iScientology.org - A new home for Independent Scientology?

[Jquepublic]

As regards that slippery slope, I think are going to have to be seen to enforce KSW, which has already started with Steve Hall's Fabulous Facebook Freakout and which will require the use of 'Ethics Tech' and ultimately sec checks. It's inevitable.

I agree, Smilla. You can't adhere to KSW and still cherry pick. The whole "Indie agenda" is predicated on their being more "standard" than the church and adhering to Ron's policy more directly than the church. Read a few of those exit novels at Marty's blog and it becomes clear - the majority of what's in those announcements has nothing to do with red on white violations. Once in a while they take a swipe at GAT but for the most part, their disagreements are based on management policy - green on white - and they quote, verbatim and at GREAT LENGTH, each and every policy they feel is being violated.

And for the sake of any possible confusion, I capitalized the I in Indie. I'm not talking about the FZ, or non-KSW Scn, I am speaking directly about the group Marty et al are forming and don't want to get into a lengthy derail on how not all non-CoS Scientologists believe the same thing.

 

[MissWog]

Confessional = Sec Check = Overt/Withhold handling.

Confessional is a polite, politically correct word and doesn't really ping people's buttons like Security Check does. The procedure is identical, supposedly Confessionals are for the PC's benefit and Sec Checks are to ensure the security of scientology but the distinction is moot.

It's the same thing with the False Purpose Rundown, the Evil and/or Destructive Purpose Rundown just doesn't quite have the same social acceptability, right? It's all about perception from a PR and Public acceptance viewpoint. Scientology has done this sort of thing since forever.

One of the earliest examples I can personally recall is when the Guardian Office Intelligence Bureau (B1) was renamed "Information" but I bet Veda can tell us about other examples of Hubbardian word-shift.

YOU JUST PINGED MY BUTTON!!!!
Confessional = Sec Check = Overt/Withhold handling. ???? WTF????? just sayin' this is way too much bullshit.. Please do not think I am rude..but have y'all been Scn to long to know what a real Judeo-Christian confession is?
NEWS FLASH.. you can talk to your Rabi or Priest or Minister.. but it does not matter how much you lie to those PEOPLE because GOD knows the truth..

I'm not a believer but I know the rules.. and at the end of the day, at the end of life, standing at the pearly gates.. It will not matter five fucking seconds what you said in confession to the Priest.. God knew what you were thinking.. and soooo while you are at it accept [STRIKE]Xenu[/STRIKE][STRIKE]Jesus [/STRIKE]Flying Spaghetti Monster as you Lord and Savoir..'cause ya never know!!



PANDA..I just used your comments to riff off of.. not in ANY WAY attacking you!!!

 

[Free Being Me]

NEWS FLASH​

Here are some examples of beliefs that people are entitled to.

Klu Klux Klan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

The Inquisition(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Salem Witch Trials: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Human Sacrifice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

Adolf Hitler quote: "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."
(Reichstag Speech 1936) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Hitler_quotes

Humorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism

Blood Letting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting

Demonic Possession: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_possession

Galileo affair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Beliefs should be challenged, examined, and analyzed. The convenient excuse that people are entitled to their beliefs as a shield to deflect critical thinking, especially when said beliefs have lead to physical, emotional and financial harm in the past as well in the present, is just that, an excuse. Beliefs have real world consequences.

The post I made is a general offering countering the fall back offered on the board that people, in particular Scientologists, are entitled to their own beliefs. The examples listed were beliefs that had horrendous consequences. Evaluating today, what were past beliefs, commonly accepted or declared by fiat during their respective times, gives perspective as to the implications of belief and consequences. Each one of the listed items were a result of accepting that belief, without question. Hence the direction of my post, to examine one's beliefs in conjunction with historical outcomes. Scientology as a belief system has produced the exact opposite of the beliefs stated by LRH.... yet people still believe.

No, you said:

You were arguing that Scientologists are not "entitled to their own beliefs".

Even all those Scientologists who have never harmed another? Just because they might, someday, maybe harm others? Because the Church of Scientology harms people?

You claim that those beliefs "have consequences", even when the believer has done no harm? Not "might have" but "have".

And I only said:

Would you care to explain how that statement is "defending the cult"? I was defending the right of people, including you, to have their own thoughts, even if you or I don't like those thoughts.

Understand that I will argue with True Believers when I disagree with what they've said, but I will never attack them because they believe. That is their right.

I'm very proud of my position, but I did not and do not defend the fucking cult and I find your putting words into my mouth to be insulting.

Bill

The middle quote, first sentence' "The post I made is a general offering countering the fall back offered on the board that people, in particular Scientologists, are entitled to their own beliefs." was further expounded yet looking at it again, was incomplete as I should have added unchallenged at the end of that sentence, my mistake made in haste.

No, Scientologists are entitled to their own beliefs. Always have been, always should be.

I've stated that Scientologists use the excuse of belief to shield critical thinking in my first above quote. The way your quote is worded, you speak of an entitlement without examination, no evaluation or moral testing, simply a blank check. As such, without rigorous critical exploration of Scientology beliefs, you're defending their beliefs and even state you won't attack (challenge?) them due to those beliefs.

Scientology per Hub, is an action based belief system, so your argument that beliefs at rest without action is spuriously misleading. Were Scientology a meditative, passive belief system, I would care less. Hub demands a scio to get that stat, KSW, locate the sp, reg a course/auditing package, conduct an OSA op, ethics/RPF the down stat, get the psyches, blame big pharma, clear the planet, always attack, pay for the bridge, really some crazy beliefs entrenched upon the indoctrinated Scio.

Had you said scio's are entitled to their beliefs with a given that such beliefs are open to dispute, I wouldn't have stated you're defending the Hub cult, irregardless of your comfort or indignation.

 

[Smilla]

Alongside critical thinking, we could put evidence based thinking, and then we're ready to rock.

 

[omnom]

Alongside critical thinking, we could put evidence based thinking, and then we're ready to rock.

Let's be careful with "evidence-based thinking" as a blanket term, though. This can easily lead to logical fallacy ("Well, if it works for you, it works!"), on through pragmatism, and eventually to Hubbard's furthering the idea that "The ends justify the means" is somehow ethical (on a philosophic level).

I like critical-based thinking, and evidence-based verification. Without resurrecting the Philosophy thread, there's more to it than a few non-contextual precepts (TWTH, anyone?)

 

[Smilla]

Let's be careful with "evidence-based thinking" as a blanket term, though. This can easily lead to logical fallacy ("Well, if it works for you, it works!"), on through pragmatism, and eventually to Hubbard's furthering the idea that "The ends justify the means" is somehow ethical (on a philosophic level).

I like critical-based thinking, and evidence-based verification. Without resurrecting the Philosophy thread, there's more to it than a few non-contextual precepts (TWTH, anyone?)

I'm definitely not into 'if it works for you, it works'. Personally, I want verification before I assign truth to a claim. Until then it goes into the 'unproven' file.

 

[Panda Termint]

YOU JUST PINGED MY BUTTON!!!!
Confessional = Sec Check = Overt/Withhold handling. ???? WTF????? just sayin' this is way too much bullshit.. Please do not think I am rude..but have y'all been Scn to long to know what a real Judeo-Christian confession is?
NEWS FLASH.. you can talk to your Rabi or Priest or Minister.. but it does not matter how much you lie to those PEOPLE because GOD knows the truth..

I'm not a believer but I know the rules.. and at the end of the day, at the end of life, standing at the pearly gates.. It will not matter five fucking seconds what you said in confession to the Priest.. God knew what you were thinking.. and soooo while you are at it accept [STRIKE]Xenu[/STRIKE][STRIKE]Jesus [/STRIKE]Flying Spaghetti Monster as you Lord and Savoir..'cause ya never know!!

PANDA..I just used your comments to riff off of.. not in ANY WAY attacking you!!!

LOL. Understood but just the same...Relax! It's just words. I spent my formative years as a Catholic Altar Boy. I'm very familiar with The Confessional as a practice.

In the post you quoted, I'm simply answering your question; in scientology there is a procedure known as a Confessional, the procedure is exactly the same as the procedure known as a Sec Check, the primary difference being that when delivered as a scientology Confessional the Auditor actually does give the PC a scientological form of Absolution at the end of the Confessional ( in Confessional Procedure it's called Forgiveness). I forgot to mention the brief period in scio-time when Sec Checking was re-named "Integrity Processing".

It's all the same/similar thing and, oddly enough, almost any scientologist who has been audited on O/W tech will have most likely experienced some sense of relief at having "told all" to an Auditor. When it's used as a procedure to benefit the PC it seems to work just fine. People generally do feel better for having confessed their sins.

Scientology and Hubbard's obsession with finding out what the PC has done wrong is, of course, one of the many places where things went way off the rails. There's actually a Hubbard-penned issue called "O/W, a Limited Theory" (or something like that) where he talks about the inadvisability of pushing this stuff too far. As with many things he said/wrote, scientologists have some difficulty reconciling these contradictory things.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Rather than an accurate view, its actually a contradiction in terms.

To someone not in the know, perhaps.

 

[Infinite]

To someone [STRIKE]not in the know[/STRIKE] who speaks English, [STRIKE]perhaps[/STRIKE] defnitely.

No charge.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Actually this is the wrong discussion board.

Even among those members of this board, myself included, who do find value in the tech of scientology, none of us are in the least ways "purists". Those individuals who speak out in defense of aspects of scientology tech members on the board are most definitely NOT apologists for all things hubbard.

Those who are frequent other haunts. There have been individuals who have stopped by for a brief time over the years, but they are routinely met with a hostile reception from the more vociferous critics. Invariably they decide they don't need the abuse and take off for greener pastures. More's the pity.


Mark A. Baker

I do think there's a perception that y'all are total purists and KSWing thingamabobs. It's not true. It varies from person to person. Anybody who truly read your posts would know you're not one. I'd say Terril might be a bit closer to being such but I know him to be very tolerant of non purist views.

But I see there's also a perception that I'm trying to say Scn's valid. I mean XB's comments to me, polite and interesting as they were, were based on that premise. But I wrote nothing of the kind.

I remind the readership once again that I'm not only an ex CofS member but I'm also an ex Scientologist. I do not have an emotional investment in or to the provability and kewlness of Scn or it's religulousness or lack thereof. So while responding to the well, if Scn this, then how come etc etc ideology what about BTs and where's your god now posts is enjoyable for me, it's a bit like asking me to argue the merits of belief in transubstantiation or super blue green algae. I've no belief in either, but am ok with others having such.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I do think there's a perception that y'all are total purists and KSWing thingamabobs. It's not true. It varies from person to person. Anybody who truly read your posts would know you're not one. ...

I nominate this for the Understatement of the Year Award.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Claire Swazey]

Yet some here continue to post stupidity about you. Amazing. And they wonder why they get so much pushback.

 

[Bill]

The way your quote is worded, you speak of an entitlement without examination, no evaluation or moral testing, simply a blank check. As such, without rigorous critical exploration of Scientology beliefs, you're defending their beliefs and even state you won't attack (challenge?) them due to those beliefs.

You know, we are not in much disagreement here...

But I really do wish you'd quit reading more into what I said than what I really said. You are working too hard to find a disagreement.

If you really want to know the deep, dark, secret meaning behind what I said, it is this: "People will think whatever the hell they think, believe whatever the hell they believe and you don't get much say at all in the matter."

If they declare their thoughts or act on their thoughts, then ,of course, you can respond. You have as much right to argue, discuss, disagree or agree with them as they have to do the same with you. If they act in some way, they can then be held fully responsible for their actions.

But we were, originally, talking only about belief, not their words, not their actions but just belief.

You've, on purpose, misquoted me yet again on this. You keep trying to make me some evil person who won't challenge any Scientologist's bizarre beliefs -- when that is exactly what I have done for five years. How long have you been at it?

I challenge Scientologists all the time, every single chance I get. But I will not condemn or attack a person JUST BECAUSE they are a believer in something I don't agree with.

Let me repeat that because you don't seem to be able to understand what I thought was a very simple concept: I will not condemn a person solely based on what they believe. I will challenge them on what they say and I hold them reponsible for what they do. You, apparently, condemn them purely on what they think.

When you do that, you begin to think that "all Scientologists are stupid" or "all Scientologists are evil". And they aren't. That belief will make it a little hard for you to get the Scientologist to listen to your arguments. But I doubt you are really interested in talking with a Scientologist about this, you just want to attack them -- just for being Scientologists.

Most Scientologists are good people who got trapped by the lies because they wanted to help others. Trying to help is not evil. Being lied to isn't their fault. Being fooled isn't their fault. Yet you would attack them just because they are Scientologists.

I don't care how much you misinterpret, misquote and pretend I said what I didn't say or pretend I "meant" something I never said -- I stand by what I actually said.

Bill

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Scientologists believe that the accumulation of transgressions - i.e. overts/withholds - trap a being and keep him from going free spiritually. ...

I'd put it slightly differently: Scientologists believe that one's thoughts, both conscious and unconscious, trap a being and keep him from going free spiritually; and among those thoughts are those which relate to what is perceived as the accumulation of transgressions - i.e. overts/withholds.

Moreover, personal experience with auditing tends to confirm the power of one's own thoughts both to limit as well as to expand one's spiritual well-being. Accordingly that belief is not an unreasonable one.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Jquepublic]

I'd put it slightly differently: Scientologists believe that one's thoughts, both conscious and unconscious trap a being and keep him from going free spiritually; and among those thoughts are those which relate to what is perceived as the accumulation of transgressions - i.e. overts/withholds.


Mark A. Baker

That gets us into a lot more than a basic understanding of the mechanisms behind sec checking. But hey, my verbal tech, your verbal tech...as long as Miss Wog gets her question answered, it's all good.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

That gets us into a lot more than a basic understanding of the mechanisms behind sec checking. But hey, my verbal tech, your verbal tech...as long as Miss Wog gets her question answered, it's all good.

Yes, however it has the benefit of offering a 'why' for auditing specifically on the mechanism of transgressions which can also be seen to apply more generally to other aspects of the tech.


Mark A. Baker

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

LOL. Understood but just the same...Relax! It's just words. I spent my formative years as a Catholic Altar Boy. I'm very familiar with The Confessional as a practice.

In the post you quoted, I'm simply answering your question; in scientology there is a procedure known as a Confessional, the procedure is exactly the same as the procedure known as a Sec Check, the primary difference being that when delivered as a scientology Confessional the Auditor actually does give the PC a scientological form of Absolution at the end of the Confessional ( in Confessional Procedure it's called Forgiveness). I forgot to mention the brief period in scio-time when Sec Checking was re-named "Integrity Processing".

It's all the same/similar thing and, oddly enough, almost any scientologist who has been audited on O/W tech will have most likely experienced some sense of relief at having "told all" to an Auditor. When it's used as a procedure to benefit the PC it seems to work just fine. People generally do feel better for having confessed their sins.

Scientology and Hubbard's obsession with finding out what the PC has done wrong is, of course, one of the many places where things went way off the rails. There's actually a Hubbard-penned issue called "O/W, a Limited Theory" (or something like that) where he talks about the inadvisability of pushing this stuff too far. As with many things he said/wrote, scientologists have some difficulty reconciling these contradictory things.

Agreed.

But, in reality there is no absolution of any kind, ever, in Scientology.

There are just words of absolution and a momentary suspension of fear, guilt and shame until Scientology can either a) Find something else to control the person with, or; b) return to those same overts gotten off and absolved at any point Scientology needs more leverage to make the person obey.

 

[MissWog]

LOL. Understood but just the same...Relax!

I am relaxed I'm very happy & chill..have not read past this sentence.. but I wanted to let you know that.. ok.. I'll now click the submit tech button and read your reply and all the others
{{{{{{love & light}}}}}}
my newest friends xoxo

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...


There is a fallacy amongst Scientologists that they have been "relieved of" the suffering/guilt/shame of their "transgressions".

This translates, mechanically, to the "as-ising" of "charge" on that subject.

There is no scintilla of proof that any charge "as-ises" or that "charge even exists in the first place.

Having given and received quite a volume of auditing as well as C/Sing others, I can simply say that my own observations consistently evidence that "blown charge" on an OW or MWH can come up again and again.

Purging of "sins" is a ritual. The same guilt and associated "reactive" phenomena can be revisited and it will again often react on the e-meter.

Guilt-reactions are not something to "erase". They don't erase. And often they shouldn't erase. This is the same with the recollection of pleasurable moments in one's life. They are accompanied by fond remembrance. These are human characteristics.

Hubbard hypothecated a sudden quantum shift in the human psychological paradigm but that never happened. Just look at Hubbard, Miscaviage or other "top of the bridge" persons.

Devout Scientologists, Indies and other techies believe in their cleansing rituals because it helps them deal with their own lives somehow.

But if have lost the ability to feel "remorse" something bad has happened. How else would the psychopath Hubbard and his cultic followers celebrate the line "...dispose of them quietly without sorrow"?

Anyone who thinks differently might have already lost their conscience. It is a hallmark of good tech followers.

 

[Panda Termint]

Agreed.

But, in reality there is no absolution of any kind, ever, in Scientology.

There are just words of absolution and a momentary suspension of fear, guilt and shame until Scientology can either a) Find something else to control the person with, or; b) return to those same overts gotten off and absolved at any point Scientology needs more leverage to make the person obey.

And I agree with you. Like most things in scientology it's just words which don't necessarily mean what you think they mean. Still, I've had PCs who burst into tears at the Proclamation of Forgiveness. How long that freedom from guilt lasted is probably measured by how long they managed to avoid a Staff Member.