Lonelygirl15

tannhaus wrote:I am a thelemite and find it pretty pathetic that these "creators" are bashing my religion. I did an article earlier this year on thelema:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/2/3/4150/04292

I would hope that the creators will think twice before bashing a genuine religion. It's no less despicable than anti-semitism.

We don't know yet that they're bashing your religion.

Thelema is a very very broad "church" as it were, and while most followers are lovely people (I know a few) there are some questionable aspects of the religion when you research this.

Its kind of like Christianity - Jesus said nothing but nice things about not killing people, loving each other, being nice, but some horrible stuff has been done in his name. Referencing that is not the same as bashing Christianity.

No, there are not questionable things about the religion when you "research" them. There are lies and defamatory statements about the religion. Those are two different things.

tannhaus wrote:No, there are not questionable things about the religion when you "research" them. There are lies and defamatory statements about the religion. Those are two different things.

There is no such thing as a whiter than white religion, and not all the negative things said about Thelema are lies.

Crowley, for example, who has strong links with Thelema. He was a drug addict who forged "ancient texts" for his own ends. He was a mountaineer whose irresponsibility was believed to have led to deaths, and he wrote a lot of really awful poetry about how marvellous bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia were. You have to seriously whitewash history to make him look like a stand up chap.

What's more, he really wouldn't have a problem with me saying this, because he seemed to rather being called "the wickest man alive" by the British press.

That doesn't mean Thelema is a "bad religion". You can't judge Catholicism by the actions of the IRA and you can't judge Thelema by a weirdo like Crowley.

sunflowernik wrote:Crowley, for example, who has strong links with Thelema. He was a drug addict who forged "ancient texts" for his own ends.

You forget that he was prescribed laudunum (opium derivative) as a child for his asthma and then heroin at a later age. Yes, he was an addict. His doctor made him so. That wasn't that uncommon back then when they didn't realize the effects of addiction and that heroin/cocaine were highly addictive and damaging.

sunflowernik wrote:He was a mountaineer whose irresponsibility was believed to have led to deaths,

That is rumor. Give me proof. If you're talking about K5, he told the climbers that if they tried descending at night, they would die. They did.

sunflowernik wrote: and he wrote a lot of really awful poetry about how marvellous bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia were.

He was compared with Swinburne on more than one occasion. His poetry often got acclaim. As far as his more shocking poetry, it was just that...shocking. He loved pushing the envelope...never thinking that any but the fool would take his jokes seriously.

sunflowernik wrote:You have to seriously whitewash history to make him look like a stand up chap.

No, actually you don't. Just don't be so gullible. If you want a very thorough account of Crowley, read Perdurabo by Richard Kaczinski.

sunflowernik wrote:What's more, he really wouldn't have a problem with me saying this, because he seemed to rather being called "the wickest man alive" by the British press.

He toyed with them for a while. After a while he realized what effect this was having...and that most people were being duped and not just those he thought of as fools. He filed a defamation suit, but he had sat by while he had been slandered and libeled for so long that it stood.

That doesn't mean anything though. You're talking about one man that died over 60 years ago and trying to infer something about Thelema from that? That's grasping at straws a bit, don't you think? As many Thelemites are fond of saying: "Crowley is dead".

tannhaus wrote: That doesn't mean anything though. You're talking about one man that died over 60 years ago and trying to infer something about Thelema from that? That's grasping at straws a bit, don't you think? As many Thelemites are fond of saying: "Crowley is dead".

Sorry, you missed my point. I am not at all using Crowley to infer something about Thelema - he is (was) a man, and Thelema is a religion. Every religion has nutcases, murderers and questionable sorts attached to it and this does not mean that the religion itself is creepy.

As I said, I wouldn't judge Catholics by the IRA and I do not judge Thelemites by Crowley.

Recognising the controversies inherent in ANY relgion is not the same as bashing that religion.

I just wanted to post this as an observation. Many of you are saying Thelema has nothing to do with Satan, and while the practice of Thelema may not (I don't know...I don't practice it) there are specific references to the Christian version of Satan in the book Crowley wrote as the Thelemic bible. I pulled this from Chapter 2 of the Book of Law:

22. I am the Snake that giveth Knowledge & Delight and bright glory, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship me take wine and strange drugs whereof I will tell my prophet, & be drunk thereof! They shall not harm ye at all. It is a lie, this folly against self. The exposure of innocence is a lie. Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this.

At the risk of offending Thelemic practicioners, I'm going to call this as I see it. At the very least, Crowley thinks it's a good idea to embrace what Satan offered in the Garden of Eden. If not truly Satanic, it's certainly skimming the surface.

For those of you who keep saying you shouldn't make judgements on a religion based on one person, well Crowley wrote this book that seems to still be the main document used by Thelemites today. Apparently, the distance between Crowley and Thelema is not as wide as some would prefer it to be.

If anyone reads this who has any working knowledge of this religion, please offer another explanation, because this seems pretty clear to me.

See, I don't necessarily see that as a reference to the devil at all. The Snake holds powerful spiritual significance for many different faiths... including the faiths of ancient Egypt, which Thelema borrows heavily... but in the end - it appears to me - that the point of the passage is that "What you've been taught is wrong may not be" rather than anything else.

You have to remember to look at a passage like that with fresh eyes, and not the prejudices that (frankly most of us) have about some of the imagery. Breaking preconcieved notions of symbols was part of the point.

Of course, I'm not a thelemite (and I'm not a fan of Crowley "the man" at all), so I could still be wrong.

Traegorn wrote:See, I don't necessarily see that as a reference to the devil at all. The Snake holds powerful spiritual significance for many different faiths... including the faiths of ancient Egypt, which Thelema borrows heavily...

I disagree with you about what image is being drawn on for that particular passage. One of the other lines (The exposure of innocence is a lie) in the text seems to me to be a specifically Biblical reference. And then there's the line: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this. That sounds like a direct reference to the argument the snake made to Eve in the first place.

I definitely understand your point about looking at things like this with "fresh eyes"...and I was trying to look at it from an objective literary point of view. The symbolism in the Biblical reference is that of a snake as a tempter. The symbolism in this reference is still that of a snake as a tempter.

I don't think I'm being blinded by my personal beliefs and prejudices. I try not to have any, as a matter of fact (prejudices, not personal beliefs), but thanks for pointing that out to me.

Well, I again think it's meant to be metaphor - that not everything you've been taught is wrong or bad necessarily is.

From what I've read, like many other esoteric religions, part of Thelema is about rejecting "codified" morality, and replacing it with a more general philisophical point which could be a replacement guide.

This would still leave things like murder and stealing as wrong, but other things the culture at the time (which, like now, was largely Christian for Crowley) like sex and drugs aren't.

I just think that it isn't meant to be taken literally is all. *shrug*

Minuet wrote: 22. I am the Snake that giveth Knowledge & Delight and bright glory, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship me take wine and strange drugs whereof I will tell my prophet, & be drunk thereof! They shall not harm ye at all. It is a lie, this folly against self. The exposure of innocence is a lie. Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this.

At the risk of offending Thelemic practicioners, I'm going to call this as I see it. At the very least, Crowley thinks it's a good idea to embrace what Satan offered in the Garden of Eden. If not truly Satanic, it's certainly skimming the surface.

What the snake offered in Eden was knowledge and closer union with Yahweh. Many Christian scholars understand the snake and Lucifer/Satan/the Devil to be very different creatures in Christian mythology. They really have very little to do with one another, but that is another story for another time.

Yeah, the serpent was a Gnostic folk hero. In order to discuss Crowley's views on Satan, we'll have to delve into an extensive discussion of Hebraic Judaism, Jewish mysticism, Gnostic/Early Christian mysticism, the connection of Judeo-Christian symbolism to religious symbolism of neighboring cultures, and medieval esoteric practice, all of which Crowley wrote extensively about.

Crowley referred to the process of discovering the Will as the Great Work...which usually includes practices based on Yoga, the Qabalah, Hermeticism, and ceremonial ritual...then crossing the Abyss, a mystical process where the individual ego is "annihilated" (symbolized by the spilling of the blood into the Graal of Babalon)

sunflowernik wrote:He was a drug addict who forged "ancient texts" for his own ends.
... You have to seriously whitewash history to make him look like a stand up chap.

Most of western thought is based on "forged" ancient texts, and it's not that history needs to be whitewashed, but rather that the fanciful accounts of those with their own agendas need to be seen for what they are. Further, aside from Liber Al, the metaphorical language of a poem is hardly a call to action.

Crowley, while a controversial figure, may have been a red herring. Yes, most people would jump to the major religions/ideas that his works have influenced but this is a work of fiction and the authors can do whatever the heck they want with it.

But do you really think the creators of this story line are trying to make this an "evil" story? Yes, Bree's secretive about naming it or the ceremony but nothing has been said that would scream "Danger, Will Robinson. You're religion is evil." This has all been speculation on these types of forums.

But I do think her religion will turn out to be evil and scary. Maybe I'm just being influenced by the cassieiswatching (whether "official" or not) saga.

I did some research into the "Order of Dendarah" "Horus" "Set" etc. Could the LG15 creaters have made up some offshoot religion where Crowley was also involved in Set worshiping? Hmmm..

Well, Crowley was really into Hathor - so you never know.

I have the feeling that Bree is a part of a fictional offshoot of modern Thelema, so this could end up being completely harmless or in the exact opposite direction depending on where the writers take it.