Feb 10, 2008

[China Cat Sunflower]

I took a couple of Scientology courses many years ago. Never did any auditing, though. I have a couple of friends who are Scientologists. There are a lot of different levels of involvement with Scientology from which one can choose, but there is always pressure to increase one's commitment. My impression of the students and teaching system is that it's a lot like Dale Carnegie on steroids. What I mean is that, well...if you've ever had to attend one of those gawd awful "how to be a power salesman" seminars for your job-- it's like that.

Chris

[Vajradhara]

Namaste GP,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by gp1628

To what? The cost or the hate site comment?

the hate site comment.

Surely even if you feel xenu.net is the fountain of truth it must also bear a title that its purpose is anti-scientology. Even as far as a hate-site. Just as I would list scientology.org as an overly pro-site. Usually I would avoid crediting either one but in the case of making some points saying that "even xenu.net says" is helpful.

that someone or something is critical of another person or orgnization does not mean that the being or thing is hateful.

claiming that sites which take alternate points of view are hate sites is quite unusual. if that were the case THIS forum would be a hate site.

Like most people (62% according to xenu.net) I took a couple of courses then left. Im sure that will allow you to say that I was blind to the vatican level knowledge but for most of the posts that feels to me to have as much force as a christian not knowing the vatican secrets.

ok.

so do you know where you were on the Tone Scale?

All of the ex-scientologists? Millions in 162 countries? We see maybe a dozen over and over on youtube and you feel that the rest are all hiding. And try to categorize me into some nice little niche also. Im guessing that all scientology true believers are also insane, or brainwashed, or "in on it"?

who said anything about millions? that there ARE ex-$cientologists, OT VII Auditors and higher, if that means anything to you, is sufficient evidence for the claim that there are ex-$cientologists which have a far more comprehensive working knowledge of the organization and its operations.

i don't care much for conversations regarding who's a true believer and who is not, if someone claims to be a true believer then that is sufficient for me.

Thanks I appreciate. I actually never thought of myself as being pro-scientology. If anything I considered myself in the middle and definetly did not plan to spend much time on scientology posts. But on some forums I see such rampant dung-rolling (getting bigger and bigger with each person) that it makes my fingers itch to type something.

do you feel that any of the posts in this thread are "dung-rolling"?

metta,

~v

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the hate site comment.
that someone or something is critical of another person or orgnization does not mean that the being or thing is hateful.
claiming that sites which take alternate points of view are hate sites is quite unusual. if that were the case THIS forum would be a hate site.

There is a big difference in this site vs xenu.net. The entire purpose of xenu.nets existence is anti-scientology. And the tone of many of the articles are pretty hateful. Truthfully its not the most extreme case but I wouldnt consider it to be a site trying to provide simple facts.

so do you know where you were on the Tone Scale?

This was decades ago. I had to look it up. But in general Id say that Im usually a 6.0 but I was probably 8.0 when I left.

who said anything about millions? that there ARE ex-$cientologists, OT VII Auditors and higher, if that means anything to you, is sufficient evidence for the claim that there are ex-$cientologists which have a far more comprehensive working knowledge of the organization and its operations.

Is there a percentage? How does that compare to ex-catholics, or ex-Amway_Distributors, or ex-boyscouts. Ive seen some pretty burning (and hard to believe) dissertations by ex's of many types. I dont tend to automatically take them as the way things really are in those groups. I dont dismiss them entirely but I dont take a small group at their word (even if who they are talking about makes me really really want to)

do you feel that any of the posts in this thread are "dung-rolling"?

None on the subject of scientology leap to mind here. This board has a better standing in that than forums such as (surprisingly) BeliefNet, or AnswersYahoo. Way better than YouTube or Amazon.


Gandalf Parker

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by gp1628

Is there a percentage? How does that compare to ex-catholics, or ex-Amway_Distributors, or ex-boyscouts. Ive seen some pretty burning (and hard to believe) dissertations by ex's of many types. I dont tend to automatically take them as the way things really are in those groups. I dont dismiss them entirely but I dont take a small group at their word (even if who they are talking about makes me really really want to)

I think it's quite reasonable to think that so-called ex-adherents of a tradition influence those still adhering to be "more hostile" by their own hostile attitude, to the point that the tradition itself seems more hostile.

