OK, Some Basics - Read before posting

[Sfonzarelli]

I just wanted to clear things up since people seemt o be making assumptions based on their notions about religion

Crowley was not a Satanist, he didn't advocate virgin sacrifice, he wasn't the wickedest man on Earth, "do what thou will" doesn't mean what you think it is, Crowley wasn't a Nazi Crowley wasn't a heartless mountaineer who left his comrades to die, etc. etc.

For Cripessakes, read these two links before you post about Crowley

http://altreligion.about.com/library/fa ... leyfaq.htm
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/relig ... r-crowley/

Thelema isn't a "cult"
I don't say this in defense of Thelema, as I have nothing against cults. The original, untainted-by-newspeak definition of cult was simply a tight-knit mystical organization. No such organization calling itself "Thelema" exists - that's like implying that vegetarianism or agnosticism or being a hippie is a cult. Tight-knit religious groups connected to Thelema such as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and the A∴A∴ that existed in Crowley's time no longer exist to the extent that they do today, and modern groups calling themselves those names that claim lineage to the original groups can have strained and neblous connections to the originals. Enthusiasts of thelema are in no way cohesively organized. The philosophy of mystics such as Crowley is the opposite of religious faiths such as the Church of Scientology where participation in a specific organization is said to be allegedy nessecary for spiritual growth, as his philosophy was very anti-authoritarian - hermetic groups were created for their own sake

Thelema is not a religion created by Aleister Crowley
"Thelema" is simply the Ancient Greek word for "will" and was used with spiritual connotations by speakers of Ancient Greek, which includes Early Christians. (So when you say something like "Thelema is Satanic, you're actually denouncing a concept important to early Christian theology) Crowley's philosophical doctrine also centers around a similarly commonly used word "agape", or love, which most Christians may be more immediately familiar with. The term "thelema" to describe a religion was, to my knowledge, first used by François Rabelais, who was sort of a 16th century French Jonathan Swift, in his magnum opus Gargantua and Pantagruel. This is where the phrase "Do what thou wilt" (Fay çe que vouldras) comes from - Francis Dashwood and later Crowley would pick it up.

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the O.T.O., A.A. and Thelema are not seperate religions, per se, and "Thelema" as religious descriptor is not at all specifically mutually exclusive with anything else
There's nothing intrinsic of the European mystical revival movements of the time that made them function in the same way that other religious identities may - they considered themselves to be scientific. Similarly, groups like the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the O.T.O., and A.A. were simply just organizations that individuals chose to make that revolved around mystical practice. They weren't religious organizations that operated in the exact same way as others do. (For example, the way people identify either Protestants or Catholics. It's much more like how freemasonry worked, people were members of freemasonry, an organization, not a religious identity) It's more like if scientists formed random scientific organizations. Similarly, Crowley was just using what he liked, what worked for him. It's a freestyle religion, like a similar contemporary religion, theosophy. Crowley encorporated elements from a massive amount of sources, (although in my opinion he did suffer from a bit of ethnocentricism) including Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Greek, Celtic, Norse Levantine/Jewish, Dharmic/Hindu, Chinese, Subsaharan African, early Christian, medieval European, and late European spiritual traditions, just off the topof my head. If you find some interesting fact relating to some religion that might relate to Bree's religion, it doesn't suddenly mean Bree's not a thelemite - to the contrary! If Bree randomly made a video about the religious practices of Hopi Indians, she wouldn't suddenly NOT be a Thelemite. That's silly. Bree's ecclectic references to random esoteric facts and knowledge is typical of someone with her religious interests.

Six degrees of Crolwey
Which brings us to our next point. Crowley was very influential and if you're researching any non-mainstream religious topic on Google, you're probably going to stumble upon his name. It's probably spooky if you found out who he was through these videos, but it's like if you were researching physics and kept finding mentions of Einstein.

lonelygirl15 is fiction with elements of fact, possibly in the vain of the work of Robert Anton Wilson or Grant Morrison
There are no strict religious parents who are Thelemites, there is no Order of Denderah, very few people light candles in front of shrines of Aleister Crowley. This isn't a doucmentary about Thelema, this isn't an ellaborate diss at Thelema. OK?

[tannhaus]

For Cripessakes, read these two links before you post about Crowley

http://altreligion.about.com/library/fa ... leyfaq.htm
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/relig ... r-crowley/

I personally detest the rotten.com bio of Crowley. It has a lot of falsehoods in it which I went into in one of the other posts. A better biography and one with references is "Perdurabo".

Thelema is not a religion created by Aleister Crowley
"Thelema" is simply the Ancient Greek word for "will" and was used with spiritual connotations by speakers of Ancient Greek, which includes Early Christians. (So when you say something like "Thelema is Satanic, you're actually denouncing a concept important to early Christian theology) Crowley's philosophical doctrine also centers around a similarly commonly used word "agape", or love, which most Christians may be more immediately familiar with. The term "thelema" to describe a religion was, to my knowledge, first used by François Rabelais, who was sort of a 16th century French Jonathan Swift, in his magnum opus Gargantua and Pantagruel. This is where the phrase "Do what thou wilt" (Fay çe que vouldras) comes from - Francis Dashwood and later Crowley would pick it up.

I disagree with this. While the word Thelema existed before Crowley, the religion as we know it was created by Crowley. Gargantua and Pantagruel (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1200) spoke of an Abbey of Thelema, but didn't create a religion of Thelema other than describing the monks at that Abbey.

Of course, this was an influence on Crowley and he tried to create his own Abbey of Thelema, the religion as we know it today was brought about by Crowley and Aiwass.

lonelygirl15 is fiction with elements of fact, possibly in the vain of the work of Robert Anton Wilson or Grant Morrison
There are no strict religious parents who are Thelemites, there is no Order of Denderah, very few people light candles in front of shrines of Aleister Crowley. This isn't a doucmentary about Thelema, this isn't an ellaborate diss at Thelema. OK?

But, it does mention Thelema and the forums do even more. It's my intention to see that it's portrayed accurately and, if not, to let that be known.

As far as the other things, I agree.

[Sfonzarelli]

For Cripessakes, read these two links before you post about Crowley

http://altreligion.about.com/library/fa ... leyfaq.htm
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/relig ... r-crowley/

I personally detest the rotten.com bio of Crowley. It has a lot of falsehoods in it which I went into in one of the other posts. A better biography and one with references is "Perdurabo".

Link to the other posts

[tannhaus]

Link to the other posts

http://lonelygirl15.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1416

[Sfonzarelli]

The Rotten.com article specifically refers to him as a feminist!

Edit:

And your other criticisms seem to just be about the style in which they wrote it. That's Rotten.com's style. It's called Gonzo journalism. The only potential factual inaccuracy you pointed out was the thing at the end about his death, only because they don't have a citation.

[sororyzbl]

I just wanted to clear things up since people seemt o be making assumptions based on their notions about religion

Crowley was not a Satanist, he didn't advocate virgin sacrifice, he wasn't the wickedest man on Earth, "do what thou will" doesn't mean what you think it is, Crowley wasn't a Nazi Crowley wasn't a heartless mountaineer who left his comrades to die, etc. etc.

For Cripessakes, read these two links before you post about Crowley

http://altreligion.about.com/library/fa ... leyfaq.htm
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/relig ... r-crowley/

Crowley also called himself the worlds greatest christian. He also slammed nazi germany and Hitler. Also recall that Karl Germer, his successor in the OTO spent time in a Nazi concentration camp. Heartless, that's somewhat accurate, Liber AL II:21 says that "Compassion is the vice of kings". Of course, he also called for starting up shelters for underpriveledged...

Thelema is not a religion created by Aleister Crowley
"Thelema" is simply the Ancient Greek word for "will" and was used with spiritual connotations by speakers of Ancient Greek, which includes Early Christians. Crowley's philosophical doctrine also centers around a similarly commonly used word "agape", which most Christians may be more immediately familiar with. The term "thelema" to describe a religion was, to my knowledge, first used by François Rabelais, who was sort of a 16th century French Jonathan Swift, in his magnum opus Gargantua and Pantagruel. This is where the phrase "Do what thou wilt" (Fay çe que vouldras) comes from - Francis Dashwood and later Crowley would pick it up.

What you're saying is somewhat true, but many Thelemites believe that Thelema, rather than created, was "Revealed". Crowley himself turned his back on Liber AL for many years before he realized that what he had received was the next gospel. In other words, Thelemites believe that Crowley did not *write* the Book of the Law, he *received it*.

[tannhaus]

And your other criticisms seem to just be about the style in which they wrote it. That's Rotten.com's style. It's called Gonzo journalism. The only potential factual inaccuracy you pointed out was the thing at the end about his death, only because they don't have a citation.

I call it yellow journalism....and I stated the innacuracies.

[Sfonzarelli]

I call it yellow journalism

It's just written in a style that doesn't confirm to bourgeois journalistic standards.

"So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here—not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms."

"Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism— which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful."

Considering that article is a brief overview of the man's personal biography, and not his philosophical outlook, it's actually a very complimentary one. As complimentary as you can get. It actually whitewashes over a lot of his racism and personal chauvinism and makes him come off rather heroic. You just seem to want to apply the Great Man Theory to Crowley's life.

[tannhaus]

Considering that article is a brief overview of the man's personal biography, and not his philosophical outlook, it's actually a very complimentary one. As complimentary as you can get. It actually whitewashes over a lot of his racism and personal chauvinism and makes him come off rather heroic. You just seem to want to apply the Great Man Theory to Crowley's life.

No, I simply want to be accurate in a biography. You've pretty much admitted it's yellow journalism, so why defend it?

[Sfonzarelli]

Considering that article is a brief overview of the man's personal biography, and not his philosophical outlook, it's actually a very complimentary one. As complimentary as you can get. It actually whitewashes over a lot of his racism and personal chauvinism and makes him come off rather heroic. You just seem to want to apply the Great Man Theory to Crowley's life.

No, I simply want to be accurate in a biography. You've pretty much admitted it's yellow journalism, so why defend it?

Because it's accurate.

[sororyzbl]

Because it's accurate.

you say the same thing about passion of the christ, don't ya?

[cymatic]

No, I simply want to be accurate in a biography. You've pretty much admitted it's yellow journalism, so why defend it?

Because it's accurate.

Oh come on, you're being silly here. The rotten.com bio is poorly written and full of innacuracies and questionable opinions. It's not gonzo journalism (I'm a huge fan of Hunter S. Thompson), it's just bad writing (I'm not a huge fan of bad writing). It may fit with the overall style of rotten.com, but it's really not a good place to start if you want to know about Crowley. You should know better.