May 15, 200719 yr Meh just ignore him MPC. If you don't bother arguing with him than this thread can get back on track.
May 15, 200719 yr Meh just ignore him MPC. If you don't bother arguing with him than this thread can get back on track. True story, will do. Also: "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." - L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd Eshbach, in 1949; quoted by Eshbach in OVER MY SHOULDER: REFLECTIONS ON A SCIENCE FICTION ERA, Donald M. Grant Publisher. 1983 Ghost: I am prejudice towards ignorance, so that would explain why I appear to be so.
May 15, 200719 yr I don't care whether you have a differing beleif to me, thats not what this is about in the slightest. It's about you saying that the Bible has more proof than Scientology. It does, you idiot. Therefore, everything else you say is wrong and has no meaning. Quit posting. If you wish to defy all other Christians and show me some proof the Bible is true that does not require faith then shoot me a PM with it. Otherwise it's just as proven as scientology. It's an oxymoron to state that the Bible has proof behind it and yet still accept that faith is needed to beleive in it. You are infact the incredibly rude person here. Did you learn nothing from your "Why does everyone hate arguments" thread? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
May 15, 200719 yr I'm sorry Satenza, but it's just tired rhetoric at this point. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
May 15, 200719 yr You can't prove anything supernatural to be true, neither can you prove a "scientological" god, an islamic or christian god, a buddhist god, etc. exists. End of story. Therefore, everything else you say is wrong and has no meaning. Quit posting. You don't seem stupid, so I'm surprised at the length's you'll go for while defending your religion (which is by no means shared by all people). The Bible, Quran, buddhist Veda books etc. have no more proof than scientology. I do agree that the religion "scientology" seems like nothing more but a scam, but hey, if people believe in it.. It's not just a few people, a lot of highly educated people and rich people making millions a year believe in it :? It's their life so let them think what they want.. Because there's no "right" or "wrong" if you talk about religion. Religions can't rank above each other because they're purely beliefs.
May 15, 200719 yr You don't seem stupid, so I'm surprised at the length's you'll go for while defending your religion (which is by no means shared by all people). I'm not defending MY religion, which is what you people fail to understand, over and over again. I was only saying that some of the events and people that are in the Bible were real. Jesus existed just as much as Abraham Lincoln and Ghengis Khan did. Little aliens from the planets that Ron Hubbard invented fifty years ago do/did not. Why do you all continue to think that I'm defending Christianity? Please, read for content rather than just focusing on who the author of the post is. Ghost: I am prejudice towards ignorance, so that would explain why I appear to be so.
May 15, 200719 yr Yes, the Bible is more factually accurate than scientological 'facts'.. Please refer to a similar religion, or rather cult if you will (Heaven's Gate) http://[Censored for time being].com/ekjmg .. People really believe this stuff. Here's a short quote of their beliefs: The cult's end coincided with the appearance of Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997. Applewhite convinced thirty-eight followers to commit suicide so that their souls could take a ride on a spaceship that they believed was hiding behind the comet carrying Jesus; such beliefs have led some observers to characterize the group as a type of "UFO religion." Jesus the space ship commander... :wall: It's comparable to the religious side of scientology, but.. Well, people have free will and some people are just plain dumb. They can believe that if they feel like it. While the Quran, Bible etc. might contain historical accuracy, the spiritual and mystical content of those books is directly comparable to the above text in 'factual accuracy' because it has no proof. Scientology wrestles in the same series. People will laugh at the beliefs of Heavens Gate members, but then they'll go to church every Sunday and believe some guy healed blind people, walked on water and ascended into heaven from his grave as if it's normal.
May 15, 200719 yr Please refer to a similar religion, or rather cult if you will (Heaven's Gate) What do ya mean? Ghost: I am prejudice towards ignorance, so that would explain why I appear to be so.
May 15, 200719 yr I haven't studied the 'healing' side of scientology, but I meant the religious side of it sounds pretty much like the nonsense Heaven's Gate feeds (or fed) to it's members.
May 15, 200719 yr I don't care whether you have a differing beleif to me, thats not what this is about in the slightest. It's about you saying that the Bible has more proof than Scientology. It does, you idiot. Therefore, everything else you say is wrong and has no meaning. Quit posting. If you wish to defy all other Christians and show me some proof the Bible is true that does not require faith then shoot me a PM with it. Otherwise it's just as proven as scientology. It's an oxymoron to state that the Bible has proof behind it and yet still accept that faith is needed to beleive in it. You are infact the incredibly rude person here. Did you learn nothing from your "Why does everyone hate arguments" thread? I don't think anyone said the Bible was true, Santenza. Some of the stuff really did happen though, and perhaps that was MPC's point. For example, historically, there was a man named Jesus Christ who claimed he was the world's savior. He also was killed at the command at the authority of the Roman Empire. Both of those things actually happened, it is historically accurate. Wether he was or wasn't what he claimed he was is the debate. So bottomline, some of the stuff that happened in the Bible really happened. Take a look at Scientology. It has NO historical proof what-so-ever. So anyways, let's stop before it gets locked. EDIT: Wow, like 4 people posted at once. I look like the one who was late to the party now. :anxious:
May 15, 200719 yr That doesn't really matter, Hohto said that scientology was just as proven as the Bible and the Qu'ran. Their duty is to show Gods existance, since God can't be proven they all have as much proof as each other. Historical accuracy doesn't prove the Bible or make it more proven than scientology as both have zero proof of being true to begin with. Does the historical account of Jesus prove the Bible? The answer is no. Just like the fact the earth is used in scientology when talking about the volcano atom explosions doesn't prove that to any degree either. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
May 15, 200719 yr That doesn't really matter, Hohto said that scientology was just as proven as the Bible and the Qu'ran. Their duty is to show Gods existance, since God can't be proven they all have as much proof as each other. Historical accuracy doesn't prove the Bible or make it more proven than scientology as both have zero proof of being true to begin with. Does the historical account of Jesus prove the Bible? The answer is no. Just like the fact the earth is used in scientology when talking about the volcano atom explosions doesn't prove that to any degree either. I seriously think you might be a little bit illiterate. I NEVER said it proved the Bible to be right. You should have your posting privileges taken away from you. Meh just ignore him MPC. If you don't bother arguing with him than this thread can get back on track. Apparently not. Ghost: I am prejudice towards ignorance, so that would explain why I appear to be so.
May 16, 200719 yr That stuff they are telling is as well proven as the Bible and Choran... That's completely false, actually. Maybe not the miracles and such in the Bible, but at least all of the people were real people. Red - Implys he Bible and Qu'ran have more proof. Blue - Implys the reason for the previous statement is that the Bible and Qu'ran have more proof because of historical accuracy. The only thing historical records offer as far as proof towards the Bible is greater possibility it may be true. Proof however is never something that can stem from these historical records of Jesus. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
May 16, 200719 yr So wait, do you want me to apologize because you interpreted my post incorrectly? I never said that, you just inferred it. Ghost: I am prejudice towards ignorance, so that would explain why I appear to be so.
May 16, 200719 yr You should have your posting privileges taken away from you. Why? Because he is showing a point which you can't clearly see and it puts your religion to the same line with scientology? I'd rather die for what I believe in than live for anything else.Name Removed by Administrator ~Turtlefemm
May 16, 200719 yr So wait, do you want me to apologize because you interpreted my post incorrectly? I never said that, you just inferred it. No you did say that, I infered it from your post. Howver, if you wish to show me what you actually meant (if I have infered wrong, which i don't think I have) then by all means go ahead. Edit: And I don't want an apology. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
May 16, 200719 yr After watching that show I know it's a cult tbh... They were so tight, they spied on the reporter when he was going around to make sure he wasnt leaking secrets or anything. How can anyone believe any of that crap? Only way to get people to believe is brainwashing... EDIT: Go here to watch the Panorama about Scientology
May 16, 200719 yr Scientology was created by a science fiction writer. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc were created with the purpose of being non-fictional. It's not a matter of whether or not you can prove a metaphysical concept, it's a matter of what the original purpose was. For instance, the roots of Scientology, Dianetics, was first established in a magazine titled "Astounding Science Fiction." Don't you see the difference? One was established with the original intent of non-fiction, whether or not you believe it - and one was authored by a writer of science fiction. Why? Because he is showing a point which you can't clearly see and it puts your religion to the same line with scientology? I don't know how much you know about either religion, but they were established with completely different original purposes, and are therefore not in the same line. Maybe you just don't know enough about the origins of either of the two religions?
May 16, 200719 yr Why? Because he is showing a point which you can't clearly see and it puts your religion to the same line with scientology? I don't know how much you know about either religion, but they were established with completely different original purposes, and are therefore not in the same line. Maybe you just don't know enough about the origins of either of the two religions? You don't know what the orginal purpose of the Bible was. It may have been published to be non-fiction, that doesn't make it any more different than scientology in the sense that both set out to achive the same thing. Scientology's orgins may be leaning towards fiction but the same could be said for the Bible. Both are cults by definition and both promise salvation. They are one in the same thing, it is only the details that differ. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
May 16, 200719 yr You don't know what the orginal purpose of the Bible was. It may have been published to be non-fiction, that doesn't make it any more different than scientology in the sense that both set out to achive the same thing. Scientology's orgins may be leaning towards fiction but the same could be said for the Bible. Both are cults by definition and both promise salvation. They are one in the same thing, it is only the details that differ. Cop-out. Jesus was a person whom Roman records identified as being crucified. The Gospels not only detail the life of him (of which other non-Christian historical data shows was accurate as far as where he was, and what he was doing in terms of preaching and gathering crowds), but they also explain the events in terms of actual genealogy and what happened in the family line. Sure, you can never be 100% sure, but it's just a cop-out to bring up that point because it's possible that you can never be 100% sure of anything.
May 16, 200719 yr The Bible doesn't base itself unfortunatley on the somewhat tamer life of Jesus. Christianity may, but that doesn't mean it excludes the Old Testament or stories that have no historical record. Jesus is one part of the Bible whose views rely on the previously established views of the Old Testament. The Bible's orginal purpose was not to document the life of Jesus. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
May 16, 200719 yr The Bible doesn't base itself unfortunatley on the somewhat tamer life of Jesus. Christianity may, but that doesn't mean it excludes the Old Testament or stories that have no historical record. Jesus is one part of the Bible whose views rely on the previously established views of the Old Testament. The Bible's orginal purpose was not to document the life of Jesus. It documented the lives of other people, whose genealogy traces up through the bloodline that eventually becomes Jesus. The point you are making is ridiculous. You are basically saying, "You can't know anything for sure about Christianity, so in conclusion, I know for sure that Christianity and Scientology were established with the same purpose."
May 16, 200719 yr ...I don't know how much you know about either religion' date=' but they were established with completely different original purposes, and are therefore not in the same line. Maybe you just don't know enough about the origins of either of the two religions?[/quote'] He is completely bigoted towards Christianity/Christians so any post he makes about such religion should be completely disregarded.
May 16, 200719 yr The Bible doesn't base itself unfortunatley on the somewhat tamer life of Jesus. Christianity may, but that doesn't mean it excludes the Old Testament or stories that have no historical record. Jesus is one part of the Bible whose views rely on the previously established views of the Old Testament. The Bible's orginal purpose was not to document the life of Jesus. It documented the lives of other people, whose genealogy traces up through the bloodline that eventually becomes Jesus. The point you are making is ridiculous. You are basically saying, "You can't know anything for sure about Christianity, so in conclusion, I know for sure that Christianity and Scientology were established with the same purpose." And your assuming they were created in a different purpose because of historical records of Jesus who lived over one thousand years after the orgins of Christianity and the writings of the first books of the Bible. I never said I knew for sure that Christianity and Scientology were created in the same vein, but the ambiguity surrounding Christianity's orginal purpose means that both are the same in respect to the fact they both offer the exact same thing, salvation. They both in some way capitalise money wise from their followers. They are both to some degree cults. The only thing that differs is the details inbetween to someone who can look at both objectionally. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
May 16, 200719 yr And your assuming they were created in a different purpose because of historical records of Jesus who lived over one thousand years after the orgins of Christianity and the writings of the first books of the Bible. I never said I knew for sure that Christianity and Scientology were created in the same vein, but the ambiguity surrounding Christianity's orginal purpose means that both are the same in respect to the fact they both offer the exact same thing, salvation. They both in some way capitalise money wise from their followers. They are both to some degree cults. The only thing that differs is the details inbetween to someone who can look at both objectionally. So your argument is this: "We know that Scientology was first established as fiction and it was only later that we found that people started passing it off as non-fiction. Christianity, on the other hand, has no indication that it was ever meant as fiction. We know this because it was not written like fiction would have been written in the time and not very much fiction was written during the time. Therefore, it seems logical to assume that Christianity might have been written as fiction and later latched onto despite the fact that we have historical evidence that those following Jesus while he was preaching were killed for believing Jesus was the Messiah (therefore showing us that even before the Gospel was written, people believed the ideas were non-fiction)." You are being ridiculous to try and argue the point that Christianity "might" have been first meant as fiction. There are NUMEROUS reasons to show it was not. Sure, you could argue that Christianity is a cult - but the two religion fundamentally started for different purposes. So whether or not they "both offer salvation" is irrelevant to the point, because their fundamental beginning was ENTIRELY different. You simply cannot compare them that closely. The entire point of your argument is this "ambiguity" about the original intent of Christianity, and you've simply made that up.
Create an account or sign in to comment