THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.christnet,alt.satanism,talk.religion.misc,alt.thelema,alt.religion.christian From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333)) Subject: Various: Christianity and Thelema (LONG) Date: 11 Apr 1997 00:38:21 -0700 49970410 AA1 Hail Satan! Hail Hadit! ALmas! (now we're getting somewhere!) E6 [person quoted wishes to remain anonymous]: #As I expected, my thelemic christianity comments caused some flaming. often happens. as the Old Aeon comes to a close there is still quite a bit of unresolved angst about the switch. #...B.S. (belief system) .... #1) If your B.S. incorporates the idea that salvation can be obtained #through Jesus, what possible purpose does Thelema serve? 'salvation through Jesus' is incredibly vague. here, if I understand this to mean that the Formula of YHShVH (/Osiris/Dying God) is valid and that it yet holds power in the New Aeon, but that the predominant Formula will be something new, then Thelema could serve to bolster my courage in carrying out that old Formula even while I begin to learn of the New Aeon's Current. #Although I (obviously) dislike christianity, it seems coherent enough #that it can stand on its own without incorporating elements of Thelema. precisely, and this is the part of the tradition which I see attempting to recreate itself in Hermetic mysticism, mostly replicating tired Christian mysticism and attempting to pass itself off as something new. #2) How can you accept the Third Chapter of Liber AL and be a christian? Liber AL is just a batch of pages with scribbles on them. what difficulty is there in "accepting" such a book? could you explain precisely what you mean by this? does 'accepting' require a belief in inerrancy? even many Thelemites don't accept the Evil Book in that way. ;> #If I were a christian, I would find this chapter (and many elements of #Liber AL, and probably half of what Crowley wrote, and the Gnostic Mass, #etc.) very disturbing and incompatible with christianty. that is a rather shallow perception of Christianity, which is what many have said about this discussion from the onset. there are quite a few open-minded Christians. loud fundamentalists give us a bad name. ;> scriptures within many *Christian* traditions are incompatible, but this doesn't stop the literalists and word-obsessed from rationalizing SOME set of reconciliations between these interior contradictions. given that my Christianity is not particularly text-based, I don't have any difficulty squaring the various texts available that the fanatics indicate 'must be accepted'. "hmm, nice, inspiring texts, thank you very much (just burned an Evil Book last night! Had made hotter flames), now let's get on with life, shall we?" #I can't imagine any possible way of interpreting Liber AL ch 3 that #would alleviate this hypothetical uneasiness.... again, comes from a different relationship with scripture. I like to burn my Thelemic scripture and criticize it soundly. the Christian scriptures I tear apart, chew up and spit back out in ways which will inevitably prove to be offensive to many mainstream Christians (since I serve Satan). the 3rd chapter of the Evil Book has some goodly bits for the Warrior, no? batten down those hatches! fill the canons with gunpowder and extinguish! #This even occurs when I try to define christianity in a very liberal #manner. eg. Salvation can be obtained through Jesus; Jesus is #divine, etc., without additional dogma. your 'liberal manner' seems VERY CONSERVATIVE to me. ;> #3) If you define christianity even more liberally; eg. Jesus wasn't #divine, how about "Jesus never existed, is a storybook character whose role and utterances hold valuable wisdom, etc."? #or salvation doesn't have to be obtained through jesus, how about "'salvation' is a psychospiritual maturation which the story of Jesus demonstrates and, within it, we may find the keys to unlock ourselves"? #this puzzles me even more. Why would such a person even consider #calling hirself a christian? kristos/messiah/savior. there is a crowned, annointed condition which is being pointed out here. those who manifest the kingly, illuminated state (or prepare for it if you like) simultaneously qualify as 'christian' by this measure and as 'Thelemites' by my reckoning. #...If you hold to the B.S. that jesus was divine, all humans are divine. some more effectively than others. some stories about humans are a thousand years old. cool, only the dimwits believe them as history, tho. #many contradictions arise within various thelemic documents. only if I must somehow fit... my... tiny... mind... inside... this... damned..., uncomfortable BS! no no no, not THAT lesson, THIS lesson! encompass all of them. see how they coalesce, derive the kernel of wisdom from each and manifest it in my life. then I am christian, buddhist, thelemite, satanist and Bobbite. #On the other hand, if you dn't have this B.S., what's the point of #the label "christian"? NOW we get to the real issue, don't we? LABELLING. what is the point of ANY label? I see very many possible points. there is the obvious social conformity/membership reason. there is a point if one finds a meaning for the label into which one fits. there is a possible point to tweaking and blasting open all these closed idea-systems. what if I feel like a christian but it doesn't conform to your narrow views? what if I hate labels so much that I seek to disrupt them into oblivion by identifying in some manner with all of them in rationalized contrivance? what if I am beyond belief systems and operate from a flexible, fluctuating DANCE of belief, now Christian, now Thelemite, now Satanist? what if the most exciting thing about the various labels is that the paths they imply needn't REQUIRE belief of any sort whatever?? E6/6/6 _______________________________________________________________________________ nigris (333) -- tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com -- http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/ ================================================================= [from thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org: maat@io.com (Content Love)] Hi Tim, 93, I wrote: >>Deeper enquiry reveals the basic contradictions between the two philosophies. >>It comes down to a discussion about will (your will, or God's will. Xtians >>will tell you there's a difference), incarnation (Xtians believe in original >>sin. Without it, there would have been no purpose to Christ's martyrdom. >>Thelema does not include this concept, instead suggesting that you >>incarnated because it is your Will to >>be here. If you don't believe in original sin, you don't require >>redemption), and control of your astral body (either you control it, or >>something else controls it. You >>decide). The basic rift concerns a disagreement about who sits at the >>control panel, I think. And this is why Xtian Thelema is not possible. Then you wrote: >I have to disagree. Christian mystics such as Eckhart believe that >through meditative and other mystical practices, it is possible to >achieve union between the self and God. I think that this is the basic definition of mysticism, which is not the province of any particular sect or religion. In fact, all religions have their mystics (although what they think of them and do about them vary radically). While I would agree that "all roads lead to the same mountain top", the base camps at the bottom are verrrrrry different. Mystics of all faiths probably have more in common with each other than they do with the non-mystic practitioners of their specific faith. >The personal will is different >from the divine will when it is in an unrefined state, but it can achieve >union with the divine will through spiritual practice. I don't see any >difference between this and the Thelemic idea that people are originally >in a state of false will (for some reason that is never clearly stated) >but through spiritual practice can eliminate the false will in favor of >true will, which is identical with the overaching will of all. I see a tremendous difference. Mostly involving the difference between the ideas that incarnation is a function of will, and that incarnation is a sinful experience in and of itself, that the incarnee has no control over whatsoever. In other words, I may be born into a state of false will but by God (that would be me) I can come to know my True Will by K&C of my HGA. TIM'S TABLE Christian mysticism Thelemic mysticism ----------------------- ------------------ unrefined personal will false will union with God union of personal will with will of all divine will will of all original sin original state of false will spiritual practice spiritual practice >If there are any substantive differences between these systems I am >unable to perceive them. Again, there is a big difference between original sin and original state of false will, mostly having to do with the value that each system puts on these states. Christians judge original sin as evil. They require redemption, which they cannot create for themselves. I can't get around the difference. Also, Christian Mysticism is not exactly equal to Christianity per se. Mysticism, as I noted above, is its own practice and seems quite beyond sect. One of the characterizing aspects of Christianity is that most Christian sects rely heavily on sacerdotal and episcopal authority to legitimize their practices. Christians cannot, for instance, make their own Eucharist. They do not administer their own sacraments, or at least, not as an official part of their religion. In fact, I propose a parallel chart. See if it works for you! Thelemic Philosophy & Practice Christian Philosophy & Practice ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Liber Oz * Ten Commandments Man is God * God is God. Man is Mud. Original Choice * Original Sin No redemption necessary * Requires redemption by the Son of God Goat * Sheep ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Please note that works of Christian mysticism ("The Cloud of Unknowing" >and "The Spiritual Guide of Molinos") appeared on Crowley's required >reading lists. Again, there doesn't seem to be any serious question >whether Crowley himself asserted a connection between his system and >Christian mysticism. It is only his second and third generation followers >who are trying to separate the two. IMHO, the purpose of reading Molinos is to learn and access techniques useful for the practicing mystic (meditation, prayer, and faith, to be specific). I think Crowley was willing to pick up useful tools wherever he found them, regardless of their provenance. I do not think he was asking us to pick up philosophical baggage that might have accompanied those tools. 93 93/93 Content ============================================================ [from thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org: Michael S Miller] From Paul: > You mean the ones who insist on the same rights for Christian citizens > as Thelemic citizens (or Hindu citizens, Vaudois citizens, Buddhist > citizens)? I don't think the problem most people have with the xtians is the insistence of equal rights; rather, it is the insistence on equal restrictions. Many Xians (I realize this is a generalization, with all the dangers of such...) insist on trying to force their "sins", ideas of "evil", their concept of "right" & "wrong" onto the remainder of humanity. I personally find this to be intolerable. Everyone has (or should have...) boundaries and personal ideas of right and wrong, but please, keep them to yourself. The only time it is necessary to force a restriction on someone else is if that someone else is somehow interfering with your life. Otherwise, let them be... The greatest separation between Xian & thelema is the concept of conformity. All xtian sects, even the very liberal and accepting, insist on some level of conformity. For some Episcopal orders, the only conformity may be the acceptance of Christ as Lord. For Evangelical orders, it seems seems you need to be straight, white, American and bigoted. Whatever.... Thelema, on the other hand, insists on the development of the individual at all costs. Another great division between the two is the concept of faith and doubt. Xtians seem to insist on blind, and IMHO, ridiculous, faith as the medium of spirituality. Thelemites doubt; even when things seem pretty well clear cut and proven, doubt is required. Again, the greatest obstacle in this thread is that it's so broad! I'm making sweeping generalizations here, always dangerous... 93 ======================================================================== [from thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org: Patrick Crumhorn ] 93. >Well,the point is that a number of people on this list were maintaining >that Crowley harboured no hostility towards Christianity.So I used the >quotes to demonstrate that he quite blatantly did!Also perhaps putting the >boot in against Christianity was one of Crowley's more notable >achievements. Well put. It's fascinating to me to see the attempts at historical revisionism going on so soon in the life of the Nu Aeon (assuming it did start circa 1904, that is). It took 3 or 4 centuries for the Nicene Council to "clean up" all those nasty Gnostic heresies and here we are trying our equivalent of it already. Look, people. Everything in Crowleyan Thelema, from Liber AL ("I peck at the eyes of Jesus...") to toad-crucifying, to the archetypes of Babalon and the Beast (Crowley's title was To Meta Therion 666, fer cryin' out loud) points to the inescapable conclusion that it (Thelema) was perceived by its prophet as an *overthrowing* of Christianity and all the psychic baggage that came with it! So here we are, with people actually a.) denying that Crowley utilized Satanic imagery (despite myriad direct references to same throughout his works) and b.) claiming that Crowleyan Thelema is tolerant of, and even embraces, the Xtian current (despite myriad direct references throughout his works refuting this). Do I detect a thread of guilt or embarrasment here, or is it just some kind of rationalization to keep the Pat Robertsons of the world at bay? Hint: The Pat Robertsons of the world would burn us if they thought they could get away with it, and *no* finessing of the issue is gonna change that. And while admittedly some of the more vehement anti-Xtians on this list are engaging more in emotional reaction than reasoned debate, I'd still rather have that than a lot of mealy-mouthedness about the issue. Wasn't it the prophet of the *last* aeon who said "I wouldst that thou were hot or cold, but since ye are lukewarm I will spew thee out of my mouth"???? My personal view? "The Christians to the Lions," and any of them that prove to be indigestible, we should welcome wholeheartedly as brethren of Thelema, regardless of their professed creed. 93 93/93 Patrick Patrick Crumhorn patrik@io.com http://www.io.com/~patrik/ ================================================================== [from thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org: Will ] 93! I'm a bit distraught with all this bantering about Thelemic Christianity and whether or not it makes any sense. As a matter of fact, I'm not too hip on the idea of Thelema as a religion and am not sure how people came to this understanding. I see Thelema as an encompassing philosophy. It's main import, and perhaps the only part that hasn't been espoused elsewhere, is the ability to attain enlightenment/"magical powers" w/o sacrifice or seclusion. How anyone can make a religion out of such a simple statement is unclear to me. I remember seeing an _In Search of_ episode that pertained to Indian holy men hanging from hooks. The interesting part was that another Indian gentleman set out to show that it is not necessary to be holy to hang from hooks and a) feel no pain and b)shed no blood. Well, he did it by replicating the procedure and smoking a cigarette at the same time. To me, that is the purpose of Thelema: to show that enlightenment is not restricted to the chaste. The only reason why Thelema might be seen as a religion is that it adheres to the Book of the Law as something rather important. That's fine with me. Liber AL appears to be in places, a) instructions for Crowley, b)a description of the new Aeon, c)general prophetic text, and d)some lousy poetry. I don't see how any of this is enough to cause the formation of a religion, and I'm not sure that Crowley did either. He often traced the relationship of 'religion' to 'negligence'. As far as anti-Christianity goes, considering his jumbled remarks on the matter, I doubt that Crowley cared too much about it (except for purposes of magical growth). Perhaps it was more of an Anti-Christian attitude than an Anti-Christianity one, those being inherently different. The quotes given by John earlier are not necessarily anti-Christianity in nature. They more seem to be anti-organized-Christianity. There is a major difference. I can hate a group without hating their beliefs or the individuals involved. All three of these are separate and distinct entities and must be treated as such. Of course, either way, being anti anything takes effort which is better spent elsewhere. Cheers~ Will Will ------------- Love = Law ========================================================================= [from thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org: Tim Maroney ] >I take your point on the >revisionism which tries to repair Aleister's feelings about his milk >religion. His feelings were contradictory, as feelings often are. For the biographer it's important to give credence to all the different and irreconcilable feelings of the subject, rather than taking the easy way out by pretending that a single feeling was definitive. Crowley held to a tremendous anger and resentment against the way he was treated in his childhood in the name of Christianity, and he often vented this hostility through blanket condemnations of "Christians." At the same time, he was very committed to the 19th century ideal of universal religion and of a common sacred core to all religions, and he was very open to attempts to weave Christianity into the fabric. In fact, he found a certain perverse pleasure in positive reinterpretations of Christianity that would have been anathematic to the Plymouth Brethren. Like the equally anti-Christian H.P. Blavatsky, Crowley was very favorably disposed towards the mystical Russian Orthodox Church, and he also had great respect for Christian monastic mystics, as well as for St. Paul, whose perspectives on the early phases of group-formation have earned praise from other devout anti-Christians such as Karl Marx. From the historical perspective, traditions defined largely as opposition movements remain defined by that which they oppose, and they always absorb assumptions from their Oedipal parent. For Crowley, the Will took the place of God, and he often referred to it as God, as well as attaching to it almost all the traditional attributes of God. Another useful rule of thumb in dealing with the history of religions is that when a religious tradition expresses great hostility toward another tradition, it's a safe bet that this is a religion to which it owes some unacknowledged debt (except where the problem can be attributed to population migrations, colonialism, or similar territorial phenomena). Crowley's tradition is built largely on occult Christianity and on assumptions about God from his childhood. Philosophically it it has strong resemblances to its Christian source, which I've gone into in an article that could be pulled out of the mailing list archives (if they hadn't been reset to start in January 1997.) Tim Maroney ====================================================================== [from thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org: Bill Heidrick ] 93, On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Tim Maroney wrote: > >Well,the point is that a number of people on this list were maintaining > >that Crowley harboured no hostility towards Christianity. > > Excuse me? What idiot said that? I haven't seen it. Can't say I have either. Crowley clearly detested, ridiculed and opposed Christanity as he found it. He had a variety of opinions about Jesus Christ, mostly that the figure was mythical and the original individual, if any, was probably an interesting fellow. He felt free to use the Dying God, be it John, Christ, Osiris or whatever, as a workable god form. In that sense, Crowley did not oppose Christianity, in its place. It was organized Christianity as he saw it about him and in the pages of history that raised his objections. He maintained that the formula and word of Christianity had been superceded, but that is quite a different thing from denying its significance or continued utility in a diminished sense. Some people like vintage cars. Some don't. Some people find value in the vintage deities, some don't. No problem, so long as they don't insist that everything else get off the road or out of the temple. The gods of the poets are with us yet. 93 93/93 Bill EOF
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|