Gerry Talks...

You are here: Home / Archives for God

God

by

A letter to Mike Rinder: Your victim speaks up (Part 8)

https://youtu.be/HZYvPRZ1Ewk

To Hubbard, you, Rathbun, Miscavige and the rest of you conspirators, persecuting your targets, silencing or destroying us, ruining us utterly is a game. You are “high-toned,” and enjoy creating that game, even if it is by wog standards evil and by wog law criminal. Through all your years persecuting us, committing crimes against us, you had to display good indicators (“GIs”). You had to be GIs. You had to be uptone, “winning on post,” cheerfully lying, enthusiastically tormenting us, aesthetically plotting our demise, exhilarated as you silenced us, in action destroying us, serenely driving us crazy. You could never have exhibited bad indicators (“BIs”) – a shred of sincere sympathy for your victims, a scintilla of unfaked credence granted us, real regret, a hint of conscience, an inkling of unhappiness about what you were doing — or you would not have lasted twenty years as CO of your conspiracy’s SP persecution department.

In 1994, just before you tried to extort me with the in-my-face threat that you and your coconspirators were going to keep on black PRing me until I stopped telling the truth, you executed and filed a declaration in the Scientology v. Steven Fishman and Uwe Geertz case in US District Court in Los Angeles falsely accusing me of, among other things, perjury and extortion. Dramatizing the beingness Hubbard assigned in his scriptures to criminals, as Scientologists standardly do, you were accusing me, and other individuals in the SP class, of what you yourself were doing.1

The Scientologists have continued to use your declaration as truth and continued to use you as a truthful witness of the experiences and knowledge you falsely swear to. The Scientologists use your declaration for the same purpose you had when you signed and filed it in 1994: to smear your conspiracy’s SP truth-telling victims. I have never seen where you actually recant the lies in this declaration or any other sworn statement you executed for your conspiracy.2

You know a lot about recanting, Mike, which means, per Merriam-Webster:

to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and publicly; to take back or disavow an opinion, declaration, or course of action; make an open confession of error

What you called recanting, however, was forcing your victims, the people you tried your nastiest to silence or destroy, to sign affidavits retracting what they knew to be true. You got them to lie in affidavits, and attack other victims of yours with lies, and you called that recanting. But you know what the truth is. You knew what the truth was every time you lied. And you have never recanted your lies.

Recently, as you know, the Scientologists used a paragraph from this declaration in a black PR smear of Hana Whitfield, who had contributed to the Aftermath series.

In 1994, when Whitfield was at the peak of her “deprogramming” activity, Remini’s co-host Mike Rinder wrote a declaration under penalty of perjury describing the anti-Scientologists she was part of (and that he has since joined). What he wrote then perfectly describes Rinder today, Remini and the parade of guests like Whitfield they trot out each week for her reality TV show:

“These people have gathered around them a few others who are bitter and harbor an unabiding[sic] resentment of Scientology and what it stands for and for their own failures in the Church. They view the Church as their ‘lottery ticket’ and pursue their jackpot with lies and threats at the expense of the millions of happy and satisfied members who support the Church with their time and donations. The Aznarans and Youngs are joined in that pursuit by the likes of Hana Whitfield, Andre and Mary Tabayoyon, Larry Wollersheim, Steve Fishman and Gerry Armstrong. Though they either do not know David Miscavige, or had some remote contact with him many years ago, they are willing to make vindictive allegations, not based on personal knowledge or the truth, and defame him personally and as the leader of the religion. The tactic is as transparent as it is unconscionable—spread venom in the hope that the victims of the hate campaign will eventually be forced to buy their silence so the Church can get on with its real purpose of expanding the Scientology religion and helping more people.”3

You swear in your declaration, which, as the Scientologists point out, is under penalty of perjury, that you have personal knowledge of the facts you set forth, including details about Jesus Christ, specifically the causes of his crucifixion and the actions of Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, other Romans in Judea, and the coeval Christians. You equate Scientology head David Miscavige with Jesus, and present yourself as an apostle, proclaiming Miscavige’s Christ-like qualities.

You adduce for the court, and announce to the world, the “good news” that you know Miscavige’s “compassion from personal experience;” that Miscavige twice personally took care of your healing from illness; that Miscavige is “completely honest, and sincerely dedicated to helping people;” that he “never sought personal power or aggrandizement;” that he constantly demonstrated “integrity and selfless willingness to serve for the good of others;” that “he works … without respite for only one reason–his sincere dedication to bettering the lives of others;” that in response to “a virtually unending history of personal attacks against him… [he] didn’t change;” that he “took no credit” for his enormous accomplishments when “the credit he so graciously gave to others, in fact, belonged to him;” that he “made the tax exemption by the IRS possible;” that he “is very approachable and friendly;” that he even “eats with the rest of the staff in the communal dining room.”

You equate the testimony of Exscientologists, including me, about Miscavige with “the false accusations” and “the lies,” which, you say, incited Jesus’ crucifiers to crucify him. You declare, knowingly falsely, that we “targeted Mr. Miscavige with … spite and malevolence;” that we “harbored” “blind hatred;” that we “are willing to make vindictive allegations, not based on personal knowledge or the truth, and defame him personally;” that we “rail against Mr. Miscavige and unleash the foulest lies about him [our] imaginations can concoct;” that “none of the accusations made about him were true;” that we “spread venom in the hope that the victims of the hate campaign will eventually be forced to buy [our] silence;” that we are being used “as a threat to extort funds;” and that we are “paid witnesses, “mercenary witnesses” in Scientology’s case against Fishman and Geertz.

Although some of the Exscientologists you name in your declaration were paid for their expert testimony and expert participation in the case, and although some of my evidence and certain of my sworn statements were used in the case, I was not paid anything. As for any hopes or efforts of mine, which you say have been to force whomever or whatever to buy my silence, I think it is evident that I have worked uncompromisingly to demonstrate that my silence is unbuyable, and what I might say could be as valuable as God’s Own Words.

Your declaration still sits in the US Federal Court files, available to everyone. The Scientology conspirators still use your declaration, testimony and other OSA work product to vilify the individuals you vilify in it, and to incite hatred and violence against us. You have never corrected the gross lies you told in it. Both your false witnessing when you were officially in the SO, and your refusal to correct your lies and perjury from that period, unquestionably still serve your conspiracy’s malign purposes. Whatever pretext you used for your lies and perjury, and whatever pretext you use now for not correcting your false witnessing, your basic motivation that underlies your excuses, I conclude, is cowardice.

In your declaration, you present yourself as a Bible expositor, qualified to instruct the US Federal Court on Christian scripture and thought. You present as qualified to assert a holy equivalence between Miscavige and Jesus Christ, and an unholy equivalence between Miscavige’s critics and Jesus’ crucifers. In a 2013 documentary Scientologists at War, Rathbun corroborated your equating Miscavige with Jesus Christ:

  1. Ron Hubbard [after his death in January 1986] is now God, and [Miscavige is] appointed Jesus. And so he’s Jesus Christ to Scientologists.4

In providing your credentials, Mike, that qualify you to testify as you did, you state that you are a “Director of the Church of Scientology International (CSI).” More importantly, but not in your declaration, you were at that date the Commanding Officer OSA International. The Court and other readers of your declaration would probably be predisposed to understand that a director of an international church would possess deep knowledge of scripture. I mention your discourse on these bogus biblical parallels because it permits, in fact evokes, a comment on Hubbard, Miscavige, Rathbun, you and your coconspirators’ actual biblical roles.

Notes

by

God Additionally

From Wikipedia:

“Atheism is the state of disbelief or non-belief [1] in the existence of a deity or deities. [2] It is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (ie. the assertion that deities do not exist), [3] or the deliberate rejection of theism (i.e., the refusal to believe in the existence of deities).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

“Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

I believe that an agreement can be reached between theists and atheists that will end their age-old conflict about the creation of everything, and allow them to proceed to another discussion or controversy.

All that is required is sanity.  I believe that there can be sane theists and sane atheists; and there can be delusional people who call themselves either theists or atheists.  I assume, for purposes of sane discussion, that there are no delusional people, either theists or atheists, here right now.

A workable (not absolute) criterion and procedure for differentiating sanity from insanity can be the distinguishing between reality and illusion.

The sane can accept that everything is.  Another way of stating this is that the sane can accept that what is, is.

The sane also recognize that what does not exist is not a part of what does exist.  This is a clear arithmetic statement, perhaps as basic as is humanly attainable, on which sane theists and sane atheists can agree.

The delusional will insist that something that does not exist is, or could be part of what exists.  The delusional will necessarily have to redefine existence as nonexistence; or reality as illusion.  But by definition, and pursuant to the rules sane people live by, these delusional redefinitions cannot be true.

If there does not exist a purple elephant, not even the proverbial one, then a purple elephant is not part of everything.  If a purple elephant is brought into existence, then it will be part of everything.

We, quite obviously, do not know what is included in everything.  We do not know, and perhaps cannot know, if even herds of purple elephants are included in everything that exists.  But we can know that what exists exists, and that it is everything that exists, or simply, everything.

Mathematics is (my dictionary says) a science that deals with the relationship and symbolism of numbers and magnitudes and that includes quantitative operations and the solution of quantitative problems.

Math is and works the same for theists and atheists.  These two groups of people can both use the same sets of numbers and magnitudes and both do the same mathematical operations with the same results. Theists and atheists may at times apply math to different problems, but the math can be the same.

What constitutes everything is arrived at by the simplest of mathematical operations, addition.  Everything consists of its bits or components added up.  It might be that multiplication or quanta, for example, are real, so they can be added in.

It is true that an imaginary everything can be calculated in exactly the same way, by addition of its parts, and, being imaginary, can be of any imaginary magnitude.  But it is not necessary to consider imaginary everythings, or imaginary anythings, in order to consider the arithmetical calculation of the real everything.

It is also not necessary in considering the calculation of the total of everything to determine or answer the question of whether the physical world is an illusion, or whether a part or aspect of the world is illusion.  Whatever is illusory simply is not part of what is real, and not part of what adds up to everything.  This is true without knowing or having to know what if anything is illusory and what if anything is real.

So sane theists and sane atheists can agree that everything exists; or, again, said another way, that what exists constitutes everything [that exists].

Sane theists and sane atheists can also agree that everything that exists came from something or somewhere.  Without considering the nature or qualities of what or where everything comes from, that is, the nature or qualities of what caused everything, it is possible to accept and know that it was caused by something. If everything has always been here, then it is causing itself and always caused itself. But again, putting aside any discussion of the cause’s nature, it can be seen that whatever is real has a cause.

The nature of what caused everything that exists could be a big bang, it could be a spark in mud, it could be an error, it could be a non-error, it could be conscious, it could be unconscious, it could be a one-shot deal, it could be a continuing process, it could be everything itself.  It is not necessary to know what caused everything to know that everything was caused.

It could be that today’s oak tree is caused by an acorn of two hundred years ago, or by that acorn’s cause, which could have been another tree and another acorn two hundred years earlier; or by the acorn plus all the sun, soil and water over the hundreds or thousands or millions or billions of years.  It is not necessary to know what caused the oak tree to know that it was caused; if the oak tree exists.

It is not necessary to know if identical or different factors comprise the cause or causes that brought into effect two different parts of everything to know that the two parts were caused.  The oak tree has, for example, its seed, sun, soil and water, if those things comprise its cause; and the clam has its parents, its seed, its sun, its soil and its water too that cause it to be part of everything.

It is not necessary to know if the cause for anything that exists knew what it was doing in causing that thing in order to know that there was a cause.  Even if whatever was caused was caused by quote accident it still had a cause.

Just as everything that exists at this moment can be determined by the simple arithmetic operation of addition of its parts, so too can everything that caused everything that exists be determined by adding up that cause’s parts.

Just as it is not necessary to know what all the parts of everything are, and what the nature of all of the parts is, to be able to know that they add up to everything, it is not necessary to know what all the parts are of what caused everything, and what the nature of all the parts that caused everything is, to be able to know that they add up to everything’s cause.

That sum or totality of whatever, in the beginning or at any time, caused that which exists is properly called “God.”  The theists have almost owned the word, and the atheists, to my knowledge, have oddly objected to using the word, but have never really had another word for it. Fitting “that sum of whatever, in the beginning or at any time, caused what exists” into all the places a person could say “God” is so cumbersome and goofy that the atheists perhaps avoid even getting near those places at all.

God, as the cause or Creator of all that exists, without considering God’s nature or qualities, is what sane theists and sane atheists can agree upon. They can talk together about oak trees coming from acorns, thoughts being created by minds, or man causing pollution, overpopulation or his own destruction.  And now sane theists and atheists can talk about God, those causes added together that resulted in whatever is real.

Whether that cause or Creator created everything in Love, or is a God of Love, or an all-knowing God, or a just God, or is in fact Everything Itself Anyway, does not have to be considered to know that the sum of all causes caused all that is.

God could be a force, an “accident,” a wave, a particle, a static, an evolution or a Big Bang, but these natures or qualities of God do not have to be considered to know that God, the sum of all causes, caused all that is.

It is true that knowing that God caused or created everything might very well cause a search for God’s nature and qualities, and even God’s intention, reason and wisdom.  Very possibly, some people will be led to a belief that God is omniscient, omnipresent or all-loving; and some people may be led to a belief that God is capricious, mechanistic or even hateful.  Some people may be led to the belief that God caused everything and then left the building.  These beliefs might influence people’s lives, but it is not necessary to know if any of these beliefs about God’s nature or actions are right or wrong to know that God caused or created everything.

_____

This proof is sound biblically, conforming to the words and thought contained in John 1:3 (KJV) “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.”

A usual response from someone who takes offense at this simple proof is to try to project a straw believer’s qualities for God onto the basic identity of God, which is given here deliberately without qualities.  It will be argued that it is improper to use the word “God” without considering God’s nature and qualities beyond God’s being “the sum of all causes for everything.”

Either there is a cause for what exists or there is not. If there is a single cause, the theist says, the name for it is “God.”  If causation has component parts over time that added together form the sum of all causes, the theist says that the name for that sum is “God.” No nature or quality of any part of that cause or sum of those causes is considered in calling it “God.”

In order to prove that the cause for everything could not be God; that is, that the cause for everything could not be the cause for everything, a person must start by proving that there could be no cause for anything.  Since we are so overwhelmingly surrounded by everything that exists, and form ourselves a part of what exists, such a “proof” can only be “accomplished” by resorting to delusion or insanity, and pronouncing everything to be nothing, reality to be illusion.

There is no need whatsoever to sacrifice our God-given, or God-caused, minds and to opt for delusion.  The simplest conclusion happens to be the sane one. Everything exists. God did it.