Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: deej@cds8613.Cadence.COM (Jim Howard)
Subject: Re: this newsgroup
Message-ID: <1991Jul22.182820.21673@cadence.com>
Sender: usenet@cadence.com (USENET News)
Reply-To: deej@cds8613.Cadence.COM (Jim Howard)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, San Jose
References: <rob.679945595@blacks> <1991Jul18.123511.14208@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <WLCARROL.91Jul18051903@elric.mit.edu> <1991Jul18.171246.7336@cadence.com>
Distribution: alt.religion.scientology
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 18:28:20 GMT

In article <rob.679945595@blacks>, rob@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Robbie) writes:
[ ... stuff deleted ...]
> It seems to me that you emphasize the pragmatic or applied aspects
> of Scientology over the origin and underlying beliefs of the movement.  
> An analogous statement from Christianity might be 'I believe that 
> I ought to love my neighbor, but while Christ may have been right 
> about that, I don't concern myself as to whether or not he was 
> actually the only son of God incarnate.'  I would like to point out
> that on a deeper theological level, there are in fact fundamental
> incompatibilities between Scientology and Christianity.  Their 
> resolution is problematical, but they ARE there, and it does us
> credit to acknowledge this.

  Yes, I did emphasize that Scientology provided a clear-cut
technology which could be applied to everyday life.  I am also
quite content with the origin and underlying beliefs, as I 
understand them.
  I have found no incompatibilities between Christianity and
Scientology.  Could you elucidate?

[ ... more stuff deleted ...]
> 
> I disagree with the assertion that religions whitewash difficult
> issues with the edict 'you must have faith'.  In fact, I was at
> an earlier point in my life very disillusioned with religions
> for this very reason.  But over the past several years I have
> learned that God is not simple, that faith does not consist of
> the blanket assertion 'This Is So'.  My problem had previously 
> been in my lack of willingness to investigate.  
[ ... more good stuff deleted ...]

  I admit my investigation did not go beyond the religious 
documents provided to me (Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, etc.).
But you must admit that there are conflicts between religion
and science, and between differing religions.  This was always
a subject of great confusion to me.  Maybe I'm an idealist, but
I always believed that there should be some sort of underlying
unifying truth, that neither refuted existing beliefs nor caused
greater confusion.  I believe that Scientology has provided that
to me.

> I don't doubt that there is validity to these processes.  Are
> they not a method of self-examination?  I think they must almost  
> certainly share characteristics with both religious and non-
> religious psychological counselling.

  True - but it does go beyond that.

> 
> In short, I wanted to respond to a couple of your points because
> of a trend I thought I saw; it is a poor religion or value 
> system that must elevate itself by casually denegrating others, 
> and this is such a common phenomenon that I would dare to call 
> it the Fatal Abusive Religious Trend.  I do not understand 
> Scientology in any depth, and so I have little information 
> to add to this newsgroup, which seems genuinely interested in 
> what Scientology is about.  This seems to me a fine topic for
> a newsgroup.  My response here is simply to point out that
> it aint simple, McGee, that I caught of whiff of the lurking
> Trend.
> 
> rf

  I really did not mean to denegrate any religion here. 
Sorry if that's how it sounded.  What is important is what
works, and that is not necessarily the same thing for everyone.
If you're 100% happy with your beliefs, then I congratulate
you on that.  I was not, and so sought out something with which
I could be more fulfilled.

							~ deej ~
						    deej@cadence.com
					       Jim Howard - (408) 944-7947
					       Cadence Design Systems, Inc.