From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:03:13 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <Bx7KJ0.7x9@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.062837.1705@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>[Discussion about "applied religious philosophy" vs. "religion" deleted.]
>
>You didn't respond to this. I'll ask again: do you claim there's a distinction
>between Scientology and other religions that "apply" their "truth" (or maybe 
>"Truth") to the world around them? If so, what is that distinction?

I personally might claim this, but it's not representational of the views of
Scientology, the Church of Scientology, or Scientologists.

>>>>>[...] in the books/tapes you have read/listened to so far, do you
>>>>>find any places where LRH is ambiguous or contradicts himself?
>>>>
>>>>Not particularly.  Scn as a whole is much less ambiguous than other
>>>>areas of knowledge.
>>>
>>>Not particularly??? Is this an example of Scientology being less ambiguous?
>>>
>>>In these discussions, is it possible to get a yes-or-no answer out of you?
>>
>>Yes.  Not particularly above is because of personal misunderstoods.  Anything
>>where I enter the subject with misunderstoods will appear ambiguous or
>>outright incomprehensible.  Scn is very understandable, very clear.
>
>Misunderstoods? Oh, my. Perhaps this religion should be called
>Justificationialism.

Maybe it is Jonathon who should be called justificationalism?

Anyhow, misunderstoods are handleable.  Standard Scientology study tech
directs its users to handle misunderstoods.  However, I *personally* may
have skimped a little in this at one time or another when reading some of
the Scn books of my own (not in a course, I try to keep my ethics in there).

>What is it you're saying here? Are you saying that Scn *itself* is
>very understandable and clear, but that you can't, in general, be clear
>when you're discussing Scn or LRH?

Am *I* being ambiguous?  Please stop me whenever this happens and ask for
specific clarifications.  I don't want you or anyone here to end up with
misunderstoods.

>Does Scn make it impossible for you to answer yes-or-no to the question:
>Is LRH ever ambiguous in his writings and/or tapes?

No, Scn doesn't make it impossible.  In fact, Scn increases an individual's
certainty on things.

>>Much more than any area of study that I've studied except for theory-only
>>(that is, not application necessary) areas such as general trivia.
>
>Exactly what are the other areas that you've studied? (Have *you* ever read
>_GEB: an EGB_?)

Philosophy, religion, general mental theories, Psychology, etc.

No, I haven't read it.  I've seen it, though.

>In a discipline that claims to study the essence of what it means "to know,"
>the people who represent Scn in this group have been decidedly weak in
>demonstrating their mastry of this topic. Personally, it seems as if Hofstader
>or philosophy (Rorty, etc.) have a lot more meaningful and thought-provoking
>things to say on the subject.

I'm pro-Scientology but am certainly not a representative of Scientology in
this newsgroup.  Additionally, as it should be understood that Scn tech
increases an individual's intelligence, awareness, etc. it should therefore
be noted that tech-wise (processing) I am below classification at this
moment.  Thus, I am even less representative of Scientologists or Scn.

>
>--phil

Jonathon
Barbera