Quote:
Originally Posted by mrklixx
The bolding done by me in your quote is the major distinction that you are either missing, or choosing to ignore. I think most people that are ant-Scientology could care less what version of the spaghetti monster they chose to worship.
Since my earlier examples were disregarded, I will try and demonstrate it based soley on your quote.
Any Catholic can receive communion, without a checkbook or credit card. The same can not be said for Scientology.
Most religions are interested in saving everyone from hell/evil/darkness, whereas Scientology is only interested in "saving" those who can afford it.
|
Sorry I missed this as well as your previous post. Got caught up in drama elsewhere and wasn't getting e-mail updates for this thread. Not trying to make excuses, just letting you know what happened.
Ok, I'll say this again. My view on how Scientology raises funds is that it's not that different then what other churches did in their early years. Do I think it makes sense and would I pay for a session with an "E" meter? Hell no, sounds fucking goofy to me. But would I continue to follow a church that was selling the position of Pope and at times had more then one Pope due to this fact? Ummm, no. Sure the Catholic church no longer does this, but they did. Now they have property. Now they have long standing financial investments that go back centuries. The sale of Bishops and Popes is no longer necessary. Shaking down noblemen and royals who want divorces isn't as popular these days either. Would I stay with a church that told me I couldn't access the temple I needed to to be allowed entry to the best place in the afterlife if I didn't give it 10% of my earnings? Ummm, no. But every church needs money in it's infancy, just like Scientology does now. I don't see a huge difference in the process just the time line.