Josiah Concept Ministries

Recently, reports have circulated that actor Jason Beghe, a former Scientologist, has denounced his religion.  Beghe is reported as saying that “Scientology is destructive and a rip off.”  He goes on to say “[Scientology is] very, very dangerous for your spiritual, psychological, mental, emotional health and evolution. I think it stunts your evolution. If Scientology is real, then something’s f——ed up.”

The video in which Beghe criticizes Scientology has been removed from YouTube, along with two other prominent anti-Scientology accounts owned by Tory Christman and Mark Bunker.  YouTube issued the following statement to Times Online regarding the account suspensions:

YouTube takes these issues very seriously but we don’t comment on individual videos. Our general approach is simple: we have clear content policies about what videos are allowed on the site. For example we prohibit clips that infringe copyright or show extreme violence. Videos that breach these rules are removed and we disable all accounts belonging to repeat offenders.

I scarcely have to point out that this is a non-answer.  It says a lot about why accounts in general are suspended, but nothing about why the individual accounts were suspended.  Neither Christman nor Bunker received any information from YouTube as to why their accounts were suspended, though Christman’s account is back up.  No word yet on when or if Bunker’s will be reactivated.

At the risk of sounding paranoid, I think that the church of Scientology has everything to do with this.  It is the policy of their church to target critics, whom they call Suppressives (or SPs).  The critics are considered “fair game” to do whatever it takes to destroy their character and stop them from criticizing Scientology.  This policy of dead agenting is one component of Scientology’s long standing policy of hate to its critics.

In a world that hates the truth, in a world that love its sin, I can see the need for a firm defense of the truth.  But truth doesn’t require bullying, fear-mongering, and hatred.  Morally, we can all see these things for evil.  If Scientology is true, then it has nothing to fear from critics.  However, if it isn’t true, and its upper ranks know that it isn’t true, then the need for “fair game” and “dead agenting” becomes very clear.

If it wasn’t for the fact that Scientology flies directly in the face of everything I believe as a Christian, I might endorse Tom’s overall message.  He’s touching on a lot of the issues that I’ve been covering–atheist misconceptions about how Christians think that the world works.  Look at Ephesians 2:8-10:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (emphasis added)

We are saved, and truly in Christ, only by God’s grace.  That grace is a free gift, and not based on works.  If it were based on works, then grace is no longer free.  Instead, we are saved by His grace through our faith in Christ (see Rom 10:9) plus nothing.

What about the works that I’ve highlighted?  Simple: look at 1 John 5:1-3:

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

We obey out of love, not out of necessity.  Obeying out of necessity is a curse to us–”Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them” (Deut 27:26).  Studying all 613 (or so) laws of the Old Testament, I think that we can agree that it is impossible to do all of them.  We’re going to mess up somewhere.  And guess what happens if you mess up only once:

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. (Jms 2:10-11)

But the point is we need to obey God.  The idea is to do this out of love, not out of some perceived need to become saved.  The Bible is quite clear that it is impossible to follow all of these 613 laws and live (see Jn 6 with the idea that bread = law).

Cruise has done a great job underscoring the necessity to help our fellow man for his Scientologist followers.  Perhaps Christians should heed his words also: let’s do more to help our fellow man.  Let’s do that, however, out of love and not out of the insane notion that it will get us in God’s good graces.  We who are Christians are already in His good graces by His gift to us; our works cannot add anything to that salvation.  But they can make the world a better place and that is the real point of doing them.  We’re going to be here for a long time, and our children are going to live here after us.  Let’s turn a better world over to them than what we started with.

Morton has reportedly been forced into hiding because of aggressive threats made to him by Cruise’s associates in the Church of Scientology.

And:

He tells British newspaper the Sunday Express: “I have received threats from the Scientologist’s and things have become pretty heavy - to the extent that it’s almost more than my lawyers can handle.

“I’ve sold my flat and I’m not telling anyone where I’m moving to. I intend to disappear for a while.” (source)

His crime?  Writing an unflattering biography of Tom Cruise.  That gives him the status of SP, or suppressive, which is the catch-all label given to detractors of Scientology.  That makes the person subject to fair game rules:

Fair Game, the notorious Scientology policy describing how to deal with critics, ex-members, and other undesirables dehumanized with the label ”Suppressives”; they may be ”Sued, tricked, lied to, or destroyed,” as per policy. A more recent policy has banished the WORDS ”Fair Game”, but the policy of what to do to these ”SPs” or ”Suppressives” cannot ever be cancelled, as it is Hubbardian scripture, and his words cannot ever be altered in any way per Scientology’s policy. (source)

This is what I can expect for my previous posts on Scientology, were I ever to become big enough for the church itself to consider me a threat.

A poster going by the name of “ppederson” seems to be an apologist for Scientology. He has challenged my interpretation of this article, which I briefly touch here. Since I don’t have a name for him, assuming that he is male, I’ll call him our friendly “Scienpologist” for the time being. I’ve always wanted to interact with an apologist for Scientology, since it is one of the false religions that I speak against and I’ve never been able to find one on my own. But mainly I wanted to use that “Scienpologist” joke. I’ve been waiting for almost a year for that.
Our friendly Scienpologist (I’m the only one who finds this funny, aren’t I?) informs me that the pastor in the CNN.com article was using The Way to Happiness, which is written by L. Ron Hubbard but is not Scientology per se. I disagree. The cover gives it away: the road leading to the bright sun? That is Scientology symbolism very similar to the bridge leading to the bright sun that they use in their actual Scientology materials.

Scientologists have a history of deception to acheive their ends.

The Way to Happiness has 21 precepts for living a better life.  The pastor from my previous article adopted these, found Scriptural support for each one, and uses The Way to Happiness in his sermons.  His daughter is quoted as saying that they are “Pentecostal Scientologists.”

Most of the precepts are good.  But there are a few that aren’t Christian.  The precepts in question are “Do not harm a person of good will,” “Respect the religious beliefs of others,” “Try not to do things to others that you would not want them to do to you,” and “Try to treat others as you would want to be treated.”  These may have some Biblical support, but each–followed to a logical conclusion–should be rejected by the church.

Before I show why those should be rejected, the final precept in The Way to Happiness is worth special mention.  “Flourish and prosper” now puts the supporters of this pamphlet square into the prosperity gospel.  God does not want us to flourish and prosper–at least not all of us.  God created a world where it is simply not possible for everyone to get everything that they want.  This sort of mentality causes greed.  Look at this article and pay attention to some of the purchases that these prosperity preachers have made.  More about prosperity theology here.

Do not harm a person of good will.  That sounds excellent.  Most people will be honestly surprised to read that I don’t believe that this is Biblical.  Why?  Because it doesn’t go far enough, that’s why.

Jesus rejected this notion.  He said:

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mat 5:43-4

I echo the Lord’s rhetorical question: If you do not harm those of good will, what are you doing that is so different or better than anyone else of this world?

Respect the religious beliefs of others.  The problem here is that, to some extent, nearly every religion (except for the more New Age ones like Scientology or Unitarian Universalism) teach some sort of exclusivity.  Logically, if all roads led to God, what freedom have we?  I’ve argued previously that if there was never an incorrect choice, then we wouldn’t truly be free-willed creatures.  Without true freedom, there is no responsibility for our decisions.  This means that there is no logical possibility of sin.  At this point, almost every part of the Bible is wrong.

Jesus drew a line in the sand when He claimed to be the only way to God (Jn 14:6). A Christian who honors this precept is not being true to the gospel.

Try not to do things to others that you would not want them to do to you and try to treat others as you would want to be treated.  “Try” has the built-in notion of failure.  Jesus doesn’t want us to try; He wants us to do.

Yoda told Luke Skywalker the wisest words ever spoken by a puppet: “Do.  Or do not.  There is no try.” Jesus isn’t asking us to try: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mat 5:48).  Jesus, again, is calling us out on our lifestyle choices.  All the Scientology pamphlet is asking us to do is to give it a shot.  If we fail, then at least we tried.

“. . . and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) 

Some Christian pastors are using Scientology principles in their teachings and their evangelism, according to a recent article from CNN.com. This is very alarming, especially in light of things like this:

Though Jimirra Kennedy [daughter of one of the pastors] insists she does not ascribe to the religious side of Scientology, she still considers herself, at least in part, Scientologist. “We say this all the time and I know my father says this, but I am like a Pentecostal Scientologist, that’s what we are.”

It is unacceptable to blur the lines like this. Jesus made it very clear that He is the way, the truth, and the light. No one can stand justified before God except by Christ (Jn 14:6). Scientology teaches that there are many paths to God, and outlines ways, while not bad and many with Scriptural support, to achieve oneness with God. Guess how many involve Christ.

I would have to agree with Rick Ross, a Scientology expert: ” ‘I think that they truly believe that this may help their communities, but in my opinion, they’re naive,’ Ross said. Scientologists, he added, ‘have their own agenda.’ “

I’d still be interested in the Tom Cruise debate idea, but I’m sure that will never happen.  Both of us are busy with babies.  Me more than him; Cruise can afford two nannies, I hear.

Interested in more Scientology? Check out the Comparative Theology page.

Science vs. Religion

It’s difficult to believe that anybody could actually be opposed to a call for science and religion to team up.  The fact that the rallying call comes from a scientist, Martin Rees, not a religious figure, is actually touching.

Not surprising, the measure is opposed by a group led by Richard Dawkins.  What a shocker.  Dawkins gives his usual diatribe about religion leading to violence:

“If we are too friendly to nice, decent bishops, we run the risk of buying into the fiction that there’s something virtuous about believing things because of fate rather than because of evidence. We run the risk of betraying scientific enlightenment.”

Bishops themselves never killed anybody, but possibly made the world safer for “people who do kill people by extolling the virtues of faith as opposed to reason and evidence”.

Thank you, Dr. Dawkins, for all you do in the spirit of cooperation.

Scientology Targets Youth (again) 

Yes, they are at it again, this time in the US.

Recruiting youth is actually a necessity.  If you’re going to convince them that aliens from outer space descended upon the earth and attached themselves to our species, then you’ll need to hook them young.

Remember that a Creator existing outside of time because He invented time itself, as well as having no cause because He also invented cause-and-effect relationships, may seem no less fantastic to some, but is actually infinitely more plausible than the alien theory.  Don’t believe me?  Check out apologetics by William Lane Craig, who could explain this better than I could.  He uses this approach in his apologetics and has a number of excellent articles.

Tom Cruise, my challenge stands.

Not really, but I figure that if the Rational Response Squad can get so much darn publicity from debating Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on Nightline, maybe I should jump on the debate bandwagon.

I issue a challenge to Tom Cruise: debate me on the truth of Scientology on the talk show or television news magazine of your choice.  Christianity, God’s intervention to humanity through Christ, versus Scientology, the religion invented by a science fiction writer.  CT vs. TC.

That will probably never happen, I’m sure.  If it does, Mr. Cruise will probably insist on all kinds of strange conditions, like insisting I’m situated a foot and a half lower than him on stage, but design it so that it looks like our podiums are at the same height.  Although it would be easier if he would just stand on a phone book or something.  I wouldn’t object!

Speaking of Scientology, they’re targeting the youth of Great Britain with an eye to Glasgow, Scotland as their next “parish.”  It appears that recruiters will be going into universities to start a sort of “pyramid recruiting” scheme.

‘It [the documentary on Panorama] has led them to look at going into universities and colleges, much in the way the Moonies did, and target young people going through a stage in their lives when their minds are most vulnerable to suggestion.’ The church, which has its largest following in America, uses celebrity congregation members to promote itself, but has failed to achieve official religious status.

The environment in the world is ripe for cults to pick out their members.  With the Abrahamic faiths warring in the Middle East, each making what appears to the untrained eye an unsubstantiated claim to exclusivity, it’s no wonder faiths like Scientology (which stress the individual) grow faster than Christianity.  We shouldn’t expect any less than that.

Science vs. Religion seems to be making a comeback with Ken Ham again facing off with members of DefCon.  You know, I think it is a touch of irony that the group flew over the Creation Museum with a banner that said “DefCon says ‘Thou shalt not lie.’”  Ham thought it was tacky, but I thought it was rather amusing.

I’m going to postpone my series on War of the Worldviews until next week.  I think that this week will be better spent trying to find grant money to either open a business (freelance writing) or a nonprofit organization (Josiah Concept Ministries) so that I can settle into a role that will benefit our society much more than flipping burgers.

If you would like to help out with my endeavors and make a donation, please visit our donations page.  Any help in this area would be much appreciated!

I knew that the Jesus Tomb controversy would eventually be a featured blog on WordPress. But I never figured that this would be the featured blog. Urban Semiotic seems unspeakably happy that this discovery has been made, and seems to hope that this will kill the “delusion” of Christianity. Mr. Boles makes that perfectly clear in this statement:

What does this discovery mean for the religious myths that bind us and for the sustenance of the Resurrection ideal to Christians across the world? How does one now translate God?

     Without the Resurrection, doesn’t Christianity become an empty vessel?

And:

This challenge to the Jesus Resurrection will prove interesting as science and technology become even more powerful and infallible. Carbon Dating is hard to render into belief but it easily shatters myths. DNA does not lie or require Blind Faith to be believed.

Perhaps the most telling statement, and the most relevent to my stated mission of helping the science-minded come to faith, is “One of the weapons the mighty ordinary wield against the Myths of the Believers is the scientific process.” Boles insinuates that science will triumph over religion, that deluded Christ-followers like me must inevitably surrender to mounting scientific evidence that we chase dreams and cling to a myth.

I would not be adverse to debating David Boles on that point. But that isn’t the point of this post. I’m not clubbing Boles for his opinion. He has his, I have mine. The point of this post is to club WordPress.

I should have known that no one is interested in reading a reasoned, Christian response to the Jesus Tomb story that is unfolding before us. Instead, they pick the response typical of the world. “Cool! Maybe this will finally be the death of Christiantity.” Of course, the title of the post says it all: Jesus found Dead in His Grave. I doubt that is just meant as a clever headline; it is likely the author’s opinion. Reading the comments section only solidifies that charge.

And it doesn’t help matters when a person calling him/herself “teenfg” posts responses that typify the type of Christian that Mr. Boles rants about:

I understand this revolt against the sanctity of the core of Christianity is a direct response to the rise of Christian Fundamentalism in America where Believers now force their myths into mandatory mainstream acceptance: “If you don’t Believe, you’re sinner; if you don’t Repent, you’re going into the fires of hell.”

Teen’s response oddly mirrors the quote above:

Please do not make assumptions! Once again believe what you want to but Jesus has risen from the dead! The Bible is truth do not question it!!! We disagree with almost EVERYTHING that the Davinci Code says.

Best of all, there is no substance to the argument. I believe in biblical inerrancy, that Jesus rose from the dead, and I disagree with the Da Vinci Code. But I have reasoned responses to each of those topics bred from actual research. I can point to little things like the proper use of titles in Luke that other first century historians got wrong, to the fact that Luke misses not a single village or obscure island in his discussions about geography, that the walls of Jericho fell outward based on the data found at the site, that cultures around Egypt report similar “plagues” and a giant volcanic eruption near the time of the Exodus, that the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah were scorched by fire, fulfillment of prophecy–the list goes on–when I speak of biblical inerrancy. I can demonstrate from Paul’s writings that the first followers of Jesus believed Him divine, despite what the Da Vinci Code wants to claim.

I’m probably being to harsh with Teen. He is, according to his site, only 13. The problem is, he is trying to argue with a professional writer, obvious atheist, and credentialed academic in David Boles, and that might perhaps be a little out of Teen’s league.

I guess it boils down to this essay, which convicted me to start this ministry in the first place. Why are our brothers and sisters in Christ not given at least a basic education in apologetics, something that the Bible commands us to do?

Dee Dee Smith personifies what I’m talking about with this comment:

Any “scientific” information found would not at all affect my choice to believe. As I stated earlier, faith is definitely a choice. If it were based upon scientific findings, I’d be tossed like a ship in the wind - believing today, and not believing tomorrow. Some might consider this to be naivity, and I can understand that thought. Faith in Christ is not something that can be understood intellectually. . . . For me . . . , it’s a knowing and it’s a changed life that makes me sure of what I know.

Dee Dee apparently just blindly believes in Christ without a real reason, and filters out anything that contradicts what she has already decided is true. That isn’t faith, that’s narrowmindedness. The Bible is truth, but Dee Dee still subscribes to the Scientology definition of that word, which is that one defines one’s own truth. She has defined Christianity as true, and a statement that contradicts this worldview is automatically false. Nevermind careful research or refutation. No reasoned argument necessary.

Speaking of Scientology, John Travolta is making news by saying that Scientology’s program Narconon could have saved Anna Nicole Smith’s life. Here we have a perfect example of the marketing prowess of that religion. It irritates me that they have picked a rather sad case to use as a backdrop for their brand of “medicine.”

I can only pray that God will bless the world with more discernment.

It apppears as though the news that Tom Cruise is Scientology’s Christ-like figure may not be true after all.  A Scientologist commented on my earlier post and sent me to a blog that attempts to set the record straight, or at least is run by someone who disputes that the claim was ever made in the first place.

This is refreshing.

Of course, the truth is always relative in Scientology; so who knows what is really going on here.

Scientologists now view Tom Cruise as their Christ, citing his firey passion for evangelizing their cultic beliefs.  In fact, one of the higher-ups foresees future Scientologists worshipping Mr. Cruise.  Great.  Don’t teenage girls do enough of that now without this going on?

Okay, when I read about Gwen Shamblin and the Weigh Down/Remnant Fellowship cult, I thought that I had finally heard everything.  Now, I read Tom Cruise is the Christ of Scientology.  I also read in USA Today that in September, a gay couple had a child by surrogate mother.  What is this world coming to?

Sin, sin, sin, everywhere.  Jesus, I pray that the world comes to know You, that they will use Your Word to understand why what they do is wrong in Your eyes, and that they will lean on You to guide them and change their souls into new creations under Your care.