[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]We should all just worship Optimist Prime.[/QUOTE]
All is the Matrix

Hee hee, 'excercising' demons.

Whoops!

Hey, demons need exercise too!

I'm sure there's a sarcastic comment I could find about the word "optimist" and religion, but I didn't get enough sleep to come up with it.

No, I rank other relgions because there is at least some segment of the people who practice them who are smart enough to know the bible isn't an accurate portrayal of history. And while Noah's Ark, as told in the Bible is far fetched, some dude building a barge and saving some animals from a bad flood isn't far fetched at all. Some short dude killing a really big dude with a sling and a rock is not far fetched at all. There is no plausibility in any of scientology.

What the heck are you talking about? Mathew and John were two of Christs apostles, and they wrote two of the gospels. How is that not an eye-witness account? These two were written by the men who walked with Jesus. I can't think of a better eyewitness account.

Also, Tacitus wrote about Christ in his annals, and another historian named Flavius Josephus talks about him. Where is the problem?

Do some research about the subject before you post utter nonsense.

I suggest you look at the work of the Jesus Seminar. They don't prove anything about Jesus' existence, but they organize the material in terms of likelihood of it being true. Additionally, you're basing your entire argument on that some of the things written about him are difficult to believe, therefore he did not exist in any way, shape or form. Or don't read the Jesus Seminar. Staunch anti-religious people are generally too hardset in their ways to listen to reason.

Also, there's much more to religion than stories. That's the difference between actual religions and Scientology. Scientology is a pyramid scheme without community, spirituality or anything else that makes a religion more than folklore or mythology.

Scientology = boredom + science fiction author.

There is evidence to the contrary that any of the 4 gospels Mark, Luke, Matthew and Paul were written by the supposed apostles and were written from 70-150AD. That's 70-150 years after Jesus' died. Even if they were written by who they supposedly were they could never have lived another 70 years after Jesus' death to write the stories.

From Wikipedia: "and today the majority agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name.[2]"
And cites a source.

Similar things are said about all the Gospels.

The gospels were anonymous but attributed to the apostles around 150-180AD by early Christians.

So no, there are no real eye-witness accounts.


Tacitus and Josephus were both born after Christ supposedly died.

Umm... believability, logic, and the scientific method have nothing to do with finding which religion is "the most correct." There's no way any two religions should be compared by what makes the most sense and is most logical.

Jesus died around 33-36 AD.

And your logic is very fuzzy at best. Stop dismissing claims without proof. (such as "They weren't there, therefore there was no eye-witness").

And as I said earlier, very few historians are going to agree with a word you say (according to Wikipedia!).

Personally, I find both religions to be mostly BS.

Fine then.
Nothing was ever here.

...

Just stay away from threads with semi-intelligent content. PLEASE.

Of all the posts you've ever made... that has to be the most ridiculous and pathetic post of them all.

It's like after I say something he now has to agree and try to jump on my bandwagon.

He wants your love, man. Wants it hard enough to ignore his own beliefs to follow yours. He worships you. :downs:

I used to believe in a higher power until I reached the age of reason.

In general, I find that science will give a good explanation to any existance or events, thus making it more and more difficult for me to believe in this... "greater power" known as God.

(Side note: I want everyone to look at the new sticky before replying to TE)

But what about the Bible illustrating the beginning of the universe and mankind, Adam and Eve? I always did wonder how numerous this "segment of the people" who follow the religion feel that this isn't historically accurate. But the whole concept of "original sin," an obviously significant part when practicing this religion, comes directly from those events, so I'm guessing it has to be accepted that it happened, to a certain degree, to fully partake in the faith?

Reading about Adam and Eve and stories of Genesis as literature is rather interesting.

Who? What is this majority? A couple of scholars from other fields who are suddenly experts because they spend a few months trying to disprove the bible? I could find you plenty of theologians who know their stuff and have been studying this stuff for 30+ years who would laugh at that notion.

What I'm getting that here is it's very arrogant for some scholars to come in and assume that they're automatically experts after a few months of looking at it. I mean, sure there are plenty of dumb pastors who don't have a clue, but in reformed circles at least, there are some very, very smart people who really know their stuff in this area.

I don't see anyway how you could find hard empirical any evidence to this one way or another so long after the fact. You might find something by studying the documents them selves and looking at the styles of the authors, but I'm certainly not going to trust some biased kid who just graduated from collage over a 65 year old theologian whose been studying this stuff for the last 40 years.




They're not supposed to be scientifically likely. That's why they're called miracles.

That could be. Still, though, the 747 is just amazingly :downs:


Did you even check the Wikipedia source? I'm guessing not, you're just shrugging it off because it challenges your beliefs.

There simply isn't enough evidence to show that he did exist and the burden of proof lies with those saying he did exist.


Then there's the similarities with tens of other mythological figures that existed before he did.

Just google "did jesus exist" and it brings up a whole wealth of articles on the subject.

The only problem is, they're all written by someone who's already biased and set out to show that either he did or didn't exist but do offer a lot of information. Probably the least bias I've found is: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
Though that doesn't have all the information presented in other books/articles.

I'm inclined to follow what the great, great majority of historians say: Jesus existed.

It's a creation myth just like a Native American creation myth, or the creation myth of the Greek or Roman gods, and so on. Depsite that, there are a great many things written in the Bible that probably happened, although differently than they were recorded. It's like what happens to a message in a game of telephone.

Scientology is a harmful, evil cult. L. Ron Hubbard made a wager with one of his friends that he couldn't invent a religion.
Essentially the structure works like this: Once you have paid for enough Audit Counseling you are granted more and more access to higher-level reading materials.
At a certain point you learn about Xenu and the intergalactic mass-murder and such. Originally, at the very top level, you were told that Christianity was right and that it was all a big hoax. Except L. Ron was making a lot of money, so he changed it.
In addition to that, L. Ron Hubbard (seriously!) fancied himself the Antichrist. I'm not joking. I'm not exaggerating at all. L. Ron Hubbard actually believed he was the son of Satan and doomed to unleash a plague upon the Earth. (He was half right, anyway).

Scientology is a cancer. They trick you into, at first, believing it is just an alternative to psychology. They take more and more money away from you and slowly indoctrinate you into their beliefs. Once you are an advanced member and living inside one of their hovels (because you no longer have the means to support yourself) they basically own you. People have died because the Scientologists have refused to get people outside help, and some of their 'curing' techniques include starvation/dehydration. They own an entire town in Florida and bribe the police to harass the non-scientologist members into leaving. L. Ron Hubbard was a pedophile who took young boys out to international waters on his yacht in order to rape them.

Anybody who actually defends these pure evil, irredeemable monsters is simply ignorant of Scientology and what Scientology is. Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism and other ancient religions may be every bit as fictional, but to a large extent they've evolved away from being actively harmful to society and toward aiding it. Non-cults can be typified as once forming the foundation of an entire civilization, and something as harmful as Scientology would never be able to fill that role in its current form. And, frankly, anybody who would suggest that it is a "mirror" for the major religions has no business talking about this subject at all.

I was going to post, but Jon'C beat me to it. My only change would be that he seemed to imply that all religons started out as harmful cults and evolved into potentially benefitial groups, which I don't think is always, if not infrequently, the case. EDIT: This is not to say that major religons haven't done lots of crap, but it's certainly not the same as Scientology, and I agree with Jon'C's conclusions.

The rise of Christianity is almost certainly a factor in the decline of the Roman Empire.

Edit:
More examples,

Protojudaism did not have a strong moral framework. It's not absolutely certain when the 10 Commandments entered into the picture, depending on whether or not you believe in what happened during Exodus. Abramic religions are very rare for believing in both monotheism and an entirely dominant position of masculinity.

Islam is currently in the middle of its evolution as it is readily apparent.


I certainly don't believe that all religions were once entirely and inherently harmful, but their mass adoption definitely had some negative effects on the society they influenced. Like in Rome, where the rise of Christianity led to a weakening of almost all cultural institutions (including the military). Or in the Middle East, where the rise of Islam basically led to a Dark Age - in a region that used to be the most technologically advanced in the world.

See, I figured you were going with the "bloody crusades" and "inquisitions" and all that stuff, which is definately covered under the "crap" part. I'm not entirely sure the fall of the Roman Empire is something that could be considered "bad" per se, or at least it's only as bad as the fall of any empire, and to my knowledge, Christianity in this particular case wasn't bringing its downfall with warfare on its part... I could be wrong though -- my knowledge on the politics of such isn't infallable to say the least.

EDIT: Yeah, OK, I'll see to you on those points. But the point is, they're not usually founded on such evil principles like Scientology was, yes?

I take it Jon'C's post was directed at my post on the first page.

All I said was that the beliefs of Scientology are no less plausible than the beliefs of any other religion.

Though I disagree with Jon'C Scientology is no worse than Christianity or Islam has been at some point.



Apart from money, all religions do this but religions (Not so much nowadays, in the west at least) are more interested in power.



Jehovas Witnesses have died because they refuse blood transfusions.



Christianity did this in the medieval period, burning witches, pagans, 'heretics' killing people for being catholic/protestant depending on who was in charge at the time.



And how many scandals have there been in the Catholic church through the years about priests and small boys?


No, I'd say my original statement was accurate. Scientology is no worse than Christianity or Islam. Though some religions like Buddhism do have better histories.

Religons aren't (most importantly) about plausibility -- it's about a way of life (something that fustrates me when fundamentalists attempt to make reason/proof more important than faith and doing good). Most major religons are built on good principles -- it's when hypocrites and the like misunderstand, misuse or otherwise do wrong under any power that religon has that the crap comes in. Scientology, on the other hand, is not. I think Jon'C already made the points why before, and I'm pretty sure I've already conceeded to most of the other arguments already made. I'll let someone more competant and better motivated to argue the finer points.

It's not really fair to draw comparisons with the behaviour of people hundreds of years ago. Barbaric behaviour was more of a cultural norm then than it is now and plenty of similar acts were performed without a particularly religous reason behind it. The problem is that while most religious groups (particularly in the western world) have given up these things for the large part, scientology still engages in these aggressive habits.

Okay, let's try this on for size:

Hitler is no worse than TheJkWhoSaysNi because both of them have some pretty crazy ideas about religion, they're both wrong and they both like to murder Jews.

Now... was I being honest, or was I just making some sort of retarded and false strawman attack because I have a vendetta against you?
Hint: It's a strawman, and you're doing the same goddamned thing.


I'll give you some perspective since you apparently don't have any:

Christianity: Durings its initial mass-adoption, it undermined the Roman Empire by turning soldiers into pacifists.
Scientology: During its initial mass-adoption, it undermined the United States of America by blackmailing and extorting government officials until they were recognized by the state as a religion, and were in fact under investigation by the FBI until this happened.

Witnesses: Members die because they refuse medical treatments that can help them.
Scientology: Does not allow members access to medical assistance even when they ask or beg for it. Locks members in rooms against their will to prevent them from leaving. Some people on the internet (myself included) hypothesize that this is to prevent outside observers from making note of the poor living conditions inside their death hotels.

Christianity: Runs charitable missions in third world countries that hand out food, medicine, clothing and help build shelters while spreading the word of God. Operate using money donated by members.
Scientology: Do not bother with poor countries because they have no money. Run 'Audit Centers' and gift shops in first world countries that help finance the global empire.

Christianity: Founded on a collection of stories that are written to impart very important meanings and morals in the people who read them.
Scientology: Founded on a collection of stories that you, too, can own for 20 easy payments of $599.95.

Christianity: Attracted new followers through several different methods; not the least of which was the assimilation of local customs and traditions into the greater whole (such as Christmas, and worship on Sunday instead of Saturday).
Scientology: Attracts new members through base commercialism. Scientologists advertise their services as an alternative to psychiatry and charge people money for their 'help'. People pay money to be indoctrinated in a religion.

Christianity: Discounting the enormous wealth of precious artwork in the Vatican (which anybody can view if they go to Italy), Christians and Christian churches use their money to accomplish some very good things worldwide in addition to simple missionary work.
Scientology: Does not donate anything. It is a purely for-profit corporation that attained its tax-exempt status by threatening the US government. Your congressmen sold you out to the devil. Congratulations.


You know what? Scientologists do worse stuff, right now, than even the really bad stuff in Christianity's history - like the Spanish Inquisition. I'd take random beheadings any day over the Scientologists' ongoing campaigns of emotional, financial and psychological warfare. They don't just kill their enemies: they sue them until they have no money, they turn their family members against them and they basically do everything they can do drive you insane. That's how they managed to take over Clearwater, Florida: by either driving everybody away, making them too poor to stay, or converting them. It isn't like Christianity at all, it's worse and it's monsterous.

I don't know why you have a problem with religions. Maybe a Christian raped your mother or you slowly cut yourself while listening to Linkin Park because that pretty Catholic girl won't date you. I don't care. You do not get to defend Scientology because the only way you can defend Scientology is by making up phony arguments and lying. Please actually read about Scientology and what they have done (because you haven't done this and everybody can tell) and please don't post in this thread until you do.

Oh, and just in case you are (indeed) a Scientologist, I offer you the following preemptive response to the question that you were programmed to ask: I am afraid of the ultimate evil taking over the world and turning everybody into more soulless demons with vacant stares. Scientology either makes you destitute or it makes you a monster and I will burn the world before I let them spread.

Ok quick question for those who know of this stuff.
Does the Chinese government allow Scientology? Just wondering since their communist and all.

Be nice, please? And sensible? Your arguments are sound but when you punctuate them with childish attacks it turns me off from what otherwise is a decent post.

Thanks Jon'C and I am not a Scientologist. I hate Scientology as much as any other religion and there's no way i could be a sceintologist because, as you said yourself I don't know enough about it.

I dont know how you concluded that stealing money from people is worse than beheading them though.

I wasn't trying to defend Scientology at all, I was just comparing what you said about scientology to other religions.

I'll stay out of the actual meat of this discussion and just say that there's a giant sign practically next door to my church that says "CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY coming soon."

I drove a circle in their parking lot, too...



Oh, and, I can't help but say that Christianity is far more plausible than Scientology.

Yes, yes, we all know you hate religion. All you're saying is that you hate yourself. Religion is all-pervasive and is, in an idealized form, no different from any philosophies including Humanism. If you truly hate all religions and philosophies that would basically mean you are a Nihilist, which means you'd have to hate yourself too.

I really hope you at least know that you aren't one of the "cool kids" for disliking religion. Like it or not, religion is the wellspring for human civilization and it's something you're going to have to learn to respect on those merits (at least). Or just quit participating in this kind of discussion. Please. "I hate all religions" is an infantile thing to say.

"they sue them until they have no money, they turn their family members against them and they basically do everything they can do drive you insane."

Because they don't just kill you, they break you. They beat you, they spit on you, they take your family away from you and they ruin your life. Which would be more humane: killing someone with a lethal dose of sodium thiopental, or disfiguring them so severely that they cannot function as a member of society and then forcing them to live with it?
The difference between ancient Christianity and modern Scientology is the relative difference between murder and genocide. Or the difference between perjury and grand treason. Scientologists are evil and Scientology is not even a religion.