What's more believable, Scientology or Christianity?

Post Reply New Topic

Christianity doesn't even have that! Everything that happens is in a set of written accounts, and biased accounts at that.



We clearly have different thresholds for "decent".



Which means absolutely nothing by itself. That's like saying Kings Cross Station is good evidence that Harry Potter existed. The existence of a historical figure called Jesus makes sense, being the figurehead of the entire religion, but it says nothing about what he actually did or whether he was divine. Atilla the Hun existed, but anything I suggest about his ability to walk on water and make fish sandwiches is entirely conjecture.

And there's another problem - historical evidence that far back is patchy at best, and often can be cross-referential. Basically, how much of the supporting evidence for Jesus is based on the primary source (the bible) is unknown.



No, that's classic. Look at Harold Camping - predicted the end of the world several times, wrong every time... and people STILL believed his next prediction. A religious belief is not rational and is untroubled by such difficult concepts as evidence.



Except it has a number of interesting similarities to older myths, and has "absorbed" more as it developed. Christianity as it is now is very different to Christianity back at 1AD, with most of the contradictions and interpretations ironed out at the Council of Nicea, so they could stop all the arguments and have an "official" version.

King David was real.

That is step one towards the goal...





December 18, 1995 issue of the U.S. News and World Report

"The triangular 12-acre city David built lay some 350 feet to the south of the walled Jerusalem of today... Archaeologists, who have uncovered 21 strata there ranging from the fourth millennium B.C. to the A.D. 15th century, estimate that the Davidic city's population never exceeded 4,000 - largely members of the court. Until recently, the biblical references to David and the city's structures were not collaborated archaeologically. But two years ago, a team digging in northern Israel uncovered a ninth century B.C. stone tablet bearing a clear reference to the "House of David" and "King of Israel," says former Jerusalem District Archaeologist Dan Bahat."

Can you tell me what 'choice' is? I still haven't been able to figure that one out.

Everybody got real quiet...

Thank you for your post shrox.
Is there evidence that some of the theories of scientology are correct?
If not than Christianity is definitly more right than Scientology.
But I don't mean that the Bible is historically right.

(few historical evidence for christianity against nothing for scientology)

Well, what's to say? Just because Troy was real doesn't mean the Greek gods existed, even though accounts of the battle place them there. The logic here is just so flawed, a response seems superfluous.

When was the last time you looked at a menu and chose one of the entries for your dinner?

ruveyn

Exactly. Your evidence is a first step, but you'll need to make a lot more before there's a clear path to God.

I don't think its ever happened. No matter how much I hemmed and hawed over how many good options I had I made the choice that was made for me at the time of the big bang; I could rewind the whole thing from walking in the door to 'deciding' on that menu item 10x, 100x, 1000,000x, and the results would be exactly the same with truly absolute correlation.

For some reason, it strikes me a bit like Dan Brown novels and the Assassin's creed franchise, in that fair enough certain historical figures did exist, however the actions they engaged in were hyperbole, fictional or whatever.

It's one thing to establish that a lot of the characters existed, its another to prove that the events actually took place and without that evidence the remainder loses its zest.

Like I said (and Mr. T. Fuleri noted), it's a first step. Proving the existence of a person (as best is possible) is the first step towards establishing a credible case of circumstantial evidence in historical matters. If more such persons can be established to have existed, it makes some the of the events told in the Torah and Bible to be more credible, though some will still have to be taken on faith.

For some, this will be enough.

They are equally believable.

Thats becuase whether King David existed or not is completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

Well, that question makes a point. I simply don't believe in any religion at all, although scientology's lawyer-happy attitude towards criticism, and the outrageous fees they charge for their material... I hate that.
Christianity has had it's history too, the Borgia family where father and son made it to papacy, the Spanish Inquisition, and I bet a lot more has happened that nobody knows. I just don't trust organized religions.

Then throw all that away and examine Jesus.

Christianity: Here are all of our beliefs, right here to be judged, criticized, rejected or believed by anyone who can read.

Scientology: You cannot comprehend our teachings without taking expensive classes and having your spiritual energy adjusted and assessed.

Christianity isn't hiding anything, and though that was not always the case, it certainly is now. It's many separate groups tied together by worshiping a common incarnation of god. Scientology are a secretive organization that seems to be, by all indications, basically a corporation. Nobody has considered it worthy enough to teach outside the official church. So Christianity wins.

I just read this part of the thread. You reminded me of the Venn diagram you posted in a thread you made recently. If you call the top circles "Scientolgy" and the other "Christianity" I would say the diagram shows my view on the OP question,