Page 6 of 88 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 876

Thread: Ask Kate your questions here...

  1. #51
    Gold Meritorious Patron Churchill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,751

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by kate8024 View Post
    I have not left the church. Outside of extension courses all of my Scientology practice has been outside of the church but to the extent that I've even been 'in', I'm still in.

    Kate,

    Why have you not left a church that allies itself with a virulently anti-semitic group, the Nation of Islam, that intimidates former members who would dare speak out, that killed Lisa McPherson and others, that imprison their own staff, that routinely and blithely break up families, that abandon their elderly staff to suffer and die, and leave families bankrupt? Does any of this concern you?

    What could possibly keep you part of such an organization as this "church"? I do believe most certainly you are a Scientologist.
    -Len Zinberg



    You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid
    the consequences of avoiding reality.

    www.xenu.net


    www.tonyortega.org

  2. Thanks Sidney18511, aegerprimo, MathScience, MissWog says "thank you" for this post
    Likes WildKat, Sindy, MissWog liked this post
  3. #52
    Goodby Goodluck
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Home Sweet Home
    Posts
    2,671

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    [QUOTE=NoName;906571]You haven't heard Mrs. Pattycake? Have you ever read KSW?

    Post deleted as it ends up being nearly identical with the one above. More proof of great minds thinking alike, lots of them here, holy smokes.
    Crack cocaine and booze are gateway drugs to Scientology

  4. Likes MissWog liked this post
    LOL! Boomima, Panda Termint laughed at this post
  5. #53
    -deleted- kate8024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    -deleted-
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadfly View Post
    If people actually came to "know themselves", along with abandoning ALL dogma (most or all of Scientology ideas in this case), there would actually be a "pure self" to be "true to". What most are "true to" is their limited and often convoluted belief system. A person (self) wrapped up in a belief system is not the same as a self FREE from a belief system. Scientology was designed to, and very well acts to wrap a person up in a complex web of IDEAS that actually block and hinder any awareness of "self". Scientology promises freedom and expanded awareness, while involvement with the subject often actually delivers and brings about the OPPOSITE!
    This is, I believe, true of any dogmatic approach to religion. This is why I practice specifically the way I do. For me, to the extent that I use the label Scientologist, its a descriptive rather than prescriptive term. I don't believe anything because LRH told me to - the majority of my beliefs were developed pre-Scientology.
    -deleted-

  6. #54
    Sponsor Veda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,140

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by kate8024 View Post
    This is, I believe, true of any dogmatic approach to religion.

    -snip-
    Perhaps one of the things that's annoying about you, Kate, is that you keep affirming Hubbard's religion angle (and Hubbard's and Miscavige's religious cloaking), seemingly indifferent to its fraudulent nature, and indifferent to the fact that it allows so many good people, including children, to be harmed.
    Visit the Ex Scientologist Message Board web site for selected content from ESMB and more: http://exscn.net/

  7. Thanks WildKat, Infinite, Boomima, lotus, Type4_PTS and 5 others says "thank you" for this post
  8. #55
    -deleted- kate8024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    -deleted-
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by DagwoodGum View Post
    * In general, to me Scientology is a mystical religious framework. Dianetics, "clear", "ot", etc. are to me more or less meaningless or useless concepts”.
    Great, you are on your way Kate! Now that you have realized that these are “meaningless or useless concepts", all we have to do is wait until you stumble upon the realization that these concepts are the backbone of $cientology and the entire reason that I got in. Then connect the dots…
    I realize that these things were important reasons many here got in and for many one of these things was even their 'stable datum' but this is simply not the case for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by DagwoodGum View Post
    *
    By the way, I like to add the $ because I don’t feel like they are worthy of my writing their name as they spell it. After all there is no real correct spelling as the flubster simply made up the word, just like I made up flubster. Maybe that makes me "the Son of Flubber" or Flubster.
    I don't care how other people write these things. I find such things to be a bit too casual for my tastes but that's fine, it just means you won't see me using terms like that. I also don't call Taco Bell "Taco Hell" or other such things. Some people do and it can be mildly amusing (one of my favorites is "Miss Cabbage") but I don't find that such things fit with the way I talk or the way I write.

