[abe]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

I agree, except with your grammar

-t

(suckle suckle kiss kiss) You LOVE Kevin! You dream of Kevin! You want to have Kevin's baby, if you could!

It feels GOOD being on the same side of an issue with Kevin, huh? You feel all tingly inside?

[lothar56]

Originally Posted by goMac

Huh? Do you not understand that the first Christians continued practicing Judaism? The first Christians were still Jews. They staid in the Synagogues until they were run out of them. They still followed all the rules of Judaism.

http://www.smithcreekmusic.com/Hymno...influence.html (For some reference)

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Paul was who basically abolished circumcision for the new "Christians". His point was that a follower of Christ should be circumcised in heart, not flesh. Had nothing to do with making it appealing or popular with the Romans.

Quoted for emphasis.

Because Jesus died on the cross, anyone wanting to be saved is no longer required to follow the original law set up in the Old Testament by God for the Jewish people. There is a lot of talk in the New Testament about this very topic. Some church leaders were forcing new converts to adhere to the law, but Paul made it clear that becoming circumsized was not required for salvation.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac

Huh? Do you not understand that the first Christians continued practicing Judaism? The first Christians were still Jews. They staid in the Synagogues until they were run out of them. They still followed all the rules of Judaism.

One doesn't need to follow the Law of Moses if one is a Christian. That's the whole point of Christianity. If, as you say, there were Christian Jews following Judaism then they were missing the point.

Originally Posted by goMac

http://www.smithcreekmusic.com/Hymno...influence.html (For some reference)

I believe I'll stick with The Bible for reference rather than a sheet music sales website, thanks.

[Cody Dawg]

(suckle suckle kiss kiss) You LOVE Kevin! You dream of Kevin! You want to have Kevin's baby, if you could!

It feels GOOD being on the same side of an issue with Kevin, huh? You feel all tingly inside?

I'm not even going to try to understand.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by abe

Just sukking up to Kevin, huh?

I call the shots as I see them and give credit where credit is due. We don't agree on much, me and Kevin - usually about opinions.

This is just agreeing on a fact. Scientology is a cult that brainwashes people. An observation. Something that all people who care to open their eyes to can see.

cheers

W-Y

[ironknee]

tom: oh so that's where babies come from...sue me

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

One doesn't need to follow the Law of Moses if one is a Christian. That's the whole point of Christianity. If, as you say, there were Christian Jews following Judaism then they were missing the point.



I believe I'll stick with The Bible for reference rather than a sheet music sales website, thanks.

Huh? Let's think here. Why do we go to church on Sunday... Because to Jews Friday night through Saturday was sacred. The original Christians went to Synagogue on Saturday, and then met on Sunday to celebrate Jesus. Christianity wasn't an independent religion, it was an extension of Judaism. Because of this all Christians still at this time followed all Jewish laws.

The Jews had to run the Christians out of the Synagogues. First they started their ceremonies by cursing Jesus. This didn't work because the Christians in the crowd could just pretend they were following along instead of actually cursing Jesus. The second try through, Rabbi's would randomly call on people to come up and lead the Synagogue in cursing Jesus. If someone was called up and refused to curse Jesus they were expelled from the Synagogue. This occurred around 80 AD, and this was the time when Christianity began first exploring becoming it's own religion.

With regard to circumcision, Paul would allow people to convert without circumcision. He did it because the average conversion went something like this:

Christian: "Hey guys! Why don't you all convert?"
People: "Sure!"
Christian: "Alright! Drop your pants! As Christians you need to be circumcised!"
People: "You know... on second thought we'll stick with our current religion."

Paul was the only one liberal enough to think that circumcision wasn't needed. This was why he was writing to the Corinthians about it. All the other disciples who had come had only been willing to convert everyone to Christianity if they became circumcised. Paul was saying "Hey! Unlike the other guys I don't believe in circumcision. I can convert you without doing it." The corinthians thought this was a pretty good deal. This also led to odd situations like Paul converting a village, leaving, and then the next apostle comes through, declares everyone not really real christians, and then proceeding to circumcise everyone.

The Romans were a problem though. In the Roman empire, circumcision was prohibited. In order to convert the romans, circumcision had to be dropped entirely. This settled Paul's argument with the rest of the apostles.

I went to a University that was Catholic and required Theology classes that were taught by priests and nuns. Don't lecture me on the roots of Christianity. Learn about your religion instead of just blindly following the hard line on it. A lot of Christianity is political. Doesn't mean it's a bad religion. It just means you can't blindly trust it.

[Cody Dawg]

Katie appears in her own episode of Rosemary's Baby when the Scientologists come and take her child away from her for 3 days per Scientology rules.

That girl is so completely lost and misguided.

She is like Scientology's version of the Virgin Mary giving birth to the Scientology messiah.

Somehow I think that baby's name is going to be "Li'l Ron L."

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Looks salty from where I am sitting.

I am not trying to justify, because I don't NEED to justify.

Um, no, no it's not. Atleast not in America. It was done for religious reasons LONG AGO, but it's become common practice since then

Huh? There are other purposes. No need to justfiy.

Why is circumcision done?

Circumcision is done either for religious or medical reasons. Religious circumcision is performed within the Jewish and Muslim traditions. Non-religious circumcision began in the 19th century and became almost routine in certain countries. It is estimated that approximately 1.2 million 'routine' circumcisions are performed each year in the USA.

I suggest you do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth further.

What I find funny is, whenever Scientology is brought up, the SAME few nutballs come in here and try to say it's no different from any other religion.

You guys really need to do something about your insecurity slip. It's showing.

Marriage is a cultural thing too, but somehow it's made to be a religious thing by Christians. So what's your point?

I really can't see a Buddhist or Atheist couples, who are born in the US, having their baby circumcise based on "cultural" reasons.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac

I went to a University that was Catholic and required Theology classes that were taught by priests and nuns. Don't lecture me on the roots of Christianity.

Right. Show me the bit in the Bible where it says you should confess your sins to a priest and your time in your Catholic university will hold weight with me.

Originally Posted by goMac

Learn about your religion instead of just blindly following the hard line on it.

You mean blindly following the hard line like this:

Originally Posted by Doofy

However, I have absolutely no problem with polygyny, since the Bible doesn't outlaw it (I believe that the whole monogamy thing in Christianity is a man-made cultural law, not scriptural at all).

From thread: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=290695

?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TomR

It's no different than any other "religion". Some dope makes up a religion and gets a bunch of morons to follow them.

Those that or wont differentiate from the two show either a severe lack of understanding, or just plain hatefulness.

Huh? Do you not understand that the first Christians continued practicing Judaism? The first Christians were still Jews.

Actually the first Christians were more than just jews. Gentiles as well! And they followed Judaisms teachings.

Jesus replaced the "rules" for the jewish converts and gentiles.

Originally Posted by abe

It feels GOOD being on the same side of an issue with Kevin, huh? You feel all tingly inside?

Now if you could only get my GF to agree to that.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by goMac

I went to a University that was Catholic and required Theology classes that were taught by priests and nuns. Don't lecture me on the roots of Christianity. Learn about your religion instead of just blindly following the hard line on it. A lot of Christianity is political. Doesn't mean it's a bad religion. It just means you can't blindly trust it.

I'm sorry but the people who tought you this were wrong

From the very first moment, Christianity was distinctly seperate from Judaism.

cheers

W-Y

[Mithras]

I'd just like to throw in my two cents: Paul was the worst thing that could have happened to otherwise quite likable religion of Christ.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

There are much worse things someone can do to a child. Giving it peace and quite for a week isn't the end of the world.

That's true, but being told to not talk to your kid for a week is f-----g retarded. I mean, not even to say "hi, sweetie" or anything? That's DUMB. Anyone who's had kids knows how terrible it must be to be told not to talk to your own kid.

And silence during the birth? I guess nobody squeezed L. Ron Hubbard's nads for a 12 hours. I'd like to see if he was able do that without screaming.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by starman

That's true, but being told to not talk to your kid for a week is f-----g retarded.

It's pretty much evident what they are trying to do here – give the kid an "opportunity" to disassociate with its parents from the start. Normally, the infant would identify and form the strongest bonds (emotionally as well as intellectually) with his or her parents. The first week is so crucial for the emotional development of a human being.

