|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: BassosBassos Date: Jun 26, 2008 13:51
Heyas,
I have read the works of AC, and others (All of them).
Today was my first time that someone actually called AC a satanist.
To me that does not matter at all, so i was flabbergasted about what to say.
Giev advise plix.
|
| |
|
| | 4 Comments |
|
  |
Author: igdigd Date: Jun 26, 2008 15:21
Bassos wrote:
> Heyas,
>
> I have read the works of AC, and others (All of them).
>
> Today was my first time that someone actually called AC a satanist.
>
> To me that does not matter at all, so i was flabbergasted about what to say.
>
> Giev advise plix.
>
>
Ask them why they think AC was a Satanist. Ask them what they think a
Satanist is. If they point out some apparently pro-Satan quote of
Crowley's, point out that he also wrote "Amphora"(a book length poem in
praise of the BVM), produced an edition of "Tao Te King", wrote
extensively on Buddhism, Yoga, Kabbalah, Persian Islamic Mysticism(The
Perfumed Garden)and a variety of religious topics.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
  |
Author: paulhumepaulhume Date: Jun 27, 2008 08:21
> Today was my first time that someone actually called AC a satanist.
Wow, I've been running into that for decades.
If there is some reason you want to argue with this particular person
about it, igd made some nice suggestions. I would add John St. John to
suggested reading for the guy.
If not, then I will turn to an author Crowley favored:
http://www.gailgastfield.com/mhh/mhh.html
Especial note to the bit about even braying a fool in a mortar not
beating his folly out of him.
I am not clear that defending Crowley by pointing out he said nice
things about Jesus and Family from time to time is that useful. The
Amphora is unlikely to counterbalance the prescription for Mary in the
Book of the Law, for example.
But then I am not clear that Crowley needs defending. Getting into
trying to define him as "not a Satanist" let's the person making the
accusation frame the argument. Deal with it, if you must deal with it,
by looking at what Thelema is, not what it is not.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: paulhumepaulhume Date: Jun 27, 2008 08:24
Oh fiddle, Bassos, I am sorry. I may have been coming at this from the
wrong direction. If your issue is pointing out, as a Satanist, why
Crowley is not on the same page, then you might invert the arguments,
pointing out where he departs from however you define the term.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: Janine StarscreamJanine Starscream Date: Jun 27, 2008 13:47
> Oh fiddle, Bassos, I am sorry. I may have been coming at this from the
> wrong direction. If your issue is pointing out, as a Satanist, why
> Crowley is not on the same page, then you might invert the arguments,
> pointing out where he departs from however you define the term.
Oh my, this makes me think of when i was a young lil' demigod, and i
first encountered AC in one of my mom's awakes (she's a JW). I read
every awake that talked about the occult, demons, the dark stuff. It
was so stimulating and exciting to a kid who had almost no connections
to popular culture and a pretty cultic upbringing, so I naturally
decided to go into it as LITERALLY as possible.
Fortunately back then I was a lot more lazy than I am now, and was
"kept" out until it was my time to "step" in.
|
| Show full article (1.37Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|