From: dpchitester@yahoo.com (Phil Chitester)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Newbie to Scientology
Date: 27 Oct 2003 11:50:01 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 177
Message-ID: <b24952a.0310271150.3041d38@posting.google.com>
References: <HzAmb.1019$sP5.8794@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.211.143.69
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1067284201 20976 127.0.0.1 (27 Oct 2003 19:50:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:50:01 +0000 (UTC)
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!green.readfreenews.net!news.readfreenews.net!cox.net!news-xfer.cox.net!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1652436
darren_uk <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<HzAmb.1019$sP5.8794@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> I'm a newcomer to Scientology - just this year in fact.
I was a newcomer to Scientology in 1975. There was no internet.
There was no enemy line -- paid for and backed by psychiatry with the
sole intention to destroy lives, destroy sanity and destroy
well-being.
All criticism of Scientology is usually unfounded, concocted, and
wholly undeserved. Alteration (slight or great) of truth plays a high
part of it as does innuendo and implication. The intentions behind
such are masked and are wholly evil, even when seemingly well-meaning.
For someone who hasn't seen the light yet about psychiatry and
suppressive governments, it is unlikely that they will ever break
through the apostate brainwash about Scientology or the Church being
the slightest bit deleterious or undesirable.
It is entirely more realistic for some to simply give up and never
approach the subject again or just steer entirely away from critical
sources. This may seem like bias but I can guarantee that it comes
from several hard years of observation of the facts, during which I
was attacked and my character impugned and perhaps my reputation
utterly destroyed. It is unlikely I will ever find employment again
this lifetime, merely because I chose to be honest and stand up to the
entirely evil anti-Scientologists on this forum.
People like Arnie Lerma and Gerry Armstrong -- they no longer have any
good intentions towards their fellow man, that is why the Church had
to get rid of them. Why listen to a single word they say? I find
there is no reason unless one desires to be evil oneself, or one
wishes to defend oneself from good (as if it were bad for one
perhaps), or any other number of falacious or vacuous 'reasons' which
appear to derive from untruth(s) held in one's reactive mind.
If one listens to critics one is merely listening to those who wish
one to suffer or die. Perhaps it is too unbelievable to think such a
thing. If so, then you are not 'there' yet and may never arrive.
Such 'people' as critics, those are no longer real people. They are
'gone.'
> So I'm still at the investigating stage. Of course, I can asked my
> questions to the Scientologists, but they're, of course, going to give me
a
> biased answer.
In my experience, Scientologists are quite reliable as to the truth.
It is rare that they exhibit any bias, but frequent that they try to
accommodate the questioner in the manner which they estimate will
impart the most benefit to him/her.
> So I'm going to post my questions here too.
There is no particular point in me answering any of them, in my
opinion. Mostly they assume facts not in evidence and also untruths
not in evidence so they are pretty much a typical waste of time.
> I understand
> that in here I will get both (negatively) biased answers and objective
> replies - which is exactly what I'm looking for.
>
> If any of you can offer any comments on the following, I'd be most welcome.
>
> This weekend is an annual event for the International Association of
> Scientologists at Saint Hill "Ron's Home" in the UK.
>
> Quite an impressive place - although I feel a little disgusted how LRH
> (that's what they refer to L Ron Hubbard as) openly displays his
> possessions (he stands in front of a lovely car in front of the castle) and
> lifestyle at what could be, after all if one keeps an open mind, a big con.
He was simply a man of incredible stature doing nothing particularly
out of the ordinary for any such man. Except perhaps for his
development of Scientology and Dianetics.
> A big con? Well, there's a phrase they did say, which I've heard before:
> "You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all people
> all of the time" - and there's a lot of people involved - so I'm keeping
an
> open mind.
>
> My first impressions of them are: They're simply a business selling life
> improvement products and courses. So why do they call themselves a
> religioun?
A continuation/extension of Buddha's work and religious pursuits of
the past, involving bringing the spiritual being to higher heights of
ability and awareness perhaps could find no more of an appropriate
label. I don't know many Scientologists who argue with it nor many
who are that comfortable with it either, but it fits.
Religion has gotten a bad name in many circles, being based primarily
on chicanery and not delivering 'results.' Scientology is different
and does deliver on its promises.
> Secondly: I have another burning question which is bugging me, and I
> actually asked someone this at the event but sadly we couldn't delve into
> the answer as I had to dash off: As with many other religions, help is
> given so freely, out of love of ones' fellow man. Yet at Scientologist
> would, apparently, be approached by a homeless person, beg for help, and
> the Scientologist would refuse help unless the homeless destitute person
> gave them some money. Now that completely confuses me.
Most people earn their income. I think in Scientology's view, those
who don't, don't deserve to benefit and it can even worsen their
condition to 'receive without contributing.' They will get worse or
at best, not get better. It is not necessarily humanitarian or ideal
to give people welfare as they will have no incentive to work and will
decline.
> If I had something that could help the entire world, I would give of it
> freely. Why then does Scientology charge for it? Isn't it a business, a
> philosphy, instead of a religion?
>
> Now, I understand standing ovations, and some of the freedom medal winners
> had done some remarkable things (if the documentaries were anything to go
> by, and there's no reason to think otherwise): So, of course, when they
> went up on stage to collect their medals, some audience members would stand
> to applaud. Quite expected. Anyway, a curious and quite unnerving thing:
> at the end of each of the medal winners' speeched they would say something
> like, "And of course we applaud and honor LRH" - well, the reaction:
a
> thousand people would jumpt to attention out of their chairs and clap. It
> wasn't a standing ovation reaction where the people chose to stand up, it
> was more like a programmed reaction - they almost lept to their feet as
> soon as they speaker had said it.
>
>
> Tom Cruise: This was actually quite interesting for me to watch: We
> watched a pre-recorded video of a speech he gave regarding Study Tech. I
> don't know if someone can help me with this as I've heard conflicting info:
> Scientologists say that he only became famous after he became involved in
> Scientology. But I've also heard that that's incorrect: He was in Top Gun
> *before* he became a Scientologist. Can anyone clarify this?
>
>
> Another observation, which again proves to me that Scientology is more a
> business than a religion: after the IAS seminar was finished and we walked
> out of the Great Hall, I was pestered (a suitably fitting word) by people
> to subscribe to a DVD. I've been to motivational seminars in the past
> where the audience members are approached to purchase materials - of
> course, they've just been primed by the show. But for a religion to do
> that? That's the mark of a business, not a religion. I was very
> disappointed at this approach.
>
>
> I've also read some of the promotional material: To be honest, it's
> terribly difficult to understand a sentence unless you understand the
> terms. E.g., "In session I blew a massive amount of charge so fast,
I
> could not even see where it came from or what it was. My ARC for people has
> increased by about 200% and in session I get urges of ARC for people and
> have to end off because I am on a win." - to be honest, I really haven't
> got a clue what he's talking about. And that concerns me: it's almost as
> if Scientology trains its members to speak a language which cuts them off
> from the outside world, which, to me, seems unhealthy.
>
>
> Quantum: And onto that strange machine. I've never seen a machine, but
> I've just been going through the literature - I can see a man dressed in
> what looks like a captain's uniform, holding two tin cans. Further
> pictures show people with these machines in front of them, pointing a tin
> can at themselves. I'm a person who likes to understand things and I'm
> afraid I would almost be in fits of laughter to act the part and sit there
> with tin cans aimed at me whilst they do some "tests". Are these
machines
> just part of an elaborate show? Or are they for real? Has anyone even
> taken one of the machines apart and seen what's inside and what they
> technically do?
>
> I've also been approached to join the Sea Org - and I'm interested in this
> because they provide accomodation, food, etc. Personally, I'm all for
> working full time for an honorable cause: putting the world to rights.
>
> Finally: where can I go for further reading? Many thanks for all your help
> and advice. But please, do qualify any answers. Responses like "Stay
away
> from Scientology, it's evil" aren't useful to me, because it's in my
nature
> to respond with "Why?"
Stay away from criticism of Scientology. It's evil.
Phil