Locke Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Consider the facts. A culture was established that was centered around the idea that the Old Testament was fact. That culture has survived with those beliefs for thousands of years. It is commonly accepted that the original intent of the books was non-fiction. The burden of proof lies on you to explain why it is ambiguous. If you think you have figured something out that thousands and thousands of theologians AND atheists have not - then surely you could explain it. Just because you yourself doubt it, doesn't make it ambiguous. The evidence surrounding the origin of the texts is overwhelming, and I can't force you to read it. Don't you think that every anti-Christian scholar out there would be trying their very hardest to prove a point like this? Afterall, anytime a tomb is discovered that might "prove" Jesus had a family it's all over the news. Anytime that a book comes out that might "prove" something incorrect about Christianity, it's all over the news. Look at Richard Dawkins book, a slap in the face to Christianity, and how long it spent on the New York Times Bestseller list. So if you have any reason to doubt the original intent of the Old Testament, then give it. Because you'd be doing something thousands of people over thousands of years haven't been able to. The burden of proof falls on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Consider the facts. A culture was established that was centered around the idea that the Old Testament was fact. That culture has survived with those beliefs for thousands of years. It is commonly accepted that the original intent of the books was non-fiction. Scientology has formed around the belief that it is fact, even though it's orginal intention was ficticious. The burden of proof lies on you to explain why it is ambiguous. If you think you have figured something out that thousands and thousands of theologians AND atheists have not - then surely you could explain it. Just because you yourself doubt it, doesn't make it ambiguous. The evidence surrounding the origin of the texts is overwhelming, and I can't force you to read it. I have explained why it's ambiguous. I have explained that because we don't know the author, we can't know it's orginal intentions and therefore it's purpose is ambiguous. The lack of proof surrounding those first books of the Bible being written in a non-fictional way makes that ambiguous. You nor anyone on this thread has provided any proof as to why you say it is written with the intention of non fiction writings. The lack of proof adds to my proof that it is ambiguous. Don't you think that every anti-Christian scholar out there would be trying their very hardest to prove a point like this? Afterall, anytime a tomb is discovered that might "prove" Jesus had a family it's all over the news. Anytime that a book comes out that might "prove" something incorrect about Christianity, it's all over the news. Look at Richard Dawkins book, a slap in the face to Christianity, and how long it spent on the New York Times Bestseller list. These examples that you have given arn't trying to prove ambiguity in the orginal purposes. They are just asserting that it is not real. So if you have any reason to doubt the original intent of the Old Testament, then give it. Because you'd be doing something thousands of people over thousands of years haven't been able to. I have already given them, the lack of proof that there is to suggest those first books of the Bible, in which the rest of the Bible is established on are written in a non ficticious way equals ambiguity in that. So it's up to clear up my apparent false thought of the orginal intention being ambiguous by giving me a little proof to show that it is non fiction. The burden of proof falls on you. Ambiguity is a state, not something that needs to be proved, it can only be proved by the lack of proof on your side of the argument. I can't prove your side of the argument. I present the opinion it is ambiguous. You attempt to show me it is not. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 You have still failed to offer evidence of your claim. That stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 My claim rests on your inability to give any objective claims to my claim. Hence, ambiguity. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 My claim rests on your inability to give any objective claims to my claim. Hence, ambiguity. Haha. Okay. Let's pretend your right. Your point is still ridiculous. 1. We know scientology was founded as fictional, and we aren't sure how Christianity was founded but there is a lot of evidence to suggest it was founded as non-fiction. You STILL can't compare the two. That would be like comparing non-fiction to Shakespeare on the claim that, "Well we don't have Shakespeare here today to ask him if he was basing his plays off of real events, so we don't know. Therefore, we should compare Shakespeare with a work of non-fiction like they are the same thing." It might "make sense," to you - but it's ridiculous. 2. We also know that scientology offered no characteristics of a religion we see today at the beginning, but the first texts of Christianity have characteristics of religion. 3. Scientology from the beginning did not offer salvation of any kind, but Christianity did. 4. Scientology did not establish any form of deity or "higher being" in any sense of the word at the beginning, Christianity did. 5. Scientology offered no creation myth at the beginning, Christianity did. There is no way you can claim that a comparison between Scientology and Christianity makes sense. They were founded, just by reading the original texts and not even discussing original intent, in a completely different manner. One clearly established itself as a religion from the beginning just based off of it's texts, one had to change itself many time before ever getting to that point. They cannot be compared. Further, in order to become a member of Scientology you have to take a test that has scientifically been proven to be rigged in order for you to fail so they can suggest you take more classes. Christianity offers no such test when you become a Christian. Scientologists are known to try to cover up secrets of their faith, Christianity is open to any questioning people have, and invite people to come into their services with no questions asked (and no money due). They are not comparable EVEN IF we pretend like there is ambiguity in the Christianities origins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 scientology talks about an alien u idiots, not a god. a god makes sense, an alient sending other aliens here and then making them into ghosts doesnt make sense. besides scientlogy makes no mention of how the earth was created. the bible does. so there again it doesnt make sense when god does. I'm guessing you hate atheists, right? But right there you're acting like a frothingly hate filled one. What gives you the right to come on here, basically label everyone as idots for discussing a beliefs system different to yours and expect to be treated with respect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 1. We know scientology was founded as fictional, and we aren't sure how Christianity was founded but there is a lot of evidence to suggest it was founded as non-fiction. You STILL can't compare the two. That would be like comparing non-fiction to Shakespeare on the claim that, "Well we don't have Shakespeare here today to ask him if he was basing his plays off of real events, so we don't know. Therefore, we should compare Shakespeare with a work of non-fiction like they are the same thing." It might "make sense," to you - but it's ridiculous. Disagree, Shakesphere wrote for the stage, we know of his intentions in fictionalising his work even if some were based of what he considered real life influence. Still obvious fiction. The Bible on the otherhand is not obvious non fiction, if it was then everyone throughout the would would be following it word for word. You also have yet to show me a peice of this lots of evidence that shows orginal intentions of the Bible to be non-fictional. 2. We also know that scientology offered no characteristics of a religion we see today at the beginning, but the first texts of Christianity have characteristics of religion. We're pretending that I'm right, and the intentions of Christianity is ambiguous. So we no longer need to focus on what each tried to show at the begnining. 3. Scientology from the beginning did not offer salvation of any kind, but Christianity did. Doesn't matter, it does now. We are not focusing on orginal intention anymore. We're focusing on comparing the two overall. Both offer salvation. 4. Scientology did not establish any form of deity or "higher being" in any sense of the word at the beginning, Christianity did. Does now. 5. Scientology offered no creation myth at the beginning, Christianity did. It still offers no real creation story. That doesn't matter, some Buddist texts follow a scientology rationale as to why we are on earth. There is no way you can claim that a comparison between Scientology and Christianity makes sense. They were founded, just by reading the original texts and not even discussing original intent, in a completely different manner. One clearly established itself as a religion from the beginning just based off of it's texts, one had to change itself many time before ever getting to that point. They cannot be compared. Now your assuming there is no ambiguity in the orginal intentions of the Bible. Further, in order to become a member of Scientology you have to take a test that has scientifically been proven to be rigged in order for you to fail so they can suggest you take more classes. Christianity offers no such test when you become a Christian. That has little relevance. Thats the way scientology is operated, not neccessarily the ideological nature of the religion. Scientologists are known to try to cover up secrets of their faith, Christianity is open to any questioning people have, and invite people to come into their services with no questions asked (and no money due). Little relevance, I don't know what this point is attempting to prove. Lets spin it, in earlier times didn't Christians murder those who practised against them? Maybe today Christianity will welcome all people to their services (although depending on what Churches) in the past it certainly wasn't all that welcoming to new ideas. I always found the collection plate that went around slightly too forthcoming as well. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 Quit putting words in my mouth. I made all of my points very clear that I am talking about the ORIGINAL TEXTS not the INTENTIONS. All you did was respond to points I never made - that is shown by you constantly talking about "intentions" when I am just talking about the ACTUAL TEXTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGoddessI Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 I challenge you, carlin, to produce a post of your 88 that wasn't made to be deliberately antagonistic and insulting to at least someone. I don't mind confrontation, but when it's as relentlessly uneccessary and hypocritical as yours, there's just no point. Except for a cheap laugh at your expense. Bravo I shall share my skittles with you. If scientology involves jumping on Oprahs couch like an ape, I'm all for it :P The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 I challenge you, carlin, to produce a post of your 88 that wasn't made to be deliberately antagonistic and insulting to at least someone. I don't mind confrontation, but when it's as relentlessly uneccessary and hypocritical as yours, there's just no point. Except for a cheap laugh at your expense. Bravo I shall share my skittles with you. If scientology involves jumping on Oprahs couch like an ape, I'm all for it :P Didn't you know? That's like thier pilgramage to Mecca. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 Quit putting words in my mouth. I made all of my points very clear that I am talking about the ORIGINAL TEXTS not the INTENTIONS. All you did was respond to points I never made - that is shown by you constantly talking about "intentions" when I am just talking about the ACTUAL TEXTS. Why are you focusing on the begining then? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 dont dis scientology. :shame: whatever cruise believes in I believe in. Go Tommy!=D> My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 Quit putting words in my mouth. I made all of my points very clear that I am talking about the ORIGINAL TEXTS not the INTENTIONS. All you did was respond to points I never made - that is shown by you constantly talking about "intentions" when I am just talking about the ACTUAL TEXTS. Why are you focusing on the begining then? I'm discussing the first texts. In the beginning, the texts of Christianity had everything I mentioned - they had all of the components of being a religion whether or not you believe it was the intention. Scientology DID NOT have any of that. The first texts of scientology were CLEARLY not a religion wheras Christianity had ALL of the parts we see in a modern day religion. Whether or not you know the intention of the author, it is clear they were formed in VERY different ways - and either you haven't read the Old Testament or you don't know much about the history of Scientology to be arguing the point you are. I suggest you fix whichever the problem is. There is HUGE difference in the beginning of the religions just based on what they offered. I'm sorry that your hatred of Christianity blinds you so much that you are comparing two things that just can't be compared. Even Warrior agreed with me on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 Quit putting words in my mouth. I made all of my points very clear that I am talking about the ORIGINAL TEXTS not the INTENTIONS. All you did was respond to points I never made - that is shown by you constantly talking about "intentions" when I am just talking about the ACTUAL TEXTS. Why are you focusing on the begining then? I'm discussing the first texts. In the beginning, the texts of Christianity had everything I mentioned - they had all of the components of being a religion whether or not you believe it was the intention. Scientology DID NOT have any of that. The first texts of scientology were CLEARLY not a religion wheras Christianity had ALL of the parts we see in a modern day religion. Whether or not you know the intention of the author, it is clear they were formed in VERY different ways - and either you haven't read the Old Testament or you don't know much about the history of Scientology to be arguing the point you are. I suggest you fix whichever the problem is. There is HUGE difference in the beginning of the religions just based on what they offered. I'm sorry that your hatred of Christianity blinds you so much that you are comparing two things that just can't be compared. Even Warrior agreed with me on this one. I find your term, "In the beginning" rather confusing. What time period actually defines begining? Scientology was developed over 30 years by the same man. The first books of the Bible, if they were not written by Moses (which most Biblical scholars beleive), are generally accepted to have been written by different authors over long periods of time (longer than 30 years). So what do you class the "beginning" as? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 dont dis scientology. :shame: whatever cruise believes in I believe in. Go Tommy!=D> Sarcasm I hope... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGoddessI Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 I LOVE KATIE HOLMES!!!!!!!!! :lol: not really The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordkrohn1626 Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 Well I generally find religion and cults are for the weak minded, who need some kind of mental crutch to lean on to get through life. But whatever floats your boat. To each their own and all that. Now as laughable as the backgrounds of most religions are, this one takes the cake hands down. There is like multiple training sessions one must go through to work your way up to total enlightenment *giggles*, and of course you pay more and more for each level. Last time I researched this "religion" it was like $240k USD by the time you reach the final level. This is mandatory so that when you read the sacred final document, you mind doesnt explode or whatever the BS is they say. ...um heres a hint, you can find the final document (dont rememeber what it's called) on google, it was scanned and placed there long ago...I read it, and I didnt drop dead, but I tell you what, whatever he was smoking was some good stuff. Never laughed that hard when reading religious documents before in my life. Bible was a close second for laughs; Love the world wide flood which killed all things, ooops wait a minute, that allegedly happened 5,000 years ago.....hmmmmm the Eygptians were a flourishing and powerful culture then, wonder how they survived the world wide flood...they didnt die, and still exist today...wonders never cease :XD: Scientology.....number one idiotic cult. RS name: lord krohn Combat 138slayer specific: 103 whips, 38 dark bows and 250+ dragon boots dropped to date.Dragon drops: 5 Half shields, 21 drag legs, 8 dragon skirts, and 9 drag meds dropped to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now