Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: AOL & RELIGION AND ET
Message-ID: <9510101146.0GJJN01@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 95 11:46:32 -0700
Lines: 65


sgoehrin@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (scott goehring)

DLYNNBLAIR <dlynnblair@aol.com> wrote:
>1. You have a problem with the Church of Scientology responding on ARS.

Scott:
>i can't speak for James, but i would like to see _more_ pertinent
>responses from the Church.  but, that means responding pertinently,
>not spewing out DA packs or obfuscating the issues with non-confront
>non-replies or with out-of-context misrepresentation by selective
>quotation.
>
>for example, i have yet to get an adequate explanation as to how
>Scientology's belief that "Space, energy, objects, form, and time are
>the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon or not by the
>static, and are percieved solely because the static considers that it
>can perceive them."[1] is any different from "All material things
>there are in themselves insensible, and to be perceived only by their
>ideas."[2].  it's my opinion that Scientology metaphysics is
>substantially identical to Berkeleyan idealism, an idea which has been
>around for centuries.
      
    You are correct about this metaphysics.  It is virtually 
    identical with the "idea generated universe" inherent in many
    actual religions and metaphysical models.

    But there are also HUGE DIFFERENCES!  So beware.

>2.  You have the right to criticise the Church on ARS (afterall, it was
>set up for that reason, right, and its "freedom of speech")
>
>alt.religion.scientology was created as a vehicle for _discussion_
>(both critical and noncritical) of the Church.  i am somewhat annoyed
>that there is so little discussion of Scientology's beliefs and
>theories of reality.
                  
    You have an interest in the occult?

>3.  You don't believe the church has freedom of speech?  Did you think
>that freedom of speech was set up for nazi's, KKK'ers, and other hate
>groups?
>
>it is patently clear that members of the Church do not have freedom of
>speech, in that it is a High Crime against Scientology for a member to
>speak of various things, such as perceived faults in Scientology or in
>another Scientologist, publically.  that the Church seeks to restrain
>the freedom of its members to speak openly is quite clear.
                                       
    True fact.

>references:
>
>[1] Hubbard, L. Ron.  _Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought_.  Los
>Angeles: Bridge Publ., 1988.  p. 83.
>
>[2] Berkeley, George.  _Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous_,
>ed. Robert Merrihew Adams.  Indianapolis: Hackett Publ. Co., 1979.
>Orig. pub. in 1713.  p. 41.
 
            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"