Love you Chee,thank you for a sunny comment for Sunday!?❤️

Of course Skorp. P.T. Barnum was correct so a certain % would go back.

As a scientist and an atheist, yes, I would want scientific proof. I had enough of the other stuff growing up Catholic.

Your argument still falls apart. Scientology wants it both ways. It wants to be a religion with scientific certainty (“Standard Tech works 100% of the time when applied standardly”, a statement which does NOT incorporate “personal experience” into its platitudes). Therefore, it must meet the standards of both science and religion. It fails miserably on both. I prefer to concentrate on the scientific failures, not only because it provides many more lulz, but because I don’t believe that humans are spiritual beings.

And you’ve proven you have no experience of a scientific education. Why don’t you get your ass into a lab and participate in an experiment proving something you’ve only seen presented mathematically, like I did in college? That’s knowledge through personal experience, not your idiotic “I HAD WINZ” crap that you shovel out.

It depends on who you ask, Mike W. LOL

I was just wondering because I have been reading stories from ex-members for years. You have people that hate it, some say the Tech works but the Church doesn’t, and some sound as if they really miss it. If the Church was to completely refurbish itself (including leadership) it sounds like some would consider going back.

It’s impossible for anyone to be the reincarnation of the historical Buddha. When the Buddha reached Enlightenment the cycle of birth and death (Samsara) ended for him. It’s the same for any Buddhas (enlightened beings). The best LRH could hope for is to come back as a reincarnated Pope. LOL

Though, I’ll admin it’s not the best tool for dissemination. It’s not tech, just a moral code with some reasoning to close you for the precepts.
Too bad LRH flunked so many of them.

But in retrospect, this booklet really was of some use for me. Regardless of who wrote it, there are some good pro-survival concepts in there.
I remember some other aspects of scientology that have been worthwhile… but I don’t believe in the Church anymore or that it will (or should for that matter) recover from its current downward spiral.
Independends will only survive if they’re willing to open their eyes to the fact how much the world has changed since the 50s, 60s and 70s. How much spiritual practice and psychotherapy (some branches of it) has evolved since then — also the field of management and administration. If the come into PT and compare their doctrines to what is “on the market” in present time they will have better chances to reach people and help them discharge, evolve and grow spiritually.
There are so many people today with a good spiritual approach. There is no need for a corporation or something like this to reach another and take him in session. Just do it if you feel like it. Leave the cult behind. You’re free.

I take it that you also want scientific proof for the existence of God. Keep waiting cause it ain’t going to happen. God doesn’t work that way. The point being is that sometimes knowledge comes through personal experience. You can’t always sit around and wait for the scientists to pronounce something unless that is whom you put your trust in. In that case, science becomes like religion.

Was Henry Ford a failure because his 1925 Model T wasn’t a Ferrari? Hopefully you won’t hesitate to acknowledge the false analogy you’re offering. Mr. Ford never claimed his car was anything other than what it was. Nor was it sold on false promises. It isn’t that scientology didn’t work quite as well as Hubbard claimed, it is that the claims were deliberate LIES. They were reported as actual observed results! They were no such thing.

I’m perfectly willing to explore the possibility metered interview therapy can have positive effects particularly in people who have debilitating memories of a traumatic event. I often hear people talk about their scientology “wins” and that they’ve been helped and that the ‘tech’ worked for them. What I never hear is exactly HOW they were helped and exactly what they got out of it that makes them think it ‘works’. Instead people allude to “gains” but shy away from stating explicitly what those gains are. The reason for this I think is when described, those gains sound at lot like the natural process of growing wiser with age and navigating more skillfully through life.

Something I find disheartening is how educated adults in technologically advanced societies can continue to think the man who said, “Energy consists of postulated particles in space” is a reliable source of information.

ROFLMAO!

Spoken like the TRUEST Rob Bot.

Thanks, Ann! ☺❤