Vajradhara

Namaste all,

in response to the moderators instruction to take the scientology discussion to another thread, i've opened this one

whichphilosophy, i'm hoping that you will be able to respond in this thread in a more detailed fashion that in the other.

in response to your statement that i should go to the LRH libraries and study the information for myself, i can say that i've been to the Scientology center in Washington D. C. and read what i was permitted to there.

my other information comes from a variety of sources, most of which are in plain view on the 'net. i know two ex-Scientologists.. one of whom works at my company. in fact, though i don't want to reveal too much personal information, my company competes against a Scientology owned company and i'm regularly exposed to the distortions of facts that this group uses.

my first question to you is this... do you believe that Layfayette Ron Hubbard was an OT (operating Thetan)? if so, why? if not, why not?

pachomius2000

I seem to get the impression that there is no system of thought however open to rational criticism that will not find some people who will get to be enthusiatic about it.

Of course scientology is not all contrary to rational premises; but it is no different from other religions; and for being a religion it cannot withstand the test of rational criticism.

Now, Vajradhara is enthusiastic about Buddhism and Whichphilosophy with Scientology.

Are you both aware that your respective enthusiasm cannot survive the test of rational criticism?

But that is the essence of enthusiasm, not to be disillusioned by rational criticism.

May I suggest to both that you examine yourselves objectively to find out whether in fact you are the children of enthusiasm, and why, how, and to what specific ends you are enthusiastic all about.

In the meantime, since you both, Vajradhara and Whichphilosophy are into religion, may I suggest that your religion satisfies my definition of religion, namely:

[q]Religion if a form of human behavior founded upon a belief in some unknown power, resulting in affections and actions intended to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.[/q]

I must have stated that definition many times over in my posts here and there. And I still think it is the best definition (ahem) to really enable us to distinguish what is religion and what is not religion.

Pachomius2000

Rusting Car Bumper

Scientology is this:
Scientology is a thriving cult of greed and power

DC

whichphilosophy

Actually you're quoting a very interesting case.

The charge was that the article had maliciously libelled the organisation.

Even Times own lawyer told the Associated Press the article opinionated.

This was rejected under the US First Amendment.
The Federal Court had never heard any testimony as regards the accuracy of the article because first it had to be proven Time acted with malice.

(My query was that one cannot judge if malice had taken place unless one views the article byt that was the decision).

Hence winning the case did not prove or disprove the accuracy of the article because this was not the issue in the end.

Opinions did not have to be rebutted or challenges because this was not the issue.

Because whether or not there were inaccuracies, the case was to prove that this was done with malice.

So the reader is none the wiser and the law can be an ass.

Enai

More about scientology can be found at www.xenu.net .

Enai

whichphilosophy

Frist of all:

"Tilman's article on advice to Scientology kids to my kids, when he gets the basic definitions back to front and tries to make out they are somewhat inadequate. In this he only shoots himself in the foot many times.
(not a retard like me). Actually if he sent this in the post it would be a poison pen letter. It's filled with generality and malice and irresponsibly demeans children and young people.

I only concluded the article was more a reflection of the writers mental state than a support of his beliefs.

Besides eldest aged 6 who can use a computer sits in a class with 8 and 9 year olds and is near the top. Yet he says they are inadequate in the the world at large and do worse in school than other pupils.

Do you have a topic that you want to specifically quote or just tip the rubbish bin on the floor and and say "...duh wot about this mate! Duh Xenu!

Can't you say what your view are but instead robotically cut and paste someone else's?

Also if you can understand some of the gibberish that appears in some of the articles, then explain some of them.

Infidelettante

Battling URLs is neither discussion nor debate. If there is no new thinking to be had perhaps this subject has been exhausted.

JT

whichphilosophy

I agree, because they only provide impressions but not what the subject is or is not.
This is basically what I mentioned. A person should raise their own views, but sure use the URL for reference and raise questions on any of the points they read etc.

Cubeless Academian

No, because there's no such thing as a thetan.

whichphilosophy

Good to hear a direct statement (like the first poste).

Doesn't mean I agree but it's straightforward and a clear statement and in law we have rights of belief.

We can only evaluate truths by our own study application and experiences.

This gets back to the same question whether we are a spiritual entity or not.

For the purpose of anyone reading this I'll just cut and paste the definition here. The reason for this is to explain the what the nomenclature thetan means. Not seeking agreement here, but just giving the definition so the other readers understand what is disagreed or agreed with.


THETAN: an immortal spiritual being; the human soul. The term soul is not used because it has developed so many other meanings from use in other religions and practices that it doesn’t describe precisely what was discovered in Scientology. We use the term thetan instead, from the Greek letter theta , the traditional symbol for thought or life. One does not have a thetan, something one keeps somewhere apart from oneself; one is a thetan. The thetan is the person himself, not his body or his name or the physical universe, his mind or anything else. It is that which is aware of being aware; the identity which IS the individual.