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.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.
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.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. 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.
The failure to thoroughly describe Scientology - bad, good, and crazy - guarantees Scientology Inc.'s survival.
Not always. Obviously, not always.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.
And neglect warning about the other aspect? - and because, it seems, our "hard-wiring" demands it of us?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.
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.
What?!And neglect warning about the other aspect? - and because, it seems, our "hard-wiring" demands it of us?As long as the bogus claims are being made, it is important, in my mind, to point that out -- they are bogus.
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.
Link to the YOU NOW TALKING TO YOU THEN threadWhat?!
What "other aspect" are you taking about? What "warning" would you give about these "other aspects"? I don't get it.
I don't do "virtue signaling."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).
I don't do "virtue signaling."
Suggest re-reading post #6 on the Talking to starry eyed new members thread.
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.
No, I'm not reading your vague rambles.Link to bla-bla-bla
What "other aspect" are you taking about?And neglect warning about the other aspect?
Yes, I'm sure of it. To wit, Rosicrucianism, 1620-2021.A thousand years from now, someone will still believe in some (or all) of Hubbard's blather. Ideas do not die.
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.
.At the end of his life, Manley Hall was asking others about what would happen to him after he died.