country how about we just give to them directly with this religious crap.

'Cause Christians seem to be the only ones with enough humility to do so lately.