Monday, July 28, 2008

The Scientology Video Channel

The Scientology Video Channel just got two new videos - one is a look inside a Scientology Church and the other is all about L. Ron Hubbard. Check 'em out.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Response to GRHnDC

I got a comment that I feel needs more than just another comment to respond. GRHnDC asks:

"Please explain why it costs so much to cross the Bridge..."
I know of some great posts where someone took the time to answer this very same question, so instead of answering you "on the fly", I'm going to link to these well thought-out posts. Here they are:

Cost of Scientology
A round up of posts by Grahame about Scientology Costs
What Scientology Myths has to say about the monetary cost of Scientology
Information on how Scientology Churches are supported financially

Also, here's my 2 cents: I personally have never had a problem with being asked to make a donation for a service provided by my church. I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints requires their parishioners give tithes (a tenth of their income) and most churches ask for a donation when you go to church on Sunday. I am proud to support my church. My boyfriend works for a Scientology Church as a minister and he is paid with these donations, as is any minister of any church.

Your next question was: "Please share your opinions on the Xenu mythology that is part of the Wall of Fire indoctrination of OT III..."

I hate to say this, but I have no opinion. I have not done OT III, nor have I ever heard this mythology mentioned by a church member or within the church. The only times I've ever seen it is on the Internet or on South Park. I don't really think those are credible sources. Sorry to disappoint.

Lastly, you thanked me for my blog. You're so welcome! I'm sorry if I can't always answer every single question - I don't know where some of the stuff people say comes from... but if I can answer any other questions, I certainly will.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

A Note about Clear

I have recently been re-reading some of the books on Dianetics - which is the methodology developed by L. Ron Hubbard to address and handle the effects of the spirit on the body.

One of the many reasons I have been re-reading these books is to find a good definition of Clear. I've been asked many questions about this subject, and it seems that a lot of people think that achieving Clear means that the person who has achieved this is no longer him or herself - that they no longer have their own memories. This is not the case.

The basic idea is that there are two parts of the mind. One part contains the ability to reason, the other contains all of the times that a person was unconscious and/or felt a lot of pain. The first part is called the analytical mind - because it can analyze. The second is the reactive mind - because it causes the person to react to certain stimuli that that particular part of the mind considers dangerous - whether it is really dangerous or not.

Basically a Clear has had all of the moments in his reactive mind re-filed into his analytical mind. This means that all of those points of pain or unconsciousness are not able to be consciously accessed by the analytical mind and evaluated for validity. This restores the "Basic Individual" to his full consciousness and makes him more himself. In Dianetics the Original Thesis L. Ron Hubbard states:

"Man is not a reactive animal. He is capable of self-determinism. He has willpower. He ordinarily has high analytical ability. He is rational and he is happy and integrated only when he is his own basic personality.
"The most desirable state in an individual is complete self-determinism."

So far I have found that the best way of really understanding what Dianetics is and what a Clear is would be to read L. Ron Hubbard's books on Dianetics. They are really extremely interesting and I've found that the development of Dianetics is best understood when these books are read in order.

Do you have any questions about Dianetics I could help you with?

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Scientologists - What Do We Believe About Hell and Earth?

I was at the post office the other day. It was pretty quiet, but a gentleman who had survived the Vietnam war was talking to the teller in front of me and saying that earth is heaven. The teller smiled and nodded until the gentleman left, then said to me, "I wonder what he thinks happens to him after he dies?" I said I didn't know and the teller went on to say that he'd heard of various religions believing various things, mentioning the Scientologists believe that earth is Hell. I thought that was pretty funny, since I'm a Scientologist and I don't believe that one bit. However, I figured out where that nice teller at the post office may have gotten the idea from.

It could have been from this excerpt from a Scientology policy:

"If you were looking for hell and found earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of man."

This is policy goes on to say that Scientology can change these conditions by helping individuals rid themselves of the reactive mind. Nothing about the earth actually being hell.

Anyway, I just wanted to debunk any ideas that Scientologists think the earth is hell. If we were in hell, we wouldn't be able to change conditions, there would be no good in the world and we'd all be getting tortured constantly. Nothing beautiful like art, religion, nature, etc would be around and life would generally suck. This is not the case. World conditions can change and I'm betting that they will change for the better. So there you go. :)

I'd be interested to know if there are any other things that seem strange about Scientology that you've encountered. Comment and let me know.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Challenging Environments

I read an interesting piece of information today. Here's the quote:

"Man thrives, oddly enough, only in the presence of a challenging environment. That isn't my theory. It's a fact." - L. Ron Hubbard.

I find it interesting because I cannot think of one environment that man has not strived to overcome, and all environments are challenging. It's pretty thought provoking. I mean, what if we had a completely unchallenging environment? Would we make up something to make the environment challenging or would we let it be and enjoy it. I think man would invent something to make it challenging, but that's just me. What do you think?

Friday, July 04, 2008

Happy Fourth of July

In honor of the Fourth of July, I'm going to go over a section of the book The Way to Happiness that I feel is applicable for today. This is the idea: "Support a Government Designed and Run for all the People".

Today we celebrate the independence of our nation. We celebrate an ability to make our own decisions and to elect our own government. This puts America in the unique position to create a better government, and thus a better world for us all. By supporting those aspects of the government that you feel are right, and shunning those you feel are wrong - or using the governmental systems to voice your concerns about such situation, you are supporting a government designed and run for all people.

I'll leave you with a quote from The Way to Happiness
"Doing nothing illegal, it is yet possible, by simply withdrawing one's cooperation, to bring about an eventual reform. Even as this is being written, there are several governments in the world that are failing only because their people express their silent disagreement by simply not cooperating.

"On the other hand, where a government is obviously working hard for ALL its people, rather than for some special interest group or insane dictator, one should support it to the limit."

How can we go about doing this? What do you feel should be supported in our current government? Let me know.