Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxn!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!cbnap!cbneb!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Crowley's sense of humor. Message-ID: <5551@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 10:45:24 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5551 Posted: Tue Jul 9 10:45:24 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 08:38:13 EDT References: <437@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <5429@cbscc.UUCP>, <452@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <5458@cbscc.UUCP>, <464@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <468@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 68 From Tim Maroney: >No, the figure 150 is from the book, which you'd know if you read things >before criticizing them. But did Crowley actually write it? The original article quoted it as a footnote. Since it speaks of Crowley in the third person I assumed it was added later by someone else: "For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose a victim which contains the highest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim." Yikes, that sounds scary. Then there is the footnote: "It appears from the Magickal Records of Frater Perdurabo [Crowley--ed.] that He made this particular sacrifice on the average of about 150 times a year between 1912 e.v. and 1928 e.v." >I did not tell you the meaning of that passage because it is the antithesis >of occultism to ask someone else to lift a veil for you. Remember that >occultism is the uncovering of what is hidden, the lifting of veils. It has >nothing to do with trusting you or not. I would not tell anyone, because >doing so cannot conceivably lead to virtue. Fine. But you should have said this sooner instead of telling me >If you are willing to believe that Crowley killed 150 people a year in human >sacrifice, then I'm sure nothing I could say would dissuade you. It is >obviously impossible to get away with that. As I said before, the issue wasn't what was said in the footnote. It was whether Crowley viewed human sacrifice as acceptable or not. I am not an occultist, so I don't really care about violating it by asking a question. The reason I asked for the explaination in the first place is because you and others have ridiculed Christians for interpreting your beliefs as Satanic. You insist that they are not, that there is some hidden meaning to obscure passages like this, but straightening the whole thing out "cannot conceivably lead to virtue"? You've spent a lot of time knocking the Bible for moral judgements you think are unjust. Yet here we are supposed to accept something Crowley says as "satire" (someone else's term) and just take your word for it. >I do not know why anyone told >you, unless it was simply that they were tired of hearing this discussion. Actually they responded to my first inquiry. I don't think they are Thelemites (at least, not anymore). They just had it figured out and told me. >I have never twisted your expositions of Christianity. All my statements >about Christianity come from study of the scriptures and history of the >religion. If my knowledge were from second-hand introductions on the >network, I would simply keep silent. I didn't mean to imply that you had. It's just that you said that your expositions of Crowley's writing should have prevented us from interpreting his morality so as to advocate human sacrifice. I've studied Christianity first hand myself and I have given my perspective of it here. That hasn't prevented others from giving their own unfavorable opinion. I don't think it should. You seemed to think that your perspective of Crowley should carry more weight for others than a Christian's does of Christianity. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd