What's new

(S)he's a liar! No, wait, (S)he's a true believer!

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
I was brought up as a Catholic and am a former member of the 3rd Order of Franciscans. Articles of faith, no divorce and remarriage, holy days of Obligation, excommunication for abortion, Humane Vitae (no birth control)...Our family friends were Protestant self described "evangelicals" which is really their way of saying they were fundamentalists. The dad was brought up in Pilgrim Holiness Church- a direct descendant from the Puritan Church. Their son and daughter, just a couple years older than I, went to a college where they had to sign a pledge not to smoke, drink, dance or play cards. A friend of mine who wanted to go to a psychic was told by her church's deacons that she could not.

So, no, my experiences and what I've witnessed are different from your description above.
Fair enough. As you say, it depends on the sect. But what your own history says to me is that it is quite unusual. Most Catholics are not third order Franciscans. Most protestants are not in the Pilgrim Holiness Church.

Groups like those have a basic vested interest in portraying themselves as normal. Maybe I'm misreading your post — message boards are a thin channel — but my impression is that you're implying, "Hey, I KNOW organized religion, buddy — my parents were Third Order Franciscans!" As if an upbringing like that is more authentically and authoritatively religious. But to me, that's exactly the pitch that extreme sects so often try to make: they tell you that they're the only real deal. In fact, that's dead wrong. They are not the norm, at all.

Most of the rights and wiggle room modern day Christians enjoy - and I'm sure this extends to other faiths like Hinduism- were obtained by secular means.
To some extent that's true; but religions definitely can and do reform themselves from within. Moreover, 'secular means' only existed in the first place, in the western hemisphere at least, because they evolved out of medieval theocracy. Even just a couple of generations ago, western societies used to be very much more religious than they are now. But if those religious societies were really so narrowly conservative, how the heck did they ever evolve into what we have today?
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Hey, Student of Trinity- I will answer your thoughtful post later. But in the meantime, John and I were listening to a lovely piece of music today and it occurred to me that you might really like it.

It's called Heaven and Hell by Vangelis. Instruments and vocals but no lyrics. It's about Heaven, it has celestial music and it's about Hell and has infernal music, according to this artist's interpretation.

The Angelic stuff is interesting. It's lovely and ethereal and conveys sadness at Man's (and, I guess, demons') separation from God yet segues to a steely - but still lovely- standing up to evil. Gorgeous.

The infernal stuff is truly impish, mischievous and dark and hopeless by turns.

If you've not heard this wonderful album, you might really enjoy doing so.
 

Tiger Lily

Gold Meritorious Patron
Damn. Really? I thought they lied because it was for my own good. :confused2:

You know, because at my sorry banky low case level, my awareness and responsibilty are so low, that they are DOING ME A FAVOR by lying, controlling and 8C-ing me onto my next service. They lie because with my low-toned "reality" and "understanding", I couldn't "have or confront the truth". So, they lie to get me to do what is best for me, and what I wouldn't do otherwise.

Since I am nothing but a bundle of reactive circuits anyway, thus ANYTHING they do to "get me up the Bridge", despite how it might appear to me at this low-toned level, IS WHAT IS BEST FOR ME.

Thank-you Ron and Scientology for caring enough about me to LIE to me!!!!! :duh:

Another brilliant post!

What a mindf--- that was! I also remember this "think" (though certainly not this well articulated in my brain). I remember when I first realized that blatent lying was going on. I had been very drawn to Scientology because of the idea that Scientology "didn't intrude" on the 8th dynamic -- that it was like a big umbrella that embraced all religions and gave people freedom to believe what was "true for them." It didn't take very long -- on the Student Hat course there was a blatant slap to Christianity (something like "Only the being can die for his own sins, to arrange things otherwise was to keep man in chains"). This didn't offend me, as I was not a Christian, but I DID realize that this went against the idea that Scientology respected all religions and I knew that every Scientologist took the student Hat, so every Scientologist, including reges knew that the PR line about all religions being respected in Scientology was a lie.

