Cruise to build $10M Bunker because Xenu is coming...

[johnsmith]

Come on big talker, lets see what you got.


Seeing as you never show up to a GTG and ever talk DIRECTLY to my face, coward, lets see it.

[CosmicCowboy]

Tom plays German hero Colonel Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg in the wartime thriller surrounding a failed plot by high-ranking military officers to blow up Hitler and has come under attack for his decision to do so as well as his religious beliefs.

The controversial film depicts the ill-fated plan to blow up the dictator on July 20, 1944, which he survived, with the plotters subsequently paying with their lives.

So we get to see Tom Cruise executed in his next movie? Dang, I might pay to see that.

[Sportcamper]

I have seen Close Encounters, E.T. and Days of Thunder... These guys like Tom Cruise, Richard Dryfus and Steven Spielberg know stuff about Aliens...

[peewee's lovechild]

I have seen Close Encounters, E.T. and Days of Thunder... These guys like Tom Cruise, Richard Dryfus and Steven Spielberg know stuff about Aliens...

Dryfus and The Berg are Jews.

They could buy Scientology.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Peewee - just to be clear, if you go back and read what I have written in this thread you'll see that I think 'conventional' religions are full of illogical ideas, but I'm actually asking where we draw the line on what cons utes a religion. I don't really know exactly where the line can be drawn - religion in general bears no attraction for me because I favour rationality over faith.

However, it seems to me that Scientology is a clear fabrication, whereas I can believe that Jesus existed and did some incredible things, even if they were exaggerated in the Bible, and even if I don't believe that he was an immaculate conception and the son of God.

A noted science-fiction writer comes up with a crazy story about Xenu and his alien souls from 75mil yrs ago, and somehow that is meant to be as plausible as a mythology that has shaped 2000 years of human cultural evolution? I think not. That doesn't mean I think Christianity is rational, just that it's more plausible than Scientology.

Oh, and I'm not "silly" dude. Not in any sense. Unless I'm drunk.

[j-6]

Xenu's a big chick, but c'mon! Didn't Tom learn how to use a sword in The Last Samurai? $10M is a lot of money to spend hiding from a 6 foot lesbian.

[Mister Sinister]

I'm going to laugh when Cthulhu rises from the ocean and rapes a horde of Japanese schoolgirls, using only the noodly appendage that is his face.

[Phenomanul]

To each their own...

[Mister Sinister]

You know you love the tentacle rape.

[Phenomanul]

I'm referring to people's choice of 'religious' or 'philosophical' beliefs... That everyone is en led to believe what they want. My belief system is compatible with the belief that everyone was given free will to believe in whatever fillls their heart's content.

[peewee's lovechild]

However, it seems to me that Scientology is a clear fabrication, whereas I can believe that Jesus existed and did some incredible things, even if they were exaggerated in the Bible, and even if I don't believe that he was an immaculate conception and the son of God.

You're really not making much sense here. There is absolutely NO PROOF that Jesus ever existed. So, if there is no proof of his existence, then it's all a complete fabrication too.

A noted science-fiction writer comes up with a crazy story about Xenu and his alien souls from 75mil yrs ago, and somehow that is meant to be as plausible as a mythology that has shaped 2000 years of human cultural evolution? I think not. That doesn't mean I think Christianity is rational, just that it's more plausible than Scientology.

Christianity is more plausible??? Have you even read Revelations (Apocolypse)?? That is better than most of the Sci-fi literature available today. I mean, John describes, with detail I might add, God's vehicle!! The er is supposed to have some sort of car to move about in the heaven's. How the is that more plausible???

And, exactly how different is the bible to some other ancient scripts that most people write off as fiction??

You don't make a very good case here, my silly friend.

Oh, and I'm not "silly" dude. Not in any sense. Unless I'm drunk.

You're not silly, you're Australian.

[Mister Sinister]

I'm referring to people's choice of 'religious' or 'philosophical' beliefs... That everyone is en led to believe what they want. My belief system is compatible with the belief that everyone was given free will to believe in whatever fillls their heart's content.

Take all the fun out of my Cthulhu references...jerk. Nah, but seriously, I agree with you.

[Extra Stout]

I won't often respond to somebody who is bound and determined to be hostile to Christians, since such hostility indicates a disinclination to listen anyway, but peewee stated a couple of gross falsehoods which reflect either a lack of knowledge about the extant evidence, or a choice not to pursue said knowledge.

You're really not making much sense here. There is absolutely NO PROOF that Jesus ever existed. So, if there is no proof of his existence, then it's all a complete fabrication too.

No proof? Then why did Christianity emerge in the first place? Why did not the Roman and Greek commoners follow Mithraism instead?

What of the tomb inscriptions calling upon Jesus, dating from the 40's A.D.?

Why did Caesar pass a special decree in Judaea regarding the prohibition of opening tombs in A.D. 50?

Why did Thallus in the third book of his history written in A.D. 52, describe the strange event of a solar eclipse on the day of a full moon in the early 30's?

Why does Josephus mention James, the brother of "Jesus, the so-called Christ" ? If, as skeptics maintain, this is a Christian interpolation, how can writers from the third century refer to this citation, given that Christian influence over the Roman government was still a century away?

Given the evidence available to those who do not have a predetermined agenda to deny the existence of a historical Jesus, his historicity is difficult to discount. If this evidence is insufficient, then neither can we trust in the existence of most other historical figures of antiquity.

Christianity is more plausible??? Have you even read Revelations (Apocolypse)?? That is better than most of the Sci-fi literature available today. I mean, John describes, with detail I might add, God's vehicle!! The er is supposed to have some sort of car to move about in the heaven's. How the is that more plausible???

No honest exegete would interpret Revelation, or any other piece of apocalyptic literature, be it Christian or otherwise, literally. The point of apocalyptic literature is that it is mystical and allegorical.

[leemajors]

revelations reads more like a gnostic text than the rest of the New Testament.

[Fat Bones]

This may work, it's a fixer upper. But hey, he's got an extra 8.5 mil to throw at it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ an-Missile-Ba...QQcmdZViewItem

[peewee's lovechild]

No proof? Then why did Christianity emerge in the first place? Why did not the Roman and Greek commoners follow Mithraism instead?

First of all, just because a religion has sprung up out of nowhere, doesn't mean that it has any valid truth to it. If we all use your rationale, then Scientology would be an acutal and legit religion.

As to why Roman and Greek commoners did not follow Mithraism, no one is completely sure. But, this doesn't confirm the existence of Jesus. When it comes down to it, christianity appealed to the commoners because it promised and ever lasting life in the heavens. Chrisitanity also gave the commoners a hope for a better life after they died, something that most religions at the time didn't do.

So, if you're a common person in Ancient Rome, would you rather have a faith that assures you of a peaceful afterlife in relative equality, or would you rather stick to the "everyone goes to Hades in the afterlife" type of religion?

What of the tomb inscriptions calling upon Jesus, dating from the 40's A.D.?

Jesus, or "Yeshua" as was his real Hebrew name, was not a name the he owned. Other Hebrews had that name as well. You're basing this on the name "Yeshua" being inscribed in a tomb?? No one is even sure where the actual tomb is. There are, to date, four possiblities for Jesus' tomb. And, only one of them is on the outside the walls of Judea, where he most probably would have been entombed. That particular tomb, however, has no inscriptions.

What's to have stopped someone from inscribing said name on any random tomb just to embelish the legend of this Jesus man?

Plus, his death wouldn't have been around 40 A.D., it would have been 32-33 A.D. at the latest.

Why did Caesar pass a special decree in Judaea regarding the prohibition of opening tombs in A.D. 50?

Judea was a hotbed of rebellion at the time and Ceasar (Nero or Caligula, can't remember which at the moment, though both were insane) was afraid that they would use Jesus (The Messahia) to unite the Hebrews (Israel and Judea) against the Romans. This actually did happen. Read up on the Maccabee Rebellion.

Judea was extremely important to Rome because it was the crossroads of the Empire, and to lose it would mean to lose control of half of the Empire.

Why did Thallus in the third book of his history written in A.D. 52, describe the strange event of a solar eclipse on the day of a full moon in the early 30's?

Thallus wrote about an event that happened 22 years before, and that's supposed to make something true?? Do you even remember events that transpired 20 some years ago, and with great clarity??

The Mayans, Egyptians, Aztecs, Ancient Chinese, and countless others also have similar stories with eclipses and what not. Shouldn't we give creadence to any one of theses as well? Why does that only work in regards with christianity?

Why does Josephus mention James, the brother of "Jesus, the so-called Christ" ? If, as skeptics maintain, this is a Christian interpolation, how can writers from the third century refer to this citation, given that Christian influence over the Roman government was still a century away?

How is this proof? Only because somebody wrote that James was the brother of Jesus? There are some writings, written before Josephus, that claim that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, but that seems to have been discarded as false. Why do you pick and choose what is true?

Given the evidence available to those who do not have a predetermined agenda to deny the existence of a historical Jesus, his historicity is difficult to discount. If this evidence is insufficient, then neither can we trust in the existence of most other historical figures of antiquity.

His existence is also incredibly difficult to prove. Other historical figures have loads and loads of evidence proving their existence. However, religious figures such as Jesus, Buddha, Zoroastra, Shiva and others don't have much in evidence that they ever existed.

No honest exegete would interpret Revelation, or any other piece of apocalyptic literature, be it Christian or otherwise, literally. The point of apocalyptic literature is that it is mystical and allegorical.

Aaaaaaand, so is anything that the Scientologists read.

It's just as arbitrary as christianity.

[Extra Stout]

First of all, just because a religion has sprung up out of nowhere, doesn't mean that it has any valid truth to it. If we all use your rationale, then Scientology would be an acutal and legit religion.

Here you are moving the goalposts. You said there is no proof Jesus existed. That is a historically dubious claim. Whether Scientology is true or not, is not the same question as whether L. Ron Hubbard was an actual person.

As to why Roman and Greek commoners did not follow Mithraism, no one is completely sure. But, this doesn't confirm the existence of Jesus. When it comes down to it, christianity appealed to the commoners because it promised and ever lasting life in the heavens. Chrisitanity also gave the commoners a hope for a better life after they died, something that most religions at the time didn't do.

So, if you're a common person in Ancient Rome, would you rather have a faith that assures you of a peaceful afterlife in relative equality, or would you rather stick to the "everyone goes to Hades in the afterlife" type of religion?

The question here is not whether Christianity is true and all the other religions are false. Nobody is going to argue into that belief if you are bound and determined not to believe it. But you are arguing that somehow this religion sprung up out of nowhere all of a sudden, for no particular reason, based upon a myth which was spontaneously created out of whole cloth. Don't you think that where there is smoke, there is fire? Is the idea of an itinerant preacher who becomes popular, and draws the ire of the authorities, somehow infeasible, or unusual in Jewish history?

Jesus, or "Yeshua" as was his real Hebrew name, was not a name the he owned. Other Hebrews had that name as well. You're basing this on the name "Yeshua" being inscribed in a tomb?? No one is even sure where the actual tomb is. There are, to date, four possiblities for Jesus' tomb. And, only one of them is on the outside the walls of Judea, where he most probably would have been entombed. That particular tomb, however, has no inscriptions.

I'm not talking about Jesus' tomb. I'm talking about catacombs which have inscriptions exhorting somebody named Jesus to save loved ones, inscriptions which date from approximately ten years following the purported crucifixion of Christ.

That is an awfully short time for a myth to develop.

Judea was a hotbed of rebellion at the time and Ceasar (Nero or Caligula, can't remember which at the moment, though both were insane) was afraid that they would use Jesus (The Messahia) to unite the Hebrews (Israel and Judea) against the Romans. This actually did happen. Read up on the Maccabee Rebellion.

Judea was extremely important to Rome because it was the crossroads of the Empire, and to lose it would mean to lose control of half of the Empire.

So, the myth of Jesus, created out of whole cloth in the 30's, was so fully developed and had spread so far, not even 20 years following his purported ministry, that Caesar felt compelled to act?

By the way, Caesar was concerned about the conflict between the mainstream Jews and the Nazarene sect, because the latter claimed their leader had risen from the dead, while the Jews claimed they merely had snatched away his body and claimed he rose. Caesar wanted to make sure nobody else was going to start snatching away bodies, claiming resurrections, and causing more problems in Judaea. That is why he issued the decree.

And if by "crossroads," you actually mean "backwater outskirts which were on important trade routes with other nations," I will agree, but Judaea was no more the middle of the Empire than Britain was.

Thallus wrote about an event that happened 22 years before, and that's supposed to make something true?? Do you even remember events that transpired 20 some years ago, and with great clarity??

This is a terrible argument on your part. Are you simply going to discount any corroborating accounts of events depicted in the Bible? By that standard, no ancient history is knowable.

The Mayans, Egyptians, Aztecs, Ancient Chinese, and countless others also have similar stories with eclipses and what not. Shouldn't we give creadence to any one of theses as well? Why does that only work in regards with christianity?

To what extent do these have external corroborating evidence? Mind you, we are speaking of historical accounts, not of religious faith.

How is this proof? Only because somebody wrote that James was the brother of Jesus? There are some writings, written before Josephus, that claim that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, but that seems to have been discarded as false. Why do you pick and choose what is true?

Because according to the argument that accounts with a religious agenda are not reliable compared to detached historical accounts, a mention by one of history's most famous historians carries a great deal of weight.

This especially comes with the discovery that other accounts by Josephus, such as the siege at Masada, which once were speculated to be mythical, in fact are corroborated by archaeology.

This is why skeptics denying the historicity of Jesus want to claim that this mention is an interpolation: it is devastating to their position.

His existence is also incredibly difficult to prove. Other historical figures have loads and loads of evidence proving their existence. However, religious figures such as Jesus, Buddha, Zoroastra, Shiva and others don't have much in evidence that they ever existed.

This is true only if you assume that the religious accounts have no historical value whatsoever, because of their religious agenda. Modern historical methods would regard such an assumption as completely unsound, since no secular historical account can be regarded as completely objective or agenda-free either. That is why the hypothesis of the "Jesus myth" among scholars has fallen on such hard times since its heyday 100 years ago.

Even among the humanist skeptic scholars who think Christianity is just another religious supers ion, today you will find extremely few who deny the historicity of Jesus. People such as yourselves like to claim Robert Price's writings as proof-texts, but his biblical exegesis can be sliced through like butter. (I especially liked his claim that Paul, in the middle of teaching the doctrine of bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, somehow denies it. Price then uses that to claim pieces of the Gospels are interpolations. Great stuff!)

Yet even so, both Josephus and Tacitus mention Christ.

Look and see who has the stronger evidence for his existence: Jesus of Nazareth or Alexander the Great.

Aaaaaaand, so is anything that the Scientologists read.

Scientology's writings are apocalyptic literature?

Do you even know what you just said?

[peewee's lovechild]

Here you are moving the goalposts. You said there is no proof Jesus existed. That is a historically dubious claim. Whether Scientology is true or not, is not the same question as whether L. Ron Hubbard was an actual person.

I get where you're going. And, I'm sorry I jumped on it. Yes, I'll give in that an actual human going by the name "Yeshua" probably existed. But, I was arguing that the great and all powerful Jesus, as described in the bible, probably never existed. I doesn't bother me that people would believe that there was a priest or rabbi that went by the name of Jesus and that he spread a message of hope and unconditional love. What bother's me is that people think that Jesus the "Superman" existed. There's just no proof of that.

The question here is not whether Christianity is true and all the other religions are false. Nobody is going to argue into that belief if you are bound and determined not to believe it. But you are arguing that somehow this religion sprung up out of nowhere all of a sudden, for no particular reason, based upon a myth which was spontaneously created out of whole cloth. Don't you think that where there is smoke, there is fire? Is the idea of an itinerant preacher who becomes popular, and draws the ire of the authorities, somehow infeasible, or unusual in Jewish history?

I'm not saying that it sprung out of nowhere, but it did happen "all of a sudden" as you put it. That, however, does not prove that there was a Jesus "Superman".

I do agree with your last statement about him being an itinerant preacher who pisses off the government, though.

I'm not talking about Jesus' tomb. I'm talking about catacombs which have inscriptions exhorting somebody named Jesus to save loved ones, inscriptions which date from approximately ten years following the purported crucifixion of Christ.

That is an awfully short time for a myth to develop.

Ten years is plenty of time. If I'm not mistaken, Catholics have granted sainthood to Pope John Paul II and there's already talk of making Mother Theresa a saint. I'm pretty sure there are catholics all the world over lighting candles to those saints and asking them to help them in their time of need.

I'm no longer arguing the human existence of a man named Jesus, I understand now what you were trying to say. But the fact that people inscribed tombs, walls, etc., with somebody's name doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or another.

So, the myth of Jesus, created out of whole cloth in the 30's, was so fully developed and had spread so far, not even 20 years following his purported ministry, that Caesar felt compelled to act?

I already explained why Caesar felt compelled to act. Nero, or Caligula (I can't remember which it was), was extremely paranoid.

By the way, Caesar was concerned about the conflict between the mainstream Jews and the Nazarene sect, because the latter claimed their leader had risen from the dead, while the Jews claimed they merely had snatched away his body and claimed he rose. Caesar wanted to make sure nobody else was going to start snatching away bodies, claiming resurrections, and causing more problems in Judaea. That is why he issued the decree.

You fail to see the importance of Judea. Having a rebellion start in Judea would have been disatrous for the empire of Rome. And, even if it was a conflict withing the Jewish community, a civil war breaking out in Judea would have been just as bad as a rebellion.

And if by "crossroads," you actually mean "backwater outskirts which were on important trade routes with other nations," I will agree, but Judaea was no more the middle of the Empire than Britain was.

Judea had several important ports that serviced Rome. It was a crossroads of trade. Goods from Africa and Persia first arrived there and where distributed to the western part of the Roman Empire. Britain was nowhere near that important.

As a matter of fact, that area continues to be important to this very day for that same reason.

This is a terrible argument on your part. Are you simply going to discount any corroborating accounts of events depicted in the Bible? By that standard, no ancient history is knowable.

Then, why not give the same creedance and reverance to: The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad, The Odyssey, etc.? They all have some historical relevance.

To what extent do these have external corroborating evidence? Mind you, we are speaking of historical accounts, not of religious faith.

They don't. But, neither does what Thallus wrote.

Because according to the argument that accounts with a religious agenda are not reliable compared to detached historical accounts, a mention by one of history's most famous historians carries a great deal of weight.

But, why is that? History is written with a bias. If you don't believe me, read some Civil War history written by a Southerner. For years the Civil War was known as "The War of Northern Agression" by Southerners.

Just because a historian has written something doesn't necessarily make it true, or reliable.

This especially comes with the discovery that other accounts by Josephus, such as the siege at Masada, which once were speculated to be mythical, in fact are corroborated by archaeology.

I'll give you that. It's true that some of what Josephus wrote has been corroborated by archaeology. But, so have some of Homer's writings. But, I don't see anyone believing that Zeus was an actual god and that Hercules was an actual living person.

