What can be said about the Black Lodge and it's orgin?

I am curious where the name originated from? I have heard it being a refference to something native american maybe Native Ameirca mythos or the like. Also there is a modern ref. in telivision show Twin Peeks see link;
en.wikipedia.org...
I am curious of ancient prgin in mythos or secret society. I am curious what most people interpret it as being in modern day or the last 50 years. Do you believe it to be an degree a person achieves in gnosis or do you believe an actual sect that are familar with the level and also eachother.

If anyone has any sources please post (links,books,etc). What I am asking for is mainly what is written about it in mythos and old to ancient cultures as we all know there is nothing in modern day.

Originally posted by masonite
If anyone has any sources please post (links,books,etc). What I am asking for is mainly what is written about it in mythos and old to ancient cultures as we all know there is nothing in modern day.

A lot of it is absolute dross but there is some interesting reserch and information here:

www.greylodge.org...


"...we are dealing with a full-size world-mystery and a real fight between the Black and White Brotherhoods."
- Frater Achad, 1948


"What I am out to complain of is what I seriously believe to be an organized conspiracy of the Black Lodges to prevent people from thinking..."
- Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears.


By the way, Masonite, it is myths not mythos... hope you find wht you are looking for.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Belinquest]

Originally posted by Belinquest


"...we are dealing with a full-size world-mystery and a real fight between the Black and White Brotherhoods."
- Frater Achad, 1948


"What I am out to complain of is what I seriously believe to be an organized conspiracy of the Black Lodges to prevent people from thinking..."
- Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears.

Great quotes. For those unaware, Frater Achad (Charles S. Jones) was a student of Crowley's, and shared many of his views.

From his various writings, it does not seem that Crowley considered the Black Lodge to be an actual organization of conscious conspirators, but rather those whose worldview was patterned on the Aeon of Osiris (in other words, Crowley basically considered Christianity to be the Black Lodge). In his view, Christianity restricts freedom of thought and honest intellectual inquiry (another reason he proclaimed himself its enemy).

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Great quotes. For those unaware, Frater Achad (Charles S. Jones) was a student of Crowley's, and shared many of his views.

From his various writings, it does not seem that Crowley considered the Black Lodge to be an actual organization of conscious conspirators, but rather those whose worldview was patterned on the Aeon of Osiris (in other words, Crowley basically considered Christianity to be the Black Lodge). In his view, Christianity restricts freedom of thought and honest intellectual inquiry (another reason he proclaimed himself its enemy).

I spent some time in London, a while back, with a guy called Gerald Suster who was obsessed by Crowley, wrote a short book about him and kept calling him Alick...
I suppose I began to be intrigued by the man during those months.
By the way, thanks for the tip about Allan Bennett; I did find some of his work in the Equinox.

Hello good friends,

I would like to offer an opinion on the subject if I may.

The Black Lodge is a term, in its most prominent usage, to describe that school of thought which venerates the virtues of Hedonism and Libertinism. Two ideological primes of The Left Hand Path.

The path of the Black Lodge when juxtaposed with its reciprocal can be thought of as identical in understanding and purpose up to a certain hierarchial point. Both the White [right-hand] and the Black [Left-hand] are opposite ends of the same continuum and can be thought of as equally essential. Without one the other could not exist. [within the physical plane]

The adherents of both the White and the Black Lodge seek freedom from The Chaos by harnessing its force. Chaos, as I have used it, can be defined as the seemingly infinite, but finite series of linear causal chains [cause and effect] which interact to create perceptual reality or what we may call life in its entirety. It is not limited in expression by any human moral predilection but utilizes both good and evil to accomplish its Cosmic mandate which can be defined as the ultimate good or Unity. Herein lies the danger with The Black Lodge, imho.

True freedom from the forces of chaos [life] requires an intimate knowledge of its purpose and mechanism, as the Black Brothers know quite well. This mechanism is primarily one of control designed to cause, through the proselytization of sensual pleasure, enslavement. This enslavement then leads to mortal suffering. The idea is that the creature will learn from its suffering the cause of it and thus avoid such behavior in the future and thus attain a higher level of mastery. The further the level of mastery the closer to perfection [Unity] one gets. The Black Lodge, notwithstanding their necessity in this scheme, are unconcerned with the product or end of their effort. They are content sowing the very vital and necessary misery required to teach through persecution and suffering, humanity and life in general, its most valuable lessons. Unfortunately, those who subscribe to this school and don't learn its lessons and advance, will be victimized and tormented [Hell] by the very system they were meant to overcome and thus master.

In summary, the Black Lodge is controlled by the White Lodge.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This relationship is necessary to help effect the ultimate good which will lead most but not all to the Unitive Principle or what popular Christianity might refer to as, Heaven. All mankind is born into the Black Lodge and ironically lives most of their life there and don't know it [including dogmatic or literal Christendom]. Thus, it becomes the focus and purpose of human life to develop a resistance to the mechanism of Chaos by keeping to ideological principles which contain its growth and influence. [Satan is my motor?] Thereby helping to focus and thus, harness [transmute?] its energy into a positive force for change.



I hope this was of some benefit.


Kindest regards.

That sounds alot like the idea of an Androgenous God Being
The one splits to become the two (duality) for the lessons to be gained in earth school.

Maybe after all is said and done this is the plan for the ultimate Redemtion of the Fallen Ones, to which we all might call our ancestors.

An opportunity through individual experience to put out the fires of Lust, Greed, Pride, etc. and to return to our state of Unity rather than separation.

The fire burns both ways. The fire of desire and the fire of transformation.

Originally posted by interestedalways

That sounds alot like the idea of an Androgenous God Being
The one splits to become the two (duality) for the lessons to be gained in earth school.

Indeed, well stated.

Originally posted by interestedalways

Maybe after all is said and done this is the plan for the ultimate Redemtion of the Fallen Ones, to which we all might call our ancestors. An opportunity through individual experience to put out the fires of Lust, Greed, Pride, etc. and to return to our state of Unity rather than separation.

To put your statement into a symbolic biblical perspective:

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Creation and / or humanity [the creature] earnestly desires [learns through life experience the desire to seek improvement and reduce suffering] to achieve [the manifestation] a state of near idyllic perfection [Sons of God]




Kindest regards.





The fire burns both ways. The fire of desire and the fire of transformation.

Interesting.


I'd like to add on to this thread, but for now I'll just suggest the following link for those interested in the motives of the White Lodge and Black Lodge:


ATS Search



It is discussed in many of the posts I've made.




Regards

Originally posted by Belinquest

"What I am out to complain of is what I seriously believe to be an organized conspiracy of the Black Lodges to prevent people from thinking..."
- Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears.

I was thinking about this a few months ago. Here is a little bit that follows this quote.

"What I am out to complain of is what I seriously believe to be an organized conspiracy of the Black Lodges to prevent people from thinking.
Naked and unashamed! In some countries there has already been compulsory listening-in to Government programmes; and who knows how long it will be before we are all subjected by law to the bleatings, bellowings, belchings of the boring balderdash of the B.B.C.-issies?

They boast of the freedom of religious thought; yet only the narrowest sectarian propaganda is allowed to approach the microphone. I quite expect censorship of books—that of the newspapers, however vehemently denied, is actually effective—and even of private letters. This will mean an enormous increase in parasitic functionaries who can be trusted to vote for the rascals that invented their sinecures. That was, in fact, the poison ivy that strangled the French poplar!

But these soul-suffocationg scoundrels know well their danger. There are still a few people about who have learnt to think; and they are palsied with terror lest, as might happen at any moment these people realized the peril, organized, and made a clean sweep of the whole brood of scolex! (Tapeworm - Cug)

So nobody must be allowed to think at all. Down with the public schools! Children must be drilled mentally by quarter-educated herdsmen, whose wages would stop at the first sign of disagreement with the bosses. For the rest, deafen the whole world with senseless clamour. Mechanize everything! Give nobody a chance to think. Standardize "amusement." The louder and more cacophonous, the better! Brief intervals between one din and the next can be filled with appeals, repeated 'till hypnotic power gives them the force of orders, to buy this or that product of the "Business men" who are the real power in the State. Men who betray their country as obvious routine."

Source: Magick Without Tears chapter 14

Tell me that doesn't sound like the NWO.

So what I see in that little bit of text, is Crowley is not only equating Christianity with the Black Brotherhood but also the thing we now call the NWO.

I don't know maybe I'm reading too much into it, my research on the Theocratic Dominionists has left me a bit concerned about them and their influence.

Originally posted by Cug
Tell me that doesn't sound like the NWO.

So what I see in that little bit of text, is Crowley is not only equating Christianity with the Black Brotherhood but also the thing we now call the NWO.
I don't know maybe I'm reading too much into it, my research on the Theocratic Dominionists has left me a bit concerned about them and their influence.

It does sound, you are right but I cannot convince myself that it is, here's a little more:

"Mathers, of course, carried on; but he had fallen. The Secret Chiefs cast him off; he fell into deplorable abjection, even his scholarship deserted him. He published nothing new and lived in sodden intoxication till death put an end to his long misery. He was a great man in his way..."
- Aleister Crowley

"The Magical Will is in its essence twofold, for it presupposes a beginning and an end, to will to be a thing is to admit you are not that thing.

"Hence to will anything but the supreme thing is to wander still further from it -- any will but that to give up the self to the beloved is black magick -- yet the surrender is so simple an act that to our complex minds it is the most difficult of all acts; and hence training is necessary ..."

I may be wrong and I can tell you are well read on the subject but I don't think NWO comes into it.

Originally posted by Belinquest
"Mathers, of course, carried on; but he had fallen. The Secret Chiefs cast him off; he fell into deplorable abjection, even his scholarship deserted him. He published nothing new and lived in sodden intoxication till death put an end to his long misery. He was a great man in his way..."
- Aleister Crowley

Oh really?

Reminds us of someone else doesn't it?

Perhaps the very author of the quote?

How does that remind you of Crowley?

yea a one liner.

So what I see in that little bit of text, is Crowley is not only equating Christianity with the Black Brotherhood but also the thing we now call the NWO.

Did A. Crowley truly understand Christianity, or was he simply unaware of the differences between the organised Church and Esoteric Christianity?

Originally posted by Cug
How does that remind you of Crowley?

yea a one liner.

Cug,

Would you happen to know why A. Crowley has attracted so much attention over the years and much of it very negative? Have you ever noticed how many people in politics today are obsessed with the occult? Now consider that so are many non-politicians but most people could care less about the guy next door, right? Ronald Reagan was so obsessed with numerology and such materialistic nonsense; yet hidden inside a mask of esoteric spirituality finding nothing in the true spiritual sense. Reagan is but one man and as he was the President of the USA and later died, his wife mentioned in his autobiography that he was so obsessed that everything from the color of his tie, to the exact second he gave speeches, to the exact words he used were based in such obsessive natures.

So what does this have to do with Crowley? Was not Crowley connected politically to stopping Hitler? Was he not supporting Churchill and (I do like old Churchill) but the point being, whereas many great teachers have chosen to remain completely separated from politics, we do see Crowley hobnobbing with high level officials. Yes, I am quite familiar with his writing and how he asked us to use reason and think; yes I am aware that he chose to live isolated from mainstream life at times but did not people like one Rudolf Steiner denounce many of Crowley's teachings and go further to ensure that it was known he had nothing to do with the OTO? Before I continue, I would like to ask you why you seem so surprise about all the fuss regarding Crowley? At a time like this, are you still so shocked to see poor Crowley all mixed up in the idea of a NWO - even if he is innocent of all these claims?


[edit on 22-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Did A. Crowley truly understand Christianity, or was he simply unaware of the differences between the organised Church and Esoteric Christianity?

Crowley was not brought up in a "organized church" his family were members of a group called the Plymouth Brethren. (a conservative group that BTW would make today's conservative Christians seem like the Unitarians) While he was growing up the only book he was allowed to read was the Bible. So I'd say he probably knew it as well or better than most modern Christians.

Would you happen to know why A. Crowley has attracted so much attention over the years and much of it very negative?

It's was many things but if you boil it down to one thing it was because he was Anti-christian and anti-Christian morals in a time and place that was not accepted.

Something many people seem to miss is that Blasphemy was an imprisonable offense during Crowley's lifetime, as was homosexuality. Hell masturbation could get you thrown into an insane asylum, mention of words like "Leg" was not done in polite company. That is the backdrop of Crowley's life and while many of these things were seen as not as bad as he neared the end of his life, the stories of the yellow press of the time stuck with him, and they still stick to him to today.


Have you ever noticed how many people in politics today are obsessed with the occult?

Nope not at all. I'm "obsessed" with the Occult, and I see nothing of it in modern politics. The only thing Ronnie Raygun "occult" he was obsessed with was astrology which is something that in no longer just an occult subject but is well embedded in popular culture. (And that was Nancy anyway)

So what does this have to do with Crowley? Was not Crowley connected politically to stopping Hitler? Was he not supporting Churchill and (I do like old Churchill) but the point being, whereas many great teachers have chosen to remain completely separated from politics, we do see Crowley hobnobbing with high level officials.

I don't get it. Of course Crowley supported Churchill, and stopping Hitler. Just like all the rest of the UK at the time. And really the only person who had a connection to Crowley at the time was Ian Fleming (Yes, That Ian Fleming). It was Fleming's idea that Crowley should interview Rudolf Hess after his "defection" to see if he could get any more info out of him. That plan was shot down (much like Hess).

A Letter From Crowley to Ian Fleming then Director of Naval Intelligence

Sir:
If it is true that Herr Hess is much influenced by astrology
and Magick, my services might be of use to the Department in
case he should not be willing to do what you wish. I have the
honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Aleister Crowley

Source: John Pearson, The Life of Ian Fleming (Note the American edition has the whole Crowley thing edited out)

Now having contact with the Brittish Intelligence Crowley also suggested that he could writes some occult propaganda that could be dropped over Germany but he was turned down. (as it turns out it had already been done)

Crowley also claimed to have devised the V for victory sign for Churchhill but there is no evidence that this is true. Who Knows? But anyway this is just a long way of saying the Crowley was not hobnobbing with the bigwigs.

Yes, I am quite familiar with his writing and how he asked us to use reason and think; yes I am aware that he chose to live isolated from mainstream life at times but did not people like one Rudolf Steiner denounce many of Crowley's teachings and go further to ensure that it was known he had nothing to do with the OTO?

Steiner was distancing himself from Theodor Reuss before Crowley even joined the O.T.O.

Before I continue, I would like to ask you why you seem so surprise about all the fuss regarding Crowley? At a time like this, are you still so shocked to see poor Crowley all mixed up in the idea of a NWO - even if he is innocent of all these claims?

Surprised? Not me, Just doing my part correcting some of the fiction surrounding Crowley. Like I have said before there is plenty of stuff out there to make one hate Crowley..Why bother with the Lies?

Hi Cug,

Thanks for an in-depth response and I would like to touch upon a few areas.

Crowley was not brought up in a "organized church" his family were members of a group called the Plymouth Brethren. (a conservative group that BTW would make today's conservative Christians seem like the Unitarians) While he was growing up the only book he was allowed to read was the Bible. So I'd say he probably knew it as well or better than most modern Christians.

It's was many things but if you boil it down to one thing it was because he was Anti-christian and anti-Christian morals in a time and place that was not accepted.

Cug, I see nothing at all wrong in Crowley's interpreting the Bible as being problematic (if I may use this word) but he should have known better than to allow the dogmatic modern translations of the Bible and also the teachings of the Church body to form the basis of his opinion of the Christ event as a whole. Those who do not accept the event at Golgotha over 2000 years ago may just prefer to stay silent. However, those who mock the Church and Bible show they know very little of the true mission of Christ, or they plan to go against his mission. Many, calling themselves 'Christians' today also fall into this category of misunderstanding, I'm afraid. But for such a man of intellect as Crowley was, and a man who had devoted his life to free thought; he seems to have mixed up the Bible and Christian Conservatism with what Christ 'actually' taught and this seems to reveal that he either did not understand it, or he deliberately choose to ignore it by making a mockery of it. So, rather than apply the methods that many others in the Gnostic community have - which is to thereby explain the differences between the dogmatisms of the church, the mistranslations and interpolations of the various Bible renditions and then compare them to spiritual Christianity, he instead choose the path of ridicule and enjoying the reaction to the shock effect over the various Demagogy’s. Does this sound like a mature individual to you and someone who is really interested in truth and you would trust someone like him to be watching over your kids? Would you trade in Jesuit school for “Beast 666” class study? I’m sure Crowley would be honored but do we trade in one perversion for another?

Now I place more responsibility in a man such like Crowley than I do in some atheist (not knowing any better), so this is why I am questioning his apparent lack of knowledge. His understanding may be said as simply 'different' yet his attack upon Christ and others show bias, or misunderstanding. My point being, he reaps what he has sowed and if people read negative writings attributed to Jesus Christ, than naturally they will feel offended. Now most people will assume that those who would have the nerve to mock Jesus Christ may just be in league with the Beast 666, so perhaps Crowley was happy to have offended so many people but I am more concerned not in who he offended as I am in his apparent ability to speak so much truth with much of what he wrote and said and in doing so, it’s actually what he DOES NOT say that makes his teachings misleading.

Something many people seem to miss is that Blasphemy was an imprisonable offense during Crowley's lifetime, as was homosexuality. Hell masturbation could get you thrown into an insane asylum, mention of words like "Leg" was not done in polite company. That is the backdrop of Crowley's life and while many of these things were seen as not as bad as he neared the end of his life, the stories of the yellow press of the time stuck with him, and they still stick to him to today.

Cug,
Masturbation can still get you thrown into an insane asylum but not because of any Christian teaching, but from your own thought-formation which can take full possession of you. Masturbation is taboo, but was even more so back then and many esoteric teachers felt that teaching love was more important than teaching ‘to not masturbate’. Somehow, I doubt Jesus Christ would have told Christians to hate Gays or Masturbators, so I think Mr. Crowley once again was enjoying the ‘shock effect’ of urinating in people’s clean pool but he fails to explain how Christ was the cause of so much oppression that he felt the great need to be a new savior of sorts and thus liberate us from ignorance of NOT being able to masturbate enough and feel good about it.

I don't get it. Of course Crowley supported Churchill, and stopping Hitler. Just like all the rest of the UK at the time. And really the only person who had a connection to Crowley at the time was Ian Fleming (Yes, That Ian Fleming). It was Fleming's idea that Crowley should interview Rudolf Hess after his "defection" to see if he could get any more info out of him. That plan was shot down (much like Hess).

Cug just curious,

Did Crowley ever oppose the International bankers who funded Hitler and how come while he spent time fighting evil Christians, he seemed to have forgotten about all the more evil bankers that have been funding the wars (on both sides) and creating dictators (like Lenin and Hitler, Stalin etc) and pushing Communism into nations which is massive “non-thinking” and marrying us all to the state’s will? You would think that Crowley would have seen the bankers as a far greater threat than the Bible thumpers.

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Cug, I see nothing at all wrong in Crowley's interpreting the Bible as being problematic (if I may use this word) but he should have known better than to allow the dogmatic modern translations of the Bible and also the teachings of the Church body to form the basis of his opinion of the Christ event as a whole.

Well Like I said he was a Plymouth Brethren. They did not use the modern translations, (One of the founders was John Darby of the Darby Bible fame) and they refuse to even be called a church body, in fact most of them reject even the name "Plymouth Brethren" as it basically rings of dogma to them.

Those who do not accept the event at Golgotha over 2000 years ago may just prefer to stay silent. However, those who mock the Church and Bible show they know very little of the true mission of Christ, or they plan to go against his mission.

Really Crowley never really mocked the Bible or Christ for that matter. (Crowley put the Bible on the recommended reading lists of his orders. OK he did list it under "Books mainly fiction") He did not agree with it that's for sure Christians on the other hand did not rank very high on the respect scale.

For example from his autobiography

I was trying to take the view that the Christianity of hypocrisy and cruelty was not true Christianity. I did not hate God or Christ, but merely the God and Christ of the people whom I hated. It was only when the development of my logical faculties supplied the demonstration that I was compelled to set myself in opposition to the Bible itself. It does not matter that the literature is sometimes magnificent and that in isolated passages the philosophy and ethics are admirable. The sum of the matter is that Judaism is a savage, and Christianity a fiendish, superstition.

The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, Chapter 6

But for such a man of intellect as Crowley was, and a man who had devoted his life to free thought; he seems to have mixed up the Bible and Christian Conservatism with what Christ 'actually' taught and this seems to reveal that he either did not understand it, or he deliberately choose to ignore it by making a mockery of it.

Really, if you reject the bible you can only be one of two things, stupid or stubborn? Is it really so hard to understand that someone could reject it outright even after study?

So, rather than apply the methods that many others in the Gnostic community have - which is to thereby explain the differences between the dogmatisms of the church, the mistranslations and interpolations of the various Bible renditions and then compare them to spiritual Christianity, he instead choose the path of ridicule and enjoying the reaction to the shock effect over the various Demagogy’s. Does this sound like a mature individual to you and someone who is really interested in truth....

I get the impression that you're a Gnostic So you chose a path that 99% of the Christions think is a path of ridicule. Are you a mature individual?

...and you would trust someone like him to be watching over your kids? Would you trade in Jesuit school for “Beast 666” class study? I’m sure Crowley would be honored but do we trade in one perversion for another?

This is offensive. I guess you do not think I'm a good enough of a person to take care of children because I'm a Thelemite. (BTW I happen to have done exactly that, I traded a Jesuit school for "Beast 666 class study" as you put it.) Your bigoted words would in fact keep YOU from watching over my children (If I had any)

Now I place more responsibility in a man such like Crowley than I do in some atheist (not knowing any better), so this is why I am questioning his apparent lack of knowledge.

He was an atheist. There is no god but man - Liber Oz

His understanding may be said as simply 'different' yet his attack upon Christ and others show bias, or misunderstanding. My point being, he reaps what he has sowed and if people read negative writings attributed to Jesus Christ, than naturally they will feel offended.

And they are most welcome to hate Crowley because of it. But to be honest if anyone would actually just say that I'd fall out of my chair. Instead of saying something like that, you usually hear that he sacrificed babies, worshiped Satan, part of the NWO, etc...

but I am more concerned not in who he offended as I am in his apparent ability to speak so much truth with much of what he wrote and said and in doing so, it’s actually what he DOES NOT say that makes his teachings misleading.

Is that really fair? What he does not say makes his teachings his teachings and not your teachings.

Viva La Difference!

Somehow, I doubt Jesus Christ would have told Christians to hate Gays or Masturbators,

Better ask his Father.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

or maybe Paul?

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

so I think Mr. Crowley once again was enjoying the ‘shock effect’ of urinating in people’s clean pool but he fails to explain how Christ was the cause of so much oppression that he felt the great need to be a new savior of sorts and thus liberate us from ignorance of NOT being able to masturbate enough and feel good about it.

He fails to explain? you mean you have failed to read what he wrote don't you?

Did Crowley ever oppose the International bankers who funded Hitler and how come while he spent time fighting evil Christians, he seemed to have forgotten about all the more evil bankers that have been funding the wars (on both sides) and creating dictators (like Lenin and Hitler, Stalin etc) and pushing Communism into nations which is massive “non-thinking” and marrying us all to the state’s will? You would think that Crowley would have seen the bankers as a far greater threat than the Bible thumpers.

Well if you read Crowley you will see he most certainly mentioned this. (Oh and he was WRONG about it) the answer to this also falls into one of the "Bad things" that is almost never mentioned by the detractors... Take a look at the Crowley quote above and you might get the gist of it. I'll wait.......


Yes you got it right he thought it was the evil Jew bankers. Unfortunately Crowley was a man of his times and despite his own doctrine stating that all men and women were equal he too slipped into the racism of his times. It often shows his ugly face when ever he was angry at someone.. he would happly use whatever racial epitaph that would fit the person he was angry at.

But in anycase I guess you did not even read the Crowley quote I made a while ago.. In particularly this part "or that product of the "Business men" who are the real power in the State. Men who betray their country as obvious routine."

::EDIT:: a bunch of typos.. hey it's late and I'm sure I still missed some

[edit on 9/23/2006 by Cug]

Cug,
Please do not misunderstand why we are now having this discussion over Crowley in this Black Lodge thread. I have read his writings (not all) and I agree with some of his teachings. I am really speaking about why he has attracted so much negative attention over the years.

Really Crowley never really mocked the Bible or Christ for that matter. (Crowley put the Bible on the recommended reading lists of his orders. OK he did list it under "Books mainly fiction") He did not agree with it that's for sure Christians on the other hand did not rank very high on the respect scale.

Why did he choose to lump together all Christians as being equally “not very high” on his respect scale? Did he have an exception list for Gnostic Christians, or other Christians? And I think he wrote passages mocking or rather poking fun at Christians and also the Mohammedans etc. I think you said it yourself, he was a man of his time enough to be (as you called him) sometimes racist when angry but not so much a man of his time when presenting himself as the “anti-” So no real surprises there, right?

For example from his autobiography
External Source

I was trying to take the view that the Christianity of hypocrisy and cruelty was not true Christianity. I did not hate God or Christ, but merely the God and Christ of the people whom I hated. It was only when the development of my logical faculties supplied the demonstration that I was compelled to set myself in opposition to the Bible itself. It does not matter that the literature is sometimes magnificent and that in isolated passages the philosophy and ethics are admirable. The sum of the matter is that Judaism is a savage, and Christianity a fiendish, superstition.

The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, Chapter 6

So the issue here is how he has no problem in saying what is NOT true Christianity or Judaism but fails to deliver on what he see’s as being true Christianity or Judaism. In case you misunderstand me, do you really think (for example) that he knew Christianity well enough to have the right to judge it? If he felt so strongly that the mainstream version of Christianity was incorrect (and so defamed) then he would be standing right next to many people, including myself and proving it, but he separated himself from many good people by not clearly defining the standard of true Christianity and by leaving this gem out, he flings feces into the faces of those who may know something about true Christianity – I must stress this point because it’s the very reason why so much negative attention is drawn to his teachings.

Really, if you reject the bible you can only be one of two things, stupid or stubborn? Is it really so hard to understand that someone could reject it outright even after study?

Cug I never said anyone should reject the entire Bible (or accept it) and should we only be able to throw out the baby with the bath water here, or can we not read this book and extract the truth from it? My point was not a matter of rejecting the Bible but a matter of differentiation between what a book says vs. the actual teachings of the master teacher.

I get the impression that you're a Gnostic So you chose a path that 99% of the Christions think is a path of ridicule. Are you a mature individual?

It does me no harm since I have chosen a path which does not insult the people who are misunderstanding me – and many do misunderstand but I do not claim to be a teacher who sees himself as such an authority not looking deep (at myself) than what is only upon the surface, and further go on to insult another person’s religion. When I have done this before, and if I do this now, I would be acting immature and since your teacher felt he was in such a position to do this at times yes, he was acting immature. At the time of Crowley, the influences which were coming into play were such that many men (like Crowley) were working in opposition to the Jesuit impulse and it was necessary for us to develop this impulse but on the other hand – we are not supposed to develop it to any one extreme and to fall into the trap of making derogatory statements about Christianity, or Mohammedans, or anything else not only rubs people the wrong way but it shows lack of true knowledge of what lies beyond the surface. I understand Crowley was not what many people claim he was – he was not anything so sinister; but I’d like it very much if you could take a closer look into why people have taken offense to some of his teachings which appear shocking at times.
.

This is offensive. I guess you do not think I'm a good enough of a person to take care of children because I'm a Thelemite. (BTW I happen to have done exactly that, I traded a Jesuit school for "Beast 666 class study" as you put it.) Your bigoted words would in fact keep YOU from watching over my children (If I had any)

There are many “Thelmites” and some Thelmites are not following the teachings of Crowley. Many people have different interpretations of Crowley’s Thelma also. But why are you taking such personal offense Cug? Irrespective of what you assume I was referring to, I was focusing on Crowley’s writings and whether a parent (after reading some passages) would feel comfortable leaving their children with Crowley. And by me mentioning Crowley, I was in no way bashing Thelmites, nor was I implying that I would not trust you. I think many people would trade in Jesuit school for something more balanced and less extreme but not necessarily something Crowley was teaching as the extreme alternative because anyone calling himself a derogatory term like “The Beast” will not get much trust from parents over their kids. Do you think Cug; a decent parent would leave their kids with a man who calls himself “The Beast”? Once again, you act surprised – even offended, and I asked you already - why so when this was the intended reaction? Crowley often pursued this by referring to himself as being an extremist.

He was an atheist. There is no god but man - Liber Oz

Crowley was correct to call man a God but I’m not sure if he would have been calling himself an atheist because most atheists do not see man as a God. And to call a man a God is hard for me (at times) when he acts just like the animals - or worse, so I hope the differences between Man’s Soul and his personality have been taken into account, when Crowley said this. Now you’re making the defense that Crowley was an atheist is truly something I never expected as a response, fascinating nonetheless since he claims to know something more about Christianity and he even hints to this in the external quote you posted above!

And they are most welcome to hate Crowley because of it. But to be honest if anyone would actually just say that I'd fall out of my chair. Instead of saying something like that, you usually hear that he sacrificed babies, worshiped Satan, part of the NWO, etc...

No-one should hate anyone and I think Crowley has every right to be treated with as much respect as anyone else. However, when you say things about other people’s religion or faith – as did Crowley and in the fashion he did, expect people to take some offense. We do not have to start quoting passages, for you know which passages but I honestly understand where he was going in much of it. I do understand better than you think. What I am saying here is that I would not personally go out of my way to defend a man who knew that his very words would be offending people. Crowley did not go out of his way to make any differentiation between Christ’s teachings and modern Christianity and he liked getting a negative reaction out of people! So because he was so lazy about it, why not let him take some heat? He loved to take the heat and enjoyed rousing people up, so what do we expect Cug? Let’s not be fooling ourselves here.

Is that really fair? What he does not say makes his teachings his teachings and not your teachings. Viva La Difference!

Here I am referring to his method of taking the apparent anti-Christian stance; yet comparing it to what he ‘might’ consider true Christianity and furthermore he fails to inform us of what is true Christianity. The only thing different between Crowley and other Greats is really, that the others have either defined it more appropriately and never left a rotten taste in certain mouths, or they were less abrasive overall and took a more subtle approach. Words do have consequences and conflicts tend to arise this way, yet this is my point. Crowley is a man often misunderstood and that is a fair analogy I think, since he chose this path and as a follower of Crowley-Thelma, so does Cug if you so choose to.

Now you mentioned homosexuality and masturbation and I wish to comment on both:

Better ask his Father.
External Source


Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

or maybe Paul?
External Source


1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Do you really believe that Christ taught us to hate another person because they are Gay, or to judge another person, or to burn them at the stake? Do you believe in a book (being the Bible) as so perfectly preserved in its original form that it contains the essence of something that cannot already lay within our very own hearts? Even if in perfect form, can any book truly be called perfect if it teaches us to hate? Can a book not also be interpreted in varying degrees, other than just by a few? Are these not the questions of a truth-seeker, Cug? So when we so fear the Bible as being responsible for teaching hate and burning others at the stake, we are simply denying the stupidity of the interpretation of the foolish man reading it! Crowley himself must have known this was the case!

Having said that, is sexual intercourse the most important thing to focus on? This behavior was so common throughout history and as you know, we do go through phases of history (Lumera, Atlantian, Egyptian etc) You even took the trouble to quote Paul but spending copious amounts of time emphasizing on ‘sex’ is not what Christianity is mainly all about – regardless whether it be homo or hetero – sex is NOT LOVE. If anything, teaching that sex is about becoming part-creator with God is very good but having sex for fun cannot possibly build you a warm home to keep out the rain!

Well other than you masturbation fetish..... he fails to explain? you mean you have failed to read what he wrote don't you?

With all due respect, I did not bring this issue up but you first mentioned “masturbation” as if Crowley had liberated humanity from punishment of the crime of masturbation – making it somehow legal again by amending law and giving us “freedom” from those evil Christians. First of all, not all Christians agree on everything being equal including something like masturbation being a crime and secondly, I was speaking the truth in saying that masturbation can harm us if we over do it and thirdly we do not need such extremist views in order to know the truth either way.

Yes you got it right he thought it was the evil Jew bankers!! Unfortunately Crowley was a man of his times and despite his own doctrine stating that all men and women were equal he too slipped into the racism of his times. It often shows his ugly face when ever he was angry at someone.. he would happly use whatever racial epitaph that would fit the person he was angry at.

He would be an example of a man who at times proved how human he was perhaps? But if you wish to follow this man so closely, will you also follow his mistakes and be an extremist woman of your time, or will you see past the time and look into the forces that are working behind the scenes today, just as they were also working in the past? Extremist views can be dangerous and Crowley made some errors (you have admitted this yourself) but may be that is one reason why his anger could have been a little more controlled and in accordance with that understanding, his followers should also not be so quick to jump to the defense of the proverbial anti-Christian – particularly going to one extreme or another is a mistake. Today, just like yesterday we have many wondering which one is going to wind up being the next anti-Christ and even though Crowley was not the beast he claimed to be, some people might see his extremists views as a reason to take him seriously.