Changes

Talk:Scientology (view source)

Revision as of 20:18, March 19, 2007

765 bytes added , 20:18, March 19, 2007

→‎Source for "applied spirituality": Why are we going around? Scientology is about what the Church says it is about, there is no other authority

Line 78: Line 78:

We seem to disagree about how to handle the "applied spirituality" classification. Can you provide a source for it? Maybe that will help use with the wording. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

−

: I am willing to do a good deal. I am willing to verify EVERY WORD of the edits I introduce. I am willing to write an article on Dianetics and more. But unless the article can stand for 5 minutes without bias creeping in, it would make no sense to do so. For example, "Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy" becomes "Scientology is presented by adherents as an applied spiritual philosophy". An earlier statement, "Scientology, like Buddhism, is an applied spiritual philosophy" was similarly chopped up. Where does the problem lie? Am I to convince Tmtoulouse of the validity of every edit I make with direct quotations for a dozen websites before the least word of my edit can stand for 5 minutes? If it is your intent to make me defensive about perfectly good, substantial, verifiable edits, you have certainly succeeded, [[User:Tmtoulouse]]. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

+

: I am willing to do a good deal. I am willing to verify EVERY WORD of the edits I introduce. I am willing to write an article on Dianetics and more. But unless the article can stand for 5 minutes without bias creeping in, it would make no sense to do so. For example, "Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy" becomes "Scientology is presented by adherents as an applied spiritual philosophy". An earlier statement, "Scientology, like Buddhism, is an applied spiritual philosophy" was similarly chopped up. Where does the problem lie? Am I to convince Tmtoulouse of the validity of every edit I make with direct quotations

+

for a dozen websites before the least word of my edit can stand for 5 minutes? If it is your intent to make me defensive about perfectly good, substantial, verifiable edits, you have certainly succeeded, [[User:Tmtoulouse]]. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Show me a source for the phrase "applied spiritual philosophy" google comes up with nothing. [http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22applied+spiritual+philosophy%22+scientology&btnG=Google+Search&meta=] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Line 86: Line 87:

::::So then its just as I had written, it is the church/adherents that refer to it as such. Others refer to it as a body of teachings, others a cult, others far worse things. What wrong with saying that this particular definition is what the Church says? Makes sense to me. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

+

::::: The official link I provided use the exact words, "applied spiritual philosophy", just I stated. "Applied religious philosophy" is more commonly seen and, in fact, an entire book has been written and published, extant for some years, revolving around the second definition. Who else WOULD say it? Scientology was created by Hubbard, Scientology was entrusted to the Church of Scientology by Hubbard, who would say what it is BUT the Church and their publications? No one else is expert in the area, where is the difficulty. Now let us say that as simply as possible, okay ? Why say, "the experts in neurology say that neurology is about ....." Why not say, "neurology is about ....."and (reference) ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 16:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Terryeo

343

edits