Tom Cruise is considered a ‘deity’ by Scientologists, as low-ranking members are 'ordered to watch the actor's films multiple times'

Tom Cruise is considered a ‘deity’ within the Church of Scientology and lower-ranked members are reportedly encouraged to see the actor’s films multiple times, according to a previous Scientologist.

Leah Remini, who was a Scientologist until 2013, has never been shy when it comes to spilling secrets of the controversial church and its most famous member.

And now the King of Queens star, 48, has said the Mission: Impossible actor, 56, is like a god to the members of the church.

‘[Cruise is] considered a deity within Scientology. He is second to David Miscavige — the savior of the free world,’ Remini told Page Six.

It was also reported that lower-ranking Scientologists are told by their leaders to see Cruise’s movies, with thousands of tickets apparently bought for his Mission: Impossible and Jack Reacher franchises to increase the actor’s box office.

Ex-Scientologist Bree Mood, who left the church a few months ago, said: ‘Tom Cruise was a god in the lower ranks. Every time a Tom Cruise movie came out they’d buy all his tickets. It could be 500, 1,000, up to 2,500 people. I’m not kidding.’



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6859831/Tom-Cruise-considered-deity-Scientologists.html

Why would anyone in their right mind join those nutters?

Something odd about Tom Cruise. His three wives seemed very relieved to be  out of their relationships with him.

Syl wrote:Something odd about Tom Cruise. His three wives seemed very relieved to be  out of their relationships with him.

He's blocked Nicole Kidman from attending their son's wedding. I think he's a control maniac and quite sinister in his own way.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Something odd about Tom Cruise. His three wives seemed very relieved to be  out of their relationships with him.

He's blocked Nicole Kidman from attending their son's wedding.   I think he's a control maniac and quite sinister in his own way.

Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

Both of their kids refused to see her hardly at all after the divorce. His fault.

Cass wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

He's blocked Nicole Kidman from attending their son's wedding.   I think he's a control maniac and quite sinister in his own way.

Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

Both of their kids refused to see her hardly at all after the divorce. His fault.

Brainwashed no doubt. I don't doubt he'd cut them off without a penny too, if they disobeyed him.

Lee Childs hero was Jack Reacher, a man 6ft 3inch's .
How the fuck they cast Tom Cruise as him is a mystery ?

He's a very fine actor. I've watched A Few Good Men several times.

Back in the Shortnews days, I used to post a lot of stuff critical of Scientology and someone joined up just to combat those posts -- "Hey, they seem like they're not hurting anybody, religious freedom and maybe they're right!" Blah blah blah. It was creepy.

If people want to be Scientologists, what business is it of anyone else?

Raggamuffin wrote:If people want to be Scientologists, what business is it of anyone else?

As long as they are not trying to alter a woman's vagina with a crude surgery or some nonsense like that, doesn't bother me what deity they worship.

nicko wrote:Lee Childs hero was Jack Reacher, a man 6ft 3inch's .
How the fuck they cast Tom Cruise as him is a mystery ?

he bought the rights, he was one the primary financiers of the film..

it's actually a pretty bold move, tom wasn't getting cast in the movies he wanted to be
so he became a producer and cast himself in the leading roles

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Back in the Shortnews days, I used to post a lot of stuff critical of Scientology and someone joined up just to combat those posts -- "Hey, they seem like they're not hurting anybody, religious freedom and maybe they're right!" Blah blah blah. It was creepy.

I remember that, there ended up being like 3 of them and they never 'online' or posted anything else but with an hour of anything Scientology related they were there

HoratioTarr wrote:

Cass wrote:

Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

Both of their kids refused to see her hardly at all after the divorce. His fault.

Brainwashed no doubt.    I don't doubt he'd cut them off without a penny too, if they disobeyed him.

Absolutely no doubt at all and the money helped too. Just look at how well all of his ex-wives have gotten on without him.

veya_victaous wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Back in the Shortnews days, I used to post a lot of stuff critical of Scientology and someone joined up just to combat those posts -- "Hey, they seem like they're not hurting anybody, religious freedom and maybe they're right!" Blah blah blah. It was creepy.

I remember that, there ended up being like 3 of them and they never 'online' or posted anything else but with an hour of anything Scientology related they were there

Didn’t you know that they have people and computer programs monitoring all social media. They ain’t dumb.

Cass wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Back in the Shortnews days, I used to post a lot of stuff critical of Scientology and someone joined up just to combat those posts -- "Hey, they seem like they're not hurting anybody, religious freedom and maybe they're right!" Blah blah blah. It was creepy.

I remember that, there ended up being like 3 of them and they never 'online' or posted anything else but with an hour of anything Scientology related they were there

Didn’t you know that they have people and computer programs monitoring all social media. They ain’t dumb.

this was back in like 2004/5
it shows how full on they are because short news was not a huge forum and it was back before things like facebook had really taken off

Cass wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Back in the Shortnews days, I used to post a lot of stuff critical of Scientology and someone joined up just to combat those posts -- "Hey, they seem like they're not hurting anybody, religious freedom and maybe they're right!" Blah blah blah. It was creepy.

I remember that, there ended up being like 3 of them and they never 'online' or posted anything else but with an hour of anything Scientology related they were there

Didn’t you know that they have people and computer programs monitoring all social media. They ain’t dumb.

Sounds to me like these people must have an awful awful lot of power and money.
I wonder how they get away with it? Someone or somebodies with more money and power must be letting them, I guess.

eddie wrote:

Cass wrote:

Didn’t you know that they have people and computer programs monitoring all social media. They ain’t dumb.

Sounds to me like these people must have an awful awful lot of power and money.
I wonder how they get away with it? Someone or somebodies with more money and power must be letting them, I guess.

Just like any other high profile cult. Check out the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Or say the heads of major pyramid/mlm schemes. They prey on the vulnerable and then hire lawyers who tell them how to successfully push it to the edge of the law.

Scientology’s got lots of millionaires/high profile celebrities who donate as well as fleecing those who are not famous into buying their bullshit. When you think about it, it’s a hell of a business plan, albeit unethical.

veya_victaous wrote:

Cass wrote:

Didn’t you know that they have people and computer programs monitoring all social media. They ain’t dumb.

this was back in like 2004/5
it shows how full on they are because short news was not a huge forum and it was back before things like facebook had really taken off

They’ve been involved in modern technology since the early 60s, so I’m not surprised at all that they were “listening “ to you in 04/05.

eddie wrote:

Cass wrote:

Didn’t you know that they have people and computer programs monitoring all social media. They ain’t dumb.

Sounds to me like these people must have an awful awful lot of power and money.
I wonder how they get away with it? Someone or somebodies with more money and power must be letting them, I guess.

Are they doing something illegal then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Cass wrote:

Didn’t you know that they have people and computer programs monitoring all social media. They ain’t dumb.

Sounds to me like these people must have an awful awful lot of power and money.
I wonder how they get away with it? Someone or somebodies with more money and power must be letting them, I guess.

Are they doing something illegal then?

I think the really rich and powerful always do something illegal, somewhere, somehow, even if it’s not by their own hand. If you stick to the rules you’ll never get to the top.
So yeah, perhaps they (the cult in question) or the people who let them do what they do, are doing something illegal.
It isn’t entirely unfathomable or (mission) impossible, is it?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are they doing something illegal then?

I think the really rich and powerful always do something illegal, somewhere, somehow, even if it’s not by their own hand. If you stick to the rules you’ll never get to the top.
So yeah, perhaps they (the cult in question)  or the people who let them do what they do, are doing something illegal.
It isn’t entirely unfathomable or (mission) impossible, is it?

So you don't actually know if they're doing anything illegal. In that case, there's no issue of someone in power letting them do what they do.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are they doing something illegal then?

I think the really rich and powerful always do something illegal, somewhere, somehow, even if it’s not by their own hand. If you stick to the rules you’ll never get to the top.
So yeah, perhaps they (the cult in question)  or the people who let them do what they do, are doing something illegal.
It isn’t entirely unfathomable or (mission) impossible, is it?

So you don't actually know if they're doing anything illegal. In that case, there's no issue of someone in power letting them do what they do.

As I'm sure you know, there's a big difference between what's right and what's legal. Scientology doesn't break many laws, though you could argue that the people who've been stalked and harassed when they've left the church might have a case if they could prove everything.

My problems with Scientology are, in no particular order:

They make people pay a lot of money (thousands of dollars) to learn what they're about. Christians, by contrast, are generally more than happy to explain their religion for free and to give you a free copy of the Bible.

They make some of their followers work on that creepy boat that they keep in international waters most of the time, and they're not even paid other than shelter, clothing, food, etc.

They essentially took over the city government of Clearwater, Florida and run the town as though they own it.

They are very hostile to people who leave the church, particularly anybody who says they're going to say what they're really like.

They tell their followers to reject many forms of medicine.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you don't actually know if they're doing anything illegal. In that case, there's no issue of someone in power letting them do what they do.

As I'm sure you know, there's a big difference between what's right and what's legal. Scientology doesn't break many crimes, though you could argue that the people who've been stalked and harassed when they've left the church might have a case if they could prove everything.

My problems with Scientology are, in no particular order:

They make people pay a lot of money (thousands of dollars) to learn what they're about. Christians, by contrast, are generally more than happy to explain their religion for free and to give you a free copy of the Bible.

They make some of their followers work on that creepy boat that they keep in international waters most of the time, and they're not even paid other than shelter, clothing, food, etc.

They essentially took over the city government of Clearwater, Florida and run the town as though they own it.

They are very hostile to people who leave the church, particularly anybody who says they're going to say what they're really like.

They tell their followers to reject many forms of medicine.

There was some kind of implication that they're getting away with breaking the law though.

I just think that people join the Scientologists because they want to - for whatever reason. They don't "make" people give them lots of money, and they don't "make" anyone work on a boat. People are free to reject medicines, or ignore the instruction to reject them.

People do all this because they want to. Don't ask me why, but if that's what they want, that's their own business.

