THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan.magick
From: 333 
Subject: Crowley's Stupid Mischief?
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:42:35 GMT

50030723 kaos!!  viii

"KD et al":
#>#> ...AC was fairly clear that Thelema is not a religion....

333: 
#># care to point out where he has done so? I may key it in.

frater virgo:
#> chapter xxxi: MWT
#> http://hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_31.html

[M] tries to defend KD's assertion:
# Heh.  Of particular note is this comment at the end of the chapter:

I'll say. frater virgo already found it for us and sent 
along the whole thing. neato.

# ...Now, will [333] continue to call thelema a religion?  

eh? did you miss the long quote I provided where Crowley 
identifies Thelema as a religion and more? you seem to 
have selective perception where it supports or undermines 
the contentions of the Beast.

not only that, but I was merely pointing out that *some*,
including Crowley, have done so. if you examine my overall
record I think you'll see pretty quickly that I've been an
outspoken advocate in OPPOSITION to this Method of Religion
in favour of the Method of Science (through the application
of *philosophical principles*!). i.e. I oppose Crowley's
use of the cult after him and his Evul Book too. that I'm
capable of supporting both sides of the debate just goes to
show that I've completed my Philisophus degree or something.

where I supported Jess Karlin was quite clear as that the
egyptological developments making Crowley's/Thelemist use
of "Hadit" as Egyptian god obvious fakery or error should
lead those what deem themselves 'Thelemite religious' 
ought to evaporate (if they haven't already done so in a
clear apprehension of the Master's writ and behaviour
beyond this!). I like the idea of abandoning Thelema as
any kind of religion. I hope this is clarified for you.

so, can you say "straw man"? or are you trying to have
your revenge for my being able to quote the Evul Book 
better than you can? :>

# ...And so amusing that Crowley predicted this kind 
# of stupidity and the resulting misunderstanding.

it is hardly surprising that Crowley would have predicted
that others would make a cult in his wake, considering
that he put so much effort into making such a cult happen.
isn't he part of a whole Rosicrucian bandwagon that says
that the Magus is supposed to issue a Word and form 
religions around them? maybe he was confused (as I have
at times been) about Words of Law (precedents?) and Words
of the Aeon? please explain this for us. thanks.

# Oh, and also, note this final sentence:
# "The word does not occur in The Book of the Law."

Brother Cavalorn has dealt handily with this, especially
in combination with my quote from Crowley's Book Four
where he clearly describes Thelema as religion and more.

# Just, you know, for further clarification on the issue.  

you really think it's that clear? why? because one is
capable of becoming a Centre of Pestilence, this does
not demonstrate clarity, only sampling-ability. that 
level of proof-texting isn't convincing as an overall 
contention when very plain examples to the contrary are 
readily presented to you that demonstrate unclarity.
ignoring them doesn't make them go away. explaining
them to us would be a better mark of defense.

check the top of this post for the actual issue. more
than a single expression by a source constitutes
unclarity, not clarification. I like this letter
from Crowley on the matter of thelema as religion.
KEEN! but does it help make matters clearer? I don't
really think so. maybe you can explain why. because
it post-dates his own contentions to the contrary?
I'm not sure his waffling is clarity either.

# Not that it's going to make any difference.  

some things never change.

# People who like to slam Crowley 

or people who worship the guy. he made it so ridiculous
to follow in his wake or defend him that it almost seems
like he was trying to out-do L. Ron Hubbard. there are
so many weaknesses his defenders become easy targets.

# will ignore him as necessary to further their arguments.

the real issue, M, is whether it can be shown that Crowley
was learning something over time such that he says one thing
on Tuesday and another on Wednesday. that you take his
Wednesday assertion as relevant and ignore him on Tuesday
doesn't prove that I am stupid, or that those who slam
Crowley where it is due are so, but that you are doing
precisely what you are criticizing others of doing: 
being selective in an examination of his writings.

instead of taking the argument to the person, why don't
you explain why Crowley says it IS a religion in one place;
uses a hefty batch of religious words as part of his
faux Egyptian scripture he wishes to describe as Thelemic
in another (regardless of whether the word 'religion' 
itself is used); claims to want to use the method of 
science rather than the method of religion regardless of
his use of these religious terms and mechanisms in yet 
another; and maintains to one of his correspondents that 
they "might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, 
and work a rather stupid kind of mischief" by referring 
to Thelema as a religion, in yet another?

is it possible that he thinks that he (or possibly some
others) might be able to refer to Thelema as a religion
and *not* work a rather stupid kind of mischief"? could
it be that you are generalizing where it is unwarranted?

or did Crowley change his ideas over time (how? why?)?

or is Crowley explaining that he HIMSELF has caused 
a great deal of misunderstanding and worked a rather
stupid kind of mischief? I wouldn't be surprised at 
the last, but don't think you'll agree with it, as it 
demolishes KD's contentions and your support of them. 
maybe KD can help you clarify what is obviously 
very confusing in the writings of the Master.

I look forward to your reply. thanks. 

333