 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Christianity vs. Scientology |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                 Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I really want to launch into an anti-Proddy tirade to counter Alastor's absurd contention that the Catholics are to blame for the things people have problems with in Christianity but I really don't have the wherewithal right now. Sufficed to say though, that the Catholics are the victims of some fairly blatant double standards and it ain't the Papists who tend to be frothing crypto-fascist nutcases these days. When talking about Catholicism it's VERY important to distinguish the often reactionary heirarchy and its crazy doctrines from the actual nature of actual Catholics. Otherwise you might as well be holding every Protestant to, say, salvation through "faith alone" or Predestination of the 144 000, or the sinfulness of masturbation and drinking, or whatever other lunacies that various protestant churches officially state in their dogma but no-one actually believes. I mean there's churches that say God doesn't want us to drink and you think CATHOLICS have it wrong!?
Just as one small example of the gulf between doctrine and lay believers: Catholics in Australia are the least homophobic religious group aside from those with no religion according to a study called "Mapping Homophobia" done a year or two ago. Honestly, I reckon that aside from the fact that I don't believe in God, most Australian (and probably Western) Catholics have more in common with ME than they do with, say, their local Archbishop. I would point out though, that in very Catholic countries like Peru and Ireland, there's a GREAT DEAL of direct ire and disdain for the heirarchy of the Catholic Church with sometimes extends to general anti-religiousness and sometimes doesn't. To add to SS's list, I'd add in problems with things like hypocrisy, preachiness and judgementalness to the list of problems people have with christianity, all of which the Catholic Church has in spaces. But then, so do most Proddy groups too (and, one assumes, Orthodox Church). |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa    Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Alastor Anyone can selectively believe the doctrine of they're religion, whether Christian or Scientologist. A Scientologist can just as easily decide the evil Lord Xenu didn't drop a hydrogen bomb in a volcano, as a Christian can decide Jesus probably didn't actually walk on water, or rise from the dead (although I think that would probably be stretching the limits of the definition of Christian) So the point isn't what can people believe, but instead, what do they believe. And vast majority of Christians do believe much of the Old Testament and most or all of the New Testament. And logically, you can't turn water into wine, heal the sick and the blind, and the dead with a mere touch, or be killed and rise again, only to ascend into heaven three days later. So even if it doesn't sound as ridiculous as brainwashing thetans in cinemas, the accepted dogma of Christianity is no more verifiable. |
|||
|
Alastor Fearless Moderator Hero  Since: 11-17-05 From: An apartment by DigiPen, Redmond, Washington Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Arwon hasn't read past the first few posts and can be ignored.
emcee, you do not seem to appreciate the fine distinction between cannot be proven correct and can be proven incorrect. What I said was but an example. Research Scientology's text and tell me it's not absolutely riddled with holes. Personally, I don't care what a vast majority of christians believe, because a vast majority of people I do not take as intellectual equals. You are consistently misrepresenting my words - I am saying that at its very core, Christianity is not wrong, while at its very core, Scientology is wrong. It has nothing to do with selective belief, I merely reference the most sweeping beliefs and moral standards present in just about all variations of the faith. God created all. God's son, Jesus, or however you want to render His name, lived as a human and was a good man who performed miracles, or at the very least what have been interpreted as such. He was a good person, and He said that if people simply preached peace, did nothing to people they wouldn't want done to them, and treated others as they would tread themselves, then everything in the world would be fine. We have no proof that any of it is false, nor that any of it is true (save that Jesus existed, from which it can generally be assumed that he did preach this), but the same cannot be said of the core values of Scientology. Their text goes into specifics about things that cannot be. Perhaps my example was not the best example, but come on. Equating Scientology to Christianity is a patently ridiculous notion. (edited by Alastor on 12-11-06 04:05 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Alright, fine.
FUCK THE PRODDIES. |
|||
|
Alastor Fearless Moderator Hero Since: 11-17-05 From: An apartment by DigiPen, Redmond, Washington Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonYes, but also. Stay out of the debate if you don't want to contribute. The name of this forum is "World Affairs/Debate," not "Whining/Making shit up." That is VERY far removed from the platonic ideal of debate. I realize that others do it, but it's not acceptable, so stop it. (edited by Alastor on 12-11-06 04:10 AM) (edited by Alastor on 12-11-06 04:11 AM) |
|||
NSNick Gohma IF ALL ELSE FAILS USE BOOZE  Since: 11-17-05 From: Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon Not acceptable. Contribute to topics or stay out of this forum. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I, uh, do. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Alastor Here's a hole in Christian text: Water doesn't have the viscosity to hold the weight of a human being. Originally posted by Alastor The "core" of Christianity is that Jesus, son of God, walked the Earth, performed actual miracles, died on the cross for the sins of humanity, was resurrected and ascended into Heaven. Regardless, of what you personally believe, this is a near universally accepted truth among Christians. Originally posted by "Alastor" Someone rising from the dead, from a logical perspective, is something that "cannot be". And I would really like to see you disprove Scientology. I can guarantee any argument you come up with, I can find a counter argument. I can never prove any religion is true, but I can alway keep open the possibility that they are. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| This thread:
1. Opening post with various flaws, starts discussion. 2. Opening firing points. 3. Minor debate over semantics between two kids on a message board. 4. Arwon makes a post relating to the nature of the anti-Catholic world due to a fuck-up in wording of Alastors that he does not have adequate ability to address. 5. Alastor notes that he shot himself in the foot. Whines like two year old about ignoring other peoples pertinant, and more proper posts. 6. Another minor deabte about semantics. 7. More of Alastors whining and incitement (had he been anyone else, he'd have been banned  )
8. A bunch of mumbo-jumbo. 9. Back to semantics. Wow! This thread accurately reflects the effective flow of religious doctrinary dialogue! Opa! |
|||
|
NSNick Gohma IF ALL ELSE FAILS USE BOOZE Since: 11-17-05 From: Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon Originally posted by Arwon That is not contributing. It's inflammatory, and not wanted in this forum. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Well excuuuuuuuuse me, but I don't like it when people snidely dismiss my perfectly legitimate (and lets face it, insightful and wonderful) posts purely because they relate to a tangental (but less dumb) issue of discussion and a post other than the one directly preceeding it.
*wanders off mumbling about the Orange bastards, practices some Popery* (edited by Arwon on 12-11-06 04:51 AM) (edited by Arwon on 12-11-06 04:53 AM) |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination Wait, was I the mumbo-jumbo or the semantics? I'm hoping for the mumbo-jumbo. Or do 8 and 9 represent the same post? |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Bah! Differentiating between the two is just more semantics! | |||
|
NSNick Gohma IF ALL ELSE FAILS USE BOOZE Since: 11-17-05 From: Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon The problem is, you referred to a part of Ziff's post that he later clarified. And still, that's no excuse for blatant flaming. (edited by NSNick on 12-11-06 05:01 AM) |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination Ah, you caught that. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I think it should be noted here that *I* didn't derail the thread and if my post were simply granted the levity it deserves and ignored, none of this would have happened. The lesson, of course, is that the more you try and impose order, the more you proliferate CHAOS.
I for one call shenanigans. (edited by Arwon on 12-11-06 04:57 AM) |
|||
|
Alastor Fearless Moderator Hero Since: 11-17-05 From: An apartment by DigiPen, Redmond, Washington Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeThere is no proof that Jesus did not rise from the dead or walk on water, there is only that logic seems to say these are impossible. Which is, you know, kinda the point of miracles. Faith is not science; faith requires the inability to either prove nor disprove. When I said earlier that Jesus' actions were not necessarily miracles, I was referring to the fact that much of it is likely sentationalized but the core must be accurate. Even if I misspoke, this does not refute my point and an argument based on this is useless. No more points will be made on this subject, as an argument over semantics will always be pointless. However, you cannot strip any scientological belief from another, because they all come from the same source author. The stories in the bible were written by different people, at different times, and some sources are just more accurate than others. It is a given that miracles must exist, yes, else God couldn't have created the universe, despite this being inherent to the faith. That cannot be wrong for the faith to be right. But there is much more that the truth value of does not so much affect the truth of the religion as a whole. I'm just going to say it it, then. Evidence shows that no major atomic reactions occured near any volcanos in prehistoric times, much less the ones Hubbard specifically named. Yet, these sorts of things are easily traceable. Nothing is ever stated that would explain this away, nor can much be inferred, given what Hubbard has stated about the capabilities of those individuals involved in the space opera. But this, which is obviously false, comes from the same source as everything else, as a part of the same documents. Those in the space opera are not capable of miracles, while God and Jesus are. While they may defy physics, they are told as having the capability to do so. This is not true of the galactic confederacy, nor Xenu. The logical flaws with his story therefore cannot be explained away. Thus, your statement that you can provide counterarguments along these lines characters to each other is inherently flawed. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| OK, aside from the recentness and falsifiability of the constructing origin myths, which are mostly just window-dressing which separates different religions... what *are* the differences between the two in terms of their precepts and impacts on believers and so forth? Does one offer more inner peace? Is faith in one less genuine or real than the other? Can one save you from depression and loneliness and the other can't? (edited by Arwon on 12-11-06 05:21 AM) |
|||
|
Alastor Fearless Moderator Hero Since: 11-17-05 From: An apartment by DigiPen, Redmond, Washington Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| You know the answer to that question, Arwon. I am going to say it again. There is no purpose in arguing solely to extend an argument.
I'm not going to deny that there is some good in Scientology's principles, but it completely overshadowed by the evil that has been commited by them. Even if you are a complete athiest who believes both are bullshit, you should at least be able to see that scientology was made to make money and that Christianity, if nothing else, has given countless people throughout history happiness. Scientology, meanwhile, directly opposes current medical belief, causing quite a bit of suffering. Equating them is such a manner is nonsense, and even if you reject theism you know this. (edited by Alastor on 12-11-06 05:25 AM) (edited by Alastor on 12-11-06 05:38 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| No, see that's the thing. Scientology is basically an evil scam and a destructive cult. It's just that it's really really tricky to separate it from regular religions through any actual rational or logical delineation. It checks all the boxes needed for it to be a religion, but something just feels different. Creepy. Wrong. Although, that *something* could be merely the way Scientology reflects poorly on the nature of other religions and makes them all look kinda bad.
Even the criteria of harm through opposing medical practices you've just provided could apply equally to Jehovah's Witnesses, not to mention the fact that "directly opposing medicine" is also what's happening (rightly or wrongly) when people oppose stem-cell research or abortions. The money thing's *kinda* valid but the only real difference there is that Scientology's more efficient at collecting money. Plus, you know, Buddhism and Islam are also pretty effective money-gathering rackets and Christianity used to be. (edited by Arwon on 12-11-06 05:56 AM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Christianity vs. Scientology |
| |
