Is Scientology dangerous?

[kengs333]

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?

Good question. I would think that just about everyone on this planet knows of Jesus and the Gospels, but in the end I think the answer is fairly complex and I couldn't do it justice. There is always the chance that some people will not know about Jesus, and this would most likely arise when someone denied them the chance to do so, such as an authoritarian political regime; like what the Communists tried to do. The godless people who run such a regime would certainly have to account for themselves.

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.

That's the nature of the world God created, and that's just the way things are. Some things are just beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, and there is no use in trying to explain something that is unexplainable.

I'm not sure how Jesus could or did go against what "god said".

[kengs333]

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.

Well, obvious someone who doesn't know can't understand, so the fault for not having something explained ultimately rests on them; in order to understand, one has to be willing to listen and learn, but all you've demonstrated is that you want to mock and ridicule. Well, that's a choice that you've made, and that's all there really is to it.

[Oleg Bach]

Well, obvious someone who doesn't know can't understand, so the fault for not having something explained ultimately rests on them; in order to understand, one has to be willing to listen and learn, but all you've demonstrated is that you want to mock and ridicule. Well, that's a choice that you've made, and that's all there really is to it.

The Scientologist are a money cult capalbe of great corruption and violence - it is as much a church as walmart. In their early days they murdered members that were non-compliant - any group that dehydrates and sleep deprives and starves new members during indoctrination - is evil...and should be sent to back to the pit it came from - L. R. Hubbard was a fiction writer who made a be with a fellow professor that he could create a religion - its a joke gone bad.

[charter.rights]

The Scientologist are a money cult capalbe of great corruption and violence - it is as much a church as walmart. In their early days they murdered members that were non-compliant - any group that dehydrates and sleep deprives and starves new members during indoctrination - is evil...and should be sent to back to the pit it came from - L. R. Hubbard was a fiction writer who made a be with a fellow professor that he could create a religion - its a joke gone bad.

Well from my observations the Evangelists and the Baptist don't sit too pretty either.

Kengs333 said:"...Christianity in the western world, and the slow evolution towards a non-Christian immoral civilization."

That is the problem with arrogant Christians. They promote that being a non-Christian means that you are immoral and uncivilized - as if they were the only ones who were moral and civilized. Too often they dismiss that fact the neither civil behavior or morality comes from religion and in fact more often than not are corrupted by religion obtusely. You're not one of "those" are you Kengs333?

[Oleg Bach]

Well from my observations the Evangelists and the Baptist don't sit too pretty either.

Kengs333 said:"...Christianity in the western world, and the slow evolution towards a non-Christian immoral civilization."

That is the problem with arrogant Christians. They promote that being a non-Christian means that you are immoral and uncivilized - as if they were the only ones who were moral and civilized. Too often they dismiss that fact the neither civil behavior or morality comes from religion and in fact more often than not are corrupted by religion obtusely. You're not one of "those" are you Kengs333?

I spoke and debated with american atheists for over a year. They behave more as one would imagine real Christians would. I am a simplistic - good or God - is the same - I seperate death from life and do not adulterate one with the other - evil and good - creation and destruction - dogma or "religion" is evil - there - that is where I stand - I do admire the few bits that came out of Christ but have no use for the bulk of the porpoganda - To bad Christianity did not flourish - it was based in logic and truth and law - social benevolence and love - a cool group of concepts that were destroyed instantly. All that is left is deception and religion - which to me is politics.

[Drea]

I found this site with some information on Scientology...

Beliefnet

IMO it seems to be about learning to live logically and not be "reactive" in order to reach "immortality".

Besides the pie-in-the-sky info about becoming immortal, it's really about controlling your own reactions to attain a "higher" level of awareness.

As fanciful as Scientology seems to be, it's no less plausible than any other religion.

Definitions: Religion

Edited December 14, 2007 by Drea

[jefferiah]

I found this site with some information on Scientology...

Beliefnet

IMO it seems to be about learning to live logically and not be "reactive" in order to reach "immortality".

