What do christians think of Scientology

Zombrex · 07-06-2007 3:58pm

Jakkass wrote:

Yes and it is easy to notice that that is prophecy. Jesus was telling us, that Christianity, would have some hard times, and that families etc would be split. However He was not ordering us to split from our families when they didn't agree with our beliefs, like in Scientology.

Actually as Robin points out Jesus states, a number of times, that if a person does not reject his family (who one assumes are non-believers) that person cannot be his follower. Anyone who loves their family more than him cannot be his follower.

This is actually worse that what Scientology does, as Scientology does not offically say this is being done for this reason, and Scientologists are supposed to go back to their family once they are better. Christianity is far more blatant over why it is being done, and presumably Christians are expected to never return to their family unless their family accept Jesus also.

Jakkass wrote:

Just to note here, you have misquoted the section from Luke 14. Nice try though, I must say.

Perhaps Jakkass you should have a look at the translation you are using before you level that charge at Robin that his miss quoting the Bible.

From the New International Edition (consider my many to be the most accurate translation of the Bible)
Luke 14:26
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

From the King James Edition
Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

I don't know what translation of the Bible you are quoting but it does not seem to be any of the respected translations.

Jakkass wrote:

Although, as I have seen you are a master class manipulator with Bible verses, unfortunate really.

Funny, that is what the Scientologists say :rolleyes:

They often claim that Hubbards comments or writings, or the writing of the Church itself, are being manipulated by people who are biased against Scientology (they would be talking about you Jakkass) to paint the religion in a bad light. A fun way to spend 30 minutes is to say to a Scientologists what they think of Hubbards comment that the best way to become rich is to start a religion.

As I said in a previous post, this point seems to be completely lost on you Jakkass.

It is mind boggling to me that you can be so critical of Scientology (justifiably so) yet totally unwilling to turn this critical analysis on to your own religion.

So unwilling in fact that when others such as myself are critical of your religion you come out with exactly (almost word for word) the same excuses as Scientologists use to defend their religion against attacks and analysis.

It is bizarre to the extreme that you seem to be completely unaware that you are doing this. How you rationalize all this is beyond me.

philologos · 07-06-2007 4:15pm

Wicknight wrote:

I don't know what translation of the Bible you are quoting but it does not seem to be any of the respected translations.

Good News Bible - best selling Bible translation over 140 million copies sold. Respectable enough for you Wicknight?

Hmm the Contemporary English Version seems to go with it on BibleGateway.

And even more interesting

Luke 14:16 - Amplified Bible wrote:

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his [own] father and mother [[a]in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God] and [likewise] his wife and children and brothers and sisters--[yes] and even his own life also--he cannot be My disciple.

You have to bear in mind the linguistic differences between the Greek and the English.

Luke 14:16 - New Living Translation wrote:

“If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.

Zombrex · 07-06-2007 4:47pm

Jakkass wrote:

Respectable enough for you Wicknight?

Not really, since the "Good News Bible" is widely regarded to be an inaccurate translation. Its popularity is irrelevant. The most popular modern translation of the Bible, the NIV, includes the word "hate", translated from the Greek. So does the King James version, which is the most popular version ever.

Jakkass wrote:

Hmm the Contemporary English Version seems to go with it on BibleGateway.

That is probably because the Contemporary English Version is produced by the American Biblical Socitey, the same people who produced the Good News Bible. I would imagine it is based on a similar translation, and like the Good News Bible it is not a literal translation, rather a contemporary translation (hence the name).

As its wikipedia page explains -

In translating the CEV, the translators followed three translation principles. They were: The CEV must be understood by people without stumbling in speech, The CEV must be understood by those with little or no comprehension of "Bible" language, and the CEV must be understood by all.

It is essentially a dumbed down translation for people who have trouble understand a literal translation or for people offended by non-PC aspect of literal translation.The problem with that of course is that the translation is at the mercy of how the translator decides to translate it. Which is probably why the term "hate" is removed from this translation.

While the literal translations such as the New International Editions have problems of their own you are better off sticking to them if you want to argue what was actually being said, not what modern people interpret as being said.

Does demonstrate though that even today the Bible is subtly changed to fit certain interpretations.

philologos · 07-06-2007 5:12pm

Do you have any sources that suggest that the Good News Translation is inaccurate, or are you just going to continue making assumptions?

Zombrex · 07-06-2007 5:20pm

Jakkass wrote:

Do you have any sources that suggest that the Good News Translation is inaccurate, or are you just going to continue making assumptions?

Its quite common knowledge. I think it is even written in the back of some of the editions that it isn't a literal translation.

A very quick Google produced the following -

http://www.prayerfoundation.org/bible_translations_comparison.htm

The easiest Versions to read and understand are the Living Bible (actually a paraphrase) and the Good News Bible (Today's English Version). But neither of these versions are considered to be as accurate as either the King James Version or two other very popular versions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Bible

The GNT has been challenged as to the degree of accuracy one of the translators maintained to the Greek texts.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-News-Bible-English-Version/dp/customer-reviews/0840712677

The claim to fame for Today's English Version (TEV), previously known as the Good News Bible, is that it was the first dynamic-equivalence translation. Its editors did not try translating what was literally written; they instead tried translating meaning ... In accuracy, Today' English Version is aoubt as bad as it gets!

philologos · 07-06-2007 6:06pm

^^ I must admit. Good job Wicknight. I'll be off to get the Anglicized NRSV translation so.

2Scoops · 07-06-2007 6:16pm

Perhaps the TEV, with its modern and moderate slant, may be the superior text for moral guidance despite its questionable accuracy??

Back on topic: have to agree with Wicknight's point. For example, isn't one common defense of Scientology that it is no less absurd a set of beliefs than any other other religion with their equally unusual and unsupportable claims?

Zombrex · 07-06-2007 6:16pm

Of course none of this is really the point

The point of the thread is Scientology, and the point I'm raising (asking/wondering) is how you can be so critical of Scientology yet so non-critical of Christianity to the point where you justify/excuse Christianity using the same methods that Scientologists (that you think are brainwashed) excuse their religion.

Often criticism of Christianity on this forum is met with bewilderment by Christian posters as if they genuinely do not understand how someone could possibly criticise Christianity, or if they do criticise Christianity it is because they some how don't understand it.

But you do not tolerate the excuses given by Scientology about how they are all fluffy and nice and miss-understood, how anything bad in the religion is either rouge bad apples (not true Scientologists) or enemies of the religion out to paint Scientology as harmful through propaganda and manipulation.

If you want to know how someone could criticise Christianity you only have to look at the reasons you yourself would criticise Scientology.

And if you want to understand why your justifications or excuses for Christianity are not accepted at face value you only have to look at why you yourself do not accept the justifications or excuses of the Scientologists.

PDN · 07-06-2007 11:48pm

Wicknight wrote:

Samaritan's have almost an identical religion to Jews. They pretty much were Hebrews, even claiming that they were the true descendants of the Israelites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan#Religion

You will notice that Jesus says

"What is written in the law? how readest thou?"

Jesus is referring to the Old Testament law. In the Old Testament your neighbor was your fellow Israelite, a member of the 12 tribes of Israel, a Hebrew. That is quite clear from the Old Testament. Within this context "neighbor" means a very specific thing.

The clear purpose of this parable is Jesus is saying that all descendants of the Israelites are still neighbors despite their differences and that a Samaritan can be more kind to a fellow Hebrew than a Levite. A Samaritan is still a member of God's choosen people and should still be treated as a neighbor. Anyone who is descendant and a follower of the law of Moses, the ancient law, is your neighbor.

Remember at this stage Jesus was coming to unite and save the Hebrews.

The idea that this message of salvation should spread to the non-Hebrews only appears later and it is debatable if this was ever Jesus' message or if it was added later by Paul and his followers.

But like so many parables in the Bible this has in later years been interpreted way out of context of what was actually being said, and has been taken to mean that Jesus is saying everyone is your now a "neighbor", which is nonsense within the context of the Old Testament law and the context of the example of the Samaritan.

To think that one would have to not understand who the Samaritans were or the context of their history with the Jews.

I used the term "Jew" and "Hebrew" interchangeably because in modern context that makes sense. Clearly though when discussing ancient middle eastern religion that is incorrect, so I apologise for the confusion. A more accurate statement would have been -

In the Bible (and Jesus' teaching in the New Testament) "neighbour" means fellow free Hebrew person.

Yet another novel interpretation that flies in the face of every piece of writing I've ever encountered. Wicknight, you are to biblical studies & Church History what JC is to science. Since you like Wikipedia so much, maybe you should get them to edit their entry on the Parable of the Good Samaritan since they've obviously got it all wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan

Zombrex · 08-06-2007 11:10am

PDN wrote:

Yet another novel interpretation that flies in the face of every piece of writing I've ever encountered.

Well no offense PDN but that is rather a mute point.

Every interpretation that you have ever read probably agrees with your initial interpretation that you yourself make because I doubt you would be going too far afield in your search for interpretations. You are not going to be reading "The Bible According to the KKK", and if you did I certainly don't think you would be agreeing with it (I hope)

The point is you cannot say that this interpretation is wrong, only that you do not agree with it. Falling back on the idea that most people agree with how you interpret this passage is irrelevant. I can find a few billion people who think Jesus was just some nut job with delusions of grandeur, I doubt that would impress you much.

Therefore the idea that there is a universal truth in the is parable, or in fact in most parables in the Bible, is nonsense.

There is only interpretation, and how someone interprets these stories will depend on how they want to interpret these stories.

PDN wrote:

Wicknight, you are to biblical studies & Church History what JC is to science.

Not really. If you can tell me how this interpretation is factually incorrect or a lie then feel free.

The thing about science is that one can test if a hypothesis is correct or not. You cannot test if your interpretation of a parable such as this is actually correct. Falsifiability, in any meaningful way, does not exist in theology.

I would imagine that if you could demonstrate that your interpretation is correct you would have done so already. Instead you simply claim that most people agree with you, which again is an irrelevant point, since none of them can demonstrate they are correct either.

One therefore cannot say that holding to such an interpretation makes one more or less a Christian, or more or less a follower of the Bible.

You have your own interpretation of what it means to be a Christian, what you believe the message of the Bible is, and you can certain identify if a person agrees or disagree with that message. But you cannot say that you are therefore a Christian and they are not, or that you have understood the message of the Bible and they have not. You can only say that they have interpreted the Bible differently to how you have interpreted it.

And why you personally interpret the Bible they way you do is already decided. What you want the parable to mean is based on a moral code that has nothing to do with the Bible.

I do find it rather peculiar though that you are a Christian who will only refer back to the books in the Bible for religious guidence, yet in a situation like this you turn to the collective agreement of modern mainstream Christianity, 2000 years after these books were written, for an explanation of what this story actually means. The very fact that you do this demonstrates that the actual meaning behind the story itself is not clear, and that how it is interpretation will depend on the initial moral bias of the interpreter.

It is just like the contemporary translations of the Bible that Jakkass reads, which alter the phrasing on Biblical passages based on what the translator believes was the original meaning of the passage. This belief is a modern occurrence based on the bias of the translator. Unless one believers that God is directly manipulating this translator, or directly manipulating those who form opinions as to what parables such as the Good Samaritan mean, one cannot say that this interpretation is any more correct than any other interpretation.

As ever I come back to the point that the Bible will always appear to support the initial moral position of a person.

You want the Good Samaritan parable to mean that we should be good to our fellow humans, no matter who they are, because you already have formed that idea. I would imagine the majority of modern Christians want it to mean the same thing as well, because the majority of modern Christians would (I hope) hold to this idea as the majority of modern humans in general hold to this idea.

But if you don't initially set out for this parable to mean that it is quite easy to view the Good Samaritan story as meaning something rather different, and in fact within the historical context of the Samaritans and the Hebrew law the interpretation I gave above makes far more sense.

anto1208 · 08-06-2007 3:43pm

humanji wrote:

I was going to write a full reply, but I think Jakkass hit the nail on the head. You're a Scentologist, aren't you (or will you sue me for saying that? )

No i used to be a catolic but after thinking about it i cant be part of a church that excludes people because of the way they where born , or part of any church that wants your money to make the guys at the top even richer .

So i have my own religion that i make up as i go along , its all about love, peace and understanding , everyone is welcome & there is no donations , no one person is more important than the next

BrianCalgary · 08-06-2007 4:09pm

Honestly wicknight you ara a theology disaster.

Please go and take a course in Biblical Hermeneutics.

God welcomes all to Him. We see an example of it in the Old Testament in the Boobk of Ruth where Ruth a moabite makes the decision to make Naomi's God her God. No wthere were those who didn't welcome Ruth, but there are exclusivites everywhere.

2 Peter 3:9 pretty well sums up God's feeling on the issue:
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Jesus used Samaritan in His parable about how to treat your neighbour because the Jews disliked the Samaritans more than any body else and now to be told that they were to treat Samaritans as they would their own family was a shock. It had nothing to do with them being Jewish. Also the Jew would have recognized that all were descended from Noah and threfore human.

Please stop taking things out of context.

Zombrex · 08-06-2007 4:49pm

BrianCalgary wrote:

Honestly wicknight you ara a theology disaster.

I would probably consider that a good thing, since theology is really the "majority rules" school of study.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus used Samaritan in His parable about how to treat your neighbour because the Jews disliked the Samaritans more than any body else and now to be told that they were to treat Samaritans as they would their own family was a shock. It had nothing to do with them being Jewish.

It has everything to do with being Hebrew.

This is clear from the statement at the start of the story about the law. What, do you think Jesus didn't understand how the term "neighbour" was used in the Old Testament.

The purpose of the story was to demonstrate that the tribes of Israel had turned away from their original mission. The Samaritans were hated by the Jews, despite both coming from the same Hebrew origin. Jesus is explaning to the man that Samaritans are his neighbors as they were in Old Testament times.

To believe that Jesus is talking in general you would have to completely ignore the reference to the old law, and what "neighbour" means within that context. The only reason a person would do this is if they wanted the make the parable fit a certain theory.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Please stop taking things out of context.

It is actually you who takes this story out of context, ignoring the first part of the passage, where Jesus and the man discuss the term "neighbour" in the context of the old law.

Even if one assumes that Jesus did really want to spread the religion to the Gentiles, as is claimed later by Paul, the old law was never meant for non-Hebrews and it is in this context that Jesus explains this parable. It makes absolutely no sense to say that the purpose of this story was to show that everyone is a neighbour.

So with that ruled out, what was the purpose of the story? The purpose of the story was to unite the tribes of Israel as they were in the time of Moses, when the term "neighbour" meant your fellow Hebrew.

At this stage in Jesus' teaching there is no hint that his message is for Gentiles. In fact he says it isn't.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Please go and take a course in Biblical Hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics is interpretation.

The very fact that there is Biblical hermeneutics demonstrates my point.

You start with a certain assumption and then work backwards from that. Strangely enough you find within the vast pages of the Bible support for your initial assumption. You then say "The Bible confirms this"

In fact the Bible hasn't confirmed anything, because if you start from a different assumption it will appear that the Bible confirms that as well.

Neither yourself, nor PDN can demonstrate that the interpretation above is wrong, incorrect, or even nonsensical.

You are simply falling back on the argument that it isn't the interpretation that most people wish to take from the story.

But as I said to PDN that point is largely irrelevant.

BrianCalgary · 08-06-2007 11:12pm

Luke 10
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"

28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

37The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

There it is. Jesus not even mentions once the unification of Smaaritans to Judeans. The whole point of the parable is to make the point taht the Smaritan was the true neighbour because he was willing to help his brother who was injured. We don't even know the nationality of the injured party.

Jesus does make a comparison between the holy man of Judaism and the regular guy of Samaria, and that the regular guy of Samaria recognised his neighbour in need while both the priest and the Levite (the family of priesthood) didn't stop to help.

Since we don't know the nationality of the injured man, Jesus point was that no matter who is the injured and how he is injured, he is our neighbour and is worthy of our help.

So where do you get the idea that Jesus is speaking of unification of Samaria and Judea?

BrianCalgary · 08-06-2007 11:18pm

Wicknight wrote:

Hermeneutics is interpretation.

The very fact that there is Biblical hermeneutics demonstrates my point.

You start with a certain assumption and then work backwards from that. Strangely enough you find within the vast pages of the Bible support for your initial assumption. You then say "The Bible confirms this"

In fact the Bible hasn't confirmed anything, because if you start from a different assumption it will appear that the Bible confirms that as well.

Neither yourself, nor PDN can demonstrate that the interpretation above is wrong, incorrect, or even nonsensical.

You are simply falling back on the argument that it isn't the interpretation that most people wish to take from the story.

But as I said to PDN that point is largely irrelevant.

Hermeneutics is not interpretation, but a series of steps that one goes through in order to interpret.

Just as in science you go through a series of steps to arrive at an interpretation of evidence.

One of the steps is to not read something that isn't there, unless you can make sure that it is part of the overall message of the book that you are reading from.

Your interpretation of the passage is non sensical because you are adding into it the idea that Jesus is interested in unifying Israel. Which He is not, because He states quite clearly in other passages that He is preaching the kingdom of God, which is not of this world and is open to ALL, even the dirty old Samaritans.

But I can expect you to accept this as truth as I can expect JC or wolfsbane to accept your interpretation of science. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

2Scoops · 09-06-2007 1:06am

Well, we're getting a little off-topic here. The issue being addressed is that the Bible is open to interpretation (e.g. the KKK example). I think the fact that this is the case is more important than specific examples like the Good Samaritan.

Now, with that in mind, Scientologists can claim that those guilty of mistreating/misleading their followers are not interpreting dianetics the 'right' way. So, Scientology is NOT bad, for want of a better word.
-OR-
You may not accept this easy excuse and think Scientology is bad anyway. However, it would now be hypocritical not to use the same logic to evaluate Christianity.
-OR-
Come up with a better argument as to why Scientology is bad:)

robindch · 09-06-2007 6:31pm

BrianCalgary wrote:

Honestly wicknight you ara a theology disaster.

As Wicknight has carefully pointed out, all he has done is to provide an interpretation which competes with yours.

And with respect to different interpretations, well, years ago, I read much of the gospels in Ancient Greek and was surprised, even then (when I was a church-going catholic), with how many possible reasonable translations there were of these, something which seemed to have been rarely noticed, and certainly never highlighted, by religious translators with one religion, and one point of view, to uphold. It never ceases to amaze me how people can place such amounts of uncritical trust in something that they cannot even read in the original.

And I mustn't forget to pass on sincere kudos to Jakkass, for being honest enough to say 'ok, I didn't know that -- thanks'. I believe that's the first time in two years or so around this forum that I've seen a religious person saying to an irreligious one, that their knowledge of some aspect of their religion might need updating. Makes all the discussion worthwhile, imho.

philologos · 09-06-2007 6:44pm

robindch wrote:

And I mustn't forget to pass on sincere kudos to Jakkass, for being honest enough to say 'ok, I didn't know that -- thanks'. I believe that's the first time in two years or so around this forum that I've seen a religious person saying to an irreligious one, that their knowledge of some aspect of their religion might need updating. Makes all the discussion worthwhile, imho.

