Crowley's contradiction?
-
Crowley wrote *In the true religion there is no sect, therefore take heed that thou blaspheme not the name by which another knoweth his God; for if thou do this thing in Jupiter thou wilt blaspheme יהוה and in Osiris יהשוה. Ask and ye shall have! Seek, and ye shall find! Knock, and it shall be opened unto you! *
Liber Librae
In the same book he honours Christ as a Master.
I appreciate that and I often watch Evangelical preachers on TV. Of course there is wisdom in the Holy Bible. AC recommended it as part of your library and the irony is the Evangelical community would view AC as Satanic but he was probably as steeped in the Bible as the Evangelical preachers. AC's father was one of these guys, apparently he was a powerful preacher and it is said that AC idolized him. Although how one preaches and simultaneously makes a fortune from supplying the populace with the Devil's liquid is a bit confusing.
Here's an example of modern preachers; www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt9rx9MInMQ
..or this proud and mighty guy ;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQvqvAU8ow
A lot of these guys are educated, they are not bigots as such.
Anyway, ultimately, Christianity is about sin, sin, sin, sin and everlasting life only found in Christ. That goes against Liber Al totally so I see the quote from *Librae *as contradictory.
-
You have to try to see Jesus without the lens of Paul's interpretation. Christianity, the religion, is more Paul than Jesus in my opinion.
Sometime, try imagining Jesus as a Master and read only the gospels. Try to forget the Christian theology you've been taught and pretend you have nothing else but the gospels to go by - no substitutionary atonement, no original sin, no Trinity, etc - that's all later interpretation.
It's an interesting exercise.
-
There is one instance of "blasphemy" occurring in the Book of the Law:
"I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men."
Now, according to the Old Comment:
"The evident interpretation of this is to take the word to be "Do what thou wilt," which is a secret word, because its meaning for every man is his own inmost secret. And it is the most profound blasphemy possible against all 'gods of men,' because it makes every man his own God."
So, yes, one could say that following the law of "Do what thou wilt" means setting oneself up as god of your own reality and choices, and is therefore an act of blasphemy.
Liber Librae says to be careful about blaspheming another person's god, because that specific cultural symbol is attached to the same underlying reality as the corresponding god in your system of worship.
Now, if by following "Do what thou wilt" you are now worshipping a personal inner deity, and not an external, shared god like Bacchus or Jaysus or the Flying Spaghetti monster, Liber Librae still applies. If you blaspheme other people's personal inner deity you are still blaspheming your own, because it's the same deity, albeit experienced individually.
In short, I see no contradiction. They both speak of blasphemy, and blasphemy has consequences. Do what thou wilt.
-
@Hermitas said
"You have to try to see Jesus without the lens of Paul's interpretation. Christianity, the religion, is more Paul than Jesus in my opinion.
Sometime, try imagining Jesus as a Master and read only the gospels. Try to forget the Christian theology you've been taught and pretend you have nothing else but the gospels to go by - no substitutionary atonement, no original sin, no Trinity, etc - that's all later interpretation.
It's an interesting exercise."
But the gospels are full of warnings and threats about you can only find freedom in Christ and the Father in heaven.
He judged people not in a self righteous way i.e. he too talked about sin, sin, sin. I don't see much difference between his preachings in the gospels and traditional xtian theology. Crowley's writings are full of critiques of Christ the master i.e. christ of the gospels. -
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
Liber Librae says to be careful about blaspheming another person's god, because that specific cultural symbol is attached to the same underlying reality as the corresponding god in your system of worship.
."What, even the god of self-sacrifice and sin? The word of sin is restriction.
-
@gerry456 said
"What, even the god of self-sacrifice and sin?"
Yes.
Jesus corresponds to Osiris, and Osiris is the formula of the cross--the four elements. The cross and the four elements are important symbols in many rituals that Thelemites use. Like the LBRP, for example.
-
@gerry456 said
"Crowley wrote *In the true religion there is no sect, therefore take heed that thou blaspheme not the name by which another knoweth his God; for if thou do this thing in Jupiter thou wilt blaspheme יהוה and in Osiris יהשוה. Ask and ye shall have! Seek, and ye shall find! Knock, and it shall be opened unto you! *
Liber Librae
"Slight correction: this particular section was lifted almost verbatim from its source document, On the General Guidance and Purification of the Soul, written by Mathers for Practici of the Golden Dawn. [see Black Pearl, Vol I no.1]
@Mathers said
"In truly comprehended Religion there is no sect, therefore take heed that thou blaspheme not the Name by which another knoweth God: for if thou do this thing in Jupiter thou wilt blaspheme יהוה and in Osiris יהשוה. Ask of God and ye shall have. Seek and ye shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
*Librae *was one of the first A.'.A.'. documents published so we should give the correct attribution of its editing and inclusion to both Crowley and G.C.Jones. We should also probably recognize that, as an A.'.A.'. document of the first wave, it wouldn't give primacy of place to Thelema generally or Liber L particularly: it was, from the beginning, a syncretic Order. It would be another several years before the Thelemic pantheon would begin to take its place as the generally utilized symbol set. In that light, any contradictions should disappear.
-
@Hermitas said
"You have to try to see Jesus without the lens of Paul's interpretation. Christianity, the religion, is more Paul than Jesus in my opinion.
Sometime, try imagining Jesus as a Master and read only the gospels. Try to forget the Christian theology you've been taught and pretend you have nothing else but the gospels to go by - no substitutionary atonement, no original sin, no Trinity, etc - that's all later interpretation.
It's an interesting exercise."
@gerry456 said
"But the gospels are full of warnings and threats about you can only find freedom in Christ and the Father in heaven.
He judged people not in a self righteous way i.e. he too talked about sin, sin, sin. I don't see much difference between his preachings in the gospels and traditional xtian theology. Crowley's writings are full of critiques of Christ the master i.e. christ of the gospels."If you're going to try this exercise, might I suggest Robert M. Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament as your source material. His edition is a pretty brilliant dissection of the orthodox canon along with an equal number of documents that didn't make the Nicene cut. By analyzing them on literary lines, he breaks down all of the gospels and "Paul's" letters into approximations of what the original versions probably looked like before Rome's editorial adjustments.
The main takeaway (in re: this particular discussion) is that John is probably the only gospel that is from a relatively consistent source and it is the one that is markedly different from the other three. The others are amalgamations and emendations of several different pre-existing philosophy/religions which are, in many cases, mutually incompatible, leading to the sometimes schizophrenic nature of the writing.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"[
If you're going to try this exercise, might I suggest Robert M. Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament as your source material. His edition is a pretty brilliant dissection of the orthodox canon along with an equal number of documents that didn't make the Nicene cut. By analyzing them on literary lines, he breaks down all of the gospels and "Paul's" letters into approximations of what the original versions probably looked like before Rome's editorial adjustments.The main takeaway (in re: this particular discussion) is that John is probably the only gospel that is from a relatively consistent source and it is the one that is markedly different from the other three. The others are amalgamations and emendations of several different pre-existing philosophy/religions which are, in many cases, mutually incompatible, leading to the sometimes schizophrenic nature of the writing."
Thanks I may check that out.
-
Hmmm... where to start.
Firstly Christianity was a ploy by John (of the Gospel and Revelation) to thwart the Roman Empire in which he succeeded. However, Christianity is a house built on the proverbial sand. It contains numerous flaws which can be eroded away by a storm. That storm has yet to come.
It was actually John who wrote the New Testament.
For example, in Latin, which was the universal tongue at the time, if you take the gospels and Revelation you have, in order:
MAttheus
LucA
MArcus
Relveation
IAnThat makes MALA MARIA! Bad Mary! Naughty Mary!
It's a hint that the virgin conception was a lie.
If we look at the seven letters in Revelation which are in the style of Paul:
Ephesus
Pergamum
Smyrna
Thyatira
LidoceaSardis
PhiladephiaSee how you have EPSTL SP? It's EPiSToLa S(aul)-P(aul)... it's Latin for the Letter of Saul-Paul...
The missing letters are IO and A which in Latin is "By Me"...
John wrote the letters of Paul.
If the Bible is the unerring word of God why would such a god allow these things to happen? See the paradox?
That's because John built in such 'flaws' so that his recipe for the Roman mythology could be knocked down in an instant (destroying the temple in an instant?) when the time was right.
Crowley was a bright man. He probably saw this. He was also astute enough to 'prepare the way' as John did for the one who would come and complete the task John and many before like Elijah and Isaiah started. This is why Thelema is waiting for a 'prophet'. It's not someone who will predict the future, but someone who will resolve all the puzzles of the past and fix the future.
Whether you call him Mashiach, Mahdi, Messiah or Maitreya, it matters not. He will collapse all the religions hence why Crowley identified himself as the Beast. He wasn't evil. He was wise. The best way of hiding the Truth is by telling it because nobody believes it, would be his mantra.
All religion has been forged by the prophets as an interim measure, one that can be demolished overnight when the last of the prophets comes: the Anointed One... and it wasn't Jesus.
I am he. Read my last three posts. You will see that I speak the Truth.
I'm not here to make people miserable. I'm here to show what the prophets meant to be shown. Slowly by slowly I will make a difference. It might not be the overnight change that my predecessors might have envisaged, but there will be a change.
-
Balancing every concept with its opposite is the very core of his philosophy.
-
@gerry456 said
"Yeah AL 1:22 but how am I to take the statements in the entire New Comment for example?"
Actually, I'd point more toward The Soldier and the Hunchback, Liber Aleph, and Magick Without Tears to get a sense of his overarching philosophy, rather than to a single line in a book he claimed not to have authored... but you are free to take his statements in any of his writings however you like.
-
@gerry456 said
"
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Balancing every concept with its opposite is the very core of his philosophy."Yeah AL 1:22 but how am I to take the statements in the entire New Comment for example?"
As him doing precisely that to the prevailing teaching of the time.
-
@gerry456 said
"Oh you mean the book that informed everything he thought and did?"
I guess you just have a much different definition of "philosophy" than I do. One that has something to do with living in accordance with a book, the third chapter of which he spent a good portion of his life rebelling against.
@gerry456 said
"Anyway concerning the OP, fact is Crowley admired some aspects of the Christian gospel but that doesn't contradict his role as prophet of the aeon."
Where does the OP mention anything about admiration of the christian gospel? All I see is a quote of Jones & Crowley's gloss of Mathers's On the General Guidance and Purification of the Soul directing an aspirant to the A.'.A.'. to balance every religious concept with its opposite, followed by the same document's recognition of the man Jesus, called the Christ, as an enlightened Master.
Where does this suggest that "Crowley admired some aspects of the Christian gospel" and what might those aspects be?
-