What's new

A cult or not a cult?

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
[FONT=&quot]I don’t wish to lay on a Dagwoodism as just another confusing overlay to sort through as to whether Scientology is a cult or not a cult. Or to provide just another blabbering blurb about nothing like you so often find. But my take on it is that Scientology fails once again as it does not even measure up to being a legitimate cult in that it in no way mimics the orthodox in an unorthodox fashion to acheive any shred of legitimacy. Orthodox religion that becomes hijacked by a charismatic religious zealot who leads his flock astray by using grotesque misinterpretations of sectarian theology but only with a spin that places the flock under his sole control as the new prophet of his latest delusion would be a classic cult. But Hubbard WAS a prophet of nothing, much like Seinfeld did a show about “nothing” as he liked to say. But then it turns out he was a Scientologist when his comedy career took off and Hubbard’s concepts and beliefs in the gullibility of an audience no doubt influenced Seinfeld’s comedy writing. People are desperately gullible and will cling to the flimsiest of illusions and Scientology is such a flimsy illusion about nothing that it fails to even qualify as a cult. It is a scam about nothing. It’s a trap not a cult and is without ever so much as a cloak in which Hubbard could hide the dagger. It really only qualifies as a trap about nothing except parting you from your money by whatever trick necessary and is masked as a religion purely for the purpose of paying few taxes and having greater freedoms protecting it while leaving you largely unprotected. The pretense of religion gave him the perfect vehicle to run you over with. To call it a cult is to give it way too much credit and to call Hubbard a cult leader is to give him far too much credit. But then, he was only interested in your credit card. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As ". [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pink Floyd said "Waiting for someone or something to show you the way, ...Thought I'd something more to say". [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But maybe there is nothing more to say.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Or check with Merriam Webster’s and see whether or not the division in charge of the “C” words for the upcoming edition has it all figured out for you and your clay table mock ups.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dag MAB it, silly rabbit, tricks are for kids! :write:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:shithitfan:[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Taj,


Has anyone ever suggested that ESMB is here for the purpose mentioned (and now bolded) above?

I expect there are people here that intend to testify against the cofs but I doubt there are many and I dont think anyone can call the shots on how we post 'just in case' ... no-one would expect a message board to be a place where perfection is practiced and especially as most of the members have the occasional rant (and rightly so) about the many and varied negatives of the cofs etc.

What am I missing here?

:confused2:

Even if (from today) we all behaved ourselves (lol, some hope) there are enormous archives that can be accessed that show us in all our wonderful (and bad) glory ... many would probably not be considered reliable witnesses and those that do testify would probably not post here anyway or would post very carefully.

Not everyone is here to try and bring the cofs down, I myself change from time to time from wanting to see them gone to not giving a damn and I expect many are the same.

I'm certainly not taking it so seriously that it becomes the alternative to being a fully fledged cult (cofs) member.


:no:






What has baffled me about this thread is that in the OP I said people should be allowed to say what they think not be intimidated and bullied into only saying what is demanded by a bullying few.

And the responses I get is along the lines that "NO, you're wrong, people should be alowed to say what they think."

What the hell am I missing here?

I should have done it as a poll: Do you think that people should have to only speak the opinion and say what is allowed by a certain few?

Would people disagree with that?

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
What has baffled me about this thread is that in the OP I said people should be allowed to say what they think not be intimidated and bullied into only saying what is demanded by a bullying few.

And the responses I get is along the lines that "NO, you're wrong, people should be alowed to say what they think."

What the hell am I missing here? ...

I think what you are missing is that whereas in general people may agree that individuals should be allowed to speak without being bullied, for some particular individuals on the board who are prone to bullying others that really only holds true depending upon the views being expressed.


Mark A. Baker :whistling:
 

Wants2Talk

Silver Meritorious Patron
I think what you are missing is that whereas in general people may agree that individuals should be allowed to speak without being bullied, for some particular individuals on the board who are prone to bullying others that really only holds true depending upon the views being expressed.


Mark A. Baker :whistling:

With all due esteem, Mr. Baker, can't someone as wise, intelligent, and compassionate as yourself see how self serving, and self righteous this paragraph reads?
 

Jump

Operating teatime
I think what you are missing is that whereas in general people may agree that individuals should be allowed to speak without being bullied, for some particular individuals on the board who are prone to bullying others that really only holds true depending upon the views being expressed.


Mark A. Baker :whistling:

Or , to quote the State Department spokesman:

“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” Robert McCloskey
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
What has baffled me about this thread is that in the OP I said people should be allowed to say what they think not be intimidated and bullied into only saying what is demanded by a bullying few.

And the responses I get is along the lines that "NO, you're wrong, people should be alowed to say what they think."

What the hell am I missing here?

I should have done it as a poll: Do you think that people should have to only speak the opinion and say what is allowed by a certain few?

Would people disagree with that?

The Anabaptist Jacques



Lol ... I meant, why is this even an issue? I haven't seen the bullying few that are mentioned and if I had I would have tried to stop it, I loathe bullying and especially if it becomes a group mugging.

Of course people should speak as they see fit, but I thought that was what we were all already doing.

:confused2:
 
What has baffled me about this thread is that in the OP I said people should be allowed to say what they think not be intimidated and bullied into only saying what is demanded by a bullying few.

And the responses I get is along the lines that "NO, you're wrong, people should be alowed to say what they think."

What the hell am I missing here?

I should have done it as a poll: Do you think that people should have to only speak the opinion and say what is allowed by a certain few?

Would people disagree with that?

The Anabaptist Jacques

I think what you are missing is that whereas in general people may agree that individuals should be allowed to speak without being bullied, for some particular individuals on the board who are prone to bullying others that really only holds true depending upon the views being expressed.


Mark A. Baker :whistling:

This is true! :biggrin:

It would of course be outrageous to call any of you three hypocrites?
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
People can post whatever they like as long as they stay within the ESMB rules. There is a 'report post' button which anyone can use to report posts they think are 'beyond the pale'.

There isn't a 'censor' button, but most wouldn't want one.

Selah.

 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
It would of course be outrageous to call any of you three hypocrites?
:lol: Definitely!!! :lol:

We're probably just three like-minded (at least, in some ways) people.

Of course, we could also be a secret Cabal Of Three, sent here by Marcabians with orders to disrupt the usual harmonious nature of a Utopian ESMB.
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
The scripture of Scientology is filled with words and ideals of great humanitarian and spiritual value.

The actions of Scientology are unfortunately not.

Scientology gets a star-rated PASS on the theory section, but on the practical session should be FLUNKED and imprisoned, without remorse.

Tony O. Has a video of himself giving an interview to a NY news show on todays blog post. I think he sums it up very well. The beliefs are that the human spirit is eternal and has lived many times. The goal of Scno is to get in touch with this aspect of the human soul and reach our full potential. He didn't get into all the quirky Xenu crap, but I think this is still a good valid summary.

Where he took the Co$ to task is over all the abusive behaviors. He said that it has nothing to do with the beliefs - to the extent that it is based on LRH admin tech, I beg to differ. Of course, I'm willing to grant that the Co$ is reading LRH's writings in an extreme way, as has been known to happen in all groups. For example, I consider myself a Christian and will tell you that those assholes at Westboro Baptist do not represent my beliefs in any way.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Tony O. Has a video of himself giving an interview to a NY news show on todays blog post. I think he sums it up very well. The beliefs are that the human spirit is eternal and has lived many times. The goal of Scno is to get in touch with this aspect of the human soul and reach our full potential. He didn't get into all the quirky Xenu crap, but I think this is still a good valid summary.

Where he took the Co$ to task is over all the abusive behaviors. He said that it has nothing to do with the beliefs - to the extent that it is based on LRH admin tech, I beg to differ. Of course, I'm willing to grant that the Co$ is reading LRH's writings in an extreme way,

-snip-

This sounds like Marty Rathbun book-residue.

Firstly, you've already agreed with Hubbard's religion angle and religious cloaking. Game over at that point, Scientology wins.

It's explained in a dozen ways in many places, and I ain't 'spainin' it here, buy Scientology, the doctrine, is abusive, and Scientology is a psychological system, and a political system, not a spiritual system. Even its cosmology is psychological and political. It doesn't require extreme interpretation to be abusive.

That doesn't mean that I want Scientology, with its abusive doctrine, to be illegal. I don't, and I don't, because I'd rather live in relatively free society with abuses, than in a police state with (supposedly) reduced abuses. Nonetheless, it's incorrect to say that its doctrine is not abusive.

You're buying into PR lines, and old dusty PR lines at that, and I hope your depiction of Tony O.'s views is inaccurate, otherwise he's more "handled" than I thought.

How does it feel to be "handled" again by Scientology?

PS. (That last line is only half serious. :))
 
Last edited:
Top