FredTalk - Fredericksburg.com

Fredericksburg.com: Single Column


The hot seat >> Religion

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
maddy
Mega FUG


Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 9306
L RON HUBBARD
      #827924 - 11/17/05 09:32 AM (128.190.62.82)

It is kind of funny the things that inspire us to decide that we want to learn about something new. I didn't know a lot about Scientology, heck, I still don't.
But I watched South Park last night, and a comment was made to the effect of L Ron Hubbard sailing the seas with a bunch of boys, and being investigated by the FBI.
Now, a lot of what South Park says is rooted in fact, even though they put it out there to seriously poke fun, so I wanted to research this.
I haven't gotten too far yet, but an interesting fact that I have come across on a couple of different pages. He followed Aleister Crawley through a man named Jack Parons here in the U.S. So he was a follower of black magic/satanism prior to his "enlightened???" scientology. The other odd thing is that everything that scientologists believe about his background is a lie.
It just amazes me. I used to get into discussions with Mormons as to why they would base a religion off of what a 15 year old boy would say; but this really blows my mind. A science fiction writer comes up with a story about a very bad alien, alien souls infesting humans, used to study and follow satanism, stated that "the best way to get rich is to start a religion", lied about just about everything in his background: and there are folks out there who think he is a messiah?

I would chuckle if it wasn't soooooo sad.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MarkS
FUG Senior


Reged: 10/10/05
Posts: 575
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: maddy]
      #827936 - 11/17/05 09:40 AM (63.164.202.131)

Not about scientology, but that was hilarious last night when Tom Cruise locked himself in stan's closet and wouldnt come out.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maddy
Mega FUG


Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 9306
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: MarkS]
      #827939 - 11/17/05 09:46 AM (128.190.62.82)

Yeah, and before you knew it neither him, nor J. Travolta, nor R. Kelly would "come out of the closet."
That was a good one!

--------------------
Sometimes my lyrics are sexist.
But you lovely bitches and ho's should know I'm trying to correct this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maddy
Mega FUG


Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 9306
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: maddy]
      #827957 - 11/17/05 10:09 AM (128.190.62.82)

So, he was also a con artist-- I know, big shocker there.
And a polygamist. Now before I cancel out a post in the politics thread where I say live and let live, the code word is consent, and I do not think you can consent what you do not know. So, if wife 1 doesn't know about wife 2; while that is shite.

--------------------
Sometimes my lyrics are sexist.
But you lovely bitches and ho's should know I'm trying to correct this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ken
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 13907
Loc: Spotsylvania
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: maddy]
      #828002 - 11/17/05 11:13 AM (158.106.50.3)

From the Scientology web site front page:

"Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability. "

Now, we have some basic truth here that the teachers have put forth for thousands of years. Like most other religions, Scientology has hijacked the teachings for power and control. The more needy the individaul the more these religions appeal to them. The tragedy is the religion substitutes itself for a person's ability to seek and find their own awareness of what the multiverse is really all about.

--------------------
a gathering has begun


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
cinfy
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 03/08/04
Posts: 5713
Loc: Here, there and everywhere
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: Ken]
      #828013 - 11/17/05 11:23 AM (207.168.72.130)

I've been thinking about religion a lot lately. Is scientology so weird for people because it's only been around for 50 years or so, and it involves aliens and stuff?

I mean, if you believe ANY religion, you take a huge leap of faith into believing what people tell you is true.

Why is it any weirder to believe that aliens have infected us when people people that Jesus could walk on water and bring people back from the dead. I mean, I'm sure in year 25 that was a pretty hard thing to believe as well.

What about people who pray to animals or have 4000 Gods. What makes those religions "normal" in a sense, but scientology is not normal.

I've been trying to come to terms with what I believe. Do I believe stuff because of what I have been taught and read in a book, or do I believe scientific studies - which also can be flawed.

Not a sermon, just a thought. <--- stole that from the guy on the radio. Hehe.

--------------------
Eskie is an axe murderer butt kicker.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maddy
Mega FUG


Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 9306
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: cinfy]
      #828028 - 11/17/05 11:39 AM (128.190.62.82)

Cinfy, I agree 100%. And believe me, as unpopular as it may be, I question all religions. I just thought researching this one, what with the whole Tom Cruise losing his mind publically thing, might be interesting.
Good luck in your quest. Some believe because what they are told, and some I think really do research their beliefs and come to the conclusion that there beliefs best suit what they have learned. (Sorry, I don't know if that made too much sense.)

--------------------
Sometimes my lyrics are sexist.
But you lovely bitches and ho's should know I'm trying to correct this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
cinfy
Mystical FUG Sage


Reged: 03/08/04
Posts: 5713
Loc: Here, there and everywhere
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: maddy]
      #828033 - 11/17/05 11:44 AM (207.168.72.130)

Don't get me wrong - I think scientology is a bit nuty - I mean a silent labor and no drugs? Paying to get enlightenment? Give me a break.

But I just wonder why scientology is so nuts but people don't feel the same way about other religions.

--------------------
Eskie is an axe murderer butt kicker.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maddy
Mega FUG


Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 9306
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: cinfy]
      #828036 - 11/17/05 11:47 AM (128.190.62.82)

I don't know. As an atheist I believe that all religions are based off of an interesting imagination, some seem farther out there than others because the content is beyond my relm of experience. And I think that this is the reason why people generally discard these "fringe" religions. Because, as they except innately the bible, they can believe in the miracles that occured. However to believe that an alien nuked the planet and created thetans, or alien souls, is beyond their level of comprehension. Or, short answer, if it ain't in the bible, it is silly.

--------------------
Sometimes my lyrics are sexist.
But you lovely bitches and ho's should know I'm trying to correct this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WMSigEp
FUG Addict


Reged: 04/26/04
Posts: 1360
Loc: Fredericksburg
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: maddy]
      #828050 - 11/17/05 11:58 AM (65.207.33.5)

Maddy, you're oversimplifying the criteria. For one thing there's the enormous credibility gap of Hubbard. We christians believe the Bible because we believe that that the folks who relayed the information on Jesus was credible. If they were credible, then Jesus is who he says he was and he is credible in his claims. If he was credible then the miracles he performed and the credibility he afforded the OT miracles is reinforced. We have seen the basic chain of evidence/credibility and find it trustworthy.

If, however, Jesus was a speed-popping polygamist who sailed the seas to avoid being prosecuted for fraud, then he might be afforded a little less street cred.

You mentioned Mormonism. If you do much research on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (even by reading their own writings in accredited sources like the Pearl of Great Price) it's pretty easy to see a lot of holes. Their halos get pretty rusty pretty quick. Looking at the messenger is a valid test for the trustworthiness of the message.

It's not as simple-minded as saying, "you're not in our club so you must be nutsy." To imply that all religions have an equal amount of credibility is patently false. I'm not making the leap of assertion to say that you must believe me because I say so, but lumping all religions together evenly because you disagree with their basic premise of a theistic worldview isn't reasonable.

Cheers,
s


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maddy
Mega FUG


Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 9306
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: WMSigEp]
      #828057 - 11/17/05 12:15 PM (128.190.62.82)

I understand what you are saying, and I did indeed oversimplify it. In the nutiness factor, some are far more nutty, from my perspective.
I did however notice an awful lot of if's throughout your post. That is why christianity, and any other religion honestly, is in the "not-believable" catagory for me.
It is harder in the case of Jesus to determine charecter based off of the bible being the only "historical" document of his existance. However, his story is a cool story, and he sounds as though he is a good person, if he existed.
As L.Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith are in the history books, and more than one, they are easier to identify as having actually lived.

--------------------
Sometimes my lyrics are sexist.
But you lovely bitches and ho's should know I'm trying to correct this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ken
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 13907
Loc: Spotsylvania
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: cinfy]
      #828064 - 11/17/05 12:25 PM (158.106.50.3)

Quote: cinfy


I mean, if you believe ANY religion, you take a huge leap of faith into believing what people tell you is true.
I've been trying to come to terms with what I believe. Do I believe stuff because of what I have been taught and read in a book, or do I believe scientific studies - which also can be flawed.





Looking at these two parts of your post I can tell you it is not a matter of whether or not a religion is "wierd." ALL RELIGIONS point to themselves and to varying degrees only offer subjugation and submission to the religion. If you concern yourself less with "worshipping" god or gods and more with coming to terms with yourself and understanding your relationship to your spiritual self and to nature, you will come much closer to what is true. Science is what it is because we know what we know and don't know what we don't know. Religions are mostly fabrications to explain a philosophy for living life and explaining away anything not agreeing with the philosophy. I'm assuming you are already familiar with some of the teachings of Christianity. I suggest you also read the Bhagavgad Gita and a book on Shamanism (Shamanic Voices is good). The part of Scientology I quoted above is about as much of that as you will find useful. While reading these you will begin to get a sense of what really is and that you can find the answers within yourself. Learn to meditate. The key is there is no guidebook (in spite of what all the religions tell you). Whenever any group of people professing a religion talk money or their way is the way to "salvation" run the other way; FAST! It is the beginning of their lie.

--------------------
a gathering has begun


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ken
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 13907
Loc: Spotsylvania
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: maddy]
      #828066 - 11/17/05 12:31 PM (158.106.50.3)

I like athiests better than people believing in a religion. An athiest says "I'm open to proof, show me the evidence." A person in a religion-based belief system simply says "I believe this is right and since that is my belief there can be nothing else." Athiests are open to enlightenment, religious followers are shuttered in darkness by their own choosing.

--------------------
a gathering has begun


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RobinHood
FUG Graduate


Reged: 02/17/04
Posts: 303
Loc: Nottinghamshire
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: maddy]
      #828092 - 11/17/05 01:15 PM (66.225.91.10)

Quote: maddy


He followed Aleister Crawley through a man named Jack Parons here in the U.S. So he was a follower of black magic/satanism prior to his "enlightened???" scientology.




L. Ron Hubbard was not a Satanist to my knowledge (and I will admit my knowledge of Hubbard is not extensive). If he were a Satanist, he did not follow Aleister Crowley's path, for Crowley was not a Satanist either. The connection between Hubbard and Crowley comes from Hubbard's involvement in the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO), of which Hubbard was a member and Crowley founded. In a nutshell (and I am not doing the OTO justice by being so brief) the OTO was a magical Lodge created by Crowley using ideas culled from the Golden Dawn and Freemasonry. The OTO was spawned at the end of the Victorian era, in a time period when spiritualist thinking was a huge fad with all of the upper class folks, and everyone wanted to see mediums and psychics or talk to the dead and whatnot.

The misconceptions regarding Crowley come from his yearing to be in the public eye. Tabloid papers of the day called him "the Cruelest man in the World" and "The Great Beast". He did not coin these phrases, but he did play to them. The more he played to them, the more attention he got. Crowley loved to be shocking. It was a response to the "prudishness" of Victorian society.

Sorry to digress, but I thought that needed to be cleared up.

--------------------
Cheers,

R.

As a rule, men worry more about what they can't see than about what they can. - Julius Caesar


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maddy
Mega FUG


Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 9306
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: RobinHood]
      #828110 - 11/17/05 01:33 PM (128.190.62.82)

RobinHood, you are absolutely correct, and thanks for correcting me. That is the problem with posting something as you are reading it, instead of me educating myself on it first, and then posting.
I read through, and see that what you put above is correct. I just forgot to correct myself.
It is all very fascinating to read though!

--------------------
Sometimes my lyrics are sexist.
But you lovely bitches and ho's should know I'm trying to correct this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RobinHood
FUG Graduate


Reged: 02/17/04
Posts: 303
Loc: Nottinghamshire
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: Ken]
      #828116 - 11/17/05 01:47 PM (66.225.91.10)

Quote: Ken


I like athiests better than people believing in a religion. An athiest says "I'm open to proof, show me the evidence." A person in a religion-based belief system simply says "I believe this is right and since that is my belief there can be nothing else." Athiests are open to enlightenment, religious followers are shuttered in darkness by their own choosing.




Don't lump ALL religious followers into one category. I follow a religion, yet I am also aware that my religion is merely a crutch to help me try and understand something greater than my ability to comprehend. It is my religion that alows me to put into human terms that which is undefineable.

--------------------
Cheers,

R.

As a rule, men worry more about what they can't see than about what they can. - Julius Caesar


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maddy
Mega FUG


Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 9306
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: RobinHood]
      #828118 - 11/17/05 01:51 PM (128.190.62.82)

The issue is that atheists see those that have religions as being narrow minded, scared, and easily led. Those with religion see atheists as being immoral, and without direction.
(Obviously not everyone feels this way, but I am generalizing for the sake of my point.)
That is why I like to post on here. Is so that we can get a better understanding of the other side? I have met fanatical religious folks, and they scare me. I have met religious folks that are open to discussion and just searching for something, and they are wonderful to talk to.

--------------------
Sometimes my lyrics are sexist.
But you lovely bitches and ho's should know I'm trying to correct this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ken
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 13907
Loc: Spotsylvania
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: RobinHood]
      #828139 - 11/17/05 02:10 PM (158.106.50.3)

Quote: RobinHood


Quote: Ken


I like athiests better than people believing in a religion. An athiest says "I'm open to proof, show me the evidence." A person in a religion-based belief system simply says "I believe this is right and since that is my belief there can be nothing else." Athiests are open to enlightenment, religious followers are shuttered in darkness by their own choosing.




Don't lump ALL religious followers into one category. I follow a religion, yet I am also aware that my religion is merely a crutch to help me try and understand something greater than my ability to comprehend. It is my religion that alows me to put into human terms that which is undefineable.




In Sufism (the search for truth) it is said to declare yourself Sufi is to not be Sufi. True Shamans do not call themselves Shamans. You will also find a similar reference in Krishna's teachings. Even the most open and unstructured of religions becomes a barrier (albiet much smaller than many) when you declare a religion. You can never reach nirvana by meditating to reach nirvana.

--------------------
a gathering has begun


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RobinHood
FUG Graduate


Reged: 02/17/04
Posts: 303
Loc: Nottinghamshire
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: Ken]
      #828162 - 11/17/05 02:29 PM (66.225.91.10)

Giving something a label is not necessarily an hindrance. The hindrance is the non-flexibility of most who wear labels. It is the inability to see any side but their own. To be unhindered is to be able to see all sides, and to be able to understand and accept these views, not simply dismiss them or pretend they're not there.

--------------------
Cheers,

R.

As a rule, men worry more about what they can't see than about what they can. - Julius Caesar


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sublyme
Super FUG


Reged: 09/28/02
Posts: 4932
Loc: haven't a clue
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: maddy]
      #828394 - 11/17/05 07:40 PM (69.174.18.105)

Quote: maddy



"the best way to get rich is to start a religion"







Looks like he has proved his point along with Sun Yung Moon and several others.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
cassandra&sarasdaddy
FUG Dignitary


Reged: 06/27/03
Posts: 26691
Loc: hartwood
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: maddy]
      #828496 - 11/17/05 10:21 PM (69.172.59.109)

did you find any references to the rattle snakes in mail boxes period?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mfloyd
FUG Dignitary


Reged: 02/03/03
Posts: 25421
Loc: On the run... Again...
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: cinfy]
      #828507 - 11/17/05 10:31 PM (148.78.249.10)

Quote:

But I just wonder why scientology is so nuts but people don't feel the same way about other religions.




It's because Hollywood has adopted Scientology as "their" religion....

...And we all know that all of Hollywood is nuts...

(By "Hollywood" I really meant "actors..." We all know that the producers and writers are all Jewish... )


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
drobert
FUG Honcho


Reged: 02/07/04
Posts: 2202
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: maddy]
      #828543 - 11/18/05 12:52 AM (68.110.254.24)

He just recognized hw well the TV evangelist did and thought he could the same, only a bit different.
He was right.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maddy
Mega FUG


Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 9306
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: drobert]
      #828627 - 11/18/05 08:30 AM (128.190.62.82)

I didn't get to completely finish his bio. Didn't get to the whole boys in boats and FBI thing.
But man, that guy was a joke. The interesting thing about the website, clambake.com, is that they put the published Scientology's version of his history right next to the actual documented history of L Ron Hubbard.
Not in my worst days could I be that delusional. The histories are, of course, completely different.

--------------------
Sometimes my lyrics are sexist.
But you lovely bitches and ho's should know I'm trying to correct this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
beckalee
FUG Addict


Reged: 04/19/03
Posts: 1277
Loc: spotsy
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: Ken]
      #828663 - 11/18/05 09:13 AM (162.83.78.40)

i think you are lumping we "religious" followers. i am a christian, and yes i certainly have my beliefs. BUT, if someone is not christian or believes in another way. that's their thing. i don't begrudge them. i don't necessarily understand why they don't believe in Christ, but i don't push or hold things against them. i've got mine, you've got yours and that's fine with me.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ken
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 13907
Loc: Spotsylvania
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: beckalee]
      #828687 - 11/18/05 09:41 AM (158.106.50.3)

Quote: beckalee


i think you are lumping we "religious" followers. i am a christian, and yes i certainly have my beliefs. BUT, if someone is not christian or believes in another way. that's their thing. i don't begrudge them. i don't necessarily understand why they don't believe in Christ, but i don't push or hold things against them. i've got mine, you've got yours and that's fine with me.




I didn't say you did "begrudge" them anything. I said "Athiests are open to enlightenment, religious followers are shuttered in darkness by their own choosing." Your post fully supports that statement.

--------------------
a gathering has begun


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
maddy
Mega FUG


Reged: 01/28/05
Posts: 9306
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: Ken]
      #828701 - 11/18/05 10:00 AM (128.190.62.82)

beckalee... I know that when we atheists question anothers belief, it can come off as us being judgemental; or I suppose that it can.
I just am very interested in religion, and while I don't believe in a higher being, I love studying it. Any kind of religion. All kinds of religion.
I have a live and let live attitude as well. It doesn't affect me if someone chooses to believe this or that. But I love to study and discuss it.

--------------------
Sometimes my lyrics are sexist.
But you lovely bitches and ho's should know I'm trying to correct this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dinglehopper
Super FUG


Reged: 09/11/02
Posts: 3338
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: WMSigEp]
      #828721 - 11/18/05 10:19 AM (20.137.18.51)

Quote:

Maddy, you're oversimplifying the criteria. For one thing there's the enormous credibility gap of Hubbard. We christians believe the Bible because we believe that that the folks who relayed the information on Jesus was credible. If they were credible, then Jesus is who he says he was and he is credible in his claims. If he was credible then the miracles he performed and the credibility he afforded the OT miracles is reinforced. We have seen the basic chain of evidence/credibility and find it trustworthy.




You really should learn the history of the bible if you are going to talk about it. You use the popular lie made up by Christians that the bible was around since pretty much the day after JC died. This could not be further from the truth. The books of the New Testament all came in existence around a century after jesus died. The first compilation or “bible” made its appearance in the late second century, and then it only contained the writings of Luke. The first “bible” that would be recognized as a “bible” today is not seen until the fourth century, and that is after a committee got together to decide what should and shouldn’t be in it.

Now, considering the life expectancy back then was around 30 years, and that it was much much shorter for Christians of the day, there is no possible way anyone who wrote the gospels knew any of the original apostles, much less jesus himself. In fact, it is extremely unlikely that they would have been able to know someone who knew someone who knew jesus.

Yet they are automatically labeled as credible by the Christians, even when much of the New Testament is so fantastic Christians do not believe similar accounts of similar people of the time doing the same things (Apollonius anyone?) even when first hand accounts of them doing it do survive. The only real credibility any of these have is the “because we Christians say they are credible and how could millions of Christians be wrong” sort of credibility.

But hey, maybe I am wrong. Maybe you could prove to me that the books of the New Testament were written by credible people. Please do so without using any circular or otherwise faulty logic, and I will forever leave religions alone. Don’t worry, I am not worried, since I don’t think it is even possible to know who wrote the testimants anymore since last time I checked they didn’t use their real names, or their real names were removed so that the books would seem more as if they are from the person they are attributed to. If you can’t even figure out who wrote it, then I don’t think proving their credibility is possible.

Quote:

You mentioned Mormonism. If you do much research on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (even by reading their own writings in accredited sources like the Pearl of Great Price) it's pretty easy to see a lot of holes. Their halos get pretty rusty pretty quick. Looking at the messenger is a valid test for the trustworthiness of the message.




Hmm, interesting since their message is more or less identical to main stream Christianities message.

But this touches on my personal reason for realizing religion in general is a crock. Why is it that religions feel a strong need to tear other religions down and prove their falsehood? Is it because they are trying to save the people from the other religion? All you have to do is watch two religious folks from different religions go at it to know this is not true. Or sit in one of the Sunday school lessons about how evil other religions are. Hell, I have personally read (and wish my wife had not thrown out) several books where one religion explains why all the other religions, and the people in them, are evil. Last time I checked, “saving” someone did not mean proving their religion is wrong and/or calling them evil for following it.

So if you are not "saving" them, then why care? If mormons are happy being mormons, why is it you all are so fast to attack them? And if scientologists are happy thinking little pieces of destroyed aliens are inhabiting our bodies and that they are pissed, why can’t you let them be happy in that? Why is it necessary to call them nutjobs, or point out they are following a sketchy leader? Look hard enough and you will find the reason, and that is what lead me from being religious to being enlightened as to the truth that all religions are nothing more than elaborate scams derived to gain as much power and money as possible. I just think it is funny in a sad sort of way to see that you religious are able and oh so willing to see that in other religions but refuse to honestly and sincerely look at your own.

There are scoundrels at the head of every religion at some point in its history or another. Even yours! But it is as you say “Looking at the messenger is a valid test for the trustworthiness of the message.” Now try looking at your messengers the same way you do those of other religions.

Quote:

It's not as simple-minded as saying, "you're not in our club so you must be nutsy." To imply that all religions have an equal amount of credibility is patently false. I'm not making the leap of assertion to say that you must believe me because I say so, but lumping all religions together evenly because you disagree with their basic premise of a theistic worldview isn't reasonable.




I am glad you felt the need to toss this in. I think the reason you had to toss this in is because you in fact realize that it is as simple-minded as saying “you're not in our club so you must be nutsy." You say you don’t want me to believe you because you say so, but that is exactly what you are asking us to do here. So provide some concrete proof that your religion is more credible than any other. This means of course you must be able to show that your religion has never been involved in equally shady events as those you point out in other religions. And should you lie, or omit glaring examples because you don’t want them to be aired publicly, heaven help you when I have my way with your religion; I know a lot of dirt on most religions, and I guarantee I will not be as gentle in revealing the dirt on yours as you will if you do it first.

I eagerly await your response, even though I know it will never come, you will come up with some reason to back out, you always do. And the real reason is because you are full of crap and you know it, but if you think you aren’t here is your chance to prove I am full of crap.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
beckalee
FUG Addict


Reged: 04/19/03
Posts: 1277
Loc: spotsy
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: Ken]
      #828734 - 11/18/05 10:32 AM (162.83.78.40)

ken...i'm sorry i think you took my reply to harshly. i was simply stating that I don't have anything against other peoples beliefs. i think you took that too defensively. i just wanted to clarify that not all of us who are religious want everyone to think as we do.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
beckalee
FUG Addict


Reged: 04/19/03
Posts: 1277
Loc: spotsy
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: maddy]
      #828736 - 11/18/05 10:36 AM (162.83.78.40)

i didn't take you as being judgemental at all. i do suppose being atheist would leave you that room for judgement, though. i don't understand why you don't believe, but it's okay. i am firm enough in my faith to know what i feel is right FOR ME and MY FAMILY. i wouldn't try to push God on you, but i would answer your questions, when asked.

i know i don't know squat about other non-Christian views. but that's okay with me....it is enough for me to keep up with what i need to know


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ken
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 13907
Loc: Spotsylvania
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: beckalee]
      #828830 - 11/18/05 12:45 PM (158.106.50.3)

Quote: beckalee


i am firm enough in my faith to know what i feel is right FOR ME and MY FAMILY.




Which is what I posted about when I said your mind was not open to evidence as an athiest's mind is open.

--------------------
a gathering has begun


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
beckalee
FUG Addict


Reged: 04/19/03
Posts: 1277
Loc: spotsy
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: Ken]
      #828839 - 11/18/05 01:11 PM (162.83.78.40)

no. you sounded close minded to me. i don't need to look elsewhere. i am happy where i am! that doesn't mean that i don't listen to others ideas/beliefs. i am not looking to have my mind changed or to change others minds. i don't know how that makes me closed to evidence. are you always searching to change or find other things to believe? maybe i am misunderstanding you and your point. i apologize if i have missed what you are saying.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ken
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 13907
Loc: Spotsylvania
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: beckalee]
      #828841 - 11/18/05 01:15 PM (158.106.50.3)

Quote: beckalee


no. you sounded close minded to me. i don't need to look elsewhere. i am happy where i am! that doesn't mean that i don't listen to others ideas/beliefs. i am not looking to have my mind changed or to change others minds. i don't know how that makes me closed to evidence. are you always searching to change or find other things to believe? maybe i am misunderstanding you and your point. i apologize if i have missed what you are saying.




There is no evidence god exists. Are you so closed minded you continue to believe in god??

--------------------
a gathering has begun


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
beckalee
FUG Addict


Reged: 04/19/03
Posts: 1277
Loc: spotsy
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: Ken]
      #828844 - 11/18/05 01:18 PM (162.83.78.40)

wow...i don't even know what to say to that. i'm sorry you have issues with the fact that people believe differently than you.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ken
FUGmaster Flash


Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 13907
Loc: Spotsylvania
Re: L RON HUBBARD [Re: beckalee]
      #828858 - 11/18/05 01:33 PM (158.106.50.3)

Quote: beckalee


wow...i don't even know what to say to that. i'm sorry you have issues with the fact that people believe differently than you.




You are the one having issues with people with different belief systems, not I. Do you or do you not believe there is a god if there is no evidence there is a god? It is a very simple question.

--------------------
a gathering has begun


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 5 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  FredTalkMod, john1315 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 4594

Rate this topic

Jump to

E-Mail the FredTalk Admins | Privacy statement (Site Rules and User Agreement) Go to fredericksburg.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5