What's new
By:
Filters

I AM A CHRISTIAN SCIENTOLOGIST

Pip said:
I am not just an ex-member of the CofS. I have been declared possibly three or four times, Com.Ev'd about three times, and expelled about five. My Ethics file is so big it needs a fork lift truck to move it!
Click to expand...

I love it!!

Ok, so anyone who's been whapping Pip in the face with what CofS does can now get a clue.
 
DagwoodGum said:
When we split hairs such as the purported Jesus/Christ differential we only lose track of what the essence of the investigation is about. It's about fraud and need not be sidetracked by flimsy semantics.
Click to expand...

I'm not splitting hairs. I just think accuracy is important. I think there's a profound difference in denying that Jesus existed- and I do have friends who don't think he even existed- and denying that Jesus existed BUT was God. To me, those are two very different points. Cuz, see, I'm one of those who think he really existed but was not God. To me, there's a BIG difference in thinking that he didn't even exist.

I dislike inaccuracy and I tend to get annoyed when people act as if Jesus' last name was "Christ". I wish critics would read more history.
So many critics are so bright and are such readers and such vibrant and inquiring people- so there's no excuse for such sloppiness, IMHO.

People sometimes take refuge in "Fluffy's splitting hairs" but they only do that when they're not paying attention to what I actually said. I'm more than happy to set y'all straight. I'm an historian's daughter and I kinda take after him in that respect.

So it clearly isn't "flimsy semantics".
 
Rmack said:
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure it is. I remember him saying just that. Does anyone have a link to the quote on this?

Besides; so what? Do you think anyone makes a distinction between 'Jesus' and 'Christ'? Not too many, I wouldn't think.



He contradicted himself on this. But, does it really matter? Whether he's calling J.C. a child molester, or saying the crucifixion was just an implant, it should be glaringly clear that you can't really reconcile the two religions.
Click to expand...

Your quote was that he denied JESUS. Actually, he said the man on the cross, there is no CHRIST. So to me, he's denying that Jesus was God. As I explained elsewhere, there are two types of ppl who don't believe in this stuff. 1) Ppl who think Jesus didn't even exist. -- I have friends who feel that way. 2) Ppl who think he did exist but was not God.-- I fall into this category.

Two different things. And unlike what was said to me on another thread, this is NOT hair splitting or semantics. The question as to whether Jesus existed or whether he did but was GOD are two different and distinct things.

As to what else you quoted, that's Fishman affidavit stuff. It's been discredited.

HOWEVER, I am NOT making excuses for Hubbard on this. It's obvious to me that he did not believe in Jesus' divinity which would be FINE if he wasn't also trying to (back then) get Christians involved in Scn on the grounds that it's compatible with Scn. That's contradictory.
 
Voltaire's Child said:
You're certainly enjoying the benefits of a spinoff that would not exist, were it for Hubbard, though, right? :coolwink:
Click to expand...

Not to split any hairs but, did you mean:

You're certainly enjoying the benefits of a spinoff that would not exist, were it not for Hubbard, though, right?

(addition of the word "not" before "for Hubbard")

This could be rewritten a few ways:

You're certainly enjoying the benefits of a spinoff that exists ony because of Hubbard, though, right?

or

You're certainly enjoying the benefits of a spinoff that only came to exist because of Hubbard's earlier activities, though, right?

Correct grammar and word usage . . . . . :confused2:
 
Hi RPX,

I only seem to get that at work with some of the vendor websites we have to go in on. Cuz server traffic or whatever making it slow.

Nah, I'm afraid that my typos on ESMB are due to personal inaccuracy.
 
SchwimmelPuckel said:
Well, imagining that there are beneficial spinoffs from Hubbard is no computer glitch.. That's a genuine brainfart!

:yes:
Click to expand...

Hubbard stole from valid sources. That his creation doesn't do what he says it did is true, but that parts of it don't do important work for a person would be false.

TIR and Metapsychology are not spinoffs from Scientology, they are correctly sourced, valid methods which are parallel to Scientology, in terms of areas addressed and in some cases, procedure. They do not claim to make clears or OTs, but instead claim to help a person better understand and control their abilities, intentions and goals, through facing and resolving whatever was blocking them.
 
Voltaire's Child said:
You're certainly enjoying the benefits of a spinoff that would not exist, were it for Hubbard, though, right? :coolwink:
Click to expand...

No. Again and again, I try to make it understood that Hubbard stole from valid sources and stamped his name on his reworded versions of other people's work, then sold it as Scientology.

I've benefited from Metapsychology and TIR, not from Scientology spin-offs. I had some benefit from some scientology procedure, too, because scientology was borrowing from Freud, Pavlov, Mathison and whoever else they could.
 
Pip, on your blog you state (In the "Possible FAQ" section)

"The founder of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, has said “I developed Scientology because of my love of understanding, and so it is that through Jesus we can understand love, and in Scientology we love understanding".
http://blog.christianscientology.info/

Would you please provide the source of this quote from Hubbard?

(or if anyone else knows the source of this quote, I would appreciate if you could direct me to the source)
 
uniquemand said:
No. Again and again, I try to make it understood that Hubbard stole from valid sources and stamped his name on his reworded versions of other people's work, then sold it as Scientology.

I've benefited from Metapsychology and TIR, not from Scientology spin-offs. I had some benefit from some scientology procedure, too, because scientology was borrowing from Freud, Pavlov, Mathison and whoever else they could.
Click to expand...

TIR is derived from Dianetics.
 
Voltaire's Child said:
TIR is derived from Dianetics.
Click to expand...

Dianetics is derived from Freud.

""What left the symptom behind was not always a single experience. On the contrary, the result was usually brought about by the convergence of several traumas, and often by the repetition of a great number of similar ones. Thus it was necessary to reproduce the whole chain of pathogenic memories in chronological order, or rather in reversed order, that latest ones first and the earliest ones last; and it was quite impossible to jump over the later traumas in order to get back more quickly to the first, which was often the most potent one." - S. Freud, Two Short Accounts of Psycho-Analysis
 
Last edited:
Type4_PTS said:
Pip, on your blog you state (In the "Possible FAQ" section)

"The founder of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, has said “I developed Scientology because of my love of understanding, and so it is that through Jesus we can understand love, and in Scientology we love understanding".
http://blog.christianscientology.info/

Would you please provide the source of this quote from Hubbard?

(or if anyone else knows the source of this quote, I would appreciate if you could direct me to the source)
Click to expand...
I don't believe Hubbard ever said that, nor do I believe he is capable.
 
TheRealNoUser said:
I don't believe Hubbard ever said that, nor do I believe he is capable.
Click to expand...

If he said it, it was while barnstorming and drumming up preclears at a local Christian Church.

Hubbard was completely disdainful of all religions, except his own interpretation of occultism.
 
uniquemand said:
Dianetics is derived from Freud.

""What left the symptom behind was not always a single experience. On the contrary, the result was usually brought about by the convergence of several traumas, and often by the repetition of a great number of similar ones. Thus it was necessary to reproduce the whole chain of pathogenic memories in chronological order, or rather in reversed order, that latest ones first and the earliest ones last; and it was quite impossible to jump over the later traumas in order to get back more quickly to the first, which was often the most potent one." - S. Freud, Two Short Accounts of Psycho-Analysis
Click to expand...

Just about every ology was derived from an earlier one. Many have been directly influenced by Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Christianity, Hinduism...the list goes on.

It is extremely doubtful that, had Hubbard not existed and come out with Dianetics, that Serge Gerbode would have developed- well, I won't say would have developed TIR- let's just say that I think if he did, it wouldn't be the way it is now.
 
Leon said:
I once knew a Jewish Scientologist who became a born again Christian. She saw no conflict in any of this. Said Scientology brought her to the foot of the cross.
Click to expand...

I would very much like to meet her.
 
Pip, while I support your right to believe whatever you wish, Christianity of any type is not compatible with Scientology IMO. When I worked in a Church of Scientology for 7 years we told people that it was compatible. But we "knew" that the ONLY hope of salvation was through Scientology. Hubbard reminded us of this time and time again. I'm going to quote my own post from several days ago in another thread (below) which will give you examples of what I am referring to. The CoS didn't accept you because you don't get it that SCIENTOLOGY is the solution. Not Scientology mixed in with Christianity or any other religion, but just pure Scientology, unaltered in any way. If you believe that any other religion or any other mental therapy is a necessary part of the solution then the CoS will not fully accept you. And they're just applying standard scientology as written in the scriptures by Hubbard.[/QUOTE]

Larry, one of the basic datums of Scientology is that all truth is relative, absolute truth is unobtainable. Note it doesn't say absolute truth doesn't exist, it just says it is unobtainable.

Christianity says that Absolute truth is a free gift from God.

It can be demonstrated that a relative truth can set you relatively free, all I am saying is that Absolute truth can set you Absolutely fee. Where's the conflict?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top