It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientology: The bridge to spiritual freedom.

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: TerryDon79
But seriously. They're here now and what do we do?


I would say a new witch trials, but instead of buying them, we burn their money?

Or....

Carry on like they're from any other religion. They are people too, apparently.

Either is good with me.




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

The real kicker is that anyone in Scientology would be forbidden from speaking on ATS. Let alone have any membership. This forum has some serious antagonists to Scientology, myself included. By (their) definition ATS is a suppressive message board.

Therefor we can only conclude that the OP is a planted shill and therefor not an actual member of Scientology benevolently wanting to be a part of ATS.

edit: I'm not ATS owner or a mod but I think the reason I just gave above should qualify for justifiably ejecting the account from ATS all together.
edit on 5/14/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: TerryDon79

The real kicker is that anyone in Scientology would be forbidden from speaking on ATS. Let alone have any membership. This forum has some serious antagonists to Scientology, myself included. By (their) definition ATS is a suppressive message board.
Valid point.


Therefor we can only conclude that the OP is a planted shill and therefor not an actual member of Scientology benevolently wanting to be a part of ATS.
Or he is a Scilon (stupid word) and he's here to "infiltrate" us?

That leaves 2 possible options.

Smile and wave (like the Penguins)

Or...

Point and laugh.

Again, either is fine with me, but this time I prefer the pointing and the laughing.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm not advocating any nefarious behavior here but if I was a l33t h4x0r, I know what I'd be doing to the OP's account right now...



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm not advocating any nefarious behavior here but if I was a l33t h4x0r, I know what I'd be doing to the OP's account right now...


Holy crap dude! I haven't seen anyone use "l33t h4x0r" in about a decade.

You just made me feel old. I don't like you.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

People don't use l33t h4x0r anymore? Now I feel old, too.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: TerryDon79

People don't use l33t h4x0r anymore? Now I feel old, too.


I don't know if it's not used anymore, but I certainly haven't seen it. "Script kiddie" is what you tend to see more of these days.

Now I made myself feel old!



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:48 AM
link   
I don't know, but I get the impression that the OP is new to Scientology and had a bit too much enthusiasm when they decided to bring it to the attention of the ATS masses.

S/he may not have been prepared for the amount of opposition and, imo, is not equipped to deal with it. This is the second thread that I know of that s/he's abandoned without mounting any real defence of Scientology.

I think this illustrates why we see few or no Scientologists trying to promote Scientology on ATS. Unless a person really knows their stuff and can effectively deal with criticism to the point they shut up the opposition, the only purpose this sort of thread serves is to provide yet another platform to Scientology's detractors.

A bit of an own goal, really. Unless that was the OP's goal all along...


edit on 14-5-2016 by berenike because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: berenike

But ATS is forbidden to Scientologists, they could never own an account here.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

I don't know if they're forbidden, but my point stands.

Posting about Scientology on ATS is a bad idea and they generally seem to know better than to do so.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: berenike


I don't know if they're forbidden, but my point stands.


I know they're forbidden. Trust me.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

We could go round and round with this all day. It just proves the point that anyone can say anything about Scientology and without going off to find concrete proof one way or another no-one will ever know for sure.

Individual members of Scientology who have access to their own private computers at home could, presumably, post on ATS. I was a member once and nobody monitored what I did in my private life. They can't sit on people's shoulders all the time to check on their every move.

Although I grant you that the more experienced Scientologists have a way of manifesting their presence.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: berenike

As a previous member, how often were you asked about suppressive content in your auditing sessions.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

I remember doing a course that enables one to recognise suppressive persons. I can't always remember the correct terminology but I was advised to cut one particular person out of my life forever. I think that is a disconnect? I believe I had to sign a form in which I agreed never to contact them again. I can't remember if it covered more than this lifetime.

As to being asked about suppressive content during auditing sessions I really don't remember but I think it was my complaints about the suppressive person during auditing that led to me being advised to disconnect.

I'll say here that it was absolutely the best thing to do.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: berenike

Was that disconnecting from the church? Or disconnecting from that individual?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

I disconnected from the 'one particular person' referenced in my previous post.

I've re-read my post and it looks plain enough.

It's hard to imagine the Church encouraging me to disconnect from themselves.

I think I've indulged your questions for long enough now. 'Chain' and 'yanking' spring to mind.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: berenike

I would continue asking you more questions in a PM if I didn't think that the dialogue would be constructive here. But thanks for playing.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Closed for review




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join