This is true only if you assume that the religious accounts have no historical value whatsoever, because of their religious agenda. Modern historical methods would regard such an assumption as completely unsound, since no secular historical account can be regarded as completely objective or agenda-free either. That is why the hypothesis of the "Jesus myth" among scholars has fallen on such hard times since its heyday 100 years ago.

Even among the humanist skeptic scholars who think Christianity is just another religious supers ion, today you will find extremely few who deny the historicity of Jesus. People such as yourselves like to claim Robert Price's writings as proof-texts, but his biblical exegesis can be sliced through like butter. (I especially liked his claim that Paul, in the middle of teaching the doctrine of bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, somehow denies it. Price then uses that to claim pieces of the Gospels are interpolations. Great stuff!)

Yet even so, both Josephus and Tacitus mention Christ.

Look and see who has the stronger evidence for his existence: Jesus of Nazareth or Alexander the Great.

Okay, I'll agree with that.

Scientology's writings are apocalyptic literature?

Do you even know what you just said?

They're not apocalyptic, but they are just as sci-fi as Apocolypse.

And, like I said, it's just as arbitrary.

[johnsmith]

Countdown to T park explaining what this all has to do with him in 3.......2........1........

[peewee's lovechild]

Does TPark stand for "Trailer Park"?

Just asking.

[Extra Stout]

I get where you're going. And, I'm sorry I jumped on it. Yes, I'll give in that an actual human going by the name "Yeshua" probably existed. But, I was arguing that the great and all powerful Jesus, as described in the bible, probably never existed. I doesn't bother me that people would believe that there was a priest or rabbi that went by the name of Jesus and that he spread a message of hope and unconditional love. What bother's me is that people think that Jesus the "Superman" existed. There's just no proof of that.

There is no proof of his miracles external to the New Testament. And, obviously, there is no external proof that he contained both fully divine and fully human essences within a single hypostasis, nor that he lived sinlessly, nor that God the Father regarded his death by crucifixion as an acceptable subs ionary atonement for the sins of all men who might have faith in him, nor that he was resurrected from the dead and thereby defeated death so that those who have faith in him might have eternal life through him. Those are all articles of faith.

They're not apocalyptic, but they are just as sci-fi as Apocolypse.

And, like I said, it's just as arbitrary.

Apocalyptic literature is very different from science fiction, but that really is just a rabbit trail from the main point of this discussion, which has been resolved.

[peewee's lovechild]

There is no proof of his miracles external to the New Testament. And, obviously, there is no external proof that he contained both fully divine and fully human essences within a single hypostasis, nor that he lived sinlessly, nor that God the Father regarded his death by crucifixion as an acceptable subs ionary atonement for the sins of all men who might have faith in him, nor that he was resurrected from the dead and thereby defeated death so that those who have faith in him might have eternal life through him. Those are all articles of faith.

Agreed.

Apocalyptic literature is very different from science fiction, but that really is just a rabbit trail from the main point of this discussion, which has been resolved.

I don't necessarily agree, seeing how Apocolypse is VERY sci-fi, but you're right as to how this isn't part of the main discussion.

[DarkReign]

revelations reads more like a gnostic text than the rest of the New Testament.

Its "Revelation" not revelations.

Im no zealot, but at least refer to it correctly.

[leemajors]

Its "Revelation" not revelations.

Im no zealot, but at least refer to it correctly.

it's actually the Book of Revelation if you wanna be like that.

[2centsworth]

i went through 12 years of sunday school and my philosophy is if youre a good person, youre a good person. any loving God should accept you for what you are whether it be atheist, christian, muslim, hindu, buddhist, taoist, etc. i shouldnt have to do a bunch of useless, re ed ceremonies and donate money to in order to get in heaven or motel 6... whatever.

There's not one person in the world who is good, not one. Romans 3:10 & Romans 3:23

To be a Christain is to acknowledge your sin, repent of it, and then accept God's forgiveness.