If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Only in pointing out your seemingly judgemental behaviour.
In your edit you repeat the narrator`s words
Now I would suggest that what everyone quoted has said is "true", depending on what you consider "truth" to be.
My nit picking, as you condemn(?) it to be, is an attempt to establish your "truth".
I would be a lot more willing to listen to you if you would accept other people might think differently.
I spies me another Sophist.
well to be fair i haven't really looked into it, i was just commenting on flash's earlier post...jim has a point though you seem to be playing a bit more than devil's advocate, are you a scientologist per chance?
as for what my imagination tells me about crowley, well it's no secret he was a satanist, so....if i had to guess i imagine he worshipped satan?
Nitpick ? Perhaps, for good reason I would say.
Harrass ? I thought you knew me better. I spend most of my time on these boards highlighting such activity, as well you know.;)
I would say that I`m the one who is actually pointing out that other people might and,in fact, do think differently.
For you to fire that one at me suggests that I should humbly accept that I may be guilty of a lack of communication.
My response to your posting in respect of the "blatant lie" was a somewhat ill-fated attempt on my part to highlight that it may not have been.
You were appearing to condemn "Scientology" on the basis of one answer given to a somewhat hostile interviewer.
If you had some knowledge of the marital goings on of Hubbard in the late 40s you may have a little grin on you face (as I did) when he answered that question.
How about you try posting for a few days without using the quote button, and giving your views on what is actually being debated? You might find it more enjoyable, and I'm sure it will mean a few of the users who no longer post in this part of the boards will return.
I spy with my little eye someone who seems to throwing stones in a glass house if your POST 59 is anything to go by.
As I said to Flash, that term has often been used by religious groups to put a negative slur on heretics of their religion.
(Some would say similar to Hubbard`s "fair game" policy).
If you have any interest in Crowley`s "Satanism" you could start HERE
:chin: With the nitpicking and arguing over tiny points to avoid the main issue, you have got to be a Scientologist.
Well done you have successfully managed to stifle a sensible debate. Once again bit like a Scientologist.
:thumb:
(Without the quotes) you have claimed a good discussion has been ruined.
If you read the thread in it`s entirety then surely you can see a lot of posts are pure mudslinging. ( Ask yourself would you allow that if say, the Jewish faith, or Islam was in the firing line )
There are a few, in my opinion, constructive criticisms. (FEW indeed)
I have responded to a number of posts that appear to my limited knowledge to be, let`s reluctantly say, incorrect in content.(Namely Flash`s and Senor Miguel).
Calvin,
I`ll do my best to avoid condescension. Promise
You implied that :
Hubbard lied about his marital activities therefore Scientology is a load of bollocks. Q.E.D.
That`s a stretch by anyone`s imagination.
You call it a tiny point !
What would say is the main issue here ?
You started off this thread with what appeared to be an open mind on the subject. But did you, in reality ?
Did you already have your conclusion ready to post ?
The evidence seems to suggest that.
Then you label me "a scientologist" with negative connotations.
I concur that the ball is in your court to present evidence to the contrary.
Hubbard may be guilty of bigamy, but are you not guilty of bigotry ?
Have you even bothered to read anything Jim V has said. Its OK to have a different opinion, nobody is disputing that. However the fact you don't seem to be able to add to a debate but simply pick holes and talk about anything other than the original point is boring and turns people off.
Try showing people you have valid points which are your own opinions instead of just quoting others and say "yeah but how do you know thats the truth" "how do you know that happened" "where are you getting that from". If you have a point JUST FUCKING MAKE IT. :shocking:
Your not Jeremy Paxman, nor will you ever be. Open your mind a little and you might come across as less argumentative and willing to listen.
Thats the last I will say on this subject.
:thumb:
Lies
Haven't you got a cake to be baking ?
If anyone has time on their hands and wants to have a bit of fun, go and read the online reviews of Dianetics on Amazon. I was rolling on the floor when I read them. I even bought a used copy for 1p to see how pathetic and moronic it actually was. I wouldn't recommend buying it though, it's always worth remembering that the people selling these books for so little are people you probably wouldn't want to give your address to. No joke.
The book [and in my view, the entire religion/cult/concept] is basically rubbish by a psuedo-intellectual sci-fi writer wannabe who had a semi-creative idea to create a spooky and creative religion/cult that could spin some serious money and exert some nifty mind and behavioural control techniques. He could've had a great career in Stephen King-esque fiction, shame he followed the tried and tested template of failing at one thing and then deciding to prey on the weak of mind and spirit to make himself the big man.
As for people being bigoted and biased against the clams, well it's little wonder. Though it's not bigoted to think that Scientology is a crock. Have you heard the embarrassing, out of touch and downright offensive way they act and speak among regular non-Scieno citizens (aka Thetans)? If I read of more person comparing the cool reception Scientology has had from the world to what happened to the Jews in WWII I might flip. I wonder if it's a new PR spin, if it is, I think they have seriously miscalculated. A lot of people who never gave the clambake a second thought before are likely to become very offended if they hear Scienos comparing their negative reception to the Shoah. Seriously... idiots. It's not even the point so much as the clueless way they speak to - and interact with - the outside world. They consistently take points which, at their nexus, might be valid... and they manage to phrase it in a totally offensive and repugnant way. If they simply made a comment to the effect of how Judaism seems to have a social/cultural aspect that extends beyond religious devotion and Scientology is sort of the same then the comment would have passed. But instead they have to bring one of, if not the most jaw-dropping episodes of genocide in the history of humanity into the conversation. When talking about XENU ffs.
So yeah, they are completely out of touch and haven't earned any of this respect we are supposedly supposed to afford them. As anyone who has ever seen the video of that actress screaming at some random director "what crimes have you committed?" (a favourite questioning technique of the cult that thinks everyone outside of it is a drug-addled criminal with no self-respect or restraint) and "have you raped a baby?" because he was wearing some smart-alec t-shirt with Tom Cruise and an anti-clam sentiment on it. It makes me shudder with disgust to think of it.
Nice :thumb:
Your mental health issue, I guess.
In post 59,you appear to guilty of the same thing that you are accusing the scientology organisation of.
i.e. dismissing their "treatment" without having experienced it yourself.
Maybe you have experience ?
Dear Briggi,
I was going to begin by making a claim that "antagonism" seems to be part and parcel of any debate. If it isn`t present then there`s no debate. The discussion would probably take on the look of a petition.
On second reading it occured to me that you probably mean "purely antagonistic" in a different way, namely the "attempt to annoy" definition. I will state for the record that I don`t recall any time when I have posted with that intention.
Now that may well be the result, but I would suggest that antagonism is in the mind of the antagonised, and that it is largely beyond the control of the alleged antagoniser.
As in all areas of my life, I attempt to remain polite and humble in my posts on this board. Check the evidence and report back to me if you find evidence to the contrary. You may notice it is me that is on the receiving end of ad hominem attacks. Any supposed negativity in the posts that I make in reply to someone are directed at the content and not the person.
Hopefully that is seen by you as my POV and not an attempt to pick holes in your post.
Let`s move on to the "clams".
I`ll attempt to explain why I find your question hard to answer. If you think of individuals as "things" then I predict you are running the risk of creating problems within your thought process.
e.g. let`s label Briggi a "nurse".
Does a "nurse" have an essence that can be measured with any modern instrument ? I don`t think so.
Does "a nurse" exhibit certain behaviours ? I`d say to some extent, yes.
Are these behaviours constant 24/7 ? Highly unlikely.
So, Briggi, answer me this. At what point does a "nurse" become a "nurse" and at what point does the "nurse" cease to be a "nurse" ?
You could repeat this exercise by exchanging clam for nurse, and seeker for briggi. What are the results ?
(Presumably my behaviour, as experienced by you, has shown signs of "clamness").
Let`s move on.
Much of your criticism of Scientology seems well founded in the posts you have made in this thread. I share a great deal of that criticism.
Some of my interjections have occurred because the equality theme that is championed by many on these boards doesn`t seem to have been applied here. I gave a couple of religious examples to show that some targets seem to be "fair game" whereas others are avoided.
Of course the list of coercive organisations doesn`t end with organised religions. Try to point that out and accusations come flying in from all quarters. I was trying to some extent to find out why some focus on Scientology.All the criticisms that have enraged you are prevalent throughout lots of organisations. I would also suggest FAR more dangerous to your well being (financial, emotional and physical).
An example: someone I know very well was recently asked to stop by an organisation for their version of a stress test. However this was far from voluntary. Experienced has taught the individual that failing to comply to the requests have serious consequences. The scary (?) thing was that this organisation already had numerous personal details, and only asked for confirmation. Their version of Ron`s lie detector ? Woe betide you if you give false information. At the conclusion of this interview the individual was given a choice of how to pay the agents of the organisation. The choice of NOT paying was mentioned but the consequences were very much highlighted.
Now, Briggi, which organisation would you criticise the most ?
As MoK recently pointed out in reply to me, many people FEEL like the organisation in question has benefits for them and that is why they accept the coercive and thraeatening ways.
I`m sure the same could be said for Scientology.
For the record I have NO affiliation with ANY Scientology organisation.
However, I have LESS distaste for them than many other organisations that I feel are far more threatening to my well being.
Sincere best wishes to you ( and yours
seeker
I don't have to have experienced (for example) the different results in AIDS treatment, between eating lots of fruit and veg and anti-retroviral drugs, to be aware that one is more effective than the other.
You give me any peer-reviewed evidence that Scientology treatments have a higher rate of success in overcoming mental health issues than standard treatments such as SSRIs and Cognative Behavioural Therapy, and I'll go for auditing.
I have even made my own e-meter out of Coke cans and an old radio. I will happily run auditing sessions for anyone for a mere £10,000 per hour. First Stress Test is free if you by a copy of my new book; "Piccotherapy".
And how much is the book?:D
Scientology make grandiose claims relating to supposed miracle cures and such like, their language and discourse is highjacks scientific lexis as an appeal to some sort of perceived legitimacy. They do not participate in research in the manner in which most of the world knows it, and they certainly don't make their data available for peer review.
This would all be fine apart from the fact that this CULT uses these claims to dissuade vulnerable people from other treatments that may be beneficial. Recognising this as a religion in this country would be a grave mistake.
I'm not religious, not in the slightest; but I draw something of a distinction between Scientology and say, the Church of England. Scientology is a litiguous, oppressive and controlling structure, you only have to look at the way Tommy Davis acted in the panorama documentary - at least with Rowan Williams you'd probably get a cup of tea and a biscuit.
Their highjacking of holocaust is absolutely disgraceful and any legal system that permits the rewriting of history in this way is absurd.
taken from Appendix III of;
Wallis, R. 1976. 'The Road to Total Freedom - A Sociological analysis of Scientology' (Heinemann, London) pp. 263-264