What's new
By:
Filters

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

Mark A. Baker said:
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
Click to expand...

Ack. Answer the question. I didn't ask about beliefs. I'm off the subject of Juliette Lewis or any individual.

If one were to learn that LRH thought Christ a pedophile and that Christianity was an implant are you saying to me that this would be compatible with Christianity, if say, a person wanted their own special version of Christian beliefs to be that they loved Christ regardless of his worldly homosexual passions and that it's okay if it's an implant because when they pray, it still feels good? I mean, what are you saying? You talk circuitous mumbo jumbo that is off topic. Just because I say this, though, does not make this an angry outburst (the standard 1.1 comment from the needler in the background whose purpose is to piss people off) Come on. Step up and confront the subject at hand.
 
Synthia said:
Ack. Answer the question.
Click to expand...

I did.


I didn't ask about beliefs. I'm off the subject of Juliette Lewis or any individual.

If one were to learn that LRH thought Christ a pedophile and that Christianity was an implant are you saying to me that this would be compatible with Christianity,...
Click to expand...


The fact of LRH statements of his beliefs about christianity does not require anyone else to hold the same beliefs. They can have any beliefs they may wish.

LRH might have a hard time reconciling those statements with a profession of belief in christianity of his own, but from what I've noticed about consistency in his statements generally I doubt very much that would actually have been a problem for him.

FWIW, I vaguely recall a rumor which circulated back in the late '70s - early '80s that Hubbard had been knighted by the vatican during a private audience . Its the sort of "honor" that is often granted to private individuals who have made large bequests to the rcc or performed some other similar service. I don't know if that story is in fact true. I do recall that the "shore story" put out by the church at the time was that the "family" regarded it as a "private and deeply personal" ceremonial. It wasn't so "private and deeply personal" however that they didn't encourage the rumor. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
 
Synthia, If I had heard, read, or been told that those were Rons beliefs. First, I would have verifyed the sorce. If LRH, I would have considered him a fool or a liar.:ohmy:

If I had already met John McMasters and set my goal for Clear, I would have been very confused about Scn. John personified all that I knew and loved of Christianity.:yes:

I would have talked with people on lines about this, and so To Ethics. Assuming the ethics handling. I would have blown.:yes:
 
Big Farmer said:
Lurking mostly recently, but this statement caught my attention.

Is this the *if it's true for you* thing ?:confused2:
Click to expand...

BF: Even if it were the 'what's true for you, is true for you' maxim: THAT was NOT really fully *allowed* the more you went into scn, anyways.

You would be given references, etc. about the thing/issue/belief that you are still holding that is contrary to whatever lrh is saying, until you then also agreed with lrh's 'truths'. (Especially in regards to say: Still believing/practicing another religion while practicing/believing in-especially advanced-scn).
 
Mark A. Baker said:
FWIW, I vaguely recall a rumor which circulated back in the late '70s - early '80s that Hubbard had been knighted by the vatican during a private audience . Its the sort of "honor" that is often granted to private individuals who have made large bequests to the rcc or performed some other similar service. I don't know if that story is in fact true. I do recall that the "shore story" put out by the church at the time was that the "family" regarded it as a "private and deeply personal" ceremonial. It wasn't so "private and deeply personal" however that they didn't encourage the rumor. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

So you're saying that this ONE TIME something really cool happened to LRH and the Church did NOT publish it????? when EVERY SINGLE THING else he and the church PR machine ever said about his accomplishments in life was a LIE?
 
Mark A. Baker said:
I did.





The fact of LRH statements of his beliefs about christianity does not require anyone else to hold the same beliefs. They can have any beliefs they may wish.

LRH might have a hard time reconciling those statements with a profession of belief in christianity of his own, but from what I've noticed about consistency in his statements generally I doubt very much that would actually have been a problem for him.

FWIW, I vaguely recall a rumor which circulated back in the late '70s - early '80s that Hubbard had been knighted by the vatican during a private audience . Its the sort of "honor" that is often granted to private individuals who have made large bequests to the rcc or performed some other similar service. I don't know if that story is in fact true. I do recall that the "shore story" put out by the church at the time was that the "family" regarded it as a "private and deeply personal" ceremonial. It wasn't so "private and deeply personal" however that they didn't encourage the rumor. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

So someone can have "solved" the entire mystery of existence to the point of using, exclusively, that person's operating belief as one's own, even if there are blatant inconsistencies in judgement, character and performance of that person by one's own observation and those of credible first hand witnesses.
 
Mark A. Baker said:
I did.





The fact of LRH statements of his beliefs about christianity does not require anyone else to hold the same beliefs. They can have any beliefs they may wish.

LRH might have a hard time reconciling those statements with a profession of belief in christianity of his own, but from what I've noticed about consistency in his statements generally I doubt very much that would actually have been a problem for him.

FWIW, I vaguely recall a rumor which circulated back in the late '70s - early '80s that Hubbard had been knighted by the vatican during a private audience . Its the sort of "honor" that is often granted to private individuals who have made large bequests to the rcc or performed some other similar service. I don't know if that story is in fact true. I do recall that the "shore story" put out by the church at the time was that the "family" regarded it as a "private and deeply personal" ceremonial. It wasn't so "private and deeply personal" however that they didn't encourage the rumor. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

Sorry. Your new response still sounds like the one below, to me:

Originally Posted by MARK A Baker

However, it depends on who is making the *statement* and what their intent is behind same--if it is a statement in fact, which can be interpreted variously, according to ones orientation.

Your use of the word *compatible* connotes a predisposition to not necessarily aligned vectors of consistent behavior, which I myself do not subscribe to, although it is your right to do so if psychological factors compel you in this unfortunate direction.

Regarding *other religions* it is a logical fallacy to assume that there is more than one religion or any religion at all, since faith based spiritual designations are man-made and have no basis in theology.

Finally, you use the word "word" without any co-linear, inherency attendant to its semiotic origins.

I have stated this as simply and clearly as I am able.

ML

Markab Aker
Click to expand...

Please try again. :)
 
Synthia said:
Did you go worship Jesus on a stick, if ya know what I'm sayin', nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more. :coolwink:
Click to expand...

The Good News (or New News if you want to phrase it like a OSA PR hack.:D) is that Christ doesn't care one way or the other how you worship him or whether you even worship him at all.

That's why he's cool.

And if you decide to take the path of Christian service, you're welcomed without a sec-check.
 
This is NOT OK !!!! said:
The Good News (or New News if you want to phrase it like a OSA PR hack.:D) is that Christ doesn't care one way or the other how you worship him or whether you even worship him at all.

That's why he's cool.

And if you decide to take the path of Christian service, you're welcomed without a sec-check.
Click to expand...

There is that cloaking device, though.
 
Mark A. Baker said:
<snip>

The fact of LRH statements of his beliefs about christianity does not require anyone else to hold the same beliefs. They can have any beliefs they may wish.

LRH might have a hard time reconciling those statements with a profession of belief in christianity of his own, but from what I've noticed about consistency in his statements generally I doubt very much that would actually have been a problem for him.

<snip>

Mark A. Baker
Click to expand...

This has been a really great thread. Or still is....with Mark taking the heat. :target:

Good posting everyone included. :coolwink:

I can understand the dilemma of being a Scientologist and a Christian. I came into Scn at 17, just having left out of parochial school. I had a very lenghty Catholic indoctrination. I don't think I took a lot of the myths of my religion seriously. You could probably say I had a pick and choose mentality about what was credible and what was an effort to control man by making him afraid of 'burning' in purgatory or hell. I resented it. I had this same inclination towards Scientology. Didn't believe all of Ron's stories or that anyone could cancel an eternity. Yet I considered myself a died in the wool Scientologist. Go figure. :confused2:

It was disturbing to say the least when I read the quote where Ron is saying ''...There was no Chirst" I attributed it to the same jealousy that Ron had had with so many biggies he fraternized with.
To my mind the 'Mysteries' were the glue that created the Christ cult following. There had been a lot of messiahs coming and going during those times. It is not entirely impossible that some were flim flam men like Ron said, or Simon Maguses. My gut said that where there was that much smoke about miracles there was probably a fire 'somewhere'..

The ideas about driving out demons or alleviating compulsions or making a body heal or mocking one up in an image to suit yourself, or existence being of higher and lower orders, or man being asleep to who he really was, or becoming aware so as to conquer the illusion of death, or using mental alchemy to reconcile the opposites, or initiations into the 'secrets' and an understanding of how things that are came to be; well it wasn't necessarily incongruent with Scn ideas in the 70s.

When I bombed out of Scientology and hit rock bottom I attempted to revert back....find comfort. Couldn't. There existed no WHO to look up to besides myself. There was just something bigger spiritually I needed to commune with.

What I am saying is that while Scientology might be anathema to a belief in a Big Guy who runs everything ....Oh SHIT...what am I saying? :unsure: For the most part, today's Christianity and the idea of a GOD who monitors everything are inseparable. OK. I get it. :duh:

'Scuse me. :whistling:
 
Last edited:
Hatshepsut said:
This has been a really great thread. Or still is....with Mark taking the heat. :target:

Good posting everyone included. :coolwink:

I can understand the dilemma of being a Scientologist and a Christian. I came into Scn at 17, just having left out of parochial school. I had a very lenghty Catholic indoctrination. I don't think I took a lot of the myths of my religion seriously. You could probably say I had a pick and choose mentality about what was credible and what was an effort to control man by making him afraid of 'burning' in purgatory or hell. I resented it. I had this same inclination towards Scientology. Didn't believe all of Ron's stories or that anyone could cancel an eternity. Yet I considered myself a died in the wool Scientologist. Go figure. :confused2:

It was disturbing to say the least when I read the quote where Ron is saying ''...There was no Chirst" I attributed it to the same jealousy that Ron had had with so many biggies he fraternized with.
To my mind the 'Mysteries' were the glue that created the Christ cult following. There had been a lot of messiahs coming and going during those times. It is not impossible that some were flim flam men of the age or Simon Maguses. My gut said that where there was that much smoke about miracles there was probably a fire 'somewhere'..

The ideas about driving out demons or alleviating compulsions or making a body heal or mocking one up in an image to suit you, or existence being of higher and lower orders, or man being asleep to who he really was, or becoming aware so as not to conquer the illusion of death, or using mental alchemy to reconcile the opposites, or initiations into the 'secrets' and an understanding of how the things that are came to BE; well it wasn't necessarily incongruent with Scn ideas in the 70s.

When I bombed out of Scientology and hit rock bottom I attempted to revert back....find comfort. Couldn't. There existed no WHO to look up to besides myself. There was just something bigger spiritually I needed to commune with.

What I am saying is that while Scientology might be anathema to a belief in a Big Guy who runs everything ....Oh SHIT...what am I saying? :ohmy: :unsure: Today's Christianity and The Big Guy who runs things up there are inseparable. OK. I get it. :duh:

'Scuse me. :whistling:
Click to expand...

:goodposting::wave:
 
I had to look up Juliette Lewis on Wikipedia. This is a Scientology 'celebrity' nowadays? Wow. Not exactly up there with John Travolta, is she? It turns out I own exactly one film that she appeared in: National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation.

We can dispense with the claims of a C-list 'celebrity' and known cult spokeshole if you like, but the underlying question is nothing new... and the underlying question is flawed.

This appeared on OCMB back in 2006, and probably before that, too. The flawed question is:

Is Scientology compatible with other religions?

And the problem is the presence of the word "other". What's it doing there? This just perpetuates the scam that began almost sixty years ago, when somebody reminded a middle-aged madman that he didn't have a license to practice medicine.

Religion? No. I think the Australian government's "cult like organisation" comes closest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top