From a German Citizen
de-ci...@zippo.com
Not all Germans are like Tilman Hausherr, the agent for religious hate.
here is some good news,
an article of 20th September 1997
in *Sout-East-Bavarian-Review* (lokal Newspaper)
(translated from German)
It states that:
Senator D'Amato will help Scientologists with their testimony of discrimination
at the Helsinki conference. He is very disturbed and alarmed about the situation
in Germany.
And the *South-German Newspaper* of 20th September states:
"Because of the actions against Scientology: D'Amato wants to sue Bonn at the
OSZE.
Washington (AFP) The US-Senator Aplhonse D'Amato wants to bring the
discrimination claims of the Church of Scientology against Germany to the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSZE). The Republican
said at a hearing with the US-Helsinki-Commission, it would not be conveniant to
sue "a friend and ally". But the Federal Republic of Germnay has signed the
closing act of Helsinki and has to take care, that their citizens are not
prosecuted because of their religion. "If mans dignity is
endangered, national borders and touchiness dont' play any role". At the hearing
D'Amato called two germans, who had to move to the USA because of their
membership in Scientology. He named their experience "absurd and terrible".
Anonymous
de-ci...@zippo.com wrote:
> Senator D'Amato will help Scientologists with their testimony of discrimination
> at the Helsinki conference. He is very disturbed and alarmed about the situation
> in Germany.
If he knew more about the beliefs and methods of the 'religion', he
would probably understand why the Germans are doing something about it.
> At the hearing
> D'Amato called two germans, who had to move to the USA because of their
> membership in Scientology. He named their experience "absurd and terrible".
'Had to move...', please specify this. Why? To be able to get a tax
reduction or what?
/A. Thetan
Cornelius Krasel
Is this statement supposed to give the rest of your message added
credibility?
You might be surprised to learn that the Federal Republic of Germany
allows freedom of the press. That is, in contrast to "Freedom", "The
Auditor" or whatever, newspapers are not controlled by a central body
and can report on what they think will interest their readers.
> an article of 20th September 1997
> in *Sout-East-Bavarian-Review* (lokal Newspaper)
> (translated from German)
>
> It states that:
>
>
> Senator D'Amato will help Scientologists with their testimony of
> discrimination at the Helsinki conference. He is very disturbed and
> alarmed about the situation in Germany.
Apparently the paper merely *reports* that a US senator believes that
Scientologists are discriminated against in Germany. In the two sentences
quoted the paper does not say anything about its own opinion of D'Amato's
actions.
The same is true for the excerpt from the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (BTW,
AFAIK you can't sue anyone at the OSZE):
> "Because of the actions against Scientology: D'Amato wants to sue Bonn
> at the OSZE.
>
> Washington (AFP) The US-Senator Aplhonse D'Amato wants to bring the
> discrimination claims of the Church of Scientology against Germany to the
> Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSZE). The Republican
> said at a hearing with the US-Helsinki-Commission, it would not be conveniant
> to sue "a friend and ally". But the Federal Republic of Germany has signed
> the closing act of Helsinki and has to take care, that their citizens are not
> prosecuted because of their religion.
I have seen not a single case where a scientologist was sued because of
his religion. However, scientologists are sued because of tax fraud or
betrayal of company secrets. Scientology organizations are sued because
of breach of labour rights and non-delivery of promised services.
> "If mans dignity is endangered,
> national borders and touchiness don't play any role". At the hearing
> D'Amato called two germans, who had to move to the USA because of their
> membership in Scientology. He named their experience "absurd and terrible".
BTW, another U.S. senator, Jesse Helms, has complained about an UN
investigation of U.S. jails, the Sueddeutsche reports today. Helms
basically said that U.S. jails are not the UN's business.
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP4 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
bagheera
Die Toten Hosen:
Tilman is not a "racist." And as far as your "religion" goes, it may be a
religion in the United States, but it is not a religion in Germany, or
haven't you heard? And for your information, D'Amato is on his last legs
as a politician. He is the most endangered Senator up for re-election.
Now that you lovely people have jumped on his ship, he will most assuredly
sink. And you with it, -- I look forward to watching the show! Cocktails
anyone?
Bagheera
"Any stigma will do to beat a dogma."
-Philip Guedalla-
john smith
In article <34490a8c...@news.snafu.de>, til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>In <61hujb$a...@drn.zippo.com>, de-ci...@zippo.com wrote:
>
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: p-283.newsdawg.com
>
>Interesting coincidence - this is the same host from which the
>"OUGestapo" message came, and also the same host than "John Smith" uses.
>
>Tilman
Interesting coincidence indeed. Though I can fully solemnly swear that not
only was that post not made by me, but that I dont even know what it was about
(as I'm reading all the loose articles in ARS that i normally skip out of
boredom).
(Shrug) Then again, my nntp host is Zippo, which was suggested to me by
several #scientology chatters when I complained about the inability to find
free (read also: relatively anonymous) nntp servers.
As mentioned, I dont know what the original post was about, but I could
probably guess that it was pro-scieno (as otherwise, the coincidence would not
be 'interesting').
If it is not evident from my prevoius posts, I am firmly anti-scieno.
Tilman Hausherr
In <882j16...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>,
kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:
>BTW, another U.S. senator, Jesse Helms, has complained about an UN
>investigation of U.S. jails, the Sueddeutsche reports today. Helms
>basically said that U.S. jails are not the UN's business.
I read it in the WP - it is hilarious. Jesse "Human rights fighter"
Helms is pissed off because some people have noticed that you can't get
a fair trial if you're penniless and have the wrong skin color in the
US.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site with "Xenu's Link Sleuth":
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Gary Scarff
Alec wrote:
>
> de-ci...@zippo.com wrote in message <61hujb$a...@drn.zippo.com>...
>
> >Not all Germans are like Tilman Hausherr, the agent for religious hate.
>
> couldn't find any that expressed hate--only of exposing abusive, coercive,
> swindling cult of Scientology.
>
> Does anyone know of any posts in which Tilman expressed hatred? I don't
> mean any cases where he possibly got into exchanges of flaming on the
> personal level. I don't recall him acting as an "agent for religious hate".
>
> Tilman is an ideal reporter. He reveals his bias, and keeps it out of his
> reports. He finds a story and usually reposts it here as it is.
>
> This is another "broad sweeping generalization" by another Scientologist.
>
> Show us an example of Tilman as an "agent for religious hate".
>
> ---Alec
Count on Alec, spokesman for the Tilmanites, to give you the poop.
bagheera
Jesse Helms is a complete asshole. You oughta see him in action. Its
quite a sight. And its true. If you are black you don't get a fair trial
(unless you have money) you also don't get a fair college education, cause
law schools and other professional schools have tests designed to weed out
minorities and prevent them from 1) getting in 2) graduating. I kid you
not. Did you know that there are schools now that specialize in training
minorities to answer questions on these tests like a full-blooded
Republican party member white person? No lie. America is not what it used
to be. It is a corrupt, twisted place, where the average person lives
paycheck to paycheck, and there are so many laws and so many taxes, and so
much corruption, that it is rotting from the inside like Rome, before it
fell. Helms is wrong, it is the U.N.'s business to investigate U.S.
prisons. He's pissed cause the US Gov't got rid of Butros Butros Ghali
(sp?) because he wasn't a US pawn, they got this new guy from (I don't
remember which country), and this new guy is just fabulous. He's educated,
he's ethical, he has a conscience, this guy is everything the US was hoping
he wouldn't be. That is why Jesse is hopping mad. Jesse is such a bigot
and a bully he even managed to get the Helms-Burton Act passed into law
here, punishing Germany, Canada and other allies if any companies based in
their countries did business with countries the US doesn't like. Remember
that one? You know, like little old Cuba, or poor starving Iraq. Yes the
Helms-Burton act that says the US can take economic sanctions against any
country that imports Cuban cigars or exports medical supplies to Iraq. Our
government is full of a bunch of bullying, corrupt politicians. It is far
past the time the World did something about it. Good for the UN! I hope
the rest of the world starts scrutinizing us more as well. After all,
pretty soon we won't be able to afford to be a member of the UN any more.
The country has mortgaged itself. There is talk of the impeachment of the
President and possibly the Vice President on television. We have a
Congresswoman here who is being honored with a million woman March on
October 14th, I think. The platform for the march is to get Congress to
investigate the drug-running by the CIA. They believe that the CIA was the
direct cause of the destruction of so many young black men. Knowing how
twisted things have become here, anything could be possible, and Maxine
Waters is one brave woman. This country is out of control. We need some
rhyme and reason. Kick Jesse Helms' ass. Kick Congress' ass, None of
these guys are listening to the public or acting on behalf of the public
interest, or world interest, its strictly self-interest. I can't believe
that I now find myself looking towards Europe, Africa and Asia for help to
get my government to straighten out. It is out of control. I can only
hope that the US gets its act together before our economy collapses and the
whole world hates us. It's embarrassing, and depressing and it saddens me.
Bagheera
--
arnie_lerma
In article , har...@erols.com says...
>
>In article <01bcd4e9$bd9bbce0$5d41...@newsco1.dgsys.com>, "bagheera"
><bagh...@dgsys.com> wrote:
>
>>Die Toten Hosen:
>
>Doesn't this translate to "The Dead Trousers?"
>
>Or is my German that rusty?
>
>
The translation into English is 'the limp dicks'
Frank Copeland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>In <61hujb$a...@drn.zippo.com>, de-ci...@zippo.com wrote:
>
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: p-283.newsdawg.com
>
>Interesting coincidence - this is the same host from which the
>"OUGestapo" message came, and also the same host than "John Smith" uses.
de-citizen posted through Zippo like many other people on ARS (I once
counted something like 1 in 3 articles in ARS coming from Zippo). The
posting host header, as far as I can tell, is more or less randomly assigned
by Zippo to protect their posters from simple-minded spam filters.
- --
Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/>
Not the Scientology Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/scn/>
Keep it in Usenet. E-mail replies and 'courtesy' copies are not welcome.
If you're selling, I ain't buying.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBND1nMoBOXdsElwbdAQFWgAQAoB6FeVPv/nvU7Aa/KEqw6vY7A8X84/dc
jvu8fySABCf9NE/3xbobql77PxPBtYL8iCzgiJGP4AbwDiU6aqctHcaB+4z13Y6C
I5GgbEllXIK/1MzEIZ2oDwDVBW8QzKKUeHhhcjM6uRf5lByqmz6TZdoATMuF+uxM
OXtQsGIFROs=
=SFnw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
RonsAmigo
john smith wrote:
>
>If i were German, I'd rather be associated with Tilman than with the
>blank-eyed, slack-jawed lackeys of Scientology.
That's because you are an ignorant bigot who probably
also believes that all Jews have big noses and blacks
just can't get enough watermellon and fried chicken.
Amigo
RonsAmigo
"bagheera" wrote:
>And as far as your "religion" goes, it may be a
>religion in the United States, but it is not a religion in Germany,
To the contrary, Scientology is very much a religion
in Germany. That it is under attack does not change this fact.
Amigo
Tilman Hausherr
In <19971011001...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, rons...@aol.com
(RonsAmigo) wrote:
>To the contrary, Scientology is very much a religion
>in Germany. That it is under attack does not change this fact.
There must be two "Germany" countries. In the one I live, scientology is
not a religion, which has been confirmed at the federal court level.
Scientology could have appealed to the supreme court - it wisely didn't.
Of course, you'll get a new chance in the court session on october 28th.
My advice: do not call the judge a "nazi", even if this is "true for
you".
Tilman
anon
learn to think for yourself, "amigo";
<real> religions don't sue.
real religions aren't founded by sci-fi writers
real religions make tithing OPTIONAL.
do us all a favor and quit posting to this group.
if i want to read propaganda i can go to my local co$.
MikeSmith3
On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 07:50:23 GMT, til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr)
wrote:
>In <19971011001...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> rons...@aol.com
>(RonsAmigo) wrote:
>
>>To the contrary, Scientology is very much a religion
>>in Germany. That it is under attack does not change this fact.
>
>There must be two "Germany" countries. In the one I live,
>scientology is not a religion, which has been confirmed at
>the federal court level.
----del
>
>Tilman
Hey Amigo, I win another bet. I told if you left some bait in the water the
shark would show up.
Garry Scarff
No dice, bubba. Since most people identify the roots of popular
religion to Christianity and it's written reference The Holy Bible, you
are in error. The Bible does not refer to tithing as optional. Many of
not most religious organizations have attorneys on staff and do sue for
various reasons. If you don't like what you see here on ARS, I suggest
you stroke those keyboard keys to take you elsewhere. The ARS is not a
haven for wimps with small minds.
Alec
Gary Scarff wrote in message <343D8B...@iag.net>...
Sooo, where is the example of Tilman's hate, Gary? You can at least do some
decent evasive action can't you?
---Alec
Gregg Hagglund
In article <19971011001...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
Hmmm, " all Jews have big noses and blacks
just can't get enough watermellon and fried chicken."
Is this a direct Hubbard quote or a synthesis?
Bigotry is *enshrined* in the Co$ scriptures Rongo,
and you know it.
Hubbard was prejudiced against Blacks ( too stupid and
primitive) and against the "chinks".(Too many of'em.)
And of course just what does "deleting" persons to 'improve
society' mean? Or "disposing of them {critics, religionists etc}
quietly and without sorrow" mean?
Word clear 'anti-social' and apply the definition to Hubbard.
You'll feel a lot better in the morning.
>>>At Constant Cause over the Toronto Org.<<<
Gregg SP4
http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond
--
" I'm sure it's obvious to all who read my stuff, that I have
serious problems when it comes to being able to communicate."
- -RonsAmigo, Official OSA Shill on ARS
$cientology Lawyer Bait: Co$ cures Cancer?:
"Step Four - Cures for Illness You will now find BTs and clusters
being cures for illnesses of the body part. Handle all such BTs and
clusters by blowing them off. 'Cures for Illness' will then cease to read."
--- ררר L.R.Hubbard © ??? ---
William Barwell
In article <19971011084...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
MikeSmith3 <mikes...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 07:50:23 GMT, til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr)
> wrote:
>
>>In <19971011001...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>> rons...@aol.com
>>(RonsAmigo) wrote:
>>
>>>To the contrary, Scientology is very much a religion
>>>in Germany. That it is under attack does not change this fact.
>>
>>There must be two "Germany" countries. In the one I live,
>>scientology is not a religion, which has been confirmed at
>>the federal court level.
>
> shark would show up.
Let's see, you make a wrong statement and wait for somebody to correct
your error? Well, if it's the only game you know......
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Diane Richardson
>learn to think for yourself, "amigo";
><real> religions don't sue.
So you don't consider the Roman Catholics, Baptists, and Presbyterians
"real" religions, then?
>real religions aren't founded by sci-fi writers
Can "real" religions be founded only by unemployed carpenters?
>real religions make tithing OPTIONAL.
I guess that means you don't consider the LDS to be a "real" religion
either. Tithing isn't exactly optional if you want a temple
recommend.
>do us all a favor and quit posting to this group.
>if i want to read propaganda i can go to my local co$.
I've never been to my local co$, but I'd suggest that RonsAmigo has as
much right to post to this newsgroup as you do. I really doubt that
RonsAmigo feels any obligation to do favors just because you ask him.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
William Barwell
In article <34420e4e...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:51:34 -0500, anon
><yu...@representmynuts.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>learn to think for yourself, "amigo";
>><real> religions don't sue.
>
>So you don't consider the Roman Catholics, Baptists, and Presbyterians
>"real" religions, then?
>
>>real religions aren't founded by sci-fi writers
>
>Can "real" religions be founded only by unemployed carpenters?
soliciters and accountants only"?
Are real religions founded on the idea of a "religous angle"
as a matter of being a "problem of practical business"?
Do real religions change from being a pseudoscientific
self analytic cult to a religion because "we cannot get worse
public opinion tha we have had or less customesr with what we have to
sell?
Do real religions change from failed pseudosciences because
the founder thinks maybe the religion angle would be good
for business?
paul bourgeois
What's your motive for the hate?
paul bourgeois
Scientology is a recognized religion by practically every country on the
planet except Germany. That will change soon.
paul bourgeois
You are so very correct!
Martin Hunt
In article <61ujou$mlh$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>,
Blac...@webtv.net (paul bourgeois) wrote:
>What's your motive for the hate?
I think the Scientologists hate wogs because they have a need to
distinguish self from other, and also for the fact that their weird
"technology" does not work, and so they hate wogs (ie, common people,
non-Scientologists) because they are a constant reminder of the lies
they have convinced themselves of...they are like a mirro showing them
how ugly they are, and so they mock them and belittle them.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Use "Xenu" in Subject: line of email.
Martin Hunt
In article <61ujki$ml4$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>,
Blac...@webtv.net (paul bourgeois) wrote:
>Scientology is a recognized religion by practically every country on the
>planet except Germany. That will change soon.
AFAIK, Scientology is not a religion in Canada. At least, I know that
they were required to pay taxes here when I was in the cult in the late
80s. I believe, in fact, they are only recognized as a religion, officially,
in a handful of countries. Even in the US, it is only the IRS that
"recognizes" them so; it's not a popular decisions by the IRS, and it
may well be repealed when the scandalous details that led to the
backroom deal with the cult is finally revealed. With its loss of
religious status in the US, the cult will quickly collapse.
MikeSmith3
On 13 Oct 1997 22:36:06 -0700, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>In article <61ujki$ml4$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>,
>Blac...@webtv.net (paul bourgeois) wrote:
>
>>Scientology is a recognized religion by practically every
>>country on the planet except Germany. That will change
>>soon.
>AFAIK,.. At least,... I believe,... it may well be...
The speculation editors did some work on Martin's post
but skillfully managed to preserve its essence.
Martin is apparently looking for work at FACTNet
as the due diligence expert.
wgert
"bagheera" <bagh...@dgsys.com> wrote:
>Die Toten Hosen:
> Tilman is not a "racist." And as far as your "religion" goes, it may be a
>religion in the United States, but it is not a religion in Germany, or
>haven't you heard? And for your information, D'Amato is on his last legs
>as a politician. He is the most endangered Senator up for re-election.
>Now that you lovely people have jumped on his ship, he will most assuredly
>sink. And you with it, -- I look forward to watching the show! Cocktails
>anyone?
> Bagheera
Bagheera (Virginia)
Does Mr. D'Amato know about Lerma's infamous statement about having
the full support of Willis Carto and the patriot movement in the
United States? Do the other senators and congressmen? After all
Carto is quite well known as a bigot, anti-semite and one of the most
influential neo-NAZIS in the world. I think it would explain a lot
if they all knew of where Lerma's support was coming.
Carto says that same things that you (and Lerma) are saying. He says
them about the Jews - as well as about Scientology.
Carto - a supporter of Lerma's campaign of bigotry.
wgert
Read the Rogues Gallery of ARS Bigots
www.dancris.com/~rshaw
wgert
arnie lerma wrote:
>In article , har...@erols.com says...
>>
>>In article <01bcd4e9$bd9bbce0$5d41...@newsco1.dgsys.com>, "bagheera"
>><bagh...@dgsys.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Die Toten Hosen:
>>
>>Doesn't this translate to "The Dead Trousers?"
>>
>>Or is my German that rusty?
>>
>>
> The translation into English is 'the limp dicks'
Lerma,
Please explain the statement you once made to Kim Baker that you have
the full support of Willis Carto and the Patriot movement in the
United States.
And why didn't you want your connection with Carto known?
What support has he been giving you?
Money?
Mark Ricciardi
Wgert... whatever that means...
You sound like election week advertisement.
wgert <wg...@loop.com> wrote in article
<6204jq$mqf$2...@e4000.supernews.com>...
> arnie lerma wrote:
>
bagheera
Dear WhyBlurt the Limp Dick:
You ARE!!!! You are Dweeber Stench!!!!! "Where, snort..... Where are
they getting their money!!!! I wanna know!!!!!! Who's sending them
money?!!!! I wanna know where their money is coming from........" You
know, I've heard that Spanish prisons are lovely this time of year.......
Diane Richardson
On 13 Oct 1997 19:27:58 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
>In article <34420e4e...@snews.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:51:34 -0500, anon
>><yu...@representmynuts.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>learn to think for yourself, "amigo";
>>><real> religions don't sue.
>>
>>So you don't consider the Roman Catholics, Baptists, and Presbyterians
>>"real" religions, then?
>>
>>>real religions aren't founded by sci-fi writers
>>
>>Can "real" religions be founded only by unemployed carpenters?
>
>Are the religous 'foundations' of real religions a "matter for
>soliciters and accountants only"?
I don't know, Barwell. Maybe Jesus talked to his solicitors and
accountants about this without his words showing up in the Bible. Do
you know?
>Are real religions founded on the idea of a "religous angle"
>as a matter of being a "problem of practical business"?
>
>Do real religions change from being a pseudoscientific
>self analytic cult to a religion because "we cannot get worse
>public opinion tha we have had or less customesr with what we have to
>sell?
I don't know, Barwell. I suspect the Christian Scientist and Seventh
Day Adventist leaders have had conversations along this line over the
past decade or so. Do you know?
>Do real religions change from failed pseudosciences because
>the founder thinks maybe the religion angle would be good
>for business?
Maybe so. I wasn't around when Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, and
others were planning their strategies. Were you?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Tilman Hausherr
In <6204gf$mqf$1...@e4000.supernews.com>, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>Bagheera (Virginia)
Last time you called her "Victoria":
> The child of a North Carolina couple, Margaret Huffstickler lives
> in Washington, D.C. and is a close friend of Arnie Lerma, and his
> girlfriend Victoria, who posts under the name of "Bagheera" and
> whom he socializes with quite often (although he does not pay child
> support to her).
Does this mean you no longer consider your own propaganda to be
reliable?
Fast
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:07:48 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
> Lerma,
>
> Please explain the statement you once made to Kim Baker that you have
> the full support of Willis Carto and the Patriot movement in the
> United States.
>
> And why didn't you want your connection with Carto known?
>
> What support has he been giving you?
>
> Money?
>
> wgert
You just keep posting the same question on all the threads.
I don't know "Carto", but wouldn't it be more informative about Arnie
if he was "supporting" Carto, rather than the other way around?
When a person needs help, they often take it regardless of where it
comes from. You push him into a corner, then complain about how he
gets out. Go figure.
- Fast
Martin Hunt
In article <19971014072...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
mikes...@aol.com (MikeSmith3) wrote:
>...apparently...
What happened to that famous certainty of yours, cultie? Hey;
make it go right! Looks like you're in doubt or something. Try
switching groups just for fun next time you do the formula.
William Barwell
In article <34435cc...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 13 Oct 1997 19:27:58 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>>In article <34420e4e...@snews.zippo.com>,
>>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:51:34 -0500, anon
>>><yu...@representmynuts.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>learn to think for yourself, "amigo";
>>>><real> religions don't sue.
>>>
>>>So you don't consider the Roman Catholics, Baptists, and Presbyterians
>>>"real" religions, then?
>>>
>>>>real religions aren't founded by sci-fi writers
>>>
>>>Can "real" religions be founded only by unemployed carpenters?
>>
>>Are the religous 'foundations' of real religions a "matter for
>>soliciters and accountants only"?
>
>I don't know, Barwell. Maybe Jesus talked to his solicitors and
>accountants about this without his words showing up in the Bible. Do
>you know?
The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything to do
with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple.
I notice you did not answer my question. Bet I ain't th' only one who
noticed.
Andswer teh question. Hubbard said his 1970 actions of declaring
Scientology a religion was a mtter for 'soliciters and accountants
only".
This is not a real religion, is it? It is a scam, cover
for Scientology legally and as for the tax breaks.
Hubbard admits iy himself here, doesn't he?
Answer th' question.
>
>>Are real religions founded on the idea of a "religous angle"
>>as a matter of being a "problem of practical business"?
>>
>>Do real religions change from being a pseudoscientific
>>self analytic cult to a religion because "we cannot get worse
>>public opinion tha we have had or less customesr with what we have to
>>sell?
>
>I don't know, Barwell. I suspect the Christian Scientist and Seventh
>Day Adventist leaders have had conversations along this line over the
>past decade or so. Do you know?
Well, once again, you tried to avoid answering the question. Ol Hubbard
wrote back his loyal assistant Helen O'Brien, asking her what she thought
of this "religion angle".
Sound's right sincere about the religion biz, don't he?
He is about as sincere as Peter Popov was about faith healing.
Answer the question. People love to snicker when you get cornered,
are driven to answer, but don't dare actually debate the issue at hand.
You realize that, don't you?
"Religion angle", Hubbard's own words.
>
>>Do real religions change from failed pseudosciences because
>>the founder thinks maybe the religion angle would be good
>>for business?
>
>Maybe so. I wasn't around when Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, and
>others were planning their strategies. Were you?
Don't insult our intelligence Diane. Answer the question. We are talking
about Hubbard here. A "problem of practical business."
Not a matter of religion, or spirituality, not a problem of salvation, or
the higher things of life. Merely a matter of a "problem of practical
business." We are discussing Scientology and what Hubbard wrote about
Scientology as a religion.
"In my opinion, we can't get worse public opinion that that we have had,
or have less customers with what we have to sell."
Yup, we see Hubbard's deep spiritual yearnings here.
You aren't going to answer the question as to whether Hubbard seemed to be
sincere about this 'religion angle' going by his own writings, are you?
No more than Wgert would.
This is a newsgroup about Scientology, and Hubbard was a fraud, his own
writing indicts him. yet, having worked yourself into a corner on this,
you aren't going to admit you are wrong, are you?
Hubbard was a fraud when it came to religion. It was just an angle to
him, a "matter for soliciters and accountants". Ask those who were
in Scientology in the 70's about the new Scientology religous trappings.
It was all a fraud and everybody knew it in Scientology and joked about
it. We has seen several people here admit it. Because they knew what
Hubbard wrote about Scientology be a science, a branch of psychology,
"not a religion".
Why are you being hardheaded on this, why do you seem intent on
embarressing yourself again?
Martin Hunt
In article <61ujrv$mlj$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>,
Blac...@webtv.net (paul bourgeois) wrote:
>You are so very correct!
Thank you.
Yes, Scientology is bullshit, pure and simple.
John Ritson
In article <61ujki$ml4$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, paul bourgeois
<Blac...@webtv.net> writes
>Scientology is a recognized religion by practically every country on the
>planet except Germany. That will change soon.
Not a religion in the UK, not a charity in the UK, not tax-exempt in the
UK (How that must hurt!)
John *** "Scientology is being planned on a religious organization basis
throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities
of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors."
LRH HCOPL 29 Oct 1962 ***
rgonnet
>
>
> I've never been to my local co$, but I'd suggest that RonsAmigo has as
> much right to post to this newsgroup as you do. I really doubt that
> RonsAmigo feels any obligation to do favors just because you ask him
> ROFTLMAO!
Is there some day where you'll decide to send any interesting post?
Since months, Diane, none were really.
Go to hell.
R
Tilman Hausherr
In <61ujki$ml4$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, Blac...@webtv.net (paul
bourgeois) wrote:
>Scientology is a recognized religion by practically every country on the
>planet except Germany. That will change soon.
True fact. Soon there will no longer be any country accepting it as a
religion.
Diane Richardson
On 14 Oct 1997 22:58:21 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
>In article <34435cc...@snews.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>On 13 Oct 1997 19:27:58 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>>Barwell) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <34420e4e...@snews.zippo.com>,
>>>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:51:34 -0500, anon
>>>><yu...@representmynuts.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>learn to think for yourself, "amigo";
>>>>><real> religions don't sue.
>>>>
>>>>So you don't consider the Roman Catholics, Baptists, and Presbyterians
>>>>"real" religions, then?
>>>>
>>>>>real religions aren't founded by sci-fi writers
>>>>
>>>>Can "real" religions be founded only by unemployed carpenters?
>>>
>>>Are the religous 'foundations' of real religions a "matter for
>>>soliciters and accountants only"?
>>
>>I don't know, Barwell. Maybe Jesus talked to his solicitors and
>>accountants about this without his words showing up in the Bible. Do
>>you know?
>
>The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything to do
>with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple.
Do you think every word Jesus uttered during his lifetime (if there
was, indeed, such a person) appears in the Bible?
>I notice you did not answer my question. Bet I ain't th' only one who
>noticed.
I answered your question. I said, "I don't know." You might not like
that answer, but it is an answer nonetheless.
>Andswer teh question. Hubbard said his 1970 actions of declaring
>Scientology a religion was a mtter for 'soliciters and accountants
>only".
Yes. Did Jesus make the same comment during his lifetime? Do you
know if Jesus did or did not make such a comment to his disciples?
Or are you only assuming that Christianity is a *real* religion
because the Bible does not record Jesus making such a comment?
I've answered your question, Barwell. Now it's your turn. Answer
mine.
>This is not a real religion, is it? It is a scam, cover
>for Scientology legally and as for the tax breaks.
>Hubbard admits iy himself here, doesn't he?
Sure he does. My question to you is whether you can prove that
Christianity was not also established with the same greedy motives in
mind. How do we know that mainstream religions were any different in
the venality of their leaders' motives?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Gregg Hagglund
In article <61ujki$ml4$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, Blac...@webtv.net
(paul bourgeois) wrote:
>Scientology is a recognized religion by practically every country on the
>planet except Germany. That will change soon.
Scientology is recognised as a religion how?
By tax status?
By an act of Parliament/Congress/whathave you?
In Canada Scientology is the *only* criminally convicted
'Church' in our history!
In Ontario at least it does *not* have charity status. The
ever rising *donations* demanded by the Cult of Greed and Power
are *not* tax deductible here.
So perhaps you might want to cross off Canada as "officially'
recognising the Co$ if tax exemption is your qualifier.
The Germans are *wimps* compared to Greece and Canada.
Greece threw the Co$ out. Canada ruled that in the instant case
(and forevermore) any crime committed by a member or agent of the
Co$ for the benefit of the Co$ is to be considered a criminal act of
the Co$ itself.
Any attempt by criminal acts including libel or slander by Co$
members or agents to silence or harm any SP in Canada will result
in the Co$ itself being held responsible.
I am waiting for it. It is inevitable.
Fascists *always* get carried away.
>>>At Constant Cause Over the Toronto Org.<<<
Best,
Perry Scott
Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
: >Andswer teh question. Hubbard said his 1970 actions of declaring
: >Scientology a religion was a mtter for 'soliciters and accountants
: >only".
: Yes. Did Jesus make the same comment during his lifetime? Do you
: know if Jesus did or did not make such a comment to his disciples?
: Or are you only assuming that Christianity is a *real* religion
: because the Bible does not record Jesus making such a comment?
It would be difficult to answer either way, since there is no verbal or
written record. Did Christianity worship a god or the supernatural from
the get-go? Yes. Did Hubbard's Dianetics worship god or the
supernatural?
I really don't understand your point, Diane. With your question, you
make an implied assertion to that Jesus set up Christianity as a
money-grubbing scam. The burden is not on Pope to prove the negative,
but on you to prove the positive.
Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee
William Barwell
In article <6262ar$o...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Perry Scott <pe...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
>
>: >Answer the question. Hubbard said his 1970 actions of declaring
>: >Scientology a religion was a mtter for 'soliciters and accountants
>: >only".
>
>: Yes. Did Jesus make the same comment during his lifetime? Do you
>: know if Jesus did or did not make such a comment to his disciples?
>: Or are you only assuming that Christianity is a *real* religion
>: because the Bible does not record Jesus making such a comment?
>
>written record. Did Christianity worship a god or the supernatural from
>the get-go? Yes. Did Hubbard's Dianetics worship god or the
>supernatural?
>
>I really don't understand your point, Diane. With your question, you
>make an implied assertion to that Jesus set up Christianity as a
>money-grubbing scam. The burden is not on Pope to prove the negative,
>but on you to prove the positive.
It was a strawman meant simply and only to distract us from teh issue.
Hubbard's cynical use of religion as a useful tool to get tax breaks and
to stay out of legal trouble with the FDA and other agencies.
Diane would rather not deal with the substance of Hubbard's own
writings. To admit she was wrong is something she cannot do.
Diane, did Jesus believe in Xenu? Di dJesus own an E-meter?
Here are some real good strawmen for you.
William Barwell
In article <344543d1...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 14 Oct 1997 22:58:21 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>>In article <34435cc...@snews.zippo.com>,
>>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>>On 13 Oct 1997 19:27:58 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>>>Barwell) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <34420e4e...@snews.zippo.com>,
>>>>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>real religions aren't founded by sci-fi writers
>>>>>
>>>>>Can "real" religions be founded only by unemployed carpenters?
>>>>
>>>>Are the religous 'foundations' of real religions a "matter for
>>>>soliciters and accountants only"?
>>>
>>>I don't know, Barwell. Maybe Jesus talked to his solicitors and
>>>accountants about this without his words showing up in the Bible. Do
>>>you know?
>>
>>The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything to do
>>with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple.
>
>Do you think every word Jesus uttered during his lifetime (if there
>was, indeed, such a person) appears in the Bible?
Heh! heh! Heh! Heh! Another silly Diane Richardson strawman.
Now Diane, what does this have to do with Hubbard's pointed
announcement in 1970 that Scientology's new religous orientation
changed nothing and was a "matter for solicitors and accountatnts only"?
Have you lost track of what you said that started this silly 'argument'?
Have you lost track of the fact you were claiming Scientology is a real
religion despite Hubbard's cynical words proving it surely was not?
Obviously, not every word of Jesus is in the Bible. So, what does this
have to do with Hubbard's statement above, which again, you have attempted
to avoid dealing with?
Hubbard was not sincere about Scientology being placed on a religous basis
was he? What else could he have meant that nothing was changed, that it
was a matter for solicitors and accountants only?
Can you stick with the matter at hand, or do you intend to erect more
amusing strawmen while we laugh at your efforts to distract and avoid
a real discussion on Hubbard's sincerity in this matter of Scientology
being a religion? Jesus has nothing to do with Hubbard's statements.
Jesus is off topic. Beside all possible points.
Care to try again?
>
>>I notice you did not answer my question. Bet I ain't th' only one who
>>noticed.
>
>I answered your question. I said, "I don't know." You might not like
>that answer, but it is an answer nonetheless.
>
>>Answer the question. Hubbard said his 1970 actions declaring
>>Scientology a religion was a matter for 'soliciters and accountants
>>only".
>
>Yes. Did Jesus make the same comment during his lifetime? Do you
>know if Jesus did or did not make such a comment to his disciples?
>Or are you only assuming that Christianity is a *real* religion
>because the Bible does not record Jesus making such a comment?
>
There you go again. Now, back to Hubbard. Hubbard said that.
Jesus has no relevancy to anything Hubbard said. Now, how sincere
does Hubbard seem about Scientology as a religion?
HCOPL 29 Oct. 1962, "Religion":
"Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious
organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset
in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is
entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors."
>I've answered your question, Barwell. Now it's your turn. Answer
>mine.
Your strawman question has no bearing at all about the matter at hand.
Was Scientology a real religion or was religion a cloak Hubbard
insincerely wrapped around Scientology for matters of tax purposes
and legal reasons? What does Hubbard's words indicate?
That it is a "matter for soliciters and accountants only".
A touch of fraud on Hubbard's parhere. Pretty cynical, yes?
>
>>This is not a real religion, is it? It is a scam, cover
>>for Scientology legally and as for the tax breaks.
>>Hubbard admits it himself here, doesn't he?
>
>Sure he does. My question to you is whether you can prove that
>Christianity was not also established with the same greedy motives in
>mind. How do we know that mainstream religions were any different in
>the venality of their leaders' motives?
No, you are raising a strawman again I fear. Christianity has nothing
to do with Hubbard's motives in abusing religion for his own purposes.
Repeatedly Hubbard claimed Scientology WAS NOT a religion, and then it
bacame a religion all of a sudden, BUT, it is to have no real effect on
any Scientology org or activity, it is merely a matter for soliciters and
accountants.
What did he mean here, Diane? No, no, no, don't throw out any strawmen to
sweep aside or try to confuse the issues. Won't work.
I notice you didn't want to get into teh letter to Helen O'Brien.
Couldn't think of a good strawman invoking Jesus?
Dean Benjamin
William Barwell:
> Was Scientology a real religion or was religion a cloak Hubbard
> insincerely wrapped around Scientology for matters of tax purposes
> and legal reasons? What does Hubbard's words indicate? That it is
> a "matter for soliciters and accountants only".
I think both definitions apply: Hubbard cynically peddled
his quack therapies under the guise of "religion" in order to
reap the tax breaks and public sympathy afforded to religions.
Nonetheless, he did create a religion, complete with a supernatural
theory of Origins (how the universe was created and how we fell from a
state of "grace" into the abundant misery of the human condition),
coupled with rituals (called "auditing") to secure eternal salvation
from our apparent fate.
The biggest flaw in Hubbard's memetic design of Scientology, as
Bainbridge observes in his article "To Be Perfectly Clear", was to
retain the demonstrably false "magical" promises of Dianetics (eg,
cure illnesses). Successful religions must not be scientifically
testable. Scientology works around this weakness in several ways:
* it fends off falsification by blaming shortcomings on
"Suppression" or failure to apply the Tech "standardly",
* it forbids its members to put Hubbard's Technology to the test,
* it downplays the short-term rewards of Dianetics,
* and it has postponed "salvation" by adding more and more rituals (in
the form of the "OT" levels) to make it impossible to be a
full-fledged Operating Thetan -- impossible in a single lifetime,
anyway -- and all-but-impossible even to attain the highest level
available (OT 8).
--
The philosophical contempt due *all* religions -- "genuine" or not --
is not why I invest my time as a critic. On this score, I think
Stephen Kent offers the best evaluation of the "religion angle":
Even if we grant the point that Scientology cosmology and
soteriology have supernatural elements that classify the
belief-system as religious (regardless of these elements' suspect
history), neither government officials nor society at large should
*necessarily* grant Scientology religious status for purposes of
receiving societal benefits. Rather than struggling over whether
or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more
helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational, only *one*
element of which is religious. Coinciding with supernatural
claims are equally important secular dimensions relating to
political aspirations, business operations, cultural productions,
pseudo-medical practice, pseudo-psychiatric practice, social
services (some of which are of dubious quality), and alternative
family structures. ... The most salient aspect of Scientology,
however, is the totalitarian, some would say fascistic, use of
power that holds the organization together.
-- Stephen Kent, "Scientology -- Is This a Religion?"
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/kent/religion.html
rgonnet
Diane Richardson wrote:
as usual, a lot of craps and fixed ideas about religions, philosophies, and
attacks against ars people.
Roger
rgonnet
Diane Richardson wrote:
> On 17 Oct 1997 17:01:14 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
> Barwell) wrote:
>
> >In article <6262ar$o...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Perry Scott <pe...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
> >>Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
> >>
>
>
> >Diane would rather not deal with the substance of Hubbard's own
> >writings. To admit she was wrong is something she cannot do.
We were a lot to point this since months.
Diane Richardson has developed an LRH's pattern or way of thinking: she's god.
R
Diane Richardson
On 17 Oct 1997 16:57:00 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
Barwell, in case you've forgotten, you wrote:
__________________________________________________
>>>The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything to do
>>>with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple.
__________________________________________________
What you are now claiming as a strawman was a direct reply to the
remark you wrote above. I'd suggest that you stop posting such
idiotic statements if you don't wish me to follow up on them.
>Have you lost track of what you said that started this silly 'argument'?
>Have you lost track of the fact you were claiming Scientology is a real
>religion despite Hubbard's cynical words proving it surely was not?
What constitutes a "real" religion for you, Barwell? Dobbs? Somehow,
the very idea that you -- of all people -- insist that there are
"real" and "false" religions is perhaps one of the most hilarious
things I've read on a.r.s. in all the years I've been here.
>Obviously, not every word of Jesus is in the Bible. So, what does this
>have to do with Hubbard's statement above, which again, you have attempted
>to avoid dealing with?
Perhaps, if Jesus had been literate and fond of having every word he
spoke recorded for posterity, we'd have a statement from Jesus similar
to the one we've read from Hubbard. Would that make Christianity any
less of a "real" religion, Barwell? Can only illiterate carpenters
found "real" religions? When you get right down to it, what do you
consider a "real" religion?
>Hubbard was not sincere about Scientology being placed on a religous basis
>was he? What else could he have meant that nothing was changed, that it
>was a matter for solicitors and accountants only?
He was most likely *very* serious about putting Scientology on a
religious basis. That's how he planned to have his scam taken
seriously.
How do you know Jesus took his own statements seriously? Perhaps
Jesus was every bit as much a con man as Hubbard was. Or do you
accept the words of Christ as divinely inspired and therefore the
truth?
>Can you stick with the matter at hand, or do you intend to erect more
>amusing strawmen while we laugh at your efforts to distract and avoid
>a real discussion on Hubbard's sincerity in this matter of Scientology
>being a religion? Jesus has nothing to do with Hubbard's statements.
>Jesus is off topic. Beside all possible points.
Rather than being off-topic, I think you're desperate to avoid
discussing this issue, Barwell. It makes you look like a genuine
fool.
You claim that the CoS is not a "real" religion because it was
established by a con artist with crass motives. Can you prove that
Christianity was not established by a con man with crass motives?
Or are you just willing to believe in the legends that have been told
over the decades by a powerful organization that once wielded power
that Hubbard would have killed to obtain.
If you're willing to decide what's a "real" religion based solely on
what that religion says about itself, I'd suggest you're naive enough
to fall for any scam.
>Care to try again?
Yes. Why are you willing to accept Christianity as a "real" religion?
Surely you have to admit that the number of people who have been
killed, destroyed, and tortured in the name of Christianity dwarfs the
harm caused by the CoS.
>>>I notice you did not answer my question. Bet I ain't th' only one who
>>>noticed.
>>
>>I answered your question. I said, "I don't know." You might not like
>>that answer, but it is an answer nonetheless.
>>
>>>Answer the question. Hubbard said his 1970 actions declaring
>>>Scientology a religion was a matter for 'soliciters and accountants
>>>only".
>>
>>Yes. Did Jesus make the same comment during his lifetime? Do you
>>know if Jesus did or did not make such a comment to his disciples?
>>Or are you only assuming that Christianity is a *real* religion
>>because the Bible does not record Jesus making such a comment?
>>
>
>There you go again. Now, back to Hubbard. Hubbard said that.
>Jesus has no relevancy to anything Hubbard said. Now, how sincere
>does Hubbard seem about Scientology as a religion?
Not very sincere. What proof do you have that Jesus was any more
sincere than Hubbard was when he was establishing Christianity?
What proof do you have that Muhammed was any more sincere than Hubbard
was when he was establishing Islam?
I'm sure you see my point, Barwell. The problem is that you're not
willing to acknowledge that I have a point. I realize this makes you
quite uncomfortable, but your absolute lack of logic is something I
refuse to ignore.
>
>
>HCOPL 29 Oct. 1962, "Religion":
>
> "Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious
>organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset
>in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is
>entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors."
>
>
>>I've answered your question, Barwell. Now it's your turn. Answer
>>mine.
>
>
>Your strawman question has no bearing at all about the matter at hand.
>Was Scientology a real religion or was religion a cloak Hubbard
>insincerely wrapped around Scientology for matters of tax purposes
>and legal reasons? What does Hubbard's words indicate?
>That it is a "matter for soliciters and accountants only".
>
>A touch of fraud on Hubbard's parhere. Pretty cynical, yes?
Yep. It's pretty cynical. What do you think about Pope Leo XIII's (I
think it was XIII) comment -- "God has given us the papacy. Now let
us enjoy it"? Pretty cynical, eh? Does that mean that Roman
Catholicism isn't a "real" religion either?
>
>
>>
>>>This is not a real religion, is it? It is a scam, cover
>>>for Scientology legally and as for the tax breaks.
>>>Hubbard admits it himself here, doesn't he?
>>
>>Sure he does. My question to you is whether you can prove that
>>Christianity was not also established with the same greedy motives in
>>mind. How do we know that mainstream religions were any different in
>>the venality of their leaders' motives?
>
>No, you are raising a strawman again I fear. Christianity has nothing
>to do with Hubbard's motives in abusing religion for his own purposes.
>Repeatedly Hubbard claimed Scientology WAS NOT a religion, and then it
>bacame a religion all of a sudden, BUT, it is to have no real effect on
>any Scientology org or activity, it is merely a matter for soliciters and
>accountants.
>
>What did he mean here, Diane? No, no, no, don't throw out any strawmen to
>sweep aside or try to confuse the issues. Won't work.
Hubbard was setting up a scam. As far as I'm concerned, other
religions were established as scams, too. Of all people, Barwell, I'm
amazed that you defend mainstream religions as "real" religions.
>I notice you didn't want to get into teh letter to Helen O'Brien.
>Couldn't think of a good strawman invoking Jesus?
I didn't read your original post, if that's where you quoted from her
letter. You're just not that entertaining, Barwell.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
William Barwell
In article <34483431...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 1997 17:01:14 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>>In article <6262ar$o...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Perry Scott <pe...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>>>Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
>>>
>>>: >Scientology a religion was a mtter for 'soliciters and accountants
>>>: >only".
>>>
****************** Deleted ******************
>>
>>
>>It was a strawman meant simply and only to distract us from the issue.
>>Hubbard's cynical use of religion as a useful tool to get tax breaks and
>>to stay out of legal trouble with the FDA and other agencies.
>
>but it certainly isn't the topic under discussion on this thread until
>you decided to change it. Talk about strawmen!
Baloney Diane! Baloney!
The thread has been exploring the question "is Scientology a real
religion?" Considering Hubbard's comments and writings, the answer
must be no. Repeatedly Hubbard claimed it was no religion but a hard
science, and his change over to a 'religous basis' was a cynical
action. The only strawmen here has been your refusal to contemplate
what Hubbard wrote and to try to drag Jesus in this for some reason or the
other as a strawman to distract.
>
>>Diane would rather not deal with the substance of Hubbard's own
>>writings. To admit she was wrong is something she cannot do.
>
>Admit I'm wrong about what? I don't understand what you're claiming
>I'm wrong about. Perhaps if you stopped snipping things you'd prefer
>not to acknowledge, it would be easier for me to follow the
>discussion. Of course, if you refrained from snipping, you might end
>up looking terribly foolish.
>
Isn't she lovely when she plays dumb? Hubbard left no doubt
that Scientology's religous veneer was a matter foor soliciters
and accountants only. A problem of practical business.
A religous angle. "What? Huh?" Says Diane disingenously.
"If only you'd stop snipping stuff I'd know which end is up."
>>Diane, did Jesus believe in Xenu? Did Jesus own an E-meter?
>>Here are some real good strawmen for you.
>
>No, Barwell. Why would you need to ask? Are you really that stupid?
Actually this is a private joke between me and Ted Mayett.
You may ignore it and please don't let it distract you from considering
Hubbard's pronouncements on religous angles, matters of practical business
and soliciters and accountants.
(Ted, no, she does not flee in horror from the name Xenu.)
>I suspect that it's not that you're stupid, just incapable of
>discussing issues rationally.
>
Oh, I have been rather rational. Your strawmen have been rather, well
amusing, if one does not expect much from you.
Would you like to put this to ARS and see who the peanut gallery
thinks is discussing the issue rationally, and who keeps dragging up silly
strawmen?
Since you are probably in a lot of killfiles, the vote will be
somewhat non-representitive.
Diane Richardson
On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 10:19:10 GMT, har...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong)
wrote:
>I'm not sure who wrote this:
>>>>The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything to do
>>>>with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple.
William Barwell, the subgenius pope, wrote that.
>The disciple (and gospel writer) Matthew was a tax collector. Does he count
>as an "accountant type?" There's at least one story in the Bible about Jesus
>spending time over at Matthew's house chatting with Matthew's friends (other
>tax collectors and such) and getting heat from the more conservative folk of
>the area about it.
>
>Who knows... maybe besides spreading the Good Word, Jesus was also picking up
>a few tips on how to lighten his tax burden? ;-)
Just might be the case, Rebecca.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <ws4lnzr...@tr3.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dean Benjamin writes:
>William Barwell:
>> Was Scientology a real religion or was religion a cloak Hubbard
>> insincerely wrapped around Scientology for matters of tax purposes
>> and legal reasons? What does Hubbard's words indicate? That it is
>> a "matter for soliciters and accountants only".
>
>his quack therapies under the guise of "religion" in order to
>reap the tax breaks and public sympathy afforded to religions.
>Nonetheless, he did create a religion, complete with a supernatural
>theory of Origins (how the universe was created and how we fell from a
>state of "grace" into the abundant misery of the human condition),
>coupled with rituals (called "auditing") to secure eternal salvation
>from our apparent fate.
Very sensible article, and quote. There is much equivocation around
the word "religion", introduced as "having supernatural elements"
and converted -- SHAZZAM! -- to being benevolent, charitable, ethical
etcetera. We should be quite unmoved by this wordplay: so it has
supernatural elements, so what, we should judge it by its conduct."
>Stephen Kent offers the best evaluation of the "religion angle":
>
> Even if we grant the point that Scientology cosmology and
> soteriology have supernatural elements that classify the
> belief-system as religious (regardless of these elements' suspect
> history), neither government officials nor society at large should
> *necessarily* grant Scientology religious status for purposes of
> receiving societal benefits. Rather than struggling over whether
> or not to label Scientology as a religion, I find it far more
> helpful to view it as a multifaceted transnational, only *one*
> element of which is religious.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'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(:)
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <34483560...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatHername writes:
>On 17 Oct 1997 16:57:00 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM wrote:
>:In article <344543d1...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes:
>:>On 14 Oct 1997 22:58:21 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM wrote:
>:>:In article <34435cc...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes:
>:>:>On 13 Oct 1997 19:27:58 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM wrote
>:>:>:In article <34420e4e...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:> Quote:
>:>:>:> |
>:>:>:> |real religions aren't founded by sci-fi writers
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>Can "real" religions be founded only by unemployed carpenters?
>:>:>:Are the religous 'foundations' of real religions a "matter for
>:>:>:soliciters and accountants only"?
>:>:>
>:>:>I don't know, Barwell. Maybe Jesus talked to his solicitors and
>:>:>accountants about this without his words showing up in the Bible.
>:>:>Do you know?
>:>:
>:>:The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything
>:>:to do with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out
>:>
>:>Do you think every word Jesus uttered during his lifetime (if there
>:>was, indeed, such a person) appears in the Bible?
>:
>:Heh! heh! Heh! Heh! Another silly Diane Richardson strawman.
>:Now Diane, what does this have to do with Hubbard's pointed
>:announcement in 1970 that Scientology's new religous orientation
>
>Barwell, in case you've forgotten, you wrote:
>What you are now claiming as a strawman was a direct reply to the
>remark you wrote above.
So, WhatsHerName, still lying to promote a bunch of killers I see?
what you came out with is a bent-out-of-all-recognition evasion which,
so far as it means anything, is meant to imply that the pice about
moneycahngers is unrepr4esentative or out of context.
So give us the context which DOES show that Jesus thought that religious
status was a useful cover fopr commercial enterprises and this had his
approval. And don't wriggle out of it by saying you're not interested
in what Jesus or Xianity say, because you were the one brought them
into the argument.
In article <62a2ik$f...@snews3.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName's B.T. wrote:
>Bill Barwell:
>>>>The only incident I know of in the Bible where Jesus had anything to do
>>>>with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple.
>
>The disciple (and gospel writer) Matthew was a tax collector. Does he count
>as an "accountant type?" There's at least one story in the Bible about Jesus
>spending time over at Matthew's house chatting with Matthew's friends (other
>tax collectors and such) and getting heat from the more conservative folk of
>the area about it.
>
>Who knows... maybe besides spreading the Good Word, Jesus was also picking up
>a few tips on how to lighten his tax burden? ;-)
And the witch's cat chips in, however written with a joke and a smile,
to sow more lying implications. Jesus indeed associated with theives,
prostitutes, tax-collectors and other low life because he felt they
could be redeemed in spite of their despised occupations.
This does not mean he approved of those occupations.
/; ;\
-- Regards, __ \\____//
XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <up...@sunyit.edu>)
_____________________________/ :--' ____________________
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ]
\___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___]
`===='
"So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
Diane Richardson
On 18 Oct 1997 10:28:41 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
[snip]
>>>It was a strawman meant simply and only to distract us from the issue.
>>>Hubbard's cynical use of religion as a useful tool to get tax breaks and
>>>to stay out of legal trouble with the FDA and other agencies.
>>
>>Hubbard's cynical use of religion may be the issue for you, Barwell,
>>but it certainly isn't the topic under discussion on this thread until
>>you decided to change it. Talk about strawmen!
>
>
>Baloney Diane! Baloney!
>
>The thread has been exploring the question "is Scientology a real
>religion?"
If that's what you'd like the topic of this thread to be, Barwell, I'd
suggest you define your terms. What criteria must a religion meet to
be categorized by you as a "real" religion?
>Considering Hubbard's comments and writings, the answer
>must be no. Repeatedly Hubbard claimed it was no religion but a hard
>science, and his change over to a 'religous basis' was a cynical
>action. The only strawmen here has been your refusal to contemplate
>what Hubbard wrote and to try to drag Jesus in this for some reason or the
>other as a strawman to distract.
Not a strawman, Barwell, just an attempt to get you to define what
criteria you think must be met in order to qualify an organization as
a "real" religion. What are these criteria? How do you define them?
Or would you prefer to scuttle under a rock, screeching "strawman,
strawman, strawman," rather than face an issue that makes you quite
uncomfortable?
>>>Diane would rather not deal with the substance of Hubbard's own
>>>writings. To admit she was wrong is something she cannot do.
>>
>>Admit I'm wrong about what? I don't understand what you're claiming
>>I'm wrong about. Perhaps if you stopped snipping things you'd prefer
>>not to acknowledge, it would be easier for me to follow the
>>discussion. Of course, if you refrained from snipping, you might end
>>up looking terribly foolish.
>>
>
>Isn't she lovely when she plays dumb? Hubbard left no doubt
>that Scientology's religous veneer was a matter foor soliciters
>and accountants only. A problem of practical business.
>A religous angle. "What? Huh?" Says Diane disingenously.
>"If only you'd stop snipping stuff I'd know which end is up."
I'm asking you a direct question now, Barwell. What criteria do you
believe an orgnization must meet in order to be classified as a "real"
religion? Who should be given the authority to determine whether an
organization meets these requirements?
Will you answer these questions or will you squirm uncomfortably as
you try to deflect them? Every time you begin ranting, you do so
because you can no longer defend your stated position in a rational
manner. I suspect that's what you're doing once again right now.
>>>Diane, did Jesus believe in Xenu? Did Jesus own an E-meter?
>>>Here are some real good strawmen for you.
>>
>>No, Barwell. Why would you need to ask? Are you really that stupid?
>
>Actually this is a private joke between me and Ted Mayett.
>You may ignore it and please don't let it distract you from considering
>Hubbard's pronouncements on religous angles, matters of practical business
>and soliciters and accountants.
I'd suggest you keep your private jokes to e-mail, Barwell.
>(Ted, no, she does not flee in horror from the name Xenu.)
>
>>I suspect that it's not that you're stupid, just incapable of
>>discussing issues rationally.
>>
>
>Oh, I have been rather rational. Your strawmen have been rather, well
>amusing, if one does not expect much from you.
Amuse me a little more, Barwell, by being rational for a bit. All I'm
asking is for you to define your terms. You've stated that the CoS is
not a "real" religion. I would like you to explain to readers what
requirements you believe a religion must meet in order to be
considered "real."
After all, you yourself have determined that the topic of this thread
is whether or not the CoS is a "real" religion. It's difficult
discussing that issue if we don't understand what constitutes a "real"
religion. Since you are the one making the claim that the CoS is not
a "real" religion, it is up to you to define your terms.
>Would you like to put this to ARS and see who the peanut gallery
>thinks is discussing the issue rationally, and who keeps dragging up silly
>strawmen?
Do you consider a discussion of what does and does not constitute a
"real" religion a strawman? If so, I'd suggest you stop constructing
such strawmen.
>Since you are probably in a lot of killfiles, the vote will be
>somewhat non-representitive.
At least you haven't started screeching about nominating me for KOTM
yet, Barwell. I'm sure that will appear in the next response you post
here.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
William Barwell
In article <34483560...@snews.zippo.com>,
No, my reply above was a snide remark in return to the strawman
YOU erected. A strawman erected to distract us from Hubbard's quotes that
showed Hubbard to be a cynical bastard who used 'religion' only as a cloak
for tax and legal purposes and propganda.
Please do follow up on your own strawmen, it simply illustrates the
fcat you simply seem unable to follow a thread or an argument without
getting lost along the way somewhere. I used to think it was cupidity,
now I realize you are simply clueless.
Jesus ran the money changers out of the temple, Ron made the
'money changers' his high priests. I was contrasting the two, Hubbard the
cynic, he of the "It is a matter for soliciters and accountanats only" and
the Jesus of your strawman.
Which not only failed to distract, but then added contrast to Hubbard's
ugly and cynical HCOPL.
Can you hear the few people who have not kill filled you laughing at you?
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
"Scientology has opened the gates to a better World.
IT IS NOT A PSYCHO-THERAPY NOR A RELIGION.
It is a body of knowledge which, when properly used,
gives freedom and truth to the individual.
- From "The Creation of Human Ability",
by L. Ron Hubbard
(Los Angeles: A.S.H.O., 1971), page 251:
"Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious
organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset
in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is
entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors."
HCO PL March 9, 1972
GOVERNING POLICY
A. MAKE MONEY
....
J. MAKE MONEY.
K. MAKE MORE MONEY.
L. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY.
The Son of man hath no place to lay his head.
....
Sell all that thou hast and give to the poor.
William Barwell
In article <34483560...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 1997 16:57:00 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>
>>Have you lost track of what you said that started this silly 'argument'?
>>Have you lost track of the fact you were claiming Scientology is a real
>>religion despite Hubbard's cynical words proving it surely was not?
>
>What constitutes a "real" religion for you, Barwell? Dobbs? Somehow,
>the very idea that you -- of all people -- insist that there are
>"real" and "false" religions is perhaps one of the most hilarious
>things I've read on a.r.s. in all the years I've been here.
Then you haven't really studied SubGenius triple think(tm).
It's all really complex and hideously straightforward so don't
even try. Only us real elitists and right minded chosen of Jehova-1, Space
Alien from a distant Sin Galaxy can handle it, thanks to our tri-lobed
SubGenius brains.
Really, all reality aside for the moment, it is simply a matter of noting
Hubbard was a cynic who saw no religous roots in Scientology, but a mere
"matter of practical business", a "religion angle", a "matter for
soliciters and accountants only", a way to hold the FDA at bay, a way of
getting tax breaks.
>
>>Obviously, not every word of Jesus is in the Bible. So, what does this
>>have to do with Hubbard's statement above, which again, you have attempted
>>to avoid dealing with?
>
>Perhaps, if Jesus had been literate and fond of having every word he
>spoke recorded for posterity, we'd have a statement from Jesus similar
>to the one we've read from Hubbard.
But the question sis, What did Hubbard say and what does this
tell us about Scientology's actual religous foundations, doesn't it?
That is what this thread has been for some time about, is Scientology a
real religion? The lower ranks of Scientologists may think so, but at the
top, the leaders of this cult know better and laugh and giggle at those
who buy this farce.
These people laughed and sniggered and guffawed when Ron cynically had
them get clerical robes and gear and costume themselves when wogs were
around to trick the silly wogs.
We have a lot of old timers from that era that have told us
that this religion bizzness was a farce and a fraud and that
every Scientologist knew it and laughed at the whole thing.
It ain't about Jesus and your and utterly pointless bizarre Jesus rant
above is .. well, bizarre and beside the point. As usual.
Scientology was no religion, became a pseudoreligion for the advantages
of being a paper religion and this farce was well recognized as the farce
it was by those who saw this fraud put into action.
Who will admit it was a farce, that all knew it was a fraud and
laughed at it all even as they bought priest costumes and set up
phony religous trappings around orgs to snow reporters and
nosy wogs.
Besides Mormonism and theosophy, I know of few 'religions'
that also like Scientology were founded and based on purposeful
fraud.
Would that make Christianity any
>less of a "real" religion, Barwell? Can only illiterate carpenters
>found "real" religions? When you get right down to it, what do you
>consider a "real" religion?
Not Scientology. Which is the point of this thread even though you keep
desperately trying to distract us from that. Not very successfully.
I do not intend to let you sidetrack me with a long useless debate
not germane to ARS or Hubbard's fraudulent religion.
Discuss Hubbard's writings on the cynical fraud he perpetrated,
which is the subject here.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
>
William Barwell
In article <34483560...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 1997 16:57:00 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>
>>Hubbard was not sincere about Scientology being placed on a religous basis
>>was he? What else could he have meant that nothing was changed, that it
>>was a matter for solicitors and accountants only?
>
>He was most likely *very* serious about putting Scientology on a
>religious basis. That's how he planned to have his scam taken
>seriously.
No, he was not putting it on a 'religous basis'. He wanted his scam
to take in fools but he knew Scientology was no real religion.
Society, thirsting for more control of more people substitutes religion
for
the spirit, the body for the soul, an identity for the individual and
science and data for truth. In this direction lies insanity, increasing
slavery, less knowingness, greater scarcity and less society.
Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. IT IS NOT A
PSYCHO-THERAPY NOR A RELIGION. It is a body of knowledge which, when
properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual.
-- L. Ron Hubbard, "The Creation of Human Ability"
Los Angeles: A.S.H.O., 1971, page 251
From History of Man LRH 1952
Chapter 8
Theta clearing is about as practical and simple as repairing a shoe lace.
It is nothing to do with hypnotism, voodooism, charalatanism, monkeyism
or theosophy. Done, the thetan can do anything a stage magician can do in
in the way of moving objects around. But this isn't attained by holding
one's breathe or thinking right thoughts or voting Republican or any
other superstitous or mystic practice. So for the reason I brought up,
rule out, auditor, any mumbo jumbo or mysticism, spiritualism, or
religion.
LRH
Hubbard was a fraud, he claimed it was NOT a religion until he
decided for purposes of advantage he would draw the cloak of religion
around his pseudoscience.
A similar fraud was Scientology's exact opposite, creation science.
Which was a purposeful and untruthful campaign to dress creationism up
in scientific clothes to try to use this fraud science to push out
real science from classrooms in Arkanasas and elsewhere. Like Hubbard, the
neo-creationists left quite a trail of pamphlets, journals and books
detailing their purposeful fraud that essentially sunk them in federal
court when the evidence of their fraud was presented.
A fraud is a fraud, whether trusting people buy the fraud or not.
A counterfeit $20 bill is still a counterfeit whether you notice the bill
you accepted is fake or not.
Like wise, at the turn of the century, spiritualist churches were
hotbeds of fraud religion. Fake mediums, tricking bereaved people
sucked them dry, draining them remorselessly of money for "the cause".
The fraud mediums had two terms, 'shuteye' and 'openeye'.
And openeye was a medium that knew the big and fancy phenomena
of the spiritualist churches were all frauds. They were the in group,
who usually aided and abetted each other in their frauds, and with these
spectacular frauds, kept the whole show going.
They made the big money.
The shuteyes were the corner medium, who did not know it was all a fake
and a fraud, and was most apologetic about her paltry gifts and powers,
lack of much abilities, and lack of spectacular phenomena.
These shuteyes were more alternative church services for spiritualist
believers, more social phenomenon than 'real' mediums. A place
to spend a Sunday afternoon prattling about metaphysical balderdash with
the like minded. and convince themselves there was truth to this fraud.
But they were important to the openeyes because they supplied the veneer
of repectability and believability to the whole sorry enterprise.
Afterall, these people were so sincere and open about their own lack of
great abilities, it can't be a fake, can it?
These people were an important part of of the charade of telling the world
mediums and their phenomena were not fakes and frauds.
Like the spiritualist believer, the Creation Scientist believers, the
low level Scientologist, a fraud is still not a real religion, it is
simply a fraud religion that fools people, and often, takes advantage of
them, imposes on them, tricks then for ulterior motives, a fraud with an
agenda.
At the bottom, we had the spiritualist believers, the shuteyes, being
imposed on by sniggering openeyes, fraud, fakes, money grubbing
and vicious thieves, no better than fake faith healers.
At the bottom, we have shuteye Scientologists, being used as catspaws
by the sniggering openeye cult leaders, who defraud their own belivers and
society.