So in exposing "the truth" about something, you actually change the object you are describing. That happens a lot in this world of our's. In our attempts to expose truth, we change the truth because of the way people respond to what we say.

Take a bunch of fundamentalists (of just about any tradition). Talk about how evil, vindictive and hateful they are and how they destroy people's lives. They will, of course, try to defend and justify their actions and attitude. That just makes the phenomenon even more "evil" (in your perspective). So it's like they become even more fundamentalist by asserting and defending themselves. In your/our view, the fundamentalist should keep quiet. But if we hadn't said or done those things, they would not have said or done those things. We influenced their behaviour.

Yes they are separatists, but deep inside, despite their separatism, they do have some kind of peace-loving attitude inside their own community. We are their enemy. In a way, we are all separatists. From the fundamentalist point of view, we are the separatists.

But if everyone is a separatist then there are no separatists. It's just a sea of conflicting political and ideological forces and influences. Separatism implies that there is an absolute authority, an absolute standard by which all things can be evaluated. Where there is no absolute authority/standard, there is no real separatism. There is merely conflict.

A lot of politics works that way as well. And politics.....is driven by perception. Is there hatred and evil all around?.....not necessarily. Fill the sea of conflicting political and ideological forces and influences with empathy and understanding......and the hatred and evil simply dissolve and disappear. The hatred was never really there. It was just paranoia....the illusion of an enemy. People don't really hate. They just don't understand. Their perceptions are wrong. So they participate in this vicious cycle/circle of wrong perceptions. They continue to stick labels on others that are no better than just mere perception. When we all wake up from this ridiculous dream where we vilify what we don't understand, peace and justice will reign like it never did before.....

Maybe I'm just another dreamer.

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Maybe I'm just another dreamer.

And you're not the only one..

[Francis king]

...don't ya just love it when ppl throw that "middle class" stone at ya when u disagree with them...?

I will be going to Darfur, Tao, after I have made sweet love to ur mother... again...

(we could trade "middle class" and "mother lover" insults all day, if u like...)

...we could build a little fence, and throw flaming bags of dog poo onto each other's patios...

....

I followed ur link to wiki, cyberpi, and even had a look at clambake and Zenu... thanks for that... I have to say I agree with the old man gp1628- clambake is more humerous, but they both could be described as hate sites...

...

Vaj...

my point was, albeit banal, that if you, personally, haven't been fleeced, or if you personally haven't had your mind warped by them, then what's the big deal?

You yourself say: any group that has the avowed aim to clear the planet of anyone that doesn't share their views and speaks out against them should be oppposed... but aren't you playing the same game, Vaj?

You want rid of them because?

"you're concerned about the undue influence that celebrities have upon the democratic process and the specific intentions that $cientology has towards celebrities and how to use them to further their cause.... [and because you're] ... concerned about the undue influence that celebrities have upon the democratic process and the specific intentions that $cientology has towards celebrities and how to use them to further their cause".

Maybe where you come from, ppl listen to celebs, but here, we mock them, quite openly, in magazines like "Heat"... If a person is such a fool that they listen to a celeb's political opinions and allow those opinions to effect their own political decisions, then maybe they should not be able to vote in the first place... Honestly... would you take political advice from Tom Cruise?

...

Path-of-one...

Of course I am in favour of large powerful corporations stalking journalists... it makes good copy...
....

okay, scientology is a wierd one, but they are not luring you from your home country with the promise of a low paid job in the service industry only to tie you up in a brothel and force you into having sex for money for five years to pay off a debt you didn't know you had...

scientology does not burn hundreds of it's followers in ritual suicides, like the Solar Temple did, it does not make it's followers drink Kool-Aid and lay down like they did in Guyana, it does not encourage child marriage or flirty fishing, it does not inspire it's followers to commit acts of terrorism, nor does it steal babies from african countries and pass them off as miracles...

these are the kinds of behaviours which, in cults, we should not tolerate...

...I still feel that although it is noble to campaign against injustices, and try to make a difference, your motivation should be noble too- there is no point using campaigning as an excuse to hate out-groups when the out-group itself is not especially dangerous to you or anybody else, in the great grand scheme of things...

...scientology, like cults before it, will eventually end... how many of the, lol, "powerful" ppl are still into Kabbalah? But hey, in the 1990's ppl were saying the same thing about that- it was shady, a secret club for the powerful and rich elite, when in truth, it was just a fad... much like scientology is...

...there's more important things to worry about, surely?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste GP,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by gp1628

There is a big difference in this site vs xenu.net. The entire purpose of xenu.nets existence is anti-scientology. And the tone of many of the articles are pretty hateful. Truthfully its not the most extreme case but I wouldnt consider it to be a site trying to provide simple facts.

are you sure it is "anti" $cientology and not pro-$ciengologist? the founder of the site was a high ranking member of the Org and spent time in SeaOrg as well, iirc.

does speaking out against something make something defacto hateful?

This was decades ago. I had to look it up. But in general Id say that Im usually a 6.0 but I was probably 8.0 when I left.

interesting.

i was a 1.0.

Is there a percentage?

it's hard to say since $cientology is not very forthcoming with things like membership numbers and so forth.

by some accounts there are less than 50,000 $cientologists worldwide but other accounts put the numbers in close to 1,000,000 so i suspect your precentage would depend on the number of $cientologists there actually are.

How does that compare to ex-catholics, or ex-Amway_Distributors, or ex-boyscouts.

since i'm not talking about those groups i really couldn't say though i would have to suppose that there are far more ex-Catholics and Boyscouts than current $cienotology members.

Ive seen some pretty burning (and hard to believe) dissertations by ex's of many types. I dont tend to automatically take them as the way things really are in those groups. I dont dismiss them entirely but I dont take a small group at their word (even if who they are talking about makes me really really want to)

what if you read account after account from various beings which confirmed previous accounts? would you give more creedence to them then? of course one should always try to investigate the issue from both sides of the debate, so to speak.

None on the subject of scientology leap to mind here. This board has a better standing in that than forums such as (surprisingly) BeliefNet, or AnswersYahoo. Way better than YouTube or Amazon.

i'm glad that is your view.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Francis King,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Francis king

Vaj...

my point was, albeit banal, that if you, personally, haven't been fleeced, or if you personally haven't had your mind warped by them, then what's the big deal?

i did gather that was your point though i may not have communicated it well.

You yourself say: any group that has the avowed aim to clear the planet of anyone that doesn't share their views and speaks out against them should be oppposed... but aren't you playing the same game, Vaj?

only if you equate organizations with the people that are part of them. i am, and have said repeatedly, all for a $cientologist having any beliefs that they want. i am opposed to the organization of $cientology specifically the RTS and the AIM which control the Orgs and the Church.

You want rid of them because?

i oppose genocide?

"you're concerned about the undue influence that celebrities have upon the democratic process and the specific intentions that $cientology has towards celebrities and how to use them to further their cause....

Maybe where you come from, ppl listen to celebs, but here, we mock them, quite openly, in magazines like "Heat"... If a person is such a fool that they listen to a celeb's political opinions and allow those opinions to effect their own political decisions, then maybe they should not be able to vote in the first place... Honestly... would you take political advice from Tom Cruise?

maybe they shouldn't be able to vote.. but they can vote and they do vote.

i wouldn't listen to Tom Crui$e telling me a biography of Tom Crui$e let alone take political advice from him. that does not have any particular relevance though as i'm not a politician in need of money and votes and the sort of rub-off celebrity that being associated with celebrities often brings.

metta,

~v

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

does speaking out against something make something defacto hateful?

Not at all. But there is a difference between providing facts and spewing hate. Its all propoganda. The same facts can be provided with very different words chosen to specifically lean things a certain direction. Its often done and takes some training or practice to spot it. But some are done lightly, and some are done so strongly as to turn the facts into something quite abit more questionable.

interesting.

i was a 1.0.

Thats kindof one of my points. People get the impression on some of these forums that everyone is either 100% brainwashed scientologist, or an ex-scientologist that fled them in fear of the church. With abit of reading its not hard to see that its much more normal than that. There are plenty of scientologists who are willing to speak out against some things the church is doing but still stay scientologists. And according to xenu.net 62% of people take a few courses then leave. Out of millions that would appear to be alot of people like me who took courses, liked it, but moved on without joining staff. About what would be expected.

Im not blindly believing that everyone who leaves the church leaves it high-tone. But I dont like the leading of the internet sheep down the path that everyone leaves it bottomed out either.

it's hard to say since $cientology is not very forthcoming with things like membership numbers and so forth.

by some accounts there are less than 50,000 $cientologists worldwide but other accounts put the numbers in close to 1,000,000 so i suspect your precentage would depend on the number of $cientologists there actually are.

Im not seeing that much of a problem. Scientology (and alot of anti-scientologists) tend to treat any membership as being a "scientologist". But scientology does not require conversion to take a course. The lower numbers tend to be based on census surveys and such for how many people claim scientology as their religion. According to Xenu.net 53% of scientologists are christian. That means that those 53% are counted by CoS as being scientologists, and pointed to by the downsayers as a gap in the numbers.

what if you read account after account from various beings which confirmed previous accounts? would you give more creedence to them then?

Oh Ive read accounts I agreed with. But what I tend to see is that the most flaming fire-and-brimstone accounts are often posted to forums, and the supportive ones are the lighter ones which support one or two minor items of the first post.

of course one should always try to investigate the issue from both sides of the debate, so to speak.

Of course. I spend far more time over the last few years reading the anti-scientology sites than I do the pro-scientology sites. In fact it seems like, in my situation, the only time I get news of something in their favor such as a new charity or program they support, is by reading the version on something like xenu.net then going to news.google for the media version.

Gandalf Parker

[Vajradhara]

Namaste GP,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by gp1628

Not at all. But there is a difference between providing facts and spewing hate. Its all propoganda. The same facts can be provided with very different words chosen to specifically lean things a certain direction. Its often done and takes some training or practice to spot it. But some are done lightly, and some are done so strongly as to turn the facts into something quite abit more questionable.

can you give me an example from the site in question?

i agree that providing information and promulgating hatred are different things.

Thats kindof one of my points.
Im not blindly believing that everyone who leaves the church leaves it high-tone. But I dont like the leading of the internet sheep down the path that everyone leaves it bottomed out either.

as well you should not believe that, LRH's own private biographer left the Org as a 1.0 on the Tone Scale.. of course that was after LRH died and Mi$cavage started the purge of all those loyal to the Broekers.

how have you determined that those reading the posts are sheep? that seems to proclaim a knowledge about a great many beings which seems somewhat impossible to verify.

according to the Source only about 2.5% of the population are 1.0 on the Tone Scale so it wouldn't be accurate to say that everyone leaving $cientology is at a 1.0.

Im not seeing that much of a problem.

i am not see what you are saying here. you asked what % of people were ex-$cientologists who write about $cientology, or so i presumed, and i stated that there was no manner by which i'm able to give you a % since we don't know the amount of people that are in $cientology.

Scientology (and alot of anti-scientologists) tend to treat any membership as being a "scientologist". But scientology does not require conversion to take a course. The lower numbers tend to be based on census surveys and such for how many people claim scientology as their religion.

how else would one determine someones religion without asking them and then accepting their word that they believe what they profess?

According to Xenu.net 53% of scientologists are christian. That means that those 53% are counted by CoS as being scientologists, and pointed to by the downsayers as a gap in the numbers.

"downsayers"?

53% of 50,000 does not get one to 1,000,000..... even with the new math as near as i can tell.

Oh Ive read accounts I agreed with. But what I tend to see is that the most flaming fire-and-brimstone accounts are often posted to forums, and the supportive ones are the lighter ones which support one or two minor items of the first post.

interesting but that is not what i asked.

metta,

~v