Scientology taught, "the historic Jesus was... a lover of young boys and men"

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Scientology taught, "the historic Jesus was... a lover of young boys and men... given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred."

Tony Ortega: UP THE BRIDGE: We finally reach ‘OT 8' — but was its first version really a hoax?
http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/24/up...s-its-first-version-really-a-hoax/#more-15484

George_White.jpg

George White on the Freewinds to do OT 8 in July 1988


GeorgeWhiteOT8.jpg



Tony Ortega has the story in which George White confirms that in original Scientology OT VIII, L. Ron Hubbard said, taught and instructed:
For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure he has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting. It is a good joke that the Galactic Confederacy is associated with the Serpent in the Garden, the Beast and other emissaries of the “Prince of Darkness.” Yet in certain passages and esoteric interpretations of the Bible (much of which has been taken out and effectively suppressed for centuries) as well as the Kabbalah, the truth reveals itself quite nicely for the clever and the ungullible.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said he was the Antichrist

Oh, and Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard said he was the Antichrist:

http://tonyortega.org/2014/06/24/up...s-its-first-version-really-a-hoax/#more-15484

No doubt you are familiar with the Revelations section of the Bible where various events are predicted. Also mentioned is a brief period of time in which an archenemy of Christ, referred to as the Antichrist, will reign and his opinions will have sway. All this makes for very fantastic, entertaining reading but there is truth in it. This Antichrist represents the forces of Lucifer (literally, the “light bearer” or “light bring”), Lucifer being a mythical representation of the forces of enlightenment, the Galactic Confederacy. My mission could be said to fulfill the Biblical promise represented by this brief Antichrist period. During this period there is a fleeting opportunity for the whole scenario to be effectively derailed, which would make it impossible for the mass Markabian landing (Second Coming) to take place. The Second Coming is designed, among other things, to trigger a rapid series of destructive events.
 

tetloj

Silver Meritorious Patron
Slightly off topic - but it's interesting that the Sea Org are responsible for issuing certificates when the RTC/CSI (depending on what you believe out of the Mosey suit) are responsible for the tech. The Sea Org have no status so why would they have authority to essentially verify who was or wasn't OT?

Also - I suppose we should add re 'Scientology teaching Jesus was a lover of young boys and men' many Scientologists would never come across this material. The majority, even? :confused2:
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks Tetloj for the info. I'd always been cautious about the Fishman affadavit because of his questionable reliability as a witness. It is good to have corroboration of this from another witness.
 

Veda

Sponsor
At one time I also doubted the authenticity of the Lucifer HCOB of 1980.

That was mainly because some of the writing, IMO, was not in Hubbard's writing style.

Also, I knew of no persons, who were around Hubbard during that period, who had confirmed its authenticity.

However, for quite a while there's been sufficient evidence from reliable people to confirm, for me, that it was - for a while - on both the Class 8 course and the New OT 8 course.

Also, from a very high-up reliable source, I had it confirmed that Hubbard did author it, and that it came via Pat Broeker, who was extremely excited about it, and wanted a new OT level based on it.

I have a question as to whether it was typed by Hubbard, or was dictated by Hubbard. If it was dictated by Hubbard and, then, formatted by Broeker, perhaps Broeker added some small amount of content to bridge from idea to idea; however the core, essential, document, was Hubbard's.

It's in line with what Hubbard had been saying, confidentially, previously: Christianity is the result of implants.

Hubbard, as any Scientologist knows, is the anti-implanter and enemy of the implanters.

Hubbard's 1980 reference to the Cabala (or Kabbalah, or Qabalah, etc.) is noteworthy, and his descent into yet more implant scenarios - this time with the implanters outside the physical universe - was predicable.

And you Captain Bill/Ron's Orgers will notice the similarity between the Lucifer OT 8 HCOB and Cap'n Bill's OT 8 (Super NOTs or 'Excalibur') level.

The Third Wall of Fire.

Wheeeee! :headspin:
 

AnonSunshine

Patron with Honors
It is true.
I had a family member, who completed Oatee VIII, and the person told me that the material about 'Scientology teaching Jesus was a lover of young boys and men' was presented to the person.
When I heard that, I was done with it.
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
But anyone who grew up as a Christian knows that Jesus loved boys and young men, and ugly old ladies for that matter. Hubbard never did understand the concept of love, love is not the same as sexual attraction. I personally love chicken and rice but not in any smutty way. Many people love dogs without getting intimate with them. There are many religious leaders who have been found with their trousers down, and I have no information about JC at all, but neither did the all wise all knowing Hubbard.

So if you look again at his statement, JC loved boys and men, and he was angry at times. It actually means nothing. It's a typical Hubbard implication, black PR statement, He loved people and got angry turning over money changer's tables in the temple, we were already taught that by priests and vicars. He just wanted to look better than a rival.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
But anyone who grew up as a Christian knows that Jesus loved boys and young men, and ugly old ladies for that matter. Hubbard never did understand the concept of love, love is not the same as sexual attraction. I personally love chicken and rice but not in any smutty way. Many people love dogs without getting intimate with them. There are many religious leaders who have been found with their trousers down, and I have no information about JC at all, but neither did the all wise all knowing Hubbard.

So if you look again at his statement, JC loved boys and men, and he was angry at times. It actually means nothing. It's a typical Hubbard implication, black PR statement, He loved people and got angry turning over money changer's tables in the temple, we were already taught that by priests and vicars. He just wanted to look better than a rival.

That's a very interesting thought. Anyone who Hubbard borrowed from or was a
rival in philosophy/religion got trashed by Hubbard. He couldn't trash Christ in the
english speaking world where most were brought up as christians, so he saved it
for the confidential OT 8 where he I assume thought people were well enough
indoctinated.
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
That's a very interesting thought. Anyone who Hubbard borrowed from or was a
rival in philosophy/religion got trashed by Hubbard. He couldn't trash Christ in the
english speaking world where most were brought up as christians, so he saved it
for the confidential OT 8 where he I assume thought people were well enough
indoctinated.

He had already a few jibes at the man from the implants, the R6 stuff was on various lectures. Nothing I've seen in the Oat he Ate materials were really new, Jesus was always seen by him as an implant from some invader force keeping the riff raff in line. I understand professional jealousy, it is logical in it's own way. Saying that and with all his implications of being Gotama Sidartha himself he was perfectly able to put down the Buddhist way. Was he badmouthing himself? Was he the Buddha, was he Mettaya?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZRe1kPWZw
 
Top