Is a "FreeZoner" an Ex-Scientologist?

[JBTrendy]

What if God was One of Us?

Well it took over 300 years for the Romain Catholic Church to emerge from the myriads of Christian sects and to turn Jesus into the one and only God.

I believe in TAO I praise Lord Buddha I Love Jesus and I practice Ron.

But you could only consider me a Scientologist per the second definition of the Tech Dictionary. To make it short, tools to use for the better.

For the rest... there is music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4CRkpBGQzU

 

[Infinite]

Yep. That was me. It's my favorite analogy on this particular topic and I think that it fits very well.

Given that, according to Scientology, everyone who has left the Church is no longer a Scientologist, your analogy is unsustainable. In relation to this discussion, you would be correct to ask: "did a public stop being a Scientologist when they joined Sea Org"; but the analogy you use fails by seeking to equate it to: "did a Catholic stop becoming a Christian when they joined the Methodists". It is an attempt to define the wider term "Christianity" as being the same as being a member of the one of the sub-groups of Christianity. One can be both, but a Catholic cannot still be a Catholic if they become a Methodist. It's a bit like saying an "object" is also a "class", in programming terms.

That aside, no one has really addressed my idea that the term "Scientologist" has become so filthy that it would best be discarded by the exes and another term adopted. That it got ignored in the kerfuffle is my mistake for getting lippy at the time I put forward that contention but, I wonder, does anyone else agree with my main point?

 

[JBTrendy]

Blip Flip

Given that, according to Scientology, everyone who has left the Church is no longer a Scientologist, your analogy is unsustainable. In relation to this discussion, you would be correct to ask: "did a public stop being a Scientologist when they joined Sea Org"; but the analogy you use fails by seeking to equate it to: "did a Catholic stop becoming a Christian when they joined the Methodists". It is an attempt to define the wider term "Christianity" as being the same as being a member of the one of the sub-groups of Christianity. One can be both, but a Catholic cannot still be a Catholic if they become a Methodist. It's a bit like saying an "object" is also a "class", in programming terms.

That aside, no one has really addressed my idea that the term "Scientologist" has become so filthy that it would best be discarded by the exes and another term adopted. That it got ignored in the kerfuffle is my mistake for getting lippy at the time I put forward that contention but, I wonder, does anyone else agree with my main point?

Yes Blip to one slight little change that really makes all the difference. It's according to the Church of Scientology that everyone who has left the Church is no longer a Scientologist.

You're a Scientologist if per definition 2 here again you study and use the Tech to improve the conditions of life. It's not belonging to a Church it's wether or not you get things better around you by using the tools and make things work.

It's much more practicle than you imagine.

In fact Blip I like your spirit but have you ever been a Scientologist?

It seem you don't know shit about it really. It's totally fine with me. It's nice to have you around discussing these topics but why don't you tell us who you are and what you want to accomplish here? This is a user friendly board and we like people to be honest if possible.

There are all sorts of Scientologists and if they want to call them such it's up to them. I was revealed before I got in contact with it. The names, tags and labels are not that important to me, only the person counts and what we can achieve together.

ALL2U

 

[Terril park]

None of the four defs of scientology in Tech Dict. require that one be a member of COS.

 

[Infinite]

It's according to the Church of Scientology that everyone who has left the Church is no longer a Scientologist.

You're quite right. A person may call themselves anything they wish, whether it is accurate or not. A Catholic who leaves the Catholic Church to join the Methodist Church may still call themselves Catholic if they wish. The Pope may disagree and would actually have a very good point, especially if the Methodist calling themselves Catholic refused to accept, for example, Papal Infallibility or to attend confessionals. PG's analogy, however, is not analogous to Christianity, unless, of course, the exes are claiming that they also are a Church. I haven't yet seen any such claim. Rather, it would appear the exes have redefined the term Scientology to mean some sort of concoction of therapy and spiritual development. I would suggest that this is a mistake because using the same word as the official "Church" immediately alienates anyone who might otherwise be interested in learning something about it. Just seems a little counter productive to their stated intentions and yet could be simply solved with an exercise in re-branding.

 

[Infinite]

None of the four defs of scientology in Tech Dict. require that one be a member of COS.

Why cling to the label given its pejorative sense?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Could you please explain this? I am of the understanding that there is one, and only one, variety of scientology, there is no middle ground, it is the ultimate word of LRon, the groovey 'tech'. That is it, how can there be "other" scientologies? Isn't that, wasn't it, strictly off-policy to even consider? Its all the word of Ron, that's what it is to be a scientologist, it is construct, an illusionary fabrication, a world of wonder and work to dazzle the mind, and how could anything from the disturbed and deeply corrupted heart of Mr. Hubbard be anything but what the 'source' has called himself? The one, the only, very-bestest-things-that-can-save-the-world. :confused2:
I seem to have out-thought my own question, nm, I go now.

THat's not true whatsoever. There are many FZ and indie Scn and Independent Scn (by the way, you'll see some exes, skeptics, critics and even some Scn'ists use the term "indie Scientologist". When you see that, that's MY term that I coined and created. It went viral.) factions. Some are tech purists, some are not. Some diverge a bit some diverge wildly not only in matters of policy but in matters of tech. So,no, that's just not the case.

CofS itself plays fast and loose with Hubbard's writings and procedures, if it comes to that, though they will tell you they don't.

There never has been any religion or ideology that was around more than a year or two that didn't have offshoots and changes. Scn is like that, too.

I have a lot of FZ and indie friends and believe me, they don't practice Scn the way it is practiced in CofS. They interpret policy, some of them even diverge from or otherwise change "Tech". And before anyone says "Well, then they can't call themselves Scn'ists", consider this: Hubbard defined a Scn'ist as someone who uses Scn in his or her life. He didn't specify quantity/quality, etc. Also, I could easily say "oh, those guys don't go to Mass or sell indulgences or owe allegiance to a pope, how can they call themselves Christians?" Well, they did and they do. They just don't call themselves CATHOLIC. And non CofS Scn'ists don't call themselves CofS Scientologists.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Why cling to the label given its pejorative sense?

Because that's how YOU'RE viewing it, not him. Also he doesn't claim to be a CofS Scientologist -since he's not.

 

[Infinite]

They interpret policy, some of them even diverge from or otherwise change "Tech". And before anyone says "Well, then they can't call themselves Scn'ists", consider this: Hubbard defined a Scn'ist as someone who uses Scn in his or her life. He didn't specify quantity/quality, etc. Also, I could easily say "oh, those guys don't go to Mass or sell indulgences or owe allegiance to a pope, how can they call themselves Christians?" Well, they did and they do. They just don't call themselves CATHOLIC. And non CofS Scn'ists don't call themselves CofS Scientologists.

In the Class VIII Auditors' Lecture, LRH spends some 90 minutes reiterating and reinforcing the need to apply standard tech and standard tech only. To do otherwise, he claims, will only cause damage to the recipient. With this in mind, can those who deviate from the standard tech really be called Scientologists and, perhaps more to the point, is there such a thing as "standrd tech" any more. I would say "no" to both questions.

There is yet no generally agreed term that encompasses both those within and without the official Scientology framework. Equating Scientology to Christianity is, as has been explained repeatedly in this thread, a fallacy.

 

[Panda Termint]

If you apply that logic, Blip, no-one in the current CofS is a scientologist!

 

[Infinite]

If you apply that logic, Blip, no-one in the current CofS is a scientologist!

Heh! I wondered who would be the first to spot that. But, its true! There are no "real" scientologists as per LHR's intention left in the world at all which further strengthens my position that it would be best to simply abandon the term altogether.

 

[Infinite]

Because that's how YOU'RE viewing it, not him. Also he doesn't claim to be a CofS Scientologist -since he's not.

Yep, that's right, VC, I'm the ONLY person in the whole world who sees the term "Scientologist" as being pejorative. Its lolz for me to see you applying the tech to someone who disagrees with you. Just for some more fun, I'd be interested in you pointing out where I asserted Terril was a CoS Scientologist.

As it happens, I am mightily impressed with his recent actions outside of the "Church" - what a pity more of the exes have yet to recover sufficiently so as to be able to protest.

Respect to you Terril.

 

[Infinite]

I see many of you have been through this all before, http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=24450#post24450, and not much thinking appears to have changed in the intervening three years. One thing, though:

But LRH did invent the term Scientology:

From the CoS website:

Scientologist: one who knows he has found the way to a better life through Scientology and who, through Scientology books, tapes, training and processing, is actively attaining it.

Scientology: Scientology applied religious philosophy. It is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life. Scientology means scio, knowing in the fullest sense of the word and logos, study. In itself the word means literally knowing how to know. Scientology is a “route,” a way, rather than a dissertation or an assertive body of knowledge. Through its drills and studies one may find the truth for himself. The technology is therefore not expounded as something to believe, but something to do.

Ummm . . . no, Hubbard DID NOT invent the term "Scientology". It was first coined by Dr A Nordenholz in 1934. Most probably already know that but, for those who wish to cling to the term as some sort homage, you need not continue to do so.

http://cientonetica.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/scientologie1.jpg

 

[Nicole]

I'm reading here a while. I don't understand the problem.
First the question of the threat is a "freezoner an ex scientologist?".
I think it is the wrong question. The question should be "is a freezoner an ex COS member?". It is so.

We are all here because we want to stop COS.That is important. If a freezoner trust in the theories of Hubbard. That person can do. Freezoners doesn't have OSA, Sea Org or other things. That is not a business like COS is. I critice the technics of Hubbard. I don't think that will be a problem for the freezoners.

The defination of a sect, change with years. Today a sect is define as a cult with a strict leader, mindcontrol and they earn money with the bad treating of the members. That means COS is a sect.

The world is colorful. And the world is made colorful because of different views and thinking etc. And it can only stay so colorful if we respect each other. That does COS not do and that is why I am here. I want to life in a colorful world.

 

[Zinjifar]

I'm reading here a while. I don't understand the problem.
First the question of the threat is a "freezoner an ex scientologist?".
I think it is the wrong question. The question should be "is a freezoner an ex COS member?". It is so.

We are all here because we want to stop COS.That is important. If a freezoner trust in the theories of Hubbard. That person can do. Freezoners doesn't have OSA, Sea Org or other things. That is not a business like COS is. I critice the technics of Hubbard. I don't think that will be a problem for the freezoners.

The defination of a sect, change with years. Today a sect is define as a cult with a strict leader, mindcontrol and they earn money with the bad treating of the members. That means COS is a sect.

The world is colorful. And the world is made colorful because of different views and thinking etc. And it can only stay so colorful if we respect each other. That does COS not do and that is why I am here. I want to life in a colorful world.

There are 'forces' at work that are intent on 'salvaging' the Scientology label/brand. I (and most others I suspect) don't believe that salvage is necessary or even desirable.

It's a kind of 'political correctness' bit of 'newspeak' word/consciousness manipulation by divorcing the *default* usage of 'Scientology from the 'Church' of Scientology, or even L. Ron Hubbard's 'Scientology'.

I have no problem with people calling themselves 'non-church-scientologists' or 'independent scientologists' or 'Freezone Scientologists', but, I'll be damned if I'm going to stand on my head and whistle dixie just because somebody would like the world to think that Scientology, the subject, has gotten a bad rap from the 'Church' of Scientology's implementation.

No; it's not a bad rap. Default Scientology *is* the same Scientology Ron created and it *is* all the bad things it's accused of.

If people want to peddle a 'Scientology Lite' that they claim has had its fangs and venom pulled, well, that's their marketing problem.

Zinj

 

[Voltaire's Child]

In the Class VIII Auditors' Lecture, LRH spends some 90 minutes reiterating and reinforcing the need to apply standard tech and standard tech only. To do otherwise, he claims, will only cause damage to the recipient. With this in mind, can those who deviate from the standard tech really be called Scientologists and, perhaps more to the point, is there such a thing as "standrd tech" any more. I would say "no" to both questions.

There is yet no generally agreed term that encompasses both those within and without the official Scientology framework. Equating Scientology to Christianity is, as has been explained repeatedly in this thread, a fallacy.

And a lot of Christians and Jews go against specific things in their bibles...

In any event, by this logic, one could not call CofS members "Scientologists"...

(man, this is like shooting fishies in a barrel)

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Yep, that's right, VC, I'm the ONLY person in the whole world who sees the term "Scientologist" as being pejorative. Its lolz for me to see you applying the tech to someone who disagrees with you. Just for some more fun, I'd be interested in you pointing out where I asserted Terril was a CoS Scientologist.

As it happens, I am mightily impressed with his recent actions outside of the "Church" - what a pity more of the exes have yet to recover sufficiently so as to be able to protest.

Respect to you Terril.

Oh, I never said you were the only person in the whole world who sees the term "Scientologist" as being pejorative. I'd advise you not to put words in my mouth or keyboard.

I never said you referred to Terril as a CofS Scn'ist, either. Can you find any text where I've alleged that you said that? Next time, try asking me "why are you telling me this?" or something of the sort, if you're unsure or would like me to elucidate on my commentary.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Heh! I wondered who would be the first to spot that. But, its true! There are no "real" scientologists as per LHR's intention left in the world at all which further strengthens my position that it would be best to simply abandon the term altogether.

Actually, I said the same thing, myself, on this thread.

 

[Nicole]

There are 'forces' at work that are intent on 'salvaging' the Scientology label/brand. I (and most others I suspect) don't believe that salvage is necessary or even desirable.

It's a kind of 'political correctness' bit of 'newspeak' word/consciousness manipulation by divorcing the *default* usage of 'Scientology from the 'Church' of Scientology, or even L. Ron Hubbard's 'Scientology'.

I have no problem with people calling themselves 'non-church-scientologists' or 'independent scientologists' or 'Freezone Scientologists', but, I'll be damned if I'm going to stand on my head and whistle dixie just because somebody would like the world to think that Scientology, the subject, has gotten a bad rap from the 'Church' of Scientology's implementation.

No; it's not a bad rap. Default Scientology *is* the same Scientology Ron created and it *is* all the bad things it's accused of.

If people want to peddle a 'Scientology Lite' that they claim has had its fangs and venom pulled, well, that's their marketing problem.

Zinj

I also think that the world that Hubbard created is wrong and horrible. I do have also problems to understand, that peoble trust in Hubbard Tech, but not at the other things he said. There is made a new Ideologie way. And I see there is also a risk. But if that new created ideologie based on Hubbard thoughts, a "Scientology Lite" you called is without that stupid money making thinks, without breaking human rights, without mind control nobody can forbid it.

I say again I am against Scientology, I am against anything they do, I am against that ill Ideologie that Hubbard created, Iam against that money business. I do normaly not say COS or Church of Scientology. I use it only in English. For me it is the Scientology - Organisation. Because it is not a Church.

 

[programmer_guy]

I see many of you have been through this all before, http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=24450#post24450, and not much thinking appears to have changed in the intervening three years. One thing, though:




Ummm . . . no, Hubbard DID NOT invent the term "Scientology". It was first coined by Dr A Nordenholz in 1934. Most probably already know that but, for those who wish to cling to the term as some sort homage, you need not continue to do so.

http://cientonetica.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/scientologie1.jpg

Nordenholz made up that word but I doubt that he would have agreed with Hubbard on his use of that term to describe so many things that I doubt Nordenholz would have agreed with. IOW, it's not the same thing and let's not confuse the two as being very much related. Don't you think?