From: rogue@ccs.neu.edu (R Agent) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.christian Subject: more anti-Christian material in Scientology Date: 11 Oct 1995 20:21:53 GMT Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University Lines: 149 Message-ID: <45h911$11o@camelot.ccs.neu.edu> References: <451tkl$fdd@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <45adlu$jd4@crl14.crl.com> <45c2j6$b1h@nnrp3.news.primenet.com> <45ffkf$n4@crl4.crl.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pinatubo.ccs.neu.edu This is being cross-posted from alt.religion.scientology to alt.religion.christian, since it is clearly on-topic to both newsgroups. Christians, please let me know if I'm offbase, or if you find the references from Hubbard's writings offensive to you as Christians. In article <45ffkf$n4@crl4.crl.com>, Andrew Milne wrote: >James J. Lippard (lippard@Primenet.Com) wrote: [...] >: But he also clearly states that Christ and the crucifixion are implants. >: So was this "great religious leader" an implant, or did Hubbard simply >: contradict himself? If the latter, which of these views of the historical >: basis of Christianity do you subscribe to--implant or real history? > >: And how were the quotes I gave "out of context"? The _PAB_ I quoted was >: the full paragraph which mentioned Christianity, along with some of the >: following context which did not. > > There are several points to make in response to your post. First, >I have been unable to find any reference to the "Christ legend" in the >transcripts of Mr. Hubbard's works, or to find the PAB you cited. That >makes me question its authenticity. In the early years of Dianetics and >Scientology, some of these materials were put together by others and >they were not always accurate. Some years ago, a project was done to >authenticate all Mr. Hubbard's writings on Scientology and anything >which failed that test was not republished. Here's some data for you, Andy. Please check these references and tell us which are authentic: Class 8 Course, Lecture 10 (Oct 3, 1968); "Somebody on this planet, about 600 B.C. found some pieces of 'R6'. I don't know how they found it; either by watching madmen or something. But since that time they have used it. And it became what is known as Christianity. The man on the cross. There was no Christ! The Roman Catholic Church, through watching the dramatizations of people picked up some little fragments of R6." HCOB 18 July, 1959, under "Historical Note": "The whole Christian movement is based on the victim. Compulsion of the overt-motivator sequence. They won by appealing to victims. We can win by converting victims. Christianity succeeded by making people into victims. We can succeed by making victims into people." HCOB 11 May, 1963: "Based on over a thousand hours of research auditing, analyzing the facsimiles of the reactive mind, and with the help of a Mark V Electrometer. It is scientific research and is not in any way based upon the mere opinion of the researcher...The contents of this HCO bulletin discover the apparent underlying impulses of religious zealotism and the source of the religious mania which terrorized Earth over the ages and has given religion the appearance of insanity." Another quote from HCOB 11 May, 1963: "For a long while, some people have been cross with me for my lack of co-operation in believing in a Christian Heaven, God and Christ. I have never said I didn't disbelieve in a Big Thetan but there was certainly something very corny about Heaven et al. Now I have to apologize. There was a Heaven. Not too unlike, in cruel betrayal, the heaven of the Assassins in the 12th Century who, like everyone else, dramatized the whole track implants - if a bit more so. The symbol of the crucified Christ is very apt indeed. It's the symbol of a thetan betrayed." Yet another quote from HCOB 11 May, 1963: "Further, we have our hands on an appalling bit of technology where the world is concerned. With rapidity and a Meter it can be shown that Heaven is a false dream and that the old religion was based on very painful lie, cynical betrayal." > But even if he did say it, so what? Is this really the best defense you can give? "So what Hubbard said Jesus never existed. So what Hubbard wrote about visualizing nailing babies to crosses. So what Hubbard called Heaven a 'cruel betrayal'. So what Hubbard said Christianity makes people into victims. So what Hubbard said other religions have 'the appearance of insanity'."? Christians, what do you think of Andy's "so what" defense? >During my search I found numerous mentions of Christ in which Mr. >Hubbard discussed his work. Some of these references are brief, but >they certainly do not leave one with the impression that LRH thought >there was no such person. I don't deny this at all. I'm simply saying that Hubbard wrote things which -did- deny Christ as well. >And I am willing to bet you that many Scientologists have never heard of >the reference you cited. Which is all the more reason for exposing the truth, that Hubbard was anti-Christian and that Scientology contains anti-Christian material. If you won't tell them, we will. >All of them are familiar with the Church's creed, however, which says >that all men have the right to their own beliefs and practices. The Constitution of the USSR had similar guarantees. So what? >Scientologists observe that creed and they respect the religious beliefs >of others. Escept that they're not allowed to "mix practices". If you're a Scientologist taking services, you're forbidden from practicing Christianity, Islam or Judaism at the same time. > Remember the reason this series of posts began? Originally, >someone posted a highly offensive and derogatory reference to Christ, >claiming it came from "OT8." That document is a malicious forgery. Its >sole purpose is to divide Scientologists from their Christian friends, >of which there are many. My claim that Scientology contains anti-Christian doctrine does not stand or fall by the OT8 document. Refute the authenticity of the above quotes, which are highly offensive and derogatory to Christ and Christianity, and you might make your point. > Scientology is a vast subject. The taped lectures alone number >about 3,000. To understand Scientology, you have to study it properly. >It cannot be grasped through soundbites. Soundbites may not give you the whole picture, but they cannot be so easily shrugged off. And the cumulative effect of many soundbites -does- give the big picture. What is the whole if not the sukm of the parts? > If you do want more information about the religious tradition out >of which Scientology emerged, you will find it covered by Mr. Hubbard >in the first three chapters of The Phoenix Lectures, available from any >Church of Scientology. Sorry, you can't sweep this problem under the rug with handwaving and vague references. You want us to believe that Scientology is not anti-Christian, you'll have to -prove- it. [posted/mailed] RA rogue@ccs.neu.edu (Rogue Agent/SoD!/TOS/attb) - pgp key on request ------------------------------------------------------------------ The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and ask for one.