Home

 

god

By Scatjappers

There’s a passage in the Christian bible that is typically translated from the original text as something like, “Man was created in God’s image”.

Christians have never really known what to make of this. Obviously, it doesn’t mean that God has two arms, two legs, two lungs and a beating heart. But if not that, what would it actually mean? Christians differ in their opinions, but for the most part they’re guessing, since on its surface, the Bible’s assertion doesn’t seem to make sense.

I’d like to advocate for the position that this section of the Bible should be taken literally.

What makes a god a god? Presumably, he can create universes. He can influence MEST, even to the point of creating and destroying it. He should even be able to create and destroy life, more or less. A god would have no specific location and could be anywhere or everywhere, at his option.  Any characteristics beyond this mostly derive from the above.

While I don’t wish to be sacrilegious to Christians, let me assert that these are precisely the native characteristics of a thetan, as we understand them in Scientology. Over the nearly endless ages, we have plummeted in our capabilities and forgotten our history. Ron’s technology, as expressed in Scientology, seeks to rehabilitate the thetan’s capabilities. Once the thetan is fully rehabilitated, he is more or less what he originally was so long ago, with the exception that now he benefits from the experience gained over the almost endless eons.

In essence, there is no difference between a thetan and a god. And the above is what makes Scientology an “applied religious philosophy”. Used properly and precisely, it returns to the thetan that which he has lost, and gives him back all the characteristics which originally made him a being “in the image of God”.

Fortunately, none of this lessens the stature or role of the Christian god, and thus does not stand in opposition to his existence. In fact, from a Christian perspective, it should give one far more comprehension of one’s relationship to God and one’s ultimate role on this planet and in this universe.

27 thoughts on “In God’s image

  1. MaBű, January 24, 2015 at 8:51 am:
    […] “Scn is a kind of Gnostic philosophy. According to Gnosticism each of us is a spark of the divinity, but degraded and enslaved. Their techniques are meant to broke the enslavement and reverse the degradation. So far, the non-Scn Gnostic techs I have read, ultimately are not-is-ness, giving the illusion of a way out, but being a way to more down.” […]
    https://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/my-ot-1-success-story/comment-page-1/#comment-7059

  2. The Christian Fathers, the guys that wrote the philosophy of God, or “theology” of the early days of the movement included well-read individuals who were familiar with Greek philosophy, including Plato, Pythagoras et al.

    The idea of “as above, so below” or summed up that what goes on with the “gods” including the manifestation of the “nous” is all reflected “below”. You might say this would include a concept such as “function monitors structure”, loosely speaking.

    This idea of “as above, so below” is an essential principle of “Neo-Platonism” or the material put out by Plotinus, carried on with all sorts of fascinating stuff such as the Emerald Tablet from Hermes the Thrice Great and going all the way up to the Golden Dawn in the early part of the 20th Century.

    Plato’s “forms” are part of all of this philosophy, including what the Christian Father’s “hermeneutics” about what the doctrines of Christianity are supposed to be about.

  3. Another thing: Scientology is an applied religious philosophy, a bona fide subject and a definite religion on earth. It has every hallmark of any of the major religious groups and has been recognized by scholars, theologians, erudite types across the boards, including the Courts which take their data from these same authorities.

    If you take a look at the body of texts for say Judaism, you’ll find an extensive library of works that some people dedicate their lives to learning and applying.

    The body of work that comprises Scientology is extensive as well and takes dedication and effort to learn and apply to its fullest extent.

    In this context, it is rather telling to witness the “naysayers”, the genuine apostates as termed by the same religious scholars, in their rampant abandon as they scream and natter about “cults” and as has happened over thousands of years for Jews, they call for destruction and ruination for people’s faith, culture and knowledge.

    Scientology follows in the tradition of great thinking, contemplating and educated men and women that have dedicated their lives to making life better and seek truth above all things so they may assist their Dynamics in achieving a higher state of existence.

    What is up with these religious haters? I mean, WTF?

    • One contributing factor (which I have not seen discussed in Scn comments) is what I call “the Gnostic Effect”. According to a Gnostic books’ author, historically the Gnostic religions have been persecuted and suppressed because these kind of religions generate a strong contra-reaction in many people. LRH has written something (I’ m paraphrasing) about freedom activating strong contra-postulates as data from advanced levels. Maybe somebody remembers the reference.

    • JL:

      You likely know all this but for the benefit of others less widely traveled, there is the following:

      There are several things which drive the religion haters. One is drugs. I’ve seen more religious hate among druggies and ex-druggies than anywhere else. This doesn’t really answer the question, since drugs by themselves normally have very little to do with religion. However, I think it goes along with Ron’s observation of hidden hatreds and the biochemical personality. At the very least, drug use is typically a serious offense against many religions’ moral codes. May also be true down the track; I dunno. I am also rather convinced that some of the most severe effects of drugs are not just to ball up the current time track, but to bring some of the most vicious, severe and damaging incidents of one’s track into full view in front of them at all times, without the PC’s knowing it.

