what is your take on scientology?

Answer 1

All of them that I know are above average in being worth knowing. They have definetly improved some really messed up folks.
I took their communications course. Very helpful.

Answer 2

scientology is a cult.
why do i say this?

1. you need to pay money by taking courses or buying books to be a scientologist. you can find just how much on wikipedia, but its about $300,000 - $500,000.

2. the leader, l. ron hubbard, is a charismatic liar. he lies about his past and what he's done with his life. anyone who opposes him or his teaching is labled an "SP" and no scientologist can talk to him/her. this includes parents, critics, or anyone who pissed him off.

3. they were involved in crime, the two most notorious are lisa McPherson and operation "snow white". in the former they left a girl in a room for 16 days and she died. the later was the largest infiltration of the us government in recent history.

that is my rationale. they may have some good ideas but seriously need to leave L. ron and the other crazies behind.
they're trying to alienate the person and rob them of the money. this is a cult.
now, i'm not against religion, i'm just against fraud.

Answer 3

Just another cult.
One of the new religions.
I have been to Florida to Clearwater.
I have seen these people. They come out at about 6 at night.
They are never alone usually 2 or three. They do not speak to you or acknowledge you presence. They will not respond to you when you say hello.
I guess it is not allowed for them to speak to the public until they achieve a given level of brain washing. At this point they can speak to you because you can't break through the brain washing.
Tom C and the rest, Christi A. have gotten to the inner level and you can not break through the brain wash. They are spokesmen for the religion. Kinda like the people they get to sell you something on TV, you know, celebs. It is no different, they try to sell you their religion.

Answer 4

I tend to look sideways at most newfangled religions including scientology. I'll admit the classical ones might not be much better but at least they stood the test of time.

Answer 5

In the 1950's a Dr. Winter, working with mentally disturbed WWII veterans, found that one of his patients one day seemed to be completely normal. He conversed sensibly and was quite rational. The next day he had reverted to his usual disturbed state. Dr. Winter worked for a long time with him and finally came to the conclusion that the mental disturbance was due to 'scarring' (my term) in the brain due to pain experienced. He concluded that whenever we suffer pain, we link the pain with all of our sensory input at that time and create a mental block. He called these blocks Engrams. Any time that a similar sensory input occured the block would come into play (because it associated this with pain) and our experience was distorted. This affected our whole mentality, recall, etc. He decided that, if these engrams could be removed by some kind of therapy, the sufferer would regain normality. He devised a treatment which led the patient to regress to the painful incidents and, by 'going into the pain', was able to 'clear' the engram. It was a long process but was very successful. He realised that we are all loaded with these engrams which impede our thinking processes and suggested that everyone could benefit from this treatment. A person who was able to remmove all of their engrams he called a 'clear'. He published a book entitled 'Dianetics - The Modern Science of Mental Health'.
Here is where it went wrong.
The editor of a well respected magazine 'Astounding Science Fiction' (the title was a holdover from the 1930's), John W. Campbell jr. came across this book and passed a copy to a some-time science fiction writer and engineer named L. Ron Hubbard, to read and comment on. I don't know if Ron was already suffering from delusions of grandeur but he seized on the techniques, renamed them Scientology, and pronounced it a religion with himself as the leader. The rest is history.
The techniques, in their original form, worked and gave considerable benefits to those who underwent a thorough workout with them, but the introduction of the religious aspect has brought the whole thing into disrepute.
My take on the whole subject is :-
Dianetics yes, Scientology no.

I have just checked the facts as I know them in Wikipedia, and the entry on Dianetics is wrong. Ron is listed as the creator (he wasn't) and the book refered to above is listed as being written by Ron (he didn't). I remember the whole sequence very well being a keen reader of 'Astounding' in those days.

Answer 6

I actually did research on it with an open mind, thinking maybe I finally found something that would work for me. It's not really a religion, as far as they don't believe in a higher power or an afterlife or pretty much anything. It's more like a cult-like school of thought, that has religious status for the purpose of tax-exemption.

Answer 7

"Scientology" is a horrible word. Science is a wonderful word, and it represents the quest for knowledge based on logic and evidence.

Answer 8

Well considering I am a Scientologist and it has done wonderful things for me...so my take on the religion is that it is a fantastic life experience and I would suggest it to anyone wanting more out of their lives.

Answer 9

I can't imagine anyone taking it seriously so I don't usually even answer questions about it. I was made up by a science fiction author you know.

Answer 10

I think that people are just trying to better themselves when they get involved in any "organized religion". BUT, they shouldn't try to push it onto others, or criticize people that don't think the way they do.