Why is Scientology kookier than the Catholic church?

TheRoadDog

While I stated I agreed with TheRoadDog's statement, I'm going to add in my own opinion and experiences. Take it with a grain of salt, as every opinion should be.

I think ALL religions are kooky. That is my opinion. I DO, however, believe that all religions have a few things in common, which has cemented MY BELIEF in the existence of God and "A great teacher/sacrifice," no matter what name you choose to give both entities.

Now, a little side story: My grandmother was raised in the Catholic church. She went to Catholic schools as soon as she was old enough to attend to the day she graduated. She went through all the ceremonies, was given a catholic name, all that stuff. She remained in the Catholic Church until she met my grandfather. My grandfather was definitely not a catholic(He later became a preacher though.) My grandmother went to the church to get permission to marry a non-catholic. They refused her. She married him anyway, and they excommunicated her and told her that she had condemned herself and any children she might have to burn in hell with her husband. My mother still has the paperwork for all of this somewhere. I know this was close to a hundred years ago and that times might have changed, but that is kooky to me.

I have a similar story. My first wife was Jewish. It didn't work out. We divorced and I met a nice Italian Catholic girl. Her family -- very active in the church -- wanted a big Italian Catholic Wedding. The Church said we could not get married in the Church, because I had been married previously.

However, after further consideration and because my future father-in-law donated quite generously to the church and was also the Choirmaster, they came across a loophole. My previous wife was Jewish; therefore, the Catholic Church didn't recognize that marriage; therefore, I was never married; therefore, I could be married in the Catholic Church.

EvanKeel

And? It doesn't change the fact that the Church taught it. The person who taught that represented the Church.

There is a huge difference between saying "the Catholic church" teaches this and "a Catholic church " teaches this. My correction was that the overarching Church never says if you're not Catholic you're going to hell.

To you maybe. To the person receiving that message there may not be any difference at all and that's a valid stance to take. No sender of any form of communication has the luxury of fully controlling how information is received.

bathsheba_c

Any sensible religion has wiggle room and loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. The reason for that is that life is complicated.

And to the jerks saying that religion is the primary source of conflicts in the world, how do you explain the Iran-Iraq War? The American Civil War? The War of Jenkins' Ear? Any war involving the USSR?

TheRoadDog

Any sensible religion has wiggle room and loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. The reason for that is that life is complicated.

And to the jerks saying that religion is the primary source of conflicts in the world, how do you explain the Iran-Iraq War? The American Civil War? The War of Jenkins' Ear? Any war involving the USSR?

Jerks?

I'm rubber; You're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

macpatti

To you maybe. To the person receiving that message there may not be any difference at all and that's a valid stance to take. No sender of any form of communication has the luxury of fully controlling how information is received.

I understand that, Evan. Good grief. I'm still correcting something that is incorrect, regardless of who said it. Suppose someone was reading this thread and read that comment about Catholics believing if you're not Catholic, you're going to hell. That's one more person that may believe that. So, I comment to make it clear that is not what "the" Church teaches. I'm still not sure why this has you so bothered. If you read a statement that you know to be false about something you're passionate about, I don't know why you wouldn't comment on it.

MaraDiaz

I disagree that religion is the primary cause of war. It's often used as the excuse, but the primary cause is resources.

EvanKeel

To you maybe. To the person receiving that message there may not be any difference at all and that's a valid stance to take. No sender of any form of communication has the luxury of fully controlling how information is received.

I understand that, Evan. Good grief. I'm still correcting something that is incorrect, regardless of who said it. Suppose someone was reading this thread and read that comment about Catholics believing if you're not Catholic, you're going to hell. That's one more person that may believe that. So, I comment to make it clear that is not what "the" Church teaches. I'm still not sure why this has you so bothered. If you read a statement that you know to be false about something you're passionate about, I don't know why you wouldn't comment on it.

I think I get it now.you're literally incapable of understanding that the statement you consider false was not false to the person who made it. It doesn't matter what "the" church says on the subject because their surrogate, in the form of "a" church, communicated something different and that's what matters.

There's really not that large of a difference between a large organized religion and a chain restaurant. If I have terrible dining experience and tell the home office, and they apologize and say that is not how they do business, I'm inclined to argue because it obviously is how they do business.

macpatti

I think I get it now.you're literally incapable of understanding that the statement you consider false was not false to the person who made it.

I think you are literally incapable of accepting that what a priest tells someone can be wrong. The statement "The Catholic Church teaches if you are not Catholic, you will go to hell" is a false statement. That does not mean it wasn't said to her by someone representing the Catholic church. I'm not denying that. Of course it was not false to the person who was told that by a priest. I'm not denying that. What is wrong with me telling her now that what that priest told her is incorrect?

macpatti

There's really not that large of a difference between a large organized religion and a chain restaurant. If I have terrible dining experience and tell the home office, and they apologize and say that is not how they do business, I'm inclined to argue because it obviously is how they do business.

Are you really suggesting that someone representing a restaurant, a church, a school, a group of people should be able to speak for the entire group, and the entire group should be held accountable? Just because a teacher teaches something that is false, does not mean that the school teaches it that way. Just because you receive bad service in a restaurant, does not mean that's how management expects service to be delivered. Just because a priest told someone they were going to hell does not mean the Catholic Church believes that. Just because RoadDog was allowed to marry someone in the Catholic church without receiving an nullity of marriage doesn't mean the overarching Church would have condoned that.

EvanKeel

I think I get it now.you're literally incapable of understanding that the statement you consider false was not false to the person who made it.

I think you are literally incapable of accepting that what a priest tells someone can be wrong. The statement "The Catholic Church teaches if you are not Catholic, you will go to hell" is a false statement. That does not mean it wasn't said to her by someone representing the Catholic church. I'm not denying that. Of course it was not false to the person who was told that by a priest. I'm not denying that. What is wrong with me telling her now that what that priest told her is incorrect?

Your assumption that it matters for starters. Some bells you just don't get to un-ring.

macpatti

Your assumption that it matters for starters. Some bells you just don't get to un-ring.

For her, no. But when she posts it on a public forum it *could* matter to someone else. That's the point you keep missing here.

EvanKeel

There's really not that large of a difference between a large organized religion and a chain restaurant. If I have terrible dining experience and tell the home office, and they apologize and say that is not how they do business, I'm inclined to argue because it obviously is how they do business.

Are you really suggesting that someone representing a restaurant, a church, a school, a group of people should be able to speak for the entire group, and the entire group should be held accountable? Just because a teacher teaches something that is false, does not mean that the school teaches it that way. Just because you receive bad service in a restaurant, does not mean that's how management expects service to be delivered. Just because a priest told someone they were going to hell does not mean the Catholic Church believes that. Just because RoadDog was allowed to marry someone in the Catholic church without receiving an nullity of marriage doesn't mean the overarching Church would have condoned that.

Lol it's the job of the priest to speak for the church so yeah. The entire organization does get to take a hit for that.

EvanKeel

Your assumption that it matters for starters. Some bells you just don't get to un-ring.

For her, no. But when she posts it on a public forum it *could* matter to someone else. That's the point you keep missing here.

You're actually claiming you weren't speaking to her and instead you were helping clear up confusion for people who are incapable of making their own decisions based on their own experiences. Color me both incredulous and insulted at your lack of faith in my ability to draw conclusions without your intervention.

macpatti

Lol it's the job of the priest to speak for the church so yeah. The entire organization does get to take a hit for that.

Priests are human and make mistakes all the time. The problem is people thinking they're supposed to be perfect and fail to consider that something a priest is telling them is wrong.

macpatti

You're actually claiming you weren't speaking to her and instead you were helping clear up confusion for people who are incapable of making their own decisions based on their own experiences.

I was informing her that statement was false. She, and others, wanted to stand by that as being correct and actually taught out of the Catechism. I continue to make the claim that the Church teaches that if you're not Catholic you're going to hell is false. Why can't this be for her edification as well as anyone reading this thread who may not know what the Catholic Church teaches?

Color me both incredulous and insulted at your lack of faith in my ability to draw conclusions without your intervention

Why do you think this is about YOU at all? Do you really fail to believe there are people who don't understand Christianity and are seeking answers and appreciate my "intervention"? You're pretty arrogant if you think I was talking to you. Just because you thought I was talking to you and you felt insulted doesn't mean everyone who couldn't draw the same conclusions as the all-knowing Evan was insulted.

EvanKeel

I was informing her that statement was false. She, and others, wanted to stand by that as being correct and actually taught out of the Catechism. I continue to make the claim that the Church teaches that if you're not Catholic you're going to hell is false. Why can't this be for her edification as well as anyone reading this thread who may not know what the Catholic Church teaches?

Once again your definition of truth is incompatible with mine. The statement isn't false because, like all "truth" it's relative.

Why do you think this is about YOU at all? Do you really fail to believe there are people who don't understand Christianity and are seeking answers and appreciate my "intervention"? You're pretty arrogant if you think I was talking to you. Just because you thought I was talking to you and you felt insulted doesn't mean everyone who couldn't draw the same conclusions as the all-knowing Evan was insulted.

Did the Church teach you banal sarcastic banter, too? Just curious. And you were talking to me hon, a lot. I'm in the public. You were talking to me. See how talking to multiple audiences can be a little tricky and you should be a little more careful with your language? As an audience member, I have no obligation to assume that you "aren't" speaking to my concerns along with everyone else's.

macpatti

Did the Church teach you banal sarcastic banter, too? Just curious

Uh, oh. I've hit a nerve.

And you were talking to me hon, a lot. I'm in the public. You were talking to me. See how talking to multiple audiences can be a little tricky and you should be a little more careful with your language? As an audience member, I have no obligation to assume that you "aren't" speaking to my concerns along with everyone else's.

Of course I was "talking" to anyone reading this. Because YOU felt insulted, you don't think I should have corrected a statement because YOU could have drawn your own conclusions. That does not mean that everyone esle reading this felt the same way you did. Hon.

EvanKeel

Did the Church teach you banal sarcastic banter, too? Just curious

Uh, oh. I've hit a nerve.

And you were talking to me hon, a lot. I'm in the public. You were talking to me. See how talking to multiple audiences can be a little tricky and you should be a little more careful with your language? As an audience member, I have no obligation to assume that you "aren't" speaking to my concerns along with everyone else's.

Of course I was "talking" to anyone reading this. Because YOU felt insulted, you don't think I should have corrected a statement because YOU could have drawn your own conclusions. That does not mean that everyone esle reading this felt the same way you did. Hon.

*shrug* Yeah, I admit it. Your entire part of this exchange has been irritating with regard to your attitude, arrogance, and ignorance. There's no shame in that. It doesn't give you more power over anything as far as the conversation goes. I see no purpose in you mentioning it, except as yet another jab. You obviously felt like your religion was being attacked from the beginning so you probably feel justified in jabbing back. I guess that does fall in line the Catholicism's history of violence. "Well, it seemed justified at the time, so it wasn't murder."

As far as me being insulted as a member of the public, as you keep pointing out, it's a public forum. Why shouldn't I call you out for your crap every time I see it? Oh that's right, there isn't a reason.

macpatti

*shrug* Yeah, I admit it. Your entire part of this exchange has been irritating with regard to your attitude, arrogance, and ignorance. There's no shame in that. It doesn't give you more power over anything as far as the conversation goes. I see no purpose in you mentioning it, except as yet another jab. You obviously felt like your religion was being attacked from the beginning so you probably feel justified in jabbing back.

Uh, read the topic title. My religion WAS being attacked! Of course I'm going to respond. Again, not sure why that bothers you so much. I'm sure if there was a thread saying something bad about homosexuality, you'd want to go in there and comment. At least I hope you would.

I guess that does fall in line the Catholicism's history of violence. "Well, it seemed justified at the time, so it wasn't murder."

Ah, yes, Evan. My wanting to debate my religion in a debate forum is sooooo similar and falls in line with the Church's history of violence. You really shouldn't continue when you're so emotional. You've now resorted to personal jabs at me and nonsensical statements about me and the Church.

As far as me being insulted as a member of the public, as you keep pointing out, it's a public forum. Why shouldn't I call you out for your crap every time I see it? Oh that's right, there isn't a reason.

My "crap"? You really don't like that I pointed out something a priest told someone is false. Why does this bother/hurt you so much?

EvanKeel

*shrug* Yeah, I admit it. Your entire part of this exchange has been irritating with regard to your attitude, arrogance, and ignorance. There's no shame in that. It doesn't give you more power over anything as far as the conversation goes. I see no purpose in you mentioning it, except as yet another jab. You obviously felt like your religion was being attacked from the beginning so you probably feel justified in jabbing back.

Uh, read the topic title. My religion WAS being attacked! Of course I'm going to respond. Again, not sure why that bothers you so much. I'm sure if there was a thread saying something bad about homosexuality, you'd want to go in there and comment. At least I hope you would.

I guess that does fall in line the Catholicism's history of violence. "Well, it seemed justified at the time, so it wasn't murder."

Ah, yes, Evan. My wanting to debate my religion in a debate forum is sooooo similar and falls in line with the Church's history of violence. You really shouldn't continue when you're so emotional. You've now resorted to personal jabs at me and nonsensical statements about me and the Church.

As far as me being insulted as a member of the public, as you keep pointing out, it's a public forum. Why shouldn't I call you out for your crap every time I see it? Oh that's right, there isn't a reason.

My "crap"? You really don't like that I pointed out something a priest told someone is false. Why does this bother/hurt you so much?

It bothers me because you presented it by saying that that person is wrong. There's a distinction to be made here.

You could have said, "Oh, that doesn't match up with my understanding. Here's what I was taught. Let's talk about it."

When the way you presented yourself was closer to "No you're wrong."

I can only hope you understand how significantly different those are.

They weren't wrong. That is what was being taught. The Church did teach that, and it happened to be inconsistent with apparent official teachings as you understand them, but it doesn't invalidate the experience. All it does is suggest that the Church has trouble controlling its priests. As I stated previously, that makes total sense. Lots of people means lots of opportunity for inconsistency, but the fact that we're human doesn't mean the Church isn't responsible for that person's words. A priest is a representative of the Church and that carries with it responsibility.

As far as the title goes, you choose to interpret it as an insult, and if I had to guess I'd say it's because you frequently feel like the Catholic church gets attacked. That doesn't make this an attack.

Comparing Catholicism to Scientology isn't an attack. Suggesting that either or both are kooky is also not an attack, unless you want it to be.

You felt attacked because you wanted to and came out with guns blazing and yet I'm the emotional one. Got it. As to being emotional and resorting to jabs, you're hands aren't exactly clean there either, but I don't see you taking your own advice.

Do have a happy 4th,

macpatti

You felt attacked because you wanted to and came out with guns blazing and yet I'm the emotional one. Got it. As to being emotional and resorting to jabs, you're hands aren't exactly clean there either, but I don't see you taking your own advice.

Give me a break, Evan. The title of this thread is calling the Catholic church "kooky". Then when I started reading comments, I realized that some people had a misunderstanding of the Catholic church (which is common), even if that is at the fault of a Catholic church itself. I'm passionate about my faith, so I'm debating some of the claims here. I'm not sure why YOU are so worked up.....because I didn't phrase and type my comment the way YOU think I should have?

EvanKeel

You felt attacked because you wanted to and came out with guns blazing and yet I'm the emotional one. Got it. As to being emotional and resorting to jabs, you're hands aren't exactly clean there either, but I don't see you taking your own advice.

Give me a break, Evan. The title of this thread is calling the Catholic church "kooky". Then when I started reading comments, I realized that some people had a misunderstanding of the Catholic church (which is common), even if that is at the fault of a Catholic church itself. I never felt personally attacked until you kept coming at me. Again, for reasons I don't understand. Because I didn't phrase and type my comment the way YOU think I should have?

To answer your last question, yes. You've over simplified things, but that's basically it. I think the phrasing is very important for reasons I've already gone over.

"The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." -Samuel Clemens

My criticism of your reaction to the title stands, your declaration of when you first felt attacked notwithstanding.

macpatti

To answer your last question, yes. You've over simplified things, but that's basically it. I think the phrasing is very important for reasons I've already gone over.

Wow. You're taking issue with the way I phrased my correction of what the Church teaches, yet you see nothing wrong with you calling the Catholic church kooky?

My criticism of your reaction to the title stands, your declaration of when you first felt attacked notwithstanding.

But, wait. You are the one who keeps saying one's opinions shouldn't be debated. Who are YOU to tell ME how to react to a statement about my faith? You're making this way too much about YOU.

EvanKeel

Wow. You're taking issue with the way I phrased my correction of what the Church teaches, yet you see nothing wrong with you calling the Catholic church kooky?

If it helps I'd be more than happy to have a discussion about your possible objections to the word and its potential pejorative nature in comparison to what I think the probable the intended meaning is, something closer to "quirky" than "crazy."

But, wait. You are the one who keeps saying one's opinions shouldn't be debated. Who are YOU to tell ME how to react to a statement about my faith? You're making this way too much about YOU.

I said you chose your reaction. I still think you're seeing objection to the title because you want to. That's not me telling you how to react. You brought a value judgement in on that all on your own. YOU keep making this about ME when it's not.

macpatti

I said you chose your reaction. I still think you're seeing objection to the title because you want to. That's not me telling you how to react.

Wrong. I didn't sit hear, read the title and some of the posts and say, "You know what? Calling the Catholic church kooky isn't bad, but I'm going to choose to object to it". Sorry, but my thought process didn't happen that way. I've gone over this, yet you still keep wanting to insist that you know I "chose" my reaction. You've also told me more than once how I should have phrased my objection, so yes, you are telling me how to react.

Are you done derailing this thread, or do you still want to argue with whether or not I chose my reaction?

EvanKeel

I said you chose your reaction. I still think you're seeing objection to the title because you want to. That's not me telling you how to react.

Wrong. I didn't sit hear, read the title and some of the posts and say, "You know what? Calling the Catholic church kooky isn't bad, but I'm going to choose to object to it". Sorry, but that's not how my thought process happened. I've gone over this, yet you still keep wanting to insist that you know I "chose" my reaction. You've also told me more than once how I should have phrased my objection, so yes, you are telling me how to react.

Are you done derailing this thread, or do you still want to argue with whether I chose my reaction?

Well now you're doing funny things with "reaction." When I say you chose your reaction, I'm indeed talking about your emotional reaction, your thought process. You keep disputing what I've said and I keep not believing you. There are reasons for that that have mostly to do with the subtleties of your written response. Given a lack of tone of voice or other non-verbal cues, I admit that I could be mistaken. I don't think so at this moment, but who knows. I see no reason for that pattern of you restating your position and me not believing your response to deviate any time soon. I'm perfectly happy dropping it from the thread entirely. If you wish you may send me message and we can continue, though I don't see it ultimately being productive or beneficial to either of us.

Now when we talk about "reactions" in terms of how you respond in a way that others have access to, yes that is a reaction, but it's not the same as the first usage, is it? Your thought process is all about you, but what you write to other people (me, the public, whomever) is not about you--it's about them too, as groups and individuals. For that reason, I feel fine offering suggestions about how you should have "reacted" in that usage of the word. I can see the confusion, though. I probably could have used another term to avoid misunderstanding, but nothing sprang to mind in the moment.

I find your accusation of me derailing this thread a little pale. I wasn't alone in this dance that you could have stepped away from at any moment.

macpatti

I find your accusation of me derailing this thread a little pale. I wasn't alone in this dance that you could have stepped away from at any moment.

We both derailed the thread. I wasn't stating you did it alone. I even offered to continue it if you wanted.

EvanKeel

I find your accusation of me derailing this thread a little pale. I wasn't alone in this dance that you could have stepped away from at any moment.

We both derailed the thread. I wasn't stating you did it alone. I even offered to continue it if you wanted.

I assumed you were being sarcastic given your previous responses to my own.

macpatti

Well now you're doing funny things with "reaction." When I say you chose your reaction, I'm indeed talking about your emotional reaction, your thought process. You keep disputing what I've said and I keep not believing you. There are reasons for that that have mostly to do with the subtleties of your written response. Given a lack of tone of voice or other non-verbal cues, I admit that I could be mistaken. I don't think so at this moment, but who knows.

I don't know that there is anything I could say that would make you believe I didn't "choose" my reaction and that I just reacted. I like to debate, as I would assume many in this group do. A topic came up that has to do with my religion, something that I do for a living, and something I feel passionate about. My religion was called kooky and some things were misrepresented in the thread (granted, by a priest), so I commented. I didn't "choose" to react as in the thought process of whether I should or shouldn't. I just reacted.

TheRoadDog

Go to your rooms.