Originally posted by robbie carrobiePeople interested in all this should just look at the link you provided:
I see so you would simply have the congregation permit everything and anything making a complete mockery of the principles upon which it was founded. Please try this anarchistic approach at the organisation which employs you and let me know how you get on. I suspect they also have rules and regulations because their mandate is to control you.
http://www.jehovah.to/gen/legal/state/paul.htm
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy employers might fire me but that would be it. They would not be hounding me unless I had committed a felony.
I see so you would simply have the congregation permit everything and anything making a complete mockery of the principles upon which it was founded. Please try this anarchistic approach at the organisation which employs you and let me know how you get on. I suspect they also have rules and regulations because their mandate is to control you.
This ex-communications/dis-fellowship/apostasy bit goes way beyond that. The person I talked about in scientology could not even see his/her own kids after that.
If a person decides he or she wants to quit religion X and maybe go to religion Y or become a flaming atheist, there should be no consequences for leaving unless there is some kind of stalking or felony action going on besides just quitting.
That is just another reason why I don't get involved in ANY religion.
Like I have always said, I want freedom FROM religion not freedom OF religion.
I don't give a damn about religious rules, THOSE RULES DID NOT COME FROM A GOD. They came from men who made the religion in the first place, no deity needed in ANY of the thousands of religions made extant on Earth now, in the past, the deep deep past, or the future.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI was not using "valid" in the sense of "true".
No, that's backwards.
No theory is valid until it has been proven true.
This is because there is an infinite number of possible theories and only a tiny proportion
are actually valid/true.
EDIT: oh and welcome back.
By saying a theory is valid, what I mean is that a theory is still a theory. Calling it a theory is what is valid, even if the theory itself is not.
But my point is that this evaluation must be done after research and study. Just assuming a theory is not true is as bad as prematurely accepting it as true, without research.
EDIT: I accept your "welcome back". Thank you.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePeople like you are who gives religion a bad name and who the non-believers continually dredge up as being a reason why Religion X is bogus.
I see so you would simply have the congregation permit everything and anything making a complete mockery of the principles upon which it was founded. Please try this anarchistic approach at the organisation which employs you and let me know how you get on. I suspect they also have rules and regulations because their mandate is to control you.
3 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneBesides bragging he could start a religion at a party around 1948. He did write a lot of grade B sci fi.
He was quoted as saying that the easiest way to keep your money from the IRS is to start a church. This is the raison d'etre for the Church of Scientology.
Funny thing about Battlefield Earth, that book was touted as a #1 best seller on the NYT list.
And it was. The reason it was because Scientology ATT already being a billion dollar industry, bought up most of the extant copies with the express purpose of shoving a grade B book to the top of the list. If you are a multi-billionaire, anything you publish can be a best seller, but it might only have one customer, but if that includes 10 million copies, it sounds like the world loved it when in reality it was a dud.
Just like the movie Battlefield Earth. Using Scientologist actors, it sucked REALLY big time. It cost them almost $80 million to make, but only made about $30 mil world wide.Starring John Revolta.
I don't think they made another after that.
It did make THIS list however:
http://my.xfinity.com/slideshow/entertainment-boxofficebombs/7/
20 biggest box office bombs, # 7 on that list.
1 edit
Originally posted by Suzianneanother incessant fault finder, please try to point the finger at yourself instead of other people, it makes you a hypocrite, is anti biblical, anti Christian and quite frankly rather unbecoming for a professed believer of the Gospel.
People like you are who gives religion a bad name and who the non-believers continually dredge up as being a reason why Religion X is bogus.
5 edits
-Removed-Why don't you point the finger at yourself instead of hypocritically and incessantly finding fault with other people. If I were you I would be thinking about my own behaviour and apologising to the forum for it. Infact if I had engaged in foul mouth rants, terming others pretensious pricks, bell ends etc and tediously turning every debate into an opportunity to hypocritically moralise over other people then I would want to take a good long hard look at myself to especially in view of Jesus words. Infact if I came across someone as unwilling as you seem to be to apply Christ's words I would certainly have reservations about any claims they made of being a Christian and it seems that I am not the only one who doubts your sincerity. But again that's your affair and something you need to deal with.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis seems to be a 'shaggy dog story' version of your current "joke".
Why don't you point the finger at yourself instead of hypocritically and incessantly finding fault with other people. If I were you I would be thinking about my own behaviour and apologising to the forum for it. Infact if I had engaged in foul mouth rants, terming others pretensious pricks, bell ends etc and tediously turning every debate into an ...[text shortened]... ne who doubts your sincerity. But again that's your affair and something you need to deal with.
What about the "intangible or emotional harms" caused by your organization's shunning practices as discussed in the link that you yourself provided?
Originally posted by FMF"Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun ... and the Internet is their playground!"
This seems to be a 'shaggy dog story' version of your current "joke".
What about the "intangible or emotional harms" caused by your organization's shunning practices as discussed in the link that you yourself provided?
The next time you encounter a troll online, remember:
1. These trolls are some truly difficult people.
2. It is your suffering that brings them pleasure, so the best thing you can do is ignore them.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists