Did Aleister Crowley Paint a Grey in 1900?

I am listening to the interview now, wild stuff. Jack Parsons wrote the Antichrist manifesto - yeah that's compatible with Jesus (gag)

At undos site is a another link about this subject:
Demons in Aliens Clothes

I want to admit in all humility that pavlovsdog is right on the money that I played in heavy metal bands and did drugs and stuff. I was into Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page so much that I got into A Crowley through him. I was just a dabbler. It is most definitely evil in the sense it is completely selfish. Pride is what made the Devil the Devil. The dark side is real. It destroys it's own as well. Look at Parsons and Crowley.

I became a Christian at age 37. I don't take much credit for that. God came and rescued me. I still play heavy guitar - my signature is a link. I wrote and produced the song "Alien Resistance" for Guy Malone's UFO radio show Live From Roswell.

Extra terrestrial means not of this earth. The Hosts of Heaven are ETs by definition. Not all Angels are fallen so there are good ETs. But abductions are a repeat of the genesis 6 scenario.

I believe most Aliens that we hear about are Fallen Angels. (Demons don't have bodies) This LAM is evidence of that!! There was no talk of Aliens when he drew this.

Alien abductions can be stopped if you use the name of Jesus. I'm not a victim but I know some real folks who have stopped it. There are lots of testimonies to this fact.

Alien Resistance

Logos - internet exorcism

CE -4 Research Group

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post

 

I am going to make it real simple for you. My argument is exactly what you accuse me of.

If it's not worshipping Jesus it's Satanic.

Ok, I'll accept your argument. On the condition that you accept the following statement, because it is the direct result of your juvenile argument

Judaism
Native Americans
Islam
Shinto
Bahai'
Confucanism
Hinduism
Taoism
Bhuddaism
Wicca
Dao Cao Dai
The Druze
The Roma
Santeria
Universalism
Deism

Are ALL Satanic!




Thats your argument in a nutshell. In your own words. I'm glad you admitted it.

Sounds rather bigoted. I expect you anticipate all these people from your own country and around the world to 'burn in hell'

How many of your ancestors are satanists (by your defination of course)?
How many people in your community must be Satanists? (unless you live in the bible belt of the USA)



[edit on 19-2-2008 by pavlovsdog]

reply to post by pavlovsdog


Ohhhh you got me. You win!

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Do you or do you not believe all those listed religions are Satanic?

Originally posted by pavlovsdog


Ok, I'll accept your argument. On the condition that you accept the following statement, because it is the direct result of your juvenile argument

Judaism
Native Americans
Islam
Shinto
Bahai'
Confucanism
Hinduism
Taoism
Bhuddaism
Wicca
Dao Cao Dai
The Druze
The Roma
Santeria
Universalism
Deism

Are ALL Satanic!

I like Heiser's approach to it. He basically says that there was a divine council put in place following the Tower of Babel fiasco, and people followed whichever god was assigned to their territory. The other gods were also elohiym class beings, but Jehovah alloted Michael the Archangel to oversee Noah's lineage, which developed into the israelites through Abraham and Jacob. Jesus, on the other hand, claims to be available to anyone, regardless of location. I suppose that can be said for all the gods that are still worshipped, since you can, in effect, follow buddha even if you live in a non-buddhist country. Or Muhammad even if you live in a non-muslim country. I'm not sure when this changed though, which might be a good topic for another thread.

reply to post by pavlovsdog


Not intentionally Satanic...

I do think it was covered by the Apostle Paul

But though we, or a heavenly being (Alien or Lam or whatever) teach any other gospel to you than that which we have taught, let him be accursed."
Galatians 1:8







edit --> I do think Crowley is

[edit on 2/19/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by undo


Undo,

I always respect your posts. While I believe you have said before that you identify as Christian, your posts do not reflect the typical close mindedness that they often rely on. At least you accept/entertain a theory in which there is a possibility that there are other gods (who are not satan).

We need more critical thinkers in the world.

BTW, i agree with your art analysis. I think you are spot on. I was not very familiar with Lem, but after reading your post and thinking about it, it fits perfectly. My guess that it was Aiwass was accepting that it was painted about 1900, this shortly after time that Crowley first gained conversation with his Holy Guardian Angel (Aiwass). Add the fact the he painted a mirror vision and I thought it might be a defendable position.

reply to post by undo



I've just heard him teach at the "Ancient of Days Roswell Biblical UFO Conference" Mike Heiser seems very very competent in ancient languages and scriptures. I know he thinks the abductions are Gen 6 paradigm as well.

Ok I hear you talking about it in the interview right now ... LOL

I'd like to read that paper.

well it looks like a grey minus the large eyes.

Funny how Jack Parsons is being mentioned! I loved the book sex and rockets. Pavlovsdog, I'm interested in what you think about Parsons, Crowley, Hubbard and any connection Crowley might have with scientology. Not trying to hijack the thread so u2u me if you'd care to

reply to post by pavlovsdog


No hard feelings. I learned something form you. I hope you did as well.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by undo

 

I've just heard him teach at the "Ancient of Days Roswell Biblical UFO Conference" Mike Heiser seems very very competent in ancient languages and scriptures. I know he thinks the abductions are Gen 6 paradigm as well.

Ok I hear you talking about it in the interview right now ... LOL

I'd like to read that paper.

Aye.

I think the problem is also time-related. For example, in the time frame when there was so much argument over what god you worshipped, there were some members of the divine council who were abusing their people they were assigned to. Examples were starving them to death. Insisting they sacrifice their babies. Demanding way more sacrifice than the people could give or afford or withstand. Sexually abusing them, teaching them unsafe sanitary practices, such as necrophilia and sex with animals, that caused them to get sick and die and pass the diseases on to their children, etc. Mating with them, creating hybrids that didn't have resurrectable bodies, and the ilk. It was a mess. Jehovah, who, if he is the same as the sumerian Enlil, would've been the premier god of the divine council, but as some of the council members were anti-Enlil, they wouldn't listen to his words anyway, and the end result was a huge mess in which humans were basically used up like using up your garbage bags.

Originally posted by pavlovsdog
reply to post by undo

 

Undo,

I always respect your posts. While I believe you have said before that you identify as Christian, your posts do not reflect the typical close mindedness that they often rely on. At least you accept/entertain a theory in which there is a possibility that there are other gods (who are not satan).

We need more critical thinkers in the world.

BTW, i agree with your art analysis. I think you are spot on. I was not very familiar with Lem, but after reading your post and thinking about it, it fits perfectly. My guess that it was Aiwass was accepting that it was painted about 1900, this shortly after time that Crowley first gained conversation with his Holy Guardian Angel (Aiwass). Add the fact the he painted a mirror vision and I thought it might be a defendable position.

thanks. did you listen to the interview I did with that former OTO guy? It's very interesting, although it occassionally stumbles around. The whole thing has moments in it that are very interesting followed by boring spots but overall, a very interesting interview.

reply to post by undo


So the other "Gods" that Mike Heiser talks about are basically the Hosts of Heaven commonly called Angels.
B'nai Elohim I have no problem with believing that at all.
Right?

Who knows whay he was thinking of when he drew that. He could of been seeing a Grey or may be this proves some of the christian fundamentalist right who say that the aliens are nothing but deamons since he was deep into the occult and deamonology.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by undo

 

So the other "Gods" that Mike Heiser talks about are basically the Hosts of Heaven commonly called Angels.
B'nai Elohim I have no problem with believing that at all.
Right?

Yeah, although he does make a separation. For example, there are angels and then there are archangels. Not all angels are alike, apparently, and he says the texts suggest there's an entire class of beings he calls elohiym class, because they are spirit beings. So I'm guessing the gods are archangels who are spirit beings. Not sure how much more specific it can get than that. I'm not sure how many of them were fallen, but I do know it says that he kept the people who would eventually become israel, as his own and assigned Michael the Archangel to oversee their welfare.

All that old testament stuff is very ...hrm... well big portions are not there/ the entire thing had been relegated to a tribal oral history that was condensed for ease of memorization and they passed it down their line. As a result, fitting all the pieces together requires giving the other ancient texts at least the benefit of having something to add to the overall picture. Unfortunately, some people along the way took the admonition to only follow God to the extreme position of not even acknowledging the other stories. As a result, it was exceedingly easy for German Higher Criticism to toss it all out, including the bible. :/

reply to post by undo


I've studied the Book of Enoch some. It really goes into how the Fallen Angels created the hybrids and taught people to sin, with drugs, sex, all of that. I think the Church had a massive coverup for some reason and adopted the line of seth view of Gen 6 around 400AD or so...

But the ancient Jews and the early Christian church all believed that the Angels were abducting and impregnating women. At least Jude 6-7 survived in the Bible cannon.

""And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home - these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

This is really frustrating. I'm trying to find more information on the word "Elohiym" but all I'm seeing on the net are page after page of websites authored by non-denominational Christians who are each putting their own spin on that term and giving their own biased interpretations of it.

Anyone have a website with information on the Elohiym that's purely academic and not affiliated with any church or religious group?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

""And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home - these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

But notice, the big guy himself (Satan) doesn't get the pit treatment. Oh no, only his minions get it. He gets it later. Now I'm of the belief the bottomless pit is a star gate, anyway, so seems to me they got off fairly easy. What appears to make them upset is that they can't be involved in our affairs, which I find a bit curious. Why would that be of any consequence to powerful beings? This has been a head scratcher for me. Well, I read a book that may have solved that dilemma. Here's what it basically said:

Author: Finis Jennings Dake
Book: God's Plan for Man

This planet use to be the domain of these beings. They went through their time of testing and the separating of the chaff/wheat thing happened for them also. Their technology crescendoed and they went out into the solar system and inhabited the other planets as well. One in particular (Satan) lead a group of fellows into a battle against God, which resulted in something like planetary war (a real star wars). Satan was relegated to this planetary system and the surrounding space. (this fits with sumerian texts, btw, which basically refer to Satan's name as Enki (who's name means Lord Earth).

(This is where I interject my additions to his theory)
I personally think Enki (who is, I believe, also the egyptian Ra), found us in eden and brought us here to spite Enlil and to enslave us, and that eden was elsewhere (not on this planet).

According to Heiser, the Satan in Eden was a bipedal being not a literal serpent. I think the truth is Satan was a bipedal being with a serpent inside him if that makes sense, kinda like the goa'uld symbiotes in stargate the tv show. and that as his punishment,he was removed from the bipedal being he had used to do the crime - thus removing his legs. But he just found another body to inhabit anyway because we see him later in the King of Tyre. Bugger keeps popping up in some of the most rich and powerful figures in history. Apparently, he's not prejudiced as to the race or make of the being he inhabits.

It's also interesting to note that the word to describe Satan in the text, also can mean seraph (which is a fiery serpent, a glowing serpent, etc) and is also a word used to describe angels. That use to bug me...how does one separate the snake concept from the bipedal from the angel. I think the stargate TV show has the real answer to that. The original Eden, bipedal body is reptilian in appearance and is inhabited by a "symbiote" (not sure what else to call it). This works on many levels including the idea that for thousands of years, the planet was almost entirely the domain of reptiles, who have been assumed to be only animals, but may in fact have been bipedal sentients, too.

Erm, anyway....

Originally posted by Palasheea
This is really frustrating. I'm trying to find more information on the word "Elohiym" but all I'm seeing on the net are page after page of websites authored by non-denominational Christians who are each putting their own spin on that term and giving their own biased interpretations of it.

Anyone have a website with information on the Elohiym that's purely academic and not affiliated with any church or religious group?

heiser maybe?
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

Thanks undo! I'm reading it over now. Just don't know which ones out there are more correct than others... hard to tell which definition of that term is closer to it's original meaning.