I AM A CHRISTIAN SCIENTOLOGIST

[Clarence Rockaway]

In ANY religion there is usually a LARGE amount of "data", or "dogma", or "scripture", or whatever. There is LOTS of it, often with many contradictions in meaning and expected behaviors. At ANY point in time, at point in history, some group or person of authority decides which exact points will hold the most importance, which will possess the least importance, and with all other aspects of the "faith" lining up between those two extremes. This CHANGES with time, depending on WHO is doing the interpreting. The magnitude of importances and the relationships between various notions SHIFTS and CHANGES over time. That is just the way it is human human societies and groups (when examined over longer periodds of time).

There are two aspects to it. There is the raw data - the "dogma" (the subject materials), and there is WHAT any group of people does with it in terms of interpretation, sorting out of meaning and importances, and actual behavior with other people. Yes, the "materials" DO DEFINE AND ENCOURAGE certain behaviors. But, the force on various points differs for each religion, and changes over time with each. Currently, some aspects of Islam and ALL of organized Scientology are extremely FUNDAMENTALIST (sticking 100% to "what is written").

Christianity was insane for a great part of its history. But also, and not that this excuses it, but the ENTIRE WORLD has been insane for the great majority of its history. Today, in modern times, Christianity is NOT at all the SAME as it was in 16th Spain during the Spanish Inquisition. Personally, as I see it, to still carry a strong feeling of dislike towards Christianity, today, implies that the person with such a view is somewhat stuck and obsessed with the PAST.

Such a person enters "omitted time" into their framework of thinking by disregarding that these "crimes of Christianity" are largely in the past, and ANY such crimes that exist today (bombing abortion clinics, beating up gays, etc.) are committed by a VERY SMALL segment of the Christian population.

It doesn't matter that Christianity has "so much blood on its hands" - Christianity (as some "thing" to like or hate) is only an ABSTRACT IDEA. There is no such thing as "Christianity" outside of the general diverse subject materials, and WHAT any person DOES with those materials at any time. Today, most people do NOT use it to encourage or justify any sort of "religious crime". Most people are involved with for 1) a sense of community, 2) SOME form of encouragement to try to be a better person, and 3) a spiritual connection and/or guidance. THAT is what it is to and for most people TODAY.

Any IDEA about it "having all this blood on its hands", other than as an historical fact of the PAST, is created in YOUR HEAD, and then you react emotionally against this self-created IDEA. I mean, sure, if Catholic priests were dragging people out of their homes, conducting shame "trials", and then torturing and murdering heretics NOW, today, in modern times, then HELL YEAH, GET MAD and FIGHT it until they are GONE. But, that is NOT today's actual situation.

I suggest that you get into PT.

A fervent Christian has just murdered 84 or so innocent people in Norway yesterday. Is that PT enough for ya?

 

[Gadfly]

A fervent Christian has just murdered 84 or so innocent people in Norway yesterday. Is that PT enough for ya?

The key word here is "fervent". As in over-the-top fanatical. Don't make the mistake of forming an opinion on some group based on the behavior of a VERY EXREMELY SMALL segment of that "group". I know many Christians who would say that this guy's behavior is NOT Christian and they want nothing to do with such behavior. :confused2:

Fervent people of all ilk committ horrendous acts. They are the rare examples and NOT the norm. Except in cases where the behavior is tightly based on the "dogma" (subject materials) and has been carefully and systematically institutionalized into them, such as fundamentalist Islam and Scientology. That is not the case for MOST Christians - not today in this modern era.

I deal with real people. Most of the people I know who identify themselves as Christians are all kind, caring and do their best to be "honest decent people". As far as I am concerned, they can be and believe whatever they want as long as they PRACTICE honesty and decency with others.

 

[guanoloco]

Thanks. This is one of the most valued response I've received on any message board. I'm thrilled to learn of this as it mirrors much of what occurs to me naturally with regard to religion, specifically Christianity. I knew nothing of the French philosopher Pascal.

You are very welcome! You're above post is one of the best I've ever gotten, as well!

 

[DagwoodGum]

Thanks for your post Type4_PTS, and I do understand where you are coming from. I know from a human point of view the CofS can appear a very damaging organisation but when I look at the calibre of the people on ESMB I see real survivors. We all got into Scientology of our own free will, and I believe we are better people for our experience. I have been beaten up, kidnapped, tricked, publically declared insane and had my friends turn their backs on me, but I am still here and enjoying life. It is not for us to stop people getting involved with the CofS, our job is to offer them a better alternative. The last thing I want you to do is "give me a break". The only people I would like to "give me a break" is the CofS, and so far that does not appear to be about to happen. I make no secret of it - I promote ChristianScientology as an alternative to the CofS.

There is an interesting verse in Matthew 5 v39 where Jesus says resist not evil or in more modern versions do not resist an evil person. Some Christians are amazed when I point out this verse, but the fact is, when we resist evil we energise it. The CofS resists Psychiatry which only antagonises the whole mental health scene, which in turn restimulates the Scientologists.

Scientology is a soulish organisation and as such its raison de'tre is survival, and so it will fight to the death.

A wild animal was never tamed by attacking it, any entity bent on survival can only be tamed by love and understanding. ChristianScientolgy has nothing to do with religion as man would define it, it is religion as God would define it. James 1v27.

Yes, we can subscribe to the "that which doesn't kill me only makes me stronger" theory. But really, looking back, can't we all conceive of many MUCH better ways to have spent our lives, time and money for far greater pearls of wisdom at nowhere near the total expenditure of time and money while sparing us the torturous rape of our minds and souls???? Minds and souls are very slow to heal it seems.

 

[guanoloco]

3) There is a difference between thinking we are one and knowing we are one. Ron says if we have a bad arm it is no good postulating a good arm. We need to recognise the original postulate was a good arm and the bad arm is a second postulate. To restore the arm to a good arm it is necessary to postulate a bad arm which will cause the second postulate to unmock and one will be left with the original good arm. The same would apply to Oneness verses separation.

The variant of this that I remember is that you don't audit out a bad arm...you audit out a good arm.

That's what I remember.

But, I also remember that all illness and injury was due to a PTS-sit and, presumably, a bad arm would be due to an illness or injury; hence, a PTS-sit.

Go figure-figure...

 

[guanoloco]

Most of them were Congregationalist, Episcopalian, or Presbyterian.

There were two that we might call non-Christian deists: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin.

Hey, you better let this guy know!

Founding Fathers were primarily Deists, Holmes says
News · W&M News · 2006 archive · Holmes on Founding Fathers
Author: Suzanne Seurattan, Source: W&M News
Date: Jul 13, 2006

After more than 40 years of religious study, David Holmes says the dominant lesson of his research is that each of us, far more than we know, is the product of our religious background and training.

The religious scholar and William and Mary professor is the author of numerous books. He spoke recently about his latest work, Faith of the Founding Fathers, at the Williamsburg Regional Library. In the book, Holmes examines the religious environments that shaped these men and the ways in which they expressed their faith. They, too, the author said, were products of their religious environments.

During his talk, Holmes detailed the beliefs and influences of the founders of this nation, including George Washington, James Monroe and Thomas Jefferson. The predominant theology of the early Colonial period was Deism, the idea that God created the world but then had no further role in its functioning, Holmes explained to the audience.

“It’s wrong to see [Washington] as other than a Christian,” Holmes said. He added that the best description of Jefferson’s religion was Unitarian while noting the author of the Declaration of Independence called the concept of the Trinity “Greek arithmetic.”

For Jefferson, there were no miracles, according to Holmes, who said that the third U.S. president removed all human embellishments from his Bible, including the miracle stories. “Jefferson was never an Anglican,” Holmes added.

In the main, openly talking about religion was not good form, a fact that made piecing together their beliefs challenging, the author told the audience.

Monroe, Holmes said, was silent on the topic. He was so private about his faith that it was not mentioned in any of three eulogies given for this American hero upon his death.

Holmes described the Founding Fathers as “remarkable, even noble men” who respected the teachings of Jesus, whose beliefs were far from atheistic and who, except for maybe Monroe, believed in a life after death. Yet, he noted that their thinking may not be what Christians today expect. “These men fit the category of men of faith,” he said, “though that faith is different from the faith of most Christians today.”

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Did this mainstream religion murder six million of your people? You really need to curb this compulsion you have to be the referee in this dispute. It's very unnecessary. You make no headway with me whatsoever. and while your intentions may be good, you are super annoying. I'm going to flatten this satanic bastard, and there's nothing you can do about it. I've got the God of Abraham on my side, and he's got that lying demonic false Messiah on his. Say Kaddish for him.

I don't care whether or not you find my responses annoying. That's really not my problem.

Religion didn't murder six million Jews. Or the other several million murdered in WWII by the Nazis. They murdered out of racial bigotry. The Nazis actually disliked Christianity. They thought it was only useful for social get togethers and for women. They much preferred occultism.

 

[SomeGuy]

I don't care whether or not you find my responses annoying. That's really not my problem.

Religion didn't murder six million Jews. Or the other several million murdered in WWII by the Nazis. They murdered out of racial bigotry. The Nazis actually disliked Christianity. They thought it was only useful for social get togethers and for women. They much preferred occultism.

I agree this is a common misconception. The nazis were looking for racial purity, the religion side of it was just a nice way for them to explain it to the common folk. They murdered another 6 million that were not jewish, a fact often overlooked.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I agree this is a common misconception. The nazis were looking for racial purity, the religion side of it was just a nice way for them to explain it to the common folk. They murdered another 6 million that were not jewish, a fact often overlooked.

Exactly!!!!

They thought Christianity was only useful to keep people in line. I don't even think they invoked Christianity that often, if EVER, when they were instituting their insane pograms and genocide.

From everything I've read, I have the impression that they were mostly not even Christian.

 

[Pip]

Watchman Nee's Book..."The Latent Power of the Soul" is available online http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/bookcat.htm and is one of the best explanations of soul vs spirit power and his other books are very good also..."Release of the Spirit" is invaluable. The paradox to live one must die (to self) is summed up and sheds light on the Death Burial and Resurrection that even non-believers can see the benefit of using it as an allegory to deal with the ego and selfish pride that traps the mind and soul in the lower tone scale where we find the "degraded (lost) beings.

Thanks for that xguardian. The only book of Watchman Nee's I have read is "The Normal Christian Life". I will have a look on line.

 

[Pip]

ps...I sent you a PM with a link you might like.

I did, thanks!

 

[Pip]

Pip, if you were saved by Christ then just whom did Christ forgive?

In other words, what is your case level as a Scientologist?

Did you know that OT Levels are by invitation only? As an orthodox Christian you would never be allowed to do the OT levels due to prohibition against "Other Practices."

So just what is your case level?


/////

It is important not to confuse Christianity and Scientology, to be able to combine the two one needs a thorough understanding of both. Scientology is dealing with the soul, Christianity is dealing with the spirit.

My case level as per Scientology is Clear. I was sort of aware that the OT levels were by invitation but back in the early '70's it was just expected one would go onto the OT levels.

I am not an "orthodox Christian", in fact, I am not a 'Christian' at all, that needs some explanation. Christian was not a name that believers in Jesus Christ called themselves, this was a name that non-believers gave them. They called themselves "followers of The Way". Historically the first recorded self confessed Christian was Emporor Constantine, so if we were to be completely accurate, Constantine was the founder of Christianity and he was certainly not a believer. Jesus did not come to start a new religion, but to restore a relationship. Firstly with our Creator and as a result our fellow man. So you see it would not come into the catagory of "other Practices" whereas the religion of Christianity would.

As I said my case level as per Scientology is Clear, my state as a "born again" believer is OT.

I hope this helps.

 

[Pip]

reply to "gadfly"

First, the notion "Native State" means MANY different things to many different people. It exists largely as an IDEA entirely divorced from any reality, and since the idea is not at all rooted in any observable anything, what people see, feel or imagine this "native state" to be is wildly variable. And, how this "native state" relates to other things and ideas, as ideas, is wildly variable from person to person. Starting ANY conversation with a largely undefined term that does NOT share some widespread commonly accept meaning sets it up for a loss. It doesn't refer to, define or point to ANY actual reality that people can look at sharing a similar viewpoint.

I am sure you are right “Native State” many would find difficult, however most Christians would be able to duplicate it. Call it “original innocence” or in Scientology terms “What you were before you ‘mocked yourself up’” or perhaps theta.

Second, you throw out the term "native state" as if it is some "real thing". It may be. And, maybe not. Not as you conceive it, and maybe not as others conceive it. It is mostly an IDEA that has no connection to much of anything outside of any person's imagination. It is like a unicorn. Nobody has ever actually seen one, but there are lots of people who like to think and talk about unicorns.

If we define ’real’ as that which we agree is, then “native state” is a ‘real thing’ just as unicorns are. Neither has to exist in the physical universe to be real. In fact everything has to start off in the imagination. “Considerations are senior to mechanics”

So, that is bad enough, but then you attach that vague notion with another concept of Scientology that means different things to different people - "power". Power as what? Ability to hold a position in space? The potential to do work? Speed of particle flow? What the fuck does the word even mean? Or more to the point, what ACTUALITY does it represent? Outside of a vague and shape-shifting IDEA?

When I did Power (Level V) it was very real, in fact it cost me several hundred pounds. All your definitions of power are useful, but they are all effect. I was using it more in the context of cause.

When I say the word "tree", well we all have seen a tree. When I say the word "fast", probably all of us have seen at least a few examples of things "going fast". When I say the word "mental picture", most of us can recall a time that we thought about and "looked at" some "mental picture". But, "native state"? What "thing" does THAT refer to? My point is that while it MIGHT refer to something, and I am very familar with Hubbard's and other similar ideas, there is no thing that people have a shared common experience with here, that they can talk about, as with a "tree", "fast" or "mental picture".

That’s interesting that you use “mental picture” since that is one of the most elusive concepts I know of.It took me ages to realise when Ron talked about “mental image pictures” he meant something one could actually see. To date I have never seen a mental image picture.

So, your first sentence starts with the connection of two horrendously abstract notions. Simply, because of the vagueness, it can mean anything to anyone. That is NOT a "good thing". And, to make matters worse, those two ideas are wrapped in Scientology-related nonsense (significance).

I can see that “native state” and power might be somewhat confusing but as a ChristianScientologist they seem to me quite complimentary.

Next, saying that there is some level above communication, where "communication" is another Scientology loaded-term. And, of course, the term "communion", outside of some vague relation to a cool book on alien abductions by Whitley Strieber, has NOTHING at all to do with anything mentioned in Scientology.

Communion is certainly hinted at in Scientology, since its technical definition would be “Co-existence of static” The ability of two no-things to occupy the same space at the same time.

The notion of "communion" is entirely alien to Hubbard's paradigm ("alien" - get it?). But, I am sure through some amazing arbitrary personal definition of terms, jumping through hoops of logic, and intense mental gymnastics, somehow the notion of "communion" can "make sense" in some Scientoogy-related context. Most of Scientology, and Christianity, are flawed enough as it is, but putting them both together?

I am completely in agreement with you that both Christianity and Scientology contain flaws, but when expressed in terms of each other, the flaws in both are eradicated, at which time you might rightly say “Oh My God!”

And, "communion" is another term that defines no exact specific thing and means something very different to different people. So, we then have you somehow relating "communication" and "communion", which basically again says nothing - not outside of the imaginations of most people.

Yes! The heart of Christianity is communion and the essence of Scientology is communication. So together is where the Absolute and the Relative become one.

The last line tipped me over the edge though. That LRH issue, while I like some of it, is the ONLY place in all of the HUGE spewings of Hubbard that mentions the concept of "love", and the ideas in it were NEVER applied by Hubbard himself or encouraged to be applied by Scientology members. In fact, following all other LRH policies makes it quite IMPOSSIBLE to apply "loving others despite all reasons not to do so". Of course, if you choose to ignore and omit a great deal of the "stupid" LRH ideas, well then MAYBE.

Again I couldn’t agree with you more. Love is indeed the missing factor in Scientology, and without being “born again” it remains “just a wonderful idea”, and Ron was not born again.

Ron sums up nothing in his issue, "What is Greatness". He tosses out some ideas, probably as "fluff" to act as one of the "nice and attractive ideas" designed to sucker and keep people in.

It is my conviction that Ron meant every word of “What is greatness” his difficulty was in ‘practicing what he was preaching’.

 

[Pip]

It's the chief insane asylum in New York City. It's a bye-word for nut house in the USA.

Thanks for the info, Clarence. Presumably 'nutty' smells don't get noticed so much in 'nut houses'

 

[Pip]

If your armor is provided by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob then you have it. If it comes to you through the twin brother of Satan, Jesus Christ, all you have is a delusion. And since you quote the N.T. as your source, I fear it's the latter.

Now Clarence! You know that Abraham was a "friend of God" because of his faith, but his armour was obviously not complete because he was still fearful (passing off his wife as his sister!) Hence we now need the full armour of God.

 

[Pip]

When he ceases to declare it to be holy and sacred and waving it about in the face of those who are on this site to discuss Scientology, I'll stop bashing it. Otherwise, you might as well ask me not to smash a cockroach, were I to find one on my kitchen floor.

Just to whom are you referring?

 

[Pip]

To him, it is holy. So what.

Look, there's a mainstream religion I have a really low regard for. I won't say which as it may hurt someone's feelings. But if someone came here saying "I'm that and it's holy and I love it and it's good" I wouldn't scream at the person and denigrate his religion.

If he asked me what I thought, I'd politely share my trepidation and concerns, in a candid but civil manner.

Oh do tell, even if you have to PM me. I would hate to have missed one out!

 

[Pip]

Did this mainstream religion murder six million of your people? You really need to curb this compulsion you have to be the referee in this dispute. It's very unnecessary. You make no headway with me whatsoever. and while your intentions may be good, you are super annoying. I'm going to flatten this satanic bastard, and there's nothing you can do about it. I've got the God of Abraham on my side, and he's got that lying demonic false Messiah on his. Say Kaddish for him.

Clarence to whom are you referring? Who is this person you are "going to flatten"?

 

[Pip]

A fervent Christian has just murdered 84 or so innocent people in Norway yesterday. Is that PT enough for ya?

This person in Norway may well profess to be a Christian but on theTV it was reported he was involved with freemasonry which "fervent Christians" pray against as satanic.

 

[Pip]

The key word here is "fervent". As in over-the-top fanatical. Don't make the mistake of forming an opinion on some group based on the behavior of a VERY EXREMELY SMALL segment of that "group". I know many Christians who would say that this guy's behavior is NOT Christian and they want nothing to do with such behavior. :confused2:

Fervent people of all ilk committ horrendous acts. They are the rare examples and NOT the norm. Except in cases where the behavior is tightly based on the "dogma" (subject materials) and has been carefully and systematically institutionalized into them, such as fundamentalist Islam and Scientology. That is not the case for MOST Christians - not today in this modern era.

I deal with real people. Most of the people I know who identify themselves as Christians are all kind, caring and do their best to be "honest decent people". As far as I am concerned, they can be and believe whatever they want as long as they PRACTICE honesty and decency with others.

There is a great difference between fervent and fanatical. I am fervant but not fanatical.