The Father, the Son, and the Holy Fonz!

First United Church of the Fonz.

Why not!?

I never heard the name until someone posted something about it a while back. From what I hear it (he?) is not something I would defend if I did believe in it.


I've read quite a bit of it and what I've read is generally more logical, practical and workable, than anything else I've ever read having to do with religion, philosophy, spirituality, ethics or any of the humanities. If that makes me a Scientologist, you can label me that if you want. Personally, I prefer to avoid that label because my own understanding of, and experience with, the subject is so completely different from what is projected by the media. And I'm not particularly anxious to have all that sensationalist bias leveled at me personally for something I had no part in and don't agree with.

Here, if this doesn't give you enough info, then I don't know what does: http://www.xenu.net/

I really tried to get into scientology but I just didnt have the money. I think if the church really wanted people to know more about it and they felt it was vital that people hear its message it wouldnt be so costly or possibly not any cost.

it's just another cult.

yeppers, but then almost all of the organized religions of the world today would fall under the "cult" classification if the pactices they engage were really known. sad but true. God has only one church, it consists of those who are actually seeking the wisdom of, and trying to live as Christ taught. Not some dogmatic religious group whom is into self gratification buy showing off with huge congregations, buildings, nice clothing on sunday morning, etc. Christ was a man of service to all whom sought his wisdom. He was not about a proud and or a haughty look.

The "teachings of Christ" are related to eastern religions and the Bible is mostly plagiarized. But plagiarism probably was not illegal back in those times so everybody did it.

The New Testament was written by Roman aristocrats and the Piso family in an effort to change Judaism to a new and more manageable religion. The Old testament was basically Judaic law and attitudes and differs from the New Testament. God is said to be unchanging. If he were unchanging, he would not have changed his attitude or law from the flavor of the old testament law to the new testament.

Religions have to change to fit society. You can't live by what people wrote 2000 years ago. (Stoning adulterous women and disobedient children is just not done anymore.) Feeding people to the lions isn't done either. Religions and laws must always change according to the advancement of consciousness of human kind. It is only natural that new religions will always arise from society. They will be labeled "cults."

But people are individuals and they eventually will each individualize their beliefs until there will be no religions. Everyone will just be who they are and they will not need to follow the beliefs of others.

Even in churches, you will find each individual has their own unique belief system apart from all others and apart from the church. Everyone is unique.

There is no ultimate truth when it comes to religious doctrine.

jb, does this mean you agree with the assertion that most organized religions, by definition, are actually cults?

Yes. They all exert some kind of control upon their members. Some are more extreme than others and they tend to be labeled "cult" more often than larger and older accepted belief systems. But a cult generally has a leader. (The Pope is the leader of the Catholic cult and is even considered the leader of all Christianity, although some do not agree.)

Leaders like Jim Jones are definitely cult leaders using Christianity as bait to get people into his flock. This is done by a lot of preachers. They use Christianity as bait to build a congregation around them self.

Most preachers I have met are not so much men of God but men who love to be thought of as such.

Eventually the cult just becomes a business.

you got it babe, that's exactly why I chose the www to try to plant the seed of Christ's TRUE message all those months ago. I will never charge a penny for any of the knowledge I have been allowed to experience. Any one who does is obviously not a Christian, they are only wolves in sheeps clothing, or a part of the "beast". love ya

I can understand, hence my stance on all religions.
I am who I am. I accept science that works is right enough. I have no use for trumped up beliefs.

I guess you could say I am not a "strong" atheist. I do not reject the notion that there could be a god, I just don't see any reason to use god to explain anything when we have better explanations without an entity such as that.

Some folk when then say your not atheist, your agnostic. I agree with the later half, but not the first part.

I think EVERYONE is agnostic, some just pretend to have answers. You can believe in a god, meaning that to you it is real, or you can not believe in a god, in which case it is not true to you because you do not accept that god exists.

We all use the same techniques to validate something as true, it is just some folks are willing to set aside those techniques when it comes to things of faith.

Any person who says I don't really know if there is a god is actually an atheist and doesn't know it, they are still thinking in terms of these validation techniques. If your sure, you a theist, you have set aside the validation techniques and support the idea on faith . . you believe in a god (whatever kind is up to your doctrine dogma and scripture if any you follow), if you are anything but sure, you are an atheist.

To me agnostic just means realist. One who knows, at least right now, there is no way to prove god.

I've never seen it argued quite that way, but I can definitely see your point.

I don't believe in a montheistic god so in that sense I am an atheist. But there is often the tendedncy to equate atheism with materialism, which I do not believe in either. So the question of labels is always a thorny one. How much is it safe to assume when you hear a label used.

I was surfing some philosophy topics on Wikipedia a while back and came across a label that I really liked - "Ignostic" (with and "I" instead of an "A"). Here's a short excerpt:
"a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition cannot be falsified, the ignostic takes the position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless."

yeesh,,,,odjgcclik aewoficn ads;oirfc asd hcoiadfc lifnas;oi c , and that settles IT!

Thanks. Interesting site. But I prefer an unbiased approach to information.

Very cogent argument.

That's the stance I have always taken.

I guess I am ignostic.

The term "God" without a definition (agreed upon) would be meaningless.

One day, Xenu will be freed from his force field prison, to rule the galaxy again

He sounds like Lucifer. Are you sure he is not Lucifer?

Xenu is the one that created the belief in God and Lucifer and hypno-implanted it into the thetans.Our belief in God and Lucifer (and most other religions)is a side effect of body thetan contamination.

I believe that if we can free Xenu from his forcefield prison on Mars, then he will help us defeat the Draconians.But only if we agree to serve him.This is why I have been a member of the Cult of Xenu for the past three months.