    Quote Originally Posted by DagwoodGum View Post
    And shame on you for leading off with a term like “Schema Theory” which is a classic Flubster tactic for MUing somebody early on in the text so as to slide them into “aneten” with the resulting effect of reducing their ability to think through the rest of your text and more or less just assimilate it into their subconscious to be figured out later. That was part and parcel of hypnotizing people into blinded abeyance, like hitting them with handful of magic warlock powder to the face. You just knew no one would bother to look up the term due to general lack of interest in it didn't you, you little scamp! :-)
    You apparently buy into LRH's MU stuff a hell of a lot more than I do lol.

    As this is a thread specifically to ask me questions all one would have to do is say "what do you mean there by Schema Theory?" if they are interested or ignore it if they are not. It is, however, the correct term to describe the thing I was trying to describe.
    -deleted-

  9. Thanks DagwoodGum says "thank you" for this post
    Likes DagwoodGum liked this post
  10. #56
    Silver Meritorious Patron MissWog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,762

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Kate,
    I know as I write this that you are still answering other questions but by the time you read this here is my question: Do you still consider yourself a Scientologist?
    Last edited by MissWog; 22nd February 2014 at 05:49 PM. Reason: My guess is she is on page 4 w/olska

  11. Likes koki liked this post
  12. #57
    -deleted- kate8024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    -deleted-
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by olska View Post
    Could you give us some specific examples (I'm thinking as succinct as possible description of three or four such?) of those "several things" you disagreed with in the indie scientology ideas, and the contrasting/related version of those same ideas from CoS version that you found you liked better. Thanks in advance.
    Sure thing!

    Some indie groups, from what I have seen, view Ron as Source to an even greater degree than the CofS does. I personally believe the material needs _a_lot_ of modification and when I look at the actual changes that were part of the GAT changes almost all of them look to me like improvements. Now I don't buy the evil transcriptionist story one bit but I think most of the changes to the materials themselves were a good thing. Every indie I have talked to about it is completely against the GAT changes. I think the GAT changes didn't go near far enough.

    Some of the inde stuff out there is based on the Rons Org material which (based on what I've read of it so far) I completely don't connect with, it simply doesn't describe what I experience. On the other hand, I _love_ The Pilot's work - SuperScio is probably one of my favorite books ever.

    I also believe that the official church does offer some services and products that are unique to them - for example I think that Bridge and Golden Era do really great work. If the church collapses I hope those divisions survive (as actual companies with real paid employees). Some idies I've spoken with believe that every division in the church is inherently evil by association and I don't completely agree.

    Does that help answer your question?
    -deleted-

  13. Thanks MissWog says "thank you" for this post
    LOL! JustSheila, MissWog laughed at this post
    Huh? MissWog didn't understand this post
  14. #58
    Crusader Gadfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    On a small mountain surrounded by many acres of forest.
    Posts
    8,612

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    KSW is the first item to be read and star-rated on EVERY Scientology course. It clearly sets out Hubbard's absolutist and unbending demand for total conformity. There is no other way to read it, unless one is entirely out of touch with reality.

    From KSW:

    "WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT WILL STILL HOLD TRWE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT. NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THIS POLICY LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU". (capital text in original)

    This is the foundation upon which Scientology is built. That you are unfamiliar with it or choose to ignore it, yet call yourself one of these "Scientologists" is hilarious. You claim to be somewhere "in Scientology", so WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH YOU. Hubbard asserts/demands that it MUST.

    Now, I could go through this policy sentence by sentence and delineate the ABSURDITIES Hubbard tosses out as "fact" (there are many), but that is not why I am citing this policy letter. Here is a typical example of what is expected of any "Scientologist":

    "When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe—never permit an "open-minded" approach. If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest of us—win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. [...] Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. [...] When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she'll win and we'll all win. [...] You're here so you're a Scientologist. [...] We'd rather have you dead than incapable."

    First, the above is the quote for ""Mrs. Pattycake" - as usual it is derogatory about anyone who is NOT a dedicated Scientologist.

    Hubbard's lectures and writings are filled with examples of how HE DEFINES a "Scientologist". It is hilariously absurd really, how some accept a certain bunch of Hubbard's definitions and labels, and then ignore others, when IN FACT, a key aspect of the subject itself is accepting it ALL just as it is, completely, with no additives, editing, picking and choosing, or deletions. That you have no idea about simple, basic Scientology texts and ideas is quite ridiculous for one who adopts the labels "Scientologist":

    "We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't cute or something to do
    for lack of something better.

    The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and
    your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here
    and now with and in Scientology.

    This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may
    never again have another chance.

    Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the
    past. Don't muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight,
    Nine and Ten.

    Do them and we'll win."


    The basis of Scientology, KSW, is SEVERE and entirely FANATICAL. It is wholly black or white, and there is no room for deviation. It allows for ZERO TOLERANCE. To the degree you deviate you are NOT any definition of any Scientologist as clearly defined by the creator of Scientology - Hubbard.

    That you pretend to talk on and on about Scientology, and seem to know little or nothing about such things is funny/hilarious/sad. You are like a person who scratched the surface of some subject, who then grabs onto it hook-line-and-sinker, and then talks as if they actually know about the subject (when they don't). He or she picks little bits here and there, and CALLS it the "whole subject". It is so absurd really, and I suspect that is why one question your true purpose or agenda here. I have no clue, and I really don't care. But there are many aspects of your posts that send off warning bells.
    Last edited by Gadfly; 22nd February 2014 at 06:22 PM.
    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

    "They must know how to kindle and fan an extravagant hope". - Eric Hoffer about the "true believer". "Total Freedom", "your eternity", and "OT" involve a few of the extravagant hopes in Scientology.

    Go HERE to view and/or download the essay, "The Three Basic Scientology Beliefs".

  15. Thanks WildKat, JustSheila, Type4_PTS, Sidney18511, DagwoodGum and 1 others says "thank you" for this post
  16. #59
    Gold Meritorious Patron Churchill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,751

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Kate,

    Why have you not left a church that allies itself with a virulently anti-semitic group, the Nation of Islam, that intimidates former members who would dare speak out, that killed Lisa McPherson and others, that imprison their own staff, that routinely and blithely break up families, that abandon their elderly staff to suffer and die, and leave families bankrupt? Does any of this concern you?

    What could possibly keep you part of such an organization as this "church"? I do believe most certainly you are a Scientologist.

    I can understand your joining the Freezone, because they do not carry the outrageously immoral baggage of the Church.

    Please explain to me how your moral compass ​operates, Kate.
    -Len Zinberg



    You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid
    the consequences of avoiding reality.

    www.xenu.net


    www.tonyortega.org

  17. #60
    Sponsor Veda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,140

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadfly View Post
    This mindset is rarely tolerated in the Church of Scientology. If you actually are doing so, as you claim, it is a fluke, and probably will not last much longer (unless you lie, deceive and PR THEM as to your true thoughts about these things).

    KSW is very clear - every single member MUST come "on board", "same terms as the rest of us - live or die in the attempt".

    Go find three or four staff and/or public and clearly them what you REALLY think about various things. See how long they then tolerate your little game of deception and untruthfulness (i.e. you MUST hold in and HIDE a great deal to remain BELOW their radar).
    K. is a nascent New Religious Movement scholar who affirms Scientology Inc. as a religion. Scientology Inc. loves that. She will be tolerated more than most.
    Visit the Ex Scientologist Message Board web site for selected content from ESMB and more: http://exscn.net/

  18. Thanks Boomima, MathScience, Gadfly says "thank you" for this post
Page 6 of 88 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Kate Bornstein on Life After Scientology
    By Smilla in forum Miscellaneous Reports from Newspapers, Blogs, and TV
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22nd July 2012, 06:10 PM
  2. CBC Radio, Day 6....Kate Bornstein interview
    By apple in forum Conferences, Speeches, Radio Shows, and Live Public Presentations
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24th June 2012, 05:27 PM
  3. Kate Bornstein's Amazing Voyage
    By Sock Puppy in forum Tony Ortega
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 9th May 2012, 01:18 AM
  4. Sorry Kate. I'm not impressed.
    By GreyWolf in forum General Scientology Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 29th March 2010, 11:35 AM
  5. Kate in tune with wacky Tom
    By Neo in forum Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 3rd May 2008, 12:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •