I was reading up on the current status of Scientology as a recognized religion in Portugal, and I began wondering what I would resent more. The most obvious scam possible being recognized as a religion (not saying Scientology is), or the application of a double standard when applying the criteria previously agreed upon, to ascertain whether or not a religion should be recognized. I think the latter is worst, and I'm glad Portugal didn't incur in it.
All religions are more or less subjective, and I fail to see how Scientology is an exception. Is there a limit as to how objective it can be to be a religion? Some may have already gathered that, in my opinion, all religions are intellectual (at least) scams, and that varies only in their intricacies and magnitude. So why isn't Scientology considered a religion by so many educated people? Is it a matter of not really addressing "God" much (if at all)? All religions can be considered self-help movements in one way or another.
What I'm interested to read in this thread are arguments on how Scientology is such an obvious scam (as many claim) and other religions, like Buddhism (for those that consider Buddhism a religion), aren't.
Is Scientology a religion?
Moderator: Moderators
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #11
What Acts claims, the way people believed, and how things were set up are three different issues. The 'Christians' in Antioch undoubtedly had different beliefs thanMcCulloch wrote:goat wrote:The precursor started in Judah, but it wasn't until Rome adopted it, and deified Jesus, like all good pagans, that it became 'Christianity'Acts 11:26 wrote:... the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
that Church that came out of Rome and was spread across the Empire.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
Post #12
>>>What Acts claims, the way people believed, and how things were set up are three different issues. The 'Christians' in Antioch undoubtedly had different beliefs than
that Church that came out of Rome and was spread across the Empire.<<<
I don't think so.
Speaking of Antioch.
Apostles Paul and Barnabas set up the Antioch see in 42 A.D It was then acceded for eight years (43 - 53 A.D) by Saint Peter as its first prelate who proceeded to establish other churches. However, there are well documented historical views that Saint Peter established the Antioch see with the help of Apostles Paul and Barnabas. He was succeeded on the Antioch office by Aphodius. Small wonder that St. Peter won the title "patriarch" (etymologically meaning "head of tribe") because Christianity spread first among the Jews, and Peter was the chieftain of this tribe. The naming by the Calcedonion Council (451 A.D.) of the title "patriarch" solely to the metropolitan of Antioch apart from other see prelates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandretta, Jerusalem) is a de facto concretization of this status quo. That is why it can be surely said that St. Peter the Apostle is the first patriarch of Antioch see.
Insomuch as Peter emerged from Antioch in 53 A.D. to establish the see of Rome where he fell martyr during the reign of Nero, Paul and Barnabas among other many apostles emerged from Antioch to all countries worldwide to preach the new religion. This is simply because Antioch, along with Damascus, was the gate of Christendom passage to all inhabited world, especially eastwards where the preachers sowed the seeds of Christianity , thus bestowing them legitimate rights on the new churches in those expanses. That is why we saw the metropolitan (patriarch) of Antioch well to the fore of other Eastern prelates since the first ages of Christianity. It was he who presided the locum councils in the East (Ankara, 351 A.D; Caesarea, 316 A.D). And the first ecumenical council (Nicaea, 325 A.D) recognized Antioch church's presidency over all Orient metropolitans; and the second ecumenical council (Constantinople, 381 A.D) confirmed this presidency. On the other hand, the third ecumenical council (Ephesus, 431 A.D) declared the independence, under an archbishop, of Cyprus church from Antioch.
During its old standing history, the Antioch see weathered upheavals stripping it of endeared parishioners. The first split (498 A.D) caused the schism of Nestorians in consequence of the ecumenical council (Ephesus, 431 A.D). This was followed by the secession of Syrians and Armenians from Antioch as they refused the resolutions passed by the Calcedonian council. Thereafter, in the wake of Crusader war, the Maronite seceded from Antioch and set up John Maroun as their patriarch (685 A.D). By the middle of the 8th century, the Georgian Orthodox church demanded its independence from the Antioch see and obtained it in 1050 A.D, thus becoming the first independent Orthodox church.
During the period from the Arab conquest of Antioch and the region in 637 A.D up to the European invasion in 1098 A.D, past the second Byzantium age, the Antioch see preserved its predominance and luster, albeit it suffered considerable calamities brought to bear by the Europeans. The Antioch patriarchs were seated in Constantinople until the Europeans were defeated and Antioch fell in 1268 A.D. But the Antioch see had to leave Antioch since its occupation by the Europeans, moving around in Asia Minor until 1343 A.D when it was decided to transfer it to Damascus, the most important city in Greater Syria, second to Antioch with regard to its metropolitan importance. The bishop of Damascus was then Joachim, ranking 58 after St. Anania as the first bishop.
At this epoch, the Ottoman rule of Greater Syria afforded facilities to regular papal proselytism. The Antioch see's status became then very bad as some of its parishioners yielded to the material enticements of catholic preachers. This prompted the Orthodox patriarchs and bishops to solicit donations from Eastern Orthodox Europe, including Patriarch Makarious ben Zaim who managed to repay the Antioch see debts, to develop the Patriarchate school "Assieh" and to renovate the Patriarchate home.
With the impending presence of Catholicism and its impact on Patriarchate elections, and for the purpose of preserving the Antioch see Orthodoxy. the Orthodox parishioners and bishops requested the ecumenical Patriarchate to send them a Greek patriarch. The Greek presence on the Antioch Orthodox see lasted from 1724 to 1898. But due to the increasing popular demand, the first Arab patriarch was appointed. He was Patriarch Malathius I (Doumani) the Damascene.
Up to the date of the aforementioned secessions, the Antioch see office encompassed in the early Christendom centuries all of Asia, Orient countries and India. A (delegate) Patriarchal vicar authorized with patriarch powers used to represent the patriarch in India, Armenia and Georgia.
Nowadays, the Antioch see includes the republics of Syria and Lebanon, as well as Iraq, the Arabian peninsula, parts of turkey, and the expatriate Antioch Orthodox communities in North and Latin America, Australia and Europe.
http://antiochpat.org/ english/ sitefiles/ viewcontent.php ?content=%241%24Fqww80sV%24LJtl/ mpIsne5lz0mZ5kCy0_%241%24cY2fEC.3%242X4rjsf3DqIjEbC53bz6R/ _%241%24Fqww80sV%24LJtl/mpIsne5lz0mZ5kCy0b56a92baa0ee987 eb7f7e4a179b60efb&id=1& cat=%241%24DdKoSQCb%24FO96gT8jCFwnHPxW4LNZj1_ %241%24pCxQHS8F%24GHaBW0fpsqpxYoSn4BE0M/_%24 1%24DdKoSQCb%24FO96gT8jCFwnHPxW4LNZj150102e12 4822220aaa78a8e3b2ccba34&catid=3 &contentname=Historical%20Overview& catname=Other%20Contents
that Church that came out of Rome and was spread across the Empire.<<<
I don't think so.
Speaking of Antioch.
Apostles Paul and Barnabas set up the Antioch see in 42 A.D It was then acceded for eight years (43 - 53 A.D) by Saint Peter as its first prelate who proceeded to establish other churches. However, there are well documented historical views that Saint Peter established the Antioch see with the help of Apostles Paul and Barnabas. He was succeeded on the Antioch office by Aphodius. Small wonder that St. Peter won the title "patriarch" (etymologically meaning "head of tribe") because Christianity spread first among the Jews, and Peter was the chieftain of this tribe. The naming by the Calcedonion Council (451 A.D.) of the title "patriarch" solely to the metropolitan of Antioch apart from other see prelates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandretta, Jerusalem) is a de facto concretization of this status quo. That is why it can be surely said that St. Peter the Apostle is the first patriarch of Antioch see.
Insomuch as Peter emerged from Antioch in 53 A.D. to establish the see of Rome where he fell martyr during the reign of Nero, Paul and Barnabas among other many apostles emerged from Antioch to all countries worldwide to preach the new religion. This is simply because Antioch, along with Damascus, was the gate of Christendom passage to all inhabited world, especially eastwards where the preachers sowed the seeds of Christianity , thus bestowing them legitimate rights on the new churches in those expanses. That is why we saw the metropolitan (patriarch) of Antioch well to the fore of other Eastern prelates since the first ages of Christianity. It was he who presided the locum councils in the East (Ankara, 351 A.D; Caesarea, 316 A.D). And the first ecumenical council (Nicaea, 325 A.D) recognized Antioch church's presidency over all Orient metropolitans; and the second ecumenical council (Constantinople, 381 A.D) confirmed this presidency. On the other hand, the third ecumenical council (Ephesus, 431 A.D) declared the independence, under an archbishop, of Cyprus church from Antioch.
During its old standing history, the Antioch see weathered upheavals stripping it of endeared parishioners. The first split (498 A.D) caused the schism of Nestorians in consequence of the ecumenical council (Ephesus, 431 A.D). This was followed by the secession of Syrians and Armenians from Antioch as they refused the resolutions passed by the Calcedonian council. Thereafter, in the wake of Crusader war, the Maronite seceded from Antioch and set up John Maroun as their patriarch (685 A.D). By the middle of the 8th century, the Georgian Orthodox church demanded its independence from the Antioch see and obtained it in 1050 A.D, thus becoming the first independent Orthodox church.
During the period from the Arab conquest of Antioch and the region in 637 A.D up to the European invasion in 1098 A.D, past the second Byzantium age, the Antioch see preserved its predominance and luster, albeit it suffered considerable calamities brought to bear by the Europeans. The Antioch patriarchs were seated in Constantinople until the Europeans were defeated and Antioch fell in 1268 A.D. But the Antioch see had to leave Antioch since its occupation by the Europeans, moving around in Asia Minor until 1343 A.D when it was decided to transfer it to Damascus, the most important city in Greater Syria, second to Antioch with regard to its metropolitan importance. The bishop of Damascus was then Joachim, ranking 58 after St. Anania as the first bishop.
At this epoch, the Ottoman rule of Greater Syria afforded facilities to regular papal proselytism. The Antioch see's status became then very bad as some of its parishioners yielded to the material enticements of catholic preachers. This prompted the Orthodox patriarchs and bishops to solicit donations from Eastern Orthodox Europe, including Patriarch Makarious ben Zaim who managed to repay the Antioch see debts, to develop the Patriarchate school "Assieh" and to renovate the Patriarchate home.
With the impending presence of Catholicism and its impact on Patriarchate elections, and for the purpose of preserving the Antioch see Orthodoxy. the Orthodox parishioners and bishops requested the ecumenical Patriarchate to send them a Greek patriarch. The Greek presence on the Antioch Orthodox see lasted from 1724 to 1898. But due to the increasing popular demand, the first Arab patriarch was appointed. He was Patriarch Malathius I (Doumani) the Damascene.
Up to the date of the aforementioned secessions, the Antioch see office encompassed in the early Christendom centuries all of Asia, Orient countries and India. A (delegate) Patriarchal vicar authorized with patriarch powers used to represent the patriarch in India, Armenia and Georgia.
Nowadays, the Antioch see includes the republics of Syria and Lebanon, as well as Iraq, the Arabian peninsula, parts of turkey, and the expatriate Antioch Orthodox communities in North and Latin America, Australia and Europe.
http://antiochpat.org/ english/ sitefiles/ viewcontent.php ?content=%241%24Fqww80sV%24LJtl/ mpIsne5lz0mZ5kCy0_%241%24cY2fEC.3%242X4rjsf3DqIjEbC53bz6R/ _%241%24Fqww80sV%24LJtl/mpIsne5lz0mZ5kCy0b56a92baa0ee987 eb7f7e4a179b60efb&id=1& cat=%241%24DdKoSQCb%24FO96gT8jCFwnHPxW4LNZj1_ %241%24pCxQHS8F%24GHaBW0fpsqpxYoSn4BE0M/_%24 1%24DdKoSQCb%24FO96gT8jCFwnHPxW4LNZj150102e12 4822220aaa78a8e3b2ccba34&catid=3 &contentname=Historical%20Overview& catname=Other%20Contents
- Antagonist
- Student
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:27 pm