Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I think it's as good as any other. It's a fairly all-encompassing one, at least. How would you define a 'valid belief system' if not one in which there are people who genuinely believe in it and live their lives by it? For example, there are many 'belief systems' in the world, many with contradictory views, so what makes them valid for the people who believe in their efficacy if not their belief and adherence? We could impose our idea of what's valid onto them, but that makes no difference to them; it doesn't stop them from believing or from practicing whatever it is they believe.
I didn't say we had to agree on one; I'm simply asking you for yours since you seem to have an issue with mine in order to compare. Maybe yours is better.
Jason, I don't have an "issue" with your view. I just think it's kinda broad. No big deal.
Sort of like: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.] —Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers."
@hermitwin haha I just watched the entire 2 hour Jason documentary again for laughs but also because he is a really interesting person with an interesting story.
Scientology’s bona fides have been officially recognized by a number of governmental agencies and public authorities in the United Kingdom. These include: The Ministry of Defence, which has officially recognized the Scientology religion in the Royal Navy (1996). HM Customs and Excise, which classifies the Church as a religious organization (2001). Inland Revenue, which ruled that Church staff serve out of a religious commitment rather than financial award (2001). The City of Westminster Finance Department, which holds that the Church of Scientology qualifies as a charity “with purposes beneficial to the community.” http://wp.me/p2Cfx3-1hR
Most significantly, the Italian Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the religiosity of Scientology. The Italian Supreme Court issued a decision in October 1997 regarding Scientology that is now recognized as the leading European judicial precedent regarding the definition of religion. The Court thoroughly analyzed the criteria for determining religion, concluding that Scientology is a bona fide religion whose activities, “without exception, [are] characteristic of all religious movements.” In reaching this determination regarding Scientology’s bona fides, the Court rejected the definition of religion applied below in the case by the Court of Appeals because it was drawn from Judeo-Christian con cepts:“a system of doctrines centered on the assumption of the existence of a Supreme Being, who had a direct relationship with men and whom they must obey and revere.” The Court found “[s]uch a definition of religion, in itself partial since derived – as asserted – exclusively from religions stemming from the Bible, is illegal under many viewpoints; it is based on philosophical and socio-historical assumptions that are incorrect.” Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that the lower court also erred because the definition used to exclude Scientology also excludes Buddhism, Taoism or any “polytheistic, shamanistic or animistic religions.”
Scientology’s bona fides have been officially recognized by a number of governmental agencies and public authorities in the United Kingdom. These include: The Ministry of Defence, which has officially recognized the Scientology religion in the Royal Navy (1996). HM Customs and Excise, which classifies the Church as a religious organization (2001). Inland Revenue, which ruled that Church staff serve out of a religious commitment rather than financial award (2001). The City of Westminster Finance Department, which holds that the Church of Scientology qualifies as a charity “with purposes beneficial to the community.” http://wp.me/p2Cfx3-1hR
Most significantly, the Italian Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the religiosity of Scientology. The Italian Supreme Court issued a decision in October 1997 regarding Scientology that is now recognized as the leading European judicial precedent regarding the definition of religion. The Court thoroughly analyzed the criteria for determining religion, concluding that Scientology is a bona fide religion whose activities, “without exception, [are] characteristic of all religious movements.” In reaching this determination regarding Scientology’s bona fides, the Court rejected the definition of religion applied below in the case by the Court of Appeals because it was drawn from Judeo-Christian con cepts:“a system of doctrines centered on the assumption of the existence of a Supreme Being, who had a direct relationship with men and whom they must obey and revere.” The Court found “[s]uch a definition of religion, in itself partial since derived – as asserted – exclusively from religions stemming from the Bible, is illegal under many viewpoints; it is based on philosophical and socio-historical assumptions that are incorrect.” Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that the lower court also erred because the definition used to exclude Scientology also excludes Buddhism, Taoism or any “polytheistic, shamanistic or animistic religions.”
Yes, but all that doesn't address whether or not your weird beliefs are valid to a bunch of Buddhists. Many of whom doubt the validity of more mainstream religions. Personally, at this point, I think that you belong to a cult. Not valid.
I might point out where I think a particular belief system promotes compassion, love, wisdom or their opposites but simply defining it as valid or not, according to whether it's believable to me or not, seems ignorant.
Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that the lower court also erred because the definition used to exclude Scientology also excludes Buddhism, Taoism or any “polytheistic, shamanistic or animistic religions.”
lmao, if you watch the 2 hour interview with that celebrity Jason Beghe it is explained there. But seeing as Scientology looks down on things like ADD etc, you could be considered an SP which is Suppressive Person and is meant to be 2.5% if the worlds population. They are not meant to associate with these SPs whatsoever.
It is a belief system. I don't think we can debate that. It is also a big business that has used its religion status to accumulate a lot of wealth. That also can't be debated. It has a troubling history of cult-like behavior including persecution of those who criticize it. That also is only stating the facts.
I'm not about to say if it's valid or not. I tend to believe the statements of all the ex-Scientologists who have informed opinions about what goes on.
I honestly may watch that interview for a third time, he puts so much character into it and makes it that much more interesting, and it is obvious you can see he has been brainwashed to a certain extent, but he got himself out before it went too far, ie OT 8 or Corg .... LMAO oh my sides
I can't help but wonder if we use discussions like this and the thought, research, and resulting opinion to reinforce our own belief.
We point up all the obvious faults, shortcomings, and beliefs of other systems like Scientology, which, really, have nothing to do with us and none of our business. What purpose does this really serve? Are Scientologists going to come on this board, read our posts and suddly abandon the organization? No, they won't. Non-scientologists probably won't come here looking for answers about Scientology either.
It's common in our society to point to what is wrong, to demonstrate what is right. It's kind of a wierd way of doing things, but it sems to work for politics - politicians campaign on what's wrong with their oppponents all the time. So, it will probably work elsewhere.
So on a subtle level are we using these discussions to shore up our own insecurity - our own need to be right?
Another thing is very few teachers teach the Dharma by pointing out whats wrong with other teachers or traditions or religions. Many Mahayana teachers are beginning to abandon terms like Hinayana because of the negative connotation it carries in the west. I have yet to hear a teacher talk about what's "wrong" with Scientology, Christianity, Islam or other Buddhist traditions, even though, from a Buddhist perspective one could easily speak volumes on the subject. Yet, it seems on boards like this, it's a never-ending stream of such argument.
And for those who care, I don't see myself as lily-white in this, either.
But I do wonder why we do it.
2
matthewmartinAmateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt MeruVeteran
I can't help but wonder if we use discussions like this and the thought, research, and resulting opinion to reinforce our own belief. ... But I do wonder why we do it.
Well, there is Buddhism as particular people practice it, and Buddhism as certain orthodox rules say it should be practiced. And among the orthodox systems** they have strict rules about failing to teach Buddhism, teaching Buddhism wrong, and believing things inimical to Buddhism (moral nihilism, etc). On one hand, this looks like institutional quality control-- no point in having a bunch of monks all preaching opposite things. On the other hand, this leads to some harsh words about other Buddhist sects (Nichiren San, I'm looking at you again!), and if the other Buddhist sects are *so* bad when they are obviously similar to every other form of Buddhism, then what does this imply about the other religions? And the rule about being obliged to preach the Dharma, how does that apply to existing religions? (it might be pointless to preach to a hard core Christian, but should Buddhist oppose state funded Christian activity through tax subsidies--aka non-profit status and tax deductions for contributions)
No clear answers on this one, especially since most (all?) answers in the orthodox systems are colored by concerns of the institutions that wrote the orthodoxy in the first place.
Personally, I haven't come to a conclusion. I'm pleasantly surprised to see when other religions and independently invented concepts found in Buddhism, syncretism bothers me because I didn't sign up for Shintoism or Bon or Hinduism, and I don't think the other religions are as effective at fixing what I want to fix, else I'd join their club!
** My comments are drawing on the monastic precepts in the Brama Net Sutra, the list of rules for Chinese monastic Buddhists.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see when other religions and independently invented concepts found in Buddhism, syncretism bothers me because I didn't sign up for Shintoism or Bon or Hinduism, and(snip)
It's too bad you feel that way. I don't think it's possible to find any sort of Buddhism that doesn't employ a certain amount of syncretism.
Comments
Sort of like: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]
—Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers."
Most significantly, the Italian Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the religiosity of Scientology. The Italian Supreme Court issued a decision in October 1997 regarding Scientology that is now recognized as the leading European judicial precedent regarding the definition of religion. The Court thoroughly analyzed the criteria for determining religion, concluding that Scientology is a bona fide religion whose activities, “without exception, [are] characteristic of all religious movements.” In reaching this determination regarding Scientology’s bona fides, the Court rejected the definition of religion applied below in the case by the Court of Appeals because it was drawn from Judeo-Christian con cepts:“a system of doctrines centered on the assumption of the existence of a Supreme Being, who had a direct relationship with men and whom they must obey and revere.” The Court found “[s]uch a definition of religion, in itself partial since derived – as asserted – exclusively from religions stemming from the Bible, is illegal under many viewpoints; it is based on philosophical and socio-historical assumptions that are incorrect.” Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that the lower court also erred because the definition used to exclude Scientology also excludes Buddhism, Taoism or any “polytheistic, shamanistic or animistic religions.”
Personally, at this point, I think that you belong to a cult. Not valid.
but simply defining it as valid or not, according to whether it's believable to me or not, seems ignorant.
I turned up windows service pack on google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_Person
So that is that. To each her own.
I'm not about to say if it's valid or not. I tend to believe the statements of all the ex-Scientologists who have informed opinions about what goes on.
We point up all the obvious faults, shortcomings, and beliefs of other systems like Scientology, which, really, have nothing to do with us and none of our business. What purpose does this really serve? Are Scientologists going to come on this board, read our posts and suddly abandon the organization? No, they won't. Non-scientologists probably won't come here looking for answers about Scientology either.
It's common in our society to point to what is wrong, to demonstrate what is right. It's kind of a wierd way of doing things, but it sems to work for politics - politicians campaign on what's wrong with their oppponents all the time. So, it will probably work elsewhere.
So on a subtle level are we using these discussions to shore up our own insecurity - our own need to be right?
Another thing is very few teachers teach the Dharma by pointing out whats wrong with other teachers or traditions or religions. Many Mahayana teachers are beginning to abandon terms like Hinayana because of the negative connotation it carries in the west. I have yet to hear a teacher talk about what's "wrong" with Scientology, Christianity, Islam or other Buddhist traditions, even though, from a Buddhist perspective one could easily speak volumes on the subject. Yet, it seems on boards like this, it's a never-ending stream of such argument.
And for those who care, I don't see myself as lily-white in this, either.
But I do wonder why we do it.
No clear answers on this one, especially since most (all?) answers in the orthodox systems are colored by concerns of the institutions that wrote the orthodoxy in the first place.
Personally, I haven't come to a conclusion. I'm pleasantly surprised to see when other religions and independently invented concepts found in Buddhism, syncretism bothers me because I didn't sign up for Shintoism or Bon or Hinduism, and I don't think the other religions are as effective at fixing what I want to fix, else I'd join their club!
** My comments are drawing on the monastic precepts in the Brama Net Sutra, the list of rules for Chinese monastic Buddhists.