I know it isn’t an Ipod. Or a pot roast. Or the twelfth moon of Jupiter, psoriasis, my dog Skip, French diplomacy, a pair of castanets, Wee Willie Billie, orangutangy meringue, yadda yadda dance the lambada. In fact, there are several interstellar DC-8’s full of shit that I absolutely know it is not. And again, the idea that it can be anything at all is patent nonsense.
Is his existence?
He professes to be. If I had the opportunity, I would ask him what he thinks it means to be a Christian. Then I would compare and contrast that to other, varying definitions, and make an informed decision. Which would only be possible if there are not an infinity of them.
If there are an infinity of them, everyone is a Christian, and no one is. Which brings me right round to my main point.
Well, yes, actually, if I want to starting calling a really good move “A fuckin’ awesome chair!” I can do that. I am going against convention, and other people may think I’m an idiot, or even a heretic. But I have not, in my lunacy, make a chair “no thing at all” in the minds of others.
Likewise, you can argue that these pastors may be introducing ideas to their congregation which most Christians consider heretical. And there is the danger that their ideas will spread, and threaten true Christian faith, etc. But these are churches, who consider themselves Christians, with families who have been practicing Christianity for generations, and pastors who are educated in the Christian tradition and continue to claim allegiance to Christian faith. If you are going to question their Christianity I think you need to provide more than a link and a 1 sentence pit thread.
Let’s say yes, mainly because it is. How does this conflict with the pastor in the OP? There is nothing from the CNN link that I see that would embolden me to declare him as some kind of non-Christian. Sure, he’s using, say, controversial texts in his teachings, but it seems to me, from all the information available on the CNN article, that his reasons for it are sound and compatible with what I think of as Christianity.
Or just everyone who claims to be is. Those who don’t, aren’t.
Not particularly complicated. Not earth-shattering. The classification of people into “Christian” and “not-Christian” doesn’t actually affect anything. It’s just shorthand for what we assume people believe. When they don’t fit the shorthand, we switch to longhand. Big whoop.
You are missing the point. Deliberately? You can call a really good move whatever you want and sooner or later people will figure it out. But if your terminology for “really good move” is infinitely variable, then you have defined no thing at all.
Well, you quoted more than one sentence, so I can only assume you are using one of your “special” definitions for “one.”
That’s true. I’d say his moral authority is pretty well-accepted, would you agree to that part? Let me try it this way: “A faith that believes primarily in the spiritual and moral teachings of Jesus and his apostles.”
Obviously saying that somebody is Christian doesn’t give you many specifics of what they believe. I don’t think the term is entirely without meaning, however.
Back to the topic of this thread - not having read the Scientologist text in question, obviously - in context it does sound like this text doesn’t contradict Christian teachings, or at least it doesn’t do so overtly.
It has to be vague, we’re talking about the shared beliefs of about 1.2 billion people. I don’t know if anyone accepts all of the NT teachings, and if anyone does, we’d probably be saying only fundamentalist Christians are Christians, which I personally don’t believe. Everybody picks and chooses from whatever religion they belong to. That’s hardly news; most people don’t even bother lying about it.
And, by the way, here’s a link to the e-book of The Way To Happiness. No where in the book do I see anything but a religiously neutral, common sense, moral code. Taken by itself, I see no references in it to Scientology, Xenu, or any of the claptrap associated with that group.
Take care of yourself
Be temperate
Don’t be promiscuous
Love and help children
Honor and help your parents
Set a good example
Seek to live the truth
Do not murder
Don’t do anything illegal
Support a government designed and run for all the people
Do not harm a person of good will
Safeguard and improve your environment
Do not steal
Be worthy of trust
Fulfill your obligations
Be industrious
Be competent
Respect the religious belief of others
Try not to do things to others that you would not like them to do to you
Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you
Flourish and prosper
Try as I may, I can hardly find anything objectionable to a Christian in the above. Hell, it looks like a fairly classic Judeo-Christian code of conduct.
If I told you a priest were using a supplemental text with the prescripts above in his Christian sermons, I really doubt anyone would have any objection to it. The only objection is because the book is linked to Scientology, and everyone knows that anything and everything the Scientologists touch is evil. :rolleyes:
The priest in the OP is not giving credence to Scientology. Did you even bother to read any of The Way to Happiness? It would help before you start any book burning parties. Or are you also one of those who think reading Harry Potter will lead to witchcraft?
You still haven’t explained to me what is morally objectionable about the priest in the OP. He appears to be successfully using the book to lift the morale of his congregation and teach sound, Christian principles. How is this NOT a win for the Christian faith? Even if you think the book is somehow evil (utter bollocks, IMNSHO), the priest has turned it around to the power of Good. Or something like that.
I am struggling, really struggling, to understand your moral outrage here.
If I wanted to learn about Scientology, WHY would I go to xenu.net or the clambake site? That’s like visiting dem underground to find out about Cheney. I know many Scientologists, and not one worships anything as far as I can tell. Isn’t the story of Xenu supposedly told to the OT guys? None of the many, many Scientologists I know have reached anything resembling an OT level so I doubt many would know a damn thing about it other than what they find on Wikipedia(in fact, several hadn’t even heard the name Xenu).
Looking at one of the pictures, I see a The Way to Happiness booklet. I’ve read that booklet and virtually none of it has anything to do with religion. Self Matters by Dr. Phil has more to do with religion than that little pamphlet.
I’m sorry, this pitting might entice some of the more rabid anti-Scientologists on this board, but I think it’s quite lame.
If I am consistent in how I use my new jargon, then it is not “infinitely variable”, just non-standard.
Look, its not like these pastors have been worshiping the Great Pumpkin for the last 40 years. They lead self-proclaimed Christian churches, and since the article didn’t say otherwise we assume they look and act like any other AME or Pentecostal church in other regards. They can quite reasonably be classified under “Christian”.
I was referring to the single sentence in your first post – you come off as pretty arrogant declaring them to be clearly not Christians with a wave of the hand.
Where the fuck are you getting any of this from? That’s not the story I read in the CNN article. I don’t see anywhere where it says Christians can be Scientologists. I don’t see anywhere where it says the priest is a Scientologist himself or is teaching any Scientology principles. Hell, it even says right there: “Kennedy and McLaughlin said they have never lost a member of their congregations to Scientology.”
If you know nothing about its connection to Scientology and the book “The Way To Happiness” lands in your lap, you’re not going to want to go out and join or even learn about Scientology. It’s a completely non-religious text.
I mean, fine, have your beef with Scientologists. I know its the cult-du-jour to hate, but that book, taken by itself, is not harmful, unless you’re also one of those crazy Christians who believe reading New Age texts will somehow lead you to The Dark Side.
I would agree that Scientology, from what I know of it, is not compatible with Christianity. That particular book, however, is.
I fail to see why this would follow. Let’s say you’ve got a person who claims to be a Christian who affirms the divinity of Christ like, say, a Baptist. He or she says you must believe in the divinity of Christ to be Christian. Then you’ve got another person claims to be Christian who disavows the divinity of Christ like, say, a Mormon. It’s true that their personal definitions of “Christian” are to that extent conflicting, but I fail to see why that renders the term “meaningless”.
“If you can’t define with great specificity and very clear borders what it means to be Christian, then it doesn’t mean anything” – this is one of those pendantic arguments that never go anywhere. Meanwhile, here in the practical real world, almost everyone knows what someone else means when they use the term “Christian” as a descriptor. It’s not like one person says “I’m a Christian” and his audience thinks what could he possibly mean by that???
As part of his audience, I would think “What of the myriad possibilities does he mean by that?” But generally people add other modifiers. “Liberal” or “fundamentalist” or “mainstream” or more specific information like “Catholic” or “Baptist.” And where they deviate from what those terms tend to mean or when they want to be even more specific, they add even more descriptors like “charismatic Catholic” or “cafeteria Catholic” or “cradle Catholic.”
So, someone saying they are a Christian doesn’t mean that someone who doesn’t know them can make any assumptions about where that person falls on a host of issues. Oh dear. Pun not intended.
No, the term isn’t entirely without meaning, but it is very incomplete and fluid. That’s why I’m happy to let people categorize themselves especially since it doesn’t matter what people call themselves.
There are other groups or categories that are better defined. Like, say, “Presidents of the United States” or “Circus Clowns Who Live on Saturn.”
This actually reminds me a lot of arguments about transgenderism and political parties. Is someone a man because they say they are? Is someone a Democrat because they say they are? With all three, I say yes, unless they are deliberately lying (which is pretty much impossible for me to know).