Moderator: Moderators - Public
I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.
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.
Hermitas wrote: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.
Avshalom Binyamin wrote:
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.
.
gerry456 wrote:What, even the god of self-sacrifice and sin?
gerry456 wrote: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
Mathers wrote: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.
Hermitas wrote: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 wrote: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.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[
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.
Middleman wrote:Didn't A.C. say to balance every concept with it's opposite and to sometimes say exactly the opposite of what one means?
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:Balancing every concept with its opposite is the very core of his philosophy.
gerry456 wrote:Yeah AL 1:22 but how am I to take the statements in the entire New Comment for example?
gerry456 wrote:Gnosomai Emauton wrote: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?
gerry456 wrote:Oh you mean the book that informed everything he thought and did?
gerry456 wrote: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.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[Where does the OP mention anything about admiration of the christian gospel??
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests