Let's talk about Freezone.

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
That needs further analysis. However, I am expecting explanation from the Freezoners about the Jesus implant. Anyone?

Dunno what is meant in Hubbard lore by "the Jesus implant." It might be referring to R6, the supposed big implant 75 million years ago, detailed a bit in the OT3 pack. He also detailed it a lot more in Class VIII tape #10, where it gets even more ridiculous. There's a bulletin on the Class VIII C/S course (maybe the Advanced Courses Review Auditor's Course) where he mentions Christ a little bit more as false. I'll see if I can dig up a bit more detail . . . nah, couldn't find it. Sorry.

Paul
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Crusader
That needs further analysis. However, I am expecting explanation from the Freezoners about the Jesus implant. Anyone?


I have always been fascinated by the saviors of old. Whether they be Christ or John The Baptist or those of other religions. They all cry Freedom

Regarding the idea of Jesus implants, the thing is that they tend to be associated with the cycle of living in a humanized condition. It is almost as if it inherently goes with the package of whittling the person down to humanoid. I believe it was evil to have used this 'help' button to deviously trap an individual back down. It goes hand in glove with the humanity game played on earth. This is just what I sense strongly. That a free being gotten into the wrong clutches by the wrong implanters is going to possibly get the Christ implant with whatever is used to make him believe he is incorporate with the body. I am suspicious. What is the reason for so many blowing a mass, becoming more exterior in auditing, then recounting that they are identified with the story and imagery of Christ's suffering. ??? (And from what I can tell, its always the suffering and the cross. Not the Loaves and the Fishes or the raising of Lazarus) This doesn't mean I don't believe there was a Christ or a Jesus who walked on Earth. But I have had a friend and also an acquaintance who claimed to have 'been' Christ. Why the superidentification with this?

Anyone else got ideas?
 
Last edited:

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
That needs further analysis. However, I am expecting explanation from the Freezoners about the Jesus implant. Anyone?
I'm not a Freezoner but I am an "anyone".

Ulduz, you're making a false assumption based on some obviously garbled information. The R6 Implant reference (if I remember correctly) does not refer to the possibly real historical character known as Jesus of Nazareth. The implant material refers to a whole track figure called "The Crucified Christ". The R6 material predates the earthly Christian mythology by more than a few years. The scientological-mindset scenario may well include fuzzy ideas about Jesus Of Nazareth's story being coloured to some degree by dramatisation of R6 materials.

Why do you ask these questions?
 

Ulduz

Patron with Honors
I'm not a Freezoner but I am an "anyone".

Ulduz, you're making a false assumption based on some obviously garbled information. The R6 Implant reference (if I remember correctly) does not refer to the possibly real historical character known as Jesus of Nazareth. The implant material refers to a whole track figure called "The Crucified Christ". The R6 material predates the earthly Christian mythology by more than a few years. The scientological-mindset scenario may well include fuzzy ideas about Jesus Of Nazareth's story being coloured to some degree by dramatisation of R6 materials.

Why do you ask these questions?
"The man on cross -- there was no Christ!", said Hubbard in one of his writings. What's the point of implanting just a crucified figure with no meaning attached to it? I see only one good explanation of this -- after millions of years of existence the implant stations begun breaking down.
I ask these questions to show how ridiculous the OT data is.
 

Ulduz

Patron with Honors
I have always been fascinated by the saviors of old. Whether they be Christ or John The Baptist or those of other religions. They all cry Freedom

Regarding the idea of Jesus implants, the thing is that they tend to be associated with the cycle of living in a humanized condition. It is almost as if it inherently goes with the package of whittling the person down to humanoid. I believe it was evil to have used this 'help' button to deviously trap an individual back down. It goes hand in glove with the humanity game played on earth. This is just what I sense strongly. That a free being gotten into the wrong clutches by the wrong implanters is going to possibly get the Christ implant with whatever is used to make him believe he is incorporate with the body. I am suspicious. What is the reason for so many blowing a mass, becoming more exterior in auditing, then recounting that they are identified with the story and imagery of Christ's suffering. ??? (And from what I can tell, its always the suffering and the cross. Not the Loaves and the Fishes or the raising of Lazarus) This doesn't mean I don't believe there was a Christ or a Jesus who walked on Earth. But I have had a friend and also an acquaintance who claimed to have 'been' Christ. Why the superidentification with this?

