Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: kenlong@netcom.com (Ken Long) Subject: Re: What are Scientology beliefs? Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 22:08:54 GMT TarlaStar (bmyers@ionet.net) wrote: : Au contraire, cherie, these are "beliefs" this is a "religion" and : the nature of religion is that it cannot be proven, it must be : "believed". Unless you are supporting Ron's "science" which has never : been peer reviewed or supported by any legitimately qualified scientist. Au contraire yourself, Tarla. You evidently don't understand what "religion" is. It is not the nature of a religion that it cannot be proven. Insofar as any "proof" is a personal thing, you are right. But insofar as *religion*, itself, is the making of sense and/or the finding and knowing of truth, religion gets proven daily, to thousands of people, and has for as long as people have existed. "religion" has been misnomered as only having to do with those things which are not readily obvious, such as the spiritual nature of existence. But religion is exactly what prompts ANY investigation into ANY aspect of existence. Religion is those sets of actions or concepts prompting actions which goes from confusion toward certainty. It binds it together for the person. It ties it all together for the person. It leads him toward the truth of it, all or in part. It makes the connection for him. Whether the confusion is on the nature of spirits, the nature of silicon, the nature of celestial bodies, the nature of botany, the nature of elements - the common denominator is making sense about, or discovering truth about, or certainty on the nature of any aspect of existence. The study of, or the word on, the spiritual nature of existence is no exception or esoteric category - it's only part of it. Using the term "religion" to apply only to those things is by alteration of the true meaning of the term and them having "popular belief" (another religion) agree in the altered form of the meaning. Can any aspect of the religion of Physics be proven? How about the molecular biology religion? Botany? Geology? Astrophysics? Well, the religion Scientology can be "proven" just as easily, or with as much difficulty, depending on who the "provee" is. Here's an example. Part of Scientology is the concept that if you reward production and penalize nonproduction, you'll get production as a result. Conversely, if you reward nonproduction and penalize production you'll get nonproduction as a result. To test this, ask someone to wash your car for you, then tell someone else to throw a bucket of dirt on the car. Pay the person that washed it $10 and thank him. Tell the other person he should not have done that, even at your request, and restrict the other person in some way (if it's one of your children, no dessert or no TV). The next time you ask the person to wash your car he gladly obliges. But ask the other to throw on the dirt and you will have a hard time getting him to do so. Now, restart the test with new people. This time, restrict the one that washed the car and pay the one who threw the dirt $10. Then try to get the first person to wash the car a second time. He will not do it. But the other one will throw dirt all day at $10 a bucket! Ron Hubbard did not invent the concept of rewarding production and penalizing nonproduction, to increase production. He only observed that it was true and included it in the subject of Scientology because making it known was important in handling production or the lack of it. So, since this concept IS part of Scientology, and it should be obviously true to any rational being, then it means two things. (1) Anyone who rewards production and penalizes nonproduction is, to that degree, a Scientologist, whether he realizes it or not. (2) At least this much of Scientology can be and has been proven. It also points out the Scientology IS 'knowing how to know" and knowing what to do with that which you have come to know through knowledge of how to know. Even the most blatant anti-Scientologist operates on, uses and standardly applies SOME aspect of Scientology every day, whether he realizes it or not. If Adolf Hitler was one of the - if not the - worst suppressive, antisocial personalities of the 20the century, and he acknowledged a communication, rewarded a production, or did any one of a vast number of actions that are stated as being "part of Scientology" then, to that degree, he was being a Scientologist. Looking at Scientology and Scientologists as something foreign to oneself is the result of not understanding what the fuck it is! It's not the "brainchild" of L. Ron Hubbard. All he did was look through a bunch of data and make some observations of life and people living it, and check out some techniques to verify their validity and usefulness, and write up what he found out. The purpose was to find out what's REALLY going on (to handle the confusion) in existence. To find the true nature of it. He didn't invent the true nature - it already was that way. He just sought to pin it down, correctly identify it, and tell others about it. he also wanted to USE any of the information he found out to improve conditions. Maybe reverse the dwindling spiral of life. So, since he did not invent the nature of Man, beings or existence, and anyone IN existence or Mankind has just as much chance of discovering the truth of some aspect of it as anyone else - and often do - then THEY will naturally USE that information to improve their situations and tell others about it. Scientology is not an LRH exclusive, a Scientologist exclusive, or a Church of Scientology exclusive. EVERYONE KNOWS AND DOES *SOME* Scientology, in some aspect of their lives, daily! So what's the difference? The difference is, the codified subject *called* Scientology are knowledge of, and techniques for improvement in, those areas needed for binding or tying a person back together with HIS OWN TRUE PERSONAL NATURE. Whereas any part of Scientology not specifically included in the subject called that are not needed for that purpose. Knowing how to know how to get a peanut butter jar open is true Scientology. Knowing how to know is needed to get the jar open as well as needed to recover one's personal integrity. But opening peanut butter jars is not part of the codified subject because it won't get you out of the trap. Some people know how to know in carpentry, but not electronics. Some people know how to know in horticulture, but not in automobile mechanics, But, if you totally understood HOW to KNOW HOW TO KNOW, you could gain knowledge in any field of endeavor. If you knew how to know YOU, then you could pull out any personal barriers to attaining knowledge in any field (if you wanted to). All L. Ron Hubbard did was look around, differentiate among what he saw, and say, "Hey look! here's what I found out about the true nature of Man and how he fits into existence." Anything he found, he found it IN existence! Where it was all along. -Ken-