I think a cult is defined as a belief or religion with secret docrines. If this is true, Scientology fits! In 1990 or '91 there was a HUGE LA Times article about Scientology. As I recall it was created on a $1 bet by LR Hubbard (His bet was with Gene Roddenberry, the Star Trek guy). The LA times article even had hand-written letters between the 2 about it's creation and progression into the duped masses. This was completely burried for years but Gene Roddenberry's wife (Majel Barret - the nurse on Star Trek) made the letters public. I believe the German government reviewed this info in their determination that they are a cult.

I appreciate that you have interest in this subject. I would like to point out that you are still just quoting the opinions of others and relying on newpapers, etc. for your data. Do some real research into Scientology. Go get a Dianetics book from the store, read it, use it, then tell me it is a hoax. How can all these sources claim hoax, scam, when they have not experienced it themselves. Scientology applies scientific methods to be applied that get scientifically observable results. Try it.

PS. Cult as defined in Websters New World College Dictionary.

a) a system of religious worship or ritual

b) a quasi-religious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader, who indoctrinates members with unorthadox or extremist views, practices, or beliefs.

Witness Wako, Texas

I am sure, travisdesmeules, that Scientology's "secret society" of leaders likes to have people like you on their side. They sit and laugh whenever one of their followers defends their ridiculous principles that they made up on a whim. If you ARE one of the leaders, how nice of you to brainwash so many people. We, as outsiders, find you and your followers laughable and ridiculous. It's amazing what weak people will do and believe . . . I hope you can wake up and do what's right for YOU, not because some "Supreme Being" is watching you . . . Oh, and I already tried it.

Don't deflect. This made up cult was totally exposed in detail and the letter are in LHR's own handwritting! I remember reading one of the letters and it said that people are stupid enough to believe anything (something to that nature). So your saint is not such a nice person after all. I even think Scientology lawyers tried to sue Majel Barret-Roddenberry but the letters were real and shocking. Bottom line- It was totally made up!

"How can all these sources claim hoax, scam, when they have not experienced it themselves." Wow. By that theory, we should all volunteer to be sawed up into pieces by illusionists. Or else we can't claim that we KNOW that they aren't really sawing people up.

Yes indeed. Another documented factoid that doofus Oppenheimer didn't bother to dig up. I've read more informative Bazooka Joe wrappers!

In response to "b" in your posting about a cult definition, are you not also using other sources for your research (Webster's)? Lastly, Scientology has apartments all over Hollywood where the new converts live comunally, wear funky uniforms, and donate all their money to study "unorthodox beliefs". Sounds like Webster's was right!. If Scientology had nothing to fear, tell the truth and let everyone know; "Hey, we made it up! But we like it and want you to join!". Just be honest. Or does Dienetic teach that honesty is a negative engram?

You don't need to experience something directly to know it is a hoax. If you tell me that you can fly like superman, I already know enough about gravity and aerodynamics to know that's not true. I don't have to jump off a building to test it myself.

i have personal experience with Scientology, Travis, and it is a scam. But some people are helped even by scams, i suppose.

Want some facts and first-hand experience? See my post The Fray > Faith-Based > Scientology Not a Cult?

To Travis DesMeules:

Very well, then. I possess--and have read, even--a rather thick is basic intorductory tome called "What is Scientology?" published by the Church itself. If you are so inclined, I would like to maintain an ongoing discussion in this forum concerning the nature of the alleged scientific methods behind its claims, practices, and other assertions. I promise not to engage in dismissive or disrespectful language, because while I do not find Scientology to adhere to rigorous scientific principles--to say nothing of its cruelty, from my perspective--we will be talking about your beliefs, and I will not behave disrespectfully towards them. I offer simply a rigorous debate with you over the merit of the ideas themselves, and we can let the hand-wringing moralists do what they always do. If this is acceptable to you, then please pick any section/idea you wish to begin with, and let's get to it. Sound fair?

Turin Risen

How disappointing! I've been waiting for Travis DesMeules to reply, but nothing...

Is it possible that he's afraid to actually defend his "religion" against someone that might be able to argue intelligently?

Thanks and Kudos Turin!