What if the only documentation of L Ron Hubbard

[edhopper]

was from Scientologists?
Or the only text we had about Joseph Smith was passed down from the Mormon Church?
Or the only history of Ronald Regan was what was written by Conservative Republicans?

[trotsky]

1. You should also add "...and was a couple of thousand years old" on each question. n/t

[edhopper]

4. Glad you see my point

I was going to add "and was only from translations several hundred years old". But we can look at what is written today by Right Wing Hacks about Regan, "within the lifetime of those alive at the time." as the saying goes.

[trotsky]

6. A frustrating part of this, too...

is that the person who embraces the Mormon docs, despite the reasons to be suspicious of them, turns around and categorically rejects the Scientology docs FOR THOSE VERY REASONS. Difficult to apply the same level of skepticism to those things you WANT to be true. It is a human failing, sadly.

[edhopper]

9. It's not about whether someone lived or not

it's what we should accept as valid from what was written.

Joseph Smith lived, we know a good part about his life, but how does that add any truth to the Book of Mormon?

[samsingh]

2. i like where you're going. you're right

[hrmjustin]

3. But that is not the case.

[edhopper]

5. What's not the case?

[hrmjustin]

7. Wehave proof the existed outside of the organizations you listed.

[edhopper]

8. Oh, I see

I am not claiming that they, or using the analogy, Jesus did not exist.
My point is what it looks like if the only information we have of somebody is from biased sources with a clear agenda.

What veracity does the documentation have?

[hrmjustin]

12. Well in terms of Hubbard and Reagan I think it is obvious.

There is a large amount of written accounts and records of smith.

[edhopper]

13. But what if all we had

was ONLY that written by Scientologists or RW Conservatives?
No other documentation except one or two mentions that the person lived.
Our ONLY source would be from within the loyal followers.

[hrmjustin]

14. Then those who believe would take it as a matter of faith that they existed.

[edhopper]

15. It's not about whether they lived

it's what we know about them and the source of that info.

[hrmjustin]

16. Oh. well if left to those organizations it they would be depicted as peaches and cream.

[edhopper]

17. And what organization

has been responsible for near 100% the stories about Jesus?

[hrmjustin]

18. None. These stories were written by a individuals.

[edhopper]

19. Was there not a common factor that pertained to every person who had a hand in the stories?

What about the people who oversaw the text? The translations and the re-writting?

And they all drew from other sources that were themselves biased.

[hrmjustin]

20. They were all of the generation or next few generations of Jesus Christ.

They wanted to tell his story with different emphasis.

[edhopper]

21. Do you agree they all shared a bias and agenda?

[hrmjustin]

22. Yes. That is clear from reading it.

All to different degrees.

[edhopper]

23. I understand you believe

I was making the point of how unreliable the NT is, using the comparisons I offered.

[hrmjustin]

24. I find it just fine.

[edhopper]

27. okay

[rug]

10. It wold still lack internal coherence.

[edhopper]

11. Much like the NT

yes. Though the Right do seem to have a very cohesive myth about Regan.

[rug]

25. Not at all. Check the scholarship on it.

While you're at it, check the difference between inconsistency and incoherence.

The aside about ReAgan is exactly that, a deflective aside.

[edhopper]

29. I am very surprised

the analogy doesn't work for you, and you reduce it to word games. Really surprised.

[rug]

32. Analogies work best when there is similarity.

[edhopper]

33. uh-huh

No similarities between Christianity and Mormonism or Scientology.
I see.

[rug]

34. Your analogy was to Scientology and the New Testament.

uh-huh, it was.

[edhopper]

37. I guess you missed

the whole point.
Glad others got it.

[rug]

38. The point was so clumsily fashioned it splintered.

I know where you want to go with this, ed, but just because the car is filing with clowns doesn't mean it's moving.

[edhopper]

39. Your the only one who seems

to have a problem with the thought thread of it.
But that's understandable.

[rug]

40. A re decedunt.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. He was actually a fair writer before he want about perpetrating one the biggest Cons in history.

http://www.lronhubbard.org/books/l-ron-hubbards-fiction-books.html

[edhopper]

28. Scientology

was his greatest work of fiction.

But the Scientologist will tell you it's all true and the only way to find real meaning.

Sound familiar?

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. It's a religon, and I prefer Science Fiction.

[edhopper]

31. Agree

But I see you worship Cthulhu, or is that the FSM?

[Fumesucker]

41. I never managed to make it all the way through a Hubbard book..

And I've read a hell of a lot of SF.

IMO, Hubbard was one of the Hax of Sol III.

[pinto]

35. Some of my favorite fiction not only tells a story but carries a theme, as well.

I've always liked Melville's Moby Dick, the Whale. And his opening line. It sets the tone. "Call me Ishmael".



As far as the examples you're mentioned, I've little knowledge of any, save for generally public info. I think I see your point, though, about sole source accounts.

[edhopper]

36. Thanks

Moby Dick is so good on so many levels.

Papers have been written about that opening line. Not "My name is Ishmael, but "Call me Ishmael".