      Second, Ron makes it clear throughout his writings that religion is generally a control game. I has been extensively used that way, and if you were ever going to find a bunch of people who wanted to control a bunch of other people, it would be in the clergy. I rather suspect this to be even more true down the track than now. Particularly when you consider that, when building a big control operation, one way to give it legitimacy is to clothe it in a religion.

      Third, religion is a long-term betrayer of people’s trust. Many religions have spoken of freeing Man from his pain and his burdens, but when you drill down to the core of them, they don’t deliver. This is partially because what is practiced today (or yesterday) only vaguely resembles the original revelations by the originators of the religions (see Buddhism). Additionally no religion ever had a workable technology associated with it. So from the outset, none could deliver on the promises they might have made. Therefore, there is a level of betrayal sensed by many with regard to just what a given religion can deliver.

      Fourth, religion, in the hands of Man, has often strayed from whatever path it should have been on, just to serve the needs and wants of a certain few. One of the best examples of this was the Crusades. Ostensibly started to rid the world of non-believers and convert all to Christianity, instead it was more or less an excuse to loot and plunder (and gain dominion for the Catholic church, read, The Pope). Many of those who went forth in the name of Christianity had only the barest interest in the religion they represented. Their motivations were far more jaded than that. They wanted gold, silver, precious stones and other forms of wealth (like land).

      All of these can and would give people a reason to hate and/or reject religion. Of course, all this ignores two things. First, the good works of religion, which has served to civilize Man across the millennia. The second is the idea that one religion is not all religions. “Donut-ism” may be a perfectly fine religion, even where “Donut-hole-ism” is known to be a cult and a scam.

      Finally, the predominant religion of today is Science, which has no room for God, the soul, or any other traditional religion. The practitioners of the religion of Science have an active distaste for religion as traditionally practiced. It could even be said that there is a service facsimile which accompanies the religion of Science.

      (None of this is meant to demean or denigrate any existing religion. My comments on the Crusades are based on my personal experience, and do not necessarily reflect the behavior of the Catholic church today.)

      Paul

      • Hi SJ,

        After reading your post a second time I have come to the conclusion that even though you said, “None of this is meant to demean or denigrate any existing religion.”, that in fact you just did so. Especially Christianity.
        …..However, be not concerned. In fact REJOICE!, for thou mayest be forgiven, my son! …So long as thou repentest, asketh forgiveness, and say 1.468 “Hail Hubbards” as thou prostate-eths thyself in the direction of Saint Hill, England.
        (Gotta stop. My tongue getest-eth caught in my teeth!)

        But seriously. 🙂 No really. Seriously!

        Seriously, the big problem here is that “religion” and “church” are used interchangeably. And you are not the only one who does this.
        From the Oxford English Dictionary:
        Church – Institutionalized religion as a political or social force: the separation of church and state
        Religion – A particular system of faith and worship: “the world’s great religions.”

        A religion is a spiritual philosophy or body of spiritual wisdom.

        A church is an organization which is supposed to forward a particular religion and encourage its practice.

        I believe that correct the target for the objections and complaints you expressed about religions should be churches. Religions themselves mostly promote good things. Even the “religion” of Science does. It is the organizations and their “licensed practitioners” who can sometimes wreak havoc when being managed by people with bad or selfish intent. A good example is the Church of Scientology as it exists today. But the religions themselves almost always benefit and enhance the societies in which we live.

        • ES:

          Holy Crapeth! I hath sinned! 😉

          I will agree generally with you. Church and religion are two different things. And in truth most of the crap I hear from druggies/ex-druggies running down religion has to do with “organized religion” (= church), though I suspect deep down it is all religion they hate. The Crusades were a fabrication of the Catholic church, using the cover of the Christian religion to justify a range of actions which were really intended to bring under Catholic hegemony the “heathen” populations and pillage the barbarian hordes.

          Rest assured, I’m well aware of the difference between church and religion (and Scientology is an excellent example). I often make a similar case with regard to “justice” and “ethics”. Even LRH was a little slack from time to time in the proper usage of those two terms. Much of what happened in orgs was not ethics per se, but justice. People tended to use the words “ethics” and “justice” interchangeably, when in fact “justice” was usually what they were talking about. And justice was generally where things went horribly wrong. Unfortunately, “ethics” is the term applied to the entire field (including morality and justice), and also to the specific aspect which applies to the individual himself by himself. And thus, too close an identification is made because you’ve got the same word being used in two difference senses.

          The only area in which I might differ with you is the idea that religion itself is more or less innocuous. It isn’t. I believe that many if not most religions begin with at least some component of a control operation, and some have started entirely as a control operation. They promote morality as usual, and that morality serves to civilize the adherents. (You can’t, as our Founding Fathers suspected, have a stable society going forward without a more or less moral population.)

          Paul

          • I agree with you about the ethics=justice computation that has too often been extant in the application of ethics. I do not think that the subjects of ethics (or admin for that matter) are as much “finished products” as the Tech is for the most part. Perhaps that is because discovering, developing and refining the Tech was LRH’s primary concern.
            As for religions beginning in some part as a “control operation”, I believe that there is some truth in that. However, it kind of goes with the territory. And there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with control, per se. Anyone who wants to change the way things are must in some way or fashion exert some control of “the way things are”. Just telling someone “how it really is”, even if it is the truth, can be seen as control, evaluation, etc.
            I think that most religions have in practice to some degree devolved into “belief systems” as time wears on including, unfortunately, many practitioners of the subject of Scientology.
            Especially in the COS.

          • “Scientology is itself the microcosm of a civilization. It contains two moral codes: one is the moral code of practice which is the Auditor’s Code of 1954, the other is the Code of a Scientologist, which will be given at greater length in the next PAB. It also contains an ethical code, and that is its Code of Honour.

            The difference between ethics and morals is very clearly known in Scientology, if not in a modern dictionary. This mergence of morals and ethics has occurred in recent times, and is symptomatic of a general decline. An ethic is practiced on an entirely self-determined basis. An ethical code is not enforceable, is not to be enforced, but is a luxury of conduct. A person conducts himself according to an ethical code because he wants to or because he feels he is proud enough or decent enough, or civilized enough to so conduct himself. An ethical code, of course, is a code of certain restrictions indulged in to better the manner of conduct of life. If one Scientologist started to punish or berate some other Scientologist and called for an enforcement on the grounds that the Code of Honour had been disregarded, the punitive act itself would involve and violate the Code of Honour. The Code of Honour is a Code of Honour as long as it is not enforced. If a person is big enough, or strong enough or sane enough, then he can indulge himself in the luxury of holding upon himself freely and of his own decision the Code of Honour. When such an ethical code begins to be enforced it becomes then a moral code.

            A moral code is enforceable. Mores are those things which make a society possible. They are the heavily agreed-upon, policed codes of conduct of the society. If an auditor were to flagrantly and continually violate the Auditor’s Code or the Code of a Scientologist, then other auditors would have a perfect right to demand, and through the HASI effect, the suspension or revocation of certificates or memberships, or both.

            However, no such action is possible with the Code of Honour. A person could continually and flagrantly flaunt the Code of Honour and experience no more than perhaps the slight contempt or pity of his fellows.” LRH (PAB 40, 26 November 1954, The Code of Honour)

            • This is a great quote. Thanks for posting it, Chris.
              In COHA last sentence of the Auditors’ code does read,

              “It could be called the moral code of Scientology”.

              I have pointed out this line to a few Scientologists when they said that they felt that certain lines of the auditor’s code, e.g., not invalidating and not evaluating for others, needn’t be applied in life.

              But Life goes so much better and people are so much happier when this code is applied in life.

              • “I have pointed out this line to a few Scientologists when they said that they felt that certain lines of the auditor’s code, e.g., not invalidating and not evaluating for others, needn’t be applied in life.

                But Life goes so much better and people are so much happier when this code is applied in life.”

                A agree, although sometimes it may be a right action. That’s why we have TWTH. It’s a moral code for life. 🙂

  4. Chris, I think you may have meant to say, “it may not be right action”. Is that correct?

    And yes! TWTH is a third moral code that we have! We are rich!

    When I hear the term moral code it always makes me think of a line that lyric from Crosby, Stills, & Nash’s song, “Teach Your Children Well” that I posted the other day:
    You, who are on the road
    must have a code
    that you can live by.
    And so become yourself
    because the past
    is just a good bye.

  5. When George Burns played the part of God in the movie
    “Oh God”, he was asked why, with all of his years of experience in the entertainment industry, had he never before done a movie before?
    George’s reply was,
    “I was just waiting for the right part to come along” 🙂

  6. Ones view of god changes, I believe, when one runs the gpms of playing one. It is a common enough game that doesnt lead to being more godlike, A good thought provoking article as are many of the comments.

    The Christian god was someone(s) at a particular time in their existence. Apparently he had a significant impact on the beliefs of many. there have been many god(s) before and since.

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s