Anyone else got ideas?
Your friend who believes he is Christ has so-called Jerusalem syndrom. People who suffer from it believe they are various religious figures of the past. Usually this syndrom strikes people with storong religious beliefs
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
OK. I don't think that asking questions based on false information is necessarily the best way to do that. It's an odd approach.

I have noticed that you have expressed strong opinions about a whole range of subjects here on ESMB and I have no desire to hinder this expression on your part, I'm just suggesting that you stick to the facts.

IMO, you're not going to learn much asking questions about "The Jesus Implant" if no such thing exists in the scientology lexicon (if it does exist, I've obviously forgotten about it). Hubbard talks about The Crucified Man (aka The Crucified Christ) Implant but the implant doesn't refer directly to Jesus. He's suggesting that the Christ (Anointed One, Messiah) legend and Jesus being proclaimed as Christ by Christianity is based on the R6 Implant which makes the legend readily acceptable to anyone who has the R6 Implant (they identify with the Crucified Man). That doesn't mean that anything Hubbard said about it is true.

Asking questions about the factual aspects of scientology is bound to be more informative. Doesn't that make sense to you?
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
OK. I don't think that asking questions based on false information is necessarily the best way to do that. It's an odd approach.

I have noticed that you have expressed strong opinions about a whole range of subjects here on ESMB and I have no desire to hinder this expression on your part, I'm just suggesting that you stick to the facts.

IMO, you're not going to learn much asking questions about "The Jesus Implant" if no such thing exists in the scientology lexicon (if it does exist, I've obviously forgotten about it). Hubbard talks about The Crucified Man (aka The Crucified Christ) Implant but the implant doesn't refer directly to Jesus. He's suggesting that the Christ (Anointed One, Messiah) legend and Jesus being proclaimed as Christ by Christianity is based on the R6 Implant which makes the legend readily acceptable to anyone who has the R6 Implant (they identify with the Crucified Man). That doesn't mean that anything Hubbard said about it is true.

Asking questions about the factual aspects of scientology is bound to be more informative. Doesn't that make sense to you?

I don't get it. Is it your position that when Hubbard said "Christ" he was referring to someone other than Jesus of Nazareth?
 

Gadfly

Crusader
OK. I don't think that asking questions based on false information is necessarily the best way to do that. It's an odd approach.

I have noticed that you have expressed strong opinions about a whole range of subjects here on ESMB and I have no desire to hinder this expression on your part, I'm just suggesting that you stick to the facts.

IMO, you're not going to learn much asking questions about "The Jesus Implant" if no such thing exists in the scientology lexicon (if it does exist, I've obviously forgotten about it). Hubbard talks about The Crucified Man (aka The Crucified Christ) Implant but the implant doesn't refer directly to Jesus. He's suggesting that the Christ (Anointed One, Messiah) legend and Jesus being proclaimed as Christ by Christianity is based on the R6 Implant which makes the legend readily acceptable to anyone who has the R6 Implant (they identify with the Crucified Man). That doesn't mean that anything Hubbard said about it is true.

Asking questions about the factual aspects of scientology is bound to be more informative. Doesn't that make sense to you?

It sure makes sense to me.

And, you explained it well Panda. The idea here is that the "Christ implant" exists WAY BACK on the track. Isn't it part of the OT III implant? As is R6? I might be wrong on that, but the IMPLANT goes way back.

Also, as I understand the theories Hubbard discussed (as fact), I never got the idea that the implant stations do the "whole shebang" EVERY TIME you report and then are sent back to Earth to take on another body. It was more like, "okay, wipe the hard drive, and put it back in the computer, load the operating system and the programs". Wiping the hard drive would be analagous to some heavy-forced electronic energy blast that for all practical purposes shakes the being up so much that it loses contact with all "memories". I don't doubt that HUMANS with have technoogy within a few hundred years that will be able to do THAT - no reason why some advanced alien civilization couldn't do it. Then there would be SOME "programming", some implanting done, and then the poor soul gets sent back to Earth and wakes up crying with an umbilical cord being crimped. Anyone remember the movie, Clockwork Orange? Didn't that involve some sort of early version of "implanting"? Again, give some civilization a few thousand years of technological experimentation in this area, and "implanting", pretty much as descibed by Hubbard, could very well come about. I don't trust elitists in cahoots with scientists as far as I can throw them.

There is ANOTHER possible spin on some of Hubbard's stuff. It is a common idea that stories and ideas of science fiction often predate and sort of "predict" actual "science" that comes along later. There are many examples of this. Many people view Hubbard's upper level space opera stuff as "sc-fi fiction". Maybe it was, but also, on some level it MIGHT act to predict certain actual events of science as time unfolds. Hubbard actually WAS original in some of his story telling (like it or not).

Anyway, as I always understood the theory, the implant about Christ was done a LONG time ago, it then may have been dramatized in some way and degree and tacked onto the Jesus legend, and as Hubbard tells it, the tendency to believe in Jesus and Christ stems from the nature of the implant.

But, it is ALL theory - NONE of which can ever be "proven" either way, outside of the reports of people who may claim to have contacted this segment of the implant in auditing. Personally, I wouldn't count THAT as any sort of evidence, since it might just as well be some form of "dub-in".

Scientology sucks because of what it DOES to people in the real world. The suckier parts stem directly from policy. All this other stuff involving intricate cosmologies and stories of past events is like any other fairy tale religion - people can believe whatever package of nonsense he or she chooses. THAT isn't what makes Scientology harmful to most of the people most of the time. The majority of the harm comes from severe indoctrination into a fanatical view of reality, involving a ruthless and mindess organization that disposes of anyone who acts out any form of other-intention or counter-intention to the key goal of Scientology (to EXPAND and keep making more and more money).
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
I don't get it. Is it your position that when Hubbard said "Christ" he was referring to someone other than Jesus of Nazareth?
I'm suggesting two things for your consideration;

1. That there is no such a thing in scientology as "The Jesus Implant" as Ulduz calls it (see the quoted posts below) and questions/theorises about.
This though just came to my mind, it is about the Jesus implant. People who have definite opinions about Jesus could be divided into 3 categories: 1. Those who believe that Jesus performed miracles attributed to him; 2. Those who believe that Jesus was a real person who could not produce miracles; 3. Those who believe that Jesus is a mythological figure.
Where does that difference of opinion come from? Something must be wrong with the implant stations. Wouldn’t be simpler to program everyone in such way that we all would believe that Jesus was the creator of miracles?

That needs further analysis. However, I am expecting explanation from the Freezoners about the Jesus implant. Anyone?

and 2: That there is a distinct difference between the Christ persona (Anointed One, Messiah) as described in Christian texts/mythology/legend and Jesus of Nazereth, the actual Human Being, who most probably existed about 2,000 years ago and about whom much has been spoken and written.

Hubbard saying there was "no Christ" is not the same thing as saying there was "no Jesus". It's just how I choose to differentiate between things but that's not really the main issue here as far as I'm concerned. I'm talking about the value of discussion about what Hubbard actually said as opposed to discussion about invented scenarios.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
. . . <snip> . . . Scientology sucks because of what it DOES to people in the real world. The suckier parts stem directly from policy. All this other stuff involving intricate cosmologies and stories of past events is like any other fairy tale religion - people can believe whatever package of nonsense he or she chooses. THAT isn't what makes Scientology harmful to most of the people most of the time. The majority of the harm comes from severe indoctrination into a fanatical view of reality, involving a ruthless and mindess organization that disposes of anyone who acts out any form of other-intention or counter-intention to the key goal of Scientology (to EXPAND and keep making more and more money).

Using hypnotic-like trance states to make people believe all L Ron Hubbard's nonsense seems pretty sucky to me.
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
I'm suggesting two things for your consideration;

1. That there is no such a thing in scientology as "The Jesus Implant" as Ulduz calls it (see the quoted posts below) and questions/theorises about.




and 2: That there is a distinct difference between the Christ persona (Anointed One, Messiah) as described in Christian texts/mythology/legend and Jesus of Nazereth, the actual Human Being, who most probably existed about 2,000 years ago and about whom much has been spoken and written.

Hubbard saying there was "no Christ" is not the same thing as saying there was "no Jesus". It's just how I choose to differentiate between things but that's not really the main issue here as far as I'm concerned. I'm talking about the value of discussion about what Hubbard actually said as opposed to discussion about invented scenarios.

Panda, On a side note I've got a book titled "The Book of Q" or something along like that. It's a biblical scholar tracing back the history of biblical research to find the original sayings of Jesus. As of its writing this research has traced back to an original theorized manuscript that is termed "Q".

At any rate, the field of biblical study readily acknowledges the mythical creation of the Christ. For instance, initially Jesus starts as a teacher, then a social movement, then gets mythologized into a religious leader, then the Christ - all of this transpires over the 1st 2 or 3 centuries by many contributors. The death significance of Jesus as the crucified Christ Sacrifice doesn't appear until like 100 - 200 years into "Christianity" - a loosely used term because there was no Christ yet. These scholars have even theorized that no crucifixion took place.

Contrast this with Islam or Scientology that was created by one person for specific purposes...very interesting.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Panda, On a side note I've got a book titled "The Book of Q" or something along like that. It's a biblical scholar tracing back the history of biblical research to find the original sayings of Jesus. As of its writing this research has traced back to an original theorized manuscript that is termed "Q".

At any rate, the field of biblical study readily acknowledges the mythical creation of the Christ. For instance, initially Jesus starts as a teacher, then a social movement, then gets mythologized into a religious leader, then the Christ - all of this transpires over the 1st 2 or 3 centuries by many contributors. The death significance of Jesus as the crucified Christ Sacrifice doesn't appear until like 100 - 200 years into "Christianity" - a loosely used term because there was no Christ yet. These scholars have even theorized that no crucifixion took place.

Contrast this with Islam or Scientology that was created by one person for specific purposes...very interesting.

The original sayings of Jesus, eh? Well, if he was real, that would be possible. Why would you trust that the transcriber didn't include their own perspectives as Jesus' wisdom, or that they copied all of Jesus' ideas faithfully, or that they were translated well from Aramaic or Hebrew into Latin, or that the Latin was translated well and faithfully to English, German, French, etc.

Personally, I think it's a nice idea, but I've played telephone for five minutes, and I know that what Jesus said is not what is in the Bible, simply from that.

The bible was written by men for men, and the pretense that it is God's or Jesus' words is complete baloney.

:)

And for giggles, this was done already by Thomas Jefferson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Letter from Jefferson to John Adams about this: "In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines."

And here it is, in all its glory, the words of Jesus, God incarnate (if you believe such things):

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefJesu.html
 

Ulduz

Patron with Honors
OK. I don't think that asking questions based on false information is necessarily the best way to do that. It's an odd approach.

I have noticed that you have expressed strong opinions about a whole range of subjects here on ESMB and I have no desire to hinder this expression on your part, I'm just suggesting that you stick to the facts.

IMO, you're not going to learn much asking questions about "The Jesus Implant" if no such thing exists in the scientology lexicon (if it does exist, I've obviously forgotten about it). Hubbard talks about The Crucified Man (aka The Crucified Christ) Implant but the implant doesn't refer directly to Jesus. He's suggesting that the Christ (Anointed One, Messiah) legend and Jesus being proclaimed as Christ by Christianity is based on the R6 Implant which makes the legend readily acceptable to anyone who has the R6 Implant (they identify with the Crucified Man). That doesn't mean that anything Hubbard said about it is true.

Asking questions about the factual aspects of scientology is bound to be more informative. Doesn't that make sense to you?
All right, so there is a chain of implants that makes people believe in the Messiah, not just one implant, as I thought. But what difference does it make? Still, there are atheists amongst us for whom this chain does not work. Does it mean they do not have implants? Something went awry at those implant stations!
When I present a serious topic to this board I support my point of view with the facts and analysis. The topic on this threat is a joke just like the OT data, there is nothing serious about it because it is utterly insane. The best way to convince people to stop believing in OT data is to make fun of it; it really does not matter if my presentation of implant data is 100% accurate or not
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Using hypnotic-like trance states to make people believe all L Ron Hubbard's nonsense seems pretty sucky to me.

In all of my years of experience with Scientology I NEVER saw ANY evidence of "hypnotic-like trance states" to make people believe Hubbard's nonsense.

Give me a few REAL examples, things that are based on more than only your imagination, weird theories, or third-hand reports of people.

Again, I am all for criticizing the REAL flaws and faults of Scientology, and there are MANY, and they are SEVERE, but you are barking up the wrong tree here (again). Woof-woof. I am guessing, but since you lack ANY direct experience with Scientology (correct me if I am wrong on this), it seems to me that you also do what a great many Scientoogists also do - you dub-in to have your view/reality of things remain "consistent".

People BELIEVE the nonsense following standard oppressive indoctrination techniques, and they keep doing so partially because they are heavily threatened with expulsion and disconnection if they don't. The strict environment of "no verbal data", "all disagreements handled", and KSW, along with a great deal of trumped-up rah-rah-rah enthusiasm, is ALL that is necessary to create "believers".

People read, accept and believe all sorts of idiotic notions, just as they do everywhere else on Earth. But, in Scientology the TOOL of belief-formation is the well-designed indoctrination system. Take away THAT and leave the auditing, and there is no longer any "damaging Scientology". I purport that if the oppressive organization were removed, along with the nutty policies upon which it is based, that NO AMOUNT of auditing would EVER result in any "hypnotic trance" where people would then somehow come to believe Hubbard's ideas through some form of "osmosis".

After almost 600 hours of all sorts of auditing, I never experienced any "trance-like state", and also, I NEVER developed any tendency to "believe strange ideas". Of course, you can say I am lying or that I simply don't grasp my won mind - that YOU are better qaulified to judge what went on and goes on with me.

I also knew MANY people in the Sea Org who had little or NO auditing, and who still very much accepted and adopted the KSW psycho Scientology party-line. Indoctrination without auditing can still work on some of the people some of the time - to fuck them up; but auditing with NO indoctrination - I don't think so.

Of course, you can believe otherwise, but, based on what?
 
Last edited:

guanoloco

As-Wased
The original sayings of Jesus, eh? Well, if he was real, that would be possible. Why would you trust that the transcriber didn't include their own perspectives as Jesus' wisdom, or that they copied all of Jesus' ideas faithfully, or that they were translated well from Aramaic or Hebrew into Latin, or that the Latin was translated well and faithfully to English, German, French, etc.

Personally, I think it's a nice idea, but I've played telephone for five minutes, and I know that what Jesus said is not what is in the Bible, simply from that.

The bible was written by men for men, and the pretense that it is God's or Jesus' words is complete baloney.

:)

And for giggles, this was done already by Thomas Jefferson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Letter from Jefferson to John Adams about this: "In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines."

And here it is, in all its glory, the words of Jesus, God incarnate (if you believe such things):

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefJesu.html

Actually, you're correct here. Biblical scholars study such a tremendous amount of documents that to understand the field there's no way I could do it justice on a thread - primarily because I'm not a biblical scholar nor is that a field of interest for me. The book that I have is one of few that I have on the topic.

Be that as it may it is a college text and when you read it you can glimpse the vast subject that it is a part of. Specifically, the text of "Q" is an inference and reverse engineered because no actual text "Q" exists. The documents that it is derived from are NOT in the bible.

Instead, the "bible" is a process and not an event. These scholars trace back that process to earlier and earlier references and are versed in all the languages, dialects, etymologies, etc.

These scholars are not Christians, BTW, or, to be more specific, they may or may not be Christians or any other religious affiliation for that matter. What I mean to say is that they aren't on a Christian agenda. They certainly do NOT state that the bible is the word of god or anything - they merely study it.

The text of "Q" comes out to less than 30 statements and, if memory serves me correctly, more like 15 or less. The other classic teachings of Jesus that are in the bible are recognized as not the actual words of a historical Jesus.

Anyway, don't allow your post/thoughts dismiss the whole field/practice that I'm referencing without knowing what it is...that's too simplistic of a view and not what I wrote. Hope that helps elucidate the subject some.
 

Veda

Sponsor
In all of my years of experience with Scientology I NEVER saw ANY evidence of "hypnotic-like trance states" to make people believe Hubbard's nonsense.

-snip-

Scientology - over all - is very hypnotic, following in the footsteps of Hubbard's 1946 'Affirmations'.

Scientology regards its raw meat public as already hypnotized, and Hubbard instructed others to use that already existing suggestive state to control and direct them into Scientology. He instructed Scientology sales people to control the already hypnotized raw meat with button-pushing promo and hard sell. He instructed that Scientology books have book covers with images upon them that he believed had hypnotic power. Even the Sea Org symbol is supposed to makes wogs, hypnotically, obey Scientologists.

The idea, so we were led to believe, was that eventually the process of de-hypnotizing would begin, and, IMO, that does occur somewhat, but the "as-isness" or "clearing" or "vacuum" that sometimes occurs in "auditing" is quickly filled with "LRH data"; and when the person reaches what is supposed to be the most vital-to-his-survival and well-being through-the-next-endless-trillions upper levels of the "Bridge to Total Freedom," "auditing" shifts from being, primarily, asking the person to, primarily, telling the person.

Bait and switch. Deception.

However, to avoid an argument over what constitutes "hypnotic" or "trance" states, let's just call it psychological manipulation, and is there any doubt that psychological manipulation increases as the person enters the upper part of the Scientology Grade Chart?
 
Top