Customize

Questions about Scientology?

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Terril, Nov 21, 2010.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    I understand why you think my question was mocking. It was most definitely not, nor do I insist on my own interpretation or invalidation of your experiences. I was curious, that's all.

    I had quite similar experiences in another religion (from which I generalized the validity of that particular faith), and later on outside of it. I mentioned cognitive dissonance because reading about the Milgram experiments (and noticing many evident truths that contradicted my beliefs) led me to question my allegiance and to decide that "civil disobedience" was necessary in order to retain my integrity (in all senses of that word). I suppose this must be similar to what impels people out of the Church of Scientology and into the freezone or independent Scientology.

    I don't write off your experience; I don't share your beliefs, either. I think you have every right to them. I believe that it would for me create too much cognitive dissonance to disentangle Hubbard's teaching from the negative aspects of the Church of Scientology. But thank you for your response--it does give me more insight into why and how Scientologists believe, and that is what my questions were targeting.
  2. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Scientology destroys families. Scientology hurts people. Promoting it in any form supports harm. Wake up.
  3. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    How do you go from "taking responsibility for your own actions" to "dead otherworldly entities are responsible for your actions" without contradicting yourself?
  4. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Some fine example of [STRIKE]bastardized hypnotherapy[/STRIKE] auditing gone wrong. These are serious symptoms, that is why auditing should not be done PERIOD.

    alas.

    I can not help but notice that you seem to simply ignore any question or statements that you can not rebut, e.g my previous posts confirming what you said about Cg Jung to be true -- while stating that such a fact did not add any credence to auditing, thing which you seemed to imply. Take it for an adhom and call me prejudiced if you like, but this is the typical dishonesty you would expect from those trying to court the less critical --i.e salesmen.

    Lacking any retort from you i will follow the thread of this discussion, which seems to now be religion. I do not know if you are emphasizing hypothetical similarities, validating your beliefs and what you preach to yourself --which i find doubtful, or whether you are trying to force people into a subjective deadlock, where being critical of LRH tech and scientology scriptures equals dissonance with their own faith. However; the confirmation bias brimmed post you cited supports the latter.

    Let me say that I find it insulting that you seemingly believe that to be fine, while given the opportunity to talk about the freezone. Who do you really think you are to use such veiled manipulation techniques, it is as if you consider to be discussing this with simple minded folks. This apparent contempt makes me question your motives all the more.

    But while we are at it, lets tear apart your decade old guilt-tripping copy pasta.

    In the purest abstract form, god equals the human conscience and is heavily influenced by interpersonal relationships. Both our affinity or detachment with religion stems from social circles and how they impacted our ego(self). Religion to a certain extent derives from the oedipus complex as a manifestation of our longing for a father, helping us cope with, and protecting us in this world from; civilization, nature and ultimately death. In other words: it is nothing more than an admixture of patrimony and a inherent psychological failsafe mechanism coping with our individual perception of reality. Such collective neuroses decrease the odds of severe individual neuroses developing. We commonly call this mouthful: Religion.

    That mankind has embellished lessons on morality -romanticized tails of our internal struggles and torments, turning them into exorcism - lost the context of the metaphorical: i.e making the blind see, feeding the poor, into a miracle --is something you see, and should not be surprised to read in an inconsistent work that has been translated and adapted a hundred times, over a significant timespan.

    Citing mentions of exorcism as if it were proof that thetans exist, or as argument that Hubbard was paraphrasing what christians "believe" is preposterous. Same goes for clusters, not's, teaching and commands --favoring excerpts that confirm Hubbards hypotheses from a millennia old book, disregarding context, which as pointed out earlier has been lost-- is illusory correlation, a simplistic form of emotional manipulation.

    I would say you won't respond, but that would give you opportunities, such as: claiming that since you acknowledged this post i had to be wrong about everything. Bear in mind i did not write this to irk or provoke you, it is a caution for others about your choice of dishonest dialog. My suggestion is: quit pasting ten year old prefabricated answers as if you were seeking council from a lawyer, and be genuine. If the freezone and lrh tech have merit they should earn it by themselves, not by correlation. You seem to already know that it doesn't have any else you wouldn't do this. What remains is you having to come to terms with it.
  5. Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Yep. With the inevitable descent into faggotry and tears.
  6. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Just once I'd like to hear a Scientologist say, "The tech doesn't really work but it gives me direction and in a way makes me feel a little better about myself."
  7. RolandRB Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    I am sure nearly every senior CS thinks "The tech doesn't really work but it gives them direction and in a way makes them feel a little better about themselves".

    KERRRRCHINGG!!
  8. blank Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Terril, has any Freezoner ever made this experiment, that Hubbard himself proposed in Dianetics:TMSMH as a test for his engram hypothesis?

  9. blank Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    by the way..
    Do you see the blatant contradiction here?
    1. Unconsciousness is possible only in death
    2. Cause of engrams is unconsciousness (and pain)

    => Engrams can only occur during death!
  10. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Don't need it Terril, I had the love of parents who didn't send me off for cult conditioning at an early age. Just you keep in mind that when you damage a child you destroy the adult and that as long as Freezoners are peddling Hubbard's poison, there will be people opposing it.
  11. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Hubbard's model of human memory is passive, like a tape recorder capturing whatever is going on. But today we know that coding experience into memory is subject to active filtering processes, and that the retrieval of memory is more like building up a representation of something from scratch rather than simply replaying a tape recording. Later experience alters earlier memories.

    Language destroys visual details. Once you describe something that's happened, you won't remember as much about it. An analogy for this might be a compression algorithm that translates a raster-based graphics representation into a vector format.

    Children are more vulnerable to false memories because they lack sufficient understanding of how the world works to reliably cross-check novel information. I would agree with those who say that the auditing of children is a mistake, if by "auditing" we mean those lists of questions that sound a lot like "leading the witness."
  12. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    I would not limit the negative effects of auditing to children. Adults are as much vulnerable to indoctrination and the other qualms auditing causes.
  13. Terril Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Note that I commented That Virginia was sociopathic. She constantly used " Black"
    or "Reverse " scientology. As does DM. Thus the terrible life her son had. Below an example of her moderation after she took over the main FZ forum of that time. To a newbie.
    The insanity is evident.

    Your post is not easily comprehensible and have no idea what questions I'm supposed to have ignored. If you give some comprehensible questions I'll try to answer.




    ============
    Posted: 2001-12-02 03:07
    xenia
    New Member

    xenia
    New Member

    Joined: Dec 01, 2001
    Posts: 2
    From: T.G.
    Posted: 2001-12-01 15:54
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    and what does 101 stand for?

    Xenia, the BT Princess

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    virginia
    Moderator

    Joined: Nov 14, 2001
    Posts: 277
    From: Post Falls, Idaho
    Posted: 2001-12-01 16:34
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not a good introduction Xenia, I hope you are not here, to "stir
    things up", or you will have a short stay indeed.

    101 is "tongue-in-check" humor for beginning level of education, often
    numbered such in college courses.

    Virginia
  14. Terril Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Note that the Freezone has no:-

    SO
    RPF
    Heavy ethics
    Excessive sec checks [ only done at clients agreement]
    Heavy regging [ no regging at all really]
    No face ripping
    No IAS donations
    No overboards [ still done on land using toilets]
    No disconnection
    No fairgame.

    Probably not a complete list, I'm winging this.

    FZ has:-

    Competition
    Thus very reasonable pricing [ less than a plumber]
    Client centered councellors
    Old time techies often trained by Hubbard
    No DM.

    Again probably not complete.
  15. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Oh I agree but if we're talking strictly about abuses then the Freezone can't claim it's somehow morally superior if they're pushing their crap onto kids. That's before we even start looking at the issue of vulnerable adults being involved.
  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    So tell me Terril, where the recourse for clients if something goes wrong? You're based in the UK and, for now at least, unlicensed therapy is still legal, but do the Freezone therapists have insurance cover?
  17. Scatman Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Terril, first you stated that Virginia McClaughrey was a SP, now you state that she was sociopathic. The characterisitics of the SP were invented by Hubbard. The characteristics of sociopaths were observed by psychologists over several decades and are well documented.
    The characteristics of the sociopath are very different from those of Hubbard's fictional boogeyman, the SP.
    So if she was a sociopath, what characteristics did she have and how strongly?
  18. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Terril,

