Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!uunet!uunet!in2.uu.net!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.wwa.com!pool3-042.wwa.com!user From: abraxas@wwa.com (abraxas) Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.rock-n-roll.metal.death,alt.rock-n-roll.metal.black,alt.magick.tantra,alt.magick,alt.evil,alt.christnet,alt.blasphemy, Subject: Re: Aleister Crowley and Black Magick (was Re: BlACk MaGiCk) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 12:07:01 -0600 Organization: yttrx productions Lines: 143 Message-ID: References: <6107cc$7227.2d5@news.rockbridge.net> <4q4s0f$lvo@news.preferred.com> <4q97hl$kod@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <4qmlsn$jqv@dsk92.itg.ti.com> <31CF3DBF.2A41@cyberlogin.com> <31D09101.6F7B@cris.com> <4qsq6o$gv@insosf1.netins.net> <4qud7b$lot@blackice.winternet.com> <4t5osb$ohh@jobe.shell.portal.com> <4ta0nj$be8@jobe.shell.portal.com> <4tfeaj$s4r@jobe.shell.portal.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool3-042.wwa.com X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.1.8 Xref: shell.portal.com alt.satanism:48226 alt.rock-n-roll.metal.death:35611 alt.rock-n-roll.metal.black:4754 alt.magick.tantra:2385 alt.magick:79997 alt.evil:28162 alt.christnet:126886 alt.blasphemy:11459 In article <4tfeaj$s4r@jobe.shell.portal.com>, tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (xiwangmu) wrote: > 49960728 AA1 > > abraxas@wwa.com (abraxas): > #>#>#Crowley's method of calling himself the Great Beast was usually sufficient > #>#>#in exposing those who lack the intelligence to grasp what he attempted to > #>#>#convey. For example, if someone spends their time whining about Crowley > #>#>#being the Great Beast and Satanism and such, they obviously haven't read > #>#>#him. For example, the motto of Crowley's order was "The Method of > #>#>#Science - The Aim of Religion". > > tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (xiwangmu): > #>#> I'm unsure how this last follows. whining might indicate a difficulty > #>#> with Crowley's obvious Satanic leanings, or his obviously Christian > #>#> (biblical) hangups. > > abraxas@wwa.com (abraxas): > #># He had no satanic leanings. You are incorrect. > > #> by what meaning of 'satanic' do you support this statement? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > please respond to this. > Alright. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Crowley himself gave any serious belief to the existance of a being called SATAN, who personifies the "evil" (sic) aspects of SOME western belief systems. > > #> obviously if he called himself 'the Great Beast', > > abraxas@wwa.com (abraxas) writes: > # he called himself the great beast at first to freak out his mom.....:) > > now who hasn't done their reading? his mom applied this to him actually. > if you will check out his diaries ('hagiography'), you see this to be true. > I know that his mother supposedly started it. My point is that Crowley continued it, apparently at first to spook christians, including his mother. > > #> signed his paperwork with various '666's > > # He did this because of its many gematriac meanings. > # Do some research on them, you may be surprised. > > I don't care about the stoopid gematria. my point is made. Satanists do > such things all the time. > You cannot discuss anything related to ANYTHING Crowley wrote without discussing Gematria. If you choose not to discuss how Gematria infiltrates the work of Crowley, then this discussion is over. Sorry about that.....:) And you have no point. People who call themselves "Satanists" do this all the time. I drive a motorcycle. There was a rapist that lived down the street from me for a bit when I was a child. He drove a motorcycle too. Am I a rapist? Your logic is seriously flawed. > > #> and identified his Holy Guardian Angel with Satan, > > # Source please. > > _Magick_ or _Liber ABBA_. > Not good enough. Show me a reference to SATAN...not Choronzon (different), not Aiwaz (different)...SATAN. Page numbers and paragraphs please. And if you could tell me the edition of the work, it would be easier to compare it with my own. thanks. > > #> among others, then you must mean something rather peculiar. please > #> explain how I am 'incorrect'. > > # I believe I just have.....:) > > why don't you save us all the trouble and explain what you think 'satanism' > is such that you may continue to make these silly arguments and state that > Crowley wasn't a satanist? > Depends on whom you ask. Crowley was not a Satanist in the obvious sense. He may be identified as a Satanist by a select few weirdos :) that are walking around these days, because of his love of extreme pleasure, his affinity for things both dark and macabre and light and nice, and his apparent belief in moral relativism. (as far as HE went. He seemed to have very little tolerance for moralities that were different than his) But if yer lookin' fer someone who worshipped the devil and did human sacrifice and all that horse-shit....Hell, if yer looking for someone who was even small minded enough to believe that the Christian Devil existed, you got the wrong guy. > > #>#># Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law, > #>#># Love Is The Law, Love Under Will > > #>#> I'm unsure where you quoting these things. they aren't in the Evil Book > #>#> like that. > > #># What evil book? > > #> come now, we all [know] what those centres of pestilence discuss. > > # What pestilence? > > heh, some Crowley-reader. have a look any of Crowley's various > publications surrounding 'Centre of Pestilence' and see for yourself > of what I speak (and will not!). > Actually, there is only one. My comment was meant to draw the attention of those with different theories of exactly what the Great Beast meant by this. And it worked.....:P > Do what you please, for that is my Law. > mu > -- mu.....thats the answer to some stoopid zen koan, isnt it? What was the question again? -----bttrx