Don't need to look at marginal cults to find craky whacky ... the fastest growing religion in the US, fundamentalist christianity, has plenty. A republican state senator from Texas recently sent out a mass mailing urging fellow politicians and citizens to read the truth on this site (http://fixedearth.com/). It's not just typical anti evolution stuff but also claims to have proof that the earth is not revolving around the sun. In fact this whole science stuff is part of a jewish conspiracy against good christians.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MMY's TMO is whacky, but Scientology is completely > craky, whacky, daffy! > > -Peter the Thetan > > --- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > John: "It would seem that Scientology has greater > > support of nature. > > Perhaps we should all become Scientologists, by that > > logic. > > " > > > > Me: Here is what matters to me in choosing a group. > > All I've seen in > > Scientology is Jenna Elfman who is looking kinda > > tattered lately,and > > Kristy Ally who is introduced as "On my near left, > > and my extreme > > left..." TM has Heather Graham. So who else does > > Scientology have > > that might sway the vote in their favor? (Katie > > Holmes Cruise does > > not count due to the extreme crazy factor for > > hooking up with Tom) > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, taskcentered > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > taskcentered <no_reply@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > taskcentered <no_reply@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > As to the Maharishi's influence being > > greater, I think you are > > > > on > > > > > > > dangerous ground there. L. Ron Hubbard's > > Scientology claims to > > > > be > > > > > > > much larger than the Maharishi's movement, > > although they > > > > started > > > > > > > around the same time. Scientology also has > > a much larger impact > > > > on > > > > > > > our culture, featured as it is in the news > > on a daily basis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By your reasoning, would L. Ron Hubbard be > > a greater spiritual > > > > > > > leader than the Maharishi? If not, why > > not? > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that where Lawson's reasoning leads? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another way in which MMY has obviously > > gone beyond Gurudev > > > > > > > > includes his direct influence on the > > world (not just because > > > > > > > > Gurudev is no longer with us, but by > > comparison to his > > > > > > > > historical presence and MMY's). > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see anything about MMY being a > > greater > > > > > > spiritual leader than Guru Dev in what > > Lawson > > > > > > wrote? > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think so. So where did that > > "dangerous > > > > > > ground" come from? > > > > > > > > > > > > And for what purpose, I wonder? > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that's what I read Lawson's comment to > > mean. Apparently > > > > > others did here to. > > > > > > > > You read it *in*. He never said anything about > > MMY > > > > being a greater spiritual leader than Guru Dev. > > > > > > > > > The purpose is discussion. > > > > > > > > I think the purpose was to create the impression > > > > that Lawson had said something he did not. > > > > > > > > > I think it's a valid thing to discuss here. > > The Maharishi claims > > > > support of nature for his > > > > > movement. He claims to be reversing the trends > > of time, turning > > > > Kali Yuga into Sat Yuga. I > > > > > think it's valid to question whether he has as > > much support of > > > > nature as does Scientology. > > > > > > > > > > I take it you agree, then, that Scientology is > > a larger > > > > > more successful movement than the TM Org? > > > > > > > > "Successful" in what sense? In terms of impact > > on > > > > popular culture, sure, at least nowadays. TM's > > > > cultural-impact heyday was back in the '70s. > > > > > > > > I have no idea whether it's larger. > > > > > > > > > How can you explain that in terms of support > > of nature, > > > > > since both movements began at roughly the same > > time? > > > > > > > > I wouldn't consider that having a TM celebrity- > > > > proselytizer who attracts attention with stunts > > > > like jumping on Oprah's couch in glee over his > > > > upcoming wedding and dissing Matt Lauer by > > calling > > > > him "glib" constitutes "support of nature." As > > you > > > > note, most of Scientology's publicity comes from > > > > negative celebrity news. > > > > > > > > David Lynch, in contrast, might well be a > > function > > > > of "support of nature" for TM. > > > > > > > > My impression is that the public thinks of > > > > Scientology as a lot more dangerous than TM. > > > > > > > > But bottom line, I don't believe it's possible > > to > > > > discern what is and is not "support of nature," > > so > > > > the question just doesn't compute for me. I > > > > think "Unfathomable is the course of action" > > makes > > > > a lot more sense. > > > > > > > > > > This appears to be the response you referred to in > > another post. > > > > > > Let's try to define "success." > > > > > > Scientology claims significantly more followers. > > Scientology has > > many times the number of > > > "churches" as TM has centers worldwide. > > Scientology appears to be > > much wealthier, given > > > the much larger real estate holdings. Scientology > > has many times > > more celebrity > > > adherents. > > > > > > The Maharishi defines success in terms of wealth > > and influence, I > > believe. He restricts his > > > courses to those able to afford them -- most > > notably the "Raja" > > course, costing a million > > > bucks. > > > > > > It would seem that on the playing field that he > > has chosen, material > > success, Scientology is > > > doing better than his own movement. > > > > > > It would seem that Scientology has greater support > > of nature. > > Perhaps we should all > > > become Scientologists, by that logic. > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > --- > > > John M. Knapp, LMSW > > > TM-Free Blog: 99 & 44/100% TM Free! > > > > > > Google-bomb the TM Org! > > > Make us #1 on Google > > > when you link to > > > http://tmfree.blogspot.com! > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > > === message truncated === > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels > in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. > http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 >
