What's new

Setting a good example.

Happy Aberree

Patron with Honors
Please note that these comments are not Scientology but based on my University studies and other material including life experiences.

Christianity exists on many levels. Most of the New Testament is the writings of Paul and therefore it could be called Paulianity. Paul was an oppressor of the early Church until he fell of his horse and became a follower of Christ. (Acts 9:3–4) Hence my little joke about Xenophon falling off his donkey and becoming a Scientologist.

It seems that the early Christian fathers wanted to incorporate things that would help it be accepted by others.

In the time of Jesus there were cults for instance that sacrificed a bull over the top of someone in a pit so they could experience redemption from the blood. I think this got incorporated into the cult of Christianity just like other material even going back to the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

The Bible is not the work of God but men and has been added to, chopped and changed almost the whole time. The Gospel of Thomas is an interesting alternative that was edited out. http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

By the way Scientology describes itself as "gnostic". The Gospel of St John is considered to be the oldest, upto 120 years after the death of Christ, and is gnostic. The earliest gospel is 70 years after the death of Christ. Thats after the destruction of Jerusalem and not by an eyewitness.

"For instance, in Matthew (2:23) the Gospels talk about Nazareth. While the area has been inhabited for thousands of years, the actual town of Nazareth didn't exist until after 70 A.D."
from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_the_first_Gospel_Written

Even then the oldest intact version is far younger by centuries, 400 ad.
This wikipedia article discusses various changes made to different versions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

You cannot at any rate believe ancient documents word for word, they are often written as coming from someone else with no clarifications. Lets go earlier similar. The old Testament tells the story of Daniel which is set in Babylon, but was actually written as resistance to the rule of the Seleucids, the Syrian branch of the remnants of the empire created by Alexander the Great. The Ptolemies had earlier run Israel and were tolerant. Its not history, just a moral tale.

There are several different Gods (Jehovah Elohim) in the early part of the Bible, reflecting different traditions of tribes which were combined. This probably occurred in the reign of Josiah (2 Kings 23) Let me give you an alternative version, Josiah determines possibly with the support of the Priesthood to re shape Israel and writes the first five books of the Bible, probably from extant sources but with the twist of the messianic duty of Israel. Other things were probably added in in this time such as the exodus for which there is no historical evidence, and how could hundreds of thousands of people live for years in an environmental wasteland?

I mean how reasonable is it that there is this book just lying there in the Temple that no one ever read and was conveniently "found"? Then King Josiah starts off on a murderous rampage slaughtering all non Jewish religious leaders, torturing them horribly (Xenophon in an earlier life?) Anyhow Josiah wasn't invincible and was killed in battle a few years later on. A really good book on this is "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman. All three religions that came from the Book have at different times in history had violent intolerant phases. This strikes me as the basic on the chain, prior to Josiah the Jewish people were tolerant and multicultural. They were then put on a course of difference from others that has caused them grief for centuries since. One really needs to be able to interchange with others.

Some of the tools for decoding the sources of the Bible include study of the language and also criticism of the text, for instance my comment about the cameo appearance of the three wise men which everybody seems to love but which makes no substantial difference to the outcome of the plot.

Anyhow scholarship has probably moved on a bit since my University days in the '70s. I've followed it a little bit since then but there is probably more that could be said.

Having said that, yes Ron makes a comment about R6 and the crucifixion. Thats interesting and something to take on board. As far as I am concerned it is just one of many aspects to the story, and I do find there is theta in Christianity done right.

I would hope that this is not an example of how you think. As Cherished said: non-sequitur. Most of your sentences are a subject change. What are you really trying to do?
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
You know, even when I was studying for a Bachelor of Theology in the 21st century, wiki.answers and wikipedia were not considered appropriate sources. I don't know what that load of tripe you posted was supposed to communicate, but a little undergraduate study supplemented by wiki.answers and wikipedia does not make you anywhere near worth listening to on Christianity. Your post was full of non sequitur rambling and lacking in any value.

Seriously, you're not doing your credibility any good. Stick to what you know something about.

Right. They're not accepted for references for college papers since they can be edited by ANYBODY.
 

Doom

Lurking.
[/B]

Do you mean "tool" as in "x-x, what a tool" or in the sense that he's workin on someone's behalf. :confused2:

Although both are quite fitting.
Nothing like a double meaning to spice things up the former had a double meaning too.
 

R6Basic

Patron Meritorious
Please note that these comments are not Scientology but based on my University studies and other material including life experiences.

Christianity exists on many levels. Most of the New Testament is the writings of Paul and therefore it could be called Paulianity. Paul was an oppressor of the early Church until he fell of his horse and became a follower of Christ. (Acts 9:3–4) Hence my little joke about Xenophon falling off his donkey and becoming a Scientologist.

It seems that the early Christian fathers wanted to incorporate things that would help it be accepted by others.

