I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then folks. Some of the things you guys cite as differences I could argue either are part of other more traditionally identified religions currently, or were example-for-example identical- and absolutely fundamental- just a couple of hundred years ago. When it gradually became apparent, through education, just how incompatible (and unreasonable) that hard line stuff is with modern thinking they had to grudgingly concede ground.
RedSparrows wrote:Is certainly true. But control (or lack thereof) is not the sole measure by which you'd judge whether something constitutes a "true" religion or not. I'd argue that the factors I mentioned previously are much better yardsticks and that those factors are present, more or less, in religion across the board. Splitting hairs in order to tease out a few differences from this sub-division, or that offshoot sect is easy- religion is a very rich, fragmented thing. Nevertheless, Scientology's key similarites with mainstream religion (or the Moonies, and so on) mean it sits as just another piece of magical thinking for me.
Scientology is horribly controlling, de facto. All other religions can be, but contingent on the people concerned.
