Locke

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.

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.

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.

You have still failed to offer evidence of your claim. That stinks.

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.

Wait? So you're saying that your point is made up and you have yet to give any evidence to support your claim? Interesting...

Your point is absolutely made up until you give reasons for it. The only reason you've given is absolutely nonsense. Why not give a reason for your made up point? Because you can't.

I never said Hesiod was around during Biblical times. I was giving an example of how you can't say because it doesn't seem possible in this day and age, it makes sense for it to been have written as fiction. Don't try and turn this around and avoid my question. If you can't do it, then your made up point remains made up. It's kind of sad that you have to make up arguments that don't exist to prove a point. And your post has to do with what exactly? Thank you.

I'd read The Foster Report which was published in 1971. It is very in depth, noting things like even as late as 1971, recruiters for scientology were very uneasy about describing it as a "religion" when recruiting people to the cause. I would suggest that scientology is neither a cult nor a religion. It's a business scam gone very wrong.

Before scientology was even called scientology, before he even decided it would be a religion, it was a secular idea he came up with. Then they realized they could charge people money to take a test, rig the test so they automatically fail it, and charge people more money so they could take classes to fix themselves. Scientology existed before it was ever a religion, and before it was ever "offering salvation." Its entire original intent is different, and is not comparable to Christianity.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.