As I continued studying more and more of these blatant lies became apparent, and I knew that I was being lied to personally . . . but yet I went on to give them 10-15 years of my life and all our financial security, to the point of maxing out our debt load. . . . sigh. . .

They had truly reduced my opinion of myself and my abilities to the point that I was willing to be lied to * for my own good*; to get me through the morass of the reactive mind -- and I was willing to lie to my friends for the same reason. Yet, my intentions were good -- I really wanted to get better and to help other people get better.

This really muddies the water -- no question that Scientologists believe what they are selling. . . it's why they are so effective at it. Yet, they ARE lying, and they KNOW they are lying. But they believe the end justifies the means because our very eternity is at stake. They believe that they are uniquely able to see the trap, and that someday free Thetans everywhere will thank them for their forsight and courage.

So, even though people knew that LRH was lying to them all the way up the bridge. . . they believed with unshakeable certainty that he wasn't lying about achieving total freedom, or about the abilities that could be gained.


I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles,
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.

-- Simon and Garfunkel -The Boxer​
 

Gadfly

Crusader
. . . and I was willing to lie to my friends for the same reason. Yet, my intentions were good -- I really wanted to get better and to help other people get better.

This really muddies the water -- no question that Scientologists believe what they are selling. . . it's why they are so effective at it. Yet, they ARE lying, and they KNOW they are lying. But they believe the end justifies the means because our very eternity is at stake. They believe that they are uniquely able to see the trap, and that someday free Thetans everywhere will thank them for their forsight and courage.

So, even though people knew that LRH was lying to them all the way up the bridge. . . they believed with unshakeable certainty that he wasn't lying about achieving total freedom, or about the abilities that could be gained.


I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles,
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.

-- Simon and Garfunkel -The Boxer​

Back at you - another briliiant post!

I have taken the liberty to bring to the forefront certain key ideas that you so wonderfully linked together:

"I was willing to lie to my friends for the same reason . . . .

. . . my intentions were good -- I really wanted to get better and to help other people get better . . ."


I wish that before any person ever walked into a Church of Scientology that he or she studies and understands this very true maxim:

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Most true believers are incapable of understanding how that is so very true, how it has many supporting examples all throughout history, and how they are incapable of seeing this in themselves. Simply, when people think that they "know the truth" (the BIG TRUTH with a large capital "T"), and that "most others don't", they become willing to do almost anything to "help you" and "save your sorry soul". While not the same in degree or intensity, a Scientologist's willingness to lie, deceive and manipulate others, for the other person's own good, is not entirely dissimilar to a 15th century Inquisition priest tightening down the thumbscrews or burning a heretic "for their own good".

I find this to be a major source of evil on planet Earth:

The willingness to harm others, in the name of some cause, because some person believes that he or she "posesses the truth that others cannot yet see and understand". In many ways Scientology resonates along that pattern. This certainty in the "truth" is what gives any Scientologist the obvious and visible haughty arrogance, pomposity and pretentious posturing (think Tom Cruise lecturing Matt Lauer on psychiatry).

The rest of your post adds to this basic idea, when you say:

"Scientologists believe what they are selling . . . it's why they are so effective at it."

"Yet, they ARE lying, and they KNOW they are lying."

I would add that they sometimes know that they are lying. Cognitive Dissonace is an interesting phenomena, and the contradictions are often deeply buried away from consciousness in any fanatical true believer (such as a Scientologist). They might be somewhat consciously aware that they are "twisting things", but few ever view it as actual outright "lying". Most cannot see that in themselves. Though, more basically, a person usually has to lie to oneself before doing it to others. And this differs in degree with different people. For instance, I noticed various discrepancies at various points along my Scientology "career", I filed them away, but I did keep them in my conscious awareness, but I noticed that many others around could not and did not "see" the same discrepancies.

"But they believe the end justifies the means because our very eternity is at stake".

