 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Jul 12 - 08:58 PM No sniping please. I was starting to enjoy the discussion but I want to respect josepp's request to end the thread. I read Dianetics while I was taking Psych and organizational behavior (Psychology for business) courses at university. I think that Dianetics, combined with other feedback and praise would tend to be very effective placebo. I think the fact that the "auditee" invests so much money in it raises the stakes and makes the placebo even more effective. I think that was a major reason that it was not as effective in blind trials and objective research. I think that Scientology contains a lot of psychology. I think that it is marketing psychology being practiced on its devotees. I think that it is probably very useful someone who would otherwise be an insecure celebrity and who can afford it and whose career might thrive in the presence of amped-up butt-kissing with the added weight and seriousness of "science" and ceremony of a "religion." What do you all think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Bobert Date: 16 Jul 12 - 09:00 PM I haven't read the thread, Jack... Could anyone just put together a three paragraph description of what these folks believe??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Jul 12 - 09:25 PM Beliefs of Scientology |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Rapparee Date: 16 Jul 12 - 09:34 PM I've delved into it, studying it, off and on, since the early Sixties. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.' That's my take on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Bobert Date: 16 Jul 12 - 09:36 PM I read it and I still am clueless as to what it's about... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Wesley S Date: 16 Jul 12 - 09:40 PM I'm in the camp that believes it's a dangerous cult. But that's just me. Not that it matters but the first place I ever played a rock and roll gig { I was in high school } was the Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater Florida. It's also the same place that the Rolling Stones wrote "I can't get no Satisfaction". It's now one of the headquarters of Scientology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Jul 12 - 10:01 PM Bobert I don't think anyone is supposed to understand it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Bobert Date: 16 Jul 12 - 10:24 PM How about Tom Cruise??? He must be a lot smarter than me, I reckon, 'cause it's like calculus on crack to me... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Amos Date: 16 Jul 12 - 10:50 PM Pfft. Nothin' all that much -- 1. Who you are when all the confusion is stripped off is a spiritual being. 2, When all the confusion is added back in, most humans lose sight of their basic nature. I don't think it is very challenging to agree that many human beings are pretty confused--just read all the other threads i the BS section. 3. Bringing a spiritual being who is wrapped up in a bale of human confusion to look at and communicate about and sort out for himself the events and (more importantly) the decisions that brought him into his state can bring him to see for himself how he got into a confused state and restore his self-determination about getting out of it, making for happier and generally more rational people. Those are the big and basic ideas as I understand it. Not that far removed from Buddhism or some brands of Xianity, either. What;s so hard about that? As to what they say about language and words, that is not much harder. If you try and understand thoughts expressed in words, but you don't understand the words, you will get twisted impressions of the thoughts. So get clear on what a word means in the context in which you are trying to understand it if you want to get the thoughts behind the words straight. Which is important if you want to use those thoughts in application somewhere. There ya go. $500 please. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Jul 12 - 11:09 PM Well said, Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Ebbie Date: 16 Jul 12 - 11:35 PM "There ya go. $500 please." pffffttttt, Amos. Lucy charged only a nickel. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Jul 12 - 11:45 PM Yeah, but think how much a nickel was worth in Lucy's world... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Les in Chorlton Date: 17 Jul 12 - 03:02 AM I thought it was invented by L Ron because he was bored withe writing Science Fiction. He invented a 'religeon' and it is know very succesful and makes loads of money for somebody or other. Some other religeons refer to it as a cult because it's differento say the catholic church or the LDS/Mormon church exactly how I cannot tell Best wishes L in C# The church of god the atheist, Manchester |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 12 - 03:10 AM The church of "God! The atheist!" ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Les in Chorlton Date: 17 Jul 12 - 03:25 AM If god decided he was an atheist, would he disappear? L in C# |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Dave Hanson Date: 17 Jul 12 - 03:34 AM There is a line from a song in the Film ' Sweet Charity ' about, " a million pigeons, waiting to be hooked on new religions " Sums it up for me. Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Acorn4 Date: 17 Jul 12 - 03:46 AM "If a man really wants to make $1,000,000, the best way would be to start his own religion." L.Ron. Hubbard |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Backwoodsman Date: 17 Jul 12 - 04:31 AM It's complete load of bullshit designed to baffle the brains of (mostly-)American rich suckers, and relieve them of their money. Send me the $500 please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 12 - 06:04 AM Its all over the world. America is where the money is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Sandra in Sydney Date: 17 Jul 12 - 06:25 AM Data on religion from the 2011 Australian Census has just been released - Scientology membership in drastic decline extract- Figures from the 2011 Census show that only 2,163 Australians call themselves Scientologists. That's a drop of 13.7 per cent over five years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Dave Hanson Date: 17 Jul 12 - 06:38 AM Jack the sailor must be a believer such is his great interest. Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 12 - 07:18 AM How do you get the idea that I am interested without reading what I have written? Did your spiritual being tell you? Yeah Dave, come by the house, I will connect a car battery to a couple of soup cans and zap that thetan right out of your body. Yesser, after that you'll be nothing but flesh and engrams! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Stringsinger Date: 17 Jul 12 - 07:26 AM I see the value of this discussion because so many are prone to cults. It's an interesting form of addiction, adopted by many in the entertainment field, a way of tuning out the negative noise of reality in the political and social sphere. Often, a cult or a religion starts out with an interesting premise but when it becomes institutionalized, it is immediately corrupted. As to the status of a "placebo", aren't we talking about any cult or religion that tends to shut out the unpleasant noise, the ultimate escape? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Dave Hanson Date: 17 Jul 12 - 07:28 AM I have read your post Jack, which is how I deduced your great interest in dianetics etc. sadly I don't know what an ' engram ' is. Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: JohnInKansas Date: 17 Jul 12 - 07:43 AM When I was nearing graduation from college, I, and many others, received anonymous invitations to "join scientology." Having had acquaintances previously who had signed up to become immediate millionaires via (1) Tupperware, (2) Amzoil, (3) Watkins (4) A recycled/rebuilt sparkplug monopoly, (5) door to door sales of custom tailored suits ... and a few others, the pitch about benefits was immediately recognizable as a pyramid scheme mainly for the benefit of the organizers. A review of the "philosophical basis" immediately showed that it was based on "religions precepts" of a slightly novel, but fairly transparent sort. Unlike most religions in which a "philosopher" or other leader of some tribe or community wandered off into the mountains, survived for a time (ingesting a lot of funny stuff or pushing the limits of starvation), and had hallucinations that were brought back chiseled on a rock, scientology appeared to be the result of some psychologist with delusions of "scientific knowledge" who sequestered himself for a time from ordinary social interactions and ... well, the was rest just like the rest of them. No sales that I know of among my associates at the time. More recent published reports have alluded to rather extremist cult-like practices, with sufficient detail to be believable; but I've never known anyone personally who was both delusional enough to "believe" and rich enough to buy the required "lessons". John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 12 - 08:21 AM "sadly I don't know what an ' engram " You can live without knowing. But her is a quote from the wiki page I linked to, if it helps.. H"e likened the human mind to a perfect computer that needed to be "cleared" of erroneous data enforced upon it from engrams or painful memories." by the reference was a joke. I was being sarcastic in my first post. I don't really think celebrities ought to be paying people to kiss their ass. But I can see where some dumb ones would. I also think that buying an expensive placebo is a bad thing. With a nod to josepp, I am beginning to see an advantage of hysteric and hyperbolic writing on such issues. At least it makes it clear where you stand. For the record. I am not a believer in Scientology. I am not likely ever to be one. If I ever feel the need for an invented religion based on trash science, I will save some money and make up my own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 12 - 08:24 AM by the way, the reference was a joke. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Dave Hanson Date: 17 Jul 12 - 09:58 AM By the way, why does it interest you so much ? I saw L [ Lafayette ] Ron Hubbards books in a bookshop many years ago and quickly discovered he was a charlatan, after that I had no further interest in him or his works, I was amazed at how many celebreties and so called intelligent people still fall for Hubbards utter rubbish. Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: BrendanB Date: 17 Jul 12 - 10:32 AM I suspect that Scientology interests JtS for the same kinds of reasons as it interests me. An enquiring mind, the fact that it has recently been in the news, the way in which what to some people seems ludicrous is so important to others and whether it poses any kind of threat to individuals or groups. I could of course be wrong in that supposition. The idea that you have to believe in something to be interested in it seems odd to me. I find Hinduism, Islam and Sihkism interesting, I would have trouble believing all of them at the same time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Stringsinger Date: 17 Jul 12 - 10:53 AM Scientology, like many other belief systems, is a cult. If you don't think so, become a Scientologist and then attempt to leave it and afterward offer criticism of it. One of the hallmarks of a cult is the organized retribution of its members to make the deviant from the rigid institutional path pay a price. This is not thinking freely but arbitrarily imposing views on victims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Bonzo3legs Date: 17 Jul 12 - 10:57 AM The Jive Aces, a damn good jive band are all caught up in this nonsence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Amos Date: 17 Jul 12 - 01:26 PM Actually, the _subject_ of Scientology is interesting because of its relationship to other philosophical efforts. It is something of an intersection between Bergsonian metaphysics and Buddhistic spiritual precepts. Those who don't care about such things will not find this in any wise to its credit, obviously. The mishmash of its organizational highjinks and strange, cultish behaviors, is a very different thing indeed, about as far removed from the core material as the recent history of bishops and small boys is from their original inspiration. In a way it is unfortunate that the organization, with its fancy celebrity noises and scandals, gets as much attention as it does, because it really does behave like a small-minded arrogant cult when the subject itself is far more benign and academically interesting. As I understand it, an "engram" is a mental recording of a trauma--mental pictures which include recordings of force, pain, sound, visual impressions etc. The Dianetic approach to remedying the lingering after-effects of trauma --commonly called PTSD -- is to bring the person to view the experience more and more completely until it is ultimately drained of its aberrative power. The practitioners say it is an effective way to remedy the aftereffects of any great trauma from childbirth to combat. Anyone actually tried it, or know someone who has? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Stringsinger Date: 17 Jul 12 - 04:36 PM Actually, I have tried it when I was younger. I had an auditor. I was never a Scientologist but thought that there was merit in revisiting painful experiences and evaluating them by reliving them. I gave up after Scientology went off the rails. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Jul 12 - 07:25 PM Amos: "1. Who you are when all the confusion is stripped off is a spiritual being. 2, When all the confusion is added back in, most humans lose sight of their basic nature. I don't think it is very challenging to agree that many human beings are pretty confused--just read all the other threads in the BS section." I tend to agree..so I'll go a little further...matter is what happens when light collides with time. There is 'life' in that 'ligh't, which gives animation(living beings)....when that 'life', which is originally connected to 'intelligence (love)', as well, comes into this dimension, it seems to go through an 'amnesia', from where it came...and to prove that, How come every time you hear something that is true, and you KNOW it's true, have you noticed that it takes the form of 'remembering'... Now connect the dots...remembering from where???......before the 'amnesia'! There is a great song , an old one that speaks of it....and this version is clear. 'Caledonia' is the original word that the Irish called Scotland..everything North of The Hadrian Wall, it literally means 'your first land, or estate'.. but the origins of the word refers to 'your first land(or estate) before you were born'. It should be noted, that this song, with that connotation, sung by Lisa kicks ass!!...and gives it an extra punch. You may notice, at the end of the piece, her left eye is filled with tears,(you can see it clear as a bell on the CD)...I just love it when musicians really connect their song, with the spirit from which they came, and they give it their all!! Anyway....enjoy! Regards!!..(you ol' Obama guy!) GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 12 - 07:33 PM I only a believer in a very few things. I am curious about a great many. What I was most interested in on this thread was the personal stories, opinions and experiences of Scientology shared on the other thread. I would be happy to hear those. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Elmore Date: 17 Jul 12 - 07:45 PM Did you ever go clear? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 12 - 08:05 PM Elmore are you talking to Stringsinger? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Bill D Date: 17 Jul 12 - 08:29 PM "...go clear?" I find such language tends to overshadow the intended internal 'adjustment'. Like mainstream religions, people get so caught up in special terminology (transubstantiation, resurrection, 'angel', Heaven...etc., etc...) that they assume that if a thing or process has a name, it must have some measure of reality. Most generally recognized 'cults', as well as religions, are awash with language designed to suggest that something 'special' is being invoked and/or described. (for that matter, so was Freudian psychology) Of course, in order to discuss problems and emotional issues, we MUST use some agreed on terminology, but the closer to 'neutral', the more I am willing to listen. (remember Lucy Van Pelt, in business in her psychiatry booth? "Learn to relax, 5 cents please." Has a certain ring to it, even though way TOO simplistic.) Scientology has NEVER seemed to me to merit the status of a religion, but if they just suggested some mental exercises and dropped the cutesy language and 'achievement levels' (like the Masons have), they wouldn't make nearly as much money! I view the $$$$ as the MAJOR purpose of the setup, though I'm sure that many manage to convince themselves of the Scientology 'values' in order to justify their high-pressure sales techniques. I suspect that L.Ron knew all along that he had a cash cow on a short leash...if he could just keep his face straight...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Amos Date: 17 Jul 12 - 08:50 PM Bill: Those within the subject would assert to you that there is an array of well-identified phenomena which really occur in the individual's experience which constitute going clear. I suppose you believe that to be a religion, a belief-set must be theistic? That is one definition, but it is a secondary one. The broader definition established in dictionaries is along this line: "Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. " ": relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity" Emphasis on the word "or". Personally, I don't care if they are "a religion". "a system of metaphysics", "an applied philosophy". or "a messof spiritual principles and practices". But I don't see why you think they don't merit the label. I think the practices of the culture within the organization, to the degree I have read about them, sound pretty foolish, though, organizationally. ___________________________________________ Reminds me of the story about the guy who was walking down the road chatting with Satan when they saw someone way up ahead stop and bend down to pick up something from the roadside. Satan began laughing and his companion asked him what he was chortling about. "See that guy up there? He just discovered the Truth!! ", Satan laughed. "I don't get it. Why should you be laughing, of all people?" "Oh, I'm going to help him organize it!" ____________________________________________ Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, nu? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Janie Date: 17 Jul 12 - 08:59 PM Everything I know about Scientology I learned from Frank Zappa. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Jul 12 - 09:00 PM ""Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. " There is a religion in the US called "Conservatism" that is all of that and more. It has dogma, ritual and sanctions like shunning. Grover Norquist is their pope and Rush Limbaugh is the high priest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: GUEST,999 Date: 17 Jul 12 - 09:03 PM Close! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Ed T Date: 17 Jul 12 - 11:19 PM ""The power to define the situation is the ultimate power."" Jerry Rubin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Jul 12 - 01:41 AM EdT: "The power to define the situation is the ultimate power."" Jerry Rubin" Well, that certainly explains the dilemma that most 'so-called liberals' are having!! BTW, Did Jerry Rubin say that during his protesting days, during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago('Chicago 7')....or did he say that, after he became a stock broker????? So, I re-iterate: "Well, that certainly explains the dilemma that most 'so-called liberals' are having!!" GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: gnu Date: 18 Jul 12 - 06:01 AM Wiki... "Among these advanced teachings is the story of Xenu (sometimes Xemu), introduced as the tyrant ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy." According to this story, 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. Scientologists at advanced levels place considerable emphasis on isolating body thetans and neutralizing their ill effects." Just a guess, but I am gonna go with shrooms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Charmion Date: 18 Jul 12 - 09:07 AM All this makes the 39 Articles of the Church of England look like perfect common sense. I think I'll stick to the small-d devil I know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Jul 12 - 03:59 PM gnu, fun reading your post!!...creative!...Hats off!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Ed T Date: 19 Jul 12 - 06:31 AM Always was puzzled by the tax free status of regilious groups, that seem to exist (at least in a big part) to make money for those at the top. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Amos Date: 19 Jul 12 - 12:36 PM Those Regilious Leaders are the real aliens here on Terra Prime. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: ChrisJBrady Date: 20 Jul 12 - 12:11 PM Also see: http://www.rickross.com and http://forum.rickross.com Search around, there's loads a dirt there. Co$ is not the only dangerous cult out there. Also read: http://www.louisesamways.com.au/dangerouspersuaders.html http://www.louisesamways.com.au/pdf/DangerousPersuaders.pdf Take care ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of Scientology open to all From: Alice Date: 20 Jul 12 - 11:59 PM In Dublin, Ireland recently, there was a gathering for the first time of Suppressive Persons, or SP's, a term used by Scientology for anyone who tells the truth about Hubbard and Scientology (considered enemies). Watch here: http://youtu.be/F2X0-XvJclo and http://youtu.be/1JUUzC31uLk and http://youtu.be/8sMJm9xC9M4 |
