Perhaps people should go back and read the whole story again and ask themselves, 'How did CNN get this story, and why?" The obvious danger, as was stated in the article, was not the broad teachings in that missive-it is that the COS is using this as an example that Scientology and Christianity are perfectly compatible with each other.
Help me out. I’m not quite seeing the COS using this as an example that Scientology and Christianity are perfectly compatible with each other in that article. I see a critic of the COS kind of saying that, but I don’t see the COS claiming that. I see a CNN writer trying hard to make that connection. I also find the article’s title “Some Christian pastors embrace Scientology” as, at best, inaccurate and, at worst, deliberately misleading.
The pastor is not “embracing” Scientology any more than a priest is “embracing” Hollywood for using a movie or commercial in his sermons to help explain the tenets of Christianity.
nevermind, ditto pulykamell
If you could point it out for me, perhaps I could help you understand.
Yeah. That’s what I said.
I think you must not be paying attention to the quotes I am responding to when you respond to my quotes. Could you try a little harder?
But you said thread. Not post. Another of your special definitions? You see how that can get confusing?
Now I know you are not paying attention. Show me exactly where in that post I made that declaration.
How are they mutually exclusive?
The other option is that one of them is wrong. It’s right there in the post you quoted. Can they both be right?
Are you talking to me? Can you point out where I have said anything remotely like that? What I have said, over and over, is that if your definition has absolutely no specificity or borders whatsoever, then it is meaningless.
Fair enough. But if somebody actually claims to be two things that exclude each other, like ‘Christian’ and ‘Scientologist’ appear to, I’d hesitate and want more information before I accept that they’re describing themselves accurately.
Okay, but what would you consider enough information? I can’t think of anything they could say that would tip me from “You’re not a Christian!” to “You are! You are!”
I have, several times, quoted you various times in this thread, asking you to clarify your position.
Let’s start with this, then (I’ve already asked you in post #74. Let’s try again, shall we?)
Where does it say, in the CNN article, that Scientologists can be Christians or that Christians can be Scientologists. That appears to be what you’re pitting in the OP. If not, please clarify what exactly it is you are pitting, because it’s completely lost on me.
The priest in the article itself says that Scientology is not always compatible with Christianity.
I mean, for fuck’s sake, here’s the quote from the pastor:
Nowhere, and I mean nowhere does it say Christianity and Scientology are completely compatible. Nowhere does it say one can be both a Christian and a Scientologist. The OP is one big strawman.
There’s plenty of reasons to hate Scientology. There’s plenty of valid criticism against them. The article linked in the OP is, as I’ve stated before, not what I would call a disinterested account of what is going on. It’s one hack of an article, I’d go so far as to call it irresponsible journalism for the headline alone.
Great discussion, but I can’t let this pass -
In what universe does the average active member of the LDS Church (“Mormon”) disavow the divinity of CHrist? In all my years of active Mormon Church membership, including local leadership positions throughout the country, I have only taught and been taught that the divinity of Christ is a central tenant, if not the central tenant of Mormonism.
Sorry for the hijack.
What I am asking you to point out is my moral outrage. Asking me to clarify my position is not pointing out moral outrage. Pointing to a direct quote, and building a case for that being moral outrage, is pointing out moral outrage.
Are you saying they can’t?
Strange bedfellows, I suppose. Christians taking moral guidance from a cult that claims that Christ was imaginary. Or a pedophile. And that an alien overlord transported what would become human souls to Earth 75 million years ago. In DC-8’s. What is lacking in Christian doctrine that causes such a need? Why make a deal with the devil?
The fact that you pitted this to me suggests some sort of outrage on your part. The fact that is a subject involving religion and morality suggested to me that terming it “moral outrage” would be accurate. If you prefer for me to call it “spiritual outrage,” “religious outrage,” or just run-of-the-mill standard Pit outrage, so be it. I’m not here to argue semantics with you.
If you would have bothered to read any of my posts, you would know the answer to this question. Hint: re-read post #74. If it’s still not clear, let me state succinctly: one cannot be both a devout Scientologist and Christian, as there are conflicting core beliefs in the two cults/religions/whatevertheheck. Nor does the article in the OP claim that.
The guidance is coming from a secular non-religious book that mentions none of that. The guidance is sound. The guidance is, in my opinion, Christian. Once again, and I’ve repeated this point to death, the book itself is compatible with Christian teachings. If you don’t think so, please point out any part of the book you feel is un-Christian or dangerous to Christians. The book itself may come from the Evil Scientologists, but the advice therein, is not objectionable, in my opinion.
And, lastly, have you even looked at the book to form an opinion about it?
I was clarifying myself, in response to your confusion in #65
You cited Kimstu (#6) as the “straight version” of your OP.
Well, it’s true that Jesus said, “Let the little children come on me…”
But seriously, there’s a rumor that L. Ron Hubbard might have been sexually molested as a child, which would explain his comments about Jesus Christ as a form of projection bias. There’s also rumors that Hubbard himself was a child molester, although my only available cite is that infamous South Park episode (as well as several chapters in his Mission Earth series that graphically described small boys being fucked up the ass…no, I’m not making up that last part!)
I’m not outraged at all. A little confused, a little amused, a little bemused, a little what the fuck.
I see where you say that the article doesn’t say that they can. Not saying they can is not the same as saying they can’t, and pointing to what an article says is not the same as saying what you believe.
Cool. We have finally drawn a bit of a bead, no matter how shaky, on a definition of a Christian : Among other unspecified things, not a Scientologist. I concur.
I imagine Idi Amin stumbled upon an acorn of wisdom every now and then. Doesn’t make going around quoting him a good idea.
Why do they need to go to Scientologists for anything? Except to straighten them out about that whole “Christ was a pedophile” thing?
:smack:
Again:
So, yeah, the article says that the priest himself, who is using the materials for his Christian teachings, thinks that Scientology contradicts Christianity at times. Which is accurate. Some of Scientology is compatible with Christianity. Some is not.
They don’t need to. I don’t think anybody is saying that. At least I’m not. But if the Scientologists happen to have a good book of moral principles that a priest finds is working well with his congregation, and that book is not in contradiction to Christian principles nor is pushing any Scientology beliefs, he might as well use it to reinforce Christian beliefs. That appears to be what is happening here.
Hell, leafing through that book, I would say that everyone should follow the principles within. It’d be a much better world, no matter who is plugging the book. Hell, if Idi Amin wrote that book, I’d tell people, yeah, Idi Amin was a crazy murderous bastard, but this book is actually pretty sound moral advice–too bad Idi didn’t follow it.
Here’s the problem. Scientology is insidious. It is an extremely powerful cult that essentially brainwashes people under the guise of religion. Undoubtedly it is capable of presenting sound moral values in easy to read pamphlet form. But the devil can quote Scripture, eh? Still, one needs to treat everything out of his mouth as blasphemy. Or so I’ve been told.
For another religion to justify Scientology, even tacitly, by accepting it’s teachings sets a very dangerous precedent. Especially when there is no need. You said yourself, everything in that book is sound Christian doctrine. What’s the point?
Here’s another problem. In my experience, many congregations such as are represented in the link rely heavily on their pastor for guidance. If he gives his stamp of approval, then Scientology already has a foot in the door. So what if they claim not to have lost any members? Scientology can afford to wait. They are as rich as hell, and specialize in the long con.
Disclaimer: I’ve only read the first half of the first page of the thread, but I do have thoughts to share on Scientology and the article quoted in OP
I do what I can to be informed about Scientology, and have had that approach since I was quite young and they purchased some land near my rural hometown and proceeded to build a large complex and archive/bunker there. I am not a follower or a fan of any kind, and I never have been. I’m very wary of the organization.
A couple of weeks ago, while browsing a trough of used dvds at my local Rasputin Music, I came upon a copy of Introduction to Scientology for $2.
Why not? Know thine object of wariness, I always say.
A day or so later I decided to pop in the disk and see what Mr. Hubbard had to say in this “one and only interview”. I didn’t really find anything in the content that I didn’t already know about Scientology in general. I did discover that, imho, Hubbard was quite repulsive physically, that he is awful in front of the camera, and as such was an extremely poor choice of subject for an interview that was presumably made with the intent to attract people further into the fold.
Getting to the CNN article…
I have no cites to support any “new” or “recent” spikes in the frequency of other established religions using Scientology, but Hubbard certainly brags about such things a good bit during the 1966 interview.
For my fellow Dopers, I would be willing to endure trying to find the relevant statements on the disk and transcribe them here…but only for y’all.
If I include a note promising upon pain of death that my intentions were not to recruit, is the dvd fair game for the White Elephant exchange?
I do not like that an established Christian church is lending credence to anything, no matter if it follows Christian tenents or not, as base as CoS.
Most of the things on that list can be found in the 10 Commandments. Nothing is stopping the pastor from paraphrasing the 10 commandments to make them more understandable to his congregation. He does not have to use this source.
CoS is a crock. I don’t care if it shares some of the same moral principles that other belief systems do. I cannot believe that it does so without malice of some kind. IOW, I do not trust the teachings of CoS. To quote it in church is to give a credibility that is undeserved.
Cookies–Hell, use it as a frisbee or a coaster. It’s fair game.
FWIW, Anderson Cooper 360 is doing this story at ten tonight EDT.