Topic: Scientology? | |
---|---|
I think people apposed to Scientology really want to find some way to laugh and poke fun at them.
In today's society, people still poke fun at those of us who claim that aliens exist and they are mutilating cows. And yet the cows are being mutilated and the government military have actively worked to cover this fact up and have actively threatened newspapers who publish any kind of article about these events. I know this for a fact. A small farm newspaper in Colorado was threatened with very scary and violent threats because he persisted to cover the news about local farmers whose cattle were being mutilated in strange ways. Now if the Military needed cows for some reason they could have just purchased them and cut them up at their leisure, so I know the Military was not doing the mutilations. Knowing all of this, it is strange to me that people still make fun of those of us who 'know' aliens exist. When polled, 69% of people said they believed in aliens and that UFO's were alien craft. With this premise accepted by 69% of the population I have to assume that the rest of the population are the ones who are desperately seeking some reason to ridicule and poke fun at those who know about aliens as if they are crazy. So even if the story of Xenu were true, it is no wonder that people who believed it would not want to admit it. (Xenu sounds suspiciously like Lucifer, the fallen angel.) What if he is? What if some spiritual being actually was kicked out of the higher densities and took up residence in third density? What if there are more than one or two of these beings? How would you or anyone know? But the fact remains that there are those who cannot accept the idea that this universe is shared by other beings besides humans. It frightens them, so they joke about it. Heck, I believe they exist and even I joke about it. And some of them are not very nice and they are nothing to joke about. They to horrible things. <End of rant> |
|
|
|
Ok, so the bottom line is that some people, who claim to be disaffected Scientologists, have made claims about loyal Scientologists, which claims have not been and cannot be substantiated. (How very convenient for the disaffected Scientologists.) Looks like that's about as far as we can go with that line of investigation. So let's take up the issue of why people are concerned about it... Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these unverifiable claims are true, how could it possibly matter to anyone? They're not proselytizing those claims. Far from it, they apparently don't want people to know about it. So is there some objection to them hiding information from the rest of us? Or is the objection that they are hiding their beliefs from the rest of us? Or could those beliefs be thought of as sinister in some way - like the cannibalism of Communion or the human sacrifice of the Crucifition? Or is it just because they are believed to be impossible, like Jesus walking on water? Or just unlikely, like the predictions of the future that abound in most religious doctrines. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 12/11/08 01:03 PM
|
|
Ok, so the bottom line is that some people, who claim to be disaffected Scientologists, have made claims about loyal Scientologists, which claims have not been and cannot be substantiated. (How very convenient for the disaffected Scientologists.) Looks like that's about as far as we can go with that line of investigation. So let's take up the issue of why people are concerned about it... Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these unverifiable claims are true, how could it possibly matter to anyone? They're not proselytizing those claims. Far from it, they apparently don't want people to know about it. So is there some objection to them hiding information from the rest of us? Or is the objection that they are hiding their beliefs from the rest of us? Or could those beliefs be thought of as sinister in some way - like the cannibalism of Communion or the human sacrifice of the Crucifition? Or is it just because they are believed to be impossible, like Jesus walking on water? Or just unlikely, like the predictions of the future that abound in most religious doctrines. Well Mirror, that does not really make any sense. If all of this stuff is "on line" and available to anyone who googles it then a Scientologist obviously does not have to go through years of "audit counseling" before they learn of Xenu and the "wall of fire Incident." Why even bother going through all of the audit counseling? So there is no big secret. Thanks to the Internet, secrets are very hard to keep secret. |
|
|
|
Ok, so the bottom line is that some people, who claim to be disaffected Scientologists, have made claims about loyal Scientologists, which claims have not been and cannot be substantiated. (How very convenient for the disaffected Scientologists.) Looks like that's about as far as we can go with that line of investigation. So let's take up the issue of why people are concerned about it... Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these unverifiable claims are true, how could it possibly matter to anyone? They're not proselytizing those claims. Far from it, they apparently don't want people to know about it. So is there some objection to them hiding information from the rest of us? Or is the objection that they are hiding their beliefs from the rest of us? Or could those beliefs be thought of as sinister in some way - like the cannibalism of Communion or the human sacrifice of the Crucifition? Or is it just because they are believed to be impossible, like Jesus walking on water? Or just unlikely, like the predictions of the future that abound in most religious doctrines. But I can point out that you will not find all of Hubbards writings online. What you will find is a lot of interpretations of and comments about his writings. But from what I've seen, there is very little, percentage-wise, of his actual writings to be found online. And most of what there is is taken out of context and presented by critics with an obvious anti-Scientology agenda. |
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Thu 12/11/08 01:17 PM
|
|
Ok, so the bottom line is that some people, who claim to be disaffected Scientologists, have made claims about loyal Scientologists, which claims have not been and cannot be substantiated. (How very convenient for the disaffected Scientologists.) Looks like that's about as far as we can go with that line of investigation. So let's take up the issue of why people are concerned about it... Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these unverifiable claims are true, how could it possibly matter to anyone? They're not proselytizing those claims. Far from it, they apparently don't want people to know about it. So is there some objection to them hiding information from the rest of us? Or is the objection that they are hiding their beliefs from the rest of us? Or could those beliefs be thought of as sinister in some way - like the cannibalism of Communion or the human sacrifice of the Crucifition? Or is it just because they are believed to be impossible, like Jesus walking on water? Or just unlikely, like the predictions of the future that abound in most religious doctrines. Well Mirror, that does not really make any sense. If all of this stuff is "on line" and available to anyone who googles it then a Scientologist obviously does not have to go through years of "audit counseling" before they learn of Xenu and the "wall of fire Incident." Why even bother going through all of the audit counseling? So there is no big secret. Thanks to the Internet, secrets are very hard to keep secret. |
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 12/11/08 01:38 PM
|
|
I would like to address a misrepresenation.
The C.O.S. claims that only they can "tune" the E-meters properly every year or so.Thats why they claim you have to be a member or your E-meter won't work correctly.
According to what I have been told by Scientologists... There is a specific level of calibration that the C.O.S. considers acceptable for their purposes and they have a quality control policy in place to ensure that those levels of quality are maintained. That QA policy includes an inspection every two years where corrections are made if needed. |
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Thu 12/11/08 03:13 PM
|
|
I would like to address a misrepresenation. The C.O.S. claims that only they can "tune" the E-meters properly every year or so.Thats why they claim you have to be a member or your E-meter won't work correctly.
According to what I have been told by Scientologists... There is a specific level of calibration that the C.O.S. considers acceptable for their purposes and they have a quality control policy in place to ensure that those levels of quality are maintained. That QA policy includes an inspection every two years where corrections are made if needed. |
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 12/11/08 04:48 PM
|
|
I would like to address a misrepresenation. The C.O.S. claims that only they can "tune" the E-meters properly every year or so.Thats why they claim you have to be a member or your E-meter won't work correctly.
According to what I have been told by Scientologists... There is a specific level of calibration that the C.O.S. considers acceptable for their purposes and they have a quality control policy in place to ensure that those levels of quality are maintained. That QA policy includes an inspection every two years where corrections are made if needed. Ok, I misunderstood your post then, so I can only lay claim to it appearing misrepresentative to me personally. Others may very well have interpreted it as you did. So I guess what I ws wondering is if any of that poses a problem to anyone? Or was it simply an attempt at providing information about C.O.S. and/or the E-meter? Basically, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what the fuss is all about. There seem to be some people who have very strong negative feelings about the subject of Scientology and/or one or more Scientologists and I’m wondering where that animosity comes from. |
|
|
|
Basically, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what the fuss is all about. There seem to be some people who have very strong negative feelings about the subject of Scientology and/or one or more Scientologists and I’m wondering where that animosity comes from.
That is easy to figure out. Any small cult that can be crushed and belittled is no threat to the status quo. But when it gets large and begins to exert its influence in society, and if it actually empowers the individual, the status quo (Organized religion) becomes perturbed. The Church traditionally wields the power of the people. They do not empower people. If you are a well adjusted very happy and successful member of society, and you are not a Christian, this for some reason really seems to rub the established religious community the wrong way. They seem to prey on the sick, the dysfunctional, the lost, the troubled. They don't know what to do with well adjusted functional happy people. |
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 12/11/08 05:49 PM
|
|
Basically, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what the fuss is all about. There seem to be some people who have very strong negative feelings about the subject of Scientology and/or one or more Scientologists and I’m wondering where that animosity comes from. That is easy to figure out. Any small cult that can be crushed and belittled is no threat to the status quo. But when it gets large and begins to exert its influence in society, and if it actually empowers the individual, the status quo (Organized religion) becomes perturbed.
The Church traditionally wields the power of the people. They do not empower people. If you are a well adjusted very happy and successful member of society, and you are not a Christian, this for some reason really seems to rub the established religious community the wrong way. They seem to prey on the sick, the dysfunctional, the lost, the troubled. They don't know what to do with well adjusted functional happy people. And I think your comment about the well-adjusted happy people is very true. I've long held that "government" is made up solely of all the things that people don't want to have to deal with. In other words, government could be thought of as simply the collective irresponsibility of the citizentry. People who are responsible don't fit into that kind of system. No wonder it's so ****ed up! |
|
|
|
I would like to address a misrepresenation. The C.O.S. claims that only they can "tune" the E-meters properly every year or so.Thats why they claim you have to be a member or your E-meter won't work correctly.
According to what I have been told by Scientologists... There is a specific level of calibration that the C.O.S. considers acceptable for their purposes and they have a quality control policy in place to ensure that those levels of quality are maintained. That QA policy includes an inspection every two years where corrections are made if needed. Ok, I misunderstood your post then, so I can only lay claim to it appearing misrepresentative to me personally. Others may very well have interpreted it as you did. So I guess what I ws wondering is if any of that poses a problem to anyone? Or was it simply an attempt at providing information about C.O.S. and/or the E-meter? Basically, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what the fuss is all about. There seem to be some people who have very strong negative feelings about the subject of Scientology and/or one or more Scientologists and I’m wondering where that animosity comes from. |
|
|
|
Basically, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what the fuss is all about. There seem to be some people who have very strong negative feelings about the subject of Scientology and/or one or more Scientologists and I’m wondering where that animosity comes from.
That is easy to figure out. Any small cult that can be crushed and belittled is no threat to the status quo. But when it gets large and begins to exert its influence in society, and if it actually empowers the individual, the status quo (Organized religion) becomes perturbed. The Church traditionally wields the power of the people. They do not empower people. If you are a well adjusted very happy and successful member of society, and you are not a Christian, this for some reason really seems to rub the established religious community the wrong way. They seem to prey on the sick, the dysfunctional, the lost, the troubled. They don't know what to do with well adjusted functional happy people. |
|
|
|
Basically, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what the fuss is all about. There seem to be some people who have very strong negative feelings about the subject of Scientology and/or one or more Scientologists and I’m wondering where that animosity comes from.
That is easy to figure out. Any small cult that can be crushed and belittled is no threat to the status quo. But when it gets large and begins to exert its influence in society, and if it actually empowers the individual, the status quo (Organized religion) becomes perturbed. The Church traditionally wields the power of the people. They do not empower people. If you are a well adjusted very happy and successful member of society, and you are not a Christian, this for some reason really seems to rub the established religious community the wrong way. They seem to prey on the sick, the dysfunctional, the lost, the troubled. They don't know what to do with well adjusted functional happy people. I've also heard a story about another reason why the government doesn't like Scientology: Back in the early 50's shortly after Hubbard discovered the principles of Dianetics, he encounterd someone who had been a victim of MK-Ultra. Using the techniques of Dianetics, he was able to eradicate all the effects (i.e. the "implanted" commands and responses) of the MK Ultra brainwashing. Naturally, the C.I.A didn't like this because it made their MK-Ultra program unreliable. So a disinformation campaign was initiated against Hubbard and Dianetics in an attempt to suppress the use of the techniques. Total rumor, I admit. But it sounds plausible to me. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 12/11/08 09:36 PM
|
|
Yeah, I've heard of that. I've also heard of some other incidents of attacks on C.O.S. for other reasons. The FDA figured prominently in one of them. Apparently the AMA didn't like the idea that the "auditing" was actually helping people overcome physical ailments, so the FDA tried to get them to stop by confiscating E-meters. I've also heard a story about another reason why the government doesn't like Scientology: Back in the early 50's shortly after Hubbard discovered the principles of Dianetics, he encounterd someone who had been a victim of MK-Ultra. Using the techniques of Dianetics, he was able to eradicate all the effects (i.e. the "implanted" commands and responses) of the MK Ultra brainwashing. Naturally, the C.I.A didn't like this because it made their MK-Ultra program unreliable. So a disinformation campaign was initiated against Hubbard and Dianetics in an attempt to suppress the use of the techniques. Total rumor, I admit. But it sounds plausible to me. That MK Ultra is some cruel nasty crap. So who is the evil organization here? The FDA has been known to invade and confiscate things totally illegally because they actually help people and they are not drugs. So who is the evil entity here? |
|
|
|
The governments dont like C.O.S. because the C.O.S. tried to infiltrate the government one time and got caught.
So tell me, how does one "infiltrate the government?" Run for office? |
|
|
|
Basically, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what the fuss is all about. There seem to be some people who have very strong negative feelings about the subject of Scientology and/or one or more Scientologists and I’m wondering where that animosity comes from.
That is easy to figure out. Any small cult that can be crushed and belittled is no threat to the status quo. But when it gets large and begins to exert its influence in society, and if it actually empowers the individual, the status quo (Organized religion) becomes perturbed. The Church traditionally wields the power of the people. They do not empower people. If you are a well adjusted very happy and successful member of society, and you are not a Christian, this for some reason really seems to rub the established religious community the wrong way. They seem to prey on the sick, the dysfunctional, the lost, the troubled. They don't know what to do with well adjusted functional happy people. I've also heard a story about another reason why the government doesn't like Scientology: Back in the early 50's shortly after Hubbard discovered the principles of Dianetics, he encounterd someone who had been a victim of MK-Ultra. Using the techniques of Dianetics, he was able to eradicate all the effects (i.e. the "implanted" commands and responses) of the MK Ultra brainwashing. Naturally, the C.I.A didn't like this because it made their MK-Ultra program unreliable. So a disinformation campaign was initiated against Hubbard and Dianetics in an attempt to suppress the use of the techniques. Total rumor, I admit. But it sounds plausible to me. |
|
|
|
The governments dont like C.O.S. because the C.O.S. tried to infiltrate the government one time and got caught.
So tell me, how does one "infiltrate the government?" Run for office? |
|
|
|
Basically, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what the fuss is all about. There seem to be some people who have very strong negative feelings about the subject of Scientology and/or one or more Scientologists and I’m wondering where that animosity comes from.
That is easy to figure out. Any small cult that can be crushed and belittled is no threat to the status quo. But when it gets large and begins to exert its influence in society, and if it actually empowers the individual, the status quo (Organized religion) becomes perturbed. The Church traditionally wields the power of the people. They do not empower people. If you are a well adjusted very happy and successful member of society, and you are not a Christian, this for some reason really seems to rub the established religious community the wrong way. They seem to prey on the sick, the dysfunctional, the lost, the troubled. They don't know what to do with well adjusted functional happy people. I've also heard a story about another reason why the government doesn't like Scientology: Back in the early 50's shortly after Hubbard discovered the principles of Dianetics, he encounterd someone who had been a victim of MK-Ultra. Using the techniques of Dianetics, he was able to eradicate all the effects (i.e. the "implanted" commands and responses) of the MK Ultra brainwashing. Naturally, the C.I.A didn't like this because it made their MK-Ultra program unreliable. So a disinformation campaign was initiated against Hubbard and Dianetics in an attempt to suppress the use of the techniques. Total rumor, I admit. But it sounds plausible to me. |
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Thu 12/11/08 11:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it was L. Ron Hubbard himself who said the easiest way to make money is to invent a religion.....just something to think about...
|
|
|