Lonelygirl15

Posted: **Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:23 pm**

derbygirl wrote:
maxomai wrote:
Quick note to the anti-Thelemites: human sacrifice and cannibalism are a blind for something else. No, I won't tell you what it is. I will tell you that it is perfectly legal. If you're going to make accusations to the contrary, you'd better damn well have some solid proof.
According to Israel Regardie in his biography of Aleister Crowley "THE EYE IN THE TRIANGLE,"

Human sacrifice is a reference to homosexuality or sex in general.
When asked about sacrifice, crowley responds (paraphrasing) that it should be a young man, fully healthy, etc. and that he does it hundreds of times each year.

Regardie claims that this was a reference to homosexual sex on Crowley's part, I'm inclined to think its about any kind of sex, bc there's no way Crowley buggered that many boys.

Posted: **Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:41 pm**

derbygirl wrote:
maxomai wrote:
Quick note to the anti-Thelemites: human sacrifice and cannibalism are a blind for something else. No, I won't tell you what it is. I will tell you that it is perfectly legal. If you're going to make accusations to the contrary, you'd better damn well have some solid proof.
OK I am sooooo tired of reading this. Why even mention it at all if you're not willing to discuss it further? Why has everything got to be so secretive? It's no wonder why people get negative ideas about your religion--people are GOING to be suspicious of your activities when you won't even discuss it. Sorry if this upsets you, but that's my two cents.

I am not the one who brought up the topic. If you want to know why the topic arose, ask the ones who did bring this up.

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:25 am**

Errr, you missed my point completely. You didn't HAVE to respond, but the fact is you did. The point of the thread is to ask Thelemites about their religion, as some of us truly are interested and willing to learn. It doesn't help when you and others give mysterious, incomplete answers. I mean, why even respond at all then? If you don't want your religion to be missrepresented, then just tell us what it's all about, for pete's sake. That's all I'm saying.

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:41 am**

I don't understand why Thelemites would try and be secretive about this information. It is a well-known fact that Crowley considered masturbation to be a "human sacrifice". Cannibalism is consumption of the "sacrifice".

I make no judgments, so take from this information whatever you will, but this is what they are refusing to tell you.

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:01 am**

I shall also point out that Crowley's interpretation is generally believed to have come from the biblical account of Onan. Some denominations of Christianity use the same account to denounce masturbation as a sin. However, the Judaic writings take the account at it's face value: Onan was slain for refusing to continue his brother's family line.

Genesis 38:1-10

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:57 am**

derbygirl wrote:Errr, you missed my point completely. You didn't HAVE to respond, but the fact is you did. The point of the thread is to ask Thelemites about their religion, as some of us truly are interested and willing to learn. It doesn't help when you and others give mysterious, incomplete answers. I mean, why even respond at all then? If you don't want your religion to be missrepresented, then just tell us what it's all about, for pete's sake. That's all I'm saying.

Well, on the one hand you have him not wanting to divulge everything. You criticize that. I came straight out and gave answers. I was insulted. So, either way and people still aren't happy.

In a lot of your older traditions, it's also customary to NOT come out and say everything. The idea being that by the time you do the research and come up with the answer, you have enough background knowledge to be able to put it into context.

The answers are not laid out in front of you. Even in Crowley's books..things are missing. It's not all written out. If someone is willing to learn, they make the contacts needed to learn and they learn.

But, even then, some things cannot be told. You have to experience them and come to the realizations for yourself. That's one reason it's called the occult. Occult is a word that comes from the latin word occultus, which means "things secretive or hidden". You can point someone towards them, but you can't lead them there. They have to come to the truth themselves.

As far as what Ravensgrace said, that is also true... but I'll explain one reason why he called it cannibalism and human sacrifice rather than come right out and say what he meant. One word: censors. If someone was to openly print sexual acts at the time, his books would have been banned and seized by the censors. However, you could write about sacrificing children and get away with it.

I personally think that says a lot about the victorian mentality.

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:17 am**

Learn from the Christians one thing...judging and insulting others based on the fact that they do not know your ways and are not of your ways...leads you to feel persecuted at all turns. This is supposed to be open communication. If you do not want to answer, then don't. If you do, do it. This is the internet, posting anywhere means you should be open to the idea that not everyone responding will be kind. That doesn't take away the fact that many of us here are not judging, just wishing some light to be shed on a subject we know little, if anything about.

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:37 am**

JerseyJohnny wrote: What constitutes "inference", and on who's part?

Inference, noun: the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation.
It's the second step in a deductive argument, which consists of:
1) premises
2) inference
3) conclusion

On who's part? The person that attempts to reach a conclusion is the one that needs to infer it.

JerseyJohnny wrote: What particular "standard of judgment" are we talking about here? There have been MANY throughout the history of philosophy, which is the basis for "logic".

Seriously do you really want to go there? There're various views on how to define logic, and the dispute doesn't keep people from using it or teach it in academic institutions in a very coherent way. I really don't need to point out to you what constitutes a rational thought.
Your problem is that you solve the inconsistancy that arises from your points of view- which appear very sound to you- and the ones of atheists by saying that there're different standarts of judgment, which is why you think that everything I wrote in the definition is relative.
If you really want to, go to wikipedia and type 'logic' in the search feature.

JerseyJohnny wrote: based on philosophy, from which logic is derived

Logic is not derieved from philosophy! Logic is not philosophy, it's a tool used by philosophy to reach its points of view. Philosophy is not logic. Philosophy uses logic. This is not about a clash of philosophies, call it 'rational thought' if it makes it easiers for you to make a distinction.

JerseyJohnny wrote: First of all, I'm not here to discuss "intelligent design" with a moron like you. Second, "concrete proof" is nonsense, as are the small-minded people such as yourself who believe there is such a thing.

I suggest you drop the attitude. Your anger is way out of proportion and has to do more with your associations to a personal attack than any actual attack that was made.
As for concrete proof, it exist as long as it refers to things of concrete nature. If there's a tree, it's there. That's indesputable.

JerseyJohnny wrote: I love how you talk about the "leap of faith", a concept which is so obviously lost on you, yet you use the catch-phrase to in your own pathetic attempt to portray the (il)logic of others. "Leap of faith" is a concept developed within the philosophy of Kierkegaard.

"The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love. It is not so much a rational decision, as it is transcending rationality in favour of something more uncanny, that is, faith."
-Wikipedia
How have I misunderstood that?

JerseyJohnny wrote:It doesn't pertain to naturalistic philosophy.

Again, that's your biggest problem, you think this is about different philosophies. It's about how atheists haven't heard any conclusive proof for the existance of God or anything else that has religious nature.

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:39 am**

BlackRiven wrote:
JerseyJohnny wrote: What constitutes "inference", and on who's part?
Inference, noun: the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation.
It's the second step in a deductive argument, which consists of:
1) premises
2) inference
3) conclusion

On who's part? The person that attempts to reach a conclusion is the one that needs to infer it.

JerseyJohnny wrote: What particular "standard of judgment" are we talking about here? There have been MANY throughout the history of philosophy, which is the basis for "logic".

Seriously do you really want to go there? There're various views on how to define logic, and the dispute doesn't keep people from using it or teach it in academic institutions in a very coherent way. I really don't need to point out to you what constitutes a rational thought.
Your problem is that you solve the inconsistancy that arises from your points of view- which appear very sound to you- and the ones of atheists by saying that there're different standarts of judgment, which is why you think that everything I wrote in the definition is relative.
If you really want to, go to wikipedia and type 'logic' in the search feature.

JerseyJohnny wrote: Again, based on philosophy, from which logic is derived, all "proof" can be disputed by the application of different philosophy.
I'd love to see an example of that.

JerseyJohnny wrote: Seems to me that your only "logic" is that which is based on a naturalistic philosophy. That's fine. But you ought to realize that your philosophy is not the only one out there, nor is it intrinsically NOR extrinsically "superior" nor any more "logical" than others.
Philosophy is not logic. Philosophy uses logic. This is not about a clash of philosophies, call it 'rational thought' if it makes it easiers for you to make a distinction.

JerseyJohnny wrote: First of all, I'm not here to discuss "intelligent design" with a moron like you. Second, "concrete proof" is nonsense, as are the small-minded people such as yourself who believe there is such a thing.
I suggest you drop the attitude. Your anger is way out of proportion and has to do more with your associations to a personal attack than any actual attack that was made.
As for concrete proof, it exist as long as it refers to things of concrete nature. If there's a tree, it's there. That's indesputable.

JerseyJohnny wrote: I love how you talk about the "leap of faith", a concept which is so obviously lost on you, yet you use the catch-phrase to in your own pathetic attempt to portray the (il)logic of others. "Leap of faith" is a concept developed within the philosophy of Kierkegaard.
"The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love. It is not so much a rational decision, as it is transcending rationality in favour of something more uncanny, that is, faith."
-Wikipedia
How have I misunderstood that?

JerseyJohnny wrote:It doesn't pertain to naturalistic philosophy.
Again, that's your biggest problem, you think this is about different philosophies. It's about how atheists haven't heard any conclusive proof for the existance of God or anything else that has religious nature.

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:47 am**

93

tannhaus wrote: Also, a first initiation is more of a statement of intent...so the idea that she would have to learn a bunch of stuff..including ENOCHIAN of all things...is just ludicrous.

Yeah, I don't think I've uttered a *word* of enochian in a group Thelemic situation. Hebrew, arabic, latin, and greek, but never enochian.

tannhaus wrote:And the idea that she's having problems so they get someone from her group to "counsel" her? THAT is laughable.

That part is actually the most realistic. OTO Grand Lodge has been doing a lot of pastoral counseling workshops lately, and I know that I have benefitted from talking to one of our clergymen about personal issues.

93s

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:49 am**

sororyzbl wrote:That part is actually the most realistic. OTO Grand Lodge has been doing a lot of pastoral counseling workshops lately, and I know that I have benefitted from talking to one of our clergymen about personal issues.

I think I read something about that in the Link.

That's just....strange.

I don't think I'd want them knowing my personal stuff

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:49 am**

Since the Order of Denderah was brought up...a lot of us have pretty well abandoned the idea of her being Thelemic...but maybe the creators have incorporated different things from Thelema and other religions to make their own religion for Bree. Does this seem to make more sense? I'm still interested in Thelema, but mainly because I just like to learn things about other religions and philosophies.

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:51 am**

JerseyJohnny wrote:It's always funny to me when they deny the rituals and baby-sacrifices and virgin sacrifices and ritual sex orjies they have. I mean, of COURSE there going to LIE about it! LOLMAO, does anyone expect them to be like "Oh, OK yeah, you figured it out, we kill babies and eat them, I guess our secret is out!" LOLMAO! Of course they won't admit it becaue then they Goverment will be after them for buying human beings to kill and eat! I don't know if eating them is against the law but buying and killing them sure is!

You know, Thelemites will always deny those things, because they're not true, but we never deny that your mother is the biggest scarlet harlot in the OTO. Every Grady, Jack, and Aleister has been in that mother of abominations.

Love is the Law, love under will

...and love under your mom.

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:53 am**

Kasdeja wrote:Since the Order of Denderah was brought up...a lot of us have pretty well abandoned the idea of her being Thelemic...but maybe the creators have incorporated different things from Thelema and other religions to make their own religion for Bree. Does this seem to make more sense?

I'm willing to bet what they're actually doing is trying to play on the popularity of Crowley. They spell out Thelema in greek at the bottom of the website, use a unicursal hexagram, and have the picture of Crowley, but there's no indication that they really know anything about Thelema.

So, I'd be willing to bet it's just trying to use Crowley to get popularity.

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:54 am**

sororyzbl wrote:You know, Thelemites will always deny those things, because they're not true, but we never deny that your mother is the biggest scarlet harlot in the OTO. Every Grady, Jack, and Aleister has been in that mother of abominations.

Love is the Law, love under will

...and love under your mom.

Thank you Sister. I just laughed until I cried.

Lonelygirl15

Calling All Thelemites

Re: maxomai

Re: maxomai