If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I think they all purport absolute nonsense. I've stated this clearly. Some require you to pay to be a member of their club and some require you to subscribe to a certain superstition. People get all het up about Scientology because its bugaboo is money; people don't seem to get so worked up about accepting Christ as the saviour - it's all equally nonsensical.
Scientology and The Others go about exploiting people's vulnerabilities; they're all scams; they both use different mediums for their exploitation.
But it's not equally nonsensicle, if you can't see the difference being scammed for free and being scammed for money then frankly, you're better off with the Scientologists.
You're not addressing my point.
Oh, and saying that Catholics deliver up their kids for so-called "kiddy-fiddling" in the same way that Scientologists empty their pockets for enlightenment is depraved, whether meant in earnest or not.
Christians don't believe that the story of Jesus is just a "parable". And the story of Jesus is in every way as fantastical as Xenu and the Galactic Confederacy. Fuck it, Aliens are a damn sight more plausible than God. If Scientology had landed two thousand years ago when people were (more) credulous and more concerned with evil spirits causing illness, then i suspect we'd have Scientology as the worlds largest religion - or off-shoots thereof.
People need to get over the idea that their religion is in anyway special; a person's religion is largely likely to be an accident of birth. The chances are also that a believer has had their religions drilled into them at a young age, while their still Santa Clause susceptible. The hypocrisy of one person of faith criticising another person's faith is almost tangible.
I never said Catholics deliver up kids for fiddling. Still the comparison was rubbish - i was a bit drunk - and i accept it was silly.
I think we're agreed that most people don't get their morals from their chosen scripture. As for the concept of everyone who is not "one of us" being evil, have you not heard of a little place called hell? All religions are equally divisive. In the core teachings of Christianity and Islam, you can be the kindest person on the planet, but if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, you're going to hell. Many churches teach that any evidence that contradicts the bible is there to tempt you. The morals in the bible are common to all of society (well the idea that the teachings of the bible are moral is highly debatable, but let's assume they are for a second). It's the bullshit that goes along with it that they're selling under the impression that it turns you into a good person if you follow it.
Everything you've said I've addressed, read the thread again.
But the Bible (New Testament in particular) makes the distinction between the narrative and the allegorical. When the Bible tells of Jesus feeding 5 thousand they mention it's a parable.
Maistream Protestant Church's and even the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council have accepted a more interpretative approach to the Bible. Only a minority of fruitcakes actually take every word in the Bible to it's literal sense.
So if someone came on here and started bad-mouthing Christians you'd have no problem with that?
I don’t like picking out one religions and going at it is right, talking about all religions i wouldn’t have a problem with,
Including Jesus himself. Jesus rejected the church of the time, but was still quite clear on many occasions that followers of God should live in accordance to the rules put down by the Old Testament.
And what's that got to do with the price of artichokes in the Outer Hebredies?
You seemed to be claiming that the new testament validates the idea that the old testament isn't supposed to be taken literally. If anything, it does the opposite.
Incidentally, the only reason the Catholic church (and others) accept a more interpretive version of the bible is because it is constantly disproved, and sticking to their principles would mean that their income would be practically non-existant, because it would be so far away from most people's ideas of morality that people would find it disgraceful.
Where did I mention the Old Testament? Anyhoo, the Old Testament has little relevance to Christians. Go to a Chrch service some day, I've been to hundreds throughout my childhood and never once heard a story from the Old Testament. It's all Gospel shite and Letters to the Galatians and shite like that.
Again, where's the relevance?
Poppy-cock. The Bible purports fantastical nonsense and one sketchy quote from The Bible which says nothing about anything is a seriously weak refutation of the points being made. Is the resurrection of Christ and the virgin birth "allegorical".
All your saying essentially is The Bible's egregious bull-shit is allegorical and the stuff that isn't so morally repugnant or fantastically unbelievable is the real stuff we should take from. It's a squirmy and slippery non-argument.
Of course they have to constantly accept a more interpretative approach; we're growing up intellectually as a race. Religion has its roots in the infancy of our species.
It seems to me that you're clinging to the ever shrinking idea of sensible religion. You're casting off all the bits that aren't so comfortable to deal with as they're refuted and are searching for the ever decreasing stable bits.
You've successfully cast of the Old Testament and all the bad bits from the New Testament. Really, you don't need The Bible to take your moral cue from what's left.
Quite a lot if we're discussing religion being a money-making enterprise or not. I'd think changing your core beliefs to fit in with the maximum number of potential churchgoers is a clear indication of the priorities of many religions.
For Christians? No.
No, I'm not saying that. Can you read?
But Christians also believe that the Bible and every word written in it came from the hand of God, the New Testament focuses on Jesus and that he is the Messiah. Therefore God wants us to focus on the New Testament and on Jesus as the Messiah. It's crazy but that's how it is.
The Church accquired all their land centuries before major dogmatic changes or the separation of Church. The Church could lose all their attendances and still be loaded after it. Doesn't the Church own like a 1/5 of all land in England or something?
Those sorts of things cost a fortune in upkeep. They need a steady income like anyone else with those sorts of assets. Don't overestimate the Catholic church. Their New York diocese was bankrupted by a few child abuse lawsuits. Either way, just because they're rich, does that mean they don't get worried if they're failing to attract people? No different from any business.
Actually the Scientology guru died in 1986 and I'm not sure if they are a "profit-making" organisation as such or if the money that people pay just goes to sustain the organisation (perhaps pay some stuff). I'm not convinced anyone is forced to hand over their money although I don't believe in their s**t myself.