In the time of Jesus there were cults for instance that sacrificed a bull over the top of someone in a pit so they could experience redemption from the blood. I think this got incorporated into the cult of Christianity just like other material even going back to the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

The Bible is not the work of God but men and has been added to, chopped and changed almost the whole time. The Gospel of Thomas is an interesting alternative that was edited out. http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

By the way Scientology describes itself as "gnostic". The Gospel of St John is considered to be the oldest, upto 120 years after the death of Christ, and is gnostic. The earliest gospel is 70 years after the death of Christ. Thats after the destruction of Jerusalem and not by an eyewitness.

"For instance, in Matthew (2:23) the Gospels talk about Nazareth. While the area has been inhabited for thousands of years, the actual town of Nazareth didn't exist until after 70 A.D."
from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_the_first_Gospel_Written

Even then the oldest intact version is far younger by centuries, 400 ad.
This wikipedia article discusses various changes made to different versions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

You cannot at any rate believe ancient documents word for word, they are often written as coming from someone else with no clarifications. Lets go earlier similar. The old Testament tells the story of Daniel which is set in Babylon, but was actually written as resistance to the rule of the Seleucids, the Syrian branch of the remnants of the empire created by Alexander the Great. The Ptolemies had earlier run Israel and were tolerant. Its not history, just a moral tale.

There are several different Gods (Jehovah Elohim) in the early part of the Bible, reflecting different traditions of tribes which were combined. This probably occurred in the reign of Josiah (2 Kings 23) Let me give you an alternative version, Josiah determines possibly with the support of the Priesthood to re shape Israel and writes the first five books of the Bible, probably from extant sources but with the twist of the messianic duty of Israel. Other things were probably added in in this time such as the exodus for which there is no historical evidence, and how could hundreds of thousands of people live for years in an environmental wasteland?

I mean how reasonable is it that there is this book just lying there in the Temple that no one ever read and was conveniently "found"? Then King Josiah starts off on a murderous rampage slaughtering all non Jewish religious leaders, torturing them horribly (Xenophon in an earlier life?) Anyhow Josiah wasn't invincible and was killed in battle a few years later on. A really good book on this is "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman. All three religions that came from the Book have at different times in history had violent intolerant phases. This strikes me as the basic on the chain, prior to Josiah the Jewish people were tolerant and multicultural. They were then put on a course of difference from others that has caused them grief for centuries since. One really needs to be able to interchange with others.

Some of the tools for decoding the sources of the Bible include study of the language and also criticism of the text, for instance my comment about the cameo appearance of the three wise men which everybody seems to love but which makes no substantial difference to the outcome of the plot.

Anyhow scholarship has probably moved on a bit since my University days in the '70s. I've followed it a little bit since then but there is probably more that could be said.

Having said that, yes Ron makes a comment about R6 and the crucifixion. Thats interesting and something to take on board. As far as I am concerned it is just one of many aspects to the story, and I do find there is theta in Christianity done right.

I don't know why you decided to talk about Christianity I guess you thought there weren't any Christians on the site so you could just pop off whatever you wanted and it would be swallowed.

I'm not going to take on all the junk you've written as I think Cherished (and ohers0 did a good job in refuting your "research."

First however Paul would not like you saying it could be Paulianity he wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:5 "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed.. " earlier he asks is 1:13 ".... was Paul crucified for you?...." Also your simplistic idea of Saul (technically "Paul" didn't fall at that time his name was Saul) falling off his donkey - then changing his name to Paul and jumping on the Christian bandwagon is just... wrong. Paul was blind for Three days after that and went to his death proclaiming that Jesus did speak with him.

FINALLY scholarship has moved on since the 70's. There is evidence of a Hebrew exodus. 150 years ago if you were studying the Bible in a university they would have told you that one of the reasons the Bible can not be trusted is that no evidence exists for the Hittite empire. now it's known that it was one of the biggest empires of the ancient world.

Anyway go back to talking about Scn. At least you seem to know something about that.
 

x-x

Patron with Honors
Anyway go back to talking about Scn. At least you seem to know something about that.


Just a couple of points here.

First for you, regarding the R6 stuff, there is actual spiritual reality and there is also delusion and some of delusion is implants. Why? It is very interesting that these incidents can be found in people having auditing who have not been educated about them. You can see a lot of it in society, for instance sexual fixation which is prominent in many implants. It is quite ok to take your attention off these and look at reality. There are Gods.

Second, for Carmel and Kev, and a few others. I too have had an experience in auditing where I was asked if I had an overt on COB (DM). This came as quite a shock and affront to me as I had kept some suspicion about him I thought doing my bit for KSW. (I realise this is all Greek to non Scientologist but when I am writing for Scientologists I can't be bothered dropping the jargon. Maybe there is an online Scientology dictionary.)

Anyhoo, what I later realised is that all they are wanting is an FN. You get a bit out of the groove of auditing sometimes. So an auditor can ask you: "what have you done to apples?" (non restimulative example) I agree with Kev that the sec check in the 6 month Solo Nots refresher is a violation of the non interference area, and I sympathise with Carmel about questioning on something which was not current in her sec check. The point is that you confront it and FN, not introvert on it.
 

x-x

Patron with Honors
You know, even when I was studying for a Bachelor of Theology in the 21st century, wiki.answers and wikipedia were not considered appropriate sources.

Well, I know the data but looking for a quick document to back it up used Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is on the whole great and I have contributed to it.
 

Carmel

Crusader
Maybe it's time for a little education, x-x?

<snip>

Second, for Carmel and Kev, and a few others. I too have had an experience in auditing where I was asked if I had an overt on COB (DM). This came as quite a shock and affront to me as I had kept some suspicion about him I thought doing my bit for KSW. (I realise this is all Greek to non Scientologist but when I am writing for Scientologists I can't be bothered dropping the jargon. Maybe there is an online Scientology dictionary.)
Oh, asked for an overt on COB, how novel. :eyeroll:

Anyhoo, what I later realised is that all they are wanting is an FN. You get a bit out of the groove of auditing sometimes. So an auditor can ask you: "what have you done to apples?" (non restimulative example) I agree with Kev that the sec check in the 6 month Solo Nots refresher is a violation of the non interference area, and I sympathise with Carmel about questioning on something which was not current in her sec check. The point is that you confront it and FN, not introvert on it.
Where have you been? You *said* you read my story, or started it......You clearly haven't. :ohmy:

I had to laugh at this - "confront it and F/N" :duh:

Example of reverse auditing (seriously)....note, no questions are checked for reads, and the meter is only used for random arbitrary steering.

Aud: What have you done to apples?

Pc: Well, I did smash a bunch of about six once.

Aud: I'm not interested in you smashing them, I want you to tell me about when you sliced them.

Pc: I haven't actually sliced them.

Aud: You fucking liar.

Pc: I'm not lying.

Aud: You are fucking so. I know you have overts on bananas. What have you done to bananas?

Pc: I thought we were talking about apples.

Aud: (yelling) What are your crimes on bananas?

Pc: Well, bananas, um,

Aud: (steering) what's that.....that....that....

Pc: That's what I started to tell you about apples.

Aud: Stop being out-ethics, I want to know about bananas.

Pc: WTF?

Aud: You're needle is dirty, it's time you came clean

Pc: Clean with what?

Aud: I want to know how you have hurt bananas

Pc: I've not hurt bananas

Aud: What's that?.....that?......that?......

Pc: I bruised one once

Aud: I'm not interested in how you bruised one, I want to know about how you peeled them. What are your *real* crimes. That?......that?........that?....

Pc: (in thought)

Aud: (yelling) fuck this, it's time you came clean. What have you done to oranges....that?.....that?......that?......

Pc: I peeled one once

Aud: How did you peel it?

Pc: I got a knife, cut off the top and went from there.

Aud: (yelling) Why are you lying to me. This is bullshit, I don't want your baby overts, I want your real overts.

after 5 hours of this........

Pc: That's all I've ever done to strawberries

Aud: If you keep carrying on like this, you have no chance. (auditor stands up and opens the door, and gestures pc to walk out)

Pc: Well, no visit to the examiner after that I bet.

Nope, it wasn't a session.


To quote you x-x, "all they are wanting is an F/N". Yep, sure as hell looks like it. :whistling:
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
x-x, you are one of the problems, not a solution, or really capable of any.
The 'tech' is an illusion, you have ,so far, chosen to support this warped and degraded light of an insane madman, while assuming, like IAAS, that the people who have escaped even give a shit. Though many do, just for your own soul (what is left after LRon), your 'wins' are shallow, expect to be laughed at imho.

oi.
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
Me thinks x-x is getting too much air play... someone needs to pull the plug :D


yup.
attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 1hermanheadphones.jpg
    1hermanheadphones.jpg
    11.8 KB · Views: 76
  • 44300117.jpg
    44300117.jpg
    40.1 KB · Views: 77
Dumb and getting dumber.

I thought "Dumb and Dumber" were two characters.
With X-X it's Dumb and getting Dumber - one person.

X-X After you got shit for using Wiki to back up your arguments you respond by saying you wrote the Wiki source. Now that is truly dumb and getting dumber.

And this:

"...Second, for Carmel and Kev, and a few others. I too have had an experience in auditing where I was asked if I had an overt on COB (DM). This came as quite a shock and affront to me as I had kept some suspicion about him I thought doing my bit for KSW. (I realise this is all Greek to non Scientologist but when I am writing for Scientologists I can't be bothered dropping the jargon. Maybe there is an online Scientology dictionary...'

.... dumb and getting dumber for not understanding that your targets are far better at spotting disingenuous shit than you are at producing it.

More please.
 

Carmel

Crusader
Scientologists have the answers to everything, and the sooner we all learn that and fully accept it, the happier everyone will be.

:p

Not.
Yep, the vast majority in the fold, have *everything* justified, excused and explained before it even happens, and these justifications, excuses and explanations always make Scn and the Church, just so, so fuggin right, every bloody time.

Such a "good example", always, of how wonderful Scn is.
 
Top