From: cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Some views on Scientology
Message-ID: <55427@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 26 Jul 91 19:06:47 GMT
References: <1991Jul24.233541.27713@math.ufl.edu> <55386@apple.Apple.COM> <1991Jul26.143227.7715@math.ufl.edu>
Organization: Uh, can I get back to you on that one?
Lines: 49

In article <1991Jul26.143227.7715@math.ufl.edu> sgc@math.ufl.edu (Scott G. Chastain) writes: >In article <55386@apple.Apple.COM> cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus) writes: >>Christianity does not believe that men are by nature evil. > >"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.

No contradiction between Xity and Sci here (forgive the abbreviation, my fingers are tired). Sci believes that human are drawn towards good, but fail to achieve it because of destructive behavior that has contaminated their souls. Xity believe that Man has a godly nature, but original sin prevents its expression; Christ allows that sin to be lifted, and the Godly nature to appear.

In any event, many Xian philosophers feel the "core" of Xity is believing the Apostle's Creed, which doesn't conflict with Sci in any way that I'm aware of.

>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.

Um, perhaps, but modern Xian philosophers (except for a certain strain of "secular Xity") still accept the idea of the soul as real, even if it is limited by the neurobiology of the brain in its expression.

>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.

Agreed, although the Bible wouldn't either. In any event, that's the reason I'm neither a Scientologist nor a Christian; too many unproven hypotheses, and too much contradictory evidence. -- -- Christophe

"Oh, so you're going to kill me! What a finely-tuned response to the situation!"

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