LiQuiD wrote:Lois Lane wrote:Why don't you lot read the OTs and making an actual informed debate.
Surely your internet is not that censored that I can get my hands on the full texts of OTs through VII, and you can not, is it?
then post what you have.
There is a restriction on that material for a reason, dear. You are obviously too filled with rage and other obstructions to be receptive and open-minded.
It would be immoral of me to give you the OTs, as you would, in your current incompatible situation, go crazy if you did receive them.
But if you wish to debate Scientology, you will require the information presented in the OTs. For now, I will humour you, and respond to the opponents present here.
LiQuiD wrote:Lois Lane wrote:Now, next time you want to talk crap, actually try and have something to say. Fools
kk. i find more information on my beer can than there was in your post. please clarify and elaborate your point so i its clear and . . . elaborate. tanks

What can I say.. that must be some pretty informative beer can? I will elaborate if the proper questions are asked, and you convince me you are ready for such information.

S0lid Snake wrote:Okay, are you a Scientologist?
What of it, if I am?
S0lid Snake wrote:I've done my research on this topic (over 2 years ago now), It's a fraud, well and truly.
Really? Despite your 'extensive research' of (wow..) 2 whole years.. you fail to give any substantial argument as to why you feel this way.
If it is a fraud to you, what does this mean to anyone else? It is not as if your approval (or lack thereof) discredits the system in any way.

Do not get me wrong, I accept that you feel Scientology is a fraud. I just do not see why this is relevant to anyone other than yourself.
S0lid Snake wrote:The OT levels are the writings of a madman, simple as that.
Come now, we just agreed that you feel Scientology is a fraud. Now why do you go and be so rude? Who has insulted you so that you cannot but respond in an insulting manner? I sympathise, but I do hope you will rise above this past trauma.

S0lid Snake wrote:If you think these writings are a good thing then your just as mad as LRH himself.
Again.. what basis, what argument do you have to judge the (in)sanity of others? I will accept your argument if you present me with it. Until such time, please refrain from uttering the same conclusions without arguments, esteemed opponent.
S0lid Snake wrote:They also believe a mother should give birth in silence, as the noise traumatizes the child. Do you agree with this Lois?
I would not, had I not seen the effects it has on a child in their pre-verbal childhood years. Naturally, this could be attributed to other, circumstantial influences, but I have been scientifically convinced.
Pretty much the opposite of what you do, sir.. you say I am wrong, but fail to present rational, credible arguments to support that rather bold claim. Try to understand that in order to change my beliefs you will need to appeal to my ratio, not the intuitive response I might have cultivated somewhere. Thank you.
Semper wrote:ha....thats a funny post.
Thank you.
Semper wrote:the psychological help could be viewed as a double edged sword, especially for someone like myself. I can agree with and totally sympathise with their goals that all humans should be equal and seek to better themselves in a society without internal war and crime etc etc (almost Star Trek society 101...) but I see such goals as impossible to attain and fool hardy. The idea that humans are basically good seems very odd to me, as it would need a indepth discussion as to what exactly GOOD is, as without logic and true intelligence in society good does not exist (as that is what I believe...but thats complicated..)
I regret to say this, but you appear to have lost focus.
What are we discussing here? The innate goodness or lack thereof of man, or Scientology in all its aspects?
If we are discussing Scientology, then the "discussion about the innate goodness or lack thereof of man" has no place here. Scientology does not remark upon the goodness of man, nor does it have any intention of getting itself involved in a philosophical debate ad nauseas.
Semper wrote:Then as I mentioned before the basic idea (basic) that I mentioned above is good.
That did not really make sense to me, I think. Correct me if I am wrong here while paraphrasing you: "The idea about the basic goals of Scientology as I attempted to outline before is good." I would beg to differ, as you outlined incorrectly and cannot qualify that outline as such.
Semper wrote:We also have to decide whether we are discussing the principles of scientology or the church of. As IF memory serves (I have still to even open a different tab about scientology, but I doubt I will..) they both potentially have different 'taboo' aspects.
So far, it would seem we have been discussing Scientology in all (that is in no specific) aspects? I would agree to continue to humour you in a discussion as long as it relates to Scientology, and does not drag itself down in the golden mud of philosophical debate.

LegendaryApophis wrote:They are fools

Why do you think they loath that much psychologists?
Because any bit of sense given would destroy their foolish laughable theories.
Please try to make sense, thank you.
LegendaryApophis wrote:And just take a look at how you become a high level member, just give more money, afterall, Tom Cruise isn't much of anything different than others else that being rich and famous. So indeed, being all equal with extortion.
And to people who say it's not extortion, at this very moment there's a judgement in my country against scientology for...extortion

Ah yes, of course.. sorry, I got that wrong. We are all extortionists! It has been proven! Not.
Jim, if I would accuse you of being an extortionist and present some faint shimmer of evidence, there would be a court case attempting to find out whether or not you are an extortionist.
The fact that there is a court case against someone/some organisation does not give logical credence to the conclusion that that specific someone/some organisation is indeed guilty. Guilty until proven innocent is still the primary stronghold of Roman Law. Hail Caesar, Scientology has not ever been convicted without a shadow of a doubt.
LegendaryApophis wrote:It's just another SECT, that's all!
If you feel that way, please specify of what religion this is supposedly a sect?
LegendaryApophis wrote:Only fools follow that, or weak minded ones

Instead of going playground on us, could you please give some arguments as to why you feel that way?
LegendaryApophis wrote:Unless of course you are promised to a high level.
Of course. Say what?

LegendaryApophis wrote:It makes me think of those economical pyramids, the ones who start it get uberrich and more you go on next level more they have difficulties to find pidgeons to bring in. And less they become rich. Simply because you need to bring 12 people or so and ask them for some euros, they will do it with 12 themselves and so on.
I think it was clear what you meant when you mentioned 'pyramid schemes', Jim. The rest made less and less sense.
LegendaryApophis wrote:"Sadly", if you are caught to be on first levels you are likely to have problems with justice. How is it same? Pathetic lies promised to all levels, only top ones get anything because of mathematical logic.
Life is deception. You will have to choose a set of lies to believe if you are to function within this society. Please, do present us with a 'better' set of lies, and with your arguments to the 'evil' of this idea.
LegendaryApophis wrote:Differences though: on pyramids you can't go on higher rank, as it's based on who started first the scam etc...BUT the extortion is nowhere near scientology, giving few euros compared to thousands if not tens of thousands euros/dollars for scientology. So in the end, those pyramids who are pointed at, are nowhere near bad as scientology is! Because scientology also brainwashes you crap unlike pyramids.
Of course. People who are looking for an easy way out should not join Scientology to begin with. It is a long, and arduous path to self-knowing. Support along that way does have its price, yes. What? You would rather get enlightened for free? That's cheap.
LegendaryApophis wrote:So in the end, if you are not on high levels, you are an idiot.
I thought you just said that you only get on high levels being rich. How does being rich make you an idiot? Rich people are extravagant, eccentric and original.. not 'stupid', 'weird' or 'insane'.
LegendaryApophis wrote:I laugh at people who got themselves into that!

Bunch of fools

Yay for the playground! Where are the fools, idiots, stupids, a-holes, jerks and other eloquent verbalisations of uncontrolled rage when you need them?!
Lois Lane wrote:Now, next time you want to talk crap, actually try and have something to say. Fools.
Why are you defending those fools and say those who are against them are the fools?

Nonsense..[/quote]
S0lid Snake wrote:Tom Cruises recent behavior should be enough to put anyone off this horrible creation. Did you know he believes he can fly and fire bolts of lighting from his eyes??? What a wacko!!!
rofl.. Ah yes, I forgot. Tom Cruise IS Scientology.
Puh-leeze.. get a real argument before grasping at straws.
LegendaryApophis wrote:S0lid Snake wrote:Tom Cruises recent behavior should be enough to put anyone off this horrible creation. Did you know he believes he can fly and fire bolts of lighting from his eyes??? What a wacko!!!
Not surprising, and people wonder why they loath psychologists that much!

When Tom Cruise will be The Source that will be known

Because having powers and not being believed and not having them and pretending to have them are two different things!
Again. Tom Cruise IS Scientology! How could I forget!
Geez..

The logic. The Classical Greeks would turn in their graves.