Any of you people Scientologists?

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

I cant understand this fuck with all these incomplete sentences and rambling

Are you retarded?

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

sarcasm

Whew my bad. I am rusty.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

Oh please, this is such a vague and unverified claim its not even worth the time to read. There are as many people saying what you essentially stated as there are people who say the exact opposite. Way to vague of a statement, with no knowledge whatsoever to back it up; totally invalid.

Welcome to his point exactly. You yourself just admitted the claims from EITHER side are unverifiable, which is exactly what he was trying to tell MOT who had claimed otherwise. Do you often help the opposition in proving points?

 

[fasfocus00 5,000+ posts]

what do you mean verified by history? i find it very hard to believe that theres ever been a time where people lived to be 900+ years old (cain and abel) talking snakes, virgin births, talking bushes, parting of the red sea, and jonah and the whale. has that stuff been proven?
seems to me like the book of scientology is just as valid as the bible and christianity. just like any other cult, it was started so a group of people would act a certain way and have something to live for. but thats just my opinion i guess.

I would not put the Catholic church in the "cult" catagory, it's more like a business franchise. the priest gets a free house, free food, free money, lots of free time, etc... you even get the support of a board of directors (the cardinals in the Vatican).

I grew up Catholic, went to catholic school, was an alter server, etc... I looked into what it took to become a priest and what they got. think about this you make $900 (tax free) every 2 weeks, no rent, no food expense (all living expenses paid by the church), people think you know everything and don't question you... sounds pretty good until you get to the no puntang part. Once I got some ******, the priesthood didn't stand a chance.

 

[icandoit42069]

Whew my bad. I am rusty.

bein like 117 years old, its excused

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

I would not put the Catholic church in the "cult" catagory, it's more like a business franchise. the priest gets a free house, free food, free money, lots of free time, etc... you even get the support of a board of directors (the cardinals in the Vatican).
I grew up Catholic, went to catholic school, was an alter server, etc... I looked into what it took to become a priest and what they got. think about this you make $900 (tax free) every 2 weeks, no rent, no food expense (all living expenses paid by the church), people think you know everything and don't question you... sounds pretty good until you get to the no puntang part. Once I got some ******, the priesthood didn't stand a chance.

They even have their own lottery that they affectionately call bingo night.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

bein like 117 years old, its excused

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
I was really wondering why you hadn't mentioned it earlier.

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

Jesus kills christians dead.

 

[scottyk 10+ year member]

Welcome to his point exactly. You yourself just admitted the claims from EITHER side are unverifiable, which is exactly what he was trying to tell MOT who had claimed otherwise. Do you often help the opposition in proving points?

I think you're confused. MOT said he found it hard to take a religion serious that was started by a science fiction writer. Devil driver then said that the authors of the bible weren't know either and for all we know could be story writers.. I then commented on his post by saying that there are as many people who say that the authors of the bible are verifiable as there are people who say the authors aren't. If the debate was up on hubbard not being a science fiction writer, I wouldn't have contributed much. I would like to clarify; hubbard IS a science fiction author. There is no debating it.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

I think you're confused. MOT said he found it hard to take a religion serious that was started by a science fiction writer. Devil driver then said that the authors of the bible weren't know either and for all we know could be story writers.. I then commented on his post by saying that there are as many people who say that the authors of the bible are verifiable as there are people who say the authors aren't. If the debate was up on hubbard not being a science fiction writer, I wouldn't have contributed much. I would like to clarify; hubbard IS a science fiction author. There is no debating it.

MOT mentioned it was verifiable. He was commenting on that as well. It isn't veerifiable that they weren't Sci-fi writers either. So neither side is valid.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Scotty, I think you're kind of missing the point.

What I am challenging is the methods or guidelines for accepting whether a claim or a religion could be considered true. First, I sought to demonstrate that assessing truth by using the background of the writer works just as badly for Scientology as it does for any other religion. Second, I sought to demonstrate that plucking out historical accuracies, while ignoring historical inaccuracies or unproven claims, is not a good way to determine whether the entire text is truthful. So even if Scientology has some truth to it (like references to evolution) and the bible has some truth to it (like references to King Ahab), that still does not demonstrate that the text, as a whole, is true.

As for your claim that there are as many people that say it is verifiable as there are who say it isn't, I suggest that anyone professing that the bible is completely historically verified (in particular the character of Jesus), or that we know who the authors of the New Testament are, is being intellectually dishonest, because they are either talking about a subject on which they are ill-informed, or intentionally being deceitful.

 

[SlipAngle 10+ year member]

Scotty, I think you're kind of missing the point.
What I am challenging is the methods or guidelines for accepting whether a claim or a religion could be considered true. First, I sought to demonstrate that assessing truth by using the background of the writer works just as badly for Scientology as it does for any other religion. Second, I sought to demonstrate that plucking out historical accuracies, while ignoring historical inaccuracies or unproven claims, is not a good way to determine whether the entire text is truthful. So even if Scientology has some truth to it (like references to evolution) and the bible has some truth to it (like references to King Ahab), that still does not demonstrate that the text, as a whole, is true.

As for your claim that there are as many people that say it is verifiable as there are who say it isn't, I suggest that anyone professing that the bible is completely historically verified (in particular the character of Jesus), or that we know who the authors of the New Testament are, is being intellectually dishonest, because they are either talking about a subject on which they are ill-informed, or intentionally being deceitful.

Read about the counsel of Nicea.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I know about the council of Nicea; it's how the Nicene Creed came about, and how a rough canon was developed. What are you attempting to demonstrate?

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

The bottom line is EVERYONE, no matter what believes some religion. If you believe in a God of some sort you obviously believe in a religion. If you deny the existence of God, THAT is your religion. If you tell people that the earth is getting warmer due to man made carbon emissions THAT is your religion. Why? Because there is evidence creating reasonable doubt for either argument. None can be proven or disproved. Religion is based on faith. If something could be proven... then why would there be a reward for believing in it?

Everyone does not have a 'religion.' Some people actually scale their certainties about the world with the available evidence. This is called intellectual honesty; not claiming to know things that you do not know. Also, your definition of religion is oversimplified. Religion is more than just dogmatism, it's also art, rituals, moral codes, traditions, spirituality, etc.

 

[SlipAngle 10+ year member]

I know about the council of Nicea; it's how the Nicene Creed came about, and how a rough canon was developed. What are you attempting to demonstrate?

...and where a group of statesmen decided to harness the rampant permeation of Christianity through their traditional polytheistic Roman populace. Controlling what the people follow is much easier than controlling the people. Fear has long been the most efficient tool of control.