What's new
By:
Filters

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

Synthia said:
Yeah, and then I would go, "What? I paid $300,000 grand for this?" then I would sit back for a second and say, "Okay, yeah, that makes sense. Okay, yeah :thumbsup:" :D
Click to expand...

You guys are seriously making me hate my brown rice, bok choi and tofu dinner that I had thought was so damned delicious (really, I added pineapple and mirin...and...!$$#@, I give up) . I'm moving back to the Midwest and going to eat myself into terminal obesity. Gimme butter, pork, corn and potatoes dammit. Bacon is my new god....
 
Marcus, my friend, no problem. It would take much more than the words of a liar and con man, for me to turn my back on my Lord and Savior. Good for your mother.

HH, first I love your humour ! Now to answer your question, no YOU will not die, and yes it is free, always was and always will be.

Love ad Light,
Pat
 
Synthia said:
Yeah, and then I would say, "What? I paid $300,000 for this?" then I would sit back for a second and say, "Okay, yeah, that makes sense. Okay, yeah :thumbsup:" :D
Click to expand...

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

I forgot to mention the film on OT III that they show you...

It's Ron in the stands at a Chicago Bears football game (wearing a Bears hat and jacket), stuffing huge portions of deep-dish pizza and Chicago dogs in his mouth at the same time, screaming "Hell Yeahhh, that's what I'm fucking talking about!"

Yeah, it's restimulative--that's why it's on the OT levels.
 
HelluvaHoax! said:
:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

I forgot to mention the film on OT III that they show you...

It's Ron in the stands at a Chicago Bears football game (wearing a Bears hat and jacket), stuffing huge portions of deep-dish pizza and Chicago dogs in his mouth at the same time, screaming "Hell Yeahhh, that's what I'm fucking talking about!"

Yeah, it's restimulative--that's why it's on the OT levels.
Click to expand...

:omg::hysterical::buzzin::hysterical::clapping: :notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

I can't breathe.
 
clamicide said:
You guys are seriously making me hate my brown rice, bok choi and tofu dinner that I had thought was so damned delicious (really, I added pineapple and mirin...and...!$$#@, I give up) . I'm moving back to the Midwest and going to eat myself into terminal obesity. Gimme butter, pork, corn and potatoes dammit. Bacon is my new god....
Click to expand...

Oh yeah! Now you're talkin' my language. Come on over! Pineapple? Psshh! That's for Pina Coladas only.

(Hey Paul, got a spare tilde? :coolwink:)
 
HelluvaHoax! said:


Here, let me help you...

I just downloaded some Bakerology Translation Software on my computer and I can plug it in and see what he is talking about.

"The subject of scientology is NOT laid out as a "revealed truth" philosophy or religion." ​

TRANSLATION: "The Grade Chart does not exist. Nor did it ever exist. And even if it did exist, it would not be part of Scientology. Your human shortcomings and feeble attempts to understand Scientology amuse me."
Click to expand...


Okay, so, let me get this straight. So, Zinj said, essentially, that if you're gonna say your subject leads to TRUTH REVEALED, you've rather set yourself up for an absolute result, right? It's not HALF TRUTH REVEALED or SOME TRUTH REVEALED. It's simply TRUTH REVEALED (plus handling amnesia on the wholetrack and having the ability to operate with or without a body, at will and a bunch of other god like abilities).

So, anyway, Zinj says if you're gonna say that you are gonna deliver that and then when you consistently don't, well, one should rather reject that sales pitch altogether, right?

So, instead of Mark saying, "Hey, Zinj, you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Even though Scientology doesn't deliver what is promised, it still has some stuff worth keeping and using. It shouldn't be rejected altogether, IMHO."

Instead he says, "Scientology never promised you anything. It never claimed anything. It is nothing. It is not about truth." in an attempt to refute Zinj's poignant statement? Do I have this understood correctly?
 
Synthia said:
----snipped----
Instead he says, "Scientology never promised you anything. It never claimed anything. It is nothing. It is not about truth." in an attempt to refute Zinj's poignant statement? Do I have this understood correctly?
Click to expand...

This would be a good point to work it out in clay.

Clay Demo Assignments:

1) Demonstrate what happens when a person listens to Ron Hubbard and tries to make sense out of his delusional ramblings.

2) Demonstrate what happens when a person listens to a student of Ron Hubbards who did not understand, agree or follow what Hubbard said--but instead began to lecture about a ficticious, squirrel Scientology that never existed, electing himself as the true Source.

3) Demonstrate how you will escape from a mental institution if you keep trying to make sense out of what these people are spewing.

​
 
HelluvaHoax! said:
This would be a good point to work it out in clay.

Clay Demo Assignments:

1) Demonstrate what happens when a person listens to Ron Hubbard and tries to make sense out of his delusional ramblings.

2) Demonstrate what happens when a person listens to a student of Ron Hubbards who did not understand, agree or follow what Hubbard said--but instead began to lecture about a ficticious, squirrel Scientology that never existed, electing himself as the true Source.

3) Demonstrate how you will escape from a mental institution if you keep trying to make sense out of what these people are spewing.

​
Click to expand...

My clay demo:

http://www.gndesigns.net/portfolio/insanity.php
 
Synthia said:
My clay demo:

http://www.gndesigns.net/portfolio/insanity.php
Click to expand...

That says it all perfectly!

When I find myself talking to a Scientologist who is spinning fictional, imaginary meanings into already delusional Scientology technology....I try to remind myself that:

To a Scientologist, words & ideas are merely currency to buy what they want. They manufacture new words and substitute new definitions to old words at no cost. And, the words have no meaning from one moment to the next. They "invest" and "leverage" words into another person in order to get a return on their investment--that the person does what they want them to do.

Wogs call this deception.
 
Synthia said:
Okay, so, let me get this straight. So, Zinj said, essentially, that if you're gonna say your subject leads to TRUTH REVEALED, you've rather set yourself up for an absolute result, right? It's not HALF TRUTH REVEALED or SOME TRUTH REVEALED. It's simply TRUTH REVEALED (plus handling amnesia on the wholetrack and having the ability to operate with or without a body, at will and a bunch of other god like abilities).

So, anyway, Zinj says if you're gonna say that you are gonna deliver that and then when you consistently don't, well, one should rather reject that sales pitch altogether, right?
Click to expand...

Well, just for the sake of 'clarity' (g) and while I'm enjoying and even agreeing with both your and Hizonner H's points, what I was saying was *not* that Hubbardism 'leads to revealed truth' but that 'Scientology *is* Revealed Truth'

It's axiomatic; Ron is *Source* and *KNOWS* and has deigned to let you in on the secret. Scientology is 'knowing how to know' and the trick there is to 'Listen to Ron', because He Knows All.

Naturally, Mark understood me and, rather than address the issue of Ron's bootstrapped philisophical levitation he chooses to distract to Christianity, which is not only 'revealed truth' but makes no bones about it.

Unfortunately for him, Christianity as derived from the teachings of *Christ* makes few directly testable (and falsifiable) assertions. Christ made no claims as to a geo-centric cosmology; no claims as to evolution or the history of man and therefore, no elements of *revealed truth* that can be directly refuted.

Ron; not so lucky. Ron made deliberate and clear and absolute claims that are *easily* refuted.

Now, I'm not a Christian, so, it might seem odd that Mark believes that he can distract me by by waving a christian red herrings in my face, even if he could point out historical use of fish symbols by Christians.

*My* point was that it's hard to argue with 'revealed truth'. Until it 'reveals' that it's codswallop. And, all that's necessary for that is to show that *any one element* of the *revealed* truth is wrong, because *that* reveals that the revelation *isn't*.

It's just normal, made up bullshit.

Zinj
 
HelluvaHoax! said:
That says it all perfectly!

When I find myself talking to a Scientologist who is spinning fictional, imaginary meanings into already delusional Scientology technology....I try to remind myself that:

To a Scientologist, words & ideas are merely currency to buy what they want. The words have no meaning from one moment to the next. They "invest" and "leverage" words into another person in order to get a return on their investment--that the person does what they want them to do.

Wogs call this lying.
Click to expand...

and...carnival barkers call it a "good schtick"...
 
Zinjifar said:
It's axiomatic; Ron is *Source* and *KNOWS* and has deigned to let you in on the secret. Scientology is 'knowing how to know' and the trick there is to 'Listen to Ron', because He Knows All.
Click to expand...

Try actually reading some of the basic books sometime, Z, instead of simply pontificating your prejudices. :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker
 
Mark A. Baker said:
Try actually reading some of the basic books sometime, Z, instead of simply pontificating your prejudices. :eyeroll:Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

HELPFUL SHOPPING HINT: Zinj, don't buy the Basics on impulse! Wait until the after-Christmas sale when prices are slashed.
 
Mark A. Baker said:
Try actually reading some of the basic books sometime, Z, instead of simply pontificating your prejudices. :eyeroll:
Click to expand...

But seriously, Mark, didn't we decide to not use this lame comeback last year when you asked me that same poignant question with all tone-40 bold caps...

"HAVE YOU EVER EVEN READ THE BASICS BOOKS?!!!"
​

Remember I told you that before you had even heard the word Scientology I had read them all several times and was supervising and C/Sing the Briefing Course?

That question kinda really backfired on you, didn't it?

Why do you go back to this unworkable tech of asking that question again? You can do better than this!
 
HelluvaHoax! said:
lolololololololololololololol

it was a joke dude!!!
Click to expand...

THis is serious bussiness !


http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=20618

company_logo.jpg
 
HelluvaHoax! said:
But seriously, Mark, didn't we decide to not use this lame comeback last year when you asked me that same poignant question with all tone-40 bold caps...

"HAVE YOU EVER EVEN READ THE BASICS BOOKS?!!!"
​

Remember I told you that before you had even heard the word Scientology I had read them all several times and was supervising and C/Sing the Briefing Course?

That question kinda really backfired on you, didn't it?

Why do you go back to this unworkable tech of asking that question again? You can do better than this!
Click to expand...

:yawn:

Which is simply an attempt to deflect from the point that which Z has referenced is in direct contradiction of the subject of scientology as laid out in the basic books. :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker
 
Mark A. Baker said:
:yawn:

Which is simply an attempt to deflect from the point that which Z has referenced is in direct contradiction of the subject of scientology as laid out in the basic books. :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

'Contradictions' are essential to Scientology. You don't even deny them and instead veil your own sophistry in them. For every archly expressed 'Think For Yourself!' Ron includes a subtler 'This Is True. This is what you Think. The Real You; The Clear You! The You Unaberrated by that nasty Reactive Mind!'

We shall not speculate as to why you choose to pretend that Ron As 'Source' doesn't claim Absolute Truth, because He made no bones about the necessity to maintain the proper 'gradient' when dealing with wogs.

Zinj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top