A Little Nutty - Scientology: Busted; Religion: Plausible

05/02/2008
This exact scale rendering shows how cramped Noah's Ark really would have been.
Dude, we're totally serious, people will believe anything.
Dumb Da-Dumb Dumb Dumb
Seen here: Tom Cruise's PhD in Neurology pays off in a debate against a clearly baffled, and glib, Matt Lauer. He knows the history damn it!
The E-Meter is available in several attractive colors. Just don't sell yours on eBay. Unless you enjoy being sued, that is.
Person A: "Man, that Scientology is a freak-ass cult".
Person B: "Who are you to say anything about Scientology? You believe in God!"

Chances are you have seen examples of this all over the place. People writing off all religions, or better yet, anyone who believes in any religion based on the faulty premise that all religions are created equal.

It's true, all religions require a certain leap of faith. It's perfectly reasonable to consider all religious people duped. It's just not reasonable to pretend that any religious person, of any creed, is taking an equal leap of faith as someone else of a different faith. At their core most religions are a hypothesis of the origin of our existence, and what happens after we die. Like any hypothesis, they aren't necessarily all of equal merit. Some are better, some are worse, and generally speaking there is only one right answer.

Which beliefs do we have scientific evidence directly in contradiction to? More importantly, since we're talking about religion (so science be damned), which one is just flat out more plausible? Which has the most red flags? I'll break down three religions I know a little about: Christianity, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Scientology.

The Religions in a Nutshell


Christianity - God (The same one Jews and Muslim's believe in, F.Y.I.) created the heavens and the Earth. A few plagues, sacrifices, and a flood later, he sent his only son, Jesus, to Earth so he could die for the sins of the world. During his adult life on Earth Jesus spent much of his time teaching lessons of peace. Do onto others as you would want them to do onto you, turn the other cheek, love your neighbor, and other such niceties. After being betrayed by a disciple Jesus was crucified, he then went to heaven, at which point he began helping out with the family business.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) - The LDS started with Christianity, and turned it up a notch. All the major players are there, though they don't believe Jesus died for all our sins. Murderers can't be forgiven and adulterers only get one freebie. Most other differences are somewhat minor things like the Mormon belief that good works get you into heaven and that God is a being with "flesh and bone." One of the bigger differences is that Mormons, apparently, believe in multiple "worlds", which each have their own God. Anyone could become a God if they wanted, and even "our" God wasn't always all-powerful.

Scientology - Scientology was founded by Sci-Fi author L. Ron Hubbard. In 1950 he wrote a book called Dianetics. It was basically his theory on psychiatry and how it worked. According to Hubbard, mental and psychosomatic physical problems are caused by traumatic recordings called engrams. Eventually Scientology lobbied to be officially designated a religion so they could help more people learn the truth. Just kidding, it was because they didn't feel the millions of dollars they profit on personality/stress tests should be subject to taxes. As for the beliefs themselves, there's really nothing I can do to explain what Scientoligists believe about our origins that can't be exquisitely summed up by this South Park clip.



The Xenu story, however, is only told to people who are invested (a word I use literally) in the church enough that they big wigs determine you're ready. In fact, I hope you're all still with me, since it's commonly believed in the “Church” that hearing the story is fatal if you aren't ready. Thus all Scientologists do not yet know about Xenu and the Volcanoes, most only believe in the engrams and the process of “clearing” yourself of them.

Plausibility


Christianity


Plausibility Score – 10 (baseline*)

What makes it Implausible
There are a few things science can point to that would make one cast a skeptical eye at the Bible. Some people believe by reading in between the lines they can use the Bible to date the Earth, and I assume the rest of the universe as well, to roughly 6000 years old. This is shown to be an irrational claim by multiple areas of science.

Taking the Bible at its literal word could also throw out the overwhelming preponderance of evidence mounted over the years by geology, paleontology, biogeography, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics and embryology regarding the theory of evolution in regards to the origin of life in general and humans in particular.

Literal readers of the Bible also get burned by a common problem to all books of prophecy when it comes to the story about Noah's Ark, localized shortsightedness. In one small corner of the world, taking only the animals you knew of, it might have been feasible for the ship Noah was told to build could take them all. To date we know of 1.8 million species of animal, not counting microscopic life. Even assuming we factor out marine life, which the Bible doesn't explicitly do, things get dicey for Noah pretty quickly.

It seems odd to me that one of the few things in the Bible painstakingly described was the construction of the Ark. It pretty much stops just shy of attaching a blueprint. As such we know exactly what a logistical nightmare this would have been. The boat was too small for the cargo, but big enough that it would crumble under its own weight.

Compound to this problem the lack of “believing” in the theory of evolution would mean that Noah would have to bring aboard 2 (or 7) of every animal that EVER existed and things get out of hand quickly. Likewise these same evolution deniers, with no sense of irony, will try and rationalize that Noah only had to take “kinds” of animals (a fairly meaningless statement in-and-of itself.) For example, Noah didn't need to take every kind of wolf, fox, dog, etc. He needed only to grab any male and female canine and the animals would “diversify” again after the flood on their own.

None of this is, of course, factoring the problem of gathering/storing/distributing food and water for all these animals and the obvious problem that most of these animals is food to something else on the boat. Or where he got wood in the desert. Or how he built something in the early bronze age, with no crew or experience, that people couldn't years later. What about all the plant life? Where did the different races of people come from afterwards?

What makes it Plausible
Christianity has a couple saving graces when it comes to its plausibility factor. The biggest one is that it isn't a universal belief that the Bible, at least the Old Testament, is to be read literally. The story of Noah is believed by many to be allegorical. (Perhaps a stark reminder that what can be given can be taken away, or some other meaning.)

The story of man's creation in the Bible is full of gray area, even if you're interpreting the Bible literally, let alone if you aren't. The Bible is sketchy on the details, other than at some time God decided it was time to create man. It doesn't say how he did it or if we were in our current form. Even the last couple Popes have made note of the fact that evolution is undeniable at this point and also doesn't conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Pope Benedict has even gone so far as calling denying evolution an "absurdity."

There are also many beliefs that really don't stem from any literal statements, such as the final un-addressed issue from above. The Bible never states the Earth is 6000 years old, it's just a date figured by people reading it. At some point they have to be making many assumptions. Even if you arrive back at the point of creation using lineage, who says those days equal Earth days. Why would God be bound by an arbitrary time period determined by the spinning of one of a gazillion planets he hadn't even created yet?

You'll often hear people say “Well, just because Christianity is older doesn't make it more likely.” I think in general they would be right. Older doesn't mean better. In this case however it does. I'll get to why in a moment.

Taken at its most abstract Christianity is nothing more than a set of rules on how to behave one's self in society. Don't murder each other, don't steal, don't do anything to someone you wouldn't want them to do to you, but be quick to forgive someone else when they do it anyway. There are worse messages out there than this.

LDS Church (Mormon)


Plausibility Score – 6

What makes it Implausible
As I mentioned before this is just Christianity plus (Christianity - Now with a hint of racism!) so it has all the implausibilities of Christianity plus a few doozies.

The origin of the book of Mormon is insulting to the intelligence of anyone with a pulse. An angel named Moroni led Joseph Smith, a previously arrested con man who charged people to lead them to non existent treasures using a seer stone, to some gold plates and a special pair reading glasses to decode it. Since Smith was, for all intents and purposes, illiterate (he could read a bit, but not write) he needed someone to write down what he read off the plates. No one else ever saw the plates. As a test of the plates' existence part of the previously transcribed pages were hidden to see if Smith could recreate them. Smith told the man who was transcribing the story that God was angry about them losing the pages and that they would have to use a different set of plates. Even though God should have known the other two just hid the pages, and the gist of the story was the same.

Other inconsistencies or flat out errors:

Not being able to comprehend such a thing as DNA the book of Mormon states Native Americans are solely descended from Hebrews in Jerusalem. This is simply false.

The book contains words like “Sam,” “Christ,” and “synagogue” which were not around at the time the plates were supposedly “forged”. The book also contains sections plagiarized from books, including the King James version of the Bible, which were not published “pre-plate”

The book discussed advancements that the people native to America simply didn't have. These things include: Literacy of Hebrew and Egyptian, knowledge of metal smelting, domesticated horses/cattle, and chariots.

What makes it Plausible
I don't think you can give them the same “It doesn't have to be read literally” exception. If you don't literally believe what the Book of Mormon said then what makes you Mormon? There's no allegories there, if you didn't believe the events as described you'd just be a Christian.

I guess the only thing that I could see that would come closest to making the LDS Church more plausible is that after denying the DNA evidence at first, calling it a smear campaign, they have now accepted it, and have begun altering their literature accordingly. However, I'm really not sure how I feel about that either. If something is supposed to be literal and infallible than how can you alter one part and then say, “Oops, well this was one, very fundamental, tenet to what we believe is wrong, but we swear everything else is totally the truth?” I don't think you should be able to just change your sacred text like that. To me, either you believe, in spite of the evidence (reasoning that the evidence is just there to challenge your faith), or you stop believing. I mean really, doesn't it almost have to be an all or nothing thing?

Scientology


Plausibility Score – (Low level) 4 (Xenu story) 2

What makes it Implausible
A science fiction author, who once commented on religion as a sure fire money making scheme, started a religion based on aliens. I shouldn't have to go farther than this. Remember earlier when I said being older doesn't necessarily make a religion more plausible, but in this case it does? This is why. We don't have as much of an account of how Christianity got started as we do these other two, and what we do know about the origin of the Mormon church and Scientology should be enough to convince any reasonable person it's humbug right then and there.

As for the beliefs: “Low Level” Members - Engrams are a recording of a traumatic event by your unconscious mind. You get rid of them through auditing sessions with a “trained professional” and an “E-Meter,” which measures electrical resistance in the body. These, increasingly expensive, sessions are the only true way to mental health. It is believed all modern psychiatry is bunk, a ruse being pulled on the public to sell unnecessary medication. Our brains are always perfect. Diet, exercise, and audits are the only thing that stand between any of us and clean mental health.

This is, of course, complete and utter bullshit. Our brains are just organs and can have physical problems just like any other organ. On top of that there is no association what-so-ever between mental tension and electrical resistance in the body. Scientologists don't even seem to have much of a hypothesis on how the E-Meter works to measure what they are trying to measure. The only attempt to explain it I found was Hubbard saying that the mass of your hurt feelings leaving your body has an effect on the electrical current passing through you. I guess just in case his counseling scam didn't work out he was laying the ground work for a diet company. All that extra junk in your trunk is just unwanted memories!

Now, to the lay person, it does seem like we have become an over-medicated nation, but who's to say what percentage of it is unnecessary? Even if the amount of medication prescribed is sky rocketing, is that a bad thing? Perhaps all that means is we have a method of treating something now that we didn't a few years ago. As for their diet and exercise angle, there are indeed certain mental conditions, like depression, that can be exacerbated by a poor lifestyle and “cured” by a healthy one. However, almost any ethical doctor would be the first to point this out to you. I'm sure you can find a few bad eggs out there, but I'd be willing to bet most doctors would be very hesitant to prescribe a powerful medication to you, if your condition was such that 40 minutes of walking a week could alleviate it.

As for the “High Level/Xenu Story” Scientologists, I don't really know what there is to say. It would be like Steven King starting a religion as a thinly veiled tax dodge. Then, shortly there after, millions of people started believing possessed cars were responsible for our life here on Earth and horrible prom experiences from past lives caused all the woes of the world.

Ad hominem attacks aside, Hubbard claims in the Xenu story the universe is 80 trillion years old, which is off by a mere 79,986,300,000,000 years, a margin of error of roughly 99.98%. [In my best Uecker voice] Juuuust a bit outside.

It's also the only “religion” I can think of that charges you ahead of time for their services and materials. Some people give every penny they have to the church, and regardless of how much you've given you're out the day your bank account dries up. When you look into it and find out about Seaorg, the bizarre deaths, their litigious hush-hush nature regarding their true beliefs, the Tom Cruse interview, and the growing belief Suri Cruise is the reincarnation of L. Ron himself, the freakier it is, and the more it starts cementing its position on the Cult end of the spectrum. No matter how plausible their beliefs are, red flags are going up all over the place in regards to their intentions in the first place.

What makes it Plausible
With all the planets out there life on other planets is certainly a possibility. As such you would have to say that being bought to earth by another life form in the galaxy is more scientifically plausible than being created by a benevolent life force, if for no other reason than that a supernatural being would be outside the realm of science altogether. However, one could argue that this is equally unlikely since we have had no evidence of their being here, nor any return visits from anything in a universe supposedly so teeming with life that Xenu had to make some room.

In Conclusion

What's really left to say at this point? I think I've rambled on long enough. The moral of the story: Almost anyone has the right to call a Scientologist an idiot, even if they have religious beliefs of their own. Scientology is pretty high up there on my list of ridiculous things many people believe. It's not number one or number two though, and maybe I'll let you in on those in another rambling diatribe.

*As the most plausible of the three religions I'm going to use Christianity as the baseline (a perfect 10/10) for plausibility. Rating the “overall” plausibility of a religion would end up being completely meaningless, it only makes sense to rate them relative to one another. Obviously none of these is very plausible, but, at least in terms of Christianity, plausibility isn't really the point. It doesn't take much faith in something if it was actually likely to have happened.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo?
05/02/2008 @ 12:09:30 PM
 Quote this comment
I read it, and I had a nice comment set up but for some reason it didn't "take".

I think I said something about how I liked the article, but said there were some flaws in the criticism- just basic ones, but whatever. The example I gave though, was that Noah would have bought his lumber from merchants who did business with or who were from Syria, as they had a good monopoly on lumber. Just nit-picking.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
05/02/2008 @ 12:20:54 PM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, sorry. There was one more manual step to adding an article I forgot.

Obviously transporting lumber is possible, but it would be a lot of lumber to haul, and then that would imply he was buying it and would bring the outright expense of building the ark into question. Plus, that's one small aspect that while doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, raises some red flags.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
jon.jpgJon - 1 bajillion posts
05/02/2008 @ 10:31:14 PM
 Quote this comment
I also had a comment that didn't go through, but saved it so I could post it later. Here it is:


Jeremy, as always it is kind of you to take one of humanity's most complex subjects, then dissect it, and solve it in just a few paragraphs.

(That's a joke by the way. Don't take it maliciously.)

Seriously though, religion is obviously one of those "hot button" type issues where we could all debate every detail if we wanted, so I'll instead just put forth one of the thoughts that stuck out in my mind as I was reading.

OK, two thoughts actually. And they're both on the Christianity summary, since that's the one I have a large enough base of knowledge to work from.

You wrote: "God (The same one Jews and Muslim's believe in, F.Y.I.) created the heavens and the Earth"

It's the parenthetical statement specifically. I understand the statement mostly, and in one way of thinking I suppose it's accurate. But in another sense it's not. And there are all sorts of angles you can work from to say why the word "same" probably isn't accurate. But rather than write that term paper, I'll try to hit a couple main points.
Obviously Christianity is sort of a progression from Judaism, so it's centered around the Creator God, even from the same sacred text, up to a point, but the differences in views of who Jesus is changes the view, at least in part, of who that Creator God is. Obviously your statement dealt specifically with that God who existed at the beginning of time and created the earth, so it might seem like a "pre-Christian" type of issue since Christ walked the earth only just about 2000 years ago. But the Christian view, (according to Christ's words as recorded specifically in the gospel of John) is that he came from that Creator, or "the Father,"and, in fact, is one with that Father. The beginning of that gospel actually points back to the creation and notes that Christ was actually there and that, "Through him all things were made". The specifics of how that all works out can be open to debate, but that's mostly beside the point. That point being that the acceptance or non-acceptance of Jesus Christ as part of that entity referred to as "God" seems to define and differentiate who it is that each group believes in.
My knowledge of the specifics of how Muslim beliefs fit in is admittedly limited, but the concept is the same since they do not believe Jesus Christ to be divine in any way as far as I know, and in fact differ much more in other ways from the two other faiths.

I think the main issue with the whole "same" or "not the same" thing is that each faith traces it's roots back to Abraham, and more specifically, the God that Abraham served. (Judaism and Christianity basing this off the same set of accounts, Islam taking a different view if I'm not mistaken) So, at first glance, you could say they believe in the same God, yet the fundamental nature of that entity is different depending on who you talk to. So is it really "the same one Jews and Muslims believe in"?

I guess, to some, the distinction could seem like merely semantics or a difference in personal philosophy of "sameness" but I think it's much deeper than that, as it goes to the very center of the identification of who God is.

I think I probably rambled a bit there, sorry if I did. I'll just move on.

The second thing I wanted to bring up was where you wrote:
"After being betrayed by a disciple Jesus was crucified, he then went to heaven..."

If you're going to summarize the Christian beliefs you should really have mentioned Jesus' resurrection days after he was crucified.

I understand it was a succinct summary with a little personalized flair and whatnot, but that's a key point that shouldn't be left out.

Now that I've done commentary on that one small paragraph, I will give further installments of my thoughts on each of the remaining sections in the next few days.

Not really.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon messed with this at 05/02/2008 10:32:46 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
05/02/2008 @ 11:04:01 PM
 Quote this comment
Jon- just a blerb on the "same God" thing- they all believe in the god of Abraham, and follow the same God from the first five books of the Old Testament, aka the Torah, Pentateuch, [GenExLevNumbDeut]

Basically, this is as accurate as any other statement Jerm makes.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/02/2008 @ 11:10:26 PM
 Quote this comment
I think what Jon is getting at (though maybe not, but I think this is true of some sects of Christianity) is that Jesus and God are sort of one in the same, interchangeable, if you will. They are both separate and the same to us Catholics, however. Sometimes they're the same entity, other times there's the whole Holy Trinity thing.

Is this just a Catholic thing? (Obviously at least the end is.)

The Nicene Creed

the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 05/02/2008 11:14:53 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
05/02/2008 @ 11:23:18 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, I could be wrong and I can't seem to find a nice succinct summary, but I think Islam's big schism came as a contrast to elevating Jesus to be "one with" God. They think God alone should be worshiped.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
05/02/2008 @ 11:27:30 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, I didn't intend to solve anything. I just wanted an excuse to call Scientology a cult and Scientologists idiots.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jon.jpgJon - many posts
05/02/2008 @ 11:44:12 PM
 Quote this comment
Hey Jeremy, thanks for making a comment then changing it in the middle of my response to it. The internet is so complicated sometimes.

Jeremy Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 11:10:26 PM
I think what Jon is getting at (though maybe not, but I think this is true of some sects of Christianity) is that Jesus and God are sort of one in the same, interchangeable, if you will. They are both separate and the same to us Catholics, however. Sometimes they're the same entity, other times there's the whole Holy Trinity thing.

Is this just a Catholic thing?


Not exactly.


In Christianity there is God the Father, and Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
They all together are the one God.
Some of the confusion in making the distinctions is that the name "God" is often associated in peoples' minds and speech with God the Father. And also because it's still a monotheistic view but one in which the one God is comprised of three distinguishable yet non-separate "persons".

Beyond that, since Jeremy now posted the Nicene Creed up there, I guess I can stop for now since it sums it up pretty nicely. (Nicenely? Anyone?)
I'm pretty sure that creed is one which my Protestant church "adheres to" (I don't know if that's correct terminology, but it's one of those things that we agree with in other words).
The word "catholic" I'm pretty sure means something like "universal" in that context. In other words, there is ultimately only one Church under Christ.

Anyway, like I said in my original post, the issue of the "same God" is one of those things where you can look at it and say well yeah they all worship a single, Creator God who they acknowledge as the God of Abraham. But beyond that they believe that God to be different in fundamental aspects of identity. So, at what point does it stop being the "same God" that is worshiped?
Jeremy's article put out one view on the rather complex subject and I offered reasons to view it differently, at least in part.

Jeremy Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 11:27:30 PM
Also, I didn't intend to solve anything. I just wanted an excuse to call Scientology a cult and Scientologists idiots.

I know. I was having fun. Especially in light of your article on middle ground, since I joked then about you "solving" all those hot button issues.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon messed with this 2 times, last at 05/02/2008 11:49:54 pm
jon.jpgJon - 1000000 posts (and counting!)
05/03/2008 @ 12:51:33 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 11:23:18 PM
Also, I could be wrong and I can't seem to find a nice succinct summary, but I think Islam's big schism came as a contrast to elevating Jesus to be "one with" God. They think God alone should be worshiped.


Yeah, from what I know or have heard, I guess it's accurate to say that's the "big" difference, but then again the entire view of how everything all kind of fits together seems to be different also.

I mean, the issue of Jesus is obviously the big difference between Christianity and Judaism. But Islam is quite different from Judaism too despite the fact that neither consider Jesus Christ to be the Messiah or in any way divine.

Carlos44ec Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 11:04:01 PM
they all believe in the god of Abraham, and follow the same God from the first five books of the Old Testament, aka the Torah, Pentateuch, [GenExLevNumbDeut]


From what I can gather, Muslims seem to believe those first books, as Jews and Christians know them, are corrupted versions of the actual words Allah gave to humanity and the Quran was needed to correct this.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 05/03/2008 12:57:03 am
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
05/03/2008 @ 08:33:02 AM
 Quote this comment
The Muslims follow Abraham's first born son, rather than his second- remember the whole thing about Abraham's wife (was it Sarah?) couldn't provide an heir, so he married her servant (Haggar?) and she gave him Ishmael. Then, Sarah got pregnant and gave him the heir he prefered (Isaac?). This was the first split. I might have the names boofed, but the premise is sound.

From there, Judaism, Christianity and Islam split a few times on their own. They're rooted in the same god though.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 05/03/2008 8:33:39 am
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
05/03/2008 @ 08:35:15 AM
 Quote this comment
My old Lutheran Church would say the Nicene Creed, and kept the "Holy Catholic Church" bit. Then I moved to EC, and the church was still Lutheran, but a different sublutheran something or other and we said "Christian Church"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
question_mark.gifbozz_2006 (Guest)
05/03/2008 @ 10:45:46 AM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec - it is not "Holy Catholic" it is "holy catholic and apostolic". Catholic, with a capital c, refers to the Roman Catholic Church. the word "catholic" is actually just the ancient Greek word meaning, "general" or "universal". Apostolic means that the Church comes from Christ and is continued in and through Christ. So, "holy catholic and apostolic Church" means, the church was started by Christ and the Church consists of all forms of Christianity. Saying "Christian Church" in lieu of "holy catholic and apostolic Church" is redundant and misleading, since the ancient Greek word "ecclesia", meaning "community" or "gathering" or "group" was later transliterated into our word, "church" applies only to the Christian community. So, saying Christian Church is in fact stating the point twice, unnecessarily. Also, in regards to your comments about Isaac and Ishmael, you are close, but your premise is not sound. It was never about one of Abraham's sons being preferred by Abraham or by God. God promised a son to both Abraham and Sarah. Ishmael was Abraham's son, but not Sarah's. There was nothing wrong with Ishmael; he just wasn't the fulfillment of God's promise to both of them.

Jeremy - Muslims recognize Jesus as the 2nd to last prophet, Muhammad being the final prophet.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jacobpeterdad.jpgbozz_2006
05/03/2008 @ 11:03:34 AM
 Quote this comment
and Jeremy, in your article you said, "he sent his only son, Jesus, to Earth so he could die for the sins of the world."
That isn't exactly accurate either. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. He was true God, 100% and true man, 100%. He did not come to earth to die. He came to earth to offer humans the free gift of salvation. God gave the law to Moses, and it became apparent that humans would never live up to it. Jesus came to put an end to the law. Being humans, we LOVE having measuring sticks. We used the law to measure ourselves against others, saying "I am more righteous than he". That was not the intent of the law. Out of love for us, God came down to earth to save us by putting an end to the law, and redeeming us all through God's grace. We didn't want to hear that, so we killed God. (and if Jesus came back, we'd kill him again). But God's love is SO great, that killing God wasn't even enough to stop him from reaching us in love. He overcame death himself, and overcame death for us all, once and for all. Christ was put to death under the law and raised in righteousness. Paul says, in Romans 6, "We have been buried with Christ by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." In Christ, our sinful selves have been put to death and we are truly a new creation, in love.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/03/2008 @ 01:23:57 PM
 Quote this comment
I was just giving extreme cliffs notes to pass along the gist of the religions, especially in the case of Christianity where 99% of the people that read this will know.

I think Jesus is a notable figure in Judaism as well. (Though not as big as Islam, and certainly not Christianity, obviously.)

