Xenu myth?*Sigh*
I guess this is "that thread" after all.
Teh Intarwebz. Source of all knowledge and wisdom.
As a consequence of my having worked alongside Scientologists over several years, I have a number of books and related publications on my shelves. Quite a few, actually.
The "Xenu myth" appears in precisely none of them. All the mentions of it that I have seen have been on the web, and all the result of "leaked" or stolen "upper level" materials. You know,
secret stuff that your normal, everyday, practicing Scientologist would not encounter. Does it exist at the "upper levels?" Never seen any of that stuff, so I wouldn't know.
There are more than 100 titles, as I understand it, in their books, booklets, lecture tapes, and so on. I've known more than a few members and read more than a few of their books.
This "popular myth" seems to be popular only on the web. It's not in those 100+ titles.
You know what
IS a recurring theme? That Man is a spirit. That the spirit is immortal. That it is possible for Man to understand the conditions of Man. This is stuff that is actually written in the actual books that they actually publish.
It's kind of hilarious, actually. Most religions or belief systems are judged by what is actually published in their writings. Islam, for example, is often (usually?) judged by what the Koran actually
says as opposed to what people say
about it. Here, on the other hand, we have dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of actual published titles, but we judge them by the content of . . . leaked secrets?
I think it's stretching the truth to say that the psychiatrict/psychological community "wants the CofS gone."
And my experience leads me to believe rather differently. You are free to think what you like.
You seem to be convinced of the validity of psychiatry. I, on the other hand, have seen enough that I am convinced of its quackery. Dangerous quackery at that.
I don't imagine either of us will be persuaded on this.
Simply put, my biggest bone to pick with psychiatry (actual practices notwithstanding) is that it "tolerates" religion, asserting that a belief in a "God" or a spiritual self is a delusion -- possibly harmless, but a delusion nonetheless. On this foundation premise, they propose a "science" that seeks to explain the workings of the mind . . . in the explicit absence of a spirit.
I, on the other hand, have no doubt at all that Man is a spiritual entity. I further have no doubt that the workings of the mind are inseparable from that fact.
Exactly what use would I have, then, for a "science" that begins with the denial of the spiritual component of Man?
Further, I find it extremely puzzling that people of
any religious faith could buy into a "science" that holds their faith to be a delusion.
Perhaps this is not perceived as a conflict by others.
However, if I believe in a God -- for real, now -- not just on Sundays, and if my "doctor," in whose hands my health and well being are reposed, tells me that "it's okay if you believe in God, as that's a
harmless delusion," do I really want that guy doing my "doctoring?"
If I kinda sorta think there might be a God, then I might kinda sorta think that the doctor kinda sorta maybe has a point, and my God is just kinda sorta my invisible friend.
If, on the other hand, I
know there's a God, there's a very low risk that I will take advice from a doctor who thinks I'm nuts by virtue of that simple fact. Or even "slightly" deluded.
Much like I would not seek the advice and care of a "doctor" who was convinced that my owning a gun was a symptom of "mental illness."
"Crazy by default" is not a good starting point for a relationship with your care provider.
I'd much rather seek the advice and assitance of a rabbi than a shrink. And I have.
I will, 100% of the time, look to the clergy -- any clergy -- in preference to a "doctor" who thinks I don't exist, and that only the meat is real.
Your milage, as always, may vary.