Yes, this is key too, because that maxim, that the end justifies the means, is a typical way that almost any dictator or oppressive person/group deals with people and situations. It is the "mark of the beast" - so to speak. It is the "think" that destroys any chance of widespread compassion. And, it is not just because your personal eternity is at stake, but more because of what you added next:

"They believe that they are uniquely able to see the trap, and that someday free Thetans everywhere will thank them for their forsight and courage".

Yes, yes, yes. This is the crux of it all. They truly accept and believe that Hubbard was the only person to ever come along and 1) delineate the exact nature of the "trap", 2) delineate Man's actual makeup as a spiritual being, 3) provide an exact way out of this "trap", along with the idea that 4) Scientology, as the repository of ALL TRUE KNOWLEDGE is the only agent in all of the Universe that can solve Man's many problems and ailments.

Hubbard made it even trickier by entering the whole paradigm of the reactive mind, a "part of you that acts on its own without your knowledge", hidden personal forces and urges, "Dragons on the Bridge", reactive circuitry, low-toned, etc. Hubbard has a key reference that all regges and recruiters have in their Hat Packs, where he discusses that no person actually has any personal control or responsibility, because he or she is nothing more than a bag of reactive circuitry, and along with the notions of "hard sell", Hubbard instructs to simply MAKE THE PERSON DO WHAT THEY ARE UNWILLING TO DO ON THEIR OWN - for his or her own future benefit.

A typical notion that a reg uses as a tactic is "spend every penny that you have, because you will be more able after you get the auditing, and you will make far more money then". The belief you add at the end is explained so very well:

"unshakeable certainty that he wasn't lying about achieving total freedom, or about the abilities that could be gained"


If and when a person truly believes that 1) Hubbard has taped a path to this abstract "total freedom", 2) only Hubbard provides such a path, and that 3) the future of every man, woman and child depends on Scientology succeeding, then all the other stuff just falls into place - the lying, the deceptions, the "end justifies the means", threats of losing this "total freedom" to control your behavior, and so forth.

I love the last little reference to Simon & Garfunkel, which sadly is true for far more people than just Scientologists:

Still, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

Granted many Scientologists intensely excel at it! :ohmy:
 

Tiger Lily

Gold Meritorious Patron
"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and sorry I could not travel both, and be one traveler, long I stood . . . "

Gadfly, I hope I get to meet you sometime :)


The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Most true believers are incapable of understanding how that is so very true, how it has many supporting examples all throughout history, and how they are incapable of seeing this in themselves. Simply, when people think that they "know the truth" (the BIG TRUTH with a large capital "T"), and that "most others don't", they become willing to do almost anything to "help you" and "save your sorry soul". While not the same in degree or intensity, a Scientologist's willingness to lie, deceive and manipulate others, for the other person's own good, is not entirely dissimilar to a 15th century Inquisition priest tightening down the thumbscrews or burning a heretic "for their own good".

I find this to be a major source of evil on planet Earth:

The willingness to harm others, in the name of some cause, because some person believes that he or she "posesses the truth that others cannot yet see and understand". In many ways Scientology resonates along that pattern. This certainty in the "truth" is what gives any Scientologist the obvious and visible haughty arrogance, pomposity and pretentious posturing (think Tom Cruise lecturing Matt Lauer on psychiatry).

YES! I was going to comment, but you said it all. Still shake my head that the human mind is capable of that degree of arrogance.

I would add that they sometimes know that they are lying. Cognitive Dissonace is an interesting phenomena, and the contradictions are often deeply buried away from consciousness in any fanatical true believer (such as a Scientologist). They might be somewhat consciously aware that they are "twisting things", but few ever view it as actual outright "lying". Most cannot see that in themselves. Though, more basically, a person usually has to lie to oneself before doing it to others. And this differs in degree with different people. For instance, I noticed various discrepancies at various points along my Scientology "career", I filed them away, but I did keep them in my conscious awareness, but I noticed that many others around could not and did not "see" the same discrepancies.

That by itself could be a book. . . how the mind deludes itself. I believe that it could be different for different people, and, of course, in Scientology you were really encouraged to hide things from/lie to yourself because you sure didn't want "doubt" reading on a meter. For me -- I knew I was lying about some of the stuff. Whe I told my friends that you could be a "Christian Scientologist" I knew that was impossible. . . . but what I did know was that they were just a big bank that was implanted with a false religion, and until that was audited out and they cognited, I had to let them think that Christianity was acceptable to Scientologists so they would be willing to look. It was the correct "gradient" for them so I was wisely giving them what they could confront.

Enter the doctrine of "acceptable truth" (Orwell is coming to my mind here). It was tech. It was OK.

They truly accept and believe that Hubbard was the only person to ever come along and 1) delineate the exact nature of the "trap", 2) delineate Man's actual makeup as a spiritual being, 3) provide an exact way out of this "trap", along with the idea that 4) Scientology, as the repository of ALL TRUE KNOWLEDGE is the only agent in all of the Universe that can solve Man's many problems and ailments

Every religion does this to some degree -- but Ron took it to a new level, and then called it a "Science" giving his closely taped path all kinds of credibility. And people bought it. Why? They wanted to believe it so badly? Haven't figured that out. I knew his studies weren't scientific by today's standards but I chose to take him at his word anyway. :confused:

Hubbard made it even trickier by entering the whole paradigm of the reactive mind, a "part of you that acts on its own without your knowledge", hidden personal forces and urges, "Dragons on the Bridge", reactive circuitry, low-toned, etc. Hubbard has a key reference that all regges and recruiters have in their Hat Packs, where he discusses that no person actually has any personal control or responsibility, because he or she is nothing more than a bag of reactive circuitry, and along with the notions of "hard sell", Hubbard instructs to simply MAKE THE PERSON DO WHAT THEY ARE UNWILLING TO DO ON THEIR OWN - for his or her own future benefit.

The *reactive mind* was a brilliant mind-control construct. I give the Old Man credit for that one. Seriously. He solved the problem of the "internal BS meter", the conscience, instinct, intuition all in one fell swoop. (that, along with the misunderstood word to distract from mistakes in his logic, and the Overt-Motivator sequence and "nattering = overts" to keep everyone introverted if they started seeing flaws and complaining.)


A typical notion that a reg uses as a tactic is "spend every penny that you have, because you will be more able after you get the auditing, and you will make far more money then".

I remember asking them -- "if you're so confident about these "abilities gained", why don't you audit me for free, and then when my new abilities bring in the money, I'll pay you with that; it'll hold you accountable for delivering what you promise." They turned it back on me of course -- told me how "low responsibility" I was . . . and the importance of "exchange" . . .
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Not just fora. Paranoia is rife. Especially, 'though not exclusively, over here in the u.s.. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5M_Ttstbgs

[Question for Emma: should this become the new theme song of ESMB? :whistling: :coolwink: ]


Mark A. Baker

:thumbsup: Another great observation and post, Mark.

I just returned from the US. Paranoia is rife but not as bad as I saw two years ago, on my last visit. On the plus, Americans in general are much stronger and outspoken as individuals than two years ago, too.

The worst observation was seeing an escalated American addiction to buying and owning crap. People owning 60-70 pairs of shoes and wearing three, buying and storing useless collections of all sorts, never repairing, donating or recycling much of anything, that sort of thing. Huge ugly disgusting wastage of natural and other resources. Many were caught up in the "make-as-much-money-as-you-can-to-buy-things-as fast-as-you-can-throw-it-all-away-and-buy-some-more" consumer loop TRAP. As a STRESS outlet? Crikey, wish they'd find something less destructive to do as an activity. That part was disappointing.

But the tone, strength, compassion and independence of Americans overall was hugely improved. Better than any other time I've visited since 9/11. The determination to overcome obstacles was a beautiful thing. It was much more spiritual. Americans have hope in themselves as individuals and as a people, though not in their government. This time, it was very hard to leave. Best visit I've had there in over ten years. Loved the entire visit and loved everyone there I was in contact with, too. Despite the consumerism, everyone was genuine and wonderful - and I was in six different states while there, too.
 

Magoo

Gold Meritorious Patron
:thumbsup: Another great observation and post, Mark.

I just returned from the US. Paranoia is rife but not as bad as I saw two years ago, on my last visit. On the plus, Americans in general are much stronger and outspoken as individuals than two years ago, too.

The worst observation was seeing an escalated American addiction to buying and owning crap. People owning 60-70 pairs of shoes and wearing three, buying and storing useless collections of all sorts, never repairing, donating or recycling much of anything, that sort of thing. Huge ugly disgusting wastage of natural and other resources. Many were caught up in the "make-as-much-money-as-you-can-to-buy-things-as fast-as-you-can-throw-it-all-away-and-buy-some-more" consumer loop TRAP. As a STRESS outlet? Crikey, wish they'd find something less destructive to do as an activity. That part was disappointing.

But the tone, strength, compassion and independence of Americans overall was hugely improved. Better than any other time I've visited since 9/11. The determination to overcome obstacles was a beautiful thing. It was much more spiritual. Americans have hope in themselves as individuals and as a people, though not in their government. This time, it was very hard to leave. Best visit I've had there in over ten years. Loved the entire visit and loved everyone there I was in contact with, too. Despite the consumerism, everyone was genuine and wonderful - and I was in six different states while there, too.

Gottabrain: My suggestion: You might consider sending what you just wrote around to some of the magazines (Or even TV if you're willing to do a SKPYE interview) here in the USA. They just *may* print it---or ask for a bit more. Your observations are VERY valuable, on all counts.

Happy Holidays! :cheers:

Tory/Magoo
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Gottabrain: My suggestion: You might consider sending what you just wrote around to some of the magazines (Or even TV if you're willing to do a SKPYE interview) here in the USA. They just *may* print it---or ask for a bit more. Your observations are VERY valuable, on all counts.

Happy Holidays! :cheers:

Tory/Magoo

Huh? Are you serious, Tory? :giggle: If so, I've got nothing to lose to send it, right? :confused2: What a buzz that would be if someone thought it was worth printing. :dance2:

I'm certain from what I experienced while there that Americans are reaching out and helping each each other more than ever - I see some of the original American pioneer spirit and it made me very proud. Was SO hard to leave...

Now if they can all overcome the consumer trap as a stress outlet, they'd have the game beat. :)
 

Magoo

Gold Meritorious Patron
Huh? Are you serious, Tory? :giggle: If so, I've got nothing to lose to send it, right? :confused2: What a buzz that would be if someone thought it was worth printing.

Absolutely!And yes, I *am* serious. :yes:

I'm certain from what I experienced while there that Americans are reaching out and helping each each other more than ever - I see some of the original American pioneer spirit and it made me very proud. Was SO hard to leave...

Now if they can all overcome the consumer trap as a stress outlet, they'd have the game beat. :)

Please *do* send it onto some magazines and TV..ya never know when they may go "Wow! This is *exactly* what we need to write/speak about". You've made *excellent* points. :happydance:

Love to you and ALL :rose:

Tory/Magoo


 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Please *do* send it onto some magazines and TV..ya never know when they may go "Wow! This is *exactly* what we need to write/speak about". You've made *excellent* points. :happydance:

Love to you and ALL :rose:

Tory/Magoo


[/QUOTE]

:happydance: You are such a gorgeous person, Tory! I love you so much. :flowers: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I will give it a go. :yes:

Well, here in Seattle we recycle fanatically.

But, yes, I do own about 35 pair of shoes.

West coast is the best of the US with recycling. Not so much the rest of the country.

Shoes – yeh. My point exactly. Plastic, glue, cork, leather – worn a few times then stored in a closet until they've sat long enough to be tossed as out of style and more shoes are bought. Shopping like that is consumerism masked as a stress outlet. Leaves us with a bunch of stuff we don’t need or use. I’ve done it – we all have. Now multiply that by 300 million and it's pretty shocking.

And I can think of a hundred more effective stress outlets without the waste. Just sayin --
 

Sindy

Crusader
Gottabrain: My suggestion: You might consider sending what you just wrote around to some of the magazines (Or even TV if you're willing to do a SKPYE interview) here in the USA. They just *may* print it---or ask for a bit more. Your observations are VERY valuable, on all counts.

Happy Holidays! :cheers:

Tory/Magoo

Great idea! I agree She. :)
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Fair enough. As you say, it depends on the sect. But what your own history says to me is that it is quite unusual. Most Catholics are not third order Franciscans. Most protestants are not in the Pilgrim Holiness Church.


Right. I was just presenting some credentials, of a sort.

Groups like those have a basic vested interest in portraying themselves as normal. Maybe I'm misreading your post — message boards are a thin channel — but my impression is that you're implying, "Hey, I KNOW organized religion, buddy — my parents were Third Order Franciscans!"

Well, they weren't. I was, though.

I just figured it does give me some frame of reference re Christianity, so that possibly I can converse adequately with someone else who obviously has such.

(snippage)

To some extent that's true; but religions definitely can and do reform themselves from within. Moreover, 'secular means' only existed in the first place, in the western hemisphere at least, because they evolved out of medieval theocracy. Even just a couple of generations ago, western societies used to be very much more religious than they are now. But if those religious societies were really so narrowly conservative, how the heck did they ever evolve into what we have today?

To an extent- certainly about doctrinal issues. However, I truly believe that such corrections often come from society. I've read about, of course, the Protestant Reformation. But Martin Luther was just as ardently in favor of witch hunting as the Catholic church had been. That certainly gives me pause. The Puritans were big on reforms- they were lightyears away from the RCC and they weren't happy with the Church of England. And they were as mean as the churches that came before them. I realize "mean" isn't a very scholarly term but for some reason, these days, it's a word that seems to be occurring to me quite a bit. It suffices to a degree.

How many times have we stated here that we hope the government will intervene re Scn? And when France passed its anti secte legislation, when Germany took various actions, people were really pleased?

I've said in the past that the Free Zone is a type of Reformation movement and so it obviously is. We could say that this is a movement by individuals who broke away from CofS. The jury's still out on what they would do, however, if they really had a chance to have the same set up as CofS. They don't presently have this set up. They have a grass roots type thing similar to very early Dianetics in the 50s. They lack a central cult leader, though, and that may be the saving of them. If they keep it grass roots, I can see them as one grass roots Reformist movement that actually succceeded in not making the mistakes and perpetrating the abuses of the prior group from which it sprang. I certainly hope so.

We've been discussing Christianity's own reforms. I think you're right in that many do come from people. But I also think there was such a strong push back from individuals and from society that this made it possible for those individuals to try and ultimately try those changes.

We are seeing some societal push back re Scn - somewhat. (The governments, particularly the American, could be doing far more. They probably don't want to see another Waco and they also would, if they conducted a raid, encounter a lot of very unhappy abused people who would claim they actually wanted to be there. This was explained recently to me by some long time ex SO members.) It's caused a back lash but hasn't resulted in changes to the group. I thought that goddamn inward spike facing fence was coming down and turns out only part of it was and another part was painted in some way to make it look different. Shit!! Absent the needed push from official societal entities, the cult will keep going on and on til Davey goes on the run with a pocket full of Swiss Bank account numbers...
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I wrote the thread op because I have seen the argument from a lot of people (many of whom I like a lot) that to say anything untrue is a lie. And since anyone who is really into Scientology is going to end up saying untrue things pursuant to the true believer phenomenon, then those people are sometimes thought to be liars. I've seen many many posts where people had wondered just that, in many exchanges where I wasn't even a part or referred to.

Staff members do tell people things that aren't true, right? Right. And anyone who is into any ideology or set of theories that isn't 100% true and tells people about those things if representing them as fact is telling people things that weren't true.


I don't know that true believers are or aren't innocent. The jury seems to be out on that one hereabouts. I can think of lots of historical examples where true believers have done a lot of damage. And, of course, in CofS.

My interest in starting this thread is drawing the line- or attempting to- between the true believer who forwards untruths without intending deceit- and those who lie.

CofS does have intentional liars in it. Lots. DM, right? Regges and recruiters. It also has a lot of earnest people in it who truly believe that Scn will raise IQ.

The FreeZone is populated with true believers. They believe that the Scn philosophy has applicability. To those who feel otherwise, it very much appears that untruths are being told. What I'm hoping to get at is untruths that are lies- where there's deceit- vs untruths that are personal opinions, delusions, etc.

We have friends who believe in a lot of different things. Man didn't really make it to the moon. 9/11 was an insider job. There's a New World Order. The Rockefellers and the Rothschilds really run everything.

We don't have many, if any, here who think CofS is a good deal. We do have some here who think that non CofS Scn is the way to go, ideologically. And some, like me, who think there're things about it that are helpful but it isn't THE way to go.

And, last but certainly not least, we have many contributors here who believe that those last are harmful beliefs and contain deceit.

I'm not taking a shot at anyone. I think the conundrum is fascinating.

There're a lot of good observations on this thread including Synthia's and Student of Trinity's. Mine? Ehhh, I'm just starting a conversation and tossing in some debate.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
My interest in starting this thread is drawing the line- or attempting to- between the true believer who forwards untruths without intending deceit- and those who lie.

Looking at this thread again, I would say that there are true believers I would NOT classify as liars despite the fact that they forward untruths. It hinges upon whether they knowingly deceive or not. If a Scientologist unintentionally misinforms another about Hubbard being a nuclear scientist because that is what he "knows" to be true, I wouldn't consider him to be a liar for forwarding that untruth, as there was no intention to deceive.

However, if he assures a prospect that Scientology IS compatible with Christianity when he knows that isn't true, then that IS a lie. As a Scientologist, he may very well believe that the way he handled this prospect to be the "greatest good".
But his deception was intentional, and so that would make him a liar.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Looking at this thread again, I would say that there are true believers I would NOT classify as liars despite the fact that they forward untruths. It hinges upon whether they knowingly deceive or not. If a Scientologist unintentionally misinforms another about Hubbard being a nuclear scientist because that is what he "knows" to be true, I wouldn't consider him to be a liar for forwarding that untruth, as there was no intention to deceive.

However, if he assures a prospect that Scientology IS compatible with Christianity when he knows that isn't true, then that IS a lie. As a Scientologist, he may very well believe that the way he handled this prospect to be the "greatest good".
But his deception was intentional, and so that would make him a liar.

I would add this. Okay, so the dummy who passes on false information, but doesn't intend to, is not guilty of "lying", well, at least not of intentionally lying.

It matters to me though because I require accurate information to make informed decisions in my life. I don't care about blame or guilt. I simply aim to NEVER accept lies, either from a 1) scumbag deceiver or from 2) a starry-eyed overly-deluded true believer. (Hubbard might be the first, and the Scientology followers ARE the second).

I aspire to be even higher than both, and to never accept ANY lie, whether intentional or not, because doing so enters "bad data" into my "computing machinery". To me any person who forwards false data is a "liar". I try to avoid ALL of them, whether they know they are lying or not, because the result is the SAME if I accept and operate on the lie.

That one is unaware that he or she is lying, and has "good intentions", is largely meanngless to me. While there is a difference between evil and stupid, often the results and chaos these people enact upon the world is very similar. To me, the fact that one lies intentionally and the other does so unintentionally is a minor technicality.
 
Last edited:
Top