Like the creationist leaders and 'intellectuals' that set out to
purposefully lie to society and their own believers about "scientific
creationism' being a science when they knew full well every step of the
way it was indeed, an imposter, a fraud, a fake.
But all these fakes were fakes even if a few people were tricked into
believing otherwise.
And now you know why the Creation Scientists no longer try to use
federal courts to push their agenda.
And what killed the spiritualist churches was magicians
and the press. Who made debunking mediums and spiritualist
churches a great adventure.
The invention of the flashlight and the small camera with a flash
finished them off. 'Ghost-grabbing' became quite the fraternity
activity and police bunco squads caught many a medium dressed in
phosphorus painted cheese clothe prancing around in the seance
room on film with a small camera and a flash smuggled into the seance
room.
Now it's Scientology's turn and it is the net that will do them in.
It is no religion, it is a fraud.
Plain and simple and it is being exposed.
Ted Mayett (KoX)
On 18 Oct 1997 10:28:41 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
>>>Diane, did Jesus believe in Xenu? Did Jesus own an E-meter?
>>>Here are some real good strawmen for you.
>>
>>No, Barwell. Why would you need to ask? Are you really that stupid?
>
>Actually this is a private joke between me and Ted Mayett.
>You may ignore it and please don't let it distract you from considering
>Hubbard's pronouncements on religous angles, matters of practical business
>and soliciters and accountants.
>
>(Ted, no, she does not flee in horror from the name Xenu.)
>
Then she is not a clam.
But from my end, reading half the posts, she is incredibly dense.
Good job on sticking that Xenu bit in, nice and subtle. Perhaps this
can be used with any critic that comes along. If they run from the
word Xemu we got them. If they are clams and do not run from the word
Xenu, then they are useless clams, not true fanatics.
Any scientologist that does not cover their ears and run away when
'Xenu' is mentioned... is an SP. Remember clams, in courtrooms, your
leaders cover their ears and run away when Xemu is mentioned.
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://xenu.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/globloc.cgi
William Barwell
In article <62a2ik$f...@snews3.zippo.com>,
>>>>with accountant types was when he ran the moneychangers out of the temple.
>
>as an "accountant type?" There's at least one story in the Bible about Jesus
>spending time over at Matthew's house chatting with Matthew's friends (other
>tax collectors and such) and getting heat from the more conservative folk of
>the area about it.
>
>Who knows... maybe besides spreading the Good Word, Jesus was also picking up
>a few tips on how to lighten his tax burden? ;-)
The gospels tell how Judas was keeper of "the common bag" and how
he committed embezzlement. Hubbard's kind of accountant.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In art<3448e24b...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName writes:
>On 18 Oct 1997 10:28:41 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM wrote:
>>
>> >>It was a strawman meant simply and only to distract us from the
>> >other agencies.
>> >
>> >Hubbard's cynical use of religion may be the issue for you, Barwell,
>> >but it certainly isn't the topic under discussion on this thread
>> >until you decided to change it. Talk about strawmen!
>>
>>Baloney Diane! Baloney!
>>religion?"
>
>If that's what you'd like the topic of this thread to be, Barwell, I'd
>suggest you define your terms. What criteria must a religion meet to
>be categorized by you as a "real" religion?
One whose policies don't have it lock up paritioners until they die
of thirst? One which is not simply an exuse for a moneymaking con??
One which is sincere about being a religion, not just in its
founding profit's own words taking on the cloak of religiosity
for tax purposes??? Yes, try that one for a start.
>
>>Considering Hubbard's comments and writings, the answer
>>must be no. Repeatedly Hubbard claimed it was no religion but a hard
>>science, and his change over to a 'religous basis' was a cynical
>>action. The only strawmen here has been your refusal to contemplate
>>what Hubbard wrote and to try to drag Jesus in this for some reason or the
>>other as a strawman to distract.
>
>Not a strawman, Barwell, just an attempt to get you to define what
>criteria you think must be met in order to qualify an organization as
>a "real" religion.
See above
>>Isn't she lovely when she plays dumb? Hubbard left no doubt
>>that Scientology's religous veneer was a matter foor soliciters
>>and accountants only. A problem of practical business.
>>A religous angle. "What? Huh?" Says Diane disingenously.
>>"If only you'd stop snipping stuff I'd know which end is up."
>
>I'm asking you a direct question now, Barwell. What criteria do you
>believe an orgnization must meet in order to be classified as a "real"
>religion?
See above
>Who should be given the authority
I think commonsense would be a good guide for my own purposes,
but evidently you don't have any....
>I'd suggest you keep your private jokes to e-mail, Barwell.
>
....nor a sense of humour.
>
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On 18 Oct 1997 13:59:18 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
>>>Have you lost track of what you said that started this silly 'argument'?
>>>Have you lost track of the fact you were claiming Scientology is a real
>>>religion despite Hubbard's cynical words proving it surely was not?
>>
>>What constitutes a "real" religion for you, Barwell? Dobbs? Somehow,
>>the very idea that you -- of all people -- insist that there are
>>"real" and "false" religions is perhaps one of the most hilarious
>>things I've read on a.r.s. in all the years I've been here.
>
>Then you haven't really studied SubGenius triple think(tm).
>It's all really complex and hideously straightforward so don't
>even try. Only us real elitists and right minded chosen of Jehova-1, Space
>Alien from a distant Sin Galaxy can handle it, thanks to our tri-lobed
>SubGenius brains.
Do you consider the Church of the Subgenius a "real" religion? Or
does even the use of the term "real" religion make a Subgenius pope
uncomfortable?
[snip]
>>>Obviously, not every word of Jesus is in the Bible. So, what does this
>>>have to do with Hubbard's statement above, which again, you have attempted
>>>to avoid dealing with?
>>
>>Perhaps, if Jesus had been literate and fond of having every word he
>>spoke recorded for posterity, we'd have a statement from Jesus similar
>>to the one we've read from Hubbard.
>
>But the question sis, What did Hubbard say and what does this
>tell us about Scientology's actual religous foundations, doesn't it?
>That is what this thread has been for some time about, is Scientology a
>real religion? The lower ranks of Scientologists may think so, but at the
>top, the leaders of this cult know better and laugh and giggle at those
>who buy this farce.
There are others here with more experience who disagree with your
belief that CoS leaders "know better and laugh and giggle at those who
buy this farce."
Perhaps you'd like to ask Dennis Erlich or Grady Ward if they think
CoS leaders don't take CoS beliefs quite seriously. They've both
expressed their opinion that CoS leaders are quite serious about them.
>These people laughed and sniggered and guffawed when Ron cynically had
>them get clerical robes and gear and costume themselves when wogs were
>around to trick the silly wogs.
Do you believe that wearing clerical robes and gear makes a religion a
"real" religion?
[snip]
>Besides Mormonism and theosophy, I know of few 'religions'
>that also like Scientology were founded and based on purposeful
>fraud.
Does that mean you do not consider Mormonism and theosophy "real"
religions either?
> Would that make Christianity any
>>less of a "real" religion, Barwell? Can only illiterate carpenters
>>found "real" religions? When you get right down to it, what do you
>>consider a "real" religion?
>
>Not Scientology. Which is the point of this thread even though you keep
>desperately trying to distract us from that. Not very successfully.
>I do not intend to let you sidetrack me with a long useless debate
>not germane to ARS or Hubbard's fraudulent religion.
I see. You insist that the CoS is not a "real" religion, but you are
uncomfortable defining what a "real" religion is. That's strange.
I'd think a CoSG pope would have a very definite opinion on what
consitutes a "real" religion.
>Discuss Hubbard's writings on the cynical fraud he perpetrated,
>which is the subject here.
I agree that Hubbard began the CoS as a cynical fraud. That point has
been discussed here endlessly over the past few years. Frankly, you
may find neverending repetition of the same statements interesting and
entertaining repartee. I find it incredibly dull.
What I don't understand is why the fraudulent nature of Hubbard's
decision to turn Dianetics[tm] into the CoS makes the cult any less a
religion than other religions. It appears that a discussion about
this makes you quite uncomfortable. If you're not interested in
discussing what you consider requisites for being a "real" religion, I
see no reason to consider responding to your comments.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <344abe1a...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName waffles:
>On 18 Oct 1997 13:59:18 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>>>>Have you lost track of what you said that started this silly 'argument'?
>>>>Have you lost track of the fact you were claiming Scientology is a real
>>>>religion despite Hubbard's cynical words proving it surely was not?
>>>
>>>What constitutes a "real" religion for you, Barwell? Dobbs? Somehow,
>>>the very idea that you -- of all people -- insist that there are
>>>"real" and "false" religions is perhaps one of the most hilarious
>>>things I've read on a.r.s. in all the years I've been here.
>>
>>Then you haven't really studied SubGenius triple think(tm).
>>It's all really complex and hideously straightforward so don't
>>even try. Only us real elitists and right minded chosen of Jehova-1, Space
>>Alien from a distant Sin Galaxy can handle it, thanks to our tri-lobed
>>SubGenius brains.
>
>does even the use of the term "real" religion make a Subgenius pope
>uncomfortable?
No, it's a joke. But it doesn't ask to be tax exempt, and it doesn't
go round drowning dogs or starving paritioners to death either.
Your point is?
William Barwell
In article <3448e24b...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 18 Oct 1997 10:28:41 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>It was a strawman meant simply and only to distract us from the issue.
>>>>Hubbard's cynical use of religion as a useful tool to get tax breaks and
>>>>to stay out of legal trouble with the FDA and other agencies.
>>>
>>>Hubbard's cynical use of religion may be the issue for you, Barwell,
>>>but it certainly isn't the topic under discussion on this thread until
>>>you decided to change it. Talk about strawmen!
>>
>>
>>Baloney Diane! Baloney!
>>
>>religion?"
>
>If that's what you'd like the topic of this thread to be, Barwell, I'd
>suggest you define your terms. What criteria must a religion meet to
>be categorized by you as a "real" religion?
Yawn. No dice. This is a fools errand.
If you wanna argue "What is religion?" I suggest you join the
eternal floating flame war usually going by the title
"Is Atheism a religion?" floating around in various political
and religous and Atheist newsgroups.
I could give you MY definition, but it would be no more useful
to do so that to give it to a partisan xian who is arguing Atheism
is a religion for the usual Christian far right political motives
and hidden agendas.
Since it is a word with no one standard and final definition,
this is a pointless task to play that game with you.
When you ar egood enought that teh above Atheist a Religion?
argument can be settled by you superior intellect for once and for
for all and this agrred to by the net participants who have
been vociferously arguing this for year snow, come and notify
me.
Hubbard may have fooled a few wogs and some Scientologists with his
sniggering fraud, but he doesn't fool me and he certainly has
not fooled many governments who know full well what is going on and aren't
giving Scientology the status of real religion.
Our lil pointless debate wouldn't change that either.
The dogs bark and the circus moves on.
>
>I'd suggest you keep your private jokes to e-mail, Barwell.
>
>>(Ted, no, she does not flee in horror from the name Xenu.)
>>
No, the joke was much funnier this way.
>
>Do you consider a discussion of what does and does not constitute a
>"real" religion a strawman? If so, I'd suggest you stop constructing
>such strawmen.
>
A religion founded as a matter of practical business, as a 'religous
angle', as a "matter for soliciters and accountants only is no
religion. It is still the same "Not a religion" quack pseudoscience
pretending to be a religion for the purposes of defrauding society.
A counterfeit bill is still counterfeit even though a few
unwary people would accept it.
>At least you haven't started screeching about nominating me for KOTM
>yet, Barwell. I'm sure that will appear in the next response you post
>here.
>
> >Diane Richardson >ref...@bway.net > >
I have only nominated two people for Kook of the Month.
Both won handily.
You are not quite ripe yet for Usenet Kook of the Month.
If you ever do get to that point, I'll nominate you.
No yet.
Believe me, I do have some expertise in doing this.
You are just a net pest.
"We are doctors and we know how to play our instruments as
well as we need to."
-Old SubGenius saying.
William Barwell
In article <344abe24...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 20:08:50 GMT, te...@skylink.net (Ted Mayett (KoX))
>>>>>Here are some real good strawmen for you.
>>>>
>>>>No, Barwell. Why would you need to ask? Are you really that stupid?
>>>
>>>Actually this is a private joke between me and Ted Mayett.
>>>You may ignore it and please don't let it distract you from considering
>>>Hubbard's pronouncements on religous angles, matters of practical business
>>>and soliciters and accountants.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>a plan to uncover hidden Scientologists[tm] on the newsgroup by subtly
>tossing in a shibboleth.
>
>We've got some really high-caliber security checkers operating right
>on this newsgroup. Flunk the loyalty test and who knows what the
>daring duo might do to the perp!
>
>>But from my end, reading half the posts, she is incredibly dense.
>>
>>Good job on sticking that Xenu bit in, nice and subtle. Perhaps this
>>can be used with any critic that comes along. If they run from the
>>word Xemu we got them. If they are clams and do not run from the word
>>Xenu, then they are useless clams, not true fanatics.
>
>Isn't it just awful that you can't do *real* sec checks on anyone who
>wants to post here? That way you could really unmask the Commies
>(oops! I meant clams) before they had a chance to pollute the
>newsgroup.
>
>>Any scientologist that does not cover their ears and run away when
>>'Xenu' is mentioned... is an SP. Remember clams, in courtrooms, your
>>leaders cover their ears and run away when Xemu is mentioned.
>
>leaders didn't cover their ears and run away. They got agitated, but
>rather than running away, they had their attorney object.
>
>Perhaps the two of your should get out and get some real experience
>rather than playing spy-vs-spy in your own little ARSCC fantasyland.
>
>
Cluck. Cluck cluck. Cluck...
Splash! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK!
Heh! It was cruel joke, but don't blame me, Ted put me up to it.
I don't know whay I am laughing at this, but I can't stop.
William Barwell
In article <344abe1a...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 18 Oct 1997 13:59:18 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>>>>Have you lost track of what you said that started this silly 'argument'?
>>>>Have you lost track of the fact you were claiming Scientology is a real
>>>>religion despite Hubbard's cynical words proving it surely was not?
>>>
>>>What constitutes a "real" religion for you, Barwell? Dobbs? Somehow,
>>>the very idea that you -- of all people -- insist that there are
>>>"real" and "false" religions is perhaps one of the most hilarious
>>>things I've read on a.r.s. in all the years I've been here.
>>
>>Then you haven't really studied SubGenius triple think(tm).
>>It's all really complex and hideously straightforward so don't
>>even try. Only us real elitists and right minded chosen of Jehova-1, Space
>>Alien from a distant Sin Galaxy can handle it, thanks to our tri-lobed
>>SubGenius brains.
>
>does even the use of the term "real" religion make a Subgenius pope
>uncomfortable?
>
>
>>>>Obviously, not every word of Jesus is in the Bible. So, what does this
>>>>have to do with Hubbard's statement above, which again, you have attempted
>>>>to avoid dealing with?
>>>
>>>Perhaps, if Jesus had been literate and fond of having every word he
>>>spoke recorded for posterity, we'd have a statement from Jesus similar
>>>to the one we've read from Hubbard.
>>
>>But the question sis, What did Hubbard say and what does this
>>tell us about Scientology's actual religous foundations, doesn't it?
>>That is what this thread has been for some time about, is Scientology a
>>real religion? The lower ranks of Scientologists may think so, but at the
>>top, the leaders of this cult know better and laugh and giggle at those
>>who buy this farce.
>
>buy this farce."
>
>Perhaps you'd like to ask Dennis Erlich or Grady Ward if they think
>CoS leaders don't take CoS beliefs quite seriously. They've both
>expressed their opinion that CoS leaders are quite serious about them.
>
>>them get clerical robes and gear and costume themselves when wogs were
>>around to trick the silly wogs.
>
>"real" religion?
>
>[snip]
>
>>that also like Scientology were founded and based on purposeful
>>fraud.
>
>religions either?
>
>>>less of a "real" religion, Barwell? Can only illiterate carpenters
>>>found "real" religions? When you get right down to it, what do you
>>>consider a "real" religion?
>>
>>Not Scientology. Which is the point of this thread even though you keep
>>desperately trying to distract us from that. Not very successfully.
>>I do not intend to let you sidetrack me with a long useless debate
>>not germane to ARS or Hubbard's fraudulent religion.
>
>uncomfortable defining what a "real" religion is. That's strange.
>I'd think a CoSG pope would have a very definite opinion on what
>
>>Discuss Hubbard's writings on the cynical fraud he perpetrated,
>>which is the subject here.
>
Ted Mayett (KoX)
On 20 Oct 1997 20:05:29 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
>>
>>How fascinating! William Barwell and Ted Mayett engage in
>>a plan to uncover hidden Scientologists[tm] on the newsgroup by subtly
>>tossing in a shibboleth.
>>
>Heh! It was cruel joke, but don't blame me, Ted put me up to it.
>
It wasn't a joke, it was my idea and I even pointed out to Barwell in
e-mail that I was not being 'funny here'. I was curious. I was
looking for a motivation. This NG takes up a lot of time. I know why
I spend the time here. I was curious why Diane spends the time here.
So I thought of the Xenu test. I'm convinced clams are on this NG
simply to keep the daily volume up. It had suddenly occured to me to
see if some people avoided any post with Xenu in it. You see, like
others, I wonder why anyone would spend time here if they were not
opposed to this criminal cult.
>>>Diane Richardson Wrote:
>>>So now Ted Mayett is trying to tell me how to spend my time. Maybe
>>> he wants to pass some type of law specifically stating what can and
>>>cannot be posted on this newsgroup. Not that I would follow it
>>>mind you. Having... etc.
Well, enough of this tripe.
I've taken a snippet of a post by Pope and webbed it. Made it an
essay. Barwell has approved it, I like it, it came about as a result
of one of those long Diane/Pope threads. I think it is why he
suddenly got attention from mikesmith3. It is here:
http://homepages.skylink.net/~teddy/mixed/pope.html
>
>I don't know whay I am laughing at this, but I can't stop.
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>
--
Diane Richardson
On 20 Oct 1997 19:49:58 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
>In article <3448e24b...@snews.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>On 18 Oct 1997 10:28:41 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>>Barwell) wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>>It was a strawman meant simply and only to distract us from the issue.
>>>>>Hubbard's cynical use of religion as a useful tool to get tax breaks and
>>>>>to stay out of legal trouble with the FDA and other agencies.
>>>>
>>>>Hubbard's cynical use of religion may be the issue for you, Barwell,
>>>>but it certainly isn't the topic under discussion on this thread until
>>>>you decided to change it. Talk about strawmen!
>>>
>>>
>>>Baloney Diane! Baloney!
>>>
>>>The thread has been exploring the question "is Scientology a real
>>>religion?"
>>
>>If that's what you'd like the topic of this thread to be, Barwell, I'd
>>suggest you define your terms. What criteria must a religion meet to
>>be categorized by you as a "real" religion?
>
>
>Yawn. No dice. This is a fools errand.
>If you wanna argue "What is religion?" I suggest you join the
>eternal floating flame war usually going by the title
>"Is Atheism a religion?" floating around in various political
>and religous and Atheist newsgroups.
I'd point out that it was you who made the statement that the CoS is
not a "real" religion. I find it strange that you are unable to
explain what you mean by the phrase you use.
Are we to believe that the CoS is not a "real" religion just because
you say so? In spite of the fact that you're a self-styled Pope, I
doubt if you have the authority to command such faith from anyone.
>I could give you MY definition, but it would be no more useful
>to do so that to give it to a partisan xian who is arguing Atheism
>is a religion for the usual Christian far right political motives
>and hidden agendas.
That's exactly what I asked you to do, to define the term that you
used; namely, what a "real" religion is. Your entire argument is
based on the fact that the CoS is not a "real" religion, yet you are
unable to explain what you mean by that term.
Don't you agree that it's rather pointless to debate an issue when we
don't even know what it is we're debating? I was taught that to
"define your terms" was a prerequisite for discussion of any issue.
What's to discuss if the terms can't be defined?
>Since it is a word with no one standard and final definition,
>this is a pointless task to play that game with you.
>When you ar egood enought that teh above Atheist a Religion?
>argument can be settled by you superior intellect for once and for
>for all and this agrred to by the net participants who have
>been vociferously arguing this for year snow, come and notify
>me.
Sorry, but I can't make sense of what you've written above. I have no
desire to debate whether atheism is a religion or not. I'm asking you
what you mean when you say that the CoS is not a "real" religion.
After all, *you* are the person who made that statement. If you're
incapable of defining the very terms you devise to express your
opinion, I can't help but suspect that your opinion is not well
founded or very defensible.
>Hubbard may have fooled a few wogs and some Scientologists with his
>sniggering fraud, but he doesn't fool me and he certainly has
>not fooled many governments who know full well what is going on and aren't
>giving Scientology the status of real religion.
I asked you if you believed Dennis Erlich and Vaughn Young were
sniggering while they were moving people "up the bridge," Barwell.
I note that you have not chosen to reply to that question, at least
not that I've yet seen. I'll be interested to see your answer to that
question.
>Our lil pointless debate wouldn't change that either.
>The dogs bark and the circus moves on.
The circus moves on because you are dishonest enough to base an
argument on a claim that you refuse to defend, Barwell. Let's make
sure we note that. It is your contention that the CoS is not a "real"
religion. I asked you to explain what criteria you believe a group
must meet in order to be considered a "real" religion. You refuse to
do so.
>>
>>I'd suggest you keep your private jokes to e-mail, Barwell.
>>
>>>(Ted, no, she does not flee in horror from the name Xenu.)
>>>
>
>No, the joke was much funnier this way.
I must admit I laughed at the thought that you, too, were one of the
clowns that points, gasps, and shrieks, "OSA PLANT, OSA PLANT".
I'm constantly amused that those who seem most concerned about
unmasking OSA plants around here are those who are so stupid they
wouldn't recognize one if it bit them in the ass.
>>
>>Do you consider a discussion of what does and does not constitute a
>>"real" religion a strawman? If so, I'd suggest you stop constructing
>>such strawmen.
>>
>
> A religion founded as a matter of practical business, as a 'religous
>angle', as a "matter for soliciters and accountants only is no
>religion. It is still the same "Not a religion" quack pseudoscience
>pretending to be a religion for the purposes of defrauding society.
As I asked you in another post, do you believe that Dennis Erlich and
Vaughn Young were doing nothing more than purposely defrauding the
public when they audited preclears? How about Monica Pignotti? Was
she just out to dupe poor fools into handing over their money when she
audited them? Perhaps none of that matters to you. Perhaps the only
thing that matters was the intent of the founder when the organization
was established. I'd suggest, however, that there are many people who
believed they were assisting others in achieving spiritual growth when
they were active in the cult. Were Dennis, Vaughn and Monica
deliberately deceiving people? Did they really think they were just
duping fools? Perhaps you're just more cynical about the motives of
people like Monica, Vaughn, and Dennis than I am.
[snip]
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
William Barwell
In article <344abe1a...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 18 Oct 1997 13:59:18 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>>>>Have you lost track of what you said that started this silly 'argument'?
>>>>Have you lost track of the fact you were claiming Scientology is a real
>>>>religion despite Hubbard's cynical words proving it surely was not?
>>>
>>>What constitutes a "real" religion for you, Barwell? Dobbs? Somehow,
>>>the very idea that you -- of all people -- insist that there are
>>>"real" and "false" religions is perhaps one of the most hilarious
>>>things I've read on a.r.s. in all the years I've been here.
>>
>>Then you haven't really studied SubGenius triple think(tm).
>>It's all really complex and hideously straightforward so don't
>>even try. Only us real elitists and right minded chosen of Jehova-1, Space
>>Alien from a distant Sin Galaxy can handle it, thanks to our tri-lobed
>>SubGenius brains.
>
>does even the use of the term "real" religion make a Subgenius pope
>uncomfortable?
The church of the SubGenius is the ONLY real religion.
Founded by Jehova-1, space alien from a corporate sin galaxy,
only the SubGenius church preaches Slack and has J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
By Jehova-1's reckoning, thus only the CotSG can truely be called a
religion. And who am I to argue?
We can be as particularist as any other cult around.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>Obviously, not every word of Jesus is in the Bible. So, what does this
>>>>have to do with Hubbard's statement above, which again, you have attempted
>>>>to avoid dealing with?
>>>
>>>Perhaps, if Jesus had been literate and fond of having every word he
>>>spoke recorded for posterity, we'd have a statement from Jesus similar
>>>to the one we've read from Hubbard.
>>
>>But the question sis, What did Hubbard say and what does this
>>tell us about Scientology's actual religous foundations, doesn't it?
>>That is what this thread has been for some time about, is Scientology a
>>real religion? The lower ranks of Scientologists may think so, but at the
>>top, the leaders of this cult know better and laugh and giggle at those
>>who buy this farce.
>
>There are others here with more experience who disagree with your
>belief that CoS leaders "know better and laugh and giggle at those who
>buy this farce."
>
Oh, and who are these ex-Scientologists who tell us that when they\and
others giggled and snorted and laughed and winked and guffawed as
they paraged around in their new preacher costumes as ordered by
Hubbard for to fool teh wogs, those who would someday rise to take over
teh church took the religion bit utterly seriously?
I seem to have missed that Jeta, Dennis, Warrior, Monica,
anybody else who was a member at that time, did any of you see
Moxon, Heeby or others taking the religous bit seriously.
Anybody else remember that era when Hubbard decided to put on a show?
Anybody else see the missing posts I missed here that Diane so firmly
recalls?
>Perhaps you'd like to ask Dennis Erlich or Grady Ward if they think
>CoS leaders don't take CoS beliefs quite seriously. They've both
>expressed their opinion that CoS leaders are quite serious about them.
>
Did they giggle and laugh too as they tried on their priest costumes in
the 70's?
Did Ward actually get a chance to probe their beliefs in this regard?
Grady?
>>These people laughed and sniggered and guffawed when Ron cynically had
>>them get clerical robes and gear and costume themselves when wogs were
>>around to trick the silly wogs.
>
>Do you believe that wearing clerical robes and gear makes a religion a
>"real" religion?
>
No, some of the biggest crooks around have worn robes and collars.
Laughing as you don them to fool reporters and wogs certainly doesn't make
it seem that Scientology and Scientologists considered this all very
indicative of deep spiritual yearning of Hubbard and Scientology?
Wouldn't you agree?
>[snip]
>
>>Besides Mormonism and theosophy, I know of few 'religions'
>>that also like Scientology were founded and based on purposeful
>>fraud.
>
>Does that mean you do not consider Mormonism and theosophy "real"
>religions either?
I certainly don't. Some Mormons and Theosophists may make that mistake,
but I know better. Blavatsky was a fat fraud and almost as ridiculous as
Hubbard.
If anybody blabbers fool nonsense and SOME people believe it, is it a
fraud that fooled some people or a real religion?
AND what does this say about the value of religion anyway?
What is a real religion? If 50% of the US believes something is a
religion, is it? 20%? 1%? .01%? Two clowns and a madman?
If the madman who founded the religion as a fraud laughs at his two
clown followers, is it a real religion still? How about 1000
Clowns? A million?
Gee this stuff is confusin' ain't it?
A real religion doesn't neccesarily = a fraud religion that fools
a few thousand people.
How do you figure out it is a real religion? A poll?
A poll of uniformed jerks off the street? Do you let 'em read Hubbard's
conman cynical statements and then having an informed pool
of pollees, take the poll?
If 10% of uninformed jerks say it must be a religion cuase it has teh word
church in Church of Scientology, is it a religion? If 90% of the
others say it is a cult, is it?
If 20% of Americans say Mormonism is a spiritual counterfeit and a
cult and not a real religion, is it a cult and not a real religion?
>
>>Would that make Christianity any
>>>less of a "real" religion, Barwell? Can only illiterate carpenters
>>>found "real" religions? When you get right down to it, what do you
>>>consider a "real" religion?
>>
>>Not Scientology. Which is the point of this thread even though you keep
>>desperately trying to distract us from that. Not very successfully.
>>I do not intend to let you sidetrack me with a long useless debate
>>not germane to ARS or Hubbard's fraudulent religion.
>
>I see. You insist that the CoS is not a "real" religion, but you are
>uncomfortable defining what a "real" religion is. That's strange.
>I'd think a CoSG pope would have a very definite opinion on what
>consitutes a "real" religion.
If it preaches Slack and has "Bob" it is a real religion.
Otherwise, it is a mere knockoff, a mediocretin parody
of the Church of the SubGenius. The normals and mere humans
have been trying to come up with an adequate copy of a real religion
copying the CothSG for several million years and haven't gotten
close yet.
>
>>Discuss Hubbard's writings on the cynical fraud he perpetrated,
>>which is the subject here.
>
>I agree that Hubbard began the CoS as a cynical fraud. That point has
>been discussed here endlessly over the past few years. Frankly, you
>may find neverending repetition of the same statements interesting and
>entertaining repartee. I find it incredibly dull.
Slack, "Bob", SubGenius, no matter how repetitous and boring I find it
fascinating, but then I am programmed by my SubGenius genes and it ain't
m' fault. Probably somewhere in that DNA there is a"Push the big red
button" gene too, but we haven't gotten to that point in history where
those genes will be activated. Yet.
Hubbard's frauds are just something to while the time away until
"Bob's" plan is activated.
> What I don't understand is why the fraudulent nature of Hubbard's
>decision to turn Dianetics[tm] into the CoS makes the cult any less a
>religion than other religions.
When does a fraud become a "real religion"?
When it fools enough jerks? How many is that?
If the jerks knew what Hubbard had did, and most changed their minds,
would it still be a real religion?
It appears that a discussion about
>this makes you quite uncomfortable
It is like arguing about how many body thetans can dance on the head of a
pin.
It is like a catholic arguing the doctrine of the trinity with a Moslem.
It is like two protestants arguing works versus grace.
It is like arguing Palmerism versus Trevinoism.
I am not uncomfortable at all, despite your sneering strawman attack
there.
I simply have been in enough futile 'debates' in my life to know this is
one of the most futile of all, it isn't really anything new.
The evangelicals and the Mormons have been arguing this one for
over a century now. And they have been arguing what is a real religion
with the Catholics for even longer in America.
And they still aren't finished.
. If you're not interested in
>discussing what you consider requisites for being a "real" religion, I
>see no reason to consider responding to your comments.
Since you have admitted that Hubbard was a fraud, I see no reason for you
to waste your time on a futile wild goose chase through the thickets of
theology either.
Diane Richardson
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:29:46 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <344abe1a...@snews.zippo.com>, WhatsHerName waffles:
>>On 18 Oct 1997 13:59:18 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>>Barwell) wrote:
>>
>>>>>Have you lost track of what you said that started this silly 'argument'?
>>>>>Have you lost track of the fact you were claiming Scientology is a real
>>>>>religion despite Hubbard's cynical words proving it surely was not?
>>>>
>>>>What constitutes a "real" religion for you, Barwell? Dobbs? Somehow,
>>>>the very idea that you -- of all people -- insist that there are
>>>>"real" and "false" religions is perhaps one of the most hilarious
>>>>things I've read on a.r.s. in all the years I've been here.
>>>
>>>Then you haven't really studied SubGenius triple think(tm).
>>>It's all really complex and hideously straightforward so don't
>>>even try. Only us real elitists and right minded chosen of Jehova-1, Space
>>>Alien from a distant Sin Galaxy can handle it, thanks to our tri-lobed
>>>SubGenius brains.
>>
>>Do you consider the Church of the Subgenius a "real" religion? Or
>>does even the use of the term "real" religion make a Subgenius pope
>>uncomfortable?
>
>No, it's a joke. But it doesn't ask to be tax exempt, and it doesn't
>go round drowning dogs or starving paritioners to death either.
>Your point is?
Apparently you've failed to understand the point of the Church of the
SubGenius, in spite of the fact that you claim to be a member. In
view of your posts to this newsgroup, I can't say I'm surprised at
your lack of insight.
You comprehend enough to understand that the CoSG is a joke. What you
appear incapable of understanding is the basis of that joke -- what
makes the CoSG funny. Rather than explaining the basis of the humor
behind the worship of Bob, I hope you can reason this perplexing
problem out for yourself. I'm including the following clues to help
you work your way out of your clueless state. Good luck in thinking
this through to its logical conclusion, Dave. I'm sure you can do it!
CLUES FOR THE CLUELESS
William Barwell, self-styled CoSG Pope, bases his argument against the
CoS on the belief that the CoS is not a "real" religion. Although
asked repeatedly to list the criteria necessary to qualify as a "real"
religion, Barwell is either incapable or unwilling to do so.
The Church of the SubGenius is based on parody -- it is based on the
belief that *all* religions are absurd and that *nothing* is sacred to
any religion except the almighty dollar.
For any adherent of the worship of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs to claim that any
religion except the CoSG is a "real" religion is, given the nature of
the theology of the CoSG, completely contradictory.
If you have problems following the logic of this analysis, Dave, I'd
suggest you refer to the works of the SubGenius Foundation, including,
but not limited to, The Book of the SubGenius and Revelation X. If
you have difficulty locating these works, I can provide you with
ordering information.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On 21 Oct 1997 22:19:16 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
That's exactly the point I was trying to make, Barwell. Glad you
finally caught on.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>>Obviously, not every word of Jesus is in the Bible. So, what does this
>>>>>have to do with Hubbard's statement above, which again, you have attempted
>>>>>to avoid dealing with?
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps, if Jesus had been literate and fond of having every word he
>>>>spoke recorded for posterity, we'd have a statement from Jesus similar
>>>>to the one we've read from Hubbard.
>>>
>>>But the question sis, What did Hubbard say and what does this
>>>tell us about Scientology's actual religous foundations, doesn't it?
>>>That is what this thread has been for some time about, is Scientology a
>>>real religion? The lower ranks of Scientologists may think so, but at the
>>>top, the leaders of this cult know better and laugh and giggle at those
>>>who buy this farce.
>>
>>There are others here with more experience who disagree with your
>>belief that CoS leaders "know better and laugh and giggle at those who
>>buy this farce."
>>
>
>Oh, and who are these ex-Scientologists who tell us that when they\and
>others giggled and snorted and laughed and winked and guffawed as
>they paraged around in their new preacher costumes as ordered by
>Hubbard for to fool teh wogs, those who would someday rise to take over
>teh church took the religion bit utterly seriously?
I'm afraid I can't understand the nature of your question. Are you
asking me to repeat the names of ex-Scientologists[tm] who post here?
I've already mentioned Dennis Erlich and Vaughn Young more than once
in presenting my opinion.
>I seem to have missed that Jeta, Dennis, Warrior, Monica,
>anybody else who was a member at that time, did any of you see
>Moxon, Heeby or others taking the religous bit seriously.
>Anybody else remember that era when Hubbard decided to put on a show?
>Anybody else see the missing posts I missed here that Diane so firmly
>recalls?
You've neglected to mention Vaughn Young in your announcement,
Barwell. Are you afraid that he might actually respond to your
request?
>>Perhaps you'd like to ask Dennis Erlich or Grady Ward if they think
>>CoS leaders don't take CoS beliefs quite seriously. They've both
>>expressed their opinion that CoS leaders are quite serious about them.
>>
>
>Did they giggle and laugh too as they tried on their priest costumes in
>the 70's?
Vaughn Young certainly did. He did not enjoy the charade, but went
along with the requirement. I point out that it is *you*, not I, who
describes those who did don the dog collars as giggling and laughing
over the deception.
Because Vaughn Young and Dennis Erlich dressed up in the trappings of
Christian clergy when required by the CoS, do you think they were
willingly engaged in duping people? Do you think that their
willingness to wear that attire when ordered to by their CoS superiors
proves that they knew auditing was nothing but a scam perpetrated to
wrest money from unsuspecting innocents?
That certainly appears to be the argument you are making. If you
contend that taking on the trappings of another religion is proof that
the CoS is not a "real" religion, then those who took on those
trappings most certainly were engaged in deliberate deception of an
unsuspecting public.
>Did Ward actually get a chance to probe their beliefs in this regard?
>Grady?
Grady has posted his observations about this to the newsgroup in the
past, Barwell. I doubt if Grady Ward bothers reading your gibberish.
If you are really interested in reading his observations, I'd suggest
you consult a newsgroup archive.
>>>These people laughed and sniggered and guffawed when Ron cynically had
>>>them get clerical robes and gear and costume themselves when wogs were
>>>around to trick the silly wogs.
>>
>>Do you believe that wearing clerical robes and gear makes a religion a
>>"real" religion?
>>
>
>No, some of the biggest crooks around have worn robes and collars.
>Laughing as you don them to fool reporters and wogs certainly doesn't make
>it seem that Scientology and Scientologists considered this all very
>indicative of deep spiritual yearning of Hubbard and Scientology?
>Wouldn't you agree?
No. I think that Dennis Erlich, Vaughn Young, and all the others who
donned the dog collar and CoS "cross" actually believed they were
helping the world to a higher level of spiritual enlightenment when
they did this.
Of course, your opinion of the characters of Dennis Erlich and Vaughn
Young might be very different than mine. If you think they were
deliberately involved in scamming people, merely to make money for the
CoS, I'd suggest you state that outright.
>
>
>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Besides Mormonism and theosophy, I know of few 'religions'
>>>that also like Scientology were founded and based on purposeful
>>>fraud.
>>
>>Does that mean you do not consider Mormonism and theosophy "real"
>>religions either?
>
>I certainly don't. Some Mormons and Theosophists may make that mistake,
>but I know better. Blavatsky was a fat fraud and almost as ridiculous as
>Hubbard.
I thought you believed that the Church of the SubGenius was the *only*
real religion? Or are you engaging in deception when you make this
statement?
>If anybody blabbers fool nonsense and SOME people believe it, is it a
>fraud that fooled some people or a real religion?
Unless you're willing to explain to me what criteria you use to
determine what is a "real" religion rather than a "fraudulent"
religion, I cannot answer your question.
>AND what does this say about the value of religion anyway?
>What is a real religion? If 50% of the US believes something is a
>religion, is it? 20%? 1%? .01%? Two clowns and a madman?
>If the madman who founded the religion as a fraud laughs at his two
>clown followers, is it a real religion still? How about 1000
>Clowns? A million?
That's exactly the point I was trying to make, Barwell. Thank you.
>Gee this stuff is confusin' ain't it?
It's not confusing at all. Perhaps if you thought more about the
issue before writing about it, it would appear less confusing to you.
>A real religion doesn't neccesarily = a fraud religion that fools
>a few thousand people.
Nope.
>How do you figure out it is a real religion? A poll?
>A poll of uniformed jerks off the street? Do you let 'em read Hubbard's
>conman cynical statements and then having an informed pool
>of pollees, take the poll?
Nope.
>If 10% of uninformed jerks say it must be a religion cuase it has teh word
>church in Church of Scientology, is it a religion? If 90% of the
>others say it is a cult, is it?
Nope.
>If 20% of Americans say Mormonism is a spiritual counterfeit and a
>cult and not a real religion, is it a cult and not a real religion?
Does this mean you believe anything labeled as a cult cannot be a
"real" religion? I disagree with you on that point.
>>
>>>Would that make Christianity any
>>>>less of a "real" religion, Barwell? Can only illiterate carpenters
>>>>found "real" religions? When you get right down to it, what do you
>>>>consider a "real" religion?
>>>
>>>Not Scientology. Which is the point of this thread even though you keep
>>>desperately trying to distract us from that. Not very successfully.
>>>I do not intend to let you sidetrack me with a long useless debate
>>>not germane to ARS or Hubbard's fraudulent religion.
>>
>>I see. You insist that the CoS is not a "real" religion, but you are
>>uncomfortable defining what a "real" religion is. That's strange.
>>I'd think a CoSG pope would have a very definite opinion on what
>>consitutes a "real" religion.
>
>If it preaches Slack and has "Bob" it is a real religion.
>Otherwise, it is a mere knockoff, a mediocretin parody
>of the Church of the SubGenius. The normals and mere humans
>have been trying to come up with an adequate copy of a real religion
>copying the CothSG for several million years and haven't gotten
>close yet.
You've finally reached total enlightenment! Congratulations!
>>
>>>Discuss Hubbard's writings on the cynical fraud he perpetrated,
>>>which is the subject here.
>>
>>I agree that Hubbard began the CoS as a cynical fraud. That point has
>>been discussed here endlessly over the past few years. Frankly, you
>>may find neverending repetition of the same statements interesting and
>>entertaining repartee. I find it incredibly dull.
>
>Slack, "Bob", SubGenius, no matter how repetitous and boring I find it
>fascinating, but then I am programmed by my SubGenius genes and it ain't
>m' fault. Probably somewhere in that DNA there is a"Push the big red
>button" gene too, but we haven't gotten to that point in history where
>those genes will be activated. Yet.
>
>Hubbard's frauds are just something to while the time away until
>"Bob's" plan is activated.
>
>
>> What I don't understand is why the fraudulent nature of Hubbard's
>>decision to turn Dianetics[tm] into the CoS makes the cult any less a
>>religion than other religions.
>
>When does a fraud become a "real religion"?
>When it fools enough jerks? How many is that?
>If the jerks knew what Hubbard had did, and most changed their minds,
>would it still be a real religion?
That's why I don't accept your classification of religions into "real"
and "false." They're all just religions. You're the one who insists
upon distinguishing between what you see as "real" religions and (I
guess) cults. I'm glad, however, that you're finally realizing the
error you make insisting upon such distinctions. Dobbs would be proud
of you!
>
> It appears that a discussion about
>>this makes you quite uncomfortable
>
>It is like arguing about how many body thetans can dance on the head of a
>pin.
>It is like a catholic arguing the doctrine of the trinity with a Moslem.
>It is like two protestants arguing works versus grace.
>It is like arguing Palmerism versus Trevinoism.
>
>I am not uncomfortable at all, despite your sneering strawman attack
>there.
>I simply have been in enough futile 'debates' in my life to know this is
>one of the most futile of all, it isn't really anything new.
I mention once again that it is *you* who insisted upon distinguishing
between "real" and "false" religions, not I. Obviously, you are not
capable of defending your own statement. I can understand why you
can't, since it's a pointless argument. There are no "real" and
"false" religions. Those who are adherents of a particular faith
believe their religion is "real". Others, who adhere to other faiths,
disagree.
That's the reason why the U.S. government refuses to establish
requirements which groups must meet in order to be considered a "real"
religion. Other nations are not quite so circumspect -- Saudi Arabia,
for example -- acknowledges only one "real" religion.
>The evangelicals and the Mormons have been arguing this one for
>over a century now. And they have been arguing what is a real religion
>with the Catholics for even longer in America.
>
>And they still aren't finished.
Exactly. That's why I find it odd that you, of all people, would base
you objections to the CoS on the fact that it isn't a "real" religion.
It's an invalid basis for opposing the CoS.
>. If you're not interested in
>>discussing what you consider requisites for being a "real" religion, I
>>see no reason to consider responding to your comments.
>
>Since you have admitted that Hubbard was a fraud, I see no reason for you
>to waste your time on a futile wild goose chase through the thickets of
>theology either.
I stopped participating in those types of arguments when I was in
junior high school, Barwell. I'm surprised that you're still wasting
your time on them.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
William Barwell
In article <3453765f...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 26 Oct 1997 16:25:39 GMT, Modemac <mod...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>
>>> For any adherent of the worship of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs to claim that any
>>> religion except the CoSG is a "real" religion is, given the nature of
>>> the theology of the CoSG, completely contradictory.
>>
>>base of our theology -- as it does at the base of any religion, and it
>>stems from the immortal words of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs: "I don't practice what
>>I preach, 'cause I'm not the type of person I'm preaching to!"
>
>This means, then, that William Barwell actually supports the "Church"
>of Scientology[tm].
>
Er, no, I don't support Scientology, because it isn't a real religion.
It's the evil clown cult fortold in SubGenius prophecy.
You can tell because they were the funny uniforms that make people
think they must be clowns.
William Barwell
In article <34535e6f...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 21 Oct 1997 22:19:16 -0500, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
>Barwell) wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Then you haven't really studied SubGenius triple think(tm).
>>>>It's all really complex and hideously straightforward so don't
>>>>even try. Only us real elitists and right minded chosen of Jehova-1, Space
>>>>Alien from a distant Sin Galaxy can handle it, thanks to our tri-lobed
>>>>SubGenius brains.
>>>
>>>Do you consider the Church of the Subgenius a "real" religion? Or
>>>does even the use of the term "real" religion make a Subgenius pope
>>>uncomfortable?
>>
>>The church of the SubGenius is the ONLY real religion.
>>Founded by Jehova-1, space alien from a corporate sin galaxy,
>>only the SubGenius church preaches Slack and has J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
>>By Jehova-1's reckoning, thus only the CotSG can truely be called a
>>religion. And who am I to argue?
>>
>>We can be as particularist as any other cult around.
>
>That's exactly the point I was trying to make, Barwell. Glad you
>finally caught on.
And you still haven't defined religion and real religion and told how we
decide such things either. Religion is really a wrod that means so many
things it really means nothing in these sort of situations.
****************** Deleted ******************
>>>>
>>>>But the question sis, What did Hubbard say and what does this
>>>>tell us about Scientology's actual religous foundations, doesn't it?
>>>>That is what this thread has been for some time about, is Scientology a
>>>>real religion? The lower ranks of Scientologists may think so, but at the
>>>>top, the leaders of this cult know better and laugh and giggle at those
>>>>who buy this farce.
>>>
>>>There are others here with more experience who disagree with your
>>>belief that CoS leaders "know better and laugh and giggle at those who
>>>buy this farce."
>>>
>>
>>Oh, and who are these ex-Scientologists who tell us that when they\and
>>others giggled and snorted and laughed and winked and guffawed as
>>they paraged around in their new preacher costumes as ordered by
>>Hubbard for to fool teh wogs, those who would someday rise to take over
>>teh church took the religion bit utterly seriously?
>
>I'm afraid I can't understand the nature of your question. Are you
>asking me to repeat the names of ex-Scientologists[tm] who post here?
>I've already mentioned Dennis Erlich and Vaughn Young more than once
>in presenting my opinion.
Try harder. Do those who know Hubbard made this into
a 'religion' for tax purposes really 'think' it is a religion, or is it
just a pretense? A few people may have bough the scam, but it is still a
scam, like a conterfeit bill is still conterfeit even if you fool somebody
into taking it .
In Hubbard's case, we have a long trail of evidnce it is indeed a
counterfeit. A fraud. Erected only for the benefits of being a religion
for legal and tax reasons, and propaganda purposes.
Diane Richardson
On 26 Oct 1997 11:40:58 -0600, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
>In article <3453597b...@snews.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:29:46 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>><da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Do you consider the Church of the Subgenius a "real" religion? Or
>>>>does even the use of the term "real" religion make a Subgenius pope
>>>>uncomfortable?
>>>
>>>No, it's a joke. But it doesn't ask to be tax exempt, and it doesn't
>>>go round drowning dogs or starving paritioners to death either.
>>>Your point is?
>>
>>Apparently you've failed to understand the point of the Church of the
>>SubGenius, in spite of the fact that you claim to be a member. In
>>view of your posts to this newsgroup, I can't say I'm surprised at
>>your lack of insight.
>
>
>Dave let the mask slip. Dave, yer excommunicated.
>Collect a few more SubGenius SP declares like this and you can
>cash 'em in on that new cricket bat you've been wanting.
>
>
>>
>>CLUES FOR THE CLUELESS
>>
>>William Barwell, self-styled CoSG Pope, bases his argument against the
>>CoS on the belief that the CoS is not a "real" religion.
>
>
>BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! Bee - ee --eeee p p p....
>Whoops, Diane caused the clueless meter to melt down.
>
>I base my "argument" against CoS on the belief it is not a religion?
I'm referring, of course, to the debate at hand. You claimed that the
CoS was not a "real" religion because they appropriated the garb and
paraphenalia of other religious traditions in an effort to make
themselves more acceptible to the government.
Perhaps your memory is failing you again.
>I dont have "a" singular, one, argument.
Of course you don't. You have, however, been arguing one specific
point on this newsgroup. The argument you have been making is that
the CoS can't possibly be a "real" religion because they deceitfully
appropriated the traditions of another religious tradition.
> I have lots of arguments with
>this silly cult. Most of which have little to do with whether it
>is a religion or not, or a science, which it ain't either, or an occult
>system, which is an insult to occultists.
You have, however, been arguing one specific point -- that the CoS is
not a "real" religion -- with me.
>This sentence of Diane's is so clueless it is hard to know where
>to begin in on her.
Perhaps you might want to complain to my ISP and attempt to have my
account pulled because I'm terminally clueless, Barwell. That's about
as rational as the reason you presented the last time you tried to
silence me.
>For instance, my objections to the cult's
>abuses, for example the illegal false imprisonment and illegal
>practicing of pychiatry and mdicien without licenses on psychotic persons
>mandated by the Introspection Rundown, my arguments that this is wrong,
>does not depend in any way on whether Scientology is a religion
>or an isnae cultic pseudoscience.
You have, however, argued that the CoS is not a "real" religion based
upon Hubbard's cynical adoption of religious paraphenalia. Perhaps
you'd prefer to abandon that argument. I doubt if you'll manage to
convince others that you never made such an argument, however.
>Obviously, Diane is not thinking about these things, won't think, doesn't
>want to think and wants everybody else to applaud that.
I was addressing the argument you posed on the thread I was posting
to, Barwell. The argument you made was that the CoS was not a "real"
religion, as opposed to other "real" religions.
>I could go on and on showing things I argue about that have no standing
>upon whether the cult is a really real, real religion of a fraud
>religion that has faked out a few fools.
>But I think everybody (excpet a very few notable clueless wonders) will
>get the point without my belaboring it. And belaboring it won't help the
>clueless anyway.
Wriggling and squirming your way out of defending a position you
yourself adopted is quite visible, Barwell. I don't need to remind
other readers that you're engaging in such maneuvers to extract
yourself from an uncomfortable position.
>This is just another strawman. All I can do in such a situation is pull
>out the old zippo lighter (with the grinning Dobbshead logo) and light
>this strawman up and watch it burn.
<yawn> Barwell, I'm glad someone told you what a strawman is. I hope
whoever it was who educated you will explain a new term to you soon.
You've done the strawman references to death.
>It's such a cheerful sight. But like stomping down a fireant hill,
>I suspect tommorrow a new hill will be in it's place, and Diane will
>be dragging a new strawman into ARS.
Yep. Strawman again. Why not ask your mentor to explain Occam's
Razor? It's time for something new.
>(It took me 80 SubGenius demerit slips to earn this lighter.)
>
>
> Although
>>asked repeatedly to list the criteria necessary to qualify as a "real"
>>religion, Barwell is either incapable or unwilling to do so.
>>
>>The Church of the SubGenius is based on parody -- it is based on the
>>belief that *all* religions are absurd and that *nothing* is sacred to
>>any religion except the almighty dollar.
>>
>
>Well ,wrong, but if it give you pleasure to believe so...
>This is just one mere aspect of it.
>
>
>>For any adherent of the worship of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs to claim that any
>>religion except the CoSG is a "real" religion is, given the nature of
>>the theology of the CoSG, completely contradictory.
>>
>
>Except we still have the problem of defining religion and then
>real religion, as I touched on in several posts.
>Which were ignored.
You touched on it by stating that you'd argued the point to death on
other newsgroups and had no desire to begin arguing it anew here,
Barwell. Do you mean I was supposed to respond to *that*?
>Just what is a real religion anyway?
That's what I've been asking you repeatedly, Barwell. You don't
appear to be eager to answer that question. Do you wish to answer it
now?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On 26 Oct 1997 13:35:28 -0600, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
>In article <3453765f...@snews.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>On 26 Oct 1997 16:25:39 GMT, Modemac <mod...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> For any adherent of the worship of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs to claim that any
>>>> religion except the CoSG is a "real" religion is, given the nature of
>>>> the theology of the CoSG, completely contradictory.
>>>
>>>Which is exactly why it makes perfect sense. Contradiction lies at the
>>>base of our theology -- as it does at the base of any religion, and it
>>>stems from the immortal words of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs: "I don't practice what
>>>I preach, 'cause I'm not the type of person I'm preaching to!"
>>
>>This means, then, that William Barwell actually supports the "Church"
>>of Scientology[tm].
>>
>
>Er, no, I don't support Scientology, because it isn't a real religion.
And here we are full circle. What criteria do you use to determine
whether a religion is "real" or not?
I've asked you this question numerous times. It appears that you are
either unwilling or unable to answer it.
>It's the evil clown cult fortold in SubGenius prophecy.
>You can tell because they were the funny uniforms that make people
>think they must be clowns.
Most Scientologists[tm] don't wear uniforms, Barwell. Perhaps you
should ask someone to explain again what the Sea Org is.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
His Most Feathered Eminence
On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:45:25 GMT, ref...@bway.net
(Diane Richardson) reponded to the post on Oct 1997
22:19:16 -0500 by wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
(William Barwell):
bill> Besides Mormonism and theosophy, I know of few 'religions'
bill> that also like Scientology were founded and based on purposeful
bill> fraud.
di> Does that mean you do not consider Mormonism and theosophy "real"
di> religions either?
bill> I certainly don't. Some Mormons and Theosophists may make that
bill> mistake, but I know better. Blavatsky was a fat fraud and almost
bill> as ridiculous as Hubbard.
di> I thought you believed that the Church of the SubGenius was the
di> *only* real religion? Or are you engaging in deception when you
di> make this statement?
"BOB"DAMMIT!
I don't know who to SMITE FIRST, Barwell for his STUPID CROSSPOST or
"Duh"ane Richardson for FAILING TO USE HER BRAIN.
Barwell claims only the CoSG is a real religion.
Barwell claims Blavatsky, Hubbard, and Smith were frauds.
"Duh"ane claims the two statements are contradictory.
WHAT?
get this through your head, "Duh"ane!
ALL RELIGIONS ARE FRAUDS. religion is based on
two basic precepts:
1) human beings can step outside the
system and figure out the "why" of
reality as well as the "how".
2) the Ultimate Why, "God" or "Source"
or whatever, is anal enough to care
about the details of human behavior.
THESE ARE LIES created to fool the gullible.
you can't figure out the "why", it's BIGGER
than you; you can't wash soap, you can't
run from your own legs, you can't pee your
own dick, and you DON'T USE YOUR BRAIN TO
THINK ABOUT YOUR RELIGION!
and "God" sure as hell doesn't care about
human inventions and procedures like "Mass",
"auditing", "baptism" (infant, adult, or
post-mortem), or "remote viewing". GOD IS
NOT A WHO OR A WHAT, BUT A HOW.
ALL RELIGIONS ARE FRAUDS. even the CoSG,
but the CoSG is the One True Fake Religion,
because WE PREACH THAT RELIGION IS A LIE!
any religion that does not recognize itself
and all its competitors as a fraud is a
FALSE RELIGION.
there are two kinds of frauds: those that
fool themselves, and those that don't. you
can learn alot from frauds that *don't*
fool themselves, because these are WiseGuys
that bury the Truth in their lies. they,
too, know that all religions are frauds,
and their frauds are clever tricks meant
to smack you up aside the head with the
Truth, while simultaneously making a few
bucks off those that never catch a clue.
this is where Barwell is wrong. Blavatsky
was a rogue SubGenius, as was Lao-Tzu, as
was Gurdjeif, as was Jesus, as was Joshi
and the zen monsters.
AS WAS HUBBARD. we *paid* Hubbard to
hoodwink all the bobbies (or should I say
"hubbies"?) while planting a few kernels
of truth in his gigantic pile of manure
he called Scientology. but being a rogue
SubGenius, he became devoured by his own
madness and was UNABLE TO STOP THE HUBBIES
from putting his disembodied BRAIN in a
vat in some underground complex in the
desert, and now the Throbbing Brain of
El-Ron is forced to telepathically direct
his former minions.
but now to Barwell: dammit, stop crossposting
this CRAP until you agree to obey the law of
the SubGenius! IT MUST BE FUNNY. hell, even
El-Ron knew *that*! your soul is in GRAVE
DANGER of being wiped from the arkives unless
you comply with SubGenius Law.
I have spoken.
you may go.
NOTE TO MASS MAILERS: by replying to this message or adding my name
to a list for unsolicited commercial and noncommercial mailings, you
agree to yield parody and republication rights of your material.
Diane Richardson
On 26 Oct 1997 13:46:22 -0600, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
[snip]
>>>The church of the SubGenius is the ONLY real religion.
>>>Founded by Jehova-1, space alien from a corporate sin galaxy,
>>>only the SubGenius church preaches Slack and has J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
>>>By Jehova-1's reckoning, thus only the CotSG can truely be called a
>>>religion. And who am I to argue?
>>>
>>>We can be as particularist as any other cult around.
>>
>>That's exactly the point I was trying to make, Barwell. Glad you
>>finally caught on.
>
>And you still haven't defined religion and real religion and told how we
>decide such things either. Religion is really a wrod that means so many
>things it really means nothing in these sort of situations.
Nice try, Barwell. You seem to forget that it was *I* asking *you*
what *you* meant by the term "real" religion. I have never used that
term. It is your term, not mine.
Let's go through this one more time. You claim that the CoS is not a
"real" religion because Hubbard appropriated the trappings of another
religious tradition for deceptive purposes. I asked you what criteria
you use to determine whether a religion is "real" or not. You have
refused to respond to that question.
I have not used the term "real" religion to describe any religion,
Barwell. That is your term. You are the one who brought up the term,
by claiming that the CoS is not a "real" religion. If you would like
to have the term defined, then it is up to you to explain what you
mean when you use that term.
>****************** Deleted ******************
>>>>>
>>>>>But the question sis, What did Hubbard say and what does this
>>>>>tell us about Scientology's actual religous foundations, doesn't it?
>>>>>That is what this thread has been for some time about, is Scientology a
>>>>>real religion? The lower ranks of Scientologists may think so, but at the
>>>>>top, the leaders of this cult know better and laugh and giggle at those
>>>>>who buy this farce.
>>>>
>>>>There are others here with more experience who disagree with your
>>>>belief that CoS leaders "know better and laugh and giggle at those who
>>>>buy this farce."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, and who are these ex-Scientologists who tell us that when they\and
>>>others giggled and snorted and laughed and winked and guffawed as
>>>they paraged around in their new preacher costumes as ordered by
>>>Hubbard for to fool teh wogs, those who would someday rise to take over
>>>teh church took the religion bit utterly seriously?
>>
>>I'm afraid I can't understand the nature of your question. Are you
>>asking me to repeat the names of ex-Scientologists[tm] who post here?
>>I've already mentioned Dennis Erlich and Vaughn Young more than once
>>in presenting my opinion.
>
>Try harder. Do those who know Hubbard made this into
>a 'religion' for tax purposes really 'think' it is a religion, or is it
>just a pretense? A few people may have bough the scam, but it is still a
>scam, like a conterfeit bill is still conterfeit even if you fool somebody
>into taking it .
If you'd like to find out whether Dennis Erlich and Vaughn Young
believed they were assisting themselves and the rest of the world to
greater spiritual awareness while they were actively involved in the
CoS, I'd suggest you ask them directly.
>In Hubbard's case, we have a long trail of evidnce it is indeed a
>counterfeit. A fraud. Erected only for the benefits of being a religion
>for legal and tax reasons, and propaganda purposes.
Does that mean you believe anyone engaged in recruiting people into
the CoS were willingly engaging in deceiving people?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Plain and Simple Cronan
All religions are heretofore delcared to be epunginated(its my word you
can't use it) from the Earth. The True Religion Reigns Supreme as the
official religion of Cronan's World Oligarchy.
Join now or ELSE http://gpgod.home.mindspring.com/religion.htm
Rev. Random the Other
Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> On 26 Oct 1997 13:46:22 -0600, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
> Barwell) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>Founded by Jehova-1, space alien from a corporate sin galaxy,
> >>>only the SubGenius church preaches Slack and has J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
> >>>By Jehova-1's reckoning, thus only the CotSG can truely be called a
> >>>religion. And who am I to argue?
> >>>
> >>>We can be as particularist as any other cult around.
9) So the Church is Serious? Tell me why you think it's a real
Religion.
OK, let's play Stacked Assumptions, shall we?
First of all, name some things, off the top of your head, that
separate man from the common animule.
WELL HUMANS HAVE SELF-AWARENESS. THEY DEVELOP CULTURES AND SOCIETAL
BONDS. THEY ARE AWARE OF THEIR OWN MORTALITY. THEY MAKE AND USE
TOOLS... COMPLEX ONES. THEY HAVE LANGUAGE.
Anything else?
PROBABLY.
So what if I told you that given these basic assumptions, I can prove
to you that the Church of the SubGenius, for a variety of reasons, is
the superior church of this planet?
PULL THE OTHER ONE.
No, it's true. First of all... what is a joke?
WELL...
How about this: I'll surmarize, and you tell me if I'm off-base or
not. Okay?
ALRIGHT.
A joke is something that requires the listener to understand many
things. The rules and tendencies of his world. The attitudes and
prevalences of his people. Historical references. Philosophical
references. Even a knowledge of the references of humor itself. For
instance, what is the stereotypical "First Joke"?
WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
Right. And do you know why that is considered the simplest type of
joke?
BECAUSE IT'S SO STUPID?
No. And not because it's been told so many times either. It's the
simplest joke in the world because it makes the listener do all the
work.
EXPLAIN.
If I ask you why a person is crossing the road you're going to want
more information right? You'll want to know what the person does for
a Living or what kind of neighborhood he or she is in, or what time of
day it is. But this is a joke, and one of the rules of a "joke" is
that I get to tell the set-up, and then you say " I don't know" and
then I get to tell you the punchline.
THAT'S THE PROCEDURE.
So you don't get to have any additional information a bout this guy.
Let alone the fact that it isn't a person, it's a chicken. Chickens
don't do any of the traditionaL person stuff. So why do we even assume
that this chicken would have anything resembling a homo sapien agenda?
BECAUSE IT'S A JOKE. ANIMALS DO ALL SORTS OF THINGS IN A JOKE.
So jokes also involve the suspension of disbelief.
RIGHT. THEY'RE LIKE LITTLE STORIES.
Only with...?
PUNCHLINES?
Right. They aren't necessarily moral lessons, they aren't necessarily
rational. They're just unexpected in some way or another. They
establish a situation using a combination of story elements, weave an
unusual, complex, or emotionally-laden situation (logically known as
the "set-up"), and then toss you a curve ball at the last minute. It'd
be frightening if it weren't just a collection of phonemes. This, by
the way, is why some people don't like jokes.
THEY DON'T LIKE SUPRISES?
Exactly. They don't like not knowing. They don't like being made to
play the fool. Let's get back to the chicken. Whether we like
it or not, this old chestnut relies on the premise that the listener
has heard enough jokes to be familiar with the convention of
inexpectedness that we've just discussed, but hasn't heard THIS ONE
yet. So the listener, upon hearing the set-up, begins to try and
analyze the joke. And what's the only specific piece of data he or she
has?
IT'S A CHICKEN.
Right. And we know all about chickens. They're stupid, they live in
barns, they make good eatin' . They have chicks, they cluck and look
silly. All this, and far more specific data the
individual listener might have. This all gets pulled from the
long-term memo banks and into the "Immediate Use" stack. The Listener
is getting all geared up for a pun, or a political or cultural
reference or something involving the fact that the joketeller has
bothered to make it a chicken, as opposed to a person. And, because
the question sounds to be in the form of a joke, and therefore is
assumed to BE a joke, the listener throws away the on answer he really
needs.
THE OBVIOUS ONE.
Right. And when the speaker drops the bomb, so to speak, the listener
feels completely betrayed. The obvious, logical, correct answer isn't
supposed to be the right answer.
SO LAUGHTER IS A RESPONSE OF EMBARASSMENT?
Pretty much. You laugh because you now know what you didn't know
before. And because the joke-teller isn't an actual threat to your
status. It's Like sparring. That's why, when one person tells a joke,
everyone else tries to join in . To regain status. If the situation
caIls for the audience to NOT join in, it means that the joke-teller
has some form of status over the audience. Really good joke-tellers
can do this whether the situation is an audience-based one or not.
GET ON WITH IT.
In short, a conversation requires Local knowledge. A story requires
local knowledge and global information.A joke requires local
knowledge, global information, knowledge of human nature and one more
thing. Self-awareness.
SELF-AWARENESS. BECAUSE ONE MUST BE AWARE OF ONE'S OWN REACTION TO THE
JOKE?
Because if a person isn't being aware of the other person, and of
themselves, then they will meet every joke with an"Uh huh." Some
people do this. To them it's just a story. It's just an anecdote.
Logic puzzles like "A man is hanging from the ceiling,.. dead. A
puddle of water lies under him. How did he die?" requires logical
thought. Jokes require not only logical thought, but a willingness to
throw away any logical premises that won't help solve the joke and
keep any that will.
YOU MAKE JOKES SOUND INCREDIBLY COMPLEX.
You got it. The fact that people can share in something as complex as
humor is a fucking miracle of evolution.
BUT SOME PEOPLE HAVE BETTER SENSES OF HUMOR THAT OTHERS. DOES THAT
MEAN THEY'RE MORE EVOLVED THAT OTHERS?
Some joke-tellers are knowledgable of the rules of joke-telling. That
doesn't make them more evolved. What makes joke-tellers more evolved
is the ability to invent new rules for joke-telling. The guy who
invented "Why did the chicken cross the road?", or at least the guy
who decided it was a joke, was more evolved. Listeners are actually
passive joke-tellers. The listeners who laugh more are usually more
evolved.
WHY?
Because their brains operate so well that they can make connections in
their brains that other can't. It's like what Rev. Stang calls a
"Self-Amusing Personality". If you can find something funny or
interesting or amusing or exciting or pleasurable because you decided
it was so, you're one up on the people who have to have their
amusement handed to them on a plate.
OH I GET IT. HUMOR SEEMS TO BE THE MOST DIFFICULT PROCESS OF ALL
PROCESSES.
And the process involving the greatest degree of self-awareness.
Which, as we established, is one of the basic examples of the
separation in evolution between man and animal.
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER ONES?
Cultures and societal bonds have to exist before jokes can be made
about them. Language must be shared, otherwise, obviously, the joke
can't be told.
WHAT ABOUT SILENT MOVIE HUMOR ... PRATFALLS AND SUCH?
Even a pratfall is only funny if there is some sort of evidence, as it
occurs, that no one was hurt. Otherwise it isn't laughing with
someone, it's laughing at someone. That's a less evolved form of
humor because it is closer to the "fight-or-flee" defense reactions
than it is to mental connection.
We'll see if we can't cover the others as we discuss religion.
WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?
Wel1, alright. What is religion?
GO ON.
Religion is a way to make the universe make sense. It's a way to
explain death. It's a way to explain the shortcomings and Injustices
of the universe and of our society. It gives solace. It gives
justification. It's a comfort against the "fight-or-flee" reaction.
OH, THAT AGAIN. SO RELIGION IS A TOOL?
It's the most complex tool on the planet. We use it, not on a car or a
tree, but on our own minds. We have at least five senses constantly
taking all this information, and to function amongst all the other
humans, we have to organize the information, and apply it to other
information in certain patterns. And so on and so on. Religion is,
among other things, a form of psychological shorthand. It's easy
answers to tough questions.
THIS IS BESIDES ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED?
That's not religion. That's history.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HUMOR, OR WITH THE CHURCH OF THE
SUBGENIUS?
Well, some might say that humor is a sort of passive religion. It's a
set of shared assumptions and agreements we have about the world. I
tell a joke, you laugh. I bless you, you kiss my cross. Religion and
humor are both ways people keep from killing themselves and others.
They're both ways people improve the world without having to do
anything.
YOU DON'T SOUND VERY POSITIVE ABOUT EITHER ONE.
Idon't have to sound positive about them. I just have to be
positive_in_ them. The medium is not the message.
S0 THE CHURCH OF THE SUBGENIUS IS A FUNNY RELIGION?
Yes but that's not the point. (The Church of the SubGenius is an
intentionally funny religion but that isn't the point, either.) ALL
religions, to function, must utilize all those aforementioned shared
assumptions and information of its flock. Just like a comedian can't
tell jokes to people from a society without humor.
As they say, the best jokes are the ones that make you think. That
doesn't mean they have to be morality plays. That means they have to
give you something. Obviously, some People (the more evolved) will
get more from more jokes; but it helps if the joke is a good joke.
Good jokes are jokes with,as they say, "new spins on old themes." "Old
themes" is another way to say "established shared assumptions and
knowledge", or "society". "New spins" is another way to say
"inspiration for revelation". What does "The inspiration for
revelations on society" sound like?
A SERMON.
Good. So a religion that utilizes humor as a basic tenet of not only
it's own liturgy, but of the original liturgy demanded of it's
followers, would be....?
A RELIGION CONNECTED TO THE HIGHEST FORM OF INTERACTIVE EVOLUTION.
Religion is way to establish universal truths. Humor is a way to make
sure they're true. Combine them and what.you have is a religion that
is constantly changing, constantly insisting on facts, and later
discarding them for no less signiticant a reason than that something
better has come along.
SOUNDS PRETTY EPHEMERAL.
Well, yes and no. The Church of the SubGenius has changed every day,
every second, since it was formed. But it's still around . Some people
don't even think "Bob" exists. They say it's just a joke. Some people
don't think Jesus exists. They say it's just a religious myth.
What's the difference? The difference is that a joke isn't "serious".
But we've already established that all "seriousness" is is a way to
deny the importarce of humor. Avoiding humor is a self-defense method
against a higher life-form. It's easier to defend one's beliefs if all
humor is avoided. There may be a reason that the phrases "bring to
light" and "make light of" are so similar.
OR MAYBE NOT.
Or maybe not Anyway do you see, then, that the Church of the Subgenius
is the best religion on the planet?
WELL SINCE HUMOR IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF SELF-AWARENESS, AND RELIGION
IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF SELF-DELUSION, A RELIGION THAT COMBINES THE
TWO WOULD SEEM TO BE THE BEST BET FOR ENLIGHTENMENT... FOR THE PEOPLE
WHO CAN HANDLE IT. THERE SEEM TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET WHO
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT, THOUGH.
Tough shit for them. Any other questions?
- the Grand Clavister
Rev. Random the Edificationist
Please don't poison my dogs.
Nightbreed
Diane Richardson spat:
> Does that mean you believe anyone engaged in recruiting people into
> the CoS were willingly engaging in deceiving people?
My witty retort:
No, they are not decieving them by telling them that they are being deceived, THEN
they take your 30 bux and run!
So you're not deceived.. you're more misled into thinking you might be deceived
than any thing else.
So, by "Bob" you're not deceived.. you're merely led into a false sense of
ignorance in order to emulate a fake religion.
Get it straight, sister.
Nightbreed
alec
His Most Feathered Eminence wrote in message
<3453a017...@news.pacbell.net>...
>On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:45:25 GMT, ref...@bway.net
>(Diane Richardson) reponded to the post on Oct 1997
>22:19:16 -0500 by wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>(William Barwell):
> Blavatsky was a fat fraud and almost
> as ridiculous as Hubbard.
Dear His Most,
What evidence do you have that she was fat?
Uh...also what do you have on Theosophy as a fraud (and on Blavatsky)?
---Alec
Diane Richardson
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 05:29:49 -0500, Nightbreed <night...@jungle.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Diane Richardson spat:
>
>> Does that mean you believe anyone engaged in recruiting people into
>> the CoS were willingly engaging in deceiving people?
>
>My witty retort:
>
>No, they are not decieving them by telling them that they are being deceived, THEN
>they take your 30 bux and run!
Sorry, Nightbreed, but the CoS (Church of Scientology[tm]) takes far
more than 30 bux before they run. The Houston Pope cross-posted this
to alt.slack because he's helplessly floundering and he's hoping to
rally some support behind his lame argument that the Church of
Scientology[tm] is not a "real" religion (his statement), unlike
other, more traditional "real" religions (also his statement).
>So you're not deceived.. you're more misled into thinking you might be deceived
>than any thing else.
Precisely.
>So, by "Bob" you're not deceived.. you're merely led into a false sense of
>ignorance in order to emulate a fake religion.
>
>Get it straight, sister.
I've got it straight, Nightbreed. It's the Houston CoSG Pope who has
strayed from the path of Dobbs.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
>On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:45:25 GMT, ref...@bway.net
>(Diane Richardson) reponded to the post on Oct 1997
>22:19:16 -0500 by wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>(William Barwell):
>
>bill> Besides Mormonism and theosophy, I know of few 'religions'
>bill> that also like Scientology were founded and based on purposeful
>bill> fraud.
>
>di> Does that mean you do not consider Mormonism and theosophy "real"
>di> religions either?
>
>bill> I certainly don't. Some Mormons and Theosophists may make that
>bill> mistake, but I know better. Blavatsky was a fat fraud and almost
>bill> as ridiculous as Hubbard.
>
>di> I thought you believed that the Church of the SubGenius was the
>di> *only* real religion? Or are you engaging in deception when you
>di> make this statement?
>
>"BOB"DAMMIT!
>I don't know who to SMITE FIRST, Barwell for his STUPID CROSSPOST or
>"Duh"ane Richardson for FAILING TO USE HER BRAIN.
>
>Barwell claims only the CoSG is a real religion.
No he doesn't. Before Barwell decided to crosspost this thread, he
insisted that, unlike the "real" religion of Christianity, the Church
of Scientology[tm] is not a "real" religion.
Yes, the eminent Houston Pope engaged in this heresy.
>Barwell claims Blavatsky, Hubbard, and Smith were frauds.
Barwell also claimed that the CoS was a fraud because it appropriated
the trappings of the "real" Christian religion. Of course, Barwell
chose not to crosspost to alt.slack while he was making those
statements.
>"Duh"ane claims the two statements are contradictory.
Nope. Barwell's two contradictory statements are that Christianity is
a "real" religion, while the Church of Scientology[tm] is a fraud.
Barwell argues that the Church of Scientology[tm] is proven to be
fraudulent because it appropriated the religious trappings of the
"real" Christian religion.
If you don't believe me, I'll be glad to repost the messages in which
his less than eminence made these statements. Somehow, I get the
feeling you'd rather not wade through Barwell's blather on this point,
however.
>WHAT?
Dear ol' billy boy is just pulling another one of his stunts. When he
talks himself into a corner, he skitters off to his CoSG buddies,
hoping they'll save the day for him. He crossposted to alt.slack when
he realized he was making an utter fool of himself on
alt.religion.scientology.
>get this through your head, "Duh"ane!
>ALL RELIGIONS ARE FRAUDS. religion is based on
>two basic precepts:
That's exactly the point I've been arguing. It's Barwell who needs to
get that thought through his head. The Houston pope seems to think
that Christianity is a "real" religion, while the Church of
Scientology[tm] is not.
I've pointed out to him that such words coming from a SubGenius are
heretical. He doesn't seem to understand. He needs your help.
>1) human beings can step outside the
> system and figure out the "why" of
> reality as well as the "how".
>
>2) the Ultimate Why, "God" or "Source"
> or whatever, is anal enough to care
> about the details of human behavior.
>
>THESE ARE LIES created to fool the gullible.
Exactly. Please educate your wayward pope on this knotty theological
problem. It appears he's strayed from the path.
>you can't figure out the "why", it's BIGGER
>than you; you can't wash soap, you can't
>run from your own legs, you can't pee your
>own dick, and you DON'T USE YOUR BRAIN TO
>THINK ABOUT YOUR RELIGION!
Poor Billy Boy has been trying hard to use his brain to distinguish
why the Church of Scientology[tm] is bad and Christianity is good.
He needs your help -- badly.
>and "God" sure as hell doesn't care about
>human inventions and procedures like "Mass",
>"auditing", "baptism" (infant, adult, or
>post-mortem), or "remote viewing". GOD IS
>NOT A WHO OR A WHAT, BUT A HOW.
Yep.
>ALL RELIGIONS ARE FRAUDS. even the CoSG,
>but the CoSG is the One True Fake Religion,
>because WE PREACH THAT RELIGION IS A LIE!
>any religion that does not recognize itself
>and all its competitors as a fraud is a
>FALSE RELIGION.
>
>there are two kinds of frauds: those that
>fool themselves, and those that don't. you
>can learn alot from frauds that *don't*
>fool themselves, because these are WiseGuys
>that bury the Truth in their lies. they,
>too, know that all religions are frauds,
>and their frauds are clever tricks meant
>to smack you up aside the head with the
>Truth, while simultaneously making a few
>bucks off those that never catch a clue.
>
>this is where Barwell is wrong. Blavatsky
>was a rogue SubGenius, as was Lao-Tzu, as
>was Gurdjeif, as was Jesus, as was Joshi
>and the zen monsters.
How about L. Ron Hubbard?
>AS WAS HUBBARD. we *paid* Hubbard to
>hoodwink all the bobbies (or should I say
>"hubbies"?) while planting a few kernels
>of truth in his gigantic pile of manure
>he called Scientology. but being a rogue
>SubGenius, he became devoured by his own
>madness and was UNABLE TO STOP THE HUBBIES
>from putting his disembodied BRAIN in a
>vat in some underground complex in the
>desert, and now the Throbbing Brain of
>El-Ron is forced to telepathically direct
>his former minions.
Yes, yes, yes!!!! I'm a CoSG believer now!!!
The heresies forwarded by that duplicitous Barwell have NOT deterred
me from seeing the Truth!!!! Barwell is nothing more than a false
false prophet -- placed here by the pinks to confuse those of us
struggling towards true enlightenment.
Down with the heretical Houston Pope! Praise "Bob"!
>but now to Barwell: dammit, stop crossposting
>this CRAP until you agree to obey the law of
>the SubGenius! IT MUST BE FUNNY. hell, even
>El-Ron knew *that*! your soul is in GRAVE
>DANGER of being wiped from the arkives unless
>you comply with SubGenius Law.
Barwell, unfortunately, doesn't have the sense to realize when he's
argued himself into a corner. He crossposted to alt.slack in a
desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fallacy of his
own argument in the hopes that his fellow SubGenii would heap ridicule
on me.
As usual, all Barwell has managed to do is demonstrate his own
intellectual dishonesty -- yet again.
>I have spoken.
>you may go.
I'm gone. You folks, however, are stuck with Barwell.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
TarlaStar
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Barwell, unfortunately, doesn't have the sense to realize when he's
>argued himself into a corner. He crossposted to alt.slack in a
>desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fallacy of his
>own argument in the hopes that his fellow SubGenii would heap ridicule
>on me.
But Diane...I think YOU'RE a SubG (either latent or full-blown),
so....
>As usual, all Barwell has managed to do is demonstrate his own
>intellectual dishonesty -- yet again.
>>I have spoken.
>>you may go.
>I'm gone. You folks, however, are stuck with Barwell.
Don't leave yet, you haven't been fully indoctrinated.
Look....here....we have candy...
Tarla
***
Reverend Mutha Tarla Star of the Little Sisters of the Perpetually
Juicy; a Proud jism schism of the Church of the SubGenius.
Worshipping Juicy Retardo and "Connie" Dobbs since 1986.
bbombere
TarlaStar wrote:
>
> ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
> >Barwell, unfortunately, doesn't have the sense to realize when he's
> >argued himself into a corner. He crossposted to alt.slack in a
> >desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fallacy of his
> >own argument in the hopes that his fellow SubGenii would heap ridicule
> >on me.
>
> so....
>
> >intellectual dishonesty -- yet again.
>
> >>I have spoken.
> >>you may go.
>
> >I'm gone. You folks, however, are stuck with Barwell.
>
>
> Look....here....we have candy...
>
> Tarla
>
> ***
> Reverend Mutha Tarla Star of the Little Sisters of the Perpetually
> Worshipping Juicy Retardo and "Connie" Dobbs since 1986.
Look, you lost me there!
Cross-posting to Ziontologists!
Hey! Worship Dis!
You deserve what you get!
Seig HeiL!
I got yer kandy here, ya dumb kunt!
Diane Richardson
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:02:52 GMT, !!!bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar)
wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>
>>Barwell, unfortunately, doesn't have the sense to realize when he's
>>argued himself into a corner. He crossposted to alt.slack in a
>>desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fallacy of his
>>own argument in the hopes that his fellow SubGenii would heap ridicule
>>on me.
>
>But Diane...I think YOU'RE a SubG (either latent or full-blown),
>so....
>
>>As usual, all Barwell has managed to do is demonstrate his own
>>intellectual dishonesty -- yet again.
>
>>>I have spoken.
>>>you may go.
>
>>I'm gone. You folks, however, are stuck with Barwell.
>
>Don't leave yet, you haven't been fully indoctrinated.
>
>
>Look....here....we have candy...
CHOCOLATE candy?????
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Keith Henson
Doktor D (tw...@thepoint.net) wrote:
: On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:12:10 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
: wrote:
: >Apparently you've failed to understand the point of the Church of the
: >SubGenius, in spite of the fact that you claim to be a member. In
: >view of your posts to this newsgroup, I can't say I'm surprised at
: >your lack of insight.
A certain person has been in my killfile for most of the last year, but
this is too funny to let pass. Keith Henson
Keith Henson
Meta comment. This is actually a solid chunk of scholership.
Rev. Random the Other (cmc...@nt.com) wrote:
: Diane Richardson wrote:
: >
: > On 26 Oct 1997 13:46:22 -0600, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
: > Barwell) wrote:
: >
: > [snip]
: >
: > >>>The church of the SubGenius is the ONLY real religion.
: > >>>Founded by Jehova-1, space alien from a corporate sin galaxy,
: > >>>only the SubGenius church preaches Slack and has J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
: > >>>By Jehova-1's reckoning, thus only the CotSG can truely be called a
: > >>>religion. And who am I to argue?
: > >>>
: > >>>We can be as particularist as any other cult around.
: 9) So the Church is Serious? Tell me why you think it's a real
: Religion.
: OK, let's play Stacked Assumptions, shall we?
: First of all, name some things, off the top of your head, that
: separate man from the common animule.
: WELL HUMANS HAVE SELF-AWARENESS. THEY DEVELOP CULTURES AND SOCIETAL
: BONDS. THEY ARE AWARE OF THEIR OWN MORTALITY. THEY MAKE AND USE
: TOOLS... COMPLEX ONES. THEY HAVE LANGUAGE.
: Anything else?
: PROBABLY.
I think this mentions all the important points. I would add that culture
is a collection of memes, that is replicating information patterns, which
are first out for their own replication, but often are useful symbiotes to
the people they infect.
: So what if I told you that given these basic assumptions, I can prove
: to you that the Church of the SubGenius, for a variety of reasons, is
: the superior church of this planet?
: PULL THE OTHER ONE.
: No, it's true. First of all... what is a joke?
snip
: YOU MAKE JOKES SOUND INCREDIBLY COMPLEX.
: You got it. The fact that people can share in something as complex as
: humor is a fucking miracle of evolution.
: BUT SOME PEOPLE HAVE BETTER SENSES OF HUMOR THAT OTHERS. DOES THAT
: MEAN THEY'RE MORE EVOLVED THAT OTHERS?
: Some joke-tellers are knowledgable of the rules of joke-telling. That
: doesn't make them more evolved. What makes joke-tellers more evolved
: is the ability to invent new rules for joke-telling. The guy who
: invented "Why did the chicken cross the road?", or at least the guy
: who decided it was a joke, was more evolved. Listeners are actually
: passive joke-tellers. The listeners who laugh more are usually more
: evolved.
: WHY?
: Because their brains operate so well that they can make connections in
: their brains that other can't. It's like what Rev. Stang calls a
: "Self-Amusing Personality". If you can find something funny or
: interesting or amusing or exciting or pleasurable because you decided
: it was so, you're one up on the people who have to have their
: amusement handed to them on a plate.
:
: OH I GET IT. HUMOR SEEMS TO BE THE MOST DIFFICULT PROCESS OF ALL
: PROCESSES.
: And the process involving the greatest degree of self-awareness.
: Which, as we established, is one of the basic examples of the
: separation in evolution between man and animal.
Minsky, in Society of Mind has similar thoughts about jokes and humor. He
proposed that the evolutionary origin of humor was to tell the brain that
there is something wrong with this situation, and to stop the current
activity and reconsider. This got stretched to imaginary activity.
: WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER ONES?
: Cultures and societal bonds have to exist before jokes can be made
: about them. Language must be shared, otherwise, obviously, the joke
: can't be told.
: WHAT ABOUT SILENT MOVIE HUMOR ... PRATFALLS AND SUCH?
: Even a pratfall is only funny if there is some sort of evidence, as it
: occurs, that no one was hurt. Otherwise it isn't laughing with
: someone, it's laughing at someone. That's a less evolved form of
: humor because it is closer to the "fight-or-flee" defense reactions
: than it is to mental connection.
: We'll see if we can't cover the others as we discuss religion.
: WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?
: Wel1, alright. What is religion?
: GO ON.
: Religion is a way to make the universe make sense. It's a way to
: explain death. It's a way to explain the shortcomings and Injustices
: of the universe and of our society. It gives solace. It gives
: justification. It's a comfort against the "fight-or-flee" reaction.
: OH, THAT AGAIN. SO RELIGION IS A TOOL?
And why do people need to explain death where cows don't? Blame it all
on us getting too smart for our own good. Religion is indeed a tool, one
which might well have been a releasing factor which allowed smarter
people to avoid their smartness from hanging them up trying to unravel
the unravelable.
: It's the most complex tool on the planet. We use it, not on a car or a
: tree, but on our own minds. We have at least five senses constantly
: taking all this information, and to function amongst all the other
: humans, we have to organize the information, and apply it to other
: information in certain patterns. And so on and so on. Religion is,
: among other things, a form of psychological shorthand. It's easy
: answers to tough questions.
Absolutely! And for most people through most of the past 30k years or
more it has been an essential crutch. We may be near the end of that
time however.
: THIS IS BESIDES ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED?
: That's not religion. That's history.
: WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HUMOR, OR WITH THE CHURCH OF THE
: SUBGENIUS?
: Well, some might say that humor is a sort of passive religion. It's a
: set of shared assumptions and agreements we have about the world. I
: tell a joke, you laugh. I bless you, you kiss my cross. Religion and
: humor are both ways people keep from killing themselves and others.
: They're both ways people improve the world without having to do
: anything.
: YOU DON'T SOUND VERY POSITIVE ABOUT EITHER ONE.
: I don't have to sound positive about them. I just have to be
: A SERMON.
: SOUNDS PRETTY EPHEMERAL.
<grin> Appropriate to a time where our machines will shortly be smarter
than we are. Perhaps the CoSubG will be the first religion of the AI
brains. They could do worse.
: Well, yes and no. The Church of the SubGenius has changed every day,
: every second, since it was formed. But it's still around . Some people
: don't even think "Bob" exists. They say it's just a joke. Some people
: don't think Jesus exists. They say it's just a religious myth.
: What's the difference? The difference is that a joke isn't "serious".
: But we've already established that all "seriousness" is is a way to
: deny the importarce of humor. Avoiding humor is a self-defense method
: against a higher life-form. It's easier to defend one's beliefs if all
: humor is avoided. There may be a reason that the phrases "bring to
: light" and "make light of" are so similar.
: OR MAYBE NOT.
: Or maybe not Anyway do you see, then, that the Church of the Subgenius
: is the best religion on the planet?
: WELL SINCE HUMOR IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF SELF-AWARENESS, AND RELIGION
: IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF SELF-DELUSION, A RELIGION THAT COMBINES THE
: TWO WOULD SEEM TO BE THE BEST BET FOR ENLIGHTENMENT... FOR THE PEOPLE
: WHO CAN HANDLE IT. THERE SEEM TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET WHO
: WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT, THOUGH.
: Tough shit for them. Any other questions?
Nope. Keith Henson
David Gerard
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:02:52 GMT,
TarlaStar <!!!bmy...@ionet.net> wrote:
:ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
:>Barwell, unfortunately, doesn't have the sense to realize when he's
:>argued himself into a corner. He crossposted to alt.slack in a
:>desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fallacy of his
:>own argument in the hopes that his fellow SubGenii would heap ridicule
:>on me.
:But Diane...I think YOU'RE a SubG (either latent or full-blown),
:so....
Well, LRH hisself was the most successful Unsaved Rogue SubGenius
ever seen. So it's possible.
:>As usual, all Barwell has managed to do is demonstrate his own
:>intellectual dishonesty -- yet again.
:>>I have spoken.
:>>you may go.
:>I'm gone. You folks, however, are stuck with Barwell.
:Don't leave yet, you haven't been fully indoctrinated.
:Look....here....we have candy...
Can I just say that Pope Charles was one of the main people that attracted
me to a.r.s in the first place, and Tarla helped keep me there?
(And I'm paid-up SubG too. And I just read my stuff on the SubSite
today as well.)
[Oh, while I'm here on alt.slack. Is Rev Myrkury out there? Anyone in
touch with him? I lost his snail address and owe him a cassette.]
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/ http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
I hereby encourage all earthlink.net users to leave for a provider whose
email and Usenet messages are not boycotted by the rest of the net, and
for ISPs to continue to block earthlink.net email and Usenet messages from
Earthlink, until earthlink.net *stop* the flow of junk email and spam.
For more information, see http://www.best.com/~dkeith/spamlink.htm
William Barwell
In article <34548724...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 05:29:49 -0500, Nightbreed <night...@jungle.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Diane Richardson spat:
>>
>>> Does that mean you believe anyone engaged in recruiting people into
>>> the CoS were willingly engaging in deceiving people?
>>
>>My witty retort:
>>
>>No, they are not decieving them by telling them that they are being deceived, THEN
>>they take your 30 bux and run!
>
>Sorry, Nightbreed, but the CoS (Church of Scientology[tm]) takes far
>more than 30 bux before they run. The Houston Pope cross-posted this
>to alt.slack because he's helplessly floundering and he's hoping to
>rally some support behind his lame argument that the Church of
>Scientology[tm] is not a "real" religion (his statement), unlike
>other, more traditional "real" religions (also his statement).
Mine Gott! She's using Odell-think! Run! Run!
>
>>So you're not deceived.. you're more misled into thinking you might be deceived
>>than any thing else.
>
>Precisely.
>
>>So, by "Bob" you're not deceived.. you're merely led into a false sense of
>>ignorance in order to emulate a fake religion.
>>
>>Get it straight, sister.
>
>I've got it straight, Nightbreed. It's the Houston CoSG Pope who has
>strayed from the path of Dobbs.
Dobbs approved. Dobbs appproved. Dobbs approved.
"What I say three times is true"
Lewis Carrol - The Hunting of the Snark
William Barwell
In article <345e5848...@news.zippo.com>,
Doktor D <tw...@thepoint.net> wrote:
>On 27 Oct 97 19:47:14 GMT, bg1...@binghamton.edu.NoMoReDaMnSpAm
>(Nully Fydyan) wrote:
>
>>There is no path of Dobbs.
>
>There was, but the damn birds ate it.
>
>Oh well. Went straight to the FIRES OF HELL anyway!\
>
Were these the same damned birds Hubbard said used to peck at us when we
were little clams in past lives? In his finest work, History of Man.
Man of us still have engrams from that.
WHICH MIGHT BE WHY YOU POSTED THAT!
It's true, it's true! Hubbard was right all a long!
Snort.
Diane Richardson
[posted & mailed]
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997 06:26:19 GMT, hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:
Thanks for admitting that you really do pay attention to what I write,
Keith. I see the Martin Hunt syndrome is not as rare as once
believed.
Do you agree with Barwell that Christianity is a "real" religion?
Does your meme theory apply to all religions except Christianity,
Barwell's "real" religion?
Perhaps if you read more of the newsgroup before jumping in to defend
an opinion you haven't read, you might appear to be a little less
driven by blind loyalty and a little more prone to rational discourse.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) brewed up the following,
and served it to the group:
<snip>
>Dobbs approved. Dobbs appproved. Dobbs approved.
>
>"What I say three times is true"
> Lewis Carrol - The Hunting of the Snark
Thank you, Pope--I've been looking for that and couldn't find it for the
life of me.
Praise Bob!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNFX+S6n8flYc1m/ZAQERXwf+LWeE1r4ai51E5K9Xz/tRcjEgUDfhnlmS
/1hOUS9mfao1Eg4P4iqMDyuYkGN6m7++yWm1m8GKTsBHBWrXjYzS+tjTpj7PSHD8
O723h5MO7q7SsmlFfEA2u4QpcGJEWo59IyIritWTTxdEgq6Z/ZD8FgdBbeJ1IPpi
AsGfDvDEaG2GSf9kOgteQsqvr6g7wxD75/92LuDq7ZWo84yLypt9hUgj5l5V7+0x
fzG7/g0eJIuPPi+SORhYW+KNn5cAh0RvHy7Mrx0viIOnfaC0lcHhsmbIR65gNd//
ankOH07ysscowaHooHngcqPa8hRG4lH1+iOS0mlY+7aHtXkWjbNfZw==
=RGQi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------
"Death to all fanatics!"
--Malaclypse the Younger
the above e-mail address remains fictional...the real one remains
bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
*SP2*
...bc...
Alan Furman
In article <hkhensonE...@netcom.com>,
Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom.com> wrote:
>[...]
>And why do people need to explain death where cows don't? Blame it all
>on us getting too smart for our own good.
Too smart?
Scientology can help with that...
--
====al...@aimnet.com * LPC * LPUSA * ISIL * IOS * KoX * Netscab Squealer====
LEGALIZE FREEDOM >>>> http://www.lp.org * UBI LIBERTAS IBI PATRIA
An electorate terrified of hemp plants growing in closets
will crap its collective pants, on cue, over firearms.
James M. Burton
On 28 Oct 1997, Nully Fydyan wrote:
> [piggybacking -as usual. Oh where oh where have the originals gone?]
>
> In article <345c5407...@news.zippo.com>, tw...@thepoint.net (Doktor
> D) wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:12:10 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
> > wrote:
>
> > >For any adherent of the worship of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs to claim that any
> > >religion except the CoSG is a "real" religion is, given the nature of
> > >the theology of the CoSG, completely contradictory.
>
>
> I had suspected it, but this is confirmation.
>
> "worship of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs"
>
> She's not a latent Yeti, she's a latent Bobbie.
This seems to be a general problem with all All Other Religions - the
emphasis on worship, the Kissing of the Divine Ass. "If it isn't
dehumanizing, it isn't religion" is apparently the pinnacle of non-Yeti
moral sentiments to date. "Bob"-dammit, we need Gods kissing our asses,
not the other way around. Feel that long cool divine tongue snaking up an
equally divine SubGenius rectum - that's when your religion is working
for you! And hey - maybe you'll feel like returning the favor, maybe not.
But get things on a more equal basis.
It strikes me that if I were a god (and I'm lucky enough not to be -
imagine the responsibility), I would get pissed off really fast at all the
people bowing at me and grovelling at my feet. Okay, it would be fun for
a while, and the Pinks probably aren't useful for much else anyway. But
you notice how fast the worshippers are prepared to *kill you* if you try
to elevate them up to your own level. They don't want to be alive - they
want you the god to do make all their decisions for them, to live their
lives for them and THEN hand them HEAVEN at the end, for fastidiously
doing NOTHING except fucking around majorly with the lives of decent
people (I'm still too horrified by the posting of Tarla's police
experience to mention it directly - it's like my innocence was re-shook-up
just when I was getting to believe from inside the ivory tower that
everything is basically "okay").
I don't think any of the gods want that. Jesus never wanted it, nor did
Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, yadda yadda. JHVH-1 never wanted it - he just
wanted us to do what he says or he'll kill us. "Bob" certainly never
wanted it - he'd kill us if we did act that way. Even the Elder Gods just
want to coccoon our souls and lay "eggs" in them - they don't want us to
simper and kiss their asses and beg them to do it. The only people who
could get a "buzz" off that kind of activity are the folks who *speak* for
the higher beings, who lack the proper self-irony of our Reverand Stang.
So it's a chain of mere-humes, all jumping over themselves to see who can
ruin everyone else's fun the most, on the assumption that that will let
them suck the most slack out of the equally slackless.
And all this would be just fine, exactly what they deserve, except they're
making us miserable in the process. Because if you don't "worship", if
you don't bow in specially designed pews with wooden boards where your
knees go, if you don't treat yourself as less than a speck of dirt, then
you're "evil". You're "proud" - and they've turned pride into a sin! Or
get this one - you "doubt", you lack "faith". As if any faith except the
purest hatelove of "Bob" could be countenanced!
And how does this "morals" trick work? Largely because they inject so
much truth, so much self-evident truth into what they preach. For
example, it says in the Bible that it's generally a bad idea to kill
people. Well DUH. As if, WITHOUT that book, I wouldn't have KNOWN that.
And then they stick in, "and don't masturbate." "Well," says the
unknowing Po'bucker, "they got the don't kill people thing right, I guess
they must be right about masturbation too." And the next thing you know,
they've got you so stuck in mucky morals that the wild-eyed SubG preacher
over there has to be evil, because he's broken the one unwritten
commandment: he has SLACK. That is the ticket STRAIGHT TO HELL in *every
other religion*. What caused the fall of Adam and Eve? Slack. What got
Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? Slack. What made Satan fall out of heaven?
Same thing. The Apple of Knowledge of Slack which they HAVE to make you
afraid of, guilty over, because that's the only way they can steal it from
you, because if you stand up and say "This is my slack, and I like it, and
fuck 'em if they can't take a joke," then the positively worst thing they
can do to you is torture you and kill you. :-)
Anyway...
Rev. Jim Burton
TarlaStar
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>
>>Look....here....we have candy...
>CHOCOLATE candy?????
whatever it takes.
Tarla
***
Reverend Mutha Tarla Star of the Little Sisters of the Perpetually
Juicy; a Proud jism schism of the Church of the SubGenius.
Diane Richardson
[Crosspost to Barwell's little friends deleted]
On 28 Oct 1997 21:43:38 -0600, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
Barwell) wrote:
[snip]
>>>I base my "argument" against CoS on the belief it is not a religion?
>>
>>I'm referring, of course, to the debate at hand. You claimed that the
>>CoS was not a "real" religion because they appropriated the garb and
>>paraphenalia of other religious traditions in an effort to make
>>themselves more acceptible to the government.
>>
>>Perhaps your memory is failing you again.
>>
>
>Nope, this doesn't make sense. I base my argument that Scientology isn't
>a real religion on the argument Scientology isn't a real religion.
But you refuse to define what you mean by a "real" religion. I have
asked you repeatedly to specify the criteria you believe a religion
must meet in order to be considered "real." You have refused.
Instead, you have huffed and puffed about Hubbard requiring auditors
to don clerical garb. Thus far, that's the only criterion you've
mentioned that you use to distinguish a "fraudulent" religion from a
"real" religion. If you have other criteria to offer, specify them.
You haven't done so to date.
>And uniforms? Errrrrr.... No, this doesn't sound right.
_______________________________________________
I quote from your message:
Subject: Re: From a German Citizen
From: wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
Date: 1997/10/18
Message-ID: <62b0u6$qbb$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
[snip]
These people laughed and sniggered and guffawed when Ron cynically had
them get clerical robes and gear and costume themselves when wogs were
around to trick the silly wogs.
We have a lot of old timers from that era that have told us
that this religion bizzness was a farce and a fraud and that
every Scientologist knew it and laughed at the whole thing.
__________________________________________________________
Incidentally, this was by no means the only time you've made this
statement during this argument. You've regularly referred to Hubbard
having his followers don clerical robes, sniggering all the while at
the wogs. I've asked you repeatedly if you believe that Dennis Erlich
and Vaughn Young were willingly perpetrating fraud on others when they
donned clerical garb. Not only have you refused to answer my
question, you've quite noticeably deleted my question from each post.
Is this an example of CoSG non-confront, Barwell?
>I base the claim Scientology is not a real religion on Hubbard's
>own writings and the way the religous nonsense Hubbard ordered
>to fool the wogs was widely reported to be laughed at by many
>who knew what this was all about even as the played the game.
>But the writings were important to the key understanding it was
>all a fraud to Hubbard, and YOU AGREED WITH ME!
I fully agree with you that Hubbard adopted the trappings of
Christianity to further his interest in obtaining special treatment
from the government. I do NOT agree with you that this action leads
to the conclusion that Scientology[tm] is not a "real" religion.
Perhaps if you would explain what you mean when you call something a
"real" religion I might be able to better understand why you draw such
a conclusion.
>And I based my disagreement with Scientology on the fact Scientology
>is not a real religion? No, and you know your 'explanation' above is
>bullshit too.
>
>I pointed out why that was false and now you are rationalizing
>that bad argument away with a worse one.
Sorry, I don't follow you.
>And still, a fraud religion (and don't forget, you agreed
>with me that he was a fraud who set this up as a self serving fraud)
>does not become 'real' simply because it fools a few naive people
>who believe the self serving lies of Hubbard.
What *does* make a religion "real", Barwell? That's the question I've
been asking you repeatedly. You've been either unable or unwilling to
answer that question.
>It is merely a fraud religion that attempts to fool people.
Why is it any more fraudulent than any other religion? What
distinguished the CoS from those churches you consider "real"
religions? I've asked you this question repeatedly. You've failed to
address this question.
>Especially as it is frozen almost exactly as Hubbard left it,
>fraudulent calim, bad and ugly policies, and insane beliefs
>about BTs and implants and Xenu and all.
>
>It is still only a pseudoscientific cult with a fraudulent veneer of
>religion used in a cynical manner as a cloak.
>This will all it will ever be.
>
>
>>>I dont have "a" singular, one, argument.
>>
>>Of course you don't. You have, however, been arguing one specific
>>point on this newsgroup.
>
>That Hubbard and Scientology are frauds.
>You agreed. How a fraud becomnes a real religion is what YOU don't
>explain.
>
>Try that.
For all I know, Jesus Christ was doing the same thing as Hubbard when
he was gathering his disciples together some 2000 years ago. I have
no idea if Christ or Mohammed or Gautama were any more sincere in
their beliefs than Hubbard was. Do you?
Why do you consider Christianity a "real" religion, Barwell?
> The argument you have been making is that
>>the CoS can't possibly be a "real" religion because they deceitfully
>>appropriated the traditions of another religious tradition.
>
>BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! Strawman alert! Strawman alert!
>I never argued THAT. I argued Hubbard left a trail of written
>evidence it was a scam a matter for "solicitors and accountants
>only". And that many sniggering Scientologists recognized it for
>what it was when they started setting up chapels and bying priest's
>togs for when the nosy reporters and teh like showed up.
I have quoted verbatim from a message of yours above in which you most
certainly did argue that Scientology[tm] was not a "real" religion
based on Hubbard's appropriation of Christian clerical garb. It must
be that short-term memory problem of yours acting up again.
>
>You repeatedly distort, my claims, my words, and well, just about
>everything else you can distort.
Sorry, Barwell. I've quoted your words and your claims above
verbatim. I haven't distorted anything about those words.
>You do this all teh time with just about everything and you do this to
>about everybody
How have I distorted your words which I quote above?
>Do you understand why so many people hate your guts?
I think more people hate the guts of individuals who attempt to
silence someone with whom they disagree by trying to have her internet
access cut off, Barwell.
I've never tried to pull that stunt. You have. You don't even appear
to be ashamed of what you did. Perhaps you're not intelligent enough
to understand the moral import of your attempt.
>Well, no, otherwise you WOULDN'T DO THIS!
>EVER'BODY NOTICES TOO!
Perhaps if you shout it loudly enough you'll convince yourself of what
you're saying. I doubt if your shouting has much effect on anyone
else at all. In fact, I sincerely doubt if many people bother reading
what you write to this newsgroup at all.
>No need to bother with you if you keep this up.
>
>......... More boring wiggling and clueless wriggling cut..........
How cute! Was it the part where I accused you of wriggling and
squirming that you cut? Aren't you even creative enough to write your
own material? Tsk, tsk!
>So if Hubbard is a fraud, and he set up Scintology as a religion as
>a scam, and you agreed to these things, when did it cease to be
>a fraud and a scam and start being a real religion.
Who says that a "real" religion can't be a fraud and a scam, Barwell?
You and who else?
>YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING A CLAIM.
I have no idea what you're screeching about, Barwell. Quote the claim
you believe I've made.
>You defend your claims.
What claims have I made?
>I have shown Hubbard a fraud.
>You agreed.
Of course.
>When does a fraud of this sort stop being a fraud?
Who decided a "real" religion can't be fraudulent, Barwell?
>Define religion.
religion: n. 1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power
or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A
personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief or
worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of
a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued
with zeal or conscientious devotion.
>Define real religion.
I do not use that term, Barwell. You have used that term. I have
asked you repeatedly to explain what you mean by that term. You are
either unwilling or unable to explain yourself.
>Show why Scientology is a real religion, and not a fraud that
>occasioanally fools somebody.
Perhaps you believe that a "real" religion cannot be a fraud. I
disagree.
>You are the one who keeps making the assertion that needs proving.
What assertion is that, Barwell?
>We both have agreed Hubbard was a fraud and was not sincere
>about the 'religous' foundations of Stupidology.
Of course. So what?
>If I fool 100 pinks and Bobbies The Church of the SubGenius
>is a real religion, is it?
I don't know, Barwell. I do not use the term "real" religion. You
have used that term; I have not. I have asked you repeatedly to
define your term. You have refused to explain what you mean when you
use the term.
Unless you are willing to explain what you mean when you use the term
"real" religion, I cannot answer your question.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
rgonnet
William Barwell wrote:
> In article <3453b3a4...@snews.zippo.com>,
> Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
> >On 26 Oct 1997 11:40:58 -0600, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
> >Barwell) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <3453597b...@snews.zippo.com>,
> >>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:29:46 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
> >>><da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> Nope, this doesn't make sense. I base my argument that Scientology isn't
> a real religion on the argument Scientology isn't a real religion.
> And uniforms? Errrrrr.... No, this doesn't sound right.
>
> I base the claim Scientology is not a real religion on Hubbard's
> own writings and the way the religous nonsense Hubbard ordered
> to fool the wogs was widely reported to be laughed at by many
> who knew what this was all about even as the played the game.
> But the writings were important to the key understanding it was
> all a fraud to Hubbard, and YOU AGREED WITH ME!
Without forgetting the fact that Hubbard himself has never had any religious
self-declared title, and never wore any religious sign.
Quite expressive is the fact that he always installed his military style, and
never any religious one.
Roger
Keith Henson
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
snip
: That Hubbard and Scientology are frauds.
: You agreed. How a fraud becomnes a real religion is what YOU don't
: explain.
: Try that.
Easy. Any nutty cult which grows to substantial size (call it a million
members) and is still around after a 150 years is probably over the hump
and will henseforth be known as a "religion." Can anyone cite an
exception? Keith Henson
David Gerard
On 28 Oct 1997 06:02:44 -0600,
William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
:In article <345e5848...@news.zippo.com>,
Yes. He was also right about the SubGenii's motivation for hassling
Scientology in such a bigoted manner:
That they have the Sekrit, and we are just jealous and so try to
pull them down from telling this Sekrit to the world.
That you are covered in the souls of murdered aliens brought to
Earth by Prince Xenu Etrawl, Galactic Emperor.
Hell, are they SURPRISED that we're pissed off?
William Barwell
A large number of people still don't consider the Mormons a real religion
either. Especially many far right evangelicals.