    I must say that by virtue of the fact that LRH mandates that you duplicate him when applying Dianetics, that the components you claim to be not a part of a Freezone experience, is actually a part of it, contrary to what you say. Doing "lower conditions", even wearing an armband for RPF while cleaning toilets and digging out ditches in the cult leaders back yard, and being put on "baby watch" and totally brutally ignored and punished by them intentionally withholding "granting beingness" happen. Disconnection happens too. not just to me, to everyone i knew who was in.

    unless you are just one dude reading some books at home on an individual basis, and not part of a "Freezone group". what you say is false.
    there also is a sea-org. If you refer to someone like Captain Bill Robertson and the like, for example, they firmly believe that they are actually following the tech on a level more in alignment with the original intents of LRH, and even think of the Freezone to be superior to the "Church" proper. It's weird, they both think that the other group is "squirrel", but even inspite of the organisational differences, they do believe to be aiming for the same goals.


    it is dumb.
  19. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Freezone:

    Again, because they are devoted $cientologists thru and thru who are committed to making case gain by duplicating LRH, and doing incredibly intensive study and application of the tech from all of the same sources, his taped lectures as well as books and policy.......

    Yes, there is fair game.
    Yes, there are Heavy Ethics. (who do you think you are kidding. seriously.)
    Yes, there are constant sec checks. Please, in order to go into session, you always do a sec check of one form or another, and yes, the individual complies with this because they want to be sessionable.
    Yes, some Freezoners, interestingly enough, DO contribute money to the IAS and CCHR and other various things.
    Yes, there is "regging". (Again, i cannot emphasize this enough, that a comitted Freezoner is playing by the same rules as far as duplicating LRH tech, and the "regging" is part of the "(un)fair exchange for services.
    you mention "reasonable pricing" which may enable a person who is really dedicated to move through and up a bit faster, maybe, but again, because this is an ego-centric con game, the thought reform (please word clear "thought reform" from a "wog" source) makes a high pressure situation that is the same thing.


    same shit.
    less bureaucracy.
  20. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    ha. i would even go so far to say that Freezoner $cientologists think of themselves as being more in·dis·pen·sa·ble , and some of them think that they are MORE elite.
    (oh shit) ya, this is where we get into all of the totally paranoid shit about utlra sekrit speshul ops and the related obligatory insanity that accompanies that.

    come on, terril.
  21. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    i don't know why, but Arnie Lerma comes to mind right now.
  22. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    it seems that people may be under the impression that Scn and Freezone are different, and that they are in some huge disagreement, but that is an illusion. They are part and parcel of the same thing.
    like buddies. The dissonance of discussion of leadership would be more akin to something like French "debating" about politics, but both are still French.
  23. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Trying to separate one type of Hubbard crap from another, is like trying to strain pus in a colander, it comes out the same at the bottom end.
    The most fucked up person in the universe may say, during his lifetime, a few truths, this doesn't warrant any sort of merit by those who are humans, or neither should their lives be given any credence.
    I am of the opnion that not only was LRon out of his fucking depraved mind, a greedy twisted charlatan, but to even sort of realize this and to use any part of his 'tech', is an abomination to the sensibilities. How the hell can you be so foolish to model your thoughts/existance, meditations, credo, any-bloody-thing, waste your time in this lifetime, based on a single thing this dead, twisted, con-artist bastard ever said or wrote?
    For. Fuckin'. Shame. On. You.
    And double shame for even thinking you could make enough sense out of His gobbledy-gook to impart to others, you do the humans a great injustice with a false elitist attitude that may just be enough catalist to tear you up in your hour of need. And all they people you 'help'?
    Fodder for the karmatic chaff masheenz, just like you.

    :(

    IMHO.

    I'll keep my own illusions real~ I'm hot, sexy, and every woman loves me. Pretty harmless considerin' ......XP
  24. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    I do not see anything sociopathic about Virginia's post you quoted, not that her being a sociopath or not changes much from my argument. I clearly stated that the symptoms this individual was experiencing are the results of bad hypnotherapy. You made the correlation between auditing and hypnotherapy yourself, by trying to validate the (e) galvanometer's use.

    Let me summarize a short list of symptoms from hypnotherapy gone bad:

    antisocial acting out, anxiety, panic attacks, distorted body/self-image, loss comprehension/concentration, confusion, depersonalization, depression, de-realization, headache/migraine, identity crisis, impaired/distorted memory, obsessive ruminations, physical injury/discomfort, psychosis, stiffness in arms or neck, easily stressed, traumatic recall.