Besides the pie-in-the-sky info about becoming immortal, it's really about controlling your own reactions to attain a "higher" level of awareness.

Well yeah, from what I have seen Scientologists dont seem to be causing too much trouble, so I am not sure why they would be banned.

[Oleg Bach]

Well yeah, from what I have seen Scientologists dont seem to be causing too much trouble, so I am not sure why they would be banned.

The Terri Shivo drama from what I know was manipulated by this so-called church..they say that they had people in place that reached into the local judicary. From my experience as a young man, if they can take hold of the son or daughter of an influential person they can plunder wealth and they have been know to blackmail. They have methods of extracting even the deepest and darkest of family secrets out of their new followers. I remember when they first set up in Toronto in an old funeral parlor - then they expanded to a very expensive building on Young street. They insisted on their young members to find co-signers for bank loans that they would hand over to the "church" - they disrupt families and manipulate those in emotional distress.

They have nothing to do with Christianity - yet they have created a symbol that hints of the Christian cross. This in it self is in the spirit of fraud as if some marketing person said - "lets copy the christian thing and we will appear legitimate". They are dishonest and in time want to effect the courts and the political systems - the methods they use to indoctrinate new members is very similar to brain washing techniques used during war..they starve - the dehydrate - and they deprive the new inducties of sleep - I would say that is pretty sinister - and should not be encouraged..But so much time has passed that the average person believes are a real church.

Best way to put it is that they operate in the same manner as orgainized crime, which I am sure governments don't feel comfortable with. What really turned me off this bunch after knowing them for a week back when I was 19 - was an incident - a young woman was taking part in a "session" some bizare therapy thing. She exited the room weeping - the "therapist" had molested her sexually..they are a huge con game - and they love money and power and intrigue - we have Catholics - and fundies - and all sorts out there. It's not wise to add these jerks to the list of problems - they want control of the world - they call this "a prison planet" - that they are eternal beings and we are a new type of goyem. I would say that Facism will be them in 20 years if left unchecked.

[Canadian Blue]

That is the problem with arrogant Christians. They promote that being a non-Christian means that you are immoral and uncivilized - as if they were the only ones who were moral and civilized. Too often they dismiss that fact the neither civil behavior or morality comes from religion and in fact more often than not are corrupted by religion obtusely. You're not one of "those" are you Kengs333?

Name one good thing someone does soley because they are religious, and then ask yourself if an atheist is just as capable of doing the same thing. Then attempt to name one bad thing about religion and one can come up with an answer within a second.

The idea that our civilization is crumbling because we are no longer "Christian" is absolutely wrong. First of all one only has to look at the Enlightenment which was driven be reason, humanism, and rationality, not religion. Second is that our neighbours to the south were lucky to have a country built on the fundamental notion of a seperation between church and state, perhaps the first nation to do so in the western world. So in my view religion does not necessarily help, or hurt us as a society.

[Oleg Bach]

Name one good thing someone does soley because they are religious, and then ask yourself if an atheist is just as capable of doing the same thing. Then attempt to name one bad thing about religion and one can come up with an answer within a second.

The idea that our civilization is crumbling because we are no longer "Christian" is absolutely wrong. First of all one only has to look at the Enlightenment which was driven be reason, humanism, and rationality, not religion. Second is that our neighbours to the south were lucky to have a country built on the fundamental notion of a seperation between church and state, perhaps the first nation to do so in the western world. So in my view religion does not necessarily help, or hurt us as a society.

Real Christains are ready to put all they have on the line for what is right - so there are no Christians in America..so we can drop that premise completely..and besides - Christianity as we know it is a fraud and is in fact anti-christism..they ALL do the opposite to what Christ suggested - all so called Christian religions do this. It is not the loss of Christianity that causes the nation to crumble but the loss of goodness - of God - of law - and of logic that is destroying us - some stupid old lady in a Church parroting the name Jesus over and over again does not hold the nation together - this second rate idolitry has only served a corrupt state.

There is no seperation between religion and state - they are both human poitical constructs - the idea of God or goodness - is a divine calling that could raise man out of the dirt pit - but - religion has given God and goodness a bad name..that is the problem. Until we have justice and a judicary that has the will to judge and see the difference between right and wrong we are screwed - we must simplify our appoach to spritual judgement - it is either good or bad - alive or dead - right or wrong - the grey area is suffocating us..time for the black and white of it all.

[charter.rights]

Name one good thing someone does soley because they are religious, and then ask yourself if an atheist is just as capable of doing the same thing. Then attempt to name one bad thing about religion and one can come up with an answer within a second.

The idea that our civilization is crumbling because we are no longer "Christian" is absolutely wrong. First of all one only has to look at the Enlightenment which was driven be reason, humanism, and rationality, not religion. Second is that our neighbours to the south were lucky to have a country built on the fundamental notion of a seperation between church and state, perhaps the first nation to do so in the western world. So in my view religion does not necessarily help, or hurt us as a society.

Canadian Blues said: "So in my view religion does not necessarily help, or hurt us as a society."

I do believe that the surviving family members of David Koresh and Jim Jones might disagree with you at that point. Fundamentalists hurt everyone not only because they are limited in their thinking but because they try to impose that thinking on others. G. W. Bush considers himself an instrument of God and I know there are a few million Muslims, as well as Christians who consider him the Gad Damned. The point is that religion has been used (and is still being used) to advance personal agendas. It has been used to declare war and to justify the mutilation and genocide against peoples all around the world. Perhaps an atheist would advance war against another nation for economic or political reasons. However, they would not receive the support for such an action without invoking the name of God to garner the support of non-atheists who would have their cases confirmed by their personal priest, ministers or imans. And it has nothing to do with one religion being better than another because both are culpable in a disagreement that sees nations put to the sword.

The separation of Church and State must be emphasized and demanded. However, when politicians use religion as an election tool and we put that politician into power, the net result is that we have blurred that separation and no longer have the will to democratize politics. That has been the dilemma in our history as religious nuts have tried to take over the political nuts and turn our government into fruit cake.

[Canadian Blue]

Well atheists really don't care about religion, but they do start to care when it effects the society as a whole and government policy.

[Drea]

The Terri Shivo drama from what I know was manipulated by this so-called church..they say that they had people in place that reached into the local judicary. From my experience as a young man, if they can take hold of the son or daughter of an influential person they can plunder wealth and they have been know to blackmail. They have methods of extracting even the deepest and darkest of family secrets out of their new followers. I remember when they first set up in Toronto in an old funeral parlor - then they expanded to a very expensive building on Young street. They insisted on their young members to find co-signers for bank loans that they would hand over to the "church" - they disrupt families and manipulate those in emotional distress.

If people are fool enough to give money over who are we to stop them?

They have nothing to do with Christianity - yet they have created a symbol that hints of the Christian cross.

It's an "s" with two triangles. And who cares that they have nothing to do with Christianity. What difference doe that make?

This in it self is in the spirit of fraud as if some marketing person said - "lets copy the christian thing and we will appear legitimate". They are dishonest and in time want to effect the courts and the political systems - the methods they use to indoctrinate new members is very similar to brain washing techniques used during war..they starve - the dehydrate - and they deprive the new inducties of sleep - I would say that is pretty sinister - and should not be encouraged..But so much time has passed that the average person believes are a real church.

"Real" Church?

Best way to put it is that they operate in the same manner as orgainized crime, which I am sure governments don't feel comfortable with.

YES! All religions should be treated in the same manner that we treat organized crime -- because that is what religion is -- an organization of criminals preying on those who are desperate for immortality -- jail the fraudulent bastards!

What really turned me off this bunch after knowing them for a week back when I was 19 - was an incident - a young woman was taking part in a "session" some bizare therapy thing. She exited the room weeping - the "therapist" had molested her sexually..they are a huge con game - and they love money and power and intrigue - we have Catholics - and fundies - and all sorts out there. It's not wise to add these jerks to the list of problems - they want control of the world - they call this "a prison planet" - that they are eternal beings and we are a new type of goyem. I would say that Facism will be them in 20 years if left unchecked.

