Excellent rant here Chef Xenu. The diference between a Jack H Remmington's Rant and your's? You have actual sources to back it up. You're taking a negative statement and attempting to make a positive statement from it. Scientology's statement: "There is an 8th Dynamic". Which means Scientology is saying, "God exists". You imply there is a Scientology God, incompatible with other religion's "God". You further imply Scientology requires certain worship thereof, or at least belief therein. None of that is true, you simply make it up out of grapeseed or something. From "there is an area of life called God", you assume Scientologists must worship or hold some particular attitude about "Scientology's God". But that is all a made up myth, like your Green Alien sketch. There is nothing to it but Anonie Hot Air, it is fairy tale spawned from imagination. Scientology says "there is an area of life commonly called God, one's relationship with same is up to the individual". Terryeo, you have obviously misread the rant. No where does Chef Xenu imply that their is a Scientology God. Chef Xenu makes the argument that the Scientology belief in reincarnation is incompatible with the beliefs of Arahamic religions. This rant offers a rebuttal the Church of Scientology's statements that Scientology is compatible with Abrahmic religions. Chef Xenu does not in his article make a case that there is a Scientology God.

I believe your argument's purpose was to derail Chef Xenu's above rant and insinuate that it was something which it is not. While Chef's arguments are backed up by sources taken from literature and speech, your arguments have a lack of sources to back them up. Please stay on topic in the comment section and make sure to have read one's rave/rant before making insinuations about it. Thank you and have a nice day. There is nothing about Scientology that requires any belief. No practitioner is required, expected, encouraged or forced to believe anything. Period. Therefore it can not be incompatible with any belief. You see how that works?

Scientology makes a statement about God. Believe it or not, accept it or refuse it, that is purely up to the individual. Christianity which says something like "you might live forever (in heaven)". Scientology does not add the "in heaven" and doesn't expect you to believe you are eternal. But it does make statements about our eternal existence. However, you need not know that, you need not believe that, you can even be utterly, totally certain there is no eternal existence and study Scientology. And call yourself a Scientologist. There is no belief to it. Sure, I know, Anonies make up these strange fairy tales and quote what they say are stolen documents. But even those don't say, "now, you must believe this or you're not a Scientologist". One of the keen observation that L Ron Hubbard makes is that the level of reason of a person is dependent on their emotional tone. For example if you try to reason with an angry man his level of reason will be low. Some one that is conservative will weigh things cautiously while someone who is high toned as in enthusiasm will think almost instantaneously and come up with solutions. You see this in sports and the arts. Those ranters who are in negative emotions will only reason to a point and to the limitations that their emotional tone allows.

My point? Scientology has a lot to offer and if you don't or can't get it sorry it may have something to do with your own attitude. Anonymousercaters check your head. Scientology is like a good vacuum cleaner or Assurance salesperson.
It will agree with the point of view of a sales target as a means of always closing a sale or conversion.
Once converted the aim changes by how the salesperson has got their target in an addictive need for what continues been sold always on the terms & conditions of the salesperson or of Scientology.
Terryeo, you are either lying, misinformed, or you have a MU on "belief." I have frequently heard Scientologists make the claim that it is "not about belief" but the fact of the matter is that you believe the tech works, you believe LRH knew what he was talking about, you believe the emeter is measuring something more than the conductivity of your skin and the tightness of your grip on the cans, and many more things. You can claim these beliefs are not beliefs. You can start referring to things you believe in as things you "have reality on" to make it easier for you to accept the fallacy that you don't have dogmatic beliefs, but term-switching doesn't make it so.

It is like the card game of Mao. No one ever lists the rules of Mao. If it had written rules, this would probably be the first one. None the less, after a little time playing the game with someone, you know the rules pretty darn well. Just because the rules were not given to you up front does not mean there are no rules. The rules are in fact very rigid. Scientology seems to introduce its public to reincarnation in much the same way. When you get to OT-III you either figure out that reincarnation (by whatever name) is one of the rules, the dogmatic beliefs which either you accept or your case gain stops dead in its tracks.

If you do not believe in the whole track and your Thetan's trip through ...birth-life-death-implanting-birth... on the whole track, you are not going to be able to do your OT levels. Period.

The Corporation of Scientology will, of course, be happy to take your money for years before you ever get to the point where you really start delving into the whole track experience, but you will never achieve LRH's version "Total Freedom" as an "Operating Thetan" if you reject the whole track, as any Jew, Muslim, or Christian must if she or he wants to remain in their traditional faith. Judyjudy judy, you state that you cannot reason with someone who has a negative tone. Tone is picked up through two main senses; sight and sound. By communicating through text alone, we have already handicapped our ability to pick up on tone. While the above hypothesis is intriguing, it is a hypothesis nonetheless and until proper sources can be given, it will be considered to have no validity. However, if I were to take the hypothesis and treat it as true, I could argue that it is worthless to argue with you because you come off as a very negative person. Through your post you did a very well job putting forth your hypothesis and opinions without sounding caustic. But when you finish your post, you leave behind a vituperation that makes fellow posters seem inane and ignorant, “Anonymousercaters check your head.” You thereby imply a number of things. You effrontuously say that “Anonymousercaters” (I am assuming Anonymous, one of the numerous organizations that are critical of the Church of scientology) are idiots, but you provide no reason for your accusation. This also slyly implies that Scientologists are in general smarter than critics of scientologists which harmful and slanderous.
So Judyjudyjudy, if you still wish to believe that your above hypothesis that those with an angry tone are too difficult to reason with, than you probably will not respond to this post in a mature, reasonable manner. Also, as a side note, the topic of this Rant is whether or not Scientologists beliefs conflict with those of Abrahamic religions. Please stay on topic in these rants, or you are more than welcome to start your own rant or rave to discuss your own ideas. Thank and have a nice day.
Chief, let me give you an example. You're sitting in a boat, fishing with a couple of priests. Over a period of an hour they each walk across the water to shore and relieve themselves. You're needing some relief, too. If they did it (and you saw it happen) then you can do it. You step on the water and sink like a stone. One priest says to the other, "Do you think we should have told him where the rocks are?" The problem was, you believed what you saw. But didn't have all the data.

Scientology is a study of knowledge, to understand, so it can be applied immediately in all kinds of circumstances. The missing data is "understandings". It seems trivial at first. It seems inconsequential, hardly worthy of attention. But this is the difference that worked in Dianetics and that Ron carried forward into Scientology. The rocks you don't see are understandings in the mind of parishioners. Woot, made that one up myself.

Dangerranger, Judy said a mouthful, have a nice day. a: old joke is old
b:rephrasing old joke as an analogy which has nothing to do with making the whole track and reincarnation compatible with the Abrahamic religious traditions is non-responsive to my rant or previous comments.

The fact, or "stable datum", if you will, is that you must accept the "whole track" and past lives, ie:reincarnation by whatever name, if you want to progress on the "bridge to total freedom." There is no getting around this.

You can be on "the Bridge" and still attend religious services at your synagogue, mosque, or (Christian) church (because most of these places welcome those who don't agree with them into the place of worship). But you can't hold true to Jewish, Christian, or Muslim beliefs AND be making Scientology case gain beyond the lowest pre-OT levels.

If you are taking communion at a Roman Catholic parish after you have attested to OT-III, you have either committed what the Corporation of Scientology calls a "high crime," (falsely attesting to OT-III) or you are committing what Rome calls a "mortal sin" (by taking holy communion while rejecting a foundational tennent of the faith).

Scientology and the Abrahamic religions cannot be reconciled unless you have multiple personality disorder. Oh, and its "Chef" not "Chief." I'll cook you dinner buy am nobody's leader, and never achieved the rank of Chief when I was in the United States Navy.

You can call me Ray, and you can call me Raymond, and you can call me Chef, but please don't call me sir or chief.

;-) Terryeo, I see you've found a different and altogether more suitable place to push Scientology than on Wikipedia. Good for you.

In any event, I have a very simple question for you: Can you proceed up the Bridge without believing in reincarnation? Terryeo, first of all, you did not make the above scenario up, that is the basis of a joke. Do not accredit yourself with work that is not your own. How can someone study knowledge? Webster defines knowledge as, “expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.” If one already has the expertise and experience to perform a skill, why must they study it? By having the expertise, it implies that one already has the understanding of it already. So if scientology studies what is already known, isn’t that redundant. It would be more practical for scientologists to just take their knowledge and apply it, skipping the studying step altogether.

The statement that it is applicable in all situations is true and not true. Scientology is just one incarnation of the truth that is true for some and untrue for others. This is just the same as romanticism, realism, modern realism, transcendentalism and other philosophies that try and define the truth that are similarly true and untrue for people. [continued]
You say that understanding is trivial but it is actually the basis for everything you do in day to day life. One has the basic understanding that when the sun rises, it is morning and it is time to rise too. You may not fully understand why this is true, but since it works, you go along with it. Similarly, we has humans do not fully understand gravity. We know that it is there. We can measure it. But we do not know what it looks like or where it comes from or how. This does not prevent us from using gravity as a constant in equations when measuring projectile motion or sending rockets into space. Therefore, the statement that scientology sets itself apart by finding and explaining the understandings of how things work is not that special. Christians (for example) explain their observations of the truth and consider the understandings important. For them, it is important that one understand that Jesus Christ died to save mankind’s sins. It is important to understand that there is only one God and that mankind was created in his image. It is important to understand that there are 10 commandments that Christians must abide by. As this example shows, all religions explain their understandings of the world to their followers.

Also, it would have been nice if you had taken more time to acknowledge my post to Judy and taken time to say more about it then excuse her post with “[Judy] said a mouthful.” However it is nice to say that kindness is contagious. You too have a nice day Terryeo.
Sorry Terryeo to show that it was an old joke too, I did not see that Chef and pointed that out already. Hehe, yeah, I think the first time I heard that joke was back in 1983 while my dad was working on a sermon, he didn't make it up, but he used it in his sermon, and even though he was by no means a comedian, his delivery was much better than Terryeo's. Could we get off of Scientology for one single day? Maybe start on the Moonie's or Krishna's? Same concept but they work different street corners. I'm sorry Cypress, I really wish we could. If I could do something, I totally would. But, I don't think we can. Maybe, maybe someday in the future. The Cypress Gang:

What are the names of some Moonies who have been killed by the policies of their movement?

Where are the Moonie prison camps located?

What false scientific and medical claims have been made by Rev. Moon?

And, more to the point of this rant, where and when did the Moonies say you can continue practicing your old religion after you join them?

Same concept? Hardly...

Well I guess we opened up a whole new can of worms.
Moonie's in the 70's and 80's sold fairly nice flower packages on the street corners. While the hummmm guy's would collect the money and the hummmm gal's would deliver.

Funny that while the first transaction was taking place you (if the right persuasion) would be asked if you needed or want any other flowers from the delvery crew.

I see all of them a a bunch of whores.

Don't like it? Tough. Tough LOVE.
I guess there was some truth in my reply.
Waited over 2 hours for an answer.
I'm hoping it killed the thread.
Like I said.. Whores.. but I didn't say that their husbands are the ones who Pimp the Whores.
Oh well. just did.
Don't give money to or buy anything from corner street trash. Make a small little form out that has the local numbers to shelters and Social Security for them to call. Don't even give them a quarter to make the call. Nah, i have not commented becuase i have been waiting for a reply that was more relevent to the discussion of scientology and the abrahamic religions. I don't really know anything about the moonies. The Cypress Gang: I also didn't reply because, to be honest, your comment didn't make any sense. Your argument seems to break down to:

selling flowers = (equals) prostetution => (therefore) you should talk about the Unificationists instead of the Corporation of Scientology

sorry, I'm not following your logic. Very interesting discussion. As a Scientologist, I agree, you can't do the upper levels of Scientology processing and still retain your faith in certain tenants of other religions - such as the idea that you only live one life.

However, as a Scientologist who has done the upper levels, I would say that it has strengthened my beliefs in certain things are are compatible with main stream religions, such as a basic belief in a higher power (God), recognition of the importance of right and wrong and the desire to help others.
Before you say I'm splitting hairs, let me say that I agree - as a Scientologist who "believes" in the concepts of the upper levels of Scientology I would not now become a Catholic, Jew or Muslim. On the other hand, I could probably be a Buddist. I personally won't tell people that they can be a Catholic and a Scientology OT. BUT, they can be a Catholic and USE Scientology to better their lives.

Get a hold of The Way To Happiness book or booklet and you'll see just how closely the Scientology moral code parallels the moral tenets of other world religions. (Con't...) What saddens me is that, in focusing on the OT levels of Scientology, people dismiss the volume of useful techniques that were created and are available to anyone without having to become a Scientologist. Yes, you can be a Christian and still use Dianetics, or Scientology communication skills, or the Tone Scale, or administrative methods. These all have value and can help everyday people in everyday situations, without them having to subscribe to the rest of the religion.

I personally am long past the "zealot" stage, where I had felt that I had to introduce everyone to my new found religion and get them on board. I'm much more interested in helping people where I can, with what I know can work for them. If they want to become a Scientologist, great. But on the other hand they can continue in their own belief system and still improve their lives with the tools we offer.
Anyone can pick up "Scientology: A New Slant on Life" at the local library, read it and select those things from it that would help them. First of all, "reincarnation" is more an Indian (from India) idea, isn't it? That's where you come back as a animal of some kind, depending on how karmicly you acted, this lifetime, right? That's the idea?

Scientology doesn't base on beliefs. It doesn't encourage beliefs, adhere to beliefs, require beliefs and really, would prefer you think for yourself. It simply says, "You are an eternal spiritual being". It doesn't say where you are eternal. It doesn't say what lifeforms you manifest as, or when you are eternal, it just says "eternal". But here you are, a human being. Now how do you expect me to believe that you are eternal when you are a human being? How are you going to prove that? How could anyone prove that? Think, "I am eternal, I am eternal, I am eternal". Now, are you less a Christian, Mormon, Jew or Islamic because you thought that? Further, Scientology doesn't suggest you believe eternal existence or believe anything. The written word appears on the page, you read it. How did reading words effect your devotion to your religion? There is no incompatibility because Scientology doesn't suggest belief. Terryeo: Yes it does. You have to, absolutely have to, move past the notion that Scientology is stablished fact if you want to be able to argue sensibly in favor of it. "You are an eternal spiritual being" is itself a *belief*, because it's inherently unprovable. Repetition of "I am eternal" is absurd, and if that's your standard of proof, that's kind of silly. I can repeat "I am a rutabaga" in my head over and over, and that doesn't make it true.

Accept it. You *believe* you are an eternal spiritual being. It is a belief for which you have absolutely no proof but your own experiences, and that's not something you can pass on to other people.

As for reincarnation, of course you believe in it. Again, don't try to deny that. If you are a "spiritual being" who has had many bodies, that is the definition of reincarnation right there. Merrill: Exactly which techniques in Scientology are useful for non-Scientologists? Hubbard's administrative system is largely only used by Scientologist-run businesses, and has gotten no traction at all in the larger business world, where it would compete with the likes of iso9000.

I've personally been on the receiving end of someone using Hubbard's communication "tech," which I found to consist largely of speaking in a loud, rude tone, and acting like a complete boor in order to guarantee that attention was on him. Communication tech works in that being rude with intent is likely to get people to pay attention to you, but if your goal is anything beyond that, it's counterproductive.

The list of failures in Hubbard's tech when applied secularly is long. Narconon and Criminon are utter, abject failures, and rife with unlicensed Scientology employees performing the "therapies" therein. Applied Scholastics, which mostly seems to consist of teaching kids the wrong definitions for "mass" and "gradient" and making them do moronic clay demos, has gotten almost no traction in the academic world, and every time it does, the ties to Scientology become clear and it gets tossed again.

And the Tone Scale is not only an arbitrary and largely inaccurate classification of emotional states and the responses that work best with each, in areas where it is actually accurate it is also so extraordinarily obvious that I'm stunned anyone bothered to write it down. If you need to be told the way in which someone in pain (1.8 on Hubbard's scale) will act, then something is wrong with you.

So, where is the benefit to non-Scientologists in all this? I'm with HeyNoniNoni on this one as well, the Corporation of Scientology has yet to put any of its "technologies" to scientific testing. Where we have actual data it is clear the tech has failed those to whom it was applied.

Dianetic processing was subjected to scientific testing years ago (1953) by Harvey Jay Fischer. The experiment used only auditors certified by Hubbard. Long story short: NONE of the promised benefits of Dianetic processing could be observed to even the minimal level of statistical significance.

None of my friends over at the Fisher College of Business have ever expressed one iota of admiration for Hubbard Management Tech.

When the Purif was put to the test following the Chernobyl incident, there was no sign it changed the rate at which toxins or radioactive particles were expelled from the bodies of the subjects.

NarCONon and criminon claim to have a success rate much higher than any other drug treatment program, at times advertising success rates as high as 80%. Whenever outside examiners have stepped in and actually looked at the recidivism rates, however, it has become clear that narCONon plays loose and fast with statistics, and in reality does no better, and often worse, than secular drug treatment programs.

The only things Scientology seems to be able to succeed at it convincing people who have had no actual measurable improvement to their medical or psychological condition to say they feel better.

Unfortunately, Dianetics and Scientology don't claim to make you more content with conditions as they are, they promise to actually improve conditions. On this promise they have consistently failed to deliver. The spirit only gets reborn in the flesh when not knowing the real truth that sets the spirit free.
It is because Scientology does not know such real truth that they require being reborn in the flesh. Please. When you, or I, or anyone says "the sky is blue" or "you are blue-eyed", or "you are an eternal being". Please. Understand it is a statement. It is not you. You are not it. The words on the page are what you read, not what you are. Then you judge for yourself whether the statement is true or false, is possible or impossible.

The Abrahamic Religions are founded on, are based on, belief.

Scientology is not based on belief. It is information, it is written words. You make of it what you will. The only thing there is in Scientology, for anyone, is their own, personal conclusions. Their own personal experiences, their own personal wisdom. It is not beliefs and can never be "All Scientologists (anything)". I actually kind of liked that post Terryeo!
BlueMoon! Actually the colors you think you see are only a perception based on what colors of the spectrum are absorbed by chemical compounds.

Blue might not really be blue.
How does the apply to S?

Perception.


Terryeo, you can claim as often and as loudly as you like that Scientology is not based on beliefs, but frequent repetition and attempts at redefinition will not make it so.

The Abrahamic traditions are as rooted in text as Scientology. Text (in this case the Torah, the New Testament, and the Quran) is information in the form of written words no less for the Abrahamic faiths than it is in Scientology or geology.

Once you internalize the data and digest it and reach a conclusion about it, it becomes belief. It doesn't matter if that belief is that Moses parted the sea, or that the Holy Spirit ministers to the suffering, or that Allah rewards the merciful, or that auditors clear engrams from the reactive mind, or that water will boil at a temperature of 212 degrees fahrenheit, it is still belief. If that belief cannot be scientifically proven, that belief involves faith.

Some of the beliefs which Scientology implicitly requires faith in:
L Ron Hubbard knew what he was talking about.
The "Tech" works.
Man is an immortal spirit being (thetan).
The emeter is measuring more than just you skin's resistance to electrical current and how tightly you are squeezing the cans.
There is a reactive mind which stores engrams, and which the "Tech" can "run out."
Scientology processing is worth paying exorbitant fees for.

It is ludicrous to claim that Scientology does not involve belief, and if you want to deny the beliefs of Scientology require faith, you had better get to work in the laboratory working up some valid experimental evidence derived using accepted scientific methodology. Terryeo:

"Please. When you, or I, or anyone says "the sky is blue" or "you are blue-eyed", or "you are an eternal being". Please. Understand it is a statement. It is not you. You are not it. The words on the page are what you read, not what you are. Then you judge for yourself whether the statement is true or false, is possible or impossible."

That has got to be the biggest load of horse pucky I have read this month. I'm sorry, but that's not just illogical, it's downright moronic. Just to start with, not all "statements" are created equal. If I write down "the sky is blue," it is not equivalent in value to writing "canticle floorwax pufferfish." Of course both are statements, and of course both are words representing ideas, not the ideas themselves. But one is utter nonsense. And - this is important - it will continue to be utter nonsense regardless of whether or not some crazy person reads it and goes, "Of course! Canticle floorwax pufferfish! It all makes sense now!"

Look... If you honestly believe that all statements have intrinsic value and that it's up to the individual reading it to decide if a statement is true or not, then you're insane. I don't mean that as an insult, and I'm sorry to put it so harshly, but that's insanity, right there. ...Continued...

"The Abrahamic Religions are founded on, are based on, belief."

True, though woefully incomplete. They're also based on the written word, just as much as Scientology.

"Scientology is not based on belief. It is information, it is written words. You make of it what you will. The only thing there is in Scientology, for anyone, is their own, personal conclusions. Their own personal experiences, their own personal wisdom. It is not beliefs and can never be 'All Scientologists (anything)'."

False. Well, partially false. Scientology is based on belief. Seriously, if you want to come off as a sane human being, you have to accept this. You believe in reincarnation. You have no scientific evidence to back up a single thing in Scientology. Regardless of its merits, this is thus a matter of belief. Even if it is 100% "true for you," that is a belief. It is also written words, of course. And various rites and rituals (yes, when you're "auditing," you're engaged in one of your belief system's rites). HeyNoniNoni: When you've seen techniques applied badly, or not at all, it should reflect badly on the person applying the technique, not necessarily on the technique itself.
To your points: I know ISO 9000. This is not an administrative system. It is primarily a compliance testing system. Are you aware of ANY workable, proven administrative system?
Communication: See http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH5.HTM for what Scientology communication is supposed to be. Certainly being loud and rude is not part of this.
Criminon & Narconon: Can you direct us to your sources of failure rates? There are a significant number of web sites to the opposite.
Applied Scholastics & Study Tech: Here again, you should read what this is and how it is applied. See http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH1_1.HTM
The Tone Scale: Every person I've ever shown this to has said it correlates with their experiences, and many have said it is obvious. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Again, my point is that there is help here for anyone who wants to learn these things and apply them. There is no requirement to be a Scientologist.
Chief Xenu: My experience has been that in the “soft” sciences (education, administration, rehabilitation) our society is incredibly incompetent and regularly fails to perceive what works. Rather, in all these areas I observe degenerating success, abandonment of what has worked in the past, and adherence to the latest fads. Trying to get people to use a methodology, ANY methodology, with repeatability and discipline seems nigh impossible in today’s short attention span world. You want to throw out everything that Hubbard developed. I say that there is much there that is of significant use if used intelligently by people who are willing to follow instruction and have the discipline to get something done. Merrill: "Are you aware of ANY workable, proven administrative system?"

Not of the Hubbard one-size-fits-all variety. I mentioned ISO 9000, because compliance testing is often a part of administration in large businesses, but I know of no two companies that use exactly the same system - or even two departments in the same company. I take it you're not a fan of Hubbard's management tech, either? Now then, on to the rest...

Communication: It doesn't matter what Scientology communication is supposed to be, if that's not what gets drilled during communication courses. That web page is a pretty collection of generic good/bad communication pablum, but if you go deeper and look at Hubbard's drills, it's not hard to see why Scientologists have a reputation of being confrontational, and not in a good way.

Criminon & Narconon: Find me a single web page, just one, that gives Criminon and Narconon high success rates and isn't:
* Just quoting Narconon's or Criminon's own statistics
* A Scientology-owned website

I did a news and web search for "Narconon" and chose one of the results at random: http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=e02a9f92-72eb-4881-96d8-25ed0fdadda4&k=29223

It's a story out of Canada, about Narconon's inflated and absurd success claims. As are almost all of the articles about Narconon. Seriously, just google it.

Continued...
Study Tech: I have read what study tech is. It's moronic. It assumes that every possible scholastic problem can be attributed to a misunderstood word. It's complete bunk, even without the supposed symptoms of a "misunderstood," which are downright insane.

The Tone Scale: Of course makes sense to the people you've shown it to. There are portions that are obvious, like I said. In fact, so obvious that I don't see the point of assigning an arbitrary number and scale system to them. I'd rather deal with human beings and their variety than try to assign each person's state of being a robotic and rigid number.

Let me as you, have you ever met anyone, anyone at all, who has decided to just use some of Scientology because it's helpful? And if so, which parts? Oh gawd, the typos... HeyNoniNoni, you're simply mistaken.

But if you see no use to any of the tech, why are you interested in other people's opinion of the tech? I'm glad to let you know I've found both study tech and the tone scale very, very useful. I don't know a fellow Scientologist who hasn't. Tom Cruise has stated more than once that Study Tech "cured" his learning disability, although you should understand that is because he made the effort to understand what he read. Not because of some act of God or happy pill. You don't find it useful? Fine, no problem, have a nice day. Content Removed by RantRave Admin Merril and the most recent Terryeo post, your next. That is if i get over my awsomeness enough to consider you inane attempt at putting words together into a argument even worthy of my time. Content Removed by RantRave Admin BTW, i havn't seen Jack H. Remmington post in a few days. Where is that guy, I had just started to like him. My issues here are less about the "Tech", and more about the bait and switch the Corporation of Scientology uses to draw in more paying members (which may in itself constitute part of the "Tech").

If you talk to a Scientologist at a stress test or bookathon table, they will insist that Dianetics is the only thing that can help you, and that Dianetics is most definitely not religious.

When you talk to a Scientologist at the Org, they will insist you can remain a believer in your old religion and be a Scientologist at the same time, in fact they will insist it will not impede you at all on "the bridge to total freedom".

Several years, and several tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars later, you find out that unless you give up your belief that "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27 KJV) you can progress no further up the bridge.

Bait and switch. Its a classic con, but on an epic scale that spans several years, if not the rest of the mark's life.

The carrot on the stick is "total freedom" and "super powers," the former of which cannot be, and the latter of which have not yet been demonstrated by any OT or "Clear" in a laboratory setting. "BTW, i havn't seen Jack H. Remmington post in a few days. Where is that guy, I had just started to like him."

Seems like he disapeared Thursday evening?

2PM Thursday was staturday when all Scientology staff and volunteers have to turn their "Stats" in to prove they are "Upstat" or else deal with the consequences.

Maybe he's in the "War Room" being told by the "Ethics Officer" what he is going to have to do to get out of his "Lower Conditions" because he has been so epicly "Downstat" this week. He wasn't my favorite person in the world, however if he is now doing some menial task, I can't help feel sorry. I mean I know spreading propaganda and stuff on the interent is bad but still, it is sad to see someone have their rights to speech taken away. Terryeo: "HeyNoniNoni, you're simply mistaken."

I'm not letting you off the hook on this one... Where exactly am I mistaken? If there's something I've gotten wrong, or incomplete, by all means correct me or fill in the details I'm missing. But be specific. And being specific does *not* mean telling me to go to an org and read Dianetics. I want to know, in your own words, exactly what I'm mistaken about.

"But if you see no use to any of the tech, why are you interested in other people's opinion of the tech? I'm glad to let you know I've found both study tech and the tone scale very, very useful. I don't know a fellow Scientologist who hasn't."

Several reasons. First, I'm a pretty open-minded guy. While I think the "Church" of Scientology is largely a criminal enterprise and a cult based on its behavior, I'm curious about whether any of Hubbard's ideas have any actual merit.

So far, the only things he wrote or did that I see value in are already self-evident, in some cases hilariously so. For example, Precept 8 in the Way to Happiness is "Do not murder." Since the only things I've seen from Scientology that have merit are like that, I see no need to credit him or Scientology with their "invention." But I'm open to the possibility that you'll surprise me with something.

Second, I'm a curious guy. Just because I see no use for Scientology doesn't mean I'm not interested in the opinions of people who do.

Continued... "Tom Cruise has stated more than once that Study Tech 'cured' his learning disability, although you should understand that is because he made the effort to understand what he read. Not because of some act of God or happy pill."

OK, quick question: Was Tom Cruise's learning disability caused by a difference in how his brain functions, as most scientists believe, or was it because of misunderstood words? Dyslexia can be overcome with effort, and if Mr. Cruise's efforts in using "study tech" did the trick, well good for him, but there are all kinds of effective therapies for dyslexia that don't involve a technique that teaches some fundamentally incorrect things to students. I mean, part of study tech is the idea (taken unquestioningly as fact without any evidence whatsoever) that there are all kinds of astounding, horrible symptoms of a misunderstood word, up to and including physical pains.

Again, Scientology gets no credit here; those things it's getting right are not unique to Scientology, and what it's getting dreadfully wrong more than counters what it gets right. I've stated my opinion about Scientology, I think, and you're welcome to understand it. If you want other opinions, you'll have to ask them. Regarding your physilogical (biological) (physical) analysis of the cause of Mr. Cruise's learning disability. I'm not a doctor, don't know more than is already on the internet. Nor is it my intent to force others into channels I have found productive by presenting "shocking" evidence. It isn't owed to you and I've earned what I understand by my own efforts. I'm fairly sure everyone who understands a subject would say similarly, they understood it by their own efforts. So you do what you like, you have your own opinion. No problem. On the other hand, I don't mean to ignore honest questions that I could be helpful about. Yeah, I just read Hubbards ****e "All about Radiation".

I just did Higher Chemistry and Higher Physics last year, and both those courses managed to out-do Hubbard in terms of both truth AND sense.

Prime example, to paraphrase Hubbard, he claims that if you give someone small doses of a toxic substance on a consistent basis, they will eventually become immune. He then goes on to say the symptoms return if you up the dosage. (no **** sherlock on this part, but here comes the fun part.)

He attributes this to the body only taking damage when it "resists" the toxins. And therefore, links this into our only taking damage from WMDs because we attempt to resist them.

"A gamma ray doesn't often settle in the body. It goes through but its passage through the
body creates a sensation of some kind, which, if too recurrent, is resisted on the part of
the cells and the body. This resistance itself brings about the "stop" chaos that one
observes in "no future."
The reaction of the mind to the bomb is that we have "no future" any more. The body
says, "Stop the gamma. Stop, stop . . ." and as this is going on all the time when we are
bombarded with radiation, the body finally says, "I am stopped." The body senses that
there is an influence around it which it must stop because its survival is being
endangered. It feels that it must resist the rays in one way or another and the body gets
hurt."

And people actually believe this guy had a "cognition" of the perfect way to live life? Hi 777, you choose an interesting example. We have the physical universe that you are more educated than many are, concerning its details. And hold up something Hubbard wrote in the area. I'm sure your comment is not meant to support Hubbard's statements.

His often wrote of how the physical universe interacts with an individual. And this idea of that gamma radiation causes no harm, except that an individual resists gamma radiation, is one example. Certainly, to set off an atom bomb next to an OT, in order to ultimately test Hubbard's hypothesis, is unlikely. Besides which, he talks about the body's cells themselves resisting and not just the being themselves, resisting.

The physical universe interacts with an individual in many ways, of course. And Hubbard's work addressed this as a main issue. I don't beleive he ever proposed his way of life was perfect or even better than anyone else's. He put his ideas down with the idea they might be helpful and many people have found them helpful. Have a nice day. "The physical universe interacts with an individual in many ways," Terryeo stating the obvious.

"I don't beleive he ever proposed his way of life was perfect or even better than anyone else's," omg . Then why is it scientologists goal to clear the planet?

"He put his ideas down with the idea they might be helpful and many people have found them helpful." K when do you think, in someone's normal life, they will need to deal with building up radiation resistance. The only ppl who will need this training are ppl who work with the stuff, not the everyday joe. And, if he really wanted to help people, how about he actually passes a college class about chemistry, radiation, physics, etc. dealing with the stuff before telling ppl about it. "Why is it a goal to clear the planet?" This phrase is easily misunderstood. "Clear" (in Dianetics or Scientology) is a particular state of awareness, it describes an understanding about one's own mental energy, about one's own mind. It does not mean "get rid of anyone", but instead describes a goal of bringing to everyone, the opportunity to understand themselves better.
Clear is a state of awareness. A Clear is able to look at an event that happened and see how past events are unimportant to their personal, future survival. You can probably find better descriptions of this condition or state of awareness.

A sunburn might be the most common overload of radiation. But Hubbard's whole work is not toward building resistances. He illustrates how a resistance to a poison might be built. But he explains that there is something more foundational, more basic, than resistance. He explains that until you form the idea that something is having an effect on you, the something does not have an effect on you. Agreed, gamma radiation is an extreme example of something physical having an effect because we all accept that if you stand next to an atomic bomb, you're going to be effected by gamma radiation. At least!

While you have a good idea there, that everyone should be educated, it seems unlikely to me, personally, that a Church, whose education is about the spirit, would extend scholarship for education in the physical sciences. Terryeo, I think you're deliberately missing the point in this radiation discussion. Hubbard was *wrong* about radiation. There's no way around that. Whatever use one might get out of Hubbard's teachings on any other subject, he was quite simply incorrect about how radiation and organic tissues interact. There is no use, in or out of Scientology, to his supposed teachings on the subject, because they are inaccurate. Can we at least agree on such a simple, foundational fact as that? To be more blatantly incorrect, he would have had to have written something like "black is white."

Incidentally, are you part of Scientology's LEAF project? Terryeo:
A: Sentences in English generally contain a subject, an object, and a verb.
b: Gamma radiation doesn't have an effect in ourselves or in other matter because we agree it does, we agree that it does because before we even knew what gamma radiation was we were able to observe its effects, deduce its existence, and then design tests to prove or disprove its existence regardless of our personal opinions on the matter individually, or collectively as a society.

HeyNoniNoni:
What is the LEAF project? This could pertain to my interests... Chef Xenu: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/8-education-research-inside-reports/scientologys-leaf-project-letters-editor-2910/

Long story short: Terryeo could be a member of the Letters to the Editor Attack Force, a real project inside the church designed to present the appearance of widespread support for Scientology ideas or at least confuse the uninformed. Although now that I think about it, it's more likely he's just a volunteer for the Office of Special Affairs, definitely OT-III or higher, since they know critics will talk about Xenu, and you have to reach OT-III before being permitted to know about the creation myth. Whillikers, I've been complimented (I think). No, I'm not a volunteer for the Office of Special Affairs. No, I'm not an active staff member. No, I'm not a memeber of the Letters to the Editor Attack Force (never heard of it). I'm a private individual who edits here and there because he has opportunity. I won't comment about my processing level, on the other hand, I probably won't spread rumors about you either, Noni. Have a nice day. Terryeo, please understand that from the outside, past experience and your history on the net indicate that you're probably lying. And frankly, that's OK; no one expects someone who works for OSA to tell the truth about it. Heck, it would probably get you in trouble if you did.

But you should know there are certain things that make you being, as you describe yourself, "a private individual" very unlikely. First, while I have no idea what your processing level is, we all know it's above OT-III. You can't engage with critics (or in your term, SPs) without being previously familiar with all the "entheta" we toss your way. We talk about Xenu, the Galactic Confederacy, and body thetans as if they're silly, not scary, world-altering problems that will give you pneumonia if you hear about them before you're ready for them.

Second, you were booted from Wikipedia for being a single-purpose, POV-pushing account, typical of OSA's behavior. There have in fact been steady streams of editors there who've been found to be editing from CoS-owned IP addresses. You were one of them. No way, no how is anyone editing the page about Xenu from inside an org without being a member of OSA.

So while you're free to claim otherwise, you should be aware that you're talking to people who know better. LOL. I can only say to all of that, LOL. I have never edited from inside an Org, nor have I ever worked as a staff member for any org. Nor have I ever been recruited by Scientology. I've gone through this a dozen times in a dozen places, including Wikipedia with this editing identity. I'm amused. There is simplicity. People who are bright or smart see simplicity more easily than people who are less bright or smart. I've stated the simplicity here, and in my Rant on here about Scientology's basic datum. But other opinions are under other control, not under my control. Thanks for the amusement, you and those who "know better". Terryeo, I sincerely hope that on some level you realize you didn't actually counter anything I said.

I feel for you, I really do. You're constrained in your behavior by the August 15th, 1960 HCO Policy letter: "Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail. always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Don't ever defend. Always attack."

Don't ever defen