    Now read this quote again:

    This is the result of auditing. Auditing is dangerous, you are playing with peoples minds terril, you can not base your study on five decade old, ripped off and edited material that has not held up to clinical peer reviews, and for the same reasons has not been altered to current standards. Don't you see how irresponsible auditing is, this is serious terril. Very serious.

    This is what LRH TECH does to people.

    My question: You seem to be aware that LRH was a plagiarist, so why do you use these potentially harmful self-healing methods like auditing? Why do you advocate TECH if you have read enough about the subject outside of the LRH circle, to know that it is dangerous? Or have you not read anything about hypnotherapy, and merely used Jung's name to validate the e-meter?

    Which of the two is it going to be, are you in denial or have you not yet read enough to be aware of what you are doing?
  25. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    There are a few questions remaining from my earlier posts, as well. I asked a lot at once, so here they are, collected and simplified:

    You mentioned that it sounds at times like Hubbard believes himself. In your opinion, does this include the Xenu story?

    Most texts regarded by believers as sacred do wind up changed or at least heavily reinterpreted over time. Do you believe that the Xenu story should be removed or further clarified?

    What’s your personal belief about policies such as fair game and the RPF, and do you think Hubbard would agree with it? (I'm not asking whether these practices occur in the Freezone--rather, what is your opinion about them?)

    Is it accurate to say that you believe in body thetans, but not in Xenu? If so (and leaving out the Bible for a moment), then where do BTs come from?

    Do you think Hubbard would support your decision to believe what works for you, and to reject the rest of his contributions?

    Have you experienced cognitive dissonance, or doubt, during your time as a Scientologist?

    It sounds like you agree that Hubbard wasn’t always right in his teachings and policies. What is your opinion of him as a man, and as a spiritual leader?
  26. Terril Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    No. Someone on the Sea Project [ predated the SO] posted that incident 1 was a copy of a
    christian ceremony in one of the ports they were at. Poster Dartsmohen on ESMB. Also
    I've posted here about the earlier data from Hubbard re explosions being basic to all engrams.
    I'm not sure why the xenu story. My guess is the earlier incarnation of running explosions
    disn't work 100% or close.
    Dunno. I'm not that much of a techie. It worked for me following the instructions, even though I
    didn't believe the story. I suspect that locating body thetans and running explosions in a simpler form may work better. I may ask this question slightly reworded on ESMB where their are some knowledgable techies.

    Fair Game was originally made policy by Hubbard and there was only lip service for its cancellation. Its end justifying means which is a very slippery slope to say the least.
    I don't agree with it. Just read some new data re the origin of RPF on ESMB. I'll try and dig it up.
    Currently its just a gulag, at previous times for some it was beneficial in that they actually
    got to co-audit and presumably enough sleep for that to happen. Anyway its always been n on optimum.

    I'm not the best person to answer this. I've experienced everything from a being even more able than myself to what may be self created circuits I put up to handle certain matters
    and, other categories. Some seem to be beings who wanted to cling onto another being or body,
    and are not antagonistic and welcome the chance to move on. I've not experienced any antagonistic BTs. Others have.

    One might say that life the universe everything is primarily spiritual.

    He dosn't have a say in it. :)

    The only person to momentarily make me have doubts was a supporter broadly of scientology and brilliant. I'll post one of his posts here next.

    On staff had some run ins with the GO who wanted to stop " security risks" entering div 6.
    Not really cognitive dissonance. Was very shocked when I first came to the net and saw the
    hidden truth about COS. Became a critic. But still a supporter of the tech. later over some years,
    I learnt or decided that some of the policies were misguided or even dangerous. Then there
    are the confidential GO/OSA policies which are worse, and their actions which I mostly strongly disagree with.

    He was a genius. Flawed as both man and spiritual leader.
  27. Terril Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    These words written on Nullportal's deathbed


    -----------------
    Nullportal

    Join Date: Jan 2007
    Posts: 16

    My big fat pompous final words (Part 1)
    Maybe you would like to post your viewpoint in detail.

    I'm flattered. I think I can briefly sum up what I believe that might be of some value.

    Scientology is about Theta-MEST theory and what tools might exist to help illuminate this. There are forays into diet advice, organizational notions, and political punditry, etc., but they aren't essential. The main thing to know about theta-MEST is that they are chalk and cheese. Any correct explanation of how they manage to have anything whatsoever to do with one another is pure gold.

    MEST is a completely understandable topic. Isaac Newton did an amazing job of defining physics in his basic physics text. He said "I make no hypothesii", meaning he did not resort to qualitative indwelling character traits of matter to explain it, as the Greeks did. Instead he said every perceptible difference in the world around you is due to differing motions. Full stop, period, end of sentence. This statement sums up all of physics, and once the basic unit of analysis, momentum (mv) is defined, everything in physics is commentary on or elaborate surmises from a few basic statements about momentum. This idea withstands even the most cutting edge search into subatomic physics, in which each little particle is eventually describable by the type of wiggling it does and the type of other wiggles it bounces off of or ignores, to the most far out cosmological suspicion. It's all about the motion. Solid is a state of matter where atoms can only rotate a little bit and can't swap abutting neighbors easily, liquid a state where they can rotate freely all they please and swap neighbors but must abut a neighbor, gas includes as well being as near or far to your neighbor as you like. If we encounter solid, liquid and gaseous things, their motional traits are what make them this. Red light is a complete electromagnetic wiggle in a different length than blue light, etc., It's all different motions giving differences in perceptible things. For a complete scheme of description you of course need space-time and matter/mass has to exist to resist some motional influence, otherwise every urge to move would be identical as unopposed by anything of helpfully distinguishing mass.

    Theta is a vaster topic. Thetans are potentially infinitely creative. One of the things thetans create are analogues to MEST: theta "space", theta "time", and impulses of change akin to energy and resistances to change akin to matter. These analogues are how chalk and cheese manage to merge. We can have location in space by creating a theta space concept, we can have a location in time by creating a theta correlate to sequence, we can be solid or not by postulating something other than pure postulate as impetus to or resistance of some change, etc. Spacation processes eventually rub our nose in the fact that theta space exists and is merely an analogue to MEST space (and probably is the only real reason for creating a theta "space" at all), time inspection processes (recall) rub our noses in the fact that theta sequencing exists and bears some relationship to our participation in illusory MEST time, start-change-stop processes rub our noses in the fact that theta correlates to impulse and resistance other than pure postulate can be made and tie into MEST impulse (energy) and resistance (mass). Basically, by rubbing someone's nose in how the chalk and cheese do a complex mimicking dance orchestrated from the theta side, in a polite way preferably, we eventually wind up more aware of theta issues and options. Time inspection processes seem particularly valuable in all of this as they decode clues to personas or identities other than true identity, and those identities are usually the bundle that keeps a theta side controlling construct in sync or tangled up in a MEST side reality. I "am" what I use to pretend to have space at some time with some junk in tow - that sort of process seems to do double or triple duty.

    There are, of course, elaborate specifics of how to do spacation, time inspection, and SCS, and plenty to know about the tools used to sort out the illusion of which realm is which. But the essence of the matter is "spot some theta constructs pretending to be like MEST constructs", and further, "locate identities you use to keep the two confused". I think that sums up the useful part of Scientology, of which spoon feedable baby steps towards this basic simplicity are often necessary and so many elaborations on how to do this can be useful. No one wants to be told too hastily that the part they rehearsed for has been written out of the script for tonight's performance. May as well break it to them gently.

    If I were inclined to comment on even more subsidiary matters, I suppose I would talk at length about Ron's obsession with implants and how they make up an ideology most of all. R's implant ideology is kind of like a labor-management ideology, and he seems fascinated by all the permutations of how the struggle can play out. All I'd have to say about the matter is this: it is all ritual. Whether you inject someone with glycol and nuke them, zap them with weird electronics, or merely implant them by clever word games intended to cause them frustration and rage, it is all ritual. A pinch of mystery, a dash of permission to wear the funny hat like the rest of us, a bit of glorious drama. You either get to wear the funny hat and be one of the oppressors or refused the funny hat and have to be oppressed, but only the power of willingly living by the ritual matters in this. There are no MEST things capable of trapping or altering theta, only theta constructs meant to mimic or mirror MEST that can be created and the illusion sustained by protecting those constructs by means of illusory identities. Why R kept up with his implant ideology obsession after these issues were made clear to him, as they indeed did become clear to him, is a puzzle. Maybe he found these the funnest games of all, most suited to satisfying his desire for hazard and challenge to overcome and boast about overcoming. Meh. I think he did come to the understanding that whether you nuke someone a la OTIII or ask them to wear a membership button on a lapel as an implant technique, it is really all the same, it is ritual in the games tradition, but it slipped from his mind from time to time. No one is perfect. It really was his one big source of error, though, in that he often went about trying to dream up ways that MEST constructs trap theta, which is impossible - therefore counterproductive to yak on about. Perhaps he had a scarcity issue about personas and so clung desperately to an ideology of interthetan struggle that offered the most drama and threat or menace to be bested by joining up on his side with his prescribed funny hat and handshake.

