Can You Be a Christian Scientologist? (Juliette Lewis Says YES in New Interview)

[Voltaire's Child]

Hey, Mark,

I know she says she's a Christian. I have also met Christian Scn'ists. And others who said they professed other faiths.

BUT the things Juliet was saying sounded VERY PRish to me.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Once upon a time, Juliet claimed she was a Clear.

Because she asserted that, Mark Baker admonishes us that we must accept that she factually IS Clear.

Therefore, the state of Clear really IS true.

And after that, Ron made ice cream and cake for all the children and they followed him everywhere.

And they lived happily ever after.

 

[Veda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYOMJjwFV4Q

Hubbard, from 1965, describing some Scientology "crimes" or "suppressive acts":

"DISAVOWAL, SPLINTERING, DIVERGENCE:

"Public disavowal of Scientology...

"Announcing departure from Scientology...

"Dependence on mental or philosophical procedures [which would include meditation, Yoga, and Christian prayer] other than Scientology..."

 

[Mark A. Baker]

How come it's okay that she calls ALL Scientologists Christians?

No where have I suggested it was.

Like here, the interviewer says, "Do you celebrate Christmas? I’ve never been sure about that. Does Christmas count as a Scientology holiday?

Juliette: Oh yeah. We absolutely celebrate Christmas. "

How does she know that? :confused2: I guess she's just pretty OT. Oh well. I guess she can talk about others' beliefs. Makes sense.

Ask her not me.

FWIW, most of the non-christians I know celebrate christmas. It isn't a "christian" holiday particularly. Nothing to do with Jesus, certainly. The catholic church was simply unsuccessful at uprooting Saturnalia from the empire and adapted the date and associated symbols and rituals for their own purposes.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Sindy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYOMJjwFV4Q

Hubbard, from 1965, describing some Scientology "crimes" or "suppressive acts":

"DISAVOWAL, SPLINTERING, DIVERGENCE:

"Public disavowal of Scientology...

"Announcing departure from Scientology...

"Dependence on mental or philosophical procedures [which would include meditation, Yoga, and Christian prayer] other than Scientology..."

A video only a Christian could love. Every Christian needs an Anti-Christ (or two) every once and awhile. Keeps 'em on their toes.

 

[Veda]

A video only a Christian could love. Every Christian needs an Anti-Christ (or two) every once and awhile. Keeps 'em on their toes.

By 1979, I had purchased and read everything available by Crowley (self described 'Beast 666'). From the start, I began to notice similarities with Scientology. In words and symbols alone, the similarities were many: Scientology's OT/Crowley's OTO; Hubbard's thay-tan (with a lisp); the Crowley cross and its copy the Scientology cross; the Scientology OT symbol; Crowley's "Love is the law, Love under will," and Scientology's "KRC over ARC" ("S with the double triangle"); Crowley's multiplicity of infinite minds, and Hubbard's multiplicity of Infinite minds (a great ego-booster), Crowley's contempt for the weak, Scientology's discarding of the "down-stat," and it goes on and on.

The correspondences were many and, IMO, they were not all "dark" or "kooky." The first four pages of the below thread (before it was derailed) include many examples of Hubbard's "borrowings" from Crowley and the ancient Kabbalah:

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=510

 

[Sindy]

By 1979, I had purchased and read everything available by Crowley (self described 'Beast 666'). From the start, I began to notice similarities with Scientology. In words and symbols alone, the similarities were many: Scientology's OT/Crowley's OTO; Hubbard's thay-tan (with a lisp); the Crowley cross and its copy the Scientology cross; the Scientology OT symbol; Crowley's "Love is the law, Love under will," and Scientology's "KRC over ARC" ("S with the double triangle"); Crowley's multiplicity of infinite minds, and Hubbard's multiplicity of Infinite minds (a great ego-booster), Crowley's contempt for the weak, Scientology's discarding of the "down-stat," and it goes on and on.

The correspondences were many and, IMO, they were not all "dark" or "kooky." The first four pages of the below thread (before it was derailed) include many examples of Hubbard's "borrowings" from Crowley and the ancient Kabbalah:

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=510

Very interesting.

 

[fortymarriedandbalding]

Never having been “in” there is a lot I don’t understand about scientology. I do hear stories about people not being able to talk about certain things or see certain movies because they could restimulate someones case etc.

Why isn’t celebrating a Christian Christmas of Easter not considered restimulation? Is there a reason for it or is it just that Hubbard was not smart enough to be consistent when he made this shit up? (Or maybe he was smart enough to know that he would make more money by allowing cetain inconsistencies).

Any clarification would be appreciated.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Any clarification would be appreciated.

Fortymarried,
You totally nailed it yourself here with this sentence I quoted below:

"Or maybe he was smart enough to know that he would make more money by allowing certain inconsistencies."

Hubbard was well aware of the fact that a large percentage of those he called "raw meat" considered themselves "Christian". I'm sure that he struggled with what is the greatest good. To ban the celebration of Christmas each year so as not to risk severe restimulation? Or should he take the risk so that he could continue to ravage their bank accounts?

 

[Commander Birdsong]

crisschin?

what is a christian? what is christianity?

TSTO none of us can provide a definitive answer(those who say they can notwithstanding)

but...

the many of us who believe the center of it is "love god with all your heart and soul, love your neighbor as you love yourself" observably seem to do pretty well with it.

and...

the basic theory and practice of auditing studied and applied well is a very good tool for effectively and beneficially practicing love upon one's neighbor

 

[MichelleAsWell]

Beliefs

NOTHING in the Code of a Scientologist, the Creed, or the tech dictionary definition of a scientologist require conformity with the beliefs or views of L. Ron Hubbard. Arguably the most suppressive aspect of church practices has been the perpetuation that such is required.

I never agreed to LRH as ultimate arbiter. I do not see a need to accept LRH's opinions in order to personally benefit from gains in auditing at ANY level of the scientology bridge. Ergo, I see no reason to suggest that anyone else MUST conform their own views to coincide with Hubbard's in all things.

If a person wants to be a christian scientologist it matters nought to me if he is on Grade 0 or a completion on OT VIII. It's his right to work out for himself what he believes and what he professes. Any other attitude would constitute an implicit violation of the Code, Creed, and failure to recognize each individual's fundamental responsibility as a spiritual entity.

Those individuals who are not members of the Co$ and who do not accord an individual of the right to his own beliefs are acting in exactly the same fashion as those SO members within the Co$ who seek to enforce universally "command intention" as a requisite belief system for all who would wish to use scientology practices to better their own lives. It is simply another way of enforcing one's own beliefs onto another, not so different from that which they claim to have left behind.

What Ms. Lewis chooses to believe is for her to decide.


Mark A. Baker

Mark,
I've read this thread and it seems like you're saying that anyone can be a "Christian" if they believe they are b/c there is so much contradictory dogma that a "Christianity" does not exist. I get your background in history and philosophy--but you can be a bit condescending. There are people out there who know the roots of their faith and have managed to hang on to it without being willfully ignorant.

I'm not that well read about scientology--frankly most of what I know I learned from testimonials, this forum, OCMB, and xenuTV. What I gleaned (right or wrong) is that LRH was supposed to be "source" and disagreement with this meant you weren't a real Scientologist.

You obviously don't agree with this. You seem to want to separate LRH from Scientology (or disassociate Scientology from the things he said/did that were distasteful) and simply follow "the Code of a Scientologist, the Creed, or the tech dictionary" and practice auditing because it "helps people."

Am I totally off base here?

 

[Zinjifar]

Once upon a time there was a guy who got tired of hearing about cows leaving poop all over the fields. After all, while they did poop in the fields, they also did so much more!

So, he found a way to eliminate that feature of Cows and, while he was at it, he eliminated a lot of other things too and came up with his own version of 'Cow'.

'This is a Cow' he'd tell people and show them a hamburger. Most people would say, 'No, that's not a Cow; that's a hamburger', but, he insisted 'Well, *I* call it a cow!' So, for the sake of argument, most people just said 'Whatever' and dropped the subject.

Which would have been fine, except that people *still* insisted on talking about Cows pooping in the fields, which irritated the guy no end. 'Look,' he'd say, 'This is a Cow! Do you see it pooping in the fields?' and while they turned him a wary eye and began backing away from him, most people would just say 'Have it your way...'

And meaninglessness ruled the earth.

Zinj

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Mark,
I've read this thread and it seems like you're saying that anyone can be a "Christian" if they believe they are b/c there is so much contradictory dogma that a "Christianity" does not exist.

On the contrary, there are many christianities. Although only rarely can these be said to make a reasonable claim based on fact, and not simply myths & internal traditions, to reflect the actual teachings of jesus bar yusuf.

There are people out there who know the roots of their faith and have managed to hang on to it without being willfully ignorant.

Actually many of these are "unwillfully ignorant" as a result of their cultural conditioning. Having been brought up in a particular branch of christianity they most frequently adopt the myths of that particular church as representing "god's word". Therein the primary fault can be said to lie within in their respective religious institutions for perpetuating church doctrines based on considerations of utility and temporal influence as opposed to consonance with fact.

I'm not that well read about scientology--frankly most of what I know I learned from testimonials, this forum, OCMB, and xenuTV. What I gleaned (right or wrong) is that LRH was supposed to be "source" and disagreement with this meant you weren't a real Scientologist.

That is certainly how things play out in the Co$, and most especially within the Sea Org. It is not however how things are represented in the fundamental principles of scientology, nor how those principles were originally reflected in the early church. Old timers are quite clear about the gradual eroding of freedom which took place within the church as Hubbard sought to centralize control, eventually establishing the Sea Org, and using that institution to enforce obedience to his personal will. For several decades now that is all the scientology that church scientologists have known.

You obviously don't agree with this. You seem to want to separate LRH from Scientology (or disassociate Scientology from the things he said/did that were distasteful) and simply follow "the Code of a Scientologist, the Creed, or the tech dictionary" and practice auditing because it "helps people."

Am I totally off base here?

It's not a question of what I may "want" or "choose to believe". The fundamental books of scientology specifically lay out the general subject of scientology and its principles. Most especially the layout fundamental principles among which are the Codes & the Creed. These specify that the individual is his own ultimate adjudicator for all things in scientology.

Hubbard's personal claims to be "Source" could not and do not supersede these fundamental principles, especially in that this was in many ways a false claim. Involvement by many scientologists in the SO especially had a pronounced tendency to undermine their own individual sense of personal responsibility, substituting instead a "need to obey orders" and the ever present demands of "command intention". These SO members in turn have greatly affected the attitudes of other scientologists & non-scientologists as regards as to what it means to be a scientologist.

As above, for several decades this is all that many have known about the subject of scientology.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Zinjifar]

"Hubbard is Source" *is* the Fundamental Principle of Scientology.

Zinj

 

[Veda]

psst... Baker, It's NOT a "PR world."

From L. Ron Hubbard's 'Excalibur' letter of 1938:

"Living is a pretty grim joke, but a joke just the same. The entire function of man is to survive. Not for 'what' [any ideal] but just to survive... I turned the thing up [the 'dynamic principle of existence: Survive!'], so it's up to me to survive in a big way.

"Personal immortality is only to be gained through the printed word, barred note, or painted canvas or hard granite [or stainless steel]. Foolishly perhaps, but determined none the less, I have high hopes of smashing my name into history so violently that it will take a legendary form even if all the books are destroyed. That goal is the real goal [hidden agenda] as far as I am concerned. Things which stand too consistently in my way make me nervous.

"It's a pretty big job. In a hundred years Roosevelt will have been forgotten - which gives some idea of the magnitude of my attempt."


From Hubbard's 'Affirmations' of 1946:

"You are just and kind. [but] You are merciless to any who cross your rule..."

"You can be merciless when your will is crossed and have the right to be merciless."

"Your writing has a deep hypnotic effect on people and they are always pleased [VGIs] with what you write."

"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."

"Men are your slaves."


In October 1950, Dr. J.A. Winter, who had written the 'Introduction' to 'Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health', resigned in protest from the Hubbard Dianetic Foundation. He described the ideals presented by Hubbard as "lip service."

In March of 1951, John Campbell, publisher of 'Astounding Science Fiction', also resigned in protest against the "cult" of Dianetics.

Meanwhile, Hubbard was busy writing letters to the FBI describing many of his former Dianetic associates as communists and communist sympathizers.

Hubbard's letters to the FBI would continue for years. In 1955, he wrote that he had received a lucrative secret offer from the KGB to travel to Russia and work for the Russians but had turned it down. Finally, the notation, "Appears mental," was affixed to the file containing his many letters.

Six months earlier, Hubbard had written 'The Manual on Dissemination of Material' which instructed Scientologists to "NEVER PERMIT" (capitalization in original) Scientology to be "talked about contemptuously before a group," and to use the legal system and law suits to harass and, if possible, "ruin utterly."

A few months before that, Hubbard implemented what he called his "religion angle" and made Scientology a "Church." Around the same time Hubbard wrote the faux 'Creed of the Church'.

Four years earlier, Hubbard had written, in 'Science of Survival', of how those low on the "tone scale" (placement on the "scale" being easily determined by the person's reaction to Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology), should be, if they cannot be handled into thinking favorably of Dianetics, etc., "disposed of quietly and without sorrow." This was the early version of "handle or disconnect" from "SPs" that later became formal practice.

Scientology has always been a cult.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

If Mark Baker set up his own religion....The Church of Bakerology.

WHAT IS A BAKEROLOGIST Q & A:

What do Bakerologists believe?
Whatever people want to believe.

But, do they have beliefs or not?
It depends on the individual.

What does their scripture say?
Whatever people feel it says. People can read it or not. Follow it or ignore it.

Then what exactly is Bakerology.
Whatever people say it is.

Can you be another religion and a Bakerologist?
If you say you can you can. If you don't think you can you can't.

Is there anything at all that identifies a Bakerologist from any other religion?
No one really knows because Bakerology is all encompassing and has no limits. The very notion of trying to compare Bakerology to another religion, itself, shows human frailties that Bakerologists don't have.

How can one transcend these human frailities using Bakerology?
By thinking varying & contradictory thoughts at the same time and not surrendering oneself to the human folly of differentiating.

It seems that Bakerology can never answer a question. Isn't that a Q & A?
Why do you think this is called "What is a Bakerologist Q & A?"

 

[MichelleAsWell]

On the contrary, there are many christianities.

That's what I said, there is not A Christianity.

Therein the primary fault can be said to lie within in their respective religious institutions for perpetuating church doctrines based on considerations of utility and temporal influence as opposed to consonance with fact.

Since when does any faith rest on "consonance with fact?" That's why it's faith. Granted, you can't rationally deny evolution by saying the Devil put the fossils there to confuse us--but you can reason that a belief in God/Christ and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

It is not however how things are represented in the fundamental principles of scientology...

OK, so for you codes, creed, fundamental books of Scientology (dianetics?) contain the precepts of Scientology. Got that.

It's not a question of what I may "want" or "choose to believe".

Sure it is. That's the difference between believing and knowing.

These specify that the individual is his own ultimate adjudicator for all things in scientology.

So you "choose to believe" what you want about Scientology per Scientology...Do you not see the contradiction there?

Hubbard's personal claims to be "Source" could not and do not supersede these fundamental principles, especially in that this was in many ways a false claim.

Well, YAY!

As above, for several decades this is all that many have known about the subject of scientology.

I think I get it. You follow an "original Scientology"--one that does not contain the abuses of the COS--one that was primarily created by the people surrounding Hubbard --who had different purposes than Hubbard, etc.

Well, I wish you well -- Truthfully, the Scientology trap is the most insidious and destructive thing I've ever heard of and it scares the crap out of me that people are tinkering with each other's psyches using ANY part of it.

I may be naive, but I don't think you are duplicitous and I don't see you as a cult apologist--I think you've narrowed Scientology down to those things you can rationalize and accept with integrity. I hope what you believe helps you and has no part in hurting others.

Thank you for your responses to my comments.



Mark A. Baker

P.S. Sorry I don't know how to do multiple quotes--I know Paul has explained it multiple times

 

[pittny12]

No, it isn't, Panda. Especially now that there are so many perspectives on what constitutes belief in christianity.

Many people think of themselves as christians while nonetheless denying or rejecting the doctrines & dogmas of traditional christianity. And those are the ones who actually pay attention to the doctrines espoused by their respective churches. So many self-styled christians only go to church for the feelings evoked of membership in a social group.

Christian scientologist? No problem. To my mind, and with very rare exceptions, it's a silly thing to be. But can they do it? Yes, easily.


Mark A. Baker

As a Christian and studying and completely understanding the words written in the Holy Bible, YOU CAN NOT BE A CHRISTIAN SCIENTOLOGIST. If anyone reads and believes the doctrine of the bible would never utter the two words together. In states in the bible that:
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.
Deuteronomy 5:7 "You shall have no other gods before me.
Deuteronomy 6:14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you.
Revelation 3:15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!
King James Bible
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

And the most important quote from the Bible to validate my point further:

King James Bible
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

This basically means that the Bible states from Gods words to not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

Hence, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a TRUE Believer who wants to call themselves a Christian and believe that you can be a part of an organization of a founder that did not believe in God. These are the basics. There are people that call themselves Christians, but do not follow the word of God and thus can say something so completely ridiculous as yes, I am a Christian Scientologist.

I dont mean to step on any toes or offend anyone. These are not my words or laws, but Gods. Its as simple as that.

 

[Free Being Me]

Mark,

Hubbard defined himself as Source. He created $ci. Without Hubbard you wouldn't have any $ci to defend. It would not exist. $ci was created solely based on Hubbards opinion of existence. This avid and infinite hair splitting serves no real purpose.

Read KSW
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&Itemid=9

IMO, you're arguing for the sake of the argument. Who really cares if Juliette Lewis has a Christmas tree, what her belief spectrum is or how you need to define this earth shattering issue. Lewis is primarily a practicing $ci. That in itself says it all. The real concern is ending $ci.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

There are people that call themselves Christians, but do not follow the word of God and thus can say something so completely ridiculous as yes, I am a Christian Scientologist.

Exactly. However...normal rules do not apply inside the theme park called ScientologyWorld.

A Scientologist is a person who is trying to make their thoughts and words manifest in the physical world as "reality".

A Scientologist worships the notion of "creating new realities" and superimposing those "postulates" onto others in a way that "causes" them to "agree".

To a non-Scientologist, it's called lying and bullying.

When a Scientologist blithely speaks the provably untrue words "I am a Christian" they are simply practicing a religious ritual based on Hubbard's holy scripture. Freedom to worship, I think they call it.

And if you ask them why they are lying, they will not understand your question, quickly be offended and label you as a religious terrorist. Thereafter they will attack you for your own good. If they are an Indie Scientologist, they will helpfully try to point out which part of your bank is making you ask that question and suggest that you get much needed auditing.

To understand Scientology, you have to first understand that Scientologists do not care about that low level humanoid obsession with telling the truth.