I spent 20 years in Scn before I picked up a Bible and decided to read that. Back up a minute, my dad suggested I read an Edgar Cacey book. The "sleeping prophet" from KY, who delivered incredible spiritual understanding (aligned totally with Christianity) in the years 1901 thru 1945 when he passed away. I had always wondered...how does LRH know this stuff. I can now tell you , he had to have spent countless hours in the Edgar Cacey Library in Virginia Beach. What IS so dangerous about Scn, is that there is so much truth in the beginning that those seeking souls, people who know they are spiritual beings and haven't found the path they're looking for in a quick easy to read paperback, find enough truth in the starting courses and auditing to blow their socks off. The problem is LRH twisted the happy ending, leaving God out. The Creed says they respect people of all religions, but the truth is only really revealed if one sits down to study the Bible, Torah, kabbala, any Christian or Jewish "source" material. Scn does NOT respect these religions. There are too many discrepancies to document here. The other upset is that LRH who continually drives home the vital importance of SOURCE, looking to the source of the material (st hat), has himself taken incredible amounts of truths from Edgar Cacey (died 5 yrs before the avent of Dianetics), and the Bible itself. Most of the "tech" he takes credit for is in the Bible. Ethics tech esp, so much, I wish I could tell you...really should be documented for a mag article. Public are led to believe that God is accepted as the Supreme being, but I challenge you to ask , demand that an OT tell you about their relationship to God at that level, good luck getting an answer. Its apparently too "restimulative" to discuss with people at the bottom of the Bridge. Do you really think that was God's intention? To only listen to your prayers once you've attained OT? j If anyone is interested in doing a full investigation, documenting this LRH book, teaching, with the real sources and real intentions, I'd be interested.

QUOTE
----------
Most of the "tech" he takes credit for is in the Bible. Ethics tech esp, so much, I wish I could tell you...
----------

You're right there. Fair Game, Disconnection, "Destroy them Utterly"... All straight from the Bible.

Who knows? maybe some of the Good stuff came from there too...

Either way, none of it has any actual basis in reality.

Dr. Stupid

Anonymous, you've made some excellent points in your post. It is true that there are certain common threads which run throughout most spiritual paths, and Hubbard was able to capitalize on this, both literally and figuratively. Even in the study tech the concept of clay demoing was lifted directly from Maria Montessori. (Too bad she didn't copyright it.)

Confession is good for the soul, a concept and practice which have been around for ages. Even our friend Stimpson would have to concede this point. In my opinion, the best Scientology has to offer is on the lower Bridge, which is deliberate by design. I believe the single most helpful piece of technology LRH developed was the confessional style auditing. The days he spent doing this were days well spent. When properly delivered, it can bring real relief. (When improperly delivered, it is invalidative and upsetting.) But his design was unique in that running the different flows gets at the charge from different angles. Of course, you aren't told at the outset that everything in your so-called confidential confessional auditing can and will be used against you should they deem it to their benefit. (So much for the integrity of the process.) My overall point on this is that even the concept of confession is as old as humans are old, so Hubbard didn't reinvent the wheel, just gave it a different spin.

Scientology is riddled with perversions of truth (as well as containing many actual truths), the most poignant being its' waving of the religious banner while simultaneously, yet covertly, holding religions in utter contempt. On OTIII we learn that all religions are just "implants" used for the purpose of control, yet on OTVIII Hubbard gives a backhanded acknowledgement of the existence of Christ by saying, among other things, that He was a "lover of boys". (This is an interpretation for the OSA lawyers who might be lurking. Go ahead, sue me. This will present the opportunity to bring the upper OT levels into open U.S. court.) But once you're on OTVIII so much time has passed since OTIII that this discrepancy is missed, although it wouldn't matter since, by then, you'll accept almost anything. (The concept of God is transferred to the concept of "Source", i.e., Hubbard.)

It is noteworthy that Scientology strives to be "on the forefront of society", and to "unite all religions", as Miscavige said in a recent speech. This is quite benign on the surface until one studies such a goal more closely. If Scientology holds other religions in scorn and contempt, viewing them as implants which must be audited out, then it logically follows that being "on the forefront of society" and "uniting all religions" would mean the effective snuffing out of other religions.

Probably the most interesting, multi-faceted piece of data LRH lifted (and twisted) in Scientology was the concept of the "greatest good for the greatest number". It's a basic maxim in Scientology and is used routinely, mostly as a means for control since as a Scientologists you're constantly told that the "greatest good for the greatest number" is more Scientology in the world, and many unkind and unethical acts are perpetrated to that end, yet are justified in the name of being the "greatest good for the greatest number".

Anyway, as you probably know, the concept of natural law was originally pontificated upon by the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato, and later codified by medieval Christians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas. It is a bedrock of the United States Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence. "Natural rights" are considered inalienable rights by the individual in the pursuit of happiness. The United States is unique to any country on the planet in that our founding fathers' acknowledged our impulse toward freedom and that we have certain inalienable rights toward that end, even going so far as to incorporate those ideals into our Constitution. While this is a profound blessing for Americans, it opened the door to a certain abuse of the system because natural rights can be specific and utilitarian in nature, which might not necessarily align with the concept of natural law, or the greatest good for the greatest number.

A recent example of where this might come into question was last weeks argument before the Supreme Court by an ACLU attorney regarding downloading child pornography on the Internet. Her position was that "it is the problem of parents, not policy" and that the Constitution does not support such an infringement on natural rights. I believe her argument could be undercut by the Constitution itself. Does it in any way harm the greatest number of individuals in this country to not be able to download pictures of children having sex with other children or adults? I don't think so. The same responsible laws enacted for the protection of children, i.e., being unable to legally buy alchohol or cigarettes until majority age, could also apply. I'm not saying there should be no pornography on the Internet, but it is resonable that distinctions be made. This is only one side to the argument.

In the case of Scientology, while they can stake a legitimate claim to being a religion because of the nature of the materials and subject matter, when viewed from the deeper perspective, is it legitimate to claim they have a right to function as a religion when they 1) hold other religions in contempt, albeit covertly, and, more significantly, 2) have a long-range goal of effectively abolishing other religions? What else could truly be meant by "clearing the planet", particularly when one knows that Scientology does not align with other religions, depite the fact that this is what you're told. A "cleared planet" means of planet of Scientologists. Is the effective abolition of other religions in the interest of the greatest good for the greatest number? In the purest sense and interpretation, I do not believe the United States Constitution supports this. But penetrating the 'religious status' and copyright issues would require a broad understanding of Scientology and its' goals by judges and lawmakers. It is my sincere hope that this occurs. The sooner, the better. This would allow Scientology to be what it really is, which is a for-profit corporation. I believe the tide will turn the day the religious community cognites on the game Scientology is playing as well as what's at stake. It is ironic that, aside from Scientology's own highly paid, attack whore lawyers, their staunchest supporters would likely be the ACLU, yet there is probably no greater single long-term threat to American civil liberties than Scientology.

Finally, Anonymous, I would recommend to you some of the writings of Rudolf Steiner. Like Cayce, he came into this world with clairvouyant, as well as other, abilities. He was a deep thinker with a great understanding of life and humanity, as well as a deeply, deeply spiritual man. His popularity and influence was growing in Europe in the 1920's and 30's. Adolf Hitler drew him in as a confidante until he ran Steiner out of Austria. One can only muse as to how our planets' relatively recent history might have been different had Steiner been the one to come into power. It is a sad irony that the country which has taken the toughest stance on Scientology has been Germany, yet we seem to ignore this fact rather than take their lead. Germany sees it for exactly what it is and doesn't want a repeat of history in any form. Rather than view it as hard won wisdom at work, we call them bigots.

I agree with most of what has been posted, especially Charlie's post.

Just want to point out that most of the people who become Scientologists are not "seekers". People who fall for scams are not "seekers".
They are targets. It would be interesting to know how many of them
were hooked by Scn. front groups where Scientology is never mentioned until buttons have been pushed and the hook has been set.

Christianity has been used as a
"for profit" business by many who claim to be Christians. A con game by any other name is still a scam.

I also wonder how many were totally turned off to "religion" because of their encounter with the COS. Although "religions" can and have done good things that have benefited mankind, they have also been responsible for some of the most horrific atrocities and wars.

Billy Boots

There is a book called "Carmen Ariza" which has a lot of the truths that $cios holds dear as their own. The book is now out of print but it is a simple story about a priest who has to be true to himself and try to be true to his calling. Essentially, it is the christian scientist's greatest exposition of their concepts.

I like this thread. The hindu poem "The Bhagavad Gita" (the song of god) talks about a lot of the things that $cios uses. The Bhagavad Gita was written 5000 years ago.

I agree with the 'confessional style auditing' being one of the few things (as far as I can see) in Scientology which is considered good for the soul. Following that line of thinking can't you therefore say that counselling and 'psychs' are good for the soul? I know that I am far from religious yet I have had experience with confessing, so to speak, whilst seeing a counsellor, and the sessions themselves were normally confessional in nature; being able to talk through feelings and worries with someone else helped give me a clearer perspective on things in general.

In a world where an incresing number of people are sceptical about religions in general - I was brought up an agnostic; many of the people I knew at school were baptised, but never attended church, many of those in my country are not religious - seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist or similar professional, or seeking advice from a confidental helpline, is as close as a lot of people will ever get to the cartharsis offered by the confessional. Talking things over with anybody, trained or not, also offers a certain degree of relief... but the difference is that you don't now need to espouse a philosophy to back it up.

After all, I didn't need to understand the concepts of therapy to benefit from it.

I guess one could say there may be a little good and evil in everyone and everything. Perhaps the trick is not to let the evil take control.

Beginning courses in Scientology probably do have some benefits for some people but you gotta watch out for the side effects. I can see that entertainers and people who have little or no self confidence could benefit from the TR's, sort of like confrontational therapy used to cure phobias. Or maybe behavioral modification. You confront and win control over the thing that makes you afraid or causes you to do destructive or non productive things.
A person who is deathly afraid of riding in elevators or airplanes or public speaking. etc. can, many times, cure those phobias (or reduce them to a manageable level) by just getting out there, sometimes with help, support and guidance from a professional, and doing them. Being able to hear bad things about yourself and not taking it to heart and giving up is a big part of being able to live a full, productive, happy life. Or being able to not let people push your buttons which results in your losing your cool and your head.

Being subjected to the bullbaiting of the TR's could be said to be a sort pf confrontational therapy to overcome a lack of self confidence, a feeling or worthliness and/or an inability to control kneejerk, angry reactions.

But the TR's, like many cures, can have some bad side effects. Like turning you into a person who is (or
appears to be) cold, insensitive and egotistical with little regard for anyone but yourself and those who agree with you.

The "Communication Course" may, in the beginning, help you open up and be able to more freely communicate with ohters, but in the end, you may only be able to comunicate with fellow scientologists.

Talking over your problems with someone, whether he/she offers advice or just listens gives a sense of someone cares and I am not alone. It can also clarify issues which have been fogged up with emotions and tears and the inability to "see the
forest for the trees". But auditing, can have many side effects including the implantation of false memories dependence (addiction) on a machine to tell you how you feel, what your problems are and what to do about them which always includes "donating" more money for more Scientolo9gy courses or "donating" your life so you can get "free" courses.

And the worst "side effects" of beginning Scientology could lead to psychological and emotional enslavement to a totalitarian system
which requires you to "disconnect from family and friends", fear
real communication because expressing your real feelings could get you sent
to the RPF and/or orstracized, and dedicating your life to "saving the planet" by recruiting others, making money for the COS and spreading the evil.


Billy Boots

Village: Double-check your opinions. There are no priests in Christian Science, and the book you mentioned has nothing whatever to do with it. Nor is there anything in "Dianetics" that resembles Christian Science. "The greatest exposition of their concepts is what they call their textbook, "Science and Health."

ha ha..Stimson, you da man!! Re your response to anonymous: I agree wholeheartedly. Old testament Bible portrayed a most ruthless,murderous,jealous, genocidal, vengeful, and petty god..... small 'g'. I daresay that does not grab me as being a being I would want to worship as the supreme being. My observations lead me to believe that the Old Testament "god" was an extraterrestrial, or a group of the same.....but that's another discussion, for another day

Ummm.... are you saying that you're in favor of kiddie porn being 100% legal? Because if you are then that's just plain wrong.