Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sgc@math.ufl.edu (Scott G. Chastain)
Subject: Re: Some views on Scientology
Message-ID: <1991Jul26.143227.7715@math.ufl.edu>
Sender: news@math.ufl.edu
Organization: Department of Mathematics at the University of Florida
References: <1991Jul24.140607.32251@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Jul24.233541.27713@math.ufl.edu> <55386@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 14:32:27 GMT

In article <55386@apple.Apple.COM> cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus) writes: >Now, I'm defending both Christianity and Scientology. Sheesh. > >Christianity does not believe that men are by nature evil. What do >you think Christ was here for, his health (:-)? While there are plenty >of Fundamentalists who would pretend that the New Testament didn't >exist (except for Paul's unpleasant letters about sex 'n' stuff), >Humanity (per Christian believe) has been offered a way, via Christ, >to be by nature good. I believe there are contradictions in Christian >and Scientological (is that a word?) belief, but they're more subtle >than that.

"What must we do, brothers?" "You must repent," Peter answered,"and every one of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..." Acts 2:38. The idea is that we have a sinful nature. Thus Christ was necessary to forgive these sins and bridge the gap between God and humans. It is said that since Adam no person was without sin except Jesus, this constitutes a sinful nature,i.e. the inability not to sin.

>Uh, who precisely is this arbiter of "Western thought" that threw >away dualism? Can I get the Proceedings from that Conference? And

By Western thought I mean the writings that constitutes the curriculum at our universities. By the turn of the century the idea of mind and body as seperate entities residing on different planes was out of fashion. Most modern writings assume the mind is the product of the physics of the brain.

>how, precisely, is having Scientology documents "writen" for the >high-school level an indicator of their truth? So's the _Los Angeles >Times_, for that matter. And, uh, how do these points relate?

I admit my point was not very clear. Let me restate. If you were to turn in Dianetics as a Ph.D thesis I doubt it would fly; it makes so many assumptions and leaps of reasoning. This is not necessarily bad, perhaps the Dianetics I have read is simply the layman's edition; in which case I would be interested in reading the more scholarly writing of Dianetics and in which case I would retract my complaint.

>-- Christophe

Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Scott Chastian.

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank