Was LRH The God or just a god?

[asagai]

Damn, that Lionheart was good!

 

[Pixie]

Damn, that Lionheart was good!

Yes, he was a god himself in my opinon. A gentlman of the highest order. I often wonder what happened to him. :confused2: Perhaps he moved to higher echelons of existence and has now become a Guru running an Ashram.

As for Lron, he was my god for sure, I used to have a bust of his in my bedroom, and sometimes when I'd arrive home drunk I'd forget it was there and use it as a clothes hanger. I'd wake up in the morning and my panties and bra would be hanging from his ears. I had a candle underneath the bust that I set up as a sort of alter and used to pray to him for help and guidence from his Target Two and I'd put his photo on the pillow next to mine so that he could send me his thoughts in my sleep.

 

[Power Change]

Missed Withholds

However, when I see someone who is scathing or carpingly critical of something (as opposed to antagonistic towards or angry about) - it's a different matter!

Sometimes people can have an incessant loathing toward somebody or something, over something that happened in the past. How come (in some cases) the upset and stirred emotions get magnified and fester - instead of dissipated, over time?

For 28 years now I've observed mw/h phenomena (in myself and others). Just because it's covered in the technology of scientology - that's no reason to deny it's existence or credibility.

However, being carpingly critical and scathing (incessantly), over somebody or something that occurred, and having that fester and magnify would indeed be mw/h phenomena and it would behoove anyone and everyone to acknowledge and recognize that, IMHO.

Regards,
Carmel

So, by your definition, the fact that so many continue to follow without interruption (incessant) criticizing the CofS and tech and anything to do with SCN....makes them missed withholdy.

Bullshit.

So all the OT's and thousands of hours of sec checks that criticize on boards and in life the church---are withholdy?

No....totally untrue...and impossible.

 

[Pixie]

Hey Pix,

I want to give you a concept here, so please read the whole post rather than single out something in particular.

Being critical is one thing - it would be more than foolish not to be critical of things that deserve criticism! However, when I see someone who is scathing or carpingly critical of something (as opposed to antagonistic towards or angry about) - it's a different matter!

Sometimes people can have an incessant loathing toward somebody or something, over something that happened in the past. How come (in some cases) the upset and stirred emotions get magnified and fester - instead of dissipated, over time?

For 28 years now I've observed mw/h phenomena (in myself and others). Just because it's covered in the technology of scientology - that's no reason to deny it's existence or credibility.

Unfortunately because people/LRH/Execs have twisted the technology, and used it to make people wrong, and have labelled something as something it is not - many have mistaken a natural reponse to various circumstances as mw/h phenomena/overts and the likes!

FYI - getting highly fu'king angry, being fu'ked off over some insidious occurance, or being extremely critical of something or somebody over something that has just happened or is still happening - is NOT mw/h phenomena (although the CofS would have you believe so)! However, being carpingly critical and scathing (incessantly), over somebody or something that occurred, and having that fester and magnify would indeed be mw/h phenomena and it would behoove anyone and everyone to acknowledge and recognize that, IMHO.

I am not talking about the phenomena that are incorrectly labelled time and time again, by the CofS and those within the ranks. I'm talking about phenomena which I learned about in the very early 80's and have since observed to be true. The two concepts are like chalk and cheese - yet within the ranks, they have the same label!

So yes, from my observation, LRH 'suffered' from mw/h phenomena big time!

Regards,
Carmel

I most certainly did read your whole post Ceedia, and I understand now from your second post above that this is still what you believe and that is fine. I also don't see the difference between 'carping' and 'critical' and 'angry' and 'antagonistic', to me these are all the same thing because when one is angry or antagonistic they are going to be in most cases critical as well.

At the end of the day what is true for you is true for you, but that is not my reality.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

<snip> and use it (The LRH bronche head) as a clothes hanger. I'd wake up in the morning and my panties and bra would be hanging from his ears.

Hawhrrr.. wheeze!!! - I heard that the Phantom Shitter uses those LRH bronche heads!

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

So, by your definition, the fact that so many continue to follow without interruption (incessant) criticizing the CofS and tech and anything to do with SCN....makes them missed withholdy.

Bullshit.

So all the OT's and thousands of hours of sec checks that criticize on boards and in life the church---are withholdy?

No....totally untrue...and impossible.

Power Change,

In the future, it would be good manners to indicate where you delete relevant material in an original post. Your deletions from Ceedia's post alter the concept entirely.

What YOU did here is "Bullshit" and not acceptable to me.

Readers beware! Read the originals.

Roy, the EP's EP

 

[Panda Termint]

Hubbard was a backward sort of god, you might even say he was a dog!

 

[Pascal]

LRH is an average Joe.

Ron wrote in many places that he was just a man, this is a very humble uttering.

Yet he studied man in 52 different cultures from an early age had a hunger for knowledge and a compassion for man that knew no rival. He found the tech of life and the mind, mapped the way out of the labyrinth, threaded a path through the deadly OTIII. He was possibly the only officer in the US Navy that saw action in every theater of WWII. He was exterior with perception and demonstrating OT powers as early as 1952, and as a small boy while studying mysticism was able to move objects with his mind, I think it was a matchstick floating on water. He is the authority on drug and criminal rehab, mental illness, administration,organization, finance, ethics, justice, nutrition, photography, music, film making, PR, intelligence, literature, seamanship, philosophy, child raising and education.

The only area that was not extensively researched was the almighty.

However in the admin dictionary eight dynamic is defined as " superior life beings" and goes further "there are always going to be superior life beings around"

KSW 1 makes it very clear that Ron IS the source, the busts and photos, clapping and deification by the group sort of indicates there is a lot more to this fellow than your garden variety human.

He also sought knowledge and power through the occult in 1947, he used affirmations to release his natural power.

He understood his role as early as 1938 when he wrote to his first wife Polly' "Living is a pretty grim joke, but a joke just the same. The entire function of man is to survive. The outermost limit of endeavour is creative work. Anything less is too close to simple survival until death happens along. So I am engaged in striving to maintain equilibrium sufficient to at least realize survival in a way to astound the gods. I turned the thing up so it's up to me to survive in a big way . . . Foolishly perhaps, but determined none the less, I have high hopes of smashing my name into history so violently that it will take a legendary form even if all books are destroyed. That goal is the real goal as far as I am concerned"

He is known among scientologists as mankinds' greatest friend.

In a late HCOB he stated that the only faintest chance this universe has is the delivery of his upper OT levels.

In the light of this there is no doubt he is a god, but is he The GOD?

No. LRH wrote in Responsability of Leaders that he didn't compare himself to Bolivar or Manuella. His antics in Rhodesia proved that.

Also see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5snMyIKWyE

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

I think the Phantom Shitter does it in those great boots in the sky too! - You see.. The Phantom Shitter recognises that he has a job! - He recognises that EVERYBODY has this job!

 

[Pixie]

I think the Phantom Shitter does it in those great boots in the sky too! - You see.. The Phantom Shitter recognises that he has a job! - He recognises that EVERYBODY has this job!

For sure, there is no doubt he was....

 

[Pascal]

Troll

I think the Phantom Shitter does it in those great boots in the sky too! - You see.. The Phantom Shitter recognises that he has a job! - He recognises that EVERYBODY has this job!

 

[Pixie]

Well if that's the case then SP is one of the sweetest, most informed and intellegent and objective guys on this board... so if he is a ''troll'', let's keep him...

 

[Feral]

Well if that's the case then SP is one of the sweetest, most informed and intellegent and objective guys on this board... so if he is a ''troll'', let's keep him...

SP is my favorite troll ever!

 

[cinamingrl]

~~~

This bum was nothing but a cult leader. He was just very manipulative and knew how to use his smarts to manipulate and steal from others. There are men like him on every corner in downtown L.A. or any other large city. He is really nothing to me but a con-artist. There were lots of con-artists I met while in that cult. He was just the first. But now he is dead.

What's that I read in the bible once..............? thou shall not..................worship idols or false gods. If everyone would stop idolizing this nut, it would stop.

 

[Power Change]

Power Change,

In the future, it would be good manners to indicate where you delete relevant material in an original post. Your deletions from Ceedia's post alter the concept entirely.

What YOU did here is "Bullshit" and not acceptable to me.

Readers beware! Read the originals.

Roy, the EP's EP

This is common practice EP--I cut out the non relevant part of his post as it relates to my answer. This is routinely done on the board...so.....:confused2:

Why is this suddenly not OK? You have a grudge with me on something EP?
Sure seems like it--the only two repsonses I ever had from you were scolding.... WTF?

 

[Power Change]

Isnt that the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

Consider this...

This is common practice EP--I cut out the non relevant part of his post as it relates to my answer. This is routinely done on the board...so.....:confused2:

Why is this suddenly not OK? You have a grudge with me on something EP?
Sure seems like it--the only two repsonses I ever had from you were scolding.... WTF?

Dear PC,

I see you've been registered here for a little over a month now, and I've only been around since July - so we are both relative "newbies" - but here's my take on this:

When you "cut out" parts of the OP's message YOU consider "non relevant" and do not show clearly the deletions/additions/modifications made; and, then label the modified post "Bullshit" you have committed a serious breach of manners, at an absolute minimum - and I, for one would be seriously offended if done to one of my posts!

I have not observed that it is "common practice" to modify OP's to fit one's answer. Certainly not for the purpose of labeling the OP "Bullshit".

I certainly have no grudge with you and hope you can see my point as regards this matter. It happens that I had carefully read the post you truncated, noticing that the opening sentence requested that the reader "read the whole post" - and, on that basis, it made total sense.

Then, reading your post it sounded OK when evaluated against the "quote" shown - which was NOT a "quote" at all, but an out of context "excerpt"!

So, I went back and looked at the OP - thus my response and "scold".

Make sense now?

Roy, the EP's EP

 

[Mark A. Baker]

AH-HA!

I'll say it again a bit differently;" If the above were true, he certainly is a god, but is he the GOD?'

Did Hubbard wish to replace God in the minds of men with himself? Remember it was he who spent the time redefining god in his books and dictionaries.

Has he succeeded to do just that within his church?

In the religious language common to the western world I would be more inclined to state that Hubbard is more like a "Messiah" for ardent members of the Co$ (and a few freezoners). How this came about and exactly who is (are) responsible is a bit unclear.

This is of course quite bizarre since the actual subject of scientology, as distinct from the cult & the Co$, is all about finding one's OWN truth, NOT accepting the truth of another.

Hubbard certainly shares responsibility for this result, although his statements are mixed & contradictory. Others also seem to have "pushed" the idea and "encouraged" (coerced?) others into achieving this effect.

I've never met anyone who accepted "godhood" for Hubbard. Certainly not in the sense as used commonly in western cultures. Even the claims to the Maitreya identity are not "godly". Although not many westerners understand the distinctions of deities, buddhas, asuras, bodhisattvas, etc..


Mark A. Baker

 

[Zinjifar]

'Forums' are a little different than usenet, but, some of the same practices *should* still apply, although, the turnover and general newbieness of Forums and their denizens makes that unlikely. Rules? What rules?!!! The 'Mods' will take care of it yuck yuck...

Anyway:

It's good form to include what you're replying to.
It's good form to trim your quote to what you're replying to
It's very *bad* form to trim what you're quoting to make it easier to refute or manipulate the intent of the poster you're replying to.

It's good to include a <snip> or something similar to let people know you've cut something out, but, that doesn't make it any better to deliberately misrepresent what you're replying to.

Just saying.

Zinj

 

[Power Change]

Dear PC,

I see you've been registered here for a little over a month now, and I've only been around since July - so we are both relative "newbies" - but here's my take on this:

When you "cut out" parts of the OP's message YOU consider "non relevant" and do not show clearly the deletions/additions/modifications made; and, then label the modified post "Bullshit" you have committed a serious breach of manners, at an absolute minimum - and I, for one would be seriously offended if done to one of my posts!

I have not observed that it is "common practice" to modify OP's to fit one's answer. Certainly not for the purpose of labeling the OP "Bullshit".

I certainly have no grudge with you and hope you can see my point as regards this matter. It happens that I had carefully read the post you truncated, noticing that the opening sentence requested that the reader "read the whole post" - and, on that basis, it made total sense.

Then, reading your post it sounded OK when evaluated against the "quote" shown - which was NOT a "quote" at all, but an out of context "excerpt"!

So, I went back and looked at the OP - thus my response and "scold".

Make sense now?

Roy, the EP's EP

'Forums' are a little different than usenet, but, some of the same practices *should* still apply, although, the turnover and general newbieness of Forums and their denizens makes that unlikely. Rules? What rules?!!! The 'Mods' will take care of it yuck yuck...

Anyway:

It's good form to include what you're replying to.
It's good form to trim your quote to what you're replying to
It's very *bad* form to trim what you're quoting to make it easier to refute or manipulate the intent of the poster you're replying to.

It's good to include a <snip> or something similar to let people know you've cut something out, but, that doesn't make it any better to deliberately misrepresent what you're replying to.

Just saying.

Zinj

I do understand somewhat. I dont see that pointing out the main viewpoint I was addressing was wrong by deleting the rest-primarily because the intention was not to manipulate the intent of the poster. It was, in fact, to make it easier to see what I was replying to so someone didnt have to reread the whole post.

I can see your point if the intent was to manipulate-which this was not.

But regardless, perception is everything unfortunately so I am glad we cleared that up....did we?

Back to my post...I totally disagree with inferring people who anr anti scn who post incessantly (ie a board ex scn for instance), have missed withholds....I think we have all beenn sec checked enough for an eternity.