Escalus,
Yes knowledge, you dont have to agree either...
To each its own, right?
MR
Escalus,
Yes knowledge, you dont have to agree either...
To each its own, right?
MR
OK, seeking, you can have faith that this methodology works. But until the claims of the benefits are clearly stated and there is clinical evidence that it is doing what it is claiming to do for the reasons it claims to be doing them faith is what it remains - which I have no problems with. I want to see evidence of rising IQs and people free of disease.
In fact what I'd really like to see is returning OTs. The first generation of OTs is dying (somehow) and what I want to see is some child to step up to the mic pretty soon and tell me who he was last time at bat. Since to be an operating thetan this should be easy - unless that's not a claim any more.
Everybody has a right to believe in their faith. But if you make specific claims as Scientology has in the past there has to be some kind of demonstrable evidence. You don't have to agree with me either. But just having another viewpoint isn't proof that the viewpoint has any veracity. You could be wrong, but I'm not the one making claims about the "tech" - freezone or not. Claims demand proof. It isn't my job to prove a negative.
The "anon" who started this thread is talking about reform. In the first place nobody speaks for Anonymous. In the second place "reform" may not be allowable in the context of a fatuous "religious technology". That's this person's game. Maybe my game's a little bigger.
I'm quite sure there are people in the OSA who can pull off what the originating anon is suggesting. And maybe they should hurry, if they want to keep their precious faith. Maybe if they don't reform it gets done my way.
It's entirely their choice.
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
The Truth About The Freezone
I agree with Stan*, “Scientology is just a big fat global scam.”Originally Posted by Escalus
By the way, Stan IS NOT the reincarnation of LRH.
L Ron should be 22 now. Why doesn't he come back and kick David's ass? If he does and offers proof acceptable to me, I'll be the first in line with my checkbook and I won't be ARC broke.
*Stan Marsh(South Park)
First of all it is S4K! (joke)
Secondly show me GOD!
Show me levitation
Where is Mohammad with his flying horse and all the virgins promised to the martyrs?
Show me prove that Moses parted the red sea
mmm... show me heaven and hell...
I can tell you my IQ raised 20 points with Scientology... (Trust me if you want but my IQ is very high up there)
Not only that but I am very successful and I wasn’t before...
That is all I need- to be certain that Scientology is valuable knowledge. (RTC can go f*** itself)
MR
The difficulty is that Scientology was a deceptive and abusive cult, by its founder's design, by the late 1960s/early 1970s.
"LRH" is part of the problem.
And Scientology is not really a "Church" or a "religion," but a criminal syndicate that uses the cloak of "Church," as in the "religion angle" - L. Ron Hubbard's "religion angle."
The above might be an effective message for some still inside Scientology, but that's all. And it's not a realistic message, and for the reasons noted.
It has the same drawback as arguing that the "Church" of Scientology should follow its "Creed." The "Creed" is not really a true Creed, but another "angle," used for PR display purposes.
To agree that the "Creed" IS a "Creed of the Church," tricks one into agreeing that there's a "Church" there in the first place.
Once Scientology is "hosed down" to the point of no longer being a Cult, it won't be Scientology anymore.
And, yes, I've confronted staff members and made them think, by explaining that "tech was out," and "policy wasn't being followed." I've done that in times past. And it can be effective in separating a person from current management, so it can be argued that - for some still inside - this can be effective as a short term measure, but it's not a terribly honest or realistic approach.
Actually this can be verified, you are aware of that right?
Simple use a third party acredited IQ test today post your results.
If you can verify your statement it should be reproduceable, consistantly.
If you need associations which provide widely accepted IQ tests and testing methodology I'll be more than happy to provide them for you but google will work just as well.
I await verification of your claim
Until such a time as you do, I call bullshit.
Um, no, actually there's a very big difference here. I'm a Christian, yes, but I am willing to call it "faith". I got no proof other than my own subjective experience, and that is hardly clinical study. I can't show you God, but I've never said I could. It works for me, and I'd like it to work for you, but your path is up to you. There's a lot of definitions of "God' and we make a big mistake when we say there is only one way. In that way I'm not a Christian fundamentalist, you can be sure. I'm a progressive Christian. the modality works for me as a metaphor and examples of the "ideal scene' - and it's my job to try to model myself after it as best I can. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
The levitation part... are you asking me or you?
I got no skin in Muhammed's (pbuh) game.
And to me the Bible is more metaphor and fable - I'm not a literalist.
And that dang SomeGuy took my IQ thingee.
The point has been made, seeking, if you were to say the things you see inside Scientology work by faith I am unmanned and have nothing to contend with you over. But that isn't what Scientology says. Scientology says it is iron clad. Iron clad. Iron clad and if you're opposed to it it isn't that you could possibly have another idea - you're only opposed to it because there's words you didn't look up or you've done things to Scientologists they almost found out about.
I can't put God into a clinical trial, my belief is more hope than anything else. I sure hope there's a heaven but I've never been there so I can't really say one way or another if it's really there.
You, on the other hand, are telling me you've lived many lives?
Ummmm...... okay.............
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
The Truth About The Freezone
Actually this can be verified, you are aware of that right?
Simple use a third party acredited IQ test today post your results.
If you can verify your statement it should be reproduceable, consistantly.
If you need associations which provide widely accepted IQ tests and testing methodology I'll be more than happy to provide them for you but google will work just as well.
I await verification of your claim
Until such a time as you do, I call bullshit.
I call YOUR stuff bullshit...
I took two tests two years appart or so and that was the result... 20 points up... no reason to prove it to you.
MR
Um, no, actually there's a very big difference here. I'm a Christian, yes, but I am willing to call it "faith". I got no proof other than my own subjective experience, and that is hardly clinical study. I can't show you God, but I've never said I could. It works for me, and I'd like it to work for you, but your path is up to you. There's a lot of definitions of "God' and we make a big mistake when we say there is only one way. In that way I'm not a Christian fundamentalist, you can be sure. I'm a progressive Christian. the modality works for me as a metaphor and examples of the "ideal scene' - and it's my job to try to model myself after it as best I can. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
The levitation part... are you asking me or you?
I got no skin in Muhammed's (pbuh) game.
And to me the Bible is more metaphor and fable - I'm not a literalist.
And that dang SomeGuy took my IQ thingee.
The point has been made, seeking, if you were to say the things you see inside Scientology work by faith I am unmanned and have nothing to contend with you over. But that isn't what Scientology says. Scientology says it is iron clad. Iron clad. Iron clad and if you're opposed to it it isn't that you could possibly have another idea - you're only opposed to it because there's words you didn't look up or you've done things to Scientologists they almost found out about.
I can't put God into a clinical trial, my belief is more hope than anything else. I sure hope there's a heaven but I've never been there so I can't really say one way or another if it's really there.
You, on the other hand, are telling me you've lived many lives?
Ummmm...... okay.............
This is from me S4K...
Tell you what Christian boy... you keep hoping... and guessing... and wishing and whatever it is that you do...
Lets agree on RTC sux and disagree on the matter of the body of Knowledge that is Scientology the subject.
I have no faith in scientology nor do i pray to LRH i know what works for ME and so i use it as much as i can.
If there is a heaven and through faith you reached your final resting place...mmm... well... then you win.
Until then lets keep attacking our common enemy, how about that?
MR
Two quick points since obviously you see no need to back up your claims. Was it the same test? Two years apart and was that test something that is acredited (an independent source, hell I'll take MENSA results). Because if it's the same test, your data points are invalid just by standard methodology. I guarantee you I can get some ones IQ to go from every day to genius if I give them the same test.
Second point, no you don't I was just pointing out that your claim of "it works based on my IQ being raised" is verifiable. That you chose to not actually examine it closely, well I'll leave that one on you.
If your statement had been "my self confidence has greatly increased", "I now communicate better", "emotionally I feel much more stable" there is no dispute. Those are subjective but the claim of IQ increase is quantifiable. That you chose not to provide stable datum for it makes it suspect.
Any ways, I think some one with such a superior intellect would see the falacy in the argument of answering a request for verification with "I call YOUR stuff bullshit...". Sorry it makes me chuckle.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote