Freezoners, please answer these questions

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
my answer

I'm here cuz this forum rocks! Lots of interesting news and people. I've been around many forums and groups and this one is where I feel at home, thanks Emma!

About this churchie vs scientologists thing well. It's the same as Catholic vs Christian. In PT you cannot truely be a Scientologist and remain in good standign with CoS. You have to accept getting fucked and breaking your integrity to stay in CoS, unless you are too stupid to see outpoints and too weak to act on them anyways (the state of most CoS members IMO).

I don't say that is "CoS". I say that's current CoS management and culture as started by LRH and cristallized by DM. These things will change IMO and I don't lose any sleep over it. CoS today is at the same crossroad the Catholic Church was when Luther and Loyola appeared on the scene. Corrupt financing (Regges that lie, give money or lose eternity) monuments (Super Power building, Ideal Orgs) and fancied wars with "enemies" (Psychs).

In any case, remember what the old man said, it will all come out alright in the end. :coolwink:
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Hi uncle sam,

It is a while ago you asked for a clarification, I didn't get around to make a reply until now. I will PM to you in order to let you know that I made this reply:

I said three things:

1) One thing was about taking the viewpoint that a scientologist is a person in agreement with the official church and thus a Free Zoner is an ex-scientologist. But, that would of course only hold water if you define a scientologist as someone who is associated or an agreement with the church. Although I like to take that viewpoint I must admit that I looked differently on the matter earlier on. When we (me and some friends) splintered off from scientology in the time around 1983 we did actually regard ourselves as scientologists. But we found it had become very difficult to actually do scientology in a scientology organization, which is another way of saying that our understanding and application of the subject was something else but what was happening in the church.

2) The second thing was about taking a nuanced view at things.

3) The third thing I said was basically that what you have learned and found out yourself is yours.

As a matter of fact I don't know which parts of my post you did not understand, if nothing at all made sense to you, or if it is certain parts of it you are concerned about. I will be glad to elaborate further if you would want.

***

And then a note regarding the name "Ginnungagab". It is from the Norse Mythology. The correct spelling in English is actually "Ginnungagap" and in Danish it is "Ginnungagab". I chose to call myself "Soul of Ginnungagab" with that spelling, as I find it kind of authentic with a "b" at the end, but it is really just a nickname and thus can have its own spelling as a nickname.

In my signature I have put the correct English spelling. The signature is a slight change of the story of the creation from the Norse Mythology. The change is that I have told the story as a present time story "In the beginning is Ginnungagap" instead of "In the beginning was Ginnungagap" and similar in the next lines. The point is to put the the idea that the creation is something happening right now. The last line "From this pool of unlimited creative power great ideas are born." I made as an addition to this interpretation of the creation, a kind of conclusion you could say.

I will quote the entire signature here, so that it appears in this post in case I change the signature later on, which I have no plans of doing at the moment, but you never know, so it is just to make sure that the post includes what I am talking about:

In the beginning is Ginnungagap, the mighty gap with magical potential.
In the north there is Niflheim, the land of snow and ice.
In the south there is Muspelheim, the land of fire and heat.

From this pool of unlimited creative power great ideas are born.

The Freezone is free and does tech. Hope this answers questiions.
 

Carmel

Crusader
<snip>

For the sake of honesty and clarity, it'd be really nice if the people who don't swallow *all* of Scientology as Ron Intended would just call themselves Hubbardites. Which they won't, but, it'd be nice if they'd drop the 'That's Not Scientology, that's 'Church' of Scientology' codswallop.

By one definition of Scientology; 'uses Scientology Tech in his life', *I'm* a Scientologist because I sometimes use a dictionary.

Zinj

In reference to what I have bolded above, it'd be nice if some would drop the 'black or white' codswallop - 'cause it just isn't so. :whistling:

Scn did become a 'religion' for many. They adopted the culture, they forwarded the BS - their souls were sold. Others didn't buy the culture or what was being practised within the 'church', 'cause it was unpalatable and in direct conflict with what they believed in and not in alignment with the basic tenets of scn that were presented as such.

As has been revealed, much of what we learnt that we took on board, wasn't even Hubbards. The label "Hubbardite"? - no thanks. The label "Scientologist"? - nup, doesn't fit the bill either because that represents a certain mindset and culture prevalent in and forwarded by the CofS.

Despite intent and the full package of scientology, to some of us the 'carrots' that were presented as scientology and there for the taking, were what scientology WAS. Misguided, deceived, naive or whatever, it was the stuff we learnt and mostly chalk and cheese with what was prevalent and forwarded by the 'church'. If it wasn't scientology, then wtf was it? If this aspect of scientology had no credibility or presence within orgs, then most of us would have been out of there in a flash. The crap observable within the ranks of the CofS, is nothing like the 'red on white' that comes under the label of 'Scientology'. It's not a wonder that many who have studied the stuff will say "That's Not Scientology, that's 'Church' of Scientology" when referring to that which is practised in the Church.

How can we be expected to negate it and/or not differentiate between what were fresh juicy carrots and the other rotten poisonous slimey stuff? From my perspective, it's just BS that we are expected to group or lump the two together - they are more than slightly different. :grouch: :)
 

dexter gelfand

Patron Meritorious
Originally Posted by acertainratio
As I said in an earlier post, Scientology is a dark and dangerous thing with the potential to wreck people totally - physically, mentally, and socially.

People who have suffered this kind of damage have a strong desire to prevent other people going through the same trauma.

With the best will in the world, I don't see how people who have been through that hell can accept the idea that Scn outside the Cof$ is all fine and shiny.

I'm a big advocate of free speech, so I'm not suggesting that anyone should be silenced.

I have to be honest and say that my foremost inclination is to support people who have been hurt by the cult.

It would be good if the FZ'ers on this board would give some deep thought to the damage done by the subject that they hold so dearly, and the fact that many of the people here suffered that damage. Most of them I think, are here to work on their recovery, and help others doing the same.

So FZ'ers, please think about what you can do to make your presence here congruent with the fact that this is an ex - scientologists board.

Here's the big question:

If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?

None of these are trick questions, and I'm not asking so that I can duff you up when you answer.

As we know, there are plenty of FZ and independent boards; so why do you like to come here?

Those who are here to help themselves recover, and help others recover deserve a lot of consideration, in my view.

But as I say, I'm not into attacking free speech, and I'm not into expelling people, so I would like to hear something from you about how you can take part in debate on an ex - scientologists forum without undermining the basic purpose of the board or undermining the recovery of people who've been hurt by the subject that you hold dear.


The above is from another thread but I don't want this getting lost. I would like to see these questions answered.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Well Jacques, I believe I have as much right to reconnect with old friends as you or anyone else, and of course, my experience refutes your negative claims about Scientology. Other people's postings demonstrate that I'm not alone in my viewpoint here, any more than you are.

Although the forum is called "Ex-Scn", it is really an ex-CoS forum, allowing for free discourse from all viewpoints. Emma is not promoting a negative attitude toward Scientology, it is a "place" wherein anyone formerly associated with the CoS can find people who can understand and appreciate their experience and their views.

It is not merely an opportunity to "preach to the choir" of people who would disparage Scientology itself and insult those who disagree.

I am no friend or supporter of current CoS management, I don't consider LRH "God" or "perfect" or "infallible" or "the one and only source of all useful information", but my personal experience over thousands of hours of auditing people has given me certainty of the reliability of the tech.

I personally came into this forum after I googled my own name and saw a post from an old friend (EP) who stated in a post that he would like to shake my hand again, that he really liked me, going back to the days when I audited him in New York, and it went very well for him. I was curious to find out who he was, and to reconnect with an old friend.

Since then, I have found much interesting information through this forum, reconnected with a few other old acquaintances, made some friends and filled in some historical gaps for a few people.

I like it here, and I have come to like and admire some on this forum regardless of their not seeing eye to eye with me.

Love, Dex
 

GreyLensman

Silver Meritorious Patron
In reference to what I have bolded above, it'd be nice if some would drop the 'black or white' codswallop - 'cause it just isn't so. :whistling:

Scn did become a 'religion' for many. They adopted the culture, they forwarded the BS - their souls were sold. Others didn't buy the culture or what was being practised within the 'church', 'cause it was unpalatable and in direct conflict with what they believed in and not in alignment with the basic tenets of scn that were presented as such.

As has been revealed, much of what we learnt that we took on board, wasn't even Hubbards. The label "Hubbardite"? - no thanks. The label "Scientologist"? - nup, doesn't fit the bill either because that represents a certain mindset and culture prevalent in and forwarded by the CofS.

Despite intent and the full package of scientology, to some of us the 'carrots' that were presented as scientology and there for the taking, were what scientology WAS. Misguided, deceived, naive or whatever, it was the stuff we learnt and mostly chalk and cheese with what was prevalent and forwarded by the 'church'. If it wasn't scientology, then wtf was it? If this aspect of scientology had no credibility or presence within orgs, then most of us would have been out of there in a flash. The crap observable within the ranks of the CofS, is nothing like the 'red on white' that comes under the label of 'Scientology'. It's not a wonder that many who have studied the stuff will say "That's Not Scientology, that's 'Church' of Scientology" when referring to that which is practised in the Church.

How can we be expected to negate it and/or not differentiate between what were fresh juicy carrots and the other rotten poisonous slimey stuff? From my perspective, it's just BS that we are expected to group or lump the two together - they are more than slightly different. :grouch: :)

I think Ex-Scientologist fits. I certainly wouldn't accept Scientologist and Hubbardite is disgusting and insulting.

A Scientologist considers that the tech is wholly workable and sources it to LRH and adheres to the official bridge in the COS, doing services entirely within that framework, whatever it happens to be today.

I don't see the technology as inherently destructive. I do see the Church of Scientology as very destructive. I see that L. Ron Hubbard pieced together stuff, stole stuff from all over the place including from his own practitioners, claiming authorship and "Source" as his, a lie. I think LRH was batshit crazy toward the end and that he showed paranoid tendency from the beginning in 1949. I think you have to separate the tech from the church and then do a further separation into workable and unworkable - some of that last will be subjective as hell. I would throw almost all of the admin policy tech out as unworkable right off the bat.

One of the premises I use as an evaluation is does it work or not. If it works, then it has value as a technique. I don't think it is valid to blanketly discard all of Scientoogy practice as destructive.

It was taken from too many sources, and there are things that work, that's the trap - the processing DOES improve things and that justifies the culture and eventually blatant falsehood. Without those initial steps that work very very well, none of the rest would be possible.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Not everyone who still likes Scn says "that's not Scn, that's the church of Scn". That's a favorite accusation by some critics and it sticks because there are people who say that. I never have been one of them. I cheerfully admit that much of what's wrong with CofS was put there by LRH and that DM was taught by LRH to be the monster that he is. And I know lots of people who also have no problem admitting that and have done so on this and on other forums. So let's not generalize Freezoners and indie Scn'ists.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
My view would be that the comparisons/analogies from 'christianity' to Scientology are fallacious; often deliberately so. A 'christian' would be a follower (to whatever extent) of Christ. There is little question, except from some fundamentalist asshats :))) that Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Henry VII'ers, pentacostals yadda yadda are 'christians'. The Roman Catholic Church may make a claim to having been 'founded' by Jesus, but, even by Roman Catholic theory, there are any number of legitimate offshoots, which *maintain* apostolic succession, if that's important to you; which it is to them. And, even the Roman Catholics wouldn't dispute the 'christianity' of various *other* offshoots. (There is some quibble about the Mormons, which is actually a less than negligable quibble.)

However, Scientology was *founded* by one man, L. Ron Hubbard, and *Ron* defined the term 'Scientologist' and *Ron* left little to no quibble about what *He* would consider a 'Scientologist'. Admittedly, Ron also threw in lots of weasily bullshit about the issue and definition, but, His *intent* is clear to even most of the most theety weetie self-proclaimed 'Scientologist'.

Would there be something wrong with a non-'Churchie' calling himself a 'Hubbardite'? Hardly; the implication is merely that they're a follower of Hubbard, to *whatever* extent.

Now, to be honest, the whole issue is a bit of a red herring, especially considering how many 'Scientologists' do not want to be 'professing' Scientologists or 'known' as Scientologists. People can call themselves a lot of things. Some whacked out skinhead can call himself a 'nazi' if he wants and, nobody will care, even though the *real* nazis would liquidate him at first opportunity. Likewise, people can call themselves 'Scientologists' all they want. And, people can call themselves Roman Catholics all they want too, even if they don't accept the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals or deny the transubstantiation or the Virgin Birth. They're not, but hey, nobody cares.

The problems with the self-proclaimed 'Scientologists' only arrise when they get into discussions with other people who don't know much about Scientology (almost everybody on the planet) and begin redefining things to suit themselves.

Don't like 'Keeping Scientology Working'? 'Fair Game'? 'Scientology Ethics'? Disconnection'?

Don't agree with 'acceptable truth'? Bolivar? Taking over the world? Xenu and the Body Thetans? Green slime? Water-soluble radiation?

'Oh no! That's *Church* of Scientology! I use a dictionary and try to stay 'in exchange'! The rest of that stuff isn't Scientology! That's *Church* of Scientology!!!'

Scientology is just a word; a word coined or stolen by L. Ron Hubbard. When I discuss Scientology, I'm talking about the full and complete output of the Founder of Scientology; L. Ron Hubbard, who probably would appreciate being able to variously pull his magic rabbits out of the various hats depending on *His* audience, but, it isn't just the 'Church' of Scientology.

For the sake of honesty and clarity, it'd be really nice if the people who don't swallow *all* of Scientology as Ron Intended would just call themselves Hubbardites. Which they won't, but, it'd be nice if they'd drop the 'That's Not Scientology, that's 'Church' of Scientology' codswallop.

By one definition of Scientology; 'uses Scientology Tech in his life', *I'm* a Scientologist because I sometimes use a dictionary.

Zinj


No, because Scn doesn't have a corner on the dictionary market and because you don't consider yourself to be a Scn'is.
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
Not everyone who still likes Scn says "that's not Scn, that's the church of Scn". That's a favorite accusation by some critics and it sticks because there are people who say that. I never have been one of them. I cheerfully admit that much of what's wrong with CofS was put there by LRH and that DM was taught by LRH to be the monster that he is. And I know lots of people who also have no problem admitting that and have done so on this and on other forums. So let's not generalize Freezoners and indie Scn'ists.

DM has always been an asshole. There is no evidence he was "Trained" by LRH. Only a photo where he was his camera bitch.

DM is an idiot, I doubt LRH would have lost much time with him.

All this talk about DM or anyone being a "product" of CoS invalidates the native beingness and individualities of people in general. Typical psych think that we are animals and molded by our environment. Every being has a basic personality and that is molded with his time track of experiences. DM is an asshole and has been forever probably. He's made CoS what it is, not the other way around. You could focus CoS on any bit of policy if you wanted. DM made is abusive and stupid, as he is.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Weeeellll...there are some policies and HCOBs written by LRH that are just plain wrong headed. If you read Dianetics in Limbo you can see that LRH was pretty venal from the beginning. I do believe in free will and all that, but I do also think that LRH set the stage by doing and writing some things that weren't good. It was at LRH's behest that the RPF and the RPF's RPF was created. Freeloader debts, fair game, overboarding- those are not good things. So he'd created a messed up environment.

I do like a lot of Scn tech. I find it fascinating that someone doing things of the sort LRH was doing could come up with them. Yes, he borrowed some, but he came up with many formulae, processes, procedures, drills and many other methods that hadn't previously existed and which really do work. I know he indicated a few times that he'd been working on this stuff for many lifetimes- maybe that's how he did it. Scn has fantastic great stuff in it- I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But I don't believe LRH was blameless or that he was without influence on DM.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
But I don't believe LRH was blameless or that he was without influence on DM.

Whatever apologies may be made for Hubbard, he was alive until January 1986, and at least somewhat in his right mind for much of it. If he wanted to find out what was going on he could have found out. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But any excuses that he was "kept out of the loop" are silly. Maybe people did lie to him, but he still had the choice of believing them or not. Whatever admin lines he chose to use he chose to use. If DM "conned him" then it was with his connivance - he sure was no victim.

Paul
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
indeed

You cannot have a 'discussion' with an Anti-Cult cult member about anything and that includes an ESMBer when their minds are so fully immersed into an anti-cultic mindset, they cannot think for themselves, they can only think with that anti-cult viewpoint, where is the discussion in that?

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson

This from Epic YMCA dude ^^^^^^^^^^^^^:coolwink:
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
You cannot have a 'discussion' with an Anti-Cult cult member about anything and that includes an ESMBer when their minds are so fully immersed into an anti-cultic mindset, they cannot think for themselves, they can only think with that anti-cult viewpoint, where is the discussion in that?

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson

Right-o. The thing is, everyone's an individual. Not all Freezoners are like all others. Some are tech purists, some are far from that. Not all critics are fully immersed into an anti cultic mindset, but some are.
 
Top