MERGED-> Tom Cruise and Scientology freak me out + Video protest

[nathan1977]

I think the point where we're not seeing eye-to-eye (maybe ONE of them ) is that you just don't see there being a spiritual part to everything. I do. I see everything as spiritual. So yeah, to you, looking at porn has no victim, but to me, if the standard is purity or holiness, having my heart filled with lust after another woman is just another form of greed. It also takes away from my relationship with my wife, because I'm focusing solely on my needs, not her's. Relationships are about putting others first. Porn does the opposite.

I agree with these points. The only thing I would add is that porn reduces someone else's humanity to gratifying your own desires -- reducing someone else to simply being an object for your pleasure.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with Scientology...

 

[coemgen]

I agree with these points. The only thing I would add is that porn reduces someone else's humanity to gratifying your own desires -- reducing someone else to simply being an object for your pleasure.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with Scientology...

I would agree with you here. Well said.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't believe we can "hurt God" as you say.

I don't see looking at porn a victimless crime though. First off, in a sense you're contributing to the porn industry (if money is paid or sites are visited), which isn't the greatest thing. Nobody hopes their daughter grows up to be in porn films. Also, if you're married, it takes the focus off your wife and now your heart is focused on another woman. It's cheating. Again, a matter of the heart we're talking about.

If I stick my dick into another man or woman while in a commited relationship and my partner isn't alright with it then that is dishonest and it is cheating, the act itself is what is wrong, the lying about it is wrong. The thought itself, of lusting after another person is not, thats our sex drive at work and to deny that is to deny a significant part of what we are.

I think the point where we're not seeing eye-to-eye (maybe ONE of them ) is that you just don't see there being a spiritual part to everything. I do. I see everything as spiritual. So yeah, to you, looking at porn has no victim, but to me, if the standard is purity or holiness, having my heart filled with lust after another woman is just another form of greed. It also takes away from my relationship with my wife, because I'm focusing solely on my needs, not her's. Relationships are about putting others first. Porn does the opposite.

Not if your watching it together.

And as far as this all being oppressive, I find it to be the opposite. If you're playing a game of football, it's better for everyone if there's rules and a ref. The game is fair that way for everyone, and therefore more enjoyable. The boundaries allow for aspiration, but not greed so much. To me, it's the same with aspects of life, and from the spiritual perspective, there are rules that help you live life more to the fullest. It's when I don't follow these rules that I feel most oppressed and I find myself in situations where the consequences take a bite out of my freedom to live life to its fullest.

The issue that I have is that peoples boundaries do vary depending on the individual, an aspiration for group sex isn't neccessarily a bad thing and doing it would definitely be doing more in life than only ever having two parties involved. It may not be opressive if you fit within the boundaries of what your beliefs say are acceptable; but for any rule there will be those who want more. We shouldn't be expected to play by the same rules, and people should be allowed to play their own game. If you feel good with mandated boundaries by God thats fine, but unless it's illegal people should be able to push the limits.

 

[deep]

lusting after a co-worker or your neighbor = heart crime

this is bizarre an unhealthy thinking

being attracted to a co-worker or neighbor is not criminal

it is part of being human


hopefully it will not get out of control and will be short lived

 

[martha]

How so? Yes, both the Mormons and Catholics claim to be the only church that's right. I've belonged to three denominations and see them as all true. The bits they disagree on don't aren't major in the grand scheme of things. And they've never claimed to be the one true church.

You are always claiming that Mormons are in error, and then you say they're the ones with the "one true church" thing?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Being ashamed of sexual attraction is one of the most damaging feelings out there, it took me a while to break free from that juvenile mindset; openness and honesty lets you get over feelings quicker and seems to suceed more than repressed lust and self-loathing.

 

[coemgen]

If I stick my dick into another man or woman while in a commited relationship and my partner isn't alright with it then that is dishonest and it is cheating, the act itself is what is wrong, the lying about it is wrong. The thought itself, of lusting after another person is not, thats our sex drive at work and to deny that is to deny a significant part of what we are.

Would you tell your partner that you're lusting after another person though? How would they feel about that?

We just see differently on this. You're saying you're accountable for your actions, but not for what's in your heart. You don't see there being any spiritual side to life or a God, so there's no one to be held accountable to for the spiritual condition of our hearts. I do see signs of a God, and a personal one at that, and the Bible, which I believe to be God's word, says we are held accountable for our hearts and actions. (Luckily, we can be forgiven for when we slip up.) I see a spiritual side to everything. So, right there, we're comparing apples to oranges. I can totally see where you're coming from though. We're just seeing things differently.

That said, at what point is it best to deny our sex drive? When we have sex with another person outside our marriage? When we kiss that person? When we picture ourselves doing these things with this person? At that point aren't we turning our feelings from our wife to another woman? At the root of it all is the condition of our hearts. And what causes us to cross the line from inward lust to outward action? It's only a growing amount of lust or greed. It's easy to fall down another level to where the condition of our hearts is acted out.

Yes, to cheat on my wife physically is worse for our relationship than me looking at porn. It's higher on the scale of offenses to our marriage, but in my heart is the same basic problem. If I strive to deny that problem, because the standard is a loving, devoted marriage to each other, why is it considered oppressive to strive to not look at porn? I'm instead focusing my feelings toward my wife. What's oppressive about that? On top of it all, if I told my wife I was looking at porn or lusting after a girl at work, she'd be hurt. If I just keep it a secret to not hurt her, then I'm not compeltely open and honest to her. I'm holding something back and that can get in the way.

Not if your watching it together.

Again, we have different points of view and standards. I see marriage as a relationship between two people, not three. Even if my wife and I watched porn together, there's a third (or more) people involved. Now my heart's devotion is to more people, rather than only my wife. It's also, like nathan1977 said, reducing people to objects of my pleasure. It isolates everyone instead of uniting two people. But I understand we have different perspectives here.

The issue that I have is that peoples boundaries do vary depending on the individual, an aspiration for group sex isn't neccessarily a bad thing and doing it would definitely be doing more in life than only ever having two parties involved. It may not be opressive if you fit within the boundaries of what your beliefs say are acceptable; but for any rule there will be those who want more. We shouldn't be expected to play by the same rules, and people should be allowed to play their own game. If you feel good with mandated boundaries by God thats fine, but unless it's illegal people should be able to push the limits.

From your perspective, people's boundaries do vary depending on the person, but who sets the boundaries? In football, is it the players, or is it the league they play in and/or the officials?

As far as group sex equating to getting more out of life than a sex between two people - I couldn't disagree with you more. Is it more important to get laid, or to be a part of a committed relationship? I don't see sex as a sport, I see it as something that supports and enhances and deepens a relationship.

And you said unless it's illegal, people should be able to push the limits. Again, we have our different perspectives. I see spiritual laws where you don't. I'm not saying I'm a better person than you, but that's where we differ.

 

[coemgen]

You are always claiming that Mormons are in error, and then you say they're the ones with the "one true church" thing?

I'm saying they're not Christian. That's different than saying the church or denomination I belong to is the one true church. There's a difference here.

If I'm on the White Sox and you're on the Yankess, we're different teams, but we still play baseball. Mormonism saying they're Christian is like the Colts coming over and saying they're baseball players. Does that make sense?

 

[coemgen]

this is bizarre an unhealthy thinking

being attracted to a co-worker or neighbor is not criminal

it is part of being human


hopefully it will not get out of control and will be short lived

A spiritual crime, in the sense it's not holy. Not a crime by our physical standards. This is what sin is.

And yes, hopefully it won't get out of control. When is it out of control though? How long is short lived?

 

[coemgen]

Being ashamed of sexual attraction is one of the most damaging feelings out there, it took me a while to break free from that juvenile mindset; openness and honesty lets you get over feelings quicker and seems to suceed more than repressed lust and self-loathing.

The attraction and desire to isn't shameful, it's natural. God put it there. There's a point where it can cross the line, and that becomes lust. I can look at another woman and say "Wow. She's beautiful." But when I start lusting, we're talking about something different here. And again, there's nothing repressive to me about denying lust in my heart. Yes, I don't always do it. Heck, I'll even admit I slip and look at porn here any there. I let lust take over my heart. It's never as fulfilling as when I turn my desires to my wife though. Not even close.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't like Mel Gibson either, but just because he is Catholic does not make him crazy or hateful.
Just sayin...

Yes indeed. Mel Gibson has operated as an individual within his own Catholic beliefs, just like Tom Cruise has within Scientology. He is hateful towards certain people for whatever his reasons are, not because of his Catholic beliefs. I'm Catholic and I abhor his behavior. At least Tom doesn't appear to engage in that sort of thing- though I do think his statements about postpartum come across as a bit hateful towards women, well at the very least ignorant and hurtful. With any religion I for one tend to avoid making blanket judgments and assumptions and assertions just based upon the religion. How the individual relates to their religion and how they behave and speak is what I judge on. Perhaps Tom has an ego problem and not a "religious problem". I was a big fan of his until his recent behavior, but that has nothing to do with him being a Scientologist. I knew he was a long time ago and I never cared.

 

[Dreadsox]

Would you tell your partner that you're lusting after another person though? How would they feel about that?

Yes, I would. In fact, it is more damaging to me to not tell her what thoughts are in my head. The funny thing is, more often than not, my partner of 19 years knows who I may have an attraction to before I even realize it.

Its the keeping it secret, denying it, that us dishonest, and actually in my experience, leads to more problems down the road.

[Q]That said, at what point is it best to deny our sex drive? When we have sex with another person outside our marriage? When we kiss that person? When we picture ourselves doing these things with this person? At that point aren't we turning our feelings from our wife to another woman? At the root of it all is the condition of our hearts. And what causes us to cross the line from inward lust to outward action? It's only a growing amount of lust or greed. It's easy to fall down another level to where the condition of our hearts is acted out.

Yes, to cheat on my wife physically is worse for our relationship than me looking at porn. It's higher on the scale of offenses to our marriage, but in my heart is the same basic problem. If I strive to deny that problem, because the standard is a loving, devoted marriage to each other, why is it considered oppressive to strive to not look at porn? I'm instead focusing my feelings toward my wife. What's oppressive about that? On top of it all, if I told my wife I was looking at porn or lusting after a girl at work, she'd be hurt. If I just keep it a secret to not hurt her, then I'm not compeltely open and honest to her. I'm holding something back and that can get in the way.[/Q]

What is more damaging and more difficult to work through in a marriage is not the actual sex. There are plenty of people who go out and have intercourse and they are not connected to the person. Intercourse in many cases has nothing to do with the emotions of the heart.

People in devoted marriages still have moments of lust in their hearts. The baggage that we cary has us wired to have moments of shortcomings. WE are wired to be attracted to certain types of people.

I am not diminishing the effects of sex on a marriage. I do think your point needs more defining.

A person who hides from their partner their feelings for another person opens the door to a deeper emotional attachment to the non-partner. That EMOTIONAL attachment, while not acted upon physically, is more dangerous to a marriage that actually physically having sex.

There are plenty who live up to the letter of the law. And do not have the physical relationship with a person. For women in particular, I would bet a majority in here would agree that while they would be extremely disappointed that their significant other cheated on them on a one night stand, but the more difficult thing to work through for them is the emotional connection that their significant other may have made with another person in a long term friendship that was never consumated.

My point, hiding the lust can lead to a more emotional connection with another person. That emotional connection can become more significant than the connection with the spouse, and in the long run is WAAAYAYYYYYYYy more damaging (in most cases) than porn or a one night stand. Emotional affairs are extremely difficult to work through. So it is indeed more healthy to share feelings with the partner than to harbor them inside my heart.

 

[martha]

I'm saying they're not Christian. That's different than saying the church or denomination I belong to is the one true church. There's a difference here.

I disagree. Your denial of their Christian beliefs is the same as saying your definition of Christianity is the only one.

 

[coemgen]

My point, hiding the lust can lead to a more emotional connection with another person. That emotional connection can become more significant than the connection with the spouse, and in the long run is WAAAYAYYYYYYYy more damaging (in most cases) than porn or a one night stand. Emotional affairs are extremely difficult to work through. So it is indeed more healthy to share feelings with the partner than to harbor them inside my heart.

I can agree with you here. The emotional "cheating" is damaging, too. Definitely. And I agree we should share our feelings with our spouses. My wife and I try to do that. Do we always, no. It does end up being a good thing in the end though. It gets us talking about our feelings. I wasn't saying that one should not tell their spouse if they're having feelings like this, I was just trying to illustrate that there's usually some hurt involved when the spouse hears this. Therefore, the lust in the heart can cause pain outside of that person's own heart, even if no "actions" were taken like a physical affair. That's what I was trying to get across. Your points are well taken though. Thanks for sharing.

 

[coemgen]

I disagree. Your denial of their Christian beliefs is the same as saying your definition of Christianity is the only one.

I see where you're coming from, but I think you're missing the point. I'm not denying their Christian beliefs, I'm denying that their beliefs are Christian in the first place. They believe we can become gods. That's not in the Bible. They believe we can baptize the dead based on a misunderstanding of a few verses, and this is clearly seen as a misunderstanding when you consider all the things one must when studying the Bible that I mentioned before. It also doesn't jive with the rest of Scripture. They use the term trinity when describing God, but they have a different definition. Chrisitans use this term to describe God as one being, three representations, they God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as three different gods. Scripture says there is but one God. They believe we are forgiven of our sins by Christ's blood AND our works. This isn't a Christian belief.

I could go on and on and on and on, and that's not even bringing up the fact that there's no historical evidence of anything from the Book of Mormon and the fact that much of the book was lifted from Masonry and the OT.

The differences between the two faiths are night and day. Yet, they keep saying they're Christian. It's simply not true.

 

[martha]

The differences between the two faiths are night and day. Yet, they keep saying they're Christian. It's simply not true.

But your church isn't the only way to interpret Scripture, is it?

 

[coemgen]

No, it doesn't claim it is. That doesn't mean someone can't be wrong in interpreting it.

 

[martha]

That doesn't mean someone can't be wrong in interpreting it.

Now we agree.

 

[coemgen]

We do? Really?

Or are you taking what I meant and using it against me?

 

[martha]

Or are you taking what I meant and using it against me?

 

[coemgen]

But your church isn't the only way to interpret Scripture, is it?

Maybe I should've put it this way: No, it doesn't claim to be the only way (Mormonism does though), however, that doesn't mean it's not right and Mormonism is wrong in its interpretation of the Bible.

 

[martha]

, that doesn't mean it's not right and Mormonism is wrong in its interpretation of the Bible.

Of course not. They may indeed be wrong.

And so may you.

 

[Carek1230]

I saw the whole video about Tom and the Scientology award and honor bestowed on him. Scary stuff. As they were saluting one another I got the feeling it is such a Nazi thing, the vibe just evil. It seems so cultish.

 

[luna_lovegood]

Scientology and Tom Cruise TERRIFY me. I was reading an article in the paper about it yesterday. Cruise's lawyers are out there defending his right to have poeple believe that he may possess the qualities of the characters he plays. And as for scientology, my understanding of it it is that it is based on an evil space lord, and that you have to pay progressively larger and larger amounts of money to get to the next levels of 'enlightenment'. Apparently once you reach the top, you can 'move inanimate objects', 'control the minds of minor beings' and 'reach new levels of understanding'...but you have to pay $200 000 first.....Its commercialising religion. Ron Al Habeid (sp?) died a millionare, exploiting poeple's desire for spirituality... What kind of person believes in that? Katie Holmes must be as mad as Tom is...their poor poor child.....

 

[nathan1977]

But your church isn't the only way to interpret Scripture, is it?

Apples and oranges. This entire conversation betrays a fundamental ignorance about Mormonism. The Latter Day Saints have another testament which they place equal or greater emphasis on than the Bible, a work which says that Jesus Christ was merely A Son of God. The Bible thus is not Scripture in the way that mainline Christians believe it is. Mormons can certainly believe whatever they want, but to deny the central role of Christ in Christianity, to augment the Bible with other works, and to declare their faith as true Christianity (when its fundamental principles sometimes serve as an outright contradiction of the Bible) is problematic in the extreme. We're not talking about differences in interpretation of the same texts; we're not talking about different denominations that have the same underlying value; we're talking about two completely different religions that despite some initial similarities (they both have a guy named Jesus!), on further review are fundamentally different.

ETA: Mormons interpret Biblical scripture in terms of what their own Bible says about it. Christians can only intrepret Biblical scripture in terms of what it says about itself.

 

[martha]

This entire conversation betrays a fundamental ignorance about Mormonism. The Latter Day Saints have another testament which they place equal or greater emphasis on than the Bible, a work which says that Jesus Christ was merely A Son of God. The Bible thus is not Scripture in the way that mainline Christians believe it is.

But why do you guys all give so much of a shit?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Because mormons are tarnishing the good name of Christianity.

 

[maycocksean]

There are a number of things that set Scientology apart from other belief systems that I would find cause for concern.

1. Keeping beliefs secret from many church members until they reach certain elite levels. (I've heard that such accusations have been made about my own demonination--disillusioned former Adventists complaining that they weren't told about the belief that one of our church's founding members was considered a prophet, but that is the fault of the people evangelizing them--not the church's official position. My church makes no effort to hide it's beliefs which sets it apart from Scientology).

2. Requiring people to pay increasing amounts of money to "progress" in the faith. Yes, many religions encourage and even require tithes, but none that I know of make regular payments so deeply contigent on practicing the faith. There are many members of my church who don't pay tithe even though they are "supposed to" and they are able to continue to practice their faith freely with the only pressure being the occasional non-specific sermon on "stewardship."

3. It's discouragement of questioning and authoritatrian nature. This is found in many versions of mainstream religion (and even in some churches in my denomination) but I find such attitudes wrong no matter where they pop up or how socially acceptable that group that promotes them.

As far as as "weird beliefs" go. . .that's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. Anything that I don't believe seems "weird" to me and I recognize that there are elements of my faith that people might find bizarre. For example, we Christians have a comfort level talking about the "blood of Jesus" that I imagine many non-Christians might find a bit macabre.

I'll also, un-humbly concede, that I pretty much think I'm right the vast majority of the time--on whatever the topic happens to be. If we're honest, I think most of us--especially those of us here in FYM are that way. Ideally, though we are willing to accept the possiblity that we might be wrong, even if we personally doubt that's the case.

 

[maycocksean]

Because mormons are tarnishing the good name of Christianity.

Yeah, that's pretty much it, if we're honest.

That, and the sense that Mormons are trying to minimize differences between themselves and mainstream Christianity in effort to win converts. A kind of "Hey, we're just like you. . ."when they really aren't. I suppose the argument would go--"Hey, make the case for your faith all you want but don't do it by trying to co-opt elements of ours."

But then again, I believe the claim of LDS is that they are the "True" Christianity and I don't suppose they can really be faulted for making that claim. That is their right.

 

[Irvine511]

and all of this pointing out of the differences, and the differences somehow being more important than the commonalities, makes the skeptic think, "yes, they really are all exactly alike, especially when they talk about how different they *really* are from one another."

i never understood the point of arguing about religion, or at least it's individual merits. the whole, "Jesus *was* the son of God!" "no he wasn't!" "yes he was!" it always seemed pointless. i remember being shocked when i heard that there were people out there who hated Jews, that there was such a thing as anti-Semitism. even then, my young mind though, "geez, it's just religion, it's all kind of pretend anyway, why would you hate someone over that?"