Is Scientology dangerous?

[jefferiah]

I have read portions of the King James bible. I am especially interested in Genesis and Revelations. I think Genesis is a illiteration of real history copied from much older texts. Even the Sumerians said their texts (The Epic of Gilgamesh, etc) came from sources much older.

Sure. I personally believe, though you may disagree, that the Shemites kept a more accurate record of the Noah story than did the Sumerians. That flood story exists in many places around the world with varying degrees of similarity. In India Manu is told by a little fish to build a boat to escape the flood and yada yada yada, later ends up on a mountain. In some cultures the story becomes more tribal in nature and really senseless.

Have you read Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh was a Sumerian Hercules fellow. He was not Noah. But in one part of his epic he wanted the secret of eternal life and was told to go see the old man Utnapishtim who had survived a great flood. And it tells of the boat, the animals, sending out the bird, and landing on a mountain in Assyria. But this is only a small part of the Gilgamesh epic.

The thing is though if you read that story, the biblical one comes across as the most like an historical account. Whereas the others, including Gilgamesh have a more mythical quality. Sure it probably all sounds like hokum to you, I am sure. But I think if you read both you will know what I mean. If you were to ask me which was the original story I would say the Biblical one is much closer. In fact the Biblical account even names the mountain. I know that Gilgamesh predates the Torah but I think that the Shemitic peoples of Ur kept alot of records which later translated into the early Bible stories. I have no proof of this, so I don't expect you to just take me at my word on it. But I believe that the flood story for instance is true, and I believe that the Hebrews must have had older records of it than the Bible itself and older than Gilgamesh, which Bible writers must have referenced. I believe this simply because this one flood story which has little importance in the whole of the Gilgamesh epic makes more sense in the Biblical version. Meanwhile the flood stories still existed in other places but the accuracy dwindled more and became obscured. So in Gilgamesh we have a lot of it intact but less than in the Bible. And then in other nations like India it becomes even cloudier. Even the Aztecs and Mayans had a story of how the creator(s) were displeased with what they had made and sent a flood to destroy the world.

Edited December 11, 2007 by jefferiah

[Drea]

It seems that, because of the many accounts of it, there was an acual flood and it is not an allegorical story.

That does not necessarily mean that it was a punishment handed down by "god".

The Noah story of course, also has a basis in reality. Although, rather than "angels" who told him about the coming flood, perhaps it was gleaned from experiences from earlier generations that had experienced such a catacalysm. There is evidence around the world (I'd have to go find the book) that seven asteroids of varying sizes hit the earth at the time of the flood.

The animals in the ark... believable enough. Could be he took a few of each type of animal in his region. Also could be that he was able to collect their DNA... but that's another theory entirely

Thing is, many of the stories in the bible have a basis in reality. As do the Sumerian and other texts.

The notion of "god's anger" or "punishment" was made up by humans, however. What occurred was a world-wide catacalysm. And if a similar event has been recorded by an even older civilization then there may be a pattern and Revelations could be a warning of a cyclical event.

[jefferiah]

It seems that, because of the many accounts of it, there was an acual flood and it is not an allegorical story.

That does not necessarily mean that it was a punishment handed down by "god".

Well I cannot convince you one way or the other Drea. I am fully aware of that. But I will say that the Genesis account is certainly incredible in its detail, when compared with most other mythology and folklore, going so far as to provide the dimensions of the ark itself, which I believe some engineers have said is a very good design.

Anyways, about the original topic, I don't have a clue about scientology or why it is banned in Germany or if it should be banned. I don't know enough about it. I know that my parents have told me that when they lived in Vancouver they knew an Australian family in the same building as them who had come on the famous boat trip.

Edited December 11, 2007 by jefferiah

[Canadian Blue]

I've actually started reading the bible from cover to cover, and I couldn't help but notice how extremely crude it was. First of all Abraham was not a moral man, the fact that they would send their daughters out to get raped in Sodom is proof of this. Not to mention the incestuous drunk that he turned out to be when he slept with both of his daughters while inebriated.

I was born and raised as an evangelical Christian, however I couldn't help notice upon reading the entire account of Genesis the references to pulling out [shotty birth control method], prostitution, rape, and general mayhem being netted out on people. So in the end whenever asked about whether one needs religion to be moral I can simply point to the book of Genesis. Which in itself is a fascinating read, yet it does paint a picture of the early humans as sex crazed, indulgent, petulant, beings.

BTW: I apply that truism to all religions, since each has its own absurdities. If anything I think that if we didn't have the Enlightenment we would still be engaging in pogroms and other barbaric acts.

However once again that is my own humble opinion of religion. For the record I think Scientologists are simply batshit crazy, especially after reading up on how we began which in itself is laughable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3QqjTsFKm4

Edited December 11, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[kengs333]

I've actually started reading the bible from cover to cover, and I couldn't help but notice how extremely crude it was. First of all Abraham was not a moral man, the fact that they would send their daughters out to get raped in Sodom is proof of this. Not to mention the incestuous drunk that he turned out to be when he slept with both of his daughters while inebriated.

I was born and raised as an evangelical Christian, however I couldn't help notice upon reading the entire account of Genesis the references to pulling out [shotty birth control method], prostitution, rape, and general mayhem being netted out on people. So in the end whenever asked about whether one needs religion to be moral I can simply point to the book of Genesis. Which in itself is a fascinating read, yet it does paint a picture of the early humans as sex crazed, indulgent, petulant, beings.

Congradulations. But there is a difference between being able to read the Bible in its entirety and being able to comprehend it properly. The problem with referring to Genesis as a reason why people don't need religion, ie. Christianity, is the fact that everything that was written between the envent in Genesis and the coming of Christ is ignored. And, of course, it's always the Old Testament that is referred to, isn't it? No one ever seems able to make a convincing argument against Christianity using the New Testament.

Edited December 11, 2007 by kengs333

[jefferiah]

I've actually started reading the bible from cover to cover, and I couldn't help but notice how extremely crude it was. First of all Abraham was not a moral man, the fact that they would send their daughters out to get raped in Sodom is proof of this. Not to mention the incestuous drunk that he turned out to be when he slept with both of his daughters while inebriated.

That was Lot. Lot offered to send out his daughters to the crowd who wanted to sleep with his guests. And it was Lot who slept with his daughters.

No one says the people in the Bible were extremely moral. The people in the Bible were extremely human. Don't you know where people like Shakespeare got all their inspiration from?

Edited December 11, 2007 by jefferiah

[Brain Candy]

The bible is full of excellent symbolism and many great works of art have derived from it, though not really in the past century or so. I think this is because it has become merely a propaganda and political tool and its complex message and symbolism has been simplified to appeal to the lowest common denominator (repent and anything else you do in your life will be allright, the end is coming so don't worry to much about the future). I still respect how christianity and other religions can help reinforce a sense of culture among peoples.

Scientology was born modern garbage and will probably remain such, I agree with their stance on antidepressants and the like though.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Brain Candy

[Canadian Blue]

However I believe the New Testameant also preached that women should be controlled by their husbands. In my own view the holy book, like any religious text is full of contradictions.

[kengs333]

However I believe the New Testameant also preached that women should be controlled by their husbands. In my own view the holy book, like any religious text is full of contradictions.

No, it states that women should respect their husbands and men should love their wives; it does acknowledge men as being the head of the household which the norm, but the NT teachs that all people are equal before God. Perhaps if you care to read anything on early Christianity you'd learn that women were instrumental in spreading the word of God, and that many of early converts were housewives and high-born women. Expecting that a woman devote herself to raising children is neither controlling or oppression; it's simply an acknowledgement that men and women have different roles, and in a truly Christian household, where a husband respects and loves his wife, this sort of arrangement is not a problem. The problem occurs in not truly Christian houselholds or in non-Christian households where there is no godly basis for the union, and men feel that they have the right to abuse their power or neglect their wife and child(ren).

[kengs333]

That was Lot. Lot offered to send out his daughters to the crowd who wanted to sleep with his guests. And it was Lot who slept with his daughters.

No one says the people in the Bible were extremely moral. The people in the Bible were extremely human. Don't you know where people like Shakespeare got all their inspiration from?

Right, which is why Jesus came to die for their sins.

[Canadian Blue]

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

"Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Revelation 2:22-23)

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;" (Deuteronomy 22:22)

"Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:24)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

This doesn't strike me as giving women an "equal" place at the table if you take it literally.

[kengs333]

Again, you're argument loses any relevance when you start quoting from the Old Testament and clearly without understanding the context in which the verse was written. You said you were raised an evangelical Christian? Honestly? What denomination?

The fact of the matter is that the early Christian movement had many female converts, and a number of disciples who were female. Actually, when you think of it, Christianity is very pro-woman--especially when you think of the time in which it came about; women were little more than whores and had little respect or importance in the pagan male-dominated societies of the time. With Christianity, women were assured a faithful partner with whom a peaceful, moral, and decent family could be raised.

[charter.rights]

Again, you're argument loses any relevance when you start quoting from the Old Testament and clearly without understanding the context in which the verse was written. You said you were raised an evangelical Christian? Honestly? What denomination?

The fact of the matter is that the early Christian movement had many female converts, and a number of disciples who were female. Actually, when you think of it, Christianity is very pro-woman--especially when you think of the time in which it came about; women were little more than whores and had little respect or importance in the pagan male-dominated societies of the time. With Christianity, women were assured a faithful partner with whom a peaceful, moral, and decent family could be raised.

I'm not sure why you would dismiss Canadian Blue's rebuttal when only two of the passages were out of place?

So while we're talking about the Bible and female character, what about Mary Magdeline? Was she a prostitute, Jesus' wife, or his sister?

[jefferiah]

I'm not sure why you would dismiss Canadian Blue's rebuttal when only two of the passages were out of place?

So while we're talking about the Bible and female character, what about Mary Magdeline? Was she a prostitute, Jesus' wife, or his sister?

She was Martha's sister. Not his wife. Perhaps a prostitute, but it is not indicated. What is indicated is that people considered her a "sinful woman".

[Canadian Blue]

Again, you're argument loses any relevance when you start quoting from the Old Testament and clearly without understanding the context in which the verse was written. You said you were raised an evangelical Christian? Honestly? What denomination?

Do you take the Bible literally, and what was the context in which they were written. But I'd question why a "loving god" would ever want to see us burn alive in sulphur pits.

The fact of the matter is that the early Christian movement had many female converts, and a number of disciples who were female. Actually, when you think of it, Christianity is very pro-woman--especially when you think of the time in which it came about; women were little more than whores and had little respect or importance in the pagan male-dominated societies of the time. With Christianity, women were assured a faithful partner with whom a peaceful, moral, and decent family could be raised.

I've heard the same for every other religion under the sun. The fact is that in todays day and age if one is too take the Bible literally they should take everything literally. One thing I've noticed is that those on extreme right wing side and the left wing side all engage in cherry picking the book.

[cybercoma]

I'm sorry kengs, but it's a little hard to take those passages out of context. It's abundantly clear what the message is there. Women were put on this earth to serve men and if they step out of line, they're to be beaten or murdered.

Jesus may have changed all of that when he came, but why then is the old testament still a part of the Christian Bible? Why would Jesus say that he did not come to strike down the laws, but to fulfill them?

And if it's the divinely inspired word of God, who are we to "interpret" the meaning or context of the passages? Those are the words God gave to those whom wrote them. Who are we to put our spin on the understanding of those texts.

So, if you take the Bible literally, the words are clear... and I'm glad most people don't follow them.

[charter.rights]

Funny...If the Christian Church really embraced women as equal partners to me, it is interesting that there are no Books included in the Bibile written by women. Instead those texts written by women - especially the Gospel of Mary Magdelene - were rejected. One would think that if women were so revered at least the gospel of the woman who was closest to Jesus would have been important for the world to read.

But then again, Mary Magdeline presents truths that would challenge the authority of the Church and the Ministers as being intermediaries to God.

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene 4:22-23

22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.

23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone.

[M.Dancer]

Funny...If the Christian Church really embraced women as equal partners to me, it is interesting that there are no Books included in the Bibile written by women. Instead those texts written by women - especially the Gospel of Mary Magdelene - were rejected. One would think that if women were so revered at least the gospel of the woman who was closest to Jesus would have been important for the world to read.

But then again, Mary Magdeline presents truths that would challenge the authority of the Church and the Ministers as being intermediaries to God.

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene 4:22-23

22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.

23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone.

There is even less reason to beleive Mary Of M wrote that gospel than Paul wrote 1st Corinthians...

[kengs333]

I'm sorry kengs, but it's a little hard to take those passages out of context. It's abundantly clear what the message is there. Women were put on this earth to serve men and if they step out of line, they're to be beaten or murdered.

That's just utter nonsense. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Jesus may have changed all of that when he came, but why then is the old testament still a part of the Christian Bible? Why would Jesus say that he did not come to strike down the laws, but to fulfill them?

Yes, why indeed. Is it really that difficult to figure out that to understand why Jesus was sent, that one has to understand the history of the Israelites, what the prophets said, etc.?

So, if you take the Bible literally, the words are clear... and I'm glad most people don't follow them.

Who are you to say such a thing when you clearly have little understanding of the Bible and prefer to twist and misrepresent what little you "know"?

[kengs333]

Do you take the Bible literally, and what was the context in which they were written. But I'd question why a "loving god" would ever want to see us burn alive in sulphur pits.

Well, I suppose that's why he sent Jesus, isn't it? Jesus died for our sins because people are sinful, this is something people wilfully engage in and is something that God does not want to see happen, but regardless most people choose to do so anyway. To suggest that there is a sort of desire on God's part to see people suffer for eternity when they die becuase they have been unrepentant and lived a life of sin and denying God is a total--probably intentionally malicious--misrepresentation of what's written in the NT.

[charter.rights]

Well, I suppose that's why he sent Jesus, isn't it? Jesus died for our sins because people are sinful, this is something people wilfully engage in and is something that God does not want to see happen, but regardless most people choose to do so anyway. To suggest that there is a sort of desire on God's part to see people suffer for eternity when they die becuase they have been unrepentant and lived a life of sin and denying God is a total--probably intentionally malicious--misrepresentation of what's written in the NT.

24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?

26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.

27) That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every nature in order to restore it to its root.

From the Gospel of Mary Magdelene

[Canadian Blue]

Well, I suppose that's why he sent Jesus, isn't it? Jesus died for our sins because people are sinful, this is something people wilfully engage in and is something that God does not want to see happen, but regardless most people choose to do so anyway. To suggest that there is a sort of desire on God's part to see people suffer for eternity when they die becuase they have been unrepentant and lived a life of sin and denying God is a total--probably intentionally malicious--misrepresentation of what's written in the NT.

Well assuming god does exist, which I highly doubt, why would he allow all of those people who have never heard the gospel to suffer the torments of hell. If someone has never heard the gospel they are then doomed correct?

As for Jesus, I don't quite get why god would need to send his son down to earth for us. Why wouldn't god just do it. It seems to me that Jesus if anything went against most things that god said.

[Oleg Bach]

Well assuming god does exist, which I highly doubt, why would he allow all of those people who have never heard the gospel to suffer the torments of hell. If someone has never heard the gospel they are then doomed correct?

As for Jesus, I don't quite get why god would need to send his son down to earth for us. Why wouldn't god just do it. It seems to me that Jesus if anything went against most things that god said.

Watched a documentary regarding the islands where Darwin generated his theory from - the animals and plants were so astounding that it reafirmed my faith in God..strengthened the idea of a vast and complex devine intelligence - nature has consciousness - and super nature is the source of this wonder....the gospels are fine and poitical in part - but the natural world is proof..that infinite consciousness or God exist - Merry Christmas - that Jesus guy was a very smart lawyer and physicist...and devine.

[kengs333]

Watched a documentary regarding the islands where Darwin generated his theory from - the animals and plants were so astounding that it reafirmed my faith in God..strengthened the idea of a vast and complex devine intelligence - nature has consciousness - and super nature is the source of this wonder....the gospels are fine and poitical in part - but the natural world is proof..that infinite consciousness or God exist - Merry Christmas - that Jesus guy was a very smart lawyer and physicist...and devine.

Yes, I watched the ending of that, too. What struck me is how significant Darwin consider what he had observed on the Galapagos, how it influenced what he studied and wrote later--yet he spent so little time there, and really only scratched the surface of the wealth of information that the islands have to offer. And this chance event unltimately leads to social darwinism and the rise of Hitler and the decline of Christianity in the western world, and the slow evolution towards a non-Christian immoral civilization.

[cybercoma]

You're right kengs, I clearly don't know a thing and you clearly don't either, since you've done nothing to explain anything to me.