Scientology : Cult or Religion?

[Satenza]

How can I make up the ambiguity regarding the orginal purposes of the Bible? It is ambiguous in the sense that you dont really know what purpose it was started as. My case rests on an ambiguity that does exist, and will always exist. I do not doubt people believed in Jesus an died for him independantly of Biblical writings. However that doesn't prove the orginal purposes of the Bible were non-fiction. Moses' writings could have been political or fiction or something else.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

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?

 

No, and that has NOTHING to do with what I said. I wrote that in regards to him arguing with himself.

 

 

 

It would be like if I said "bricks are hard to break" and then he decided to argue that point by saying "nuh uh, wood is easy to break." I don't care if wood is easy to break, and that's not even what I'm talking about.

[toxxy]

Anyone who would join a religion started by a science fiction writer who was quoted saying "I'm going to start a religion, that's where the money's at" deserves to be brainwashed. Not to mention the whole alien ghost thing is kind of a give away to being a crock.

[Chocobodude0]

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?

 

No, and that has NOTHING to do with what I said. I wrote that in regards to him arguing with himself.

 

 

 

It would be like if I said "bricks are hard to break" and then he decided to argue that point by saying "nuh uh, wood is easy to break." I don't care if wood is easy to break, and that's not even what I'm talking about.

 

 

 

Wow, that analogy summed up this argument pretty well.

[hohto]

No, and that has NOTHING to do with what I said. I wrote that in regards to him arguing with himself.

 

 

 

I asked you a question why should he be removed from these boards. Arguing against oneself wasn't againt the rules when I last time checked them.

 

 

 

It would be like if I said "bricks are hard to break" and then he decided to argue that point by saying "nuh uh, wood is easy to break." I don't care if wood is easy to break, and that's not even what I'm talking about.

 

 

 

I gave a new view to people here and it seems to have worked pretty well: I said it at the first apge and we're still arguing here. If you can't accept discussion at these forums, you can go to some of the forums where everyone agree on your religion.

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

They might have rosen from dfferent starting points, but it doesn't change the thing I'm saying here. Agree with it or not, but your stuff (=word, not the thing that there's some historically true people mentioned) can be proven as well as theirs. Your religion has served political meanings in the past, theirs is to create money to their leaders. Agreed on that, but that wasn't my point.

[BlueTear]

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.

 

 

 

I'll actually settle for reasonable doubt here. Yes, it was started by a writer of science-fiction who has been accredited the quote "religion is where the money's at" (though last time I tried to actually look up exactly what he said, it all seemed a bit like some form of anti-propaganda rather than something he actually said). Yes, he originially published his thoughts in a science fiction magazine. But then again, he was a science fiction writer. Magazine's like that were the medium he worked with. Publishing what amounts to a religious thought in a paper relating to his _profession_ does not automatically mean he was just making things up to make more money.

 

 

 

Nor does it really show that he was just out to make money.

[Locke]

How can I make up the ambiguity regarding the orginal purposes of the Bible? It is ambiguous in the sense that you dont really know what purpose it was started as. My case rests on an ambiguity that does exist, and will always exist. I do not doubt people believed in Jesus an died for him independantly of Biblical writings. However that doesn't prove the orginal purposes of the Bible were non-fiction. Moses' writings could have been political or fiction or something else.

 

 

 

There is no ambiguity. You're just making it up to prove a made up point.

[Satenza]

 

No, and that has NOTHING to do with what I said. I wrote that in regards to him arguing with himself.

 

 

 

It would be like if I said "bricks are hard to break" and then he decided to argue that point by saying "nuh uh, wood is easy to break." I don't care if wood is easy to break, and that's not even what I'm talking about.

 

 

 

Then clear up what you really mean't by this;

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If I have it wrong. Otherwise I have nothing wrong. Stop saying "He has it wrong" but offer no explanation as to what you meant by that you said. I know what you said, and you know what you said. I just used the word imply and now you are using it as a scapegoat for your worthless argument.

 

 

 

Edit: If there is no ambiguity, then give me proof that the first books of the Bible were written by Moses. If you can't even do that then it's orgins become unknown. Lets face it aswell, Moses writing down these books in the incredibly hot desert and foretelling his own death points quite strongly towards him not really being the author of them.

[Locke]

Edit: If there is no ambiguity, then give me proof that the first books of the Bible were written by Moses. If you can't even do that then it's orgins become unknown. Lets face it aswell, Moses writing down these books in the incredibly hot desert and foretelling his own death points quite strongly towards him not really being the author of them.

 

 

 

There's a much easier method to do this. Give me a list of fiction written in the time period that was preserved that long if you believe that the Old Testament has the characteristics of fiction.

 

 

 

If you want to show me there is a reason to believe that the original intention of the Bible was to be a fictitious piece of work, then you have to give reasons to believe that. You can't just say "it's possible," that's a cop out, like I said before.

 

 

 

EDIT: This has nothing to do with whether or not you think Christianity is true, which you are trying to argue by pointing out the improbability of Moses foretelling his own death. This has to do with whether or not the works we have show characteristics of fiction from the time, or not. So quit trying to change the subject like you always do.

[Satenza]

 

There's a much easier method to do this. Give me a list of fiction written in the time period that was preserved that long if you believe that the Old Testament has the characteristics of fiction.

 

 

 

If you want to show me there is a reason to believe that the original intention of the Bible was to be a fictitious piece of work, then you have to give reasons to believe that. You can't just say "it's possible," that's a cop out, like I said before.

 

 

 

This is just going to come down to a matter of faith, again. However the unproven stories (e.g Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark), metaphysical happenings and seperation from reality. All point towards fiction.

 

 

 

EDIT: This has nothing to do with whether or not you think Christianity is true, which you are trying to argue by pointing out the improbability of Moses foretelling his own death. This has to do with whether or not the works we have show characteristics of fiction from the time, or not. So quit trying to change the subject like you always do.

 

 

 

I feel it doesn't, as if we can say Moses didn't write the first books of the Bible we can put the orgins of it into even more doubt about whether it's purpose was fiction.

[Locke]

You are changing the subject. This isn't about whether or not Christianity IS fiction, it's about whether or not it was written with the intent of being passed off as fiction or non-fiction. There is a big difference and I would appreciate it if you quit changing the subject.

[Satenza]

You are changing the subject. This isn't about whether or not Christianity IS fiction, it's about whether or not it was written with the intent of being passed off as fiction or non-fiction. There is a big difference and I would appreciate it if you quit changing the subject.

 

 

 

Im not changing any subject, the stories in the first books such as Adam and Eve point towards fiction, because they are so seperate from reality. Nothing points towards them being non-fiction other than if you have faith in them being non fiction. If the first stories are fiction, the Bible is based upon fiction (AKA God creating the world in seven "days", Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark).

[Locke]

Im not changing any subject, the stories in the first books such as Adam and Eve point towards fiction, because they are so seperate from reality. Nothing points towards them being non-fiction other than if you have faith in them being non fiction. If the first stories are fiction, the Bible is based upon fiction (AKA God creating the world in seven "days", Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark).

 

 

 

The books have no characteristics of written fiction at the time and have all the characteristics of non-fiction such as the thorough tracing of genealogy throughout the entire Old Testament. If you found lists of fiction written during the same time of the Old Testament you would realize this, but since your entire point is made up, you're not going to.

 

 

 

EDIT: Quit trying to pretend that is is whether or not the stories are believable. That has nothing to do with this. That's called: "Changing the subject."

 

 

 

You are saying they have characteristics of intended fiction from THIS time. I don't care about that. Show me characteristics of intended fiction that they have concerning the time they were written by comparing them to other pieces of intended fiction from the time.

[assassin_696]

Forgive me because I might be arguing from ignorance here; but despite scientology being established by a science fiction writer, wasn't it established as non-fiction? The author defined it as a religion himself.

[Locke]

Forgive me because I might be arguing from ignorance here; but despite scientology being established by a science fiction writer, wasn't it established as non-fiction? The author defined it as a religion himself.

 

 

 

It wasn't originally established as non-fiction. Even more so, Hubbard created the ideas completely secular at first, and later on decided it was a religion. It wasn't even "defined" as a religion by his own words until he realized he could make money off of it. The original intent is clearly very different.

[assassin_696]

Forgive me because I might be arguing from ignorance here; but despite scientology being established by a science fiction writer, wasn't it established as non-fiction? The author defined it as a religion himself.

 

 

 

It wasn't originally established as non-fiction. Even more so, Hubbard created the ideas completely secular at first, and later on decided it was a religion. It wasn't even "defined" as a religion by his own words until he realized he could make money off of it. The original intent is clearly very different.

 

 

 

So the scientology of today is defined as non-fiction where in the past it was purely fiction. Where's the problem though? Surely all religions and cults evolve. I can't think of any examples but it's perfectly possible for the original intent of a cult to be fictitious but it then evolves into non-ficton and possibly has the same kind of reasoning behind the validity of its beliefs as a religion.

[Locke]

So the scientology of today is defined as non-fiction where in the past it was purely fiction. Where's the problem though? Surely all religions and cults evolve. I can't think of any examples but it's perfectly possible for the original intent of a cult to be fictitious but it then evolves into non-ficton and possibly has the same kind of reasoning behind the validity of its beliefs as a religion.

 

 

 

If you see the evolution from fictional intent to non-fictional intent as something that is okay, then that's your opinion. However, all evidence suggests that Christianity, and most other modern day religions, were established first as non-fiction, and didn't evolve in such a manner - and that's the point being discussed.

 

 

 

You can't compare the attributes of two belief systems when they were originally established for entirely different purposes. They are fundamentally different. The mere evolution from not believing to believing in what you yourself have said is an enormous enough difference to make the belief systems incomparable in most senses.

[assassin_696]

So the scientology of today is defined as non-fiction where in the past it was purely fiction. Where's the problem though? Surely all religions and cults evolve. I can't think of any examples but it's perfectly possible for the original intent of a cult to be fictitious but it then evolves into non-ficton and possibly has the same kind of reasoning behind the validity of its beliefs as a religion.

 

 

 

If you see the evolution from fictional intent to non-fictional intent as something that is okay, then that's your opinion. However, all evidence suggests that Christianity, and most other modern day religions, were established first as non-fiction, and didn't evolve in such a manner - and that's the point being discussed.

 

 

 

You can't compare the attributes of two belief systems when they were originally established for entirely different purposes. They are fundamentally different. The mere evolution from not believing to believing in what you yourself have said is an enormous enough difference to make the belief systems incomparable in most senses.

 

 

 

Fair enough. I won't fire up the debate about the validity of scripture here because I don't think it's necessary.

[Tigra00]

Locke had an okay point (though a rather useless and overused one) until he included Mormonism into the "written as fact" catagory.

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? Mormonism may be written as if it was fact, but anyone with half a brain can see it's complete BS. So why can the same not apply for the REST of the religions? They all have their flaws which make you go "uhh...thats...not right..." and people use the "times change." excuse.

 

 

 

GOD IS TIMELESS. [developmentally delayed]ed humans are not. God would have been fully aware times would change.

[Nadril]

Locke had an okay point (though a rather useless and overused one) until he included Mormonism into the "written as fact" catagory.

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? Mormonism may be written as if it was fact, but anyone with half a brain can see it's complete BS. So why can the same not apply for the REST of the religions? They all have their flaws which make you go "uhh...thats...not right..." and people use the "times change." excuse.

 

 

 

GOD IS TIMELESS. [developmentally delayed] humans are not. God would have been fully aware times would change.

 

 

 

You and Satenza need to get it through your head that he is not arguing if it is fact or not. The point is he is arguing what the intent of the 'religion' is. It has nothing to do with being wrong or right.

[Jaziek]

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.

 

 

 

I'll actually settle for reasonable doubt here. Yes, it was started by a writer of science-fiction who has been accredited the quote "religion is where the money's at" (though last time I tried to actually look up exactly what he said, it all seemed a bit like some form of anti-propaganda rather than something he actually said). Yes, he originially published his thoughts in a science fiction magazine. But then again, he was a science fiction writer. Magazine's like that were the medium he worked with. Publishing what amounts to a religious thought in a paper relating to his _profession_ does not automatically mean he was just making things up to make more money.

 

 

 

Nor does it really show that he was just out to make money.

 

 

 

You missed out Haruhiism on the list of religions ^^

 

 

 

and to be serious.. maybe L.R Hubbard wasnt out to make money, but that doesnt mean that the people who are running scientology today arent out to make money.

[Satenza]

Im not changing any subject, the stories in the first books such as Adam and Eve point towards fiction, because they are so seperate from reality. Nothing points towards them being non-fiction other than if you have faith in them being non fiction. If the first stories are fiction, the Bible is based upon fiction (AKA God creating the world in seven "days", Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark).

 

 

 

The books have no characteristics of written fiction at the time and have all the characteristics of non-fiction such as the thorough tracing of genealogy throughout the entire Old Testament. If you found lists of fiction written during the same time of the Old Testament you would realize this, but since your entire point is made up, you're not going to.

 

 

 

But the books of Moses such as Genesis are fiction in the sense without faith they are so supernatural that they are impossible to take as non fiction.

 

 

 

I can't understand your question of whether it's writing style relates to other fiction books of the time. Firstly because i have not read any fiction books from biblical times to my knowledge. It's language is ambiguous and symbolic, it's stories are so far from reality it's untrue, it has many historical inaccuracys. If it's intention was to be non fiction then it would read like a history book and take deep consideration to the dates and rulers and clarity, but it doesn't. It features a God which becomes nothing more than a paradoxical mess. It features supernatural monsters and beasts. If you take the creation stories to be symbolic (like many Christians now do) then it shows that it's based on fiction.

 

 

 

I find the author of the first books of the Bible, which are supposed to be attributed to Moses to be very critical in seeing orginal purpose.

 

 

 

If we can't pinpoint an orginal author, we don't know the purpose it was written for, if we don't know what purpose it was written for it becomes clouded by ambiguity.

 

 

 

The scriptures themselves point towards a number of authors in the books attributed to Moses, and so the orginal author of the first Biblical books falls under question, and so does it's purpose. Political perhaps, fiction perhaps, non fiction perhaps. But don't even pretend you can be sure.

[warri0r45]

Forgive me because I might be arguing from ignorance here; but despite scientology being established by a science fiction writer, wasn't it established as non-fiction? The author defined it as a religion himself.

 

 

 

It wasn't originally established as non-fiction. Even more so, Hubbard created the ideas completely secular at first, and later on decided it was a religion. It wasn't even "defined" as a religion by his own words until he realized he could make money off of it. The original intent is clearly very different.

 

 

 

So it has to have a god to be a religion? What about Buddhism? If that's what you're getting at (sorry if you're not) I'd tend to agree. :P

[Locke]

But the books of Moses such as Genesis are fiction in the sense without faith they are so supernatural that they are impossible to take as non fiction.

 

 

 

I can't understand your question of whether it's writing style relates to other fiction books of the time. Firstly because i have not read any fiction books from biblical times to my knowledge. It's language is ambiguous and symbolic, it's stories are so far from reality it's untrue, it has many historical inaccuracys. If it's intention was to be non fiction then it would read like a history book and take deep consideration to the dates and rulers and clarity, but it doesn't. It features a God which becomes nothing more than a paradoxical mess. It features supernatural monsters and beasts. If you take the creation stories to be symbolic (like many Christians now do) then it shows that it's based on fiction.

 

 

 

Changing the subject. It doesn't matter if it is fantasy, it matters about what the intent was. You refuse to address the actual issue, as always.

 

 

 

I find the author of the first books of the Bible, which are supposed to be attributed to Moses to be very critical in seeing orginal purpose.

 

 

 

If we can't pinpoint an orginal author, we don't know the purpose it was written for, if we don't know what purpose it was written for it becomes clouded by ambiguity.

 

 

 

The scriptures themselves point towards a number of authors in the books attributed to Moses, and so the orginal author of the first Biblical books falls under question, and so does it's purpose. Political perhaps, fiction perhaps, non fiction perhaps. But don't even pretend you can be sure.

 

 

 

You just refuse to answer my initial question about finding me fictional writings from the same time period and therefore, should be ignored. If you are so sure that you can use a modern day perspective on an ancient document to talk about its origins, you have no place talking about this. You can't say, "because this is untrue, it seems likely that it had no original intent of being passed off as true." The reason being is look at authors like Hesiod. He wrote what we would consider outlandish fiction/fantasy - but we also know that he was telling stories he believed to be true. You're arguing a non-existent point with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

 

 

 

So it has to have a god to be a religion? What about Buddhism? If that's what you're getting at (sorry if you're not) I'd tend to agree. Razz

 

 

 

The word secular means without religious or spiritual meaning/connection. I don't understand your question.

[warri0r45]

 

So it has to have a god to be a religion? What about Buddhism? If that's what you're getting at (sorry if you're not) I'd tend to agree. Razz

 

 

 

The word secular means without religious or spiritual meaning/connection. I don't understand your question.

 

 

 

I was just struggling to think how his ideas were secular but then he just 'decided' it was a religion when he realised he could make money. If you look at it that way, basically it's a cult and people are stupid for believing in it (sorry, my knowlege on scientology and L. Ron Hubbard are miniscule). Eh, I suppse then you do make a good point about the intent of scientology compared to christianity.