digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Scientology teachings claim Jesus Christ was a pedophile

xs4all.nl — OT8 has become known as the "Jesus is a pedophile"-OT. Until recently, CoS was adamant that OT8 was a forgery. Until recently. When Arnaldo Lerma's house was raided by CoS, they took his computer. Under the writ of seizure, they were allowed only to identify files that were copyrighted bij CoS / RTC... read further for all the dirt.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • poohat1000, on 01/25/2008, -15/+280nothing these bastards do surprises me. They need off our intrawebs
    • exquisitered, on 01/25/2008, -15/+83Off the intrawebs?

      Moar like off the face of the earth.
    • soulkitchen, on 01/25/2008, -3/+89I've got an idea, somebody forward this to the Westboro Baptist Church.
      • Ki77erB, on 01/25/2008, -9/+11Anon's next target? Ruining the funerals of soldiers who died to give them the freedoms they have. Sick *****!
      • random19, on 01/25/2008, -4/+17It would be absolutely fantastic if we could set those two against each other. One of them would end up killing the other. Whichever one loses, we win.
        • chaosium, on 01/25/2008, -3/+6Not going to happen, they have more in common than you think.
      • AvidPreatorian, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4two negatives should cancel each other out... brilliant!
      • mooseofshadows, on 01/26/2008, -2/+5If I could digg you a thousand times, I would. That was genius.
    • dildoolielly, on 01/25/2008, -38/+20Hey, fvck Scientology! But fvck Christianity even more! It has WAAAY MORE POWER and influence in our gov't

      And ask ANY local university historian for the evidence indicating jesus was anything other than a manufactured martyr of the late 1st century CE.

      He/she will tell you that no such evidence of a "historical" jesus exists. His existence MUST be taken on faith, just like those who believe in Zeus and/or many other mythical characters.

      Christians love to bring up the names of Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius and others as testimonies to Jesus’ life, however, they couldn't have been eye-witnesses to him simply because they didn't live in his calculated supposed lifetime.

      How about historians who ~did~ live in that time? “Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

      If, indeed, such a well-known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

      Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mentions him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.
      • unjustend, on 01/25/2008, -8/+4I love a good long comment. I'll have to go check all that out.
        • dildoolielly, on 01/26/2008, -2/+6I'm glad you will "check that out", I wish most people would. I used to be a Christian, until I woke up to historical fact after a little research.
      • BabyWookie, on 01/25/2008, -5/+11You bring up a good point. When I bring up the topic of the questionable nature of Jesus' existence in a conversation, even when talking to some liberal, enlightened people, they look at me like I'm crazy. They have heard that Jesus' life was a fact so many times, that it never even crossed their minds the in might not be.
        • CaptainLando, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1BabyWookie, you are right to question; please continue doing so. However, please take into account the wealth of evidence in favor of the existence of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#
          I am not saying Wikiepedia is a good source. I do not use it in my research papers, however, the cited sources at the end of the article are valuable.
          • dildoolielly, on 01/26/2008, -1/+3Why don't you present what you feel is the best piece of evidence for the biblical jesus?
          • CaptainLando, on 01/27/2008, -3/+1Why don't you counter one of the sources or aspects in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#
            Can you do that? I think not. Will you even read it? I think not. You, as you have before, will result to your method of repetition, ignoring all evidence along the way. How does it feel to be both blind and a fool? You could have avoided this by at least wording it as, "Jesus may not have existed." However, saying as you do that "Jesus does not exist" means that you place your faith in counter-evidence that just does not exist.
          • dildoolielly, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Why don't YOU present what YOU feel is the best piece of evidence for the biblical jesus?
          • CaptainLando, on 01/28/2008, -3/+1How about the myriad of scholars who agree that he existed... and the handful of people trying to push and agenda by saying he did not exist? You are like a Christian trying to argue against evolution. The facts are NOT in your favor.
      • AegisC, on 01/25/2008, -9/+7This guy just cuts and pastes the same thing into a comment everytime there is a Jesus story on digg. Yes, please do check all that out. Since everyone likes Wikipedia, start out by Wikipediaing "Jesus as Myth" Another good place to go is Acharya S.'s book "The Christ Conspiracy: the greatest story ever sold" which posits the same thesis that Jesus never existed. It is published by Adventures Unlimited which also puts out material on time travel, Atlantis, mole people living under the earth, mind-control used by the Russians in the JFK asassination, and other good literature for reading underneath your tinfoil hat. In it she claims that the Christians borrowed their diety (Jesus) from Quetzalcoatl (the Aztec diety). How did that info manage to get to them across the Atlantic? I dunno. Atlantis?

        Philo seems to be the man of the hour here. However, we only know of Philo from sources outside of Philo himself from Josephus. Did Philo live when Josephus did? Yep, except he died when Josephus ~ 10 years old. So unless Josephus was writing history when he was the age equivalent of a 4th grader, Josephus knew nothing of Philo either... making it near impossible to conclude (by the commenter's own standards) that Philo existed either.

        Here's why Jesus wasn't a "big mention" He was only in active ministry for about 3 years. The fact that an intinerant teacher like that gets any mention at all by sources outside the Bible is quite significant.

        "Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mentions him during his supposed life time." Bzzt! Wrong. Paul of Tarsus
        • dildoolielly, on 01/26/2008, -2/+4Hey Aegis,
          forget the ad hominems dude, just provide evidence. Why can't you? Not out of over 20 post have you provided one shred of evidence to your claims. Don't attack me, provide evidence against the info I provide or you are just further proving my point that Christians are either intellectually dishonest or simply not smart enough to carry on an honest and intelligent debate.

          I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this. But so far I haven't been.

          Your "response" is not a rebuttal. Please respond to my points, or don't respond at all. These ad hominem attacks only give the impression that you disagree because you want to. If you have any disagreements with what I said, state them. Otherwise, would you be so kind as to not click "Submit Comment" next time? Thank you.
          • CaptainLando, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1Dildoolielly, all you do is copy and paste the same lame arguments all over the place. Even when someone completely refutes you, you keep doing it. You are as bad as the worst of the religious right.
            Here is your evidence for the historical Jesus:
            From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus# ... "...A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure." followed by "...Nevertheless, non-historicity is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.[74][75][76]"

            Those numbers are sources, something you don't use. You lose, "Corkey."

          • dildoolielly, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1CaptainLando, How many times does one have to ask for evidence? Eyewitness name?

            Out of all that drivel you failed in ever mentioning an eyewitness account or archaeological evidence

            But this is what most Christians do, they try to confuse and mislead from the real topic(s). Its their only defense tactic in the age of information and communication.

            Again, when you can show ONE eyewitness account to the Jesus claim and/or ONE piece of archaeological evidence, I'm all ears. Until then please stop wasting people's time. We can pretend all we want
          • CaptainLando, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1How many times do I have to shove evidence in your face only to have you close your eyes like the blindest of the blind?

            From my aforementioned source: "Thus our prime sources about the life of Jesus were written within about fifty years of his death by people who perhaps knew him, but certainly by people who knew people who knew him. If this is beginning to sound slightly second hand, we may wish to consider two points. First... most ancient and medieval history was written from a much greater distance. Second, all the Gospel writers could have talked to people who were actually on the spot, and while perhaps not eyewitnesses themselves, their position is certainly the next best thing. --Jo Ann H. Moran Cruz and Richard Gerberding"[15]

            This speaks of the gospels, this speaks of Josephus, Clement, and the many others that almost ALL scholars hold as reliable. You merely are trying to push an agenda.
          • dildoolielly, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2""How many times do I have to shove evidence in your face only to have you close your eyes like the blindest of the blind?""
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------

            Are you that dumb?

            People who say they knew people are not eyewitness. Thats NOT evidence. Your argument would not hold up in any court in this land so WTF are you talking about?!

            My question is simple. Name ONE EYEWITNESS to the Jesus account.

            Now provide EVIDENCE or STFU already.

            Trying to having a "debate about ancient history with a Christian, is kinda like playing one-on-one basketball with a Retard. Even though you beat the stew out of them with facts, in the end they are still retarded
        • AegisC, on 01/26/2008, -4/+1These are not ad hominems. I have not nor have I ever insulted you personally. I have not said anything derogatory about your personality, intelligence, lifestyle, etc. whatever that may be. I may have insulted the material you quote, but not you. You have not done the same.

          Whenever I do site things you turn around and say "I'm waiting for you to cite something..." It doesn't matter what I say.

          For ther record: Peter, Acts 2. Paul, Galatians 1.
          • dildoolielly, on 01/26/2008, -1/+3You're drivel makes absolutely zero sense. You failed to even address any of my points. You failed to answer any of my questions. You are a prime example of why you cannot debate with a religious person. This is also why you are very dangerous in numbers and this is EXACTLY why our constitution protects us from psychotics like you.

            Heres our "debate" so far. I list out historical facts and total lack of evidence for your claim(s) and you return with Bible verses.

            Sorry thats NOT a debate.

            So continue ignoring all the parts of the New Testament you don't like, and latch onto the little nancy-boy verses you prefer. Calling it "evidence", LOL.

            But bear in mind that the single page of the Bible you like to quote will incinerate in less than a second when your sorry ass is hurled into the furnace of an everlasting Hell!

            Praying those who pick and choose which parts of the Bible to quote are the first plunged into the fiery abyss.
          • CaptainLando, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1For anyone that reads, dildoolielly actually copies and pastes this same generic argument all over digg. Just pointing that out.
      • xsuite, on 01/25/2008, -5/+7At the time of Jesus' career (3 years), he mainly traveled all over Judea/Palestine/General area preaching. Why didnt anyone write about him during his lifetime? Why would they? The Pharisees and the Rabbinical fat cats saw christ as a heretic and a madman and a demon-summoner. Alot of people believed the fat cats and those people were all in the upper crust of the society and Jesus attracted the lower class and the poor-- people who could hardly read/write/ or have any authority or skill to publish anything. The upper class saw Jesus in his short career as a heretical cult leader and they ignored him.

        Anyone with the slightest education in ethnology or history knows that record keeping in the time before the fall of Rome is notoriously poor or absent, mostly because of the weather conditions (aka sand) and its habit of destruction or concealment.
        • dildoolielly, on 01/26/2008, -4/+3utter *****. I didnt ask for an eyewitness account of people who may have not "liked" Christ. I asked for ANY eyewitness account. You have yet to provide that out of all your typical Christian drivel.

          Still waiting, eyewitness, name?
          • CaptainLando, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus# ... "...A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure." followed by "...Nevertheless, non-historicity is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.[74][75][76]"

            Those numbers are sources, something you don't use. You lose, "Corkey."

        • AegisC, on 01/26/2008, -3/+0Peter: Acts 2. Paul: Galatians 1.
        • AegisC, on 01/26/2008, -3/+2And xsuite makes a good point, Tiberius Caesar the Roman Emperor during Jesus' time, only gets 1 mention in the Bible (Lk 3:1). Why did so few outside the Bible mention Jesus? He was outside the scope of their interest. Just like Tiberius was outside of the Christians' scope of interest and thus did not really write about him.
          • dildoolielly, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Tacitus, hmmmmm

            Should we believe in an historical Hercules(who BTW carried his own cross too)? He's mentioned by Tacitus?
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

        Jesus did exist. Whether he was the son of God is debatable but he was a real man and he did revolutionize the way many jews thought of their religion.

        I mean honestly do you just think Christianity popped out of no where without a leader?
        • dildoolielly, on 01/26/2008, -3/+4Not ONE place in that article does it identify an eyewitness to the Jesus account?

          If I missed it, please show me. I need a name of an eye witness to this man's existance, just like the cops would if someone kidnapped your child.
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 01/26/2008, -5/+6And I'm sure you don't count Paul, John and Matthew.

            Even if Jesus didn't exist what you're saying is that an entire religion sprang out of no where without a teacher or a preacher. Right.

            And your argument that there are no eyewitness accounts is *****. Any historian can tell you that any such records for any historical figure pre roman empire is hard to find. Find me eye witness proof that Socrates existed. Find me eye witness proof that Julius Caesar existed. Find me proof Confusious existed. Find me proof Lao Tzu existed.

            You don't need eyewitness accounts to see these people existed. All you need to see is the massive political and religious movement they caused. This sorta thing doesn't just happen without a teacher or a preacher. It happens because a man stood up and talked about this stuff and a lot of people agreed.

            So I ask again. Do you really believe Christianity sprung out of no where without a teacher?
          • dildoolielly, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2""So I ask again. Do you really believe Christianity sprung out of no where without a teacher?""
            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Okay Christians lets take a little quiz...

            WHO IS THIS GOD?

            -was born on December 25th.
            -was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
            -had 12 companions or disciples.
            -performed miracles.
            -was buried in a tomb.
            -after three days he rose again.
            -his resurrection was celebrated every year.
            -was called "the Good Shepherd."
            -was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
            -was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
            -his sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day,".
            -he had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
            -his religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

            If you guessed Jesus Christ, well, YOU'D BE WRONG!! HE WAS... MITHRA, a Roman-Persian God who existed hundreds of years before the Christ myth.

            ("He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." This inscription to Mithras, which parallels John 6:53-54, is inside the Vatican in the tomb of Saint Peter.)
        • dildoolielly, on 01/26/2008, -1/+3Christ, do Christians ever actually even READ the Bible?! No body knows who wrote the Gospels you moron.

          hmmmm......... the bible is 1700 years old, the gospels were all written at least 50 years after the death of the mythical jesus and inconsistancies make the the bible totally unbelievable

          Which further proves my point that your average Atheist/Agnostic knows more about the Bible than your average Christian. Most of you guys are totally retarded when it comes to the "Good Book".
      • loquax, on 01/26/2008, -7/+1Look, dude. I understand that some of the whole Jesus thing ain't quite provable, and it is probably historically inaccurate given that modern ideas of historicity really didn't become commonplace until well into the 20th century. This isn't about Jesus' existence. It is about a bunch of thugs who should have learned from the stupid mistakes of the past by people like the Spanish Inquisition that physical, spiritual, and legal intimidation is not the way you protect or spread your religion. As a Christian, I'd love to go back in time and prevent all the stupid things done in the name of my religion.
        • dildoolielly, on 01/26/2008, -3/+5Look, "dude", next how about you present the yardstick you use in order to decide what in the bible is literal and what is fantasy. can you do that? You must also show that your interpretation is the correct one and that every other interpretation is incorrect, can you do that?

          Funny how Christians only interpret the Bible anyway they seem fit. Funny how they interpret it to justify their intolerance, their own politics, their hypocrisy and the self-righteous bullsh1t they impose on others huh?

          Believe whatever you like, but if you want me to believe it then provide evidence or expect mockery and ridicule. Do not expect polite debate.

          Religion has been given too much liberty to murder, torture and enslave human beings for centuries while hidden in the garb of "Faith". It and whoever believes it does not deserve to pick the fecal matter from my ass. Politeness is out the door by far by now. I don't give a damn what brand of ***** anyone believes until those beliefs begin to turn into laws and campaign platforms, then you've overstepped the boundry separating church from state.

          Thats what happening in this country. Your ignorance is part of the problem. Your reluctance to question outside what a man in fancy garb told you.
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 01/26/2008, -5/+3Martin Luther King Jr was religious. Mother Theresa was religious. Pope John Paul II was religious. Martin Luther was religious.

            As well as countless others

            But forget all those great people with excellent moral standards and teachings. Let's focus on all the people who used religion in the name of violence.

            You're nothing but a bigot if you think religion only brings out evil people.
          • loquax, on 01/26/2008, -1/+5dil--
            I don't want you to believe or not to believe. I really don't care. I'd much rather that you'd find your own way in life, be happy and content and have answers that suit you. As far as accepting what some priest or doctrine dictates to me, trust me, I have never succumbed to that mode of thinking. I've studied everything from Chan (Zen) to Islam and pretty much have hacked together something that works for me.
            As far as the excesses of religious movements and churches, I couldn't agree with you more, and when I encounter members of my general "faith" (or any faith for that matter) abusing others in the name of God, Buddha, the Tao, LRH etc., I generally give a war cry and wade in with righteous anger and use the only weapons I can ever use--thought and words.
            I don't support Anon's attacks on Co$ for what they believe. Hell, I eat a dead Jewish carpenter every Sunday and drink his blood (How freaking weird is that?). I support them going after Co$ for sending vans to follow people who disagree with them. I support Anon for going after Co$ for their use of legal harassment and abusing legal systems to intimidate the weak. I support Anon because something tells me that if we don't oppose the Co$'s methods we are only going to see this kind of thuggish profiteering on people continue.
            Heck, there is a group called the "Free Zone" who are Scientology followers who broke with the church and apparently don't charge for readings or giving out literature nor do they seem to attack opponents. If this is true, I'd point people in their directions if they are interested in learning about Thetans, Xenu, etc. I don't think any of the crowd here have problems with that approach.
            I pretty much acknowledge that all of existence is basically a leap of faith. At some point, we all have to acknowledge that we have to build our logical constructs on something we cannot prove or disprove but for general operating needs, we accept. This may be the belief that your senses and neurology are feeding you a real picture of the world. This leap may be the belief that their is a "prime mover" in the long chain of cause and effect, or this leap of faith may be that the universe is ridiculous and devoid of meaning.
            The point is, however, that while you have a right to put your faith in anything you want, you do not have a right to harm others in the practice of that faith. Scientologist talk of life being part of a "Game." I see that, and can agree with it, but all Games have rules and limits as well as goals.
        • AegisC, on 01/26/2008, -5/+2loquax, this is a cut and paste comment. He posted the exact same thing to me (word for word) in December. your comment, however, was a good one!
          • loquax, on 01/26/2008, -5/+1Sorry about that. I tend to repeat myself, especially now that I am old. I'll try to keep it more fresh and not yell at the kids playing on my lawn. ;)
          • AegisC, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1I think you misunderstand. It's dildoolielly who is cutting and pasting the exact same comments to everyone. I did not mean that you were doing so
    • TypeEE, on 01/25/2008, -2/+14Scientology vs Christianity. Are you ready to rumble?
    • iainc, on 01/25/2008, -2/+38Ahem. Cough. Wasn't L Ron Hubbard a convicted child molester?
      • burnin8r28, on 01/25/2008, -2/+18the more you have sex with little boys, the more you become...immortal
    • Bodhinature, on 01/25/2008, -2/+15They've been kicked out of some Buddhist countries for claiming that the Buddha and Buddhist monks were pedophiles. That's their MO. If you aren't LRH, you're a pedophile.
      • chaosium, on 01/25/2008, -2/+11Funny, because L Ron spent a lot of time around nothing but children on his sea voyages.
    • burnin8r28, on 01/25/2008, -9/+8Digg: hates Jesus, but is willing to support if Scientology makes fun of him. aw?
    • GorfTron, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2This light can be used as proof
      http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/inappro ...
    • roosterjm2k2, on 01/25/2008, -13/+6Well, we have two choices I guess...

      Jesus was the son of an invisible omnipotent father figure who doesn't exist....

      ooooooorrrr....

      Jesus was a pedophile...

      I mean, one's alot easier to believe than the other...

      When presented with multiple possibilities...go with the simplest...right?
      • Planets, on 01/26/2008, -7/+4So you would believe anything someone else says because it is "simpler" to understand?
    • epmc, on 01/26/2008, -3/+2Gotta hand it to Hubbard, that's pretty funny.
    • neio, on 01/26/2008, -3/+1Stop Them!!
  • Arachnology, on 01/25/2008, -36/+151For the love of god, those ***** need to GTFO my internets.
    ***** scifags.
    • Matt2k, on 01/25/2008, -12/+2HUH
    • spyrochaete, on 01/25/2008, -16/+30to make room for articulate intellectuals such as yourself?
      • Arachnology, on 01/25/2008, -12/+8Or for ***** like you.
      • Th3Wiiexpert, on 01/25/2008, -7/+1Or you.
      • Jpotts12, on 01/25/2008, -1/+10Cursing doesn't automatically make you inarticulate. I consider myself pretty articulate, but I'll curse like everyone else when I'm angry. It's bad grammar that makes you look stupid.

        However, responding with "Or for ***** like you" makes you look kind of dumb.
      • Syphon8, on 01/26/2008, -2/+6The difference between Digg and /b/; /b/ is smart people acting stupid, Digg is stupid people acting smart.
    • biotch, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5Dont worry man ... if this gets out to the Christian leaders, Scientology wont have much of a chance at survival. If there is one thing history has taught about religion, its that you dont piss off the Christians, unless you enjoy getting squashed into oblivion.
      • Pillage, on 01/26/2008, -3/+2get rid of them like they got rid of Islam....
  • flogistan, on 01/25/2008, -93/+13Mitt Romney is a neocon mormon scientologist.
    • Ramble, on 01/25/2008, -3/+37That's nothing, I once knew this guy who was a Muslim Hindu.
      • flogistan, on 01/25/2008, -6/+12The Tom Christ himself said you can be a christian and a scientologist.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrRReCnCsI0
        Mitt's favorite book is the old testament of scientology (the movie starred john travolta as moses)
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD3HKTt-MAU
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -4/+2Wow, and you pull the conclusion that he's a Scientologist out of those two little factoids? Jesus, are you wearing rocket boots to jump to these conclusions or something?
          • flogistan, on 01/26/2008, -2/+2Bull. That book is divine scripture to scientologists. If Obama said his favorite book was the Koran tomorrow, end of campaign. If someone says their favorite book is the new testament, you safely assume they are Christian. NOBODY, but a scientologist, or the village idiot would have answered those questions in that manner. My assumption is that a village idiot couldn't "save the olympics" whatever the hell that even means, so he is by process of elimination, a scientologist.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1How is that book divine scripture to Scientologists? It's popular among them, no doubt, as it was written by Hubbard, but I don't know of anything in it that is used as scripture by a Scientologist. It was written for mass market appeal and achieved a certain level of it. IT IS NOT SCRIPTURE. Nothing within is canon to Scientology. There are no spiritual passages that are reproduced in the official beliefs of Scientology. It is a standalone piece of fiction. Get that through your thick ***** skull. As I said before, I know plenty of people who hate Scientology but still enjoy Battlefield Earth. Seeing as how it's not scripture, liking it does not make you a Scientologist. And how is it so damn stupid to answer the questions? "Your favorite book?" "Battlefield Earth". OH NOES!

            And the whole "Save the olympics" bit shows how ill-informed on this subject you are. The winter olympics in Utah were way in the red and somebody needed to pull it out. Romney took over and put it $300 million in the black. That's what is meant by saving the olympics. That doesn't mean he'd make a good president, but it is an accomplishment under his belt.

            In conclusion, you're a ***** idiot who draws completely asinine conclusions from the barest of evidence. Please stop using the internets. There are enough like you already.
    • DreKor, on 01/25/2008, -8/+7I don't think that's accurate.
    • edwartica, on 01/25/2008, -10/+9That's just scary if its true. I try to be tolerant to those whose faith is different than my own, but Mormons and sicientologists have probably the most whacked out beliefs - and I would not vote for anyone who believed in either religion!
      • flogistan, on 01/25/2008, -4/+5Exactly. Mix them both and you have mitt romney. Can you imagine answering "what's your favorite book" like that? This man is completely insane. He has multi tiers of insanity.
        • Banonymous11, on 01/25/2008, -6/+3Romney is not a scifag, and the mormon religion is as inclusive and open as other mainstrea, religions. This war is against the recluse of FREEDOM by the Scifags, not mormons.
          • flogistan, on 01/25/2008, -3/+3Again, he reads and promotes scientology's divine scripture. That's enough. If he said his favorite book was the Koran, would that bode well for his campaign? Of course it's far worse that he's promoting scientology literature rather than the Koran.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -3/+2When the hell did Romney ever pitch Scientology?? It's pretty damn incompatible with Mormonism. Battlefield Earth is NOT Scientology scripture.
          • chaosium, on 01/25/2008, -3/+2"When the hell did Romney ever pitch Scientology?? It's pretty damn incompatible with Mormonism"

            I don't think he's a Hubbardologist, but Scientology makes the claims that you can be X but also a Scientologist!" with all their public figures but that obviously drops as soon as you start moving up in the group.
          • cranium, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4- mormon religion is as inclusive and open -
            *****. They have their secret rituals (complete with secret *handshakes*, lol) and they practice the same kind of character assassination of "apostates" as scientology does of "SPs". The only difference between mormonism and scientology is approximately 100 years.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -3/+2Oh please. The Mormon church's treatment of apostates is nowhere NEAR the CoS. I don't see the Mormon church trying to strip people of their livelihood after they leave, or suing people for revealing temple rituals, or suing people for badmouthing their church, etc. They're screwy to be sure, but mostly harmless. I'll take a Mormon over a Scientologist any day of the week.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -2/+6I'd much rather have a Mormon than a Scientologist. At least the Mormons don't have an army of lawyers and are generally nice people who do a lot of humanitarian work.
        • cranium, on 01/25/2008, -3/+5- Mormons don't have an army of lawyers -
          Yes they do.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5I have yet to see the Mormon church get anywhere NEAR as sue-happy as the Scientologists. Perhaps my phrasing was wrong. Almost any church will have a bunch of lawyers, but it's how often they use them that's key. I can't remember reading about the Mormon church suing anyone for badmouthing them.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 01/25/2008, -5/+6On what evidence do you claim that Romney is a Scientologist?
      • chaosium, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4Favorite book was Battlefield Earth, IIRC.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -5/+3That means diddly. I know a lot of people who liked it and are not Scientologists.
          • chaosium, on 01/25/2008, -3/+6Well, it's an indicator of a ***** taste in books, though it's curious why someone would make it their FAVORITE.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -3/+5So he has ***** taste in fiction. That doesn't make him a Scientologist.
      • flogistan, on 01/25/2008, -6/+4He reads and promotes scientology's divine scripture? That's enough isn't it? If he said his favorite book was the Koran, would that bode well for his campaign? Of course it's far worse that he's promoting scientology literature rather than the Koran.
        • AustinV, on 01/25/2008, -2/+4Wow. Just... wow. Heres a link to the NY times article where you probably got this nonsense.
          http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/romn ...
          Check your facts... they're wrong.
          • flogistan, on 01/25/2008, -4/+1"reads and promotes." It's his favorite book. How am I wrong?
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -4/+3IT IS NOT SCIENTOLOGY SCRIPTURE! How hard is that to grasp? It was a book written by Hubbard, but it is NOT part of Scientology's scripture. How the hell could it be? It's set 1,000 years in the future and has aliens taking over the earth. It's FICTION, and no Scientologist is going to promote it as their doctrine, and only idiots outside will say that it is. You can like that book and still think that Scientology is idiotic, you know. That's how you are wrong.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4Liking Battlefield Earth does not make you a Scientologist. Pull your head out of your ass.
          • Devotia, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4No it just means you have terrible taste.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -5/+3Usual Digg idiocy: Drawing asinine conclusions from very inconclusive data. This one assumes that Battlefield Earth is Scientology scripture. It isn't. It's a work of fiction that takes place 1,000 years in the future. Dianetics is Scientology scripture. I know a lot of people who liked Battlefield Earth as a book but would never touch Scientology with a 10-foot pole. Please stop pulling idiotic conjecture out of your ass.
      • pixelguru, on 01/26/2008, -2/+4Just because Ron chose to label one work of fiction as "scripture" and another as a "novel" means nothing. The Mormons created a religion out of thin (hot) air the same way Ron did, only theirs contains somewhat less bad science fiction. In fact, it's likely that all the major religions began in a somewhat similar fashion. The fact that no politicians in the US would ever publicly admit to being a non-theist is truly sad.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1Well, last time I checked, Scientologists weren't following any teachings in Battlefield Earth, and I don't see how you could build a religion around it anyway. The difference between "scripture" and "novel" is that one is used by a group of people as a religious guide to life, and the other is used for entertainment. Big difference.
          • flogistan, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Then why did travolta pay to have the movie made as a tribute to his faith?
  • dawnstarlol, on 01/25/2008, -27/+3Geez...
  • fugimugim, on 01/25/2008, -64/+13jesus was teh paedobear lol
    • smacksaw, on 01/25/2008, -10/+4/b/tards are going to work up some epic psing for this.
      • bot001220, on 01/26/2008, -3/+1Both of you fail.
        • DCJoeDogaswell, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2JEWS EVERYWHERE in my pants.

          *note - the following statement was a joke.
  • AloholicPancake, on 01/25/2008, -17/+194Wow, they're just bashing all religions until it seems like they're the only good one...
    ***** Scifags.
    • Rikkochet, on 01/25/2008, -13/+98How uncharacteristic of a religion...
    • minoss, on 01/25/2008, -13/+24Reminds me of Christianity vs Islam.
      • Cyclops0T8, on 01/25/2008, -1/+26Actually followers of Islam wouldn't bash Christian teachings, since they actually believe in Jesus, Moses etc. Insulting Jesus would be a huge sin for them. They will, however, bash Christians as having deviated from 'the right path'.
      • pat25fire, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2Well hopefully it will soon remind you of the Bible belt forcefully smacking down Scientology.
      • Syphon8, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Islam is to Christianity as Christianity is to Judaism
    • RockeN5, on 01/25/2008, -10/+29Seriously.. don't Christians pull the same stuff off, all the time? What about the Roman Catholic Church? They are built on a history of seeming like "they're the only good one".
      • pintomp3, on 01/25/2008, -7/+9exactly, it reminds me of islamophobes claiming mohammad was a pedophile.
        • kronix2, on 01/25/2008, -6/+4According to Sunni Muslims (the dominant sect), Muhammad married a six-year-old and had sex with her when she was 9.

          Hence, paedophile.
        • cranium, on 01/25/2008, -5/+2Mohammad, Joseph Smith, L Ron, Jim Jones, David Koresh, all pedophiles. See a pattern?
      • edwartica, on 01/25/2008, -2/+3sadly, many sects of Christianity (inlcuding many mainline sects) do. However, many sects do not. Look up the emergent church when you got a minute.
      • jmack56, on 01/25/2008, -6/+9yes christianity has a blood filled and ugly past. But when they're looked at now their a charitable anf FREE to access religion.

        They do not enslave, they do not charge their followers, Cult of Scientology does.
        • ChinkInMyArmor, on 01/25/2008, -3/+2"they're" a charitable religion.
          well, somewhat.
          • B3000, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1*****. I hate the comments system - why did my previous response to this get tagged on the wrong comment? Oh well.
        • B3000, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1Go to any third world country in the world and see who is doing charitable work there. Take The Salvation Army for example, a very specifically Christian org.

          From wikipedia "The Salvation Army is one of the world's largest providers of social aid, with expenditures including operating costs of $2.6 billion in 2004, helping more than 32 million people in the US alone. In addition to community centers and disaster relief, the organization does work in refugee camps, especially among displaced people in Africa. The Salvation Army has received an A- rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy."

          Is that only "somewhat" charitable to you?

          On an individual level, out of people that I have gone to church with, I probably know about 50 or more who have donated their time to Habitat for Humanity to build houses for the needy. How many people do I know that have done that kind of charity work who weren't affiliated with a church? One or two.

          I'm not trying to get all high and mighty here - haven't done my share of charity work either, so I'm not the good example.

          Now, I know that there are ***** Christians out there spreading hatred and intolerance everywhere the go, but they don't speak for all Christians - they are just the loudest, so they're the most frequently heard.
      • Myztry, on 01/26/2008, -0/+4Not quite. Scientology hasn't gone to the genocide level by declaring Pagans to be witches, and burning them alive.
        • hatdrop, on 01/26/2008, -0/+0the videos of them doing it were taken off youtube due to copyright
    • EarlOfLade, on 01/25/2008, -6/+13Yeah, it's almost like all the christians who tell me I will go to hell all the time, ***** annoying!
    • brufleth, on 01/25/2008, -6/+20What's that quote again? Something like, "Everyone is an atheist to different degrees. Once you explain why you've rejected all the other gods you'll understand why I reject yours."
    • Nutt3rz, on 01/25/2008, -8/+9Wouldn't it be great if all these ***** crazy religions/cults took each other out and left us all in peace?
    • ketchupwfries, on 01/25/2008, -3/+3... and that makes them different, how?
  • entrophize, on 01/25/2008, -66/+20This gives 'JESUS ***** CHRIST!' a new meaning.
    • CLShortFuse, on 01/25/2008, -4/+31No it doesn't.
    • FoghornLeghorn, on 01/25/2008, -5/+7Dugg for the attempt at humour and not feigned outrage.
    • buymeachicken, on 01/25/2008, -1/+8That would be masturbation wouldn't it?
      • Sidzilla, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2Or an acrobatic feat that is a miracle. More proof of his omnipotence, my friends.
    • TheShom, on 01/26/2008, -7/+0You give ASS-*****-HOLE a new meaning
  • Raian, on 01/25/2008, -71/+11Well I can understand... some people mistakenly associate homosexuality with pedophilia.
  • Sub7, on 01/25/2008, -39/+9These freaking star treck fans are getting out of hand now. I mean there's sci-fi and then there's just culists.

    Oh yeah - ***** THE RIAA.
    • TrevorBelmont, on 01/25/2008, -6/+6I'm sure you could have fit Ron Paul in there.
      • edwartica, on 01/25/2008, -4/+3or praise for the Iphone and disdain for W.
    • MacEnvy, on 01/25/2008, -3/+18Please don't demean Star Trek by associating it with Scientologists. Thank you for your cooperation.
      • MotherFraker, on 01/26/2008, -3/+3Yeah, there are plenty of other ways to demean STAR TREK.
        Oh, yeah, and ***** RON PAUL.
  • cabooglio2, on 01/25/2008, -73/+172Wow! It's like a fight between the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
    • brufleth, on 01/25/2008, -4/+37The Tooth Fairy has the advantage of being well financed. They can hire mercenaries while the Easter Bunny is stuck recruiting from people who will work for candy.
    • thepretext, on 01/25/2008, -18/+29Except that, son of God or no, Jesus was actually a person, and is agreed upon by many, many religions as being a good person. Also, the point of this being a "big deal" is that Hubbard would resort to name calling and blasting other beliefs just for ***** and grins. Good effort, though.
      • cabooglio2, on 01/25/2008, -7/+19Will Rogers was a good person, too, but no one is killing people in his name... except for the mysterious and deadly Will Rogers Ninja Squad.
      • pintomp3, on 01/25/2008, -11/+12the primary difference between jesus and hubbard is about 2000 years. that's a lot of time to rewrite/fabricate history. especially if the church is in charge of writing the history. i don't mean to knock jesus, but you have to consider the source of all of our information about him.
      • skyfire1, on 01/25/2008, -17/+21Jesus probably never existed.
        • NOFXY, on 01/25/2008, -6/+9Dugg down for the truth. We live in sad sad times :/
          • bingobongony, on 01/26/2008, -9/+2Your truth is not the truth. That is why he was dugg down.
        • JCPahl, on 01/25/2008, -8/+2Truth will get you to hell, sinner!
      • Disfnord, on 01/25/2008, -6/+19Funny, I was under the impression that there are no contemporary records of this Jesus fellow existing. Doesn't mean he didn't exist, but it is possible he is a complete fabrication.
        • t.toe, on 01/25/2008, -10/+2There is no dispute among historians that the Bible is probably one of the best-preserved documents from the ancient world. Much better preserved than Josephus's writings, for example, who is the main source of what we know of the history of Rome circa 100 AD.
          • cranium, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2he said CONTEMPORARY. The new testament was written later.
        • gfxlonghorn, on 01/25/2008, -1/+8That doesn't mean the best preserved document couldn't have been a made up story.
        • Tetraca, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2Even if Jesus is a fabrication, that fabrication is better than Hubbard ever was in many qualities. Their followers are a bit iffy however - they can be equally evil.
    • GodIsntReal, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2Hahahaha.
    • bingobongony, on 01/25/2008, -13/+2Pretty idiotic. there is virutally NO dispute that Jesus existed.
    • sigmaman2, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4"GO SANTA!"

      Jesus looks back angrily over his shoulder...

      "..um...err...GO JESUS!"
      • stevealford, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1I guess there aren't as many South Park "fans" on here as it would seem. Either that or they never saw the original episode from Matt and Trey's college days.
    • Easyoffbam, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2BELIEVE IN THE TOOTH FAIRY OR ALL YOUR TEETH WILL FALL OUT! THE TOOTH FAIRY SAVES!
  • 1337js, on 01/25/2008, -77/+215I don't know about Jesus but Mohammed was definitely a pedophile who raped little girls.
    • mdcarso, on 01/25/2008, -26/+154[Scriptural Evidence] Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source]
      Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
      • soulrock, on 01/25/2008, -6/+41Yikes!
      • r337ard, on 01/25/2008, -9/+22With the really awesome record keeping back then it wouldn't be surprising if the girl were 12-13 which was a more common age to be married off in those times. That's entirely speculation on my part, however.
        • JohnboiWaltune, on 01/25/2008, -7/+17Yeah, back then if a woman was not a virgin, no man would want to marry her and she would be worthless to her family. Also rape was a fact of life back then, so a woman could not really control when she would lose her virginity. So they married them off as soon as they became sexually mature, to ensure they were virgins.

          Having sex with a 9 year old is still sick no matter how you look at it. If Mohammed did that, he was a pedo.
        • Vektuz, on 01/26/2008, -3/+3I wonder if the sharia law that those buggers want to bring back lets them do all that crap again
      • 1timeuser, on 01/25/2008, -18/+9You know, Mary supposedly had Jesus at like 12... So does that mean that God was as pedo too? Those were sort of different times and shouldn't really be judged by todays standards. Also if she married him then more then likely she consented to sex... that would imply there was no rape.
        • BigCheezy, on 01/25/2008, -12/+7Source? Yeah, thought so.
          • 1timeuser, on 01/26/2008, -2/+2dunno, most sources say jesus's divinity was fake so I'm kinda just making ***** up here... just like the rest of you.
        • IKORKYI, on 01/25/2008, -6/+31) no, i don't know
          2) supposedly????
          3) pedophilia is SEX with youngsters, not *immaculate* conception, so no he's not a pedo
          4) consent while a minor still implicates rape in all 50 states with that age difference
          • 1timeuser, on 01/26/2008, -0/+3So what state did he have sex with her in?
        • hmunkey, on 01/25/2008, -3/+2The imaginary man isn't imaginary if he ***** a woman.
      • ChinkInMyArmor, on 01/25/2008, -9/+7I hear prophets are really good in bed.
        • Sidzilla, on 01/25/2008, -3/+3That's PROFITS, and only if you give me the full hour.
      • replikhant, on 01/25/2008, -5/+4I stick my neck out for no stinking prophet or supposed holy man
      • provost, on 01/25/2008, -11/+4yes, but in all reality .. she could have been a dog.. so he technically married his dog when his dog was 49 and had sex with his dog with she was 63. Cut him some slack.. maybe he wasnt a pedophile, just like to ***** dogs.
      • Roninsama, on 01/26/2008, -1/+5no wonder those terrorists wanted them 72 virgins badly =.=
      • Anonymouz, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1Speculation about Aisha's young age are based on Hadiths narrated by herself however there is contradictory evidence to suggest Ashia was much older based on hadiths about Aisha's sisters age and year of hijra etc that lead to many discrepancy's.
    • DrDragun, on 01/25/2008, -39/+17Ahhh yes, it's all good when the Christians do it to another religeon.
      • darkphenox, on 01/25/2008, -11/+8Because you know he is a Christian, and as said [Scriptural Evidence] Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source]
        Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
      • DrDragun, on 01/25/2008, -9/+3^^ L2 Digg history, n00b
    • viruz, on 01/25/2008, -32/+63Those were different times. Heck a lot of people died in their teens and twenties.. so 9 would have been middle aged.
      • InspectorGadget, on 01/26/2008, -4/+13People did not reach middle age in their teens. Development did not accelerate to that extent. Stop excusing a disgusting practice with a scientific falsehood.
        • TomTruelle, on 01/26/2008, -4/+2Well said.
        • Chojiro, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1He meant it statically you cockfaced boob.

          Stop trying to sound like a respected member of the scientific community when you obviously never passed 1st grade reading comprehension.
      • TracerMan, on 01/26/2008, -3/+8If 9 is "middle aged," then 18 would the be avg life span... This is completely not true, even for 1500 years ago.
    • nblsavage, on 01/25/2008, -13/+81Well, I actually did quite a bit of searching to see if this was somehow misquoted or taken out of context. It isn't - man, thats ***** up.
    • EarlOfLade, on 01/25/2008, -24/+15Yepp and it's the same god as christians and jews, but different "truthiness" and wrapping.
      • saltinekracka20, on 01/25/2008, -1/+9He's talking about Mohammed. Not God.
      • diggjones, on 01/25/2008, -5/+2No, Allah and the the Judeo-Christian God are two different deities.
        • lived666, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3Don't Muslims, Christians, and Jews all believe in the old testament?
    • olbap, on 01/25/2008, -7/+57It is not ***** up considering that marrying girls has been a tradition throughout most of the known world for thousands of years. While Europeans did not technically practice the marrying of their children off to men, it was NOT uncommon for a 12-14 year old to be married off to an older man. In fact, other than the modern times we live in, it was very common for a person above the age of 18 to marry someone in their teens. While 9 yrs. old definitely is much younger than a teen, this tradition is still practiced today in places like Pakistan and India...except I don't think the men are allowed to have sex with them until a certain age. Not saying that's right, just saying it is...
      • MacEnvy, on 01/25/2008, -9/+8Perhaps they still do it in those places *because it's in their holy book*. That certainly doesn't make it right ... in fact, it makes that part of scripture even more dangerous and disturbing.

        If Baptists routinely stoned adulterers, I wouldn't say it's okay just because "it's part of their culture". It would be a demented and criminal action, even if it was supported by their religious texts. That's no excuse.
      • biotch, on 01/25/2008, -6/+3Dude she was 6!
        I dont care if it was part of tradition to marry girls in their teens.
        She was friggen 6, period.
    • alkajazz, on 01/25/2008, -11/+62Back in those days after the girl had her first menstrual period she was considered fit for marriage. I think its kind of a stretch to say he was a pedophile.
      • tekrat, on 01/25/2008, -6/+8Would he be considered a pedophile today?
        • fxu1989, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5By today's standards in most countries ... yes.

          But what is considered today as voodo and ***** .. maybe a while back would be considered witchcraft and you would be stoned to death...
          • InspectorGadget, on 01/26/2008, -2/+2Voodoo, witchcraft, no difference. Same exact fantasy irrational *****.
      • fuelcell, on 01/25/2008, -18/+15Um. So girls (back in those days) had their first menstrual period at nine?! Um, no. Still a pedo.
        • soulkitchen, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2Something about the hormones in the milk
        • Cyclops0T8, on 01/25/2008, -5/+6I think she was married at 9 and marriage was consummated at 12.
        • SeraphX, on 01/25/2008, -2/+5She was married at six and the marriage was consummated at 9.
      • TheShom, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1C'mon he was a prophet! These guys were like the Michael Jacksons of their time. He could've married almost any woman his age he wanted... Sick bastard.
    • theutopian, on 01/25/2008, -10/+39You sensationalist's ever heard of ethno-centrism. Jeez, it was a different time with a completely different value system.
      • shcforward, on 01/25/2008, -14/+4Sometimes it is ok to be ethno-centric. For example, when the other culture has no qualms about letting grown men have sex with 9 year olds.
        • nblsavage, on 01/25/2008, -1/+9is that still the case however? Or was it just the societal norm hundreds of years ago?
          • InspectorGadget, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1There are plenty of child brides the world over. It is wrong, it is shameful, and your hesitance to condemn the practice for fear of offending anyone repulses me.
        • makkaveli19, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1more like 1400 years ago
      • vman81, on 01/25/2008, -1/+13but then you could also say his teachings can't be taken at face value anymore, because of how different our values are now
        • makkaveli19, on 01/26/2008, -1/+3doesn't that work the same way for any religion.
      • analogkid01, on 01/25/2008, -9/+5Cultural relativism is *****.
        • nblsavage, on 01/25/2008, -3/+7unless its your culture being attacked yes?
          • InspectorGadget, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2That doesn't change the fact that cultural relativism is *****. I welcome criticism of the backward aspects of American culture, and in return I demand the right to criticize all other cultures.
    • SuperWinner, on 01/25/2008, -12/+6Ghandi spent most of him daygiving enemas to young girls, and he would usually have a bunch of ten year olds with him wherever he went... is this whole religion thing a scam to legitimize pedo-feel-ya?
      • analogkid01, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5Gandhi. And...proofread, please.
    • leexy, on 01/25/2008, -11/+80You can't apply the standards of whatever place and time you're living in, to what happened in Arabia 15 centuries ago. What is a pedophile in your opinion? Someone that screws people who aren't 18? 16? 15? 14? 13? Who decides? The age of consent in Germany or Austria is 14; in Spain, it's 13. In other places, it goes down as low as 12 years old. We don't have the same genes or cultures, and different people achieve sexual maturity at different times. There's this girl of 5 years old who gave birth in Peru. And besides sexual maturity, people mature differently in general. That's for the "pedophile" part.
      The claim that it was "rape" is ludicrous given that the whole marriage was as a favor to Aisha's father (the first male Muslim). If there was indeed rape, she wouldn't have been so lenient on the prophet when recounting her experiences. To quote the Wiki: A rape is a form of assault where one individual forces another to have sexual intercourse against that person's will. Nothing of the sort happened in this case. It was an arranged marriage with the blessing of the whole family, and Aisha didn't object to it. Granted, she was young, but there are plenty of young kids with more judgment, determination and wits than adults. I am not saying she falls in that category, but surely you must be able to realize that your "rape" claim is ridiculous.
      Finally, you use the term "little girls" in plural form as if it was a common occurrence. Nothing is farther from the truth. The prophet married mostly widows, which are often of a certain age. The idea being that it is the best way to fulfill their sexual and economic needs. In fact, at the age of 25, the prophet's first wife was 40 years old. It is not contested that Khadija was the "love of his life".
      It may also be worth mentioning that the actual age at which the marriage with Aisha was consummated is not exactly a settled issue. The number fluctuates from 9 to as much as 15 years old. Which was it does not really matter in my opinion. Does Georges Washington's marriage to a 12 years old take away any of the man's achievements? You decide. For my part, I am not ready to judge something that happens centuries ago based on some arbitrary figure modern society decided upon.
      • Cyclops0T8, on 01/25/2008, -3/+21Finally a well thought out comment that doesn't bash anyone.
      • SLuM, on 01/25/2008, -17/+4He also killed all the Jews in Mecca and made their girls sex slaves... yea Muhammed sure was righteous...
        • ramo13, on 01/25/2008, -5/+12do you take history lessons from tom cruise ?
        • iPissExcellence, on 01/25/2008, -4/+2i don't think he did, cus that would be like: "He also killed all the Jews in Mocca, or whatever, then he used psychology and
          fed ritalin to little jew girls for scientific research."
      • quraid, on 01/25/2008, -2/+11dugg for ball slapping idiots with words.
      • Frost9999, on 01/26/2008, -5/+2Umm, it's just religious fairy-tales. That book could say he married a 1 year old but that doesn't make it real.
      • Ultra99, on 01/26/2008, -6/+2Prophet or not, everybody knows there's got to be grass on the field. Dugg for a well worded comment but FAIL on the argument!
    • bowens44, on 01/25/2008, -4/+12Wow. Are you really that gullible?
      • Vektuz, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Its actually true. Well, if you assume the holy scripture is true. Its not like its hidden or something. Its right there.
    • InspectorGadget, on 01/25/2008, -9/+6Not all cultures or belief systems are equal. Anything that isn't rational is *****. Any belief system that endorses raping children is *****. ***** backwards people and cultures and the white guilt crowd that gives them enough breathing room to commit all sorts of abominations.
      • InspectorGadget, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1Somebody dugg me down for stating the obvious? Wow. Good job defending irrationality and backwards cultural practices against the imperialistic-neocapitalistic-patriarchal conspiracy, we wouldn't want important things like made-up beliefs and child rape to go away.
      • aristotle0dude, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1You're right. America babies adolescents as if they were still young children but then proceeds to market to them using sexual imagery or uses teens in provocative poses to advertise products. How ***** up is that? America locks up teens having consensual sex with other teens. If that's not ***** up I don't know what is. Should I mention the idiotic zero tolerance on aspirin in schools in the US?
    • ramo13, on 01/25/2008, -3/+1The 1337js's Great Sequel to Hubbard's epic masterpice: "Darth Xenu: Gandalf and The Rise of Voldemort", Buy Now! international bestseller and qualifier to OTXI: Xenu's Lightsaber
    • alfrednonimous, on 01/25/2008, -5/+7mohammed didn't rape little girls, he was married to one, which was quite normal in his time

      but that doesn't mean i think it's good (but yesus isn't real good either)
    • fuckinlogin, on 01/26/2008, -2/+11(1) Do I need to remind people that the age of consent was RAISED from 10 (TEN) to 13 in England only in 1875 less than a century and a half ago? The only reason it was raised from 13 to 16 later was only as a consequence of one of the first cases of "Moral Panic" created by the father of modern investigative journalism. He basically kidnapped/bought a 13 year old girl, spent a minute alone in a room with her until she screamed as proof "he could have had his way with her if he wanted" and had her sent abroad as the culmination of a series of article about the abuse of virgins, after being convinced to do so by the Army of Salvation. The girl was later returned to her alcoholic mum who had sold her after being convinced she would work as a maid. He spent a few months in jail for it.
      A thousand years after Mohammed was dead the Church (yes the Christian one) RAISED the age of consent to 7(SEVEN) in "civilised" Europe.
      (2) The age of Aisha is still a matter of debate. One of the reasons is the habit in the Quran of quoting only the lesser significant digits in numbers and dates when the context is implied. Other reasons include her participantion in battle before marrying Mohammed, and a requirement in that region and time was for combatants to be above 15. However, it would not really be surprising if she was indeed 9 when they had sex, which would be an acceptable age at that time.
      The marriage was more a political thing. She was the daughter of the first convert to Islam, who also happened to be quite rich and influential. Islam being (more so than most religions) built from the ground up by its creator as a political system with a religion as basis to hold it together, it becomes obvious why he would marry her, without having even met her. And from what I know, someone correct me if I'm wrong, he didn't rape her.
      (3) To go back to the raising of the age of consent to 16 (and 18 in many parts of the world). The industrial revolution has forced a longer duration of education because skilled labour became a requirement. However, now that the population of most industrialised nations have adapted to the changes, we are paying the price now through the artificial problem of teenage pregnancy. To keep the UK as an example (I live here). The average age of puberty has started to reverse again (after going up for a while). The average age of puberty in females has gone down from 14 in the mid 70s to 12, with one in six starting menstruation at the age of 8. Coupled with bad sex education (starting to get better now) it isn't surprising that 13-14 year old teens of both sexes are engaging in sexual activity without contraceptive measures and that pregnancy in those age ranges are increasing. While the longer duration of schooling makes this problematic, burying our heads in the sand and criminalising sex between people in the 13-16 age range does not solve the problem.
  • rynosauce, on 01/25/2008, -28/+3Everybody's "right" and nobodies "wrong".
    • lindyyy, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2Nobodie? Are you serious? There's an option to check spelling, you know...
  • Maver1ckX, on 01/25/2008, -11/+29You don't see any other religions that do this (not that i know of anyways) which proves its nothing more than a cult
    • viruz, on 01/25/2008, -8/+30I hope that is sarcasm..hard to tell without a winky face or anything.
    • EmperorAwesome, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4That and their NDA's. Jesus told his apostles to spread the truth of how to get into heaven. Scientologists can't legally talk about their beliefs. How far gone do you have to be when that doesn't raise a red flag?
      • Qumahlin, on 01/25/2008, -3/+3Your mistaken. Scientologists can openly talk about thier beliefs, just not the xenu stuff. Many people don't realize the whole "xenu" portion of scientology isn't heavily discussed to most members. They know that if they just out and out said "yes our religion is based on space aliens" even most idiots would doubt them.
      • theycallmebubba, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5His mistaken what? Any religion that hides things from general discussion ought to be raising red flags all over the place.
  • justice7, on 01/25/2008, -5/+18wow .. just wow.
    • ronaldinho, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2"You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads." Uh, what? They should have read the Bible some more and realized that homosexuality existed a long time before Jesus came to earth.
      • elhaf, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2I think he's referring to the crusades.
    • Mustard911, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2It's not so much a wow when you realise they are just a Freemason fraternity living off the zombies they cart in off the streets.
  • kavery, on 01/25/2008, -9/+56Xenu licks my balls.
    • Xinareiaz, on 01/25/2008, -2/+4arg..this bothers me, Xenu isn't a good guy in Scientologys beliefs, he's like their devil. So they would probably have no problem with that statement.
    • carpespasm, on 01/25/2008, -1/+7LRH licks Xenu's balls?
  • TrevorBelmont, on 01/25/2008, -11/+22The one true prophet.

    http://sbelmont.deviantart.com/art/The-Study-of-Tr ...
    • TrevorBelmont, on 01/25/2008, -3/+9I'm getting buried like you people think I believe L Ron IS the one true prophet. Did you look at the picture? Did the picture look like I believe that statement? C'mon!
      • Esstee, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1And to think that one day, people will say Hubbart never walked the earth!
    • alkajazz, on 01/25/2008, -0/+6wtf i didn't know beck was a scientologist.
      • edwartica, on 01/25/2008, -2/+3Whyd o you think he has a devil's haircut? :P
  • jhandfield, on 01/25/2008, -4/+129Now this is an interesting confrontation. Does the average (vocal) Digger's hatred of Christianity outweigh their apparent hatred of Scientology, or vice versa?
    • h4rdcor3, on 01/25/2008, -14/+26The worst the Christians are doing lately are boycotting people funerals, while totally hypocritical it is nothing compared the the activities of the Cult of Scientology
      • rjam710, on 01/25/2008, -4/+65To be fair, those are the actions of one extremist group (Westboro Baptist Church) and not the general attitude of all Christians. Scientologists, on the other hand, are all equally bat-***** crazy.
        • DrDragun, on 01/25/2008, -19/+3^^ making sweeping generalizations about people not-like-you is still a major flaw though
        • Shawn4168, on 01/25/2008, -9/+7^^ making comments like this all over the place doesn't make you correct or cool.
        • thepretext, on 01/25/2008, -8/+6^_^
        • theycallmebubba, on 01/25/2008, -2/+3Nothing about the WBC is even remotely Christian. Their 'congregation' consists of what is essentially one extended family, all led by their dad, Fred Phelps. Lumping organizations like theirs in with ANY majority religions is a slap in the face to what most of them stand for, imo.
          • rjam710, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Agreed. I was considering whether or not to put quotations around Christians, as I don't consider those WBC idiots humans, let alone Christians. I wish digg had an italics button.
      • graemee, on 01/25/2008, -1/+18Correct Bat-***** is an equal opportunity employer.
      • willcode4beer, on 01/25/2008, -16/+4"The worst the Christians are doing lately are boycotting people funerals"
        forgot, blowing people up, shooting people, killing babies, etc...
      • SLockhart, on 01/25/2008, -5/+24No on no no, Stop right there. Those were certainly not Christians. If I call myself a surgeon does that make me one? No.
      • Ki77erB, on 01/25/2008, -4/+10WBC are not Christians. As far as Im concerned, they are in the same boat as the scifags. Anon should destroy them all.
      • saltinekracka20, on 01/25/2008, -2/+12Wow dude, just classified over a billion people into a group of 100 radicals. Nice job.
      • buymeachicken, on 01/25/2008, -4/+3I would be more than happy for Christians to boycott my funeral. I would be less than pleased if they protested at it Westboro style.
    • viruz, on 01/25/2008, -16/+10Can one hate both equally?
      • MichaelGBoyd, on 01/25/2008, -4/+17Unfortunately, you have to pick. I personally choose CoS no contest. They're ***** crazy.
      • h4rdcor3, on 01/25/2008, -2/+6no, you have to choose one or the other
    • analogkid01, on 01/25/2008, -12/+3You may be right in calling it "hatred." But look at it through the eyes of an atheist: an analogy would be if we had two very large, powerful groups, one which thought that every word of "Lord of the Rings" was written by God, and the other which thought that every word of "Harry Potter" was written by God. It's like that.
    • klick37, on 01/25/2008, -4/+6Hating Scientology is 'in' now.
    • EmperorAwesome, on 01/25/2008, -2/+16I'm not really sure it matters, they can't form an opinion in the first place, as their justification is basically:
      "But...but the internets taught me that atheism is cool."
      • Yeknom, on 01/25/2008, -2/+10Exactly...
      • FoghornLeghorn, on 01/26/2008, -5/+0I know that's exactly why I don't believe in any religions. Nothing to do with religious doctrine falling apart under any critical scrutiny.
    • x1ang, on 01/26/2008, -2/+3Jesus is a fraud?! :O
    • bonk2k, on 01/26/2008, -2/+4Not liking Christianity and not liking Jesus are two different things. Except for all of the "I'm the son of God" stuff, Jesus' teachings can be appreciated by anyone.
      • Ohimesama, on 01/26/2008, -2/+3Without the whole "I am the Son of God" stuff, Jesus' teachings are bogus. Without that, then everything else He said fails. But, since he didn't lie, I guess we're all good.
        • B3000, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2How does "Love thy neighbor" and "judge not lest ye be judged" become bogus if Jesus isn't the son of god?
        • aristotle0dude, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Yup. These people who reject Jesus' claims but refer to him as a "moral teacher" are basically calling him a liar but trying to say he is an ok guy which does not compute. Jesus was not saying that he was the Son of God for a laugh. He really meant what he said and ended up getting killed for it because the establishment found him to be a threat to the status quo and his claims to be blasphemy in their eyes.
      • int19h, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1Quote or it didn't happen.
  • BryanG412, on 01/25/2008, -39/+81Just In: Religions made up, problem solved!
    • SleepingOrange, on 01/25/2008, -25/+7Wow... you obviously are the smrtest person in history! Its amazing that someone like you can come up with the answers to the universe. Well done, I applaud you!
      • alkajazz, on 01/25/2008, -5/+12This just in: SleepingOranges attempt at sarcasm has failed miserably, more on the story after the break.
      • MalenfantX, on 01/25/2008, -5/+12It is pretty obvious to anyone who's broken their conditioning, or was never brainwashed as a child.
    • SuperWinner, on 01/25/2008, -10/+10Ya and they are made up for the most selfish reasons too, money and sex (with children usually)
    • muzy, on 01/25/2008, -5/+6***** you
      • brentinkc, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2I bet you were on the debate team in high school, huh?
    • pinchies, on 01/26/2008, -2/+2Har Har Har.
  • Raiderkid6, on 01/25/2008, -21/+3This deserves a "[Face_Plain]". Lay off other religions
  • cradz, on 01/25/2008, -13/+211Jesus could beat up Xenu, truth.
    • overbyte, on 01/25/2008, -4/+17FACT

      rofl
      • notque, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3That's what they do in the summit as well. They repeat that it's true 3-4 times within every statement. Words to indicate truth.
    • graemee, on 01/25/2008, -2/+22Jesus: He told me enough! He told me you killed him!
      Xenu: No. I am your father.
      Jesus: No No. That's not true! That's impossible!
    • edwartica, on 01/25/2008, -2/+5Heck, Lucifer could beat up Xenu!
    • mwmccullough, on 01/25/2008, -3/+3Of course Jesus and Lucifer could beat up Xenu. They use magic.
    • Jpotts12, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3Looks like the only way to answer this question is to have them fight in a steel-cage on pay per-view. Unfortunately, I don't know how anyone will contact either of them, since Jesus lives in heaven and Xenus lives on like....planet Remulak or some *****. ..... pretty sure neither of those areas are listed in the phone book.
    • brentinkc, on 01/26/2008, -3/+3Yeah, and Santa Claus can beat up the Easter Bunny. The important question is: Does it ***** matter?
  • theyac3, on 01/25/2008, -3/+12What a bunch of crap. These days will go down in history, too bad old L. Ron wasn't here to experience it.
    • edwartica, on 01/25/2008, -2/+1Seriouysly. With today's paparazzi - I think the tabloids would be full of gossip on his latest scams and psychopathic behavior.
    • Sciontuner, on 01/26/2008, -1/+0but he will be here! each person lives for a billion years!
  • jivecjedkin, on 01/25/2008, -5/+31Maybe they just think that to justify L. Ron.

    Join the Super Adventure Club and you too can molest children around the world.
    • smacksaw, on 01/25/2008, -3/+12Looks like elRon doesn't like being outdone by anyone. Ok Hubby, you're the greatest paedophile ever. Just give us back Chef.
  • Mr.Gone, on 01/25/2008, -16/+5This will create a schism in the Digg community! The Atheists will love it but no one loves CoS. OMG! A Digg civil war will follow the fall of the CoS. That is, of course, unless Iron Man or other comic book movie does really well/poorly. :D I love that ridicule of pop culture binds us together as diggers. Group Hug! :D
  • Quilby, on 01/25/2008, -7/+50The case file for Church of Scientology International v. Fishman and Geertz contains over 700 documents. This web page presents a declaration filed by Steven Fishman on April 9, 1993 in which he included the OT (Operating Thetan) materials as exhibits. Links to a few other interesting affidavits are given at the end of the page. The order form for these materials will not be honored now, since the judge sealed the files on August 15, 1995.

    Fishman Declaration

    Court-stamped page numbers appear in parentheses. Occasional descriptions of drawings also appear in parentheses.
    Declaration and Exhibits

    * Cover page
    * Declaration of Steven Fishman
    * Exhibit A: Proof of Service
    * Exhibit B: On Control and Lying
    * Exhibit C: Witness Preparation: Hatting the Witness
    * Exhibit D: Addendum to Witness Preparation
    * Exhibit E: Project Quaker
    * Exhibit G: Summary of and comments upon 'Dissemination of material'
    * Exhibit G: Original Exhibit G

    OT (Operating Thetan) Materials

    * pp. 60-62: OT I Description
    * pp. 63-75: Summary of and comments upon OT II
    * pp. 76-100: Summary of and comments upon OT III
    * pp. 101-104: OT IV Rundown
    * pp. 105-109: OT V
    * pp. 110-112: OT VI
    * pp. 113-123: OT VII Rundown
    * pp. 124-128: OT VIII Part 1: Why Thetans Mock Up
    * pp. 129-132: OT VIII Part 2: OT VIII Series I Confidential Student Briefing

    Note: the Church claims that the OT VIII documents are forgeries. This has for some time been the official CoS-statement; probably because OT8 includes some very strange theories about Jesus and many real churches were outraged because of it.

    See for instance this quote from (Hubbard's?) OTVIII:

    For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting.

    It is a good joke that the Galactic Confederacy is associated with the Serpent in the Garden, the beast and other emissaries of the "Prince of Darkness". Yet in certain passages and esoteric interpretations of the Bible (much of which has been taken out and effectively suppressed for centuries) as well as the Cabbalah, the truth reveals itself quite nicely for the clever and the ungullible.

    Because of this fragment OT8 has become known as the "Jesus is a pedophile"-OT. Until recently, CoS was adamant that OT8 was a forgery.

    Until recently. When Arnaldo Lerma's house was raided by CoS, they took his computer. Under the writ of seizure, they were allowed only to identify files that were copyrighted bij CoS / RTC. A CoS lawyer - Kendrick Moxon, expert attorney and a senior OT - was asked to supervise this, and guess what: he identified OT8 as an RTC copyright and therefore, as a church scripture.

    Here is a quote from the court transcripts. Mr. Sullivan (Lerma's lawyer) is speaking and explains to Judge Brinkema which documents Moxon selected as copyright infringements. The Mr. Cooley he is speaking of, is CoS's lawyer for the case, who had earlier in that same session repeated the offical statement that OT8 is a forgery. So, the two CoS lawyers clearly disagree, but Moxon is the one called in as the expert on the copyrights:

    page 81

    1 what Mr. Cooley represented was a very highly placed
    2 Scientology attorney, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Moxin
    3 (phonetic), an attorney from Los Angeles, who we were told
    4 had obtained the requisite spiritual level to review these
    5 materials.
    6 Now, we got back 58 disks that allegedly contained
    7 the infringing materials. We went through those disks. We
    8 went through three of those disks. We printed out some of
    9 the shorter ones and went through them in the 30(b)6
    10 deposition that we conducted, and the plaintiffs designated
    11 Mr. McShane, the President of the RTC, as its 30(b)6
    12 witness.
    13 We went through three of these documents,
    14 presented to him in their entirety. What did we find out?
    15 One that they designated as an infringement was this OT 8
    16 document that Mr. Cooley speaks of with great passion, that
    17 it's a forgery. 'It's an outrageous slander against Jesus
    18 Christ.' They designated that and impounded it, Your Honor.
    19 They seized it from Mr. Lerma and they impounded it, the
    20 same document this they lambast the Washington Post for
    21 printing excerpts of.
    22 Now, what's the explanation that we are offered in
    23 response when we questioned them at the deposition? Well,
    24 we are told that obviously Mr. Moxin does not know which
    25 documents are which.

    page 82

    1 We submit to this Court that if Mr. Moxin, a
    2 highly placed church attorney, could not make the
    3 distinction between which is which, how can Mr. Lerma be
    4 expected to act at his peril?

    So now CoS has a severe problem. There are two possible answers:
    - OT8 is a fake. In which case Moxon overstepped the judge's rules for the search on Lerma's files big time - he designated and impounded it - and also doesn't know his OT's from a forgery (and didn't the cult claim that their technologies improve memory?)
    - OT8 is not a fake. In which case Hubbard did refer to Jesus as 'a lover of young boys' and CoS's lawyer Cooley was lying in court when he said that OT8 was a forgery.

    Change of Venue

    * Preliminary notice of motion to reconsider transfer of venue
    * Proofs of service for above motion

    Other Affidavits Filed in the Fishman Case

    * Stacy Young: Affidavit I
    * Stacy Young: Affidavit II
    * Andre Tabayoyon
    * Mary Tabayoyon
    * Vaughn Young
    * David Miscavige
    * Vicki Aznaran
    • smacksaw, on 01/25/2008, -3/+18This is why Anon's plan is flawless. Should Co$ try to sue Anon, with all of the stuff that's now out in public domain it will put it in the courts for examination and ridicule.
      • GeekXian, on 01/25/2008, -17/+4Um.. no. Because it will be irrelevant to the case and the judge won't allow it. Even if you can prove that $cientology kills people vigilante justice is also illegal and you can't use it as a defense. But if it makes you feel better to think that you won't get stomped in court, have fun.
        • smacksaw, on 01/25/2008, -4/+17LOL moron

          Scientology: They stole x document
          Judge: x document entered into evidence as exhibit A

          Get it? Or do you come from some banana republic country with a ***** legal system?
          • GeekXian, on 01/25/2008, -6/+1They don't have to go after Anon for that, get it retard? DDoS is illegal. Promoting DDoS is illegal.
          • FuzzMop, on 01/26/2008, -2/+0Scientology has done many DDoS attacks in the past to shut down websites that have told the truth about it. And Scientology would already use because there's a larger percentage of Christians in this nation than there are Scientologists.
    • notque, on 01/25/2008, -2/+9OT8 is true. Just read what LRH's son says about it, and it all matches.
      • tekrat, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2Any public sources?
        • notque, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5It was some porn mag that interviewed him in the 70s. Search digg, it was on here.
  • insomniacal, on 01/25/2008, -37/+8Is this an attempt to enlist Christian support for Anonymous?
    How strange, then, that Christians (of all people!) should resist this call and support Scientology's right to free speech -- yes, even the right to claim Jesus was a pedophile.
    Mucking around with free speech is all fun and games until Anonymous comes after you.
    • djbon21