One opened, more to come!
It is currently Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:58 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm
Posts: 513
sekh wrote:
J.Swift wrote:
I understand that some people want Scientology nuked from off the face of the Earth.


That's not what this thread is about. This discussion is about Hubbard's SP/PTS tech, which IMO should indeed vanish from the face of the earth because it's evil. Comparing it to Roman Catholic excommunication is like comparing apples to pears. Excommunication excludes a person from spiritual services by the church, and thus from a place in Heaven. It does not force friends and family of the excommunicated to shun this person completely.

The only religious group I know of (which doesn't mean there couldn't be more that I don't know about) that has a policy comparable to the SP-declare are the Jehovah's Witnesses. They have a policy named "exclusion" which means the perceived sinner gets thrown out of the church and his/her familymembers who are still in are not allowed to have any contact at all. If they break that rule they risk being excluded too. Remember that, for these people, exclusion is not just loosing your community, but loosing your only chance of an afterlife as well.

This policy is deeply invasive and ruins lives and families. Still, it is not as far-reaching as the SP-doctrine in Scientology. No Jehovah's Witness is stimulated to destroy the life of any excluded person. They should "just" ignore him. In practice that alone is devastating enough to call this policy wrong, evil even.

Back to the Indies. Personally I have no problem with people using scientology tech in their lives, if they feel that is their spiritual path. As long as it doesn't harm others.
The SP/PTS tech is, like stoning children for minor infractions, simply evil. The existence of this tech is harmful in itself. Most Christian and Jewish denominations will denounce the stoning of children without hesitation, though the policy is endorsed by their Holy Writ. Groups that don't should be treated with caution, to say the least.

Likewise (IMHO) the organized groups of Independent Scientologists, like the group around Marty, should denounce the standard tech handling SP/PTS. As long as they keep avoiding the question nobody knows what to think of their position, and the question will come back in every discussion.
Most of the abuse in the church of $cientology is based on LRH's standard SP/PTS tech. Just blaming the whole thing on wrong application by current management is not covering the entire problem. People were declared and disconnected long before current management was there. In my eyes there are only two ways in this question. Either fully denounce SP/PTS tech and disconnection, or keep accepting it as part of the standard tech. In which case it shouldn't be surprising many critics will keep distrusting the future motives of the whole Indy movement.

Wether this distrust is justified is not for me to say. But I think it would be easy to end it. Just a clear and unequivocal "NO" to this part of the tech will straighten the largest obstacle for mutual trust and cooperation.


Surely a scientologist will never say an unequivocal "No" to something that's recognised as part of the "tech"? Isn't it basic that LRH is source, and that anything except full application of the "tech" as it has been received from source is ultra naughty?
:violent:
What Karen said about the suppressive person doctrine was quite minimal and vague and leaves loads of room for different interpretations.

One view would be that she's simply lying. What she presents as true PTS/SP doctrine has no real resemblance to the application of that doctrine under LRH. There's no recognition in what she says that people/organisations outside the church can be SP, no mention of the idea of PTS and disconnection, no mention of fair gaming. There's also, obviously, no recognition that declares were issued to people who weren't (by any generally accepted standard) "really evil". So maybe she's just trying to cover the truth.

Another view would be that she's lying to herself in order to square the circle.

Another view would be that she does reject standard tech, but cannot explicitly say that this is what she is doing. An equivocal 'No', rather than the unequivocal 'No' that you think is needed. A few days ago on Marty's blog she said:
Karen#1 on Marty's blog wrote:
David Mayo was ahead of his time when he stated (paraphrased)

“No one Entity should have the POWER to control or THREATEN one’s Spiritual future and “Eternity”.

That's rejecting even a view of the suppressive person doctrine as akin to Catholic excommunication (justified by reference to Matthew 16:19, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.")

Part of me wants to know exactly which precise one of the many things she could be doing she actually is doing. To pin it down. Ignore all the stuff she says about the horrors of PTS/SP under Miscavige (which is misdirection, in effect if not in intention) and just try to get a straight answer on her view of the actual content of genuine, on-source PTS/SP doctrine.

But I sort of think trying to do that might be missing the point (and anyway, I know it'd be a waste of time). One way of dealing with a question to which one can find no satisfactory answer is to ignore it, or half-ignore it -- and it may be that that's the best way to understand her stance (or lack of stance). If the choice you think you face is between embracing evil (embracing PTS/SP) or being a squirrel (rejecting PTS/SP), the best thing may be simply to refuse to choose. (And if you do that long enough, you hopefully get to realise that you shouldn't be facing that choice in the first place.)

_________________
“These guys are crazy. And all of this shit is straight out of the L. Ron Hubbard playbook. That’s their scriptures. They say they’re not a turn-the-other-cheek religion. No. They’re a knock-you-down-and-kick-you-in-the-balls religion.” Jason Beghe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:02 am
Posts: 821
Location: Netherlands
Karen#1 on Marty's blog wrote:
“No one Entity should have the POWER to control or THREATEN one’s Spiritual future and “Eternity”.


That seems like a loud and clear NO to me. :D I wish she would have been as outspoken in her answer here in this thread.

The whole David Mayo discussion seems to be a big thing on Marty's blog at the moment. Apparently Marty's view on David Mayo is not shared by all his followers. What complicates the discussion is that we now appear to have two DM's who are accused of squirrely behavior by M&M. :wink:
The Scientologist's inclination to use acronyms is starting to cause confusion here and there.... And sticking to the "integrity of Source" and Hub's infallibility will keep causing the need to square circles.

I mean, Hubbard was only human, even for those people that believe most of what he said, couldn't there be the smallest possibility he may have overdone some things? A bit like Christians denouncing the stoning of children while sticking to the Divine inspiration of the Bible as a whole?

Religions tend to change over time. If they don't, they disappear. Nobody still worships Zeus or Sobek, the crocodile God of the Nile. And in their time and place they were fairly mainstream Gods.
If Independent Scientology wants a viable future in the 21st century, it needs to get rid of some of the dogma that is simply not acceptable in these days.

The hotbed of corruption and violence that the official Co$ has turned into is (IMO) beyond repair. I wouldn't mind seeing that institution disappear from the face of the earth. ASAP.

_________________
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Sir Karl Popper (1902 - 1994)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:05 pm
Posts: 3103
J. Swift , another issue with your examples from the bible (whether new or old testament) is that it was written thousands of years ago by many people and then compiled. The early papacy debated over many books as to which would be used in the new testament. The heads of the Christian churches have been debating interpretation ever since and this is allowed (certain things such as Exodus were of their time and are considered not to fit for today). Rabbis have not only been debating the old testament's interpretation ever since it was compiled but they encourage all Jews to debate and challenge scripture starting as early as Hebrew school and continue to do so their whole lives.

Hubbard on the other hand wrote it all himself (or claimed to do so as Marty is arguing with people on his site now and calling them OSA when they don't agree) in modern times to stand as is for all time with no changes and was explicit in his instruction that he be followed to the letter and left no room for interpretation. Hubbard called himself source and told his followers his writings for scientology must be followed completely intact or they are squirriling.

To follow standard scientology as Hubbard intended (and Marty claims for the indies) is to follow SP doctrine, KSW, etc. as he wrote them and to interpret any part of it otherwise is not following his instructions. Oh acceptable truths (flat out lies) are ok for those who are not scientologists as he wrote but those who are following his "religion" as intended what he wanted was pretty clearly written and according to him is not to be tampered with or changed.

So if the indies want to claim they are following standard scientology as hubbard intended then they need to get past this conundrum of the horrible aspects to hubbard's scriptures or they will always be looked at with suspicion and with good reason!

_________________
Image
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:02 am
Posts: 821
Location: Netherlands
Oh yes, the "Acceptable Truth" doctrine. #-o The first time I got in touch with that piece of junk theology (pun more-or-less intended) was at Narconon. They convinced me that I was an unethical being because all drug-users tend to lie a lot. The only thing I could do was agree. I did lie sometimes, if it came to pass, and that was not an ethical thing to do. :oops:

That night I couldn't sleep, I was upset, felt guilty, about the whole lying thing, :? so I went back to the living-room to smoke a cigarette. Some "student" in a more advanced stage of the program had forgotten to take his booklet with him. Though I knew reading it was against the rules, I was curious. And guess what, L.Ron Hubbard, in his own words, told me that it was OK to lie, or as he put it, to tell an acceptable truth. I was completely flabbergasted. :shock: Moment of revelation. End of indoctrination phase one. From that moment I didn't believe anything they said anymore. Thanks :xenu: for that sloppy student. Without him I probably would have been a Scilon for the next twenty years or so. :roll: That double standard was the breaking point for me. There was more, but that was the real eye-opener.

Today I was looking for anti-Semitic Hubbard quotes. And I happened to see some old familiar acceptable truth bullshit. The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and all that. :bs:

Found some nice quotes. The exes among you know this stuff by heart, but it could be interesting for some of our wog board-members. You really have to see to believe this crap. Ok, here we go: (Red text is added by me.)

L.Ron Hubbard wrote:
Scriptural Basis

Hubbard's writings and recordings make up the sacred scriptures of Scientology. Thus, lying is official Church doctrine, as illustrated here.

"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them. … He's got to tell you lies in order to continue control, because the second you start telling anybody close to the truth, you start releasing him and he gets tougher and tougher to control. So, you can't control somebody without telling them a bunch of lies."

-L. Ron Hubbard, Technique 88 , "On Control and Lying"
Scientology not only tolerates lying but actually presents formal training in the subject:

"Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively. … The student should be coached on a gradient until he/she can lie facilely."
*TR1 = Training Routine 1, the training where you learn to keep your emotions under control

-L. Ron Hubbard, Intelligence Specialist Training Routine–Lying (TR-L)

"Handling truth is a touchy business also. You don't have to tell everything you know — that would jam the comm line too. Tell an acceptable truth. … So PR becomes the technique of communicating an acceptable truth — and which will attain the desirable result."
*Comm line= the communication between individuals

-L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 13 August 1970 Issue II PR Series 2, in the Volunteer Minister's Handbook
*HCOPL= Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, a green on white issue containing administrative policy.

Parishioners are also instructed on how to handle reporters with evasion and redirection (bullying, too):

"Purpose: To train a PRO to give a 'no answer' to questions he has no wish to answer directly. … The trick is to appear to answer the question by giving generalized statements in simple terms so that the reporter doesn't realize his question hasn't been answered."

"Purpose: To train a PRO to be able to establish Ethics presence over an SP reporter if the occasion arises, by such things as shouting, banging, pointing, swearing. To do this completely causatively until the poor reporter is 'caved in'."

"Purpose: To train the PRO to handle an SP reporter by word alone without the use of force as in (a). He uses the word as a rapier and plunges it at the reporter, so that the reporter introverts and drops the question."

-L. Ron Hubbard, HCOB 10 December 1969, "Reporter Training Routines"
*HCOB= Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, a red on white directive containing Hubbardian "tech" for auditing or "therapy" procedures.

Hubbard thinks the world would be a boring place if lying didn't exist:

"Now you say you have to be absolutely truthful. Sincerity is the main thing, and truthfulness is the main thing and don't lie to anybody … and you'll get ahead. Brother you sure will. You'll get ahead right on that cycle of action, right toward zero! It's a trap not being able to prevaricate … This makes life more colorful!" :---)

-L. Ron Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course, lecture "How to Talk to Friends about Scientology"


For the full story on "Acceptable truth", http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/lying.htm

This is just some stuff from one page, the rest of the site is interesting too, specially for those who are relatively new to the subject. I can recommend the pages on racism and minorities too. :mrgreen: No, that smiley is an UNacceptable truth. Its more like :furious: or :cry: Or both.

_________________
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Sir Karl Popper (1902 - 1994)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Posts: 10204
Location: Los Feliz, California
I do not know Marty or Mike and have never spoken to them. I e-mailed Marty a few times last year but that was it. I met some Indies and Freezoners at the 2008 lake and beach parties that Jason and Marc hosted.

One thing critics are not taking into account is this: Indie and FZ groups do not have religious status. They cannot imprison people, pay slave wages, force abortions, break up families, beat their staffs or do any other illegal things under the shield of ministerial exemption. When groups are subject to civil and criminal law they must behave lawfully or face lawsuits and arrests. These Indie and FZ groups are accountable to civil and criminal laws, this quite unlike CoS. CoS gets away with what it does because it has religious status.

I knew Alan Walter. He ran a big ranch where he and his people offered Knowledgeism. Alan's auditors could make several thousand dollars per week. Alan himself charged something like $1,000 per hour and was booked way in advance. Over at ESMB Alan called it was it was: Capitalism. He and his staff made good money and there was never any negative PR. The Freezone has been running quietly for years. They do not have religious status. They must also compete with each other for clients. Competition keeps prices down and quality up. Indies or FZ'ers who get heavy-handed can easily lose clients to friendlier and smarter competition.

IMO, it is better to have numerous capitalist groups subject to law selling services rather than one big monopolistic Cult that has the shield of ministerial exemption.

Absent religious exemption, the evils of the Scientology Cult cannot be practiced. The answer is, and always has been, to get rid of the Cult's tax exemption and religious status.


/////

_________________
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:02 am
Posts: 821
Location: Netherlands
You're right on that, Swift. That would be the first and foremost thing for governments to do.

But Indies taking a stand on things like SP/PTS and disconnection has nothing to do with getting rid of tax exemption and religious status of Co$. This is not just about the blessings of free enterprise, this is about dogma and about creating trust.

_________________
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Sir Karl Popper (1902 - 1994)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 9039
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, Marty or someone else, gathers enough followers to start an organization with an org board and staff members, purchases a building and then decides to give their organization a name and start practicing as a religious group.

I would have mixed feelings about something like that. I'd have suspicions and mistrust about their behavior. At the same time I think such a thing happening would give David Miscavige a serious case of the willies, and I'd enjoy that.

I would expect such an enterprise to put in all of Hubbard's policies to the letter and that would include the suppressive person doctrine, exactly as it is now practiced by the mother so called church, and such an organization would then have its own religious cloak.

Would such a thing happen? Yes, because it is Hubbard's policy to form an org and expand it.

_________________
"Disconnection is both an act of war and an admission of defeat."
Jon Atack

Image
http://www.worldcat.org./profiles/Wieber/lists/563909


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Posts: 10204
Location: Los Feliz, California
RealityWillTell wrote:
J. Swift , another issue with your examples from the bible (whether new or old testament) is that it was written thousands of years ago by many people and then compiled. The early papacy debated over many books as to which would be used in the new testament. The heads of the Christian churches have been debating interpretation ever since and this is allowed (certain things such as Exodus were of their time and are considered not to fit for today). Rabbis have not only been debating the old testament's interpretation ever since it was compiled but they encourage all Jews to debate and challenge scripture starting as early as Hebrew school and continue to do so their whole lives.

The Jewish faith is quite different from Christianity. In Christianity, the Bible is considered the inerrant Word of God whose unity and integrity was guaranteed by Divine Transmission. Hebrews 1:1-3 shows the Christian understanding of Divine Revelation of scripture across history until its summation in Jesus Christ:

Quote:
Going through a long line of prophets, God has been addressing our ancestors in different ways for centuries. Recently he spoke to us directly through his Son. By his Son, God created the world in the beginning, and it will all belong to the Son at the end. This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature. He holds everything together by what he says—powerful words!


The Bible is not up for negotiation in Christianity, except for perhaps in liberal traditions. This is why Atheist sites attack the Bible: http://www.evilbible.com/

Quote:
Hubbard on the other hand wrote it all himself (or claimed to do so as Marty is arguing with people on his site now and calling them OSA when they don't agree) in modern times to stand as is for all time with no changes and was explicit in his instruction that he be followed to the letter and left no room for interpretation. Hubbard called himself source and told his followers his writings for scientology must be followed completely intact or they are squirriling.!

Yes but David Miscavige, the ecclesiastical head reissued most of LRH's books in 2008 and called them The Basics. He claimed that all earlier versions had alterations due to SP transcriptionists. Therefore, there is a debate as to what is actually Hubbard.

Quote:
To follow standard scientology as Hubbard intended (and Marty claims for the indies) is to follow SP doctrine, KSW, etc. as he wrote them and to interpret any part of it otherwise is not following his instructions. Oh acceptable truths (flat out lies) are ok for those who are not scientologists as he wrote but those who are following his "religion" as intended what he wanted was pretty clearly written and according to him is not to be tampered with or changed.

I am glad to see a fellow critic acting as an Ethics Officer by demanding that all Scientologists must practice the SP Doctrine, etc. ruthlessly. Is Marty's blog an example of KSW? Is Mike Rinder doing CNN or the BBC KSW? Tell me please RWT, What is KSW? Does KSW mean that all Scientologists are diabolical? If so, look at the Bible. There is blood and gore from beginning to end.

Quote:
So if the indies want to claim they are following standard scientology as hubbard intended then they need to get past this conundrum of the horrible aspects to hubbard's scriptures or they will always be looked at with suspicion and with good reason!

RWT, by your logic, then, the Jews need to remove all offensive material from their scripture, "or they will always be looked at with suspicion and with good reason." I mean, you are not advocating a double standard are you? BTW, Christians in Colonial America used these verses below from II Kings, along with other verses, as justification for the Salem Witch Hunts and the murder of witches.

