tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post608286082930669091..comments2023-09-18T04:45:52.991-07:00Comments on Ask the Scientologist: Scientology: The First LessonJust Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-80612783252140795392014-08-14T11:17:33.698-07:002014-08-14T11:17:33.698-07:00"I don't see LRH was a fraud".
Try ..."I don't see LRH was a fraud".<br /><br />Try harder. He <i>promised</i> "Clear" and <i>never</i> delivered anything even vaguely like his description of "Clear". He <i>promised</i> "OT" and <i>never</i> produced even <i>one</i>. Again and again and again he <i>promised</i> all sorts of wondrous gains and abilities that he actually <i>never delivered</i>.<br /><br />And all the time he was collecting <i>big bucks</i> from thousands of people specifically to deliver all these <i>promised</i> gains and abilities.<br /><br />And you <i>don't see</i> this as fraud? Really? What do you call selling things and <i>never delivering them</i>?<br /><br />It is one thing to "cleverly plagiarize" things but quite another to <i>sell</i> stuff that you <i>can't</i> and <i>won't</i> deliver.<br /><br />LRH got very, very wealthy and there are still no "Clears", still no "OTs". Tell me again how that's not fraud.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-90989599900039491622014-08-13T18:14:53.855-07:002014-08-13T18:14:53.855-07:00I was an ex-scientologist. I realized that it wasn...I was an ex-scientologist. I realized that it wasn't for me. In a way, though they do not admit it, they are the same as any followers of any religion. They revere their "God." And they fight against any who say otherwise because they are violating their right to believe. In my experience, as a past agnostic (now christian), I have to say that the best way to explain the religion of scientology is to say that it is (to me), Psychology, Philosophy, Buddhism and Christianity combined all together. It is a bit difficult to explain, but to keep things simple, I think the above is better to stick with.<br /><br /> Study-tech however, does work. I found that it is completely separate from the religion itself in the way that it deals with education, but still deals with psychology and philosophy. I took a college course about ethics and found that I read all of what the professor was talking about before. I read a book called "The Ethics Book," by L Ron Hubbard. I learned that whatever LRH "came up with and wrote" was actually the work of several other philosophers. "The Thinking Book," was also kind of developed in the same way, except that I believe it involved more psychology. <br /><br />I went to The Delphian School as well. And I would like to mention, that while I was there (by that time an ex-scientologist), no one ever tried to convert me at all. I learned that though many of the staff were scientologists, it was not a school for scientologists. I knew Buddhists that went to the school. I also knew Catholics, Christians, Athiests, Agnostics like me, Hindus, Muslims, etc. <br /><br />I can say now that though I don't see LRH was a fraud, I do see him as person who indirectly and very cleverly plagiarized a lot of stuff. If he came up with anything that was actually "true and would work" I'd have to give it to study-tech (though a lot of it was not his original ideas, some of it was and I can tell you that I, an F student becoming a straight A student, changed for the better with study-tech.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-138558641241187732008-09-24T00:14:00.000-07:002008-09-24T00:14:00.000-07:00I always like to refer back to Dianetics 55!, wher...I always like to refer back to Dianetics 55!, where Hubbard said that the E-meter was a useful research device, but he knew it was contrary to good auditing, since it put something between the auditor and the pre-clear, but now he knows the answer: comm lag alone is enough to determine case state and run sessions. (I'm paraphrasing.) And then there's a little footnote (at least in my copy) explaining that later research by Ron revealed that the E-meter is, in fact, a necessary device...<BR/><BR/>I haven't shown that to nearly enough Scientologists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-46534560082551301772008-07-04T15:38:00.000-07:002008-07-04T15:38:00.000-07:00Keep up the great posts!Keep up the great posts!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-20012937521282582992008-07-04T12:21:00.000-07:002008-07-04T12:21:00.000-07:00One of the most ridiculous and persistent claims t...One of the most ridiculous and persistent claims that a Scientologist will fall back on is that Scientology "technology" has been tested and proven in case after case, and anything that was not workable had been discarded. Yet there is NO evidence of this anywhere - no case studies, no tests, no documentation, no peer-reviewed papers. The source of this information? Hubbard, who claims, without any supporting evidence, that it has been rigorously tested. Hubbard says it was rigorously tested, therefore it was rigorously tested, despite the fact that he has never produced any evidence of this testing or any hard data. But he said it, therefore it must be true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com