June 30, 200521 yr This is interesting...from the Sun-Sentinel: http://www.southflorida.com/news/ny-etcrus...nment-headlines Cruise: I believe in aliens The Chicago Tribune Posted June 30 2005, 7:02 AM EDT Tom Cruise not only battles creatures from outer space in "War of the Worlds," he also believes aliens exist. Asked in an interview Wednesday with the German daily Bild if he believes in little green men, or whatever form they may take, Cruise said: "Yes, of course. Are you really so arrogant as to believe we are alone in this universe?" And, for those who have had enough of Mr. Cruise, concerned citizens have drawn up a petition to urge the public to boycott his alien flick. The petition--at www.petitiononline.com/Tomkat--is a letter to director Steven Spielberg listing the signers' grievances. "We will not be spending our good money to support the ridiculous and potentially dangerous antics of this raving narcissist," the missive states. More than 5,000 signatures have been recorded so far.
July 1, 200521 yr Yeah I heard about that. Whatever it is Fritz says about some people needing to "be removed from the gene pool" or whatever....do that to Tom Cruise.
July 1, 200521 yr If you ever have an hour or so of boredom, do a google search of "Xenu" and read what Wikipedia discusses. You'll laugh your ass off.
July 1, 200521 yr Thanks for that. I hate to laugh at other people's beliefs but... "In Scientology doctrine, Xenu is a galactic ruler who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes, and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to cause people problems today. These events are known to Scientologists as "Incident II," and the traumatic memories associated with them as The Wall of Fire or the R6 implant. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, famously warning that R6 was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it." The Xenu story was the start of the use of the volcano as a common symbol of Scientology and Dianetics from 1968 to the present day. Much controversy between supporters and critics of the Church of Scientology has focused on the story of Xenu. The Church has tried to keep Xenu confidential; critics claim revealing the story is in the public interest, given the high prices charged for OT III. The Church avoids making mention of Xenu in public statements and has gone to considerable effort to maintain the story's confidentiality, including legal action on the grounds of both copyright and trade secrecy. Despite this, much material on Xenu has leaked to the public. Hubbard later dramatised the Xenu story as a film script, Revolt in the Stars" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
July 5, 200521 yr I read a few years back that Hubbard when he created scientology did so b/c of a wager he made with a collegaue in which Hibbard claimed that he can create a relgiion and obtain followers for it.
July 6, 200521 yr Yes, this is all hilarious... I don't want to offend anyone so I won't - but I heard this great story about this guy 2,000 years ago... I'll just leave it at that.
July 6, 200521 yr Yes, this is all hilarious... I don't want to offend anyone so I won't - but I heard this great story about this guy 2,000 years ago... I'll just leave it at that. 841689[/snapback] Oh brother a Jesus crack. I'm not even a "Christian", but I can see where you're heading with this lame-ass line of thought.
July 6, 200521 yr Yes, this is all hilarious... I don't want to offend anyone so I won't - but I heard this great story about this guy 2,000 years ago... I'll just leave it at that. 841689[/snapback] Yeah, a story about a man who preached a religion and was thus put to death is much harder to believe than a galatic ruler 75 million years ago who brought billions of people to Earth and blew them up with hydrogen bombs.
July 6, 200521 yr Yes, this is all hilarious... I don't want to offend anyone so I won't - but I heard this great story about this guy 2,000 years ago... I'll just leave it at that. 841689[/snapback] Yeah, a story about a man who preached a religion and was thus put to death is much harder to believe than a galatic ruler 75 million years ago who brought billions of people to Earth and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. 841804[/snapback] Thanks for voicing some intelligent thought chewie. Hey Felo, have you ever read the histories of Josephus? Jesus was an actual historic person. So far that already is more believeable than scientology. Attaching Jesus to the idea of a chosen one that had circulated for thousands of years is also understandable, whether or not you believe in his divinity. I am not a devout member of any religion, but ignorant comments like that only serve to offend oneself. My problem wiht scientology is that Hubbard himself created it as part of a wager that he can turn his philosophy into a religion which people will follow. Some of it actually is pretty good, and teaches good moral values and peace. However, the mythology of it is not based on any history or fact, and simply on the imagination of a novelist. So a religion based on the the creativity and philosophy of a writer and noveslit that has been around for 30 some odd years has less credibility than one based on a historic physical person and thousands of years of oral tradition.
July 6, 200521 yr I wouldnt attack a religion for its use of dubious stories. Yes Jesus was a historical figure. But what about the stuff that happend in the Old Testament? A good deal Christian teaching is based on myth. The average Christian doesnt realize that the concept of hell came from Greek myths. That even Dante's journey through hell in the Divine Comedy uses near matches in character and places to Greek and Roman tales. Yes Jesus definitley existed. But is Constantines affect on Christianity different from Hubbard? Before one person who takes a leap of faith attacks another who takes a leap of faith, they should be wary. In that, felo is right.
July 6, 200521 yr See how defensive you all get after such a small comment? I'm sure scientologists believe in that galactic ruler 75 millions of years ago with as much or more passion as any Christian does. I was just trying to illustrate how hypocritical it is to mock someone else's beliefs when yours might be just as incredible. I wasn't talking about the historical relevenace of any of it.
July 6, 200521 yr What you fail to realize is that Hubbard himself has admitted that its a crock. Like I said he believes the philosophy, but the mythology behind it was created by him and him alone. This is like people who believe the jedi's are real. The histrocial religions have a basis in history, whether it be the greeks, romans, hebrews etc. Hubbard sat down one day and felt that in order for people to accept his philosophy he would also intertwine a ficitonal story that he himself made a bet declaring that no matter how absurd people will follow it. Thats why i mock that belief, b/c the creator acknowledges its illegitimacy. I was looking for the quote on the net earlier, but i could only find it on anti-scientology sites, who people here would see as illegitimate. I'm going to try to find his personal writings and dig it up from there.
July 6, 200521 yr What you fail to realize is that Hubbard himself has admitted that its a crock. Like I said he believes the philosophy, but the mythology behind it was created by him and him alone. This is like people who believe the jedi's are real. The histrocial religions have a basis in history, whether it be the greeks, romans, hebrews etc. Hubbard sat down one day and felt that in order for people to accept his philosophy he would also intertwine a ficitonal story that he himself made a bet declaring that no matter how absurd people will follow it. Thats why i mock that belief, b/c the creator acknowledges its illegitimacy. I was looking for the quote on the net earlier, but i could only find it on anti-scientology sites, who people here would see as illegitimate. I'm going to try to find his personal writings and dig it up from there. 841931[/snapback] I don't care about the quote, that's not the point of anything I've said or talked about. I don't care if Hubbard made it up, thats not the issue. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy involved in making fun of someone elses beliefs when yours might be equally if not more unbelievable, whether it be Scientology, Mormonism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity or any other religion.
July 6, 200521 yr What you fail to realize is that Hubbard himself has admitted that its a crock. Like I said he believes the philosophy, but the mythology behind it was created by him and him alone. This is like people who believe the jedi's are real. The histrocial religions have a basis in history, whether it be the greeks, romans, hebrews etc. Hubbard sat down one day and felt that in order for people to accept his philosophy he would also intertwine a ficitonal story that he himself made a bet declaring that no matter how absurd people will follow it. Thats why i mock that belief, b/c the creator acknowledges its illegitimacy. I was looking for the quote on the net earlier, but i could only find it on anti-scientology sites, who people here would see as illegitimate. I'm going to try to find his personal writings and dig it up from there. 841931[/snapback] If it is one's faith and one is sincere about it, then what does it matter where it comes from? Isnt that the response given by Christians when presented with the political and historical aspects of their religion?
July 6, 200521 yr I think it is interesting how the liberal, anti-war people are the most likely to be skeptical about religion, while the conservative, pro-war people are more "religious" than any. It would make more sense if it was the other way around...
July 6, 200521 yr I think it is interesting how the liberal, anti-war people are the most likely to be skeptical about religion, while the conservative, pro-war people are more "religious" than any. It would make more sense if it was the other way around... 841962[/snapback] Well for liberals, I can say morality and religion are not always one in the same.
July 6, 200521 yr I think it is interesting how the liberal, anti-war people are the most likely to be skeptical about religion, while the conservative, pro-war people are more "religious" than any. It would make more sense if it was the other way around... 841962[/snapback] I like to think that it has a lot to do with the fact that since we are skeptical about religion and god in general, we tend to look at things differently. In stark contrast to religious people who are faced with a "do this, or suffer the consequences" mentality, skeptics do things more out of respect and love for humanity and their fellow human beings than from fear of reprisal from some unknown, invisible entity. Therefore it is important to take great responsibility for our own fate, not only as individuals but as a species, instead of say, delegating it to said entity.
July 7, 200521 yr Cruise may have lost his mind, but he's still a pretty good actor. War of the Worlds was alright, but I've seen better movies this year.
July 7, 200521 yr Cruise may have lost his mind, but he's still a pretty good actor. War of the Worlds was alright, but I've seen better movies this year. 842865[/snapback] Tim Robbins was so random in that movie
July 7, 200521 yr I think it is interesting how the liberal, anti-war people are the most likely to be skeptical about religion, while the conservative, pro-war people are more "religious" than any. It would make more sense if it was the other way around... 841962[/snapback] Well for liberals, I can say morality and religion are not always one in the same. 841980[/snapback] Actually up until last night most catholics were democrats and most are still very liberal. First of all I can tell sandro isnt conservative. Theres very few pro-war conservatives, very few people are actually pro-war. Thats first. Second of all, I read an article shortly after the election in the miami herald by a man named Leonard Pitts (i think, hes the black guy that writes a little herald column on sundays paper). Regardless, this man is a self proclaimed liberal. In the article he was writing about how liberals are 'moral too' and how theyre not immoral as people perceive them to be. What I found interesting about the article is that IMO the problem with the liberals is an excessive and radicalized version of morality. Liberals feel that they need to save the human race, and see we as individuals cannot do it, a powerful force like govt needs to strong arm us into our own physical salvation. Also this can be seen in the PC arguments and race arguments that many liberals espouse. This is why to true conservatives like myself, the liberals (as well as the neocons) are elitist. A small group of people, usually intellectuals who feel they know whats best for society as a whole, but since society has yet to realize what that is, govt needs to act to do what these people feel. Of course this is an ideologoical matter rather than a practical one. I myself believe that no one knows whats best for oneself than onself, and as such we should be free to do as we please in all aspects of life. Again this is all in theory, many on the board are aware of my practical applications of said theories. And as a side note, Felo, I dont know what your background is, but your concept of religion is totally misconstrued. You cannot generalize all of christianity into one nebulous belief, that all actions are done out of fear of God. That is untrue
July 7, 200521 yr Actually up until last night most catholics were democrats and most are still very liberal. First of all I can tell sandro isnt conservative. Theres very few pro-war conservatives, very few people are actually pro-war. Thats first. Second of all, I read an article shortly after the election in the miami herald by a man named Leonard Pitts (i think, hes the black guy that writes a little herald column on sundays paper). Regardless, this man is a self proclaimed liberal. In the article he was writing about how liberals are 'moral too' and how theyre not immoral as people perceive them to be. What I found interesting about the article is that IMO the problem with the liberals is an excessive and radicalized version of morality. Liberals feel that they need to save the human race, and see we as individuals cannot do it, a powerful force like govt needs to strong arm us into our own physical salvation. Also this can be seen in the PC arguments and race arguments that many liberals espouse. This is why to true conservatives like myself, the liberals (as well as the neocons) are elitist. A small group of people, usually intellectuals who feel they know whats best for society as a whole, but since society has yet to realize what that is, govt needs to act to do what these people feel. Of course this is an ideologoical matter rather than a practical one. I myself believe that no one knows whats best for oneself than onself, and as such we should be free to do as we please in all aspects of life. Again this is all in theory, many on the board are aware of my practical applications of said theories. And as a side note, Felo, I dont know what your background is, but your concept of religion is totally misconstrued. You cannot generalize all of christianity into one nebulous belief, that all actions are done out of fear of God. That is untrue Main reason my family left Italy is because of the bulls*** bureocracy you have to deal with for just about everything. And to think some people would want to see a more "Europeanized" America...
July 7, 200521 yr Actually up until last night most catholics were democrats and most are still very liberal. First of all I can tell sandro isnt conservative. Theres very few pro-war conservatives, very few people are actually pro-war. Thats first. Second of all, I read an article shortly after the election in the miami herald by a man named Leonard Pitts (i think, hes the black guy that writes a little herald column on sundays paper). Regardless, this man is a self proclaimed liberal. In the article he was writing about how liberals are 'moral too' and how theyre not immoral as people perceive them to be. What I found interesting about the article is that IMO the problem with the liberals is an excessive and radicalized version of morality. Liberals feel that they need to save the human race, and see we as individuals cannot do it, a powerful force like govt needs to strong arm us into our own physical salvation. Also this can be seen in the PC arguments and race arguments that many liberals espouse. This is why to true conservatives like myself, the liberals (as well as the neocons) are elitist. A small group of people, usually intellectuals who feel they know whats best for society as a whole, but since society has yet to realize what that is, govt needs to act to do what these people feel. Of course this is an ideologoical matter rather than a practical one. I myself believe that no one knows whats best for oneself than onself, and as such we should be free to do as we please in all aspects of life. Again this is all in theory, many on the board are aware of my practical applications of said theories. And as a side note, Felo, I dont know what your background is, but your concept of religion is totally misconstrued. You cannot generalize all of christianity into one nebulous belief, that all actions are done out of fear of God. That is untrue Main reason my family left Italy is because of the bulls*** bureocracy you have to deal with for just about everything. And to think some people would want to see a more "Europeanized" America... 844001[/snapback] I agree
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.