Scientology 101.....

[Tao_Equus]

Ohhh well since you can moralise it to yourself that makes me all happy and glad!! Like I say, I think your search is over. You have found the PERFECT outfit.

tao

[17th Angel]

You think I could wear it well?

[gp1628]

Here are some comments from an EX-Scientologist. There are plenty of reasons to choose not to do scientology. On the other hand, most of the reasons commonly posted to forums are garbage IMHO. Its amazing to me how often I end up against my wishes defending scientology because of the crap that gets posted.

By definitions I think it would be a bad idea for this site to try and title it a cult.

The famous quote (or bar bet) is really from George Orwell decades earlier. Of course Hubbard is well known for "researching" (borrowing) from other sources so I wouldnt discount the possiblity he might have used it in conversation but I wouldnt give him credit for it.

Same with Scientology. Most of it can easily be found in almost the exact same wording in various works on psychology, self-help programs, and other religions. But then again its usually the detractors of Scientology that say he made it all up. Insiders tend to say researched, which is probably more realistic. He did package it all well though.

They also tend to like the words "made up by a scifi writer" which is deceptive. Hubbard was in the Guiness book of World Records for both most prolific writer, and most translated writer. He wrote in most genres.. scifi, western, romance, etc and many documentaries (researched). Im not sure if the two titles still hold but I think they do.

In the 1950s you couldnt do self-help or alternative medicine new wave. He tried it as a self-help program, then some of his claims got it pushed into it being called medicine which got him in trouble, then finally ended up as life-style-choice religion. Nowadays its presented quite differently when the same thing is tried by other people.

The courses are actually excellent. The costs are reasonable. The horror stories are few when compared to others. Most people actually only take a couple of courses without changing their religious status and then quit.

Hmmm does that cover enough? When bringing up items be prepared for comparatives with your own religion (or other well known ones). Except of course for atheists which tend to do best in such discussions.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by gp1628

Its amazing to me how often I end up against my wishes defending scientology because of the crap that gets posted.

You know why you do that though Gandalf....

Originally Posted by gp1628

By definitions I think it would be a bad idea for this site to try and title it a cult.

But they are a cult..... I find it funny how people get this idea that cult is a word for people that are either liars or killers or whatever.... Name any religion.....

Islam...
That's a cult....
Christianity...
Cult...
Judaism...
Another cult...
Sikhism...
Cult.....

I could go on, any religion is a cult, because a cult is a religious group which practices the same belifes and one another and so on.... Some reason though it has become a popular word to define "evil brainewashers" lol....

Originally Posted by gp1628

Same with Scientology. Most of it can easily be found in almost the exact same wording in various works on psychology, self-help programs, and other religions. But then again its usually the detractors of Scientology that say he made it all up. Insiders tend to say researched, which is probably more realistic. He did package it all well though.

Alot of the bible can be found in the Torah... Alot of Islamic belife can be found in sikhism... Alot of hinduhism can be found in buddhism....

I think if what a religion.. Sorry Cult.... is practicing is for the better of mankind, self and the world... What does it matter... Where the ideas and set values came from? It is improving others, sure there are those that are not happy with scientology and left, and leave, like every reli...cult... That is their given right and free choice... That doesn't mean at all it won't work for others, I can see a lot ALOT of hard work ahead of me... I can understand many may not like that... Become demanding on them, but for me it is worth it.

Originally Posted by gp1628

The courses are actually excellent. The costs are reasonable. The horror stories are few when compared to others. Most people actually only take a couple of courses without changing their religious status and then quit.

The few "horror stories"

Would they complain at paying for services in other religions though? Or courses in a school/university? Also if you are staff courses are free... I have found just through looking there is alot that is either made up or way out of porpotion with what peopel say about scientology and the more I discuss it the stronger I bond to it... lol

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Alex P,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Alex P

Many quote L. Ron Hubbard from his sci fi books because yes he was a writer of sci-fi and mostly magazines and such before he founded the religion, and people love to quote his quotes from these books as quotes on Scientology.... That isn't accurate nor fair. Regarding your quote, I am sure that can be seen in many ways

i only quote from authentic Source.

what other ways can you parse the quote, Alex P? someway that doesn't make it sound like LRH is advocating an Orwellian society with $cientology in control and there being no rememdy in existence?

Just a few (of many) most tend to not like to show others...

where did you get your quotes, you didn't cite them and $cientology Source is sacrosanct in this regard.

Oh V, aren't Xenu apart of anoynous??? "the good guys" lol...

if you are referring to Zemu/Xenu that is a copyrighted property of $cientology and is part of the OTIII material.

i don't care for terms like good guys or bad guys.. those notions are far too dependent upon the aims of such a group being inline with our own for such notions to carry much weight.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste GP,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by gp1628

There are plenty of reasons to choose not to do scientology.

other than it being a fascist organization bent upon world domination with a stated policy of denying basic human rights to those below 2.0 on the Tone Scale, what reasons could you think of to not choose $cientology?

On the other hand, most of the reasons commonly posted to forums are garbage IMHO. Its amazing to me how often I end up against my wishes defending scientology because of the crap that gets posted.

you certainly *do* choose to defend $cientology and it has nothing to do with what others post. you choose to defend $cientology for personal reasons much as i choose to critique. we can, of course, always say that our postings are simply responses to "crap" that is being posted but we both know that such a statement belies what is happening.

By definitions I think it would be a bad idea for this site to try and title it a cult.

this site has done nothing of the kind. i personally, along with several other European governments, consider it a cult.

it is neither proper nor fair to hold the site responsible for any individuals comments.

The famous quote (or bar bet) is really from George Orwell decades earlier.

no, it is not.

Of course Hubbard is well known for "researching" (borrowing) from other sources so I wouldnt discount the possiblity he might have used it in conversation but I wouldnt give him credit for it.

it was in a conversation amongst a group of science fiction writers that regularly met in New York City though i do agree that the attribution of this quote is oft taken out of context.

Same with Scientology. Most of it can easily be found in almost the exact same wording in various works on psychology, self-help programs, and other religions.

no, it cannot. more to the point, $cientology actively persecutes psychology and psychiatry. have you seen the Museum of Death tour they are running showing how the Holocaust was really caused and brought about by psychologists?

why do you think that Craig Jensen refused to honor his business contract with Merk when they acquired SKB? it was only due to the fact that Merk now made anti-psychotic medicine.

They also tend to like the words "made up by a scifi writer" which is deceptive. Hubbard was in the Guiness book of World Records for both most prolific writer, and most translated writer. He wrote in most genres.. scifi, western, romance, etc and many documentaries (researched). Im not sure if the two titles still hold but I think they do.

your argument is that if someone writes alot then what they write has to be correct? you're going with that are you?

In the 1950s you couldnt do self-help or alternative medicine new wave.

yes you could, at least in the United States. perhaps in some totalitarian governments you could not engage in such activities but you had no such restrictions in the United States.

He tried it as a self-help program, then some of his claims got it pushed into it being called medicine which got him in trouble, then finally ended up as life-style-choice religion. Nowadays its presented quite differently when the same thing is tried by other people.

he presented it as such and even had some MD's help. they all left the organization once they realized what he was on about. he had to withdraw from claiming medical cures or any scientifically verifiable efficacy of his teachings when he brought his first star pupil for public demonstration of the benefits of being Clear. she failed every single test which Hubbard had assured the audience she would be able to complete. no perfect recall and so forth. it was his own hubris which brought this upon him.

The courses are actually excellent.

we've already established that you don't know this to be the case since you only took a very few courses and then left the organization. you have, literally, no idea if the courses in OTI, OTII, OTIII, SOLO NOTS and the rest are "excellent" or not. i would venture to say that you probably have no idea what those courses are dealing with. i could be, of course, absolutely wrong in this assessment.

perhaps you could give an example of some excellent material from the OTIII course?

The costs are reasonable.

reasonable? perhaps such fees are reasonable to you but that does not make the cost of nearly $550,000 to reach OTIII reasonable to others. of course the price of courses can be significantly reduced if one volunteers for things such as the Sea Org and the like. i've seen some totals that were in the mid 300's.

The horror stories are few when compared to others. Most people actually only take a couple of courses without changing their religious status and then quit.

they aren't $cientologists, then. it's like being a Christian for a few months and then quitting. you aren't a Christian when you quit and, quite likely, were not a Christian when you were studying for the few months.

Hmmm does that cover enough? When bringing up items be prepared for comparatives with your own religion (or other well known ones). Except of course for atheists which tend to do best in such discussions.

have you heard of the fallacy called tu quoque?
Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque

it's one that i often see used when it really has no place in the discussion.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Alex P,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Alex P

But they are a cult..... I find it funny how people get this idea that cult is a word for people that are either liars or killers or whatever....

i think this is a linguistic remanent from the Abrahamic traditions for, generally, the term is used in a negative manner in such arenas. i would, however, tend to agree that it's much ado about nothing.

I could go on, any religion is a cult, because a cult is a religious group which practices the same belifes and one another and so on.... Some reason though it has become a popular word to define "evil brainewashers" lol....

i blame text messaging.

i actually think it's just a matter of being imprecise with the language by and large the term "cult" has an implied "destructive" inherent in its vernacular usage which leads one to the ideas on this term that you've previously mentioned.

to some degree this problem can be obviated by a rigorous upholding of the adjective though i can make for a bit of a tedious conversation.. that said, i have a feeling that many people use the term "cult" in a negative way as a means to bolster their own self image. it is not unlike how the term "religion" has taken on a negative connotation.

I think if what a religion.. Sorry Cult.... is practicing is for the better of mankind, self and the world...

therein lies the rub, doesn't it? to know if such a noble aim is the ultimate goal of the teachings it is necessary to see the teachings so that a reasonable being could make a reasonable decision. you can, for instance, read the whole Bible, the whole Torah, the entire Baghavad Gita without cost and see what the ultimate aims of these religions are. you cannot do so with $cientology.

What does it matter... Where the ideas and set values came from?

in most conversations regarding morality and ethics the source of ones morality or ethical views is often considered quite important. why should such not be the case in this discussion? to a certain extent all modern religions are in for a rough ride in that a great many details of the lives of the founders of these traditions was contemporaneously recorded and commented upon. in the case of $cientology we have one founded in the 20th century and there is simply no lack of data regarding LRH, what his life actually was and what he claimed for himself.

Also if you are staff courses are free...

they are free provided you remain on staff, if you leave you get a bill for the full course load.

I have found just through looking there is alot that is either made up or way out of porpotion with what peopel say about scientology and the more I discuss it the stronger I bond to it... lol

are you certain that you are bonding with $cientology? how can you know?

insofar as you personal beliefs are concerned, if you want to believe in the $cientology mythos i have no particular issue. it is the corrupt RTC and the Co$ which must be opposed. many beings, of course, are unable to draw a distinction between their beliefs and the organization to which they adhere and such a view is encouraged within $cientology which makes having rational discussions with some quite difficult. which is, itself, not surprising when the organization considers reasonableness to be a liability.

metta,

~v

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

other than it being a fascist organization bent upon world domination with a stated policy of denying basic human rights to those below 2.0 on the Tone Scale, what reasons could you think of to not choose $cientology?

heehee. Obviously thats not meant as a real question.

you certainly *do* choose to defend $cientology and it has nothing to do with what others post. you choose to defend $cientology for personal reasons much as i choose to critique. we can, of course, always say that our postings are simply responses to "crap" that is being posted but we both know that such a statement belies what is happening.

I only tend to make statements based on my own experiences. I did say that most of the posts were crap IMHO (that means In My Humble Opinion).

this site has done nothing of the kind. i personally, along with several other European governments, consider it a cult.

What would those be? I only know of France. Germany considers it a business. And China only limits its ability to do conversions. Of course those are also the nations listed on the international sites for tracking religious intolerance for many such acts.

it is neither proper nor fair to hold the site responsible for any individuals comments.

Fine by me. But as an old NetCop I know that its still true. A site does get judged by such things. And they tend to create policies to handle such. Comparative-Religion.com has their Code of Conduct linked at the top of every page of the forums.

no, it is not.

it was in a conversation amongst a group of science fiction writers that regularly met in New York City though i do agree that the attribution of this quote is oft taken out of context.

Doing a neutral search for it tends to find it as a George Orwell quote in some letters he wrote. A fairly famous one. The only sites I find it attributed to Hubbard are anti-scientology sites. And even those tend to conflict as to whether it was in a bar, or at a convention, when that was, who was there, and who overheard it.

no, it cannot.

Sure it can. The Hierarchy of Needs. The Tone Scale. The ARC triangle. Even the concept of engrams.

more to the point, $cientology actively persecutes psychology and psychiatry.

Actually I believe they are ok with psychology. And even psychiatry as far as the standard lay on a couch, talk about your past, discover things that push your buttons, talk them out until they no longer affect you subconciously. After all, thats basically auditing. What they have condemned is psychiatry in areas of modifying behavior without seeking a cure. Lobotomy, electro-shock therapy, hypnosis, uppers, downers, hallucinagens, etc.

why do you think that Craig Jensen refused to honor his business contract with Merk when they acquired SKB? it was only due to the fact that Merk now made anti-psychotic medicine.

Technically that would be anti-psychotic drugs. But probably true.

your argument is that if someone writes alot then what they write has to be correct? you're going with that are you?

