Tom Cruise building '£5m bunker to protect against alien attack'

[Juventus3]

Originally Posted by Muta

You, sir, would make a great addition to the 5th Elite Infantry Division. These Plasma Grenades you speak of may become of exceptional assistance in eradicating the alien threat. Send me your contact information as soon as possible so that I can provide you with the right paperwork to finalize the recruitment process.

Any other Halo players out there? These types of individuals usually have the desire, intelligence and motivation to stand up for what they believe in. How many of you are interested in making the jump from playing Master Chief to actually being Master Chief?

The world needs your help; we depend on it. Xenu's arrival will be swift and unforgiving, and I can guarantee you this - we must show them no mercy as much as they will not for us.

I can do a spin move in NHL 08. Does Xenu like hockey?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

I can do a spin move in NHL 08. Does Xenu like hockey?

He doesn't; if you can learn this 'spin move' in real life, however, we may have a need for a skill such as yours. It may come in handy on the battlefield, or if Xenu decides to challenge to a dance-off in a fancy Los Angeles dance club.

You have been warned.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

There is history behind Dianetics, or whatever book Hubbart penned too. Just less of it.

Doesn't make any of it any more "real". At the end of the day, it's a work of fiction - and if people are going to mock Scientology for its clearly insane belief system, then they shouldn't get defensive when told their own religion has no greater claim on reality.

Full marks to Textcritic for his well thought out and eloquent post.

What history?

Science fiction novel...where the author has already admitted he made everything up because he was broke?

Sorry, but I don't see how that can compare to Christianity.

I'm not going to get defensive based on 'reality claims'....I realize that much of Christianity is not based around physical proof, but faith.

But I don't like the comparison. Christianity has been around for centuries.

Big difference.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by simmer2

That was probably one of the best summaries of The Bible I have ever read. Doesn't put blame on one side or the other, just brings up the issues. Thanks for posting that Azure, and to Textcritic.

No problem.

Textcritic has a habit of explaining things in such a way.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by octothorp

And well they should hide. I mean, when Xenu returns, isn't he going to want to severly punish the scientologists more than anyone else, since they're the ones who have been actively trying to unlock his secrets? Maybe they're hoping that the rest of us won't tell Xenu exactly where Tom and Katie and their friends are hiding...

All we have to do is show Battlefield Earth and War of Worlds on 100 foot projection screens and that will kill off all the aliens.. and maybe Tim Robbins. hehe

[Agamemnon]

Meh... give it a thousand years and Scientology will hold just as much credence as the other 'big' religions... apparently time adds legitimacy to fairy-tales to transform them into plausible and divinely inspired text.

[troutman]

The Bible's primary importance, however, is felt religiously and culturally. It is perhaps the single most important "literary work"—and I use this term with some caution—of Western culture. It is the foundation, like it or not, of the legal and moral practice for the vast majority of Western civilizations, and for this reason

I think Sam Harris in The End of Faith, makes a very convincing case that the underlined premise is not true. I'll see if I can find his analysis on-line.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Meh... give it a thousand years and Scientology will hold just as much credence as the other 'big' religions... apparently time adds legitimacy to fairy-tales to transform them into plausible and divinely inspired text.

Or it could also be refuted by even more people.

Sure....after 'thousands' of years....Scientology might be on par with Christianity....but right now? I don't think so.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Azure

What history?

Science fiction novel...where the author has already admitted he made everything up because he was broke?

Well, I'm sure the original author of the Bible had an agenda as well when he wrote it. Money is as good as anything.

As for the science fiction aspect - what's the dif? Jesus is a zombie (comes back from the dead), Moses talks to a burning bush, etc etc. Lots of fantasy stuff in the Bible too. Doesn't mean there aren't lessons the religion will try to apply even in the clear absence of anything resembling reality.

I agree 100% the Bible has massive historical significance in western culture. I'm just saying that in a few centuries Dianetics could be in exactly the same position - and that other than time, there is no difference between them.

Work of fiction, moral lessons, (some) people who believe it is real.

Sorry, but I don't see how that can compare to Christianity.

I'm not going to get defensive based on 'reality claims'....I realize that much of Christianity is not based around physical proof, but faith.

But I don't like the comparison. Christianity has been around for centuries.

Big difference.

Other than time, I don't see the difference. I suppose you could argue that Scientology is a fad, and that it won't stand the test of time like Christianity, but that's just speculation. They are well financed, have thousands of followers, and have been around for 40 odd years already.

All this even with the common knowledge that Hubbart was just trying to make money!

One religion deals in faith that is centuries old. The other deals in faith that is only a few decades old.

Both seem alike to me.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Or it could also be refuted by even more people.

Sure....after 'thousands' of years....Scientology might be on par with Christianity....but right now? I don't think so.

Who said Scientology was on par with Christianity right now?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Who said Scientology was on par with Christianity right now?

I did.

I see no relevant difference between them. If you mock the belief system of one, you may as well be talking about Christianity, or other "established" religions.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Well, I'm sure the original author of the Bible had an agenda as well when he wrote it. Money is as good as anything.

You could say that I guess.

Original 'authors'....

As for the science fiction aspect - what's the dif? Jesus is a zombie (comes back from the dead), Moses talks to a burning bush, etc etc. Lots of fantasy stuff in the Bible too. Doesn't mean there aren't lessons the religion will try to apply even in the clear absence of anything resembling reality.

Sure.

I agree 100% the Bible has massive historical significance in western culture.

There you go.

Exactly the point I am trying to make.

And exactly why I feel a comparison between the two isn't fair.

Work of fiction, moral lessons, (some) people who believe it is real.

There are a lot of lessons in the Bible....moral, or whatever you want to call them.

I have no idea how Scientology works in that regard. Do they teach lessons? How to live your life?

Both seem alike to me.

I can't really argue with your opinion.

Like I said...based on 'reality'....both might seem alike.

But than again....Christianity has always been based on faith. Anyone claiming otherwise is a fool.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I did.

I see no relevant difference between them. If you mock the belief system of one, you may as well be talking about Christianity, or other "established" religions.

Well, I probably agree that the 'believability' of both is about the same as far as I'm concerned. Obviously Christianity holds a bit more sway over the world than Scientology (2,000 year head start?), I guess it depends on how the two are being measured. In terms of straight up 'truthful' legitimacy, then I'd agree both have about as much credit as Jack and the Beanstalk.

[peter12]

The Judeo-Christian tradition is not the work of a single author, nor the work of a political agenda with the express intent of corrupting, fooling and extorting it's followers. To apply that label to the entire Bible would be guilty of giving foresight to people who had none. At it's most secular, the Old Testament is a cultural mythology of the Israelites and later the Jews. The deep and often very profound insights found throughout these books give witness to the rise of Western culture and morality. Unlike Ron Hubbard, who wrote Dianetics simply to make a buck, the Hebrew myths of the OT and later the Gospels of the NT are instrumental in philosophizing and finding how human's ought to behave.

This has given us, as humans, immeasurably important gifts. The societal notion of the worth of the individual has it's roots in the destruction of the Jewish temple. The notion of reciprocal altruism has roots going all the way back to the patriarchal myths and the convenant between God and the Israelites. Indeed, even the West's portrayal of women has come about, albeit slowly, from the way Jesus radicalized and revolutionized the social views of his followers.

To write off the believability of the Bible and to put it on the same level as Scientology simply proves to me that you are too lazy to study up on it.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Azure

I have no idea how Scientology works in that regard. Do they teach lessons? How to live your life?

I'm not sure you could have a religion without lessons like that, so I would imagine so.

But than again....Christianity has always been based on faith. Anyone claiming otherwise is a fool.

Ok, so we both agree there isn't a whole lot of reality in the writings of Christianity and Scientology, and that both encourage behaviour based on faith.

My point being, that is people are going to mock Cruise for believing Xenu is going to attack, they shouldn't get defensive if someone outside their religion mocks them for something equally based in faith.

Like baptisim. To me, that is just pouring water on your kids. How is water going to help anyone get into heaven? It doesn't make logical sense, and it doesn't have to - it's based in faith. People do it because they believe in it.

No different than building a 5 million dollar bunker. Actions taken based on belief in something that can't be proven. He's doing it because he believes in it.

Why is one better than the other? You (I think) would argue that Christianity has been around longer, and so is more justified.

I would suggest that length of time, and number of followers is irrelevant. Both groups believe in what I like to call "a bunch of made up stuff".

Faith.

I prefer fact, but that's just me. It is amusing to me that some mock Scientology for it's beliefs, but have no problem believing in equally strange and improbable things.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

This has given us, as humans, immeasurably important gifts. The societal notion of the worth of the individual has it's roots in the destruction of the Jewish temple. The notion of reciprocal altruism has roots going all the way back to the patriarchal myths and the convenant between God and the Israelites. Indeed, even the West's portrayal of women has come about, albeit slowly, from the way Jesus radicalized and revolutionized the social views of his followers.

To write off the believability of the Bible and to put it on the same level as Scientology simply proves to me that you are too lazy to study up on it.

Everyone agrees that the bible has done a lot to shape our history and society. But not all of that shaping has been good. A lot of terrible things have been done in the name of the bible/god/church throughout it's history. It's something else to think about as to why people are not so keen to jump on the bible bus and are not fond of other new religions, like Scientology. As Christians it's easy to avoid looking at the bad things, as the benefits to your faith are clear in your eyes. But, to an outsider it's cloudy.

[BlackEleven]

If Xenu is an intergallactic space lord, what makes Tom Cruise thing he can build a bunker to withstand an alien onslaught? I'm guessing if he (or she?) has the ability to travel between galaxies and put souls in volcanoes or whatever, he has some pretty bad ass weapons that could turn Tom Cruise's bunker into a giant crater without much effort.

[Burninator]

To the people who don't like the comparison of Christianity to Scientology, what is your view on the Mormon religion? Since it is such a young religion the origins of it are very well known. And to speak bluntly, they don't paint a very good picture to any sort of validity. This is similar to Scientology, the origins are very much in question. But since Mormon has crossed this imaginary line of "been around for awhile" and "has quite a few subscribers" it is unacceptable to criticize.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Everyone agrees that the bible has done a lot to shape our history and society. But not all of that shaping has been good. A lot of terrible things have been done in the name of the bible/god/church throughout it's history. It's something else to think about as to why people are not so keen to jump on the bible bus and are not fond of other new religions, like Scientology. As Christians it's easy to avoid looking at the bad things, as the benefits to your faith are clear in your eyes. But, to an outsider it's cloudy.

Agreed, I would argue that ever since the formation of the Church into a political institution under the Emperor Constantine, Christianity has been used to justify a lot of terrible things. It's easy to do anything you want when you can convince people that God is on your side. That's the story of one side of humanity, selfish ignorance of your fellow man for your own gains. I, personally, think that the central message of the Bible is the opposite. In fact, I believe the Bible narrates a process of deliverance from the affliction and arrogance of those who create oppression.

I don't like avoiding the bad things, I think I am alike many of my fellow believers who think those bad things need to be met head-on. Christ, fore-most, was a Jew, and he didn't tend to ignore some of the problems he saw within Judaism at the time. He wanted to make it grow and be available for all people. That example should be kept alive now through His Church and I think it's been sadly left to wither away.

Of course, you're right. All of this is pretty cloudy to someone who doesn't have faith. I really don't blame them or anyone in the slightest.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Judeo-Christian tradition is not the work of a single author, nor the work of a political agenda with the express intent of corrupting, fooling and extorting it's followers. To apply that label to the entire Bible would be guilty of giving foresight to people who had none. At it's most secular, the Old Testament is a cultural mythology of the Israelites and later the Jews. The deep and often very profound insights found throughout these books give witness to the rise of Western culture and morality. Unlike Ron Hubbard, who wrote Dianetics simply to make a buck, the Hebrew myths of the OT and later the Gospels of the NT are instrumental in philosophizing and finding how human's ought to behave.

This has given us, as humans, immeasurably important gifts. The societal notion of the worth of the individual has it's roots in the destruction of the Jewish temple. The notion of reciprocal altruism has roots going all the way back to the patriarchal myths and the convenant between God and the Israelites. Indeed, even the West's portrayal of women has come about, albeit slowly, from the way Jesus radicalized and revolutionized the social views of his followers.

To write off the believability of the Bible and to put it on the same level as Scientology simply proves to me that you are too lazy to study up on it.

I am glad you can prove things about me without knowing me. Well done! I can't do the same about you, so I won't try, and will instead focus on the issue at hand.

Soooo, I guess morality didn't exist before the bible then? Since it gave rise to it? It hasn't been around for very long when you look at the span of human history. And there was no worth to the individual prior to the destruction of the Jewish temple?

I'm sure the majority of human history would tend to disagree with you. Since Jericho was inhabited 10,000 BC.

They are both books. That's it. There is nothing magical about the bible. It has a bunch of stories dating back a long time, and provides an interesting perspective into the minds of Bronze age peoples living in agrarian societies.

It also has a 2 millenium head start on Hubbart and came about at a time when there weren't a lot of books. Hence the significance of it's impact. An impact that has caused probably as much suffering as it has "gifts", depending upon who you talk to.

As far as what it has contributed to western society... well it very much depends on who was, interpreting it. It isn't like it was written in English. Or at once. Or by one guy. Or that it hasn't been extensively edited to suit whomever was in charge at the time.

And it isn't like it provides a step by step guide as to how to live your life. Unless you accept all of it - in which case you are an intolerant homophobic mysoganist who believes in genocide, zombies, and incest. All things that can be found clearly stated in the bible as having the full support of god.

Now, I have been harsh on the "good book". That's not really fair. It is just a book after all, and the interpretation of the writing is what leads to trouble.

So Cruise reads his book and you read yours. You both take lessons from them and apply them in your life. And yet somehow, you don't think you are both doing the same thing? Just because he might not have as many reviews of his book, simply because yours was published first? Great, your book is more popular. Doesn't mean it is any better.