Failure to describe SCN

Bill

Well-known member
The failure to thoroughly describe Scientology - bad, good, and crazy - guarantees Scientology Inc.'s survival.
I don't think that's particularly true. Scientology's survival is guaranteed. Period. A thousand years from now, someone will still believe in some (or all) of Hubbard's blather. Ideas do not die.

But, of course, your point, as always, is that we must always report on the "good" parts of Scientology.

Personally, I'll leave that to the church and other True Believers. They will carry that banner. I really don't think that aspect of Scientology is being ignored. What promoters of Scientology are neglecting are the lies, the unfulfilled promises, the unproven claims, the fraud.

As long as the bogus claims are being made, it is important, in my mind, to point that out -- they are bogus.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
I don't think that's particularly true. Scientology's survival is guaranteed. Period. A thousand years from now, someone will still believe in some (or all) of Hubbard's blather. Ideas do not die.

But, of course, your point, as always, is that we must always report on the "good" parts of Scientology.

Personally, I'll leave that to the church and other True Believers. They will carry that banner. I really don't think that aspect of Scientology is being ignored. What promoters of Scientology are neglecting are the lies, the unfulfilled promises, the unproven claims, the fraud.

As long as the bogus claims are being made, it is important, in my mind, to point that out -- they are bogus.

IMO, there is truth in both your post and what Veda wrote, even though they seem to completely contradict each other.

For those still within the CoS who are true believers, but are having doubts and lurk here as has happened in the past, I do believe it helps to describe Scientology accurately, including the "good" parts. For someone lurking here and reading only about the negative aspects of Scn, I believe they'd be less likely to stick around.

That said, I won't be the ones writing about good parts. I'll leave that to others. :coolwink: It's difficult for me to write about the "good" parts that are intertwined with an organization that is so criminally abusive to its own staff, S.O. members, and the public.
 

Bill

Well-known member
IMO, there is truth in both your post and what Veda wrote, even though they seem to completely contradict each other.

For those still within the CoS who are true believers, but are having doubts and lurk here as has happened in the past, I do believe it helps to describe Scientology accurately, including the "good" parts. For someone lurking here and reading only about the negative aspects of Scn, I believe they'd be less likely to stick around.

That said, I won't be the ones writing about good parts. I'll leave that to others. :coolwink: It's difficult for me to write about the "good" parts that are intertwined with an organization that is so criminally abusive to its own staff, S.O. members, and the public.
Yeah, as someone said here once: "The good in Scientology is not original and the original in Scientology is not good." That is substantially correct.

If I were to mention what is good in Scientology, I'd be inclined to point out where, outside of Scientology, it came from and is available.

The "good" in Scientology isn't ultimately good because it's the bait in the trap.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
The failure to thoroughly describe Scientology - bad, good, and crazy - guarantees Scientology Inc.'s survival.

So what? I don't feel the slightest obligation to perform like a trained seal (for you or anybody else) by always mentioning some 'good' concerning the cult.

It's a 100% con job.

End of.

:yes:
 

Veda

Well-known member
I don't think that's particularly true. Scientology's survival is guaranteed. Period. A thousand years from now, someone will still believe in some (or all) of Hubbard's blather. Ideas do not die.

But, of course, your point, as always, is that we must always report on the "good" parts of Scientology.
Not always. Obviously, not always.

But it's unwise to never do it.

From its inception, to the period of its greatest expansion fifteen year later, Scientology was subjected to a broad brush style of ridicule and denunciation in magazines. No one warned about Scientology's disguise aspect, or about how it uses good ideas and good people.

Possibly that's because we are hardwired to go "Yay!" or "Nay!" and the details and subtleties be damned.

It's common sense - or not so common sense - when warning someone about what is essentially a covert operation that uses disguises, to, calmly, also describe the disguises, or at least mention that they exist.

Personally, I'll leave that to the church and other True Believers. They will carry that banner. I really don't think that aspect of Scientology is being ignored. What promoters of Scientology are neglecting are the lies, the unfulfilled promises, the unproven claims, the fraud.

As long as the bogus claims are being made, it is important, in my mind, to point that out -- they are bogus.
And neglect warning about the other aspect? - and because, it seems, our "hard-wiring" demands it of us?

To me that's unwise.... and not very effective.

:scratch:
 

Bill

Well-known member
As long as the bogus claims are being made, it is important, in my mind, to point that out -- they are bogus.
And neglect warning about the other aspect? - and because, it seems, our "hard-wiring" demands it of us?

To me that's unwise.... and not very effective.
What?!
What "other aspect" are you taking about? What "warning" would you give about these "other aspects"? I don't get it.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
What?!
What "other aspect" are you taking about? What "warning" would you give about these "other aspects"? I don't get it.

I think @Veda might be "WOKE" and for some strange reason he seems to enjoy a bit of regular virtue signalling and is determined to recruit the rest of us.

Good luck with that Veda (but you can count me straight out).

:D
 

Veda

Well-known member

Veda

Well-known member
I think @Veda might be "WOKE" and for some strange reason he seems to enjoy a bit of regular virtue signalling and is determined to recruit the rest of us.

Good luck with that Veda (but you can count me straight out).

:D
:waiting: I don't do "virtue signaling." :blink:


Suggest re-reading post #6 on the Talking to starry eyed new members thread.




:)
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
:waiting: I don't do "virtue signaling." :blink:


Suggest re-reading post #6 on the Talking to starry eyed new members thread.




:)

Yes you do ... and I don't need to re-read anything Veda ... I moved on long ago and couldn't give a toss who believes the cult is fantastic and who doesn't.

OK?

Carry on with your crusade but don't try to enforce your virtue signalling crap on me.

BTW most of us are perfectly pleasant to newbies and always have been, you are basically just trying to create trouble when there is no need.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
So what? I don't feel the slightest obligation to perform like a
trained seal (for you or anybody else) by always
mentioning some 'good' concerning the cult.

It's a 100% con job.
.

If you handle people with the standard formula, you can always get them to leave the cult.

It's a recipe. 50% of what you say to Scientologists has to be the "bad part" and 50% the "good part".

Experts have stated that if you only tell them the bad part, they won't leave the cult. . .
.

EX SCIENTOLOGIST
I want to tell you all the good and the
bad parts of Scientology, so you can
make an informed decision on whether
you want to stay involved or not.

OT VIII
Okay. Go ahead.

EX SCIENTOLOGIST
Well the bad part of Scientology is that Hubbard
was a pathological liar, criminal, con man and sociopath
who terrorized innocent people with Fair Game.

OT VIII
Okay, so what? I'm still going to
remain a Scientologist.

EX SCIENTOLOGIST
Wait, I haven't told you the good part of Scientology yet.

OT VIII
Go ahead.

EX SCIENTOLOGIST
Well! Scientology does so much good in the world!
Scientologists are always having big wins and
writing success stories!

OT VIII
Wow! I am definitely going to blow Scientology
now that you told me about the good part.

- - -

.
 
Last edited:

Bill

Well-known member
Link to bla-bla-bla
No, I'm not reading your vague rambles.

Just answer my questions:
What "other aspect" are you taking about?
What "warning" would you give about these "other aspects"?

Think you can do that?
 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
A thousand years from now, someone will still believe in some (or all) of Hubbard's blather. Ideas do not die.
Yes, I'm sure of it. To wit, Rosicrucianism, 1620-2021.

Many people put their faith in and get wisdom and wins from the writings and talks of many gurus and teachers
along the way. A few would include: Manly P. Hall, Khalil Gibran, Madame Blavatsky, Alan Watts, Carlos Castaneda,
and Deepak Chopra. So many more.

I love some of Manly Hall's lectures. (They're all on YouTube or other places on the Internet.) Hall did approximately
8,000 lectures in the United States and abroad, authored over 150 books and essays, and wrote countless magazine
articles. Many more hour-long lectures than Hubbard and spanning decades. Fascinating at times and a great speaker.
All without written notes. Just incredible.

At the end of his life, Hall was asking others about what would happen to him after he died. Looking for reassurances
after a life of selling -- and believing in -- his spirituality topics and immortality.

Likewise, Deepak Chopra in a candid and private moment of doubt -- off script -- in the film documentary about him,
Decoding Deepak, wondering what happens after we die. Yes, he too doubts in private, but a $150 million net worth
makes him feel better, I'm sure.

How do these wise people -- who know more than I do -- end up?

Excerpt
Master of the Mysteries: New Revelations on the Life of Manly Palmer Hall
Second Edition by Louis Sahagun​
There was a time while writing the first edition when I was sorely tempted to scrap the project. I questioned​
the very idea of focusing more attention on yet another self-styled mystic with all-too-human flaws who made​
a career out of telling people how to live right.​
. . .​
Manly P. Hall had serious personal issues. Khalil Gibran was a chain smoker who died of cirrhosis of the liver.​
Madame Blavatsky was exposed as a fraud, and had such bad personal hygiene that there were ulcerous​
sores on both her legs. Alan Watts spent his last years in a stupor, guzzling warm vodka by the quarts.​
Carlos Castaneda was a fraud and a jerk. Edmond Szekely’s wife told me that he never discovered Essene​
documents in the Vatican—he made that up.​
Do these people deserve a moment of our attention?​

Trouble is we all read about the early parts of these people's lives -- the public parts -- and seldom do we read the final
chapters of the books, which for many are the most revealing parts about what they really have or don't have.

I think it's probably best to go to the the final chapters of the books and skim them for the "reveals" before spending a life
married to any gurus. Then read on accordingly. At least, you'll know what you can and shouldn't expect. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :coolwink:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

I don't get how Scientologists need to be informed about the "good part of Scientology"

They have already been informed of the "good part" when they read Hubbard's books, listened to tapes, did courses, talked to a registrar, studied a grade chart or looked at any COS advertising.

A. The good part is all of the written and recorded materials of Scientology plus the promo.​
B. The bad part is that the good part is lies.​
.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
How do these wise people -- who know more than I do -- end up?

Manly P. Hall had serious personal issues. Khalil Gibran was a chain smoker who died of cirrhosis of the liver. Madame Blavatsky was exposed as a fraud, and had such bad personal hygiene that there were ulcerous sores on both her legs. Alan Watts spent his last years in a stupor, guzzling warm vodka by the quarts. Carlos Castaneda was a fraud and a jerk. Edmond Szekely’s wife told me that he never discovered Essene documents in the Vatican—he made that up.​
.
Remarkable!​
CUT TO: The final Colonel Kurtz scene in "Apocalypse Now".​

COLONEL KURTZ​
The horror. . . The horror. . . The horror. . .​
.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
At the end of his life, Manley Hall was asking others about what would happen to him after he died.
.

Likewise, at the end of his life, even Monty Hall was clueless about what was behind life's door.



.
"In all of recorded history and after hundreds
of thousands of gurus, holy men, saviors, messiahs &
messengers of God--as well as hundreds of millions of
written pages adorned with discovered universal secrets,
turns out that nobody still seems to have the
slightest clue what is going on."

- L. Don Hubbard*


* L. Don Hubbard is a celebrated philosopher, advanced cosmic scientist and author of the bestselling self-help book "THE SECRET MEANING OF LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE! (why are you asking me?)"

.
.
 
Last edited:
Top