Talk:Scientology/Archive2

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Terryeo

It doesn't take much looking through edit history here to see that by far the most significent contributor to the article is Terryeo, and that his edits consist almost entirely of downplaying or removing anything critical of scientology. I do not wish to create a fuss over this, but personally, I question his impartiality in this instance. Further, a check of his user-talk page shows he is the center of quite a debate regarding this article, and only this article. Some sections in the comments also make wonder if he may be a scientologist himself, most notably when he responds to a claim that scientology takes large sums of money from its members with "My experience has been very very different." Being a member would, obviously, be a clear source of bias that may render his editing of this article questionable. I considered contacting a burocrat, but consider it polite to first state my concerns here so he may have a chance to defend himself. I hope my accusations do not lead to any unpleasantness. --BornAgainBrit

Defend myself? Defend myself against what? I have posted a full view of your attack against me on my user page and have raised your underhanded "question" here. Why weren't you were unable to ask the general community about standard editing policy and get the concensus of the editing community as I did in that link ? Happy Ho Ho's. -Terryeo 19:15, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

New User

Am I allowed to change the page at all, because right now it is really bad. It doesn't tell all the weird stuff about the cult.JoyousOne 22:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Its a wiki, we encourage editing! Tmtoulouse

The User who calls themselves "JoyousOne" has clearly not understood the situation with this wiki. We do encourage editing. But we edit responsibily toward articles that are factual. The Conservapedia Commandments The_Conservapedia_Commandments and in particular, Commandment 1 which says that your edit must be verifiable. Your editing produced, "and avoiding any mention of faith's ability to help the individual." Yet Hubbard addresses that exact issue in various of his lectures. But it is not my duty to prove this to you. It is your duty to edit responsibily. Your edits must be verifiable. Commandment 2 spells that out, it says, "Always cite and give credit to your sources". I will remove those of your edits that are not verified and which I, through my own personal knowledge, are untrue. But any editor who is responsible should do that, anyway.

You went on to produce, "The basis of Christianity is denied", yet you fail to attribute WHERE the basis of Christianity is denied. Now, I could tell you personally about the many Christians I personally know who are Scientologists. But I won't, instead I will remove your unattributable statement, "The basis of Christianity is denied" because I know that you will never be able to attribute that to any Scientology statement. Probably what has happened is that you have read a critical - to - scientology website that says something like that. But that isn't what Scientology says. If you find such a statement and wish to present it as "Controvery", well, no one is going to stop you, but you are mistaken to say that the Church of Scientology "denies the basis of Christianity".

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. First, edit responsibly by reading The Conservapedia Commandments. Second, your edits must be verifiable information. Third, cite your sources so that a reader of the article can learn more about what you are talking about. And welcome to Conservapedia.However, such editing is to be toward ariticles of a certain quality. John Smith could not become an editor and the wiki to place is opinion. This is exactly what JoyousUser has done, Joyous User has PLACED AN OPINION as an edit. This is what the wiki discourages, while encouraging editing. Terryeo 00:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you failed to read my citations. Scientology's own site denies the power of Christian faith, and so-called Christians who claim to be scientologists will come back eventually. You seem to have a lot of unsupported opinions or some kind of agenda, or maybe I am reading you wrong. If so, I am very sorry.JoyousOne 00:37, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
At no point has Scientology ever made such a statement that "denies the power of (any) faith", and in fact I just finished a lecture series in which Hubbard addresses the power of faith. In fact, Hubbard uses Jesus' miricles as an example of faith. You are plain wrong and I know it. BUT, you are completely welcome to your opinion and if you will simply cite your facts, if you will reference your facts and smoothly insert them into the article then they can remain. But when you state your own opinion as if it were a fact, then it can not remain in the article. Where does "denial of the power of Christian faith" appear? What webiste says there, where does it say that, what phrase leads you to that? Is that simple enough for you? Where does that appear. Terryeo 10:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way,, one of my edits is so far uncited, as I was not satisfied with the quality of any one source I referenced. If I cannot find a good cite for that, I'll have to take it down, so any help would be appreciated.JoyousOne 00:48, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You can not place a conclusion which you personally hold on this article if it is your opinion alone. You are talking to 6.5 BILLION people Joy, can you dig it? Read your articles, do your reasearch, and then place known facts into the article. Especially where you have not studied the information that comprises the subject. Terryeo 10:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Im not really sure what you find so confusing. The Church's site specifically, as cited, denies faith, and since faith is the basis of Christianity, well, it doesn't take a theologian to get that. I don't care if they want to believe that stuff, but don't hide the real beliefs. You seem to be deceiving yourself.--JoyousOne 10:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Popularity

Might I point out that Scientology is a very popular article at conservapedia, perhaps it would be a good idea to recruit more editors so that the article can reflect a consensus? Tmtoulouse 00:37, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's still not as popular as my user page! :-P ColinRtalk 00:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I think everyone knows popularity is not as important as "importance". The article was so deceptive as it was, I had to add to it a little. Everything is cited, except as noted, and most if it is from Scientology's own literature, so I am not sure what the problem is. Your page is very nice though, Colin.JoyousOne 00:59, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it would be better for people reverting to address on the talk page what problems they have with the information? Just a suggestion. Tmtoulouse 01:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone made huge changes to my additions, even though I gave good citations for everything, and I think what I wrote is actually fact, considering a lot of it comes from the church's literature. I wish he would stop doing that.--JoyousOne 09:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I did that Joyous. You may view who does what by clicking the "History" tab at the top of most pages. Both the article and this discussion page have History Tabs, you may learn exactly who typed every word you see on the page, removed any word from the page, etc. There are no secrets here. I did most of that. My edit summaries tell you why I did that. For example:
  • "Scienotology denies the foundation of the Christain Religion" (and you quote how 'if it is true for you, it is true"). Now I understand that A + B = C to you. BUT, that is not what everyone gets. One does not equal the other.
  • When you find a rumor at Xenu.net (God knows there is a whole lot of rumor on Xenu.net), and you place that rumor into the article as a rumor, and you likewise state that rumor has been legally opposed by the Church of Scientology, then you are addressing an issue that has 2 sides, you see? Both sides have taken a strong stance, both sides have made a real issue of it, both sides have spent a good deal of time and money over the issue. There are necessarily 2 sides to an issue that has been in court, do you see? Therefore, it is WRONG to present an undecided rumor into the article in such a way that your personal, biased, uneducated point of view controls or colors the reader's view of the issue.
  • Scientology is composed of, perhaps, 40 million words. That is a LOT of information. Critics have created a lot of information too, though far less of it in recent years. It might be helpful for you to edit a less complex issue for a short while and read the editing commandments and talk with other editors and get the feel of this place. Though of course I'm just trying to be helpful here. Terryeo 10:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
My point about the Xenu thing is not about the truths of your beliefs (although I obviously think you are deceived) but about the approach to quieting dissent. A real person of faith doesn't need to sue someone to prevent them from saying bad things about their faith; it is left up to God, and to human discussion.--JoyousOne 10:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please listen to what I am saying to you. Scientology does not have BELEIFS. Therefore Xenu has nothing to say in the area. A real person of real faith may or may not have BELIEFS, scientology does not harbor BELIEFS as part of its FAITH, please understand this very very basic datum so we may proceed. Terryeo 10:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

As for your little syllogism problem, anyone who denies faith, and insists on "if it is true for you..." is inherently against Christianity, in fact denegrates the faith of the worlds Christians, who are willing to believe in the power of God through faith alone.--JoyousOne 10:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's right. I have a little syllogism problem. A syllogism dictionary is a conclusion that logically follows from two premises. "I know that apples are green" (if it is true for me, it is true as far as I know). "Jim believes that apples are red" (Jim admits he has not seen every apple, but all the ones he has seen are red, he believes all are red). Now, what color are apples ? You state that Scientology's, "If it is true for you, then it is true" is in opposition to the very foundations of Christianity. I invite you to logically demonstrate that. Terryeo 10:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Worth noting here is User:JoyousOne's refusal to communicate. 2 editors have attempted to communicate with the user on the user's discussion page, yet the user continues with the user's dogged, narrow, editing in a repeated, manner. A wiki is a collaberation of author and editing effort, Joyous. Terryeo 10:48, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Um, that's not a syllogism. Your two premises are incredibly flawed. You say, "if it is true for me, it is true as far as I know," which is saying "I believe this." Thus, you don't know anything about apples, thus invalidating your first "premise." Moreover, the second premise, when combined with the first premise, does not allow for any valid or reasonable conclusion to be reached. Even with the "attempt" at a syllogism, you've contradicted yourself. You said Scientology has no beliefs, and "if it's true for me, it's true as far as I know." Yet, that statement is identifying a belief and nothing more. It's true for me that unicorns don't exist (I've never seen one.), ergo it must be true unicorns don't exist. Except that's not how things work. I've not see all of existence, I can't confirm the existence of unicorns either way. Given this, what is it Terryo, does Scientology have beliefs or just bad logic? ColinRtalk 13:47, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess I misunderstood what you said on my talk page. I'm happy to discuss things here, but whay not make edits like you do? You're behavious is frankly bullying, and I really won't stand for it.JoyousOne 11:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you VERY much for repsonding. On such a foundation we can work together and create good articles. Yes, I did bully a little when I was ignored and ignored, combined with a lot of large edits, and so on. This is better, we can talk to together and produced articles that we can all agree with. Thank you for responding. Terryeo 12:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, guys, one of the other editors has given my some tips on how to improve my contributions to this page, and I think it should be ok with you. I'll work on it.--JoyousOne 11:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Theory of Evolution article

A sympathetic and accurate description of the subject of the article is not a requirement of this site. Take a look at theory of evolution. Even with all of JoyousOne's edits in its still more sympathetic then it has to be. Remember this site has a strong Christian conservative bias and will approach articles that way. Tmtoulouse 12:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Sympathetic? Who said anything about sympathetic? Our editing rules are the 7 commandments, where does "sympathy" enter the discussion? Are there additional commandments, rules, guidelines or ariticles of special interest that only you have access to, User:Tmtoulouse? Our production is simple and you are introducing an unneeded, unwanted, undesireable complexity (my opinion) by raising the issue of "sympathetic and accurate". What are you talking about ? Terryeo 13:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Also worth noting, Tmtoulouse, your advice to User:JoyousOne might have been good advice for some articles, it gave Joyous a push into the fray that you yourself refuse to step into. You stand back from the article after editing early and push others into it. And then, JoyousOne, (of good will, but confused) had to ask User:Philip J. Rayment editing difference what they were doing that wasn't appropriate. Terryeo 13:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Always attack never defend, eh? Tmtoulouse 13:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Changes

Implemented changes based on discussion to make things a bit more "neutral", and to add additional references. Thank you for the constructive criticism.--JoyousOne 13:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your patience, Terryeo, I still want to make sure the point is in there about the contrast with Christianity. This is not to denigrate Scientology, even though I seems wrong to me, but to present the fact that its beliefs are basically antithetical to Christianity. This is pretty much in line with the goals of the website. Thanks.--JoyousOne 13:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I wish to discuss, User:JoyousOne, you state; On their official website, Scientology explicitly deny the power of faith. I think the you are presenting a logical sequence, are you not?
(Scientology quote) In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true.
(Dictionary quote) Faith - belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. example; the firm faith of the Pilgrims. dictionary.
I think i follow, okay? Do I understand you correctly, is that your line of reasoning that leads to, Scientology explicitly denies the power of faith ? Terryeo 14:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, yes, I suppose you do. Since they do not "take a stand" on faith, most Christians would consider this a denial of faith. I'm sorry if that offends, but it is honest and truthful.--JoyousOne 14:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Beliefs

How can it be said that Scientology does not have beliefs? That is pretty much impossible, or else reading their information would be like reading random typing by a monkey (and don't get me started on that). The explicitly say that they believe self-improvement is achievable in such-and-such a way, etc.--JoyousOne 13:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok this is getting out of hand

Perhaps you both should do a pro vs. con set up on this page. Right now it is a slander war against Scientology. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia so a presentation of what the topic is considered to be is the most important feature of the topic. A category of criticisms in the bottom would be fine and give talk time with these issues. With the multiple headers it seems to be a debate page between Scientology and Christianity, note that which denomination of Christianity is not listed.--TimS 15:20, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

One of the defining features of scientology is the controversy that surrounds it. Also material that addresses concerns from a christian perspective is to be expected from CP, no? Tmtoulouse 15:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
How is it out of hand? I just showed the clear differences between the two in the article, as is part of the mission here, and, out of respect for other editors, helped integrated their content. It seems to be a balanced look at the topic, not a "Crossfire" episode.--JoyousOne 15:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
It is pretty clear that User:TimS has plainly pointed out what is going on. A quick view of the article's edit history [1] illustrates what he says. Further, the exact photo that Wikipedia once used to gently introduce readers to the slanderous presentation at wikipedia was introduced here. When I say "slanderous" I mean exactly that. The Wikipedia editors include people who have a history of lawsuit, with the the Church of Scientology, such people run personal webistes on the very edge of legal and simotaneously edit Wikipedia's Scientology series articles. The photo was introduced there, as it has been introduced here. Tmtoulouse seems quite happy to see the article marching down a roadway toward slander and mis-statement, JoyousOne does not understand how Joyous' opinion is not what the Church means when it says, In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true. Yet do either discuss the issues that drive their changes to the article? Alas, no, neither do. THAT is what User:TimS is talking about. Terryeo 15:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
That was a highly confusing and ungrammatical rant. It also serves to illustrate the point that Scientologists do not tolerated criticsim, even threatening legal remedies. I am a Christian; critique my beliefs all you want. Feel free. Post pictures of Christian churches that I dont like (especially the big Maytag looking thing in San Francisco). I won't threaten you but offer Christian compassion.--JoyousOne 16:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah, bullbaiting, how fun. The photo is public domain and makes the article look nicer. QED. Your other libelous claims about slander and libel are not really important since those people are not editing this page, non? Tmtoulouse 15:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I tried to clean it up a little, Tim, I hope this helps.--JoyousOne 15:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, sports fans. We have differing points of view. I am PERFECTLY willing to talk about EVERY detail of these things. Several personal attacks have been created. And what does this lead to? It leads to EXACTLY the sort of editing situation present at Wikipedia. Please maintain a polite attitude. Please, never again tell an editor they have "ranted", nor that their introduced inormation "does not matter" nor that they have a "silly sylogism" and phrases of that ilk. It is inappropriate to editor relationships. It is unfortunate, it happens, let's move on and find a way to work together. Terryeo 16:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You set the tone, when you bullbait you get personal attacks, if you want things to be peaceable stop bullbaiting. Tmtoulouse 16:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
The tone was actually set, mr. bullbait accuser, by your encouraging Joy, who had little editing experience here, to jump into the water with both feet. However, we need not stay with that, I am attempting to move toward cooperation. Terryeo 16:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh forbid! You mean I encouraged a new user to edit an article they were interested in? I encouraged content expansion? Oh the horror! I see now how evil I have been. Tmtoulouse 16:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Why are you refusing to move toward cooperation, User:Tmtoulouse? I have offered you see? I have even complained, you see? Why are you refusing to move toward a cooperative effort? Terryeo 16:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
My only contribution to this scientology article lately has been the image. Your issue is with other people not me. I did do dianetics and L. ron hubbard, I think thetan is made now too. But this article, meh, I washed my hands of it a while ago. Tmtoulouse 16:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

How to handle this editing conflict

We have developed a problem with this article. We need some manner, some mechanism, some method of dealing with these various points of view. Any suggestions ? Terryeo 15:59, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The only problem seems to be that you "can't handle the truth". There is nothing here untruthful or misrepresented. I am not sure what your problem is.--JoyousOne 16:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Consensus building, bring other editors in and get their opinion and see how the community wants to present itself. Tmtoulouse 16:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe Andy should help resolve this? Flippin 16:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
The more the merrier, though I was hoping the community could participate in an active discussion and not so much use sysop power to prevent discussion, but however he sees fit, his site his rules. Tmtoulouse 16:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't know if this help, T, but I found a video online that might be a good ref for the page. I don't think I know enough about Scientology to add much else, but here you go: http://www.xenutv.com/pickets/boston-assault.htm Flippin 16:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Now thats bullbaiting! Tmtoulouse 16:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I thought this is what you were looking for as a possible ref for their behavior? Flippin 16:30, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
(should also mention that I can't hear it--at work.) Flippin 16:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
User:Tmtoulouse has stated that User:Flippin has "bullbaited". However User:Tmtoulouse just got through posting to this page that User:Tmtoulouse had "washed their hands" of this page. While User:Flippin gave it his very best shot and attempted to be helpful toward conflict resolution. In addition, Flippin is discussing the issues toward conflict resolution while User:Tmtoulouse stands back with undefined comments, (bullbaiting, an undefined word). May I invite you User:Tmtoulouse, to responsibly fulfill the words you type? Terryeo 17:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I didn't accuse Flippin of bullbaiting, the link shows a good example of what scientologist refer to as bullbaiting and what you are doing. You invite me to do whatever you want. Doesn't mean I need to accept. Tmtoulouse 17:45, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Isn't this a cult?

I know that may sound inflamatory to some people here, but I thought the US is one of only a couple countries that even recognizes this as a bona fide religion. Further, is this really then "family-friendly" per commandment 3? I am not so sure we should promote cults on this site. Flippin 16:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Does the US even recognize it as a religion? My understanding was that it has tax exemption from the IRS and thats about it. Tmtoulouse 16:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I have also put this up, to spark discussion: Debate:Is Scientology a false religion. Tmtoulouse 16:33, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, as far as I know Scientology is a cult, or has a cult-like status. Most of the refs I've seen talk about all the brainwashing that goes on in their temples, or whatever. Flippin 16:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Worried about the infamous 90/10, but one last bit, hasn't all of their stuff been published in Norway? Flippin 16:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Its also a giant commercial venture, which just adds a strange mix to the whole thing. The way they extract money from people is crazy. The OT III documents are published on a sever in Europe, maybe norway, not sure. It used to be sourced here. But Scientologist don't like discussion of Xenu and it was removed. Tmtoulouse 16:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
How does one discuss scientology without discussing Xenu? I thought that and thetons or whatever were their bread and butter? Flippin 16:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
They know it makes them look bad. Its a Dutch server that has the OT III documents here. Tmtoulouse 16:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, T. Well the first thing I notice is that they are in direct conflict with the YEC when they say the space opera took place 95 Billion years ago. Flippin 16:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Generalizations

It seems to me that many of the paragraphs on this page are generalizations that should be narrowed down. When JoyousOne claims that Scientology is in direct conflict with Christian teachings perhaps it should be stated what teachings it is in conflict with and whose teachings. Since there are so many different denominations of Christians it would help with a source to who states that it is in conflict. For now it is a very broad generalization.

On the other side Terryeo should talk with JoyousOne about how to go about adding the criticisms in a way that is constructive to the article. Yes, they should be well sourced and thought out before placement but they should still be there. We do not want another Theory of Evolution page where the article is one sided.

I can see where you're going here, but it seems like just by being a different religion, created by a sci-fi writer, that it is automatically in direct conflict with Christianity. Am I wrong here? Flippin 16:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, you are mistaken but that is exactly what critics hope for, that a common person of any faith would become mistaken. In actuality, there are many Christians who study scientology at Churches of Scientology. Some of those call themselves both Christians and Scientologists because neither conflicts in any way with the other. Terryeo 16:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
If you see my comment in the above section, doesn't YEC directly conflict with scientology's belief that the earth is 95 billion years old? Flippin 16:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Scientology does not state that anyone should believe the earth is a million, billion or 95 billion years old. Hubbard did not state the information he wrote and lectured as "beliefs". He stated what he knew to be true. A person who studies what he wrote and said may do whatever they like with his stated word. There is no belief that makes one a scientologist. Terryeo 17:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
So Scientology is just nothing then, guess they don't need that tax exemption after all. Tmtoulouse 17:06, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
User:Tmtoulouse, you have stated that you have "washed your hands" of this article. Yet you persist in opinionated, inflammatory comments that are not directed toward editor cooperation, nor to conflict resolution, nor toward understanding, nor are they attributed. Will you please act responsibily ? Terryeo 18:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Those in glass houses....Tmtoulouse 18:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
But isn't this a direct quote from some of their writings?
" The following portion of OT 3 is quoted in full in Margery Wakefield's book The Road to Xenu, chapter 13, and I believe all of it has been quoted in other books and articles as well. It provides a nice context for my summary and comments:
 ::The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger
  stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago, very 
  space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 
  178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to 
  be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the 
  principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones 
  were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to 
  Las Palmas and there "packaged". 
  ::His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading 
  data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants."
Also, doesn't scientology have a kind of bible? or am I totally wrong here? Flippin 17:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Scientology is comprised of about 40 million words. It proposes to be helpful. People attest that it is helpful. As one example, recent news tells of scientology's detoxification technology being helpful to 700 + emergency workers from the 9/11 event. It does not exactly have a bible, although one might argue that What is Scientology is a sort of bible. Terryeo 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

None of the quotation you placed here is originated by the Church of Scientology. You got that quote from a critical website, which got its information from what it says are stolen documents. Why should anyone consider such a poor source of information to contribute to Conservapedia? Terryeo 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Belief

We seem to be straining the meaning of "belief" here. Perhaps, Terry, you could explain how your somewhat bizarre definition of belief is related to the one in the dictionary? I mean, for instance, as a Christian, I believe in redemption through Jesus Christ. If I were to tell my children, "thats what I believe, but you decide" and then they decide NOT to believe that, are they still Christians?--JoyousOne 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Belief several dictionarys The Random House Unabridged says; 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief. I think this is precisely the definition you mean for us to be working with. As I have earlier stated, the Church of Scientology does not present belief, nor does it deny belief. The definition I have been working with does not disinclude yours. The Random House Dictionary goes on to say;
—Synonyms 1. view, tenet, conclusion, persuasion. 2. assurance. Belief, certainty, conviction refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof. Belief is such acceptance in general: belief in astrology.
Scientology does not deny, nor support a person believing. Instead it says, (paraphrased) "A person may believe as they wish, what is true for them, is true for themseleves." -Terryeo 17:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Terry, Im sorry if I wasn't clear here...the answer to the above is "no". If they do not hold Christian beliefs, they are not Christians. If you do not believe in Scientology's teachings you are not a Scientologist. It is really too simple a concept to waste words on, and I'm not sure why you are parsing the meaning of belief so crookedly.--JoyousOne 17:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Scientology would neither affirm nor deny their beliefs, nor the validity of their beliefs. Nor would I. Terryeo 17:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Not sure what that means, seems actually quite meaningless in the context. I wrote about Christian views of Scientology, and it is valid to discuss that. I refuse to just shut my eyes and "neither affirm nor deny". You are welcome to discuss Christian views...you won't find Christians suing you for your criticism.--JoyousOne 18:06, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
What it means, Joyous is that your children are completely free to believe anything they wish to, to consider their belief to be valuable in their day to day life, as a guide to their living in every way. It is true for them, good, fine. That means it is true for them and no one should attempt to change what they find is true. This applies to belief, to tastes in apple pies, to hairstyles, races, creeds and so on. If it is true for (anyone), then it is true (for that individual). Terryeo 18:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Seems a tad dangerous to me. Tmtoulouse 18:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
If free thought seems a tad dangerous to you, why are you editing here? Terryeo 18:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Free thought does not mean that truth is relative to the individual. I believe in an absolute external truth. Just like the site founder and most of the editors. We disagree on how to become closer to that Truth but we both believe it there. I am here to participate in that path. If all truth is relative to the individual..........well there is a 1000 years of philosophy behind why that is problematic. Tmtoulouse 18:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Im sorry again, Terry, but you misunderstand me. Of course my children are free to choose their beliefs, and, thank God, they have chosen to be Christians. Had they NOT chosen to be Christians, they would not be Christians. I hate to state the obvious, but sometimes it is necessary.--JoyousOne 18:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
You put forth a hypothetical example and I understood you were presenting a hypothetical example. I completely agree that we must establish basic agreements in order to work toward more complex ones. Terryeo 18:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Dpsmith for the clarification.--JoyousOne 18:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

References

Does anybody know how the references got corrupted? I assume this was accidental. If anyone knows how to fix it that would be great.--JoyousOne 17:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Never mind, fixed it.--JoyousOne 17:46, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Photo

I cannot believe a photo of one of your churches could offend you, but I have removed it for now pending further discussion. Perhaps you could more clearly explain how a picture of a church is bad.--JoyousOne 17:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I feel the burden of proof is on Terryeo and the photo should stay while we discuss it. Tmtoulouse 17:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

User:Tmtoulouse, you say that you have "washed your hands" of the article, but almost nothing goes by that you do not stick your opinion into, such as this one. As I stated, the caption is offensive. It is WRONG for this article to BIAS itself, presenting the Church of Scientology is a VERY CONTROVERSIAL religion. But more importantly, this article is not even about the Church of Scientology. This article's title is Scientology and that is a body of literature and lectures, a body of (what its followers state) knowledge, a philosophy. The photograph of a building does not represent the philosophy in any manner. It should be removed. If you want to create an article, the Church of Scientology, then it might be appropropriate there. Terryeo 17:55, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The caption doesn't say anything about the church, its just an illustration, pictures are good for articles, make them look much more professional. This is one of the most visited articles at this site, its worth it to make it look good. Please suggest other public domain photos we could choose from if you like. The gestapo copyright tactics of the "church" make it difficult. Tmtoulouse 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Once again, Terry, I think you are stretching definitions a little. Church of Scientology vs Scientology, that seems a bit over-parsed. --JoyousOne 18:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I am only reiterating, I am not creating. The Church of Scientology says this exact thing and I'll happily get you a link. L. Ron Hubbard created the body of knowledge that he called "Scientology". Then he founded the Church of Scientology. He entrusted the Church of Scientology with his created body of knowledge. The Church says it disseminates Hubbard's Scientology. Terryeo 18:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I get it. God, through Jesus, gave the world the knowledge we call Christianity, but Christian churches entrusted to help spread the knowledge are different from "Christianity"? Of course there are many kinds of churches, so are you saying that there is "Scientology" but many different sects? It is all very unclear.--JoyousOne 18:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Your Christian example seems quite valid ! Yes, that's it. Christianity would exist with, or without any Christian Church, would it not, because it is an idea and supported or proposed by the Holy Bible. Hubbard was the sole creator of Scientology, though other people contributed in various ways. He took up his entire 40 million words and entrusted it to the Church of Scientology. His books, his created works would exist with or without the Church of Scientology. Maybe a book photograph would be appropriate for this article. Terryeo 18:33, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
It needs to be public domain, and something the church wouldn't declare defacto copyright on. Any suggestions? Tmtoulouse 18:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Terry, in an article on Christianity, I want to see a picture of a church, Lutheran, Catholic, I don't care, just a nice illustration. For Scientology, we need one too. Just find us an alternate if you'd like. Also, I'm unclear why this one is bad, but, let's just say it is, and when you find a better one, we will replace it. Sound good?--JoyousOne 18:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Terryeo, could you suggest a better photo thats in the public domain for this article? Tmtoulouse 18:28, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

On the other hand, this whole discussion is bizarre. No Christian church would stop you from posting a picture...ever. We should just leave this if T has no alternative. This is like Alice in Wonderland, I mean, how crazy is this? Why would a church sue for showing their picture?--JoyousOne 18:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

TerryO, I was going to ask which bit of the photograph's caption you disagreed with, as it all seems quite correct to me. I gather, however, that it was to the "very controversial" bit. Frankly, I'm surprised that you would dispute that Scientology is very controversial, but I also noticed that before it was removed, the word "very" was removed. Is the caption acceptable to you in that form ("Scientology center in Los Angeles, California. Scientology is a controversial religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard")?

Second, I don't accept your argument that the article is about the religion and the photograph is of a church. That the photograph is of a church of that religion is quite enough. You can't have a picture of a religion itself, because a religion is not a physical object, so any pictures must be of objects associated with that religion. A Scientology church clearly is.

Thirdly, neither do I accept your argument about the trademark. If you can show me to be wrong, go ahead, but until you do, I will believe that the situation you are talking about is using a trademark itself, not about using a photograph that happens to have a trademark in it's proper setting and occupying a small portion of the picture.

Philip J. Rayment 11:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

1. You are quite right, my arguement was about the photo's caption. And that has been made more realistic.
2. Scientology is the title of the article. Because editors here have been quoting from Wikipedia, I'll place Wikipedia's first line of their Scientology article here: Wikipedia states: "Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques developed by L. Ron Hubbard." first lineNo mention of "church" you see? So what does a scientology website say: "Scientology is an applied religious philosophy developed by L. Ron Hubbard." almost first line. Please note, it is a philosophy which means a body of knowledge. Its area of knowledge is religion. A religous philosophy does not make a church but is a body of knowledge. Here are my words about this issue at Wikipedia. (because everyone is poking me about my wikipedia edits). So what does the Church of Scientology do? It was entrusted by Hubbard to keep his philosophy intact and to disseminate its use. But these are actually separate things. The philosophy itself would exist with or without the Church. As the Holy Bible would exist with or without any Church.
3. About the trademark. Sorry, I can not find the arguements at Wikipedia that resulted in that photo, and like photos that feature trademarks as large parts of the photo, removed. It is beyond my area of knowledge. I was working with what I recalled. Perhaps User:Tmtoulouse can make the situation more clear but I can not. Terryeo 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

"A trademark right doesn't give you the right to forbid use of the word. What is does give is the right to prevent use of the word in a way the would confuse consumers as to the origin of the goods or the sponsorship of the goods," said Terrence Carroll, a copyright attorney. This from [2]. The photograph is not a picture of the body of information that is scientology. Please understand, I am not attempting to cause a problem, but to resolve a potential problem. Terryeo 13:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

  1. Okay, so we can take it that the modified caption is acceptable.
  2. You go to considerable length to prove something that I wasn't disputing. I agree that there is a difference between the religion/philosophy/body-of-knowledge and the church. My point was that this is not reason to exclude the photograph. Just like an article about the makers of Coke can include a picture of one of their products, despite there being a difference between the company and the product, it is entirely legitimate to include a picture of a Scientology church in an article about Scientology. Just like it would be okay to include a picture of a Baptist church in an article about Christianity.
  3. So you can't (presently) refute my argument about the trademark, except to raise the idea of the trademark taking up "large parts" of the photograph, which is not the case here anyway.
Philip J. Rayment 23:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Unbelieveable. Christianity is a body of belief and knowledge, and churches are ONE of the many places people practice it, just as with Scientology. Therefore, a picture of one of these venues is illustrative of the concept. Your arguments on this are bizarre, T, and you give no rationale for it.--JoyousOne 14:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Scientology and Christianity

I separated out the Young Earth Creationism material because it shouldn't really be lumped under Christianity. The belief in a young Earth is not usually considered to be a fundamental tenet of Christianity; it's not in the Nicene Creed (which doesn't mention the Bible or Creation at all) and it's not in most catechisms.

Furthermore, it's not typical of all of Christianity. It is Protestants in particular who put great stress on the words of the Bible, and it is typically Protestants who are Young Earth Creationists.

Finally, the material on the age of the Earth is primarily in Genesis and is not touched upon in the New Testament.

In general, one can say that most Young Earth Creationists would identify themselves a Christians, but most self-identified Christians would not identify themselves as Young Earth Creationists. Dpbsmith 19:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The Nice Creed refers to "the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible" and the "Lord Jesus Christ ... by whom all things were made". They are both direct references to creation. And implicitly to a young-Earth creation, as nobody or next to nobody at that time believed that 6 days could somehow mean billions of years. Philip J. Rayment 22:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I've changed two sentences in this section to bring them closer to the actual content of the references that support them. I've tried not to alter the point they are making. Dpbsmith 19:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks much for the help!--JoyousOne 19:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thomas H. Cruise!

I can't believe how many hits this article is getting, it must be all over the interwebs. Great work, folks. Human 01:06, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Trademarks

I'm pretty sure from my editing experience at Wikipedia that the photograph placed by TMlouse (does TM mean "trademark"?) defies law. As I understand it, when a photograph includes a trademark, then the referenced material must be about that trademark for it to qualify as fair use. You can not take Pepsi-cola's trademark, either as an individual trademark or as a photograph, and place it into an article about anything except trademark itself. This article is about "scientology". The article is not about "the church of scientology" nor about the trademark of the Church. I'm pretty sure that photograph in this article is an illegal use of the photograph. If you go to Wikipedia you can trace that exact, same photograph, it was used there for a time. And removed for this exact reason. Terryeo 06:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

See, this is one of the points where you use me, and reinforces some of my (admitted) preconceptions. Why fight a picture illustrating a gathering place for Scientologists? Why make legal threats. Something here does not make sense. When Christians feel under threat, we open our arms, and embrace those who would denigrate us. We don't sue them. In this case, there isn't even any attack on Scientology, just a picture of a building with the name on it. If you put up a sign on a public street and someone wants to take a picture and display it, so what?--JoyousOne 07:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I have used no one. Nor have I made any threat. Terryeo 00:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Its still used on several pages at wikipedia, no one took it down because they decided this trademark argument was bunk there too. Not much else to say about it. Tmtoulouse 12:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Terryeo appears to be a contentious problem editor on this subject

Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence

I suggest that he be closely watched and disciplinary actions be taken if appropriate. Does anyone have any problems with Terryeo at this point? Conservative 08:06, 26 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

My only real problem is that he seems to focus on removal of information, rather than addition of information, and creates complexity rather than simplicity.

  • His (IMO) bizarre focus on the photo issue is problematic
  • His desire to equate the concept of "thetan" with Christian soul is problematic, given one is admittedly materialistic and one is divine.
  • His bizarre rambling statements
  • His constant referring back to legal issues, which should be irrelevant.
  • He denies the centrality of faith as a irreconcilable difference between Christianity and Scientology, despite their own literature.

--JoyousOne 08:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I gave Terryeo a warning at the Dianetics talk page for turning the article into a dianetics advertisement. If he keeps it up, there are going to be problems. Here was his version: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dianetics&oldid=128508Conservative 09:02, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
As I stated there. I have stopped editing until I understand what you are talking about, Conservative. Terryeo 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
His old version has that same style of writing that says nothing, despite having lots of words. It doesn't tell the reader anything.--JoyousOne 09:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
"His old version" ???? I have edited that page only once. It was immediately reverted. By whom, you might wonder? Simply click the "history" tab at the top of any article to view every edit ever made to that page. You see who has made every edit and the result produced. Terryeo 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I will clarify for you...as you implied, it was me. I, unlike others, have nothing to hide. It was the quality, not the quantity of the edits you made that were unacceptable.--JoyousOne 10:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Again, I have edited the Dianetics article once and once only. Again, to see who edited and what they produced, simply click the "history" tab at the top of any article. Terryeo 10:10, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I have pointed out specifically, the problem with the photograph. It is not up to me, it is up to other people. User:JoyousOne considers my information about the photograph to be a legal threat. I made no threat, I pointed out the legal problems with a photograph of a trademark. If you all wish to talk about how Conservapedia should be aware of and follow the footsteps of Wikipedia, I'll be glad to talk about that, too. In no case have I tried to advertise, nor to convince anyone of what I know to be true. I place good information, attributed information on the page and attempt to keep criticsm and bias placed after the subject has been introduced. But I worked all day yesterday while many, many edits were made to this article, worked toward getting an even handed article that doesn't sound like clambake org. Now I am told that my editing is unwelcome. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 09:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Can we limit the citations?

Do we really need to quote the text verbatim, or can we just paraphrase? Flippin 16:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Feel free to paraphrase where you think it would be helpful to. Conservative 21:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

as a point of information

Editors might wish to compare our article here to another wiki's article. Why do I say this? I say this because most of this article does not contain the information that constitutes scientology. It contains plenty of criticism but it does not really tell you what the subject is about. Here is another wiki's treatment of the same subject. Terryeo 21:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

We heard the same about the Theory of evolution article. Let the readers decide if Scientology deserves ample criticism from the sources cited. Conservative 21:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I was of the impression that our motivations were not reader's estimations of how much criticsm an article should contain. Is that in the commandments somewhere? I would like to follow your reasoning. Do you mean by observing the page hits of the Scientology article? I don't understand what you mean by "let the readers decide if Scientology deserves criticism". I don't understand how even a page counter would tell us what a reader's attitude is. Terryeo 22:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think a page with only you as the sole author is the model to work from since you seem to be the odd person out here. Tmtoulouse 22:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for pointing out the authorship of the page. However, you see, I was pointing to content.  :) Terryeo 00:17, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I should have been more clear. When I said let the readers decide I said that without pointing out that readers are also editors too in most cases. I suppose if there is a lot of conflict in regards to this article the Conservapedia panel could get involved but I don't see this happening. Conservative 23:30, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The opinion I removed

I removed this from the article. It is opinion, unattributable opinion.
Many may also be troubled with the ideas, not officially stated, but widely published,that a deity other than God (Xenu) may have influenced the presence of souls on earth.[3]Also, the Scientologist concept of soul ("thetan") is very different from the Christian understanding. The thetan can inhabit many bodies and lifetimes, and is not a gift of God, that ultimately returns to God.
discussion welcome, but that is simply opinion. The link points to a page of nothing but opinion. Terryeo 22:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, I see. this is "revert terry without discussion" day. I see. Terryeo 22:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

You are stretching the definition of opinion. As stated, it is difficult to find direct Scientology literature due to the secrecy and legal hostility. If you can come up with legal citations, let me know. You seem to know what you dont want included, but not what you want to replace it with in kind.--JoyousOne 22:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

You are misinformed. All of these:
  • "The thetan can inhabit many bodies and lifetimes, and is not a gift of God"
  • "the Scientologist concept of soul ("thetan") is very different from the Christian understanding"
  • "a deity other than God (Xenu) may have influenced the presence of souls on earth"

Are individual opinions that were never written by Hubbard. They will not be found in any Scientology literature and they will not be found on any Scientology website, ever. You are completely misinformed. When I attempt to discuss, what do I get? I get "not enough controversy, we want more controversy". When I remove personal opinion, per commandment 5: "don't post personal opinion", what do I get? I get reversion, immediate, unconditional and ongoing reversion. I have myself, in my immediate possession, most of the Scientology literature. And ANYONE can buy 99 percent of everything Hubbard ever wrote. And anyone can find at least some of it in public libraries. And amazon.com has used copies, cheap. and the library of congress lists those books. And I have tried and tried to cooperate in every possible way. You are misinformed. Here are two links to online dictionarys that define the term "thetan". [4] and [5]. Terryeo 22:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The information you quote is not a definition but an extension and synthesis of what the definition entails. Therefore, citing scientology's definition of a thetan can not contradict a synthesis of the idea. Tmtoulouse 22:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh ? What information did I quote that isn't an opinion? What information did I quote that is found ANYWHERE in Scientology literature? -Terryeo 00:15, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Doesn't have to be, it is synthesis of information from Scientology and from information outside of scientology, taking two original sources and synthesizing a new idea. A common practice. Tmtoulouse 00:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

A conclusion is an opinion held by an individual. You are talking about those opinions being conclusions.  :) Commandment 5: Do not post opinions. For Tmtoulouse alone, that should read, "Do not post any synthesis of personal knowledge for such sythesis is opinion and original research." Terryeo 00:31, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Original research used to be allowed on this site. Is that not the case? In any case, the excised statements were assertions, not opinions. Were they wrong?--All Fish Welcome 00:36, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Original research and synthesis is allowed here. This is not wikipedia. Tmtoulouse 00:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The Lisa McPherson Affair

This section was originally added without any references, but one was provided after I added a {{fact}} tag.

However, although the reference does support some of the points, it does not seem to mention some other points, including the church being charged and acquited, the civil suit and settlement. If I've missed something (I didn't read the entire link, but did search for key words), please point it out, else I still think that the section needs more/better references if it is to remain as it is.

Philip J. Rayment 08:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools