Converting Scientologists to Christianity: A How-To Blog

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Hi, I think you all know, I am a Christian. I am religious. By religious I mean I have a relationship with God. By Christian, I mean Jesus is a personal friend. I do not attend any organized church, but I have in the past. I find them to restricting. I prefer to study on my own My religion gives me love, comfort, wisdom, confidence,peace, fellowship, and joy.

Yes, I wish you all had these things, not because I think I am better than you but because I so enjoy my religion and would like to share the joy with you

Much Love and Light,
Aunt Pat

:thumbsup:

((HUGGS))

Mary
 
... The claims of how horrible religion has been throughout history are exaggerated. ...

A point on which we strongly disagree and one where I offer up the wisdom of another as an appropriate guide. ...

History is the polemics of the victor.

William F. Buckley, Jr.


Buckley was himself an observant christian. The reality is that historical records have been strongly influenced to justify the supremacy of those sub-cultures which have sought and achieved dominance. This has been particularly true in the case of religious movements.


Mark A. Baker
 
A point on which we strongly disagree and one where I offer up the wisdom of another as an appropriate guide. ...




Buckley was himself an observant christian. The reality is that historical records have been strongly influenced to justify the supremacy of those sub-cultures which have sought and achieved dominance. This has been particularly true in the case of religious movements.


Mark A. Baker

This supports my point.

The claims are still exaggerated.

And they are exaggerated by those of a sub-culture against religion.

Besides, the historical record over time tends to reject the bias in the polemics of those sub-cultures.

For example, Nazism, communism, Catholicism, etc.

Buckley is certainly eloquent, but he should not be considered wise because he is eloquent.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Hi, I think you all know, I am a Christian. I am religious. By religious I mean I have a relationship with God. By Christian, I mean Jesus is a personal friend. I do not attend any organized church, but I have in the past. I find them to restricting. I prefer to study on my own My religion gives me love, comfort, wisdom, confidence,peace, fellowship, and joy.

Yes, I wish you all had these things, not because I think I am better than you but because I so enjoy my religion and would like to share the joy with you

Much Love and Light,
Aunt Pat

That reminds me of my Mom's approach.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
OK, here's a subject:

Possibly relevant is the fact that I was brought up to think that two topics were off limits in polite conversation: religion and politics.

To this day, despite the hours I have spent at ESMB essentially debating religious topics -- mostly Scientology ones, when someone in my daily life brings up the subject of religion or asks questions like the ones below, I feel paralyzed and am never certain what words are going to tumble out of my mouth:

"You should visit our church -- you'd like it!"

"What church do you belong to?"

"But you're a Christian, right?"

"You know that God loves you, don't you?"

"Do you believe in heaven and hell?"

And my favorite ... "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"

I don't have any well rehearsed lines that quickly extract me from those situations. I'm just as likely to say, "Sorry, but I don't discuss my religion" as I am to say, "I left the church a long time again" or "You are being inappropriate. Please leave."

I've lied and told Methodists I'm a Buddhist and told Baptists I am an Episcopalian. I actually tell some Episcopalians the truth -- that I'm an agnostic. Occasionally, I've gotten into conversations with earnest Christians who seem desperate to understand how I could think that way, and those conversations all end the same: they're sad, and I'm mad.

How do those of you who are not Christians handle these situations?

TG1

P.S. I live in a part of the world where the phrase "good person" means the same as "good Christian person."

I would have a field day with those questions.

"fuck no" would be my answer. I'm much happier having people think I'm a bad person than thinking I'm a Christian.
 
This supports my point.

The claims are still exaggerated. ...

No, but you choose to see it that way. In the case of christianity, the christianization of europe was an incredibly brutal process conducted by the Christian Empire. It was in fact far worse than the earlier roman "persecutions" of christians had been. What persecutions had been instituted by Rome were principally based on violations of public law and aimed towards preserving the unity of the Roman state. They were not based on intolerance of minority religions. Nor were they especially numerous or ubiquitous.

Pagan Romans were in fact amazingly tolerant of religious differences. Far more so than the later christian empire proved to be. But they did not brook challenges to the authority of the empire; an authority which some individual christians and local christian groups publicly sought to flout.

Once empowered the christians set out on a campaign of religious genocide against all subject peoples, seeking to convert or destroy any adherents to other religions excepting only the jews. These latter they "tolerated", while openly discriminating against them, for reasons of their own peculiar religion.

This campaign lasted without abatement for centuries until all such non-christian groups were effectively eliminated in christian Europe. To say that campaign has been white-washed in the widely available histories of the time is a gross understatement. It took the Renaissance, essentially an intellectual rediscovery of the values of Pagan Antiquity, to begin to reverse the effects of the oppressive christian dominion of Europe.

Nor is christianity qualitatively unique in this sort of historical impact. Other monotheistic traditions have conducted themselves in similarly excessive fashions in their own attempts to spread the "good news". I see it as an inherent feature of monotheisms, although not necessarily unique to them. Doctrinally they are naturally inclined to an "Only One" and exclusivist mentality.


Mark A. Baker
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Yeah, it wasn't such good news for everybody, now was it. Hey, great news, we're gonna kill you!

Constantine decided Rome should be Christian because he saw it as a unifying factor that the old pagan religion, he felt, couldn't be.

So perhaps the biggest flaw in the mix is the theocracy thing, where church and state were not kept separate. I mean, if religion has to be the unifying factor and a major part of running a country- an empire- and then all this shit happens, couldn't part of the problem be the decision to run things along theocractic lines?
 
No, but you choose to see it that way. In the case of christianity, the christianization of europe was an incredibly brutal process conducted by the Christian Empire. It was in fact far worse than the earlier roman "persecutions" of christians had been. What persecutions had been instituted by Rome were principally based on violations of public law and aimed towards preserving the unity of the Roman state. They were not based on intolerance of minority religions. Nor were they especially numerous or ubiquitous.

Pagan Romans were in fact amazingly tolerant of religious differences. Far more so than the later christian empire proved to be. But they did not brook challenges to the authority of the empire; an authority which some individual christians and local christian groups publicly sought to flout.

Once empowered the christians set out on a campaign of religious genocide against all subject peoples, seeking to convert or destroy any adherents to other religions excepting only the jews. These latter they "tolerated", while openly discriminating against them, for reasons of their own peculiar religion.

This campaign lasted without abatement for centuries until all such non-christian groups were effectively eliminated in christian Europe. To say that campaign has been white-washed in the widely available histories of the time is a gross understatement. It took the Renaissance, essentially an intellectual rediscovery of the values of Pagan Antiquity, to begin to reverse the effects of the oppressive christian dominion of Europe.

Nor is christianity qualitatively unique in this sort of historical impact. Other monotheistic traditions have conducted themselves in similarly excessive fashions in their own attempts to spread the "good news". I see it as an inherent feature of monotheisms, although not necessarily unique to them. Doctrinally they are naturally inclined to an "Only One" and exclusivist mentality.


Mark A. Baker
Mark, I choose to see it my way and you choose to see it your way. You have your preferences and I have mine.

But the historical fact is exaggerated.

Look at Fluffy's post for example.

Most people believe the popes ruled Europe when in fact they were almost entirely at the mercy of kings.

That is a historical fact.

I think if you look at what is generally believed and what the actuality was you will see a vast difference.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Dean Blair

Silver Meritorious Patron
I had been a Scientologist for a very long time. I am now a Christian. I went to church today to celebrate Easter which is the celebration of Christ's rising from the grave after his crucifixion.

I am not Evangelistic as are some of my friends and I don't believe that Christianity is the only way to salvation but I do believe that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will be forgiven for their trespasses and sins and that they will have eternal life. And I do believe that following the teachings of Christ has benefited me and my family.

I was surprised to see that there were so many anti-Christian sentiments on this thread and was relieved to see Aunt Pat's statement about her belief in Jesus.

My family and I attend a church here in Texas, Hill Country Bible Church. I have nothing but good to say about what they are doing. In fact every Christian Church that I have ever been part of was only offering help to those who needed it. The help has always been free. Totally free. You don't even have to tithe if you don't want to and the money the Church does collect goes to spreading the word and helping those who are less fortunate. It is nothing like Scientology.

The fact that Hubbard was anti-Christ and led me and so many others to believe that one day we would be OT (God) is almost enough in itself to make me want to be a Christian to try and undo what Hubbard did.

I do hope that everyone here finds peace and happiness in their lives in whatever path they choose. Christianity works for me and my family.
 
... I think if you look at what is generally believed and what the actuality was you will see a vast difference.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I'm quite familiar with the history as well as the relative powers of kings & priests throughout the period along with the common misconceptions which remain popular. The facts are clear concerning the genocide waged against non-christians by christians. The fact that it was a regal power most frequently bearing the actual "rod of chastisement" is simply a matter of the means or mechanism adopted to effect the result. They were christian powers working to advance the promotion of what was seen as the christian agenda, and most commonly the outrages were ordained by church decree and sanctioned by religious office.

By the irony of their own doctrine: the blood on their hands.


Mark A. Baker
 
I'm quite familiar with the history as well as the relative powers of kings & priests throughout the period along with the common misconceptions which remain popular. The facts are clear concerning the genocide waged against non-christians by christians. The fact that it was a regal power most frequently bearing the actual "rod of chastisement" is simply a matter of the means or mechanism adopted to effect the result. They were christian powers working to advance the promotion of what was seen as the christian agenda, and most commonly the outrages were ordained by church decree and sanctioned by religious office.

By the irony of their own doctrine: the blood on their hands.


Mark A. Baker

Except for the Crusades, most of the genocide in Europe were Christians against Christians, and all sides considered themselves in accordance with Christianity.

But that is the level of consciousness of groups rather than a consequence of the religion.

There are people today who have the same religion and read the same religious texts as those in past times yet we do not have the same consciousness about religion.

And that is not only a result of the Enlightenment alone.

We have nationalism which has in fact been responsible for genocides of a greater number (although that is due to the technological and administrative capacity to kill so many).

The killing is justified by means current in the culture---but those are not the driving force, just the paradigm.

I know you consider yourself knowledgeable on history.

You are to a degree.

But I can tell you've never been through the rigors of professional training in the field.

The difference is not just the amount of data, it is the juxtaposition of paradigms of consciousness in the various outlooks.

It is in the Hegel and Foucault and the Structualists and the post-Structualist and the post-modern and the pre-modern and the Marian, etc. etc..

I not trying to show off here because I know you know what I am referring to, but there are professional approaches and there are enthusiast approaches, just like in any other field.

I think you will find that almost all claims to certainty and definitiveness in the field of history are suspect, and those claims come from enthusiast rather than trained historians.

History is an on-going process.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Last edited:
Except for the Crusades, most of the genocide in Europe were Christians against Christians, and all sides considered themselves in accordance with Christianity. ...

Among other things you have conveniently selected to edit out the period of time between the mythic "conversion" of Constantine, where christianity was alloted the right to implement imperial power on behalf of the imperium, and the actual christianization of the empire. In your defense, that is a commonly "overlooked" aspect of christian european history.


Mark A. Baker
 
Among other things you have conveniently selected to edit out the period of time between the mythic "conversion" of Constantine, where christianity was alloted the right to implement imperial power on behalf of the imperium, and the actual christianization of the empire. In your defense, that is a commonly "overlooked" aspect of christian european history.


Mark A. Baker

I didn't edit out anything.

I'm not going to write an encylopaedia.

But the Constantine example demonstrates my point.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Just a little bit of background ...

My father was a Southern Baptist minister. I attended and graduated from a Southern Baptist college.

I've had enough Southern Baptist Convention and Christianity to last me twelve lifetimes.

The Southern Baptist Convention has a political action committee that lobbies federal and state governments to pass or defeat legislation and regulations counter to "SBC members' values." Guess who decides what the values are? Not the congregations.

The Southern Baptist Church in which my father was buried and my mother was last a member and where a sister is a member recently refused to marry a black bride and groom, at the deacons' command. The minister knuckled under and agreed not to do so.

There's ignorance, and then there's bigotry. My own experiences with Christians have involved a lot of both.

Obviously, YMMV.

TG1
 

Gib

Crusader
OK, here's a subject:

Possibly relevant is the fact that I was brought up to think that two topics were off limits in polite conversation: religion and politics.

To this day, despite the hours I have spent at ESMB essentially debating religious topics -- mostly Scientology ones, when someone in my daily life brings up the subject of religion or asks questions like the ones below, I feel paralyzed and am never certain what words are going to tumble out of my mouth:

"You should visit our church -- you'd like it!"

"What church do you belong to?"

"But you're a Christian, right?"

"You know that God loves you, don't you?"

"Do you believe in heaven and hell?"

And my favorite ... "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"

I don't have any well rehearsed lines that quickly extract me from those situations. I'm just as likely to say, "Sorry, but I don't discuss my religion" as I am to say, "I left the church a long time again" or "You are being inappropriate. Please leave."

I've lied and told Methodists I'm a Buddhist and told Baptists I am an Episcopalian. I actually tell some Episcopalians the truth -- that I'm an agnostic. Occasionally, I've gotten into conversations with earnest Christians who seem desperate to understand how I could think that way, and those conversations all end the same: they're sad, and I'm mad.

How do those of you who are not Christians handle these situations?

TG1

P.S. I live in a part of the world where the phrase "good person" means the same as "good Christian person."


:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Oh come on. It's simple. Scientology is based on exchange in abundance. Blue diamonds.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

A religion turned into a business. Complete with marketing plan and PR and positioning.
It even has it's own Navy and CIA operation. :police:

Status too, Doctor of Scientology. :hysterical:

Hey, do those other religions have Hard Sell as scripture? :buzzin: Mo money.

Scientology is tops, we are the elite.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
No, but you choose to see it that way. In the case of christianity, the christianization of europe was an incredibly brutal process conducted by the Christian Empire. It was in fact far worse than the earlier roman "persecutions" of christians had been. What persecutions had been instituted by Rome were principally based on violations of public law and aimed towards preserving the unity of the Roman state. They were not based on intolerance of minority religions. Nor were they especially numerous or ubiquitous.

What "Christian Empire" are you referring to?

What is your reference for your comparison of Christian harassment versus pagan harassment in Rome?

Pagan Romans were in fact amazingly tolerant of religious differences. Far more so than the later christian empire proved to be. But they did not brook challenges to the authority of the empire; an authority which some individual christians and local christian groups publicly sought to flout.

Again - who are you referring to?

Once empowered the christians set out on a campaign of religious genocide against all subject peoples, seeking to convert or destroy any adherents to other religions excepting only the jews. These latter they "tolerated", while openly discriminating against them, for reasons of their own peculiar religion.

Again - your source for this? It is beginning to sound like the speech from The da Vinci Code by Tebing.


This campaign lasted without abatement for centuries until all such non-christian groups were effectively eliminated in christian Europe. To say that campaign has been white-washed in the widely available histories of the time is a gross understatement. It took the Renaissance, essentially an intellectual rediscovery of the values of Pagan Antiquity, to begin to reverse the effects of the oppressive christian dominion of Europe.

When did this campaign start, what were it's high points? How do you account for the simple fact that islam conquered the entire Iberian peninsula and charged up to France in the 800's? kind of pokes a hole in the contention. Or how about the later incursion into what became the Balkans?

Nor is christianity qualitatively unique in this sort of historical impact. Other monotheistic traditions have conducted themselves in similarly excessive fashions in their own attempts to spread the "good news". I see it as an inherent feature of monotheisms, although not necessarily unique to them. Doctrinally they are naturally inclined to an "Only One" and exclusivist mentality.

well as the operative word is "mon" that is a tad redundant.
 
Mick,

Mark seems to be under the impression that Christianity is a monolithic entity and Superstructure of Europe.

I am assuming this because of his phrase "Christian Empire" which implies a monolithic Imperial structure.

He's wrong.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Mick,

Mark seems to be under the impression that Christianity is a monolithic entity and Superstructure of Europe.

I am assuming this because of his phrase "Christian Empire" which implies a monolithic Imperial structure.

He's wrong.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Well in the words of Texas Governor Miriam A. Ferguson,

If the King's English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for the children of Texas, and it's good enough for me.
 
Top