What's new

Ex or A.R.C. Broken

Pip

Patron with Honors
This look like you taking Claire's advice to "meet me halfway". :coolwink:

And what you said is just about halfway. :yes:
What you say is fine. The only problem is that someone may become interested in Scientology because of you and you might never know it, unless they contact you directly. They may not. :no: :ohmy:

But I'll take a win on just getting to this point. :)



Yes I can just imagine someone walking into an org. and saying “Hello I am interested in ChristianScientology. I have heard about it on the net, apparently it was started by this guy called Pip”. Guess what their first action will be – handle or disconnectand in this case the org. would not see handle as an option. If they still didn’t “smell a rat” they deserve all they get.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I can understand what you say about not giving abusers the same rights, but I hope that does not mean you love them less, although you may well like them less, dare I say have less ARC for them. A stance I try to take is “if they knew better they would do better”, similar to Jesus saying “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do”.

The more I meditate, the more I can understand this point of view.

But I will say this- it is difficult to feel a lot of affinity for someone who either is receiving discipline (or "ethics" or "justice") for wrong doing or should be receiving it.

Perhaps it should be almost a parental type thing where one is doing something one needs to do but still has the deep love.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Yes I can just imagine someone walking into an org. and saying “Hello I am interested in ChristianScientology. I have heard about it on the net, apparently it was started by this guy called Pip”. Guess what their first action will be – handle or disconnectand in this case the org. would not see handle as an option. If they still didn’t “smell a rat” they deserve all they get.

You might as well just call "ChristianScientology" - "Pipology". Because you are the only one in probably the entire universe who views things as you do.

Which is fine and well, because we each do exactly the same thing - we each view the world and universe around us in a VERY unique and distinct manner. No two people view it all exactly the same - and looking for some "exact truth" out there, that more than a few people wholly agree with is completely nonsensical - such as "it's God's plan" or such nonsense.

But, why give your paradigm or worldview any name at all?

I mean I don't go so far as to give my current package of views ANY label or name. And, many others don't care to give their bundle of ideas some "name". I wouldn't even call my framework of ideas "Gadflyology", first because it changes, grows and morphs into something different every day, and second because ANY labeling or slotting into some cubbyhole of significance LIMITS and RESTRICTS. I don't want to feel that I have to conform to some notion of things I had yesterday if the content of my OBSERVATIONS change today.

I find defining and labeling to be a decidedly HUMAN function. Often, unknown to the person accepting the various definitions, labels and significances, the experience of the world is hindered now in a very real way since all experience is filtered through the veil of meaning and significance.

In a very real sense when Eve ate of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden (ref: Book of Genesis), what THAT symbolized was Man's gaining of "knowledge" through dissecting, breaking up, compartmentalizing and naming all aspects of reality into cute little boxes. While that "seems" to be a "good thing", it acted to separate Man from any direct knowledge or experience of ANY aspect of reality. In fact, all real understanding was lost. Man now had an "intellect" and the ability to form "concepts" - but an idea is NEVER equal to, complete or sufficient to define or describe ANY aspect of the world and universe. Man began his confusion of IDEAS with everything else out there. Many continue that trend today, here on ESMB and elsewhere.

Note: The story of Genesis is JUST an "analogy".

Innocence was lost along with "direct knowledge".

Anyway, my point is that calling yourself an "anything", not to mention a "Christan Scientologist" is, well, simply dumb to me. I don't well fathom people who feel the need to label and IDENTIFY with things. Just be you, and communicate as best you can what you see, how you see it, and how your names and labels CONNECT to experiencable aspects of reality.

Too often you and others throw out words that have no meaning and cannot be experienced by others. And you pretend that you are having a conversation. Granted, this is a common humman trait. What the fuck is the "4th dimension"? Can you show it to anybody? Do your words align with anything at all that can be experienced outside of your over-active imagination? I am not saying that such a dimension might not exist, but now, here today, there is NO REALITY that you can point to that can confirm such a notion. It is ONLY an IDEA in your head. Though you apparently believe that the "idea" defines some real and actual place or reality. It might, but when you talk of such things you need to realize that these words have little, no or different meanings to others who read what you type.

For example, I at times talk about Hubbard's theories on thetans and relate them to other paradigms such as Hindu notions. I try to be careful to present them as "theories", as IDEAS that MIGHT define and correlate to actual situations.
 
