Question for Scientologists
Henry Chinaski
I went to a Scientology office and asked about the Church's core
beliefs. Didn't get much of an answer. But the lady I spoke with told me
that Church membership is consistent with simultaneous adherence to any
religious creed (Judaism, Lutheranism, Islam, etc.) -- and is also
consistent with being agnostic.
It seems to me that part of what makes someone a member of one religion
or another is the fact that he is not part of any other religion. Viz. a
Christian cannot also be a Muslim because the cosmologies of the two
belief systems are distinct, and in fact have developed partially in
opposition to each other. One may either believe that Jesus was the son
of God, born flesh, crucified, died for our sins, descended into hell,
and was resurrected -- or not.
On another occasion, I was speaking with a Scientologist and learned
that Scientologists believe in reincarnation. If this is true, it cannot
be that a Christian, a Muslim, or indeed most atheists could also join
the Church of Scientology in good conscience.
Then there's the fact that the Creed of Scientology mentions God. Well,
how then could an atheist be a Scientologist also.
Religious communities are bound together, in part, by shared belief
systems. These are essential beliefs that necessarily exclude other who
do not share them. Is there such a set of beliefs shared by
Scientologists?
I ask in good faith and read responses earnestly and with an open mind.
Thanks for your time.
Hank
Bob Minton
<hotwate...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Is Scientology a religion?
>
>I went to a Scientology office and asked about the Church's core
>beliefs. Didn't get much of an answer. But the lady I spoke with told me
>that Church membership is consistent with simultaneous adherence to any
>religious creed (Judaism, Lutheranism, Islam, etc.) -- and is also
>consistent with being agnostic.
Read this to get an answer: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/minton-essay.txt
ti...@freedom.net
question, but it all boils down to this:
They will say nearly *anything* to get your money.
Regardless, other religions don't really conflict early on in your trip
'up the bridge' - the early levels are nearer to self-hypnotism and
acting exercises than any religious experience you would normally think
of.
It's not until later on that conflict sets in - the CofS wants *all* of
you money for one thing, and if you're 'tithing elsewhere', rest assured
that that'll be a problem.
Ideologically speaking, Scientologists *do* believe in reincarnation
(Sea Org members sign 'billion year contracts), Scn has a very specific
creation story which again, you don't get to see until spending some
time and money (OT3 conflicts quite a bit with the Judeo-Christian
creation story, to understate heavily), and if you believe the essence
of Christianity is turning the other cheek and doing unto others as
you'd have done unto you, well, Scientology has a distinct Darwinian
sensibility - not only is 'love' not on the 'Tone Scale', but 'sympathy'
(.9) is right below both 'terror' (.96) and 'fear' (1.0).
~ tikk
ars web page summary {
> www.altreligionscientology.org
reed slatkin media resource {
> www.slatkinfraud.com
________________________________________________________________________
Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net
Henry Chinaski
from Scientologists though.
Hank
StressCentre
>From: Henry Chinaski hotwate...@hotmail.com
>Date: 9/4/01 12:02 PM AUS Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3B943618...@hotmail.com>
>
>Thanks Bob and tikk -- interesting reading. Still looking for responses
>from Scientologists though.
>
>Hank
>
And THAT is where you'll get to the truth. When I first came here just wanting
answers, and hoping Scientologists would give me reasoned and detailed
responses, it was the absence of same which was the best answer.
I don't think I'd asked too many questions before the term "paedophile" was
bandied about, and I started getting phone calls.
No doubt this will prompt a nice, detailed response from some Scientologist
somewhere, but you will begin to see what Scientology is about simply by asking
them questions. Most importantly, observe the questions they don't want to
answer. And if you keep asking them, the response you will certainly receive
will let you know whether they are a religion, or an organised fraud that has
exploited legal definitions for promotional and financial reasons.
As to your question, like anything to do with the fields of the strictly
speaking "supranormal", you'll get nowhere unless you define your terms very
strictly.
Is Scientology a religion? Well, there was a thread started by a Scientologist
here recently declaring it was and the sole support he quoted for the claim was
from the IRS and various legislative bodies. So, if you think these groups can
determine what a religion is, then Scientology is definitely a religion, but
only in some countries, and in some states.
