Saturday, 27 August 2011

From the Scientology Blog - One Defence!

From the Scientology Blog

My respects go to the Philosophy Now forum for allowing me to pursue Scientology in description and matter in a blog-like form. I'm still a resident writer on this forum so you can visit it if you want the latest.

Here they are:

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:16 am

I am inspired by Barbara Brooks and Straw Dog to make a blog. This one will be of informational value. I will put up quotes from Scientology every day, preferably, to make people happy and more informed on the topic of Scientology. Obviously, I have not made it to the OT3-level and I will not touch any of that material that belongs to that level unless it may be of some generality.

Alright, here it starts. "Huh, you upstarts!"

First out, from the


"Scientology comprises a body of knowledge which extends from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these truths:

* Man is an immortal spiritual being.

* His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime.

* His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized.

Scientology further holds man to be basically good, and that his spiritual salvation depends upon himself and his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe. In that regard, Scientology is a religious philosophy in the most profound sense of the word, for it is concerned with no less than the full rehabilitation of man’s innate spiritual self — his capabilities, his awareness and his certainty of his own immortality. Furthermore, as religion deals with the spirit in relationship to itself, the universe and other life, and is essentially the belief in spiritual beings, Scientology follows a religious tradition that is at least as old as mankind. Yet what Scientology ultimately represents is new. Its religious technology is new, its ecclesiastical organization is new, and what it means to 21st-century man is entirely new."

Enjoy your life!

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:14 pm



Nonpolitical in nature, Scientology welcomes any individual of any creed, race or nation.

We seek no revolution. We seek only evolution to higher states of being for the individual and for society.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:50 pm

I give you this link: You are right! There is a hole in L. Ron Hubbard's ethics system, at least to what is stated.

Now, the contemporary teachings of Scientology emphasise the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the freedom of sexual orientation is secured there, I believe.

Also, it is not given that homosexual people are not positive in the sense of individual, group, Mankind, all living beings, for the physical universe, spirituality, and existence as infinity. Homosexual people can be said to contribute a whole lot even if one is not changing anything, but removing the remark naming homosexuality.

It may also be characteristic of that time, the 50's, to condemn or loathe homosexuality. We live for the better days and they are here!

In CoS-terms, there is only a problem with the 2nd Dynamic, but they fall the same with people living by themselves. Just so I have mentioned it.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:05 am

If you have a problem with Scientology, all I can say is that the system of Scientology proves itself to be efficient. It is the solution to the mysteries of life as I see it. Opposed to Christianity, Scientology is certainly superior. Eventually, you will have to sense the solution that works for you. I don't want to exchange opinions over eternal questions such as the soul, God, or any other here and now. I have put the New Code NLP on the shelves for now. Maybe I will get back to it later. That's it.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:10 pm

Todays contribution to the blog is brought into the picture by tbieter.


"What decision would he be likely to make?"

I think the Scientologist stands by the honesty.


"What ethical beliefs or doctrines in the Scientology religion would he rely upon in making his decision?"

Let me quote a book, A New Slant On Life, ISBN 978-1-4031-4686-1. It says on page 229:


"The least free is the person who cannot reveal his own acts and who protests the revelation of the improper acts of others. On such people will be built a future political slavery where we all have numbers - and our guilt - unless we act."

Those who abide by Scientology entails those who abide by the law. I think the Scientologist has a duty to be honest in this case in resolving objectively the situation at hand.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:34 pm

This will be todays addition to the blog.

You are supposed to get rid of the reactive mind in order to get the full command of your life, at least in the mind or of the mind. The goal is that you determine you! In the face of the eight dynamics you will stand a much better chance, that is leading the human kind into infinity. So the technology part helps you to gain control and to improve your chances in the present life and afterlife. Here is some more information:

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:35 pm

Quotes by Arising_uk.


"No more of a problem than I have with any other organized religion. I had a few experiences back in the 80s with CoS via their street 'proselytisers' and found the process faintly dubious as the questions were 'loaded' and they appeared to be targeting the more vunerable of mind and circumstance. Although I can understand how powerful an effect CoS techniques could have upon a person."

Alright. I am satisfied at least.


"You don't say what Scientology as a system proves itself to be efficient and superior at?"

In being the best and most reliably documented religion. The best betterment of people. The highest standards regarding ethics toward all people, universally.


"I thought the German Govt had banned its employees from being Scientologists?"

Not to my knowledge. There are at least two churches in Germany. One in Berlin and one in Düsseldorf.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:42 pm


What are the dynamics?

A Every individual has an urge and determination to survive. Pursuit of survival is the common denominator of all life.

For an individual, this drive for survival embraces eight distinct divisions known in Scientology as dynamics. The dynamics are best conceived as concentric circles with (1) self in the middle and extending to (2) family and sex, (3) groups, (4) mankind, (5) all life forms, (6) the physical universe, (7) spirituality and (8) infinity or the Supreme Being.

The first dynamic, self, is the effort to survive as an individual, to be an individual and to fully express one’s individuality.

The second dynamic is creativity. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity. The second dynamic contains the family unit and the rearing of children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family activity. It incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival.

The third dynamic is the urge to survive as a member of a group. A company, a political party, a church or a social organization are all examples of the third dynamic.

The fourth dynamic is the urge for survival of man as a species. All of the races of man together constitute the fourth dynamic.

The fifth dynamic is the urge to survive for all life forms—animal or vegetable and anything directly and intimately motivated by life.

The sixth dynamic is the urge for survival of the physical universe and reflects the drive of the individual to enhance the survival of all matter, energy, space and time—the component parts of the physical universe.

The seventh dynamic is the urge toward existence as a spiritual being.

The eighth dynamic is the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. Thus, this dynamic can be called the infinity, or God, dynamic.

As noted earlier, the dynamics can be conceived as a series of concentric circles in which the first dynamic would be the center and each new dynamic would be successively a circle outside the preceding circle. The individual, then, expands from the first into the other dynamics as his responsibility increases. For example, a baby at birth is not perceptive beyond the first dynamic, but as he grows and his interests expand he can be seen to embrace other dynamics, beginning with his family (second dynamic) with an awareness and appreciation of mother and father, to his school (third dynamic) and associating with other children, etc.

An individual’s ability is increased by improving his survival across the dynamics. As he becomes more capable and more aware, he becomes more able to control and influence all of his dynamics.

The goal of Scientology is to help an individual survive to the greatest level across all of his dynamics from the first and ultimately to the eighth.

From the website:

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:31 am

Quotes by mark black.


"Firstly, not every individual has an urge and determination to survive. Some people kill themselves."

At first I believe all people have an urge to survive. If they want to suicide that is something that occurs later when they suffer severe defeats. There is more about this in their books. Buy today! Http://


"Secondly, not all organisms pursue survival. Pursuit of a goal infers a forward facing strategy that can only occur in the context of conscious awareness of potential threats to existence. But even human beings have trouble with this one - i.e. the energy crisis, climate change, overpopulation etc."

I think all organisms have the urge to survive and that this is the deepest instinct of them all. If it is otherwise, something severe must have happened. If we have trouble with this one, perhaps we should become fewer by natural means.


"Thirdly, you begin with the individual."

The individual is after all closest to itself and there you have the start. Descartes has also started with the individual and many more, I reckon.


"Three strikes and you're out."

See the strikes as you want!

Quote by Richard Baron.


"Mr Hubbard should not have stopped identifying his writings as fiction."

Mr. Hubbard has developed his writings in connection to alleviating or curing the traumas of WWII-victims. He has gotten wounded and sent to a hospital after serving as a naval officer in the war. In the hospital, he meets with other patients and it starts from there. Http:// or

Quote by Arising_uk.


""L.R.Hubbard: Dianectics(1992)".

Who added the extra four, him or later disciples? Why would they be needed? Do you think its a 'chinese whisper' problem?"

Hubbard has developed the Dianetics earlier on, it says 1950 in my book, Dianetics - The Modern Science of Mental Health ISBN 978-1-4031-4446-1. He, personally, has added the other four as he developed Dianetics into Scientology later on. The addition, perhaps, completes the picture more in full. Thus, there is no 'Chinese whisper' problem.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:27 pm

Scientology says all organisms pursue survival. I'm not sure it necessarily gives any inference to the extent of conscious awareness, but so be it.

mark black writes:

"What natural means do you suggest?"

I simply mean the act of getting fewer kids, not 7, but 2 or 1. So it may take a long time to have any effect.

Further, quote:

"Scientology is wrong."

Say what you like! It's just religion.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:52 pm

Quote by mark black:

"If you feel the emotional need for religion, I don't know why you don't stick with the original story - God the Creator, rather than Zoltan - the alien overlord. Isn't that also the name of a bathroom cleanser?"

Thanks for asking! I stick to the story of God in the deistic sense ( and I combine it with the scientific story to the greatest extent possible. Nothing can make me believe in any alien story unless it is scientifically proven!

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:13 pm

Zoltan, the alien, and God are mutually exclusive concepts in that they can't represent one another, existence is a different matter. Besides, I don't want my God to have a name after a bathroom cleanser. Please, don't call my God names!

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:19 pm

Quotes by Arising_uk.


"My copy(found recently in a charity shop) only dated 1992?"



"With respect to Xenu, OT3 and the general add-on of clearing engrams back through past-lives. Am I being cynical in asumming that these may have been economic decisions based upon 'releases' actually becoming 'clears' and hence falling revenues?"

There is no ethics that can justify the inventions of concepts simply for the reason of money within the Scientology. Hubbard has been very successful before he is establishing the Church so I find no economic motive for him, personally.


"Or, in keeping with other religions, are these metaphors for some experience in the process, or, are they considered 'real'?"

I can't think of any and I for one, certainly don't consider them real.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:29 pm

This is todays contribution to the blog.

By Arising_uk.


"As a sci-fi fan I'd say semi-succesful as his light was waning, along with all the 50s sci-fi brigade."

Hubbard writes in A New Slant on Life, page 273: (He publishes his book of Dianetics in May, 1950.)


"Therefore, since 1950 I have had Mankind knocking on my door. It has not mattered where I have lived or how remote. Since I first published a book on the subject, my life has no longer been my own. I like to help others and count it as my greatest pleasure in life to see a person free himself of the shadows which darken his days."

There you have his success with Dianetics and his motive.


"...but I'm dubious about a 'religion' that adds re-incarnation."

I'm also in doubt regarding this, but then again I think there is a need for a cycle if you first believe in souls as much as there is a need for a cycle regarding God and infinity to what the destiny of this universe is.


"What will you do if your elders say they are?"

That is their opinion that I unfortunately can't cure.


"Loads of luck (what is this?) in your assessment. I doubt the OT3 wil come up :)



"I did not say that the German Govt. has banned the religion, just that, if you profess membership you will not get a Govt job."

I just infer that as the religion is there in society, I think they also get jobs in the Gov't, at least at the lower levels.

By Richard Baron.


"True. It would be deeply unethical if it happened. But that fact does not prove that it doesn't happen."

I find it hard to believe that the official matters of Scientology are not consistent with the activities of Scientology. Scientology mentions honesty quite a lot and it also looks very much down on crime.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:29 pm

I'm aware of the book, "The Open Society and Its Enemies", by Popper. The reason why I think Scientology copes well with democracy is because of its ethics standards and its constructive efforts to society beneficiary both to believers and non-believers alike. Now, obviously, Scientology is not falsifiable because it's a religion.



"Why is Scientology a religion?

Scientology meets all three criteria generally used by religious scholars when examining religions: (1) a belief in some Ultimate Reality, such as the Supreme Being or eternal truth that transcends the here and now of the secular world; (2) religious practices directed toward understanding, attaining or communicating with this Ultimate Reality; and (3) a community of believers who join together in pursuing the Ultimate Reality.

Scientology’s belief in an Ultimate Reality that transcends the material world include its concepts of the thetan, the spiritual world (the seventh dynamic) and the Supreme Being (the eighth dynamic). The second element can be found in Scientology’s life-rite ceremonies such as naming, marriage and funeral services, but predominantly in the religious services of auditing and training, through which Scientologists increase their spiritual awareness and attain an understanding of the spiritual world and, ultimately, their relationship with the Supreme Being. As to the third element, a very vital community of believers can be found at any church of Scientology at almost any time of the day.

Scientology is thus a religion in the oldest sense of the word. Scientology helps man become more aware of God, more aware of his own spiritual nature and that of those around him. Scientology Scripture recognizes that there is an entire dynamic (urge or motivation in life) devoted to the Supreme Being (the eighth dynamic) and another dynamic that deals solely with one’s urge toward existence as a spirit (the seventh dynamic). Acknowledgment of these aspects of life is a traditional characteristic of religions." End of quote.

Consequently, Scientology doesn't try to be pseudo-scientific at all. I'm doubtful of the workings of the E-meter on one hand, but the foundations of Scientology are as sound as they can be before the leap of faith. I don't think Scientology ever goes outside of its own boundaries what regards its own ethics without facing its own destruction. I think Scientology as a system certainly has the edge over other belief-systems, exactly because of its openness.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:08 pm

I don't deny the idea that there may be aliens around in the universe or others, but the idea of Xenu, the alien overlord over humanity in secret, is just too much for me. I'm repelled by it.

Then todays contribution. It is about Authority!

Let me quote a book, A New Slant On Life, ISBN 978-1-4031-4686-1. It says on page 41.


"So, the only advice I can give you is to study Scientology for itself and use it exactly as stated, then form your own opinions. Study it with the purpose in mind of arriving at your own conclusions as to whether the tenets you have assimilated are correct and workable. Compare what you have learned with the known universe. Seek for the reasons behind a manifestation, and postulate the manner and in which direction the manifestation will likely proceed. Do not allow the authority of any one person or school of thought to create a foregone conclusion within your sphere of knowledge."

Clearly, this passage is respectful of the autonomy of the individual. So the followers of Scientology are encouraged to be critical of the system. To me, that's positive!

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:49 pm

I can meet you halfway. There are parts of the Scientology that are religious and there are parts of it that are scientific. Those parts which are claimed to be scientific should be falsifiable. I think that science is in certain instances being used as a saying of soundness rather than meaning the commonly acknowledged science. Science is being used in a religious context, maybe, not meaning science as science in society.

Otherwise, to those who are dissatisfied with Scientology, you can call me Deist, especially of the analytical kind. To those who are happy with Scientology, you can call me Scientologist. I have found an intellectual need to have the concept of God around in order to put some of my searches for explanations to rest. If some people come up with a better concept, I'll be happy to put my belief in it. God as an idea is truly a classic concept and if it turns out to be as right as Democritus' Atoms then my belief is well placed. I have been at times at the verge of inventing my own religion, but stumbling upon Scientology has made this unnecessary as it coincides very well with my own beliefs.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:27 pm

Gustaf writes:

"Which parts are religious?"

I don't know exactly, but you may begin with the engrams and continue from there.

Further, quote:

"I have no idea what you mean by that. And yes, I understood every single word."

You better live with it then. You also may want to read more than just the single sentence.


"But if you want more examples, I have enough material on hand to provide them, although I really hope this is enough."

I'll also look out for more examples in the future so that more clarity may be brought to the picture concerning the use of the word "science".


"From your own description of your beliefs, you seem more like a Freezoner than a standard Scientologist."

They seem equally good to me.


"Also, to the best of my knowledge, Freezone is a lot cheaper. Do you really want to pay thousands of dollars to become a Clear? Or tens of thousands to find out about Xenu in OT3?"

Maybe not. It depends on the results of applying the books to my life. I'll see where the sole use of the books takes me.

That's it. I like to encourage people to buy the basic books first, then see if you like it and then go deeper with the Church of Scientology.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:50 am

By mark black.


"How can alex to continue to contribute to his blog without adressing the serious concerns raised by Morpheus."

I have taken notice of Morpheus' posts in this thread. The way I see it, is that Morpheus gives his side of the case on Scientology and so his posts stand well on their own. Morpheus hasn't addressed me directly and in regard to his posts I don't think there is a need to. I find the link of Stacey Brooks in Morpheus' post of Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:49 pm particularly interesting. You should check it out if you haven't already done so. I disagree with her conclusion, though.

By Morpheus.


"...that Freezone (as Alex [Aetixintro, myself] promotes) is a differing style of Scientology..."

I promote the Church of Scientology. The sound structure and financial muscle of CoS may prove useful in the future to withstand the test of time.

By Richard Baron.


"Should one consider this to be dishonest?"

No, they are separate issues.

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:08 pm

Richard Baron writes:

" addition to the intellectual contempt which their doctrines merit."

Exactly which doctrines are you referring to here? I find no intellectual contempt within Scientology, just encouragement. I'm sorry the CoS is asking for your hard earnt money. Try to ignore it!

Here is something I have taken from I'll come back with more personal stuff over Christmas as I digest more by then.


"How are Churches of Scientology supported financially?

By their members, just like every other church.

Some churches have a system of tithes, others require their members to pay for pew rentals, religious ceremonies and services. In the Church of Scientology, parishioners make donations for auditing and training they wish to receive. These contributions by Scientologists are the primary source of financial support for the Church and fund all the religious and social betterment activities the Church engages in. Scientologists are not required to tithe or make other donations.

Scientology does not have hundreds of years of accumulated wealth and property like other religions - it must make its way in the world according to the economics of today’s society. When one considers the cost of ministering even one hour of auditing, requiring extensively trained specialists, and the overhead costs of maintaining church premises, the necessity of donations become clear.

The Church selected the donation system as its primary funding because it is the most equitable method. Those who use the facilities of the church should be the ones who contribute most to its maintenance. Of course, no donation is expected from members who are at the church to participate in services other than auditing and training—listening to tape plays of L. Ron Hubbard’s lectures, reading scriptural works in the church library, meeting with fellow parishioners, receiving counseling from the Chaplain or attending Sunday services, sermons, weddings, christenings and funerals.

Scientologists’ donations keep the Church alive and functioning, fund its widespread social reform programs, make Scientology known to people who may otherwise never have the opportunity to avail themselves of it, and help to create a safe and pleasant environment for everyone."

Post subject: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:38 pm

Richard Baron writes:

"We may be at cross-purposes. I did not mean contempt purveyed by them, but intellectual contempt which is rightly directed at them. I am thinking of all the pseudo-scientific waffle about theta, genetic energy, the ARC and KRC triangles and the eight dynamics, all of which might be fine as (bad) poetry but which purports and fails to give factual information. Then there is the auditing nonsense. And that is before we get on to the hilarious Xenu stuff, not a patch on decent mythology such as the sexual adventures of Zeus."

I agree to some extent. In order to build a bridge to some kind of heaven, you have to start somewhere. I don't stop dead at nature, simply. If you're an atheist this may seem fine, but it doesn't account fully for the potential of my human being, the way I see it.

Today's bit for the blog, from


"What is auditing?

Auditing is the term given to the spiritual counseling which is the central practice of Dianetics and Scientology. It is delivered by an auditor (from the Latin word audire, meaning to listen)—a person trained and expert in the exact techniques of Dianetics and Scientology.

The goal of auditing is to restore individual ability. It is a precise, thoroughly codified activity with precise procedures.

An auditor uses exact sets of questions asked to help a person find out things about himself and improve his condition. An unlimited number of questions could, of course, be asked—which might or might not help a person. The accomplishment in Dianetics and Scientology is that L. Ron Hubbard isolated the precise questions and directions to invariably improve a person’s ability and remove the impediments to his or her spiritual growth.

An auditor does not engage in some vague form of mental exploration, nor does an auditor offer solutions, advice or evaluation. One of the fundamental principles of the Scientology religion is that an individual can improve his conditions only if he is allowed to find his own answers to life’s problems. Scientology auditors help individuals to accomplish this goal by guiding them to examine their existence through a carefully structured series of steps that Mr. Hubbard developed. By following this gradient process, individuals can improve their ability to face what they are and where they are."

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:35 pm

Why is it that the documentary [by John Sweeney] is so strangely unbalanced? Why is it necessary to show upset Scientologists in the introduction? Oh, you're dramatising! That is fair, obviously! You are not using arguments appealing to feelings, are you? Why don't you mention that Scientology is the only religion that incorporate the Human Rights? Why don't you mention that no matter what you believe, you are always a good person in the eyes of Scientology? BBC, you can do better than that! As far as I know, there is not a single, factual reference to Scientologists' motivation or the actual material on the internet. You only want to stir people up! It's cheap journalism!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:29 pm

However, I like to invite you to watch 3 videos of a Scientology information campaign. The links:

Search, Life, and You.

Personally, I like the "Search"-video the best. Enjoy!

To the people of France: it is outrageous that Scientology is taken to court! The case must be dismissed. I can't understand why these two adult women can't place their investments properly! Are they going to make a plea for insanity?

So, people of France, please get to know both scientologists and the teachings of Scientology! Some of the books come in paperbacks so it doesn't take much. It's wonderful! Find your natural end within Scientology! Welcome!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:59 pm

The issue is to just initiate an interest in and that's it! Very little to ask, I say! I think the commercials are fair! One should remember that Scientology is very tolerant and respectful to other people and religions. In fact, I don't know of any better system when it comes to these qualities and still people are encouraged to keep sound ethics and believe in infinity. To believe in infinity should come as something very natural to most people.

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:51 pm

It's with pleasure, I find the lights lit over Los Angeles! Blessed is the Scientology. To Infinity!

I'll provide you with this excellent opportunity to get an introduction to new churches of Scientology and upcoming ones. Here: There is also other material there you may want to see and know.

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:17 am

I can hardly think that people become religious of fx. Buddhism so that they can hate non-Buddhists.

Summarise on Scientology: tolerance (it welcomes every religious belief unlike many other religions like JCI), inclusion (it doesn't reject a single individual, initially), non-condemnation of non-Scientologists (it doesn't condemn people for not being part of the religion, also unlike many other religions), it has an emphasis on human rights at its core and finally, it celebrates human virtues and values!

So why the criticism? Xenu? There's no mentioning of Xenu in the basics and I claim to recall that everything in Scientology lies in the scope of the Basics (paperbacks you can buy for 50-100$)!

On all the good issues mentioned, I can certainly say that Scientology deserves no criticism, being in line with Buddhism, Shintoism and all the other (well-established) religions, at least far less than Christianity (and the paradox of killing God's son and the blatant condemnation of non-believers)!

Note: To be charitable of Operation Clambake (or so), there may be a possibility that Scientology over-value/over-emphasise all of L. Ron Hubbard's work and thus fails to separate the Scientology and his rubbish/non-sense/entertaining science-fiction, importing the idea of Xenu into a system, Scientology, that has been originally designed to be considered without the science-fiction, of course!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:22 pm

Xenu has been explained? The lawyers protect the Church from being tarnished? Scientology has no duty to be strictly scientific because it's a religion? If engrams and the famous e-meter work for them, why not?

Now, tell me, please, have you tested the glorious, shining, gratifying energies flowing from a female auditor and directly to you? Eh.. eh.. Want to try? Eh.. eh.. Ohh.. come on.. a couple of steps out of your building and right across the street... you know where they are...

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:18 pm

Anyhow, from Dianetics, The Original Thesis, p. 81, I'd like to quote this, about the Auditor's Code:

Auditor's Code, "The code is nearly "Christlike", (in Scientology there are many Christs while Christianity only has one and that one has been killed).

The auditor must be confident, in that he must continually reassure the preclear when restimulated engrams cause despondancy on the preclear's part. A cheerful, optimistic presence encourages the preclear through his most painful experiences.

The auditor must be courageous, never permitting himself to be intimidated by either the aggression or hostility of the preclear.

The auditor must be kind, never indulging in hostilities or personal prejudices.

The auditor must be trustworthy, [...]

An auditor must be clean, [...odours...]

The auditor must take care not to offend the [...]

The auditor must be persistent, [...]

The auditor must be patient, never [...]

(Maybe I'll fill the gaps, but you have the exact location at least!)

One note also on the economy to have children. I think Scientology writes that you should have as many children as your economy allows. However, this can be interpreted to be in the scope of 0, 1, 2 and 3 children in correspondence to "economy" interpreted as economy of what both the traditional economy allows, but also the economy of ecology (when or if or hypothetical) estimates of it, have been "priced in". As such, there should be no problem with having only one child for most.

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:54 pm

The link: that happens to work.

With this Free Zone (Scientology), I see sprawling people, possibly suffering from paranoia. What is so wrong with financing and supporting (according to your ability) the castle/fortress of Scientology? At least, when you buy the books (the basics, 50-100$), you know you get the actual, correct books. What is the track record of Free Zone (Scientology), anyway? Probably, only a rat's nest, the way I see it. One of the many feats of Scientology is the many translations to other languages and with Scientology, you are guaranteed the real stuff backed by their ethics. With Free Zone, it's almost as if you're given this hand-written, half-self-made something that no-one knows the origin of.

Buy the books from Scientology, for Christ's sake!

Besides, considering this, I think it looks ridiculous:

"The first group to use the term 'Free Zone' was the organization founded by "Captain" Bill Robertson in 1982, now known as RON's Org (acronym for Ron's Organization and Network for Standard Technology). The name came from the "space opera" beliefs Robertson expressed in the "Free Zone Decree", which he said was an Official Decree of the "Galactic Grand Council" which was "relayed from Mainship, Sector 9":

1. The planet known as Teegeeack - local dialect "Earth" or Terra - Sun 12, Sector 9, is hereby declared a Free Zone.

2. No political interference in its affairs from any other part of the Sector or Galaxy will be tolerated.

3. No economic interference in its affairs will be tolerated from any non-planetary agency or power.

4. All of its inhabitants are hereby declared Free Zone Citizens and free of external political or economic interference. [7]

The name "Teegeeack" had already been established as a galactic name for Earth by Hubbard in the materials known as OT III, which tell the story of Xenu.[8]

Free Zone - an area not controlled by evil organizations or implanters, but free to expand spiritually (Sector 9 by Astar)[3]"

I wonder what drugs they are on?

This is a religion thread (Philosophy of Religion) and this "blog" is about Scientology so I'd like to end this post with the following:

Scientology needs no victims. Its thinking is wholly positive and its system is designed to generate the absolutely best!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:46 pm

Everyone knows the science of psychiatry/psychology is changing with the winds!

However, I see no reason why there can't be thorough scientific investigations carried out concerning the e-meter and the (alleged) mentality change (free from "engrams") from the auditing.

Xenu. I feel the Xenu has been discussed out and in! I want nothing to do with it! I can't see that it plays any vital role, either. On the documentary, the Xenu has been denied a number of times. Are you in the belief they are lying to you? How do you want it rubbed in?

As you can't care less, I see the possibility of some stupid word-play, but there's probably room for "Scientology and Xenu in the Eyes of [some name]". Alright?

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:08 pm

Richard Baron writes:

"Instead it was about your claim that one is better off with the official version of Scientology than with the Free Zone."

First of all, I've just been visiting the "organised" Free Zone'rs and there's certainly no possibility for getting to the book catalogue because that link is dead as with many other links on the website. Why not buy the books from an organisation that has a decent face and financial muscle to show for in presenting fine quality prints. Hardback, if paperback isn't available.

I don't see the point of exposing oneself with such an idea as Xenu if you want to remain credible to the public. So I don't think either one of your two points represents any explanation. I also find it strange that the topic is mostly brought up by people who haven't had anything to do with Scientology or people who have barely touched the organisation. I would expect more people to drop out of Scientology if it is such a fact that Xenu is central to Scientology. Obviously, as people stay in, my conclusion is that there is no Xenu there! How can a bad idea generate money? Even Star Trek comes out more credible than Xenu.

Richard Baron writes:

"I don't want Scientology banned, but I would like to see it laughed out of business."

Not only does this explain your fixation of Xenu, but I suppose you want it replaced with your Atheism as well?

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:23 am

As such, I think Scientology is devoted to be a force for good and also the possibly existing best on earth. It will be up to the religions, especially Scientology in my eyes, to make the display of this and show how religious views are superior to non-religious ones. This will rely on everyone showing leadership for this cause for the future. Actual action makes the example to follow!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:52 pm

I'll now provide you with this excellent opportunity to get an introduction to new churches of Scientology and upcoming ones. Here: There is also other material there you may want to see and know.

If you have any objections to this blog of Scientology, I'd like to hear about it. I really like to inform on the superior quality of Scientology as religious belief, most certainly in competition to other religious alternatives, although a combination of these two may be very good as well (the other being a well-established religion and not some hack of a lunatic).

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:58 am

Some hack of a lunatic is meant to imply that this lunatic is alone in this person's religious ramblings.

Please, see it all in context, Scientology is indeed a well-established, having churches and missions in all the prominent places all over the world, where you [adversary to Scientology] probably don't go! :-)

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:04 am

At least, "Being "well-established" and "having churches and missions in all the prominent places all over the world"" reduces the likelihood of being both a cult in every meaning of the word and refutes the possibility of "being some hack of a lunatic" which is where you have objected.

I can agree to some extent that it may appear "outdated", but it's still effective, most certainly in large parts. It also represents the most serious and modern religious alternative there exists today!

Philosophically, it means it should be taken serious as it has grown out of its crib and that it appears more interesting than the charicatures/myth-telling of certain other well-established religions. Thus, it may be here to be credible to people who want a non-contradictive religious opportunity, promoting "serious" religion (perhaps even in scientific terms, maintaining the possibility of being coherent to science).

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:29 pm

From Wikipedia:

"In the meantime a handful of high profile crimes were committed by groups identified as cults, or by the groups' leaders. The mass suicides committed by members of the People's Temple in Jonestown, Guyana, and the Manson Family murders are perhaps the most prominent examples in American popular culture. The publicity of these crimes, as amplified by the Anti-cult movement, influenced the popular perception of new religious movements[citation needed]. In the mass media, and among average citizens "cult" gained an increasingly negative connotation, becoming associated with things like kidnapping, brainwashing, psychological abuse, sexual abuse and other criminal activity, and mass suicide. While most of these negative qualities usually have real documented precedents in the activities of a very small minority of new religious groups, mass culture often extends them to any religious group viewed as culturally deviant however peaceful or law abiding it may in fact be.[14][15][16]

In the late 1980s psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind-control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic coercive psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of rational choice.[17][18] Most sociologists and scholars of religion also began to reject the term "cult" altogether because of its negative connotations in mass culture. Some began to advocate the use of new terms like "new religious movement", "alternative religion" or "novel religion" to describe most of the groups that had come to be referred to as "cults",[19] yet none of these terms have had much success in popular culture or in the media. Other scholars have pushed to redeem the term as one fit for neutral academic discourse,[20] while researchers aligned with the Anti-cult movement have attempted to reduce the negative connotations being associated with all such groups by classifying only some as "destructive cults"." End of quote.

Now that Scientology is characterised as cult by some, I'd like to write something about that. It's worth noting where the Church of Scientology has its missions and churches, mostly prominent and populous places. Its Ethics, also called common-sense Ethics by the church itself, can be seen as reasonable and very much good among the general (world) population! The church is outgoing and it's easy to get information on what it stands for. It doesn't spell doom and Hell on Earth to the world! Quite the opposite, it encourages its members and the general public to be constructive to the society at large! It's also possible to subscribe to its RSS feed via the twitter account that tells you of the Church's latest efforts, Haiti.

With Scientology, always a pleasure!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:17 pm

A quick response is this: I find it logical over ethics, meaning, infinity and the open possibility of God within it. Thank you!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:36 pm

The following quote comes from this,

Aetixintro [myself] writes:

"I see this quite large list of references. Where is it from? I also note that only two works are actually written by L. Ron Hubbard and even then it's very unclear whether they are official Scientology teachings!"


i_blame_blame writes:

"Aetixintro writes:

"There's not a single member of Scientology actually forcing you to read it! It's clearly wholly voluntarily!"

"Just like any other con.""

Then it's certainly a self-con! I guess they are their own fools!

"[A little later:] Is it from something like this: At least here it says: "...Earthly events, collectively described as space opera by Hubbard..."! Isn't space opera in fact space opera because it's fiction?!

You should also take note of L. Ron Hubbard's scientific education of Engineering (by a notable university in New York?)! I also take note of this: "Members of the Church of Scientology widely deny or try to hide the Xenu story." Since when did a protest or a claim become an evidence of falsehood? And why can't I equally well consider these obsessed people who write so stupidly about Scientology and are so unwilling to give it any credit whatsoever for fixated and mad? This for now!"

This is a response to this:

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:17 pm

Aetixintro writes:

i_blame_blame writes:

Wikipedia. Nothing in the Bible was even allegedly written by Jesus. According to myth, the Quran wasn't written by Muhamamad. Something doesn't have to be written by "the main man" to be accepted as official teaching.

I need the specific link (or you're the con-man...)! What is this non-sense about Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh? Why do you try to draw it out to where L. Ron Hubbard is not the accused author of the Xenu-story where he intended for official Scientology teachings?

i_blame_blame writes:

Perhaps the leaders of Scientology, who rake in all the monies believe all that stuff themselves. If you have a conscience, it's psychologically easier to believe you're helping people by getting richer, rather than hurting them. It's the same with the wealthy leaders of every other religion. We can't know for sure if they believe their lies. Luther believed the Pope etc to be agents of the devil.

Luther, you...! You're throwing out all this dubious stuff! Get it backed up, for Christ's sake!

i_blame_blame writes:


On March 10, 2001, a user posted the text of OT3 to the online community Slashdot. The site owners took down the comment after the Church of Scientology made a legal threat under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.[75][76]

How could Scientology file a DMCA claim if they don't hold a copyright to the Xenu story?

I don't know, but I still need the reference! Why is it so hard to get the title of actual books out of you? Give me the real thing!

i_blame_blame writes:

"So an education in science or engineering prevents you from making up shit?"

At least then he's not some lunatic from some strange alley! Also, it's then plausible that he knows of and has a good foundation in the sciences. Not only that, but he may/might have done something other than writing this "shit" by choosing a standard career! What do we know of how much respect he was given by his peers/alumni at the time? It may have been quite some!

i_blame_blame writes:

"It doesn't. But if propagation of the "knowledge" of Xenu is only reserved for the most expensive courses, they would have an interest in hiding it."

"May I ask how much money you've spent on scientology "services" and materials so far?

In germany, catholics and protestants pay a tenth of their income tax to their church."

First it's being denied by outright testimony, then you claim that they hide what they pay for? No, it's the other way around! It makes Scientology look bad, therefore these people (mostly Atheists? Other strange people? Clambake, certainly) try to stick this non-sense onto Scientology!

Money? Not much, but I do support them wholeheartedly!

Is the money tax-deductible? Like in USA? :-)

i_blame_blame writes:

"In what way do they write stupidly? Perhaps they are obsessed with it because they've been f*cked over by it. You can consider them to be whatever the f*ck you want." Certainly, I believe what I want, just like you! The "critical" writings are blatantly stupid because they fail to admit of at least a few obviously good virtues in Scientology (fx. it's adherence to human rights and it's non-condemnation of non-believers). Scientology is in fact a lot more tolerant than all other religions, I believe.

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:48 pm

On the other hand, I want you to check this link from Wikip. on L. Ron Hubbard:

I note that "Hubbard left the university after only two years and never earned a college degree". I've also believed that he was injured while in military service and being in combat with the enemy of WWII, the Japanese, but this seems wrong too, from this report!

So there you go! Hubbard may have slipped a couple of notches, but I still think his Scientology is to prefer rather than the obscene ancient, non-tolerant stories of other religions! Yes, not very...

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:12 pm

I'm listening to Scientology's presentation of L. Ron Hubbard here:

Here they claim that "...he was highly decorated for duties under fire..." and "...and ended his service in a military hospital where he was treated for wounds suffered in combat!" What and where are these decorations from the WWII?

It should therefore be possible to investigate this against the counter claim of the Wikip.: "In 1947, Hubbard wrote to the Veterans Administration requesting psychiatric help.[55]" Footnote 55: Photocopy of Veteran Administration letter by L. Ron Hubbard - link:

So, as Scientology is failing to support their claim, I take this photocopy for representing the correct story.

[Edit, 08.07.2010:] I've sent an email (through website interface) to 06.07.2010. I give them a week to answer it. I'm also thinking about publishing the (contents of the) email here in a new post. They probably know about the L. Ron Hubbard page on Wikip. either way. We'll see what happens!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:51 pm

It's correct as you say, but either this is a less glamourous or it's indeed some kind of aftermath of him having been in the war, you know, suffering from traumas or something. But the right thing to do, is to set this in context with the rest of the story, of him commanding his ship outside the American continent and seeing the only combat of hunting two alleged non-existent submarines. It doesn't add up! It's therefore I think this story is counter to the story of Scientology. Like there are two completely different stories leading up to this point (also included)!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:38 am

I doubt there will ever appear any "Jesus" within Scientology. Even though, L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige are widely celebrated, it all comes down to the official teachings...

"Central to Scientology beliefs is a conviction that all humankind is entitled to inalienable rights. So it is that for more than 50 years Scientologists have championed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

And thus: "Born Free and Equal"

Two links:

Now the hard question is, is it for the money?? No, I'm just kidding!!!!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:03 am

I think it's clear that it must be up to the Church itself to maximise the donation! I mean, if the patron intends the money for church than it should be the church that allocates the money according to the church's business.

It seems to me that you should critisise the U.S. American tax system rather than the patron or the (charitable by tax code) church! I think you direct criticism to the wrong place, simply...

[Edit, 14.07.2010:] I've written an email through a feedback form on their/our website, on 06.07.2010 which is the following:

"Dear Scientology

Before I continue, I like to point out some of the words of The Way to Happiness, especially those under 7. Seek to live with the truth and 7-2 Do not bear false witness!

I find that your story of L. Ron Hubbard on this point, "...and ended his service in a military hospital where he was treated for wounds suffered in combat!" is controversial because Wikipedia claims "In 1947, Hubbard wrote to the Veterans Administration requesting psychiatric help.[55]" Footnote 55: Photocopy of Veteran Administration letter by L. Ron Hubbard".

The actual photocopy can be obtained here:

I've written about it here:

If this narrative discrepancy isn't corrected then I find that Scientology doesn't live up to its own ethics, publicly displayed!

I'm currently... (personal info).

I await an answer.

Sincerely yours

(Mr.) Terje Lea

PS: It may very well be that this writing is also to be written publicly.

PS2: I keep a record of this correspondance."

So there it is, I guess Scientology PR is a bit stuck-up!

[Edit, 14.08.2010:] I've still not received an answer from Church of Scientology and I probably will not be given one either, I guess. Too bad really. [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:35 pm

Here are some excellent updates on various issues. I must also add that Wikip.'s Scientology article also looks better now. Here: The Scientology. A peek into the OT levels of Ch. of Scient. Very interesting! The Xenu story! I think it's now definite that this is indeed a matter of being a Space Opera, whether Hubbard has been in playful mood or not, in opposing dubious people. The Space Opera story in terms of Scientology. I see no reason why Hubbard uses Space Opera unless it applies and I doubt he has ever tried to redefine language in the sense that Space Opera is supposed to be anything else than mere assertions and playfulness of giving hope far beyond any sh*theads who always spread their pessimism around. You can also check out this rather sceptical story of Scientology that's made by Los Angeles Times. A fine URL to some Scientology glossary stuff. (It takes time to access, at least with me, so please be patient.)

I hope you like this post and find it useful.

(I also have the impression that some of the information is still unnecessarily biased toward atheism and "my religion is better than yours"-type of thing.)

(It may be noted that while Clambake boasts the Greece throwing out Scientology in 1997, I've used the Sci. Church Locator and found this:
"Eλλ&alphaacute;δα (Greek) Dianetics and Scientology Centre
Patision 200
Athens, 11256
Why don't you give them a call?

So there are certainly issues with the critics as well!)

Over at, believe it or not, I've found this excellent link to which has all the information on Hubbard's military life prior to his writing career and all else. Examples:


USNR-OFF 19 JUL 41-21 SEP 41

USNR-OFF 22 SEP 41-06 OCT 41 07 OCT 41-23 NOV 41

USNR-OFF 24 NOV 41-16 FEB 46 17 FEB 46-30 OCT 50

06 OCT 1941 Honorably released from temporary active duty

16 FEB 1946 Honorably released from active duty

30 OCT 1950 Resignation accepted and honorably discharged from the naval service

Date of Birth: 13 March 1911

Place of Birth: Tilden, Nebraska


19 JUL 1941 Lieutenant (junior grade), U.S. Naval Reserve

15 JUN 1942 Lieutenant, U.S. Naval Reserve"



American Defense Service Medal

American Campaign Medal

Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal

World War II Victory Medal"

Conclusion: Hubbard is not any particular war hero, but has undertaken military service honourably and earnt the the following report:

"January 27, 1945, marked the end of Hubbard's time at Princeton. He had achieved a respectable score and a satisfactory report:

This officer has completed the course in Military Government at Princeton University standing about midway in the class of three hundred. He is forceful, resourceful, alert and wellpoised. He has a very good personal and above average military character. He is well fitted for promotion and is so recommended.

(Source: L. Ron Hubbard Fitness Report, 28 Sept 1944 - Jan 27 1945)"


The exact files that are now embedded:
(These files may get embedded later.)

All that now is needed is a more sober biography/history of Hubbard and spell Scientology for what it is and should be and the future looks bright!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:43 am

You may want to check out Cheondoism of South Korea. Link:

It may also be that Scientology is to a great extent based on this religion or that it has been a significant influence on L. Ron Hubbard's thinking!

For you to investigate!

Post subject: Re: The Church of Scientology. The Blog of the PN-forum. PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:14 am

It appears that John Sweeney once again hits the wall of Scientology with his "Scientology and Its Secrets", 2010.

Here:! 1st part of 4. Make sure you see all 4 parts, please! 2nd part of 4. 3rd part of 4. 4th part of 4.
Gonzo journalism:!
The shortest effective objection against the cult-notion of Scientology is to ask which other can you compare it with? Scientology is outgoing and prominent (by presence). Which cult is outgoing and prominent?

Consider these: the death cult of Japan, the wacko Waco in Texas, the Manson family and all the rest! Make known an instance of cult similar to Scientology, please! The answer must be: there is not ONE! because Scientology is simply NOT a cult!

Cults (again):
Aum Shinrikyo (currently known as Aleph) is a Japanese "new religious movement". The group was founded by Shoko Asahara in 1984. The group gained international notoriety in 1995, when it carried out the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. From Wikipedia.

The People's Temple in Jonestown, Guyana.

The Manson Family.

The Solar Temple.

(This is from Wikipedia. Other cults to follow!)

Please also remember that Scientology is no small enterprise. It does have some 5 Million members(?). It's a well-established body with able people! It's not some lunatics' gathering!

More on Scientology size of members (from Wikipedia):

"In 2007, the German national magazine Der Spiegel reported about 8 million members worldwide, about 6000 of them in Germany, with only 150-200 members in Berlin.[63] In 1993, a spokesperson of Scientology Frankfurt had mentioned slightly more than 30,000 members nationwide.[64]

The organization has said that it has anywhere from eight million to fifteen million members worldwide.[65][66][67][68][69] Derek Davis stated in 2004 that the Church organization has around 15 million members worldwide.[70] Religious scholar J. Gordon Melton has said that the church's estimates of its membership numbers are exaggerated.[71]"

Even if you doubt the numbers of Scientologists, they do have "Today, hundreds of Scientology missions span the globe on every continent of Earth, daily delivering Dianetics and Scientology services to the populations and towns from Seattle to Moscow and from Marseille to Taipei." (and a ship, Freewinds) that you can count and "get physical with" if you like! (From

(The much cited and beloved Humanism of the Atheist has only "over one hundred Member Organisations in IHEU from nearly 40 countries", from, with no member-numbers supplied. And they have no ship and I'm uncertain if their organisations are more than mere offices. So I guess the IHEU lies closer to the notion of cult than Scientology, I'm afraid.)

It's petty that BBC is marred by this kind of "documentaries" because documentaries have used to be what BBC has been best at formerly, through history (among others).

This is the end of the blog of Scientology on the PN forum from me. I'll add more if more is written. I must say my investigations into Scientology have not disappointed me. Indeed, to make its case against the cult misperceptions has been the easiest. I encourage you to take part in Scientology too and if not that, then at least, encourage its presence in society as a force for betterment and goodness. The compilation of these blog posts has been completed 4th November, 2010. Cheers!

(There is also some work left to get all the quotes clearly marked.)


  1. I feel quite confident about ripping apart criticism that pertains _to the teachings_ of Scientology (I can never guarantee for the activities of the Church, CoS, itself because I'm not a leader and I have little influence over it, I think, and even if these 2 preceding factors would have been in place, I think there may have been too much to keep an eye on still so that I would have admitted to "frailties of human nature" still the same, but you can do much with "setting an example" and give the right signals of "intolerance of idiocy" within the organisation! This defence is therefore running until I die, simply because I think it's the best beside/parallel to Modified Cheondoism (if they, Koreans, bother to care for it/do it)! Cheers!

  2. I have 2 further notifications on Scientology this evening, 2nd time. One is about the question over authority. By this, the two pages of "A New Slant on Life", p. 34 and p. 40, make the cult requirement of authority go away forever. There's no doubt! The other is about how the basics relate to the further levels above clear. The so-called secret material. I think I've read somewhere that "all of Scientology lies in the scope of this/the basics". If this is true and I think it is, then the teachings of Scientology can't lie outside of this scope and should therefore be _uncontroversial_! A corroborative to this is that a symbol of Scientology is a green pyramid on the side of and on the back of "The Evolution of a Science". I think it's a fair assertion to say that with time, all the expert stuff of doctorates' dissertations are included in the fundamentals. The word "fundamentals" are found at least two places in this book, "A New Slant...", p. 37 and p. 40! Good? (I think it's reasonable to expect further attacks to spurious and tendentious allegations of critics with dubious motivations by followers of Scientology and I will of course in the future look a the better phrase, fx. the unfounded one above that I've yet to locate in _my_ basics, not tampered with)!

  3. Besides, using the volcano on Dianetics to prove the connection to the Xenu story is leading nowhere. As much as the nuke blast in a desert and not on Tokyo is used for something magnificent so can the volcano in general terms!

    A final word for now on Scientology is that while Scientologists believe in sentences like "do not harm a person of good will" and other good ethics that they share readily with others, the critics are not known for much ethics AT ALL. I suspect to _them_ to be of all sorts of nasty characters and they don't commit to any investigative honesty standard at all, to my knowledge, thus they risk NOTHING in hammering Scientology!

  4. Scientology has been criticised hard for uttering that "life is a game". First of all, I agree with the statement in _one_ interpretation of the sentence. _My_ interpretation is therefore that life IS a game, but it's one of challenging oneself with new riddles and solving problems in the world, contributing to others happiness while caring for one's own. It's in fact a kind of making the world a better place to live and being happy while doing so. Life is a game in the sense that the world brings no particular challenge that is destructive to one's character, to one's mind! This is, however, wildly off the chart for today's world society and I therefore think it doesn't apply anymore because the world is simply too corrupt for it to apply! Please, also separate "life is a game" from "fair game"!
    Now, the _other_ interpretation: THEY think that "life is a game" involves a relative worth to human life and dignity and that Scientology is an evil organisation that has no hesitation toward playing with people's lives like they would be [the ones to trust with Ethics! No, NO, NO!!!]
    You get it, smartass???!!! (That's a question!!! Because I think that you're just too f*cking dumb, dumb, DUMB!!!!)

  5. I've made a defence for Scientology with the title, "From the Scientology Blog - One Defence!" on my blog, whatiswritten777. I'd like to make a further comment (as to Wikip.): "The notion of "Fair Game" this article uses is also deeply mistaken. Fair game is meant for ''self-defence'' only. Fair Game should perhaps best be read, if consistent with "The Way to Happiness": "By FAIR GAME is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines or the rights of a Scientologist." Can we add a link to the Fair Game Wikipedia article, please? As before, by the pyramid symbol, Scientologists are committed to the Ethics as being a fundamental part of "The Basics". But you know what, reality is not some simple, little thing that fits into your pocket and Scientologists are human too and subject to the writings of Erich Fromm and the like, and when it really comes to it, we're all only human beings, with this motive or that!" Not only this, but the concept is closely connected to "Suppressive People".

  6. Why Scientology can be described as religious (and not cult)

    Scientology, for removing petty quarrel below the worth of the readers of this discussion page, can be described as religious out of these reasons:

    1. That it has a goal for humanity or sentience of inifinity, by the 8th dynamic.

    2. That it has a special standing ascribed to human beings beyond being animals, that is, how it describes people as „Thetans“, people with body and soul.

    3. It elevates or describes human beings within a definite ethical context, i.e., something along the 10 commandments for this inifinity to be achieved.
    - also see „Aims of Scientology“.

    4. It abides to certain common corpus as movement that can plausibly be followed by everybody, also the autonomy-principle for its members, New Slant on Life, pp. 33 onwards.
    - this point also removes, along with the others, that Scientology can ever be a cult in the true sense. A signal for this is its churches and missions always placed decently with the cities, usually the capitals too, as matter of street location and other.


    First written to Wikipedia and Facebook on 6. and 7. March, 2013 (CET).

  7. "Picked up from the internet":

    There is another non-cult consideration of Scientology that has a similar standing to the opinion-polling of 1000 people from the Social Sciences, it has to do with the number of members. That, regardless of the negative view of Scientology, a membermass that has reached a scope with more than 100 Churches and Missions around the planet, with a ship, Freewinds, and all from appx. 3 members to 30 million members or more, can't, simply CAN NOT, be described as cult, that the words on the Scientology Ethics by "The Way to Happiness" - "A Common Sense Guide to Better Living".

    That we who are with Scientology can now easily deflect/dismiss any criticism against what we believe in and that a simple word for this to fx. the Cult Awareness Network can be made as a pre-emptive measure. That we stand absolutely defended under L. Ron Hubbard's brilliant contribution to human kind! Cheers!