Scientology to go on trial in France for "organised fra

[Stark]

Yes, I realize that I was confusing the laudable actions of a few churchmen, with the direction of the church itself.

This is really the issue, and allow me to give an example from a terrible novel I read once.

The protaganist was once in some stupid fan club for some stupid TV character or something, and paid money for stupid fan club shit. They had a good time, the local organisers were into scouting shit and cooking etc, and it was cool fun for a kid. However, it turns out this was a front organisation for funding and recruiting into separatist terrorists, and thus the character's career is troubled by these links to a 'terrorist cell', because the reality of the organisation was massively different from the low-level, grass-roots experience.

Most christians in my experience tend to react to criticsims of christianity with personal examples of good shit - which may be actual good things, like local charities, liberal and progressive ministers or congregations, etc. For them, this limited local experience -IS- 'christianity' and when you say 'lol they are horrible cunts', they can't imagine -THEIR- christianity doing that stuff, and so reject it. They don't understand that they might be doing harmless, hands-holding rights-for-gay-people stuff, but the bulk of the organisation and it's leadership are NOTHING LIKE THEM, and are in fact HORRIBLY EVIL. Your experience, all the christians you've ever met, is NOTHING. That's NOT christianity; christianity is the book, the organisation leaders, and all the bad shit that happens safely far away from your cook-outs and lamington drives.

[Block]

I don't think there is a "multiply at all costs" doctrine, since we both have decribed conservative values as imposing very specific controls on what is "apropriate" sex. The doctrine is more regarding the purpose o sex rather than the frequency an urgency of it, its just that when cultural inhibitions meet reproductive instinct, the end result is sometimes an unintended consequence

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." King James Version, Genesis 1:28

According to the first website I could find. I'd say that's pretty much an order to spawn as many offspring as possible, although at the time the population was tiny by comparison, and there was a huge infant mortality rate, so it made sense to push out a bunch of kids so that at least a few survived.

[Themightytom]

According to the first website I could find. I'd say that's pretty much an order to spawn as many offspring as possible, although at the time the population was tiny by comparison, and there was a huge infant mortality rate, so it made sense to push out a bunch of kids so that at least a few survived.

You should keep reading down to point number three

Determine if the injunctions are still valid today: We must determine whether the text is still applicable to North American Christians and Jews in the 21st century. It may have been only intended for the guidance of ancient Hebrews; it may be valid for Hebrews at all eras; it may be valid for Christians and Jews of all ages and locations; it may be binding on everyone, everywhere.

[Block]

Oh I wasn't commenting on whether they apply now. Simply pointing out that at one point it was indeed multiply at all costs. Most non-orthodox Jews for instance practice safe sex.

[Kanastrous]

I don't recall chapter-and-verse, but I think I remember something about everlasting covenants and laws binding-until-the-end-of-days and similar stuff that casts some doubt upon the sort of buffet-take-this-and-leave-that approach.

[Stark]

Shhh. Pope has a hotline to god, remember?

[SirNitram]

Would cheering on the highest birthrate recently, from a heavily religious organization, count?

[Themightytom]

I don't recall chapter-and-verse, but I think I remember something about everlasting covenants and laws binding-until-the-end-of-days and similar stuff that casts some doubt upon the sort of buffet-take-this-and-leave-that approach.

your probably thinking of Mathew 18:18, where jesus says whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, this is commonly pointed toas the root of the church and the Pope's authority.

It doesn't mean that EVERYTHING the pope says is infallible, and its sort of a rip off because there is no compehensive list o what was atually said that is infallible. Ratzinger made a list before he became post but even then he said not everything was included.

Even if it did it wouldn't address other exceptions to the "multiply at all costs" doctorine in other denominations, the Shakers weren't Catholic.

[Terralthra]

I don't recall chapter-and-verse, but I think I remember something about everlasting covenants and laws binding-until-the-end-of-days and similar stuff that casts some doubt upon the sort of buffet-take-this-and-leave-that approach.

your probably thinking of Mathew 18:18, where jesus says whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, this is commonly pointed toas the root of the church and the Pope's authority.

It doesn't mean that EVERYTHING the pope says is infallible, and its sort of a rip off because there is no compehensive list o what was atually said that is infallible. Ratzinger made a list before he became post but even then he said not everything was included.

Even if it did it wouldn't address other exceptions to the "multiply at all costs" doctorine in other denominations, the Shakers weren't Catholic.

Jesus actually says in Matthew 5 that the old law (of Moses) is in force until the end of time.

[Kanastrous]

your probably thinking of Mathew 18:18, where jesus says whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, this is commonly pointed toas the root of the church and the Pope's authority.

It doesn't mean that EVERYTHING the pope says is infallible,

I was taught that the Pope's infallability is with regard to matters of scriptural interpretation and church dogma. Since those things form the basis of pretty much absolutely everything the RCC does...

Even if it did it wouldn't address other exceptions to the "multiply at all costs" doctorine in other denominations, the Shakers weren't Catholic.

(a) I never indicated that the Shakers were Catholic; in fact, the use of the name of their specific non-Catholic denomination ought to have made that damned obvious, and

(b) So what? The existence of a comparatively tiny Christian sect that's out of the mainstream of other Christian sects, doesn't appear to prove much of anything.

[Themightytom]

Jesus actually says in Matthew 5 that the old law (of Moses) is in force until the end of time.

What verse was that? That still has nothing to do with the edict to be fruitful and multiply in Genesis.

[General Zod]

Jesus actually says in Matthew 5 that the old law (of Moses) is in force until the end of time.

What verse was that? That still has nothing to do with the edict to be fruitful and multiply in Genesis.

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (5:17) "Think not that I am come to destroy the law."
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that you can point to exceptions does not change the fact that Christianity advocates a "multiply at all costs" doctrine. Christianity has a dizzying array of sub-sects and belief variations, so there are exceptions to just about everything. However, your original point about "conservative values" is still completely off the mark: social conservatives are a sub-group which is most likely to have large numbers of kids, not least likely.

[Hillary]

Most christians in my experience tend to react to criticsims of christianity with personal examples of good shit - which may be actual good things, like local charities, liberal and progressive ministers or congregations, etc. For them, this limited local experience -IS- 'christianity' and when you say 'lol they are horrible cunts', they can't imagine -THEIR- christianity doing that stuff, and so reject it. They don't understand that they might be doing harmless, hands-holding rights-for-gay-people stuff, but the bulk of the organisation and it's leadership are NOTHING LIKE THEM, and are in fact HORRIBLY EVIL. Your experience, all the christians you've ever met, is NOTHING. That's NOT christianity; christianity is the book, the organisation leaders, and all the bad shit that happens safely far away from your cook-outs and lamington drives.

At the risk of appearing to be a +1 moron, I just have to say that this pretty much says it all. I know so many people who think Christianity is all about kindness and charity and turning the other cheek. They are so, so wrong.

[Themightytom]

I was taught that the Pope's infallability is with regard to matters of scriptural interpretation and church dogma. Since those things form the basis of pretty much absolutely everything the RCC does...

I wasn't taught that at all. i was taught that it was a Hewge major Event when the Pope invoked infallibility, he hasn't even done it reguarding abortion, capitol punnishment or women as priests, which are issues where there is a lot of dissention among the clergy.

(a) I never indicated that the Shakers were Catholic; in fact, the use of the name of their specific non-Catholic denomination ought to have made that damned obvious, and

Um ok I didn't intend to indicate that you indicated the Shakers were catholic, I was pointing out that despite the "majority" of religions encompassed in mike's statement there were still exceptions to the rule.

I basically made the comment "Hey theres some pineapples mixed in with these peaches, should we call this a fruit salad instead of a bunch of peaches?" and you responded with "Are we sure this is a peach"

At no point am I implying you can't tell the difference between a peach and a pineapple.

(b) So what? The existence of a comparatively tiny Christian sect that's out of the mainstream of other Christian sects, doesn't appear to prove much of anything.

it proves an exception to a rule, and lends support to the case that the rule should be redefined to be accurate. there are other exceptions to the "multiply at all costs" doctrine Mike described I just didnt want to belabor the point.

[General Zod]

it proves an exception to a rule, and lends support to the case that the rule should be redefined to be accurate. there are other exceptions to the "multiply at all costs" doctrine Mike described I just didnt want to belabor the point.

Since when do exceptions to a rule make the rule invalid?

[Kanastrous]

I was taught that the Pope's infallability is with regard to matters of scriptural interpretation and church dogma. Since those things form the basis of pretty much absolutely everything the RCC does...

I wasn't taught that at all. i was taught that it was a Hewge major Event when the Pope invoked infallibility, he hasn't even done it reguarding abortion, capitol punnishment or women as priests, which are issues where there is a lot of dissention among the clergy.

#1, the Pope does not need to 'invoke' infallability. It is a matter of dogma that doctrinal infallability is simply a part of the Pope's...powers...as Supreme Pontiff.

#2, I was taught that interpretation of Papal Infallability by the Jesuit brothers at Georgetown University. Where did you learn the definition - well, the description - that you offered?

I never indicated that the Shakers were Catholic; in fact, the use of the name of their specific non-Catholic denomination ought to have made that damned obvious, and

Um ok I didn't intend to indicate that you indicated the Shakers were catholic, I was pointing out that despite the "majority" of religions encompassed in mike's statement there were still exceptions to the rule.

The use of the word majority all by itself means "most, but not all." When Mike says "most but not all," in what way do you believe that you are correcting him, by saying, "no, Mike, it's really most, but not all?"

(b) So what? The existence of a comparatively tiny Christian sect that's out of the mainstream of other Christian sects, doesn't appear to prove much of anything.

it proves an exception to a rule, and lends support to the case that the rule should be redefined to be accurate. there are other exceptions to the "multiply at all costs" doctrine Mike described I just didnt want to belabor the point.

I wonder why you think that a small number of acknowledged exceptions invalidates the observation that it's true, for the majority.

[Themightytom]

The fact that you can point to exceptions does not change the fact that Christianity advocates a "multiply at all costs" doctrine. Christianity has a dizzying array of sub-sects and belief variations, so there are exceptions to just about everything. However, your original point about "conservative values" is still completely off the mark: social conservatives are a sub-group which is most likely to have large numbers of kids, not least likely.

Are we talking just about Christianity, or were we still including Judaism and Islam. My understanding of your statement was that you were pointing out that Abrahamic religions include a doctrine of "multiply at all costs" which it has been since pointed out probably derived from the injunction to be fruitful and multiply in genesis.

I guess I don't understand how you can in one breath apply a doctrine to all of Christianity, while at the same time allowing there are probably a lot of sub sects and variations that don't share that doctrine.

I can't really argue the comparative birthrates of conservative vs liberal sub groups because they straddle religions, meaning you can have conservative christians, or conservative Jews, conservative catholics vs conservative protestants, and the entire concept of being conservative is the adherence to traditional values. if the values vary than I suppose it would be stupid of me to lump them all into one category and expect the same result.

[Themightytom]

it proves an exception to a rule, and lends support to the case that the rule should be redefined to be accurate. there are other exceptions to the "multiply at all costs" doctrine Mike described I just didnt want to belabor the point.

Since when do exceptions to a rule make the rule invalid?

How did anything I said come accross as that absolute?

[Themightytom]

The use of the word majority all by itself means "most, but not all." When Mike says "most but not all," in what way do you believe that you are correcting him, by saying, "no, Mike, it's really most, but not all?"

One of Judeo-Christo-Islam's greatest crimes against humanity right now has to be its promotion of the "multiply at all costs" doctrine, which is literally destroying our environment. At least that's one thing Scientology is not guilty of.

The initial statement I addressed didn't say "Majority"

#1, the Pope does not need to 'invoke' infallability. It is a matter of dogma that doctrinal infallability is simply a part of the Pope's...powers...as Supreme Pontiff.

#2, I was taught that interpretation of Papal Infallability by the Jesuit brothers at Georgetown University. Where did you learn the definition - well, the description - that you offered?

My "description" isn't less valid than yours, if you produced a Papal statement declaring infallibility i would immediately tell you the Pope who wrote it was fallible, the direct source would have to be the Bible which I'm sure you would acknowledge has its own innaccuracies and inconsistencies.

papal infallibility is getting off topic anyway unless you avhe a papal declaration that we're all supposed to be having lots and lots of children.

Regardless of either of our interpretation of Papal Infallibility his decrees aren't treated by the entirety of the Catholic church as infallible, you STILL see nuns supporting Gay Rights and handing out condoms, I'm pretty sure the pope probably sent a few memos out about not touching little boys but quite a few priests seemed to think there was nothing to that.


I was taught my interpretation consistently by the sisters of mercy that ran the elementary, middle and high schools I attended respectively, and by the sisters of the Presentation of Mary who ran the college I attended. I'll PM you the names of the schools I went to but I don't see why my gradeschool should be posted on a forum especially since I am not presenting myself as an expert on theology.

Both groups are known for their more liberal attitudes in the church and this is an example of the variance within the population that makes applying a general statement very tricky.

[Kanastrous]

I don't need to see your c.v.; I was just curious as to where you picked up the interpretation with which you were working.

[Themightytom]

aw man I was typing up a resume...

[General Zod]

it proves an exception to a rule, and lends support to the case that the rule should be redefined to be accurate. there are other exceptions to the "multiply at all costs" doctrine Mike described I just didnt want to belabor the point.

Since when do exceptions to a rule make the rule invalid?

How did anything I said come accross as that absolute?

Either a rule is accurate or it's not. You claimed that it wasn't, so why do a few exceptions suddenly change this?

[Darth Wong]

The use of the word majority all by itself means "most, but not all." When Mike says "most but not all," in what way do you believe that you are correcting him, by saying, "no, Mike, it's really most, but not all?"

One of Judeo-Christo-Islam's greatest crimes against humanity right now has to be its promotion of the "multiply at all costs" doctrine, which is literally destroying our environment. At least that's one thing Scientology is not guilty of.

The initial statement I addressed didn't say "Majority"

OK, now you're just being a pedantic twat. It's normal to make generalized statements about social groups without necessarily meaning "100%". In fact, it is virtually impossible to make any generalized social statement if that's the standard. You're just pretending otherwise because you refuse to admit error.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I hate to say it, but maybe he should've stomached Clinton's arrogance and ambition and inevitable interference and picked her for VPOTUS.