Scientology is a religion that most people have no qualms openly denigrating, or hectoring its believers, and as ludicrous as the beliefs are, no one has defended their right to believe what they wish. Why, I wonder. I am not concerned with defending Scientologists, by any means, but I am curious how people could be so questioning of the kind of lunacy displayed here and not of other religious sects. I know I'm being somewhat obtuse by wondering about a question to which I already have the answer, but it does serve a purpose. What would happen if a journalist asked if God would consciously relate his most important words to an illiterate man, or would find it necessary to have his own son nailed to a cross? The interviewees would not grow defensive, first of all, because they exist in a state of almost astounding certitude about the state of Mohammed or Jesus, but if we changed the question to include practices that have nearly been whited out of the Bible or Koran, then I'm sure we'd have a similar reaction to the one above. I'm just curious.
Recently, Paul Haggis (Crash) left the Church of Scientology after 35 years, due to its San Diego branch supporting Prop 8, which effectively banned gay marriage in California.
Haggis goes on to list other factors -- he was shocked when Davis claimed in an interview with John Roberts on CNN that Scientology did not support the practice of "disconnection." Haggis knew that Davis was lying. He himself was asked to "disconnect" from the parents of his wife, Deborah Rennard, who had left Scientology.
Haggis also says he read the recent St. Petersburg Times series, quoting recent high-level Scientology defectors like Rathbun, who claimed that Miscavige physically abuses church members. In response, Davis attacked the people who spoke to the Times by using material that was obviously gathered in confidential church services -- a form of retaliation called "fair game" that Scientology has long been known for, but that the church publicly claims it doesn't do.
Posts
You ask the question, "What would happen if a journalist asked if God would consciously relate his most important words to an illiterate man, or would find it necessary to have his own son nailed to a cross?" Well, any good christian would answer the questions, not storm off in a huff. You may say christian beliefs are crazy, but at least they're free and not a secret. And here's my answers; we don't know if Jesus was illiterate, but at the time there were a lot of people questioning why God would choose Jesus as his messenger. (Which is what led to the crucifixion in the first place!) Jesus wasn't rich or a king, (Or perhaps even literate, as you've pointed out. Most people back then weren't.) And this did bother people at the time, so having doubts about God's choice of messenger is certainly nothing new. But that's using an earthly standard of what's important, not God's. It's like saying, "Why would God choose this guy with a disgusting boil on his neck for his messenger? That makes no sense!" Well, God doesn't care about stuff like that. As for the crucifixion, God didn't "have" Jesus nailed to the cross. It's not like God ordered it himself. The Romans did that all on their own. If the Romans loved Jesus and believed everything he said, that would've been fine with God. In fact, it's what he would've preferred! But that's not what was going to happen, and God knew it. But knowing something and wanting it enough to cause it to happen are two different things.
ReplyDelete