What's new

I have a new opinion about ESMB

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Fuckin Mark A Baker wrote:

I have never limited myself to ONLY the study of scientology, not even while I was a member of the church. A case can be made that I could more accurately be called an heretical scientologist because of my willingness to be selective about what aspects of scientology I use. Personally I have no objection to either term, although strictly speaking I find that since the foundation materials of the subject of scientology call for the individual to use his own judgement in deciding about the appropriate use of scientology then perforce all genuine scientologists are heretical scientologists. Thus, for me the term "heretical scientologist" is something of a "redundancy" or tautology.


One of the foundational materials of Scientology states that later "discoveries" by L Ron Hubbard take the place of earlier technology and foundational materials in Scientology.

One of the later "discoveries" and foundational materials from L Ron Hubbard said that people can not make up their own mind regarding workable technologies because they had not risen above the bank like L Ron Hubbard had. You'll find this in Keeping Scientology Working, in the cramming series and in the way Scientology is applied all over the world today in the Church and elsewhere.

Therefore, after that foundational discovery by L Ron Hubbard, a Scientologist was no longer allowed to choose which tech was workable for himself.

Therefore, a heretical Scientologist is not a Scientologist at all in present time.

How do you respond to that, fuckin Mark A Baker?
 

Veda

Sponsor
"There was a difference between the ideals inherent in the Dianetic hypothesis and the actions of the Foundation in its ostensible efforts to carry out these ideals. The ideals, as I saw them, included non-authoritarianism and a flexibility of approach. The ideals... continued to be given lip-service, but I could see a definite disparity between ideals and actualities."

From Dr. J.A. Winter, who wrote the Introduction for 'DMSMH' in 1950, from his book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics', 1951


Scientology has been a weaselly subject since the days of Dianetics. It didn't start with 'KSW' and the 'PR Series'.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Don't disagree that I could have phrased things in a better way.

Bear in mind that 2 years ago I tried to get them to reconcile their differences. Niether wished to.

Then Diana very recently outed TO to great detrimental effect. Emma scolded her here for doing this twice.

I was angry. So maybe could have chosen my words better.

You might wish to comment to Diana about the horrendous results of this outing. Currently $ 850,000 and counting.

T, Mate,

I can only comment on what I see and personally experience. I've never been on your blog, and know nothing of the dispute between the girls nor any of the rest of it.

I can only comment that if we wish to heal things we ought be kinder with words that are directed at or specifically refer to individuals.

And one should not be one-sided if one is going to intervene . . . . MAB has posted here the other side of the destructive behavior that Diana eventually was "driven" to deal with by the "outing" of her attacker . . . . that not mentioned above by you.

'Nuff said.

Rog
 
I've remained relatively neutral on this matter, simply chipping in to clarify points along the way.

However I am now compelled to ask how the figure of $850,000 is calculated? Who is the person having to fork out this much money? On what basis? In what currency? And, most importantly, can I have some?

's complicated. Frankly, the way things are situated legally it is quite possible that they may wind up with considerably more than that in pocket.


Mark A. Baker
 
Fuckin Mark A Baker wrote:



[/B]One of the foundational materials of Scientology states that later "discoveries" by L Ron Hubbard take the place of earlier technology and foundational materials in Scientology.

One of the later "discoveries" and foundational materials from L Ron Hubbard said that people can not make up their own mind regarding workable technologies because they had not risen above the bank like L Ron Hubbard had. You'll find this in Keeping Scientology Working, in the cramming series and in the way Scientology is applied all over the world today in the Church and elsewhere.

Therefore, after that foundational discovery by L Ron Hubbard, a Scientologist was no longer allowed to choose which tech was workable for himself.

Therefore, a heretical Scientologist is not a Scientologist at all in present time.

How do you respond to that, fuckin Mark A Baker?

With some excerpts from fundamentals ....


The Code of Honor

8. Never compromise with your own reality.

9. Your self determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life.

10. Your integrity to yourself is more important than your body.

14. Be your own adviser, keep your own counsel and select your own decisions.

15. Be true to your own goals.


The Code of A Scientologist

2. To use the best I know of of Scientology to the best of my ability to help my family, friends, groups and the world.


The trick, Al, lies in UNDERSTANDING what is IMPORTANT as opposed to what someone else SAYS is important.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. what's with the "Fuckin Mark A. Baker"? you angry about something, Al? :)
 

Veda

Sponsor
With some excerpts from fundamentals ....

.......

The trick, Al, lies in UNDERSTANDING what is IMPORTANT as opposed to what someone else SAYS is important.


Mark A. Baker

Then why are you quoting Hubbard and his phony - window dressing/bait and switch - codes?
 

dianaclass8

Silver Meritorious Patron
T, Mate,

I can only comment on what I see and personally experience. I've never been on your blog, and know nothing of the dispute between the girls nor any of the rest of it.

I can only comment that if we wish to heal things we ought be kinder with words that are directed at or specifically refer to individuals.

And one should not be one-sided if one is going to intervene . . . . MAB has posted here the other side of the destructive behavior that Diana eventually was "driven" to deal with by the "outing" of her attacker . . . . that not mentioned above by you.

'Nuff said.

Rog

Yes, my friend...'Nuff said...:happydance:
Here's a video for you :coolwink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h13pvBUtStY
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
I hold no brief for heretical Scientology, but I just don't see how anything Hubbard says about not being able to pick and choose from his "tech" prevents anyone from picking and choosing. They just have to not pick or choose that one part, where he says you can't pick and choose.

A lot of religions try to pull this line: we say you have to believe all or nothing of what we say. Fundamentalist Christians are as bad as anyone for it — they want to hold "in the beginning was the Word" hostage, to make you accept six day creation, male headship, and the whole nine yards of their wacky little worldview. The truth is that, like the Saducees before them, they know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

The all-or-nothing ploy is brazen argumentative sleight of hand, a mouth-is-quicker-than-the-brain deal. All you have to do is throw out that one doctrine, and you can immediately throw out whatever else you want, and keep whatever else you want, without any inconsistency at all. It goes for any belief system, so it goes for Scientology.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I tend to disagree, at least on one point. L. Ron Hubbard is the 'source' of *all* Scientology material. He's the 'source' of the name; he's the source of the philosophy. He's the 'source' of the 'movement'. More than any other 'religion' I can think of, L. Ron Hubbard *is* Scientology.

And, He was very specific about people *not* 'picking and choosing' or even interpreting His word (spoken or written.)

To do so is a High Crime according to L. Ron Hubbard, and he specifically even forbade *paraphrasing* his words, instead demanding that any dicussion of Scientology *only* be carried out with 'duelling quotes'.

So, to 'pick and choose' violates Ron's strictures and Scientology is Ron's creation.

So, it's fine to say you've been influenced by Scientology; to add adjectives to specify 'I'm a half-assed Scientologist' for example or I'm a 'limited Scientologist'. But, a Scientologist who *doesn't* accept all of Scientology as sourced by L. Ron Hubbard is *not* a Scientologist.

Zinj
 
I tend to disagree, at least on one point. L. Ron Hubbard is the 'source' of *all* Scientology material. He's the 'source' of the name; he's the source of the philosophy. He's the 'source' of the 'movement'. More than any other 'religion' I can think of, L. Ron Hubbard *is* Scientology.

And, He was very specific about people *not* 'picking and choosing' or even interpreting His word (spoken or written.)

To do so is a High Crime according to L. Ron Hubbard, and he specifically even forbade *paraphrasing* his words, instead demanding that any dicussion of Scientology *only* be carried out with 'duelling quotes'.

So, to 'pick and choose' violates Ron's strictures and Scientology is Ron's creation.

So, it's fine to say you've been influenced by Scientology; to add adjectives to specify 'I'm a half-assed Scientologist' for example or I'm a 'limited Scientologist'. But, a Scientologist who *doesn't* accept all of Scientology as sourced by L. Ron Hubbard is *not* a Scientologist.

Zinj

You're right, Z, he did. But he also wrote the codes which I've cited and which clearly indicate the right of each individual to choose for himself. Is this inconsistent? Yes. But it IS "scientology". The only way to resolve the inconsistency is to choose for one's self. :yes:

Moreover it means that whereas you are free to believe it is "all or nothing", I am free to hold otherwise. Besides, if I may remind you, you've never claimed to be a scientologist, heretical or otherwise, whereas I have and do. Thus, my argument about what makes for a scientologist must needs carry more weight. I speak from a position of actual knowledge of the subject whereas your's is simply the belief of the infidel. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Besides, if I may remind you, you've never claimed to be a scientologist, heretical or otherwise, whereas I have and do. Thus, my argument about what makes for a scientologist must needs carry more weight. I speak from a position of actual knowledge of the subject whereas your's is simply the belief of the infidel. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker

I've also never claimed to be a nazi, but, if I run into some chump who announces that he's a Nazi because he likes Richard Wagner and lederhosen, and insists that he's proof that Naziism isn't 'all bad', well, I'll discount his claim too. Even though I was never a Nazi.

And, a 'nazi' might even have a more valid claim to the label *not* being starkly delimited by Adolph.

Anyway, don't make me laugh.

Zinj
 
I've also never claimed to be a nazi, but, if I run into some chump who announces that he's a Nazi because he likes Richard Wagner and lederhosen, and insists that he's proof that Naziism isn't 'all bad', well, I'll discount his claim too. Even though I was never a Nazi.

And, a 'nazi' might even have a more valid claim to the label *not* being starkly delimited by Adolph.

Anyway, don't make me laugh.

Zinj

Wagner was never a nazi. Lederhosen are a form of traditional dress among southern germans. Many people manage to enjoy both Wagner & lederhosen without having the least inclination towards national socialism. :)

Similarly, many people find value in scientology without falling for "Ron is Source" or the Sea Org Mission.


Mark A. Baker
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
WOW!

Dexter pulled off 338 posts thread in response to his new opinion about ESMB!

(And, mind you, without a single comment after his OP)

Now, THAT'S SUCCESS! :happydance:
:welcome2:, Dexter! You made it! :bravo:
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Wagner was never a nazi. Lederhosen are a form of traditional dress among southern germans. Many people manage to enjoy both Wagner & lederhosen without having the least inclination towards national socialism. :)

Similarly, many people find value in scientology without falling for "Ron is Source" or the Sea Org Mission.


Mark A. Baker

And, we're not talking about people who like Wagner and Lederhosen; we're talking about people who Claim to be Nazis, without taking responsibility for the *whole* of Nazi history and action and assert that because *they* don't hate jews or want to take over the world at any cost, it's unfair for people to constantly malign the term 'nazi' and the National Socialist Philosophy.

anyway, nobody's saying someone can't find 'value' in Scientology, silly as the idea may be, but, are they thereby 'Scientologists'?

Zinj
 
Top