I agree that we are very quickly decending into facism. Makes me glad I'm not a young person. I am sad for the youth. They are going to have to live in a world where their every move is monitored.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Drea

[charter.rights]

If people are fool enough to give money over who are we to stop them?

It's an "s" with two triangles. And who cares that they have nothing to do with Christianity. What difference doe that make?

"Real" Church?

YES! All religions should be treated in the same manner that we treat organized crime -- because that is what religion is -- an organization of criminals preying on those who are desperate for immortality -- jail the fraudulent bastards!

I agree that we are very quickly decending into facism. Makes me glad I'm not a young person. I am sad for the youth. They are going to have to live in a world where their every move is monitored.

Come to think of it the Christian Churches operate like the Mafia too. I mean they all wear black, they force their opinions and offer protection from the don, "God" in exchange for a basket full of money, they hide their crimes from the public, swear an oath to the secret brotherhood and have a hierarchy where the wise guys at the bottom do all the work and the guys at the top bask in all the riches and glory. Sounds very "mob" like to me.....

We should also remind people that all Churches are borderline cults. The only thing that keeps them free from prosecution is the fact that they do not force anyone to stay in the Church....but that could quickly change.

[jefferiah]

Come to think of it the Christian Churches operate like the Mafia too. I mean they all wear black, they force their opinions and offer protection from the don, "God" in exchange for a basket full of money

I am not a church goer myself, but I defend it on here almost every chance I get. I have yet to see anything in Christian doctrine which would suggest that God provides protection if you put money in the collection plate.

, they hide their crimes from the public, swear an oath to the secret brotherhood and have a hierarchy where the wise guys at the bottom do all the work and the guys at the top bask in all the riches and glory. Sounds very "mob" like to me.....

Here you must be referring to the sanctity of confession which is strictly Catholic.

[Rue]

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?

For the same reason he has the audacity to ask someone what their denomination is when he has repeatedly refused to say what his is. Hint I am coming back with some more responses. Look out Keng here I come!

[Rue]

Now for anyone following the sage Keng is hiding from me from another series of posts and is refusing to disclose his alleged Christian denomination while demanding others reveal there denominations. I find it ironic this Hebrew is chasing him from post to post reminding him. Ah but on to his latest comments and contradictions shall we?

1. In Post 10, his first response to this topic he responded to M. Dancer's comment as follows:

“QUOTE(M.Dancer @ Dec 7 2007, 08:59 AM)

Scientology has more incommon with Weight Watchers, Amway and Heaven's Gate than an organized traditional religion....

Whether it is more dangerous than Jehova's Witnesses that forbid blood tranfusions, or more dangerous than some old order protestant sects that have had the misfortune of distilling to closely their gene pool is another story.......but where as Weight Watchers will take lighten your load, The Church of El Ron will lighten your wallet. It costs big bucks to be auditted of all that umwanted alien rays....

Oh....and they are nuts.”

Keng responded with the comments;

“None of these exist in Germany anymore, to my knowledge.”

Of course the response given by Keng contains an ambiguous reference which could appear to suggest Scientology, Weight Watcher’s, Amway, Heaven’s Gate, Jeohva’s Witnesses, blood transfusions and older protestant sects, no longer exist in Germany. Let's assume Keng is writing in an unclear manner and is either referring to Jehova's Witnesses or other Christian sects...he's again trying to pass of his subjective unsubstantiated remarks as facts.

To start with the Jehova’s Witnesses are in fact alive and well and have legal status in Germany: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1530197,00.html

As well, here is the exact breakdown from Wikepedia of the religions in Germany today including NUMEROUS PROTESTANT SECTS MANY OF WHICH ARE OLD SECTS;

Protestantism

• Protestants 27.1 M (32.7%)

o Evangelical Church in Germany 25.386 M (30.8%)

o New Apostolic Church 380,490 (rather special, not Protestant in a strict sense)

o Aussiedler-Baptisten 300,000-380,000

o Jehovah's Witnesses 166,000

o Baptists (mostly Bund Evangelisch-Freikirchlicher Gemeinden in Deutschland KdöR) 85,000

o Methodists 63,000

o Free Evangelical / Charismatic 50,000

o Christliche Versammlungen / Freier Brüderkreis / Plymouth Brethren 45,000

o Bund Freikirchlicher Pfingstgemeinden 40,000

o Evangelical Methodist Church (Evangelisch-methodistische Kirche) 38,000

o Independent Evangelical-Lutheran Church 37,460

o Mennonites 39,414

o The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 36,000

o Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten (STA) 36,000

o Apostelamt Jesu Christi 20,000

o Federation of Evangelist-reformed churches of Germany (Bund Evangelisch-reformierter Kirchen Deutschlands) 13,000

o Johannische Kirche [3] 3,500

o Christian municipalities Elim (Christengemeinden Elim) 10,000

o Apostolische Gemeinschaft 6,000

[Catholicism

• Roman Catholics 25.905 M (31.4%)

• Old Catholics 25,000

Orthodoxy

• Orthodox 1.5-2 M. (ca. 2%)

o Orthodox Church of Constantinople 450,000

o Russian Orthodox Church 300,000 - 400,000

o Romanian Orthodox Church 300,000

o Serbian Orthodox Church 250,000 - 300,000

o Syriac Orthodox Church 180,000 - 230,000

o Armenian Orthodox Church 85,000 - 120,000

o Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church 13,000

o Greek Orthodox Church 13,000

o Assyrian Church 6,000

o Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church 3,600

o Coptic Orthodox Church (Egyptian) 3,000

o Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate 1,000

• The Christian Community 10,000

Islam

• Muslims 3.3 M (4.0%); number of Muslims with German citizenship: 732,000 (1.0%).

o Sunni 2.2 M

o Alevite 340,000

o Shi'a 170,000

o Ahmadiyya 50,000

o Ismaili 12,000

o Sufi 10,000

Buddhism

• Buddhists 230,000 (0.27%)

Judaism

• Jews 200,000 (0.25%)

• Union of Progressive Jews in Germany 3,000 members

• Central Council of Jews in Germany Most Jewish communities

Others

• Hindu 90,000 (0.1%)

• Yazidi 30,000

No Religion

• Non Religious 24.4 M (29.6%)

[Rue]

What you think I am finished pointing out Keng's contradictions? Please I do a thorough job.

In post 11 keng stated;

“I recall one time John Travolta spazzing out on camera about Germany being "fascist" for treating Scientology the way it does. Talk about stupid. Well, just about everyone in Hollywood is stupid, so I guess he was being really stupid. “Once again Keng illistrates his technique of makei a sweeping generalized statement adding to the list of people he hates this time including “just about everyone in Hollywood”.

Keng continues his tradition of making a sweeping negative generalization to insult, ridicule and dismiss a group of people he does not know but presumes to think he knows. The above comments are hateful and intolerant and when you add them to his ever-growing list of untrue Christians, communists, gays, women who do not stay at home and make babies, idiots, liberals, Jews, hey and don't forget me, its getting quite crowded. In fact so crowed its standing room only at this point.

In post 39 responds to the concept of religious war witht he following comments that do not address the cause and effect of religious wars but in fact serve as an opportunity for Keng to lecture as to what he feels a sinner is which by the way contradicts what he has stated in other posts on other topics;

“Look at what you're dealing with, though. You could make rational, factual arguments about tis all you want but it will just not make a difference to some people. People who are wrapped up in their own sin simply have to lead a life that justifies their past indiscretions because their lack of faith leads them to believe that there can be no forgiveness for the error of their ways, that there is no meaning to life other than satiating wordly desires. And one of the means by which they seek to justify their lifestyle is to attack and destroy the faith that tells them otherwise; they fear goodness, they fear admitting they are wrong, and they fear taking responsibility for their actions.”

He reference to “some people” is in fact his subjective feeling. When he then describes sinners as “people …wrapped up in their own sin simply have to lead a life that justifies their past indiscretions..” and “one of the means by which they seek to justify their lifestyle is to attack and destroy the faith that tells them otherwise;” and “they fear goodness, they fear admitting they are wrong and they fear responsibility for their actions”...what Keng does is to create concepts and then impose them as being synonomous with the definition of sinner. They are not based on the New Testament which he repeatedly claims he is an authority on. You will note he does not quote the New Testament when he creates these definitions.

The words are also interesting because his subjective theories as to the pssyche and inner cognitive processes of sinners has nothing to do with the religious wars issue he claimed to respond to.

In Keng’s opinion he has assumes a sinner is someone who is leading a life to justify past indiscretions….its interesting he projects this into the mind of what he thinks a sinner is. Why does he assume this? Do you really think it comes from the Bible?

It probably comes from the same subjective perceptions Keng projects onto sinners when he assumed that sinners have no faith and do not believe they can be forgiven.

In Keng's world if he feels someone is a sinner they must be. Keng's construct can not fathom the possibility he may be incorrect about someone being a sinner and simply not understand them. Using this cognitive process if you disagree with Keng automatically you are a sinner. But it goes further then that because in Keng's world, sinners “attack and destroy the faith that tells them otherwise”. In keng's world he is "the faith that tells them otherwise".

I would contend this is a classic example of how he uses the pretence of Christian religion to project upon others he does not know negative characteristics to demonize them to then justify his intolerance towards them by them.

[Rue]

In post 55 Keng states;

“Congradulations. But there is a difference between being able to read the Bible in its entirety and being able to comprehend it properly.”

The abiove statement evidences Keng presumes he reads the Bible properly and so is in the position to lecture others as what it “properly” means.

I would suggest the above evidences a narccissistic and anti-social manifestation in that Keng can not acknowledge someone else may have thoughts and feelings diffferent than his and if they do, they must be imperfect or evil and he must "control" them and tell them "how they must think and feel".

I would suggest in a world with adults, Keng would find the world hostile and so have huge lists of people persecuting his beliefs or hiding things from him or attacking and destroying him as he has referred to precisely because he can not control the thoughts and feelings of adults. Religion is the symbolic representation for the lack of control. Religion becomes the weapon to try regain control using lectures and procolomations to state what is allowed and what is not allowed-only the more he tries to control, the more he loses control as his words conflict and express onbious contradictions.

For example in post 59 Keng states;

“..but the NT teachs that all people are equal before God…”

Yet in each and every comment from Keng he defines people as being unequal to him in knowledge and moral value. He says one thing that he claims to believe, but manifests another in the words he places in his responses. All one need do is read back his references to gays, women or Jews or communists or untrue Christians or sinners.

[Rue]

In a tell tale comment Keng describes the role of women in Christianity as and I quote;

"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.”

These are interesting remarks because immediately preceding them Keng stated people are seen as equal before God.

Yet no sooner does he state people are considered equal before god in the New Testament, he then explains the above role which clearly does not have men and women sharing the same roles but engaging in distinct, differentiated roles.

Interestingly when Cypercoma challenged him on the above not being a concept about equality but of discriminatory roles Keng's immediatre response was and I quote;

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

Again Keng manifests that when someone tries to challenge or question him, he will not respond with respect but becomes abusive and hostile.

But it goes further. Its not just an abusive and hostile name-call it becomes the following and I quote:

“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"? “

So its not Keng just calling someone a name for challenging him, but he must go the next step and call the person ignorant and deceptive and engaging in a dishonest act. He does not just name call, but assign negative characteristics and motives to those he feels challenge him and in so doing acts out, or manifests or evidences the exact characteristic he described earlier on when he defined a sinner as someone who attacks and tries to destroy another's faith. Isn't it interesting he does the exact same thing he claims a sinner does?

I then bring your attention to Keng's comments in post 77;

“Well, obvious someone who doesn't know can't understand, so the fault for not having something explained ultimately rests on them; in order to understand, one has to be willing to listen and learn, but all you've demonstrated is that you want to mock and ridicule. Well, that's a choice that you've made, and that's all there really is to it.”

Keng on the one hand mocks Cybercoma by dismissing his opinion as nonsense, then assigns him negative characteristics and motives of deception plus ignorance and now accuses Cupercoma of mocking and ridiculing him.

Again Keng evidences he does the exact thing he accuses others of.

Finally I bring to your attention his comments in post 62 where he launches an attack on another poster who challenges his description of Christianity;

In post 62 Keng states:

“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?”

Is it not interesting Keng repeatedly asks other for their religious denomination (this is the second in the last three days)

and continually claims he not they is an authority on the Bible not to mention the holocaust, but will not tell anyone what his denomination is and what his academic back-ground is he claims is the source of his expertise?

So Keng what denimination are you and what is your academic expertise?

Every time you state your religious opinions you put down the religious beliefs of others on the pretense that you are the only one who understands the New Testament. So tell us.

As for the sinner definition Keng do tell us where your knowledge comes from.

Oh by the way Keng, or should I be referring to you as King Keng at this point, do you note I continue to follow you.

Could it be I like children and want them to grow up in a safe world Keng?

What do you think?

[kengs333]

Five posts devoted to "refuting" my opinions? Should I be flattered or concerned?

The fact of the matter is that the point of a message board is to discuss and express opinions, not publish well-researched and cited dissertations. Try keeping things in perspective and find better things to do with your time, which apparently you have way to much of.

[jazzer]

Five posts devoted to "refuting" my opinions?

I'm glad you contend they are just your opinions and not some directive from God.

[Carinthia]

Actually, the return of aliens makes more sense to me than the theory that all good and evil is derived from some hokey story about a man, a woman and a snake in a tree.

Not that I'm going to rush out and join up with Scientology. I couldn't afford it.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Carinthia

[charter.rights]

Five posts devoted to "refuting" my opinions? Should I be flattered or concerned?

The fact of the matter is that the point of a message board is to discuss and express opinions, not publish well-researched and cited dissertations. Try keeping things in perspective and find better things to do with your time, which apparently you have way to much of.

What a most pedantic reply to some very poignant observations. That seems to be an evolving pattern with you. Are you hiding something? You sound like someone I know who was kicked out of our Church for trying to take over minister's job. This guy had a Jesus complex, tried to single people out in his Bible classes and even likened himself to Martin Luther King Jr. What a moron that guy was and now I understand he is peddling internet porn on a number of sites and passing it off as religious art......what a joker, huh?

[charter.rights]

The question of Dianetics as a religion or a science is often debated. However, scientists are just beginning to understand a modicum of the idea of cellular memory so on this point the jury is still out. We do know that there have been some successful studies at John Hopkins concerning the use of prayer in surgery (most patients healed about 30% faster than other patients) and therapeutic touch does have a place in healing arts. So I suppose we could continue to debate that possibility that if external forces have a positive affect on the body, then internal forces may have an eqal or better force on ones own health. The proof is that we do know that there are causality relationships between say stress and heart problems, or through mental depression and physical symptoms. That is to say that it is common knowledge that there is a relationship between mental illness and physical problems. So is it a long stretch to suggest that there may be a relationship between spiritual illness (even simply suggesting these might be moral problems ethical for the atheists) and mental or physical problems? And if we can be effected negatively by those components then could a positive spiritual outlook not also have a positive effect on not only us but others around us?

As I understand the Dianetics, it suggests these connections are not simply reactive but intentional. I would suggest that we sometimes call them other things like "fortitude". "perseverance" or "luck" and when good fortune comes our way we are quick to assume that it did not come directly from us but from some other synchronizations in the universe happening either in random, or despite the forces that normally work against us.

So to the initiating question "Is Scientology dangerous?" I suppose that it depends on whether we fear that something more is at play, and whether we can hold faith in an evolving science that some soothsayers hinted at eons ago? And if what we don't know can hurt us, then I suggest the answer really is in studying Scientology in full, instead of making random comments about it and acting as if we are an authority on morality, or spiritual evolution because one thinks he has the corner on its antithesis. That is as silly as saying that he knows pizza tastes having never eaten it, because he once ate spinach.