murdering your family doesn't bring happiness

[Jack]

Disclaimer #1: I'm not implying that the Scientologists on this board are weird, or that any Scientologists are weird, for that matter. The book in question, although written by L. Ron Hubbard, states that it is not religious at all, but a secular book.

Disclaimer #2: I would have put this in multiple page book thread, but I couldn't find it.

Anyway, at the library yesterday I read through a tiny little book called The Way To Happiness by L. Ron Hubbard. It is billed as a secular book telling people how to find happiness, and this is a direct quote:

"The way to happiness does not include murdering your friends, your family, or you yourself being murdered."

Um...perhaps it's just me, but I found that (quote and entire book) very bizarre. Who actually needs to be told that murdering your family doesn't bring happiness?

[Walden]

I'd just always figured it don't. Perhaps L. Ron knew somebody who'd tried it?

[emmline]

No. That one seems obvious. But it's hard to comment on the book, or the intention of that quote out of context. I don't know much(make that anything) about Scientology, other than it seems to be favored by Hollywood types, but I do get weird vibes about it too.

[peeplj]

This is not a comment on this book in particular; I've not read it.

I wonder if it doesn't fall into the category of beginning with a quite reasonable statement, drawing a perfectly reasonable conclusion from it, then drawing a moderately reasonable conclusion from that, then drawing a somewhat questionable conclusion from that, then drawing an absurd conclusion from that--and going back and saying the absurb conclusion must be true because the quite reasonable statement is true.

The reason I wonder is much religious apologetics procedes along the above lines.

--James

[amar]

Cran, i like your avatar.








a lot!

[Jack]

But James, it wasn't (supposed to be) a religious book. Perhaps it did have a broader context, though. I didn't read the entire book, just certain sections, then it weirded me out and I stopped. There are definitions of words like "happiness" and "goodness" all through the book. It made me think Mr. Hubbard was trying to re-define them or something. The simplicity was just bizarre to me, personally.

Curiously, there was also a statement on the back that talked about the legality of sending it around to different groups because it was not a religious book.

[Jack]

Cran, i like your avatar.








a lot!

Merci. I like yours, too.

[Caj]

Hubbard wrote some really crazy stuff. He once co-authored a book on radiation, under a pseudonym, claiming to be "a nuclear scientist." In that book he says that only sentient beings can be affected by radiation, because clearly rocks and sticks don't seem to be hurt by it (well, they can't die, I guess.) He then concludes that by purifying one's mind via dianetics etc etc, one can become immune to radioactivity.

Just one of many crazy ideas that seem to be missing a cog. In Dianetics, Hubbard says that fetuses can be affected by things that doctors say, as if they already understood English before birth. He also argued that bad ideas could physically kill people who heard them, which was used to justify isolating church members from the rest of society, and in particular critics of the church.

Caj

[Martin Milner]

Cran, i like your avatar.

I liked the previous one more...

[Wanderer]

Disclaimer #1: I'm not implying that the Scientologists on this board are weird, or that any Scientologists are weird, for that matter. The book in question, although written by L. Ron Hubbard, states that it is not religious at all, but a secular book.

I dated a Scientologist for several years.

It's my experienced opinion that they're weird.

They can sue me for saying so

www.xenu.net

[Walden]

They can sue me for saying so

Yep... yep... a very litigious faith.

[Nanohedron]

I read one of Hubbard's novels, and forced myself to finish what amounted to very poor writing. His characterisations were primitive, in my thinking. For instance, the evildoers were always "shabby" -a well-used word of his- in their dress or grooming, always skulking; the good guys were always attractive, well-off, or influential, bah blah blah. Bad stuff. He had a lot of little to say.

[susnfx]

Here's a link to an admittedly anti-Scientology site (run by an ex-Scientologist):

http://www.xenu.net/archive/techniques/

I post it because it basically confirms the statements in a large article in a local newspaper a month or so ago about local Scientologists. The part about the E-Meter I found especially bizarre. The cost for being a Scientologist is extraordinary - this site says up to half a million dollars by the time you're getting to the top (or across) The Bridge.

Susan

(Sorry for the double-post of the website, Wanderer - you got it first!)

[Nanohedron]

I love that photo of Hubbard "auditing" a tomato!

[Wanderer]

Here's a link to an admittedly anti-Scientology site (run by an ex-Scientologist):

http://www.xenu.net/archive/techniques/

I post it because it basically confirms the statements in a large article in a local newspaper a month or so ago about local Scientologists. The part about the E-Meter I found especially bizarre. The cost for being a Scientologist is extraordinary - this site says up to half a million dollars by the time you're getting to the top (or across) The Bridge.

Susan

I put a link to that site about 3 messages up from yours

Some folks may have mistaken it for a signature