Crowley, what is so bad?

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by OmegaPoint


A Eucharist made of or patterned after menstrual blood and ejaculated semen, is a "cake of light" that is all darkness.

I may be the most open minded Christian you would ever encounter, but some lines just have to be drawn.

"Cakes of Light" used in the Gnostic mass are just cakes. The Communion using sexual fluids is a private magical operation not used in the public Gnostic Mass.

You may not be aware of this, but this was a practice used by some of the first Christian sects, who were Gnostics. It certainly didn't originate with Crowley or the O.T.O.

Epiphanius writes the following: And the pitiful pair, having made love, then proceed to hold up their blasphemy to heaven, the woman and the man taking the secretion from the male into their own hands and standing looking up to heaven. They hold the impurity in their hands and pray . . and say "We offer you this gift, the body of Christ." And then they consume it, partaking of their shamefulness, and they say: "This is the body of Christ and this is the Pasch for which our bodies suffer." (Panarion, 26.4-5)

According to the Spermo-Gnostic Christians, it's the "orthodox" Christians (Catholics and Protestants) who *really* practice a black mass, because they don't understand it's inner sexual and occult meaning.

I have no pity for this. What an utter disgrace!

And the communion we practice is a ritual born of the passover last supper of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

I have no pity for this. What an utter disgrace!

Obviously, they say the same thing about you guys. So there you go.

And the communion we practice is a ritual born of the passover last supper of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Refer to what is said in the Gospel of John about eating flesh and drinking blood. Which happened *before* the episode of the last supper.

Jesus was filled with the light of life and the love of God and he was speaking allegorically of course. He did not mean that they should cut him up and cannibalize him. And at the last supper, again, it was an allegory, pointing to something greater than the external appearance.

Anway, I've said about all that I needed to say.

Carry on..

P.S. (one more thing) Jesus Christ is spiritual food processed for our enjoyment. He is to be appropriated or ingested, taken in. He is the substance, the quintessence. But we cannot eat and enjoy food that we do not love.

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep."
~ John 21:17

[edit on 12-2-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Jesus was filled with the light of life and the love of God and he was speaking allegorically of course. He did not mean that they should cut him up and cannibalize him. And at the last supper, again, it was an allegory, pointing to something greater than the external appearance.

No argument here. I was just pointing out what the Spermo-Gnostics thought, I didn't say I agreed with them.

But, they would of course agree with you on this point as well. They say Jesus' words were allegory too, and that it was allegorical of semen.

Whether or not that's true, I have no idea. They point out the magical properties of semen that it contains the "Microcosmic Logos", i.e., the power to create in one's own image. From this point of view, there is at least some validity in what they say. The mystery of the creation of life is here exemplified.

Regardless, and to get back on topic, the O.T.O. before Crowley considered themselves "Gnostic Christians". Crowley was not a Christian, and had little patience for Christianity. When he became leader of the O.T.O., he changed it in many ways.

Well, the cross is Jesus Christ, as a great atonement and reconciliation with God, when understood and embraced for the prescious gift of immense proportion that it represents, causes the spirit by the word to enter in - may be likened to a God-sperm, where the true Christian believer, whether man or woman, are all like women, in the sense that the appropriation of the truth "impregnates" the individual with the new creation. By faith in Jesus Christ, his words, deeds, character and Great Work, we take something into our innermost being which re-creates us in the image and likeness of God through Christ, putting us back in good standing relative to the creator and creation. I see Christ and his cross as the tree of life in the garden of Eden, which offers itself as a return via a path of God's love. The world which recieves Christ then, is the woman, making God a "He" of sorts.

So I understand this analogy, but given the action of the adversary, it doesn't take much to turn a beautiful thing into an abomination through misinterpretation or misrepresentation.

Sad for Crowley that he wasn't smart enough to recognize the true logos of Christianity, and what was rendered there in the Christian story.

One last thing to consider regarding Occult knowledge - in the unfolding eternally present moment, what is there to really know with any degree of certainty, and who can fathom the mystery of what it means to be fully human and divine? In Jesus Christ all is revealed, and we come to know as we are known, and are re-made in the image and likeness of God as made manifest in Jesus, and placed in His eternal kingdom as beloved children of a loving God.

The only thing offensive about that, is the offence it brings to the pride of man and the action of "Satan" who is opposed to it, and who is desperate to prevent our appropriation of it, lest his authority and power be utterly broken, yet again, by the cross. But what defence can there be against the love of God, and if God is for us, then who or what can be against us? There is no power or principality which can separate us from the love of God through Jesus Christ.

Knowing these things, why anyone would seek knowledge based on the duality of good and evil is beyond me, unless they were motivated by another power, one which is in rebellion against God's good intentions for us as human beings. I think it's so sad, and I think Crowley fell victim to it, driven by an anti-Christian motivation and spirit of rebellion.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by SS,Naga


Crowley was owned and controlled by the Black Occult, this has been proven by many people/researchers.

I have read before that he was the spokesman for the Kali Yuga / AGE OF EVIL.

Crowley said he worked for the Black Occult.



[edit on 19-2-2009 by Jn]

Originally posted by Jn


Crowley was owned and controlled by the Black Occult, this has been proven by many people/researchers.

I have read before that he was the spokesman for the Kali Yuga / AGE OF EVIL.

Crowley said he worked for the Black Occult.

Wrong on all counts. Here is what Crowley really said:

To practise black magic you have to violate every principle of science, decency and intelligence. You must be obsessed with an insane idea of the importance of the petty object of your wretched and selfish desires.
I have been accused of being a 'black magician'.

No more foolish statement was ever made about me. I despise the thing to such an extent that I can hardly believe in the existence of people so debased and idiotic as to practise it. In Paris, and even in London, there are misguided people who are abusing their priceless spiritual gifts to obtain petty and temporary advantages through these practices.

The 'Black Mass' is a totally different matter. I could not celebrate it if I wanted to, for I am not a consecrated priest of the Christian Church.

- Aleister Crowley, as quoted in "The Magical Revival" by Kenneth Grant, p. 5

Originally posted by umwolves123
I know he was a member of Golden Dawn, a number of witch covens, a clandestine mason, and a big sexual deviant,

You basically said it in your thread

reply to post by Masonic Light


He had given himself over to Black Occult control, so his excuses are just cover stories.

It is called Propoganda, and THEY even say they are all about propoganda, to sell the Black Occult.

reply to post by Jn


Nope. Crowley taught the Rosicrucian Path of Initiation his entire life, not any sort of "black occult".

Originally posted by Masonic Light
reply to post by Jn

 

Nope. Crowley taught the Rosicrucian Path of Initiation his entire life, not any sort of "black occult".

From this quote below from a post you made on this page you said.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Regardless, and to get back on topic, the O.T.O. before Crowley considered themselves "Gnostic Christians". Crowley was not a Christian, and had little patience for Christianity. When he became leader of the O.T.O., he changed it in many ways.

You say in the quote they changed and modified the OTO "in many ways", so they were also teaching a altered version of the Rosicrucian Path?.

So he did NOT teach THE Rosicrucian Path (Gnostic Christian), you said they changed the Gnostic Christian aspect etc?.





[edit on 20-2-2009 by Jn]

Originally posted by Jn


You say in the quote they changed and modified the OTO "in many ways", so they were also teaching a altered version of the Rosicrucian Path?.

So he did NOT teach THE Rosicrucian Path (Gnostic Christian), you said they changed the Gnostic Christian aspect etc?.

It was the belief of Crowley (and his followers) that the Rosicrucian formula had evolved due to the birth of the new aeon. According to Crowley, Christianity embodied the doctrines of the Aeon of Osiris, following the myth cycle of the God-Man who was born of a virgin, lived a life of purity, executed by enemies, then resurrected. The passion and resurrection of the God-Man was to guarantee eternal life to his worshipers. This myth cycle is typified by Osiris, Atis, Thammuz, Jesus, Mithras, Adonis, etc., with Christianity being the last great religious current of an Osirian nature.

From a strictly anthropological viewpoint, these are sun myths, originating at the time when people believed the sun was murdered then resurrected at the spring equinox (Easter).

It was Crowley's position that now, in the new aeon, religion was lose its superstition and become scientific (thus the evolution of the formula). He taught the same basic truths as the Rosicrucians before him, but also employed the scientific method, and a somewhat different symbolism. Here, the symbolism of Osiris is retained as an archetype, but Horus is seen as triumphant.

I do not personally agree with all of Crowley's theories, but he presents interesting ideas that do have value, and cannot honestly be brushed off as a "black magician" simply because he detected the hypocrisy in popular Christian culture, and called them on it.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
It was Crowley's position that now, in the new aeon, religion was lose its superstition and become scientific (thus the evolution of the formula). He taught the same basic truths as the Rosicrucians before him, but also employed the scientific method, and a somewhat different symbolism. Here, the symbolism of Osiris is retained as an archetype, but Horus is seen as triumphant.

I do not personally agree with all of Crowley's theories, but he presents interesting ideas that do have value, and cannot honestly be brushed off as a "black magician" simply because he detected the hypocrisy in popular Christian culture, and called them on it.

They put there changes into a old established White Occult teaching, if The
White Occult had no reason to change it, why did the Black Occult need to edit these Rosicrucian teachings?.

You will find alot of there ideas interesting, its designed to work that way, plays on the desires and complaints of the current round of "seekers", they also use classic white teachings, but change them around to more and more lean towards the black arts.

I wouldnt actually class Crowley as a Black Magician, he was more a recruiting ploy by the real Black Magicians, they know what they are doing when it comes to the media, and how to create followers, look at society today, controlled by the media.

Originally posted by Jn


They put there changes into a old established White Occult teaching, if The
White Occult had no reason to change it, why did the Black Occult need to edit these Rosicrucian teachings?.

Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods; and let Asar be with Isa, who also are one. But they are not of me. Let Asar be the adorant, Isa the sufferer; Hoor in his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating. Liber AL 1:49

The above verse from Liber AL seems to mandate that Crowley introduce revisions, which of course have nothing to do with any "black occult". For example, he revised the traditional Lesser Ritual of the Pentagram into the new Star Ruby ritual. This revision, in essence, "perfects" the older Pentagram ritual by invoking the Supernals.

Another revision was to the hexagram rituals, where Crowley began using his new "Unicursal Hexagram", making the ritual much simpler to perform than the traditional one, which uses triangular pairs.

I wouldnt actually class Crowley as a Black Magician, he was more a recruiting ploy by the real Black Magicians, they know what they are doing when it comes to the media, and how to create followers, look at society today, controlled by the media.

Unlikely. Aleister Crowley is, in himself, the very definition of anti-establishment and anti-media.

Originally posted by andrew ky
... But then again Crowley would deny the existence of evil. .....
[edit on 5-7-2006 by andrew ky]

I have no interest at all to make you think positively about Crowley,
i respect your opinion whatever it may be.

But if you want to show others how evil Crowley was, at least give us some facts to support it.

by the way, i dont know where you get your information, from a third party of course. Read below what Crowley says about evil.

"The pious pretence that evil does not exist only makes it vague, enormous and menacing" - Aleister Crowley

I read Liber AL the other day. It was strange, even to me (and I am strange).

I even dug through some Kabalah and Gematria sites to see what some of the riddles might mean.

I don't understand whether Crowley thinks we should all love each other whether we should all LOVE each other, if you know what I mean.

Is it possible he was high when he wrote it?

reply to post by emsed1


he had some issues being hooked on Heroin (prescribed by a doctor I believe) and tried to get off that drug by taking others. I would say it's very possible he was. The more I learn about him, the more I think he was just eccentric. And quite intelligent.

Originally posted by emsed1


Is it possible he was high when he wrote it?

Theoretically, he didn't actually "write" it, but simply acted as scribe. Supposedly, the book was dicatated to him by Aiwass, the "minister of Hoor-Poor-Kraat".

Chapter 1 is supposed to be the words of the Egyptian goddess Nuit, Chapter 2 the words of the god Hadit, and Chapter 3 those of Horus.

Why did Crowley say that family is public enemy number 1? Seems to me he wanted homosexuality and sexual promiscuity to spread in order to offset what our society is built on: family.


BRB, gonna go follow my True Will... be selfish and egocentric greedy hoarder and do what's best for me. Because that is what this world truly needs.

dp

[edit on 23-7-2010 by frozenspark]