This is all done by design. How much do you wanna bet that the first thing that kid's going to hear is some f*ed up Scientology propagandy. Absolutely sickening and evil.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Katie appears in her own episode of Rosemary's Baby when the Scientologists come and take her child away from her for 3 days per Scientology rules.

That girl is so completely lost and misguided.

She is like Scientology's version of the Virgin Mary giving birth to the Scientology messiah.

Somehow I think that baby's name is going to be "Li'l Ron L."

Can you elaborate on this "3 days" thing?

The rest of your post seems to be right on target. Sad, isn't it?

[Monique]

Actually the first premise is a lie. This is not true that people from Scientology do not talk to their children for 7 days.

It is about being quiet around a woman when she gives birth.

Although I do not agree with any religions that ask for set amounts of money and then do not tell you what they do with it.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Somehow I think that baby's name is going to be "Li'l Ron L."

Sounds like a rapper.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I'm sorry but the people who tought you this were wrong

From the very first moment, Christianity was distinctly seperate from Judaism.

cheers

W-Y

: sigh :

They had no reason to be. Jesus was a Jew. He died celebrating a Jewish holiday.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...wrestling.html

Quote:

"... Christianity, in its earliest beginnings, is part of Judaism... it is a sect, among a number of varieties of Judaism in the Roman Empire. But it is also clear that at a certain point, they develop a consciousness which takes them outside of the social orb of Judaism. They're no longer part of the local Jewish community, they're a separate community, meeting in little household groups, all over the city. And, it's apparent, at least from the time of the Emperor Nero, that outsiders also view them as distinct. So that when Nero is looking for scapegoats upon whom to put blame for the fire in Rome in 64, he zeroes in on the Christians.

So, obviously they are recognized as a distinctive group. How did this happen? What is involved in their separation? The one thing I think we have to recognize is that it doesn't happen all at once. It does not happen in the same way in different places, nor does it happen at the same time. For example, as late as the 4th and 5th century, we have evidence of Christians still existing within Jewish communities, and we have evidence of members of Christian communities participating in Jewish festivals. The preacher of Antioch and later of Constantinople, John Chrysostom, complains in a series of eight sermons to his congregation, that "you must stop going to the Synagogue, you must not think that the Synagogue is a holier place than our churches are." This clearly indicates that the break between Judaism and Christianity, even as late as the 4th century ... still is not absolute, is not permanent. Yet, on the other hand, we can see even in Paul's letters, which are the earliest literature we have from the early Christians, that the social separation in the communities he founded has already taken place. They're not meeting with the Jews. They're meeting in various households. So it's a varied change. It doesn't happen all at once and it doesn't happen in the same way, everywhere."

No, Christianity was not separate from day 1. They were a group of Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah. That's as far as the break went. Other than that they still were completely part of Judaism. The church would like you to believe Christianity was different from day one. It's completely not true.

[goMac]

Here's a transcript of a preacher giving a sermon on the topic:

http://www.uucgl.org/sermons/storyof...masknight.html

"So the Church ran with this, and this was a powerful instrument in the hands of the Church. And it basically played into their original split from Judaism, because Christianity for 40 years had been a sect within Judaism, and it had not split from Judaism until about the year 70. So if Jesus died when he was, say, roughly 30, 33, this little sect of Christians remained as a part of Judaism until the destruction of the Temple in 70. At that point the tensions were just too great, and this little sect pulled out, and it had to justify its existence. And so there was this ongoing struggle, fight, between Judaism and this little sect, and they were simply saying, We are the right religion. We’ve replaced you guys. And this created all sorts of tensions and hard feelings and wars and killings. But the Church maintained that exclusive claim that Jesus was God, and therefore if Jesus was God, anybody who rejected Jesus rejected God, and anybody who accepted Jesus accepted God. This was a powerful tool that could easily be misused and manipulated."

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Right. Show me the bit in the Bible where it says you should confess your sins to a priest and your time in your Catholic university will hold weight with me.

How about you post evidence that you're right? I'm not playing the "my religion is better than yours" game.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac

How about you post evidence that you're right? I'm not playing the "my religion is better than yours" game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

Oh. And there's a devout Catholic up there in the thread telling you you're wrong too.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

Oh. And there's a devout Catholic up there in the thread telling you you're wrong too.

Ok.... How does this at all prove when Catholicism split from Judaism? I have multiple sources giving dates. You're giving me a book. Early Christians stayed in the Jewish religion even when the New Testament came out. The New Testament did not say anything at all about Christianity being separate from Judaism (Unless you'd like to find a quote in the New Testament about that, but I doubt you'll find one.) Jesus was a Jew. He was celebrating Passover when he died. Until the very end he continued being a Jew. In fact, in most of Jesus's quotes he is enforcing Jewish religion and law.

I have scholarly sources on when Christianity split from Judaism. At best, you have an inference from when a book was written. Try again buddy.

BTW... According to your source:

"However, John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (1976), proposed that all of the New Testament was completed before 70, the year the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed. Robinson argued that because the destruction of the temple was prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 23:28-31, the authors of these and other New Testament books would not have failed to point out the fulfillment of this prophecy. Robinson's position is popular among some Evangelicals."

What do you know? Spot on with my sources that said Catholicism didn't split until 70-80 AD. Jesus died in 30 AD. Oh, and 70 AD is at best, an early estimate according to Wikipedia.

[Nicko]

I can't believe you guys are turning a thread about tom cruise and scientology into a serious debate about religion. What is the world coming to?

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Nicko

I can't believe you guys are turning a thread about tom cruise and scientology into a serious debate about religion. What is the world coming to?

Ha ha, I know... "Religion.. which is the one true faith? Find out on MacNN"

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac

Ok.... How does this at all prove when Catholicism split from Judaism? I have multiple sources giving dates. You're giving me a book. Early Christians stayed in the Jewish religion even when the New Testament came out. The New Testament did not say anything at all about Christianity being separate from Judaism (Unless you'd like to find a quote in the New Testament about that, but I doubt you'll find one.) Jesus was a Jew. He was celebrating Passover when he died. Until the very end he continued being a Jew. In fact, in most of Jesus's quotes he is enforcing Jewish religion and law.

I have scholarly sources on when Christianity split from Judaism. At best, you have an inference from when a book was written. Try again buddy.

BTW... According to your source:

"However, John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (1976), proposed that all of the New Testament was completed before 70, the year the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed. Robinson argued that because the destruction of the temple was prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 23:28-31, the authors of these and other New Testament books would not have failed to point out the fulfillment of this prophecy. Robinson's position is popular among some Evangelicals."

What do you know? Spot on with my sources that said Catholicism didn't split until 70-80 AD. Jesus died in 30 AD. Oh, and 70 AD is at best, an early estimate according to Wikipedia.

So tell me... ...if the old laws (including chopping bits off your plumbing) are to be kept, what exactly was the point in Jesus dying on the cross?

You appear to be arguing dates and all that crap. I'm arguing point.


Oh... ..and you missed the point of the Wiki link. Which was to go read the New Testament, not the Wiki analysis of the New Testament.

[Monique]

Maybe there is no point and Jesus died for nothing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Nicko

I can't believe you guys are turning a thread about tom cruise and scientology into a serious debate about religion. What is the world coming to?

It's because of the anti-religious wackos that can't help themselves.

[ironknee]

jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine...quick who wrote/sang that/year?

[lothar56]

Originally Posted by Galatians 6:12-16 (Good News version)

6:12 The people who are trying to force you to be circumcised are the ones who want to show off and boast about external matters. They do it, however, only so that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

6:13 Even those who practice circumcision do not obey the Law; they want you to be circumcised so that they can boast that you submitted to this physical ceremony.

6:14 As for me, however, I will boast only about the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; for by means of his cross the world is dead to me, and I am dead to the world.

6:15 It does not matter at all whether or not one is circumcised; what does matter is being a new creature.

6:16 As for those who follow this rule in their lives, may peace and mercy be with them---with them and with all of God's people!

This lays it out simply. And please don't confuse Christianity and Catholicism. You keep bring up these unbacked points and things you've been taught, but the Bible clearly contradicts what you are saying.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Monique

Maybe there is no point and Jesus died for nothing.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Monique

Maybe there is no point and Jesus died for nothing.

True, if you don't believe it, Jesus indeed died, IN YOUR RESPECT, for nothing.
Still works for others though.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by abe

(suckle suckle kiss kiss) You LOVE Kevin! You dream of Kevin! You want to have Kevin's baby, if you could!
It feels GOOD being on the same side of an issue with Kevin, huh? You feel all tingly inside?

-t

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

True, if you don't believe it, Jesus indeed died, IN YOUR RESPECT, for nothing.
Still works for others though.

-t

[abe]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

-t

Honey, I take it ALL back.

Ahem, yes, I'ze go under the name of abe and aberdeenwriter and you can come and go under me!

[Kevin]

Yeah esp after those "pics" were posted of her earlier.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ironknee

jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine...quick who wrote/sang that/year?

I admit I looked it up.

PATTI SMITH
"Gloria"

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine
meltin' in a pot of thieves
wild card up my sleeve
thick heart of stone
my sins my own
they belong to me, me

[abe]

Originally Posted by Nicko

I can't believe you guys are turning a thread about tom cruise and scientology into a serious debate about religion. What is the world coming to?

You can't stand the idea that Scientology might really help people live happier, healthier, more intelligent and un-messed up lives, huh?



You all remind me of the way homophobes act in regards to gay folk.

Just because it's different from your beliefs you are threatened by it!

Sickening.

[lpkmckenna]

Scientology is a bizarre group of nutbars. Give this a read: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...player=unknown

Originally Posted by Kevin

circumcision for one isn't just a religious thing. And when it was, it was done for a reason. And actually at the time it helped in the long run more than it hurt.

Why is circumcision done?

Circumcision is done either for religious or medical reasons. Religious circumcision is performed within the Jewish and Muslim traditions. Non-religious circumcision began in the 19th century and became almost routine in certain countries. It is estimated that approximately 1.2 million 'routine' circumcisions are performed each year in the USA.

There are no valid medical reasons for circumcisions. You forgot to mention WHY so-called "non-religious" circumcision became routine in the 19th century. Here's the reason: anti-masturbation hysteria. See http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html

Why did America become susceptable to the anti-masturbation hysteria? Probably because of its puritanical religious values. (But that is just a guess.)

Originally Posted by abe

Stop for a minute and ask yourself what is the difference between your attacking them, calling them "Jesus freaks," and the Nazis hate speech.

What is the difference between your post and the current hatred toward Jews by much of the Muslim world?

'You two Jewish freaks can STHU...thanks.' 'You two Muslim freaks can STHU...thanks.'

Although I prefer bigots and those who are be kept in full view so we can keep an eye on you all, there is much to be said for discouraging your kind of expression so everyone else reading this will know that religious persecution is not cool and that unless each of us is careful from time to time we might easily slip into thinking in such odious ways.

I bet you never thought of yourself as a bigot, huh?

What nonsense. There is a big difference between being "religiously intolerant" because you are secular and being "religiously intolerant" because you are a Nazi.

I am an atheist. I mock religion because absurd ideas deserve to be mocked. Tell me the world is flat and I'll make fun of you too.

You said "religious persecution is not cool." I agree. The government must treat all citizens fairly regardless of religion. But mocking religious zealots for their opinions isn't religious persecution.

Originally Posted by abe

Really, folks...can any informed discussion take place without at least SOME of you getting a copy of... [Dianetics]

I'd rather flush my hard-earned money down the toilet than give it to L Ron's minions.

Besides, psychologists have long since ripped Dianetics/Scientology to shreds. See http://www.xenu.net/archive/fifties/e500909.htm

"While suspending judgment concerning the eventual validity of the claims made by the author of 'Dianetics,' the association calls attention to the fact that these claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations. In the public interest, the association, in the absence of such evidence, recommends to its members that the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims."

The book, now a best-seller since its publication several months ago, has been the subject of discussion in psychological and psychiatric circles. The psychologists represent the first scientific group to take official action against it and did so only after long deliberations.

In explaining the action of the council, Dr. E. Lowell Kelly, a member of it and of the board of directors, said, "what we have here is a man who claims he has discovered an exact science of the mind and developed a technique of therapy which goes far beyond that known to psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalysis."

He described the techniques advanced in the book "as a hodge-podge of accepted therapeutic techniques with new names."

[abe]

Originally Posted by Monique

Actually the first premise is a lie. This is not true that people from Scientology do not talk to their children for 7 days.

It is about being quiet around a woman when she gives birth.

Right on, Monique!

Although I do not agree with any religions that ask for set amounts of money and then do not tell you what they do with it.

Doesn't the Bible advocate tithing 10%?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by abe

You can't stand the idea that Scientology might really help people live happier, healthier, more intelligent and un-messed up lives, huh?

That's called "stuffing words in people's mouths."

What I can't stand is a "religion" founded by a drug-using, second-rate sci-fi writer raking in millions of dollars by selling snake oil. Their claims are unscientific rubbish, and their methods are the worst kind of cult-like manipulation.

Originally Posted by abe

You all remind me of the way homophobes act in regards to gay folk.

Your mind works in strange ways. Especially since Scientology is anti-homosexuality.

Originally Posted by abe

Just because it's different from your beliefs you are threatened by it!

[lothar56]

Originally Posted by abe

You can't stand the idea that Scientology might really help people live happier, healthier, more intelligent and un-messed up lives, huh?



You all remind me of the way homophobes act in regards to gay folk.

Just because it's different from your beliefs you are threatened by it!

Sickening.

Well, some people might consider giving thousands upon thousands of dollars to an organization created by a science fiction author for the purpose of making money messed up. Just sayin'

edit: I was kind of slow in this reply...but in response to the tithing...it IS different from Christianity in that donating a set amount of money (aka $10,000) is quite different from donating 10% of one's income. And salvation is not dependent on the donation of this money, as opposed to Scientology, where large amounts of audit counseling are necessary.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

This is all done by design. How much do you wanna bet that the first thing that kid's going to hear is some f*ed up Scientology propagandy.

They'll hear "There is no God but Xemu, and L Ron is his prophet."

[abe]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

What nonsense. There is a big difference between being "religiously intolerant" because you are secular and being "religiously intolerant" because you are a Nazi.

I am an atheist. I mock religion because absurd ideas deserve to be mocked. Tell me the world is flat and I'll make fun of you too.

You said "religious persecution is not cool." I agree. The government must treat all citizens fairly regardless of religion. But mocking religious zealots for their opinions isn't religious persecution.


I'd rather flush my hard-earned money down the toilet than give it to L Ron's minions.

Besides, psychologists have long since ripped Dianetics/Scientology to shreds. See http://www.xenu.net/archive/fifties/e500909.htm

You are mistaken; the difference between the "religiously intolerant" secularist and a Nazi is in degrees. Degrees of belief. Degrees of hatred. Degrees of self restraint or the degree to which we are WILLING TO ENCOURAGE SUCH BELIEFS BY MAKING EXCUSES FOR little baby budding would-be Nazis.

The degree of your thoughtlessness to defend such kinds of attack is noteworthy.

You omitted this from your post. (from your cited link)

Offered Proof, Says Author

Reached in Los Angeles, where he is lecturing, Mr. Hubbard said last night that he was ready to furnish to the American Psychological Association proof of the claims made in his book "Dianetics." He said that as long as a year ago, he made such an offer to the association but received no reply. Mr. Hubbard said that he had already submitted proof of claims made in the book to a number of scientists and associations. He added that the public as well as proper organizations were entitled to such proof and that he was ready and willing to give such proof in detail.

[abe]

Originally Posted by lothar56

Well, some people might consider giving thousands upon thousands of dollars to an organization created by a science fiction author for the purpose of making money messed up. Just sayin'

edit: I was kind of slow in this reply...but in response to the tithing...it IS different from Christianity in that donating a set amount of money (aka $10,000) is quite different from donating 10% of one's income. And salvation is not dependent on the donation of this money, as opposed to Scientology, where large amounts of audit counseling are necessary.

Wouldn't there be a therapeutic value in that? You pay a certain amount of money and you are motivated to do more to see results.

I just lament people hating things JUST because they are different.

THAT IS PREJUDICE.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So tell me... ...if the old laws (including chopping bits off your plumbing) are to be kept, what exactly was the point in Jesus dying on the cross?

You appear to be arguing dates and all that crap. I'm arguing point.


Oh... ..and you missed the point of the Wiki link. Which was to go read the New Testament, not the Wiki analysis of the New Testament.

Um. Jesus was a Jew. He probably was circumcized. Or did you not read the bible?

I mean, they laid out this whole argument between the apostles about circumcision and how it was still required but Paul disagreed in Acts, but apparently you didn't read that either...

So history agrees with me and your New Testament.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by abe

You are mistaken; the difference between the "religiously intolerant" secularist and a Nazi is in degrees.

No, it's a difference of kind.

Nazis believe in using the power of gov't to suppress religion. Being a liberal, I don't support using the coercive power of gov't in that way.

To say the different between Nazis and secularists is only one of degree is just so stupid, I have to say it the most stupid thing I've read on this board yet.

Originally Posted by abe

Degrees of belief. Degrees of hatred. Degrees of self restraint or the degree to which we are WILLING TO ENCOURAGE SUCH BELIEFS BY MAKING EXCUSES FOR little baby budding would-be Nazis.

Wow. What a clever use of all-caps.

Let me say: I hate religion. I want it to die. But I would never violate the intellectual liberty of believers. It is a matter of individual rights and a matter of morality.

I never encourage would-be Nazis. I mock them, like I mock all absurd belief systems.

Originally Posted by abe

The degree of your thoughtlessness to defend such kinds of attack is noteworthy.

If you say so.

Originally Posted by abe

You omitted this from your post. (from your cited link)

I omitted it because it's hearsay from the mouth of L Ron himself.

L Ron says that "he made such an offer to the association but received no reply. Mr. Hubbard said that he had already submitted proof of claims made in the book to a number of scientists and associations."

Pardon me if I don't accept the word of a pathological liar as gospel.

[abe]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

That's called "stuffing words in people's mouths."

What I can't stand is a "religion" founded by a drug-using, second-rate sci-fi writer raking in millions of dollars by selling snake oil. Their claims are unscientific rubbish, and their methods are the worst kind of cult-like manipulation.

Some folks might throw brick bats at aspirin for the same reason. It was discovered by a few German chemists employed by a company that makes millions of dollars a year from it's sales. It works by tricking the body into ignoring the original pain because the aspirin gives the body something WORSE to deal with.

Every time we take aspirin (even the buffered variety) it causes bleeding in the stomach (about a teaspoon full with the average dosage). Talk about manipulation!

And to make things even worse, for ALL our smarts we STILL don't know exactly how and why aspirin works.

HOW DOES ASPIRIN WORK?

How can a naturally derived substance be able to reduce fevers, ease aches and pains, as well as relieve the pain associated with many other diseases and ailments?

In medical terms, Aspirin is able to have the effect it does, as it is able to block the production of a substance called Prostagladins. These prostagladins are produce by the body whenever a cell in the body is injured. Production and release of these prostagladins leads to swelling, pain, fever and other symptoms commonly associated with injuries or diseases. By blocking the production of prostagladins, aspirin is able to produce the pain and fever relief that it is renowned for.

The ability of aspirin to block the production of prostagladins helps to explain some of its 'miraculous' characterisics, however it doesn't explain all the effects of aspirin. There are still many effects of aspirin that medical science is yet to truly understand and explain.

So, when you say all those things about Scientology, it sounds terrible until you realize the same things can be said about good old reliable aspirin!

And in the case of Scientology you have scores and scores of people who believe in Scientology despite your ignorance. All these people have to go on is their own LIVES. It works for them and to hell with what psychologists and you say about it. THEY know better than anyone.

So, if you are wanting to help society go study aspirin and leave these brave explorers alone.

[abe]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Pardon me if I don't accept the word of a pathological liar as gospel.

nevermind

[abe]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

To say the different between Nazis and secularists is only one of degree is just so stupid, I have to say it the most stupid thing I've read on this board yet.

Let me say: I hate religion. I want it to die. But I would never violate the intellectual liberty of believers. It is a matter of individual rights and a matter of morality.

I never encourage would-be Nazis. I mock them, like I mock all absurd belief systems.

Except when you encourage them?

The use of a comment I posted mocking the Nazi mindset, (which is seemingly taking root in current times) as a signature seems very suspicious coming from you who also seems to defend the Nazi mindset in this thread.

'I advocate allowing us to dispose of these non-beings as we so decide. It is our right to be able to do so. We will use every effort necessary to maintain this vital right.'

Coming from YOU it seems creepy. Like a hidden message to your fellow Reichmeisters, but hidden right out in the open!