From: firstname.lastname@example.org (SLOOPJOHNE) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: LRH & Christ in the Big Picture (was RE: "Jesus was a paedophile"?) Message-ID: <1998060521585400.RAA16988@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com Date: 05 Jun 1998 21:58:54 GMT----(begin Inducto's post on this thread)----
My examination of Hubbard's several quotes on the matter leads me to the conclusion that he thought that Jesus was an historical personality -- he even refers to him as an early sort of "OT" -- who was filling an archetypal role, but not the "christ" in the religious sense christians construe. This is in line with the early 20th century theosophical and mystical schools of thought that Hubbard obviously lifted a lot from. What's interesting is that the "lover of boys" idea probably comes from the book "A Secret Gospel of Mark" published by Morton Smith in the late 50s or early 60s; in his book about a fragment of a secret section of the gospels he believed he has found, he quotes letters from early christian church fathers (these widely known and accepted as authentic) that refer to christian sects ("heresies") that had secret texts they believed showed that Jesus was homosexual and that the raising of Lazarus was actually a sort of sex-magic initiation rite cleaned up for inclusion in the "public" version of the gospels (seriously, the existence of such seemingly strange sects is well known amongst scholars). It would have been typical for Hubbard to crib ideas from some source like this that would have been talked about in esoteric circles, but that was too obscure for most of his readers to be familiar with.
I think the paedophile reference has been rather thoroughly debunked before, though, and I'm not sure some of the stuff like this is even worth repeating. But it is certainly clear from other references that Hubbard was quite contemptuous of other religions' beliefs as being delusional mind-control "implants" and part of the scheme to keep thetans enslaved on this "prison planet".
---(end of Inducto's statements)---
Inducto is, of course, quite correct about the various sects and cults that either came out of or were in competition with the early church, particularly during its first 300-400 years --many of which had some pretty bizarre and of--the-wall beliefs and practices in the area of sex. Even St. Augustine was a convert to Christianity from just such a group, the Manicheans.
We tend to forget that the so-called "cult" phenomenon, like the New Age movement itself, is hardly anything new: It's essentially an attempt at a "revival" of sorts of ancient pre-Christian paganism in all its forms, but merely wearing modern "clothes" --e.g., pseudo-scientific terminology, allegedly "innovative" or "new" philosophies, and the like.
None of the "new religions" are really new at all! Not even Scientology: So far, nothing I've read of Hubbard's teachings haven't already been said over and over again at different periods throughout recorded history, although in different "non-scientific" terminologies. But the essentials, the presuppositions, are quite ancient --for example, a cyclical view of time; the serpent's promise that "ye shall be as God;" the rejection of radical ontological discontinuity between nature and deity; and LRH's subjectivist approach to epistemology. In fact, the only thing really all that new about Scientology is the Church of Scientology's established doctrine and practice of relentlessly and arbitrarily using lawyers and courts to push its weight around and impose its will on outsiders. (Only the Catholic Church before and during the Reformation came close to that level of political and legal Machiavellianism.)
Thus, as I see it from my "narrow" Christian perspective, both Scientology and the New Age movement are merely feeble, and ultimately futile, attempts to replace Christianity and Judaism, and to some degree even Islam, with forms of ancient paganism rebaptized as "applied philosophy" or "spiritual technology" or "science of the mind". It's also a lot of marketing gimmickery: After all, there are lots of bucks to be made in the New Age movement and in Scientology alike.
But Scientology and the New Age are only two of several such attempts that pop up in Western history, and then soon die out, during periods of economic or social or politcal upheaval. For example, there was a significant revival of mysticism, occultism and hermeticism during the Renaissance --a great deal of fascination with and even practice of astrology, ceremonial magick, alchemy, the Kabbalah, etc., even some occassional indulging in Oriental and Middle East mysticisms, amongst the intelligentia --not to mention royals with way too much time and money on their hands. But the Renaissance's own New Age movement was eventually unravelled by both the scientists and the rationalist philosophers; and suppressed to a large degree by the Reformation. That "New Age" movement soon ended up in the dustbin of history.
Of course, the Nazis also tried a New Age movement of their own (a synthesis of re-interpreted Norse paganism --from which the Nazis derived their racial views-- and moderm hermeticism a la Aleister Crowley, Madame Blavatsky, and the like) and we know what happened as a result. Their efforts ended in war and in their own destruction, but only after taking the lives of several million innocents, including nearly 7 million Jews. Anyone who doesn't understand that WWII was essentially a spiritual war made materially manifest also doesn't understand history.
Those who had tried before to recreate or build upon "new" gnostic or esoteric religions failed to grasp the fact that the era of mysticism and magic ended when Christ was crucified and rose from the dead. One of the central themes and teachings of modern theologically orthodox Christianity --and especially the Christian Reconstruction movement-- is that New Age-ism died on the cross along with the Son of God, and only He was resurrected. Thus any attempt to revive pagan religion in any of its forms, even "modern" and redefined forms like Scientology, is doomed from the start.
The game's over, Scientologists, and it's been over for 2,000 years -- even if most people, even Christians, don't seem to realize it most of the time and react in irrational fear to Hubbardism and other "new" religions. As long as the Prince of Peace rules the cosmos, there is no reason to believe that Hubbard's version of "new age" paganism will not go belly-up along with its predecessors.
It WILL happen. It's only a matter of time.
In the long run, therefore, and in terms of the "big picture," it matters very little what L. Ron Hubbard thought of Jesus Christ In terms of heaven and eternity, it matters not one wit. Besides, having views of Christ, even wacko views derived from ancient pseudo-Christian cults, is to be expected from any religious leader or thinker. Sorta comes with the territory!
As for whether or not Hubbard really thought Christ was a paedophile, who really gives a damn? I don't! I, for one, do not go to L. Ron Hubbard to learn about Christ in the first place --nor should anyone else. It clearly was not his forte.
Back to the Main Page