If you want an answer to whether it is a religion by some other definition, I'm
afraid you'll have to define it.
If I use my hypnotherapy training and use it as a therapy in conjunction with a
work of fiction I wrote, say, The Lord of the Rings Meets Rocky Balboa, and I
get people involved through fair means of foul, and some courts declare me a
religion because I meet certain legal definitions, does it mean I've started a
religion?
It depends on your answer to that.
Finn A McMillan
Henry Chinaski
Hank
StressCentre
>Date: 9/4/01 3:44 PM AUS Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3b94...@news2.lightlink.com>>Yes it is. In philosophically speaking it is. It has it's own
>beliving system.
>
>> It seems to me that part of what makes someone a member of one religion
>> or another is the fact that he is not part of any other religion. Viz. a
>> Christian cannot also be a Muslim because the cosmologies of the two
>> belief systems are distinct, and in fact have developed partially in
>> opposition to each other. One may either believe that Jesus was the son
>> of God, born flesh, crucified, died for our sins, descended into hell,
>> and was resurrected -- or not.
>
>experience and researching, there is certain myths amongst the critics that
>need to be dragged down. One which they've already told you too, is that
>certain "critics" likes to present scn as a place where even sensible people
>can be lured in. They are of course talking of themselfs
I don't know who you are pal, but that's some thinking you're going to have to
revise. When I first came to this forum it was because in my professional
capacity I was dealing with people who were having problems with the cults they
were associated with. My research led me here. I was almost as intolerant as
you, until I had to have some degree of humility in recognising that vastly
more people than you might imagine are susceptible to this sort of thing,
ESPECIALLY if they think they're too smart. Read up on "cognitive dissonance",
and you'll understand why cults target, and are most successful, in
universities and institutes of higher learning.
Neitzsche laughed at humanity's tendency to consider itself rational and free.
As he said, "You will obey, and you will obey mightily!"
Even you, my friend, believe some utter bullshit. We all do. Well, not me,
I'm too smart for that, but you know what I mean . . .
Jung suggested that without irrational beliefs, we would go insane. We need to
impose some order on an existence characterised by chaos.
. Most people who
>call themselfs as "critics" in here are in fact ex-scns. People like tikk
>hang arounds with them daily, thats where he gets his "knowledge" from.
Not me. I know you've qualified with "most", but the inference tends to negate
all others who have never been a part of it.
>
>When you analyse the behaviour of these "critics", you can pretty easily
>draw a picture of a typical person who gets lured into scn.
Not at all. If you were going to apply some logic here, you might recognise
that if they're mostly ex-Scieno's, then you're getting the "after" picture of
the "before and after Scientology" equation. Your generalising inference
suggests the character displayed here is what lured them in the first place.
Illogical, my friend.
Most important
>thing is the eager to control others. It is no wonder that they are the
>ones who wants to create a "safe" environment where they can hear only the
>things they want to. Yet call themselfs a free speech advocates. Sad thing
>is that it is used also to silence the voices they don't want to hear.
I think, if you read the postings, that the critics greatly enjoy the
contributions of the Scientologists. I, for one, stand amazed everyday when I
flick on to this ng and realise how much damage CoS does themselves with every
single post they write. . . .
>
>Very similar behaviour than what goes on in scn too, but remember that most
>of them are ex-scns, so it's no surprise.
>
>> On another occasion, I was speaking with a Scientologist and learned
>> that Scientologists believe in reincarnation. If this is true, it cannot
>> be that a Christian, a Muslim, or indeed most atheists could also join
>> the Church of Scientology in good conscience.
>
>Well clkates belives in stalinism and that shining path is a good
>organisation.
>She describes herself as a critic. She's also an ex-scn, one of those who
>signed
>a billion year contract. Tikk values her thoughts very highly, perhaps he
>shares her political views too? Perhaps. Perhaps it tells again about typical
>character
>of people who joins in scn, people who has a tend to belive in things they've
>been
>feed, people who deny the facts and invent stories to support their claims.
>
>
>> Then there's the fact that the Creed of Scientology mentions God. Well,
>> how then could an atheist be a Scientologist also.
>
>How could a stalinist? It is not about the ism somebody belives in. It's
>about
>the fact that certain people has a tend to belive imagenary things and
>disregard
>the facts. It wont change their behaviour when they jump out of it, just
>their money.
>
>> Religious communities are bound together, in part, by shared belief
>> systems. These are essential beliefs that necessarily exclude other who
>> do not share them. Is there such a set of beliefs shared by
>> Scientologists?
>
>Yes of course, one of the first things cults do is to separate you from the
>outside
>world. This is a way to make you hear only one truth. A handy way to make you
>belive
>somebody is a "God" or an intelligent person, also a handy way to make you
>belive
>somebody is bad, liar, mental, disrupting etc..
>
>It is no wonder that these ex-scs do the same as their present "critics"
>status.
>
>> I ask in good faith and read responses earnestly and with an open mind.
>> Thanks for your time.
>
>So do i. Always.
>
>
>--
>spt
>
>
>
>
>
>
StressCentre
>Message-id: <3b94...@news2.lightlink.com>
>
>StressCentre <stress...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Neitzsche laughed at humanity's tendency to consider itself rational and
>free.
>> As he said, "You will obey, and you will obey mightily!"
>
>
>"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't
>become a monster."
>--Frederick Wilhelm Nietsche
>
>--
>spt
>
Absolutely. And "if you choose to look into the abyss, be aware that the abyss
will look into you."
Your comments on your other thread responding to me really didn't deal with my
points. I won't go into it in too much detail, if you go back and look you'll
see what I mean.
One point stands out - you've lumped me with other critics and pigeonholed me
as clumsily as you say others are doing to both you and the Scientologists.
Case in point, you assume I'm calling someone a Scientologist because the
critics told me they were. Hardly. It's pretty obvious. Especially when they
say "I'm a Scientologist . . ."
Thanks Sonya
C of A
Henry Chinaski wrote:
> Is Scientology a religion?
Yes it is.
It deals with the 'soul' and it's rehabilitation.
> I went to a Scientology office and asked about the Church's core
> beliefs. Didn't get much of an answer. But the lady I spoke with told me
> that Church membership is consistent with simultaneous adherence to any
> religious creed (Judaism, Lutheranism, Islam, etc.) -- and is also
> consistent with being agnostic.
'Membership' is consistent with belonging to other religions but *practice*
is certainly not.
Why the hell the 'Church' continues to lie about this is...well,what can I
say?.
*NO* religion (as far as I know) claims it is compatible with every other
religion going.But the Cof$ has little to do with the *religion* of
Scientology.
Christian money and Moslem money is,to the Church....more money.
Money is what the Church likes,not the Tech.
Viva la Freezone,Fucka la Cof$ :-)
C of A
StressCentre
>Message-id: <3b95...@news2.lightlink.com>
>
>StressCentre <stress...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Your comments on your other thread responding to me really didn't deal with
>my
>> points. I won't go into it in too much detail, if you go back and look
>you'll
>> see what I mean.
>
>> One point stands out - you've lumped me with other critics and pigeonholed
>me
>> as clumsily as you say others are doing to both you and the Scientologists.
>
>> Case in point, you assume I'm calling someone a Scientologist because the
>> critics told me they were. Hardly. It's pretty obvious. Especially when
>they
>> say "I'm a Scientologist . . ."
>
>who
>sent you mail recently? :)
What do you reckon?
You did a whole lot of assuming there yourself.
No, I've not considered you a Scientologist. I assume nothing, I'm just
pointing out you labelled me without due regard. My "education" came after our
dialogue, by the way, it's not relevant.
>
>So those who start their posts as you decribed are scns. Gee i don't think
>flukes
>limits their attacks on only those. It's more like everyone they've decided
>to
>declare as an enemy.
Maybe, maybe not, I haven't seen instances of it. This is a forum for
everyone, and everyone is free to say what they want to everyone. It's not a
cabal where everyone chat's backchannel. Disagreement and dissent is what you
expect when people get together - especially on an ng which, unfortunately,
promotes false bravado and some cowardice. People love to start name calling,
knowing no-one's going to kick their teeth in.
>
>> Thanks Sonya
>
>...see, somebody did "educate" you. :)
But did you know I can use my powers to find out things without someone telling
me? Hypnotherapists are trained to know intimate details about someone's life
by the way they use certain letters in a sentence.
Seeing the amount of "s" you use in relation to "t" made me realise you were a
Sonja, or possibly Fred.
I took a punt.
Finn A McMillan
>
>--
>spt
>
>
>
>
>
>
StressCentre
>Message-id: <3b97...@news2.lightlink.com>
>
>StressCentre <stress...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ....My "education" came after our
>> dialogue, by the way, it's not relevant.
>
Are you seriously expecting me to answer that? Don't worry, nothing you need
worry about.
Or perhaps you don't want to hear
>the true motives of the mailer, but instead blindly belive him/her?
Are they my only two options?
>> Maybe, maybe not, I haven't seen instances of it. This is a forum for
>> everyone, and everyone is free to say what they want to everyone. It's not
>a
>> cabal where everyone chat's backchannel. Disagreement and dissent is what
>you
>> expect when people get together - especially on an ng which, unfortunately,
>> promotes false bravado and some cowardice. People love to start name
>calling,
>> knowing no-one's going to kick their teeth in.
>
>...it's also a place where the backchannel conversations has influence. Very
>much even.
Maybe. But I haven't been party to any of that. I've just had a dispute where
someone claimed all sorts of support backchannel. What can you do? Generally,
don't worry. If someone claims it, you can generally guarantee they don't have
it and they're compensating for a weak position - you win. If they do talk
about you backchannel, so what again? People talk amongst themselves! It's
what they do. Water always finds it's own level, as they say. L.Ron Hubbard
attracts devotees of his ilk, the more intelligent and strong-natured leave,
and the critics also just gravitate together at their own level.
>These people aint just namecall, they do DAing, deliberatly, planningly and
>very well
>knowingly of what they are doing. The reason of this is due to fact that they
>know
>they can control what people can say or not. Mostly just old time critics
>gets attacked,
>and it's the ex-scns thats mainly doing the attacking. Sometimes outsiders
>are lured to
>do the dirty work by "educating" them.
That's OK, I can work that sort of thing out by myself.
>
>They've declare DAing ok, as lronscams recent posts shows. Creepy ha?
Didn't read that, I'd probably want to put it into some sort of context before
I expressed an opinion. You do realise though, don't you, that you've just
tried to do the same thing? Enlisted my affirmation at something being creepy
in order to form a group against someone else? THAT is how cabals are formed.
>
>> But did you know I can use my powers to find out things without someone
>telling
>> me? Hypnotherapists are trained to know intimate details about someone's
>life
>> by the way they use certain letters in a sentence.
>
>> Seeing the amount of "s" you use in relation to "t" made me realise you
>were a
>> Sonja, or possibly Fred.
>
>Naah, you were "educated" as i told earlier, if that was an assume, then it
>was a good one at that.
>Howcome it's so difficult for you to admit it and tell who did that?
Not difficult at all. I'd just have to want to do it.
Finn
>
>--
>spt
>
>
>
>
>
>
LronsScam
In article ID <3b97...@news2.lightlink.com>,
On or about 6 Sep 2001 02:27:09 -0400,
In this thy group <alt.religion.scientology> cometh;
x says...
>StressCentre <stress...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ....My "education" came after our
>> dialogue, by the way, it's not relevant.
>
>Who did send you mail and what did it say? Or perhaps you don't want to hear
>the true motives of the mailer, but instead blindly belive him/her?
>
>> Maybe, maybe not, I haven't seen instances of it. This is a forum for
>> everyone, and everyone is free to say what they want to everyone. It's not a
>> cabal where everyone chat's backchannel. Disagreement and dissent is what you
>> expect when people get together - especially on an ng which, unfortunately,
>> promotes false bravado and some cowardice. People love to start name calling,
>> knowing no-one's going to kick their teeth in.
>
>...it's also a place where the backchannel conversations has influence. Very much even.
>These people aint just namecall, they do DAing, deliberatly, planningly and very well
>knowingly of what they are doing. The reason of this is due to fact that they know
>they can control what people can say or not. Mostly just old time critics gets attacked,
>and it's the ex-scns thats mainly doing the attacking. Sometimes outsiders are lured to
>do the dirty work by "educating" them.
>
>They've declare DAing ok, as lronscams recent posts shows. Creepy ha?
And which one's this?
>
>> But did you know I can use my powers to find out things without someone telling
>> me? Hypnotherapists are trained to know intimate details about someone's life
>> by the way they use certain letters in a sentence.
>
>> Seeing the amount of "s" you use in relation to "t" made me realise you were a
>> Sonja, or possibly Fred.
>
>Naah, you were "educated" as i told earlier, if that was an assume, then it was a good one at that.
>Howcome it's so difficult for you to admit it and tell who did that?
>
>--
>
LronsScam
On or about 7 Sep 2001 01:57:27 -0400,
In this thy group <alt.religion.scientology> cometh;
x says...
>LronsScam <n...@here.now> wrote:
>> And which one's this?
>
>"And incidentally, DAing people isn't what's so bad about Scn'gy. As a matter
>of fact DAing is an age old debate tactic to try to discredit another party
>through the truth."
Yes, I thought this is what you were referring to. :) I just wanted to make
sure.
Indeed discrediting another through truth is not bad at all. As long as there
is more to a conversation than just DA.
You see, there are two types of attacks on an individual character, according
to the man himself, L. Ron Hubbard.
1) Dead Agenting; aka DA. That can be anything from destroying the person's
credibility by telling others what you know of them, or as simple as a debate
tactic which shows that the other side has some ulterior interest in the
debate or side. One thing it has as a matter of definition is "truth"
involved. Because there has to be an amount of credibility to really
discredit a person. If you are caught lying you yourself may be discredited.
An example might be finding out that a person is getting paid for defending
someone and revealing it. Lawyers for instance are not well known to be
believed. Conversely, someone in the media will have more credibility because
they *appear* to have no motive in defending a person. That is, they believe
what they are saying and there are no ulterior or overt motives in telling
another what they believe to be true.
There is nothing wrong with that, no?
A negative instance of DA would be if you were debating another person about
politics and they tried to open up the discussion about how you and your
spouse weren't getting along.
Scn'gy tends to revert to the negative type of DA all the time. You have to
stick with the issue at hand or it makes you look insane. Scn'gy is best
known for looking insane.
2) Then there's Black Propaganda. It doesn't sound as cool as DA, therefore
it is used less often. BP is nothing more than slander and lies hurled at a
person to destroy that person's credibility and make him incredible when
speaking on certain issues or any issues. The problem with it is that it has
no basis in fact. The people who know better will then disbelieve the party
that is hurling these lies and slander from now on surrounding this issue.
Black Propaganda can easily be reverted back to the accusers of such
nonsense, and it often has in Scn'gy's case. However, Scn'gy can not get any
lower in popularity polls. Therefore, there is very little for them to lose
in any tactic they use, short of harming another physically.
**
The problem is that there is rarely, if ever, any pure DA or BP. A person may
start out with BP and then when a majority of the consensus start to believe
it then it becomes DA.
For instance, Scn'gy claiming how Minton is laundering money and such. I
think that they might have some Judges believing in such nonsense. Or that
the LMT was setup specifically to make money of the suit against Scn'gy. I
guess you could call it acceptable DAs, but Hubbard defined it as acceptable
truths. Really, acceptable lies would be more appropriate.
Since perception is sometimes less apt to know what is fact or fiction, there
will always be those who manipulate it for their own good.
I hope you see the difference.
LronsScam
On or about 8 Sep 2001 10:28:19 -0400,
In this thy group <alt.religion.scientology> cometh;
x says...
>LronsScam <n...@here.now> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I thought this is what you were referring to. :) I just wanted to make
>> sure.
>
>> Indeed discrediting another through truth is not bad at all. As long as there
>> is more to a conversation than just DA.
>
>Wrong, attacking a person is *always* a bad form of argumentation. Trying to find
>excuse on that is just lame.
You use "attack" despairingly. Of course I used "debate." And indeed it is
used, as I said, quite frequently. When used correctly it might gain a
"debater" an advantage. Although, that is a matter of *debate.* ;->
>> You see, there are two types of attacks on an individual character, according
>> to the man himself, L. Ron Hubbard.
>
>...another lame form of argumenting is appealing to false authority. Funny thou that
>you use HUbbard as your authority. :)
X Lex... hehe... (sounds almost like X-lax.) We are using his term. He is the
one who defined it. It doesn't mean you have to agree with his use of it. But
you must admit that it's he who originated the term and he who has defined
it. However, the concept has been around as long as cheap print has been
available.
>> 1) Dead Agenting; aka DA. That can be anything from destroying the person's
>> credibility by telling others what you know of them, or as simple as a debate
>> tactic which shows that the other side has some ulterior interest in the
>> debate or side. One thing it has as a matter of definition is "truth"
>> involved. Because there has to be an amount of credibility to really
>> discredit a person. If you are caught lying you yourself may be discredited.
>
>> An example might be finding out that a person is getting paid for defending
>> someone and revealing it. Lawyers for instance are not well known to be
>> believed. Conversely, someone in the media will have more credibility because
>> they *appear* to have no motive in defending a person. That is, they believe
>> what they are saying and there are no ulterior or overt motives in telling
>> another what they believe to be true.
>
>> There is nothing wrong with that, no?
>
>That would be an unprepresentative sample. According to latest research, there
>isn't a truth as it is often used. Example of that is that when researchers
>asked same questions from the witness over and over again, the truth changed.
>Many times even. Witnesses were very motivated to tell the truth, so they didn't
>lie deliberatly, their "truth" just changed.
>
>Even more silly is to claim that reporters wouldn't have sekrit motives, they do.
>In fact one can claim today that there isn't any other kind of reporters than those
>who just wants to support their own agenda.
>
>> A negative instance of DA would be if you were debating another person about
>> politics and they tried to open up the discussion about how you and your
>> spouse weren't getting along.
>
>Thats exactly what minton did re unusual.
>
>> Scn'gy tends to revert to the negative type of DA all the time. You have to
>> stick with the issue at hand or it makes you look insane. Scn'gy is best
>> known for looking insane.
>
>Is that they reason why you spent so many years in it?
>
>> 2) Then there's Black Propaganda. It doesn't sound as cool as DA, therefore
>> it is used less often. BP is nothing more than slander and lies hurled at a
>> person to destroy that person's credibility and make him incredible when
>> speaking on certain issues or any issues. The problem with it is that it has
>> no basis in fact. The people who know better will then disbelieve the party
>> that is hurling these lies and slander from now on surrounding this issue.
>
>> Black Propaganda can easily be reverted back to the accusers of such
>> nonsense, and it often has in Scn'gy's case. However, Scn'gy can not get any
>> lower in popularity polls. Therefore, there is very little for them to lose
>> in any tactic they use, short of harming another physically.
>
>
>You forget that there isn't really any "scientology", it's bogus from the start.
>There are only people who belives in it, joins in it, leaves it and some turn out
>to be critics immidiatly after. I'd say they haven't changed at all, they are still
>people with very low selfesteem, people who needs a group to back up their opinions,
>because they never want to face the consequencies of their own doings.
>
>> **
>
>> The problem is that there is rarely, if ever, any pure DA or BP. A person may
>> start out with BP and then when a majority of the consensus start to believe
>> it then it becomes DA.
>
>> For instance, Scn'gy claiming how Minton is laundering money and such. I
>> think that they might have some Judges believing in such nonsense. Or that
>> the LMT was setup specifically to make money of the suit against Scn'gy. I
>> guess you could call it acceptable DAs, but Hubbard defined it as acceptable
>> truths. Really, acceptable lies would be more appropriate.
>
>So can you undoubtfully proof otherwise? I doubt that. It's all about beliving,
>you belive you know the motives of minton, but you dont. You claim you know what
>scn are doing, but you don't. It is still funny how you cite Hubbard as you authority. :)
>
>> Since perception is sometimes less apt to know what is fact or fiction, there
>> will always be those who manipulate it for their own good.
>
>> I hope you see the difference.
>
>I'll see an ex-scn here whos trying to proof his case by quoting his ex-guru's
>theories. Thats what i see and i think i see it pretty well.
>
>...nothing wrong in it, just thought to mention it as it would give a right perspective
>to readers of your post. Oh yeah, almost forget, it's also true. :)
>
>
>