Quote:
But Josiah hadn't finished. He now moved through all the towns of Samaria where the kings of Israel had built neighborhood sex-and-religion shrines, shrines that had so angered God. He tore the shrines down and left them in ruins—just as at Bethel. He killed all the priests who had conducted the sacrifices and cremated them on their own altars, thus desacralizing the altars. Only then did Josiah return to Jerusalem.

The king now commanded the people, "Celebrate the Passover to God, your God, exactly as directed in this Book of the Covenant."

This commanded Passover had not been celebrated since the days that the judges judged Israel—none of the kings of Israel and Judah had celebrated it. But in the eighteenth year of the rule of King Josiah this very Passover was celebrated to God in Jerusalem.

Josiah scrubbed the place clean and trashed spirit-mediums, sorcerers, domestic gods, and carved figures—all the vast accumulation of foul and obscene relics and images on display everywhere you looked in Judah and Jerusalem. Josiah did this in obedience to the words of God's Revelation written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in The Temple of God.

There was no king to compare with Josiah—neither before nor after— a king who turned in total and repentant obedience to God, heart and mind and strength, following the instructions revealed to and written by Moses. The world would never again see a king like Josiah.

2 Kings 23:20-25 (The Message)

These verses above are still used today by Christians fundamentalists to persecute Pagans and Wiccans. However, high church traditions relegate these same verses to the past. Based upon religious history in general, Scientology will split into fundamentalist, moderate, and liberal camps. This constellation has occurred in all established religions. In order to go mainstream, and it never may do so, Scientology will of course have to moderate and relegate problem scriptures to both the past or to its extremist fringes. Once the DM era comes to an end, I think the Church of Scientology will cease in its present form, where "present form" means a culture of runaway soul-killing violence and greed. I could be wrong though: Thursday at 2:00 PM recurs weekly.


/////

_________________
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 9039
Image

_________________
"Disconnection is both an act of war and an admission of defeat."
Jon Atack

Image
http://www.worldcat.org./profiles/Wieber/lists/563909


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:05 pm
Posts: 3103
J. Swift wrote:
The Jewish faith is quite different from Christianity. In Christianity, the Bible is considered the inerrant Word of God whose unity and integrity was guaranteed by Divine Transmission. Hebrews 1:1-3 shows the Christian understanding of Divine Revelation of scripture across history until its summation in Jesus Christ:

The Bible is not up for negotiation in Christianity, except for perhaps in liberal traditions.

Yes for the average Christian but how many councils has there been since 364AD in the Catholic church alone (i.e. Council of Laodicea, Council of Trent, etc) so relevancy of canon has been changed and not held solid since the gospels were first written. As far as I've known there are (and have been for a long time) ecumenical councils in many sects of Christianity. Also I know there is a distinct difference between Christian & Jewish faiths that's why my reference as to Jews was that Rabbi's encourage all in their tutelage to challenge scripture.


J. Swift wrote:
Yes but David Miscavige, the ecclesiastical head reissued most of LRH's books in 2008 and called them The Basics. He claimed that all earlier versions had alterations due to SP transcriptionists. Therefore, there is a debate as to what is actually Hubbard.

So are you claiming either hubbard era or miscavige claimed real SP doctrines are benevolent & benign? I don't see how what you are saying is relevant to what's in question.

J. Swift wrote:
I am glad to see a fellow critic acting as an Ethics Officer by demanding that all Scientologists must practice the SP Doctrine, etc. ruthlessly. Is Marty's blog an example of KSW? Is Mike Rinder doing CNN or the BBC KSW? Tell me please RWT, What is KSW? Does KSW mean that all Scientologists are diabolical? If so, look at the Bible. There is blood and gore from beginning to end. Compare and contrast the Bible and Hubbard's work and tell me where more bloodshed is please.

Yes there is blood and gore from beginning to end in the bible and it is considered history. I don't know of any clergy asking for that to be practiced now. How does pointing out how hubbard wanted scientology practiced make me an ethics officer? I'm not forcing anyone to practice it only pointing out Marty's claim of standard scientology and what that entails. Is that not allowed? Are you the one who needs to calm down as you suggested for Alert? Are you telling me that Marty is lying and he really doesn't intend to follow scientology strictly? As for KSW are you saying that Marty & Mike aren't following KSW to get rid of the squirrel miscavige? Do you really think that Marty doesn't believe he is following KSW now? I don't think all scientologists are diabolical but if they are following absolute strict hubbard doesn't that include implementation of things like SP doctrine?

J. Swift wrote:
RWT, by your logic, then, the Jews need to remove all offensive material from their scripture, "or they will always be looked at with suspicion and with good reason." I mean, you are not advocating a double standard are you?
/////


You'd be hard pressed to find a Rabbi that says those aspects of the old testament are relevant and should be practiced today. The are essentially disavowed as irrelevant for today and are considered history only. Marty hasn't said any such thing that I know of for the SP doctrine which is what I've been saying to you but in your need to make Marty seem other than what he himself admits you seem to run off in a tangent to make it easier for you to answer yet not address what I and other have been asking or pointing out.

You can try to sidestep it all you want by taking what I say to extremes and answering that but it still boils down to one thing. What it comes down to is either Marty is a squirrel by hubbard's definition or not. If he is and consigned to history (not eradicated from history as the extreme out of some anger you continue to suggest I'm saying) things such as the SP doctrine then great. But so far we haven't seen anything of the sort and from what I've read of his blog I don't think you could get him to admit that the SP doctrine is wrong or shouldn't be practiced. Why do you want to constantly ignore that fact and suggest that Marty should be rammed down Gerry, Caroline's & the SPDL's throat whether they like it or not is baffling when they consider him unrepentant because he wants to be strict standard hubbard intended scientology and not set aside the SP doctrine so the assessment of them to him is still valid. He certainly wont admit what he did to them when he was still in the mother "church" was wrong even now . That the critics should ignore the fact that he wont explicitly state that the SP doctrine is not a part of his practice of standard scientology and just accept him because he's not in miscavige's "church" is absurd.

Marty I'm sure doesn't need our approval (or cares) and Gerry & Caroline should be allowed to have reasonable criteria as to who is allowed into the SPDL.

_________________
Image
.


Last edited by RealityWillTell on Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:13 am
Posts: 1475
Location: where the trees stand still
The interesting thing about the bible is that it has existed in some form or another as a guide for thousands of years. For instance that passage in Exodus 21 is actually quite interesting, and I will use this passage as hopefully a small teaching tool for those questioning how to critically read the written word. It is an invaluable tool when wishing to divine the true intent of those writing the words.

Before I begin I'd like to go explain something, these were written as laws, meaning their intents were to be taken literally. We'll get into why that's important later, but it is important to keep that it is literal in mind. And, for the most part, when laws are made the process that goes into making them is usually very thought out, meaning that if they made a law for it, their most probably was a reason.

There probably wouldn't be a law against theft if no one stole anything.

We'll go through this line by line.

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.

This is fairly vague, it only ascertains that there is a difference between the ways that male and female slaves get released from service. But if you think about it, it has some fairly large implications, such as that even at the level of slaves, their is a difference and possibly a pecking order to how women and men are treated. This hints at a highly patriarchal society, however considering the time period and the area this is unremarkable.

If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed.

This is very interesting, suggesting that a master beforehand may have had the ability to cast out a slave girl who displeased him, or perhaps even execute her outright. But then that this right was revoked by the early Hebrews.

He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.

So a master cannot sell his slave girl to foreigners? Maybe the Hebrews felt the other cultures treated their slaves much to roughly. Or maybe this was a backwards way of ensuring that eventually the slave would be released in jubilee.

If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.

Many would believe that this would mean the servant girl would no longer be treated as a slave, however I think that it has a far more specific meaning. Early cultures in the Mideast considered the female uterus to be property, quite literally this meant they had sexual rights to women that they bought. The Babylonians and the Early Greeks shared this view as well. As examples of both I point to the Illiad and Hammurabi's code.

Although the Minoans appear to have treated women as equals.

But back to the topic, this passage means that a man cannot have sex with the future wife of his son just because she is currently his slave, I can only assume that the necessity of this law being written was that it must have been at least occasionally happening.

I know these are horrible, terrible things, but believe it or not, they are early advances in human rights. To them, they might have actually been seen as revolutionary.

If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Again, this is treating women as something more than just tools for doing housework and making children. And also their is a suggestion of rights being ascribed to women, specifically wives. If she is not given these things she goes free, which those days meant back to her family, who would probably put her back on the market for a new husband.


Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death.

Interesting for many reasons, the Hebrews must have considered the family unit very important to enact this law. Also it says father or mother, meaning that women were ascribed status of some sort at motherhood that they weren't in other cultures. It also is an incredibly harsh sentence, meaning that the Hebrews believed in using punishment as a deterrent towards future crime.

Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

Fairly simple, but it leaves me wondering, what circumstances would lead to this exact wording? What person assumed that just because a perpetrator sold the kidnapped person they were no longer guilty of kidnapping? I will have to read more about the context of this law in particular in order to divine its reasoning.

Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

Wow, the family unit must have been central to early Hebrew culture. This is harsh even by the standards of the time. One must wonder why, it is possible considering the relatively small size of Hebrew culture at the time this was made to ensure that their were no dangerous divisions between families. It deserves study, but it might be because early Hebrew culture attitudes towards the family unit molded the laws around the protection of the family unit.

At the end considering that most of the laws are made to protect women, however horrifying their implications are they are made for the protection of women.

Most would wonder why these laws were necessary to have been made, it might have been for the prevention of violence, specifically vendetta. Think of the conflict that would be created in a relationship if your father was allowed by law to have sex with your future wife.

Laws are created by the government in order to do two things, appease the people, and to prevent the cyclical expanding nature of vendetta.

Your father sleeps with your future wife, you punch him, he kills you, your brothers kill him, your uncles kill your brothers, and on, and on.

Or, you steal your neighbors goat, he burns your barn down, so your sons rape his daughters.

These are horrible things to say, all the more horrible because in certain cultures which are considerably more lawless, they still happen.

http://www.iheu.org/iheu-condemns-sudan-iran-using-rape-political-weapon

If allowed, think of the consequences for a government, the cycle can become so large that it can lead to the weakening of government, leading to possibilities of insurrection, invasion, and revolution. As such allowing these things is foolish, and will only lead to more and more horrors.

sorry for the dark thoughts, but it is important while reading these passages to always seek the truth, unvarnished and bare. Like an ingrown toenail, it is disgusting, sometimes bloody and almost always painful. But left alone it will grow worse and worse.

These are observations, and not meant to be taken as proven facts, only as thoughts espoused from a barely conscious mind at 3AM.

_________________
I fart in your general direction!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Posts: 2315
Location: Canada
I'm grateful for your insights, butwehave11, thank you.

Thanks also to J. Swift for bringing your A-game to this discussion. As a reminder, J. Swift has announced that he's a Master Mason and Knight Templar, author of The Origin of the Universe and the Masonic Pyramid: The Queen of Heaven, and that he wants to attract followers.

J. Swift wrote:
I do not oppose the practice of Scientology, but I am of the opinion that the Indies should join OTO if they really want to experience the same spiritual initiations that L. Ron Hubbard did.

OCMB thread: http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=32646&p=379497


I thought I'd post David Mayo's SP declare for review and discussion. Perhaps Karen #1 would like to comment on this issue.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Source: http://freezone.najbjerg.info/dokumentation/david_mayo_sp_declare

_________________
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Posts: 10204
Location: Los Feliz, California
Caroline, yes I am a Master Mason and a Knight Templar. Yes I have written a book. My book makes it clear that I have my own spiritual cosmology that is quite distinct from Scientology. I would like to form a spiritual study group and may someday. This is quite aside from the subject at hand, but I understand your need to document things.

*****
Even ignoring the Hebrew scriptures, which scriptures the Christians appropriated and called the Old Testament, the New Testament itself is also controversial. The New Testament seeks to protects families except when Jesus decides that your family members are, err, suppressive and that disconnection is needed:

Quote:
"Don't think I've come to make life cozy. I've come to cut — make a sharp knife-cut between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-law—cut through these cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. If you prefer father or mother over me, you don't deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don't deserve me.

Ref: Matthew 10:34-37, The Message

Jesus actually said this and you can check it out for yourself. However, Christian churches ignore this horrific verse and do not break up families - this although Jesus demanded it. Jesus did not want "well-meaning family members" getting in the way of a person's commitment to him. Christians, however, selectively apply scripture like all other religions. My point here is that many religious movements have brutal scriptures that force believers to separate themselves from non-believers. Scientology is hardly unique in this regard. This does not excuse its SP Doctrine, Disconnection, etc. but it shows that even the major religions do not brook dissent from within and will excommunicate people who do not agree. There have always been religious extremists, especially early in the history of a sect or a cult. This is why such groups have to moderate or become a fringe group that eventually disbands. The Church of Scientology is unique in that it has used religious brutality in uncommon and uncommonly expensive ways; most religions do not pursue outspoken former members or prominent critics and journalists with such pure hatred and an incredibly expensive private intelligence bureau.

Religious history argues that Scientology will continue to schism and that moderates will selectively apply scripture like all other religions. Matthew 10:34-37 is part of Christianity's "SP Doctrine," is still a part of Holy Writ, and has been consigned to the dustbin in the everyday life of Christianity.

/////

_________________
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Posts: 2315
Location: Canada
J. Swift wrote:
Even ignoring the Hebrew scriptures, which scriptures the Christians appropriated and called the Old Testament, the New Testament itself is also controversial. The New Testament seeks to protects families except when Jesus decides that your family members are, err, suppressive and that disconnection is needed:

Quote:
"Don't think I've come to make life cozy. I've come to cut—make a sharp knife-cut between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-law—cut through these cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. If you prefer father or mother over me, you don't deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don't deserve me.

Ref: Matthew 10:34-37, The Message

Jesus actually said this and you can check it out for yourself. However, Christian churches ignore this horrific verse and do not break up families - this although Jesus demanded it. Christians selectively apply scripture like all other religions. My point here is that many religious movements have brutal scriptures that force believers to separate themselves from non-believers. Scientology is hardly unique in this regard. This does not excuse its SP Doctrine, Disconnection, etc. but it shows that even the major religions do not brook dissent from within and will excommunicate people who do not agree. There have always been religious extremists, especially early in the history of a sect or a cult. This is why such groups have to moderate or become a fringe group that eventually disbands.

Religious history argues that Scientology will continue to schism and that moderates will selectively apply scripture like all other religions. Matthew 10:34-37 is Christianity's SP Doctrine, is still a part of Holy Writ, and has been consigned to the dustbin in the everyday life of Christianity.

/////


I looked up the Bible reference, and the verses do say that. I think Butwehave11's insights could be applied to the New Testament too.

Scientology and Scientologists have a tremendous opportunity, this very day, to select out the SP doctrine and completely renounce it, and remove it entirely from their scriptures, including from all Narconon, Criminon, VM and other Scientology outreach programs and propaganda materials. Removing the SP doctrine would probably gut their religion. I'd be okay with that, and, regardless, I'm convinced it's what must be done to evolve, and for everyone's protection and peace.

David Mayo's SP declare was devastating for me. Until then, he had been a symbol for standard tech around the world, and, because I had been a techie in the Sea Org, he was my first authority under L. Ron Hubbard. People were getting declared all around me during that period, including my own husband. Reading this document was, I'd imagine, something like finding out in the LA Times that your twins' pediatrician was one Josef Mengele.

_________________
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SP DECLARES ~~ more about
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Posts: 10204
Location: Los Feliz, California
The Church of Scientology's convert Mr. Farrakhan has a very "SP" friend in Moammar Ghadafi. Nevertheless, Mr. Farrakhan has not been ordered, per the SP Doctrine, to disconnect. Mr. Ghadafi has outlawed all religions except for Islam in Libya. Therefore, Ghadafi opposes Scientology's mere presence in Libya. A Google search for "Gaddafi Sadism" yields 1.18 million hits. Yet, Mr. Farrakhan is allowed to remain very much connected to a true antisocial personality, a dictator figure who has slaughtered his own people. If anything, Mr. Farrakhan declared Ghadafi to be a friend a few weeks ago as was widely reported in the media: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 29024.html

Ghadafi is an SP by definition and yet Mr. Farrakhan is acting as if he has not written him the required Disconnection letter per the sacred scriptures of Scientology. Why has this travesty been allowed to happen in a Church where scripture and ecclesiastical justice policies are always 100% standardly applied by sane, caring persons in a just, dispassionate, and flawless way each and every minute of every day? Do the new monies and recruits expected to flow in from NOI outweigh the SP Doctrine by millions and millions of dollars? I say yes. Indeed, according to *Indie* reports DM has ordered that NOI members in CoS not be crushed regged.

This certainly argues that the SP Doctrine is very selectively and arbitrarily applied at the highest echelons of the Cult as well as the lowest: One can be declared an SP or RPF'd in CoS in a sham Comm Ev for simply having angered the wrong person or having a statcrash. Conversely, one's chances of being declared an SP seem to decrease in proportion to the wealth, power, and influence one can offer David "the Undeclarable SP" Miscavige.

An "SP Declare" in CoS assumes that there is an honest and functional justice system in a Cult where there is no justice.

How many stories of unjust and arbitrary SP Declares have been posted online? Why was Reed Slatkin not declared an SP until after he was arrested? Why was Rex Fowler not declared an SP before he pulled a trigger?

Is it not absurd of us to debate an insane policy? Or are we just having our particular brand fun once again on OCMB?

Image

/////

_________________
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSNbot Media and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group