Veda
Sponsor
I believe in reincarnation and no one has ever called me an idiot.
Are you sure that you're not being called an idiot for some other reason?
Such as for naively parroting old worn-out PR bullet points used by Scientology apologists?
I have a new opinion about Freezoners
- Thread starter Emma
- Start date
I believe in reincarnation and no one has ever called me an idiot.
Are you sure that you're not being called an idiot for some other reason?
Such as for naively parroting old worn-out PR bullet points used by Scientology apologists?
Clueless Morgan
Patron with Honors
Nope, I have had to face things a la "Oh my god, you're seriously a buddhist? How on earth can you believe in reincarnation?!"
Veda
Sponsor
Are you a Buddhist? And how do you think a Buddhist would respond to such a statement? Do you think it would bother him?
Frankly, if you want to be a fragile soap bubble - so easily "invalidated" - then you're going to have all kinds of problems, experiences that stick, and upsets.
Why be that way? It's not necessary.
What would Buddha do?
I believe in reincarnation too.
You might have missed the point. Most FZers are NOT Scientologists per the KSW definition. They can argue but they just aren't. They are a different breed to the Indis. They mix all sorts of stuff in with Hubbards tech, they post on critical forums, they don't belong to the HASI/IAS and a lot of them acknowledge that Hubbard has a dubious (I'm being kind here) past. Yet they call themselves Scientologists. To me that is a bit err..silly.
Infinite
Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Its across the board. The Independents, Marty Rathbun included, call themselves Scientologists but, by L Ron Hubbard's own definition, they are not. In fact, according to L Ron Hubbard, they are acting out their bank so as to avoid confronting their overts.
AnonKat
Crusader
Source
In the end Scientology isn't Ron and Ron isn't Scientology.
It's simple. He is not the onley Source many have put in their efforts.
Scientology is simply: Keep your eyes open and don't get fucked over
Ironicly most of them kept their eyes shut and got royaly suprise buttsexed
In the end Scientology isn't Ron and Ron isn't Scientology.
It's simple. He is not the onley Source many have put in their efforts.
Scientology is simply: Keep your eyes open and don't get fucked over
Ironicly most of them kept their eyes shut and got royaly suprise buttsexed
This is the definition of scientology?
That's a ringing endorcement for a philosophy any rational person would want to be a part of.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Scientology: It's not what you think it is, it's what you think, it is.
Clueless Morgan
Patron with Honors
So what you're saying is, calling yourself a scientologist when you're a freezoner is stupid, not being a freezoner per se?
Clueless Morgan
Patron with Honors
Are you a Buddhist? And how do you think a Buddhist would respond to such a statement? Do you think it would bother him?
Frankly, if you want to be a fragile soap bubble - so easily "invalidated" - then you're going to have all kinds of problems, experiences that stick, and upsets.
Why be that way? It's not necessary.
What would Buddha do?
It's not that that bothers me per se, what bothers me is that people can be ignorant enough to make such a statement. It just doesn't help anyone else if someone is being ignorant.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Neither is current CofS management and even low level staff. They've changed all sorts of things. They do things Hubbard never wrote or heard of. They practice "tech degrades" on a daily basis.
I also wouldn't say "most FZers" when I've known quite a few who were tech purists and probably are a bit more punctilious about their practice of "Tech" than are the people who:
- came out with basic books that Hubbard never heard of
- Have 6 month sec checks on OTVII (Hubbard specifically advised against that)
- not only created and enforced Golden Age of Tech drills but then said that people whose certs weren't GAT weren't as good. ("tech degrade")
And when I was in the cult, I was told to look up Scn terms in a Scn dictionary. If one does that, then one can find definitions that fit indies and FZers.
Not if one reads the tech dictionary definition.
Really, I would think people would be glad to see others not be so hidebound in their interpretation of their religion. Religious history and current events (Islamists, etc) is chock full of people who insisted on trying to establish some kind of purist thought and often killed for it.
Look around at many of the modern Christian sects. Do they practice Christianity like they did in the 1st century or the third or the twelfth? No, they don't. Do they call themselves Christians? Yes, they do. Look at how Judaism has changed. When Elijah, Moses or even Jesus were around- do you think there were Reform or Conservative Jews? No, there weren't. Do Conservative Jews call themselves Jews? Yes, they do. Would Abraham or Elijah have a heart attack if they knew? Probably.
And no way can anyone say this is some hobbyhorse I'm riding cuz I'm an indie-- since I'm not. I left labels behind over a year ago. But I am a rather avid student of history. It runs in our family.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
How nice for you. I personally have been mocked for it in the past.
Veda
Sponsor
Aren't the "Basic Books" mostly Hubbard's book from the 1950s? Here's a thread comparing book editions: http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=2678
Most of these "Basic Books" were transcriptions of recordings made by the Benzedrine&alcohol-enhanced Hubbard in the middle of the night, or were compilations, originally made by John Sanborn.
According to Jesse Prince, from 'The ever changing tech of Scientology':
"...this bulletin was effectively canceled by LRH himself... that's where it all started. All these actions were taken to increase income. It is the same with the six month sec checks...
"But I want to make it clear that the whole idea came from LRH not from Miscavige. Miscavige is continuing to carry out LRH's orders...
"...Miscavige is doing his best to forward Command Intention, which is contained in the huge LRH orders database of the INCOMM computer system of Scientology..."
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology/jesse.htm
Oh, c'mon. Hubbard did the same thing throughout the history of Scientology.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Aren't the "Basic Books" mostly Hubbard's book from the 1950s? Here's a thread comparing book editions: http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=2678
Most of these "Basic Books" were transcriptions of recordings made by the Benzedrine&alcohol-enhanced Hubbard in the middle of the night, or were compilations, originally made by John Sanborn.
According to Jesse Prince, from 'The ever changing tech of Scientology':
"...this bulletin was effectively canceled by LRH himself... that's where it all started. All these actions were taken to increase income. It is the same with the six month sec checks...
"But I want to make it clear that the whole idea came from LRH not from Miscavige. Miscavige is continuing to carry out LRH's orders...
"...Miscavige is doing his best to forward Command Intention, which is contained in the huge LRH orders database of the INCOMM computer system of Scientology..."
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology/jesse.htm
Oh, c'mon.
The Basic Books are bowdlerized and were released years after Hubbard died.
And, yes, you've proved my point nicely. The current administration changes stuff. Hubbard changed stuff. So saying that it's odd or silly or whatever that the FZ changes stuff and refers to themselves as Scn'ists is just not consistent.
Veda
Sponsor
"Bowdlerized" creates the impression that they were pure before they were "bowdlerized." Yet the mid 1970s (dark green cover) editions were, themselves, "bowdlerized" from the earlier editions of 1968, and those were "bowdlerized" from preceding editions. There were always slight changes. It was never "standard."
Scientology is a secretive doctrine. It's been one since the 1960s. Most Scientologists - in *and out* of the CofS - don't know what the heck Scientology is. And they don't know that they don't know. It's a clown parade with each clown judging the "standardness" of the other clowns' giant squeaking clown shoes.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Well, to bowdlerize something is to edit (in a negative sense) someone else's work...
And anyway, if it was never pure, then why is it a problem for anyone if a Free Zoner still continues to refer to self as a Scn'ist but not a problem for a churchie to do so? Still inconsistent and my point remains.
And anyway, if it was never pure, then why is it a problem for anyone if a Free Zoner still continues to refer to self as a Scn'ist but not a problem for a churchie to do so? Still inconsistent and my point remains.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
But it's the same thing. You and I have both observed that CofS changes things all the time. They do it to Hubbard's work whilst quoting from references saying that they can't do that. Hubbard revised his own work, we agree on that. And they all refer to themselves as Scn'ists. So it's the same if an FZer does it.
Q.E.D.
Q.E.D.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Hubbard said different things different times, but that is an idea I ran across in Scn, yes. I personally think that it's a bit different from that. My personal opinion (and this is ONLY my opinion) is that a sort of directed intelligence always was in existence and that at some point, it sent out bits of attention here and there and they did things and that eventually, they formed personalities based on their experiences. I think that since we all came from the same pool of theta/intelligence/spirit that we can be attuned to it. We can also meld back into it.
But I also think that if a being were powerful enough to play "god", that it might well do so.
But I also think that if a being were powerful enough to play "god", that it might well do so.