It's time to get off the fence

[shader]

Thanks, most likely I'll go back to my lurker ways perhaps down the road if some one springs up a discussion on philosophy or relegion or politics or my favorite MMOs (and the psychology behind creating the chase the carrot syndrome) I'll jump in most likely f13 is a better place for that any way.

I've been tempted to post in a few other threads but I'm way too much of an opinionated bastard to start out in the big leagues of this board, nothing good would come of it.

Don't hold back, go ahead and post.

I was very wary about posting here, as I recognize this board serves a really important function for people recovering from their experiences in Scientology, and I really didn't want to mess with that.

But it has been made clear to me that sometimes a "wog"s opinions about religion and philosophy are helpful to ex-Scns trying to make sense of their experiences. Especially if your opinions are insightful and well-researched, as that isn't what LRH taught people to expect from us "wogs".

I would say also be respectful, but you seem to have got the hang of that bit already.

As for talking about MMOs, I don't know. Scientology is maybe like World of Warcrack in that what keeps many playing is the promise of the super-duper stuff available when you reach high levels. But Scientology is like a WoW where the epic high level gear is expensive, looks great, and gets you lots of respect within the game - but has the same stats as the greys you started with at Level 1. And if you complained about it the GameOps would ban you.

 

[SomeGuy]

Oh really?

So, basically you're a pussy.

Is that what you're saying?

Nah, it comes down to this site and most of the perspectives and threads are about scientology. I could in theory reasonably argue based on logic and my own background (raised jesuit catholic and out for 30+ years as an agnostic ) but I am no where near educated enough to not eventually put a foot in my mouth. One innocuous statement can seem calous to some one reading it.

There is not enough variety for me to feel comfortable in posting an opinion that might turn into a flame thread. I can do that else where (and do). You can think of this that currently I spent most of the time reading your out stories, I feel I know you (a royal you here) much better than you know me, even if it's in a very superficial way. It's why I went and made a long ass introductory post before posting it. It doesn't really give you any insight into who I am and that level of trust is one of those things that are earned and can only be freely given.

You can bait me though, I will always respond, it might take me a week to find it if I'm actually working though. Perhaps in time and if I see something which looks like a discussion where my input and perhaps any insight I could share would be good I'll jump in. Till then I'm just some guy who has posted on this thread.

I also tend to be overly verbose, when I should really just post a "NO U" answer.

 

[SomeGuy]

As for talking about MMOs, I don't know. Scientology is maybe like World of Warcrack in that what keeps many playing is the promise of the super-duper stuff available when you reach high levels. But Scientology is like a WoW where the epic high level gear is expensive, looks great, and gets you lots of respect within the game - but has the same stats as the greys you started with at Level 1. And if you complained about it the GameOps would ban you.

You know it's funny you say that (I haven't played WoW in about a year) but there are startling similarities about the portion of the brain that is tickled.

So OT for this thread though and by that I mean off topic.

 

[Alanzo]

Nah, it comes down to this site and most of the perspectives and threads are about scientology. I could in theory reasonably argue based on logic and my own background (raised jesuit catholic and out for 30+ years as an agnostic ) but I am no where near educated enough to not eventually put a foot in my mouth. One innocuous statement can seem calous to some one reading it.

There is not enough variety for me to feel comfortable in posting an opinion that might turn into a flame thread. I can do that else where (and do). You can think of this that currently I spent most of the time reading your out stories, I feel I know you (a royal you here) much better than you know me, even if it's in a very superficial way. It's why I went and made a long ass introductory post before posting it. It doesn't really give you any insight into who I am and that level of trust is one of those things that are earned and can only be freely given.

You can bait me though, I will always respond, it might take me a week to find it if I'm actually working though. Perhaps in time and if I see something which looks like a discussion where my input and perhaps any insight I could share would be good I'll jump in. Till then I'm just some guy who has posted on this thread.

I also tend to be overly verbose, when I should really just post a "NO U" answer.

Well, I was trying to bait you into posting here.

Shader's right, different perspectives from outside the cult mindset can often be helpful.

Plus, I like to beat up on Ex-Jesuits. It's like shooting fish in a barrel for me.

But anyway. Thanks for posting. You are welcome here any time.

I look forward to you stopping by again.

 

[Björkist]

If you truly believe in the tech and don't want to see your churches demolished then I think it's time to get of the fence. I don't see how it is possible anymore to simultaneously be a critic and a Scientology supporter. I think it is time to make your position clear.

If you want your churches to survive then the time to fight is now! Tell us why they should survive. Tell us what changes need to happen. Tell us why you feel this way.

I'm not suggesting that it has to be a "you're either for us or against us" proposition, but in these times, at least it seems to me, one needs to clarify their own position, not only for others, but mainly for themselves.

Being both a critic and "Scientology supporter" comes from an ability to see both the good and bad in something.

EVERY organization that is composed of human beings (thetans with bodies?) has issues. Governments, churches, Rotary clubs, fast food restaurants, etc.

Not so long ago, some of the people who called themselves Christians used to rape, torture and burn "innocent" people if they didn't agree with Christian tenets and practices.

Throughout history, millions of people have been tortured and/or murdered for not "believing" like the next guy or girl.

And the Christian church has somehow survived. So has the Catholic church...and a sizeable percentage of the current adherents, imho, would do many of those same things if they could get away with it. Like bombing abortion clinics, "fag bashing", waging wars/crusades against non-believers, etc.

Amazing, eh?

What if the Church of Scientology engaged in similar things?

I think Scientology technology is fascinating and valuable. I think L. Ron Hubbard was brilliant.

When I was on ARC S/W and Grade 0, I handled some things that really needed handling in my life. I think other people could similarly benefit from this technology and I think Earth would be much more fun and beautiful if more people got auditing (and/or smoked weed and ate mushrooms occasionally).

But, like some, do I fully and blindly support the CofS? Of course not.

Or like others, do I fully and blindly rail against the CofS? Of course not.

Additionally, I think anon is simply a fashion trend. And many of the "newfags" are being played. They don't even know what they are out there protesting. Just "going along for the ride"...

When the CofS covers it's windows to block out protestors....it's, "Oh, look at that!! Where is hiding on the Tone Scale?"

When a group of people wear masks and protest something which they claim they really believe in, it's "We are protecting ourselves from the evil and nasty CofS."

Or is it just for the "lulz" (as many anon have claimed) and a toying with Axiom 10?

Clearly a double standard going on in some camps.

The CofS does do some good. And does some bad as well.

Absolutes are unobtainable and nothing and no one is perfect.

But some of us think we are.

 

[Emma]

I never thought of you as a critic Bjorkist.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Take your time and come to your own decision. Sometimes I post deliberately provocatively to prod people to think for themselves because old Ronnie discouraged us to!

To clarify, yes, I believe Ron had evil intentions, the evidence is there in his "admissions" and his secret GO policies.

As to "it's all a con" I would say it is all a con based upon "truth" or "workability". That is what is so insideous about it.

I even think there is the possibility that Ron's evil intentions were suppressed or under control from the mid-fifties to mid-sixties. Maybe MSH was an influence in this period before she was overwhelmed by his evil and became the implementor of his psychosis (The Controller).

Maybe his evil was never under control and he was just pretending, I don't think we will ever know. During the period up to KSW, Scn definitely developed techniques that appeared to have benefit. That is why it takes so long to de-program ourselves.

Good luck in your exit from the cult and take your time.

I appreciate your posts LH. They have been very helpful. As have the posts of many others here. This board's purpose is being well-fulfilled. The discussion that goes on here can be found nowhere else on the net.

Some Guy, I appreciate your posting. Hopefully Anon will not lose interest after Mar 15th. May 9th (anniversary of Dianetics - a major event) will follow soon thereafter. What I do know is, we, the exes will not lose interest. This board will continue to help those leaving. Most public Scientologists will deal with leaving just fine. Long-time SO members and org staffs will probably have a much more difficult time of it. But they have many friends. There are more exes than in's. We are legion

I continue to sift and sort.

Emma, I just want to whole-heartedly thank you again for putting this board here for us all.

 

[Alanzo]

Being both a critic and "Scientology supporter" comes from an ability to see both the good and bad in something.

EVERY organization that is composed of human beings (thetans with bodies?) has issues. Governments, churches, Rotary clubs, fast food restaurants, etc.

Not so long ago, some of the people who called themselves Christians used to rape, torture and burn "innocent" people if they didn't agree with Christian tenets and practices.

Throughout history, millions of people have been tortured and/or murdered for not "believing" like the next guy or girl.

And the Christian church has somehow survived. So has the Catholic church...and a sizeable percentage of the current adherents, imho, would do many of those same things if they could get away with it. Like bombing abortion clinics, "fag bashing", waging wars/crusades against non-believers, etc.

Amazing, eh?

What if the Church of Scientology engaged in similar things?

I think Scientology technology is fascinating and valuable. I think L. Ron Hubbard was brilliant.

When I was on ARC S/W and Grade 0, I handled some things that really needed handling in my life. I think other people could similarly benefit from this technology and I think Earth would be much more fun and beautiful if more people got auditing (and/or smoked weed and ate mushrooms occasionally).

But, like some, do I fully and blindly support the CofS? Of course not.

Or like others, do I fully and blindly rail against the CofS? Of course not.

Additionally, I think anon is simply a fashion trend. And many of the "newfags" are being played. They don't even know what they are out there protesting. Just "going along for the ride"...

When the CofS covers it's windows to block out protestors....it's, "Oh, look at that!! Where is hiding on the Tone Scale?"

When a group of people wear masks and protest something which they claim they really believe in, it's "We are protecting ourselves from the evil and nasty CofS."

Or is it just for the "lulz" (as many anon have claimed) and a toying with Axiom 10?

Clearly a double standard going on in some camps.

The CofS does do some good. And does some bad as well.

Absolutes are unobtainable and nothing and no one is perfect.

But some of us think we are.

You didn't list any specific thing you think should be changed in the CofS.

I'm curious to see what you would support in terms of specific reforms of CofS, or Scientology.

Anything?

 

[Zinjifar]

You didn't list any specific thing you think should be changed in the CofS.

I'm curious to see what you would support in terms of specific reforms of CofS, or Scientology.

Anything?

I think Bjorky's position is that Scientology should be left alone. People can like it or not like it, but, if they don't like it, they should just stay away and let it do it's 'thing', without opposing it or 'nattering' about it.

Unsurprisingly, this is the position of the 'Church' itself; at least until the 'Church' is in a position to *mandate* a more inclusive social control

Zinj

 

[Escalus]

Absolutes are unobtainable

Is that Absolute?

I lose patience with people who tell me that my criticisms are nothing but "nattering" and that Hubbard was brilliant in the same breath.

Somebody is still drinking the koolaid around here I'm thinkin.

 

[Björkist]

I never thought of you as a critic Bjorkist.

I never thought of myself as one either...I was responding partially to:

I know of people who have tried to occupy several position at once i.e. critic, scientologist, freezoner etc and done a kind of juggling act to keep it all together.

While it has clearly never been easy to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to maintain these opposing positions simuntaneously, it is now bordering on impossible.

I was making the argument that situations involving people are almost never as cut and dried as certain mathematics or philosophical styles would lead a person to believe. There are an infinity of gradients. There is good and bad to be found in everyone and everything.

Are you a Democrat or Republican? Neither? Are there any good points that those parties have? Any bad ones? Just a matter of viewpoint?

You didn't list any specific thing you think should be changed in the CofS.

I'm curious to see what you would support in terms of specific reforms of CofS, or Scientology.

Anything?

As covered earlier, I am of the "Doubting Thomas" variety. I hear these interesting stories from someone like BFG and I can choose to just accept it or take it with a grain of salt. I don't disbelieve it, but I don't do the opposite and believe it either. Anything is possible.

Personally, some of the nicest people I have met are Scientologists....and some of the rudest I have met are critics of Scientology. ???

IF those things I read about are happening (such as forced abortions, incidents like musical chairs, the SP Hall, etc.) then, those needs addressing. IF it isn't happening, that's great.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes with occasional forays into each. But really, until I experience it...even second hand through videos, pictures, audio...I am just accepting what someone else has to tell me about things...and anyone can do that. I've known some who actually make a lifestyle of it.

Like my mother, she claimed to have had a bad incident with a person with "dark skin" and subsequently gobbled up anything that supported her serv fac about anyone of African descent. Go figure.

As I said in another post, some critics get frothing when I, and likely some others, don't just accept their stories as gospel.

They don't seem to understand that when I read a success story from someone in CofS that I don't blindly accept that either...

Why isn't that fact argument fodder as well?

Is that Absolute?

I lose patience with people who tell me that my criticisms are nothing but "nattering" and that Hubbard was brilliant in the same breath.

Somebody is still drinking the koolaid around here I'm thinkin.

It's relatively absolute. And you are the one who said your criticisms are nothing but nattering. Not I.

Escalus, you'll be right at home with a couple of others who like to imagine and claim that I say things I didn't really say.

I agree. It does indeed look like someone is drinking the hallucination/delusion inducing koolaid.

 

[Escalus]

It's relatively absolute.

That, dear soul, can't be done. It is either absolute or it is not. If it has to be relative to something then it includes an exception somewhere outside of what it is relative to. And if it is an exception then it is not an absolute.

If "Absolutes are unobtainable" isn't absolute, then what is it? Or are you saying the statement is true because the statement is false?

And then you wonder why people don't understand what you're saying?

 

[Björkist]

That, dear soul, can't be done. It is either absolute or it is not. If it has to be relative to something then it includes an exception somewhere outside of what it is relative to. And if it is an exception then it is not an absolute.

If "Absolutes are unobtainable" isn't absolute, then what is it? Or are you saying the statement is true because the statement is false?

And then you wonder why people don't understand what you're saying?

It's called a joke.

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

 

[Escalus]

One of the prerequisites of a joke is humor, and this is not an answer.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I disagree with the idea that it is difficult or takes any mental gymnastics to be a critic, Freezoner, Scientologist, etc.

I know people who are critics and Freezoners.

I don't know that Alan Walters refers to himself as a Scientologist at all- I rather think he doesn't- but he does give props to Scn tech and he certainly has written very scathing criticisms of not just CofS, but of Hubbard himself.
Same with Paul/Dull Old Fart. In fact, some of the most scathing indictments I've seen of Hubbard and of Scn "tech" and "policy" were from Freezoners and Indie Scientologists- many of those indictments posted on EMSB. That makes those individuals critics as well. Some of the posts I've seen from non CofS independents surprised the hell out of me- though, in a positive way.

I think there's an inherent hazard in trying to fit people into neat little boxes and affixing labels to them. People tend to be more than one thing at the same time. Not even all Democrats or Republicans or Socialists agree on all issues. And so it goes in life.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Bjorkist,

Fantastic post!

 

[Escalus]

Until the day comes when Freezoners attempt to restrict criticism by intimidation and gestapo tactics I have no problem with them even though I think they're building a sand castle on top of swampland. Probably because they have gotten out from under the influence of Hubbard's psychotic meanderings and paranoid inheritor henchmen they will never engage in that kind of bullshit. And in that case they have every right to explore and pursue and carry on to their hearts' content under any normal protection for the sanctity of individual conscience like anybody else.

The problem is that I seem to have come upon this entire discussion at a period sometime after some have already accepted the fact that the "tech" has merit.

The "tests" that Hubbard "ran" to parse out Dianetics were nonstandard, faulty, poorly documented (if documented at all) and present the appearence of having been made out of whole cloth. I would refer you to the reaction to the ridiculous claims Hubbard made at the outset of his adventure by somewhat more credible points of view.

Scientology seems to have developed after it was "discovered" that engrams from this life didn't fix enough conditions. The next logic step was to look at past lives and the engrams in them.

As a "religion" Scientology has every right to exist and should be protected as such. But from a scientific viewpoint, and the hysteria of sharing a group's imagined phenomenon notwithstanding, why haven't anyone - Scientologist or Freezoner, gone on and made their million?

It's waiting for you.

 

[Zinjifar]

The problem is that I seem to have come upon this entire discussion at a period sometime after some have already accepted the fact that the "tech" has merit.

Emphasis on 'some'. As of last 'poll', the answer was better than 50% ' It's all crap' to minorities of 'Some of it is good' and 'It's just the 'Church' screwing things up!'

Considering the makeup of the board, it's not surprising that even the 'It's All Crap' people don't push the issue when the 'Tech Is Good' people attempt to insinuate that their 'position' is the 'standard' one

This may be confusing for newcomers, especially of the 'anon' flavor, who come away with the impression that the board itself 'believes' that 'The Tech' is good.

No; ESMB believes nothing and no more 'supports' the 'Tech' than anon supports various namefags with their own agendas.

It's a forum where people can discuss anything they want, especially Scientology related; tell their stories and enjoy each others' company. For the most part, nobody finds it necessary to point out that Aunt Suzie isn't *really* the Queen of England, and, even the queen's subjects are learning to live with the jokers and degraders who call her crown a lampshade.

More than any other venue I can think of, ESMB exists as an unabashed *social* venue, where 'reconnection' is more important than 'activism'.

Zinj

 

[Escalus]

It's a forum where people can discuss anything they want, especially Scientology related; tell their stories and enjoy each others' company. For the most part, nobody finds it necessary to point out that Aunt Suzie isn't *really* the Queen of England, and, even the queen's subjects are learning to live with the jokers and degraders who call her crown a lampshade.

I appreciate that and thanks Zinj. I'll admit my social skills need honing but after 54 years and many many usenets and discussion boards there are things I'm just probably not going to reform. Also it seems to me that in a part of that forum nominally titled as "evaluating/criticising Scientology" I'd expect a little more intellectual rigor than "oh look at the moon, it's made of cheese" as a viable argument for claims that the evaluation leads to great things.

If the moon is made of cheese I expect to have a right to have a bite with a little wine, and not have to kowtow to the kind of group think that infests the cult in the first place.

I'll be nice and pleasant in the other parts of the board even if, yes it's true I am quite an asshole. But in this section a lampshade ought to be a lampshade.

 

[Good twin]

You are welcome here as a thought provoking asshole. I completely understand your arguments. Some of us are embarrassed and ashamed about what we bought and sold. This forum allows us to talk about and analyze our own motives and beliefs. Otherwise, we feel totally alone. I truly appreciate your input. Thanks.