What's new
By:
Filters

I have a new opinion about Freezoners

dexter gelfand said:
I think its perfectly ok to simply allow someone to post an opposing or provoking statement, and not necessarily toss up a counter- reaction every time. Its probably best to maintain one's equilibrium. There really isn't anything at stake here. Its not like many people are swayed to change their thinking by such posts, especially when something is expressed in a demeaning way anyway. I think sometimes there is a misplaced anxiety about the imagined effects of allowing posts that oppose one's own viewpoint.
Click to expand...

duty_calls.png
 
Veda said:
The Scientology FreeZone and Independent Scientology consist almost entirely of Xenu Bridge people. Non-believers are merely tolerated oddities, and almost anything can be overlooked if the person knew Hubbard, saw Hubbard lecture, or was in the same room with Hubbard, and breathed the same air as Hubbard; and it helps to have some laudatory "Ron" stories.

Most Scientologists want to do their "Bridge," and that's the Bridge of the 1970s and 1980s. [not bits and pieces of the "Bridge"]. It's taken two decades for the "bits and pieces" idea to sink in, and now it's an "acceptable truth" used by some Scientology Zoners to mollify curious outsiders.

Be careful not to confuse a PR-oriented Zoner, who uses the "good bits and pieces" idea as camouflage to mislead, with someone who sincerely does use the "good bits and pieces."

Usually, if the person is trying to convice another that the good bits and pieces are Scientology, that person is doing a PR handling on behalf of Scientology.

Just as some people take years to recover from the Hubbard mind-groping of (much, but not all of the) OT levels, so do some take years to recover from the need to defend and protect an airbrushed PR version of Scientology.
Click to expand...

dexter gelfand said:
Actually Veda, that is incorrect. Here's why: A "standard tech", "KSW" Scientologist has the mindset that it would be sacrilege and a "suppressive act" to deny any "LRH" material. They could never utter the "bits and pieces" thing, or easily admit to theirselves that they have any doubts about any part of it. They would be castigated by their like-thinking colleagues. I think you can agree with that, if you think it through.

One can rest assured that any practitioner who openly expresses disagreement with any part of the package is being sincere.

Veda, I think that often you make good points, and obviously you are far from ignorant about the the subjects you discuss, but sometimes, for me, your statements expose an overriding (at times, not always) drive to demean Scientology, and you become reckless and irresponsible when that does happen. I would ask that you read over your statements thoroughly before posting them.

Love, Dex
Click to expand...

Please note that I wasn't necessarily referring to a "practitioner" but to a "PR oriented Zoner." And a "PR oriented Zoner" interacting with "curious - [and often critical] - outsiders." Where? In this case, on ESMB.

"Acceptable truths" are used by "PR oriented" Scientologists. It's part of "Scientology Tech."

I don't want to argue with you about this because you haven't completed your study of the doctrine of Scientology. In some ways you're still a novice.

So, I'll let it go.
 
FinallyMe said:
If there is an "Anglican Catholic" church, I would bet that the "catholic" is associated with the definition of "universal" or "pertaining to mankind" rather than to the Roman Catholic church and its association with its Pope.

Episcopal indicates that the church is headed by a bishop. For instance, there is a Methodist Episcopal church, which would be a Methodist church that is headed by a bishop. Perhaps "Anglican Catholic" is similarly indicative of the nature of the church.
Click to expand...

You wrote: "Perhaps "Anglican Catholic" is similarly indicative of the nature of the church."

I'd say you are correct. It may well be used in the context of "universal" versus as referring to the church in Rome.

The other side of the coin is that Americans do have a tendency to screw with our wonderful English and make it difficult for true believers in English English to get what it is they are on about :D

Throughout the old Brit Empire (Oz, NZ, Canada, etc) we only ever heard of the "Church of England" and sometimes the "Anglican Church."

R
 
RogerB said:
You wrote: "Perhaps "Anglican Catholic" is similarly indicative of the nature of the church."

I'd say you are correct. It may well be used in the context of "universal" versus as referring to the church in Rome.

The other side of the coin is that Americans do have a tendency to screw with our wonderful English and make it difficult for true believers in English English to get what it is they are on about :D

Throughout the old Brit Empire (Oz, NZ, Canada, etc) we only ever heard of the "Church of England" and sometimes the "Anglican Church."

R
Click to expand...

I just googled "Anglican Catholic" and discovered that it was formed in 1977 as a reaction to the "other" Episcopal Church admitting women as priests, and changing the Common Prayer book. I had forgotten the part of the Apostolic Creed that states belief in the "apostolic and catholic church" - small "c".

Besides, American's can't understand a word English people say, so we HAVE to make up our own words and phrases!
 
RogerB said:
I'd say you are correct. It may well be used in the context of "universal" versus as referring to the church in Rome.
Click to expand...

Actually "universal" is how the church in Rome uses it also. As it has since its inception seen itself as THE "universal" christian church.

The original christian church was a sub-sect of judaism and was founded in the city of jerusalem. This served as the principle church and leadership of the nascent christian community until it ceased to exist in the late first/early second century. This came about as a result of continuing rebellions by the jewish community in palestine and its subsequent suppression and exile by the Roman state. The original church, being semitic in origin, did NOT style itself "catholic".

Other christian denominations are known to use the term catholic as a part of their denomination also.


Mark A. Baker
 
Good lord, man. How many whipping boys do you think they need here?

Well, whatever it is, I'm glad I'm no longer one...I much prefer silk scarves... :coolwink:
 
Hey,

There's alot more to the FZ conventions than one might imagine.

you should come next time - It's going to be in Las Vegas in October 2011. Exact time and place not yet set...but reserve the weekends that month...

more later....I'm still trying to catch up with what I've missed over the last few days

Marina

Veda said:
Thank you.

The Scientology FZ, and Independent Scientology, and Ron's Orgs, are a transitional stage for many, and those who remain there - who don't transition, or evolve - are dull (yes, "f__king stupid"), or in deep denial, or lost, or (essentially) hypnotized, or just enjoy going to FZ conferences to talk about what they see as the "good old days" (when they were young), or are people who just want to make a living providing "Bridge" services to the steady stream of folks leaving the CofS who still want their (Xenu) "Bridge," or are con men, "users," or "sharks," who take advantage of the above sincere FZoners.

The FZ serves a purpose, of sort, and that's why I think ESMB should have a SCN FZ/Indie SCN/Ron's Org section at the bottom of the MB. It's an entry point for some and, if they look upward, on their computer screen, a transitional step.
Click to expand...
 
Oh hi! Hi everyone.

Ok..... sorry..... I've changed my mind again.

Freezoners are fine, it's English cricket fans that I don't like this week.

Sorry for any inconvenience. :blush:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top