Well if I'm wrong, I generally admit I am wrong, theres no point making everyone annoyed over nothing

PDN · 09-06-2007 11:21pm

2Scoops wrote:

Well, we're getting a little off-topic here. The issue being addressed is that the Bible is open to interpretation (e.g. the KKK example). I think the fact that this is the case is more important than specific examples like the Good Samaritan.

The Bible certainly is open to interpretation. The reason why we could not let the KKK example just slide by is because it is an example of how the Bible is open to deliberate & malicious misinterpretation. However, I for one am happy to concede that there are other instances where well-intentioned people have done stupid or bad things because they misinterpreted the Bible.

Now, with that in mind, Scientologists can claim that those guilty of mistreating/misleading their followers are not interpreting dianetics the 'right' way. So, Scientology is NOT bad, for want of a better word.

The problem with this is that Scientologists who mistreat others are following the instructions of their founder. It is true that professing Christians have often mistreated others, but they have done it despite the instructions of their founder.

Here's a few examples of Hubbard teachings & instructions to his followers:

"Enemy. SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." (on Suppressive Persons)

"Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts."

"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace."

"They smell of all the baths they didn't take. The trouble with China is, there are too many chinks here."

"If anyone is getting industrious trying to enturbulate [sic] or stop Scientology or its activities, I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday-school teacher. There is probably no limit on what I would do to safeguard Man's only road to freedom against persons who ... seek to stop Scientology or hurt Scientologists."

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."

"Just as individuals can be seen, by observing nations, so we see the African tribesman, with his complete contempt for truth and his emphasis on brutality and savagery for others but not for himself, is a no-civilization."

2Scoops · 10-06-2007 4:33am

PDN wrote:

As above ^^

Well, ignoring the fact that some of those are quotes from Hubbard and not 'official' Scientology teachings, the Bible has many instances of activities by God and others that are immoral, at least by modern standards.

And I'm sure Scientology adherents would hotly dispute that unprovoked mistreatment of others is one of their founding principles - an eye for an eye and all that. The would view anti-scientologists as a threat. It would be interesting to see how a real live Scientologist views this issue.

Oh and your whole 'misinterpretation' point is lost on me - where no absolute truth exists how can you possibly determine who is interpreting and who is misinterpreting??

BrianCalgary · 10-06-2007 5:37am

robindch wrote:

As Wicknight has carefully pointed out, all he has done is to provide an interpretation which competes with yours.

And with respect to different interpretations, well, years ago, I read much of the gospels in Ancient Greek and was surprised, even then (when I was a church-going catholic), with how many possible reasonable translations there were of these, something which seemed to have been rarely noticed, and certainly never highlighted, by religious translators with one religion, and one point of view, to uphold. It never ceases to amaze me how people can place such amounts of uncritical trust in something that they cannot even read in the original.

And I mustn't forget to pass on sincere kudos to Jakkass, for being honest enough to say 'ok, I didn't know that -- thanks'. I believe that's the first time in two years or so around this forum that I've seen a religious person saying to an irreligious one, that their knowledge of some aspect of their religion might need updating. Makes all the discussion worthwhile, imho.

And I would go along with such an interpretation if it had any validity. But Jesus came for many reasons as listed in the NT yet unification of Samaria and Judean peoples was not one of them. So within the cultural context and historical context of the NT and it's writers the interpretation has no validity.

You're comment regarding not being to read it in the original is why we have Greek and Hebrew dictionaries on hand so that we may get the proper essence and meaning of the original writer. It is also why we have historical and cultural information, which is also to get the essence of what the writer intended.

The purpose of hermeneutics is to understand what the writer was trying to convey in the writing.

Zombrex · 11-06-2007 10:35am

BrianCalgary wrote:

And I would go along with such an interpretation if it had any validity. But Jesus came for many reasons as listed in the NT yet unification of Samaria and Judean peoples was not one of them.

I didn't claim it was. Jesus came to unify the Jews under the nation of Israel (something he didn't do btw, but that is probably for another thread).

The purpose of this parable is simply to show the Jews that Saramitians worship as Hebrews and are therefore considered "neighbours" to the Jews under the old laws.

Later on Paul and Peter would go into great discussion as to what parts of the old law would be required for Gentiles to practice to also be considered "neighbours"

Or at least that can be the purpose of the parable.

You no doubt don't accept it was, and never will accept it was, because it doesn't fit with what you want the parable to mean. Which as I've said was my original point. The Bible will appear to reflect what you want it to reflect. I'm not actually interested in convincing you that it was the meaning of the parable, simply that the parable, like all of the New Testament, is open to wide interpretation. You say that it has no validity as an interpretation, but you base that on assumptions drawn from other interpretation, and ultimately on what you want the book to mean in general.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The purpose of hermeneutics is to understand what the writer was trying to convey in the writing.

Within the context of what you already want to believe ...

philologos · 11-06-2007 4:17pm

2Scoops wrote:

Well, ignoring the fact that some of those are quotes from Hubbard and not 'official' Scientology teachings, the Bible has many instances of activities by God and others that are immoral, at least by modern standards.

Who determines these modern standards? Humans? Personally I think that the rulings that God has passed down are better than anything a human could compile. Why trust the rulings of humans when you can trust the rulings of God.

mossieh · 11-06-2007 4:32pm

Jakkass wrote:

Who determines these modern standards? Humans? Personally I think that the rulings that God has passed down are better than anything a human could compile. Why trust the rulings of humans when you can trust the rulings of God.

Yep, that's the problem right there isn't it? We only know the rulings of god as they have been passed along chinese-whisper style to us. 2000 years of spin (intentional or otherwise) is a lot of spin, and it only takes a little to distort the meaning of anything.

Zombrex · 11-06-2007 5:09pm

Jakkass wrote:

Why trust the rulings of humans when you can trust the rulings of God.

Can you trust the ruling of God? Isn't that the point of the question?

If we consider something immoral (the genocide of a people for example), why would we not consider it immoral just because it is claimed that God orders it?

Can the Scientologists not simply do the same thing? Say that Hubbard would not describe something immoral, therefore anything the CoS does based on what Hubbard describes cannot, by definition, be immoral.

Surely the actions themselves stand by themselves, something act is or is not immoral, independent of who is carrying the act out.

2Scoops · 11-06-2007 5:41pm

Jakkass wrote:

Who determines these modern standards? Humans? Personally I think that the rulings that God has passed down are better than anything a human could compile. Why trust the rulings of humans when you can trust the rulings of God.

There is a strong case to be made that humans/society do indeed determine the moral standards of the day. And as humans wrote the Bible, I could argue they came up with those too.

jonny72 · 12-06-2007 2:18am

Jakkass wrote:

Why trust the rulings of humans when you can trust the rulings of God.

Thats a contradiction..

Here's why.

Remember..
Humans wrote Dianetics (Scientology), the Bible, the Quran, Flying Spaghetti Monster (Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster), etc and so on..

So you have to completely trust the humans who wrote the Bible, chose the gospels, translated it, modified it, edited it, you have to trust them all completely because the only way you know about the word of God is because of them.

Dave! · 12-06-2007 7:08am

I'm inclined to believe that Scientology and Christianity are as bad as each other in terms of what they believe. The main difference is that Christianity has the benefit of 2,000 years of history behind it, which adds a certain amount of psychological credibility to it, when people are deliberating on their choices of religion.

What do christians think of Scientology

Comments