Thread: Crowley and Hubbard.

Operation Clambake presents: FBI Files on L Ron Hubbard

It appears that the infamous L.Ron Hubbard, who founded scientology, was also associated with Alesteir Crowley, who claimed to be The Beast 666. I have always believed that scientology is basically an evil religion, and Crowley openly claimed to be evil. Hubbard is stated in the reference above to have swindled $10,000 from an associate. If so, scientology is one of three religions I am aware of that were started by swindlers, and probably started as tool to swindle money from their followers.

The second is Mormonism, since the founder, Joseph Smith had not only been convicted as a swindler, but served time in prison for that crime. Since he demanded his followers paid him 10% of their earnings, it appears that the religion was designed to fetch him money. He also gave himself the 'right' to have many 'wives', which suggests that original Mormonism was also a tool to get the swindler a lot of sex. It worked well until an angry citizenry lynched him ad his brother. Did not stop the religion, though.

The third is spiritualism. This began in 1848 by sisters Margaret and Kate Fox who used simple tricks to cause such things as knocking noises. Under the management of an older and married sister, they toured giving seances to communicate with the dead - for money of course. Margaret later confessed to the fraud, but the religion went on regardless.

How many other religions began as swindles to suck money (and/or sex) from followers? How can people be silly as to follow a religion that has been exposed as a fraud?

Originally Posted by skeptic

How can people be silly as to follow a religion that has been exposed as a fraud?

If we knew that then there wouldn't be any religions anywhere in the world.

It's not even just the organized religions. Why are cults so popular?

I do not think that all religions started as the result of a swindler trying to suck money out of people. Christianity, for example, probably started with a well meaning Jew, or maybe a bunch of well meaning Jews teaching a version of Judaism that is somewhat more humanitarian, as well as less likely to provoke the Romans of their time.

However, the founders of scientology, Mormonism, and spititualism were definitely swindlers, and their motives for starting a new religion were highly suspect. I wonder if other religions can be classified the same way.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Crowley openly claimed to be evil.

That may be true only in the sense that Crowley opposed Christianity, which he regarded as enslaving people. His motto 'do what you will' was based on a quote by St. Augustine (just like the title of his autohagiography The Confessions).
It could be argued that he attempted to start his own religion (Crowleyanity) and it took off all over the world, but did not need and had no recognition. He died alone in his room and in relative poverty in a residential home in Hastings on the south coast of England, his own inherited fortune long since gone. I'm not aware that Crowley met or made any reference to Hubbard, such are the myths that surround Crowley.
Worth watching this for a more positive view:

Crowleyanity - YouTube

I thought that Hubbard founded his religion on the basis that he either had a bet with a friend that he could create a successful religion, or under a dare. Considering that it's lasted this long, and that we have a few famous individuals under its sway, I'd guess he won that bet or dare.

People will believe anything that's sensational enough, with a leader whose either a good speaker, or has that right personality.

To CF

That may even be true. But the reason Hubbard kept it going, with all the energy and imagination he poured into it, was certainly greed. Hubbard died a mega millionnaire. Today, his heirs continue to suck the $$$$ out of the gullible.

Well there is no doubt about that, as I also read somewhere his claim that religions could be profitable to those running it or such.

"How can people be silly as to follow a religion that has been exposed as a fraud?"

In my book that's all of them

Originally Posted by tszy

"How can people be silly as to follow a religion that has been exposed as a fraud?"

In my book that's all of them

Why do all those who follow any religion do so for all religions are frauds.

No, not all religions are frauds. There's truth in many of them, and a number of times, it crosses the intersections so to speak. For example, in the book of wisdom it warns of getting involved in another persons business. In Hindu texts it says the same thing. There are other examples. One only needs to read and co pair their scriptures and those of others to find the similarities. And where the similarities are found, there in lies the nugget of truth.

Originally Posted by CatholicFaithful75

there in lies the nugget of truth.

Allegedly.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Allegedly.

Are you saying sir, people Should get involved in other peoples business? As opposed to mind ones own business as the holy writings of some religions advise?

ill grant you won't find 100% truth in any one holy book. It's my opinion when things connect though, for the social benefit, not individual or communal ego, that's where truth is found.

Originally Posted by CatholicFaithful75

Are you saying sir, people Should get involved in other peoples business? As opposed to mind ones own business as the holy writings of some religions advise?

