Uhm…I’ve read about this but have NO idea what they’re talking about. Help?
I’m a Christian Satanist.
Figure that one out. 
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Contra–I think you may have hit a nerve. Fetus just might be one of that flock.
[QUOTE]
I wonder, actually. I can’t imagine why anyone would blow their stack at the OP unless they were sympathetic to Scientology, which is itself a conclusive symptom of a diseased mind.
fetus, seriously, Scientology is incompatible with Christianity. Hubbard said Christ was a pedophile (scroll about halfway down) and on another occasion said Christ was made up entirely (scroll down to footnote 54). They make claims of compatibility but how can you be free to be a Christian when you need permission from 3 officers of Scientology to even pray?
Mmph, I see where fetus is coming from, if you’re not a member of one of these churches (maybe OP is?), then who cares how they define their religion? I don’t consider Mormons to be Christian, but I wouldn’t pit a Mormon for calling himself a Christian.
I also think the CNN title (“Some Christian pastors embrace Scientology”) is misleading. The pastors aren’t claiming to be Scientologists, they’re borrowing ideas and aid from the Church of Scientology. Which may be pitworthy on its own, but it not the same as calling yourself a Scientologist.
Actually, that could work. A Christian Satanist believes that God is all-powerful, Jesus is the True Way and all that; but selects to disregard it in favour for the him downstairs.
Nutty but doable!
Oh I’m sure we can all see where fetus is coming from in that way. I think what we’re all finding perplexing and amusing and kinda sad is the invective that he showed to Contrapuntal. It was just so pointless.
I think there needs to be a sticky in the Pit, along the lines of “Just because insulting is permitted here doesn’t mean it is compulsory”.
So it should. See, it is not being a “judgmental jackass” to point out that it’s kind of nutty for a professed adherent of one belief system to simultaneously profess an adherence to another belief system that completely contradicts the first.
Sure, you can believe whatever you want when it comes to religion. But if you’re claiming to profess two mutually contradictory theological doctrines at one and the same time, it is perfectly reasonable for other people to point out the illogic of that. 'Kay? Get down off that cross, fetus, we need the wood. (To make clue-by-fours for the “Christian Scientologists”, apparently.)
I was shocked to see that the “Christian Scientologists” weren’t Episcopalian.
I should probably explain that swipe at Episcopalians (I am one, by the way, but I am not simultaneously Muslim as the priest in the linked story).
I always knew that book could support any argument, but this is taking it to the extreme.
Aside from Hubbard’s comments, I think it’s a teaching of Scientology that Xenu concocted the Christ story and the image of the crucifiction to confuse the thetans. Does that very clearly imply Christianity is a made-up deception? Maybe you can apply some Scientologist principles to Christianity, but I don’t know what the hell Scientology’s principals are. If it has any.
I mean, combine any two religions you want; I suppose I’m in no position to criticize. But this sounds like a tough fit.
Also, I feel sorry for the Christian Scientists. They get confused for Scientologists often enough as it is, and if Christian Scientology catches on they might need a name change.
Or, see my link in post #30.
Can you point me to a religion that does not have a fair amount of contradiction in their main stream theology? I mean if we are going to demand that theology makes logical sense we will have to chuck a great deal of religious thought out the window.
Well, there’s the ones who are Christian but do magic/cast circles etc calling on Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, Mary and/or saints to aid them in their casting instead of the elements and the Lord and Lady.
Or there are the ones that do both. Cast circles and spells, call on the Lord and Lady and go to church on Sundays to take communion.
I could never reconcile both together and ended up merely floating around, sometimes taking part in Circles when I know there are public ones and sometimes going to mass when I get the urge to. I never quite understood how they could reconcile them but the ones I met all seemed rather fluffy bunny.
Really, do you even want to be a member of a church whose teachings are compatible with faith in an imaginary pedophile?
Please, think of the imaginary children.
While I agree that Christianity + Scientology seems particularly odd, I do believe that Christianity equals whatever people want it to be. There’s no central authority that gets to define it, so what can you do (except point and giggle a bit)?
A Christianity that defines Christ as imaginary seems pretty silly. And Scientology does that.
If a thing is defined as “whatever anyone wants it to be” then it’s really nothing at all.
Sure, but Christianity as a whole seems silly to me. Does that mean it can’t exist?
And I would argue that the word “Christianity” or “Christian” don’t mean anything without further explanation. They are already words that can’t stand alone without additional modifiers like “liberal” or “conservative” or “fundamentalist” or “tolerant” or, apparently, “Scientologist.”
If you can find a common denominator between Fred Phelps and Mormons and the Pope and Polycarp and Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mary Baker Eddy, well, you’re more talented than I am.