"M. C. DiPietra" <mdipie...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B6D18F4C.31A17%mdipietra@earthlink.net...
> in article 3aabe8d
...@news2.lightlink.com, Fluffygirl at cswa
...@home.com
> wrote on 3/11/01 4:08 PM:
> > "M. C. DiPietra" <mdipie...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:B6CFDCB2.317D2%mdipietra@earthlink.net...
> >> in article 3aa9c48...@news2.lightlink.com, Fluffygirl at
cswa
...@home.com
> >> wrote on 3/10/01 1:08 AM:
> >>> "Dave Bird" <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>> news:n+p76nGtvYq6Ewmq@xemu.demon.co.uk...
> >>>> In article<3aa929a...@news2.lightlink.com>, Fluffygirl
> >>>> <cswa...@home.com> writes:
> >>>>> "Mike O'Connor" <m...@leptonicsystems.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:mike-BD9AC3.13033509032001@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >>>>>> In article <B6CE4DF0.31560%mdipie...@earthlink.net>,
> >>>>>> "M. C. DiPietra" <mdipie...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> However, I recently found an old post by Jeff Jacobsen from 22 Jul
> >>> 1996.
> >>>>>>> In it, he was compiling a list of places where Dianetics and Scn
> > make
> >>>>> health
> >>>>>>> claims. His post asked for assistance in compiling the list.
> >>>>> Question: how is this different from the Christian sects who lay on
> > hands
> >>>>> and institute faith healing?
> >>>> BECAUSE, dumbo (or should I call you nelly?),
> >>> If you are going to call me names you can piss off. Forget the rest of
> > your
> >>> post, if it starts out w/ name calling I'm not interested.
> >>> C
> >> To answer your question;
> >> The Christian sects say "if you have faith then a cure will happen."
Scn,
> >> Inc. coupled with claims such as "experimental proof."
> > Well, if it had apparently happened, wouldn't that constitute
experimental
> > proof? (which sounds almost akin to "anecdotal evidence" from where I
sit).
> > I think that it would.
> In my dictionary, "apparently happened' is not the same as proof.
> Selling someone a system or procedure and telling them it can be used to
> raise the dead, cure arthritis, and make you able to throw away your
glasses
> forever,
That is against Scn policy to do that.You are overlooking this.
>and not being able to duplicate alleged results in a clinical
> setting seems to smell a lot like medical fraud,
Of course it does. That's why it's against our religion.
> although IANAL.
> Nowhere do I see, where those claims are being made, disclaimers about it
> being a matter of faith; instead I see a lot of pseudoscience, trotted out
> as decor to make scientology appear scientific.
Please be advised that it is against Scn policy and Scn tech- therefore it's
against the Scn religion- to tell people that they can get cured by taking
these courses. I'm not saying it's never happened, I'm saying that when it
has, it's been directly contra to the dictates of those claimants own
religion.
You are overlooking that, whether deliberately or not, I don't know. I know
it would make it far more convenient for you to believe that this is part
and parcel of the Scn religion, but it is not. What happened to Raul Lopez
was, for example, against the Scn religion.
These are promises "reges" have NO business making and not just by the
non-Scientologist ideas,either. They flat-out aren't supposed to be doing
that.
And it is *not* snake oil to believe that the spirit affects the body and
vice versa and that what occurs in auditing *may* affect that person
physically. It *is* snake oil AND AGAINST SCN POLICY to guarantee that it
would affect the person physically and how and when and where because that
cannot be guaranteed and also it's against Scn policy to suggest or order
the person to not receive real medical care. I have had , over the course of
my life, medicines and two surgeries administered to me as a Scientologist
and I've had Scn staff tell me to get various symptoms checked out at a
doctor's. I've seen a Scientology staffer order a "pc" to get his teeth
fixed at a dentist's and not to come back for any more auditing sessions
until they were. I know this happened, because it was my pc that this
happened to.
Much has been written about times where that did NOT happen, such as with
Raul Lopez and such as with Tory's medications, too and I am not questioning
the fact that those things occurred.I also don't advocate or condone them.
These things were contra to Scientology policy. And they were wrong for
other reasons besides that, obviously.
I submit to you that you do not really know the Scn religion. You judge by
abuses. It is well and good that you look at such abuses that took place but
it is NOT well and good that you decide from your frame of reference as a
not fully informed non Scientologist that these are actually part and parcel
of the Scn religion.
We are free to minister to the spirit in hopes that the body will be
affected but only after medical treatment was obtained or if there's nothing
else medical science can do except things of an experimental nature. That
is not the same as the picture you paint.
There is NOTHING wrong with trying to prevent someone from dying by talking
to them in the form of a "bring back to life assist" when medical options
have been sought, granted and exhausted or when such are unavailable and for
anyone to think that there was something wrong with that would indicate a
fixed idea of Brobdingnagian proportions.
C
