ForumGarden

helefra wrote: I'm opening up a new thread for each and every one of us to discuss about our own spiritual path. In my last thread "What Do You Believe" got us to explore how we eventually got onto the spiritual path we are on today. Now I want to know what is your religion, who founded it, what is the history of how it started, how do you view your own participation with the church?

I'm going to start by an introduction to L Ron Hubbard who founded Scientology and why he started doing what he achieved today.



I know this is probably a long story but it is always best that instead of having half the truth, it is best to have the whole truth. I will post more information on this soon.


If you have a look at the WW3 thread you'll see the general problem of posting large amounts of information. Your efforts will fall on deaf ears and you'll only increase the sale of visine to no benefit of your own (unless you're a stock holder in Visine).

Posting links is fine but summary skills are required.

BTW, my "say" is that all religions are like specialty channels trying to steal portions of the audience. If one looks at core beliefs it all leads back to a simple core religion. That is what I follow. The details are man-made.

Here's my say:



Organized religion is dangerous, hypocritical, self-serving and wrong.



That's all.

I learned all about Scientology, many years ago, when I read The Barefaced Messiah . 'Nuff said.

I'm partial to the Church Of The Sub-Genius, founded by "Bob" Dobbs.

All Hail His Slackness !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dobbs

R.B.

I was bought up as a Christian in the Church of England.

Last year I explored Buddhism and have been practising under the umbrella of the SGI (Soka Gakkai International) ever since.



The Buddhist Tradition

Shakyamuni, the founder of Buddhism, was born some 2,500 years ago in what is now Southern Nepal. Followers of Nichiren Daishonin believe that Shakyamuni's enlightenment to eternal, universal reality was most succinctly articulated in his teaching called the Lotus Sutra.

According to Nichiren Daishonin, the workings of the universe are an expression of a single principle or Law - Myoho-renge-kyo, the title and essence of the Lotus Sutra. By putting their lives in rhythm with this Law, individuals can unlock their hidden potential - the Buddha nature- and achieve creative harmony with the environment. Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism is a vehicle of individual empowerment - that is, individuals have within themselves the power to transform the inevitable sufferings of life into happiness and to be a positive influence in the community



Soka Gakkai International (SGI) is a Buddhist network

that actively promotes peace, culture and education

through personal change and social contribution.



http://www.sgi.org/

Richard Bell wrote: I learned all about Scientology, many years ago, when I read The Barefaced Messiah . 'Nuff said.

I'm partial to the Church Of The Sub-Genius, founded by "Bob" Dobbs.

All Hail His Slackness !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dobbs

R.B.


Brilliant!

Famous "Bob" quotes

* "Try Summum. I'm down with masturbatory pleasure."

* "You'll PAY to know what you really think."

* "They may be Pink, but their money's still green!"

* "Don't just eat a hamburger, eat the HELL out of it!"

* "You know how dumb the average person is? Well, by definition, half of 'em are even dumber than THAT."

* "I'd like my monkey brains well done."

* "So far we've had a rain day and a sun day. I think it's time for a snow day."

* "You don't use your mind to think about your religion."

* "This 'Church of the SubGenius' is the best scam I ever pulled."

* "Ivan Stang? Douglas St. Clair Smith? Who are they? I never met the guy."

* "Pull off your pants, and ROLL AROUND IN YOUR MISTAKES. Then send me your life savings."

* "Pull the wool over your own eyes."



Attached files

Helefra...I take it that novel that's up there is about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard?? I only glimpsed it for a second, because there is no way on God's green earth that I'm going to read that whole long thing about a guy I think is a nut-job and a "religion" that teaches you how to be a nut-job. I believe it was koan who pointed out that people will glaze over LONG before they get to the end of that "War and Peace" post.

helefra:-6

I attend the Anglican church. It is a branch of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by the apostles. The founer of course was our Lord, Jesus the Christ. We follow his teachings, the truths presented in the Bible, the traditions of the church and the early counsels.

In addition I am a Christian pluralist in that I accept the truths and validities of all of the world's great faiths. This is a position that my church recognizes and accepts.

Shalom

Ted:-6

helefra

Since you brought it up...

Legitimate history of LRH

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, founder of Scientology, was born in Tilden, Nebraska on March 10, 1911. The son of a US Navy officer, Hubbard was educated in public schools in Montana, California, Washington and Virginia. From 1930 to 1932 he attended George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Although Hubbard would later claim advanced degrees in the sciences and in civil engineering, his first year grade average was a D (below average). His second and final year was no better; he received a D in calculus and electrical and magnetic physics, and an F (failing) for molecular and atomic physics. He had no further formal education.

He embarked on a successful career as a pulp fiction writer, best known for his science fiction stories. From 1942 to 1945 he served in the US Navy; at no time was he engaged in combat action. In 1950 he published DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH. The book became a best seller and within a few months Hubbard had established the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation to teach the healing techniques he claimed to have discovered. Following the foundation's collapse in bankruptcy, he founded the Hubbard College.


The following facts are also problematic for the Church of Scientology:

1948, Aug. 17 Hubbard pleads guilty to petty theft. [source: photocopy of government records]

1978 Hubbard found guilty in absentia of fraud in France. [source: Catholic Sentinal, March 17, 1978]

By 1948, Hubbard was able to get a disability award of 40% for his "duodenal ulcer, infection of the eyes, bursitis of the right shoulder and arthritis of multiple joints." ...In fact, he continued to receive his 40% disability check through at least 1980 (The Los Angeles Times, June 24, 1990, p. A38, and records on file)

Hubbard was married at least three times. His third wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, and ten other Scientologists were imprisoned for conspiracy and burglary. Hubbard himself was named as an unindicted co-conspirator (The Los Angeles Times, June 24, 1990, p. A39).

When The Los Angeles Times produced their in-depth investigative report of Scientology, they discovered how Scientology accomplished their best-seller feat. "The sales have been fueled by a radio and TV advertising blitz virtually unprecedented in book circles (June 28, 1990, p. A1). And it was discovered that Scientology employees and members were showing up at the major bookstores paying cash for "armloads" of Hubbard's books, sometimes "50 to 100 to 200 copies at a crack" (Ibid., pp. A1, 22).

If you wonder why people get upset about Scientology here's a good link

There have been numerous criminal cases against the Church and its officials for forcible confinement among other things.

koan:-6

Perhaps that is why LRH lived on a ship in international waters???

Shalom

Ted:-6

I have a feeling that your sources are going to be limited to that one site.

First of all

helefra wrote: I could say - "How come the UN seek our help if our religion is that bad"


What? Show me the article that says the UN is seeking help from scientology.

helefra:-6

As a source of reliable, independent information it does not pass the academic form. As in science there needs to be multiple attestations in order to have the information accepted.

It's kind of like another issue that we need to address in our own nation and that is the practice of having the police investigate themselves. The information passed on is highly questionable.

It is a well known fact that logically anything cannot attest to itself and have it accepted.

This is not a challenge but merely factual information.

Shalom

Ted:-6

ok. I looked high and low for a connection between the "Rina Naida" mentioned in that article (written by Scientology itself) and the UN. He does not work for the UN.

"I would like to thank you and your group of volunteers who came to the rescue of our police officials who were tasked with policing the [World Summit on Sustainable Development]. I have no doubt that this has also contributed to the success of security at the summit." ” Official of the South African Police Service (SAPS) Johannesburg, South Africa

When looking into the Volunteer Services of Scientology it is clearly seen that they send themselves out and set up camp to reach the people who "need" them. The word need is entirely subjective here. You'll have to find a place where the UN states they need Scientology to lend any factuality to the statement. I have spent a fair while trying to find that proof for you and have been unable to substantiate that they were actually, factually requested.

Ted wrote:

I attend the Anglican church. It is a branch of the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by the apostles. The founer of course was our Lord, Jesus the Christ. We follow his teachings, the truths presented in the Bible, the traditions of the church and the early counsels.




I was very interested in John Henery Newman's take on that in his Apologia - he started trying to attack the Catholic church but ended up converting because he argued himself into a corner and proved to himself that the Anglican church had lost the Apostolic succession and was no longer part of the true church.

How plead you?

helefra wrote: A very interesting piece of stuff on Scientology, I'm sure you can find more data that puts Scientology in a bad light. I could say - "How come the UN seek our help if our religion is that bad" or "Why is it that we have so many commendations from other well known leaders of the world for our technology that assisted them in times of need" but I'm not going to here.


Unless you do your unsupported assertions are meaningless. You need to supply references or at least enough information to find the facts rather than vague hints that cannot be checked.

Some hard facts were put up - do you refute them or are they correct?



helefra wrote: However, what I find interesting is what makes this all laughable is during the middle ages, when the "Spanish Inquisition" was born, people still attended church regardless of all the deaths. To quote below from the website www.bede.org.uk/inquisition.html on the deaths of those who were killed during the inquisition



Not only was there the "Spanish Inquisition" but also there were crucifixtion as well as burning or drowning of women who were supposed to be witches.


I think you'll find that this is why BR, and a lot of other people, do not like the organised churches. It does nothing to argue the case for Scientology.

helefra wrote: "Why is it that we have so many commendations from other well known leaders of the world for our technology that assisted them in times of need"


Now when you mention opinions of other well known leaders lets see how you fare:

Scientology seeks UN's help over discrimination from Germany. They don't seem to like your Church very much.

1978: France: Fraud

Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard was convicted of fraud in a trial held in absentia.

1984: USA: Clearwater Police Investigator Recommends RICO Charges

Lt. Ray Emmons investigated Scientology as part of his duties. He found clear evidence of fraud and other crimes and recommended that federal and state authorities prosecute Scientology under anti-racketeering laws.

1992: Canada: Scientology found guilty of breach of the public trust

Scientology itself and three Scientology executives were found guilty of breach of public trust in a case involving the theft of information from government offices.

Even Canada has a problem with the CoS!

1995: Canada: Scientology pays the largest libel award in Canadian history

Scientology was found guilty of libelling Casey Hill, the prosecutor responsible for bringing Scientology to justice for its egregious illegal acts in Canada.

Wow that was a big one.

1997: Italy: Scientologists jailed

29 Scientologists were sentenced to jail for criminal association

1999: Greece: Scientologists found guilty

15 Scientologists were accused of systematically keeping files on politicians, journalists, judges, clergymen and other Greek leading personalities. The Scientologists were found guilty , but they were not sentenced, due to procedural errors. (In other words, they got off on a technicality.)

In 1998, a judge ordered the Scientology organization in Athens to stop operating, since the organization was established under false pretenses . According to the ruling, the organization was not operating as a non-profit, and was putting people's mental and physical health at risk.

Your claim isn't holding up very well. Do have examples (not written by scientology) that show a strong approval rating?

edit to add source each can be verified individually by legal records.

helefra wrote:

I finally give two web links for you to view, these will provide our activities which will include success stories and also the "Declaration on Human Rights" which is what we are trying to achieve throughout the world.

www.scientology.org/en_US/world/index.html

www.scientology.org/humanrights/guide/page03b.htm

As to your falsehood on L Ron Hubbard I think you had better check the link below:-

www.scientology.org/html/en_US/l-ron-hu ... index.html


A quote from outside your own organisation might be more convincing - you can say anything you like about yourself without it meaning anything.

helefra wrote: It seems that you, koan, just take facts from other websites and want to prove that Scientology is a bad religion, in fact so bad that if someone got involved with it they probably would die.


the word "facts" here is the key to our problem of ever agreeing. I hold no illusions of convincing you to change your opinion of your religion. I am merely challenging what you present as "fact". If you make a statement that is unsupported expect to be challenged. You may note that in your other thread which asked about personal experiences I had no beef with your being a Scientologist. Here you make questionable statements and with that I have a problem. As far as death goes, there are law suits against Scientology for that very thing. I leave it to the courts to decide.

helefra wrote: I understand your aversion towards the church and you feel threatened by it's very existence, for the reasons you have given in the website you have referred me to. However, there is a difference between you and I, I am willing to find out the truth and discover it for myself. You take what is given to you whether by word of mouth or on a website and see it is a fact. Probably if someone told you that by drinking petrol you would feel healthier, you may just do it.


You'll note that I have not made any statements about you personally, except for your lack of ability to find more than one source. We do not know each other and you should avoid making any claims of understand me or my motives.

helefra wrote: I see myself as a self determined person, that is I don't go by what others say and therefore discover things for myself. My uncle told me a load of bullsh**t about the church and yet I still was inclined to find out. I have now been a Scientologist for the past 7 years. This whole charade on Scientology is becoming tiresome and although it is a game to me, will probably become tiresome to others.


I find your use of the words "charade" and "game" quite interesting. Which part is charade and why do you consider this a game? Intentions have been brought to question by yourself. Should we be questioning yours?

helefra wrote: I finally give two web links for you to view, these will provide our activities which will include success stories and also the "Declaration on Human Rights" which is what we are trying to achieve throughout the world.

www.scientology.org/en_US/world/index.html

www.scientology.org/humanrights/guide/page03b.htm

As to your falsehood on L Ron Hubbard I think you had better check the link below:-

www.scientology.org/html/en_US/l-ron-hu ... index.html


There is no "finally". This is the same site all your references have come from. If you mean this is the final time you shall use them then I shall be quite glad. The matter of which is fact is up to the readers. My sources are all based on military records and legal documents. What are yours based on?

helefra wrote: Babyrider - You say you have an aversion (so to speak) towards churches, what is it that you don't like about religion(s)? Have you ever been involved with a religion yourself? If so, what kind of religion and why did you end up leaving?



I would love to hear from you if this is so.
An aversion? That's funny, Hel. I hate, despise, loathe and am repulsed by any and all organized religion.

I was raised Seventh-Day Adventist. *shudder*

I went to their schools, one of which is a boarding academy once you reach 9th grade. It's like college. You live on campus, go to classes, and have a job that goes towards your tuition costs. 2 teachers at that school, called Adelphian Academy in Holly, Michigan, acted..."inappropriately" with students. One that I had no dealings with, a Mr Anavatarti got a student pregnant. The other teacher, A Bill Reid, I worked for in the bakery. He made come-ons to me, and did other things that I will not get into here, and we took him to court.

The church sided with both of the teachers, called me a liar, and transferred both teachers to other SDA schools to protect them. They covered up the whole thing as best they could, and left a 15 year old kid out in the breeze. Not to mention that my father had a blatant affair with a woman in the church, and they shunned my mother and my sister and me, accepting what my dad and this woman did.

An aversion? No, I am disgusted with churches of any type. They want your money, they want to dictate how you live your life, and they believe they are entitled to be a moral barometer for every follower they have. They want sheep, not people. I am no sheep.



I believe a person's walk with God is purely personal, and no church, no person, no organization is entitled to tell me how to talk to my God.

helefra wrote: I know that some of you want to refer to an outside source of Scientology and whether anyone had anything to say about it who knew something of the church. Please find below a web link which is an actual book you can read and was written by Omar Garrison. This book is available to buy on the internet:-

www.freezone.org/timetrack/data/Hidden_Story/index.htm




A book prepared at the request of the estate of Mr Hubbard is hardly an independant source!

sixyearsleft wrote: eeni meeni mini mo, i have that one......

i suppose if humans didn't have Religion, they could go crazy,

i'll stick then to the chromosome blending.
HA!! I think anyone who subscribes to an organized religion already is crazy. Just one person's opinion. :yh_eyebro

It is interesting to note that Garrison also wrote a book on tantra. Nothing wrong with that but it is rather funny.

It is also interesting to note that Hubbard was supplying information for Garrison.

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/l ... 07-22.html

Gerry Armstrong--Declaration 07-22-1982

An interesting site that speaks for itself.

Mr. Garrison could hardly be declared an independent source.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Bryn Mawr:-6

No need to plead. I recently attended a workshop given by a Fr. Diamond, a Roman Catholic priest. He is a specialist in the early church and was quite adamant that there is indeed a break in the "apostolic succession". Bishops at the time of Peter and following his death were strictly the business managers for the local churches; somewhat like a CEO for the local.

Fr. Diamond claims that the list of leaders n the years following the death of Peter were created by the early church.

Many theologians today also acknowledge that the words attributed to Jesus declaring that he would build his church on Peter are not in fact the words of Jesus but were added later by the early church.

One theologian, Ehrman, I think, said that if anyone was the first pope it should have been Paul and not Peter.



Geza Vermes supports this in his book "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ" If you wish a page reference I can look it up for you.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted wrote: It is interesting to note that Garrison also wrote a book on tantra. Nothing wrong with that but it is rather funny.

It is also interesting to note that Hubbard was supplying information for Garrison.

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/l ... 07-22.html

Gerry Armstrong--Declaration 07-22-1982

An interesting site that speaks for itself.

Mr. Garrison could hardly be declared an independent source.

Shalom

Ted:-6


That's a great source, Ted. A legal document by someone who had direct dealings with L Ron. Priceless!

helefra,

I understand why you would get upset. You belong to a very controversial organization. Many won't even grant you that it is a religion. Unfortunately there is good reason for the controversy and it is not logical to shoot the messenger.

helefra, let me add that, to your credit, you've stuck around and been more forthcoming than other debaters who have been on your side of this debate.

You really must scrutinize your sources though. Not just you but everyone. There are too many con artists in the world. Whether L Ron was a fraud or not is up to you to decide but you can't say you've made a decision until you've really checked it out.



Investigate.

Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6

No need to plead. I recently attended a workshop given by a Fr. Diamond, a Roman Catholic priest. He is a specialist in the early church and was quite adamant that there is indeed a break in the "apostolic succession". Bishops at the time of Peter and following his death were strictly the business managers for the local churches; somewhat like a CEO for the local.

Fr. Diamond claims that the list of leaders n the years following the death of Peter were created by the early church.

Many theologians today also acknowledge that the words attributed to Jesus declaring that he would build his church on Peter are not in fact the words of Jesus but were added later by the early church.

One theologian, Ehrman, I think, said that if anyone was the first pope it should have been Paul and not Peter.



Geza Vermes supports this in his book "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ" If you wish a page reference I can look it up for you.




Are you saying that there is a break in the Apostolic succession within the main body of the Catholic church itself and that the Pope does not have the direct mandate?

helefra wrote: 1. I could say - "How come the UN seek our help if our religion is that bad" or "Why is it that we have so many commendations from other well known leaders of the world for our technology that assisted them in times of need" but I'm not going to here.

2. However, what I find interesting is what makes this all laughable is during the middle ages, when the "Spanish Inquisition" was born, people still attended church regardless of all the deaths. 1. hel, like several other posters, I would like to see this substantiated from sources other than those sponsored by Scientology. How about a link to a UN site that affirms this claim and a list of those other 'well-known leaders' with similar links? Tom Cruise and John Travolta, a popular and formerly popular actor respectively, are certainly well-known but hardly world leaders.

2. Here you lose me completely. The Spanish Inquisition, unjust as it might have been, was certainly not directed against faithful church antendees. You seem to be grasping at straws here.koan wrote: If you wonder why people get upset about Scientology here's a good link...
ko, I'm not sure everything on the link is true or fair, for example, there's nothing wrong with telling people to take vitamins, nor is that 'practicing medicine', but your link does, in turn, link to the 1991 TIME article, which I read with great interest the week it came out. It was, in fact, so interesting that out of the hundreds of copies of TIME I've received, having been a subscriber for several years, this is one of perhaps four of five that I've kept, and I still have it, somewhere in a storage locker in Chicago! ANYONE with an interest in Scientology, even you, hel, should read this article in full. Here's the direct link:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/media/time910605.html

Missing from the article, but available here, followed by commentary...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

...is the famous 'Xenu story', a ridiculous, almost laughable tale, not even good science fiction, of a 75-million-year-old civilization, which members were told was fact and were charged NEARLY TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS to hear. The story borrows heavily from Ray Palmer's 'Shaver Mystery' series of the 1940's, which was also presented as fact (ultimately causing Palmer to lose his job), but the only money Palmer ever extracted from his readers was the price of the magazine!

Bryn Mawr wrote: Are you saying that there is a break in the Apostolic succession within the main body of the Catholic church itself and that the Pope does not have the direct mandate?Might I suggest that youse guys move this very interesting topic to a new thread on the 'Christianity' forum?

Bronwen wrote:

ko, I'm not sure everything on the link is true or fair, for example, there's nothing wrong with telling people to take vitamins, nor is that 'practicing medicine'...


This is true. Most of the sites against Scientology wander into the rant and rave category. They are useful to see why people are ranting and raving. I would not back every statement made on those sites but there is also a lot of fact. If helefra wanted to debate the supposed link between Hubbard and Crowley as a link to the devil I would be on her side. The sites are good starting places to get links to the court cases and legal judgements against Scientology.

There would be nothing wrong with telling people to take vitamins but it is 'practicing medicine' when they tell them to stop taking prescriptions. If they seriously think they know better than the doctors do (and I'm not a big supporter of the industry in general) then they should have physicians and trained psychologists as members who can make those recommendations. If this is the case, I would be relieved to know. In the meantime, they have been charged with manslaughter and I believe it to be a good case.

Six is a very nice guy, and he has made beautiful slide shows here for us at FG, and he did it out of the kindness of his heart.

helefra wrote: Very interesting six, but before I go into something, can you also show me if these people who accuse L Ron Hubbard of crimes, have ever helped anyone, have a clean record, etc. I have given you one side of the coin and you have given me the other side of the coin. What did these people do in their life.




Tell me, if you will, what their charitable activities have to do with the truth, or otherwise, of their claims?

helefra wrote:

Thanks for that koan, however I took the initiative and decided to go where I might find the truth - within the church itself.

It is notable from all the websites you have given, I see no names of people, no pictures of actual court cases taking place and no information on the person who can be contacted regarding this. On the Scientology websites, we show what we are doing via pictures and also contact names/addresses, etc. Anyway, I have found a web link that may be of some interest and is independent from others, perhaps you might want to scan it out of interest:-

http://collegeave.colostate.edu/hotbutton.html


You're kidding me? Surely you jest.

By your reasoning we should go to all the convicted criminals and let out anyone who says they didn't do it.

Pictures? So if someone puts a picture next to something that means it's all true? I hope this isn't a serious part of your criteria on judging reality. The names and addresses are easy to find just type "church of scientology v." into google and you'll find them all being sued by the Church.

Here are my notes when doing a basic search for court cases. copy/paste the addresses because this is already a big waste of time (as if the cases didn't exist!)

precedent setting libel suit in Canada

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_v._Church_of_Scientology_of_Toronto

http://www.lisamcpherson.org/complaint.htm

9. As previously judicially declared:

(a). "Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious... It is corrupt, sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit, and has as its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard, his wife, and those close to him at the top. It is sinister because it indulges in infamous practices, both through its adherents who do not toe the line unquestioningly and to those who criticize or oppose it. It is dangerous because it is out to capture people, especially children and impressionable young people, and indoctrinate and brainwash them so that they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn from ordinary thought, living and relationships with others."


Andrew Lee v. Church of Scientology

http://www.scientology-lies.com/sf-cour ... 8suit.html

1. Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. Reported in Candian

Criminal Cases (C.C.C.) vol. 13, p. 93.

2. Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. 13 C.C.C. 97.

3. Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. 15 C.C.C. 190.

3A. (Addendum) Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. 13 C.C.C. 353.

4. Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. 17 C.C.C. 489.

5. Re Church of Scientology and the Queen. 18 C.C.C. 244.

6. Re Church of Scientology et al. and the Queen. 21 C.C.C. 147.

7. R. v. Zaharia and Church of Scientology of Toronto. 21 C.C.C. 118.

cases of:

Allard

Wollersheim

Anderson

Armstrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_ ... rd.2C_1976

follow six's link of "what judges say". Think for a second...why were judges saying anything? BECAUSE CoS WAS IN COURT.

helefra wrote:

Thanks for that koan, however I took the initiative and decided to go where I might find the truth - within the church itself.




Self validation is an impossibility - like pulling youself up by your own bootstraps.

If someone told you that they were honest and trustworthy, then offered you proof in the form of a character reference they had written themself, would you accept it as proven?