Tom Cruise is INSANE!!! Scientology Promo Video

[Skins24]

Does this video still exist somewhere?

Youtube:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International

:doh:

[youngestson]

So the man is wacky.

Did any of us not know that? It really has no effect on me one way or another, and there are so many pathetic, damaged, and lost people out there ANY sort of mystic mumbo-jumbo can attract a following.

If not an overacting movie star, then who?

[dockeryfan]

Does this video still exist somewhere?

Youtube:

:doh:

Click the link on the first page. :doh:

[Skins24]

Click the link on the first page. :doh:

:whoknows:

Not showing up on this computer. Nothing but text.

I'll wait until I get home I guess....

[GibbsFactor]

My roomate stumbled upon the Scientology center in DC and ended up going in for an audit (the audit is free, the results are not). He said they asked questions like, "Are you having problems with your relationships?" "Do you feel happy at your job?" etc. They used one of those "e-meters" on him. He said he answered truthfully at times, and lied for some other questions, but the e-meter always reacted the same way. It's funny--dime-store psychologists railing against psychology.

Admit it, it was you.

[dockeryfan]

http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress

When you get home, just go to the website and click the picture that looks like this to get the video. The crazy seeps through the screen.

[SoCalSkins]

Anyone with half a clue can see the difference between believing in something on faith, and in believing in a demonstrable scam.

Anyone with 1/1000th of a clue would believe a religion based on a virgin birth and resurrection from death is a scam.

There is nothing hypocritical about a religious person denouncing Scientology, any more than it would be hypocrtical for a religious person to denounce any evil, known fraud (like Popov).

Of course it is hypocritical. You are taking a position to support your own belief system which requires you accept your religion as the only correct one, same as Tom Cruise.

Xenu existing is just as if not more plausible than Jesus being born from a virgin or being resurrected from the dead.

[techboy]

Anyone with 1/1000th of a clue would believe a religion based on a virgin birth and resurrection from death is a scam.

Well, there aren't that many clues to go around I guess, so we can't all have them right?

Of course it is hypocritical. You are taking a position to support your own belief system which requires you accept your religion as the only correct one, same as Tom Cruise.

You clearly aren't reading what I am writing. I very specifically indicated that I do not address these arguments towards other religions, no matter how new or unprovable. You won't read me denouncing Nation of Islam or Wicca adherence, despite the fact that each of these is also a 20th century religion.

I denounce Scientology because it is a provable scam that doesn't even consider itself a religion, except when it is convenient to do so.

Xenu existing is just as if not more plausible than Jesus being born from a virgin or being resurrected from the dead.

If you say so.

Of course, the plausibility of the supernatural beliefs is not the issue here. The issue is that Scientology is not a genuine religion. Read the article I posted a bit earlier.

Just to refresh everyone's memory. From Scientology: Religion or racket? by Dr. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi in the Marburg Journal of Religion:

Scientology's own documents show an organization which is blatantly commercial, blatantly secular and blatantly predatory, as well as blatantly fraudulent. As Hubbard himself said in 1962, the religion label "is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors" (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, HCOPL, 29 October 1962). Scientology will use the religion label when it is convenient, and a secular label when it suits better. It will use the cross (as it has done in publications and displays on buildings) just like it has used Sigmund Freud's name.

The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the religion claim is merely a tax-evasion ruse and a fig leaf for a hugely profitable enterprise, where the logic of profitability and profit-making dictates all actions. Scientology is in reality a holding company, a business empire earning profits from a variety of subsidiaries. It is guided by considerations of economic consequences and benefits, a strict business strategy.

The assertion that Scientology is a misunderstood religion seems less tenable than the competing assertion, that it is a front for a variety of profit-making schemes, most of which are totally fraudulent. The question is only whether Scientology is "an ordinary profit-making enterprise", as Passas & Castillo (1992) suggest or whether "Scientology's purpose is making money by means legitimate and illegitimate" (US District Court, Southern District of New York, 92 Civ. 3024 (PKL) see www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/decis.time.html ). The most charitable interpretation would be that it is a profit making organization; a less charitable one that it is a criminal organization. The evidence for an explicit policy of deception makes it harder and harder to show any degree of charity.

The story of Hubbard and his brainchild deserves treatment by those who have written on famous impostors and great con men (Maurer, 1940/1999). Similar cases include the phenomenon of "psychic surgeons" in the Philippines, who prey on terminal cancer patients from the West, or the Dominion of Melchizedek (a cyberspace scam, self-described as a "recognized ecclesiastical and constitutional sovereignty, inspired by the Melchizedek Bible"). In the context of United States cultural history, Hubbard seems like a combination of the best-known qualities of Roy Cohn (Von Hoffman, 1988) and Lyndon LaRouche (King, 1990). The similarity between Scientology and the LaRouche organization in terms of ideology and activities seems far from than trivial, but has never been noted.

Some of the scholars claiming that Scientology is some kind of a religion have put their statements to an empirical test. Both Bainbridge & Stark (1981) and Passas & Castillo (1992) did suggest that Scientology would become more religious in the future, just because its claims of efficacy were absurd and unprovable. More than two decades later (for Bainbridge & Stark, 1981) and more than a decade later (for Passas & Castillo, 1992) these predictions have turned out to be totally wrong. Scientology has not become more religious in any discernible way since 1981 or 1992. It is as much a religion today as it has ever been, and as it will ever be.

[GibbsFactor]

If it's not a religion, Techboy, why does it bother you so much? Like I've said, I read the metaphysics of Dianetics but don't know much about Scientology. I'd have more respect for Scientology if they actually produced someone that was built from it. Most of the well known Scientologists were already on top of the world prior to switching.

[techboy]

If it's not a religion, Techboy, why does it bother you so much? Like I've said, I read the metaphysics of Dianetics but don't know much about Scientology. I'd have more respect for Scientology if they actually produced someone that was built from it. Most of the well known Scientologists were already on top of the world prior to switching.

The honest answer is that as a worldview, it's hardly a threat to Christianity. Despite the bluster of certain atheists, Christianity stands quite well on an evidentiary basis, and it's not like Scientology is drawing hordes of Christians from the faith.

From that Christian exclusivist position, a faiths like Islam is far more of a threat. And yet, again, you will not see me denouncing the tenets of this, or any other, legitimate faith. I believe that Christianity is true, and that there is good evidence supporting such, and I am content to remain positive, as it were, and leave it at that.

Scientology draws my ire for a couple of reasons.

First and foremost, it's dangerous, and I don't mean spiritually. Scientology attempts to deny needed mental health care to people that desperately need it, through their opposition to any kind of drugs. Scientology also brutally attempts to destroy any that cross it, as the excerpt from the court ruling demonstrates, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Second, it's criminal and fraudulent. I see it as no different than "Christians" like Peter Popov that use tricks to fool people into believing something that isn't true only to line its own pockets.

Of course, to be honest, I don't think I really need to denounce Scientology so strongly. It's highly unlikely that anyone here is going to become a Scientologist. I guess I also object to the ludicrous notion that believing in a known fraud is exactly equivalent to believing in anything else. That's just silly.

Surely it's fairly obvious what the difference is between believing in something that you can't necessarily prove (faith) and believing in something that you know is a lie (delusion or worse). Especially when the purveyor of the lie doesn't believe it himself.

[Spartacus87]

Somebody didn't get a bid. :laugh:

Seriously. A fraternity/sorority is as much a cult as any club, you just pay dues for different things that you end up gaining back from (socials, trips, dinner fees, national dues, etc.).

I love when people make bizarre sniping comments then abandon them.

[Tarhog]

Wanna know what I find nearly as 'weird' as scientology? People who get openly hostile because they can't convince someone else how meaningless and stupid their personal beliefs are I really wish I could understand it - if you don't believe in something, why does it bother you that someone else might? In what possible way does it impact your life if someone here is a devout Christian, if Tom Cruise is a scientologist, or if I'm an agnostic?

Simply put, butt out. People have the right to believe whatever they want. Its not your place to 'set them straight'.

I hope I set you all straight about that :laugh:

[SoCalSkins]

Simply put, butt out. People have the right to believe whatever they want. Its not your place to 'set them straight'.

Says the man who starts a thread about Gibbs religious website and posts a giant picture of the bible in the stadium forum.

[Dance04]

Scientology is not a cult. It is not a religion. It is a callous, sometimes criminal, business venture. It is a scam. And, as I pointed out earlier, it is not harmless.

One could argue the same for christianity. The christian religion is among the most wealthiest organizations in the world. They do not need to pay a dime for anything. Seems like a good money making scheme to me. As for criminal, just look at the history of the christian faith. there is bloodshed at every corner. Also, I will assume you have heard of the jesuit order. Wether you beleive in it or not is a whole other story however. I'm not trying to "talk up" scientology, as I think it is one of the biggest scams on this earth

lol, I said this before.

A cult and a religion are not the same. It has nothing to do with belief in something that cannot be proven.

It has to do with

1) control of information. Manipulating access to the "truth".

2) control of relationships. Controlling of it's members behavior by mandating isolationism

3) use of deception in recruiting

4) promoting dependence on the group. Requiring professional relationships.

5) instilling fear of leaving the group

6) requiring monetary payment. There is a monetary "cost" of enlightenment? If the "goal" of Scientology is to help the world, why is is so expensive that very few people can afford to be "helped" by it?

7) Attacking any critisicm by attempting to monetarily ruin an individual.

Dock, I apologize if I am inaccurate, but I am at work and am gonig on memory, no time to back up facts/claims. All my arguments compare what you define a cult and a religion. I use christianity as an example as I am mroe familiar with it then all the rest

1)Manipulating access to truth: The library of the vatican is off limits. they contain many historical documents that are not allowed to be read. Also, look at all the gnostic gospels and how they are denounced.

2)no comparision

3)deception: What I am told the christian faith stands for, and what it actually stands for are 2 very different things.

4)no good comparison as of now

5)instilled fear: what happens if I don't beleive the religion? I will spend life in hell. thats a scary thought

6)payment: Donations are strongly suggested. You want to donate to your faith don't you? be a good christian.

7) I currently cannot think of a time when this has happened. Has it? possibly.

I'm not attempting to degrade the christian faith in any way. I was merely using it as an example to show that based on your differences, cults and religions actually can be quite similar.

:cheers:

[skinfan133]

Yeah, same thing was said the first couple hundred years after Jesus died. If Scientology keeps adding members, in a 100 years or so, it'll be viewed as a religion. They all start this way.

Tell me, other than the fact that you believe the unexplainable, unproveable "science fiction" in the Bible, what makes those stories different? If eventually enough people believe in Scientology's stories, and they believe it's the word of God not science fiction, how are they different from any other religion. The reaction to scientology is typical of the outsider reaction to ANY religion still in it's infancy/cult stage. How and why are the tenets of that any more or less believable than Jesus walking on water and coming back from the dead to an outsider?

not even comparable. people were not only willing to die for but be mutilated alive for Christian belief. you think any scientologist will do the same? would Ron L. Hubard go through what the Apostles did? I really don't think so. the events of the bible are corroborated in other texts by other authors (gnostics, other apostles, various greek and mid-east [pre-muslim] historians). no one at the time was arguing that the apostles work was fiction, as plenty of people had seen and interated with Jesus at the time. the difference between scientology and christianity in the early stages is that only fools are scientologists, and many rational people with only death to gain accepted christianity. also the fact that the dianetics is categorized under fiction ought to say something as well.

I see where you're coming from, but everytime someone tries to put down a cult and is met with the logic that christianity shares cult-like beliefes without cult status, it really gets old.

[techboy]

One could argue the same for christianity.

No, one really couldn't.

The christian religion is among the most wealthiest organizations in the world. They do not need to pay a dime for anything. Seems like a good money making scheme to me

It is now. At the time of its founding, which is where its truth claims origininated, Christians were the poor and downtrodden. The Apostles were fishermen and tax collectors. The early Christians lived in a commune where all goods went to support everyone. No one became wealthy, though plenty became persecuted and even killed for it.

No one can accuse the origins of Christianity as being wealth or power based.

Once Constantine made the Church part of the State, things changed some, of course, but this has no relation to the core of the faith.

The core of Scientology is the scam.

. As for criminal, just look at the history of the christian faith. there is bloodshed at every corner.

Yeah, and in the beginning, it was all Christians dying for their faith. Again, Christians as perpetrators doesn't come along for hundreds of years, and has no impact on the assessment of the origins and motivations of the founders of the faith.

Really, I don't understand why people keep trying to make this ludicrous comparison. If a Christian came on here and said "Islam is dumb! How can you believe that an illiterate guy wrote a book!", then I could see it.

Scientology is a different animal. It's founder said it was not a religion. What more do you people want?

[skinfan133]

Scientology is a different animal. It's founder said it was not a religion. What more do you people want?

You want to get rich? Make up a religion

[Kosher Ham]

haha, what a funny thread.

techboy, The Nation of Islam is NOT a religion, at first I thought you made a mistake, but then you repeated it.

It is a religious group, that is a Muslim group.

Would you call the KKK a religion ?

Same thing right ? Or at least they go under the same guise and use some similar recruiting methods... Except, the NOI mostly teaches and broadens minds, the Klan teaches well...we all know.

[suze109]

haha, what a funny thread.

techboy, The Nation of Islam is NOT a religion, at first I thought you made a mistake, but then you repeated it.

Hmmm, perhaps I missed something but I never saw him post "Nation of Islam" ... every time I saw him referring to it, he referred to it as a faith ... which it is.

And yes, some of the posts in the thread are pretty funny ... or sad, depending on your POV I guess.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Wow, socalskinsfan seems really bitter about religion!

[Kosher Ham]

Hmmm, perhaps I missed something but I never saw him post "Nation of Islam" ... every time I saw him referring to it, he referred to it as a faith ... which it is.

And yes, some of the posts in the thread are pretty funny ... or sad, depending on your POV I guess.

Perhaps his other reference was in the other thread that Buford started, or maybe I missed it scanning through quickly. But there were 2 statements made.

What makes it funny to you ? (just curious). I have my reasons but NOT because I am a Scientologist, nor a Muslim, a member of the Klan, or the NOI.

Beyond that, though, to compare Scientology to any religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Hinduism, Nation of Islam, is insane.

Either way its interesting to me that he would refer to the NOI as a religion.

[TriangleSkinsFan]

Somebody needs to wake these people up. They think they are God's gift and they are the only ones to save the world.

All religions believe this to be true of their own religion. Any Religion has to, by definition, think that they are right and all other religions are wrong. To admit the possibility of some other religion being right one would necessarily be allowing for the possibility that they have it wrong. Religions are mutually exclusive phenomena.

What would you expect them to say?

[techboy]

techboy, The Nation of Islam is NOT a religion, at first I thought you made a mistake, but then you repeated it.

First, whether or not NOI is technically a religion or just a new sect is a nitpick, and irrelevant to my overall point, which was that my problem with Scientology was not that it was a 20th century group with supernatural teachings, as NOI and Wicca also fit that description but are not the same in my view.

Second, because I like nitpicks , I'm going to have to disagree with you, here. Sociologically, of course, it's always a little difficult to pinpoint exactly how different a group's beliefs have to be from another to be a seperate religion, but I think that NOI is different enough from traditional Islam that to call it Muslim is akin to calling Christians Jews.

Yes, it is true that NOI claims to be Muslim, and it definitely has borrowed elements of Islam in its teachings, but it has also borrowed pieces of other faiths, as well as some new and disparate elements of its own (like the "Mother Plane", or WF Muhammed being God on Earth), and I think it's enough to seperate it from Islam. Just as Christianity builds on elements of Judaism, but introduces enough new concepts to be its own, seperate religion, I think the same thing has happened with NOI.

From what I am given to understand, most Muslims feel the same. I found a series of articles on the differences between Islam and NOI here.

I'm not sure how the academic religious studies community sees it, though.

[techboy]

All religions believe this to be true of their own religion. Any Religion has to, by definition, think that they are right and all other religions are wrong. To admit the possibility of some other religion being right one would necessarily be allowing for the possibility that they have it wrong. Religions are mutually exclusive phenomena.

What would you expect them to say?

A couple of points here.

1) Sceintology claims not to be exclusive, and that one can be a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or whatever, and still be a Scientologist.

2) Scientology is not a religion (point #1, in fact, is one of the reasons the paper I linked to earlier cites for making this conclusion).

[BigRedskinDaddy]

Tom Cruise' Placenta Eating Tips

By Chip Hilton

Apr 18, 2006, 10:19

Fresh placenta tartare.

HOLLYWOOD - In a recent interview with GQ magazine Tom Cruise said he plans to eat his baby's placenta. When he was cautioned that placentas weigh approximately one sixth as much as the babies to whom they are attached, Mr. Cruise became combative.

"You don't know placentas," said Mr. Cruise. "I do. I've studied placentas. I know dozens of ways to prepare them. I know what wines go with them. What do you know?"

According to Mr. Cruise, the recipes for serving placenta of which he has firsthand knowledge range from placenta tartare to placenta meat loaf. Mr. Cruise said placenta "reminds him of veal, but with a springier texture like heart." The benefits of eating placenta, he said, include reduced hemorrhaging and a decrease in the likelihood of postpartum depression.

Placenta tartare, which preserves the greatest amount of the placenta's nutritional content, is prepared by mixing the following ingredients thoroughly: one pound of finely ground placenta, one teaspoon of brown mustard, one-half teaspoon of Tabasco™ sauce, one teaspoon each of Worcestershire sauce and brandy, one egg, a pinch of salt, and ground white pepper to taste.

Refrigerate half an hour to allow the flavors to blend, then serve as a spread on crackers or toast accompanied by any wine with a subtle red-meat aroma, such as a cabernet sauvignon or merlot.

Click here for the rest

http://www.pugbus.net/artman/publish/04182006_placenta.shtml

You have GOT to be freaking kidding. TC put the pipe down, bro! You're triple-slippin'...