I always find it peculiar that the most tension and biggest religious wars, at least in modern times, are between 3 fairly similar religions, not to mention sects of Christianity. I mean you would think they would be fighting Hindus and Buddhists or something. If I believed in my one God so much I was willing to kill people who thought differently I think I would start with the people who don't believe in him at all. Especially those religions that have many Gods. I don't think I'd start with the religions that have most of the key players that I believe in involved, but just don't interpret God's word in exactly the same manner.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 05/03/2008 1:26:05 pm
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
05/03/2008 @ 01:46:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 11:10:26 PM
I think what Jon is getting at (though maybe not, but I think this is true of some sects of Christianity) is that Jesus and God are sort of one in the same, interchangeable, if you will. They are both separate and the same to us Catholics, however. Sometimes they're the same entity, other times there's the whole Holy Trinity thing. Is this just a Catholic thing? (Obviously at least the end is.) The Nicene Creed the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


The statement "on holy CATHOLIC and apostolic Church" does NOT refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, the term "catholic", always written in lower case in this context, means "universal", and refers to the Christian church as a whole, and that one day (perhaps at judgement day) the church will be united as one.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
05/03/2008 @ 01:47:11 PM
 Quote this comment
bozz_2006 Wrote - 05/03/2008 @ 10:45:46 AM
Carlos44ec - it is not "Holy Catholic" it is "holy catholic and apostolic". Catholic, with a capital c, refers to the Roman Catholic Church. the word "catholic" is actually just the ancient Greek word meaning, "general" or "universal". Apostolic means that the Church comes from Christ and is continued in and through Christ. So, "holy catholic and apostolic Church" means, the church was started by Christ and the Church consists of all forms of Christianity. Saying "Christian Church" in lieu of "holy catholic and apostolic Church" is redundant and misleading, since the ancient Greek word "ecclesia", meaning "community" or "gathering" or "group" was later transliterated into our word, "church" applies only to the Christian community. So, saying Christian Church is in fact stating the point twice, unnecessarily. Also, in regards to your comments about Isaac and Ishmael, you are close, but your premise is not sound. It was never about one of Abraham's sons being preferred by Abraham or by God. God promised a son to both Abraham and Sarah. Ishmael was Abraham's son, but not Sarah's. There was nothing wrong with Ishmael; he just wasn't the fulfillment of God's promise to both of them. Jeremy - Muslims recognize Jesus as the 2nd to last prophet, Muhammad being the final prophet.


I posted my comment before I read this comment from Random A. Commentator.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
05/03/2008 @ 01:48:16 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 05/03/2008 @ 01:23:57 PM
I was just giving extreme cliffs notes to pass along the gist of the religions, especially in the case of Christianity where 99% of the people that read this will know. I think Jesus is a notable figure in Judaism as well. (Though not as big as Islam, and certainly not Christianity, obviously.) I always find it peculiar that the most tension and biggest religious wars, at least in modern times, are between 3 fairly similar religions, not to mention sects of Christianity. I mean you would think they would be fighting Hindus and Buddhists or something. If I believed in my one God so much I was willing to kill people who thought differently I think I would start with the people who don't believe in him at all. Especially those religions that have many Gods. I don't think I'd start with the religions that have most of the key players that I believe in involved, but just don't interpret God's word in exactly the same manner.


I think many of these wars were conflicts of territory, not so much about belief.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
05/03/2008 @ 01:53:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 11:23:18 PM
Also, I could be wrong and I can't seem to find a nice succinct summary, but I think Islam's big schism came as a contrast to elevating Jesus to be "one with" God. They think God alone should be worshiped.


Without evidence, I believe this to be close to the truth. In their minds, God would not "lower" himself so as to send his Son to earth as one of us humans. This is a very major difference between a God who truly cares and one who does not. The God of Islam is not a personal God. The God of Christianity is a personal God desiring a relationship with his people. Becoming man was a big part in establishing that relationship.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
05/03/2008 @ 01:56:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 11:27:30 PM
Also, I didn't intend to solve anything. I just wanted an excuse to call Scientology a cult and Scientologists idiots.


Best comment in this entire thread :).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawnmower."
05/04/2008 @ 05:49:03 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm pretty sure that every Sunday for 7 years I said "Holy Catholic Church." Although I could be wrong, I doubt it.

You are right in saying that there wasn't anything wrong with Ishmael, it's just that in Abraham's eyes, he was the fulfillment, like you said. Even if he hadn't been, it is still a child with your Wife, as opposed to your proxy wife, and therefor would have been the prefered anyway.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec perfected this 2 times, last at 05/04/2008 5:54:15 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Tag This
05/04/2008 @ 05:55:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Note- did you know that there is a Christian Cult either in Greece or Egypt that believe Jesus to have been an AntiChrist? Christ- the AntiChrist. Interesting.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jacobpeterdad.jpgbozz_2006 - 29 Posts
05/04/2008 @ 10:23:21 PM
 Quote this comment
You probably did say that. But the capital letters are key. even when they say the creed in the Roman Catholic Church, the word catholic isn't capitalized. It's just the greek word for "universal". Why did they decide to translate the whole creed except that one word? I do not know. It's kitschy, I guess.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose
05/05/2008 @ 12:07:57 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 05/03/2008 @ 01:23:57 PM
I always find it peculiar that the most tension and biggest religious wars, at least in modern times, are between 3 fairly similar religions, not to mention sects of Christianity. I mean you would think they would be fighting Hindus and Buddhists or something. If I believed in my one God so much I was willing to kill people who thought differently I think I would start with the people who don't believe in him at all. Especially those religions that have many Gods. I don't think I'd start with the religions that have most of the key players that I believe in involved, but just don't interpret God's word in exactly the same manner.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Also, it's a key point that these wars didn't start in modern times, they've been going on for thousands of years.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 12:28:39 AM
 Quote this comment
bozz_2006 Wrote - 05/03/2008 @ 11:03:34 AM
and Jeremy, in your article you said, "he sent his only son, Jesus, to Earth so he could die for the sins of the world." That isn't exactly accurate either. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. He was true God, 100% and true man, 100%. He did not come to earth to die. He came to earth to offer humans the free gift of salvation. God gave the law to Moses, and it became apparent that humans would never live up to it. Jesus came to put an end to the law. Being humans, we LOVE having measuring sticks. We used the law to measure ourselves against others, saying "I am more righteous than he". That was not the intent of the law. Out of love for us, God came down to earth to save us by putting an end to the law, and redeeming us all through God's grace. We didn't want to hear that, so we killed God. (and if Jesus came back, we'd kill him again). But God's love is SO great, that killing God wasn't even enough to stop him from reaching us in love. He overcame death himself, and overcame death for us all, once and for all. Christ was put to death under the law and raised in righteousness. Paul says, in Romans 6, "We have been buried with Christ by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." In Christ, our sinful selves have been put to death and we are truly a new creation, in love.


I'm going to have say it's more a mix of those comments. In order to give salvation and "end" the law, Jesus had to first fulfill the law and then die as payment for everyone else's failure to keep the law. So He did come to earth to die because it was the only way to win salvation for man (Jesus prays in Gethsemane asking the Father if there is any other way, but agreeing to go through with it if not. Matthew 26:38-42). I say "end" the law because there is still a law that applies, but instead of relying on my own efforts to keep that law well enough so that maybe God will let me into heaven (which is impossible) I instead put my faith in Jesus having already won salvation for me and offering it freely to me out of grace and love. Here's a good passage on this topic, Matthew 5:17-20 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 12:45:56 AM
 Quote this comment
Most churches in my synod say the Nicene creed on Communion Sundays, the "And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church" style. I imagine that at some point it was changed just to lessen any confusion between "catholic" and "Catholic".
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
05/05/2008 @ 12:51:50 AM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 11:04:01 PM
Jon- just a blerb on the "same God" thing- they all believe in the god of Abraham, and follow the same God from the first five books of the Old Testament, aka the Torah, Pentateuch, [GenExLevNumbDeut] Basically, this is as accurate as any other statement Jerm makes.


I would say they all think that the god that they believe in was the God of Abraham, because the religions are similar compared to some other religions, but they really are quite different in the details and therefore they probably don't actually all believe in the same God that Abraham did. In other words, it may be possible to trace the history of each religion back to that point, but that doesn't mean they believe in the same god now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
05/05/2008 @ 12:54:57 AM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 10:31:14 PM
The second thing I wanted to bring up was where you wrote: "After being betrayed by a disciple Jesus was crucified, he then went to heaven..." If you're going to summarize the Christian beliefs you should really have mentioned Jesus' resurrection days after he was crucified.

Indeed.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 01:11:51 AM
 Quote this comment
Interesting in that you picked the flood to rip on. I'm not going to try and say that I can explain anything more than what the Bible says because I can't, but there was a recent story on a DNA study that could possibly be related to the flood. The dates are different than what Bible believers generally think, but since humans have been studying DNA for like 20 years (has it even been that long?) their margin of error in gross extrapulation is potentially pretty high. Plus if you believe the Bible, there's probably been some changes in the basic laws of nature since humans used to live to be 900 years old.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Alex perfected this at 05/05/2008 1:12:27 am
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - "That's what I call gettin a piece of Pi"
05/05/2008 @ 09:05:51 AM
 Quote this comment
Maybe asking the preacher that just joined this weekend might be a good idea.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 09:55:21 AM
 Quote this comment
The DNA evidence, even if it's error prone, (which is a whole argument onto itself) is one of many breakthroughs that could have completely falsified the theory of evolution, instead it tied into what we already thought, making it much more plausible it was onto something, and taught us stuff we didn't know before. It could have turned evolution on it's head, instead it confirmed it in great detail. Part of the problem is that creationists are working backwards with things that HAVE to be true. So they look for things that could explain the results they already know. (You can pretty much find SOME evidence to corroborate any belief.) Science lets the evidence lead to the explanation that best ties all the disparate facts together. The notion that evolution is just as dogmatic a belief that takes just as much "faith" to "believe in" as religion is silly. I don't have "faith" in evolution any more than I have "faith" that if I jump up in the air I'm going to come back down to Earth.

