Every church starts with a sole/soul revelator. The one man who has access to the secrets of the universe and secrets to our inner workings. But… Do they really? Or do we hand over our reason, for the fear of following the path of reason for ourselves?
As Thomas Paine stated in Age of Reason;
And we have modern churches today that have followed the same logic… a lone revelator reveals to the masses the secret words… L. Ron Hubbard revealed his magical words of power and the secrets of the universe. And people (the same type of person who follows other prophets) believe… In an age of reason, why do people still believe in the power of a sole revelator? That they themselves don’t have the power of revelation, to control their own world, to will their own happiness. Is the path of Buddha really any different than the path of christ? both prescribe the personal revelation of their “creator” on how to live the best life. Both prescribe punishments. The christians and the muslims have their hells (With the latter being a very descriptive affair.) The buddhist and the scientologist have their hells as well. They are just of a different sort of hell.
We let the power of their myth take control over our myth creation. There are universal truths, and each of these false religions prescribes to one or the other of them. The christians and the buddhists to the golden rule. The muslims to unity of thought. The scientologist to mental well being.
These are each logical aspirations. But to the means and ends, they go to they go from logical to absurd. When we believe that christ, mahomet and others talk to god, we are not required to… as Paine says on this matter;
Perhaps it is merely some sort of obligation that continues to drive belief in these paths?
I suggest you start an experiment- be your own revelator. Make up some myths, claim a bunch of stuff about gods, spirits, and so on- and see how compelling it is to you.
Sure they don’t Bob, but I was taking Scythe’s ball and running with it- if we are supposed to reject supernatural ideas that other people come up with for us, then the alternative is to look in the face the prospect of trusting the products of our own creativity.
I’ve heard it said that L Ron Hubbard was a Satanist. Assuming this is true, the point is, he created a religion for other people, but he couldn’t believe it himself because he was intimately aware of the process he used to come up with it- so it was dead to him. He needed what someone else told him to have that spark of legitimacy.
I don’t find lying about stuff appealling… of gods and men, I am mere door mouse. I can no more mythologize gods, spirits and aliens dumping people into volcanos, than I can mythologize people walking on water.
Even if I could I wouldn’t do with the express purpose of (mis)leading people.
Why do we need supernatural ideas to be apart of our lives? (I guess that’s my main question.) Why in the face of using our own supernatural ideas, do we find it more comforting to accept someone else’s?
I don’t think L. Ron was a Satanist. I’ve heard that he said; “If you want to become rich make a religion.” within a few years he released his “revolutionary” book dianetics. He then took an ohm-meter and called it an “E-Meter” to measure “how clear” someone is. There’s no doubt that Hubbard invented Scientology completely. At some point in his lies he could’ve started to believe it. I think most religions start like this, or with someone that today would be committed, for talking to spirits.