Scientology abandoned by Hubbard's granddaughter & Miscavige's father

[Justinian2]

Well he's not the only one. It's no different than the various new age woo-woo with quantum crap, or alternative medicine idiocies that try to measure your cellular level or whatever.

It amazes me how people don't put 2 and 2 together to identify that all these cons work exactly in the same way. Sure, they'll mock everyone else's woo, but their's is "special" and not the same.

Can you define what is NOT a con? Are governments a con? Are educations a con? Is the law a con? Is medicine a con? Are drugs a con? Do skeptics con?

I'm pretty sure engineering isn't a con. Quantum physics may be a con. Mathematics isn't usually a con.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

When I was 21 and had just moved to Jacksonville, FL, I was eager to find some new friends. Lo and behold, one of the first people to befriend me was a guy named Melvin that I worked with. He was just starting out in Scientology, and was very eager about it. I'd never heard of it before (this was in 2001), but was curious as to what he liked about it so much.

I picked up Dianetics and started reading it. Soon Melvin and I were auditing each other, and he wanted to go to the church in Tampa, so we did. That was also the day my fascination with Scientology officially came to an end. It was such a put-off. When I arrived, paid my money, and they tried to tell me I had TEN minutes to grab a lunch, I knew right then and there that this wasn't for me. They kept trying to sell me stuff, they weren't very friendly, and I couldn't wrap my ahead around how, if this stuff worked, these people seemed worse than most that I knew.

Anyhow, my question Justinian, is what drew you to it? Why are you still attracted to it? I never noticed a difference in my life after being audited. Maybe for the first 5-10 minuutes (placebo effect?), but that was it. I'd remark how it seemed like everything was more colorful on my drive home. I like scenery, but not for what it would have cost me.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Can you define what is NOT a con? Are governments a con? Are educations a con? Is the law a con? Is medicine a con? Are drugs a con? Do skeptics con?

I'm pretty sure engineering isn't a con. Quantum physics may be a con. Mathematics isn't usually a con.

Saying you're a physicist when you failed the only class you took in the subject.

That's a con.

-

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Saying you're a physicist when you failed the only class you took in the subject.

That's a con.

-

As is making up everything that you did in your life.

LRH scarcely told a single word of truth about anything. One of the World's most complete all purpose liars.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Can you define what is NOT a con? Are governments a con? Are educations a con? Is the law a con? Is medicine a con? Are drugs a con? Do skeptics con?

I'm pretty sure engineering isn't a con. Quantum physics may be a con. Mathematics isn't usually a con.

Wow you missed that point entirely...
Quantum Phsysics isn't a con.
When someone tells you that quantum physics says you can fly if you really want to then that's a con because that's not what quantum physics actually says.

Hence the issue of redefining existing words to mean something entirely different than what they actually are. And the reason they do it is obviously to sound smarter and more trustworthy than they actually are.

Same goes for "energy", "ion", "zero point module" etc etc
The people who try to use physics words without knowing anything about physics are doing the cons.

How the heck did you try and jump to governments, law and education is beyond me. Not to sound offensive, but do you have some sort of "government Tourette" or something? You seem to try and shove that into every other sentence...

 

[DrDave]

As is making up everything that you did in your life.

Seems quite common with those involved with Scientology

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Hence the issue of redefining existing words to mean something entirely different than what they actually are. And the reason they do it is obviously to sound smarter and more trustworthy than they actually are.

Same goes for "energy", "ion", "zero point module" etc etc
The people who try to use physics words without knowing anything about physics are doing the cons.

.

I am reminded of the half joking comment Laurence Krauss made in an on-line discussion i saw recently, while biologists for example, describe or define species which are clearly apparent for all to see and verify, etc often in obscure language such as latin, physicists in dealing with stuff that is difficult to comprehend etc tend to use simple language to describe such phenomena eg black hole, string etc

 

[Christian Klippel]

I am reminded of the half joking comment Laurence Krauss made in an on-line discussion i saw recently, while biologists for example, describe or define species which are clearly apparent for all to see and verify, etc often in obscure language such as latin, physicists in dealing with stuff that is difficult to comprehend etc tend to use simple language to describe such phenomena eg black hole, string etc

Wasn't that Neil deGrasse Tyson? At least he pretty much says the exact same

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Justinian2]

When I was 21 and had just moved to Jacksonville, FL, I was eager to find some new friends. Lo and behold, one of the first people to befriend me was a guy named Melvin that I worked with. He was just starting out in Scientology, and was very eager about it. I'd never heard of it before (this was in 2001), but was curious as to what he liked about it so much.

I picked up Dianetics and started reading it. Soon Melvin and I were auditing each other, and he wanted to go to the church in Tampa, so we did. That was also the day my fascination with Scientology officially came to an end. It was such a put-off. When I arrived, paid my money, and they tried to tell me I had TEN minutes to grab a lunch, I knew right then and there that this wasn't for me. They kept trying to sell me stuff, they weren't very friendly, and I couldn't wrap my ahead around how, if this stuff worked, these people seemed worse than most that I knew.

Anyhow, my question Justinian, is what drew you to it? Why are you still attracted to it? I never noticed a difference in my life after being audited. Maybe for the first 5-10 minuutes (placebo effect?), but that was it. I'd remark how it seemed like everything was more colorful on my drive home. I like scenery, but not for what it would have cost me.

You never were into Scientology, for all intensive purposes. Auditing is sold in 12.5 hour intensives. I know you didn't have that. It would take that long to handle enough of your case to have a lasting impact - and only if you were free of suppression for the duration of the auditing at least.

It was all good for me for many different reasons. The auditing was good. The training was good. I enjoyed talking to students of both sexes in the academy. I enjoyed the drills, some of which sent you out into the street to interview people. I liked listening to the tapes and studying the materials.

On second thought, it wasn't all good. The sales techniques ticked me off. The salespeople would try to find your 'ruin' and wind up caving you in and making you feel worse. Then they would take your money and you would feel even worse. The Freezone doesn't have this problem, but the gang of people you study with isn't as large either. The Freezone is done with groups of six or so.

Ya, I made lasting gains. Some of the gains - I'm still wondering how they happened. They just did. It's somewhat magical. I'm not going to talk about my case except to say it is the norm. People get healthier, happier, wealthier, and more popular - with one exception. The exception is that the people that don't like Scientology or the Freezone will deliberately be a pain in the a** (but you don't have to tell them).

 

[AdMan]

You never were into Scientology, for all intensive purposes.

Argh. And you're supposed to be an OT?

 

[tsig]

No. Hubbard created his own terms so that what he was saying wouldn't be confused by a reversion to previous meanings for the word. For example: I've used the word utopia to refer to a perfect society, but readers tend to smear the example of Sir Thomas More's 1516 book Utopia into the definition. (I think the society More described was dystopian.) When discussing the desire for a more (no pun) perfect society it is desirable to use 'utopia', but it confuses people.

The people that subscribe to the theory that Hubbard was trying to create a cult by his special words are wrong. If you want to hear cultish titles for things someday, go to a graduation and listen to the titles given to doctorial theses. Are they cultish?

No world can be perfect if it has humans in it.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

You never were into Scientology, for all intensive purposes. Auditing is sold in 12.5 hour intensives. I know you didn't have that. It would take that long to handle enough of your case to have a lasting impact - and only if you were free of suppression for the duration of the auditing at least.

It was all good for me for many different reasons. The auditing was good. The training was good. I enjoyed talking to students of both sexes in the academy. I enjoyed the drills, some of which sent you out into the street to interview people. I liked listening to the tapes and studying the materials.

On second thought, it wasn't all good. The sales techniques ticked me off. The salespeople would try to find your 'ruin' and wind up caving you in and making you feel worse. Then they would take your money and you would feel even worse. The Freezone doesn't have this problem, but the gang of people you study with isn't as large either. The Freezone is done with groups of six or so.

Ya, I made lasting gains. Some of the gains - I'm still wondering how they happened. They just did. It's somewhat magical. I'm not going to talk about my case except to say it is the norm. People get healthier, happier, wealthier, and more popular - with one exception. The exception is that the people that don't like Scientology or the Freezone will deliberately be a pain in the a** (but you don't have to tell them).

So you're telling me that Dianetics was incorrect in how to audit, and that 2 people could audit one another? The very premise of the religion was Dianetics, and you're now telling me that unless I paid someone, then it wasn't going to work?

How do you presume to know just how much auditing Melvin and I did? I couldn't give you an hour figure, but I'd pretty much guarantee it was well over 12.5 hours. We'd do it multiple times a week, for probably a couple of months until the trip to Tampa.

AND, when we went to the church, when we paid, guess who audited me? Melvin. So I paid to have the same guy audit me who had been auditing me all along. Oh, but neato, we got to use the e-meter this time.

Look, I don't wanna badmouth your hobby. If it works for you, great, more power to you. I just wanted to share my (albeit brief) experience with it.

 

[hgc]

Argh. And you're supposed to be an OT?

Oh, you and your wog English.

 

[Justinian2]

So you're telling me that Dianetics was incorrect in how to audit, and that 2 people could audit one another? The very premise of the religion was Dianetics, and you're now telling me that unless I paid someone, then it wasn't going to work?

How do you presume to know just how much auditing Melvin and I did? I couldn't give you an hour figure, but I'd pretty much guarantee it was well over 12.5 hours. We'd do it multiple times a week, for probably a couple of months until the trip to Tampa.

AND, when we went to the church, when we paid, guess who audited me? Melvin. So I paid to have the same guy audit me who had been auditing me all along. Oh, but neato, we got to use the e-meter this time.

Look, I don't wanna badmouth your hobby. If it works for you, great, more power to you. I just wanted to share my (albeit brief) experience with it.

OK, you provided more information. Great.

Book One auditing is primitive. I helped one man to finish book one auditing while whose wife had just died of cancer. He cried and cried as he ground into the incident over and over. He used up a whole box of Kleenex. Just as I was starting to think I was going to spend the night with a crying man, he brightened up and smiled. That's it! he said and smiled.

Professional Dianetics is much, much different. It's much better and quicker.

I'm glad that you got some benefit out of book one auditing.

 

[Justinian2]

No world can be perfect if it has humans in it.

True. However, few things are ever 100% pure or perfect.

I think the world can do a better job of approaching perfection than it is. The first problem is that man has never decided what perfection is. How to we solve a problem if we don't know where we want to go?

LRH has defined the perfect man as being rational, intelligent, having empathy, being for all dynamics and not just for survival of self, having high arc, being ethical, being high on the tone scale, being causitive, being responsible, etc.

He designed a way to get there too. Unfortunately his employees in the church never got any significant auditing or training and thus could not get there even by LRH's bridge (most never went far up the bridge)

LRH has defined the target. I don't see many trying to achieve the target. The billionaires only want their own private utopias - they don't really help others make it to the ideal state. Unfortunately too, with this world, these laws, these stupid governments, and our inate flaws, we aren't, as a species, progressing towards our ideal state.

 

[Christian Klippel]

... sold in 12.5 hour intensives ...

... handle enough of your case ...

... free of suppression ...

... enjoyed the drills ...

... find your 'ruin' ...

... lasting gains ...

... not going to talk about my case ...

... get healthier, happier, wealthier, and more popular ...

Thanks for yet another great example of twisted and borked up scientology-speak.

Just goes to show that you _really_ need to be brainwashed to stick with that crap.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Sherkeu]

I don't see many trying to achieve the target. The billionaires only want their own private utopias - they don't really help others make it to the ideal state. Unfortunately too, with this world, these laws, these stupid governments, and our inate flaws, we aren't, as a species, progressing towards our ideal state.

Isn't the idea to get the whole planet "clear" and to the ideal state? If it was soooo important, surely the Freezone members would simply dedicate as much time as they could spare and ask for donations if people could afford it.

Many churches and organizations run on just donations. The "pay for the next level" part is such a con. Wouldn't donations be better? Or can poor people not get to ideal state?

And why are scientologists so obsessed with everyone being criminals and out to get them? It's seems like a cult of excessive paranoia.

I really would like to know!! Thanks!

 

[Twiler]

Isn't the idea to get the whole planet "clear" and to the ideal state? If it was soooo important, surely the Freezone members would simply dedicate as much time as they could spare and ask for donations if people could afford it.

Many churches and organizations run on just donations. The "pay for the next level" part is such a con. Wouldn't donations be better? Or can poor people not get to ideal state?

And why are scientologists so obsessed with everyone being criminals and out to get them? It's seems like a cult of excessive paranoia.
I really would like to know!! Thanks!

How else can they explain all the scandals?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I read Dianetics back in the mid-90s. One thing that kept bugging me was the concept of a "clear". This was supposed to be the pinnacle of humanity, someone who had completed all of Dianetic training and was free of all mental problems. Dianetics had been around for decades at this point. Where were all the clears?!? All of these super-intelligence, super-charismatic, happy people? Surely, you couldn't hide them all; but why would Scientology want to, anyway? The testimony and abilities of all these clears should've made it apparent, by that time, that Scientology was a working science, and everybody would've already been on board. What had happened?

A few years later I got on the Internet, and found out that "clear" was not the end of Scientology. No, indeed! In fact, it was only the beginning. There were levels upon levels after that. You were always sending more money to the church, because you were never done. There was always one more level to complete. What's more, there's no evidence that a Scientologist is any more "able" than a non-Scientologist. That's when I realized it was a scam.

 

[Myriad]

I have studied and participated in the underlined practices. I think some are sub worthless and others have some value. Nothing has compared qualitatively or quantitatively with what Scientology delivers. TM, Christianity, and Wicca have some value.

It is often said, about many if not all of those systems, that what you get out of them depends on what you put into them. Do you think your personal tastes or personal affinity for the elements of the Scientology system might have affected your level of involvement and commitment, and might therefore be influencing your assessment of the results?

After all, one would not expect a Christian who attends church on Sunday mornings to get the same benefits from that system as an initiate living and working in a Christian fraternal order. But those lesser benefits might very well be sufficient for that person's needs -- and no one is asking for their boat, car, or trailer in exchange.

Many here have found skepticism sufficient for their needs. Is there something wrong with that? Perhaps they simply found skepticism more to their personal taste than you did, and/or were better at it than you were when you tried it and found it wanting.

Respectfully,
Myriad