Why is Scientology kookier than the Catholic church?

EvanKeel

I'm not sure it's all that valuable to even take a historical view when comparing the two. Mainstream Catholicism is a bit different today than it was centuries ago. For example, I assume Catholics no longer feel that murdering Protestants is justified through religious beliefs (or vice versa for that matter). There's a big cultural component that plays into religion and so religions change as culture changes.

Not to open another can of worms, but it's like saying that our founding fathers were Christian. Well yes, culturally they were Christian because of their education, but they were influenced just as strongly by the Enlightenment. So, to many people today, they might not qualify as "true Christians."

I assume Scientology seems stranger now because of it's connection to science fiction, but really that's just stories in the end. Much of Christianity is built on stories, stories and faith. Faith is faith. Once you get enough people to believe something is true, it's less strange.

I have problems with almost everything your wrote. Your first paragraph is almost like me saying: “I assume Baptist don’t think it’s okay to torture animals and beat their wives anymore, but…” Where in the world did you get the claim that Catholics once thought it was okay to “murder” Protestants? I do recall some wars where Catholics and Protestants fought against each other (always connected with very intricate political conflicts and otherwise). Your comments only reinforce my suspicion that you are arguing against “Catholicism” without really understanding what it is.

Of course if someone grows up being told something that others think is “strange” he/she will not think it is strange. That’s precisely the point, though. Christianity is based on stories that are grounded in history. Furthermore, Christian faith is not merely a collection of stories but stories that communicate truths that provide a meaningful and compelling world-view. I do not think every viewpoint can be as compelling, consistent and meaningful and that is why most religious perspectives that have existed in the past have simply died. I think equating all religious perspectives and not seeing that they have varying levels of explanatory power and meaningfulness is just wrong.

So you're suggesting that Catholics and Protestants killed each other but felt it wasn't justified by their faith? Sorry, don't buy it. If two religions fight and target each other, their respective religions don't get to later point the finger at politics and say "Oh no, it's was his fault." Religion had a dog in that fight. European history simply disagrees with you, if I understand your objection correctly.

I'm not arguing "against" Catholicism. There's nothing to argue against. There was no premise here other than claiming one religion is kookier than another, which is obviously subjective. You can't argue "against" a religion in a general sense, only specific aspects of religion and then only if some sort of claim is made. It's a matter of historical record that Catholicism has changed through history (even reversed it's stances on issues), though I'm sure one can debate the degrees. That's not the same thing as "arguing against Catholicism," though.

As it happens, you can't actually tell anyone their view of Catholicism lacks understanding. It's not as if you have the One True View of Catholicism. At most you can say I don't understand your view of Catholicism, but that hardly seems relevant even if it's accurate.

And once Scientology has a chance to develop it's own history, it will have historical facts along with history--this assumes it survives, which is another discussion entirely.

Really, all I'm saying is that if we're looking at kookiness here, we need to take a look at current beliefs of the two religions, rather than history.

To an agnostic, subjective reality being what it is in this instance, believing the incarnation of a God that may or may not exist coming back to life kind of counts as science fiction. I have no more difficulty accepting that as a possibility than crop circles may serve as evidence of the existence of aliens. Note, I haven't actually looked at the science behind the causes for crop circles, it was just the first thing that popped into my mind. You could try to post your evidence of all this factual data that backs up your faith, but that wasn't super productive last time, now was it? More over, even if I accepted your evidence of a Supreme Being, there's nothing to suggest that just isn't a more evolved alien....apart from faith telling me otherwise, that is.

k8blujay2

I am a Christian... Baptist in fact, and my dad was on par to become a Catholic Priest (but is obviously not). But when someone doesn't understand faith or subscribe to one, then it all looks the same from the outside. Personally, I find "praying" (using this term loosely) to statues as kooky (that is how I see the blatant praying to God through the Mother Mary as being), just as I do the belief that aliens are going to take you away to some obscure planet... but to someone that doesn't believe in God or space aliens, it can all look weird and kooky....
And yes, I realize that Christians, and particularly Catholics, have done a lot of great things for culture and society, things like hospitals and public education (shoot even women's rights stemmed from prohibition)... but those things almost always take a back seat to the infighting and wars that have been waged in the name of Christ.

I simply don’t know what you mean when you say that the good accomplished by the Church takes a “back seat” to the infighting and wars, etc. That strikes me as totally groundless. Every day there are countless good deeds done by Catholics. Yesterday millions of people went to Church. Today many people are serving the poor, the hurting, the dying, etc. Just because the media focuses on “infighting” and negative historical images doesn’t mean that this is what dominates the Catholic life. I live almost every day of my life without seeing any of what you refer to (as do most Catholics, I suspect). Outside perception of what is going on in the Catholic Church is largely fueled by media images that are nearly always designed to smear the Church and are simply not fair.

Concerning “prayer to saints,” I suspect that you as a Baptist don’t find it “kooky” to ask your other fellow Christians to pray for you. I think it is a natural thing for people to ask people they respect and admire to pray on their behalf. Catholics believe that death does not divide the unity created by the Holy Spirit and therefore we can ask holy people both in this world and those who have passed beyond it to pray for us. I don’t find anything particularly kooky about that. Regarding aliens, etc., I do find that kooky since it is not grounded in anything I have any reason to believe in. The saints are people whose lives continues to have effect in this world and I will say the same about Jesus, of course. Aliens, well, I don’t see any reason to think speculation on them is grounded in anything “real.”

My point is and always be that to an outsider either can be equally as kooky...

macpatti

My point is and always be that to an outsider either can be equally as kooky...

I suppose if you mean an outsider who has zero knowledge of either one, and is being educated on both by people similar to those in this thread, then maybe.

EvanKeel

My point is and always be that to an outsider either can be equally as kooky...

I suppose if you mean an outsider who has zero knowledge of either one, and is being educated on both by people similar to those in this thread, then maybe.

Are you saying that people who hold different opinions than yours about something that's completely subjective are now uneducated? Doesn't that seem a tiny bit arrogant?

macpatti

You could try to post your evidence of all this factual data that backs up your faith, but that wasn't super productive last time, now was it?

I have no desire to do this again. But, actually, yes it was productive. Maybe not to you, but I received some PM's that suggest it was.

macpatti

Are you saying that people who hold different opinions than yours about something that's completely subjective are now uneducated? Doesn't that seem a tiny bit arrogant?

Not at all. I'm saying people who are biased against Christianity aren't the best source of the subject.

EvanKeel

Are you saying that people who hold different opinions than yours about something that's completely subjective are now uneducated? Doesn't that seem a tiny bit arrogant?

Not at all. I'm saying people who are biased against Christianity aren't the best source of the subject.

Why? You'd have to say that same thing about people who are biased in favor of Christianity or opposed to Scientology. We can't get away from bias. By extension you might as well say we shouldn't talk about it at all because everyone has a bias. That's just silly.

Again, we're talking about opinions here. Your lack of agreement doesn't invalidate someone else's opinion of what constitutes kooky.

macpatti

Why? You'd have to say that same thing about people who are biased in favor of Christianity or opposed to Scientology. We can't get away from bias. By extension you might as well say we shouldn't talk about it at all because everyone has a bias. That's just silly.

I would never suggest that someone learn about Scientology from me. In fact, my usual advice to someone for wanting to understand or learn a religion is to do their own research and reading.

We're talking about opinions here. Your lack of agreement doesn't invalidate someone else's opinion of what constitutes kooky.

I never said my lack of agreement doesn't invalidate someone's opinion. :huh:

EvanKeel

Why? You'd have to say that same thing about people who are biased in favor of Christianity or opposed to Scientology. We can't get away from bias. By extension you might as well say we shouldn't talk about it at all because everyone has a bias. That's just silly.

I would never suggest that someone learn about Scientology from me. In fact, my usual advice to someone for wanting to understand or learn a religion is to do their own research and reading.

We're talking about opinions here. Your lack of agreement doesn't invalidate someone else's opinion of what constitutes kooky.

I never said my lack of agreement doesn't invalidate someone's opinion. :huh:

Uhhh...

Not at all. I'm saying people who are biased against Christianity aren't the best source of the subject.

The implication is that you either are, or have, a superior source on the subject (which may itself be in contention) because you obviously don't have a bias against Christianity. So yes, you're claiming some sort authority over the subject because you claim to have more information about it...which is irrelevant even if it's true.

So, you claim not to have the answers about Scientology, or at least you're not a great source for information. That's fair. And yet you still feel justified in making comparisons...just like the other people who you imply are ill-informed about Catholicism, who you seem to feel should get more information before sharing their opinion?

Let's face it. You're annoyed at the slightest hint of Catholicism being marginalized and you're over-sensitive to it. It's natural. We all have chips on our shoulders. This is just one of yours.

k8blujay2

My point is and always be that to an outsider either can be equally as kooky...

I suppose if you mean an outsider who has zero knowledge of either one, and is being educated on both by people similar to those in this thread, then maybe.

I mean an outsider that doesn't practice either... or any religion... let alone believe in them... to an atheist or an atheistic agnostic, both are just as crazy... both are just as unprovable... both are just as "dangerous"....

Of course Catholicism... or more broadly Christianity makes sense to us... It's how we grew up....

But besides the anti-social nature of Scientology... Both religions require faith in something unseen and unproven... both are propelled by a series of stories by authors... both even try to project some type of moral code (regardless of whether it's a code we believe in, as that is a moot point) and social change.

The only real differences are the size and age of the two... Does that mean that I personally believe that Christianity is crazy and kooky... No, because that's the faith that has proven itself to me and it's the one that I know can prove itself to others too... But, there are a ton of other faiths that I find crazy.... but I have to realize that just because I believe Christianity to be the true faith, doesn't mean someone else isn't going to think it weird also.

Hell, Scientologist probably think we are all weird because we believe that God gave man the knowledge to heal ourselves through many forms of science...

macpatti

Uhhh...

Not at all. I'm saying people who are biased against Christianity aren't the best source of the subject.

The implication is that you either are, or have, a superior source on the subject

That is not what I was implying. Again, I advise people to read and study themselves. I NEVER tell people to rely on my explanation of Christianity or Catholicism. I always refer them to sources.

So, you claim not to have the answers about Scientology, or at least you're not a great source for information. That's fair. And yet you still feel justified in making comparisons...just like the other people who you imply are ill-informed about Catholicism, who you seem to feel should get more information before sharing their opinion?

Yes, I can make comparisons just like everyone else. I never suggested I should be the source of education regarding Scientology. My above statment which you quoted, is me saying the same thing about everyone else in here.

Let's face it. You're annoyed at the slightest hint of Catholicism being marginalized and you're over-sensitive to it. It's natural. We all have chips on our shoulders. This is just one of yours.

I am a Catholic. That's not a secret. When I see someone say something about Catholocism that is false, I will point it out.

EvanKeel

I am a Catholic. That's not a secret. When I see someone say something about Catholocism that is false, I will point it out.

Which I have yet to see you do in this thread. At most you've just asserted that someone's perspective on Catholicism based on facts is not justified. Where is this falseness you speak of? Once again, you're confusiing perception and perspective with fact, if such a concept exists at all.

You can't claim someone is falsely viewing Catholicism as kooky.

KimmyEB

I would never suggest that someone learn about Scientology from me. In fact, my usual advice to someone for wanting to understand or learn a religion is to do their own research and reading.

And they can! For starters, they simply go to Scientology.org and purchase a $250 book that explains what Ron Hubbard said in reference to the first beings on this planet...or something...it's all very vague. But I'm sure the $250 book explains it all perfectly!

http://www.bridgepub.com/store/catalog/factors-lectures.html

As directly linked from: http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-beliefs/what-are-scientology-religious-beliefs-about-creation-of-the-universe.html

You may as well want to just go ahead and buy this: http://www.bridgepub.com/store/catalog/philadelphia-doctorate-course-lectures.html

It's $1,500, but you get free shipping.

macpatti

You can't claim someone is falsely viewing Catholicism as kooky.

I never made such a claim. You're making implication after implication.

macpatti

Which I have yet to see you do in this thread.

Did you not see me correct the person who said the Church believes if you leave Catholicism you're going to hell? That is false, and I pointed it out. The rest of this is just discussion.

EvanKeel

You can't claim someone is falsely viewing Catholicism as kooky.

I never made such a claim. You're making implication after implication.

Then what have you done then? Again, what falsehoods about Catholicism have you been "correcting." My conclusion that you are instead stating that someone else's perspective is incorrect still stands. Stating falsehoods implies, to me, that you're speaking about actual facts, instead of perception. So what facts have been throw out that were wrong?

rml_16

Your first paragraph is almost like me saying: “I assume Baptist don’t think it’s okay to torture animals and beat their wives anymore, but…” Where in the world did you get the claim that Catholics once thought it was okay to “murder” Protestants? I do recall some wars where Catholics and Protestants fought against each other (always connected with very intricate political conflicts and otherwise). Your comments only reinforce my suspicion that you are arguing against “Catholicism” without really understanding what it is.

Perhaps not Protestants, but ostracizing, torturing and murdering Jews and pagans was great sport of the early and even not-so-early-church.

EvanKeel

Which I have yet to see you do in this thread.

Did you not see me correct the person who said the Church believes if you leave Catholicism you're going to hell? That is false, and I pointed it out. The rest of this is just discussion.

And if they had a representative from the Church tell them that, that would kind of put the Catholic Chruch in the sticky, yet commonplace problem of being inconsistent, wouldn't it?

rml_16

Which I have yet to see you do in this thread.

Did you not see me correct the person who said the Church believes if you leave Catholicism you're going to hell? That is false, and I pointed it out. The rest of this is just discussion.

That must be a MAJOR change in church doctrine.

macpatti

Then what have you done then? Again, what falsehoods about Catholicism have you been "correcting." My conclusion that you are instead stating that someone else's perspective is incorrect still stands. Stating falsehoods implies, to me, that you're speaking about actual facts, instead of perception. So what facts have been throw out that were wrong?

The fact is: the Catholic church does NOT state that if someone leaves Catholicism they're going to hell. That is false.

macpatti

And if they had a representative from the Church tell them that, that would kind of put the Catholic Chruch in the sticky, yet commonplace problem of being inconsistent, wouldn't it?

If a priest, or anyone else who speaks on behalf of the Church told them that, then absolutely. Can't you ask a question without making a jab at Catholicism? ("commonplace problem")

rml_16

Then what have you done then? Again, what falsehoods about Catholicism have you been "correcting." My conclusion that you are instead stating that someone else's perspective is incorrect still stands. Stating falsehoods implies, to me, that you're speaking about actual facts, instead of perception. So what facts have been throw out that were wrong?

The fact is: the Catholic church does NOT state that if someone leaves Catholicism they're going to hell. That is false.

That was pounded into the heads of children in Catholic school for decades, but now it's not the Church's teachings?
I may not BE a Catholic, but I did grow up in a Catholic family and know a thing or two about it.

macpatti

So you're suggesting that Catholics and Protestants killed each other but felt it wasn't justified by their faith? Sorry, don't buy it. If two religions fight and target each other, their respective religions don't get to later point the finger at politics and say "Oh no, it's was his fault." Religion had a dog in that fight. European history simply disagrees with you, if I understand your objection correctly.
I'm not arguing "against" Catholicism. There's nothing to argue against. There was no premise here other than claiming one religion is kookier than another, which is obviously subjective. You can't argue "against" a religion in a general sense, only specific aspects of religion and then only if some sort of claim is made. It's a matter of historical record that Catholicism has changed through history (even reversed it's stances on issues), though I'm sure one can debate the degrees. That's not the same thing as "arguing against Catholicism," though.
As it happens, you can't actually tell anyone their view of Catholicism lacks understanding. It's not as if you have the One True View of Catholicism. At most you can say I don't understand your view of Catholicism, but that hardly seems relevant even if it's accurate.
And once Scientology has a chance to develop it's own history, it will have historical facts along with history--this assumes it survives, which is another discussion entirely.
Really, all I'm saying is that if we're looking at kookiness here, we need to take a look at current beliefs of the two religions, rather than history.
To an agnostic, subjective reality being what it is in this instance, believing the incarnation of a God that may or may not exist coming back to life kind of counts as science fiction. I have no more difficulty accepting that as a possibility than crop circles may serve as evidence of the existence of aliens. Note, I haven't actually looked at the science behind the causes for crop circles, it was just the first thing that popped into my mind. You could try to post your evidence of all this factual data that backs up your faith, but that wasn't super productive last time, now was it? More over, even if I accepted your evidence of a Supreme Being, there's nothing to suggest that just isn't a more evolved alien....apart from faith telling me otherwise, that is.

You specifically used the word “murder” and said Catholics were allowed to “murder” Protestants. No representative of the Catholic Church has ever said it is morally acceptable to murder anyone. Murder is the deliberate and free killing of an innocent human being. The Church has never said that being a Protestant is a sufficient justification to kill another.

Catholicism has “changed” like the speed limit changes but it has not changed in respect to what it defines as revealed by God. There are changing circumstances that require changing responses but this is not the same as fundamentally changing a formal teaching of the Church.

I think it is quite easy to argue that some religions are kookier than others. If we use the light of reason to examine the claims of a particular religion we can find that some make claims that have a greater foundation in history, reason, etc., than another. I reject your radical relativism in respect to religious systems.

Once again, you have a great deal of faith in the future of Scientology. Most religions have not developed a meaningful historical foundation (e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism). These religions are philosophical systems that do not depend on historical claims. Countless religious claims in the past that were supposedly linked to historical persons have died from the weight of history. You are far too optimistic, I think, in your faith-belief in the future of Scientology.

Your last paragraph is confusing on several levels. First, I’ve never attempted offer a complete list of historical foundations for Christian faith. To attempt such a thing in a small format like this would trivialize the massive amount of data that is available. Concerning God and aliens, I’m not sure I understand you. If you think that the arguments I have for the existence of God only support belief in a being that could be an alien then you simply don’t understand the arguments for God. Those arguments arrive at a reality that is absolutely first and cannot be the result of an evolutionary process of any sort.

macpatti

That was pounded into the heads of children in Catholic school for decades, but now it's not the Church's teachings?
I may not BE a Catholic, but I did grow up in a Catholic family and know a thing or two about it.

Perhaps you're confusing the rejection of Christ and the Catholic church? One can leave the Catholic church and still be a Christian.

EvanKeel

You specifically used the word “murder” and said Catholics were allowed to “murder” Protestants. No representative of the Catholic Church has ever said it is morally acceptable to murder anyone. Murder is the deliberate and free killing of an innocent human being. The Church has never said that being a Protestant is a sufficient justification to kill another.

Catholicism has “changed” like the speed limit changes but it has not changed in respect to what it defines as revealed by God. There are changing circumstances that require changing responses but this is not the same as fundamentally changing a formal teaching of the Church.

I think it is quite easy to argue that some religions are kookier than others. If we use the light of reason to examine the claims of a particular religion we can find that some make claims that have a greater foundation in history, reason, etc., than another. I reject your radical relativism in respect to religious systems.

Once again, you have a great deal of faith in the future of Scientology. Most religions have not developed a meaningful historical foundation (e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism). These religions are philosophical systems that do not depend on historical claims. Countless religious claims in the past that were supposedly linked to historical persons have died from the weight of history. You are far too optimistic, I think, in your faith-belief in the future of Scientology.

Your last paragraph is confusing on several levels. First, I’ve never attempted offer a complete list of historical foundations for Christian faith. To attempt such a thing in a small format like this would trivialize the massive amount of data that is available. Concerning God and aliens, I’m not sure I understand you. If you think that the arguments I have for the existence of God only support belief in a being that could be an alien then you simply don’t understand the arguments for God. Those arguments arrive at a reality that is absolutely first and cannot be the result of an evolutionary process of any sort.

And yet the Catholics did kill Protests and Protestants did kill Catholics for no reason other their religious affiliations in a systematic sort of way. if you want play games of semantics, I can't say that I care much. Regardless of the name, are you going to tell me that the Church doesn't find that part of their history reprehensible by contemporary standards. It doesn't discount positive influences of the Church now necessarily, but it is an example of how the Church changes. And it's a pretty significant change. That is of course not the only example of actions that we would consider horribly violent and unjustifiable now, but were officially sanctioned at the time. I'm assuming that rounding up Jews and torturing them would be frowned upon now, but it was sanctioned at the time when it happened. Diametrically opposed stances on killing and torturing seem like pretty big conflicts when it comes to the core of Christ's teachings. It was a more barbaric time (arguably), and so religions of all sorts were more barbaric as well.

I also don't really care what you view as a jab against Christianity or Catholicism specifically. For reasons I've already stated, I think you're being paranoid on that count. My intention behind referencing questionable actions as commonplace would apply to any large organization, religious or otherwise. The more people involved, the more opportunity there is for divergent views on acceptable behavior regardless of official stances. I would apologize for not stating that specifically, but I don't feel so obliged.

I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic about the future of Scientology. I see no reason to speculate on its future given the question that was put forth.

If you think that the arguments I have for the existence of God only support belief in a being that could be an alien then you simply don’t understand the arguments for God. Those arguments arrive at a reality that is absolutely first and cannot be the result of an evolutionary process of any sort.

I was referencing a differing conclusion based on the same evidence. We obviously disagree about the possible conclusions one could draw. Again, I have no desire to go into specifics of that with you again. Suffice to say I find your analysis wanting. Not only that but I find your defense of something that didn't need a defense in the first place both pedantic and patronizing.

macpatti

Again, I have no desire to go into specifics of that with you again.

Nor do I.

Not only that but I find your defense of something that didn't need a defense in the first place both pedantic and patronizing.

How can you read the beginnings of this thread and not think that my religion needed "defending", as you put it?

macpatti

And yet the Catholics did kill Protests and Protestants did kill Catholics for no reason other their religious affiliations in a systematic sort of way. if you want play games of semantics, I can't say that I care much. Regardless of the name, are you going to tell me that the Church doesn't find that part of their history reprehensible by contemporary standards. It doesn't discount positive influences of the Church now necessarily, but it is an example of how the Church changes. And it's a pretty significant change. That is of course not the only example of actions that we would consider horribly violent and unjustifiable now, but were officially sanctioned at the time. I'm assuming that rounding up Jews and torturing them would be frowned upon now, but it was sanctioned at the time when it happened. Diametrically opposed stances on killing and torturing seem like pretty big conflicts when it comes to the core of Christ's teachings. It was a more barbaric time (arguably), and so religions of all sorts were more barbaric as well.
I also don't really care what you view as a jab against Christianity or Catholicism specifically. For reasons I've already stated, I think you're being paranoid on that count. My intention behind referencing questionable actions as commonplace would apply to any large organization, religious or otherwise. The more people involved, the more opportunity there is for divergent views on acceptable behavior regardless of official stances. I would apologize for not stating that specifically, but I don't feel so obliged.
I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic about the future of Scientology. I see no reason to speculate on its future given the question that was put forth.
I was referencing a differing conclusion based on the same evidence. We obviously disagree about the possible conclusions one could draw. Again, I have no desire to go into specifics of that with you again. Suffice to say I find your analysis wanting. Not only that but I find your defense of something that didn't need a defense in the first place both pedantic and patronizing.

If your point is that Catholics can be inconsistent and hypocritical, you will find no argument from me. If you are wanting to say that sometimes Catholics have been paranoid and persecuted people and accused them of crimes that they may not have been guilty of, you will have no argument from me. If you are wanting to say that these crimes are peculiar to Catholics and that any other society of people that has endured for any length of time is not guilty of the same, I’d like to see your evidence. What you are describing is not unique to religions, it is characteristic of human beings. There are all kinds of psychological reasons why people “fear” outsiders or those who try to overthrow the status quo or whatever. Again, these are issues of human psychology and not the fault of religion. The Catholic Church has never endorsed murder. Further, this is not a game of semantics. There are legitimate issues of the morality of warfare, social cohesion, self-defense, defense of the state, etc., that often get mixed up with religious matters in conflicts between nations. To make a quick judgment on such things and say the Church endorsed murder is simply unfair. Your second paragraph seems to grant the points I’m making in this paragraph although they are the points I’ve been making all along.

Concerning Scientology and your optimism about it, I make that remark because you seem to express confidence that Scientology will develop a “sound” historical defense of itself, etc. I find no reason for this optimism based on the history of religions. Most of them die and do not develop an enduring defense of themselves.

Your last paragraph is still confusing. I was actually seeking clarification since it seemed to me that you were suggesting that the arguments for God can just as easily be interpreted as arguments for a super alien intelligence, or something of the sort. I deny that is the case. The arguments for God conclude to a reality that simply can’t be a super alien intelligence since such a being would still require a reason for its being just like all other dependent beings in this universe require one.

EvanKeel

There are all kinds of psychological reasons why people “fear” outsiders or those who try to overthrow the status quo or whatever. Again, these are issues of human psychology and not the fault of religion. The Catholic Church has never endorsed murder. Further, this is not a game of semantics. There are legitimate issues of the morality of warfare, social cohesion, self-defense, defense of the state, etc., that often get mixed up with religious matters in conflicts between nations. To make a quick judgment on such things and say the Church endorsed murder is simply unfair. Your second paragraph seems to grant the points I’m making in this paragraph although they are the points I’ve been making all along.

If the Church approved of tactics in the past that it no longer approves of for moral reasons, there's a shift there. If you want to say it's all culture and politics than I simply disagree. Instead, I suggest that culture, politics and religion are so tightly bound that one can't blame either of the two for historical events. Hence, it's more productive for the question given if we just look at the beliefs from our biased perspectives.

Clearly your perspective of the Church is different from other people who've posted, and I live in a world where you both get to be right. It's a benefit of not being constrained by a myth of some absolute, objective reality.

Concerning Scientology and your optimism about it, I make that remark because you seem to express confidence that Scientology will develop a “sound” historical defense of itself, etc. I find no reason for this optimism based on the history of religions. Most of them die and do not develop an enduring defense of themselves.

Again, I'm not optimistic. I'm therefore forced to conclude that you're incapable of reading, or at least supporting your assertions. My original statement stands. Assuming Scientology gets a millennium of history, people will probably think of it as being less kooky than they do now. That's not being optimistic; that's me offering conjecture based on a hypothetical scenario. The probability of that happening (that Scientology actually gets a millennium) is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, so I don't bother thinking about it one way or the other.

Your last paragraph is still confusing. I was actually seeking clarification since it seemed to me that you were suggesting that the arguments for God can just as easily be interpreted as arguments for a super alien intelligence, or something of the sort. I deny that is the case. The arguments for God conclude to a reality that simply can’t be a super alien intelligence since such a being would still require a reason for its being just like all other dependent beings in this universe require one.

Oh I'm aware you're seeking clarification. I choose not to give it to you because we've gone there and done that as far as I'm concerned. I get that you deny my claim. I'm just not going to participate in extending the conversation in that direction, as it's only partially tangential, and I lack a certain amount of confidence that you'll provide anything new and different than what you've said in the past.

Nor do I.

orly? Funny way of showing it.

EvanKeel

Again, I have no desire to go into specifics of that with you again.

Nor do I.

Not only that but I find your defense of something that didn't need a defense in the first place both pedantic and patronizing.

How can you read the beginnings of this thread and not think that my religion needed "defending", as you put it?

Because I didn't see anything inaccurate being said. People were offering their perspectives based on their experiences. It's valid. I don't think Catholicism should really seek defense from valid points of view.

I assume you didn't think they were valid, but since they're not your points of view or your experiences, your defense holds no weight.

macpatti

Give me a break. Calling my religion kooky warrants a reply. And I've already pointed out the false statement made which I corrected. I probably know a little more about the Catholic faith than your average person, so I don't see why my clearing up something is negative.