Help me understand the SO abortions
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
you know it will end up on a critical page. But I want to be correct in
my assumptions.
Checking my thoughts
- I can remember having read in Hubbard literature how thetans are
supposed to pick a body at maternity ward.
- Humans don't have a thetan but are a thetan according to Hubbard.
- thus I can assume safely that a baby is not a human before it is 'taken'
by a thetan after birth.
Can someone find fault with that assumption?
What got me thinking in this way is when I was re-reading tthe Declaration
of Tera Hattaway. She recalles how she was persuaded to have an abortion
because "all I would be “killing” is a piece of meat essentially."
I never connected the dots until then. If by some chance someone can give
the references to the applicable Hubbard texts, that would be much
appreciated.
Mike Gormez
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
- Death and lies. Lisa is gone the lies remain - lisa.whyaretheydead.net
- Cover up of child sexual abuse by Scientologists - sexual.taxexemptchildabuse.net
- RPF kids and their misery -http://www.whyaretheydead.net/childabuse/rpf-children.html
roland.rashleigh-berry
Fundamentals of Thought" is a good starting place. He talks about the
between-lives-area even in that book and if he says that a thetan goes to a
maternity hospital to pick up a baby then there you have it. I have
cross-posted this to a.c.t. so maybe they can give you the exact references
you need. Only be satisfied by exact references. You know how many squirrels
are about. I am sure there are many references from the taped lectures. The
taking over the body is called "The Assumption" in one of his taped lectures
where LRH uses creative processing to get a person to mentally smash babies
heads in. Maybe they are sent to a Scientologist doctor for the abortions
who does a bit of *real* processing on these evil thetan traps.
"Michael 'Mike' Gormez" <mi...@psychassualt.org> wrote in message
news:s10hqucb71e6h3068...@4ax.com...
ptsc
<mi...@psychassualt.org> wrote:
>This is for an intro I plan to make of a page of Sea Org abortions ,so
>you know it will end up on a critical page. But I want to be correct in
>my assumptions.
>Checking my thoughts
>- I can remember having read in Hubbard literature how thetans are
>supposed to pick a body at maternity ward.
>- Humans don't have a thetan but are a thetan according to Hubbard.
>- thus I can assume safely that a baby is not a human before it is 'taken'
>by a thetan after birth.
>Can someone find fault with that assumption?
No, but it blatantly contradicts the statements in Dianetics that the fetus
already has a reactive mind which is picking up engrams. Could be
that the reactive mind is part of the GE (Genetic Entity), but in that case,
why would it have so much effect on the Thetan?
It would seem that would make the whole idea of Dianetics a fraud
(big surprise), because the thetan wasn't even in the body when the
body experienced the traumatic events of the mother attempting to
abort it repeatedly with coat hangers, knitting needles, pot scrubbers,
Drano, etc.
ptsc
roland.rashleigh-berry
news:dd3hquopl8sffpdt2...@4ax.com...
But the engrams are they but they don't belong to the thetan. You are all in
a cluster together, remember? A lot of incidents will run but they don't
belong to the thetan.
roland.rashleigh-berry
"I have these two little babies with enormous amount of energy covering
them. Smash them together. Two more babies, smash them together. Two
more babies, smash them together. Two more babies, smash them together.
Two more babies, smash them together. Two more, smash them together. Two
more, smash them together. Two more, smash them together. Two more, smash
them together. Two more, smash them together." - Elron Hubbard the auditor.
"Michael 'Mike' Gormez" <mi...@psychassualt.org> wrote in message
news:s10hqucb71e6h3068...@4ax.com...
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
<roland.rash...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> No, but it blatantly contradicts the statements in Dianetics that the
>fetus
>> already has a reactive mind which is picking up engrams. Could be
>> that the reactive mind is part of the GE (Genetic Entity), but in that
>case,
>> why would it have so much effect on the Thetan?
>>
>> It would seem that would make the whole idea of Dianetics a fraud
>> (big surprise), because the thetan wasn't even in the body when the
>> body experienced the traumatic events of the mother attempting to
>> abort it repeatedly with coat hangers, knitting needles, pot scrubbers,
>> Drano, etc.
>
>But the engrams are they but they don't belong to the thetan. You are all in
>a cluster together, remember? A lot of incidents will run but they don't
>belong to the thetan.
Okay, so engrams don't belong to clusters. And the thetan can be the
'chief' of the cluster pack. Engrams are recorded on pictures. The
picture making and storing machine is the mind. The mind is not the
thetan/cluster.
So far so good?
If not, blame Erlich :-)
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/discussion/erlich-possession.html
Mike Gormez
- Scientology and health - www.whyaretheydead.net
- Some books - http://members.ams.chello.nl/mgormez/books/
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
- Scientology recruit- and harrasment in the workplace - http://easy.to/WISE
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
"roland.rashleigh-berry" <roland.rash...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I don't know which book you should read but maybe "Scientology: The
>Fundamentals of Thought" is a good starting place. He talks about the
>between-lives-area even in that book and if he says that a thetan goes to a
>maternity hospital to pick up a baby then there you have it. I have
>cross-posted this to a.c.t. so maybe they can give you the exact references
>you need. Only be satisfied by exact references. You know how many squirrels
>are about. I am sure there are many references from the taped lectures. The
>taking over the body is called "The Assumption" in one of his taped lectures
>where LRH uses creative processing to get a person to mentally smash babies
>heads in. Maybe they are sent to a Scientologist doctor for the abortions
>who does a bit of *real* processing on these evil thetan traps.
Flag SO members were sent to Planned Parenthood in the past. They started
asking questions and the Scio's took their coerced religious abortions
elsewhere.
Anyway, I looked at some stuff of "The Assumption" and this is a first
rough list:
But the ordinary entrance of a thetan into a new body is sometime
around what we call the assumption, and the assumption occurs within a few
minutes after birth in most cases. The baby is born and then a thetan
picks up the baby body.
...
Thetans do all sorts of odd things. When a new body is picked up, if
a new body is picked up at all, is not standardized beyond saying it
usually occurs (unless the thetan got another idea) two or three minutes
after the delivery of a child from the mother. A thetan usually picks it
up about the time the baby takes its first gasp.
http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/page60.htm
Hubbard said that when a person dies, his or her thetan goes to a "landing
station" on Venus, where it is programmed with lies about its past life
and its next life. The lies include a promise that it will be returned to
Earth by being lovingly shunted into the body of a newborn baby.
Not so, said Hubbard, who described the thetan's re-entry this way:
"What actually happens to you, you're simply capsuled and dumped in the
gulf of lower California. Splash. The hell with ya. And you're on your
own, man. If you can get out of that, and through that, and wander around
through the cities and find some girl who looks like she is going to get
married or have a baby or something like that, you're all set. And if you
can find the maternity ward to a hospital or something, you're OK.
"And you just eventually just pick up a baby."
http://www.xenutv.com/print/LAT-1E.htm
Mike Gormez
- Scientology and health www.whyaretheydead.net
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
- The hearing transcripts http://whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/
Phineas Fogg
,so
> you know it will end up on a critical page. But I want to be correct
in
> my assumptions.
>
> Checking my thoughts
>
> - I can remember having read in Hubbard literature how thetans are
> supposed to pick a body at maternity ward.
> - Humans don't have a thetan but are a thetan according to Hubbard.
>
> - thus I can assume safely that a baby is not a human before it is
'taken'
> by a thetan after birth.
>
> Can someone find fault with that assumption?
>
>
> What got me thinking in this way is when I was re-reading tthe
Declaration
> of Tera Hattaway. She recalles how she was persuaded to have an
abortion
> because "all I would be "killing" is a piece of meat essentially."
>
> I never connected the dots until then. If by some chance someone can
give
> the references to the applicable Hubbard texts, that would be much
> appreciated.
>
>
> Mike Gormez
In DMSMH, IIRC, Hubbard notes many instances of prenatal memory, and
also states that abortion is murder.
So this goes against the SO policy.
Phineas
UFOVIKII
>> supposed to pick a body at maternity ward.
In the Jewish religion the belief is, I believe, that the soul/spirit enters
the body at birth and is nothing more than a 'meat body' before.
Is this where Hub got the idea?
No wonder I was divorced after 20 years of being married to a Jewish man----I'm
not even sure if our children had souls before or after birth.
Vicky :)
l.l.lipshitz
<mi...@psychassualt.org> wrote in <s10hqucb71e6h3068...@4ax.com>:
| This is for an intro I plan to make of a page of Sea Org abortions ,so
| you know it will end up on a critical page. But I want to be correct in
| my assumptions.
|
| Checking my thoughts
|
| - I can remember having read in Hubbard literature how thetans are
| supposed to pick a body at maternity ward.
| - Humans don't have a thetan but are a thetan according to Hubbard.
humans are just the meat bodies 'we' inhabit.
humans would still exist on earth even if lord
xenu had not exiled 'us' here.
| - thus I can assume safely that a baby is not a human before it is 'taken'
| by a thetan after birth.
|
| Can someone find fault with that assumption?
i think babies are still human even before
getting a thetan.
| What got me thinking in this way is when I was re-reading tthe Declaration
| of Tera Hattaway. She recalles how she was persuaded to have an abortion
| because "all I would be “killing” is a piece of meat essentially."
this sort of implies that it's ok to kill a
person because 'it' is just a meat body. but
of course, hubbard explicitly forbids murder in
the way to happiness (precept #8).
| I never connected the dots until then. If by some chance someone can give
| the references to the applicable Hubbard texts, that would be much
| appreciated.
-elle
----------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube-at-min-net ]=----------
most people are fools, most authority is malignant,
there is no god, and everything is wrong. -tn
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
<elkube-@-min.net> wrote:
> | Can someone find fault with that assumption?
>
> i think babies are still human even before
> getting a thetan.
OK. Fair enough. But on the moment I'm more interested what Hubbard
thought.
> | What got me thinking in this way is when I was re-reading tthe Declaration
> | of Tera Hattaway. She recalles how she was persuaded to have an abortion
> | because "all I would be “killing” is a piece of meat essentially."
>
> this sort of implies that it's ok to kill a
> person because 'it' is just a meat body. but
> of course, hubbard explicitly forbids murder in
> the way to happiness (precept #8).
I believe that the footnote in TWTH explaining the word 'murder' is as
follows:
"(*) murder: the unlawful killing of one (or more) human being(s) by
another, especially with malice aforethought (intending to do so before
the act)."
A baby without a thetan is not a human. So we are back at square one.
Mike Gormez
- Scientology and health - www.whyaretheydead.net
- Some books - http://members.ams.chello.nl/mgormez/books/
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
roland.rashleigh-berry
news:67hiquo50j39sqdj7...@4ax.com...
> In article <slrnaqi3jb....@min.net> , "l.l.lipshitz"
> <elkube-@-min.net> wrote:
>
> > | Can someone find fault with that assumption?
> >
> > i think babies are still human even before
> > getting a thetan.
>
> OK. Fair enough. But on the moment I'm more interested what Hubbard
> thought.
>
>
> > | What got me thinking in this way is when I was re-reading tthe
Declaration
> > | of Tera Hattaway. She recalles how she was persuaded to have an
abortion
> > | because "all I would be "killing" is a piece of meat essentially."
> >
> > this sort of implies that it's ok to kill a
> > person because 'it' is just a meat body. but
> > of course, hubbard explicitly forbids murder in
> > the way to happiness (precept #8).
>
> I believe that the footnote in TWTH explaining the word 'murder' is as
> follows:
>
> "(*) murder: the unlawful killing of one (or more) human being(s) by
> another, especially with malice aforethought (intending to do so before
> the act)."
>
>
> A baby without a thetan is not a human. So we are back at square one.
It has a Genetic Entity runnimg it which is a thetan from another
evolutionary line that has become so associated with bodies that it is as
good as solid. They're the ones who used to have the bodies of flying
crocodiles with their tails encased in silk and ride scooters along 40 lane
highways.
Dave Bird
Gormez <mi...@psychassualt.org> writes:
>This is for an intro I plan to make of a page of Sea Org abortions ,so
>you know it will end up on a critical page. But I want to be correct in
>my assumptions.
>
>Checking my thoughts
I can see where you are getting mixed up in terminology:
>
>- I can remember having read in Hubbard literature how thetans are
>supposed to pick a body at maternity ward.
>- Humans don't have a thetan but are a thetan according to Hubbard.
>
>- thus I can assume safely that a baby is not a human before it is 'taken'
>by a thetan after birth.
According to Hubbard each of us, as a person, IS a rational spirit
called a Thetan which happens to currently HAVE or inhabit a human
body. The spirit picks up a body shortly after the body is born. The
newly-born body is thus not a PERSON until it has picked up a spirit.
The species of animal the body belongs to is of course already human,
rather than a pig or fish or gorilla body (Hope This Helps). Your
use of "human" is therefore ambiguous, when you really mean "person".
>
>Can someone find fault with that assumption?
>
>
>What got me thinking in this way is when I was re-reading tthe Declaration
>of Tera Hattaway. She recalles how she was persuaded to have an abortion
>because "all I would be “killing” is a piece of meat essentially."
-- . . : : ,; . : ' ___.
uno, dos, tres, |FUEGO| .:. .:. .:': :' .:':' :. . : (") #oH|
' ' :' : :' : .::. H_ ~~~|
< > __ ,;;,. \\::// R_) |
'-|"""(") {__}::===== ....'''' ' ' ' ___..\||/....L\. ...|
____||--|_'--/__\___ '' .--''':::::::::::::::::::::
\ / /////////////S.Coronado/////
;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^
LRon Hubbard is shelled by goats in hell <www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/ >
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
"roland.rashleigh-berry" <roland.rash...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "(*) murder: the unlawful killing of one (or more) human being(s) by
>> another, especially with malice aforethought (intending to do so before
>> the act)."
>>
>>
>> A baby without a thetan is not a human. So we are back at square one.
>
>It has a Genetic Entity runnimg it which is a thetan from another
>evolutionary line that has become so associated with bodies that it is as
>good as solid. They're the ones who used to have the bodies of flying
>crocodiles with their tails encased in silk and ride scooters along 40 lane
>highways.
Lets see what Elron said in the technical dictionary because this gets
complicated:
*GENETIC ENTITY, 1**. that beingness not dissimilar to the thetan which
has carried forward and developed the body from its earliest moments
along the evolutionary line on earth and which, through experience,
necessity and natural selection, has employed the counter-efforts of the
environment to fashion an organism of the type best fitted for survival,
limited only by the abilities of the *genetic entity**. The goal of the
*genetic entity** is survival on a much grosser plane of materiality.
(~Scn 8-8008~~, p. 8) *2**. formerly referred to as the somatic mind. It
has no real personality, it is not the "I" of the body. This is the
"mind" of an animal, a dog or a cat or a cow. (~HOM~~, pp. 13-14) *3**.
that *entity** which is carrying along through time, that is making the
body through the time stream, through the action of sex and so forth.
(5410C10D) ~Abbr~~. GE.
See? It is not the person but the 'mind' of body. Whereas the third
definition of 'thetan' says it is "the being who is the individual
and who handles and lives in the body."
While the GE is "not dissimilar to the thetan" they are not one and the
same. So for example while the degraded GE longs for family bonds the
thetan needs none and frowns upone such silliness (PDC tape #29). But
that is a different aspect of the organization.
Mike Gormez
- Scientology and health www.whyaretheydead.net
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I can see where you are getting mixed up in terminology:
>>
>>- I can remember having read in Hubbard literature how thetans are
>>supposed to pick a body at maternity ward.
>>- Humans don't have a thetan but are a thetan according to Hubbard.
>>
>>- thus I can assume safely that a baby is not a human before it is 'taken'
>>by a thetan after birth.
>
>
> According to Hubbard each of us, as a person, IS a rational spirit
> called a Thetan which happens to currently HAVE or inhabit a human
> body. The spirit picks up a body shortly after the body is born. The
> newly-born body is thus not a PERSON until it has picked up a spirit.
>
> The species of animal the body belongs to is of course already human,
> rather than a pig or fish or gorilla body (Hope This Helps). Your
> use of "human" is therefore ambiguous, when you really mean "person".
I am glad with the responses. It forces me to look stuff up and see
whether my assumption is a wrong or not. This is all new for me too.
Anyway, in times of distress :-) I look in my techinical dictionary.
Hubbard makes a distinction of a body before and after it is taken by
a thetan. New borns are no Homo Sapiens (humans) he said, only after it
is taken by a thetan it becomes more than an animated vegetable:
*HOMO SAPIENS, 1**. a mest body, whether it belongs to the race of man or
the race of ants is yet but an animated vegetable. Given a theta being to
guide it, it becomes part of a composite such as *Homo sapiens**. By
itself, the body would live, walk around, react, sleep, kill, and direct
an existence no better than that of a field mouse, or a zombie. Put a
theta being over it and it becomes possessed of ethics and morals and
direction and goals and the ability to reason; it becomes this strange
thing called *Homo sapiens**. (~HOM~~, p. 42)
Is this enough to warrent the statement that babies before 'the
assumption' are not humans? I am not sure. It is not a human but
"belongs to the race of man". It doesn't get any less complicated.
Mike Gormez
- Scientology and health www.whyaretheydead.net
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
Ted Mayett
cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:
>No, but it blatantly contradicts the statements in Dianetics that the fetus
>already has a reactive mind which is picking up engrams. Could be
>that the reactive mind is part of the GE (Genetic Entity), but in that case,
>why would it have so much effect on the Thetan?
>
>It would seem that would make the whole idea of Dianetics a fraud
>(big surprise), because the thetan wasn't even in the body when the
>body experienced the traumatic events of the mother attempting to
>abort it repeatedly with coat hangers, knitting needles, pot scrubbers,
>Drano, etc.
>
>ptsc
I'm doing this from memory but, I recall that in dianetics that
Basic-Basic, which is some kind of nasty engram I think, sets in
~just before~ conception.
Not sure what this means though. Does this mean that the Reactive
mind gets an engram before it is even a reactive mind?
Ted Mayett
<mi...@psychassualt.org> wrote:
>Is this enough to warrent the statement that babies before 'the
>assumption' are not humans? I am not sure. It is not a human but
>"belongs to the race of man". It doesn't get any less complicated.
>
>
AHA! So this is what you are looking for!
IMO, you or anyone at all will look/sound like an extremist, by
claiming that scientologists do not consider babies to be human.
Xenu's Marcabian Toaster
may...@skylink.net says...
Come on don't even try and act like there might be something to this
ridiculous bullshit. Aside from the hypnosis and regressive therapy, the
rest on it is just bad science fiction.
Gandalf
news:n1nmqu0k9r7328ujo...@4ax.com...
I don't think that's quite right. IIRC, basic-basic is the very ~first~
engram (at least according to DMSMH), and does not necessarily occur before
conception. This is the basic on all other chains of engrams. Jeez, it
scares me to remember this stuff...
Gandalf
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
<ted-m...@skylink.net> wrote:
>>Is this enough to warrent the statement that babies before 'the
>>assumption' are not humans? I am not sure. It is not a human but
>>"belongs to the race of man". It doesn't get any less complicated.
>AHA! So this is what you are looking for!
>
>IMO, you or anyone at all will look/sound like an extremist, by
>claiming that scientologists do not consider babies to be human.
The extremist was Hubbard, I'll let his texts speak for themselves.
Babies are not homo sapiens (human) but a mest body, a vegetable, before
taken by a thetan after birth. It is black on white Hubbard dogma. I see
nothing wrong by giving that a larger audience. Of course I'll document my
claim just as I have done here. When the page is ready I'll let you have a
first look, as my advisor on ethical issues :-)
Lulu Belle
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 22:17:49 +0200, Michael 'Mike' Gormez
> <mi...@psychassualt.org> wrote:
>
> >This is for an intro I plan to make of a page of Sea Org abortions ,so
> >you know it will end up on a critical page. But I want to be correct in
> >my assumptions.
>
> >Checking my thoughts
>
> >- I can remember having read in Hubbard literature how thetans are
> >supposed to pick a body at maternity ward.
> >- Humans don't have a thetan but are a thetan according to Hubbard.
>
> >- thus I can assume safely that a baby is not a human before it is 'taken'
> >by a thetan after birth.
>
> >Can someone find fault with that assumption?
>
> No, but it blatantly contradicts the statements in Dianetics that the fetus
> already has a reactive mind which is picking up engrams.
This is exactly right.
You will never find a policy or a *written* issue that supports
abortions. The church's "official line" is that abortions are bad. If
you are actually looking for such a written reference, believe me, you
are wasting your time. The party line is that the church would never
support abortion. If a public Scientologist went to an ethics officer
and said she wanted to get an abortion, she would be told it is
counter to what LRH says, and therefore, out ethics.
LRH's references on the subject of families and children are actually
very much in line with what a Christian clergyman might espouse. The
family is the nucleus of the civilization; destroy the family and you
destroy the civilization. A woman's first job is to have and raise
children. Abortion is bad.
Where you get into the contradiction about abortion is when you are
dealing with the Sea Org, not Scientologists in general.
A lot of what the Sea Org is run on is completely opposite to what is
espoused by Scientology tech and policy as to how individuals and
families should function.
Per Scientology references, an individual cannot function on the third
dynamic if the first and second one are not in a high condition. In
the Sea Org, an individual is considered "out ethics" if he ever
places his first or second dynamic on any level near to his third.
Per Scientology references, the family is the unit that the
civilization is built on. In the Sea Org, the family has no importance
and is often considered "counter" to the purpose of the group.
Families are routinely torn apart. Kids are sent away to live apart
from their parents and rarely see them. Husbands and wives are often
posted in different conts and are literally separated for years.
Per Scientology references, having children is part of a healthy
second dynamic. In the Sea Org, having children is counter to the
purpose of the group, and is now forbidden.
The thing about LRH references is that the man contradicts himself
enough so that there are always references to support whatever you are
pushing, making it look like it is "LRH policy" or "LRH intention."
There are lots of FOs about the Sea Org having the "highest purpose,"
wiping out the importance of families and kids that he talks about in
other references. There is the reference in Dianetics about the fact
that kids are restimulated by the presence of their mother and father,
justifying kids being raised apart from their parents. On abortion,
there is the reference about the "thetan not taking over the body
until birth," ignoring the early engram thing in Dianetics. There's
also the infamous reference about being "PTS to the Middle Class,"
regarding the fact that anyone who wants a family, a house, money, and
any normal stuff is PTS. This one is used a lot.
My suspicion is that a woman is not necessarily out-and-out told to go
get an abortion, for the most part, when she gets pregnant in the Sea
Org. What is more likely to happen is that, when it is found that she
is pregnant, she is dragged into ethics and "handled" by being told
that "putting her second dynamic before her third" is "out ethics."
That she is "counter-intention." She gets pummeled by LRH references
about the purpose of the Sea Org. She is made to do lower conditions.
She is also probably made to feel that she got pregnant on purpose as
a way to "blow" staff. She is worked on and worked on and worked on
until she finally goes out and gets an abortion on her own.
The point is that a staff member in this position doesn't necessarily
have to be told that she has to get an abortion. She is just put in
the position where she has no other choice, so she has to make that
decision herself. That way, it could technically be said that "no one
ordered her to get an abortion."
l.l.lipshitz
<xe...@scientology.org> wrote in
<MPG.18152f0ec...@news.mindspring.com>:
even if it is ridiculous bullshit, i think it's
important to understand. you wouldn't want to go
unarmed into a debate with a scnist.
also, being able to discuss the 'religion' in a
scientologically logical fashion just might allow
you to open a dialog with a scnist, which just
might plant that seed of doubt that eventually
leads to a scnist leaving the 'church'. wouldn't
that be nice?
xe...@scientology.org
I hear you, but Dianetics is supposed to be a proven science. The more
you read it, the more ridiculous is becomes. Now if Hubbard was honest
and sold it a fiction, or unproven opinions, I could see your point even
clearer.
Ted Mayett
<mi...@psychassualt.org> wrote:
>In article <avnmqu8ko2r0g2td6...@4ax.com> , Ted Mayett
><ted-m...@skylink.net> wrote:
>
>>>Is this enough to warrent the statement that babies before 'the
>>>assumption' are not humans? I am not sure. It is not a human but
>>>"belongs to the race of man". It doesn't get any less complicated.
>
>>AHA! So this is what you are looking for!
>>
>>IMO, you or anyone at all will look/sound like an extremist, by
>>claiming that scientologists do not consider babies to be human.
>
>The extremist was Hubbard, I'll let his texts speak for themselves.
>
Well dammit, mark it clearly as a Hubbard-belief then.
Too much hype is no good!
>Babies are not homo sapiens (human) but a mest body, a vegetable, before
>taken by a thetan after birth. It is black on white Hubbard dogma. I see
>nothing wrong by giving that a larger audience. Of course I'll document my
>claim just as I have done here. When the page is ready I'll let you have a
>first look, as my advisor on ethical issues :-)
>
Thank you :)
You are a good driver, I am a good passenger, we get along well.
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>> I'm doing this from memory but, I recall that in dianetics that
>> Basic-Basic, which is some kind of nasty engram I think, sets in
>> ~just before~ conception.
>>
>> Not sure what this means though. Does this mean that the Reactive
>> mind gets an engram before it is even a reactive mind?
>
>I don't think that's quite right. IIRC, basic-basic is the very ~first~
>engram (at least according to DMSMH), and does not necessarily occur before
>conception. This is the basic on all other chains of engrams. Jeez, it
>scares me to remember this stuff...
>
>Gandalf
>
This Theology is tough. There is something, I am almost sure that
dmsmh mentions something being laid in "just before conception".
However, here is the Tech-Dictionary of Basic-Basic:
*BASIC-BASIC, 1**. this belongs in Scn, not Dn. It means the most
*basic basic** of all *basics** and results in clearing. It is found
on the Clearing Course. (HCOB 23 Apr 69) *2**. the first engram on
the whole time track.(HCOB 15 May 63) *3**. any similar circumstance
repetitive through a person's whole track has a first time it
occurred and that first time that it occurred we call *basic-basic**.
(SH Spec 69, 6110C19)
And here is what I find doing a search on 'before conception':
(from the same tech-dictionary)
*THETA LINE, 1**. a timeless, spaceless, influence capable of making
recordings, capable of animating and motivating, controlling,
forming, destroying, conserving matter, energy, space and time.
(HCL-19, 5203CM10A) *2**. that *line** where the individual uses the
genetic line to make one or many bodies that pass through time and
the theta body inhabits the other body from just before conception
until slightly after death.
This *theta line** is subject to several different bodies.
(HCL-20, 5203CM10B) *3**. life monitoring energy and making bodies.
(HCL-15, 5203CM10A)
Gandalf
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 01:17:54 GMT, "Gandalf" <BasicQu...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> I'm doing this from memory but, I recall that in dianetics that
> >> Basic-Basic, which is some kind of nasty engram I think, sets in
> >> ~just before~ conception.
> >>
> >> Not sure what this means though. Does this mean that the Reactive
> >> mind gets an engram before it is even a reactive mind?
> >
> >I don't think that's quite right. IIRC, basic-basic is the very ~first~
> >engram (at least according to DMSMH), and does not necessarily occur
before
> >conception. This is the basic on all other chains of engrams. Jeez, it
> >scares me to remember this stuff...
> >
> >Gandalf
> >
>
> This Theology is tough. There is something, I am almost sure that
> dmsmh mentions something being laid in "just before conception".
I definitely remember something like this too. Doesn't it mention the "sperm
sequence"?
> However, here is the Tech-Dictionary of Basic-Basic:
> *BASIC-BASIC, 1**. this belongs in Scn, not Dn. It means the most
> *basic basic** of all *basics** and results in clearing. It is found
> on the Clearing Course. (HCOB 23 Apr 69) *2**. the first engram on
> the whole time track.(HCOB 15 May 63) *3**. any similar circumstance
> repetitive through a person's whole track has a first time it
> occurred and that first time that it occurred we call *basic-basic**.
> (SH Spec 69, 6110C19)
>
> And here is what I find doing a search on 'before conception':
> (from the same tech-dictionary)
> *THETA LINE, 1**. a timeless, spaceless, influence capable of making
> recordings, capable of animating and motivating, controlling,
> forming, destroying, conserving matter, energy, space and time.
> (HCL-19, 5203CM10A) *2**. that *line** where the individual uses the
> genetic line to make one or many bodies that pass through time and
> the theta body inhabits the other body from just before conception
> until slightly after death.
> This *theta line** is subject to several different bodies.
> (HCL-20, 5203CM10B) *3**. life monitoring energy and making bodies.
> (HCL-15, 5203CM10A)
Jeez--what doesn't the term mean ;-). Your superior tech dictionary
references correct my earlier recollections. All this "stuff" is buried in
boxes in my closet, but I haven't had the strength to dig it back out to
answer questions like these. That's why Beverly's the best ;-)!
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>I definitely remember something like this too. Doesn't it mention the "sperm
>sequence"?
>
I don't remember anything about a 'sperm sequence'.
>Jeez--what doesn't the term mean ;-).
I hear that! Well my head is spinning already on this, someone else
can finish it all off.
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
<ted-m...@skylink.net> wrote:
>And here is what I find doing a search on 'before conception':
>(from the same tech-dictionary)
>*THETA LINE, 1**. a timeless, spaceless, influence capable of making
>recordings, capable of animating and motivating, controlling,
>forming, destroying, conserving matter, energy, space and time.
>(HCL-19, 5203CM10A) *2**. that *line** where the individual uses the
>genetic line to make one or many bodies that pass through time and
>the theta body inhabits the other body from just before conception
>until slightly after death.
> This *theta line** is subject to several different bodies.
> (HCL-20, 5203CM10B) *3**. life monitoring energy and making bodies.
>(HCL-15, 5203CM10A)
This is one of the least accessible definitions I've read. I have no idea
what Hubbard thought this is supposed to clearify. Could the 'theta line'
be the earlier degraded thetan of the GE or are the two one and the same?
Because elsewhere Hubbord said that the GE is "that *entity** which is
carrying along through time, that is making the body through the time
stream, through the action of sex and so forth." So what should the
'theta line' interfere with the GE business?
Mike Gormez
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
- Death and lies. Lisa is gone the lies remain - lisa.whyaretheydead.net
- Scientology: Cocaine not addictive - http://members.lycos.nl/gormez/cocaine/