Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Fernando Kijel on July 1, 2012 at 6:02am

I apologize in advance, Unseen, if my reply is rude.  But why did it take you 6 1/2 lines of text to realize that Scientology is NOT a lot wackier than Christianity ?   Come to think of it, it's not even more evil than Christianity !  Yes, it's true that Scientology is a money-making/laundering, tax evading, manipulating, power-accruing machine...but so is the Christian church.  And yes, it's true that Scientology has been involved in many cases/accused of manslaughter (read Lisa McPherson, Patrice Vic and others), fraud and multiple types of abuse.  But Christian church has been responsible for the crusades, the Inquisition, witch burning, not to mention church leaders being responsible for rape and child abuse.

So I wouldn't be totally surprised if a still naive 25-year-old-or-so accepted this maniac as her husband and embraced Scientology...after being raised a Christian.  It's not a huge step backwards, is it ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on July 1, 2012 at 1:35pm

You have a rather weird conception of my thought process? I didn't "realize" at that point that scientology isn't all that different in wackiness than Christianity. No, that was just the point where I decided to express that thought.

I do think that Scientology's members, by and large, have been brainwashed. This is different from Christianity where people are Christian largely due to familiarity. I also think it's probably easier for a Christian to decide it's a crock and leave, at least in most denominations of Christianity because they do not practice shunning. They are more likely to engage in order to get the lapsed Christian to return to the fold.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fernando Kijel on July 1, 2012 at 2:21pm

No, I don 't have a weird conception of your thought process, I was just "tongue-in-cheek". 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on July 1, 2012 at 8:15pm

RE: "at least in most denominations of Christianity because they do not practice shunning"

Have you not read ANY of the myriad of posts of people coming on this site with stories of how their friends and loved ones have turned their backs on them, once they'd deconverted? Maybe you could benefit from concentrating a little more on what is said, than whether or not it's properly spelled and punctuated.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on July 1, 2012 at 8:31pm

Oh, wow...you equate anecdotes with general truth?

First, what you are describing is not a church policy except in some (very few) cases, and in most cases like those you've described (and I've read), those who do it are doing the opposite of what most Christian sects would prescribe.

Maybe you should take a moment to think it through before making such a criticism. A little pondering might have saved you from writing something so obviously beside the point.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on July 1, 2012 at 9:22pm

How many anecdotes have to add up before they become a "general truth"?

And is this your idea of general truth: "at least in most denominations of Christianity because they do not practice shunning"?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on July 1, 2012 at 10:14pm

How many anecdotes have to add up before they become a "general truth"?

There are a lot of racist anecdotes, I'm sure. How many of them does it take to make them generally true? I think you know the answer.

And is this your idea of general truth: "at least in most denominations of Christianity because they do not practice shunning"?

That's just a fact.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on July 1, 2012 at 11:04pm

And what, in your "mind," is the difference between "a general truth" and "a fact"?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on July 1, 2012 at 11:39pm

A truth, general or otherwise, involves an assertion. A fact is a state of affairs. You should know that!

For example, if I say my range is to the left of my refrigerator, that is a truth (or a falsehood) based on what is the case. Whatever is the case is a fact.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on July 2, 2012 at 12:13am

So the stated location of your range is true, or it is not/ is a fact, or it is not - and the difference would be --?

I see no line, fine or otherwise, just semantics.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on July 2, 2012 at 12:20am

So the stated location of your range is true, or it is not/ is a fact, or it is not - and the difference would be --?

Gobbledegook.

I see no line, fine or otherwise, just semantics.

Oh, the old "it's just semantics" trick.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on July 2, 2012 at 12:34am

And that would be the old, "I'm going to try to win my argument by resorting to semantics, but then he is going to accuse me of using semantics, so I'll head him off by accusing him of accusing me of using semantics," trick.

I'm genuinely sorry that comprehension is one of your many handicaps, but I can't allow your shortcomings to keep me awake at night, and tonight is no exception. Buenos nachos  --

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page