Scientology VS Christianity currently tied

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Credibility, you choose:

1) The founder of a cult/hoax who was a science fiction writer who made a statement a decade before founding Scientology that the best way to get rich was to start your own religion, and who died on a yacht off coastal waters evading prosecution for income tax evasion, and whose cult requires you to pay to gradually receive all the information upto learning about Xenu the evil galactic ruler of 70 million years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that it claims "that Jesus had never existed, but was implanted in humanity's collective memory by Xenu 75 million years ago, and that Christianity was an "entheta [evil] operation" mounted by beings called Targs..."
How did Xenu do that? Well, he showed all of humanity a 3-D movie for 36 days and brainwashed them, of course!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

If you're really interested in researching Jesus check out a book called "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. It was written by a then atheist from a completely unbiased standpoint. It was a great read and very informing. There's another book he wrote called The Case For Faith which is also a good read.
Justin

[BCPVP]

Thanks for the recommendation. My mom has the book and I've been meaning to read it, but I do know the premise already.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're really interested in researching Jesus

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd gladly grant a premise of the actual existance of a person named "jesus" around 2000 years ago, who claimed to be the son of god. I've never quite understood why that was important in almost any discussion about xtrianity.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're really interested in researching Jesus

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd gladly grant a premise of the actual existance of a person named "jesus" around 2000 years ago, who claimed to be the son of god. I've never quite understood why that was important in almost any discussion about xtrianity.

[/ QUOTE ]I am much more certain that L Ron Hubbard existed.

[BTirish]

It would seem that you are asking for a full apologia for Christianity and a full set of criticisms of Scientology, or vice versa. This is a little beyond the scope of a reply on an internet discussion forum. Your having made the demand, however, does not in fact place the burden of proof on the believer. I've sorted these things out for myself, and I'm happy to help others sort them out as well, so long as I'm not expected to write a book before my comments are even admited to the discussion.

I could just as well assert that there are sufficient practical reasons that can be given for why it is a good idea to believe in the Christian revelation, and place the burden on you to tell me why this isn't so. This is no less fair than the demand that you have made after you flat-out assert that there is no "evidence" for the Christian revelation.

In other words, there are better starting points for fruitful discussion than the one you propose.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I could just as well assert that there are sufficient practical reasons that can be given for why it is a good idea to believe in the Christian revelation, and place the burden on you to tell me why this isn't so. This is no less fair than the demand that you have made after you flat-out assert that there is no "evidence" for the Christian revelation.

[/ QUOTE ]

i believe there are practical reasons for believing in a flying spaghetti monster as our creater and i'm placing the burden on you to prove me wrong.

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
i believe there are practical reasons for believing in a flying spaghetti monster as our creater and i'm placing the burden on you to prove me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you missed the point. Here it comes again. Making this kind of burden-placing demand does not in fact place the burden of proof on the recipient of the demand. So, it is just as unfair of me to just flat out assert that there are practical reasons for believing in Christianity, demanding that you prove me wrong, as it is for the OP to demand an entire apologia for Christianity and a set of criticisms of Scientology in one thread.

[Zygote]

a burden of proof is only required if you simeltaneously believe that an objective observer would reach the same conclusions as you.

[ QUOTE ]
as it is for the OP to demand an entire apologia for Christianity and a set of criticisms of Scientology in one thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an exageration, I was asking for any reasonable distinction, just a glimmer of hope for Christians? None is forthcoming. If these Christians really held their belief rationally I'm sure a quick answer to that question would be easily accesible.

Remember I'm not asking to prove Christianity, just provide some differentiation from Scientololgy, a religion which most Christians seem to think is ridiculous.