Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Mathew Morrell
    Sep 25, 2005
      1. Here is what I have against Scientology. Fundamentally it is
      selfish. Unlike most legitimate religions, Scientology is not based
      on a deity such as Christ, Buddha, or Krishna. It is based on
      manifesting, i.e. getting what you want from the universe: taking.
      Instead of forming a sacramental relationship with God---which is
      give and take---Scientology teaches the student how to manifest
      things in his/her life.

      But Scientology is not alone. Most New Age religions are based on
      selfishness. The principles of Scientology go hand and hand with the
      principles taught at The Unity School of Christianity and the Ramtha
      School of Enlightenment, both of which rely heavily on positive
      thinking. The purpose is to learn how to manifest power and
      prestige, not salvation.

      2. CORRECTION. Earlier I mistakenly wrote that I was a sixth
      generation pastor. That's hilarious! I'm a sixth generation Kansan,
      with pastors and ministers in my family tree. But I'm not a pastor.
      I was a bit ginned-up when I wrote that piece. Sorry.

      3. Hate, disgust, contempt are normal, positive, healthy reactions
      against evil and destruction---but they will not overcome Sorath
      permanently. Only wisdom, love and understanding overcomes'.

      4. There is a definite benefit to following a path that is not based
      on a Deity. You may enjoy reading philosophy, for instance. Or you
      may enjoy psychology. Above all you are unwilling at this time to
      form a sacramental relationship with God or Deity. What you want is
      knowledge, peace and understanding. That is good and fine. The path
      of knowledge will draw you to God in a natural and progressive

      5. The desire for sacrifice and commitment is the beginning of The
      Work. Begin.

      6. Hate breeding hate is vileness. Love breeding hate is righteous
      indignation. One weakens while the other enflames. Revolutions glow
      with the fires of righteous indignation.

      7. A negative argument is not an argument that lacks evidence and
      proof. Although lack of evidence is a component to a negative
      argument, it is not what defines a negative argument. A negative
      argument is an approach toward proof. It assumes that something
      exists because you can't prove it doesn't.
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic