Tom Cruise - Has infact everyone else gone mad?

[Shoseki]

The majority of religions are not exclusive to all other beliefs. Even christanity isn't. The actual wording in the bible is basically that you won't worship other gods, not that other gods don't exist...

Believing in one religion does not require disbelief in all others, only that you follow one in preference to the others.

And that's without mentioning that the big three religions all worship the same god anyway.

I'm pretty sure those holy wars. jihad etc are not fought over nothing.

There are fundamental differences between the religions, no-one is denying this. You may be able to worship one god and give "lip service" to the other gods, what I am saying is that there isn't any way to justify one over another, except on "personal grounds". And these personal grounds usually are

a) You were brought up that way
b) You like Tom Cruise
c) You like the ceremonies

etc etc.

What I'm saying, is that whilst Atheism seems to be under attack from every religion "because we deny you religion", it seems perfectly ok for every religion to go on playing "happy families" with those around them. No-one ever calls you up on it.

And it is this lack of judgement that is entirely irrational. If you ask yourself "why do I believe X, Y, Z", try to ask yourself, how much of that is entirely irrational, circumstantial, etc. And how much is entirely justifiable.

Because

a) I was brought up as X may be understandable, but not justifiable
b) It says so in this book that I must believe in X is understandable, but not justifiable
c) I just think so is irrational, and not justifiable.

 

[Dolph]

Apologies, I was highlighting a single case, but one that may set a standard. The Chancel Repair Act has had effects on others though...http://www.chancelrepair.org/9.html



http://www.chancelrepair.org/7.html

It's worth noting that the Church of England has actually (according to that link) recommended the law be repealed

c1980’s: Law Commission and Church of England Synod recommend that the archaic and unjust law be repealed.[1]

The courts did their job evaluating the law, it's now in the hands of parliament to remove or correct the law, it's nothing to do with the church.

I would agree the law should be repealed, however it's not the fault of the church that it exists, and the fact that it exists means they could be considered to have a responsibility to use it (if you think of the church as a corporation at least).

 

[Dolph]

That may be the actual wording but it is far from the actual practice, especially in times past.

Absolutely, but that's not really the point.

While this may be the case for you and your faith, unfortunately it doesn't tend to be the case for most. From my experience at least.

Again, not because it's supposed to be that way.

Ah but it is the differences in how that seem to really matter to them isn't it?

Indeed, the desire to make other people 'see the light' and believe the same thing as you do is a constant force of humanity (rather than religion). We can still see it today.

 

[Sankari]

As far as scientology goes, the reason it is a cult and not a religion is probably time.

I disagree.

Scientology is a cult because it extorts money from its followers, employs typical brainwashing techniques, and viciously slanders anyone perceived as an opponent (including former members). It also advocates the use of illegal activities against "enemies of Scientology" (see here, for example) and attempts to suppress negative press by any means. The German government is attempting to ban it for human rights abuses.

Visit www.xenu.net for all you need to know about these lunatics and their crazy pseudo-religion.

 

[Dolph]

I'm pretty sure those holy wars. jihad etc are not fought over nothing.

They were fought over man's greed and lust for power, just as all wars have been. Using religion as an excuse or an identifier is no different from using nationality, colour or other things to create artificial divisions.

There are fundamental differences between the religions, no-one is denying this. You may be able to worship one god and give "lip service" to the other gods, what I am saying is that there isn't any way to justify one over another, except on "personal grounds". And these personal grounds usually are

a) You were brought up that way
b) You like Tom Cruise
c) You like the ceremonies

etc etc.

What I'm saying, is that whilst Atheism seems to be under attack from every religion "because we deny you religion", it seems perfectly ok for every religion to go on playing "happy families" with those around them. No-one ever calls you up on it.

I play just fine with atheists, apart form those who try and make me see the light, just as those of other faiths who wish to convert me will fall under a critical analysis of their beliefs.

The real problem is that atheists seem much more sensitive to having their beliefs analysed, especially if they don't like the results. Atheists seem to think their faith does require the beliefs of others, whereas most people I know with other beliefs (from agnostic onwards) know that their faith does not require anyone elses.

And it is this lack of judgement that is entirely irrational. If you ask yourself "why do I believe X, Y, Z", try to ask yourself, how much of that is entirely irrational, circumstantial, etc. And how much is entirely justifiable.

Because

a) I was brought up as X may be understandable, but not justifiable
b) It says so in this book that I must believe in X is understandable, but not justifiable
c) I just think so is irrational, and not justifiable.

What are your beliefs based on? I agree with your above analysis in most cases (at least in terms of trying to convince someone else to follow your beliefs), would you turn your analysis on your own beliefs?

 

[RDM]

Absolutely, but that's not really the point.

Again, not because it's supposed to be that way.

Unfortunately it is the point as it is the reality that we live with rather than what it should be in theory. We do not live with the religions as they should be, we live with the religions as they are. Which tends to be "We are right, everyone else is wrong" with minor exceptions.

Indeed, the desire to make other people 'see the light' and believe the same thing as you do is a constant force of humanity (rather than religion). We can still see it today.

Which is one of those things that tends to make me believe that there is no god or supernatural force. Religions, especially the big three, tend to be somewhat convenient ways of enforcing a worldview. A very human trait.

Until Christianity got adopted by the Romans it was probably considered a cult. The early Christians probably considered Islam a cult too. Maybe one day in the distant future historians will wonder why the great religion of Scientology was also once considered a cult.

 

[RDM]

I disagree.

Scientology is a cult because it extorts money from its followers, employs typical brainwashing techniques, and viciously slanders anyone perceived as an opponent (including former members). It also advocates the use of illegal activities against "enemies of Scientology" (see here, for example) and attempts to suppress negative press by any means. This is why it has been banned in Germany.

Visit www.xenu.net for all you need to know about these lunatics and their crazy pseudo-religion.

Not all that different from early Christianity and early Islam then?

 

[Dolph]

Unfortunately it is the point as it is the reality that we live with rather than what it should be in theory. We do not live with the religions as they should be, we live with the religions as they are. Which tends to be "We are right, everyone else is wrong" with minor exceptions.

Indeed, most belief structures do that even today.

Which is one of those things that tends to make me believe that there is no god or supernatural force. Religions, especially the big three, tend to be somewhat convenient ways of enforcing a worldview. A very human trait.

Until Christianity got adopted by the Romans it was probably considered a cult. The early Christians probably considered Islam a cult too. Maybe one day in the distant future historians will wonder why the great religion of Scientology was also once considered a cult.

Possibly. It's too early to tell.

 

[Shoseki]

They were fought over man's greed and lust for power, just as all wars have been. Using religion as an excuse or an identifier is no different from using nationality, colour or other things to create artificial divisions.



I play just fine with atheists, apart form those who try and make me see the light, just as those of other faiths who wish to convert me will fall under a critical analysis of their beliefs.

The real problem is that atheists seem much more sensitive to having their beliefs analysed, especially if they don't like the results. Atheists seem to think their faith does require the beliefs of others, whereas most people I know with other beliefs (from agnostic onwards) know that their faith does not require anyone elses.



What are your beliefs based on? I agree with your above analysis in most cases (at least in terms of trying to convince someone else to follow your beliefs), would you turn your analysis on your own beliefs?

I don't have beliefs, but I don't define myself as Atheist but as Agnostic. I don't believe in "faith" as a good thing. Not that I place my own beliefs in 100% accuracy, but then I turn to the other "belief systems" and say why not yours? Or yours?

 

[Richdog]

So your life experience and education tells you that Tom Cruise is actually a 'dangerous nutjob'? Might I suggest you get out more, and take some evening classes

Now he's a 'dangerous nutjob'

Is the first time you've ever seen Tom Cruise in a scientology rant? It's just not this specific rant that identifies him as a nutjob, it's just one of many characteristically weird events that he is now (in)famous for. As for scientology, I can't believe anyone in this thread is comparing it to any established form of religion ffs... it was written in our lifetimes by a science-fiction writer and extorts money from it's members as mandatory. Even the slightest bit of effort to research scientology should reveal it is not any form of good thing. I live in East Grinstead, home of scientology, i've met and talked to members and i've heard numerous horror stories about grief-stricken parents who haven't heard from their sons and daughters in years, contact gradually decreasing to a complete standstill ever since they joined. Scientology also has a habit of preying on ex-elcoholics and drug-abusers, i've met several perosnally who tried to work their 'magic' on me in my old workplace. It's not a religion imo.

 

[scorza]

Not all that different from early Christianity and early Islam then?

Source?

 

[RDM]

Source?

The treatment of the Cathars would be a good place to start but there are an awful lot of examples in history of the Church acting in a less than brilliant way.

 

[Sankari]

Not all that different from early Christianity

Very different from early Christianity, for the reasons given in this post (among others I could mention).

Evidently you have never studied the history of Christianity.

and early Islam then?

Very different from early Islam, too. Mohammed and his followers didn't extort money from their followers. Nor did they attempt to slander their opponents; they simply killed them, or forcibly converted them under pain of death.

 

[Sankari]

The treatment of the Cathars would be a good place to start but there are an awful lot of examples in history of the Church acting in a less than brilliant way.

Very true. However, those examples are not from "early Christianity".

 

[RDM]

Very different from early Christianity, for the reasons given in this post (among others I could mention).

Evidently you have never studied the history of Christianity.

Not in any great detail but certainly enough to know that the church has not always been overly christian in their dealings with people. Especially heretics.

Very different from early Islam, too. Mohammed and his followers didn't extort money from their followers. Nor did they attempt to slander their opponents; they simply killed them, or forcibly converted them under pain of death.

How right you are. It is obviously much nicer to kill people than just threaten them. Much more civillised behaviour!

 

[Richdog]

Very different from early Islam, too. Mohammed and his followers didn't extort money from their followers. Nor did they attempt to slander their opponents; they simply killed them, or forcibly converted them under pain of death.

Was that a serious comment: "they simply killed them, or forcily converted them...". Simply?

 

[RDM]

Very true. However, those examples are not from "early Christianity".

Depends on how you define "early" really, the point is that Christianity has acted in ways much more appalling than Scientology but is still entitled to be called a religion. In addition we have very little real information how really early Christianity operated. There are very few historical reports on them until after nicea.

 

[Sankari]

Until Christianity got adopted by the Romans it was probably considered a cult.

That is correct. In fact, it was considered a cult by the Jews and Romans alike. The Romans even accused Christians of atheism, because they denied the existence of multiple gods.

The early Christians probably considered Islam a cult too.

That is incorrect. The early Christians knew nothing of Islam, since it did not exist at the time. Islam emerged some 600 years after the birth of Christianity, by which time the early Christians had been dead for a considerable period.

 

[Teki187]

I've searched for it, can't find anything related to that.

Found it.

http://www.chancelrepair.org/index.html

http://www.sourcewire.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=29404

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=37983

 

[Sankari]

Not in any great detail but certainly enough to know that the church has not always been overly christian in their dealings with people. Especially heretics.

Very true. The history of Christianity is the history of humanity, and is therefore replete with violence. However, the violence associated with Christianity is in opposition to its teachings. By contrast, Scientology encourages its followers to attack their opponents.

How right you are. It is obviously much nicer to kill people than just threaten them. Much more civillised behaviour!

Was that a serious comment: "they simply killed them, or forcily converted them...". Simply?

My choice of phrase was deliberately ironic.