What's new
By:
Filters

Can You Be a Christian Scientologist? (Juliette Lewis Says YES in New Interview)

Mark, the problem is that what *you're* selling as Scientology (selling in the sense of attempting to define) isn't.

If you were adding even a single adjective, such as 'Mark-A-Baker' Scientology, there wouldn't be this confusion.

So, I assume you're doing it deliberately. Because you don't *want* to talk about Mark-A-Baker Scientology.

Zinj
 
Zinjifar said:
Mark, the problem is that what *you're* selling as Scientology (selling in the sense of attempting to define) isn't.

If you were adding even a single adjective, such as 'Mark-A-Baker' Scientology, there wouldn't be this confusion.

So, I assume you're doing it deliberately. Because you don't *want* to talk about Mark-A-Baker Scientology.

Zinj
Click to expand...

Actually, Z, you wouldn't want to talk about "Mark-A-Baker Scientology". :coolwink:

But more to the point, YOU and others fail to distinguish between the separate components & aspects of "scientology", e.g. the philosophy, the technology, the administrative policy, the organizational institutions, the actual practices, etc.. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have an intelligent discussion on the matter when you simply lump everything together into the same bin and call it ALL "scientology".

So yes, I will call out that mistake when I see it being made. And yes, it is perfectly possible for a scientologist, even a senior scientologist to be BOTH a christian [or other religion] AND a scientologist. I've known people for whom that was their truth.


Mark A. Baker
 
Besides which, there's a considerable difference between adherence to a Belief System and the observation of certain Traditions.

My commentary earlier in this thread is in reference to her statement re: Xenu. I've seen scientologists express this opinion through ignorance of the actual OT3 data and I've seen them bald-facedly lie about it. I was just trying to find out which category Juliet was in; Ignorant or Liar.
 
Last edited:
Mark A. Baker said:
And that presumes that YOU can define what "really being a Christian" means. That is the inherent logical fallacy.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Mark, come on. I think the I am not presuming too much to assume that a "Christian" might like and admire and love, ya know....Christ. Just sayin' :duh:
 
Synthia said:
Mark, come on. I think the I am not presuming too much to assume that a "Christian" might like and admire and love, ya know....Christ. Just sayin' :duh:
Click to expand...

You'ld be surprised how many diverse interpretations that "simple concept" has had over the centuries. Devil's in the details.


Mark A. Baker :)
 
Mark A. Baker said:
Actually, Z, you wouldn't want to talk about "Mark-A-Baker Scientology". :coolwink:

But more to the point, YOU and others fail to distinguish between the separate components & aspects of "scientology", e.g. the philosophy, the technology, the administrative policy, the organizational institutions, the actual practices, etc.. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have an intelligent discussion on the matter when you simply lump everything together into the same bin and call it ALL "scientology".

So yes, I will call out that mistake when I see it being made. And yes, it is perfectly possible for a scientologist, even a senior scientologist to be BOTH a christian [or other religion] AND a scientologist. I've known people for whom that was their truth.


Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Mark. From my point of view, anyone announcing himself as a 'Scientologist' is a Scientologist in the sense that L. Ron Hubbard defined it. Any attempt to redefine it to something less than what L. Ron Hubbard defined it is a deliberate violation of L. Ron Hubbard's own creation, which is very specific as to 'verbal tech' and 'Tech degrade' and 'squirreling'.

Would Ron approve of your PR efforts? Sure. He was an essential dishonest dood. But, he would never trust you and, once you were lower on the 'threat' level, He would do His best to ruin you utterly.

Because, that's what Scientology is about. According to *Ron*, not Mark.

You would not get points for lying for Ron.

Zinj
 
The question should be "Why would a Christian (or a Muslim for that matter) WANT to become a Scientologist?

The reason people subscribe to a particular religion is that their religion has the answers. Their religion, alone, is the way to salvation or everlasting life or heaven (or virgins for that matter).

If a Christian absolutely believes that Jesus was the Messiah and that he came to earth to atone for the sins of mankind and to offer them a place in the Kingdom of Heaven, then why would they even contemplate becoming a Scientologist?

Only a doubting Christian would look to Scientology and a doubting Christian is not a real Christian.
D.
 
Zinjifar said:
I'm sorry Mark. From my point of view, anyone announcing himself as a 'Scientologist' is a Scientologist in the sense that L. Ron Hubbard defined it.
Click to expand...

Hubbard defined scientologist in terms of the Code, the Creed, & the tech dictionary, ALL of which emphasize the individual's own integrity, knowledge, and power of choice. Routinely, Z, I have seen you be uncomfortable in acknowledging those aspects of scientology, preferring instead the generality of "command intention" and obedience to the "will" of LRH. I'm not the one advocating inconsistency here, kid. :no:


Mark A. Baker
 
Zinjifar said:
I don't think that's true. Crises of Faith have a longstanding tradition in the Christian belief system.

Not so much in Scientology, except as 'Ethics Levels'.

Zinj
Click to expand...

So what? Crises of faith are usually short lived. If they go any longer than that, then the person is NOT of that faith!
What about the rest of the post that you have ignored?
D.
 
Mark A. Baker said:
You'ld be surprised how many diverse interpretations that "simple concept" has had over the centuries. Devil's in the details.


Mark A. Baker :)
Click to expand...

Whatever, Mark. Frankly, you are running me around in circles on this argument. Do you actually think that the example of a rather wishy washy, "to each his own", "hey, one man's Christ is another man's Buddha and my Christ is more like Buddha", type "Christian" is the kind that the journalist was asking about or that Juliette was referring to?

If so, her answer (in fitting with your argument) should have been, "Well, maybe yes and maybe no. It depends on what kind of a Christian we're talking about here. At which point the journalist would have said, "How about let's start with this definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity "
 
Mark A. Baker said:
Actually, Z, you wouldn't want to talk about "Mark-A-Baker Scientology". :coolwink:

But more to the point, YOU and others fail to distinguish between the separate components & aspects of "scientology", e.g. the philosophy, the technology, the administrative policy, the organizational institutions, the actual practices, etc.. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have an intelligent discussion on the matter when you simply lump everything together into the same bin and call it ALL "scientology".

So yes, I will call out that mistake when I see it being made. And yes, it is perfectly possible for a scientologist, even a senior scientologist to be BOTH a christian [or other religion] AND a scientologist. I've known people for whom that was their truth.


Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

When they get through OT8 that will NOT be their reality.
 
Synthia said:
Whatever, Mark. Frankly, you are running me around in circles on this argument. Do you actually think that the example of a rather wishy washy, "to each his own", "hey, one man's Christ is another man's Buddha and my Christ is more like Buddha", type "Christian" is the kind that the journalist was asking about or that Juliette was referring to?
Click to expand...

Unless the journalist was from L'Osservatore Romano, or similar, almost certainly. :yes:

Mainstream media isn't out to sell any particular "brand". They carry this stuff as "human interest". How a person "self-identifies" is about as deep as they are apt to go. Clearly La Femme Juliette self-identifies as a christian scientologist. End of story.


If so, her answer (in fitting with your argument) should have been, "Well, maybe yes and maybe no. It depends on what kind of a Christian we're talking about here. At which point the journalist would have said, "How about let's start with this definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity "
Click to expand...

But he didn't. :)

BTW, wikipedia is a very useful general purpose url, but it hardly constitutes a reliably accurate. It is quick & easy but little rigor is involved in generating its entries. Too much reliance should not be made of it for topics with a complex or controversial history or of an academic or technical nature.


Mark A. Baker
 
I'm more interested in why you're obsessed with calling yourself a Scientologist, rather than just a 'Bakerite'.

Could it be that you're insistent on justifying your previous Cult involvement and demand that everyone accept your folly as a good choice?

(by the way, Wikipedia isn't a 'source' anyway. At its best, it's a *link* to sources)

Zinj
 
Mark A. Baker said:
Unless the journalist was from L'Osservatore Romano, or similar, almost certainly. :yes:

Mainstream media isn't out to sell any particular "brand". They carry this stuff as "human interest". How a person "self-identifies" is about as deep as they are apt to go. Clearly La Femme Juliette self-identifies as a christian scientologist. End of story.




But he didn't. :)

BTW, wikipedia is a very useful general purpose url, but it hardly constitutes a reliably accurate. It is quick & easy but little rigor is involved in generating its entries. Too much reliance should not be made of it for topics with a complex or controversial history or of an academic or technical nature.


Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

:overanalyser: :cheers: :)

Synthia E. Fagen
 
Mark A. Baker said:
Clearly La Femme Juliette self-identifies as a christian scientologist. End of story.
Click to expand...

That's the end of story??

We should just take her answers at face value? And accept that she believes people are actually confusing Hubbard's science fiction writing with his writings on scientology?

Do you think that being that she is a second generation scientology celebrity she's not been drilled on how to handle exactly these types of questions that come up in media interviews?
 
Synthia, I'm with you.

I have noticed that some people on this board will argue that Black is White even if we are discussing the colour Blue.

ESMB appears to have as many fruitcakes on its books as Scientology has active loonies and it seems that a university degree in argumentative posting wouldn't help.

The number of little stars one has underneath one's name apparently carries with it some rite of passage. I can type as much crap as I like and attempt to infuriate another by pretending to be incredibly knowledgeable. The more I do this, the more stars I get and so the more I can do this.

This of course has one plus point going for it; A lurker might think that it shows how crazy Scientology can make you even when you have been away from the cult for a while.

I think I've got better things to do with my life.
D.
 
LongTimeGone said:
Synthia, I'm with you.

I have noticed that some people on this board will argue that Black is White even if we are discussing the colour Blue.

ESMB appears to have as many fruitcakes on its books as Scientology has active loonies and it seems that a university degree in argumentative posting wouldn't help.

The number of little stars one has underneath one's name apparently carries with it some rite of passage. I can type as much crap as I like and attempt to infuriate another by pretending to be incredibly knowledgeable. The more I do this, the more stars I get and so the more I can do this.

This of course has one plus point going for it; A lurker might think that it shows how crazy Scientology can make you even when you have been away from the cult for a while.

I think I've got better things to do with my life.
D.
Click to expand...

His purpose is to enrage. I am not taking the bait. I'm through "arguing" with him. :):happydance::yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top