Tom Cruise & Katie Holmes

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by Rudey
What time period is early Christianity?

I think probably anytime up to somwhere between 313 (the Edict of Milan) to around 382 (Theodotius' decree making Christianity the official, favored religion of the Roman Empire) would be considered the early Christianity.

I mean listen, if the majority of people were scientologists and scientology existed before other religions, there wouldn't even be a discussion of people saying they were a cult.

And religion defies logic and reasoning often. It is about faith.

Without question, very true.

This is one reason I have tried to avoid characterizing Scientology based on its beliefs and have instead focused on some of its practices, which do bear some hallmarks of a "cult," as used in the very narrow sense -- particularly, the degree of control it seems to exercise over its adherants and the methods used to instill and maintain that control.

[ZTAngel]

Funny quote from Jimmy Kimmel:

Tom and Katie got engaged on Friday and, once again, the media somehow found out about it. If we promise to go see 'War of the Worlds,' will you please make this stop?

[damasa]

Originally posted by 33girl
I don't consider those people Christians, I consider them charlatans (Benny Hinn et al).

What's the name of the other guy that sells his "Holy Water" on the early morning religious infomercial? I think it's the same channel as Benny Hinn but I'm not sure. I just know I usually rise from bed to see some freak "healing people with the power of god" when he smashes them in the face and throws them to the ground!


I should try that, smash someone in the face and throw them to the ground and proclaim that I am healing them. Would it work?

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by damasa
...I should try that, smash someone in the face and throw them to the ground and proclaim that I am healing them. Would it work?

It might, but you might want to find a few people to stand around and watch you do this. This way you can really claim you are a religious group and these people are your followers.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
I think probably anytime up to somwhere between 313 (the Edict of Milan) to around 382 (Theodotius' decree making Christianity the official, favored religion of the Roman Empire) would be considered the early Christianity.

Without question, very true.

This is one reason I have tried to avoid characterizing Scientology based on its beliefs and have instead focused on some of its practices, which do bear some hallmarks of a "cult," as used in the very narrow sense -- particularly, the degree of control it seems to exercise over its adherants and the methods used to instill and maintain that control.

Was questioning of religion and its leaders encouraged and allowed in Christianity?

-Rudey

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by Rudey
Was questioning of religion and its leaders encouraged and allowed in Christianity?

Only to a certain point, to be sure. There was quite a bit of debate over all kinds of teachings in the early years, with excommunications being the result when the line was crossed.

And yes, Christianity has had more than it's fair share of forced conversions and burnings of heretics -- the roots of these acts often being as much political as religious.

I'm not sure what you're point is. I've agreed that at least general definitions of "cult" would apply to early Christianity and that a group should not be pejoritively labeled a "cult" just because its beliefs are out of the mainstream. Beyond that, I simply submit that using the very narrow definition of "cult" sometimes employed today -- with implications of brainwashing, extreme control, financial and emotional exploitation, etc. -- there is evidence that that definition can be accurately applied to Scientology.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
Only to a certain point, to be sure. There was quite a bit of debate over all kinds of teachings in the early years, with excommunications being the result when the line was crossed.

And yes, Christianity has had more than it's fair share of forced conversions and burnings of heretics -- the roots of these acts often being as much political as religious.

I'm not sure what you're point is. I've agreed that at least general definitions of "cult" would apply to early Christianity and that a group should not be pejoritively labeled a "cult" just because its beliefs are out of the mainstream. Beyond that, I simply submit that using the very narrow definition of "cult" sometimes employed today -- with implications of brainwashing, extreme control, financial and emotional exploitation, etc. -- there is evidence that that definition can be accurately applied to Scientology.

And I believe that brainwashing, extreme control, financial and emotional exploitation can be used in any religion and Christianity right now has its fair share of it.

-Rudey

-Rudey

[The Truth]

Their hair and eye color is too similar. How do they both have dark blue eyes with hazel specks? I think they are fraternal twins.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by Rudey
And I believe that brainwashing, extreme control, financial and emotional exploitation can be used in any religion and Christianity right now has its fair share of it.

I would agree with the first part of that statement (and I think I already have), but not the second, at least not without some qualification.

Some segments of Christianity (or at least some groups or figures that call themselved Christian) may indeed employ brainwashing, extreme control, and financial and emotional exploitation, but Christianity as a religion hardly teaches such things. If and where employed, they are a perversion of Christianity. (And, yes, I would include televangelists who employ methods of emotional and financial exploitation among those who are offering a perverted form of Christianity.)

Moreover, I know of no Christian "authority" that would sanction such tactics. From what I have seen -- which admittedly may not be the full and accurate picture -- the Church of Scientology does sanction such tactics at the highest levels. Are you saying that is not the case?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
I would agree with the first part of that statement (and I think I already have), but not the second, at least not without some qualification.

Some segments of Christianity (or at least some groups or figures that call themselved Christian) may indeed employ brainwashing, extreme control, and financial and emotional exploitation, but Christianity as a religion hardly teaches such things. If and where employed, they are a perversion of Christianity. (And, yes, I would include televangelists who employ methods of emotional and financial exploitation among those who are offering a perverted form of Christianity.)

Moreover, I know of no Christian "authority" that would sanction such tactics. From what I have seen -- which admittedly may not be the full and accurate picture -- the Church of Scientology does sanction such tactics at the highest levels. Are you saying that is not the case?

In your second paragraph, you employ examples readily so I don't need to.

As far as whether it is a perversion or not, I don't care because I don't think you can prove it in any way. Religion is faith-based and thus quite a bit of it is up for interpretation. The question then becomes how often does this happen, and it seems often by very "devout" individuals. Religion is a booming business. If you want to make money, figure a way to invest in it.

As for what scientology does and doesn't sanction, I'm not speaking specifically of that sect. I invoked parallels between Christianity and Scientology only to show that many faiths share the same problems.

-Rudey

[LeslieAGD]

http://tcruiseko.ytmnd.com/

Soooo Funny!

[ASUADPi]

Originally posted by LeslieAGD
http://tcruiseko.ytmnd.com/

Soooo Funny!

Love the music!!!!! (FYI the music is Duel of the Fates from episode 1)

[PsychTau2]

Originally posted by 33girl
Tom's first wife, Mimi Rogers, has said that part of the reason they broke up was that he didn't want to have sex.

Is that why he and Nicole adopted their two children? Because I've heard both Nicole (who mentioned her bio clock ticking) and Tom talk about wanting more children in their future. Nicole made it sound like she was able to biologically have children....not so sure about Tom.

And I'm also wondering if Tom is wanting to somehow "move up" in the Scientology leadership or something and part of that requires being in a marriage....I don't know, I'm speculating.

Either way, I feel as though there is a hidden agenda somewhere in all of this. Time will tell.

I REALLY hope Katie doesn't become pregnant very quickly. I would hate for her to be a single mom (no disrespect to single moms...but can you really see this one being a solid relationship right off the bat?)

ETA: I just saw stuff about the prenup, so the single mom thing might not be an issue.

PsychTau

[PsychTau2]

Another thing....aren't John Travolta and Kelly Preston Scientologists?

I wonder what their take on all of this is? Kudos to them, they've remained quiet and has not offered up any defense of Tom, etc.

PsychTau

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by PsychTau2
Another thing....aren't John Travolta and Kelly Preston Scientologists?

Yep, so is Kristie Alley, hence her and John's string of "Look Who's Talking" movies.