CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>The issue for me here is not assent or agreement with the idea, just
>intelligibility for starters.  In some 40 years of studying and teaching
>philosophy, I've rarely run into an idea in philosophy, theology, or
>therapy that I didn't understand. I might not always agree with it, but at
>least I felt I could understand it, and what was behind it. I could
>entertain the idea fairly.  Not this one, it's just unintelligible to me.

     Well either you got MU's on the intended meaning of the words, or
you got fixed ideas in place that prevent you from comprehending what
is being said.

>>they think Scientology is just
>>like every other religion on the planet, or about being good or some
>>such nonsense.

>I don't think that, I don't think most others think that, people get that
>it's "different" somehow.  Sometimes something close to what you state
>above is sold to the public to make scn seem more acceptable, or people
>are allowed to dub in whatever they will about scn, with any clarification
>on common points of divergence omitted.

     This is correct.

     Now I ask you, do you know the difference between a good Author,
and a good Character?

     Do good Author's only write about good characters, or does good
authorship include the creation of evil characters?

     Is it therefore good that God the Author creates good AND evil
characters, in order to then jump into its own game and play which
ever side appeals to it at the time?

     Do you understand what Scn is saying about total responsibility,
and the creation of gpm identities for the purpose of having a game?


Mon Aug 21 16:53:20 EDT 2006