No one is disputing extinction level events never happened. Life has been all but wiped out multiple times. Leaving 2000 humans 70,000 years ago is a bit different than leaving 8 4,000 years ago, no matter how long they lived. (There's no evidence for the claim "the laws of nature were different" either, by the way.)

Let's say you are driving a red car and someone in a blue car is at fault in an accident and when the cop gets there the person driving the blue car says it's your fault. No one saw the whole thing but witness 1 says the red car had the green light, witness 2 says they saw the blue car run the red light, witness 3 overheard the driver on his cell phone while waiting for the cop talking about how he couldn't take another accident on his insurance, you have never been in an accident and the other driver has indeed been in many, and so on in this fashion. It is, of course, possible that all these facts are unrelated or inaccurate, however some of them are self corroborating, like the person overhearing the phone conversation paired with the fact that the other driver had just been in a couple accidents. The simplest explanation for all the individual facts, however, is that the other driver is at fault.

Now let's say the court date rolls around, because they other driver REALLY wants out of this, and the police bring a videotape of the accident. This tape has the power to turn everything the officer collected at the scene upside-down. Instead it confirms it in great detail. It is possible that in and of itself the video tape helps us learn things that no one saw, or clarify individual points. Like, for example we find out that while a witness said you had a green technically it had turned yellow moments before you went through the intersection. Clarifying this one fact doesn't falsify everything the officer collected.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 4 times, last at 05/05/2008 8:13:34 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 10:09:20 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 12:54:57 AM
Jon Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 10:31:14 PM
The second thing I wanted to bring up was where you wrote: "After being betrayed by a disciple Jesus was crucified, he then went to heaven..." If you're going to summarize the Christian beliefs you should really have mentioned Jesus' resurrection days after he was crucified.

Indeed.


That's what the whole "went to heaven" was supposed to represent. The fact that he was alive again for 1, 10, or 40 days between his life/death (all his teachings, and his dying for our sins) and his current post in heaven (and everything that means and everything that follows) is really a CORE belief that MUST be brought up in a 40 word synopsis of the religion?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 05/05/2008 10:14:01 am
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 10:59:45 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 12:51:50 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 11:04:01 PM
Jon- just a blerb on the "same God" thing- they all believe in the god of Abraham, and follow the same God from the first five books of the Old Testament, aka the Torah, Pentateuch, [GenExLevNumbDeut] Basically, this is as accurate as any other statement Jerm makes.
I would say they all think that the god that they believe in was the God of Abraham, because the religions are similar compared to some other religions, but they really are quite different in the details and therefore they probably don't actually all believe in the same God that Abraham did. In other words, it may be possible to trace the history of each religion back to that point, but that doesn't mean they believe in the same god now.


Word^2
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 01:09:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 10:09:20 AM
Alex Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 12:54:57 AM
Jon Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 10:31:14 PM
The second thing I wanted to bring up was where you wrote: "After being betrayed by a disciple Jesus was crucified, he then went to heaven..." If you're going to summarize the Christian beliefs you should really have mentioned Jesus' resurrection days after he was crucified.
Indeed.
That's what the whole "went to heaven" was supposed to represent. The fact that he was alive again for 1, 10, or 40 days between his life/death (all his teachings, and his dying for our sins) and his current post in heaven (and everything that means and everything that follows) is really a CORE belief that MUST be brought up in a 40 word synopsis of the religion?


The simple fact that you neglected th specifically say that he resurrected would have had you burned as a heretic 500 years ago.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jacobpeterdad.jpgbozz_2006 - 29 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 06:29:31 PM
 Quote this comment
the only way that you'd get in trouble for something like that was if you were famous. Back in those days, celebs were actually held to HIGHER standards than normal people. My, how things have changed.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jacobpeterdad.jpgbozz_2006 - 29 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 06:31:42 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 12:51:50 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 11:04:01 PM
Jon- just a blerb on the "same God" thing- they all believe in the god of Abraham, and follow the same God from the first five books of the Old Testament, aka the Torah, Pentateuch, [GenExLevNumbDeut] Basically, this is as accurate as any other statement Jerm makes.


I would say they all think that the god that they believe in was the God of Abraham, because the religions are similar compared to some other religions, but they really are quite different in the details and therefore they probably don't actually all believe in the same God that Abraham did. In other words, it may be possible to trace the history of each religion back to that point, but that doesn't mean they believe in the same god now.


The thing that your heart clings to is your god.
-Martin Luther
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 07:12:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 10:09:20 AM
Alex Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 12:54:57 AM
Jon Wrote - 05/02/2008 @ 10:31:14 PM
The second thing I wanted to bring up was where you wrote: "After being betrayed by a disciple Jesus was crucified, he then went to heaven..." If you're going to summarize the Christian beliefs you should really have mentioned Jesus' resurrection days after he was crucified.
Indeed.
That's what the whole "went to heaven" was supposed to represent. The fact that he was alive again for 1, 10, or 40 days between his life/death (all his teachings, and his dying for our sins) and his current post in heaven (and everything that means and everything that follows) is really a CORE belief that MUST be brought up in a 40 word synopsis of the religion?


Yes. It's pretty much the most important thing to mention (other than to have risen He had to die and to die He had to be born so those I guess are just as important). 1 Cor 15:12-19 - 12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret
05/05/2008 @ 07:35:47 PM
 Quote this comment
In regards to the 09:55:21 AM post, you sir are being naive if you believe that the scientific method and science is some wholly unbiased and non-manipulated process/knowledge base that is 100% devoid of any individual, social, political, religious, economical influences over the past however many centuries you want to talk about.

"(There's no evidence for the claim "the laws of nature were different" either, by the way.)"
There's no evidence against it either.

"Let's say you are driving a red car and someone in a blue car is at fault in an accident and when the cop gets there the person driving the red car says it's your fault."
Why would I lie and tells the cops it was my fault?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 07:57:09 PM
 Quote this comment
Because you hate cops and blue cars?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 08:12:56 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 07:35:47 PM
In regards to the 09:55:21 AM post, you sir are being naive if you believe that the scientific method and science is some wholly unbiased and non-manipulated process/knowledge base that is 100% devoid of any individual, social, political, religious, economical influences over the past however many centuries you want to talk about.
A scientist can be many of those things. It's awfully hard for the scientific consensus to be any of those things, given that the whole process is designed to weed out biases.
Alex Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 07:35:47 PM
"(There's no evidence for the claim "the laws of nature were different" either, by the way.)"
There's no evidence against it either.
There's no evidence against the fact that 400' purple apes exist either. Science doesn't work that way. You have the burden of proof to make a claim, every dumbass thought someone has isn't a "It's assumed it's true until you show me otherwise" situation.
Alex Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 07:35:47 PM
"Let's say you are driving a red car and someone in a blue car is at fault in an accident and when the cop gets there the person driving the red car says it's your fault."
Why would I lie and tells the cops it was my fault?
Oops, I'll fix it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 05/05/2008 8:15:27 pm
jacobpeterdad.jpgbozz_2006 - 29 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 10:04:49 PM
 Quote this comment
We're realllllllly splitting hairs here, but you made a slight contradiction that has large implications. You said "Jesus had to first fulfill the law" and then you said, "then die as payment for everyone else's failure to keep the law", as if those were two separate things. Jesus' death was the fulfillment and the "end" of the law as means of salvation. So Jesus did have to die, but we must be careful to say that he had to die for our own sake, and not for his own. God didn't require Jesus' death. Rather, since we can not attain righteousness on our own, Jesus offered his life to achieve righteousness on our behalf. Paul says, in Romans 10:4, Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. The first commandment says that we will have no other Gods, and the chief blasphemy was to take upon ourselves God's activities. Jesus did that when he forgave the sins of the people, for forgiveness was reserved for God alone. Jesus broke the law and was put to death. If that were the end of Jesus, the law would continue. But Jesus had life outside the law. We too, have life outside the law, in Jesus.

Galatians 2:19-21 says, "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing." This shows that righteousness and the law have no correlation. The promise of inheritance was given to Abraham 430 years before the law, per Galatians 3:17. Paul says in Galatians 3:19, "What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." Galatians 3:24-25, "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. However, we are still alive in the flesh, so the law remains, in some sense. Lutherans call this the first use of the law, referring to those things instituted by God to maintain order. With the doing away with the second use of the law, which points out all our sins, we are free from the second use of the law to live in the Spirit.

Galatians 5:22 talks about these works of the law for the intended care and nurture of creation, "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." These traits are in reference to that which the prophet Jeremiah testified, 31:33, "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time (Paul tells us that this refers to the time of Christ's coming), declares the Lord. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." Through freedom from the second use of the law in Christ, we can work for the rightful purpose of the law which God intended in the first place.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 11:05:59 PM
 Quote this comment
bozz_2006 Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 10:04:49 PM
We're realllllllly splitting hairs here


Welcome to Nutcan.com.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
05/05/2008 @ 11:24:26 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 08:12:56 PM
Alex Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 07:35:47 PM
In regards to the 09:55:21 AM post, you sir are being naive if you believe that the scientific method and science is some wholly unbiased and non-manipulated process/knowledge base that is 100% devoid of any individual, social, political, religious, economical influences over the past however many centuries you want to talk about.
A scientist can be many of those things. It's awfully hard for the scientific consensus to be any of those things, given that the whole process is designed to weed out biases


I was planning on seeing it at some point anyway but I decided tonight was as good a time as any, so I went and saw Expelled. Awfully hard as it may be for the "scientific consensus" to unjustly sway the debate and be biased, Stein makes a pretty good case that it's happening right now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
05/05/2008 @ 11:27:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 12:04:09 AM
 Quote this comment
I guess since we just tipped the 900K word mark here on the can it seems fitting so I'll go on and see if we can't hit 1 million on this thread.

First off, the whole premise of the movie is faulty, there's no debate to sway or be biased about. Or, I should say, there's no more a debate amongst real scientists about evolution and ID than there is amongst actual historians about whether or not the holocaust happened. The only reason it seems like there's a debate is because, it sells newspapers, people like us like to "hear" ourselves talk, and this prevalent notion in America that everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's, regardless of how many years of their lives they may have devoted to a topic and how much knowledge they have that you don't. Not to mention the faulty notion that everything is "just an opinion" in the first place. Who are experts to tell us anything? That's just one of many opinions out there. It's your opinion the Earth goes around the sun, it's my opinion the sun goes around the earth, two equally valid opinions, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!

More to the point: ID is in no way shape or form a scientific theory or hypothesis. Anything close to scientific sounding to us lay people can be EASILY explained with a natural explanation. (see The Irreducible Complexity argument.) There is no proposed or conducted tests for ID. ID is a flat out rebranding of creationism. One of the leading ID text books was a creationist text book that literally did a search and replace to replace creation with ID concepts.

It's not an insult to be called unscientific, it just means creationism lacks a natural explanation. Believe what you want to believe in, but when you try to get up into sciences face bringing your smack talk all up into biology class it's sciences DUTY to be skeptical about new ideas and reject bad ones. You HAVE to have a natural, testable, and falsifiable claim. When it comes to what makes science science ID can be thoroughly dismissed. ID and Creationism are perfectly valid explanations for our origin, they just are outside the realm of science. They can't be tested, or refuted, by any natural methods or experiments. If God can do anything any test to try and verify it can never be falsifiable, it's really as simple as that. It's not an insult or a put down, it's just not within the realm of what science even has the ability to explain.

It's like going to court against an opponent with a mount of physical evidence against your client and all you have is a wild explanation of one possibility of the infinite possibilities of what could have happened and then claiming the mean judge discriminated against you when you decidedly lose.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 05/06/2008 12:09:37 am
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 12:07:03 AM
 Quote this comment
1) I need to digest this one some more
2) His "speech" was pretty clearly not an actual speech. I don't really see what this has to do with anything.
3) Possibly a shady tactic was used, but the way the movie progresses it didn't seem like they were expecting to find what they did when they started. Whether that's actually what happened or not I don't know. Regardless, what difference does it make about what they said? Did they lie for the sake of the supposed topic or did they tell the truth and wish that they had lied when the theme shifted slightly? "The intersection of science and religion" is discussed in the film so it's not like they took the sound bites and turned it into a movie about global warming or something. If it really was such a big deal why didn't the interviewees question the applicableness of the questions when they were first asked?
4) That case certainly seems messy, but it wasn't the only documented in the movie.
5) "Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and overcomplicated."
What tests and experiments have shown that one species can produce a different species?

You can't test the Big Bang theory, scientists have tried testing the primordial ooze theory and haven't reproduced it, how is Intelligent Design any more far flung than those ideas? It's one possible explanation that deserves to be discussed.
6) The movie doesn't say that everyone who thinks evolution is true is an atheist. A couple of the evolutionists themselves though state that if you really follow through completely on the implications of full scale, origin of species, apes turning into human evolution that there really is no point in religion.


Edit: I'm not saying this movie is the end all, be all. It just raises some very interesting, thought provoking, questions.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Alex screwed with this at 05/06/2008 12:32:18 am
newalex.jpgAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
05/06/2008 @ 12:18:44 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 12:04:09 AM
Believe what you want to believe in, but when you try to get up into sciences face bringing your smack talk all up into biology class it's sciences DUTY to be skeptical about new ideas and reject bad ones.


See, this is the exactly the thing that worries me (and really I think this was the biggest point of Expelled too) the most. Science's duty should be to be skeptical about existing ideas and to give a fair discussion to new ideas.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 12:25:45 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 12:04:09 AM
First off, the whole premise of the movie is faulty, there's no debate to sway or be biased about.


Actually that's the whole point, that there is no debate but there should be because Darwin's theories are hundreds of years old and science has discovered lots of new things since then, some of which fit and some of which don't. Forget ID altogether and just suggest that maybe one guy didn't figure everything out by himself in the 1800s and you still won't get the time of day from the "real" scientists.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
05/06/2008 @ 12:35:50 AM
 Quote this comment
And if we're talking about plausibleness, what are the odds that Darwin totally nailed his so called theory so perfectly in 1859 that it hasn't been modified for 147 years?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
05/06/2008 @ 12:37:40 AM
 Quote this comment
Science is really not analogous to the US court system. There can be on going debate in the scientific community without necessarily having to ever render a ruling.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 12:43:24 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 12:07:03 AM
You can't test the Big Bang theory

That's just not true. The big bang theory predicted that there would be remenent radiation, which was then found when we had the technology to detect such a thing. Everything is also moving away from us at the speed and direction that would be explained by the universe expanding from a central point. Besides, big bang isn't the only scientific theory.

Alex Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 12:07:03 AM
What tests and experiments have shown that one species can produce a different species?

Well if you are talking about seeing if a cat ever gives birth to a mouse the answer is zero, because no one believes that is what happened. If you are talking about just tests to see if there is evidence that one thing can eventually become something the original animal wouldn't recognize the the answer is a shit ton. You're talking about incremental changes over thousands of generations. If it is your hypothesis that an animal that lived 500,000 years ago became animal c that lived 300,000 years ago you should be able to find an animal halfway inbetween them in rock that is 400,000 years old. This has happened many many many times. That's a prediction made on a sound hypothesis that is then tested.

Alex Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 12:07:03 AM
apes turning into human evolution

No one believes this, FYI.

Alex Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 12:18:44 AM
Jeremy Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 12:04:09 AM
Believe what you want to believe in, but when you try to get up into sciences face bringing your smack talk all up into biology class it's sciences DUTY to be skeptical about new ideas and reject bad ones.


See, this is the exactly the thing that worries me (and really I think this was the biggest point of Expelled too) the most. Science's duty should be to be skeptical about existing ideas and to give a fair discussion to new ideas.


That's just flat out wrong. I don't know what else to say about it, other than scientists should reserve a certain level of skepticism for everything. There's a reason established science is established science and if you have something that flies in the face of it you better have damn good evidence. (Pro tip: No evidence what-so-ever is not a good starting point) If a hypothesis is better than the current one, or worthy of discussion, it will get its deserved attention. Also, let's not pretend ID is a new idea and just can't get a seat at the table. No one wants to have a discussion about it because it has been shown to be unscientific multiple times over. It would be like expecting astronomers to have a full round table discussion every time someone wanted to talk about astrology.

Alex Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 12:07:03 AM
how is Intelligent Design any more far flung than those ideas?

Conceptually? It's not really. Both involve a hell of a process. One just involves something we can see, touch, and predict and one doesn't.

Alex Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 12:25:45 AM
Actually that's the whole point, that there is no debate but there should be because Darwin's theories are hundreds of years old and science has discovered lots of new things since then, some of which fit and some of which don't. Forget ID altogether and just suggest that maybe one guy didn't figure everything out by himself in the 1800s and you still won't get the time of day from the "real" scientists.

