I will give Krisma a brief part of why I believe Scientology is crapola....then back on topic.....Not to mention all the bad withing Hubbard.


Kingdom of the cults.....a great book


Scientology’s Theology

Scientology speaks of a Supreme Being, God, and gods, without telling its members in which, if any, to believe. In The Scientology Catechism, it says, “What is the Scientology concept of God? We have no dogma in Scientology and each person’s concept is different. Each person attains his own certainty as to who God is and exactly what God means to him. The author of the universe exists. How this is symbolized is dictated by your early training and conscience.” Pages 197–220 contain the entire printed version of The Scientology Catechism. They further teach, “although the existence of the Supreme Being is affirmed in Scientology, His precise nature is not delineated, since the Church holds that each person must seek and know the Divine Nature in and for himself.” They address God in the monotheistic sense in many places, yet Hubbard also speaks of the activity of gods elsewhere. Their Articles of Incorporation (2.h) states, “Believing that Man’s best evidence of God is the God he finds within himself the Church of Scientology is formed to espouse such evidence of the Supreme Being and Spirit as may be knowable to Men.” Hubbard, then, finds no contradiction in promulgating polytheism. In his Phoenix Lectures, he indiscriminately allowed for monotheism or polytheism: “Let us take up what amounts to probably ten thousand years of study on the part of Man, on the identity of God or gods. ” He also exposes false gods commingled with true gods. “There are gods above all other gods,” he wrote. “There is not argument here against the existence of a Supreme Being or any devaluation intended. It is that amongst the gods, there are many false gods elected to power and position. There are gods above other gods, and gods beyond the gods of the universes.” Furthermore, he wrote a hymn stating, “There can be love for Gods.” And, “Behave[,] Obey[,] Be Courteous[,] To gods[,] Lord Buddha[,] And myself[,] And to your leaders ”

Their book on world religion leaves little doubt that the Hindu Brahman is closely paralleled with Scientology’s understanding of the Supreme Being. God is spoken of in terms of Hinduism. Though Hubbard provides no strict definition of the Supreme Being, his descriptive characteristics are enough for the Christian reader to see its unbiblical nature. Hubbard rejects the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. His Phoenix Lectures state, “The Christian god is actually much better characterized in the Vedic Hymns [Hinduism] than in any subsequent publication, including the Old Testament.” Again, he said, “The god the Christians worshipped is certainly not the Hebrew god. He looks much more like the one talked about in the Veda.” What he mistakenly assumed is that the Hindu “triad” is the basis for the Christian “Trinity.” This is not historical or biblical. The Trinity is based solely upon the revelation of God’s Word, as noted in chapter 5, page 101. Hubbard also wrote, “For a long while, some people have been cross with me for my lack of cooperation in believing in a Christian Heaven, God, and Christ. I have never said I didn’t disbelieve in a Big Thetan but there was certainly something very corny about Heaven et al.”

Scientologists are taught by Hubbard that man is part God and can attain a “godlike” nature. He wrote, “A pre-clear is a precise thing, part animal, part pictures, and part God.” In Hubbard’s evolutionary development of Homo sapiens, he teaches that man will evolve into “,” described as “very high and godlike.”

Scripture denies the possibility of other gods besides
the true God. There is but one God (Deuteronomy 4:39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; 44:8; Mark 12:32; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; and James 2:19).

The Bible always presents a sharp distinction between God and man. Scripture reminds us in Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man, that he should lie.” Hosea 11:9 says, “I am God, and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee.” A study of God’s omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience truncates the words of Hubbard (1 Samuel 2:3; 1 Kings 8:27; Job 42:2; Jeremiah 23:24; 32:17; Romans 11:33).

No problem mirror. I was only kidding about you "scraping the barrel" on that other thread.Your questions at least get newbies posting etc...its a good thing in that respect.

Feral, I am not interested in your opinion of Hubbard. My opinion of him is also irrelevant. The point here that I have tried to express to you at least three times now is that one of your fundies took it upon himself to begin to copy and paste a bunch of personal attacks directed towards Darwin and others. That is a horrible thing to do and is clearly demonstrative of your loss of ground at this point. It smacks of a cornered animal flailing in distress.

Either debate, or get out of the crapper already.

*runs through the thread screaming* !!!!!!!!!!DINO'S RULE!!!!!!!

Tribospurtology has answered this question beyond refutation it shows that the earth is both 4.51113245569 billion yrs old minus leap years!!and has only had lizardillion type life occurring in "spurts" - here and there when necessary to keep the vegetation down to an acceptable amount.

long term life did not take place until the last several thousand years - this can be proven beyond a doubt because there is no litter or garbage up until that time.

Litterologist and garbologist both agree that life in abundance does not or can not be in mass till garbage starts to accumulate in mass.

Ralston Purina - a 7 thousand year old critter food mfg., also did not come out with dino-chow until about 6000 yrs AD. Without purina chows - life could not exist!!

There fore all your conclusion on this subject have become "moot" now lets move on to the next unprovable debate!!

Xenu is gonna be very angry with you for saying that stuff about him Deb LOL

Deb, dont worry your little head about it anymore okay? Im tired and worn out explaining these basic concepts to you. Good luck on your journey and thank you for your time. The end. I am following JB's advice and simply walking away from this particular thread as it relates to you.

deb

But I also am not going to believe that science is nothing more then theories that are done by "man" just as all of you claim my Bible is.....So what makes you think I should believe in your science more then I would believe in my bible.

tribo

HMM?? you confuse me deb, in other post you claim your belief is in christ and not in your bible? That its a "personal" faith and if you had not the book it would bo of no loss to you or the others?

Now here your saying your belief is in your bible,which is it?

Yeh, very funny. Ridicule is a tool of the bad guys.

There are many who do the best they can to discredit David Icke because he tells the truth no matter what.

If you have not read his book then I suggest you do before you pass judgment on the messenger.

Look at the information. Yes, it sounds crazy. Its a crazy world we live in.

You can download his book for free if you want. Email me and I will send you a link.

JB

P.S.

Oh yeh, and good for you Mirror, you've learned how to google.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Okay now that sounds to me as if he has DIVIDED night and day. It doesnt matter if what we know as a day is not a day to god. It says DAY 1. Number 1. Uno. First. One. Divided night and day. Let's think about that. Morning and night. Yes. That sounds reasonable. The sun comes up and its morning. The sun goes down and its night. Okay we get it. You would have needed to write this in a context that people would have understood in biblical times remember. They would have understood day and night quite readily.

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

Okay now here he is yet again dividing light. He is creating the sun for all intensive purposes. Now that right there makes me grit my teeth a little. However, I will humor you and this god or whatever it is makes the sun. It creates the seasons. I come to this conclusion because he is speaking of creating the stars also. So all of the celestial bodies at this point. He speaks of TWO great lights, one to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night. The sun. This light was set in the heavens. Once again a reference to the cosmos. To rule over day and night. Once again to DIVIDE the MORNING and the NIGHT. BUT ON DAY 4! It’s inconsistent. It was not written by Moses. Perhaps some of it was, but not all. I would give Moses more credit for having a better grasp on continuity my friend.

Funny how you tell us we can't understand Icke until we read his book - yet I constantly hear how delusional christians are from people who haven't read the bible.

After you read the bible Jeannie, I'll read Icke's book - then we can compare notes.