miKe - stop lying!
Andreas Heldal-Lund
Why do you continue to lie even though it is proven that you do?
Scientology is far from the fastest growing religion and it does
not have anything close to 8 million members.
YOU'VE BEEN CAUGHT LYING!!
And you dare to make undocumented accusations about my credibility?
Shame on you. You are a disgrace.
Wake up and either start to answer my questions and document you
accusations - or end up like the fools Enzo, wgert and Justin
who also imagined their cult lies stood any chance out in the real
world.
Best wishes, Andreas Heldal-Lund
Operation Clambake: www.xenu.net SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI
_______________________________________________________________
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in
thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which
never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion
and ignorance which does harm." -- Marcus Aurelius
Zane Thomas
Heldal-Lund) wrote:
>Why do you continue to lie even though it is proven that you do?
Because he's a paid OSA goon?
Zane
miKe`
>
>Why do you continue to lie even though it is proven that you do?
>not have anything close to 8 million members.
I have never said anything about the membership of Scientology. This is
misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
philosophy in his/her life. Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the
other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
>
>
>Wake up and either start to answer my questions and document you
>accusations - or end up like the fools Enzo, wgert and Justin
>who also imagined their cult lies stood any chance out in the real
>world.
I have explained in full that your site puts forward an untrue view of
Scientology, based on exaggerations, biased opinions, materials used out of
context, and misleading media articles. It is propaganda. I have explained
in full why it is propaganda, and why the picture it paints of Scientology
is neither fair nor true. You have such a closed mind that you cannot see
through it. You have already made up your mind about Scientology and me, so
the effort i put in to get the truth from you is futile. If you really cant
see what it is you are doing then that not only means you are a brainwashed
victim of your very own propaganda, but also a Bigot (with a great big
capital B !!) :o)
miKe
Think For Yourself
http://www.scientology.org
Andreas Heldal-Lund
If this cult can lie about something like this which even someone
with below average intelligence would know would be exposed, is it
possible to trust anything they say?
Admit it miKe, there are far more reasons to distrust CoS than to
trust them.
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:51:51 GMT, hel...@online.no (Andreas Heldal-Lund) wrote:
>
>Why do you continue to lie even though it is proven that you do?
>Scientology is far from the fastest growing religion and it does
>not have anything close to 8 million members.
>
> YOU'VE BEEN CAUGHT LYING!!
>
>And you dare to make undocumented accusations about my credibility?
>Shame on you. You are a disgrace.
>
>Wake up and either start to answer my questions and document you
>accusations - or end up like the fools Enzo, wgert and Justin
>who also imagined their cult lies stood any chance out in the real
>world.
>
>
Scully3428
>misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
>which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
>church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
>philosophy in his/her life. Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the
>other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
Oh, so that's how they get the 8 million people that are Scientologists....from
all those who read Dianetics! Hey, miKe....since I'm reading Dianetics right
now, does that mean I'm a Scientologist?
>I have explained in full that your site puts forward an untrue view of
>Scientology, based on exaggerations, biased opinions, materials used out of
>context, and misleading media articles. It is propaganda. I have explained
>in full why it is propaganda, and why the picture it paints of Scientology
>is neither fair nor true. You have such a closed mind that you cannot see
>through it. You have already made up your mind about Scientology and me, so
>the effort i put in to get the truth from you is futile. If you really cant
>see what it is you are doing then that not only means you are a brainwashed
>victim of your very own propaganda, but also a Bigot (with a great big
>capital B !!) :o)
I only have to point out the letter I posted in here in an earlier thread to
show an example of how Scientologists use recent events for their own purposes.
And someone pointed out the fact that Don Simpson, who died of a drug overdose
last year, was a Scientologist at one point, but gave it up after realizing how
much of a scam it was.
And furthermore, I ahve not seen one shread of evidence for you to prove that
what Andreas has said isn't true...you've just quoted Scientology rhetoric, the
same bull that they tell you is true, but if you look a little closer is not
even close to the truth. I mean, come on....EVERYONE who criticizes the church
is a "criminal"? I can tell you that I am a very vocal critic when it comes to
the Church of Scientology when with my friends and family, and I am far, FAR
from being a criminal.
So, miKe....you sign off your posts with saying, "Think for yourself". Maybe
you should heed your own advice.
Lori Ann Chauvette (SP4) *** Scul...@yahoo.com *** Lori Ann's Own Little Play
Place -- http://members.aol.com/scully3428/index.htm
With New Sections on "Scream", "South Park", and Move Reviews!
Coming Soon: Analyzing Scientology
Fraud Buster
<cont...@no-spam.email.msn.com> wrote:
>Andreas Heldal-Lund wrote in message <35b7ed43....@193.212.213.145>...
>>
>>Why do you continue to lie even though it is proven that you do?
>>Scientology is far from the fastest growing religion and it does
>>not have anything close to 8 million members.
>
>I have never said anything about the membership of Scientology. This is
>misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
>which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
>church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
>philosophy in his/her life. Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the
>other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
>
>
>>
>>
>
>>Wake up and either start to answer my questions and document you
>>accusations - or end up like the fools Enzo, wgert and Justin
>>who also imagined their cult lies stood any chance out in the real
>>world.
>
>
>I have explained in full that your site puts forward an untrue view of
>Scientology, based on exaggerations, biased opinions, materials used out of
>context, and misleading media articles. It is propaganda. I have explained
>in full why it is propaganda, and why the picture it paints of Scientology
>is neither fair nor true. You have such a closed mind that you cannot see
>through it. You have already made up your mind about Scientology and me, so
>the effort i put in to get the truth from you is futile. If you really cant
>see what it is you are doing then that not only means you are a brainwashed
>victim of your very own propaganda, but also a Bigot (with a great big
>capital B !!) :o)
>
>
>
>miKe
>
>
>Think For Yourself
Is this what you mean by ' thinking ' for yourself ?
Scientologists have to sign a contract if they want to use the
Scientology marks on their special web pages.
Here is a quote from the contract :
(6)agree to use the specific Internet Filter Program that CSI has
provided to you which allows you freedom to view
other sites on Dianetics, Scientology or its principals without threat
of accessing sites deemed to be using the Marks or
Works in an unauthorized fashion or deemed to be improper or
discreditable to the Scientology religion;
>http://www.scientology.org
>
>
>
>
Inducto
>I have never said anything about the membership of Scientology. This is
>misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
>which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
>church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
>philosophy in his/her life. Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the
>other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
Actually, what was posted in the FAQ is:
"15. Scientology is the fastest growing religion today."
OK, so why did David Miscavige claim in a 1994 interview that CoS had 8 to 10
million members, while last year the CoS website and CoS' officials and
spokespeople claim 8 million flate?
This is all of course an equally unsupported and untrue propaganda claim in the
"Big Lie" tradition. None of the lists prepared by various sources on the
world's religions show scientology in the top 10 fastest growing; while CoS'
abrupt cessation in opening new "churches" in 1991, the closure in the meantime
of a number of "orgs" and many of their "missions", and all the anecdotal
sources of information, indicate that CoS is currently actually shrinking.
The membership issue is one on which CoS, its aparatchiks and apologists are
very disingenuous. When pressed, it turns out that the frequently offered
figure of 8 to 10 million includes millions who did little more than step
inside a CoS office or buy a book in the last five decades, many of whom are of
course now dead. And of those millions, only a few tens of thousands who
belong to the IAS are eligible for "services"; no other religion would claim as
"members" those who do not have the standing to receive the group's most basic
services. Futhermore, it turns out that many of those holding IAS memberships
-- often having been encouraged to by lifetime memberships -- have left the CoS
disgruntled, and CoS and its aparatchiks and apologists will deny that even
someone who holds IAS membership is "really a scientologist" unless they are
unquestioningly loyal to the CoS and its leadership. It might as well be
claimed that all of the tens of millions of people connected to the internet
are members of the arscc.
"Currently has between 8 and 10 million members worldwide and is growing very
fast" CoS leader David Miscavige to Wolf Lotter 0f Austrian Profil-Magazine,
December 1994
"Eight million people, yes, over a period of the last - since 1954." -- CoS
International President Heber Jentzsch on ABC Nightline, Feb. 14, 1992,
answering interviewer Forrest Sawyers's questions "How do you get to call them
members?.....They took one course, maybe?"
"Scientology is an international religion located in more than 120 countries,
with 8-million members" -- From a rebuttal letter to the St. Petersburg (FL)
times entitled "Scientology report continues distortions" by CoS spokesperson
"Rev." Brian Anderson, Vice President CoS of Clearwater, 11/8/97
"Membership in the Association is the official membership system
adopted by the Church of Scientology and is required for services to be
taken at the Church."-- Source Issue 78, p.23 from an ad for IAS
"Therefore we set the 1991 goals as follows:
* Build the membership to 100,000 active members."
-- IAS publication
"The entire mailing list for all of Canada, the US, Mexico and
Central and South America is only about 250,000 names. Only 15 - 18
percent of these 250,000 names can be considered members....."
-- "Warrior", former CoS certified "address officer", posting to a.r.s. Nov.
'97
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths
DeoMorto
you actually hadn't said anything, instead of providing specifics to back up
your diatribe you just repeated the diatribe.
This is a technique borrowed from der Sturmer and Volkischer Beobachter - it
is a hallmark of totalitarian propaganda - no I realize that you think you are
applying "hubbie's tech" - and its true you are following the pr series but
what you have failed to realize is that it is based on something workable -
developed by the Nazi's and used as part of their propaganda campaign in the
late 20's and 30's.
From your sheltered little existence it must appear to you that you are
deftly applying this wonderfully workable hubbie tech and,possibly , it brings
a warm glow of righteousness to your heart.
Unfortunately it makes you look like a Nazi party wannabe - and what is
funnier is that most people actually read your stuff for what it is, hate
mongering propaganda - and oh yes I posted it on the public email at work to
solicit opinions about your content and so far of 48 responses - 100% have
laughed.
I did blank out the word scientology in the texts just so as not to prejudice
the readers - most people I have met hear the word 'scientology" and immedately
start looking around to scrape off the smell from their footwear.
DeoMorto - the truly censored.
ef
deom...@aol.com (DeoMorto) wrote:
> miKe I was going to copy some of your stuff but I realized when I read it that
> you actually hadn't said anything, instead of providing specifics to back up
> your diatribe you just repeated the diatribe.
this is exactly what happened to me! i was going to reply to the post and
as i was doing it i realized the implications of the post itself... and i
threw out my reply... from utter disgust at that i was attempting to
argue. there is no argument possible with a post like that, it pretty well
speaks for itself.
> This is a technique borrowed from der Sturmer and Volkischer Beobachter - it
> is a hallmark of totalitarian propaganda - no I realize that you think you are
> applying "hubbie's tech" - and its true you are following the pr series but
> what you have failed to realize is that it is based on something workable -
> developed by the Nazi's and used as part of their propaganda campaign in the
> late 20's and 30's.
yes! 100% propaganda techniques, first developed by the nazis, and then
used with equal effectiveness by the regimes of communist eastern and
central europe. why it brought back memories from when i was a kid having
to listen to this crap in school and on the radio.
> From your sheltered little existence it must appear to you that you are
> deftly applying this wonderfully workable hubbie tech and,possibly , it brings
> a warm glow of righteousness to your heart.
it most certainly does bring on the warm glow of righteousness in a
totalitarian fanatic's heart. and ain't *that* something to ponder.
> Unfortunately it makes you look like a Nazi party wannabe - and what is
> funnier is that most people actually read your stuff for what it is, hate
> mongering propaganda - and oh yes I posted it on the public email at work to
> solicit opinions about your content and so far of 48 responses - 100% have
> laughed.
i showed it to a few friends. some laughed outright, a couple got really
scared. one of them now avidly reads this newsgroup, but not for the
reasons that mike imagines.
regards
ef
ef
<cont...@no-spam.email.msn.com> wrote:
> I have explained in full that your site puts forward an untrue view of
> Scientology, based on exaggerations, biased opinions, materials used out of
> context, and misleading media articles. It is propaganda. I have explained
> in full why it is propaganda, and why the picture it paints of Scientology
> is neither fair nor true. You have such a closed mind that you cannot see
> through it. You have already made up your mind about Scientology and me, so
> the effort i put in to get the truth from you is futile. If you really cant
> see what it is you are doing then that not only means you are a brainwashed
> victim of your very own propaganda, but also a Bigot (with a great big
> capital B !!) :o)
wordclear the word "propaganda", mike. better yet, look it up in a
dictionary *not* sanctioned by your "church".
newspaper articles written by persons not incolved with an
organization/political party/etc do not qualify as propaganda. an
examination of an organization/political party/etc is not what is
understood by the word "propaganda".
propaganda is items of purported information about an
organization/political party/etc which are propagated by members of the
same organization/political party/etc for the purposes of aggrandizing the
organization/political party/etc mentioned therein.
which qualifies only *your* posts as, yes, propaganda. and appropriating a
word you do not fully understand only makes your posts stupid...
propaganda.
regards
ef
Rebecca Hartong
miKe` wrote in message <#7s28Gbt9GA.210@upnetnews05>...
>I have explained in full that your site puts forward an untrue view of
>Scientology, based on exaggerations, biased opinions, materials used out of
>context, and misleading media articles.
You have asserted this, yes. There is, however, a world of difference
between an assertion and an explanation. You claim Andreas lies. Identify
one specific thing on his web site that you believe is a lie and provide
specific evidence that proves your point. That's all anyone's ever been
asking you to do-- and yet, it appears you are either unable or unwilling to
do this.
saint andreux
> Andreas Heldal-Lund wrote in message <35b7ed43....@193.212.213.145>...
> >
> >Why do you continue to lie even though it is proven that you do?
> >Scientology is far from the fastest growing religion and it does
> >not have anything close to 8 million members.
> I have never said anything about the membership of Scientology. This is
> misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
> which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
> church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
> philosophy in his/her life. Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the
> other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
Uh oh... I've studied and applied Scientology.
I'm a Scientologist.
Now, how the HELL am I going to post if I can't read what I post
for fear of being declared suppressive for being a supressive
who isn't a supressiv..
oh hell, now I'm confuzled.
--
saint andreux --><-- SCIENTOLOGISTS CAN'T READ THIS POST
"In the future, everything will work" FIND OUT WHY: www.xenu.net
www.prairienet.org/~saint/ MY NAME IS A BANNED PHRASE
Jim Wissick
wrote:
>
>I have never said anything about the membership of Scientology. This is
>misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
>which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
>church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
>philosophy in his/her life. Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the
>other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
You LIE again!!!!!!!!! How can you say that you never said anything about the
Membership of COS?? Maybe you should stop cutting and pasting your "faqs" and
start reading them instead. It's called Thinking for Yourself.
In message <eM2QaKCt9GA.225@upnetnews03> miKe` states the following:
> 15. Scientology is the fastest growing religion today.
>
>Think For Yourself
>http://www.scientology.org
>
Take your own advice LIAR!
--------------------------------------------------
President of the Bay Area A.R.S.C.C.
To reply to this message, remove SPAMBLOCK from
the email address.
http://home.pacbell.net/jwissick/jwissick.txt for my
public PGP key.
Bev
> which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
> church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
> philosophy in his/her life.
So, you are saying it is correct that Freezoners ~are~ scientologists,
as they study and apply scientology philosophy in their lives?
Mike, do you believe that Freezoners would be most appropriately
considered to be truly scientologists, or as Co$ labels them, to be
"squirrels"? Which is correct, what you said above, or what LRH
policy states? Please answer the questions.
> Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the other hand, but
> being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
To someone who knows absolutely ~nothing~ about Co$, this sounds
good, but everyone who has been affiliated with them is also
familiar with the regging done by them to be a member of the IAS,
as well as the ability to get the advantageous discount that being
a member of the IAS grants when buying products and services.
~I~ was even a member of the IAS for six months!!
You know, anybody who buys a product from the org their first time
is given that IAS card with a six month term. Then the IAS
membership is brought up over and over and over and over. Being
a ~Co$ member~ means you are constantly ~reminded~ about keeping
your IAS dues current and being a member of the IAS.
There are even the occasional regging cycles at orgs where buying
lifetime IAS memberships are hammered into the Co$ members psyche :-)
You know that, we know that, and it's amusing that you think you
can put a different idea into the heads of readers who come here.
God forbid a Co$ member ~not~ being a member of the IAS, the
game of getting them into it would be in constant play.
Now, as far as your claim about "scientologists", I clarify that
there is a difference between a scientologist and a Co$ member.
Scientologists include a large number of people who have left
the Co$ because they found it to be . . . unsatisfactory <g>.
Freezoners are more qualified in scientology tham most Co$ members
are.
I always try to remember to specify when I post when I am speaking
either of ~scientologists~ vs. speaking of Co$ member. You are more
a Co$ member than a scientologist.
Someone like Ralph Hilton is more of a scientologist. As a matter
of fact, if you were foolish enough to try to discuss scientology
tech or policy with Ralph, he would eat you up and digest your
little bones.
I find it very amusing that Co$ members will avoid at all cost
getting into discussions with Freezoners or other free scientologists
when tech and/or policy gets in the picture.
I know the ~easy out~ excuse for that is because they don't argue
with squirrels, but from the little bit I've seen them attempt it,
it has been because they couldn't argue the points effectively as
the FZ's overwhelmed them.
> I have explained in full
No, you haven't. Maybe in your mind where "because I said so" thrown
in with generalities is adequate, but not for people who come here for
expecting complete information.
> that your site puts forward an untrue view of
> Scientology, based on exaggerations, biased opinions, materials used out of
> context, and misleading media articles. It is propaganda.
No, it is not. It presents information which I, and many others,
wish they would have had available to them before getting involved
with the Co$ and it's many front groups.
That is information that every person has a right to have. Andreas
is not telling people what to think, he is making available data to
them they would not otherwise have.
> I have explained
> in full why it is propaganda, and why the picture it paints of Scientology
> is neither fair nor true.
The picture that the official Co$ pages paints is neither fair
nor true.
What Andreas is doing, is making TWO sides of the story available
for people so they can read data given on BOTH sides and then make
up their ~own~ mind.
Andreas is so fair and open minded, that he even has links on his
website that lead to Co$'s site.
The Co$ has ~NO~ links leading to Andreas' site. Now, who would
you say is trying to hide and distort anything?
> You have such a closed mind that you cannot see
> through it. You have already made up your mind about Scientology and me, so
> the effort i put in to get the truth from you is futile. If you really cant
> see what it is you are doing then that not only means you are a brainwashed
> victim of your very own propaganda, but also a Bigot (with a great big
> capital B !!) :o)
Mike, I know thqt you honestly, truly believe what you say above,
and cannot see that those words apply more to yourself than to Andreas;
that is the tragic irony of the whole thing.
Beverly
Lisa Chabot
>Andreas Heldal-Lund wrote in message <35b7ed43....@193.212.213.145>...
>>
>>Why do you continue to lie even though it is proven that you do?
>>Scientology is far from the fastest growing religion and it does
>>not have anything close to 8 million members.
>
>misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
>church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
>other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
Weasel words, mikE. You have quoted the on-line Scientology FAQs
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=372020753
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=369264450
which state "Scientology is the fastest growling religion today".
In this context, "member" means "parishoner"--Scientology itself
uses this term when discussing other churches.
"Scientologist" may not mean "Scientology church parishioner", but
all the Scientology and Dianetics books I've seen urge one to get
in contact with their local church, mission or org as soon as they
can, presumably with the intent of "donating" to the "church" for
various books (books, books) and services.
Surely you aren't going to quibble about the number. Repeatedly,
Scientology on-line FAQs and web pages quote about how millions of
people practice various Scientology things. I'll cite the briefest
of mentions here; readers are urged to read the entire document
referenced by the URL for a more accurate understanding. (Corrections
gratefully accepted.)
"While very simple, such actions are quite powerful and have enabled
millions of individuals to improve their lives..."
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=37775830 ,
on Scientology ethics
"The rest, including thousands of staff and millions of parishoners
had no involvement or knowledge of such unlawful activities."
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=373578130
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=372191746 ,
on criminal activity in the GO
Oh, my--"millions of _parishoners_"! How forgetful of you!
"Millions of Scientologists from literally all walks of life..."
ibid.
"With Scientology, millions know life can be a worthwhile proposition,..."
http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/wis1-3/wis1_1.htm
http://www.auditing.org/wis1_1.htm
"And this is why millions of people the world over use its principles..."
http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/fore.htm
"Millions, attesting to the results of auditing..."
http://www.auditing.org/
On the other hand, critics do quibble about these "millions".
But you've never answered our questions as to how it is you feel
free to quote Scientology-owned web pages in their entirety, without
even so much as a copyright notice indicating where you cribbed them
from. After all, the on-line copyright pages themselves say
"Users are not authorized to download or transmit any of these
materials electronicallly, ..."
All quotes above are copyright 1996, 1997 Church of Scientology International
and are only quoted here for purposes of discussion. Including those
taken from mikE's postings of entire FAQs.
.
.
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
"What I mean by a shifty eye," continued Miss Marple, "is the kind
that looks very straight at you and never looks away or blinks."
Rob Clark
wrote:
>I have explained in full that your site puts forward an untrue view of
>Scientology, based on exaggerations, biased opinions, materials used out of
>context, and misleading media articles. It is propaganda. I have explained
you have not "explained in full." you have merely repeatedly asserted.
in fact, you haven't presented even ONE goddamn example!
how do you expect people to interpret this except that it is proof that you are
a moron?
rob
NoScieno
scull...@aol.com says...
> Oh, so that's how they get the 8 million
> people that are Scientologists....from
> all those who read Dianetics!
If half of those were thrown out, well there y'are.
> Hey, miKe....since I'm reading Dianetics right
> now, does that mean I'm a Scientologist?
"A Scientologist is someone who is interested in Scientology." -- LRH
*That* means you're a Scientologist (no offense intended).
--
NoScieno accepts NoMail (spam block) Try "Thynkr"(same.isp)
* * * ARSCC(wdne) * * *
* * Skunk-Works * *
* "Working up a stink" *
Podkayne
> Andreas Heldal-Lund wrote in message
<35b7ed43....@193.212.213.145>...
> >
> >Why do you continue to lie even though it is proven that you do?
> >Scientology is far from the fastest growing religion and it does
> >not have anything close to 8 million members.
>
> I have never said anything about the membership of Scientology. This is
> misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
> which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
> church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
> philosophy in his/her life. Groups like the IAS do have a membership on
the
> other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
Not according to the TrueScns on the AOL board. A Scientologist is someone
who hates psychs, thinks LRon was a genius, thinks Rinder did a great job on
Dateline, thinks 100% pure tech works 100% of the time, would never never
consider that Scn needs the slightest bit of reform...
I have quotes to back all this up, just look for my past posts with
"TrueScn" in the title.
Podkayne
> > Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the other hand, but
> > being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
It's even more fun than that - you can be a paid-up IAS member and they'll
*still* disown you. Check this AOLboard exchange:
=== AOLboard critic FauxReal59
I am with Honnicut all the way. What ever happened to "I am a <insert
religion of choice here> because I say I am?" How dare anyone try and tell
someone that they are not of a particular faith merely because they disagree
on some level? This especially applies to AOL employees monitoring these
boards.
Mark Ebner, International Association Of Scientologists (I have receipts
for membership dues, and receive daily mail from Scientology as testament to
my status with the church)
=== TrueScn ABeing8008
It's pretty funny to hear that "having receipts" and receiving Scientology
mailings indicates that one IS a Scientologist! LOL. Ha, I get mail at
home and office for people who haven't done anything more than bought a book
or done one course 9 years ago! It's what you do on and off the bridge
that counts. Ya know guys, it's called doingness, causativeness, not being
effect as in the above!
miKe`
>>misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
>>which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
>>church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
the
>>other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
>
the
>Membership of COS?? Maybe you should stop cutting and pasting your faqs
and start reading them instead. It's called Thinking for Yourself.
>In message <eM2QaKCt9GA.225@upnetnews03> miKe` states the following:
>
>> 15. Scientology is the fastest growing religion today.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------
I have never mentioned anything concerning the membership of Scientology or
indeed the total number of Scientologists.
A Scientologist is by definition:
"One who knows he has found the way to a better life through Scientology and
who, through Scientology books, tapes, training and processing, is actively
attaining it."
One doesnt "join" Scientology. There is no membership, unless it refers to
membership groups such as the International Association of Scientologists
which a Scientologist CAN join to benefit from course discounts and offers.
>
>>
>>Think For Yourself
>>http://www.scientology.org
>>
>
>
>Take your own advice LIAR!
I am improving my life because i want to. Nothing is forced onto you in
Scientology. Its not some weird sinister cult. These are the Lies - created
by fanatical critics here on ARS. I actually learnt about Scientology whilst
studying Psychology, and from a basic interest, i decided to learn more. How
did i do that ? I went and experienced it for myself. And that is the only
way to really know what Scientology is, and what it can do for people. I am
not a fool. I certainly dont have money to waste. Do you really think id be
here defending my religion if i didnt think it worked for people? Im not
stupid, despite, im sure, what a lot of you here think.
miKe
Andreas Heldal-Lund
>Andreas Heldal-Lund wrote in message <35b7ed43....@193.212.213.145>...
>>
>>Why do you continue to lie even though it is proven that you do?
>>Scientology is far from the fastest growing religion and it does
>>not have anything close to 8 million members.
>
>I have never said anything about the membership of Scientology. This is
You aren't even a good liar.
>misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
>which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
>church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
>philosophy in his/her life. Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the
>other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
You too practice this weird method of counting? If I passed
around a CoS brochure among a dozen friends I bet you and
Heber would claim there were 480 new Scientologists??
You make a statement (I'm now doing something very stupid; I'm
asking miKe to explain and document his stupid claims) and I
will have to ask you to explain what you mean: In what way do
you measure the growth of Scientology? What is your sources and
don't forget to add the figures that this is based on. You can't,
can you? Pathetic liar, you have never ever managed to stand
up and argue and document any of your claims!
You never saw any figures to support your claim, did you? You
just assumed it had to be true without asking, didn't you?
I can't believe you deliberately walk into this line of
argument. You wilfully deceive all readers (or try to) by
stating:
>>> 15. Scientology is the fastest growing religion today.
[BTW: Did you already cancel it? It was "miraculously" gone from
my news server, but of course still on DejaNews since they don't
care about your cancels...]
This statement obviously imply only one thing; namely that
the Church of Scientology gets more members than anybody else.
What else can it mean? What else could such a claim possibly
try to give an impression of? You wilfully deceive and aren't
even ashamed enough to hide when caught red-handed! Pathetic
liar, just like Hubbard.
On the official Scientology web page it says: "Scientologist is
a collective membership mark designating members of the
affiliated churches and missions of Scientology." And there
is only ONE ORGANISATION IN THE WORLD who are licensed to use
the world "Scientology" or to apply the "Scientology tech".
The president of CoS says publicly that A MEMBER OF COS
is everybody who, since 1954, has taken one or more Scientology
courses. We got a RECORDING of him saying this. If Scientology
as a religion grows, that means CoS also must grow! And we can
prove CoS does not grow, and neither CoS nor you have even
ATTEMPTED to show any documentation to back up your claim!
Pathetic liars - that's what Scientology does to you.
Of course you and CoS have to TOTALLY REDEFINE the common word
'member' and differ from how anybody else counts! It wasn't good
enough for you the day the stats started to go down. Before that
they only talked about "members". Lies, lies and more lies; you get
caught and Scientology drills you to lie again! But now you lie
to convince yourself, everybody listening to you can se how
tragic and idiotic you look.
EVEN if we assumed you talked about practicing Scientology, where
do you have the figures from? Are you including squirrel activity?
Have CoS patented something nobody knows, like riding a bike and
every day when a new person learns to ride one they count in?
How can Scientology spread more than ANYTHING ELSE when Cos is
getting smaller?
You know you messed up here, and since you are unable to admit to
anything wrong you have to blame it on me and other critics. Then
you start claiming again we are bigotted and we lie. What you
repeatedly claim is still totally bonkers. There is no logic in
your claims even if they were true, since you obviously have no
valid foundation for any of them - other than that you have been
told this is true! You sound like that rewindable doll my sister
had when I was a kid. Again and again the same nonsense and it did
not seem to react to whatever you said back.
TRUST MIKE???? HA, WHAT A JOKE!
>>Wake up and either start to answer my questions and document you
>>accusations - or end up like the fools Enzo, wgert and Justin
>>who also imagined their cult lies stood any chance out in the real
>>world.
>
>
>I have explained in full that your site puts forward an untrue view of
>Scientology, based on exaggerations, biased opinions, materials used out of
IN FULL???????? What is going on up in your head miKe, do you
believe yourself anymore? You haven't even explained
loosely or partly. You got thousands of witnesses here on
ARS who will remember your pathetic attempts to lie for
years to come. It will be mike with the big K and no honesty.
You set yet another example for new and old critics, this is
the "logic" of Hubbard, look, that is what Scientology does to
people. I got all your posts logged and all my questions to you.
They are prove that you are not able enough to explain and
document your claim. Only reason can be because you are a liar
and a fraud. You have no documentation for your claims. You are
a rewindable doll. As a recording you can only repeat them.
Can't you see that Scientology has totally corrupted your brain?
You don't even try to hide your embarrassing behavior by
claiming you are just stating an opinion, but pretend you are
stating facts and that you have "explained in full". What a
rotten moral you got, if any! Why, tell me WHY most
Scientologists I meet act like this? Where are their morality
and common sense? How is it possible to get so tangled in their
lies and fraud left by a conman? How is it possible for good
persons like yourself to sell out to this?
Why the hell do you want to play the fool????
>context, and misleading media articles. It is propaganda. I have explained
You wouldn't know what propaganda was if it ran over you with
a steam locomotive. I'm not one-sided, you are the embodiment
of that term. You assert and inform others only about one side.
I beg people to look at both sides, I make theta easily
available for everybody, I beg you and others who agree with
me to explain their opinions and I offer you time and free space
to display your remarks and corrections on MY site! You are
just a pathetic liar who ignores any attempt I do to make this
as fair as possible. You're blind to your own idiocy and denial,
all you see is what you wish to see. It does NOT fit with your
reality that I might be a nice and honest person who want to
work together with you and learn to understand you. To you I must
be lying and what I present must be wrong - or else you would have
to take me seriously. To safeguard yourself from the possibility
that I might not be a bad person and actually have som well
founded and documented opinions, you refuse to say out loud
anything but undocumented accusations. When I ask you to document
it you just reply as above, and in all messages before that.
It's so obvious it is ridiculous.
What was the final thing that made you sell out miKe?
You totally ignore my attempts to better my site and claims put
forward there. You show absolutely _NO_ will to explain what
there is wrong or even comment on any of it. You ignore my
endless offers to host your comments on my site and you
KEEP ON LYING ABOUT ME!!!!
You are pathetic! You are a disgrace! It makes my ill to even
try to understand what can make a grown up person act in such
illogical manners. To go public and discredit ones own person
and ones (claimed to be) religion. It is hard to grasp.
I honestly do not hope you have influence on any young people
and are set to teach them anything about morality and ethics.
It is directly dangerous to have so low standards and it is
frightening to try to imagine how far a cult like CoS can
make people go.
>in full why it is propaganda, and why the picture it paints of Scientology
>is neither fair nor true. You have such a closed mind that you cannot see
>through it. You have already made up your mind about Scientology and me, so
>the effort i put in to get the truth from you is futile. If you really cant
>see what it is you are doing then that not only means you are a brainwashed
>victim of your very own propaganda, but also a Bigot (with a great big
>capital B !!) :o)
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere
ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
— Martin Luther King, Jr.
You take the price miKe, because you could have done so much
better. Whatever "transaction" that happened between you and
CoS you should complain! They obviously took more than they
gave you.
>miKe
>
>
>Think For Yourself
>http://www.scientology.org
Best wishes, Andreas Heldal-Lund
Operation Clambake: www.xenu.net - SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI
________________________________________________________________
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this
astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it
away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan
Jim Wissick
wrote:
>
>I have never said anything about the membership of Scientology. This is
>misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
>which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
>church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
>philosophy in his/her life. Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the
>other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
You LIE again!!!!!!!!! How can you say that you never said anything about the
Membership of COS?? Maybe you should stop cutting and pasting your "faqs" and
start reading them instead. It's called Thinking for Yourself.
In message <eM2QaKCt9GA.225@upnetnews03> miKe` states the following:
> 15. Scientology is the fastest growing religion today.
>
>Think For Yourself
>http://www.scientology.org
>
Take your own advice LIAR!
--------------------------------------------------
Deana Marie Holmes
<cont...@no-spam.email.msn.com> wrote:
>I have never said anything about the membership of Scientology. This is
>misleading in itself, as it implies one joins the church of Scientology,
>which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining the
>church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
>philosophy in his/her life. Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the
>other hand, but being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
Mike, you are so full of it.
Your "church" told the IRS that in order to be a "Scientologist" you
had to embrace Scientology exclusive to all other religious beliefs.
However, Scientology promotes itself (and here you are again, saying
the same thing) as saying that it's compatible with all religions.
Either Scn is a religion with exclusivity, like all other religions,
or Scn isn't. You can't have it both ways, and eventually it will
rise up and bite Scn on the butt.
Deana Marie Holmes
The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list)
$cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today?
mir...@xmission.com
miKe`
Scientology with two sides, and with fairness.
But your site shows only one obvious side, and that is an exaggerated and
untrue side at that.
Your site is intended to be critical, so how can you claim that there are
two sides to it when there is no honest discussion only criticisms and
biased opinions.
You have had little experience of Scientology, and a lot of the information
comes
from one-sided sources. Don't you even dare to claim this site is honest and
fair.
Are you completely blind to what is going on, Andreas ? If you get kicks out
of calling me all these names, then go on and have fun. Its just a shame
that you cant look at yourself before doing it. I really do hope that your
mind isn't as closed and brainwashed as it seems from this newsgroup. You
display such a large amount of negativity, bias, intolerance and anger from
your posts to me, especially the last one, and it makes me worry about you.
Such traits would suggest you to be a bigot.
You cant claim you are providing a balanced, open view of Scientology,
Andreas. That is what I am saying, and I really want you to understand this.
Open your mind just a little if you can and see things from the two sides.
Why is it that fellow critics of yours link to your website and no pro
sites? Aren't they doing exactly what you criticise Scientology for ? At the
moment, actual true data about scientology can be found at
http://www.scientology.org but I accept that it is propaganda just as your
site is. But for someone who wants honest and actual information as to what
Scientology is, what its aims are, and what it can do for people, then there
is no site to compare.
What I want is for a site to be created explaining Scientology honestly and
openly like the official site, but then perhaps taking a second look and
criticising it fairly and accurately. Such a site would be so unique that we
wouldn't have to be at war with our URLs and hyperlinks over which provides
the best and honest site, when all we would have to do would be to provide
this one link to the most truthful honest and accurate site about
Scientology on the web.
But at present there is no such thing. There is your site, intended to be
negative, intended to criticise, with much opinion and exaggeration. If I
was new to the Internet and came across your site, I would come to the
conclusion that this is what Scientology is, and come away with both a
negative and false view of the subject.
That is what I am saying Andreas. You cannot claim you are being fair and
two sided because you aren't. And just providing a link to an official site
means nothing either. Think about it.
Stop insulting me and start taking in what I'm saying. I don't go around
calling people bigots for no reason, and if you were insulted by my comment
then I apologise, and I feel sorry that it made you retaliate with the
insults you threw at me.
But you come across quite one-minded, Andreas, and it really feels through
your posts (not just to me) that you really cant see the other view, and
that because of your site and the people who helped you, you are indeed a
victim of your own propaganda. Its ironic really, when you critics here on
ARS are claiming that Scientologists are those who are brainwashed. Perhaps
you should be looking at yourselves before making such a claim.
mike
Mark
> Andreas, your website , by your own admission, is intended to inform
> about Scientology with two sides, and with fairness.
It does. Have you submitted your comments for publishing on his site
yet? I'm sure the offer is still there, but only a tiny handful of
Scientologists have taken advantage of it. Why haven't you, or any of
the other 10,000 'online' Scientologists bothered?
> Your site is intended to be critical, so how can you claim that there
> are two sides to it when there is no honest discussion only criticisms
> biased opinions.
Yes, it is intended to be critical, but critical doesn't mean one-sided.
Have you heard of critical thinking Mike? Looking at all sides of a
story and making up your own mind? _Thinking For Yourself_?
> Why is it that fellow critics of yours link to your website and no pro
> sites? Aren't they doing exactly what you criticise Scientology for ?
I see, you can't accuse Andreas of not linking to
http://www.scientology.org, so you accuse 'other critics' of doing it.
My Scientology web page isn't up yet (coming soon!), but I can promise
you it will link to www.scientology.org, AND www.xenu.net (even though
it doesn't need to, as www.xenu.net already has the link).
Perhaps you can explain why not one single Scientology website links to
any site which is not Scientology related? All of those 'online'
Scientologists 'favourite links' head straight into the black hole that
is ScienoWeb. Don't they have any other interests?
> At the
> moment, actual true data about scientology can be found at
> http://www.scientology.org but I accept that it is propaganda
> just as your site is.
Finally you admit that the Scientology web is propoganda. Can you show
me one single website which is pro scientology but links to a critical
site? I can't find any. I struggle to find one that links to anything
which isn't official Scientology.
> What I want is for a site to be created explaining Scientology
> honestly and openly like the official site, but then perhaps taking a
> second look and criticising it fairly and accurately.
Good idea. Why don't you create one? I'm sure you could get plenty of
input from ARS regulars. MSN are planning on providing user web space
soon, if you don't want to find another provider.
> But at present there is no such thing. There is your site, intended to
> be negative, intended to criticise, with much opinion and
> exaggeration.
Yes, and there is www.scientology.org which provides the other side of
the story. That's the wonderful think about the internet, anyone can
find all sides of a story, and _Think For Themselves_, make up their own
mind. People I know who have visited www.scientology.org and
www.xenu.net have decided that Scientology is laughable. I wonder why.
> If I
> was new to the Internet and came across your site, I would come to the
> conclusion that this is what Scientology is, and come away with both a
> negative and false view of the subject.
It's funny, If I was new to the internet and came across
www.scientology.org, I would come away with a negative opinion of the
subject.
> And just providing a link to an official site
> means nothing either. Think about it.
Why? What about providing comments sent by Scientologists? Does that
also mean nothing?
Why can't you refer to Andreas' website by the address Mike? Can you say
http://www.xenu.net? I can say http://www.scientology.org. I'll do it
again:
Feadog
Tune in www.xenu.net, turn on, drop out.
Feadog
--
Critical Scientology Links:
http://www.xenu.net/, http://www.lisamcpherson.org
Boston Herald - Series on Scientology; March 1998 (link may expire soon):
http://www.bostonherald.com/scientology/
Fraud Buster
<cont...@no-spam.email.msn.com> wrote:
>Andreas, your website , by your own admission, is intended to inform about
>Scientology with two sides, and with fairness.
>
>But your site shows only one obvious side, and that is an exaggerated and
>untrue side at that.
>
>Your site is intended to be critical, so how can you claim that there are
>two sides to it when there is no honest discussion only criticisms and
>biased opinions.
>
>You have had little experience of Scientology, and a lot of the information
>comes
>from one-sided sources. Don't you even dare to claim this site is honest and
>fair.
>
>Are you completely blind to what is going on, Andreas ? If you get kicks out
>of calling me all these names, then go on and have fun. Its just a shame
>that you cant look at yourself before doing it. I really do hope that your
>mind isn't as closed and brainwashed as it seems from this newsgroup. You
>display such a large amount of negativity, bias, intolerance and anger from
>your posts to me, especially the last one, and it makes me worry about you.
>Such traits would suggest you to be a bigot.
>
>You cant claim you are providing a balanced, open view of Scientology,
>Andreas. That is what I am saying, and I really want you to understand this.
>Open your mind just a little if you can and see things from the two sides.
There is no 'other' view . There is only the truth . Not a subjective
relative truth, but the actual truth. Why is it that when we quote
your own tech and scriptures you guys blow a fuse ? Then you want to
say if we don't we are making things up about $cientology ? Your
scriptures speak for themselves. You guys don't even let your own
members associate with "squirrel" groups. You believe in space alien
exorcisms (well maybe you don't but when you get to OT V you have to
remove them). $cientology needs no actual 'critics' . It needs
simply to have its own scriptures and ideas scrutinized by as much of
the public as possible . They are so silly and ridiculous that that
alone is enough to make your organization look like a crock and a
fraud . I am for more sunlight, what are you for ? To me you seem to
want to censor the internet . You don't even want your fellow
brethren to see both sides. You only know one side . Notice how i and
many others link to on our web pages the www.scientology.org site and
i even list it sometimes when mentioning URLS to look at . A lot of
critics do that. DO you ever say, "Check out www.Xenu.net if you want
to hear the opposing side ? " No you don't . I do say look at both
sides. You say look at one consistently .
To find out about Scientology look at both www.scientology.org for pro
- scientology information and www.xenu.net and www.Factnet.org for
criticism . Thank you .
>
>Why is it that fellow critics of yours link to your website and no pro
>sites? Aren't they doing exactly what you criticise Scientology for ? At the
>moment, actual true data about scientology can be found at
>http://www.scientology.org but I accept that it is propaganda just as your
>site is. But for someone who wants honest and actual information as to what
>Scientology is, what its aims are, and what it can do for people, then there
>is no site to compare.
>
>What I want is for a site to be created explaining Scientology honestly and
>openly like the official site, but then perhaps taking a second look and
>criticising it fairly and accurately. Such a site would be so unique that we
>wouldn't have to be at war with our URLs and hyperlinks over which provides
>the best and honest site, when all we would have to do would be to provide
>this one link to the most truthful honest and accurate site about
>Scientology on the web.
>
>But at present there is no such thing. There is your site, intended to be
>negative, intended to criticise, with much opinion and exaggeration. If I
>was new to the Internet and came across your site, I would come to the
>conclusion that this is what Scientology is, and come away with both a
>negative and false view of the subject.
>
>That is what I am saying Andreas. You cannot claim you are being fair and
>two sided because you aren't. And just providing a link to an official site
>means nothing either. Think about it.
>
Quizara...@my-dejanews.com
"miKe`" <cont...@no-spam.email.msn.com> wrote:
> Andreas, your website , by your own admission, is intended to inform about
> Scientology with two sides, and with fairness.
>
> But your site shows only one obvious side, and that is an exaggerated and
> untrue side at that.
>
> Your site is intended to be critical, so how can you claim that there are
> two sides to it when there is no honest discussion only criticisms and
> biased opinions.
>
> You have had little experience of Scientology, and a lot of the information
> comes
> from one-sided sources. Don't you even dare to claim this site is honest and
> fair.
>
> Are you completely blind to what is going on, Andreas ? If you get kicks out
> of calling me all these names, then go on and have fun. Its just a shame
> that you cant look at yourself before doing it. I really do hope that your
> mind isn't as closed and brainwashed as it seems from this newsgroup. You
> display such a large amount of negativity, bias, intolerance and anger from
> your posts to me, especially the last one, and it makes me worry about you.
> Such traits would suggest you to be a bigot.
>
> You cant claim you are providing a balanced, open view of Scientology,
> Andreas. That is what I am saying, and I really want you to understand this.
> Open your mind just a little if you can and see things from the two sides.
>
Oops, miKe lost his big K. Is he starting to lose it? Or is this someone
else using his account?
BTW: mike admits that www.scientology.org is propaganda? Are the OSA going
to wonder if mike is going native?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
miKe`
>miKe` wrote:
>
>> which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining
the
>> church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
>> philosophy in his/her life.
>
>as they study and apply scientology philosophy in their lives?
Yes i would.
>Mike, do you believe that Freezoners would be most appropriately
>considered to be truly scientologists, or as Co$ labels them, to be
>"squirrels"? Which is correct, what you said above, or what LRH
>policy states? Please answer the questions.
A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology philosophy.
>> Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the other hand, but
>> being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
>
>To someone who knows absolutely ~nothing~ about Co$, this sounds
>good, but everyone who has been affiliated with them is also
>familiar with the regging done by them to be a member of the IAS,
>as well as the ability to get the advantageous discount that being
>a member of the IAS grants when buying products and services.
>
>~I~ was even a member of the IAS for six months!!
Me too, only because it was freeeeeeeeeee !!! :o)
>You know, anybody who buys a product from the org their first time
>is given that IAS card with a six month term. Then the IAS
>membership is brought up over and over and over and over. Being
>a ~Co$ member~ means you are constantly ~reminded~ about keeping
>your IAS dues current and being a member of the IAS.
>
>There are even the occasional regging cycles at orgs where buying
>lifetime IAS memberships are hammered into the Co$ members psyche :-)
>You know that, we know that, and it's amusing that you think you
>can put a different idea into the heads of readers who come here.
>
>God forbid a Co$ member ~not~ being a member of the IAS, the
>game of getting them into it would be in constant play.
Ooooh Im not currently a member of the IAS. Im not really interested in the
IAS Membership. It is so easy to say "no" you know.
>Now, as far as your claim about "scientologists", I clarify that
>there is a difference between a scientologist and a Co$ member.
>
>Scientologists include a large number of people who have left
>the Co$ because they found it to be . . . unsatisfactory <g>.
>Freezoners are more qualified in scientology tham most Co$ members
>are.
Maybe so. I have no quarrel with them.
>I always try to remember to specify when I post when I am speaking
>either of ~scientologists~ vs. speaking of Co$ member. You are more
>a Co$ member than a scientologist.
>
>Someone like Ralph Hilton is more of a scientologist. As a matter
>of fact, if you were foolish enough to try to discuss scientology
>tech or policy with Ralph, he would eat you up and digest your
>little bones.
That's nice.
miKe
David M. Cook
wrote:
>church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
>philosophy in his/her life.
So anyone who "studies and applies Scientology" can self-identify as a
Scientologist on their web page? Wrong. They'll get a nice letter from
Helena Kobrin saying that they are violationg RTC copyrights.
Or by study do you mean taking approved courses in a CoS org?
Dave Cook
David M. Cook
wrote:
>I have never mentioned anything concerning the membership of Scientology or
>indeed the total number of Scientologists.
>A Scientologist is by definition:
>"One who knows he has found the way to a better life through Scientology and
>who, through Scientology books, tapes, training and processing, is actively
>attaining it."
So what is the claim then? In what way is Scientology growing? More
dissatisfied former users?
You have to have some measure to claim growth. What measure are you using?
>One doesnt "join" Scientology. There is no membership, unless it refers to
>membership groups such as the International Association of Scientologists
>which a Scientologist CAN join to benefit from course discounts and offers.
Pure sophistry.
Dave Cook
Andreas Heldal-Lund
Yet another post where miKe fails to answer any of the
questions. How far out in the land of idiocy will the
ghost of Scientology manage take him?
>Andreas, your website , by your own admission, is intended to inform about
>Scientology with two sides, and with fairness.
My page is intended to inform people who have knowledge about
the CoS version of the story and to newcomers who want to
broaden their views. And anybody else who want to investigate
more than one side. I can only attempt to present my own
views, the opinions of you and CoS will have to authored by
yourselves. Because I believe in freedom of information (even
information I disagree with or believe is false), I offer easy
access also to all available CoS propaganda and I've invited
everybody I've met to host their comments and information on my
sites where they believe visitors should also know about
the alternative opinions and interpretations.
Is this fair or not? Am I more or less fair than you and CoS?
>But your site shows only one obvious side, and that is an exaggerated and
>untrue side at that.
YOU LIAR! This is not true and everybody with a reasonable
eyesight and a net connection can check it. And if you bother
to read the responses you get you will learn they do. Thanks!
>Your site is intended to be critical, so how can you claim that there are
>two sides to it when there is no honest discussion only criticisms and
>biased opinions.
Said by a true Scientologist. You use individuality as an
argument against me and my opinions! You _are_ incredible!
I can only talk my opinion miKe, and only _refer_ to you
or CoS for your views on the matter. As a honest and fair
person I link to all available CoS information on the WWW
and I offer to host locally any comments to my own opinions.
I can do no more, as I told you before I don't have good
enough fantasy to as if it came from a Scientologist. This
fair act and honesty from me is a threat to you, since I'm
not supposed to be a nice guy because I'm a critic of
Scientology. I got many supprises coming for you! I never
lied about who I am or my background. I still have opinions
and for people to understand what I base this on I include
tens of megabytes - and a lot of my time and money - to try
to explain and document this as good as I can. There are
surely things that can be worded better or differently, I
even admit I might be wrong. There is no guarantee or maybe
even no absolute Truth. But I do have an opinion which at
any point is based on the information available to me there
and then!
I know what makes me tick, I'm starting to see through you
too.
You seem to be totally unable to grasp the concept of free
humans having personal opinions based only on personal
thought activity and working with information. You are locked
on the fact that my site reflects my opinions or my way of
presenting a selection of information I judge as important.
Think miKe!!! Most people understand this without thinking
about it. They visit a page on the 'net and take it for what
it is. I and my site are fair and square with it's visitors,
you and CoS are not! You _never_ ever recommend people to
also investigate contradicting views and you constantly
lie about me and my site. If you don't stop lying you will
change from being a pathetic liar to a pathological liar.
>You have had little experience of Scientology, and a lot of the information
>comes
>from one-sided sources. Don't you even dare to claim this site is honest and
>fair.
I don't just dare to claim it, I can even prove it!
You are blind by choice. Much of the critical information on
Operation Clambake is links to other sites, just like the
links to Russ' and CoS' pages. It's a one way street of
visitors, and people comment on this when they see it. And when
I show them your claims they ask what planet this guy is from.
Do you care what their thought are when I tell them you are a
Scientologist?
>Are you completely blind to what is going on, Andreas ? If you get kicks out
I see your denial and desperate lying very clearly thank you.
I even start doubting you read my posts anymore. There is no
sensible responses to any of them. You don't dare to even
quote me anymore. To many tough questions I guess. Just like
Enzo, wgert and justin. All Scientologists. Convince me it is
a coincidence...
>of calling me all these names, then go on and have fun. Its just a shame
>that you cant look at yourself before doing it. I really do hope that your
Liar. You know my integrity and honesty is many times more
real than yours, and it obviously scares you if you go to
such incredible length in public humiliation to try to get
wiggle out of the fox trap your caught in. Still to proud to
run away, or still that voice in your head keeping your
skeptisism alive a a small glow?
You know what? My problem is that I liked you. People here
on ARS don't know you and I have communicated several times
before over e-mail. I can't help it, but when people I care
for disappoint me and I know they should have known better,
I get frustrated and sad. And I say it straight out what I
feel.
I know some are threatened by such honesty.
>mind isn't as closed and brainwashed as it seems from this newsgroup. You
>display such a large amount of negativity, bias, intolerance and anger from
>your posts to me, especially the last one, and it makes me worry about you.
>Such traits would suggest you to be a bigot.
If you only dared to stand up like a man and defend your wild
accusations you would have gotten all the respect possible
from me. I value your opinion, whatever it is. I have no anger
or hate against you, but against your acts and lies. I do very
clearly see the difference between person and subject. My goal
is not to make you agree with me, but to have a honest debate.
I want to learn, that's basically it.
For once I had hoped you managed to take off your clam-
censoring goggles and look me in the eyes. Challenge yourself
by taking ME serious for once! Look at this from my point of
view, regardless of your own biased opinion pro Scientology.
Is it really so strange that I am very skeptical to CoS and
Hubbard? Really? Have you _EVER_ supplied anything as to
render worthless _ANY_ of the accusations against CoS and
Hubbard? Do you hold _ANY_ information and verifiable facts
that contradict _ANYTHING_ ever presented on ARS, or my web
site for that sake?
No.
You just ramble. You lie and spew out accusations and try to
point your finger at me when I'm so impudent that I ask YOU
to document YOUR accusations. You live in a dream world miKe.
Then open debate among equals like here in ARS becomes your
nightmare. You twist and kick like in sleep, fighting this
bad dream. When I see you I want to help you wake up so you
one day will stop having these nightmares, for you will have
many of them as long as you are not 100% protected by the
Cult of Scientology and their scary 1984 world view! CoS
will never win, because they have already lost. Don't want
to see you go down with them.
>You cant claim you are providing a balanced, open view of Scientology,
>Andreas. That is what I am saying, and I really want you to understand this.
>Open your mind just a little if you can and see things from the two sides.
I'm a human, not a robot. I got feelings and opinions. No humans
_can_ be 100% un-biased about anything. I know that, everybody
else I know knows that. You seem to pretend you don't know this
when it comes to me, so you ignore you are talking to a fellow
human and set unrealistic standards for me. And you have opposite
standards for yourself and CoS! Not ONE bad word about your own
or CoS' bias. Nothing!
I do my best to be fair, I can't lie about my humanity and claim
I have no opinion. I do have an opinion and I have the right to
speak it if I so wish. I can't force you to admit that I do far
more than you and CoS combined when it comes to being open
minded and fair to opposite views. And not to forget being fair
when presenting ones own views!
>Why is it that fellow critics of yours link to your website and no pro
>sites? Aren't they doing exactly what you criticise Scientology for ? At the
Have you actually checked this? Guessed not, again you only lie!
I did a check of critical pages I link to:
Marcab Conf
http://www.marcab.com/
- links to ARS Bigots Home Page
- 1 step from link to www.scientology.org
Scientology Kills
http://www.scientology-kills.net/
- link from front page to www.scientology.org
The Secrets of Scientology
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/dst/Secrets/index.html
- first link on top of page is www.scientology.org
ARS Acronym/Terminology FAQ v3.5
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/terms.htm
- link high up to http://www.scientology.org/gloss.htm
Scientology Audited
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/audit/index.html
- www.lronhubbard.org
- www.scientology.org
- lots of links to pro Scientology sites as reference
throughout this whole site
The World's Northernmost Scientology Critic Site
http://xenu.phys.uit.no/cos/
- www.dianetics.org
- www.scientology.org
- www.lron.hubbard.org
The Scientology Comparative Theology Page
http://ezlink.com/~perry/Co$/Christian/
- www.scientology.org (at least 3 links on front)
- www.cchr.org
- reference links to CoS
SCIENTOLOGY'S SECRET SERVICE
http://www.entheta.net/entheta/go/
- lots of reference links to CoS
A Practical Guide for Peacefully Protesting Scientology
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/demo.htm
- www.scientology.org
International Pickets
http://homepages.skylink.net/~teddy/picketpage/picket.html
- one click from www.scientology-org
Mapping Scientology
http://pharos.uwc.edu/cos/world2.htm
- one click from *all* pro links
Scientology: religious persecution in Germany?
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/germany/
- first link on top of page: www.scientology.org
Seems to me that even though this check was very fast, most
of the critical sites linking to my page also do link to
pro Scientology sites. But I will of course allow you to
present a better report with another conclusion. I guess you
DO have prepared it so that you could reply to me when I
asked. You did know I would ask?
>moment, actual true data about scientology can be found at
>http://www.scientology.org but I accept that it is propaganda just as your
>site is. But for someone who wants honest and actual information as to what
>Scientology is, what its aims are, and what it can do for people, then there
>is no site to compare.
You've yourself PROVEN that this is a lie, that you are a liar.
By refusing to document any of you claims your ramblings are
totally worthless. Not only do you discredit yourself, your
religion and your opinions, but you also make my case look
much better.
But you really don't see this at all! Amazing.
>What I want is for a site to be created explaining Scientology honestly and
>openly like the official site, but then perhaps taking a second look and
KEEP THAT THOUGHT!!!
Listen to this:
What you are describing is a site after your heart, presenting
issues the way YOU want them to be presented. You seem to confuse
not being "honest and open" with not agreeing with you. I am very
open and very honest, but we still disagree with you.
If you feel your type of page is missing, then it _MIGHT_ be
because you haven't made it yet? You do really live in a different
universe if you expect others to do all the work and still
represent you and not themselves!
You must be one of the (hopefully) very few who surf the 'net
with this attitude.
>criticising it fairly and accurately. Such a site would be so unique that we
Please do this, make this page! Maybe I'll even link to it! Or let
me help you and probably get even a bigger audience by making your
comments available at Operation Clambake.
WHAT ARE YOU?
The way to grow grand
is not: to demand
In life's every field
you are what you yield.
- Piet Hein
>wouldn't have to be at war with our URLs and hyperlinks over which provides
>the best and honest site, when all we would have to do would be to provide
>this one link to the most truthful honest and accurate site about
>Scientology on the web.
You are getting very close to reality now miKe. Under your finger
is the "link" to the closest you ever will come this Utopian site.
Look at the 'net as a big library. In it you will find more books
than you ever will manage to read, and most of them you probably
would not agree 100% with. The magic is that you have easy access
to everything in the library and YOU select what you would like to
read. Would you argue that the library also had critical books that
isolated maybe was biased? Or pro Scientology books that also was
very biased if you read only that. The library is a set of books
and must be looked upon as that, not at every book isolated.
The library, and the 'net, is there to serve all types and opinions.
You might diasgree with an author of a book, but only an idiot
would complain because the author didn't write his/her book so
that you agreed with it. Your freedon lies in your freedom to
publish your own book and also have it in the library. Now the
receiver desides what to read, not just one writer.
The 'net is a technology expansion of this. Gone are the boundaries
of library size, accessability and entrances "fee" to participate
(the money and talent needed of publishing a book).
You have misunderstood where and who you are the way you talk. You
must also CREATE if you want to see what you miss, not only be
a passive whiner. Have you earned the offers I've given you? NO
WAY!! I still stand by my offers and will continue doing so
despite your denials. You'll never win a duel with me by lying!
>But at present there is no such thing. There is your site, intended to be
>negative, intended to criticise, with much opinion and exaggeration. If I
Stop the silly accusations if you are unable to defend them.
Look around and see where you are. Then do something destructive.
>was new to the Internet and came across your site, I would come to the
>conclusion that this is what Scientology is, and come away with both a
>negative and false view of the subject.
I surely have a lot more trust in my fellow humans than
you have.
The paradox in this argument from you is that you have been given
[I lost the count of how many] chances to offer your comments so that
people visiting my site would not do the error of only checking
out my opinions and claims before making up their mind. But you
refused to do so!!! When you accuse me of being a bigot and
even worse it is getting stupid.
>That is what I am saying Andreas. You cannot claim you are being fair and
>two sided because you aren't. And just providing a link to an official site
>means nothing either. Think about it.
Your definition of being "fair" is beyond me. As to being two-sided
I never claimed I was. What I do claim is that I've presented my
own views on Operation Clambake (READ MY LIPS: my views, not yours)
and as editor of the site I've decided what text made by others that
I feel fits on the site. I never did it to please you, I did it
because I believed it was the right thing. But I went beyond that
when people like you started making poorly founded attacks on me,
my site and criticism in general; I said "Fair enough, if I'm wrong
I wanna know! Let them present their case and if I still don't
agree with them after that I will at least host their opinions just
to be fair and give others the right to make up their own mind too.
What happened then miKe?
>Stop insulting me and start taking in what I'm saying. I don't go around
When cornered rats learn to talk English or Norwegian I will listen
to their opinions, in the meanwhile their peeping is just annoying.
When you start talking some sense and stop acting like a jerk with
the venetian blinds rolled down, then I will get some sense out of
your accusations and your advice. Before you learn to communicate
with others you can't expect to be understood.
>calling people bigots for no reason, and if you were insulted by my comment
Look who's talking!
>then I apologise, and I feel sorry that it made you retaliate with the
>insults you threw at me.
My intelligence was insulted when you tried to play this foolish
trick on me. That you could have even thought it was worth trying
to fake such accusations and initiate this debate on lies wasn't
only stupid, but also an insult to whatever you are trying to defend.
If there is anything wrong on my site or right in your claims, you
sure managed to hide both very well. Stand up like a man and defend
what you so boldly state are facts! Damn it, why do I have to tell
you not to act like a weasel???
Now that I finally start to admit that giving you 20 extra portions
of benefit of the doubt failed, I start feeling revealed. Being
criticized in this manner publicly in such a hopeless manner by
someone so hopelessly unwilling to communicate and talk reason is
an honor, though a weird one. I had wished you would wise up, but if
you refuse to listen I can't stop you from discrediting yourself.
I'm not giving Scientology free points just to please your idiocy.
>But you come across quite one-minded, Andreas, and it really feels through
Like you and CoS are less one-minded than me?
>your posts (not just to me) that you really cant see the other view, and
You refuse to tell me your view, you only serve me stupid accusations
that you aren't man enough to defend. All you do here on ARS is to confirm
what all the critics you don't like say! Keep it coming, because if
what they say is true we need all the help we can get to fight
Scientology!
>that because of your site and the people who helped you, you are indeed a
>victim of your own propaganda. Its ironic really, when you critics here on
You wouldn't know what propaganda was if it ran over you as a
steam locomotive.
>ARS are claiming that Scientologists are those who are brainwashed. Perhaps
>you should be looking at yourselves before making such a claim.
There is nothing I could do to make you change your blind denial
of me. You can only do things now that will better my opinion of
you. Lying like this made you hit rock bottom.
One thing I will give you credit for and that is that you give
me the fighting spirit back! There is nothing like debating, even
though talking to a brick wall like you isn't very stimulating
as a dialog. It still forces me to rewind and re-think my statements
and analyze how you operate. Even find myself argueing for you when
you fail to reply. :) You saying nothing also tells a lot.
It was exactly the same effect with Enzo, but IMO more sad in your
case...
Now I wonder.... how deep will you sink?
And a closing grook by Hein:
THE CIVILIZED ART
Two types that had far better
leave to their betters
the civvilized art
of exchanging letters
are those who disdain
to make any response,
and those who infallibly
answer at once.
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
: Bev wrote in message <35B667...@iag.net>...
: >Mike, do you believe that Freezoners would be most appropriately
: >considered to be truly scientologists, or as Co$ labels them, to be
: >"squirrels"? Which is correct, what you said above, or what LRH
: >policy states? Please answer the questions.
: A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology philosophy.
C'mon, Mike -- not much further to go. That's *almost* a straight answer.
Beck
Lisa Chabot
>I have never mentioned anything concerning the membership of Scientology or
>indeed the total number of Scientologists.
Sure you have, miKe. Don't you remember? Dejanews does:
"The rest, including thousands of staff and millions of parishoners
had no involvement or knowledge of such unlawful activities."
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=373578130
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=372191746 ,
on criminal activity in the GO
"Millions of Scientologists from literally all walks of life..."
And, if we take your definition of "Scientologist":
"While very simple, such actions are quite powerful and have enabled
millions of individuals to improve their lives..."
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=37775830 ,
on Scientology ethics
Is it possible somebody else has broken into your account? Perhaps you'd
better contact msn.com--if you want me to, I will, or you can copy this
and say you didn't make these postings. Except, hmm, you seem to
be posting from somewhere else--the message id's say "upnetnews"; I'm not
sure what this is.
Be sure to look into it!
Jim Wissick
I doubt any critics in this group have a problem with FZ. I challenge you to try
this Mike, hook up with the FZ and talk to them... get both sides and find out
if the FZ might work better for you.
It's a fact that FZ's past is a lot less dark than the past of the COS....
On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:03:03 +0100, "miKe`" <cont...@no-spam.email.msn.com>
wrote:
>>Scientologists include a large number of people who have left
>>the Co$ because they found it to be . . . unsatisfactory <g>.
>>Freezoners are more qualified in scientology tham most Co$ members
>>are.
>
>
>Maybe so. I have no quarrel with them.
>
Archangel
>
> Could it be?? Are we finaly starting to get through to miKe'???
No way. Gotta be a forger. (notice the absence of the TFY/www.s.o sig.)
Archangel
Archangel
Archangel
miKe` wrote:
>
> Bev wrote in message <35B667...@iag.net>...
> >miKe` wrote:
> >
> >> which is not strictly true. To be a Scientologist doesnt mean "joining
> the
> >> church". A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology
> >> philosophy in his/her life.
> >
> >So, you are saying it is correct that Freezoners ~are~ scientologists,
> >as they study and apply scientology philosophy in their lives?
>
> Yes i would.
>
> >Mike, do you believe that Freezoners would be most appropriately
> >considered to be truly scientologists, or as Co$ labels them, to be
> >"squirrels"? Which is correct, what you said above, or what LRH
> >policy states? Please answer the questions.
>
> A Scientologist is one who studies and applies Scientology philosophy.
>
> >> Groups like the IAS do have a membership on the other hand, but
> >> being a scientologist doesnt mean you have to be a member.
> >
> >To someone who knows absolutely ~nothing~ about Co$, this sounds
> >good, but everyone who has been affiliated with them is also
> >familiar with the regging done by them to be a member of the IAS,
> >as well as the ability to get the advantageous discount that being
> >a member of the IAS grants when buying products and services.
> >
> >~I~ was even a member of the IAS for six months!!
>
> Me too, only because it was freeeeeeeeeee !!! :o)
>
> >You know, anybody who buys a product from the org their first time
> >is given that IAS card with a six month term. Then the IAS
> >membership is brought up over and over and over and over. Being
> >a ~Co$ member~ means you are constantly ~reminded~ about keeping
> >your IAS dues current and being a member of the IAS.
> >
> >There are even the occasional regging cycles at orgs where buying
> >lifetime IAS memberships are hammered into the Co$ members psyche :-)
> >You know that, we know that, and it's amusing that you think you
> >can put a different idea into the heads of readers who come here.
> >
> >God forbid a Co$ member ~not~ being a member of the IAS, the
> >game of getting them into it would be in constant play.
>
> Ooooh Im not currently a member of the IAS. Im not really interested in the
> IAS Membership. It is so easy to say "no" you know.
>
> >Now, as far as your claim about "scientologists", I clarify that
> >there is a difference between a scientologist and a Co$ member.
> >
> >Scientologists include a large number of people who have left
> >the Co$ because they found it to be . . . unsatisfactory <g>.
> >Freezoners are more qualified in scientology tham most Co$ members
> >are.
>
> Maybe so. I have no quarrel with them.
>
Lisa Chabot
>Stop insulting me and start taking in what I'm saying.
Hey, miKe, stop insulting Andreas, and start taking in what *you're*
saying:
> miKe` <cont...@msn.com> wrote:
> >I have never mentioned anything concerning the membership of Scientology or
> >indeed the total number of Scientologists.
>
> Sure you have, miKe. Don't you remember? Dejanews does:
>
> "The rest, including thousands of staff and millions of parishoners
> had no involvement or knowledge of such unlawful activities."
> http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=373578130
> http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=372191746 ,
> on criminal activity in the GO
>
> "Millions of Scientologists from literally all walks of life..."
> http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=373578130
> http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=372191746 ,
>
> And, if we take your definition of "Scientologist":
>
> "While very simple, such actions are quite powerful and have enabled
> millions of individuals to improve their lives..."
> http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=37775830 ,
> on Scientology ethics
Of course, maybe he doesn't read postings by suspected females--he
doesn't seem to read mine!
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
spam.email.msn.com> writes
>>Wake up and either start to answer my questions and document you
>>accusations - or end up like the fools Enzo, wgert and Justin
>>who also imagined their cult lies stood any chance out in the real
>>world.
>
>
>I have explained in full that your site puts forward an untrue view of
>Scientology, based on exaggerations, biased opinions, materials used out of
This explains nothing. You said you dislike his site. Now you say
in lots of different ways how you dislike his site. He asked you
WHAT SPECIFIC FACTUAL POINTS are false or misleading.
Is Lisa macPherson sill alive, for instance?
In article <6p5lh6$8...@enews2.newsguy.com>, Rebecca Hartong
<har...@erols.com> writes
>You have asserted this, yes. There is, however, a world of difference
>between an assertion and an explanation. You claim Andreas lies. Identify
>one specific thing on his web site that you believe is a lie and provide
>specific evidence that proves your point.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
DeoMorto
so far in following this thread you actually have not made an specific
statement of what lies there are on Andreas' site.
I actually went back through all your replies, the original posting and
everything and you haven't come up with ONE item.
You keep accusing andreas of it, you keep claiming that the site is biased
and the title of the thread was generated by you.
But you have not documented one lie.
Not one.
could it be, gasp, that YOU ARE LYING???
DeoMorto - the truly censored.
Cat O'Blivion
>Why is it that fellow critics of yours link to your website and no pro
>sites? Aren't they doing exactly what you criticise Scientology for ?
Hi, Mike. When you say that Andreas' fellow critics don't link to
pro-Scientology sites, you are either so intellectually lazy that you haven't
bothered looking, or you are lying. Which is it?
As you can see from my critical site at
http://www.empire.net/~sgorton/cat/entheta not only do I link to several
critical sites, I also have numerous links to pro-Scientology sites, both
freezone and "official".
Not only will you find a link to the official "Church" website, you will find
related links to Dianetics, the CCHR, "Hatewatch" and the Ron the Poet tribute
page. Granted they are presented from a critical perspective, but they are
there, and I encourage people to check them out.
So. Are you willing to admit that you were grossly mistaken and/or lying when
you said that Andreas' fellow critics link to www.xenu.net to the exclusion of
the official "church" sites?
>What I want is for a site to be created explaining Scientology honestly and
>openly like the official site, but then perhaps taking a second look and
>criticising it fairly and accurately.
You admit that Scientology is deserving of criticism? Interesting. That was a
concession I was certainly not expecting you to make.
Since you feel that the amazingly comprehensive xenu.net doesn't meet your
requirements for presenting a "balanced" picture of Scientology, you may wish to
try
http://www.empire.net/~sgorton/co$/true_tour.html and
http://www.empire.net/~sgorton/co$/miscon_tour.html
Both of these sites attempt to convey both sides of the Scientology story by
presenting a critical perspective alongside the official one. These pages rebut
point by point, two of the Scientology webpages ("What is the True Story of
Scientology?" and "What Misconceptions There Are About Scientology?"). You
should already be familiar with the contents of the Scientology pages, as they
are two of the ones you frequently post, verbatim and in their entirety, without
commentary, to a.r.s. You may find it informative to read a different view on
the "church's" propaganda pages.
So. Are you willing to admit that you were grossly mistaken and/or lying when
you said that no one out there is presenting fair and accurate criticism
alongside the "Church's" official views?
Or are you just going to change your criteria for "fair and accurate criticism"
so that no one could possibly meet it without being a cult shill?
Cat
SP4, KoX
heretic-at-large
"Everyone's watchin' everyone's watchin'
it's time to play the fool again"
Jack Craver
Hi DeoMorto-
On his site, Andreas claims Scn is a Satanic Cult.
I think this is a lie and a distortion.
What do you think?
jack
p/m
DeoMorto
On his site, Andreas claims Scn is a Satanic Cult.
I think this is a lie and a distortion.
What do you think?
jack>>
I would concede that point IF you and miKe (or actually you because I doubt
that miKe will have anything valuable to say) concede therefore that
scientology calling itself a religion and a church is a distortion and a lie.
Otherwise I would call it an opinion - which is, in fact, what it is.
M. Ouimette
wrote:
> Stand up like a man and defend
>what you so boldly state are facts! Damn it, why do I have to tell
>you not to act like a weasel???
Could we *kindly* stop comparing weasels unfavorably to $cientologists?
What did the weasels do, huh? Why do you have to pick on them all the
time?
;)
Ermine!
Andreas Heldal-Lund
>On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:22:41 GMT, hel...@online.no (Andreas Heldal-Lund)
>wrote:
>
>> Stand up like a man and defend
>>what you so boldly state are facts! Damn it, why do I have to tell
>>you not to act like a weasel???
>
>Could we *kindly* stop comparing weasels unfavorably to $cientologists?
>What did the weasels do, huh? Why do you have to pick on them all the
>time?
>
>;)
I stand corrected, no weasel ever did anything bad to me.
miKe and other lying Scientologists on the other hand
have showed very bad judgement and have insulted me by
taking me for a fool.
My apologies to all weasels - I now see that being compared
to a clam isn't very flattering. ;)
Best wishes, Andreas Heldal-Lund
Operation Clambake: www.xenu.net SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI
_______________________________________________________________
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in
thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which
never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion
and ignorance which does harm." -- Marcus Aurelius
Andreas Heldal-Lund
>Hi DeoMorto-
>
>On his site, Andreas claims Scn is a Satanic Cult.
>
>I think this is a lie and a distortion.
>
>What do you think?
Could you at least give the reference so peole know what you
are claiming you are quoting me on??
Jack Craver
When going back to your opening page to retrieve the url, I realized
that the url was apparently a link to:
http://ezlink.com/~perry/Co$/Christian/
So I guess that technically, this particular lie does not belong to
you, but rather one of your "contributors".
I retract my statement.
Here is the text referring to the Satanic cult :
---------------
This Web is my response to the bald-faced lies that were told to me in
1981. Had Scientology told me right up front that they were a Satanic
cult, I would have never bothered with this web page. I have a right
under the First Amendment of the United States' Constitution to
practice my religion, a religion whose scripture compels me to warn
others about the spiritual cul-de-sac of Scientology:
"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather
expose them." Ephesians 5:11
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there
will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce
destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them
-- bringing swift destruction on themselves.", 2 Peter 2:1-2
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils". KJV, 1 Tim 4:1
"Neither give place to the devil.", KJV, Ephesians 4:27
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against
the wiles of the devil.", KJV, Ephesians 6:11
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring
lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour", KJV, 1 Peter 5:8
------------------
Deo, in your case I'm happy to be wrong.
jack
Rebecca Hartong
Jack Craver wrote in message <35bacf7c...@NEWS.MIA.BELLSOUTH.NET>...
>On his site, Andreas claims Scn is a Satanic Cult.
[later clarifying that this isn't on Andreas' site, but is on a site linked
to by Andreas]
>I think this is a lie and a distortion.
This is a good start. The next step would be to explain WHY you believe
this to be a lie and to provide documentation for that explanation.
saint andreux
> Here is the text referring to the Satanic cult :
> ---------------
> This Web is my response to the bald-faced lies that were told to me in
> 1981. Had Scientology told me right up front that they were a Satanic
> cult, I would have never bothered with this web page. I have a right
> under the First Amendment of the United States' Constitution to
> practice my religion, a religion whose scripture compels me to warn
> others about the spiritual cul-de-sac of Scientology:
You know, it's a shame...
Why is it that there are certain buzzwords that folks who want
to bash and organisation use?
Satanism? C'mon guys... Scientology, Bill Clinton,
Bill Gates, the Masons, OTO, pagans, etc. are NOT
Satanists.
Show me where LRH says ANYTHING about worshipping
Satan.
You want Satanists, go after Temple of Set or the official,
devil-approved, Church of Satan run by the late Anton
laVey. (Whom, actually, I have a fondness for his writings.
He was a hell of a lot more humorous than LRH.)
It just bothers me that Satanism is always at the bottom
of the heap when it comes to religions. Heck, I've found
some laVeyists to be far more "good" than some Christians.
It's a shame. Attack Scientology because it is a mind-controlling
pyramid scheme based on the teachings of a half-crazed
looney. DON'T compare it to an organisation based on the
teachings of a half-crazed carnie barker. It's not the same.
--
saint andreux --><-- SCIENTOLOGISTS CAN'T READ THIS POST
"In the future, everything will work" FIND OUT WHY: www.xenu.net
www.prairienet.org/~saint/ MY NAME IS A BANNED PHRASE
Andreas Heldal-Lund
>When going back to your opening page to retrieve the url, I realized
>that the url was apparently a link to:
>http://ezlink.com/~perry/Co$/Christian/
>So I guess that technically, this particular lie does not belong to
>you, but rather one of your "contributors".
>
>I retract my statement.
Fair enough.
>Here is the text referring to the Satanic cult :
>---------------
>This Web is my response to the bald-faced lies that were told to me in
>1981. Had Scientology told me right up front that they were a Satanic
>cult, I would have never bothered with this web page. I have a right
>under the First Amendment of the United States' Constitution to
>practice my religion, a religion whose scripture compels me to warn
>others about the spiritual cul-de-sac of Scientology:
>
>"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather
>expose them." Ephesians 5:11
>"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there
>will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce
>destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them
>-- bringing swift destruction on themselves.", 2 Peter 2:1-2
>"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some
>shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
>doctrines of devils". KJV, 1 Tim 4:1
>"Neither give place to the devil.", KJV, Ephesians 4:27
>"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against
>the wiles of the devil.", KJV, Ephesians 6:11
>"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring
>lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour", KJV, 1 Peter 5:8
>------------------
But wherever this is printed, it is not a lie. It is an opinion,
or in this case obviousely a belief. A belief and an opinion can only
be a lie if it is not true that one hold this belief or opinion.
How do you know that this is not the true belief of this person?
Are you a liar because you believe in something I do not agree
with? Of course not!
Perry Scott
says...
>When going back to your opening page to retrieve the url, I realized
>that the url was apparently a link to:
>http://ezlink.com/~perry/Co$/Christian/
>So I guess that technically, this particular lie does not belong to
>you, but rather one of your "contributors".
>
>I retract my statement.
>
>Here is the text referring to the Satanic cult :
>---------------
>This Web is my response to the bald-faced lies that were told to me in
>1981. Had Scientology told me right up front that they were a Satanic
>cult, I would have never bothered with this web page.
As the author of the cited web page, I'll respond to this. At the time
I wrote this, I was thinking mainly of Hubbard's adoration of Crowley,
whom he said had described himself as "666" and "The Beast" [PDC, tape 16].
Also, Hubbard's early experiments with creating the Anti-Christ with Jack
Parsons was on my mind as well. Of course, there is also the "crossed out
cross" that Scientology uses. Hubbard's fondling of the late Crowley's
estate immediately prior to writing the Philadelphia Doctorate Course
directly links "The Beast" with Scientology.
(Now, before Crowley fans get upset, note that I'm quoting Hubbard's words
that describe Crowley. Also note that if Crowley used the words "666" and
"Beast" to describe himself, he did it knowing full well that it would
cause misunderstanding amongst Christians.)
Since then, I have mellowed a bit. I would be happy to change the statement
from "satanic" to "anti-christian". I prove "anti-christian" further down
the page.
To help Jack out with his argument, I'll note that Scientology does not
directly worship Satan. In fact, Hubbard specifically derides "the devil" in
his descriptions of R6 and organized religion, which is documented further
down the page.
In rebuttal, I'll say that from a Christian point of view, Scientology forwards
a satanic agenda in that it points people away from the divine, substituting
a secular form of "spirituality" which substitutes "mind" for "spirit".
(Personally, I think Hubbard had a crashing M/U about the meaning of "spirit".
Also in rebuttal, I present http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology/#christ
which contrasts several major beliefs of Scientology (gnosticism, the occult,
and reincarnation) which are specifically proscribed by Orthodox Christianity.
In Christian teachings, Satan is the source of practices which lead people
away from God. Thus, Scientology _could_ be said to be "Satanic", but
the statement only has meaning in a Christian context.
The page needs to reach more than just Christians. Since I'm trying to reach
Scientologists as well, I can see that the passage may be "out-gradient",
leading to the Scientologist posting "Andreas Lies" to a.r.s., rather than
reading the remainder of the page and gaining some understanding.
And by the way, I am not a "contributor" to Clambake. There is no ARSCC.
Andreas links to my page (apparently) because of its quality. In return, he
has to suffer the occasional religious argument (he is atheist, I believe),
which he dutifully forwards to me.
Comments, Jack? Care to rebut the specific lies? I'll change the web page
if you do.
Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee
CiCiAychar
Heldal-Lund) writes:
>
>>What I want is for a site to be created explaining Scientology honestly and
>>openly like the official site, but then perhaps taking a second look and
To miKe: Have I got this right? You attack Andreas because he didn't create
*his* site the way *you* want it? Why should he have? After all, it *is* his
and he did all the work. Where were you when he was working on it? This
sounds a little audacious to me.
>
>KEEP THAT THOUGHT!!!
>
>Listen to this:
>
>What you are describing is a site after your heart, presenting
>issues the way YOU want them to be presented. You seem to confuse
>not being "honest and open" with not agreeing with you. I am very
>open and very honest, but we still disagree with you.
>If you feel your type of page is missing, then it _MIGHT_ be
>because you haven't made it yet? You do really live in a different
>universe if you expect others to do all the work and still
>represent you and not themselves!
>
To Andreas: I think you have found the core of the matter right here. I think
you summed up the entire situation in the first two sentences. It not only
describes miKe, but also the mind-set of $cn. You're a perceptive man,
Andreas. First-rate, I should say.
Regards,
CiCi
SP1(still), KoX
Alan Barclay
miKe` <cont...@no-spam.email.msn.com> wrote:
>Why is it that fellow critics of yours link to your website and no pro
>moment, actual true data about scientology can be found at
>http://www.scientology.org but I accept that it is propaganda just as your
Almost every critic's webpage links to www.scientology.org
Some examples,
http://www.scientology-kills.net/
http://www2.thecia.net/~rnewman/more-info.html
http://www.entheta.net/arsweb.shtml
http://www.xenu.net/
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4334/links.html
I can't say for certain, but I think it's safe to say that every critical site
is linked to one of these pages, or a page like it which contains a direct
link to www.scientology.org
On the other hand, www.scientology.org doesn't link to a single critical
site. Not one. In fact, I don't think that any scientology site links
to any site except for other scientology sites. It's a big black hole.
Why is this Mike?
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
<inm...@bellsouth.net> writes
>On his site, Andreas claims Scn is a Satanic Cult.
I think it's wrong--could you pull out that piece and quote it here?---
and I'm puzzled why he should say it.
To me a "Satanic" group is one which is obsessively COUNTER-CHRISTIAN
i.e. constantly pointing out what it sees as wrong with christianity
and what it advocates as (explicitly so described) a counter to
christianity, using the name of Satan to signify being directly
focussed on and opposed to christianity; the content might by
rationalism, or the worship of a supernatural Satan, or whatever.
Whereas CoS is just not-christian in the same way it is equally
not-muslim, not-budhist, not-hindu or not-voodoo, but does its
own original thing.
Jack Craver
wrote:
< hack >
Satan is the source of practices which lead people
>away from God. Thus, Scientology _could_ be said to be "Satanic", but
>the statement only has meaning in a Christian context.
>
Even a christian, even a blind christian, could see that a "Satanic
cult" had better include satan
.
On Andreas' opening page is your link:
The Scientology Comparative Theology Page
A WEB SITE TO PROMOTE THE SCHOLARLY STUDY OF THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF
SCIENTOLOGY.
I really expected a scholarly presentation that would not be favorable
to Scn, but may be worth reading. Instead I am greeted with "Satanic
cult" and quoted biblical scriptures about devils and hungry roaring
lions.
Ridiculous.
>And by the way, I am not a "contributor" to Clambake.
I have no idea what you are. Your sig claims "CoS Escapee". If so, Scn
got the better deal.
No lie.
> There is no ARSCC.
No shit.
>Andreas links to my page (apparently) because of its quality. In return, he
>has to suffer the occasional religious argument (he is atheist, I believe),
>which he dutifully forwards to me.
>
>Comments, Jack? Care to rebut the specific lies? I'll change the web page
>if you do.
>
Please keep your web-site exactly as it is.
A foot-bullet is a terrible thing to waste.
Scientologists do *not* worship satan.
If you believe that they do, then you are a fool
else
you are a liar.
And all of your christian rhetoric won't change that.
>
>Perry Scott
>Co$ Escapee
jack
blind christian bigotry escapee
Andreas Heldal-Lund
>On 24 Jul 1998 09:29:14 -0700, Perry Scott <pe...@nospam.ezlink.com>
>wrote:
>
>< hack >
>
> Satan is the source of practices which lead people
>>away from God. Thus, Scientology _could_ be said to be "Satanic", but
>>the statement only has meaning in a Christian context.
>>
>
>Even a christian, even a blind christian, could see that a "Satanic
>cult" had better include satan
I don't know if you only know a very isolated group
of Christians, but I know many who would state that
CoS was a satanic cult. Hubbard maniac and obvious
crazy fling with OTO aside (relax, I have been told
the difference between OTO and Satanism!), many who
believe in the biblical version of Satan also believes
that everything NOT in compliance with their belief
is in effect steered by Satan. In their view CoS then
of course is a Satanic cult. Of course, according to
the same I'm also a product of Satan. ;)
You have to learn to separate personal belief and
lies. People are allowed to believe whatever they
want and even speak this belief in public. It is not
the right to believe that is attacked in ARS, or the
web pages of critics, but the claims made by believers.
Not because critics want to oppress the believers, but
to offer the views of the "other side".
A lie on the web, or any other place, is something
that is presented as documented and proven, but is not
as it claims. If I claim I believe the Earth is flat,
it is my right to believe it and profess it. If I
claim this is what I believe and show you the reason
for why I believe this (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm)
then you have no right to claim it is a lie. If that is
my belief only I know if that is true or not. What you
can say is that you disagree, or that I'm wrong.
Get my drift?
Best wishes, Andreas Heldal-Lund
Operation Clambake: www.xenu.net SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI
_______________________________________________________________
"Throughout history it has been the inaction of those who could
have acted, the indifference of those who should have known
better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered
most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph."
- Haile Selassie
Andreas Heldal-Lund
>On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:51:51 GMT, hel...@online.no (Andreas
>Heldal-Lund) wrote:
>
>>Why do you continue to lie even though it is proven that you do?
>
>Because he's a paid OSA goon?
If I'm allowed to be honest: I don't believe miKe' is a
OSA goon. He's been conned by CoS, and he struggles with
his belief, yes. But he's not our ordinary OSA goon.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <35bb2900....@news.online.no>,
>> Satan is the source of practices which lead people
>>>away from God. Thus, Scientology _could_ be said to be "Satanic", but
>>>the statement only has meaning in a Christian context.
>>>
>>
>>Even a christian, even a blind christian, could see that a "Satanic
>>cult" had better include satan
>
>I don't know if you only know a very isolated group
>of Christians, but I know many who would state that
>CoS was a satanic cult.
Only if they were talking bollocks e.g. they would call Islam
a "Satanic cult" too. But it isn't: they are too stupid to
tell the difference between COUNTER-christian and merely
NON-christian.
Jack Craver
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998 20:07:04 GMT, hel...@online.no (Andreas
Heldal-Lund) wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 23:45:16 GMT, inm...@bellsouth.net (Jack Craver) wrote:
>
>>On 24 Jul 1998 09:29:14 -0700, Perry Scott <pe...@nospam.ezlink.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>< hack >
>>
>> Satan is the source of practices which lead people
>>>away from God. Thus, Scientology _could_ be said to be "Satanic", but
>>>the statement only has meaning in a Christian context.
>>>
>>
>>Even a christian, even a blind christian, could see that a "Satanic
>>cult" had better include satan
>
>I don't know if you only know a very isolated group
>of Christians, but I know many who would state that
>CoS was a satanic cult. Hubbard maniac and obvious
>crazy fling with OTO aside (relax, I have been told
>the difference between OTO and Satanism!), many who
>believe in the biblical version of Satan also believes
>that everything NOT in compliance with their belief
>is in effect steered by Satan. In their view CoS then
>of course is a Satanic cult.
If this premise is true (and I agree it is true), then Perry Scott
should believe that *all* religions other than christianity, are
Satanic cults. On his page he discusses Scientology, Islam, Judaism,
Buddhism and Christianity, yet according to Perry, only one of these
is a "Satanic cult". Guess which one that is.
Or, perhaps Perry really does believe Islam (and the others) to be
satan inspired. Perhaps one day Perry will put up a site that declares
Islam to be a "Satanic cult". And the site should also contain
Biblical references like this one:
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against
the wiles of the devil.", KJV, Ephesians 6:11
What do you think the response to this scenario would be?
Of course, according to
>the same I'm also a product of Satan. ;)
>
After reading the Brainwashing/mind contol section on your site, I
would have to agree. <g>
>You have to learn to separate personal belief and
>lies. People are allowed to believe whatever they
>want and even speak this belief in public. It is not
>the right to believe that is attacked in ARS, or the
>web pages of critics, but the claims made by believers.
>Not because critics want to oppress the believers, but
>to offer the views of the "other side".
>
*Some* critics do this, some critics try to do this, and some could
care less about freedom of beliefs. I have posts that make a mockery
of Scn beliefs.
>A lie on the web, or any other place, is something
>that is presented as documented and proven, but is not
>as it claims. If I claim I believe the Earth is flat,
>it is my right to believe it and profess it. If I
>claim this is what I believe and show you the reason
>for why I believe this (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm)
>then you have no right to claim it is a lie. If that is
>my belief only I know if that is true or not. What you
>can say is that you disagree, or that I'm wrong.
>
If you believed that the earth is flat, I would have no problem with
that. However if you *knew* the earth was *not* flat (e.g. an
astronaut), and still made the same claim, then I would say that you
were either a liar, or a fool.
Perry is supposed to be a "CoS escapee". He's been in Scientology. He
*knows* Scn is *not* a "satanic cult".
I know this, you know this, Deo knows this, *anyone* that knows
anything at all about Scn knows that it has nothing to do with satan.
>Get my drift?
>
Yeah. You raised some good points and made me think.
>Best wishes, Andreas Heldal-Lund
>Operation Clambake: www.xenu.net SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI
>_______________________________________________________________
>"Throughout history it has been the inaction of those who could
>have acted, the indifference of those who should have known
>better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered
>most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph."
> - Haile Selassie
jack
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
<hel...@online.no> writes
>>>Why do you continue to lie even though it is proven that you do?
>>
>>Because he's a paid OSA goon?
>
>If I'm allowed to be honest: I don't believe miKe' is a
>OSA goon. He's been conned by CoS, and he struggles with
>his belief, yes. But he's not our ordinary OSA goon.
I believe he is a free-lance public Scn. You can tell the OSA
drones a mile off.
Perry Scott
says...
>On 24 Jul 1998 09:29:14 -0700, Perry Scott <pe...@nospam.ezlink.com>
>wrote:
>
>< hack >
>
> Satan is the source of practices which lead people
>>away from God. Thus, Scientology _could_ be said to be "Satanic", but
>>the statement only has meaning in a Christian context.
>
>Even a christian, even a blind christian, could see that a "Satanic
Who is Satan? Seriously, I'd like your definition. First off, it would
be interesting to see how a Christian/Jewish/Muslim concept is applied
by Scientologists. Secondly, Scientology has a rich history of supporting
the Red Pajamaed One which would make an interesting thread of its own.
I grudgingly give the "Satanic" label to very few groups. Jews and Muslims
are seeking the God of Abraham. Buddhists are seeking the divine in some
way, though I don't know enough about it to expound. Religion in general
seeks some contact with the divine, and that's OK with me. Even Druids
are fine by me, since they don't make waves into Christian space (even
though the reverse is true more often than not.) However, I digress - this
is not a discussion of my religious tolerance, but rather a discussion of
Scientology's religious INtolerance and how it is documented on my web site.
I find Scientology unique in Hubbard's rabid hatred for God and religion.
If you want the quotes, they're at the various "Hubbard Defames XYZZY" links.
So while Scientology doesn't worship a guy in red pajamas with a pointy tail,
Hubbard certainly forwards an agenda that aligns well with his purposes.
With such gems as "The man on the cross, there was no Christ", followed
variously by "I hope that guy [God] is gone!", the description of Heaven,
the R6 "God is an implant", the "assassins" of the Niocene(sic) Creed, it
paints a picture of a man whose hatred for other religions that borders on
extreme.
If it looks like a duck... Why does Scientology forward such an
anti-religion agenda?
>On Andreas' opening page is your link:
>
>The Scientology Comparative Theology Page
>A WEB SITE TO PROMOTE THE SCHOLARLY STUDY OF THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF
>SCIENTOLOGY.
>
>I really expected a scholarly presentation that would not be favorable
>to Scn, but may be worth reading. Instead I am greeted with "Satanic
>cult" and quoted biblical scriptures about devils and hungry roaring
>lions.
My motivations and opinions for creating the page really have no bearing
on the data presented. I can bury that section in a link if you are
unflat on your Grade 0. In fact, I'm surprised that you are focusing
on one paragraph out of many, rather than confronting the data I present.
It seems like a Dead Agent attempt.
>Ridiculous.
If you had been attacked by Scientology Legal, maybe you'd see it
differently. In fact, I am practicing my religion. With Scientology's
claims of being compatible with EVERYTHING, a lot of people (including
me) are tricked into joining. People join without informed consent (or
even negatively-informed consent), due to Scientology's prevarication.
And, without the "satanic" word there, the paragraph still says the same
thing.
>>And by the way, I am not a "contributor" to Clambake.
>
>I have no idea what you are. Your sig claims "CoS Escapee". If so, Scn
>got the better deal.
The feeling is mutual, Jack.
>> There is no ARSCC.
>
>No shit.
Good. You've had a cognition.
>>Andreas links to my page (apparently) because of its quality. In return, he
>>has to suffer the occasional religious argument (he is atheist, I believe),
>>which he dutifully forwards to me.
>>
>>Comments, Jack? Care to rebut the specific lies? I'll change the web page
>>if you do.
>>
>
>Please keep your web-site exactly as it is.
>
>A foot-bullet is a terrible thing to waste.
Actually, you've convinced me that the paragraph, rather than explain my
motivation for the page, causes great M/U for those not acquainted with
Christian theology. You'd need to read Revelations and a bunch of Prophets
to understand that Satan doesn't always appear as the Red Pajamaed one,
complete with pointy head and pitchfork. In Christian/Jewish/Muslim
theology, Satan does, however, work at leading people away from God,
similar to how the Reactive Mind leads people away from being OT.
>Scientologists do *not* worship satan.
> If you believe that they do, then you are a fool
> else
>you are a liar.
I have not said that Scientology worships Satan. Perhaps Hubbard did at one
time with Jack Parsons, but I was unable to find any direct adoration of the
red-pajamaed one while I was in.
However, "satanic" doesn't refer merely to worship, it refers to behavior.
You can serve a master without knowing who it is.
>And all of your christian rhetoric won't change that.
OK. OK. Scientology doesn't directly worship Satan. Do you feel better?
>>Perry Scott
>>Co$ Escapee
>
>jack
>blind christian bigotry escapee
Indeed, escape from blind bigotry, christian or otherwise.
Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee
Perry Scott
says...
>Or, perhaps Perry really does believe Islam (and the others) to be
>satan inspired. Perhaps one day Perry will put up a site that declares
>Islam to be a "Satanic cult". And the site should also contain
>Biblical references like this one:
This is slippery slope reasoning, Jack. You have put words in my mouth
in an attempt to DA me. How about discussing the data on the page? You
seem to be fixated on one word in a 70 KB document.
My personal attitude toward Islam does not further your argument or
rebuts the data that supports my claim that Scientology is "satanic".
From what I know of Islam, it worships the same God that I do. Islam has
extended tolerance toward Christianity because it is "of the book", so I
personally extend the same courtesy.
Where is the tolerance of Scientology toward Islam? Calling the Prophet
a "small town booster" that started a religion because he needed the money
shows very little understanding of Islam. It is highly insulting to Muslims
who view the Prophet as someone who forsook worldly possessions to gain
spiritual understanding. After talking to a Muslim about it, this single
passage <http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Christian/index.htm#antiislam >
insults Muslims in ways that Hubbard didn't even realize. So, rather than
speculate about someone else's intolerance, I suggest you examine CoS's
institutionalized intolerance first.
>"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against
>the wiles of the devil.", KJV, Ephesians 6:11
>
>What do you think the response to this scenario would be?
I suspect Muslims, who have a well-developed theology dealing with the
concept of the devil, hell, and heaven, would agree with the Christians.
Hint: "armour of God" is not what you think it means. What DO you think
it means?
> Of course, according to
>>the same I'm also a product of Satan. ;)
You are not a product of Satan, Andreas.
>After reading the Brainwashing/mind contol section on your site, I
>would have to agree. <g>
Yeah, it's pretty lame. I don't even index that one to the search engines
anymore. In order to find it, you had to do some editting of your URL
window, because I don't link to CoS/index.htm from the Theology page.
I've changed my views somewhat since writing that page. The UFOs are not
circling and I'm not wearing my tinfoil hat at the moment. My views on
Scientology's brand of misinformed choice and RTC's methods of holding
Scientologists hostage by copyrighting salvation will have to wait for
another day.
>>You have to learn to separate personal belief and
>>lies. People are allowed to believe whatever they
>>want and even speak this belief in public. It is not
>>the right to believe that is attacked in ARS, or the
>>web pages of critics, but the claims made by believers.
>>Not because critics want to oppress the believers, but
>>to offer the views of the "other side".
>>
>
>*Some* critics do this, some critics try to do this, and some could
>care less about freedom of beliefs. I have posts that make a mockery
>of Scn beliefs.
Yeah, and people mock Christian beliefs like the virgin birth, the
divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, etc. Get used to it - bad manners are
everywhere. No, I don't call it "bigotry" and "religious intolerance"
when it happens to me.
>Perry is supposed to be a "CoS escapee". He's been in Scientology. He
>*knows* Scn is *not* a "satanic cult".
As I stated in the another post, "satanic" is a specific Christian concept
embodying evil intent. Scientology has Espees. Christianity has Satan.
Scientology, in the guise of Hubbard's various SooperSeekrit works, some
of which are on Andreas' site, expresses truly evil intent toward
Christianity in particular and religion in general. The "deprogramming"
described by Michael Pattinson (a Christian on OT7)
<http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Christian/pattinso.txt> is particularly
chilling in that Scientology treats Christianity (and presumably other
religions) as "False Data", applying Standard Tech "False Data Stripping"
in an attempt to cause (coerce?) people to renounce their faith.
Is that Satan's agenda, Jack?
I can see that I have mixed personal opinion into a research document, which
is a mistake. In my copious free time (I have no real life), I will work on
separating the opinion from fact.
>I know this, you know this, Deo knows this, *anyone* that knows
>anything at all about Scn knows that it has nothing to do with satan.
OK, Scientologists don't have pictures of Satan hanging on the Org walls.
Instead, they shout "Hip! Hip! Hooray!" to pictures of a guy that practiced
occult sex magick in an attempt to conjure the Anti-Christ from the Whore of
Babylon. Christians deeply misunderstand the "research" that Hubbard was
REALLY doing.
And they don't worship Satan. You won't find anyone wearing red pajamas
and sporting a pointy tail down at the Org.
>>Get my drift?
>>
>Yeah. You raised some good points and made me think.
And Jack has convinced me to review the site for data vs opinion. I have
allowed opinion to slip in when the data can speak for itself.
>>Best wishes, Andreas Heldal-Lund
>jack
Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee
Bev
> Where is the tolerance of Scientology toward Islam? Calling the Prophet
> a "small town booster" that started a religion because he needed the money
> shows very little understanding of Islam. It is highly insulting to Muslims
> who view the Prophet as someone who forsook worldly possessions to gain
> spiritual understanding. After talking to a Muslim about it, this single
> passage <http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Christian/index.htm#antiislam >
> insults Muslims in ways that Hubbard didn't even realize. So, rather than
> speculate about someone else's intolerance, I suggest you examine CoS's
> institutionalized intolerance first.
Hubbard Defames Islam
These three quotes occur in succession in Whats Wrong with this
Universe: A Working Package for the Auditor, L. Ron Hubbard, 9
Dec 1952. RealAudio[147K]
Hubbard on the Lodestone
"It's an enormous stone hanging suspended in the middle of a room,
this is an incident called the Emanator by the way, and this thing is
by the way the source of the Mohammedan Lodestone that they have hanging
down there,..."
Hubbard on Mohammed
"...that, eh, when Mohammed decided to be a good small-town booster
in eh Kansas, Middle-East, or something of the sort."
Hubbard on Mohammed's Motives
"By the way, the only reason he mocked that thing up, is the trade
wasn't good in his hometown. That's right. You read the life of
Mohammed.
And he's got a black one and it sort of hung between the ceiling and the
floor, I don't know, maybe they call it the Casbah or something or...
Anyway, anyway, that thing is a mockup of the Emanator!"
Hubbard on the Roots of Islam
"The Emanator is bright, not black. And so, your volunteer, who
insists on a sightseeing trip, goes in and this thing is standing in
the middle of the room, and it's going 'wong wong wong wong wong'
and he says: "Isn't that pretty?". It sure is, and then he says
"Mmmgrmrm ponk" Why, I'll tell you, they cart him from there, and they
take him in and they do a transposition of beingness."
URL: http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Christian/index.htm#antiislam
Okay, "wong wong wong wong wong" and "Mmmgrmrm ponk"! So, that's
the ~secret~ of Islam and the Lodestone that Hubbard discovered?
Okay. Can't get any more scientific than that, but I ~REALLY~ would
love to see the ~research~ verification that went along with that
one!!
Beverly
Jack Craver
wrote:
>In article <35ba75ae...@NEWS.MIA.BELLSOUTH.NET>, inm...@bellsouth.net
>says...
>>Or, perhaps Perry really does believe Islam (and the others) to be
>>satan inspired. Perhaps one day Perry will put up a site that declares
>>Islam to be a "Satanic cult". And the site should also contain
>>Biblical references like this one:
>
>This is slippery slope reasoning, Jack. You have put words in my mouth
>in an attempt to DA me.
This is an answer to Andre as' post. No DA intended at all.
How about discussing the data on the page? You
>seem to be fixated on one word in a 70 KB document.
>
The *two* words, "Satanic cult" is on your page, presented as *data*.
"Satan" or one of its derivatives, appear no less than 7 times.
>My personal attitude toward Islam does not further your argument or
>rebuts the data that supports my claim that Scientology is "satanic".
>From what I know of Islam, it worships the same God that I doIslam has
>extended tolerance toward Christianity because it is "of the book", so I
>personally extend the same courtesy.
>
>Where is the tolerance of Scientology toward Islam? Calling the Prophet
>a "small town booster" that started a religion because he needed the money
>shows very little understanding of Islam. It is highly insulting to Muslims
>who view the Prophet as someone who forsook worldly possessions to gain
>spiritual understanding. After talking to a Muslim about it, this single
>passage <http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Christian/index.htm#antiislam >
>insults Muslims in ways that Hubbard didn't even realize. So, rather than
>speculate about someone else's intolerance, I suggest you examine CoS's
>institutionalized intolerance first.
>
Read your commentary and listened to your RealAudio and I do not agree
with your commentary, I do have some questions about the RA. But this
is from 1952 and LRH is dead. To me, this is not the same as labelling
an entire religion as "Satanic" on a web-site.
>>"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against
>>the wiles of the devil.", KJV, Ephesians 6:11
>>
>>What do you think the response to this scenario would be?
>
>I suspect Muslims, who have a well-developed theology dealing with the
>concept of the devil, hell, and heaven, would agree with the Christians.
>Hint: "armour of God" is not what you think it means. What DO you think
>it means?
>
Lets just skip this part, OK Perry?
>
< snip >
>I've changed my views somewhat since writing that page. The UFOs are not
>circling and I'm not wearing my tinfoil hat at the moment. My views on
>Scientology's brand of misinformed choice and RTC's methods of holding
>Scientologists hostage by copyrighting salvation will have to wait for
>another day.
>
>
>>>You have to learn to separate personal belief and
>>>lies. People are allowed to believe whatever they
>>>want and even speak this belief in public. It is not
>>>the right to believe that is attacked in ARS, or the
>>>web pages of critics, but the claims made by believers.
>>>Not because critics want to oppress the believers, but
>>>to offer the views of the "other side".
>>>
>>
>>*Some* critics do this, some critics try to do this, and some could
>>care less about freedom of beliefs. I have posts that make a mockery
>>of Scn beliefs.
>
>Yeah, and people mock Christian beliefs like the virgin birth, the
>divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, etc. Get used to it - bad manners are
>everywhere. No, I don't call it "bigotry" and "religious intolerance"
>when it happens to me.
>
What do you call it?
>
>>Perry is supposed to be a "CoS escapee". He's been in Scientology. He
>>*knows* Scn is *not* a "satanic cult".
>
>As I stated in the another post, "satanic" is a specific Christian concept
>embodying evil intent. Scientology has Espees. Christianity has Satan.
>Scientology, in the guise of Hubbard's various SooperSeekrit works, some
>of which are on Andreas' site, expresses truly evil intent toward
>Christianity in particular and religion in general. The "deprogramming"
>described by Michael Pattinson (a Christian on OT7)
><http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Christian/pattinso.txt> is particularly
>chilling in that Scientology treats Christianity (and presumably other
>religions) as "False Data", applying Standard Tech "False Data Stripping"
>in an attempt to cause (coerce?) people to renounce their faith.
>
After 5 years and reaching clear, no-one ever bothered to mention
anything about fath to me. And while what happened to Michael
Pattinson is wrong and abusive (assuming he's telling the truth), this
abuse seems to go hand-in-hand with religions in general. Christianity
included. Miami has recently seen yet another priest arrested for
molesting children.
Abuses in religion *do* occur, and yet there seem to be no shortage of
people willing to put their faith and hopes in religion. This is,
after all, *their* choice. But these abuses are *not* why the religion
exists. Scientology, like other religions, helps people. Thats their
single, biggest purpose. And they do help people, every day, day after
day. If the Michael Pattinson story is true, then I am glad to see
this on your site. Abuses should not be ignored.
>Is that Satan's agenda, Jack?
>
Satan is apparently unavailable to me at this time. I will try back
later to ask him this question.
One of the good things about having no gods is, having no devils.
>
>I can see that I have mixed personal opinion into a research document, which
>is a mistake. In my copious free time (I have no real life), I will work on
>separating the opinion from fact.
>
>
>>I know this, you know this, Deo knows this, *anyone* that knows
>>anything at all about Scn knows that it has nothing to do with satan.
>
>OK, Scientologists don't have pictures of Satan hanging on the Org walls.
>
>Instead, they shout "Hip! Hip! Hooray!" to pictures of a guy that practiced
>occult sex magick in an attempt to conjure the Anti-Christ from the Whore of
>Babylon. Christians deeply misunderstand the "research" that Hubbard was
>REALLY doing.
>
Sounds like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" <g>
We have all done things that Christians would deeply misunderstand.
Even Christians. Doesn't mean we have to do those things the rest of
our lives.
Except for a brief period on staff, I was a public scientologist for
five years and though I left Scn.years ago I am still a scientologist.
I never Hip Hip Hoorayed anyones picture. The person I admire most is
Carl Sagan, not LRH. I am amazed at Wgert and Justin. Who are these
people? When I read a story like Micheal Pattinson's or Diary of a
dying Scientologist (?), I am outraged. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? This is
not the Scientology I learned. I never learned to sneak around
someones house shouting obscenities. The Scientologists I know are
*all* good, trustworthy people. People I trust implicitly.
An enigma.
>And they don't worship Satan. You won't find anyone wearing red pajamas
>and sporting a pointy tail down at the Org.
>
>>>Get my drift?
>>>
>>Yeah. You raised some good points and made me think.
>
>And Jack has convinced me to review the site for data vs opinion. I have
>allowed opinion to slip in when the data can speak for itself.
>
Thanks. Scn is a lot of things, but it isn't a satanic cult.
Now, about your sig.....(just kidding)
>
>
>Perry Scott
>Co$ Escapee
Best of luck
jack
Brent Stone
....
>And they don't worship Satan. You won't find anyone wearing red pajamas
>and sporting a pointy tail down at the Org.
Hmmmm... I've heard of sightings of red jammies near the SF org.
Perry Scott
says...
>On 28 Jul 1998 22:03:40 -0700, Perry Scott <pe...@nospam.ezlink.com>
>wrote:
>>In article <35ba75ae...@NEWS.MIA.BELLSOUTH.NET>, inm...@bellsouth.net
>>says...
>>>Or, perhaps Perry really does believe Islam (and the others) to be
>>>satan inspired. Perhaps one day Perry will put up a site that declares
>>>Islam to be a "Satanic cult". And the site should also contain
>>>Biblical references like this one:
>>
>>This is slippery slope reasoning, Jack. You have put words in my mouth
>>in an attempt to DA me.
>
>This is an answer to Andre as' post. No DA intended at all.
OK, I'll accept this. Rather than speculating and evaluating, all you needed
to do was ask a question for clarification.
> How about discussing the data on the page? You
>>seem to be fixated on one word in a 70 KB document.
>>
>
>The *two* words, "Satanic cult" is on your page, presented as *data*.
>"Satan" or one of its derivatives, appear no less than 7 times.
OK, 14 words in 70 KB. Sheesh, you're worse than a nerdy computer engineer.
>>My personal attitude toward Islam does not further your argument or
>>rebuts the data that supports my claim that Scientology is "satanic".
>>From what I know of Islam, it worships the same God that I doIslam has
>>extended tolerance toward Christianity because it is "of the book", so I
>>personally extend the same courtesy.
>>
>>Where is the tolerance of Scientology toward Islam? Calling the Prophet
>>a "small town booster" that started a religion because he needed the money
>>shows very little understanding of Islam. It is highly insulting to Muslims
>>who view the Prophet as someone who forsook worldly possessions to gain
>>spiritual understanding. After talking to a Muslim about it, this single
>>passage <http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Christian/index.htm#antiislam >
>>insults Muslims in ways that Hubbard didn't even realize. So, rather than
>>speculate about someone else's intolerance, I suggest you examine CoS's
>>institutionalized intolerance first.
>>
>
>Read your commentary and listened to your RealAudio and I do not agree
>with your commentary, I do have some questions about the RA. But this
>is from 1952 and LRH is dead. To me, this is not the same as labelling
>an entire religion as "Satanic" on a web-site.
While I can understand Hubbard's comments in the context of the 1950s
when sensitivity to diverse ethnic and religious background was at an
ebb, my criticism is that Scientology has not shifted with the times.
Scientology could revise the PDC, the various auditor courses, and all
the other little places that Hubbard makes a fool of himself. However,
they are locked into an institutionalized rule about not altering Source.
Veneration of a man's words, rather than a man's ideas, is a bad thing.
>>>"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against
>>>the wiles of the devil.", KJV, Ephesians 6:11
>>>
>>>What do you think the response to this scenario would be?
>>
>>I suspect Muslims, who have a well-developed theology dealing with the
>>concept of the devil, hell, and heaven, would agree with the Christians.
>>Hint: "armour of God" is not what you think it means. What DO you think
>>it means?
>
>Lets just skip this part, OK Perry?
I'll accept your retraction. I sometimes walk onto theological ground that
I don't understand. I've found it best to say "excuse me", listen politely,
and leave quietly. (Like right now, in fact. Believe it or not, your
objections to "Satanic cult" have had me thinking quite a bit lately about
it.)
>>Yeah, and people mock Christian beliefs like the virgin birth, the
>>divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, etc. Get used to it - bad manners are
>>everywhere. No, I don't call it "bigotry" and "religious intolerance"
>>when it happens to me.
>>
>What do you call it?
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. Or bad
manners.
>>>Perry is supposed to be a "CoS escapee". He's been in Scientology. He
>>>*knows* Scn is *not* a "satanic cult".
>>
>>As I stated in the another post, "satanic" is a specific Christian concept
>>embodying evil intent. Scientology has Espees. Christianity has Satan.
>>Scientology, in the guise of Hubbard's various SooperSeekrit works, some
>>of which are on Andreas' site, expresses truly evil intent toward
>>Christianity in particular and religion in general. The "deprogramming"
>>described by Michael Pattinson (a Christian on OT7)
>><http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Christian/pattinso.txt> is particularly
>>chilling in that Scientology treats Christianity (and presumably other
>>religions) as "False Data", applying Standard Tech "False Data Stripping"
>>in an attempt to cause (coerce?) people to renounce their faith.
>
>After 5 years and reaching clear, no-one ever bothered to mention
>anything about fath to me. And while what happened to Michael
>Pattinson is wrong and abusive (assuming he's telling the truth),
Thank you for acknowledging that what Pattinson has to say may be the
truth. Frankly, I don't care what Scientologists want to believe. I
just want full disclosure up front about those beliefs. I'd also like
to see a review system (not controlled by CSI/RTC, but by Scientologists)
put in place to investigate abuses.
> this
>abuse seems to go hand-in-hand with religions in general. Christianity
>included. Miami has recently seen yet another priest arrested for
>molesting children.
The Catholic Church is actively working on the abuse by priests. What
is Scientology doing?
>Abuses in religion *do* occur, and yet there seem to be no shortage of
>people willing to put their faith and hopes in religion. This is,
>after all, *their* choice. But these abuses are *not* why the religion
>exists.
The secular world has its own examples of abuse of power as well, and the
correlation between religion and abuse of power is weak. I think there is
a much higher correlation between abuse of power and an inadequate system
of checks and balances. Where is Scientology's system of checks and balances
that is independent of CSI and RTC? Can you demand a sec-check of Miscavige
without repercussions? My bishop has a term of four years and his successor
is elected by my representatives.
>Scientology, like other religions, helps people. Thats their
>single, biggest purpose. And they do help people, every day, day after
>day.
OK. I can't verify this. My measure of the "helpfulness" of a church is
how much money and resource goes toward people not affiliated with the
church. For example, my church supports "Habitat for Humanity", and builds
several houses each year. We don't advertise this fact (except for now, I
suppose :), so we derive no PR benefit.
> If the Michael Pattinson story is true, then I am glad to see
>this on your site. Abuses should not be ignored.
Thank you. With people like you, there is hope for Scientology.
>>Is that Satan's agenda, Jack?
>>
>Satan is apparently unavailable to me at this time. I will try back
>later to ask him this question.
>One of the good things about having no gods is, having no devils.
LOL.
>>OK, Scientologists don't have pictures of Satan hanging on the Org walls.
>>
>>Instead, they shout "Hip! Hip! Hooray!" to pictures of a guy that practiced
>>occult sex magick in an attempt to conjure the Anti-Christ from the Whore of
>>Babylon. Christians deeply misunderstand the "research" that Hubbard was
>>REALLY doing.
>>
>
>Sounds like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" <g>
I wish I understood your joke. This Whore of Babylon stuff is confirmed
by sources in "Bare-Faced Messiah". Even Aleister Crowley knew what was
going on.
>We have all done things that Christians would deeply misunderstand.
>Even Christians. Doesn't mean we have to do those things the rest of
>our lives.
Hubbard continued his anti-christian activity throughout his life. The
PDC, the various auditor classes, OT3 R6, etc. If you look at the dates
of references on my page, it didn't stop in the 50s. Scientology has not
chosen to delete these anti-religion references.
While I have noted changes in the Red Volumes, the secret teachings still
have a lot of anti-religion in them.
>Except for a brief period on staff, I was a public scientologist for
>five years and though I left Scn.years ago I am still a scientologist.
This explains a lot, Jack. You are a much better representative of your
religion than wgert, amigo, Mikey, Justin, or even Miscavige and Rinder.
>I never Hip Hip Hoorayed anyones picture. The person I admire most is
>Carl Sagan, not LRH.
I'm a fan of DaVinci myself. Him and whoever invented indoor plumbing.
> I am amazed at Wgert and Justin. Who are these
>people? When I read a story like Micheal Pattinson's or Diary of a
>dying Scientologist (?), I am outraged. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? This is
>not the Scientology I learned. I never learned to sneak around
>someones house shouting obscenities. The Scientologists I know are
>*all* good, trustworthy people. People I trust implicitly.
I wish more publics would question these kind of abuses. In fact, at
the Org level, I found everything was mostly OK. Except for the high
prices and general money-grubbing. Spiritual salvation sure is expensive
in Scientology.
As you read "Dying Scientologist", read between the lines in Hubbard's
various ethics PLs (some are on Jacobsen's site). One of them says that
an upstat staffer cannot get into ethics trouble. Apparently, this extends
to upstat publics as well. Jacquier was not as "upstat" as the people who
would not repay him.
>An enigma.
An out-ethics OSA. And I'm talking about real ethics, not the ethics that
Hubbard dreamed up to justify his own behavior.
>>And they don't worship Satan. You won't find anyone wearing red pajamas
>>and sporting a pointy tail down at the Org.
>>
>>>>Get my drift?
>>>>
>>>Yeah. You raised some good points and made me think.
>>
>>And Jack has convinced me to review the site for data vs opinion. I have
>>allowed opinion to slip in when the data can speak for itself.
>>
>Thanks. Scn is a lot of things, but it isn't a satanic cult.
>
>Now, about your sig.....(just kidding)
My escape was mostly just walking away and enduring the standard Reg
pleadings. After their mailings followed me to another state, I told
them to take me off their list. After telling them the second time,
they quit sending stuff.
Maybe after 16 years, I'm still a Scientologist. Despite my best efforts
here on a.r.s., I have not gotten Declared.
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
<pe...@nospam.ezlink.com> wrote:
>Thank you for acknowledging that what Pattinson has to say may be the
>truth. Frankly, I don't care what Scientologists want to believe. I
>just want full disclosure up front about those beliefs. I'd also like
>to see a review system (not controlled by CSI/RTC, but by Scientologists)
>put in place to investigate abuses.
I can't believe you're saying this. It would be equally naive to think
that dope dealers could be kept out of schools by a review board of
addicted school kids. You've been in, so I'm not telling you something
new. Scn isn't about liberty, it is about control and more control.
Saying as much as that Rinder was frothing on Dateline isn't allowed as
long as he's a member in good standing.
Mike
--
Scientology & Dianetics
Tax-exempt Child abuse and neglect?
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9169/childabuse.html
ni...@idt.net
: In article <35c6af3e...@NEWS.MIA.BELLSOUTH.NET>, inm...@bellsouth.net
: says...
: >On 28 Jul 1998 22:03:40 -0700, Perry Scott <pe...@nospam.ezlink.com>
: >wrote:
: >>In article <35ba75ae...@NEWS.MIA.BELLSOUTH.NET>, inm...@bellsouth.net
: >>says...
: >>>Or, perhaps Perry really does believe Islam (and the others) to be
: >>>satan inspired. Perhaps one day Perry will put up a site that declares
: >>>Islam to be a "Satanic cult". And the site should also contain
[snip]
: >>shows very little understanding of Islam. It is highly insulting to Muslims
: >>who view the Prophet as someone who forsook worldly possessions to gain
: >>spiritual understanding. After talking to a Muslim about it, this single
: >>passage <http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Christian/index.htm#antiislam >
: >>insults Muslims in ways that Hubbard didn't even realize. So, rather than
: >>speculate about someone else's intolerance, I suggest you examine CoS's
: >>institutionalized intolerance first.
: >>
: >
: >Read your commentary and listened to your RealAudio and I do not agree
: >with your commentary, I do have some questions about the RA. But this
: >is from 1952 and LRH is dead. To me, this is not the same as labelling
: >an entire religion as "Satanic" on a web-site.
1952 or 1992, if LRH said it, it is considered "Source". Even though
Hubbard's dead, it's still what Hubbard said. No way that can be
considered tolerant or respectful of Islam in _any_ way, shape or form.
: While I can understand Hubbard's comments in the context of the 1950s
: when sensitivity to diverse ethnic and religious background was at an
: ebb, my criticism is that Scientology has not shifted with the times.
: Scientology could revise the PDC, the various auditor courses, and all
: the other little places that Hubbard makes a fool of himself. However,
: they are locked into an institutionalized rule about not altering Source.
: Veneration of a man's words, rather than a man's ideas, is a bad thing.
CoS makes fundamentalists look like moderates.
: >>>"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against
: >>>the wiles of the devil.", KJV, Ephesians 6:11
: >>>
: >>>What do you think the response to this scenario would be?
: >>
: >>I suspect Muslims, who have a well-developed theology dealing with the
: >>concept of the devil, hell, and heaven, would agree with the Christians.
: >>Hint: "armour of God" is not what you think it means. What DO you think
: >>it means?
: >
: >Lets just skip this part, OK Perry?
: I'll accept your retraction. I sometimes walk onto theological ground that
: I don't understand. I've found it best to say "excuse me", listen politely,
: and leave quietly. (Like right now, in fact. Believe it or not, your
: objections to "Satanic cult" have had me thinking quite a bit lately about
: it.)
OK, they have agreed not to discuss it, but I have to second Perry; Islam
and Christianity are very close indeed in terms of the nature &
characteristics of angels, devils, what "demonic" means, and so forth
(Essential characteristics, not pitchforks & halos).
: >>Yeah, and people mock Christian beliefs like the virgin birth, the
: >>divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, etc. Get used to it - bad manners are
: >>everywhere. No, I don't call it "bigotry" and "religious intolerance"
: >>when it happens to me.
: >>
: >What do you call it?
: Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. Or bad
: manners.
Whether bad manners or whatever, this happens all the time. But you don't
see Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians or other Christian groups
leafletting communities with DA packs, trespassing, killing pets, leaving
death threats in Andreas' guestbook or whatever. Maybe not every
Scientologist has experienced this very dark side of CoS, but that doesn't
mean it does not exist or that those who talk about disconnection, fair
game and yes, Hubbard's fascination with the Whore Of Babylon (why do you
think Helena Kobrin got that nickname?) are lying. That particular Whore
in Revelation, like the Beast and the number 666, have explicit demonic
connotations in the Bible and Christianity. "Demonic" means satanic.
This does not make CoS into a "satanic cult" in the usual sense of
explicit worship of Satan as in LaVey's First Church of Satan (but Co$cn
seems to do much more harm than CoSatan, which is why the latter is not
much of an issue). However, there is a strong influence in the cult of
ideas, beliefs and methods which an orthodox Christian or Muslim would
consider very much satanic. And one of the characteristics of this
"small-s satanism" (as opposed to large-S which is e.g. the La Vey group)
is deception, the pervasive evil that tries to pass itself off as good, as
Robert Minton discusses in his essays (though I don't think he ties it in
with anything about Satan). If Hubbard just had a one-time dabbling in
black magic regarding the Whore of Babylon but then pursued a totally
unrelated path later, then this might not be relevant.
Look at how Lisa McPherson died, look at how they tried to cover it up;
look at how they tried to harass people to avoid bad PR over it. And
Heber's frothing-at-the-mouth performance on Public Eye - at the very
least it is hard to look at these things and not see a pervasive stench of
evil. And though I don't think Heber was possessed on that TV show, I
really wouldn't be surprised if some people might wonder about that kind
of behavior; it certainly makes Co$ look even worse (which I think most
people would agree on regardless of their theology).
: >>>Perry is supposed to be a "CoS escapee". He's been in Scientology. He
: >>>*knows* Scn is *not* a "satanic cult".
: >>
: >>As I stated in the another post, "satanic" is a specific Christian concept
: >>embodying evil intent. Scientology has Espees. Christianity has Satan.
Scientology also has "Psychs", who in the cult's "theology" are believed
to have much of the characteristics that Christians and Muslims ascribe to
Satan and demons. One might also say that Xen_u serves a devil-like role
in CoS. Just because they use a different name does not mean they don't
have a similar concept.
In fact, the traditional belief about Satan holds that the devil
masquerades as an angel of light, i.e. deceives people into thinking that
it is actually something good and desirable. The idea of selling a
"Bridge to Total Freedom" that is instead slavery is very demonic, whether
or not there is an explicit reference to the name "Satan". One also
should note the references in OT 8 identifying Hubbard with Lucifer and
antichrist. From the perspective of the Bible it is clear what is being
said, and arguing that "Satan" is not mentioned makes little difference.
Lucifer does indeed mean "Light bearer" but it is the name of this angel
prior to its fall; after this angel chose an evil path it was referred to
as Satan ("the adversary"). Theologically I would call that "big-S
Satanism", even though no devil is being explicitly worshipped. Where
Hubbard says that Christ is evil and antichrist is good, that would be
considered "small-s satanism", and both of them deceptions with a similar
aim, even if one is more explicit than the other.
: >>Scientology, in the guise of Hubbard's various SooperSeekrit works, some
: >>of which are on Andreas' site, expresses truly evil intent toward
: >>Christianity in particular and religion in general. The "deprogramming"
: >>described by Michael Pattinson (a Christian on OT7)
: >><http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Christian/pattinso.txt> is particularly
: >>chilling in that Scientology treats Christianity (and presumably other
: >>religions) as "False Data", applying Standard Tech "False Data Stripping"
: >>in an attempt to cause (coerce?) people to renounce their faith.
: >
: >After 5 years and reaching clear, no-one ever bothered to mention
: >anything about fath to me. And while what happened to Michael
: >Pattinson is wrong and abusive (assuming he's telling the truth),
It is great that not all Scientologists have been subject to the more
heinous abuses of this organization. But there is just too much evidence
for those abuses to dismiss them. They are there in the affidavits, the
web pages and the posts on this newsgroup by escapees, harassed critics
and OSA. Why have so many people on a.r.s. been urging Jesse Prince to
protect himself from literally getting murdered by the cult? And just for
telling the truth! This is not some benign "new religious movement" that
just wants to help people.
: Thank you for acknowledging that what Pattinson has to say may be the
: truth. Frankly, I don't care what Scientologists want to believe. I
: just want full disclosure up front about those beliefs. I'd also like
: to see a review system (not controlled by CSI/RTC, but by Scientologists)
: put in place to investigate abuses.
: > this
: >abuse seems to go hand-in-hand with religions in general. Christianity
: >included. Miami has recently seen yet another priest arrested for
: >molesting children.
: The Catholic Church is actively working on the abuse by priests. What
: is Scientology doing?
:
Um, let me guess...the same thing it tried to do with Lisa - cover it up?
: >Abuses in religion *do* occur, and yet there seem to be no shortage of
: >people willing to put their faith and hopes in religion. This is,
: >after all, *their* choice. But these abuses are *not* why the religion
: >exists.
: The secular world has its own examples of abuse of power as well, and the
: correlation between religion and abuse of power is weak. I think there is
: a much higher correlation between abuse of power and an inadequate system
: of checks and balances. Where is Scientology's system of checks and balances
: that is independent of CSI and RTC? Can you demand a sec-check of Miscavige
Checks and balances are vital - "absolute power corrupts absolutely". CoS
seems to be deliberately designed to minimize any checks and balances; and
it is not for nothing that Germany is regulating it as a dangerous,
totalitarian-minded organization.
Hubbard is effectively God in CoS - the fact that CoS denies the existence
of a Supreme Being just distracts from the fact that Hubbard's word is
considered law and truth in the cult. And even if he said he's not God,
CoS is still relying on Hubbard as the last word on the nature of God and
other spiritual phenomena, superceding all other theologies and views, so
whether or not he's literally "deified" is again not so important. If Hubbard
was literally deified, that would be too obvious; a deception has to be a
little more clever to deceive lots of people. And a deception works best
when it is mixed in with a little truth (half truths -- or "acceptable
truths" -- are much more pernicious and deceptive than outright lies). So
if some people do get some genuine "wins" from parts of Scientology, it
only makes the ugly stuff seem less so.
(It's clear that "mixing practices" is not allowed; the notion that a
Christian, Jew, Muslim or Buddhist can keep practicing his/her original
faith after becoming a Scientologist is mere PR deception - as one goes up
the Bridge one is expected to ditch all of one's religious practices for
Hubbard's quasi-religious teachings).
: without repercussions? My bishop has a term of four years and his successor
: is elected by my representatives.
: >Scientology, like other religions, helps people. Thats their
: >single, biggest purpose. And they do help people, every day, day after
: >day.
I see an occasional anecdotal report of how it helps people. I'd see a
few more if I spent any significant amount of time on the Co$ AOL board.
As noted above, Scn may well help some people some of the time. I am
happy if some person experienced a genuinely good thing. But this does
not in any way excuse the DA, the fair game, the death of Lisa, the
threats and lawsuits and suicides and bankruptcies and the coverups of all
of this. This is why so many people actively oppose Co$ (scientology),
while most people just ignore the other CoS (Church of Satan).
: OK. I can't verify this. My measure of the "helpfulness" of a church is
: how much money and resource goes toward people not affiliated with the
: church. For example, my church supports "Habitat for Humanity", and builds
: several houses each year. We don't advertise this fact (except for now, I
: suppose :), so we derive no PR benefit.
Seems like a good criterion. Whereas Co$ does not even help all of its
own (e.g. dumping terminally ill members to avoid bad PR) - make the able
more able and dispose of the rest "quietly and without sorrow".
: > If the Michael Pattinson story is true, then I am glad to see
: >this on your site. Abuses should not be ignored.
: Thank you. With people like you, there is hope for Scientology.
: >>Is that Satan's agenda, Jack?
: >>
: >Satan is apparently unavailable to me at this time. I will try back
: >later to ask him this question.
: >One of the good things about having no gods is, having no devils.
: LOL.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Mine is that something can still
exist even if not believed in. We can postulate all we want; reality
remains what it is whether or not you or I understand it. Like the old
joke about Nietsche:
"God is dead."
-- Nietsche
"Nietsche is dead."
-- God
More to the point, whether or not someone believes that Satan exists has
no bearing on whether various forms of satanism exist and how they are or
are not practiced. There's no debate on whether an overt ("large-S")
group like Church of Satan exists; the debate seems to be whether
something can be satanic (small or large S) if it does not mention Satan
by name but "walks like a duck, talks like a duck", so if it is not
literally a duck by name, it is essentially like a duck and shows the
footprints of a duck.
: >>OK, Scientologists don't have pictures of Satan hanging on the Org walls.
: >>
: >>Instead, they shout "Hip! Hip! Hooray!" to pictures of a guy that practiced
: >>occult sex magick in an attempt to conjure the Anti-Christ from the Whore of
: >>Babylon. Christians deeply misunderstand the "research" that Hubbard was
: >>REALLY doing.
: >>
: >
: >Sounds like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" <g>
No, "Buffy" is a fictional TV show; Hubbard really existed and did these
things, and believed in this stuff. If someone thinks that all this stuff
about Satan and the Whore of Babylon is hogwash, then they should direct
this derision towards Hubbard's embracing of it, rather than considering
him a godlike Source and attacking those who merely point it out.
: I wish I understood your joke. This Whore of Babylon stuff is confirmed
: by sources in "Bare-Faced Messiah". Even Aleister Crowley knew what was
: going on.
And Crowley considered Hubbard's actions to be very dangerous and the
height of foolhardiness. Why would someone say that if these things are
just figments of someone's imagination?
: >We have all done things that Christians would deeply misunderstand.
: >Even Christians. Doesn't mean we have to do those things the rest of
: >our lives.
: Hubbard continued his anti-christian activity throughout his life. The
: PDC, the various auditor classes, OT3 R6, etc. If you look at the dates
: of references on my page, it didn't stop in the 50s. Scientology has not
: chosen to delete these anti-religion references.
: While I have noted changes in the Red Volumes, the secret teachings still
: have a lot of anti-religion in them.
And as noted before, they still have explicit and implicit evil in them.
Why do so many people go insane or even commit suicide while doing the
upper levels? It is no wonder that some people consider "thetan" just a
lisped version of "satan".
: >Except for a brief period on staff, I was a public scientologist for
: >five years and though I left Scn.years ago I am still a scientologist.
Outside of the organization there is less control and more ability to
follow one's conscience. As opposed to, say, the Sea Org and RPF.
: This explains a lot, Jack. You are a much better representative of your
: religion than wgert, amigo, Mikey, Justin, or even Miscavige and Rinder.
: >I never Hip Hip Hoorayed anyones picture. The person I admire most is
: >Carl Sagan, not LRH.
: I'm a fan of DaVinci myself. Him and whoever invented indoor plumbing.
I saw a working indoor toilet in a Mycenaean ruin in Tiryns that's over
3000 years old. Don't know who invented it though. Thanks to whoever
did...
: > I am amazed at Wgert and Justin. Who are these
: >people? When I read a story like Micheal Pattinson's or Diary of a
: >dying Scientologist (?), I am outraged. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? This is
: >not the Scientology I learned. I never learned to sneak around
: >someones house shouting obscenities. The Scientologists I know are
: >*all* good, trustworthy people. People I trust implicitly.
Again, I am not saying this is a lie at all. I believe this. This is
also why, most of the time, critics don't have to worry about getting
killed by the cult. It is not just that there are so many critics, but
that the more onerous things are intentionally hidden from the public to
foster good PR. When someone is killed, the intent is to make it look
like an accident to avoid bad PR. This is why books like "Bare Faced
Messiah" (its author did endure death threats, I believe) are so
important, because otherwise many people would not believe these things
occur, and thus would not try to change them and stop the abuses.
: I wish more publics would question these kind of abuses. In fact, at
: the Org level, I found everything was mostly OK. Except for the high
: prices and general money-grubbing. Spiritual salvation sure is expensive
: in Scientology.
: As you read "Dying Scientologist", read between the lines in Hubbard's
: various ethics PLs (some are on Jacobsen's site). One of them says that
: an upstat staffer cannot get into ethics trouble. Apparently, this extends
: to upstat publics as well. Jacquier was not as "upstat" as the people who
: would not repay him.
I.e., use a person as long as it is profitable to do so, then spit him/her
out like an olive pit. Upstat means the scientologist is producing with
good productivity for the org, while downstat means they have become a
liability, and CoS does not believe in charity (ask Lisa, who was denied
protein drinks costing a few dollars at most because they couldn't raid
her bank account for the funds). More evil.
: >An enigma.
: An out-ethics OSA. And I'm talking about real ethics, not the ethics that
: Hubbard dreamed up to justify his own behavior.
"Slavery is freedom. Ignorance is Knowledge." -- Orwell
In Co$, grossly unethical behavior is called "Ethics".
: >>And they don't worship Satan. You won't find anyone wearing red pajamas
: >>and sporting a pointy tail down at the Org.
: >>
: >>>>Get my drift?
: >>>>
See above about an angel of light, and about "acceptable truths" and half
truths being more pernicious than outright lies. Just for the sake of
argument, imagine that Satan does exist and is dedicated to harming people
and doing all manner of evil by any means necessary. Now, knowing that
everyone, believer or not, is aware of the cute little stereotype of a
little red being with horns and red pajamas, Satan would have to be
awfully stupid to not use a disguise (if he even looked that way to begin
with). And whether the stereotypical "devil" has any truth to it I think
is rather doubtful anyway, just like angels are not like little chubby
babies with wings and Cupid's arrows.
And no, I don't think that the orgs are filled with satanists in disguise.
There are a lot of well-intentioned and well-meaning people in CoS, even
people who do some good, but all too often they end up getting used and
abused by the leadership. And I think that most of a.r.s. will agree that
it is the leadership and their abuses which pulls in all the criticism; if
CoS merely had unusual beliefs about body thetans (little demons that must
be exorcized) but didn't bother anyone, people would tend to leave them
alone.
: >>>Yeah. You raised some good points and made me think.
: >>
: >>And Jack has convinced me to review the site for data vs opinion. I have
: >>allowed opinion to slip in when the data can speak for itself.
: >>
: >Thanks. Scn is a lot of things, but it isn't a satanic cult.
: >
: >Now, about your sig.....(just kidding)
: My escape was mostly just walking away and enduring the standard Reg
: pleadings. After their mailings followed me to another state, I told
: them to take me off their list. After telling them the second time,
: they quit sending stuff.
: Maybe after 16 years, I'm still a Scientologist. Despite my best efforts
: here on a.r.s., I have not gotten Declared.
: >jack
: Perry Scott
: Co$ Escapee
--
Nick
ni...@tribeca.ios.com IC XC + NI KA
Perry Scott
all of the "Satan"s to "satan"s on my web page, and 3) put in a short
statement about the difference. I liked this statement, which I think
adresses the difference between "Satanic" and "satanic".
In article <6qbrvi$1...@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, <ni...@IDT.NET says...
[huge snip]
>"Demonic" means satanic.
>This does not make CoS into a "satanic cult" in the usual sense of
>explicit worship of Satan as in LaVey's First Church of Satan (but Co$cn
>seems to do much more harm than CoSatan, which is why the latter is not
>much of an issue). However, there is a strong influence in the cult of
>ideas, beliefs and methods which an orthodox Christian or Muslim would
>consider very much satanic. And one of the characteristics of this
>"small-s satanism" (as opposed to large-S which is e.g. the La Vey group)
>is deception, the pervasive evil that tries to pass itself off as good, as
>Robert Minton discusses in his essays (though I don't think he ties it in
>with anything about Satan). If Hubbard just had a one-time dabbling in
>black magic regarding the Whore of Babylon but then pursued a totally
>unrelated path later, then this might not be relevant.
[huge snip]
>Nick
>ni...@tribeca.ios.com IC XC + NI KA
IMO, Scientology posesses many of the characteristics that Christians would
recognize as "satanic" (little-s), and which in fact I document on the page
at http://ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology . It is perhaps ironic, but I
consider LeVey's CoS much less of a threat than Hubbard's CoS, since LeVey's
group implicitly acknowledges the existence of God while Hubbard's explicitly
denies God AND takes active measures to destroy belief. (I never thought I'd
hear myself coming down on the same side as the Church of Satan. :-o )
However, for non-Christians, "satanic" may be utterly meaningless, since
it lacks a proper frame of reference. In fact, this is amply demonstrated
by Jack's vehement objections. For this reason, I should probably avoid using
the S/s-word except in reference to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Again, thanks for your comments.
Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee
Perry Scott
>>truth. Frankly, I don't care what Scientologists want to believe. I
>>just want full disclosure up front about those beliefs. I'd also like
>>to see a review system (not controlled by CSI/RTC, but by Scientologists)
>>put in place to investigate abuses.
>
>that dope dealers could be kept out of schools by a review board of
>addicted school kids. You've been in, so I'm not telling you something
>new. Scn isn't about liberty, it is about control and more control.
This may be unique to the United State's version of democracy, but I believe
that free people, given free access to any and all information, will ultimately
find the best solution. While I acknowledge that Scientology Management is
corrupt, I also believe that Scientology Publics (and FreeZoners) are
basically good people. With the Publics in control and democratic policies
in place, I think Scientology could clean itself up.
Perhaps what you are saying is that Scn cannot clean itself up without
"squirrelling" Source and deleting the more anti-social Hubbardian bits.
However, I see the Free Zone practicing HubTek without killing anyone. That
seems like a pretty good start. Again, most of the critics are here because
the Church of Scientology appears to be criminally corrupt and is making an
anti-social pest of itself.
>Saying as much as that Rinder was frothing on Dateline isn't allowed as
>long as he's a member in good standing.
Rinder, having been immersed in Hubbard's anti-social Tek, is part of the
problem. However, IF there really is a "religion" behind CoS, and if people
want to believe in Xenu and BTs, I do not object.
Again, it's the coercion and the lies that I detest. If CoS can get over
that, I would be left with poking holes in a bizarre pop-psyche-cum-religion,
which would get old rather quickly.
>Mike
>--
>Scientology & Dianetics
>Tax-exempt Child abuse and neglect?
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9169/childabuse.html
Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee
Jack Craver
>Perry Scott <pe...@nospam.ezlink.com> wrote:
>: In article <35c6af3e...@NEWS.MIA.BELLSOUTH.NET>, inm...@bellsouth.net
>: says...
>: >On 28 Jul 1998 22:03:40 -0700, Perry Scott <pe...@nospam.ezlink.com>
>: >wrote:
>: >>In article <35ba75ae...@NEWS.MIA.BELLSOUTH.NET>, inm...@bellsouth.net
I have snipped heavily because of size alone. Feel free to reinsert or
snip as you desire.
<snip>
>: >Read your commentary and listened to your RealAudio and I do not agree
>: >with your commentary, I do have some questions about the RA. But this
>: >is from 1952 and LRH is dead. To me, this is not the same as labelling
>: >an entire religion as "Satanic" on a web-site.
>
>1952 or 1992, if LRH said it, it is considered "Source".
meaning the author.
Even though
>Hubbard's dead, it's still what Hubbard said. No way that can be
>considered tolerant or respectful of Islam in _any_ way, shape or form.
>
Who has claimed that Hubbard was tolerant or respectful of Islam. Not
me.
But it has a good beat. I'd give it a 5.
<snip>
>: >>>"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against
>: >>>the wiles of the devil.", KJV, Ephesians 6:11
>: >>>
>: >>>What do you think the response to this scenario would be?
>: >>
>: >>I suspect Muslims, who have a well-developed theology dealing with the
>: >>concept of the devil, hell, and heaven, would agree with the Christians.
>: >>Hint: "armour of God" is not what you think it means. What DO you think
>: >>it means?
>: >
>: >Lets just skip this part, OK Perry?
>
>: I'll accept your retraction. I sometimes walk onto theological ground that
>: I don't understand. I've found it best to say "excuse me", listen politely,
>: and leave quietly. (Like right now, in fact. Believe it or not, your
>: objections to "Satanic cult" have had me thinking quite a bit lately about
>: it.)
>
>OK, they have agreed not to discuss it, but I have to second Perry; Islam
>and Christianity are very close indeed in terms of the nature &
>characteristics of angels, devils, what "demonic" means, and so forth
>(Essential characteristics, not pitchforks & halos).
>
Are you claiming that Christianity and Islam are compatible?
>: >>Yeah, and people mock Christian beliefs like the virgin birth, the
>: >>divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, etc. Get used to it - bad manners are
>: >>everywhere. No, I don't call it "bigotry" and "religious intolerance"
>: >>when it happens to me.
>: >>
>: >What do you call it?
>
>: Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. Or bad
>: manners.
>
And if its not ignorance or bad manners?
>Whether bad manners or whatever, this happens all the time. But you don't
>see Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians or other Christian groups
>leafletting communities with DA packs, trespassing, killing pets, leaving
>death threats in Andreas' guestbook or whatever.
You are partly correct. Bob Minton has alleged trespassing, and the
dead cat is well, nonsense. I do see christians making war and killing
people. I do see charasmatic televangalists performing "miracle" cures
(and then begging for money). I do see christian scientists
sacrificing their children. I do see christian missionaries infecting
a culture, destroying it forever. I do see christians molesting little
boys and girls in sunday school.
And the history of christianity is saturated with blood, murder, and
more blood. and more *murder*. Not the accidental, mistake kind of
murder, but the intentional cold blooded, systemic, torture that
resulted in slow, painful death.
Some religion.
Maybe not every
>Scientologist has experienced this very dark side of CoS, but that doesn't
>mean it does not exist or that those who talk about disconnection, fair
>game and yes, Hubbard's fascination with the Whore Of Babylon (why do you
>think Helena Kobrin got that nickname?) are lying. That particular Whore
>in Revelation, like the Beast and the number 666, have explicit demonic
>connotations in the Bible and Christianity. "Demonic" means satanic.
>This does not make CoS into a "satanic cult" in the usual sense of
>explicit worship of Satan as in LaVey's First Church of Satan (but Co$cn
>seems to do much more harm than CoSatan, which is why the latter is not
>much of an issue). However, there is a strong influence in the cult of
>ideas, beliefs and methods which an orthodox Christian or Muslim would
>consider very much satanic. And one of the characteristics of this
>"small-s satanism" (as opposed to large-S which is e.g. the La Vey group)
>is deception, the pervasive evil that tries to pass itself off as good, as
>Robert Minton discusses in his essays (though I don't think he ties it in
>with anything about Satan). If Hubbard just had a one-time dabbling in
>black magic regarding the Whore of Babylon but then pursued a totally
>unrelated path later, then this might not be relevant.
>
I think christianity is a satanic cult. After all, wasn't it the
christians that invented satan. Isn't satan good for christian
business? Isn't it the christians that continue this demonic facade
and make people afraid, so very afraid, of going to hell? Isn't it the
christians with the horrible, murderous history?
Christianity kills, and it has for centuries.
Well, I'm not buying this holier-than-thou BS that you are presenting.
<snip>
>: >>>Perry is supposed to be a "CoS escapee". He's been in Scientology. He
>: >>>*knows* Scn is *not* a "satanic cult".
>: >>
>: >>As I stated in the another post, "satanic" is a specific Christian concept
>: >>embodying evil intent. Scientology has Espees. Christianity has Satan.
>
>Scientology also has "Psychs", who in the cult's "theology" are believed
>to have much of the characteristics that Christians and Muslims ascribe to
>Satan and demons. One might also say that Xen_u serves a devil-like role
>in CoS. Just because they use a different name does not mean they don't
>have a similar concept.
>
Sure. "one might say" many things. Psychs and Sp's are human. Your
silly satan and his demons are supernatur and eternallly evil. But I
suppose that these fundamental facts have *nothing* to do with your
righteous comparison of psychs and sp's to christian devils and satan.
Eh?
>In fact, the traditional belief about Satan holds that the devil
>masquerades as an angel of light, i.e. deceives people into thinking that
>it is actually something good and desirable. The idea of selling a
>"Bridge to Total Freedom" that is instead slavery is very demonic, whether
>or not there is an explicit reference to the name "Satan". One also
>should note the references in OT 8 identifying Hubbard with Lucifer and
>antichrist.
Ok, you show it to me and I'll note it.
< snip >
>: > this
>: >abuse seems to go hand-in-hand with religions in general. Christianity
>: >included. Miami has recently seen yet another priest arrested for
>: >molesting children.
>
>: The Catholic Church is actively working on the abuse by priests. What
>: is Scientology doing?
>
Thats what they say. And they have been saying that for quite a while.
In the meantime, children in sunday school are being molested.
<snip>
>Hubbard is effectively God in CoS - the fact that CoS denies the existence
>of a Supreme Being just distracts from the fact that Hubbard's word is
>considered law and truth in the cult. And even if he said he's not God,
>CoS is still relying on Hubbard as the last word on the nature of God and
>other spiritual phenomena, superceding all other theologies and views, so
>whether or not he's literally "deified" is again not so important. If Hubbard
>was literally deified, that would be too obvious; a deception has to be a
>little more clever to deceive lots of people. And a deception works best
>when it is mixed in with a little truth (half truths -- or "acceptable
>truths" -- are much more pernicious and deceptive than outright lies). So
>if some people do get some genuine "wins" from parts of Scientology, it
>only makes the ugly stuff seem less so.
>
Hubbard was not a god, nick. Just a man. No one, to my knowledge has
ever claimed Hubbard was god. And because of this, your conspiracy
theory is empty.
< snip >
>I see an occasional anecdotal report of how it helps people. I'd see a
>few more if I spent any significant amount of time on the Co$ AOL board.
>As noted above, Scn may well help some people some of the time. I am
>happy if some person experienced a genuinely good thing. But this does
>not in any way excuse the DA, the fair game, the death of Lisa, the
>threats and lawsuits and suicides and bankruptcies and the coverups of all
>of this. This is why so many people actively oppose Co$ (scientology),
>while most people just ignore the other CoS (Church of Satan).
>
Some of whats happening in CoS, I do not understand.
>: > If the Michael Pattinson story is true, then I am glad to see
>: >this on your site. Abuses should not be ignored.
>
>: Thank you. With people like you, there is hope for Scientology.
>
>
>: >>Is that Satan's agenda, Jack?
>: >>
>: >Satan is apparently unavailable to me at this time. I will try back
>: >later to ask him this question.
>: >One of the good things about having no gods is, having no devils.
< snip rest - too long >
/end rant
So nick, what do you think now? How does it feel to have your
religion's beliefs and concepts and actions distorted?
'Cause ya see, I don't believe most of what I wrote in this post. Just
playing the devils advocate.
Any position is defensible. But because you can make an argument,
doesn't mean that argument is true.
Scn is no more a satanic cult than the boy scouts are.
Quit trying to figure out stupid reasons and angles and tell the
truth, if you know it.
jack
DeoMorto
has
ever claimed Hubbard was god. And because of this, your conspiracy
theory is empty.>>
Well he did claim to be Buddha, not far off on the god scale.
Gotta say I enjoyed your post Jack - a good piece of debating.
DeoMorto - the truly censored.
Jack Craver
>Jack writes:>>Hubbard was not a god, nick. Just a man. No one, to my knowledge
>has
>ever claimed Hubbard was god. And because of this, your conspiracy
>theory is empty.>>
>
> Well he did claim to be Buddha, not far off on the god scale.
>
Got a good beat. I'll give it a 5 on the god scale.
> Gotta say I enjoyed your post Jack - a good piece of debating.
>
This doesn't mean we're gonna swap spit now, does it Deo? <g>
Thanks.
>
>DeoMorto - the truly censored.
Best of luck
jack
Dobe R Mann
>Andreas, your website , by your own admission, is intended to inform about
>Scientology with two sides, and with fairness.
>
[chomp]
>If I was new to the Internet and came across your site, I would come to the
>conclusion that this is what Scientology is, and come away with both a
>negative and false view of the subject.
Looks like they don't like having the dark side of scamatology being shown, hmmm?
[chomp]
Dobe R Mann
SP2 Tone 1.95
-**** Posted from Supernews, Discussions Start Here(tm) ****-
http://www.supernews.com/ - Host to the World's Discussions & Usenet
Warrior
wrote:
>Andreas, your website , by your own admission, is intended to inform about
>Scientology with two sides, and with fairness.
>
>conclusion that this is what Scientology is, and come away with both a
>negative and false view of the subject.
Andreas' web site is loaded with factual information, far more so than
any Scientology site I've ever seen. If Andreas' site has any inaccuracies,
feel free to point them out.
As to your statement that you would come to a negative view of Scientology
if you were an Internet newbie and came across Andreas' site, this is a
good indication that his site is factual. Scientology *is* evil.
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Warrior
Warrior
wrote:
>Andreas, your website , by your own admission, is intended to inform about
>Scientology with two sides, and with fairness.
>
>If I was new to the Internet and came across your site, I would come to the
>conclusion that this is what Scientology is, and come away with both a
>negative and false view of the subject.
If I was a piece of "raw meat" or a "wog", and I came across Scientology's
web sites, I would be grossly mislead by reading the "information" there,
just as I was misled (lied to) by Scientology and Scientologists 25 years
ago.
Thank God for the Internet, and thank God for Andreas' pages at
http://www.xenu.net
Now the world is able to get some more truth about Scientology.