Exactly, science has discovered new things, and they can all be explained by species evolving. Every new discovery might tweak one thing, corroborate another, or whatever. No one believes Darwin nailed it, he was way off in certain areas. The name "Darwinist" is something that creationists made up. The theory has evolved right along with the discoveries.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 05/06/2008 12:50:44 am
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 12:57:46 AM
 Quote this comment
bozz_2006 Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 10:04:49 PM
Jesus' death was the fulfillment and the "end" of the law as means of salvation.


Agreed.

bozz_2006 Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 10:04:49 PM
Jesus did that when he forgave the sins of the people, for forgiveness was reserved for God alone. Jesus broke the law and was put to death. If that were the end of Jesus, the law would continue. But Jesus had life outside the law. We too, have life outside the law, in Jesus. Galatians 2:19-21 says, "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing." This shows that righteousness and the law have no correlation.


Jesus was also true God, so he had the authority to grant the forgiveness of sins. If Jesus had sinned , then His sacrificial death would have been of no more use then you or me deciding to die to pay for the sins of the world.

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing." Paul is saying here that he doesn't ignore the grace of God and seek righteousness through keeping the law because no sinful human can keep the law. If it were possible for people to keep the law perfectly, then there would be no reason for Christ to have died since we could save ourselves.

The law still serves as a mirror for us to recognize that we daily sin much and need to repent and ask for forgiveness, Romans 3:20 - "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 01:08:57 AM
 Quote this comment
"remenent radiation" is not a test of the Big Bang theory. Plus isn't the fact that there are multiple theories on the origin of life enough to prove that some of them are wrong and potentially all of them are wrong?

Also, finding fossils is not much of a test either. Aren't tests supposed to be repeatable?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
05/06/2008 @ 01:26:06 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 01:08:57 AM
"remenent radiation" is not a test of the Big Bang theory. Plus isn't the fact that there are multiple theories on the origin of life enough to prove that some of them are wrong and potentially all of them are wrong?

Also, finding fossils is not much of a test either. Aren't tests supposed to be repeatable?


First off, the big bang theory != how life began in the first place != evolution. Those are 3 completely unrelated hypothesis/theories.

Regarding radiation: Scientists started with a hypothesis, the big bang, they realized in order for that to be true there should be detectable radiation in all directions (a prediction) and they conducted a test to verify their prediction or falsify their original hypothesis. They then repeated that over and over, in all directions. How is that not a test? It's the textbook definition of how the process works. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression you think something needs to be tested many different ways in order to fulfill the "repeatable" requirement. It only needs to be repeatable multiple times. (If I tell you "When I did this and this such-and-such" happens you should be able to try my experiment, independent of me, and get the same result.) Now certainly if you can test something multiple ways and they all corroborate each other you have a much stronger case, but that isn't the requirement.

If there are multiple theories on something (which there isn't regarding evolution) it could mean they are all a little right, they are all completely wrong, or anywhere in between. If they were all wrong it would just mean there's something else out there waiting to be discovered. Unexplained does not equal unexplainable. Plus you seem to be implying one unified theory means dogmatic bias while competing theories means no one has any clue.

The test are repeated, ad infinitum. They find lots of one fossil, many of another, and so on. Do you really think that to date our best and only evidence of evolution is finding one deformed fish fossil and deciding "This must have started becoming a human, but then tragically got hit by lighting halfway through its transformation!" or are you arguing for the sake of arguing? (Not to mention the fossil evidence, while strong, is nothing compared to the roadmap genetics lays out.)

P.S. I still love you Alex.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 05/06/2008 1:39:27 am
jacobpeterdad.jpgbozz_2006 - 29 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 06:32:04 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 12:57:46 AM
bozz_2006 Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 10:04:49 PM
Jesus' death was the fulfillment and the "end" of the law as means of salvation.


Agreed.

bozz_2006 Wrote - 05/05/2008 @ 10:04:49 PM
Jesus did that when he forgave the sins of the people, for forgiveness was reserved for God alone. Jesus broke the law and was put to death. If that were the end of Jesus, the law would continue. But Jesus had life outside the law. We too, have life outside the law, in Jesus. Galatians 2:19-21 says, "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing." This shows that righteousness and the law have no correlation.


Jesus was also true God, so he had the authority to grant the forgiveness of sins. If Jesus had sinned , then His sacrificial death would have been of no more use then you or me deciding to die to pay for the sins of the world.

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing." Paul is saying here that he doesn't ignore the grace of God and seek righteousness through keeping the law because no sinful human can keep the law. If it were possible for people to keep the law perfectly, then there would be no reason for Christ to have died since we could save ourselves.

The law still serves as a mirror for us to recognize that we daily sin much and need to repent and ask for forgiveness, Romans 3:20 - "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."


I agree with this assessment implicitly. I don't believe I wrote anything that would imply the contrary.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 10:33:28 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 12:37:40 AM
Science is really not analogous to the US court system. There can be on going debate in the scientific community without necessarily having to ever render a ruling.


Well, there's nothing as definitive as a "ruling", but both are evidence based systems, and a "ruling," of sorts, HAS to be made on certain things. There's only so much debating phrenology or astrology need before we just need to say "enough already, you've made your case, it was weak at best, until you build a better case this matter is closed". At a certain point you HAVE to decide what's "real" and what's not in terms of pursuing further, humanity has limited time and resources.

Likewise, both court cases and science can be reexamined when new evidence comes forth.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 5 times, last at 05/06/2008 10:44:27 am
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
05/06/2008 @ 10:55:17 AM
 Quote this comment
How distinct yet exact same religious debates can one website get itself into?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 10:59:06 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 10:55:17 AM
How distinct yet exact same religious debates can one website get itself into?


I thought the same exact thing when I saw this thread start last week.
Jeremy just likes being a firestarter.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
05/06/2008 @ 11:02:40 AM
 Quote this comment
Well we can make 40 post on one topic debating something "we're" all in agreement on (as seen in this thread RE something about Jesus and law) so I have a feeling we could go on forever about something we have strong opposing beliefs on. (Especially if one of us, and I wont say who, is using "The Handbook to Debunking Darwinists" circa 1925 as their guide. emoticon)

Wendy Wrote - 05/06/2008 @ 10:59:06 AM
I thought the same exact thing when I saw this thread start last week.
Jeremy just likes being a firestarter.
Your Flying Spaghetti Monster thread was the shitstorm of the century. So, take that!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 05/06/2008 11:03:56 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
05/06/2008 @ 11:06:06 AM
 Quote this comment
Also, can't we just all agree Scientology is stupid and move along?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy
05/06/2008 @ 11:09:00 AM
 Quote this comment
Hahahaha, I forgot about that one
But I promise, I wasn't trying to start something. I just thought it was funny.
You're the one that's starting things!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - You had me at "Hello"
05/06/2008 @ 11:09:14 AM
 Quote this comment
We can agree, but because Hollywood is big on Scientology, we're being forced to hear about it time and time again.

And what I don't get is that this thread has failed to mention the Chef debacle even once. That was one of the funniest Southpark episodes ever! "I'm gonna make love to ya... children... in ya butt!" (... is where they patched the soundbites together)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 11:17:40 AM
 Quote this comment
It seems, and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the only people who take Scientology seriously as a religion, are Scientologists. So give L. Ron and his followers another few hundred years or so, and I'm sure the general public will feel better about it.

I bet Martin Luther wasn't so popular with the 1546 version of Matt Lauer, back in the day, if you know what I mean
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 11:17:49 AM
 Quote this comment
Yeah that was ridiculous. Isaac Hayes (Chef) quit over the show's "inappropriate ridicule of religion," of course after cashing his checks for nine years while they lambasted every belief out there, including a multi episode "mini series" lambasting atheism. (emoticon Come ooooooooooon) It was just a bit over the line when it got to his beliefs, I guess.

Can you say "hypocrite," children?

Of course some people have pointed out that he only caved in to the internal pressure the church itself was putting on him, as if that's supposed to be better.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 05/06/2008 11:19:17 am
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Since 1980!
05/06/2008 @ 11:54:24 AM
 Quote this comment
I love how they called it his "fruity little club"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_Chef
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
05/06/2008 @ 12:22:05 PM
 Quote this comment
That episode was number one on that list? I don't think it's even the best episode on Scientology, though to be honest I barely remember anything about the episode.

It's good to know that they agree with the premise of the article though:

The Super Adventure Club leader asks Kyle if [their beliefs] are any more retarded than the ideas of Christianity or Buddhism, to which Stan answers "way, way more retarded."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 05/06/2008 12:23:13 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 12:35:09 PM
 Quote this comment
It's listed as episode one of ten, not the best of the season, is it?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 12:41:57 PM
 Quote this comment
"It was #1 on the 10 South Parks That Changed The World list."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
05/06/2008 @ 02:21:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Ah, si. Yo comprendo.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
05/19/2008 @ 10:08:13 AM
 Quote this comment
A society in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation is a society which is on its way out.

-- L. Ron Hubbard

You go Katie Holmes!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo?
05/19/2008 @ 10:42:53 AM
 Quote this comment
now is that a direct quote in which he is speaking his mind, or is it a quote from a character in a book?

Either way, I laugh.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/19/2008 @ 11:08:56 AM
 Quote this comment
QUOTE from SCIENTOLOGY / A New Slant on Life © 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard

"...a society in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation is a society which is on its way out. The historian can peg the point where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on a equal footing with men, in political and business affairs, since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women."

Edit: Though, I suppose the context could be important as well.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 05/19/2008 11:25:00 am
face.bmpCarlos44ec - "The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the lawnmower."
05/19/2008 @ 12:21:33 PM
 Quote this comment
you just wait until Wendy finds this post. Boy Howdy, I'll not be here.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/19/2008 @ 12:57:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, it might be a bit more direct, but the gist of that statement is pretty much present in most popular religions. It's just that in other religions it's based on 100-year-old backward-ass traditions, whereas in this case it's a "modern" person still saying it and putting it into a "new" "religion".

So, if Wendy is the official Nutcan feminist, (As if Sarah will defend L Ron's point) she probably doesn't think much of most religions.

Fun, semi-related fact: In my womens study class which I've discussed in a couple landmark nutcan articles I found out the Promise Keepers are pretty much viewed as the male "response" to feminism. As if we all belong, or it's related at all. However, even if you granted them that the promise keepers is "Maleism", it's still based in Christianity, which is pretty clear on where it stands regarding the Promise Keepers beliefs.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 05/19/2008 12:59:38 pm
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
05/19/2008 @ 05:36:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Carl & Jeremy, it brought a little tear to my eye that you'd think of me as the resident feminist! You're so sweet!
Wait, that's not very modern of me to cry over labels - down with the menfolk!

I jest.

I've said this before, but it seems to me, that Scientology just seems bizarre because it is still in its early stages. If Christianity just sprang up in the 1960s, with its same belief system, I'm sure it would take awhile to catch on, too. Many Christians believe the Bible is a statement of fact. If we were told in the 1960s that there was a flood hundreds and hundreds of years ago that wiped out most of the earth, I bet a lot of people might laugh.
So while I am not defending Scientology, I think it's apples and oranges to compare it to such established religions that have had centuries to cement themselves as legitimate and widely accepted (whether any given person believes in said religion or not).

That said: as Jeremy mentioned, many religions promote a male-dominated society, or did in the past, but through a mixture of evolving belief systems within them, or shifts in society outside of the religious system, women are considered equal at home and even equal in the church (it's taking much longer for some religions, but it's happening).
But Scientology, at least at this point in time, seems to be both religion and a total way of life - the way they make people live their lives outside a church service, which lends itself to gender discrimination in every aspect of life.
As a comparison, there are far fewer people who consider themselves good Christians and spiritual, that don't also allow for changes in society. Like, the average Joe-church goer probably won't argue women shouldn't be able to vote because at the beginning of time, Eve ate the apple.

I am nearing the end of my work day so I hope that at least part of that was in English.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
06/10/2008 @ 03:43:53 PM
 Quote this comment
Start moving those goalposts deniers!

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
06/11/2008 @ 01:37:58 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy, God did that.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
06/11/2008 @ 01:51:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, he certainly could have, that's just not a falsifiable hypothesis.

Plus, either way, there are still some "everything that is is how it always was" people out there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
02/17/2010 @ 12:04:58 PM
 Quote this comment
http://gawker.com/5462117/scientologists-in-haiti-a-firsthand-account
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style."
02/18/2010 @ 07:36:52 AM
 Quote this comment
good find, great account, but why the stink bomb? Stink-bomb the scientologists, not Jeremy! (and Chrome's spell checker does not recognize Scientologist, so neither should we...?)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
03/04/2014 @ 12:06:50 AM
 Quote this comment
I was thinking about this article on the ride home from trivia following the topic of Jedism coming up in a question and Satanism coming in a subsequent comment:

Satanism



Background


There are a few different types. Sometimes the religion, to the extent it can even be called that, is just confusingly named and has nothing to do with a biblical Satan. LaVeyan Satanism, for example, is based on individualism, freethought, and "eye for an eye" morality. They don't worship the devil, they're atheistic, so they don't even believe he's real. He's pretty much just their logo, for some reason I'm sure that made sense at the time. For the purposes here I will be talking about the Satan = good, God = bad form of theistic Satanism.

Plausibility Score - 1

Lets ignore the fact that it's probably a misinterpretation of the bible to even conclude that Satan is ying to God's yang in the first place. This is probably a big point to ignore, however, even so, Satanism is a pretty ridiculous religion to adhere to. It suffers from same problem that Mormonism suffers from above, except more so. However you rank the plausibility of Christianity on the believable to absurd scale Satanism is that but worse. It can only be worse.

In order to come to the conclusion that Satanism is "true" you basically have to accept the bible and everything in it as true...and then side with the bad guy. Yes, you could argue that this and that scripture doesn't always paint God in a rosy, simplistic, "God is love" picture. As portrayed in the Bible, he's a complicated character to say the least. However, it seems preposterous to conclude "well I don't think this character is all good" and thus that you should leap to the side that is basically portrayed as all bad. Not to mention God "rejecting" people is not the same as the devil "accepting them", which is another popular rationale. Even if the Devil ruled over hell he wouldn't necessarily be anymore "accepting of everyone" than the trash bin next to a QA inspectors' desk is "accepting of" flawed t-shirts.

It would be like if in 500 years there's a sizable group of people accept Star Wars as a documentary, and genuinely worship Luke Skywalker, Yoda, and the Force as their trinity. Now lets say there's a different subgroup of people that accept THAT as true, but then decide to worship the Emperor as their deity. Their rationale is that because you can find instances in the storyline where the Rebels were assholes, they weren't always good, so they were bad, so the guys that are categorically bad are good. It pretty much can ONLY BE stupider, because no matter how implausible Star Wars is as the basis for the beliefs to be a "Jedi" you have to buy into every last word of the lore as fact AND make a flimsy/illogical leap to pulling for the empire to be a...Sith, I guess. The Rebels aren't "all good" but it's pretty clear from the story that they're still "the good guys", if for no other reason than the stark comparison to the empire.

And, of course you could make the case that the bible is just anti-satan propaganda, "of course it paints him in a bad light"...but the Bible is the foundation of Satan...if it wasn't for a partial acceptance of the Bible there wouldn't be a Satan for you to rally around. Why would you believe the bible was true enough for you to buy it's factual about the general characters in play, but that everything else about those characters is bullshit? What kind of arbitrary nonsense is that? Why not worship Moses, the Egyptian Pharaohs, David, or Goliath? Why not Mary? Why not just worship the FSM at that point? It makes my brain hurt.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 19 times, last at 03/04/2014 2:13:28 pm
images.jpgcraig - is going to test the free agent market.
03/06/2014 @ 02:03:16 PM
 Quote this comment
If you were better schooled in the ways of the force you'd have known it's Jediism not the Jedism of which you speak.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
images.jpgcraig - 131 Posts
03/06/2014 @ 02:04:35 PM
 Quote this comment
And quit necro-posting this dead thread back to life would you? emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
03/07/2014 @ 10:40:19 AM
 Quote this comment
I'm trying to post the dead site back to life.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
question_mark.gifJon (Guest)
03/30/2015 @ 02:49:38 AM
 Quote this comment
You said it yourself"you just wanted an excuse to call Scientologists idiots" but all you have done is picked a side.I could say,anyone who believes in any religious hypothesis is an idiot,but it's just not true.Tom Cruise,John Travolta might be a lot of things but they are clearly not idiots.You can find idiotic behavior within any belief structure.In a 1000 years from now Scientology could be as popular as Christianity and people will excuse the fact that it was created by some hack science-fiction writer.The only difference between a Religion and a cult is the amount of followers and the passing of time needed to lend credence to said belief.Personally,I feel they're all bullpoo poo philisophical story's which lead to comfort which lead to control which lead to power and ultimately money.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted.
04/06/2015 @ 12:37:12 PM
 Quote this comment
http://www.cnet.com/news/religion-and-science-intertwined-snl-mocks-scientology/
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.