Converting Scientologists to Christianity: A How-To Blog

[Lulu Belle]

OK. So I have to say right off the bat that I'm not a Christian. (Or anything else, for that matter.)

So, those of you who are will be very offended by my opinion of this.....stuff.


There's three parts of this blog devoted to "how to turn Scientolgists into Christians".

http://faithandselfdefense.com/2012/

Here are some excerpts. This first piece has me bewildered. This is one of the most favorable pieces I've seen promoting Scientology's beliefs. But this guy thinks it's a bad thing?

............

Here are some of the “beliefs” of Scientologists. Knowing these will help you in sharing the Gospel with them.

“Man is an immortal spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime.His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized.

Scientology further holds Man to be basically good, and that his spiritual salvation depends upon himself,his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe.

Scientology is not a dogmatic religion in which one is asked to accept anything on faithalone. On the contrary, one discovers for oneself that theprinciplesofScientology aretrueby applying its principles and observing or experiencing the results.

The ultimate goal of Scientology is true spiritual enlightenment and freedom for all.

Unlike religions with Judeo-Christian origins, the Church of Scientology has no set dogma concerning God that it imposes on its members. As with all its tenets, Scientology does not ask individuals to accept anything on faith alone. Rather, as one’s level of spiritual awareness increases through participation in Scientology auditing and training, one attains his own certainty of every dynamic. Accordingly, only when the Seventh Dynamic (spiritual) is reached in its entirety will one discover and come to a full understanding of the Eighth Dynamic (infinity) and one’s relationship to the Supreme Being. Scientologists take the maxim quite to heart that God helps those who help themselves. They believe that each person has the answers to the mysteries of life. All one requires is awareness of these answers, and this is what Scientology helps one achieve. Man is accustomed to asking for pat answers. Scientology requires that the person think for himself and thus help himself become more understanding, able, happy and healthy. (“Scientology Beliefs & Practices” – Scientology.org)

..................

Here's some more. Some of these I find hilarious, frankly.

................



If Paul visited your church today and you asked him about witnessing to Scientologists, what do you think he would say? Do you think Paul would view Scientologists as sinners who need to hear the Gospel of God’s Grace?

If Jesus visited your church today and you asked Him about witnessing to Scientologists, what do you think He would say? Do you think Jesus shed His Blood for Scientologists? Do you think He would want you to preach the Gospel to Scientologists? Do you think Jesus would want you to teach Scientologists to observe everything He has taught you?

I think the answers are clear. Yes, Jesus and Paul would want you and me to preach the Gospel to Scientologists, lead them to saving faith in Christ, and teach them to obey Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

So, what do you and I need to do to prepare our hearts and minds to witness to Scientologists?

1. Pray. You are entering supernatural territory. Ask God for wisdom. Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you as you share the Gospel. Ask Jesus to reveal Himself as the Word of God as you talk about Him. Ask God’s Spirit to convict them of their sin and convince them of their desperate need for salvation.

2. Know what you believe about God and His Word. If you’re going to talk with a cultist about his or her need for salvation, you need to be very sure of what you believe. If you aren’t sure, get sure. You will need to know God’s Word well and rely on His Spirit often as you talk with cultists about Christ.

3. Feel God’s Love for the souls of Scientologists – just like He loved your soul before you were saved. Ask God to help you love like He Loves. If possible, develop friendly relationships with Scientologists so they understand you really care about them – and are not just trying to win them over to “your side.”

4. Ask Scientologists questions about what they believe to find out how deeply they are entrenched in Scientology. They may be new to the cult or have little knowledge. They may be very involved and have a lot of knowledge. Knowing where they are in their “faith” will help you steer the discussion in a direction that will be helpful to them.

5. Be prepared to share with them what you know about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. Scientologists are taught that Christians “don’t know,” are misled and need to be “cleared,” so they may not be open to general statements about what you believe. Be ready to document what you “know” about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. There are many books and websites with great historical information about the truth behind Hubbard and his “religion.”

6. Know enough about the claims of Scientology that you can “take the roof off” their beliefs. I like to use material straight from Hubbard’s writings and the official Scientology website (http://www.scientology.org/) so they can’t argue away my statements because I’m using what someone else says about Scientology beliefs. Quote to them from their own quotes. It’s a powerful technique that can make an opening for deeper discussions. Know enough about the terms Scientologists use so you can dig into the fallacy of their beliefs.

7. Scientology officially claims in its creed that Scientologists should respect all religions and the religious beliefs of others. Ask the Scientologists you’re witnessing to explain what that means to them. Listen respectfully and ask any questions that flow logically from their comments. Ask them if they respect Christianity and the beliefs of Christians. If they do, then share with them the basic beliefs of Christianity and ask them what they think about those beliefs. If they don’t respect the beliefs of Christians, ask them why not since that respect is part of the official creed of Scientology. Follow up with other questions and comments that lead to an opportunity to share the basics of Christian salvation.

8. Scientologists are taught that they have a special “knowledge of life” because of the insights that came to L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 after he observed people using Dianetics – “and found a commonality of experience and phenomena. After carefully reviewing all relevant research data, he isolated the answer: Man was neither his body nor his mind, but a spiritual being. This was the source of all that is good, decent and creative in the world: the individual being himself. With this discovery, L. Ron Hubbard founded the religion of Scientology, for he had moved firmly into the field traditionally belonging to religion—the realm of the human soul.” (www.scientology.org (http://www.scientology.org)) Ask the Scientologist you are talking with why they trust the insights of one man, L. Ron Hubbard, as the sole authority for their eternal souls. You need to be ready to argue for the sole authority of the Bible. Hubbard’s life was built on lies. The Bible was built on Truth. Why would anyone want to trust their eternal soul to a liar instead of the Savior?

9. At some point during your conversation open your Bible to a particular passage and ask the Scientologist to read it. If they won’t touch the Bible or read from it, ask them why. Remind them that you have read the writings of Scientology to understand their beliefs and you’d like them to read portions of the Word of God to understand your beliefs. This is IMPORTANT to do because the God’s Word is “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12) One of the most powerful weapons in your spiritual arsenal is God’s Word. Place your Bible in the hands of the person you are witnessing to and watch the power of God work. Tell them what the Bible says about God, life, death, sin, salvation, eternity, Heaven, and hell.

10. Many Scientologists will argue all day long with you about the authority of the Bible over the authority of L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings, but they will often listen to your personal story. Everybody has a personal story and many people like to hear the stories of others. Tell them who you used to be and what Jesus did for you. Tell them what salvation means to you and why you love Jesus with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. Those four areas have a special interest to Scientologists because of the teaching of L. Ron Hubbard. Tell them how knowing Jesus has impacted your thinking, your emotions, your will, your inner strength, and your eternal soul. Tell them about Jesus dying because of their sins and being raised because of our justification (Romans 4:25). Tell them about the peace and joy you now experience in Christ. Share with them how they too can know that peace and joy through faith in Christ. Pray with them to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” for salvation (Acts 16:31).

Leading a Scientologist to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ is just the beginning. They will need a lot of help getting out of the cult. More about how to do that in the next part of our study.

In Christ’s Love and Grace,

...................

[La La Lou Lou]

I know someone that came off heavy drugs to become a born again christian, she's more confused and unable to think for herself than any exscientologist I've ever met.

People need to be able to think for themselves not to get a new set of people doing their thinking for them.

[uniquemand]

Out of the frying pan, into the toaster.

[Spirit]

Interesting blog on how to go from free thinker to fitting in a nice, not-so-comfortable box. One step forward, three steps back...

[Gib]

Unlike religions with Judeo-Christian origins, the Church of Scientology has no set dogma concerning God that it imposes on its members. As with all its tenets, Scientology does not ask individuals to accept anything on faith alone. Rather, as one’s level of spiritual awareness increases through participation in Scientology auditing and training, one attains his own certainty of every dynamic. Accordingly, only when the Seventh Dynamic (spiritual) is reached in its entirety will one discover and come to a full understanding of the Eighth Dynamic (infinity) and one’s relationship to the Supreme Being. Scientologists take the maxim quite to heart that God helps those who help themselves. They believe that each person has the answers to the mysteries of life. All one requires is awareness of these answers, and this is what Scientology helps one achieve. Man is accustomed to asking for pat answers. Scientology requires that the person think for himself and thus help himself become more understanding, able, happy and healthy. (“Scientology Beliefs & Practices” – Scientology.org)

,

...................

Sales pitch.

And da rules keep one in, or out you go. How can one think for themselves when involved with scientology? Da rules no allow it.

This is "come-on dissemination" and it is spread out over a long time from those new members to those that got up to ot8. And the new come on dissemination for those that are ot8 is get all orgs to be ideal orgs (used to be become the size of Old St Hill), donations from current members in addition to their expense for buying auditing and training services. And the new come on dissemination is also donating to the Super power project, another drawn out project initially for staff members only.

[guanoloco]

Dwindling spiral indeed!

[NoName]

Interesting blog on how to go from free thinker to fitting in a nice, not-so-comfortable box. One step forward, three steps back...

Disagree.... Scn is not free-thinking.

But I've said before on here that I wouldn't try to "save" a Scilon by trying to get them into Christianity. I'm Pentacostal, and I sincerely hope that all current and past Scn's eventually accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, but I'm not going to force it on people who have just started figuring out how badly they have been spiritually abused. I think it's something that everyone needs to discover for themselves in due time.

[Spirit]

I've said before on here that I wouldn't try to "save" a Scilon by trying to get them into Christianity. I'm Pentacostal, and I sincerely hope that all current and past Scn's eventually accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, but I'm not going to force it on people who have just started figuring out how badly they have been spiritually abused.
Speaking of spiritual abuse, Scientology has a long ways to go to catch up with Christianity. Religion is a form of control that should not be forced on anyone, under any circumstances. Walk into any Christian service and the pastor WILL do his best to ram his belief system down your throat. If you resist, you go to a Hell that was created by a loving God for all that are not in agreement with the church, padding their bank account and following their path to salvation. If you decide to think for yourself and pursue spiritual development on your own, then you are practicing demonology.

[Mick Wenlock]

Speaking of spiritual abuse, Scientology has a long ways to go to catch up with Christianity. Religion is a form of control that should not be forced on anyone, under any circumstances. Walk into any Christian service and the pastor WILL do his best to ram his belief system down your throat. If you resist, you go to a Hell that was created by a loving God for all that are not in agreement with the church, padding their bank account and following their path to salvation. If you decide to think for yourself and pursue spiritual development on your own, then you are practicing demonology.

well i am kind of confused with your expectations to be honest.

If you go to a Christian service what on earth do you think the pastor/priest would be doing if it were not promoting (ramming down the throat) the beliefs of the religion that you are there to listen to? A service in a religious setting is ot a discussion about whether the religion is legitimate but a celebration of the wonderfulness of the belief system.

But on the other hand if you go to a party and are talking with someone who insists on relating every topic to the subject of their beliefs and how wonderful those beliefs are - well they are a pain in the rear and I would advance the notion that new agers - scientologists included are the worst at this.

[Mick Wenlock]

Interesting blog on how to go from free thinker to fitting in a nice, not-so-comfortable box. One step forward, three steps back...

well except for the rather simple fact that a scientologist, by definition, is the furthest thing from a "free thinker" .

Maybe it would be mnore accurate to say "from the cultie frying pan to the fundie fire"

[NoName]

Speaking of spiritual abuse, Scientology has a long ways to go to catch up with Christianity. Religion is a form of control that should not be forced on anyone, under any circumstances. Walk into any Christian service and the pastor WILL do his best to ram his belief system down your throat. If you resist, you go to a Hell that was created by a loving God for all that are not in agreement with the church, padding their bank account and following their path to salvation. If you decide to think for yourself and pursue spiritual development on your own, then you are practicing demonology.

Uhm Pentacostals give 10% of income and it is completely voluntary to do even that. No one I know has been driven into bankruptcy through Pentacostal tithing. Scientology regging is another story.

Edit - Mick - can I accuse someone with 2 posts of being OSA or is it too soon?

[Spirit]

well except for the rather simple fact that a scientologist, by definition, is the furthest thing from a "free thinker" .
Got your point. Makes me glad I dropped that label! :yes:

Maybe it would be mnore accurate to say "from the cultie frying pan to the fundie fire"
LOL Christianity is also a cult. A Christian calling a Scientologist a cult member is like the kettle calling the pot black.

[Mick Wenlock]

Uhm Pentacostals give 10% of income and it is completely voluntary to do even that. No one I know has been driven into bankruptcy through Pentacostal tithing. Scientology regging is another story.

Edit - Mick - can I accuse someone with 2 posts of being OSA or is it too soon?

well I am no longer an admin so I can let you in on the secret admin rules... LOL.

but although the person posting appears bound and determined to make Scientology look, well, only as bad as the worst aspects of Christianity, that may be because they are seeking to rationalize their own belief rather than merely trying to advance the OSA Agenda.

It seems like a nit-picky point of course - but I think Lenin had it correct when he referred to "useful idiots" which are those who will advance the agenda without having to be directed to do so.

So I think trying to challenge anyone who appears to be trying to ameliorate the public image of scientology as being "OSA" is a little OTT.

[Mick Wenlock]

Got your point. Makes me glad I dropped that label! :yes:

LOL Christianity is also a cult. A Christian calling a Scientologist a cult member is like the kettle calling the pot black.

did you misunderstand what I wrote? I'm not a christian.

[Spirit]

No one I know has been driven into bankruptcy through Pentacostal tithing. Scientology regging is another story.

That can not be denied. That stat push is evil!



Edit - Mick - can I accuse someone with 2 posts of being OSA or is it too soon?
No I am not OSA and I am not defending the CofS. I have never been a staff member of any SCN organization.

[Spirit]

did you misunderstand what I wrote? I'm not a christian.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. No, I did not assume you are a Christian. I live in the Southern Bible Belt and am surrounded by many Christians who are self righteous zealots. I was just venting.

[NoName]

So I think trying to challenge anyone who appears to be trying to ameliorate the public image of scientology as being "OSA" is a little OTT.

Fair enough. And as it is too soon after Thursday 2pm for OSA to be showing up anyway.... My bad. :blush:

[TG1]

OK, now we're talking about a subject I'm a fucking expert about.

Christianity.

Bring it on.

It was the first cult I was in. I was born into it. Like hundreds of millions of people are.

I left when I was in my early 20s.

Having been in that cult (I think) inoculated me a bit to the worst parts of the Scientology cult and helped me protect myself.

:)

Questions?

TG1

[Spirit]

well i am kind of confused with your expectations to be honest.

If you go to a Christian service what on earth do you think the pastor/priest would be doing if it were not promoting (ramming down the throat) the beliefs of the religion that you are there to listen to? A service in a religious setting is ot a discussion about whether the religion is legitimate but a celebration of the wonderfulness of the belief system.

But on the other hand if you go to a party and are talking with someone who insists on relating every topic to the subject of their beliefs and how wonderful those beliefs are - well they are a pain in the rear and I would advance the notion that new agers - scientologists included are the worst at this.

This I kind of therapeutic for me, for I can be just as bad as a zealot of a New Age sort! :melodramatic:

[Spirit]

OK, now we're talking about a subject I'm a fucking expert about.

Christianity.

Bring it on.

It was the first cult I was in. I was born into it. Like hundreds of millions of people are.

I left when I was in my early 20s.

Having been in that cult (I think) inoculated me a bit to the worst parts of the Scientology cult and helped me protect myself.

:)

Questions?

TG1
I was a Southern Baptist. I was not born into it. I went to church at 12 years old and my mother, grandparents, great aunts and uncles followed. I left 4 years later and never looked back.
I did not get deep into the cult known as the CofS, but saw enough to know shit weren't right.

Now, I have no religion and do not want one. I am a spiritual being that has a wonderful relationship with God and I need no religious dogma or group validation.

[TG1]

I was a Southern Baptist. I was not born into it. I went to church at 12 years old and my mother, grandparents, great aunts and uncles followed. I left 4 years later and never looked back.
I did not get deep into the cult known as the CofS, but saw enough to know shit weren't right.

Now, I have no religion and do not want one. I am a spiritual being that has a wonderful relationship with God and I need no religious dogma or group validation.

Southern Baptists? Oh, goody. That's actually my specialty. But I do other dialects as well.

When you go up against Christianity, you're really inviting the big guns. Lots of them. Hundreds of millions. But fewer every year. :)

Let me just say, I'm actually down with Jesus. Cool guy. Tough guy. If you can believe the Bible, which is always an interesting debate.

But Christians, the whole mass lot of 'em? Not so much.

Of course, every once in a while I meet a very nice Christian who's exceptionally kind and unjudgmental and generous and everything you'd expect one of those cats to be. And I bet that person would act and be the same way if he or she were a (cough) Scientologist. Or an atheist. Or a Wiccan. Or a Martian.

A few months ago I was on a 2 1/2 hour flight with a guy who was determined to witness to me. I warned him not to. I told him I could quote him under the table. I told him I'd tell him everything he didn't know about his denomination. (Southern Baptist, of course.) But he insisted.

Questions?

TG1

[TG1]

Lulu,

I just realized I'm hijacking your thread.

You wanted to talk about Scientologists who become Christians. You don't need to listen to my rants about Southern Baptists and Christians.

I can rant on my own time.

TG1

[guanoloco]

I just read this earlier today and thought it pertinent:


"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind
intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell." --- Karl Popper

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig

Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not want to, he
is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then he is both powerless and
wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.

"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth. Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or
he doesn't exist. He is thus either impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." --- Blaise Pascal.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by rulers as useful."
--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow

"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen

"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." - Mark
Twain

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins

"Cult today, religion tomorrow."

Aside from the God/Mother Goose reference I pretty much agree with everything. Seems to me that religion is manmade...in man's image, which is to say the ego. Spirituality appears to me to be a relationship with divinity devoid of the ego/religious aspect.

IMHO religions are a plague on our collective conscious.

[Mick Wenlock]

...snip...

Now, I have no religion and do not want one. I am a spiritual being that has a wonderful relationship with God and I need no religious dogma or group validation.

well if you have a 'wonderful relationship with god" you just advanced a) a religion and b) a dogma.

:)

[Lulu Belle]

Lulu,

I just realized I'm hijacking your thread.

You wanted to talk about Scientologists who become Christians. You don't need to listen to my rants about Southern Baptists and Christians.

I can rant on my own time.

TG1


No, keep going.

I live in the South, work for a company which seems to employ a lot of religious zealots, and have a lot of trouble keeping my mouth shut.

Good to have like minded others to talk to. :)

[Spirit]

well if you have a 'wonderful relationship with god" you just advanced a) a religion and b) a dogma.

:)
A religion and a dogma arising out of a wonderful personal relationship with God? I guess it could be rationalized as so. So I have a personal religion and dogma to accompany it. So my peeve is with
the zealots that I am trying not to be. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil03.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

[Terril park]

OK. So I have to say right off the bat that I'm not a Christian. (Or anything else, for that matter.)

So, those of you who are will be very offended by my opinion of this.....stuff.


There's three parts of this blog devoted to "how to turn Scientolgists into Christians".

http://faithandselfdefense.com/2012/

Here are some excerpts. This first piece has me bewildered. This is one of the most favorable pieces I've seen promoting Scientology's beliefs. But this guy thinks it's a bad thing?

............

Here are some of the “beliefs” of Scientologists. Knowing these will help you in sharing the Gospel with them.

“Man is an immortal spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime.His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized.

Scientology further holds Man to be basically good, and that his spiritual salvation depends upon himself,his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe.

Scientology is not a dogmatic religion in which one is asked to accept anything on faithalone. On the contrary, one discovers for oneself that theprinciplesofScientology aretrueby applying its principles and observing or experiencing the results.

The ultimate goal of Scientology is true spiritual enlightenment and freedom for all.

Unlike religions with Judeo-Christian origins, the Church of Scientology has no set dogma concerning God that it imposes on its members. As with all its tenets, Scientology does not ask individuals to accept anything on faith alone. Rather, as one’s level of spiritual awareness increases through participation in Scientology auditing and training, one attains his own certainty of every dynamic. Accordingly, only when the Seventh Dynamic (spiritual) is reached in its entirety will one discover and come to a full understanding of the Eighth Dynamic (infinity) and one’s relationship to the Supreme Being. Scientologists take the maxim quite to heart that God helps those who help themselves. They believe that each person has the answers to the mysteries of life. All one requires is awareness of these answers, and this is what Scientology helps one achieve. Man is accustomed to asking for pat answers. Scientology requires that the person think for himself and thus help himself become more understanding, able, happy and healthy. (“Scientology Beliefs & Practices” – Scientology.org)

..................

Here's some more. Some of these I find hilarious, frankly.

................



If Paul visited your church today and you asked him about witnessing to Scientologists, what do you think he would say? Do you think Paul would view Scientologists as sinners who need to hear the Gospel of God’s Grace?

If Jesus visited your church today and you asked Him about witnessing to Scientologists, what do you think He would say? Do you think Jesus shed His Blood for Scientologists? Do you think He would want you to preach the Gospel to Scientologists? Do you think Jesus would want you to teach Scientologists to observe everything He has taught you?

I think the answers are clear. Yes, Jesus and Paul would want you and me to preach the Gospel to Scientologists, lead them to saving faith in Christ, and teach them to obey Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

So, what do you and I need to do to prepare our hearts and minds to witness to Scientologists?

1. Pray. You are entering supernatural territory. Ask God for wisdom. Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you as you share the Gospel. Ask Jesus to reveal Himself as the Word of God as you talk about Him. Ask God’s Spirit to convict them of their sin and convince them of their desperate need for salvation.

2. Know what you believe about God and His Word. If you’re going to talk with a cultist about his or her need for salvation, you need to be very sure of what you believe. If you aren’t sure, get sure. You will need to know God’s Word well and rely on His Spirit often as you talk with cultists about Christ.

3. Feel God’s Love for the souls of Scientologists – just like He loved your soul before you were saved. Ask God to help you love like He Loves. If possible, develop friendly relationships with Scientologists so they understand you really care about them – and are not just trying to win them over to “your side.”

4. Ask Scientologists questions about what they believe to find out how deeply they are entrenched in Scientology. They may be new to the cult or have little knowledge. They may be very involved and have a lot of knowledge. Knowing where they are in their “faith” will help you steer the discussion in a direction that will be helpful to them.

5. Be prepared to share with them what you know about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. Scientologists are taught that Christians “don’t know,” are misled and need to be “cleared,” so they may not be open to general statements about what you believe. Be ready to document what you “know” about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. There are many books and websites with great historical information about the truth behind Hubbard and his “religion.”

6. Know enough about the claims of Scientology that you can “take the roof off” their beliefs. I like to use material straight from Hubbard’s writings and the official Scientology website (http://www.scientology.org/) so they can’t argue away my statements because I’m using what someone else says about Scientology beliefs. Quote to them from their own quotes. It’s a powerful technique that can make an opening for deeper discussions. Know enough about the terms Scientologists use so you can dig into the fallacy of their beliefs.

7. Scientology officially claims in its creed that Scientologists should respect all religions and the religious beliefs of others. Ask the Scientologists you’re witnessing to explain what that means to them. Listen respectfully and ask any questions that flow logically from their comments. Ask them if they respect Christianity and the beliefs of Christians. If they do, then share with them the basic beliefs of Christianity and ask them what they think about those beliefs. If they don’t respect the beliefs of Christians, ask them why not since that respect is part of the official creed of Scientology. Follow up with other questions and comments that lead to an opportunity to share the basics of Christian salvation.

8. Scientologists are taught that they have a special “knowledge of life” because of the insights that came to L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 after he observed people using Dianetics – “and found a commonality of experience and phenomena. After carefully reviewing all relevant research data, he isolated the answer: Man was neither his body nor his mind, but a spiritual being. This was the source of all that is good, decent and creative in the world: the individual being himself. With this discovery, L. Ron Hubbard founded the religion of Scientology, for he had moved firmly into the field traditionally belonging to religion—the realm of the human soul.” (www.scientology.org (http://www.scientology.org)) Ask the Scientologist you are talking with why they trust the insights of one man, L. Ron Hubbard, as the sole authority for their eternal souls. You need to be ready to argue for the sole authority of the Bible. Hubbard’s life was built on lies. The Bible was built on Truth. Why would anyone want to trust their eternal soul to a liar instead of the Savior?

9. At some point during your conversation open your Bible to a particular passage and ask the Scientologist to read it. If they won’t touch the Bible or read from it, ask them why. Remind them that you have read the writings of Scientology to understand their beliefs and you’d like them to read portions of the Word of God to understand your beliefs. This is IMPORTANT to do because the God’s Word is “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12) One of the most powerful weapons in your spiritual arsenal is God’s Word. Place your Bible in the hands of the person you are witnessing to and watch the power of God work. Tell them what the Bible says about God, life, death, sin, salvation, eternity, Heaven, and hell.

10. Many Scientologists will argue all day long with you about the authority of the Bible over the authority of L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings, but they will often listen to your personal story. Everybody has a personal story and many people like to hear the stories of others. Tell them who you used to be and what Jesus did for you. Tell them what salvation means to you and why you love Jesus with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. Those four areas have a special interest to Scientologists because of the teaching of L. Ron Hubbard. Tell them how knowing Jesus has impacted your thinking, your emotions, your will, your inner strength, and your eternal soul. Tell them about Jesus dying because of their sins and being raised because of our justification (Romans 4:25). Tell them about the peace and joy you now experience in Christ. Share with them how they too can know that peace and joy through faith in Christ. Pray with them to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” for salvation (Acts 16:31).

Leading a Scientologist to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ is just the beginning. They will need a lot of help getting out of the cult. More about how to do that in the next part of our study.

In Christ’s Love and Grace,

...................

You sure this wasn't written by Hoaxie?

[Spirit]

No, keep going.

I live in the South, work for a company which seems to employ a lot of religious zealots, and have a lot of trouble keeping my mouth shut.

Good to have like minded others to talk to. :)
I live in the South too. I am surrounded by Southern Baptists and Pentecostals in my family and work.
I don't try to enforce my beliefs on them, but they often do not extend the same courtesy to me. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry037.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) And, yes, it is hard keeping my mouth shut!

[Claire Swazey]

I know someone that came off heavy drugs to become a born again christian, she's more confused and unable to think for herself than any exscientologist I've ever met.

People need to be able to think for themselves not to get a new set of people doing their thinking for them.


I have mixed feelings about that. I get what you say in your last sentence and it's true. But I have seen people who were helped by their religion or philosophies.

Perhaps the difference is in that person's approach. Are they swapping one cult for another? I think one could treat a mainstream religion like a cult by making it a limiting and defining thing. And another adherent of the same religion might not.

I guess if a person's having everyone tell him or her what to do all the time, then no matter what religion he's into, it's like what you're talking about. But what if they don't do that?

[TG1]

No, keep going.

I live in the South, work for a company which seems to employ a lot of religious zealots, and have a lot of trouble keeping my mouth shut.

Good to have like minded others to talk to. :)

Thanks, Lulu.

"Religion" seems to spring forth when people are exploring the big moral, ethical and meaning of life questions: Who am I? What am I part of? Why does all this exist? What will happen in the future?

In some ways, religion is no different than a lot of other groups. Groups grow out of someone's idea and, eventually, the agreements that build when others find that idea appealing.

The trouble comes when those who like that idea start thinking their ideas make them superior to other folks.

More trouble enters when members of the religious group decide that others -- the guy who lives in the apartment next door and natives halfway around the world -- ought to agree with them, too.

Things get creepier when the religionists decide that those who don't agree with them just need to be persuaded a little harder and then decide that those who resist their persuasion are now dangerous to the religionists’ way of life.

Throw into the mix the idea that "God is on our side."

Finally, add the aristocracy, money guys, and power-hungry strivers who don't believe any of that religious stuff, but realize it's the best lever ever invented to manipulate events and consolidate their power.

And what do you get? Four major religions, a lot of minor ones, a 5,000 year history of "religious" wars, and global "No, U!"

The degree to which religionists try to convert others to their way of life and enforce their beliefs and required behaviors on others -- both those inside and outside their group -- is the degree to which I object to religion.

Otherwise, knock yourselves out.

TG1

[Lulu Belle]

"Religion" seems to spring forth when people are exploring the big moral, ethical and meaning of life questions: Who am I? What am I part of? Why does all this exist? What will happen in the future?


My husband says people have religion because they are the only species that knows that they will die.

It's all about the "what's gonna happen to me after I die?" thing.

I think he has a point.

[TG1]

Some of you may know that in 2000 Jimmy Carter resigned from the Southern Baptist Convention. In 2009, he again renounced and denounced Southern Baptist beliefs and policies in his statement: "Losing My Religion for Equality."

BTW, In the Southern U.S. the phrase "losing my religion" is an idiom that means: losing one's temper, flying off the handle, getting very upset about something.

Carter's comments may be helpful to you if you're thinking of engaging with Southern Baptists or others about these issues.

News coverage: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95311&page=1#.UVhyWkYo5jo

Carter's 2009 "Losing My Religion for Equality" statement: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html?page=-1

Response from President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?269

TG1

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

I just returned home from Easter service.

It was lovely.

[Freeminds]

Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.

Create: don't accept the diseased pap that was churned out by a mentally ill pulp sci-fi hack in the Cold War. You all deserve better. The real sin of Scientology is the way it prevents people from thinking for themselves.

[TG1]

OK, here's a subject:

Possibly relevant is the fact that I was brought up to think that two topics were off limits in polite conversation: religion and politics.

To this day, despite the hours I have spent at ESMB essentially debating religious topics -- mostly Scientology ones, when someone in my daily life brings up the subject of religion or asks questions like the ones below, I feel paralyzed and am never certain what words are going to tumble out of my mouth:

"You should visit our church -- you'd like it!"

"What church do you belong to?"

"But you're a Christian, right?"

"You know that God loves you, don't you?"

"Do you believe in heaven and hell?"

And my favorite ... "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"

I don't have any well rehearsed lines that quickly extract me from those situations. I'm just as likely to say, "Sorry, but I don't discuss my religion" as I am to say, "I left the church a long time again" or "You are being inappropriate. Please leave."

I've lied and told Methodists I'm a Buddhist and told Baptists I am an Episcopalian. I actually tell some Episcopalians the truth -- that I'm an agnostic. Occasionally, I've gotten into conversations with earnest Christians who seem desperate to understand how I could think that way, and those conversations all end the same: they're sad, and I'm mad.

How do those of you who are not Christians handle these situations?

TG1

P.S. I live in a part of the world where the phrase "good person" means the same as "good Christian person."

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

did you misunderstand what I wrote? I'm not a christian.

...he said as he slung Durendal across his shoulder.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I'm not so down on religion as some on this thread.

The claims of how horrible religion has been throughout history are exaggerated.

Religions have the distilled wisdom of centuries of mankind's search for meaning.

It is true that religious institutions have behaved poorly in certain times and certain places, but religion and faith reflect that rich quality of human nature that hopes for things unseen and the basic conviction that the evils in the world are not how things should be.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[JBWriter]

OK, here's a subject:

Possibly relevant is the fact that I was brought up to think that two topics were off limits in polite conversation: religion and politics.

To this day, despite the hours I have spent at ESMB essentially debating religious topics -- mostly Scientology ones, when someone in my daily life brings up the subject of religion or asks questions like the ones below, I feel paralyzed and am never certain what words are going to tumble out of my mouth:

"You should visit our church -- you'd like it!"

"What church do you belong to?"

"But you're a Christian, right?"

"You know that God loves you, don't you?"

"Do you believe in heaven and hell?"

And my favorite ... "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"

I don't have any well rehearsed lines that quickly extract me from those situations. I'm just as likely to say, "Sorry, but I don't discuss my religion" as I am to say, "I left the church a long time again" or "You are being inappropriate. Please leave."

I've lied and told Methodists I'm a Buddhist and told Baptists I am an Episcopalian. I actually tell some Episcopalians the truth -- that I'm an agnostic. Occasionally, I've gotten into conversations with earnest Christians who seem desperate to understand how I could think that way, and those conversations all end the same: they're sad, and I'm mad.

How do those of you who are not Christians handle these situations?

TG1

P.S. I live in a part of the world where the phrase "good person" means the same as "good Christian person."

^^^^ My bold above.

All of the questions you cite above have been lobbed my way since as far back as I can recall. (Your answers/responses are probably very effective, too. At least, I hope so. :biggrin:) But, it certainly can be uncomfortable to try and interpret the question correctly and then use the best response that fits; selecting the one which (potentially) offends/harms the questioner the least can be tricky.

As for the bolded question above, I've only ever had one answer since childhood - although I'd like to think I'm able to support it a bit better with a genuine smile and no 'teenager smirk' that I *may* have mistakenly thought lent it additional support. :coolwink:

"I'm here. You're here. More than that, I'll have to see for myself." - JB, aged 4. (Dr. Seuss was still on the horizon, but I did know the alphabet to "L".)

Would it shock anyone to learn my parents/siblings thought the youngest one *might* be a handful? (FYI, when candy/toys/silver dollars/lectures didn't shake my li'l tree, the extended family gave it their best shot, too. Neighbors and friends were next, but by 9, it was pretty much a draw for all concerned. No winners = fair.)

Hope that helps,

JB.

[auntpat]

Hi, I think you all know, I am a Christian. I am religious. By religious I mean I have a relationship with God. By Christian, I mean Jesus is a personal friend. I do not attend any organized church, but I have in the past. I find them to restricting. I prefer to study on my own My religion gives me love, comfort, wisdom, confidence,peace, fellowship, and joy.

Yes, I wish you all had these things, not because I think I am better than you but because I so enjoy my religion and would like to share the joy with you

Much Love and Light,
Aunt Pat

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

OK, here's a subject:

Possibly relevant is the fact that I was brought up to think that two topics were off limits in polite conversation: religion and politics.

To this day, despite the hours I have spent at ESMB essentially debating religious topics -- mostly Scientology ones, when someone in my daily life brings up the subject of religion or asks questions like the ones below, I feel paralyzed and am never certain what words are going to tumble out of my mouth:

"You should visit our church -- you'd like it!"

"What church do you belong to?"

"But you're a Christian, right?"

"You know that God loves you, don't you?"

"Do you believe in heaven and hell?"

And my favorite ... "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"

I don't have any well rehearsed lines that quickly extract me from those situations. I'm just as likely to say, "Sorry, but I don't discuss my religion" as I am to say, "I left the church a long time again" or "You are being inappropriate. Please leave."

I've lied and told Methodists I'm a Buddhist and told Baptists I am an Episcopalian. I actually tell some Episcopalians the truth -- that I'm an agnostic. Occasionally, I've gotten into conversations with earnest Christians who seem desperate to understand how I could think that way, and those conversations all end the same: they're sad, and I'm mad.

How do those of you who are not Christians handle these situations?

TG1

P.S. I live in a part of the world where the phrase "good person" means the same as "good Christian person."

I've returned to the Episcopal church of my youth since departing Scientology.

I would like to believe that any Episcopalians you talked to were fine with your agnostic defense. I know I am.

I've gone in and talked to one of the priests several times, most recently when feeling particularly blue whiile contemplating my 30 years in the cult. He told me that he was surprised that I kept showing up at all after what I'd been through.

When I first started to attend I had a chat with Kate, the main priest. Told her about the 30 years in and asked if there were any official advice or suggestions for someone like me. She said she would ask the bishop. A couple weeks later I ran into her on the street. She said the Bishop recommended I start with a large bottle of Scotch!

Who was that Bishop you say?

Gene Robinson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Robinson

[AnonyMary]

Hi, I think you all know, I am a Christian. I am religious. By religious I mean I have a relationship with God. By Christian, I mean Jesus is a personal friend. I do not attend any organized church, but I have in the past. I find them to restricting. I prefer to study on my own My religion gives me love, comfort, wisdom, confidence,peace, fellowship, and joy.

Yes, I wish you all had these things, not because I think I am better than you but because I so enjoy my religion and would like to share the joy with you

Much Love and Light,
Aunt Pat

:thumbsup:

((HUGGS))

Mary

[Mark A. Baker]

... The claims of how horrible religion has been throughout history are exaggerated. ...

A point on which we strongly disagree and one where I offer up the wisdom of another as an appropriate guide. ...


History is the polemics of the victor.

William F. Buckley, Jr.


Buckley was himself an observant christian. The reality is that historical records have been strongly influenced to justify the supremacy of those sub-cultures which have sought and achieved dominance. This has been particularly true in the case of religious movements.


Mark A. Baker

[Lulu Belle]

The reality is that historical records have been strongly influenced to justify the supremacy of those sub-cultures which have sought and achieved dominance. This has been particularly true in the case of religious movements.

Definitely true.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

A point on which we strongly disagree and one where I offer up the wisdom of another as an appropriate guide. ...




Buckley was himself an observant christian. The reality is that historical records have been strongly influenced to justify the supremacy of those sub-cultures which have sought and achieved dominance. This has been particularly true in the case of religious movements.


Mark A. Baker

This supports my point.

The claims are still exaggerated.

And they are exaggerated by those of a sub-culture against religion.

Besides, the historical record over time tends to reject the bias in the polemics of those sub-cultures.

For example, Nazism, communism, Catholicism, etc.

Buckley is certainly eloquent, but he should not be considered wise because he is eloquent.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Claire Swazey]

Hi, I think you all know, I am a Christian. I am religious. By religious I mean I have a relationship with God. By Christian, I mean Jesus is a personal friend. I do not attend any organized church, but I have in the past. I find them to restricting. I prefer to study on my own My religion gives me love, comfort, wisdom, confidence,peace, fellowship, and joy.

Yes, I wish you all had these things, not because I think I am better than you but because I so enjoy my religion and would like to share the joy with you

Much Love and Light,
Aunt Pat

That reminds me of my Mom's approach.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

That reminds me of my Mom's approach.

And I think it is the most sincere approach.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[uniquemand]

OK, here's a subject:

Possibly relevant is the fact that I was brought up to think that two topics were off limits in polite conversation: religion and politics.

To this day, despite the hours I have spent at ESMB essentially debating religious topics -- mostly Scientology ones, when someone in my daily life brings up the subject of religion or asks questions like the ones below, I feel paralyzed and am never certain what words are going to tumble out of my mouth:

"You should visit our church -- you'd like it!"

"What church do you belong to?"

"But you're a Christian, right?"

"You know that God loves you, don't you?"

"Do you believe in heaven and hell?"

And my favorite ... "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"

I don't have any well rehearsed lines that quickly extract me from those situations. I'm just as likely to say, "Sorry, but I don't discuss my religion" as I am to say, "I left the church a long time again" or "You are being inappropriate. Please leave."

I've lied and told Methodists I'm a Buddhist and told Baptists I am an Episcopalian. I actually tell some Episcopalians the truth -- that I'm an agnostic. Occasionally, I've gotten into conversations with earnest Christians who seem desperate to understand how I could think that way, and those conversations all end the same: they're sad, and I'm mad.

How do those of you who are not Christians handle these situations?

TG1

P.S. I live in a part of the world where the phrase "good person" means the same as "good Christian person."

I would have a field day with those questions.

"fuck no" would be my answer. I'm much happier having people think I'm a bad person than thinking I'm a Christian.

[Mark A. Baker]

This supports my point.

The claims are still exaggerated. ...

No, but you choose to see it that way. In the case of christianity, the christianization of europe was an incredibly brutal process conducted by the Christian Empire. It was in fact far worse than the earlier roman "persecutions" of christians had been. What persecutions had been instituted by Rome were principally based on violations of public law and aimed towards preserving the unity of the Roman state. They were not based on intolerance of minority religions. Nor were they especially numerous or ubiquitous.

Pagan Romans were in fact amazingly tolerant of religious differences. Far more so than the later christian empire proved to be. But they did not brook challenges to the authority of the empire; an authority which some individual christians and local christian groups publicly sought to flout.

Once empowered the christians set out on a campaign of religious genocide against all subject peoples, seeking to convert or destroy any adherents to other religions excepting only the jews. These latter they "tolerated", while openly discriminating against them, for reasons of their own peculiar religion.

This campaign lasted without abatement for centuries until all such non-christian groups were effectively eliminated in christian Europe. To say that campaign has been white-washed in the widely available histories of the time is a gross understatement. It took the Renaissance, essentially an intellectual rediscovery of the values of Pagan Antiquity, to begin to reverse the effects of the oppressive christian dominion of Europe.

Nor is christianity qualitatively unique in this sort of historical impact. Other monotheistic traditions have conducted themselves in similarly excessive fashions in their own attempts to spread the "good news". I see it as an inherent feature of monotheisms, although not necessarily unique to them. Doctrinally they are naturally inclined to an "Only One" and exclusivist mentality.


Mark A. Baker

[Claire Swazey]

Yeah, it wasn't such good news for everybody, now was it. Hey, great news, we're gonna kill you!

Constantine decided Rome should be Christian because he saw it as a unifying factor that the old pagan religion, he felt, couldn't be.

So perhaps the biggest flaw in the mix is the theocracy thing, where church and state were not kept separate. I mean, if religion has to be the unifying factor and a major part of running a country- an empire- and then all this shit happens, couldn't part of the problem be the decision to run things along theocractic lines?

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

No, but you choose to see it that way. In the case of christianity, the christianization of europe was an incredibly brutal process conducted by the Christian Empire. It was in fact far worse than the earlier roman "persecutions" of christians had been. What persecutions had been instituted by Rome were principally based on violations of public law and aimed towards preserving the unity of the Roman state. They were not based on intolerance of minority religions. Nor were they especially numerous or ubiquitous.

Pagan Romans were in fact amazingly tolerant of religious differences. Far more so than the later christian empire proved to be. But they did not brook challenges to the authority of the empire; an authority which some individual christians and local christian groups publicly sought to flout.

Once empowered the christians set out on a campaign of religious genocide against all subject peoples, seeking to convert or destroy any adherents to other religions excepting only the jews. These latter they "tolerated", while openly discriminating against them, for reasons of their own peculiar religion.

This campaign lasted without abatement for centuries until all such non-christian groups were effectively eliminated in christian Europe. To say that campaign has been white-washed in the widely available histories of the time is a gross understatement. It took the Renaissance, essentially an intellectual rediscovery of the values of Pagan Antiquity, to begin to reverse the effects of the oppressive christian dominion of Europe.

Nor is christianity qualitatively unique in this sort of historical impact. Other monotheistic traditions have conducted themselves in similarly excessive fashions in their own attempts to spread the "good news". I see it as an inherent feature of monotheisms, although not necessarily unique to them. Doctrinally they are naturally inclined to an "Only One" and exclusivist mentality.


Mark A. Baker
Mark, I choose to see it my way and you choose to see it your way. You have your preferences and I have mine.

But the historical fact is exaggerated.

Look at Fluffy's post for example.

Most people believe the popes ruled Europe when in fact they were almost entirely at the mercy of kings.

That is a historical fact.

I think if you look at what is generally believed and what the actuality was you will see a vast difference.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Dean Blair]

I had been a Scientologist for a very long time. I am now a Christian. I went to church today to celebrate Easter which is the celebration of Christ's rising from the grave after his crucifixion.

I am not Evangelistic as are some of my friends and I don't believe that Christianity is the only way to salvation but I do believe that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will be forgiven for their trespasses and sins and that they will have eternal life. And I do believe that following the teachings of Christ has benefited me and my family.

I was surprised to see that there were so many anti-Christian sentiments on this thread and was relieved to see Aunt Pat's statement about her belief in Jesus.

My family and I attend a church here in Texas, Hill Country Bible Church. I have nothing but good to say about what they are doing. In fact every Christian Church that I have ever been part of was only offering help to those who needed it. The help has always been free. Totally free. You don't even have to tithe if you don't want to and the money the Church does collect goes to spreading the word and helping those who are less fortunate. It is nothing like Scientology.

The fact that Hubbard was anti-Christ and led me and so many others to believe that one day we would be OT (God) is almost enough in itself to make me want to be a Christian to try and undo what Hubbard did.

I do hope that everyone here finds peace and happiness in their lives in whatever path they choose. Christianity works for me and my family.

[Mark A. Baker]

... I think if you look at what is generally believed and what the actuality was you will see a vast difference.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I'm quite familiar with the history as well as the relative powers of kings & priests throughout the period along with the common misconceptions which remain popular. The facts are clear concerning the genocide waged against non-christians by christians. The fact that it was a regal power most frequently bearing the actual "rod of chastisement" is simply a matter of the means or mechanism adopted to effect the result. They were christian powers working to advance the promotion of what was seen as the christian agenda, and most commonly the outrages were ordained by church decree and sanctioned by religious office.

By the irony of their own doctrine: the blood on their hands.


Mark A. Baker

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I'm quite familiar with the history as well as the relative powers of kings & priests throughout the period along with the common misconceptions which remain popular. The facts are clear concerning the genocide waged against non-christians by christians. The fact that it was a regal power most frequently bearing the actual "rod of chastisement" is simply a matter of the means or mechanism adopted to effect the result. They were christian powers working to advance the promotion of what was seen as the christian agenda, and most commonly the outrages were ordained by church decree and sanctioned by religious office.

By the irony of their own doctrine: the blood on their hands.


Mark A. Baker

Except for the Crusades, most of the genocide in Europe were Christians against Christians, and all sides considered themselves in accordance with Christianity.

But that is the level of consciousness of groups rather than a consequence of the religion.

There are people today who have the same religion and read the same religious texts as those in past times yet we do not have the same consciousness about religion.

And that is not only a result of the Enlightenment alone.

We have nationalism which has in fact been responsible for genocides of a greater number (although that is due to the technological and administrative capacity to kill so many).

The killing is justified by means current in the culture---but those are not the driving force, just the paradigm.

I know you consider yourself knowledgeable on history.

You are to a degree.

But I can tell you've never been through the rigors of professional training in the field.

The difference is not just the amount of data, it is the juxtaposition of paradigms of consciousness in the various outlooks.

It is in the Hegel and Foucault and the Structualists and the post-Structualist and the post-modern and the pre-modern and the Marian, etc. etc..

I not trying to show off here because I know you know what I am referring to, but there are professional approaches and there are enthusiast approaches, just like in any other field.

I think you will find that almost all claims to certainty and definitiveness in the field of history are suspect, and those claims come from enthusiast rather than trained historians.

History is an on-going process.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Mark A. Baker]

Except for the Crusades, most of the genocide in Europe were Christians against Christians, and all sides considered themselves in accordance with Christianity. ...

Among other things you have conveniently selected to edit out the period of time between the mythic "conversion" of Constantine, where christianity was alloted the right to implement imperial power on behalf of the imperium, and the actual christianization of the empire. In your defense, that is a commonly "overlooked" aspect of christian european history.


Mark A. Baker

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Among other things you have conveniently selected to edit out the period of time between the mythic "conversion" of Constantine, where christianity was alloted the right to implement imperial power on behalf of the imperium, and the actual christianization of the empire. In your defense, that is a commonly "overlooked" aspect of christian european history.


Mark A. Baker

I didn't edit out anything.

I'm not going to write an encylopaedia.

But the Constantine example demonstrates my point.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[TG1]

Just a little bit of background ...

My father was a Southern Baptist minister. I attended and graduated from a Southern Baptist college.

I've had enough Southern Baptist Convention and Christianity to last me twelve lifetimes.

The Southern Baptist Convention has a political action committee that lobbies federal and state governments to pass or defeat legislation and regulations counter to "SBC members' values." Guess who decides what the values are? Not the congregations.

The Southern Baptist Church in which my father was buried and my mother was last a member and where a sister is a member recently refused to marry a black bride and groom, at the deacons' command. The minister knuckled under and agreed not to do so.

There's ignorance, and then there's bigotry. My own experiences with Christians have involved a lot of both.

Obviously, YMMV.

TG1

[Gib]

OK, here's a subject:

Possibly relevant is the fact that I was brought up to think that two topics were off limits in polite conversation: religion and politics.

To this day, despite the hours I have spent at ESMB essentially debating religious topics -- mostly Scientology ones, when someone in my daily life brings up the subject of religion or asks questions like the ones below, I feel paralyzed and am never certain what words are going to tumble out of my mouth:

"You should visit our church -- you'd like it!"

"What church do you belong to?"

"But you're a Christian, right?"

"You know that God loves you, don't you?"

"Do you believe in heaven and hell?"

And my favorite ... "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"

I don't have any well rehearsed lines that quickly extract me from those situations. I'm just as likely to say, "Sorry, but I don't discuss my religion" as I am to say, "I left the church a long time again" or "You are being inappropriate. Please leave."

I've lied and told Methodists I'm a Buddhist and told Baptists I am an Episcopalian. I actually tell some Episcopalians the truth -- that I'm an agnostic. Occasionally, I've gotten into conversations with earnest Christians who seem desperate to understand how I could think that way, and those conversations all end the same: they're sad, and I'm mad.

How do those of you who are not Christians handle these situations?

TG1

P.S. I live in a part of the world where the phrase "good person" means the same as "good Christian person."


:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Oh come on. It's simple. Scientology is based on exchange in abundance. Blue diamonds.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

A religion turned into a business. Complete with marketing plan and PR and positioning.
It even has it's own Navy and CIA operation. :police:

Status too, Doctor of Scientology. :hysterical:

Hey, do those other religions have Hard Sell as scripture? :buzzin: Mo money.

Scientology is tops, we are the elite.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::rofl mao::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterica l::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Mick Wenlock]

No, but you choose to see it that way. In the case of christianity, the christianization of europe was an incredibly brutal process conducted by the Christian Empire. It was in fact far worse than the earlier roman "persecutions" of christians had been. What persecutions had been instituted by Rome were principally based on violations of public law and aimed towards preserving the unity of the Roman state. They were not based on intolerance of minority religions. Nor were they especially numerous or ubiquitous.


What "Christian Empire" are you referring to?

What is your reference for your comparison of Christian harassment versus pagan harassment in Rome?



Pagan Romans were in fact amazingly tolerant of religious differences. Far more so than the later christian empire proved to be. But they did not brook challenges to the authority of the empire; an authority which some individual christians and local christian groups publicly sought to flout.


Again - who are you referring to?



Once empowered the christians set out on a campaign of religious genocide against all subject peoples, seeking to convert or destroy any adherents to other religions excepting only the jews. These latter they "tolerated", while openly discriminating against them, for reasons of their own peculiar religion.


Again - your source for this? It is beginning to sound like the speech from The da Vinci Code by Tebing.




This campaign lasted without abatement for centuries until all such non-christian groups were effectively eliminated in christian Europe. To say that campaign has been white-washed in the widely available histories of the time is a gross understatement. It took the Renaissance, essentially an intellectual rediscovery of the values of Pagan Antiquity, to begin to reverse the effects of the oppressive christian dominion of Europe.


When did this campaign start, what were it's high points? How do you account for the simple fact that islam conquered the entire Iberian peninsula and charged up to France in the 800's? kind of pokes a hole in the contention. Or how about the later incursion into what became the Balkans?




Nor is christianity qualitatively unique in this sort of historical impact. Other monotheistic traditions have conducted themselves in similarly excessive fashions in their own attempts to spread the "good news". I see it as an inherent feature of monotheisms, although not necessarily unique to them. Doctrinally they are naturally inclined to an "Only One" and exclusivist mentality.


well as the operative word is "mon" that is a tad redundant.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Mick,

Mark seems to be under the impression that Christianity is a monolithic entity and Superstructure of Europe.

I am assuming this because of his phrase "Christian Empire" which implies a monolithic Imperial structure.

He's wrong.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Mick,

Mark seems to be under the impression that Christianity is a monolithic entity and Superstructure of Europe.

I am assuming this because of his phrase "Christian Empire" which implies a monolithic Imperial structure.

He's wrong.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Well in the words of Texas Governor Miriam A. Ferguson,

If the King's English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for the children of Texas, and it's good enough for me.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Well in the words of Texas Governor Miriam A. Ferguson,

If the King's English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for the children of Texas, and it's good enough for me.

When did they start speaking the King's English in Texas?

The Anabaptist Jacques

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

When did they start speaking the King's English in Texas?

The Anabaptist Jacques

Probably about the same time Jesus started speaking the King's English

[Abletu]

Religion was considered for thousands of years the place to go for mental, physical and/or spiritual healing.

Jesus was a healer without a licence. By who's authority...

See how long it takes you before your crucified for practicing medicine without a licence.

Jesus loathed idolatry, scams and inequality between the sexes.

St Peter's mindset rebranded religion into a scam, sexual based inequality and an idolatry faith practice.

St Peter's and St Paul's mindset of idolatry, inquisition and sexist inequality was passed on generation after generation after generation and still going strong.

I had swallowed enough of christianity's love to make me puke.

Jesus said "What I can do you can do and more!" means what he practiced you can learn.

Dianetics and scientology is about healing. Fiction needs to be real to be believable and Ron was the best speculative writer I have ever read.

To me it means I can learn how to bring ease to and align three separate universes, the spirit, mind and body into a working healthy whole, a dis-ease free whole.

[Mark A. Baker]

Mick,

Mark seems to be under the impression that Christianity is a monolithic entity and Superstructure of Europe.

I am assuming this because of his phrase "Christian Empire" which implies a monolithic Imperial structure.

He's wrong.

The Anabaptist Jacques

False assumption. The time period under discussion was the onset of christian dominance within the Roman Empire which radically changed the social & legal nature of Imperial Rome. Christianity was not simply "spontaneously adopted" throughout Europe. It was as a direct result of a concerted political agenda put in place under the Christian Imperium.

This really isn't hard or obscure stuff. [addendum: especially as you know my primary interest lies in the Greco-Roman World.]


Mark A. Baker

[programmer_guy]

When did they start speaking the King's English in Texas?

The Anabaptist Jacques

Probably a silly reference to the King James 1769 revision of the Bible. :confused2:

[Mark A. Baker]

...
What is your reference for your comparison of Christian harassment versus pagan harassment in Rome? ...

Read the letters of Pliny. Compare with records of the 4th & 5th Centuries of the Imperium after the rise of christianity to political power. Above all read the histories and not simply christian apologetics.



... When did this campaign start, what were it's high points? How do you account for the simple fact that islam conquered the entire Iberian peninsula and charged up to France in the 800's? kind of pokes a hole in the contention. Or how about the later incursion into what became the Balkans? ...

The later advance of Islam into Europe had nothing to do with the initiation of the christian persecution of pagans. That was a much much later time period. Although to some degree they were influenced in that Islam drew on christianity and christian traditions for much of its early inspiration.


Mark A. Baker

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

False assumption. The time period under discussion was the onset of christian dominance within the Roman Empire which radically changed the social & legal nature of Imperial Rome. Christianity was not simply "spontaneously adopted" throughout Europe. It was as a direct result of a concerted political agenda put in place under the Christian Imperium.

This really isn't hard or obscure stuff. [addendum: especially as you know my primary interest lies in the Greco-Roman World.]


Mark A. Baker

Sorry Mark, you are overstating the case. There was no Christian Imperium.

No one is saying that there were not struggles and atrocities.

What I have said and still maintain is that they are exaggerated.

That things happened is true.

That they happened to the extent that you described earlier insisting is false.

By the way, if I remember correctly (and I don't always), wasn't Pliny writing to the emperor and advised him on how the Christians conceal their identity?

If he is the guy I am thinking of then at the time he wrote the Christians were still the persecuted ones. But they were persecuted because of their unwillingness to worship Jupiter or something like that.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[programmer_guy]

<snip>
The later advance of Islam into Europe had nothing to do with the initiation of the christian persecution of pagans. That was a much much later time period.

<snip>

Mark A. Baker

Is this the "much later" time period that you have in mind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

[uniquemand]

Jah Rastafari!

[Claire Swazey]

False assumption. The time period under discussion was the onset of christian dominance within the Roman Empire which radically changed the social & legal nature of Imperial Rome. Christianity was not simply "spontaneously adopted" throughout Europe. It was as a direct result of a concerted political agenda put in place under the Christian Imperium.

This really isn't hard or obscure stuff. [addendum: especially as you know my primary interest lies in the Greco-Roman World.]


Mark A. Baker

According to historian Susan Wise Bauer, you're right on the money on this.

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

According to historian Susan Wise Bauer, you're right on the money on this.

So what?

Who cares?

It's a thread derail anyway.

[Commander Birdsong]

Speaking of spiritual abuse, Scientology has a long ways to go to catch up with Christianity. Religion is a form of control that should not be forced on anyone, under any circumstances. Walk into any Christian service and the pastor WILL do his best to ram his belief system down your throat. If you resist, you go to a Hell that was created by a loving God for all that are not in agreement with the church, padding their bank account and following their path to salvation. If you decide to think for yourself and pursue spiritual development on your own, then you are practicing demonology.

NO!!!

that is NOT what religion is

that is repeatedly what the local bipeds have done with it

[Claire Swazey]

So what?

Who cares?

It's a thread derail anyway.

I don't think so, really. Discussing the history of Xtianity on a thread about Xtianity is kinda neat and at least somewhat apropos.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

According to historian Susan Wise Bauer, you're right on the money on this.

She's not a historian. She's a literature professor.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Claire Swazey]

She's not a historian. She's a literature professor.

The Anabaptist Jacques

She's also an historian.

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

Ok, so what is it you think she said?

[Claire Swazey]

Ok, so what is it you think she said?

Whom? Susan Wise Bauer? Don't confuse me, I'm blonde.

If so, yeah, she said that it was adopted by Constantine as a unifying factor. Religion as unifying factor. Plus I went into a diatribe a couple posts ago about the folly of mixing church and state and speculating that this might be the bigger issue with the problematic aspects of religion.

I like religious history and I think it dovetails well with analyzing the cult/religion type critiques that come up here. Others may prefer to take that issue from a different standpoint.

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

Whom? Susan Wise Bauer? Don't confuse me, I'm blonde.

If so, yeah, she said that it was adopted by Constantine as a unifying factor

Ok, so why's that bad?

[Spirit]

Unification? Could DM be the same being as Constantine? After all, Constantine was a squirrel of Christ's teachings and of God's Word...

Quoted Source (http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm)


The Bible's Ungodly Origins
by Robert L. Johnson

Many rank and file Christians sincerely believe the Bible is a direct communication from God to man. I know I used to believe it was when I was a Christian. And from recent conversations with many sincere Christians I know this is currently true for many believers. Once it is proven to our God-given reason that the Bible is strictly a man-made collection of mythology the mind loses yet another shackle of "revelation" and is soon on its way to full freedom and progress.
The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to human stenographers by God. It has nothing to do with God. In actuality, the Bible was VOTED to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century.
According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), (a bust of Constantine is pictured below) who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.

[auntpat]

Mark,

Your viewpoint on Christianity reminds me of black friends of mine who insist that they should have free college and other advantages, because their great, great, great, great grandfather was a white man's slave. Or how I feel when " CHRISTIANS" start reciting scripture to me from old testament laws.

I believe that the young blacks ever how many greats grandfather would tell him , if he wanted respect and advantages to go out and kill a lion. I believe that you would have a difficult job finding very many Christians celebrating your viewpoints of how some Non-christians were treated in the past.

And my statement to the Bible thummpers who attempt to innforce their reality on me, " What the fuck does that have to do with me?"

More Love and Light,
Aunt Pat


i

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

She's also an historian.

I don't think so.

She would state that in her biography if she was.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[ClearedSP]

If so, yeah, she said that it was adopted by Constantine as a unifying factor. Religion as unifying factor.

Well, sort of. Constantine's wife's brother was a political rival, and Constantine was intent on crushing him. Prior to attacking Rome, his brother in law's seat of power, he had a vision which told him that if his soldiers put a Christian symbol on their shields (the chi rho), they'd slaughter the opposition. So they did, and they did. He then had his brother in law's severed head paraded around Rome, and sent it to Carthage to show the southwestern part of the Empire who was boss.

Using violence to destroy political opposition is a KIND of unification.

[TG1]

Anybody interested in talking about the OP? Scientology and Christianity? Or Christianity in the twenty-first century?

TG1

[SpecialFrog]

Anybody interested in talking about the OP? Scientology and Christianity? Or Christianity in the twenty-first century?

They can't both be right but they can both be wrong?

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Anybody interested in talking about the OP? Scientology and Christianity? Or Christianity in the twenty-first century?

TG1

Yes. But not with someone who judges 21st century Christianity on what some naughty Romans and Byzantines did over a thousand years ago.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Mick Wenlock]

Read the letters of Pliny. Compare with records of the 4th & 5th Centuries of the Imperium after the rise of christianity to political power. Above all read the histories and not simply christian apologetics.


Have you actually READ the christian Apologetics you are busily dismissing? Like Polycarp - who was put to death by the Roman Administration long after Pliny the Younger died (whose letters I presume you are referring to, rather than Pliny the elder?) Hardly indicative of Christian pogroms and genocide. In fact the "Imperium" as you loftily call it persecuted Christians for 3 hundred years even while Christianity was gaining a stronghold throughout north africa and the mediterranean. The Coptic church was flourishing during that period.

I asked you for your sources about the evil stuff that you are accusing early Christians of - and you managed to cite a historian who wrote at the time when the Christians were being butchered - not butchering -and then nothing else. Where are your sources for all this mayhem that you claim went on AFTER Nicea for example?

So post Nicea - 325 AD - what are your sources - apart from the movie of course - for Christian persecution of pagans?

Now we can certainly point to Clovis/Louis and the battles and wars of the Frankish kingdoms but they were as political as they were religious. Even in England during this period as Christianity was expanding throughout the country I have never seen any reference to large massacres of pagans merely because they were pagans but only because of tribal wars. Do you have some source that says different? I have read the Anglo saxon chronicle and I cannot remember one item like that - perhaps you have one? Also Bedes History does not mention it either. France during this time was pagan - it only started to become Christian with the conversion of Clovis in 496. So far the pagans seem to have been doing ok

So where does that leave us? You have not come up with a simple reference to back any claim you have made thus far except to instruct me to read Pliny's letters - many of which I read in Latin class lo, these many years ago. And Pliny PREDATES the time period you were talking about.




The later advance of Islam into Europe had nothing to do with the initiation of the christian persecution of pagans. That was a much much later time period. Although to some degree they were influenced in that Islam drew on christianity and christian traditions for much of its early inspiration.


Mark A. Baker

A "much later" time period? How on earth do you figure that out? I did not say it was connected to the persecution of pagans - though I would remind you that in the Christian world of the time Saracens/Muslims/Arabs - were pagans and from the Islamic viewpoint Christians were unbelievers and pagans too.

The Islamic conquest of Spain started in 711. It lasted for 500 years . it came close to invading France.

In 640 or thereabouts the Muslim Caliphate was busily attacking the Christian strongholds in Egypt, North Africa and Cyprus.

If you are going to argue this Mark - you may want to start sorting out your history. The Caliphates initiated war and conquest on Christians - not the other way round. Or do you have some reference about the savagery of the Coptic Church?

After Nicea in 325 the Church in Rome was given "official" status by Constantine. That by no means spread Christianity - the French were not even converted as I wrote above until Clovis in 496 and even then that was a small minority in what would become Frankland. It was not until Charlemagne in around 800 that Christianity even became dominant in most of western Europe.

by 410 Rome and its surroundings was fighting for its life against waves of - wait for it - pagan invaders until it finally succumbed to Odoacer in 476.

So where was all the Chrsitian inspired massacres?

Time to put up a source.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Have you actually READ the christian Apologetics you are busily dismissing? Like Polycarp - who was put to death by the Roman Administration long after Pliny the Younger died (whose letters I presume you are referring to, rather than Pliny the elder?) Hardly indicative of Christian pogroms and genocide. In fact the "Imperium" as you loftily call it persecuted Christians for 3 hundred years even while Christianity was gaining a stronghold throughout north africa and the mediterranean. The Coptic church was flourishing during that period.

I asked you for your sources about the evil stuff that you are accusing early Christians of - and you managed to cite a historian who wrote at the time when the Christians were being butchered - not butchering -and then nothing else. Where are your sources for all this mayhem that you claim went on AFTER Nicea for example?

So post Nicea - 325 AD - what are your sources - apart from the movie of course - for Christian persecution of pagans?

Now we can certainly point to Clovis/Louis and the battles and wars of the Frankish kingdoms but they were as political as they were religious. Even in England during this period as Christianity was expanding throughout the country I have never seen any reference to large massacres of pagans merely because they were pagans but only because of tribal wars. Do you have some source that says different? I have read the Anglo saxon chronicle and I cannot remember one item like that - perhaps you have one? Also Bedes History does not mention it either. France during this time was pagan - it only started to become Christian with the conversion of Clovis in 496. So far the pagans seem to have been doing ok

So where does that leave us? You have not come up with a simple reference to back any claim you have made thus far except to instruct me to read Pliny's letters - many of which I read in Latin class lo, these many years ago. And Pliny PREDATES the time period you were talking about.




A "much later" time period? How on earth do you figure that out? I did not say it was connected to the persecution of pagans - though I would remind you that in the Christian world of the time Saracens/Muslims/Arabs - were pagans and from the Islamic viewpoint Christians were unbelievers and pagans too.

The Islamic conquest of Spain started in 711. It lasted for 500 years . it came close to invading France.

In 640 or thereabouts the Muslim Caliphate was busily attacking the Christian strongholds in Egypt, North Africa and Cyprus.

If you are going to argue this Mark - you may want to start sorting out your history. The Caliphates initiated war and conquest on Christians - not the other way round. Or do you have some reference about the savagery of the Coptic Church?

After Nicea in 325 the Church in Rome was given "official" status by Constantine. That by no means spread Christianity - the French were not even converted as I wrote above until Clovis in 496 and even then that was a small minority in what would become Frankland. It was not until Charlemagne in around 800 that Christianity even became dominant in most of western Europe.

by 410 Rome and its surroundings was fighting for its life against waves of - wait for it - pagan invaders until it finally succumbed to Odoacer in 476.

So where was all the Chrsitian inspired massacres?

Time to put up a source.

Mark,

Don't mess with Mick. He can get medieval on your ass.

That's Durendal slung across his shoulder!

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Claire Swazey]

Yes. But not with someone who judges 21st century Christianity on what some naughty Romans and Byzantines did over a thousand years ago.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat the past.

There was a guy who did that- made every mistake and shitty deed you could find, after saying he never would. Guess what his name was. Guess.

Starts with Lafayette...

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat the past.

There was a guy who did that- made every mistake and shitty deed you could find, after saying he never would. Guess what his name was. Guess.

Starts with Lafayette...

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat the tenth grade.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Claire Swazey]

Well, sort of. Constantine's wife's brother was a political rival, and Constantine was intent on crushing him. Prior to attacking Rome, his brother in law's seat of power, he had a vision which told him that if his soldiers put a Christian symbol on their shields (the chi rho), they'd slaughter the opposition. So they did, and they did. He then had his brother in law's severed head paraded around Rome, and sent it to Carthage to show the southwestern part of the Empire who was boss.

Using violence to destroy political opposition is a KIND of unification.

It totally is. D00d, I've seenAlien vs Predator.

[Claire Swazey]

I don't think so.

She would state that in her biography if she was.

The Anabaptist Jacques




student and scholar of history: a student of or expert in history
recorder of events: a writer of an account of historical events

[Claire Swazey]

Ok, so why's that bad?

I think that mixing politics (especially the running of a country or an empire) with religion leads to abuse and bloodshed.

Seems to me that this is one of the reasons for the bloodshed involved with organized religion in re historical events.

I'm sure there are other problems endemic to organized religion, however. And of course, I truly was kinda meandering.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

student and scholar of history: a student of or expert in history
recorder of events: a writer of an account of historical events


That is how the word is used.

But that isn't what an historian is.

You're using a descriptive dictionary, not a prescriptive one.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Claire Swazey]

That is how the word is used.

But that isn't what an historian is.

You're using a descriptive dictionary, not a prescriptive one.

The Anabaptist Jacques

D00d, she's a scholar and someone who writes 700 page long well researched books on history. And they aren't historical novels, either.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

D00d, she's a scholar and someone who writes 700 page long well researched books on history. And they aren't historical novels, either.

True. And she's good at it.

But she is an educator, not an historian.

It may be the popular use of the word, but there is a distinction between someone who just writes history and a historian.

I've written lots of articles and papers on history, but I don't consider myself an historian.

For one thing, I don't do primary source research and I don't think she does either.

For example, I have a friend who has two PhDs and a Master's from three of the best schools in Europe.

She's taught in Paris, St Petersburg, Bucharest, Zurich, and the University of Chicago.

She has written many books with primary sources.

She just learned Turkish so she can do primary source research on her next project.

She is an historian.

If I took all of her books and summarized them for another book easier for people to read, that wouldn't make me an historian.

There are so many levels in this field, but the word historian is reserved for those that increase the level of historical data available rather than summarize what is already known.

That's all I'm saying, and in the field of history that's what an historian is.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Commander Birdsong]

did you misunderstand what I wrote? I'm not a christian.

yes you are

you just won't admit it

[Commander Birdsong]

Southern Baptists? Oh, goody. That's actually my specialty. But I do other dialects as well.

When you go up against Christianity, you're really inviting the big guns. Lots of them. Hundreds of millions. But fewer every year. :)

Let me just say, I'm actually down with Jesus. Cool guy. Tough guy. If you can believe the Bible, which is always an interesting debate.

But Christians, the whole mass lot of 'em? Not so much.

Of course, every once in a while I meet a very nice Christian who's exceptionally kind and unjudgmental and generous and everything you'd expect one of those cats to be. And I bet that person would act and be the same way if he or she were a (cough) Scientologist. Or an atheist. Or a Wiccan. Or a Martian.

A few months ago I was on a 2 1/2 hour flight with a guy who was determined to witness to me. I warned him not to. I told him I could quote him under the table. I told him I'd tell him everything he didn't know about his denomination. (Southern Baptist, of course.) But he insisted.

Questions?

TG1

no tiggy

no questions

just a very deeply felt gratitude to you for publishing a few words of personal affirmation of the wisdom of the teachings of the nazarene