Scientology helps others... despite of all.

The OP shows all the traits of a good $cientologist:
1) Attacking people who speak out against $cientology ("lunatics", "creeps"), but not what they say (because it's true).
2) Making claims that cannot be substantiated ("$cientology works").
3) Making generalised claims ("close to 200 countries"). What's the exact number?
4) Lying ("8 to 15 million members" - more like 50,000 - $cientology counts anyone who ever bought a book, took a personality test, paid for a course, etc as a current member - even if they never formally joined, or have since left or died.

The founder of $cientology was a purveyor of hack science fiction, and that is precisely what he created in Direnetics and $cientology. He was also, amongst other things, a con-man, proven pathological liar and convicted fraud. And a bigamist, for good measure. He created Direnetics and $cientology with one purpose in mind - to make money for himself (as he himself admitted). The switch to religion was made purely to increase profits through tax exemption (as he himself admitted).

$cientology is open, realistic, comprehensible and transparent." Ahem. $cientology is secretive, fantasyworld, obtuse and deceitful.

$cientology, like its founder, like the Direnetics books, like the higher level "teachings" (google "xenu" for more info) deals in lies, unsubstantiated claims, unproven science and pseudo-religious claptrap in return for cash.

There's a good reason why there is so much negative information about $cientology out on the Web - it's all true. And for this, $cientology only has itself to blame.
Reading about $cientology can be the source of great amusement and great horror, but it's better to read than be ignorant.
Check out www.xenu.net for starters. That will give you a good introduction and also point you at more information if you remain interested.
If you enjoy a good book, try Russell Miller's Bare Faced Messiah (http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm), or Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/). Both of these (and many more) are available free online.

luana, please read these things yourself - Ask yourself: are they really all lies?

Thanks for commenting. What are you trying to do? Seed doubts in my religious belief? Trying to convert me to something? I think your hate-filled response has no place here as you are attacking me personally instead of talking about my contribution. Your slanderous $-sign each time you write Scientology could be a signal that you are just a stupid parrot of internet-propaganda against Scientology. Get smart and informed. Thanks

>What are you trying to do?

Tell the truth. Provide the readers with a more accurate and realistic overview of $cientology than your sweetness and light description.

>Seed doubts in my
religious belief? Trying to convert me to something?

We're not talking about religion here. We're talking about a money-making scam. I don't care what religion you are as long as it's not harming people and you tell the truth about it. What were you trying to do with your original post?

>I think your
hate-filled response has no place here as you are attacking me
personally instead of talking about my contribution.

No hate in my previous response or this one, and it wasn't a personal attack, as I'm sure you're well aware. The only conceivable personal insult is that I said that you were lying about the membership number. I accept that it's possible that you actually believe this. But then, $cientologists are taught that it's OK to lie for the cause, so you shouldn't really feel insulted. Some quotes from the founder here: http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/lying.htm

(Incidentally, people, I didn't make up the $cientology method of counting members, it was stated in an interview by the current "President" of $cientology, Heber Jentsch. More here: http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/warrior8.htm

Out of interest, how many missions are there? How many churches? In how many countries? And, really, how many members?

>Your slanderous
$-sign each time you write Scientology could be a signal that you are
just a stupid parrot of internet-propaganda against Scientology.

It could also be a signal that you don't know the meaning of slander and that I believe the first aim of $cientology is to make money, or, as the founder put it "MAKE MONEY, MAKE MORE MONEY, MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MONEY".

>Get
smart and informed.

No better place to start than the Internet. Lots to read there, luana. Are you sure the whole Internet is just a conspiracy?

Hope you get out soon. 

Wasn't I writing about lunatics on the net? D-ah. I shouldn't be suprised if one comes up on stage to prove the point. Sh**, I should've thought about that. You even registered for the purpose of giving me sh**, didn't you?! WOW! With the amount of things you easily believe I should try to sell you my trash can as a sportscar. But Scientologists don't do such things. Well, happy "conspirating" then! And get over it.

Lunatic? Stop being so rude, luana, it damages your cause.

Thanks for reading my profile. Learn anything useful? I registered to provide a response to your recruitment post. Always good to read the pros and cons before making a decision, don't you think. I'm sure you did before you signed up. Are you in the Sea Org? Did you sign a billion-year contract, as required?

Do me a favour and point out any inaccuracies in my previous posts. Don't just insult me or throw in a few unverifiable claims.

>But Scientologists don't do such things.

What exactly do $cientologists do? 

>And get over it.

 Get over what?

Many people have got over $cientology, luana, you can too. 

Having studied all manner of philosophy and religious thought in my life time, I divide the general topic of scientology into two, distinct and not necessarily related facets.  One is the set of ecclesiastically related organizations falling loosely under the umbrella of the Church of Spiritual Technology (which is the actual owner and copyright holder of all of Hubbard's works, including his science fiction works).  In this first group I mean to include the Religious Technology Centre, the Church of Scientology International, the various "Orgs" and "Missions" of Scientology, The Way To Happiness, Narconon, the Association for Better Living through Education, and so on and so forth.  I'll refer to these many organizations as the "Church of Scientology".  Quite distinct from the Church of Scientology are L. Ron Hubbard's written and spoken works on the subjects of "Dianetics" and "Scientology".

Everything the critics (such as "edwardwoodward") allege about the Church of Scientology may, or may not, be true.  But, that has no bearing on whether what Mr. Hubbard said on the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology have any merit and value.

It is not the Church of Scientology which draws people to Scientology.  It is the benefits people supposedly get from Mr. Hubbard's writings and lectures that draw people to Scientology.  Similarly, the rampant perversion of Christianity by the medieval clerics and papal authorities hasn't got the slightest bearing on the validity, or beneficial effects that might be claimed for Christianity.

Consequently, whatever the Church of Scientology may, or may not, have done which is objectionable, no rational person would consider such (alleged) mis-deeds as any even remote reason to reject the scientological writings and lectures of Mr. Hubbard.

What a rational person would do -- unless he, or she, were the kind of person who simply wanted to find a reason to reject Scientology without any basis -- is study what Hubbard wrote, and listen to his lectures (all in the privacy of his home so that he couldn't be "brainwashed" by people loyal to the Church of Scientology).

There is nothing in Scientology which states that you have to be a "member" of the Church of Scientology to read and benefit from Hubbard's works.

And, given that it is true that one can read and study Hubbard's works without ever having any contact with the Church of Scientology, if a person persists in confusing the Church of Scientology with Scientology, in order to rail against them both indiscriminately and without differentiation, then we know that that person isn't interested in the truth.  They aren't interested in helping or protecting anyone.  All they're interested in is finding something wrong with whatever there is around them that might, possibly, in some small way, help others.

Such people may not be lunatics.  But, they are certainly not anyone's friends, not even their own.  And, they are dangerous to be around because they are committed to making everything seem worse and more dangerous and more frightening than it is.