Yeah?
Should, for example, the Good Samaritan have just minded his own business?

ill grant you won't find 100% truth in any one holy book.

Can you tell me what "100% truth" is?

It's my opinion when things connect though, for the social benefit, not individual or communal ego, that's where truth is found.

Like you said: it's your opinion.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Yeah?
Should, for example, the Good Samaritan have just minded his own business?

That applies to the social benefit. Helping someone who can not help themselves is a positive and therefore it doesn't apply.

[QUOTE=Dvwyddryill grant you won't find 100% truth in any one holy book.[/Quote]
Can you tell me what "100% truth" is?

i can only define it as no one human or group or organization has it. And I'll give you an example so I'm not confusing anyone in my random brain self. It's like a jigsaw puzzle, where every piece fits perfectly and intertwines. Of course it takes time to find each piece, and we at roughly ten to twenty thousand(?) years have only just begun the said puzzle. But once said puzzle is done, and we see the picture, then we can see the complete truth.

Like you said: it's your opinion.

That's true.

I also want want to apologize if there's any grammar mistakes here. I'm typing on my IPad, and it wants to give me a migraine in certain areas.

Originally Posted by CatholicFaithful75

That applies to the social benefit. Helping someone who can not help themselves is a positive and therefore it doesn't apply.

Ah right.
So the ACTUAL rule is "don't get involved except when you need to".
Um, yeah...
Aren't there areas in everyone's life where they can't help themselves?
How do you find out without getting involved?
For that matter isn't simply having friends at least sort of "getting involved"?

i can only define it as no one human or group or organization has it. And I'll give you an example so I'm not confusing anyone in my random brain self. It's like a jigsaw puzzle, where every piece fits perfectly and intertwines. Of course it takes time to find each piece, and we at roughly ten to twenty thousand(?) years have only just begun the said puzzle. But once said puzzle is done, and we see the picture, then we can see the complete truth.

In other words your "definition" is as vague and nebulous as it's possible to be while still (just) addressing the question.

I also want want to apologize if there's any grammar mistakes here. I'm typing on my IPad, and it wants to give me a migraine in certain areas.

Heck, we get much worse than mistyped grammar on here.
So long as you're intelligible - something that's apparently well beyond a number of posters - that's fine.

Ah right.So the ACTUAL rule is "don't get involved except when you need to".
Um, yeah...
Aren't there areas in everyone's life where they can't help themselves?
How do you find out without getting involved?
For that matter isn't simply having friends at least sort of "getting involved"?

The simple answer is observation.

In other words your "definition" is as vague and nebulous as it's possible to be while still (just) addressing the question.

i suppose that is true? I can only answer to the best of my abilities, and never having taken a good philosophy class or theological class, I can not answer any better than that.

[quote]Heck, we get much worse than mistyped grammar on here.So long as you're intelligible - something that's apparently well beyond a number of posters - that's fine.[\quote]

well not one for being rude! nor flame wars, so no worries there, sir. Hopefully with any lucky someone will understand my autistic, scrambled brain and my thoughts, lol.

Originally Posted by CatholicFaithful75

The simple answer is observation.

And, unless you're at least partly involved, your observations will be nothing more than superficial.

i suppose that is true? I can only answer to the best of my abilities, and never having taken a good philosophy class or theological class, I can not answer any better than that.

Okey doke.
At least you're honest.

I am skeptical about the idea of "truth' in religion. I read once that there are 20,000 religions. If so, we can predict that there will be at least a few people in each of those 20,000 who will claim they have the whole truth and everyone else is wrong. Logically, only 1 of those 20,000 can have the 'truth', and my view is that it is even more logical to assume that none of them do.

On ethics.
Most religions have some kind of ethical code. But so do most non religious organisations, even if the ethical code is simply loyalty to the group. Religious non believers mostly have an ethical code. Really, only psychopaths have no ethics, and there are psychopaths inside religious groups as well as outside. Ethics date back to well before any modern religion.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Most religions have some kind of ethical code. But so do most non religious organisations, even if the ethical code is simply loyalty to the group. Religious non believers mostly have an ethical code. Really, only psychopaths have no ethics, and there are psychopaths inside religious groups as well as outside. Ethics date back to well before any modern religion.

Are you implying that Crowley as the alleged wickedest man in the world at the time was a psychopath? He didn't appear to have a moral code. He left people to die. He sacrificed. He drove others mad. He used drugs to invoke the gods. In that sense Crowleyanity is similar to any other religion. People who have their thinking done for them by religion can turn out that way. Religion prospers best when the masses are uneducated.

[quote]And, unless you're at least partly involved, your observations will be nothing more than superficial.[\quote]

If you've been taught right and wrong, and generally know what's going on or the issue is about it is less superficial. I don't mean right and wrong from one groups perspective, to the others, but how we would treat our selves or loved ones in the case of the needed.

To answer Skeptic, I would say, no one religion has the completeness of truth. You have to dig though all the bits and even now we wouldn't find the complete truth yet.

And, Ox has it partially right. Those who would abuse the tenants of their religion, flourish, when the masses are uneducated. Once the masses are educated you can see the wolves from the sheep in the leadership of the church, and remove said wolves.

like what should have happened to cardinal sodarno (May have misspelled his name). He is a criminal that should have been ousted a long time ago.

Originally Posted by CatholicFaithful75

If you've been taught right and wrong, and generally know what's going on or the issue is about it is less superficial.

What arrant nonsense.
Unless there's some involvement you have no clue as to the reality of what's happening in other peoples' lives.

Originally Posted by CatholicFaithful75

To answer Skeptic, I would say, no one religion has the completeness of truth. You have to dig though all the bits and even now we wouldn't find the complete truth yet.

I salute your willingness to embrace that much reality. That is well done for a religious person.

My own opinion is that the most basic belief in most (not all) of those religions is probably wrong. That is, the existence of a deity that is immensely powerful and concerned about humans. In this wide and wonderful universe, there may be intelligent beings that are sufficiently powerful to be considered deities from our limited human stand point. But it is immensely unlikely that they even know of the existence of humanity, much less be concerned.

[Quote]What arrant nonsense.
Unless there's some involvement you have no clue as to the reality of what's happening in other peoples' lives.[/Qquote]

then explain how the Good Samaritan could help some he didn't even know? For all he knew the person could have deserved the beating.

And while that's just a story, I'll tell you of something factual. Some relatives of mine came across a wreck, the car burning with people in it. They could have been like the other witnesses and left the men in it, but they did not. They knew it was wrong not to try and do something and helped people they didn't even know. People that turned out to be criminals with weapons in the car.. Which was the source of popping. Which they only found out later. People who probably deserved the fate, if you would want to say that.

but they intervened without knowing any facts except what they observed. Burning car, people inside. Because we were taught, to help people.

To skeptic, your entitled to that belief. I personally believe God is concerned for us, but wants us as partners in aiding the care taking of our world and people. One major reason it's been bad is because we forgot that aspect. To me a deity who does everything for us, one hundred percent, so no one dies in horrid ways, goes hungry, ext. isn't worth worshipping, as that kind of deity is smoothing. Also without seeing evil how would we even understand good without a comparison? That's just my humble opinion though.

i do agree there could be an alien culture out there with abilities we might see as godlike, but like you, I can't see THEM worried too much for us. They've got their own people to worry about firstly.

Originally Posted by CatholicFaithful75

then explain how the Good Samaritan could help some he didn't even know? For all he knew the person could have deserved the beating.

Ah right.
Because, in your mind, there's apparently zero difference between seeing someone who's been stripped and beaten and left in the street and someone who, for example, is suffering from abuse at home.
Not everyone's suffering is public.

And while that's just a story, I'll tell you of something factual. Some relatives of mine came across a wreck, the car burning with people in it. They could have been like the other witnesses and left the men in it, but they did not. They knew it was wrong not to try and do something and helped people they didn't even know. People that turned out to be criminals with weapons in the car.. Which was the source of popping. Which they only found out later. People who probably deserved the fate, if you would want to say that.
but they intervened without knowing any facts except what they observed. Burning car, people inside. Because we were taught, to help people.

Right.
Which sort of supports my point doesn't it?
Without getting involved in those peoples' lives they didn't know the circumstances.
And ended helping someone who"deserved their fate".
Exactly what I said: "Unless there's some involvement you have no clue as to the reality of what's happening in other peoples' lives".