    Of course another subsidiary topic would be identities, personas, and the like. Personas exist to play a game. Sure there's plenty to say about that, but I think everyone is better off discovering their own commentary upon this really rather than relying on someone else's commentary on why games should be played. Only the actual player knows why he is in the game.

    ---------------------
    Nullportal
    Patron
    Join Date: Jan 2007
    Posts: 16

    My big fat pompous final words (Part 2)
    Perhaps a final major theme as a subsidiary topic is that there probably is indeed a chain of being with some people playing superior controlling spiritual roles and others playing inferior controlled tangled-up-in apparently nontheta realms (well someone has to create them, but no one has to pretend to own them thereafter, eh?). Whether one follows R's which often mimics Egyptian Gnosticism or follows others found in various independent constructs, etc., is all a matter of consulting a particular Baadeker (spelling?) and the real task is to go out and scout out who is where in existence. That he seemed to believe in a real chain of being above and below meat body dwellers seems clear when looking carefully, yet he mostly treated the higher realms of being with some silence.

    There's one trap in all of this I can see. One can arrive at the proud announcement of having figured out 100% of how a thetan gets himself tangled up in MEST. This is an alluring lie that can keep one tangled up, because thetans are infintely creative. You always have to find 101% of the ways it can be done, but that's a contradiction. Someone will always have ways to invent theta space that are new and allow getting balled up nicely into MEST, someone will always invent new games and personas to allow one to pretend one doesn't own and control the playing field, etc. Thetans are infinitely creative, so never settle on the "100% answered" answer. This is the big mistake I think nonScientology practices make: it is ALL known in the Book of the Dead, or in the Chakra/Godheads construct, or in this or that explanation. Thetans are infinitely creative.

    Theta-MEST theory is main street, personas and games that allow theta-MEST mirroring constructs are the town square on main street, and "thetans are infinitely creative so never settle on one all inclusive definitive answer" is the atop the speaker's podium in the square.

    That's my survey of the subject.

    Nice chatting with you.
  28. grebe Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Terril,

    If you were to conclude that Scientology as you describe it was simply not true, what would happen to you? Would you lose your family, your friends? Would you lose your source of income --which I understand is largely from auditing?

    If you couldn't be an auditor, is there some other job you could do that would pay just as well?
  29. Terril Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    I only solo audit and am in fact retired. Wouldn't lose friends or family if I decided to change my religious or for that matter political views.
  30. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    So i take it you didn't dare ask me to backup what i said with irrefutable science, which i could have.

    You're a great sport terril, ignoring entheta aren't we?

    You chose to flat out ignore my post, answering my question --not only are you in denial about LRH tech's prowess but also aware of what you are doing and the nefarious consequences coming forth from auditing and applying the TECH.

    Since it is your bread and butter, whats the price tag on your moral values? Even if you made above minimum wage i would hope there'd be no price on it, sadly you proved that to be false.
  31. Terril Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Stravinsky said " lesser composers imitate, great ones steal wholesale."

    I have friends who are both qualified psychologists and also Freezoners. On the
    whole they find scn or its offshoot TIR and Metapsychology more effective. These last two
    as I posted earlier created as by Frank Gerbode, a psychaist , also assisted by
    Hubbards auditor David Mayo.
  32. adhocrat Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    The way scientologists use the term 'black' or 'reverse' dianetics implies there are good uses and bad uses of dianetics and scientology 'tech'. Since there are no good uses of this con game tech, the real meaning is "I agree with our use and don't agree with their use of it." It is not a moral issue, it is a territorial fight for dominance. And all uses of it are 'black.'

    There's your problem. You accept data from Hubbard, who made up all his facts.

    His genius was in conning people, nothing else.

    Indeed, pompous nails the attitude. All of what he said is based on Hubbard being right. But Hubbard was not only not right, he wasn't ever in the game. His ideas are all made up of whole cloth.

    Hey, that's mine too. Imagine that!
  33. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    I have friends in the inteligence department that say you just made that up, see how that works?

    Unless you are going to provide names this is at best hearsay,not fact.
    You also seem to confuse meta with clinical psychology. Psychology being the subject of philosophical discussion doesn't mean the product of such exchanges,are anywhere near applicable in the medical field.

    come again.
  34. grebe Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Solo audit... does that mean you only audit yourself? What do you charge for that?

    ;o)
  35. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Okay, you say Hubbard didn't believe the Xenu story. Yet he presented it as though it were true. That is a colossal lie with major consequences for a lot of people. That's not merely a "personality flaw" or a mistake by an eccentric genius. It's a conscious criminal act with terrible human consequences.


    In essence, you seem to say here that OT3 contains flat-out lies, yet that doesn't trouble you enough to have thought much about it, because you had good experiences. This is a remarkably shallow viewpoint. I would say it is a defensively shallow position. Rather than asking techie friends, why not ask yourself, really, why haven't you thought this through? Grebe's question is a good one: what's at stake for you--are you really free not to believe?


    Again: the creation of the RPF is a major human rights abuse perpetrated by L. Ron Hubbard which you blandly pass by because you feel that some aspects of Scientology have benefited you. In so doing you are turning your face away from all of the people who have suffered so terribly by this policy. Their suffering is not inconsequential, and neither is the self-numbing required to dull you to it. I hope you will search your soul about this. What kind of a person are you becoming through this sort of denial and rationalization?

    Whether you, personally, have experienced what you believe to be BT's is really of secondary importance. What I'm pointing out is, once again, the inconsistency of rejecting the Xenu story while accepting the part about BT's--and somehow coming out of that mental maneuver with your allegiance to Hubbard and his teachings intact.


    Truly a glib response. As you know, my question contained a point, which you're evading: Your version of Scientology is not L. Ron Hubbard's version of it.


    Again, I'm certain you are conscious of missing the point here. My question has to do with the positive and essential role that skepticism plays in a mature faith. You have exercised enough skepticism to have left the Church of Scientology. Not enough to confront the blatant contradictions in Hubbard's teachings--contradictions which are not merely theoretical but which have ruined lives.


    That is what people say about religious leaders who commit atrocities.

    I am offended by your slick responses to very serious questions. If you really seek knowledge and truth, you ought to go into those questions, not deflect them. Your responses are unsatisfying and troubling.
  36. Gottabrain Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    ^^Great Post, Anon^^

    Quote: "at previous times for some it was beneficial in that they actually
    got to co-audit and presumably enough sleep for that to happen. Anyway its always been n on optimum."

    Get off it, Terril. I'll hear none of this justification and whitewashing of this abusive program. Name ONE PERSON who is an ex, ONE PERSON out of Scientology who can say, now that he/she can speak freely, that the program was "good". It messed me up big time and I greatly resent your discounting hundreds of testimonies without a single one to support this view, which is a "Tommy Davis" rationale.

    There was never a previous time when it was beneficial. People were always sent as punishment and against their will. They have always been short of sleep, had poor nutrition, and been worked like dogs in the most humanly degrading situations possible. So are you saying that people can get "gains" when they are forced to undergo "therapy" under these conditions?

    And yet you believe this enhances "free will", to force others to do Hubbard's will and tear down their self esteem, independence and self respect?

    Talk about something you know about and stop trying to deny the truth. You weren't even in the SO, much less the RPF. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
  37. blank Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    That's an absurd justification for the RPF.
    That's like saying that prisons are beneficial for people, because at least the prisoners have enough time to read a good book in their prison cell.

    You don't need an RPF to get co-auditing and sleep.
  38. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Thanks OP, for not answering my question. It's very telling how you 'hen peck' the questions that you are able to answer.

    Also, do you possess any super powers yet?
  39. Anonymous Member

    Re: Questions about Scientology?

    Bump. Could you please demonstrate this? (Without lying, but I don't think you're the type that would do that.)
  40. Re: Questions about Scientology?

    So are you saying Hubbard is great because he stole wholesale or lesser because he imitated?

    Didnt really answer the question.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins