Tom Cruise=Jesus!?

A-Musing · Post by **A-Musing** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:05 pm

Hmmmm. I'm not much of a fan of either Tom Cruise or Scientology, but Doug's comments on "make-believe" are interesting. That is, if "faith" is the "evidence of things not seen," in order to have faith I must literally make myself believe that something I can't see is THERE. Make myself believe. Make....believe. Make-believe.
Just an observation. No offence meant to any Scientologists or others.
Thoughts?

dubhlinn · Post by **dubhlinn** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:10 pm

Only make believe?

Never...

Slan,
D.

emmline · Post by **emmline** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:14 pm

A-Musing wrote: ...if "faith" is the "evidence of things not seen.........Thoughts?

Naw...for me it's really just trust in the universe. i.e., an assumption that things are the way they should be and that I'll therefore be ok, whatever becomes of me.

I'd wager your definition is the more common one however.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:13 pm

I had a scientologist as a live-in girlfriend for something like 7 years. That probably puts me in a uniqe position on the board to discuss it in any kind of detail. heh.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:55 pm

Wanderer wrote:I had a scientologist as a live-in girlfriend for something like 7 years. That probably puts me in a uniqe position on the board to discuss it in any kind of detail. heh.

I remember that.

I have a friend who is Scientologist, but we don't live together.

I do wonder why it's considered socially OK to poke fun at Scientology and its high-profile members, but not, for example, Episcopalianism or Sunni Isalm and their high-profile adherents or something...food for thought.

emmline · Post by **emmline** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:08 pm

Cranberry wrote:I do wonder why it's considered socially OK to poke fun at Scientology and its high-profile members, but not, for example, Episcopalianism or Sunni Isalm and their high-profile adherents or something...food for thought.

I think it's because they act wacko. I imagine if they were calm and well-spoken the religion might win credibility.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:13 pm

emmline wrote:
Cranberry wrote:I do wonder why it's considered socially OK to poke fun at Scientology and its high-profile members, but not, for example, Episcopalianism or Sunni Isalm and their high-profile adherents or something...food for thought.
I think it's because they act wacko. I imagine if they were calm and well-spoken the religion might win credibility.

Oh.

cowtime · Post by **cowtime** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:31 pm

dubhlinn wrote:Only make believe?

Never...

Slan,
D.

Not Conway and the Twittybirds!!!!!!

Now that's enough to make me say-
TOM-eee-Cruise an I'm not prone to cussin' you know...

How about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeb-RGlTgU

[/b]

djm · Post by **djm** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:31 pm

A-Musing wrote:Hmmmm. I'm not much of a fan of either Tom Cruise or Scientology, but Doug's comments on "make-believe" are interesting. That is, if "faith" is the "evidence of things not seen," in order to have faith I must literally make myself believe that something I can't see is THERE. Make myself believe. Make....believe. Make-believe.

This and other barely disguised sneering at Scientology can be said of all forms of Christianity. Its all based on faith, and therefore all equally laughable. You can just as easily stick in the name of any religious or social belief. This is the sort of can of worms that you risk opening every time you mock other peoples' faith in something unseen.

djm

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:34 pm

djm wrote:
A-Musing wrote:Hmmmm. I'm not much of a fan of either Tom Cruise or Scientology, but Doug's comments on "make-believe" are interesting. That is, if "faith" is the "evidence of things not seen," in order to have faith I must literally make myself believe that something I can't see is THERE. Make myself believe. Make....believe. Make-believe.
This and other barely disguised sneering at Scientology can be said of all forms of Christianity. Its all based on faith, and therefore all equally laughable. You can just as easily stick in the name of any religious or social belief. This is the sort of can of worms that you risk opening every time you mock other peoples' faith in something unseen.

djm

I agree. I (generally) don't like to mock people's faith...they might be right.

Redwolf · Post by **Redwolf** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:11 pm

Cranberry wrote:
Wanderer wrote:I had a scientologist as a live-in girlfriend for something like 7 years. That probably puts me in a uniqe position on the board to discuss it in any kind of detail. heh.
I remember that.

I have a friend who is Scientologist, but we don't live together.

I do wonder why it's considered OK to poke fun at Scientology and its high-profile members, but not, for example, Episcopalianism or Sunni Isalm or something...food for thought.

You can poke fun at us all you like. Though "Episcopalianism" isn't really a word. The Episcopal Church is called that because we're governed by bishops. The "flavor" of Christianity we practice is "Anglicanism."

Here's a nice song to get you started:

THE HIGH CHURCH FIGHT SONG (sung to "Aurelia," aka "The Church's One Foundation")

Our church is mighty spikey with smells and bells and chants,
And Palestrina masses that vex the Protestants.
O happy ones and holy who fall upon their knees
For solemn Benediction and mid-week Rosaries.

Though with a scornful wonder men see our clergy, dressed
In rich brocaded vestments as slowly they process;
Yet saints their watch are keeping lest souls be set alight
Not by the Holy Spirit, but incense taking flight.

Now we on earth have union with Lambeth, not with Rome,
Although the wags and cynics may question our true home;
But folk masses and bingo can't possibly depose
The works of Byrd and Tallis, or Cranmer's stately prose.

(Here shall the organist modulate)

So let the organ thunder, sound fanfares "en chamade";
Rejoice, for we are treading where many saints have trod;
Let peals ring from the spire, sing descants to high C,
Just don't let your elation disrupt the liturgy.

Congratulations · Post by **Congratulations** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:13 pm

Redwolf wrote:(Here shall the organist modulate)

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:21 pm

Redwolf wrote:"Episcopalianism" isn't really a word.

Yes it is.

It's in the dictionary, and Google returns over a hundred thousand hits.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/episcopalianism
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=episcopalianism

It's a variant on "Anglicanism," but it is still a word.

Lucas · Post by **Lucas** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:00 am

WOW,

It was late yesterday, so I decided to postpone my reaction to Nano's post till today. I see it's not necessary any more, you guys said it all.
For the record, my post was not meant as an attack on any moderator, present or past. Neither was it meant to support any faith, social belief or representant thereof. But it does show how easy it is to slip into a discussion that really belongs in *a* Politics/Religion/Controversial Forum.

Now, please continue to make fun of Tom Cruise or any other actor that thinks he's more than a simple jester and of any faith or believe system that claims to hold the single truth. In my book that would be *any* actor and *any* faith.