Last edited:

Soul of Ginnungagab

Patron with Honors
Sure, except LOVE is not a part of Scientology tech. Best leave it behind on your quest.

1) Did someone say that LOVE is part of Scientology tech?

2) Why would you suggest that someone leaves LOVE behind his/her quest? That is indeed a very strange suggestion especially if you regard LOVE as something great and important, and I do have the feeling that you regard LOVE that way.
 
Last edited:

Soul of Ginnungagab

Patron with Honors
Thanks for your post Soul of Ginnungagab. I have heard it said that it is "love that makes the world go round" and think perhaps that everything is an expression of love, however inappropriate it might appear. Without mis-understanding all there would be is love so by changing mis-understanding into understanding makes the love more and more appropriate. I like to see the word understanding in the sense of to stand under and that sometimes takes a lot of confront and also humility.

How do you relate to stand under to a normal usage of the term understand, like to grasp or comprehend or "get the idea" of something?

Do you have a special meaning of the term "understanding" when you apply the expression "love and understanding"?

When I see the expression "love and understanding" I get an idea that the term "understanding" is refering more to an emphatic level or type of understanding and less to an intellectual one. Is that a correct interpretation or comprehension of the expression?
 

Pip

Patron with Honors
You might as well just call "ChristianScientology" - "Pipology". Because you are the only one in probably the entire universe who views things as you do.

Which is fine and well, because we each do exactly the same thing - we each view the world and universe around us in a VERY unique and distinct manner. No two people view it all exactly the same - and looking for some "exact truth" out there, that more than a few people wholly agree with is completely nonsensical - such as "it's God's plan" or such nonsense.

But, why give your paradigm or worldview any name at all?

I mean I don't go so far as to give my current package of views ANY label or name. And, many others don't care to give their bundle of ideas some "name". I wouldn't even call my framework of ideas "Gadflyology", first because it changes, grows and morphs into something different every day, and second because ANY labeling or slotting into some cubbyhole of significance LIMITS and RESTRICTS. I don't want to feel that I have to conform to some notion of things I had yesterday if the content of my OBSERVATIONS change today.

I find defining and labeling to be a decidedly HUMAN function. Often, unknown to the person accepting the various definitions, labels and significances, the experience of the world is hindered now in a very real way since all experience is filtered through the veil of meaning and significance.

In a very real sense when Eve ate of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden (ref: Book of Genesis), what THAT symbolized was Man's gaining of "knowledge" through dissecting, breaking up, compartmentalizing and naming all aspects of reality into cute little boxes. While that "seems" to be a "good thing", it acted to separate Man from any direct knowledge or experience of ANY aspect of reality. In fact, all real understanding was lost. Man now had an "intellect" and the ability to form "concepts" - but an idea is NEVER equal to, complete or sufficient to define or describe ANY aspect of the world and universe. Man began his confusion of IDEAS with everything else out there. Many continue that trend today, here on ESMB and elsewhere.

Note: The story of Genesis is JUST an "analogy".

Innocence was lost along with "direct knowledge".

Anyway, my point is that calling yourself an "anything", not to mention a "Christan Scientologist" is, well, simply dumb to me. I don't well fathom people who feel the need to label and IDENTIFY with things. Just be you, and communicate as best you can what you see, how you see it, and how your names and labels CONNECT to experiencable aspects of reality.

Too often you and others throw out words that have no meaning and cannot be experienced by others. And you pretend that you are having a conversation. Granted, this is a common humman trait. What the fuck is the "4th dimension"? Can you show it to anybody? Do your words align with anything at all that can be experienced outside of your over-active imagination? I am not saying that such a dimension might not exist, but now, here today, there is NO REALITY that you can point to that can confirm such a notion. It is ONLY an IDEA in your head. Though you apparently believe that the "idea" defines some real and actual place or reality. It might, but when you talk of such things you need to realize that these words have little, no or different meanings to others who read what you type.

For example, I at times talk about Hubbard's theories on thetans and relate them to other paradigms such as Hindu notions. I try to be careful to present them as "theories", as IDEAS that MIGHT define and correlate to actual situations.


Yo! Gadfly – another great post. I say great because when I was a kid I used to go out in my dinghy at night and catch fish on a hand line. Sitting there in the dark/moonlight with the line over my index finer waiting for the bite, sometimes it would just be a little feeble nibble and then you would get the “big one” – a bite that you just knew you had got a big fish and then came the thrill of getting it on board. Sorry I digress.

I have explained on my blog to my website ChristianScientology.info that ChristianScientology is only the brand name. If you are going to “sell” an idea you need to brand it. The idea is love and understanding – ChristianScientology is the brand. Pipology just wouldn’t sound the same. Yes! As far as I am aware I am unique at least in terms of planet earth, but as I have put in my other post I am willing to be proved wrong.

I am personally convinced that there are many ChristianScientologist out there who don’t know that is what they are. Only yesterday I was talking to a businessman who is involved in some new technically efficient incinerator that emits no toxic waste and he was inviting me to invest in it. When I told him I was involved in promoting a new religion he seemed interested especially when I said it was based on love and understanding, but as soon as I said it was called ChristianScientology he backed right off with the excuse that he was an atheist. The idea of love and understanding has great significance but as soon as I add the mass – ChristianScientology – the shutters go up.

As for the 4th Dimension that is not my idea it comes from “the Law of One” www.lawofone.info another group I have been involved with. They particularly focus on the possible shift in consciousness that some believe is going to happen in 2012. Ask Mystic he seems to know about this subject.
 

Pip

Patron with Honors
How do you relate to stand under to a normal usage of the term understand, like to grasp or comprehend or "get the idea" of something?

Do you have a special meaning of the term "understanding" when you apply the expression "love and understanding"?

When I see the expression "love and understanding" I get an idea that the term "understanding" is refering more to an emphatic level or type of understanding and less to an intellectual one. Is that a correct interpretation or comprehension of the expression?

Thank you for your post SofG it really gave me food for thought. When one “sits at the feet” of a master, it could be seen as “sitting under” a master. To stand under would be to put oneself under the authority of another.

We all did that at least to some degree when we became Scientologists when we came
under the authority of LRH through H.C.O. The problem was that LRH himself was not
under authority and as such he was a “self-made master”. Compare him with Jesus who
was a “man under authority” and we see the difference between understanding and
Wisdom. God is the final authority and God is love so when we stand under God we truly
understand. The bible says “Get wisdom, get understanding” and it also says “The fear of
the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” and I see that as fear in terms of respect or deep
reverence.

Incidentally the dictionary defines authority as “the right or power to control”. Only God
has the right to control, self-styled Gurus often end up with the power to control but not the
right, Hitler being a prime example.

Thanks again for your thought provoking post.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Yo! Gadfly – another great post. I say great because when I was a kid I used to go out in my dinghy at night and catch fish on a hand line. Sitting there in the dark/moonlight with the line over my index finer waiting for the bite, sometimes it would just be a little feeble nibble and then you would get the “big one” – a bite that you just knew you had got a big fish and then came the thrill of getting it on board. Sorry I digress.

I have explained on my blog to my website ChristianScientology.info that ChristianScientology is only the brand name. If you are going to “sell” an idea you need to brand it. The idea is love and understanding – ChristianScientology is the brand. Pipology just wouldn’t sound the same. Yes! As far as I am aware I am unique at least in terms of planet earth, but as I have put in my other post I am willing to be proved wrong.

Oh, so you want to SELL an idea? Christ on a stick, that makes you, in my eyes, as bad as every other shyster on planet Earth. The way I see it this planet already has way too many people trying to sell everybody else (some load of shit).

It is the same sorry game as I described recently here or on some other thread. That involves Man's sorry and nasty tendency to try to convince others, often through deceit and trickery, to "BELIEVE just as I believe".


I am personally convinced that there are many ChristianScientologist out there who don’t know that is what they are. Only yesterday I was talking to a businessman who is involved in some new technically efficient incinerator that emits no toxic waste and he was inviting me to invest in it. When I told him I was involved in promoting a new religion he seemed interested especially when I said it was based on love and understanding, but as soon as I said it was called ChristianScientology he backed right off with the excuse that he was an atheist. The idea of love and understanding has great significance but as soon as I add the mass – ChristianScientology – the shutters go up.

And, as well the shutters SHOULD go up (hard and fast). You are giving your topic a label that contains legitimate negative associations for TWO belief systems with histories of marked CRAZY.

My suggestion? Stick with the vague super-abstract concepts that actually mean nothing, but also can mean ANYTHING to any person. Which words? "Love" and "understanding". Each of those words means something different to every perosn who hears or reads them. Keep it vague and general, and then the sorry sucker will DUB-IN how he or she thinks it "makes sense". (ref: How to Deceive 101)


As for the 4th Dimension that is not my idea it comes from “the Law of One” www.lawofone.info another group I have been involved with. They particularly focus on the possible shift in consciousness that some believe is going to happen in 2012. Ask Mystic he seems to know about this subject.

Mine above in BOLD.

Yeah, I am very familiar with the "shift in consciousness" theories. Some call it "The Ascension". I know it is not your idea. I read about it over twenty years ago in books by writers who claimed to be channeling "advanced beings". I understood exactly what you meant, being familiar with such models of reality. I just don't have any reason to assume that these models have anything to do with anything past people's over-active imaginations. I could be wrong.

My point was that the phrase, the 4th dimension, has little or no meaning for most people who read it. Talking of such things is like intentionally spitting out "MUs". Most people either have "no definition", or the definition they do have is not at all like yours. Making communication impossible. And, "understanding" impossible.

A person who truly understood "love" would not behave in such a manner. :omg:

Of course, maybe you just had no idea what you were doing when you typed "4th dimension". :confused2:

In which case THIS maxim gets switched on:

Forgive him for he knows not what he does . . . (despite all asserted good intentions)

And, if a "shift" does occur, I feel I am more ready than most, having lost interest for much on this plane (let go of desire), and having also lost much of the tight, rigid BELIEF MENTALITY that entraps so many Earth folks. But, I am not "planning" for it. These days I don't plan for much of anything. I do my best to go with the flow.

This is how I view just about any person or group out hawking "religious ideas":

snake-oil.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
when I was a kid I used to go out in my dinghy at night and catch fish on a hand line

catch any catfish?

terms which are fused and employed to conjur suspension of two non-mergable combinations cancel and/or jam.

christianscientology

Hu[bb]ards specialty- [The] [Only] [One]
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
IMO, to find a place that practices ChristianScientology, well, you wouldn't go to a Protestant, Mormon or Catholic church; nor would you go to a Scn church/cult.

It's a new thing. It's Pip's own.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I could see using "auditing technology" in the confessional at a Catholic Church. There are a lot of uses that a minister could put it to. Long as there was no "Bridge" offered.
 

Pip

Patron with Honors
The more I meditate, the more I can understand this point of view.

But I will say this- it is difficult to feel a lot of affinity for someone who either is receiving discipline (or "ethics" or "justice") for wrong doing or should be receiving it.

Perhaps it should be almost a parental type thing where one is doing something one needs to do but still has the deep love.

The point of meditation is to bring us to stillness "be still and know that I am God", and since God is love meditation will bring us to love.

The whole point of ethics should be to rehabilitate the offender or in Sino.language to get tech. in.


The nearest the world gets to having the right motive for getting in ethics is, as you say, what a parent might do - we call it 'tough love'. Ron has said man in his aberrated state cannot be trusted with ethics.
 

Pip

Patron with Honors
IMO, to find a place that practices ChristianScientology, well, you wouldn't go to a Protestant, Mormon or Catholic church; nor would you go to a Scn church/cult.

It's a new thing. It's Pip's own.

Wow! Claire, that almost sounds as if you are assigning me some credibility - love you!
 

Pip

Patron with Honors
I could see using "auditing technology" in the confessional at a Catholic Church. There are a lot of uses that a minister could put it to. Long as there was no "Bridge" offered.

Yes! Just to use the com.cycle would be most helpful so long as ministers used it with as much love as they could.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
IMO, to find a place that practices ChristianScientology, well, you wouldn't go to a Protestant, Mormon or Catholic church; nor would you go to a Scn church/cult.

It's a new thing. It's Pip's own.

Fluffy, I mean no disrespect but WTF are you talking about??????? :confused2:

To find a place that practices "ChristianScientology"? That notion is a figment of Pip's imagination. It is not a real anything.

Mmm? Maybe I will start MuslimEST, JewishTranscentalMeditation, HinduSatanists, BuddhistEckankar, or TaoistMoonies. Ah, the possibilities are endless! :biggrin:
 
Fluffy, I mean no disrespect but WTF are you talking about??????? :confused2:

To find a place that practices "ChristianScientology"? That notion is a figment of Pip's imagination. It is not a real anything.

Mmm? Maybe I will start MuslimEST, JewishTranscentalMeditation, HinduSatanists, BuddhistEckankar, or TaoistMoonies. Ah, the possibilities are endless! :biggrin:

Yeah but nobody is going to top Dave Chappelle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wITchV88Gjk
 

Gadfly

Crusader
The point of meditation is to bring us to stillness "be still and know that I am God", and since God is love meditation will bring us to love.

Let's examine the assumptions here. Yes, meditation is often used to bring stillness. But, what is this "know that I am God"? WHO is God?

There are many forms of meditation, dealing with different aspects of a mind, and not all are geared towards silencing the over-active self-yapping that incessantly occurs in the heads of most humans.

And, how do you make God = Love? I understand that one can mock that idea up, and that it is a nice notion to entertain, but past an idea, what? Where? Show me where I can get some evidence that such is true? I understand that various signifciances can be strung together to result in that "understanding", but show me something REAL here.

Geez, all of these abstract concepts that relate to no experiencable anythings. :confused2:

That is why I like Buddhism. No God, no gods, just "empty the mind please". And, begin discovering how much this universe and the cosmic paradigms that you imagine to exist are due to YOU imagining that they exist. Nothingness reigns supreme when it comes to the spiritual and that includes NO beliefs about anything. That is why the fairy-tale religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism cannot grasp Buddhism - it is "belief-free". And these Judeo-Christian "religions", that depend on intricate fairy-tales (myths, allegories, stories, etc) are entirely based on an avid belief in various cosmic scenarios.


The whole point of ethics should be to rehabilitate the offender or in Sino.language to get tech. in.

What are you talking about? What "tech"? If there was actually some "tech" that actually worked to produce "enlightened aware beings", then it might make some sense to "get in ethics". But it doesn't. And, Hubbard's "ethics data" is almost entirely put together in a way that primarily benefits the business and expansion of the organization of Scientology. Just read the list of suppressive acts. They are largely geared towards "crimes against Hubbard or Scientology". Scientology ethics is NOT some "universal system of ethics", but instead is a system of control aimed at keeping Scientoligists in line and the money rolling into the Church of Scientology.


The nearest the world gets to having the right motive for getting in ethics is, as you say, what a parent might do - we call it 'tough love'. Ron has said man in his aberrated state cannot be trusted with ethics.

Mine above in COLOR.

It seems to me that ethics will always be a relative thing. It will depend on what you first agree upon as a worthwhile goal, and then "good" becomes anything that helps realize the goal, and "bad" is anything that detracts from the goal. Counter-intentions and other-intentions ARE "bad" from the view of some purpose or goal. All earthly goals and purposes are relative and arbitrary. There are as many purposes and goals as there are people on the planet. And, if you add the many different alien races and other disembodied entities into the mix, also with MANY conflicting goals and purposes, well fuck me!!!!! :omg:

What a mess! :yes:

All goals are relative and arbitrary (also conforming to a "cycle of action", and eventually dying or changing into something else). All IS change - including the purposes and goals of sentient creatures.

Scientology ethics is primarily that system of morality that is defined as assisting LRH and Scientology. It has no value past that. Now, yes if someone removes EVERY 3rd dynamic mention at every point in the ethics codes, then maybe it might be able to be reformulated into a useful system. This is a rather BIG "maybe".
 
Last edited:

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Wow! Claire, that almost sounds as if you are assigning me some credibility - love you!

I've said for years (and I said this when I still considered myself an indie Scientologist, when various people were insisting that I wanted to proselytize and that I was a KSW Scn'ist- which I wasn't)- that it's up to each person to make his or her own path and to be one's own "...ologist" rather than a Christian or Scientologist or whatnot.

That's been my stance for years. Those who claimed (and there were several and they kept saying it) that I wanted people to do Scn and/or join the FZ were/are either stupid or lying. Or both.

So I can't confer credibility upon you. You already have it. You are the only one you have to please. Not me, not Gaddy, not anyone.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
And that's exactly why so many people are pissed off at "organized religion" and yet have spiritual beliefs. (Atheists and agnostics are often pissed off at organized religion, too, but they aren't the only ones).

While I appreciate the fact that churches often give spiritual advice and that sometimes individuals need guidance, there are so many problems with organized religion- not just Scn. The thing about Scn is it claimed to be immune from all the crap and corruption seen in history with organized religion. Then it not only was not immune, it was worse than many!!!!!!!!! :omg:

So get guidance and read books as you wish but strive for independence from organized religion and/or organized churches and cults.
 
Top