Holy Cow! Or Xenu. Whatever. CHRISTIAN SCIENTOLOGISTS?

[Hostile_Dialect]

I saw this thread on the front page and clicked over out of curiosity. Needless to say (or so I thought), I was pretty surprised that the consensus here is that I’m an outraged Scientologist. Even people who I thought (a) were reasonably intelligent and (b) actually read the board chimed in and said “Boy, he’s pissed now! Must be one of them Tom Cruise crazies!” :rolleyes:

It’s pretty amusing, more than anything. For starters, anyone who’s read a handful of my posts in any combination of religion threads should know I’m somewhere between militant atheist and wannabe neo-pagan. So the fact that people are so blinded by stereotypes that they forget everything they know about people and flock with the rest of the sheep–“Oh, yeah, he must be a Scientologist!”–is entertaining, even if it does deliver a striking blow to my faith in the Dope.

And then there are the people who apparently thought I was trying to reconcile Scientology with Christianity. What the fuck do I care if Scientology reconciles with Christianity? I’m not a Scientologist and I’m not a Christian. It doesn’t affect me. I’m amazed that you all care so much. Maybe you guys are the closeted Scientologists.

I guess the thing I truly don’t get is that people are genuinely surprised that I reacted angrily to a Pitting of a religious group for, um, being religious. I expect religious people, sheep though they may be, to respect my choice to be atheistic. I’m also a pragmatist: I’ve figured out that respect is generally earned, and a good way to earn it is to start by respecting their choices, ridiculous though they may be. Believe me, if I were King of the World, there would be no religion. But I’m not, so if someone wants to believe that the Space Alien Christ blessed the Earth with handbooks on acting, well, whatever. I don’t care. It’s not much more ridiculous than mainstream Christianity, which asserts with a straight face that homosexuality is a sin while completely ignoring its own book’s assertion that wearing two fabrics at the same time and taking a dump within the city limits are sins of equal magnitude. It’s all absurd. Christian Scientology might be the one that provides the best material for an SNL skit, but that doesn’t mean it’s my problem if someone wants to say they’re a Christian Scientologist.

If you start a thread in the Pit with nothing but a sarcastic title, a link to an article about some group of people, and a sarcastic rejoinder directed at those people, it can be assumed that you’re, um, Pitting them. Or so I thought. Contrapuntal may not have been here quite as long as I have, but I guess I was wrong in assuming that three and a half years was enough time to figure out that MPSIMS is the forum for snickering at people you find silly and amusing, and the Pit is the forum for expressing outrage and attacking those people. So when Contrapuntal reacted to my irritated missive by saying that he was just having a bit of a good-natured laugh, he was clearly either (a) genuinely ignorant of the purpose of the two fora or (b) backpedaling quickly to make me look like the intolerant one. I was surprised on my return to this thread to find that a lot of Dopers actually bought it. That’s OK, it was just surprising. It could very well mean that I’m the one with the wrong idea about what the Pit is for, and what it means when somebody Pits something. It could just be that the SDMB is changing so much that the Pit is rapidly becoming just MPSIMS Unrated. I’ll have to ponder that for a while, I guess.

In the meantime, I suffer from no delusions about fighting ignorance, spreading tolerance, etc. I feel no compulsion to convince others of my views. I’m comfortable in the knowledge that I, for one, have responded honestly to my critics.

[OneCentStamp]

ETA: question answered

[Contrapuntal]

@jsgoddess

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.

They all say, (as a central tenet, I might add,) that Jesus wasn’t imaginary. Scientology says he was, which I suspect it shares in common with exactly zero other branches of Christianity.

@fetus

I guess the thing I truly don’t get is that people are genuinely surprised that I reacted angrily to a Pitting of a religious group for, um, being religious.

Where did you see that, exactly?

So when Contrapuntal reacted to my irritated missive by saying that he was just having a bit of a good-natured laugh, he was clearly either (a) genuinely ignorant of the purpose of the two fora or (b) backpedaling quickly to make me look like the intolerant one.

Or, I could have been laughing at you, and your phlegm specked screed. At any rate, if you believe that forum protocol has been violated, you should contact a moderator. You knew that, right?

Although a close reading of your first post reveals nothing at all about this particular burr under your saddle. How are we to intuit that exactly? E-Meter?

In the meantime, I suffer from no delusions about fighting ignorance, spreading tolerance, etc. I feel no compulsion to convince others of my views. I’m comfortable in the knowledge that I, for one, have responded honestly to my critics.

Except for the part where you claim to be put out by this forum abuse, and said exactly fuck-all about it until you were pressed to remove your head from your ass.

[sugar_and_spice]

@Contrapuntal

If a thing is defined as “whatever anyone wants it to be” then it’s really nothing at all.

Well, that sounds like a nice little platitude, but I really don’t agree. If a couple of inner-city pastors “redefine” Christianity, then it sure as hell doesn’t bring the whole of Christianity down to “nothing at all”. Like jsgoddess said, Christianity is a catch-all phrase for a number of denominations, there is no defining body. You can write an academic article to generalize on those denominations as best you can, but when someone pops up who falls outside those generalizations, well, yeah, maybe you’ve got a debate on your hand. But Christianity is not unraveled. Speaking as a Christian, you can call these pastors heretics and such, but since this is SDMB I assume this wasn’t your intent.

FTR, I stand by my earlier comment, I saw nothing in the article to indicate that the pastors were espousing Scientology. They were borrowing ideas and using resources, but this does not equate to a full acceptance of Scientology.

[wonky]

@Contrapuntal

They all say, (as a central tenet, I might add,) that Jesus wasn’t imaginary. Scientology says he was, which I suspect it shares in common with exactly zero other branches of Christianity.

But you are assuming that Scientology’s view of Jesus is overriding Christianity’s for those who are embracing both. Blending them requires picking and choosing, so they might not pick and choose that particular facet of Scientology.

But even if they do, big deal.

[Contrapuntal]

@sugar and spice

Well, that sounds like a nice little platitude, but I really don’t agree. If a couple of inner-city pastors “redefine” Christianity, then it sure as hell doesn’t bring the whole of Christianity down to “nothing at all”.

I didn’t say that Christianity was “nothing at all” because of what two pastors did or did not do. I was responding to jsgoddess’ statement that Christianity can be defined any way anyone wants to. And I stand by it. If a thing has an infinite number of definitions, it is no thing at all. Frankly, I think it is a nonsense assertion. It’s incoherent.

Let’s consider an example. Can we define a chair any way we want? Is it something you sit in? A really good movie? The look on your mother’s face when she is angry? The twelfth moon of Jupiter?

Is Christianity a religion based on the teachings of Christ? A small pebble in Death Valley? Baked Alaska? A religion that claims Christ never existed, and his purported teachings should be driven from human memory? An Ipod?

@jsgoddess

But you are assuming that Scientology’s view of Jesus is overriding Christianity’s for those who are embracing both.

I’m not assuming anything. I am stating that the mixture of Christianity with a religion that refutes its central tenet is [insert negatively critical phrase or word here.]

[wonky]

@Contrapuntal

I’m not assuming anything. I am stating that the mixture of Christianity with a religion that refutes its central tenet is [insert negatively critical phrase or word here.]

That’s still making assumptions about what are central tenets of what and which central tenets are important to whom.

We can just skip ahead and you can define Christianity. I wouldn’t be remotely comfortable attempting such a definition, but you seem confident so let 'er rip.

[Contrapuntal]

@jsgoddess

That’s still making assumptions about what are central tenets of what and which central tenets are important to whom.

Again with the nonsense. How can a central tenet possibly be unimportant? It is by definition of the utmost importance.

We can just skip ahead and you can define Christianity. I wouldn’t be remotely comfortable attempting such a definition, but you seem confident so let 'er rip.

That’s a non sequitor, I’m afraid. I don’t need to define it to know what it isn’t. I don’t need to be able to define it to know that it cannot possibly have an infinite number of definitions. I don’t need to define it to know that any religion which denies Christ ever existed cannot possibly be Christianity, if the word is to have an meaning at all.

[wonky]

@Contrapuntal

Again with the nonsense. How can a central tenet possibly be unimportant? It is by definition of the utmost importance.

Yeah, I misspoke/mistyped.

“That’s still making assumptions about what are central tenets of what and which tenets are important to whom.”

That’s a non sequitor, I’m afraid. I don’t need to define it to know what it isn’t.

Except you don’t know what it isn’t. You’re making assumptions about what it isn’t.

“Christianity” is an abstract noun without a set definition or authority. It is quite similar in this respect to “liberal” or “conservative” or “loser” or “marriage” or “humor.”

[Czarcasm]

@jsgoddess

Yeah, I misspoke/mistyped.

“That’s still making assumptions about what are central tenets of what and which tenets are important to whom.”

Except you don’t know what it isn’t. You’re making assumptions about what it isn’t.

“Christianity” is an abstract noun without a set definition or authority. It is quite similar in this respect to “liberal” or “conservative” or “loser” or “marriage” or “humor.”

So you would have no problem if I defined Christianity as “believing that Jesus was an evil pedophile who should be shunned.”?

[wonky]

@Czarcasm

So you would have no problem if I defined Christianity as “believing that Jesus was an evil pedophile who should be shunned.”?

I would have thought it would have been clear by now that yeah, I would have a problem with such a definition since it doesn’t cover all Christians.

I consider it impossible to write a definition of Christianity that both covers everyone who considers themselves Christian and leaves off everyone who doesn’t.

In other words, it is a term that is useless without additional information.

[Omegaman]

@Czarcasm

So you would have no problem if I defined Christianity as “believing that Jesus was an evil pedophile who should be shunned.”?

I wouldn’t. But then again your so nice to Christians in general it’s not too surprising.

[Czarcasm]

@jsgoddess

I would have thought it would have been clear by now that yeah, I would have a problem with such a definition since it doesn’t cover all Christians.

I consider it impossible to write a definition of Christianity that both covers everyone who considers themselves Christian and leaves off everyone who doesn’t.

In other words, it is a term that is useless without additional information.

I, an atheist, will now define what Christianity is not:

Christianity is not believing that Jesus was an evil pedophile who should be shunned.

[Czarcasm]

@Omegaman

I wouldn’t. But then again your so nice to Christians in general it’s not too surprising.

Do try to keep up, Bucky. I’m arguing against this being a proper definition of Christianity.

[Marley23]

@jsgoddess

I consider it impossible to write a definition of Christianity that both covers everyone who considers themselves Christian and leaves off everyone who doesn’t.

So it’s impossible to define any large group, basically, unless everybody in it agrees? It’s an interesting philosophical point, but it could make communication tricky. I think a definition of Christianity as something like “A faith that believes in the divinity of Jesus and the moral teachings of Jesus and his apostles, rooted in Jewish traditions” (I am sure the last clause could be worded better) would be accurate. Who does that leave out and which non-Christians does it include?

[pulykamell]

I really don’t see the big deal here.

A pastor found principles in another religion’s (or cult or however the hell you want to characterize it) texts, and found that it would help his congregation “with their struggle in an urban environment where there is too much crime and addiction and too little opportunity.”

Then, in an effort to make sure the guidelines in this book reconcile with his core beliefs in Christianity, the pastor goes out to check out each and every one of the 21 principles, and finds scripture that backs up every one.

So what’s the problem? The pastor isn’t endorsing Scientology. I don’t see this as any different than if the pastor took a book of moral principles from, say, an atheist writer and used it as an aid in his sermons for teaching the principles in Christianity. I don’t remember there being any sort of rule that Christians must only use Christian texts to teach the tenets of Christianity. I say, use whatever works.

How is this in any possible way being a bad Christian?

[brownie55]

@pulykamell

I really don’t see the big deal here.

A pastor found principles in another religion’s (or cult or however the hell you want to characterize it) texts, and found that it would help his congregation “with their struggle in an urban environment where there is too much crime and addiction and too little opportunity.”

Then, in an effort to make sure the guidelines in this book reconcile with his core beliefs in Christianity, the pastor goes out to check out each and every one of the 21 principles, and finds scripture that backs up every one.

So what’s the problem? The pastor isn’t endorsing Scientology. I don’t see this as any different than if the pastor took a book of moral principles from, say, an atheist writer and used it as an aid in his sermons for teaching the principles in Christianity. I don’t remember there being any sort of rule that Christians must only use Christian texts to teach the tenets of Christianity. I say, use whatever works.

How is this in any possible way being a bad Christian?

If the pastor can find backing for all 21 priciples in his own sacred text, why go outside of them? Why not use what he already has to teach those thing?

[OneCentStamp]

@Czarcasm

So you would have no problem if I defined Christianity as “believing that Jesus was an evil pedophile who should be shunned.”?

Well, that just means you may be confusing him with some of his employees.

[pulykamell]

@brownie55

If the pastor can find backing for all 21 priciples in his own sacred text, why go outside of them? Why not use what he already has to teach those thing?

Because apparently people identify with it more than a 2000-year-old text. I mean, damn, even Jesus used parables to help explain teachings and didn’t just go about quoting Moses all the fucking time.

edit: Plus, if you read the article, you’d see the pastor’s explanation:

Now Kennedy uses “The Way to Happiness” as a how-to supplement to his sermons. He believes it is easier to understand and clearer to follow than ancient Scriptures taken from the Bible.

[wonky]

@Marley23

So it’s impossible to define any large group, basically, unless everybody in it agrees? It’s an interesting philosophical point, but it could make communication tricky.

You can use a term as accepted shorthand up until you try to exclude someone based on it. Then you have to expect a fight.

I think a definition of Christianity as something like “A faith that believes in the divinity of Jesus and the moral teachings of Jesus and his apostles, rooted in Jewish traditions” (I am sure the last clause could be worded better) would be accurate. Who does that leave out and which non-Christians does it include?

The divinity of Jesus is not a universal belief amongst Christians.

The “moral teachings of Jesus and his apostles” is pretty vague. Which teachings? Is Fred Phelps a Christian? Why or why not?