Scientology - A Quiet Birth And No Nurturing Of Young Children

[theim]

It's such a shame that a hot chick can turn into a whackjob like that.

 

[archangel]

I'm not so much bothered by the silent delivery (hey...if natural, silent, upside down childbirth makes you happy go for it...more drugs for me) as I am by the "treating children like adults and avoiding coddling them," stuff.

They have done numerous studies that show that higher level mammals - dolphins, whales, chimps, HUMANS....absolutely, positively REQUIRE positive, nurturing, LOVING contact with their parents or at least some other human/chimp/etc. in order to develop proper social/mental functioning and interactions with others.

Its shown in a small instance in the experiment they did with the baby chimps where they gave them a "fake mommy" made of wire with a milk bottle and a "fake mommy" made of soft, fur-like fabric but no milk bottle. The monkey clung to the wire mommy ONLY while feeding and clung to the soft mommy any other time, including if it was feeding and something scared it - it would immediately jump to the soft mommy.

Nurturing, loving parents (even fake ones) provide safety, security, happiness, and a feeling of comfort to children. In turn, children grow up to be well-adjusted people. Scientologists sound like they will raise very mature, cold children incapable of dealing with other people or affection or anything normal - HEY, kinda like most Hollywood actors!?!?!

I am with ya on the actors phoney fabrication of actual life...but hey give us how you really feel minus the college diatribe...I know ya have real feelings down deep...just express them...ya are not expected to be graded on this one...I really like your spunk..just be more accessible in real terms...not a thesis format...just my opinion...tell me to stuff it if ya like! :coffee3:

 

[fuzzykitten99]

I'm not so much bothered by the silent delivery (hey...if natural, silent, upside down childbirth makes you happy go for it...more drugs for me) as I am by the "treating children like adults and avoiding coddling them," stuff.

They have done numerous studies that show that higher level mammals - dolphins, whales, chimps, HUMANS....absolutely, positively REQUIRE positive, nurturing, LOVING contact with their parents or at least some other human/chimp/etc. in order to develop proper social/mental functioning and interactions with others.

Its shown in a small instance in the experiment they did with the baby chimps where they gave them a "fake mommy" made of wire with a milk bottle and a "fake mommy" made of soft, fur-like fabric but no milk bottle. The monkey clung to the wire mommy ONLY while feeding and clung to the soft mommy any other time, including if it was feeding and something scared it - it would immediately jump to the soft mommy.

Nurturing, loving parents (even fake ones) provide safety, security, happiness, and a feeling of comfort to children. In turn, children grow up to be well-adjusted people. Scientologists sound like they will raise very mature, cold children incapable of dealing with other people or affection or anything normal - HEY, kinda like most Hollywood actors!?!?!

good points. how can they expect their child to grow to be compassionate and caring when they don't even have a role model for it? I never go a day without hugging, kissing, and telling my son I love him. Same will be with Li'l Bean.

 

[Trigg]

4 times? Damn...I don't think I could go through this a third time. My mom was surprised after the crap I was put through with Nathan, that I would even want a 2nd one. Then again, I felt this same way when I was still in the first tri with Nathan. I was like, "I am never doing this again, any more kids we want-they are being adopted."

I'll probably change my mind, but until then...2 is enough for me.

I surprised myself, never thought I'd have 4, but they kept growing up on me and walking and talking. They weren't babies anymore :baby4:

I never really thought Tom was hot at all. I actually thought he was kind of on the limp-wristed side, and his marriage to Nicole was for show. Guess I was right. I admit, I do like several of the movies he is in, but not because he is in them.

I started thinking he was an idiot after all the scientology stuff started. I'm surprised Katie is pregnant though, I thought he couldn't have kids since he didn't have any with his first marriage and with Nicole he adopted.....maybe it's not his?? Maybe just some publicity for him???

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I am with ya on the actors phoney fabrication of actual life...but hey give us how you really feel minus the college diatribe...I know ya have real feelings down deep...just express them...ya are not expected to be graded on this one...I really like your spunk..just be more accessible in real terms...not a thesis format...just my opinion...tell me to stuff it if ya like! :coffee3:

Gem, your post was fantastic. Forgive if not everyone has the patience to read it. Most appreciate these kinds of posts

 

[Gem]

Just kidding, Arch. I have no problem with you telling me I get too wordy. I know I tend to get a bit chatty.

At the same time, I always try to make sure that I express my point clearly, backing up what I say with the reasons I'm saying them rather than tossing some off-the-cuff comment out there with no reason behind it.

Every now and then I'll throw a "This is absolutely friggin ridiculous and these people are assholes!" but for the most part I like to keep it civil, rational, and discuss-able.


Oh...but Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are complete assholes.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I'm not so much bothered by the silent delivery (hey...if natural, silent, upside down childbirth makes you happy go for it...more drugs for me) as I am by the "treating children like adults and avoiding coddling them," stuff.

They have done numerous studies that show that higher level mammals - dolphins, whales, chimps, HUMANS....absolutely, positively REQUIRE positive, nurturing, LOVING contact with their parents or at least some other human/chimp/etc. in order to develop proper social/mental functioning and interactions with others.

Its shown in a small instance in the experiment they did with the baby chimps where they gave them a "fake mommy" made of wire with a milk bottle and a "fake mommy" made of soft, fur-like fabric but no milk bottle. The monkey clung to the wire mommy ONLY while feeding and clung to the soft mommy any other time, including if it was feeding and something scared it - it would immediately jump to the soft mommy.

Nurturing, loving parents (even fake ones) provide safety, security, happiness, and a feeling of comfort to children. In turn, children grow up to be well-adjusted people. Scientologists sound like they will raise very mature, cold children incapable of dealing with other people or affection or anything normal - HEY, kinda like most Hollywood actors!?!?!

I don't think they're advocating being emotionless and cold to their children. I think they are advocating not over-parenting them to encourage them to be more assertive and independent--less dependent on mommy or daddy. Adults use emotion when dealing with each other. I think the scientologists just oppose babying kids. That might be a good thing?

 

[Nuc]

Here's a nice site where you can find some of their more 'interesting' beliefs...

http://www.xenu.net/

What scientology won't tell you:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/infopack/

For a good laugh go through this part:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/scientology_illustrated/

Hey no1, in the past when I've ridiculed some of the sillier side of Christianity you implied that Buddhists are not supposed to ridicule other religions or attempt to turn people from their path. What's this?

 

[no1tovote4]

"Oh...but Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are complete assholes."

I think they are victims, especially Katie, of a "religion" that advances you further in their ranks by what you can give them.

 

[no1tovote4]

Hey no1, in the past when I've ridiculed some of the sillier side of Christianity you implied that Buddhists are not supposed to ridicule other religions or attempt to turn people from their path. What's this?

I don't think that they are a religion. I think that they are an independant corporation taking money from those who, usually, can least afford it in the name of "religion". I think they victimize millions, and so do many who have left this particular pyramid scheme behind.

 

[Nuc]

I don't think that they are a religion. I think that they are an independant corporation taking money from those who, usually, can least afford it in the name of "religion". I think they victimize millions, and so do many who have left this particular pyramid scheme behind.

Religion or no it's certainly a "path" and the same can be said of many or all of the major and fringe religions (at least in some cases). I agree with you on the L worshippers but what makes them a legitimate target, but not "intelligent design" or "how many angels dance on the head of a pin?"

 

[no1tovote4]

Religion or no it's certainly a "path" and the same can be said of many or all of the major and fringe religions (at least in some cases). I agree with you on the L worshippers but what makes them a legitimate target, but not "intelligent design" or "how many angels dance on the head of a pin?"

The direct victimization of their followers. They obtain material wealth at the expense, health, and mental well-being of others.

People can call almost anything a "religion" but that doesn't make it so. Any religion that actually victimizes their followers is not a Path to Enlightenment. Buddhism tells people to be open to other paths, but not totally wacked about it.

If we were talking about a group of Christians that wouldn't take their children to the doctor I would be saying much the same things about them as well. A Path is never the means by which people are victimized, only distorted Paths can be used in such a way.

I work to keep people from being victimized by those who would tell them this is a Path while working only to victimize them.

 

[Nuc]

The direct victimization of their followers. They obtain material wealth at the expense, health, and mental well-being of others.

People can call almost anything a "religion" but that doesn't make it so. Any religion that actually victimizes their followers is not a Path to Enlightenment. Buddhism tells people to be open to other paths, but not totally wacked about it.

If we were talking about a group of Christians that wouldn't take their children to the doctor I would be saying much the same things about them as well. A Path is never the means by which people are victimized, only distorted Paths can be used in such a way.

I work to keep people from being victimized by those who would tell them this is a Path while working only to victimize them.

You could just as easily say taking donations from impoverished parishioners and using that money to pay off pedophilia lawsuits victimizes the weak and uninformed. Or no?

 

[no1tovote4]

You could just as easily say taking donations from impoverished parishioners and using that money to pay off pedophilia lawsuits victimizes the weak and uninformed. Or no?

Except they don't take that money to pay of pedophilia lawsuits and you know it. One could not say that and be accurate. Christianity does not teach that pedophilia is okay, scientology doesn't either but nothing in the Dogma or teachings of Christianity is there a point where the Parishioners get directly victimized by the actual teachings of the religion while in Scientology they do.

Scientology actually charges for classes in the amounts of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Christianity does not, and in fact the most poor are accepted with open arms. They actually teach people to actively ignore the nurturing of children, Christianity does not. And so forth....

Following the teaching of Scientology correctly as taught by the religion damages people monetarily, etc. following the teaching of Christianity does not. People can take advantage and warp the path of a religion, that makes those people bad not the religion. In the case of scientology, the damage is in the religion itself. One can see Mara in the teaching where monetary value is so important and damage to the psyche of children and follwers unimportant.

As to the weak and uninformed thing, you can see people here myself included talk against those that use religion to take from others. Speaking about people doing wrong in the name of religion isn't the same as pushing people from a Path of Enlightenment. There is a difference between religion or Paths of Enlightenment and that of a corporation taking advantage of the spiritual need of others.

 

[GotZoom]

Interesting article on Scientology.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/scientol.htm

 

[Nuc]

Except they don't take that money to pay of pedophilia lawsuits and you know it. One could not say that and be accurate. Christianity does not teach that pedophilia is okay, scientology doesn't either but nothing in the Dogma or teachings of Christianity is there a point where the Parishioners get directly victimized by the actual teachings of the religion while in Scientology they do.

Scientology actually charges for classes in the amounts of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Christianity does not, and in fact the most poor are accepted with open arms. They actually teach people to actively ignore the nurturing of children, Christianity does not. And so forth....

Following the teaching of Scientology correctly as taught by the religion damages people monetarily, etc. following the teaching of Christianity does not. People can take advantage and warp the path of a religion, that makes those people bad not the religion. In the case of scientology, the damage is in the religion itself. One can see Mara in the teaching where monetary value is so important and damage to the psyche of children and follwers unimportant.

As to the weak and uninformed thing, you can see people here myself included talk against those that use religion to take from others. Speaking about people doing wrong in the name of religion isn't the same as pushing people from a Path of Enlightenment. There is a difference between religion or Paths of Enlightenment and that of a corporation taking advantage of the spiritual need of others.

I don't know. In many of the Zen arts one must pay to achieve the next rank and continue studying. It's a voluntary thing, as Scientology is, I don't see the difference. I've been accosted numerous times by Scientologists, "Sir, would you like to take a personality test" "Don't need to I know my personality is mean!" but no one is forcing anybody to pay this stuff. I'm glad that you are now saying it's OK to speak about the wrong in some particular religion, I'll remind you of that next time you try to spank me for it. Ridiculing dumb religion is a lifelong habit of mine and it's hard to break. I actually thought twice about it after you reminded me we're not supposed to.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't know. In many of the Zen arts one must pay to achieve the next rank and continue studying. It's a voluntary thing, as Scientology is, I don't see the difference. I've been accosted numerous times by Scientologists, "Sir, would you like to take a personality test" "Don't need to I know my personality is mean!" but no one is forcing anybody to pay this stuff.

No, they do this under a guise, at least they have. They convince people that they are crazy and need psychotherapy and then charge them for the classes they need to get better.

I'm glad that you are now saying it's OK to speak about the wrong in some particular religion, I'll remind you of that next time you try to spank me for it. Ridiculing dumb religion is a lifelong habit of mine and it's hard to break. I actually thought twice about it after you reminded me we're not supposed to.

I am not "now" saying it is OK to speak about people doing wrong in the name of religion, I will even bet that you can find other posts where I spoke about people who use religion for their own purposes. I specifically talked about you trying to convert people from a religious path and pointed out one of the twelve pincipals to show you why.

I welcome questions such as this. It makes me examine my beliefs and to question whether I am on the right Path when speaking against such things as Scientology. But if you cannot see the difference in small donations requested from a Zen temple to show that you are serious and specific requirements of hundreds of thousands to advance at all then I think you are being deliberately obtuse on this particular "religion" to the point of absurdity. When following a "religion" that specifically victimizes its practitioners, you are in need of help, not on a Path.

In what way does Christianity victimize their practitioners? You bring up Priests that victimized children, but they are not Christianity they are Priests that should be put in jail. Christianity in no way requires this victimization of their followers while Scientology requires it as a matter of course, and of advancement.

You will be unlikely to convince me that this corporation is a religion and worthy of the title of a Path.

However, you are right in your rebuke and I probably shouldn't have ridiculed those that believe in the religion, rather simply pointed out the victimization and keep with them my good wishes that they will find a Path in the future.

 

[Annie]

No, they do this under a guise, at least they have. They convince people that they are crazy and need psychotherapy and then charge them for the classes they need to get better.


I am not "now" saying it is OK to speak about people doing wrong in the name of religion, I will even bet that you can find other posts where I spoke about people who use religion for their own purposes. I specifically talked about you trying to convert people from a religious path and pointed out one of the twelve pincipals to show you why.

I welcome questions such as this. It makes me examine my beliefs and to question whether I am on the right Path when speaking against such things as Scientology. But if you cannot see the difference in small donations requested from a Zen temple to show that you are serious and specific requirements of hundreds of thousands to advance at all then I think you are being deliberately obtuse on this particular "religion" to the point of absurdity. When following a "religion" that specifically victimizes its practitioners, you are in need of help, not on a Path.

In what way does Christianity victimize their practitioners? You bring up Priests that victimized children, but they are not Christianity they are Priests that should be put in jail. Christianity in no way requires this of this victimization of their followers while Scientology requires it as a matter of course, and of advancement.

You will be unlikely to convince me that this corporation is a religion and worthy of the title of a Path.

However, you are right in your rebuke and I probably shouldn't have ridiculed those that believe in the religion, rather simply pointed out the victimization and keep with them my good wishes that they will find a Path in the future.

I like your reply about the 'small donation' to Zen temple. It's one of the things that has kept me in the Catholic Church. While I've heard some stories about others, I've been a member of 5 different churches over my lifetime. While all would send letters about this or that campaign; reminders about tithings; and an addendum to homily about 'leaky roof' or some such. None dropped members for non-participation. When the ex left me and the kids in a financial bind, the principal said, 'never mind' about tuition'. I give what I am able, while supporting charities also. I don't have much, but I spread it around.

 

[no1tovote4]

I'll remind you of that next time you try to spank me for it. Ridiculing dumb religion is a lifelong habit of mine and it's hard to break. I actually thought twice about it after you reminded me we're not supposed to.

I'll even repeat it. I shouldn't have ridiculed them, you are right.

 

[no1tovote4]

I like your reply about the 'small donation' to Zen temple. It's one of the things that has kept me in the Catholic Church. While I've heard some stories about others, I've been a member of 5 different churches over my lifetime. While all would send letters about this or that campaign; reminders about tithings; and an addendum to homily about 'leaky roof' or some such. None dropped members for non-participation. When the ex left me and the kids in a financial bind, the principal said, 'never mind' about tuition'. I give what I am able, while supporting charities also. I don't have much, but I spread it around.

To tell you the truth I have never even been asked to donate to the Temple at all for any reason. They'll have drives to gather money for victims of hurricanes etc but I have never heard them ask for a donation directly to the Temple. We do donate, but have never been asked.