Not at all. But surely you admit that saying Scientology was "made up" by a "little known scifi writer" would be wording things abit slanted?

yes you could, at least in the United States. perhaps in some totalitarian governments you could not engage in such activities but you had no such restrictions in the United States.

No not really. Thats why you dont tend to find such things that old from the US. If you wanted to make claims of bettering peoples mental states, or their health, in the 1950s you pretty much had to be medical or religious. Of course NOW they pop up every day. In fact a number of scientology variants have been able to kick up totally seperate from the church idea.

he presented it as such and even had some MD's help. they all left the organization once they realized what he was on about.

They all left?

he had to withdraw from claiming medical cures

OK. Thats kindof what I said.

we've already established that you don't know this to be the case since you only took a very few courses and then left the organization. you have, literally, no idea if the courses in OTI, OTII, OTIII, SOLO NOTS and the rest are "excellent" or not. i would venture to say that you probably have no idea what those courses are dealing with. i could be, of course, absolutely wrong in this assessment.

Wow. Few people bother going that high. Thats basically priest level. Care to compare the pros and cons?

reasonable? perhaps such fees are reasonable to you but that does not make the cost of nearly $550,000 to reach OTIII reasonable to others. of course the price of courses can be significantly reduced if one volunteers for things such as the Sea Org and the like. i've seen some totals that were in the mid 300's.

Wow. Even xenu.net doesnt quote numbers that high. They usually quote 352,000.

they aren't $cientologists, then. it's like being a Christian for a few months and then quitting. you aren't a Christian when you quit and, quite likely, were not a Christian when you were studying for the few months.

OK. Fine with me. Id consider it more like a someone who took something like family counseling from a priest without choosing to change their faith. But sure, same thing.

Its just that I tend to see things tossed around both ways. Some consider anyone taking a scientology course to be a scientologist, and others consider it to be people who change their census statement to say scientologist, and yet others would limit it only to those who have achieved the churches equivalence of inner-sanctum learning.

have you heard of the fallacy called tu quoque?
Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque
it's one that i often see used when it really has no place in the discussion.

Well I will seek to avoid that. I dont think I ever use it as "two wrongs make a right". Only in fair comparison of one religions actions against others. Not that any of them are right when such things are pointed out, but to forestall lynch-mob shouts with abit of awareness on how far such an action would reach in a country which tends to treat all religions equally.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste gp,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by gp

I only tend to make statements based on my own experiences. I did say that most of the posts were crap IMHO (that means In My Humble Opinion).

that is, of course, the basis of all our statements insofar as they comport to reality. my point is that your defense is irrespective of the quality of the posts or lack thereof as is my critique.

What would those be? I only know of France. Germany considers it a business. And China only limits its ability to do conversions. Of course those are also the nations listed on the international sites for tracking religious intolerance for many such acts.

Greece, Italy, Netherlands and there is legislation in Sweden on this issue currently. Ireland just permitted the Co$ to be labeled a cult in last months protests whereas they had previously prevented such slogans from being expressed.

Doing a neutral search for it tends to find it as a George Orwell quote in some letters he wrote. A fairly famous one. The only sites I find it attributed to Hubbard are anti-scientology sites. And even those tend to conflict as to whether it was in a bar, or at a convention, when that was, who was there, and who overheard it.

i can link the audio transcript of the conversation wherein one of the authors present at the club meeting recounts the entire episode.

Sure it can. The Hierarchy of Needs. The Tone Scale. The ARC triangle. Even the concept of engrams.

in which psychology books can i find the ideas of a tone scale or an ARC triangle? engram is a copyrighted term which first appears in the $cientology dictionary and therefore cannot have been first learnt about in another medium.

Actually I believe they are ok with psychology. And even psychiatry as far as the standard lay on a couch, talk about your past, discover things that push your buttons, talk them out until they no longer affect you subconciously. After all, thats basically auditing. What they have condemned is psychiatry in areas of modifying behavior without seeking a cure. Lobotomy, electro-shock therapy, hypnosis, uppers, downers, hallucinagens, etc.

all i can tell you is this statement is completely contradictory to KSW and if you think that i'm incorrect you should get oncomm and check the Source.

Not at all. But surely you admit that saying Scientology was "made up" by a "little known scifi writer" would be wording things abit slanted?

that seems rather beside the point that you were making and which i responded to. that someone is voluminously published does not, in any way, indicate the accuracy of the statements which have been published.

he was a well known pulp science fiction writer as contemporaneously documented by independent sources.

No not really. Thats why you dont tend to find such things that old from the US. If you wanted to make claims of bettering peoples mental states, or their health, in the 1950s you pretty much had to be medical or religious. Of course NOW they pop up every day. In fact a number of scientology variants have been able to kick up totally seperate from the church idea.

what makes you think this is the case? i would encourage you to read about breakfast cereal and the self help industry which was its progenitor.

that said, you are being somewhat vague with the idea of "self help" for indeed, it could be fairly said that a daily exercise regime is self help and that has, of course, been advocated for many decades.

They all left?

yes. all of him. completely left the organization. this was after the New Jersey office was closed by the government and Hubbard moved his operations to Oklahoma.

OK. Thats kindof what I said.

your claim makes it sound as if he were backing off for reasons other than the demonstrable lack of effect of his claimed medical cures.

Wow. Few people bother going that high. Thats basically priest level. Care to compare the pros and cons?

there are no priests in $cientology, in any event, if you've not taken those courses successfully, i.e. passed them with certifications, then you really wouldn't be able to say of those teachings are excellent would you?

you indicated previously when you left the Co$ that you were at a 6 on the Tone Scale. what courses did you run?

Its just that I tend to see things tossed around both ways. Some consider anyone taking a scientology course to be a scientologist, and others consider it to be people who change their census statement to say scientologist, and yet others would limit it only to those who have achieved the churches equivalence of inner-sanctum learning.

i think that if someone identifies themselves as a $cientologist then they are one, if they don't then they aren't. i don't mean in a duplicitous sense, of course.

Well I will seek to avoid that. I dont think I ever use it as "two wrongs make a right". Only in fair comparison of one religions actions against others.

then i think you've missed the point of this fallacy.

metta,

~v

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Alex P,


i only quote from authentic Source.

what other ways can you parse the quote, Alex P? someway that doesn't make it sound like LRH is advocating an Orwellian society with $cientology in control and there being no rememdy in existence?

Fair enough, I didn't say YOU But I am stating that the most popular quotes to spread of his are the darker seeming ones or the ones with no connection to his religion, I am simply applying a balance to show he also has made some quite amazing quotes also.

As to the book I have no idea, as I haven't read it, I know of its basic outlines.... I will take one word from that quote... Shadow... My dictionary hold 27 different meanings for that word... So I am sure you can make it mean a minimum of 27 things lol....

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

if you are referring to Zemu/Xenu that is a copyrighted property of $cientology and is part of the OTIII material.

I know of the Xenu... But I mean the website and it's staff... I thought they were apart of anonymous?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i don't care for terms like good guys or bad guys.. those notions are far too dependent upon the aims of such a group being inline with our own for such notions to carry much weight.

Fair enough, but you watched the video? And would you say that is a correct manner to conduct yourself? I think it is a disgusting way to act.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i blame text messaging.

That has made me curious.... Why would you blame text messaging??

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

therein lies the rub, doesn't it? to know if such a noble aim is the ultimate goal of the teachings it is necessary to see the teachings so that a reasonable being could make a reasonable decision. you can, for instance, read the whole Bible, the whole Torah, the entire Baghavad Gita without cost and see what the ultimate aims of these religions are. you cannot do so with $cientology.

Not in whole.... There are many works they give out for free.. But yes there is alot that you have to pay for... But again, there is much people pay for because they enjoy it and agree with it or whatever, I can't see how that is bad... Alot of litreature these days you have to pay for, I do really see where you are coming from, but I personally don't see it as a problem...

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

in most conversations regarding morality and ethics the source of ones morality or ethical views is often considered quite important. why should such not be the case in this discussion? to a certain extent all modern religions are in for a rough ride in that a great many details of the lives of the founders of these traditions was contemporaneously recorded and commented upon. in the case of $cientology we have one founded in the 20th century and there is simply no lack of data regarding LRH, what his life actually was and what he claimed for himself.

So instead of watching the religion change and grow, and see the fruits of its works, we should simply reflect back upon only certain areas of L. Ron Hubbards life?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

they are free provided you remain on staff, if you leave you get a bill for the full course load.

Where can I find references of this please?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

are you certain that you are bonding with $cientology? how can you know?

Because I feel a connection to it. Such as the VM's that is something I would love to do on such a scale, I do my own little bits here and there to help whenever I can but to go to that scale? Gives me goosebumps.....

There isn't such a leash on it's followers I don't believe... I have spoken to many of them now, and I am asking them certain questions such as "do you believe in god?" And I am finding they have their own views and opinions which differ from memeber to member that is good, They exercise their human rights.... (but all religions stand by the human rights!) Well I have seen a lack of a couple of those rights in many religions... "freedom of thought." and "freedom of expression."

Why am I feeling a bond? Because I believe mankind is one... And I fail to see other religions on a scale to Scientology that are out there helping everyone no matter what faith....... And I feel a bond, because it feels right.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

insofar as you personal beliefs are concerned, if you want to believe in the $cientology mythos i have no particular issue. it is the corrupt RTC and the Co$ which must be opposed. many beings, of course, are unable to draw a distinction between their beliefs and the organization to which they adhere and such a view is encouraged within $cientology which makes having rational discussions with some quite difficult. which is, itself, not surprising when the organization considers reasonableness to be a liability.

metta,

~v

Share examples please?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Alex P,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Alex P

Fair enough, I didn't say YOU But I am stating that the most popular quotes to spread of his are the darker seeming ones or the ones with no connection to his religion, I am simply applying a balance to show he also has made some quite amazing quotes also.

everyone has amazing quotes if we would look through all their writings, in my case i only quote Source which is not his science fiction work. many beings also only quote Source for it is the Source which is, itself, the subject of discussion in many cases.

As to the book I have no idea, as I haven't read it, I know of its basic outlines.... I will take one word from that quote... Shadow... My dictionary hold 27 different meanings for that word... So I am sure you can make it mean a minimum of 27 things lol....

i would doubt it as our language has more rules that simply picking one word out of the context of the sentence and then interpolating all manner of permutations for the meaning of the sentence.

I know of the Xenu... But I mean the website and it's staff... I thought they were apart of anonymous?

nope, that is the Old Guard, folks that left $cientology years ago and have been protesting it's abusive policies ever since. there was a serendipity between the Co$'s legal orders regarding the Crui$e video and the Old Guard and the two have somewhat agreed to protest together.

Fair enough, but you watched the video? And would you say that is a correct manner to conduct yourself? I think it is a disgusting way to act.

nope, didn't watch the video. i consider all manner of things disgusting which, strangely, other people do not.. i have the distinct impression that this is a matter of personal taste.

That has made me curious.... Why would you blame text messaging??

because it encourages informal language structure and actively teaches a dumbing down of the language. i don't consider those two things to be positive developments.

Not in whole.... There are many works they give out for free.. But yes there is alot that you have to pay for... But again, there is much people pay for because they enjoy it and agree with it or whatever, I can't see how that is bad... Alot of litreature these days you have to pay for, I do really see where you are coming from, but I personally don't see it as a problem...

then perhaps you aren't really groking what i'm saying. salvation for sale is very different than a diet plan for sale especially when you can't read about the salvation that you are being sold.

So instead of watching the religion change and grow, and see the fruits of its works, we should simply reflect back upon only certain areas of L. Ron Hubbards life?

i'm unclear how this is a response to the point that i made which you are responding to. i indicated that in discussions of morality and ethics the subject of the motivation for those morals and ethics is often important and is a valid subject for discussion.

the only areas of LRH's life which are relevant are the ones which he made relevant by his statements. we could, of course, simply ignore any of this and strictly examine if $cientology was able to deliver on it's claims for its founder. demonstrably it did not. if the creator of the religion can't actualize the things which the religion promises what do you think the chances are that anyone else will?

Where can I find references of this please?

i can send you some bills.

you can talk to Gerry Armstrong the Salaman Rushdie of $cientology. he was Hubbards personal biographer before LRH was killed and the Sea Org took control of RTC.

you can talk to anyone that has made it to the grade of Auditor Class 4 and left the Co$ for they, too, have bills for the services which were provided... on the scale of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Because I feel a connection to it. Such as the VM's that is something I would love to do on such a scale, I do my own little bits here and there to help whenever I can but to go to that scale? Gives me goosebumps.....

why do you need such a group to become an active volunteer? does your country prohibit individuals from engaging in such actions in a disaster area, for instance? some countries will only permit organizations like charities and such to go into those areas and it may be the case where you live.

VM's, of course, do what many others do in such situations, offer services to vulnerable people who are not in a position to refuse help. i, personally, find such actions deplorable.

There isn't such a leash on it's followers I don't believe... I have spoken to many of them now, and I am asking them certain questions such as "do you believe in god?" And I am finding they have their own views and opinions which differ from memeber to member that is good, They exercise their human rights.... (but all religions stand by the human rights!) Well I have seen a lack of a couple of those rights in many religions... "freedom of thought." and "freedom of expression."

$cientology does *NOT* support human rights for all humans. in fact, it is explicitly stated that humans below 2.0 on the Tone Scale should be deprived of human rights and cleared from the planet, we should be "exteriorized". sorry mate but as soon as some group starts advocating such behavior you can rest assured that i'll be in opposition to them.

perhaps i'm making it up?

"In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints." - L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, 1989 Ed., p. 145 [The "Tone Scale" is Scientology's measure of mental and spiritual health.]

Why am I feeling a bond? Because I believe mankind is one... And I fail to see other religions on a scale to Scientology that are out there helping everyone no matter what faith....... And I feel a bond, because it feels right.

you believe that mankind is one... one what? are you suggesting that if i eat an orange that you'd feel full? are you suggesting that humans all have common traits like eyes and spleens and things like that?

how large do you think $cientology is?

Share examples please?

of which? $cientologists being unreasonable? $cientology teaching that 'reasonable' is a negative trait?

metta,

~v

[Snoopy]

Alex, I can't keep up; are you a scientologist now? Are you going through the alphabet? After you've been a zennist will you begin again as an agnostic?

s.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Alex P,

thank you for the post.



everyone has amazing quotes if we would look through all their writings, in my case i only quote Source which is not his science fiction work. many beings also only quote Source for it is the Source which is, itself, the subject of discussion in many cases.



i would doubt it as our language has more rules that simply picking one word out of the context of the sentence and then interpolating all manner of permutations for the meaning of the sentence.



nope, that is the Old Guard, folks that left $cientology years ago and have been protesting it's abusive policies ever since. there was a serendipity between the Co$'s legal orders regarding the Crui$e video and the Old Guard and the two have somewhat agreed to protest together.



nope, didn't watch the video. i consider all manner of things disgusting which, strangely, other people do not.. i have the distinct impression that this is a matter of personal taste.



because it encourages informal language structure and actively teaches a dumbing down of the language. i don't consider those two things to be positive developments.



then perhaps you aren't really groking what i'm saying. salvation for sale is very different than a diet plan for sale especially when you can't read about the salvation that you are being sold.



i'm unclear how this is a response to the point that i made which you are responding to. i indicated that in discussions of morality and ethics the subject of the motivation for those morals and ethics is often important and is a valid subject for discussion.

the only areas of LRH's life which are relevant are the ones which he made relevant by his statements. we could, of course, simply ignore any of this and strictly examine if $cientology was able to deliver on it's claims for its founder. demonstrably it did not. if the creator of the religion can't actualize the things which the religion promises what do you think the chances are that anyone else will?



i can send you some bills.

you can talk to Gerry Armstrong the Salaman Rushdie of $cientology. he was Hubbards personal biographer before LRH was killed and the Sea Org took control of RTC.

you can talk to anyone that has made it to the grade of Auditor Class 4 and left the Co$ for they, too, have bills for the services which were provided... on the scale of hundreds of thousands of dollars.



why do you need such a group to become an active volunteer? does your country prohibit individuals from engaging in such actions in a disaster area, for instance? some countries will only permit organizations like charities and such to go into those areas and it may be the case where you live.

VM's, of course, do what many others do in such situations, offer services to vulnerable people who are not in a position to refuse help. i, personally, find such actions deplorable.



$cientology does *NOT* support human rights for all humans. in fact, it is explicitly stated that humans below 2.0 on the Tone Scale should be deprived of human rights and cleared from the planet, we should be "exteriorized". sorry mate but as soon as some group starts advocating such behavior you can rest assured that i'll be in opposition to them.

perhaps i'm making it up?

"In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints." - L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, 1989 Ed., p. 145 [The "Tone Scale" is Scientology's measure of mental and spiritual health.]



you believe that mankind is one... one what? are you suggesting that if i eat an orange that you'd feel full? are you suggesting that humans all have common traits like eyes and spleens and things like that?

how large do you think $cientology is?



of which? $cientologists being unreasonable? $cientology teaching that 'reasonable' is a negative trait?

metta,

~v

I will ask the Scientologists about some of this as the "2.0" scale thing I hadn't heard of... as for my reply it is late sunday afternoon and I can't be arsed right now lol... I'll do it monday, thought I'd just post and let you know I am not ignoring ya.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Alex, I can't keep up; are you a scientologist now? Are you going through the alphabet? After you've been a zennist will you begin again as an agnostic?

s.

No I am not. But I am looking into it and gathering information, is that ok with you?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Alex P

No I am not. But I am looking into it and gathering information, is that ok with you?

Of course.

Scientology... lol.

s.

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

that is, of course, the basis of all our statements insofar as they comport to reality. my point is that your defense is irrespective of the quality of the posts or lack thereof as is my critique.

Compared to what? People attend colleges and say "the courses are excellent" without taking ALL of the courses offered. So I say the courses are great and you would put it down if I didnt become a professor?

Greece, Italy, Netherlands and there is legislation in Sweden on this issue currently. Ireland just permitted the Co$ to be labeled a cult in last months protests whereas they had previously prevented such slogans from being expressed.

Do you have a link on this? Doesnt Xenu.net maintain a status page listing the different countries official standing on Scientology? I couldnt find it. Im not sure of Italy.

Of course even then we would need to play the "compared to what" game. CoS seems to be in 171 countries now? I wonder how other religions would stack up. LDS is listed the same in many of those countries. And wouldnt Cathlocism have as many countries banning it?

i can link the audio transcript of the conversation wherein one of the authors present at the club meeting recounts the entire episode.

Please do.

In which psychology books can i find the ideas of a tone scale or an ARC triangle? engram is a copyrighted term which first appears in the $cientology dictionary and therefore cannot have been first learnt about in another medium.

I didnt say they all could be found in psychology. I mentioned psychology, and religions, and self-help programs. I also said engram was basically the same. That involves abit of understanding of the two subjects to make that comparison but it gets made often enough. Usually by anti-scientology sites such as Xenu.net

that seems rather beside the point that you were making and which i responded to. that someone is voluminously published does not, in any way, indicate the accuracy of the statements which have been published.

I think you misunderstood the point I was making. I was only filling in data to avoid out of context responses. I was definetly making no claim on Hubbards behalf. Im sorry if you took it that way.

he was a well known pulp science fiction writer as contemporaneously documented by independent sources.

True enough.

that said, you are being somewhat vague with the idea of "self help" for indeed, it could be fairly said that a daily exercise regime is self help and that has, of course, been advocated for many decades.

Heehee. I grant you that. I wouldnt call it a "self-help program" as I meant it but its a true enough statement.

What I meant was a program marketed to the public. The fairly recent outbreak in the west of things such as yoga, EST, acupuncture, power of positive thinking, pilates, herbal stores, etc etc are benefiting from the change in attitude about allowing self-help and alternative medicine to make claims. If Scientology were "born" today I rather doubt it would go the "church" route at all. In fact, a number of its splinters have specifically chosen not to.

yes. all of him. completely left the organization. this was after the New Jersey office was closed by the government and Hubbard moved his operations to Oklahoma.

Thats what I thought. All of them becomes all of him. The fact that other doctors stayed, and that doctors are still members would be beside the point.

your claim makes it sound as if he were backing off for reasons other than the demonstrable lack of effect of his claimed medical cures.

Not at all.

there are no priests in $cientology, in any event, if you've not taken those courses successfully, i.e. passed them with certifications, then you really wouldn't be able to say of those teachings are excellent would you?

Again, compared to what? I can say the catholic church is wonderful, they offer great services, all without becoming vatican level and privy to the innermost secrets of that faith? All I can offer is my opinion on my experiences and what I have seen. People can easily find accounts of people who have been thru the higher levels doing the same if they wish (both pro and con of course)

you indicated previously when you left the Co$ that you were at a 6 on the Tone Scale. what courses did you run?

The usual ones. Most people tend to do the ones for improved communications, and better studying, abit of detox altho I didnt hold out. I also semi-staffed abit for the communications course. Abit more than just an average member, but less than a full-fledged dedicated joiner. A couple of years total hanging around centers. During that time I met many scientologists, saw people kicked out, heard more tham my fair share of truths both for and against scientology.

i think that if someone identifies themselves as a $cientologist then they are one, if they don't then they aren't. i don't mean in a duplicitous sense, of course.

Thats nice of you. Im usually quite clear in identifying myself as an ex-scientoloist. In general I found the scientology part enlightening, but the church part very lacking.

then i think you've missed the point of this fallacy.

Not at all. Im not seeking to declare that two wrongs make a right. Well maybe water it down abit. But Im more interested in gaining acknowledgment that two wrongs are still two wrongs.

Keep in mind that we are discussing some "cut them off at the pass" statements that I made. Not specifically aimed at anything you said. I was simply trying to warn those who would "open my eyes" to the horrors of the Church of Scientology that they might want to do abit of googling and comparative thinking on their own religion along the same subject. Along the lines of warning an attacker that I come armed.