Ask Kate your questions here...

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Panda Termint, Feb 22, 2014.

View Users: View Users
  1. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I LOVE a person who asks for SPECIFICS! :clap:

    It causes one to descend from the airy heights of vague generalities and abstractions (which is what much of Scientology involves).

    :thankyou:
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2014
  2. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    I haven't covered that in this thread but no, I'm not an IAS member. Bridge sales keeps trying to sell me on it and they send me stupid mailers all the time but I've told them I don't plan to join IAS. I don't believe the IAS's social programs to be effective and I don't believe that a significant portion of the membership dues even go to those programs. Their membership fees are also, imho, ridiculous. I'm not going to pay $5000 so I can get a fancy plastic card and discounts on things I will never buy.

    In some ways I consider myself both outside and inside the CofS. For instance I generally feel comfortable enough around staff that I can sit down and have a conversation with them or even go to the Org's LRH-birthday event. When there are groups of them I hold my tongue quite a bit more than when in one-on-one conversation. While I certainly don't compare myself to Valentinus, in some ways I feel like I transplant (to Scientology) his idea of playing nice with the orthodoxy and participating in certain practices with them, while viewing a lot of the orthodox interpretation as being flawed and seeking personal understanding outside of the official church.

    To say that its a binary either I'm a member or I'm not I think oversimplifies the situation unless ones uses a very specific criteria, like you did, that likely excludes some people that would more clearly be considered part of the group.
     
  3. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    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 tell 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).
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2014
  4. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    That's an interesting term I had not heard before and I thinks that somewhat of a fair assessment. To some extent I think there are some people here who think I apply that label to myself much more solidly than I actually do. I would imagine that its difficult to find a thread on here where I actually apply that label to myself and don't offer some degree of explanation of how its more complicated than just that simple label. As I mention in a different response, me using that label here was, in part, due to insistence by other members here that I stop lying to myself and start calling myself a Scientologist because I was obviously practicing Scientology.
     
  5. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    This is also speculation about a person that isn't me because as I mention in another reply I have never been an IAS member. Sometimes I think posts like this can be harmful during these lets ask (person) a bunch of questions threads and derailments because there are some people that seem to always read it as being statements about the person rather than speculation about a theoretical situation. I think it would be pretty easy for someone to read the above and come away with the idea that I pay IAS dues and feign ignorance which isn't the case for me.
     
  6. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    That depends on the course. For extension courses, Dianetic auditing, (i think) the lower grades, the life improvement courses, etc. one doesn't have to be an IAS member. They do have to be an IAS member if they are doing any auditor training, are an FSM, are doing OT courses, are on staff, etc. There is certainly a push to get people to sign up for an IAS membership but its not mandatory.
     
  7. NoName

    NoName A Girl Has No Name

    You haven't heard Mrs. Pattycake? Have you ever read KSW?

    In my first reading, I imagined KSW to be somewhat tongue in cheek. But it isn't - it is very literal. Especially the part about them preferring you dead rather than incapable.
     
  8. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    You are free to READ IN whatever you like. I NEVER said that.

    I never read where you said you weren't an IAS member. I am glad to hear it! :clap:

    I am not going to write what I write in anticipation of some dummy who falsely reads into my words what I am not saying. THAT is his or her problem. I am not responsible for the "dub-in" of every other human being. :no:
     
  9. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Wonderful! May I quote you? (Like here.)


    Why bother? Ignore them and be what you want to be. ESMB tolerates a very wide range of (civil) viewpoints.

    Paul
     
  10. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    To the best of my knowledge I've only labeled myself that here in conjunction with some degree of explanation about how I use the terms. It being reduced simply down to Scientologist I think is happening largely because of people replying to my posts and asking me questions using only that label without the explanation and other people read that and assume that I use this term in the same way because they didn't get a chance to read the explanation I put along with it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

    Well if you want to view things the way the Church of Scientology tells you to be my guest, but I'd rather apply critical thinking and my own experience to the actual content rather than focusing on the guy on who wrote it and his intentions.

    Sure you have an intention of what you mean when you wrote it down - but what matters more to _me_: what you intended or how I interpret and use it? I personally believe its up to the reader to apply their own reasoning skills to what they read and incorporate it into their own life as they see fit, it's not up to the author to force exactly their intention on the reader. To just take everything as given would be to apply anti-intellectualism in my opinion.
     
  11. Churchill

    Churchill Gold Meritorious Patron


    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.
     
  12. DagwoodGum

    DagwoodGum Goodby Goodluck

     
  13. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    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.
     
  14. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    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.
     
  15. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  16. MissWog

    MissWog Silver Meritorious Patron

    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: Feb 22, 2014
  17. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    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?
     
  18. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    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: Feb 22, 2014
  19. Churchill

    Churchill Gold Meritorious Patron


    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.
     
  20. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    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.
     

Share This Page