As for complaints when people leave, that happens in other organisations too, including Buddhist organisations. People get disillusioned and leave and then complain about the organisation to others.

Raggamuffin wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you don't actually know if they're doing anything illegal. In that case, there's no issue of someone in power letting them do what they do.

As I'm sure you know, there's a big difference between what's right and what's legal. Scientology doesn't break many crimes, though you could argue that the people who've been stalked and harassed when they've left the church might have a case if they could prove everything.

My problems with Scientology are, in no particular order:

They make people pay a lot of money (thousands of dollars) to learn what they're about. Christians, by contrast, are generally more than happy to explain their religion for free and to give you a free copy of the Bible.

They make some of their followers work on that creepy boat that they keep in international waters most of the time, and they're not even paid other than shelter, clothing, food, etc.

They essentially took over the city government of Clearwater, Florida and run the town as though they own it.

They are very hostile to people who leave the church, particularly anybody who says they're going to say what they're really like.

They tell their followers to reject many forms of medicine.

There was some kind of implication that they're getting away with breaking the law though.

I just think that people join the Scientologists because they want to - for whatever reason. They don't "make" people give them lots of money, and they don't "make" anyone work on a boat. People are free to reject medicines, or ignore the instruction to reject them.

People do all this because they want to. Don't ask me why, but if that's what they want, that's their own business.

As for complaints when people leave, that happens in other organisations too, including Buddhist organisations. People get disillusioned and leave and then complain about the organisation to others.

Scientology sells people a bill of goods that it doesn't deliver -- freedom from anxiety is a big one, since they say they're removing demon-like creatures that have attached themselves to your soul and prevent you from being the best you can be, for one thing. And then they tell their congregants not to see psychologists!

And yes, people leave many religions and complain, but the officials of those religions don't typically harass and stalk them when they leave.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/leah-remini-claims-she-still-receives-threats-from-the-church-of-scientology

HoratioTarr wrote:Why would anyone in their right mind join those nutters?

Agreed. It's just another cult.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Sounds to me like these people must have an awful awful lot of power and money.
I wonder how they get away with it? Someone or somebodies with more money and power must be letting them, I guess.

Are they doing something illegal then?

What does legality have to do with it?

Also, Raggs -- if I signed up to be a Scientologist, they'd tell me that if I want to learn their mysteries, I have to pay for them -- and if I want to leave, they'll make life as difficult as possible for me.

How is that not "making" me pay money? They're threatening me if I don't pay. They just don't threaten with guns or knives.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Something odd about Tom Cruise. His three wives seemed very relieved to be  out of their relationships with him.

He's blocked Nicole Kidman from attending their son's wedding.   I think he's a control maniac and quite sinister in his own way.

Cruel and manipulative.

I remember this pic of her, snapped just after she signed the divorce  papers from Tom Cruise.
One picture is sometimes worth a thousand words.  

I don't believe they harass people who leave. They might get pissed off with those who leave and then publically slate them though.

As for Nicole Kidman, she may well have been relieved after the divorce, but that might be nothing to do with Scientology.

If someone gives money to them, it's their own lookout isn't it? They do it of their own free will.

Other organisations are also called cults, but if the people in those "cults" are happy, it's nobody else's business.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are they doing something illegal then?

What does legality have to do with it?

I would have thought that was obvious, given the wording of eddie's post.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What does legality have to do with it?

I would have thought that was obvious, given the wording of eddie's post.

Not obvious and certainly not true.

Not all issue are about legality. I think we look to the law all too often...like suckling babies. How about simply making wise decisions.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would have thought that was obvious, given the wording of eddie's post.

Not obvious and certainly not true.

Not all issue are about legality.  I think we look to the law all too often...like suckling babies.  How about simply making wise decisions.

How else would you interpret someone one letting them "get away with it"? There's nothing for them to get away with. People join of their own free will. If those people make an unwise decision, that's their own fault.

What I don't like is this persistent idea that people are "victims" if they join something they then decide they don't like.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not obvious and certainly not true.

Not all issue are about legality.  I think we look to the law all too often...like suckling babies.  How about simply making wise decisions.

How else would you interpret someone one letting them "get away with it"? There's nothing for them to get away with. People join of their own free will. If those people make an unwise decision, that's their own fault.

It's not a legal question. That is my only point.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How else would you interpret someone one letting them "get away with it"? There's nothing for them to get away with. People join of their own free will. If those people make an unwise decision, that's their own fault.

It's not a legal question.  That is my only point.

What isn't a legal question? Eddie's post clearly asked how they get away with it (whatever "it" is).

It's not a legal question. In order to have a legal question, you've got to have a law.

Original Quill wrote:It's not a legal question.  In order to have a legal question, you've got to have a law.

Exactly. That's why I asked the question. Are you being awkward for the sake of it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's not a legal question.  In order to have a legal question, you've got to have a law.

Exactly. That's why I asked the question.

My message is quite simple to understand: it's not a legal question.

Raggamuffin wrote: Are you being awkward for the sake of it?

This is not about me.  Perhaps you need to re-read the thread in 'News and Announcements"...to confine yourself to answering the post, and not maligning the poster.