Anyone to counter a hostile prayer?
Andrew Newell
I got this from:
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre,alt.atheism
...and I thought it might be interesting to spread this around.
From: pmol...@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: TO ALL WHO KNOW HOW TO PRAY!!!!
>
>I couldn't resist this. Pray, I say, p-p-p-p-pray. All the way
>from rec.music.cliff-richard^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hchristian:
>
>greenw...@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>>To everyone out here who knows how to Shake Rattle and Role the throne of the
>>Almighty God:
>
>>I have a major prayer request. I need all of you who can pray to do so. For
>>the past 3 months, I have been communicating with one of the most influencial
>>homosexuals on our campus. His name is Craig. I met him today in his dorm
>>room and had the opportunity to set up a meeting time. Before that we had
>>just
>>been writing over email. But now I have the chance to meet him in person.
>>Now
>>I know that there are many loving, compassionate, caring Christians in this
>>room who know how to pray and know how to do major intercessory prayer. This
>>guy is gay. But his situation is not that he is gay, but that he is so
>>Anti-God. I am pleading with those of you who love God and want to see a
>>major
>>public person come to Christ. I care about this guy. I care about his soul.
>>I care about whether he goes to heaven or hell. I want everybody and any
>Christian to right now...get on your knees and pray for Craig. And put him
>>on
>>your church prayer list. We are meeting this Friday...May 7,1993 at 1:00 pm
>>Central Standard Time.
>
>>Pacific Standard Time: pray at 11:00
>>Mountain Standard Time: pray at 12:00
>>Central Standard Time: pray at 1:00
>>Eastern Standard Time: pray at 2:00
>>This is very important!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I need literally over a hundred
>>people nation wide to pray for the Salvation of Craig at the University of
>>Northern Iowa. He is so influencial that if he got saved, he would literally
>>take tons of people with him. He needs Jesus so badly! PLEASE! PLEASE!
>>PLEASE
>>PRAY FOR CRAIG.
>> Also pray for my protection. Pray that God will guard my mind, that
>>he
>>will give me the words to say, and that the Holy Spirit will penetrate the
>>heart of Craig, pour his love upon him and reveal himself to him. I plead
>>with
>>you all, pray for Craig.
>>Also I would ask that you not share this with anyone who is not a
>>convidential
>>praying Christian. If it got into the wrong hands, the cause of Christ would
>>be diminished as far as Craig is concerned. Thanks. You people are
>>beautiful
>>Now if you prayed for Craig just now, e mail me show ing your support
>
>>Aaron
This seems to me a case of a bunch of people trying to coerce
Craig into changing his ways with their prayer-magic.
...so it seemed fitting to let people know so that these
coercive prayers could be countered.
Happy trails,
Andrew
Scott A Mayo
>This seems to me a case of a bunch of people trying to coerce
>Craig into changing his ways with their prayer-magic.
>...so it seemed fitting to let people know so that these
>coercive prayers could be countered.
They can't be countered, and they are not magick. Look
at it "non-magically" and you'll see why.
Admittedly, having a buch of people pray at the same time
sounds superficially similiar
in many ways to a bunch of folk doing a
ritual. But the mindset of the people doing the prayer
would be quite different. They are all praying to God
(presumably - let's take that as a given) and are
agreeing to pray at the same time as a show of support
for each other.
It isn't going to make their prayers more effectatious
and they *know* it won't make their prayers more effectatious;
God is not impressed with synchronous activity. OK, if
you want to argue that any activity done as a show of support
is and must be magickal, fine, but I can't make much sense
of that sort of argument.
In the meantime, and to these folk, prayer is only a conversation
with God. If God chooses to hear and act, it is His choice.
It is not a coercive situation, because God is not generally
coercable. These folk, praying in concert, cannot *force*
a result in someone by using God has their hammer - and the folk
praying are probably very aware of the fact.
As to proposing to block or counter such prayers, how could this
be done? It is a pretty fundamental Christian teaching that nothing
will stand between a prayer and the God it is directed to. You
cannot prevent God from hearing it, and if God chooses to respond
you *certainly* can do nothing to prevent that. Of course, you can
say that Christians have this wrong and you can too do things to
block prayers - whereupon I say go to it and good luck.
I'm posting here about this because I see a fundamental misunderstanding
of the approach the Christians are taking. If you are proposing to
interfere with it, at least you should understand what you are
trying to interfere with, anyway. I'm posting back to alt.pagan
and not the other listed groups because I've gotten a decent
set of responses to postings here in the past (mostly :-) and
I have no business at all in the other groups.
Hope this helps clarify things. You can argue that the concerted
prayers are misguided in intent, but not that they can be blocked,
or that the effect on Craig will be determined by the number of
spellcasters or ritualists pulling on each side. Christian prayer
don't work that way, in my experience.
Simon Richardson
> >
> >>To everyone out here who knows how to Shake Rattle and Role the throne of the
> >>Almighty God:
> >
> >>I have a major prayer request.
> >> [much ranting deleted]
> >>PRAY FOR CRAIG.
> >> Also pray for my protection. Pray that God will guard my mind, that
> >>he
> >>will give me the words to say, and that the Holy Spirit will penetrate the
> >>heart of Craig, pour his love upon him and reveal himself to him. I plead
> >>with
> >>you all, pray for Craig.
> >>Also I would ask that you not share this with anyone who is not a
> >>convidential
> >>praying Christian. If it got into the wrong hands, the cause of Christ would
> >>be diminished as far as Craig is concerned. Thanks. You people are
> >>beautiful
Sad
> >>Now if you prayed for Craig just now, e mail me show ing your support
Oops
> >
> >>Aaron
Sadly, I e-mailed him. Anybody any idea how to contact Craig, and show him
all this bull?
Simon
---
"A thousand violins cloy very rapidly without percussion"
John Fowles
Richard M. Romanowski
Yvone Frost. They got really upset once, when an exoteric Christian
congregation used group-prayer to cast hexes -- or possibly counter-
hexes. It was fine for pagans and "witches" to do it, but no fair
if Christians do it...
(:
They can dish it out....but they can't take it.
If we reserve the right to use esoteric powers to change the
world, how justified are we in complaining when people we personally
dislike do the same thing?
rmr
Shawn Clayton Knight
The word of Sin is Restriction.
Well, at 2:00 (the specified time in Eastern zone, here), I'l l be
taking a final, but I intend to pause, and pray to the God I worship
that Craig be given the wisdom and strength to find his True Will and
discover his proper path through the universe. If that's Christian,
then so be it; if not Christian, then so be it. I suggest those who
read this message join me in that. If it fits their Will.
Love is the law, love under will.
-shawn
Paul Cass
>
> If we reserve the right to use esoteric powers to change the
>world, how justified are we in complaining when people we personally
>dislike do the same thing?
>
we are we....and they are they.
--
* * * * * * *
"It is possible to join forces, to identify common goals, and to agree on
common action." - U.N. World Commission on Development and Environment
cas...@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
Rosemary Webb
>Andrew Newell <TAN...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>This seems to me a case of a bunch of people trying to coerce
>>Craig into changing his ways with their prayer-magic.
>>...so it seemed fitting to let people know so that these
>>coercive prayers could be countered.
>
>They can't be countered, and they are not magick. Look
>at it "non-magically" and you'll see why.
>
The technology they are using is what I call 'unconscious' magic
rather than 'conscious' magic. If a group of dedicated individuals
come together, concentrate on one goal, and then feed power to a
skilled magician (preacher/prayer leader) who then directs the
power to an end - yes, Xtians can work magic just by 'praying
together.' On the other hand, it may just be a bunch of tranced
out dunces who feel nice and relaxed later, with no objective
effects. The observable actions are identical. (I say this
because I learned to do ritual magic while attending Catholic
elementary school. Heaven help ((;) the person who got the
movers and shakers of the Altar Society incensed enough to
call a novena! These 70+-year-old women could and did work
miracles on occasion - but *they* decided when, and they didn't
do it often. The younger ladies, who held novenas monthly,
didn't have nearly as good a record of effective results.)
Note that Scott's point about what Christians believe about how
prayers work is irrelevant - you can still make a car run
even if you think you have to invoke the demon in the engine
while you turn the key in the ignition. What's important is that
you turn the key in the ignition.
Assuming that they can work effective magic, how to counter it?
I've found that specific 'counter spells' typically don't work,
and often backfire. Instead, I find more general work to promote
the effects opposite to the hex work nicely, and are not limited
to the one (seen) danger. In this case, possibly promoting an
awareness and love of one's own beliefs, and an awareness of
all the other hostile influences there are that are trying to
control us. Cast in the form most pleasing to you, perform
the AM on the day before, the day of the confrontation, and the
sunset of that day. Follow up by discussing your beliefs here,
to help articulate and solidify them, thus dispelling any lingering
taint of Xtian sheepdom. (My apologies to the thinking followers of
Jeshua ben Josef here on the net - but these folks sound like they've already
merged their consciousnesses with Jehovah god, and are acting just
like him already.)
Of course, these are my suggestions and opinions. Feel free to take
or discard, as you choose
Dana K Williams
>
>Sadly, I e-mailed him. Anybody any idea how to contact Craig, and show him
>all this bull?
>
>
> Simon
I have some contacts at the University of Northern Iowa, if this situation
is well publicized I might be able to get ahold of him. Sadly, I did not
read this earlier, although depending on the length of their meeting, it
might be still be going on right now. I will be praying for patience for
Craig, although he must have plenty to have been corresponding with this
guy for three months. I'll also pray for open-mindedness for the original
poster, but that probably won't do much good.
On a related note, has anyone else noticed fundamentalists wanting counts
of how many people are following their prayer instructions? We had a
looney in Ames a few months ago who taught the crowd this really simplistic
prayer, and then wanted everyone to turn in a little card saying "I really
prayed that prayer" if they did. Now this guy wants e-mail from people
who pray his prayer. Is there some organization giving points or what?
Dana
mark
Now if we just knew who this Craig *was*, or if there's someone on that
campus who knows who he is, it would be a lot better to counter this
prayerfest by *telling* him about it. Remember, sometimes, the best way
is the simplest.
mark (who didn't see this till 14:40 CST Fri)
mark
>
>>This seems to me a case of a bunch of people trying to coerce
>>Craig into changing his ways with their prayer-magic.
>>...so it seemed fitting to let people know so that these
>>coercive prayers could be countered.
>
>They can't be countered, and they are not magick. Look
>at it "non-magically" and you'll see why.
>Hope this helps clarify things. You can argue that the concerted
>prayers are misguided in intent, but not that they can be blocked,
>or that the effect on Craig will be determined by the number of
>spellcasters or ritualists pulling on each side. Christian prayer
>don't work that way, in my experience.
Unless, of course, you don't accept any such deity, and view it as the
psi energy of all those folks attempting to control or influence his
mind. *Then*, it just might make a difference.
mark
mark
>Yvone Frost. They got really upset once, when an exoteric Christian
>congregation used group-prayer to cast hexes -- or possibly counter-
>hexes. It was fine for pagans and "witches" to do it, but no fair
>if Christians do it...
>
>
> If we reserve the right to use esoteric powers to change the
>world, how justified are we in complaining when people we personally
>dislike do the same thing?
>
Excuse me? *I* don't reserve any right, nor do I know any other pagans
who reserve the right, to use esoteric powers *to influence an individual
without their knowledge or consent*. That does constitute brain washing.
Here on alt.pagan, we even saw a discussion, a while ago, about whether
it was kosher to perform a pagan healing ritual for someone's relative
who was xian, and opposed to paganism, who was seriously ill.
mark
"The only people with the right to use "we" are kings, editors, and
people with tapeworms." - Mark Twain (Sam Clemmins)
Simon Richardson
I wrote:
> Sadly, I e-mailed him. Anybody any idea how to contact Craig, and show him
> all this bull?
I think we are in agreement here. I have also been praying for *Craig*, not
for another hit (or miss) on the part of the Christians. Christianity, in
the absence of something better (which I hope and pray will be coming soon)
is a good *elementary* course in the spiritual. This I posted to the
the original requester of prayers. He hasn't replied.
However, I did find it interesting that he only wanted Christians to see his
message. So he, at least, considers his pray-a-thon to be at risk from the
reactions of persons unknown. I wonder if this is because of the news
getting to Craig or because of the hazard of more spiritual intervention.
I would like to state at this time that I do not, and never have... No,
seriously, I would consider any spiritual intervention beyond the simple
prayer to be extremely risky to my karma. And I'm carrying enough already.
:-/ That is part of my own "white credentials". It is all OK to say
DWYWSBTWOTL, and get on with it, but it says "Love Under Will." How can
there be Love without Understanding? I doubt that any of us understand this
situation at all.
However, we can assume that Craig does. And if we pray, we assume that the
recipient of our prayers does too...
Ward Chanley
This seems to me a case of a bunch of people trying to coerce
Craig into changing his ways with their prayer-magic.
...so it seemed fitting to let people know so that these
coercive prayers could be countered.
Z Budapest has a great line:
"Christians pray against Gays yet more
Gays come out of the closet. Obviously
the Goddess has veto power."
--
"...[Gays] should make no attempt to try and join society. They
should stay right where they are and wait for society to form
itself around them. Because it certainly will."
-- Quentin Crisp
Peter Acheson
power. They did a lot of other things as well. This is why confusion and total
order do not exist. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see a world of total order. Chaos is definately needed, otherwise the world would be totally boring. As well as the realms beyond.
In the shadows we walk.
Xaan.
Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva
Richard Romanowski writes:
This reminds me of an incident complained about by Gavin and
Yvone Frost. They got really upset once, when an exoteric Christian
congregation used group-prayer to cast hexes -- or possibly counter-
hexes.
Response:
More information about these folk would be appeciated. Who are the
Frosts and what connections do they have to the neopagan community?
Who cares if they get upset about things? What power do they wield?
Richard:
It was fine for pagans and "witches" to do it, but no fair
if Christians do it...
Response:
The process is different, ostensibly.
1) Christians pray to their god to handle it for them.
2) Neopagans tend to do 'spells' to handle it themselves.
(I could be wrong about the Frosts in this matter, however.)
The instrument of change seems conceptually different.
3) Christians tend to engage individual dialogue with their god while
supporting one another in the process.
4) Neopagans tend to unify in a focussed 'working' or 'spell', which
channels psychic energies into the natural world from their circle.
The social aspects in relationship to these power manifest differently.
Richard:
They can dish it out....but they can't take it.
If we reserve the right to use esoteric powers to change the
world, how justified are we in complaining when people we personally
dislike do the same thing?
Response:
An excellent question. I would note that many Christians don't see
their prayers as actually changing the world, nor are they 'using their
god'. Many neopagans seem to allow others the dignity of their True
Will, refraining from interfering by virtue of abiding by the 'Rede',
interpreting interference as 'harm'. Some (e.g. Shawn B. - the ....
Christian? Neopagan? Thelemite? Humanoid? ;>) are content to use
any powers at their disposal to aid others in their quest for such
things as 'wisdom' or even 'the fulfillment of their True Will'.
The ethics of all this are quite fascinating. What if it is this
'Craig' person's True Will that his True Will not yet be fulfilled?
Then Shawn B (and perhaps others) are sinning by virtue of their
interference in 'Craig's' life and path.
Speculation, speculation, speculation. Why not let Craig ask for what
he needs and provide if we are able? :>
Thyagi
Richard M. Romanowski
>Response:
>More information about these folk would be appeciated. Who are the
>Frosts and what connections do they have to the neopagan community?
>Who cares if they get upset about things? What power do they wield?
They are self-proclaimed "witches," albeit I think the traditions
I regard as "real" would as soon slice them in half as look at them.
(Yet another good reason why the traditions I regard as "real" are not
very practical in the 20th century...)
They've written books which seem to indicate practical experience,
but have the prose of something like the National Enquirer.
>Richard:
>It was fine for pagans and "witches" to do it, but no fair
>if Christians do it...
>Response:
>The process is different, ostensibly.
"Ostensibly" being the key word, cher Thyag...
>1) Christians pray to their god to handle it for them.
Now, now. Christians have LOTS of gods. Saint Balder, Saint
Ilja, you name it. Not to mention their Goddess, who tends to preside
over their mantra yoga. Most of the practical Christian spells I can
think of might mention the name of Iesous, but they tend to be focussed
somewhere much lower in the celestial hierarchy. Novenas to saints,
for example...
>2) Neopagans tend to do 'spells' to handle it themselves.
> (I could be wrong about the Frosts in this matter, however.)
I thought the whole distinction between pagans and magicians was
that pagans take a religious view -- which would seem to indicate that
their gods are doing it for them.
I would assert, as a general rule, that the "gods" are great "lenses
of mind-stuff" (as Dion Fortune would put it) made by wise men, for the
focussing of magical power.
Granted, many folks would probably dispute this -- I think this was
a point related to that unseemly temper tantrum I threw some months ago
when I got uptight about being a straight white male...
I don't deny Crowley's dictum that Magick is Science and Art,
Philosophy and Religion. But Religion is merely what ties your life
together ....
Do you assert, Thyagi, that neo-pagans fundamentally recognize their
inner divinity? Because any Christian of any magical talent will have to
do so also...
>The instrument of change seems conceptually different.
Self? Boundaries? (Foolish grin)
>3) Christians tend to engage individual dialogue with their god while
> supporting one another in the process.
The day I see Christians supporting each others' dialogues with
god is the day I start taking Eucharist again... (:
Seriously, Thyagi, the more Protestant forms may encourage a
kind of herd-mind mass hypnosis. Insofar as that goes, they support
each other, just like any group-mind ... but when we consider that even
a Lodge of the Great White Brotherhood may be considered a group-mind,
we face the uncomfortable fact that some Christians may have more
magical talent than some pagans...which makes me laugh hard, considering
the attitudes of the involved parties.
>4) Neopagans tend to unify in a focussed 'working' or 'spell', which
> channels psychic energies into the natural world from their circle.
^^^^^^^
>
Indeed, any circle of Neopagans is part of the UNnatural world...(:
Just joshing you. Not Joshing you, though, I'd have to be terse to do that...
>The social aspects in relationship to these power manifest differently.
>Richard:
>They can dish it out....but they can't take it.
>If we reserve the right to use esoteric powers to change the
>world, how justified are we in complaining when people we personally
>dislike do the same thing?
>Response:
>An excellent question. I would note that many Christians don't see
>their prayers as actually changing the world, nor are they 'using their
>god'.
You should see the Right-To-Lifers raving about the power of
Prayer. From a distance, that is. It's not very fun to observe it
from up close... (:
Many neopagans seem to allow others the dignity of their True
>Will, refraining from interfering by virtue of abiding by the 'Rede',
>interpreting interference as 'harm'. Some (e.g. Shawn B. - the ....
>Christian? Neopagan? Thelemite? Humanoid? ;>) are content to use
>any powers at their disposal to aid others in their quest for such
>things as 'wisdom' or even 'the fulfillment of their True Will'.
What is Truth?
What is True Will?
Crowley reflected that it might be someone's True Will to be raped
-- see his comments re the Sabine women in _The_Law_Is_For_All_. I think
it comes down to justifying whatever the hell you happen to be able to
get away with. Perfectly valid, but it rather weakens my appreciation
for justice.
>The ethics of all this are quite fascinating. What if it is this
>'Craig' person's True Will that his True Will not yet be fulfilled?
>Then Shawn B (and perhaps others) are sinning by virtue of their
>interference in 'Craig's' life and path.
I've gotten so wrapped up in other angles of it that I've totally
forgotten the poor sod who posted. So much for Christian charity --
yes, come and suffer in front of me, I'll talk about it. If the Nazorean
got this kind of hospitality in Galilee, he would have starved to death...
>Speculation, speculation, speculation. Why not let Craig ask for what
>he needs and provide if we are able? :>
And if we want to provide.
By all means. Craig. Shawn. Whoever the hell you are.
What are we going to DO?
>Thyagi
LVX
rmr
Richard M. Romanowski
>>>on
>>>your church prayer list. We are meeting this Friday...May 7,1993 at 1:00 pm
>>>Central Standard Time.
Ah, yes. Once again, I probe the infinite and forget the definite.
The time for practical action is long past ... and now back to our
ceaseless Western Male chin-music on how many Holy Guardian Angels can
dance on the tip of a condom....
LVX
rmr
Richard M. Romanowski
>In article <C6nw2...@acsu.buffalo.edu> r...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Richard M. Romanowski) writes:
>>
>> If we reserve the right to use esoteric powers to change the
>>world, how justified are we in complaining when people we personally
>>dislike do the same thing?
>>
>simple really....
>we are we....and they are they.
Ah, yes. They're all alike, lazy and shiftless. Wasn't that
the fine rationale behind the genocide against the American Indians,
the colonial oppression of autochtones by the British Empire, not to
mention those cheery little gas chambers and ovens in the Third Reich?
Don't we call Christians bigots when they say, "We are the
chosen ones and they are the heathen?"
I don't buy this "we are we and they are they."
Is there something in the nature of their methods that is wrong?
Is there something in their goals?
Are we justified in using the sword to strike someone else ?
If we live by the sword, do we complain if and when we die by it?
LVX
rmr
Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva
Richard and I have a nice repartee going as he writes:
[Re: The Frosts]
They are self-proclaimed "witches," albeit I think the traditions
I regard as "real" would as soon slice them in half as look at them.
(Yet another good reason why the traditions I regard as "real" are not
very practical in the 20th century...)
They've written books which seem to indicate practical experience,
but have the prose of something like the National Enquirer.
Response:
Aren't they in charge of some correspondence courses and a for-profit
organization too? If so, anyone know which?
old Thyagi:
1) Christians pray to their god to handle it for them.
Richard:
Now, now. Christians have LOTS of gods. Saint Balder, Saint
Ilja, you name it. Not to mention their Goddess, who tends to preside
over their mantra yoga. Most of the practical Christian spells I can
think of might mention the name of Iesous, but they tend to be focussed
somewhere much lower in the celestial hierarchy. Novenas to saints,
for example...
Response:
Ok, I guess I'm such a radical I'm not in touch with modern Christianity.
My impression was that your comments above apply mainly to Catholics, and
Roman Catholics at that. Perhaps I need some brushing up on my Christianity.
When I'm doing Christ-stuff I talk with God (as Parent/Child/Essence). When
I'm doing my pantheonics I go for Kali or Myrddin. Hmmmmmmm, maybe I'll
have to get in touch with my babe, St. Teresa, or my man, St. Francis,eh?
old Thyagi:
2) Neopagans tend to do 'spells' to handle it themselves.
Richard:
I thought the whole distinction between pagans and magicians was
that pagans take a religious view -- which would seem to indicate that
their gods are doing it for them.
Response:
Yeah, I know what you mean, but, as you say below, many neopagans would
disagree with you. I've made quite a study of this social group,
and while my geographics haven't extended beyond the SF Bay Area and the
literature and correspondence I could muster from around the country/world,
I find most neopagans consider 'witch' to be roughly equivalent to 'mage'.
On the other hand, when we begin to talk about 'Wicca' in particular, then
you start getting those who would refuse the label of 'mage' for 'Goddess-
worshipper', and in these cases your description rings quite true. I really
don't think that Wiccans are the majority of neopagans, however. I'd love
to hear census-results if anybody has them. ;>
Richard:
I would assert, as a general rule, that the "gods" are great "lenses
of mind-stuff" (as Dion Fortune would put it) made by wise men, for the
focussing of magical power.
Granted, many folks would probably dispute this ...
Response:
Yes, reference Gray's 'telesmic images', Blavatsky's 'thought-forms',
Tantric Buddhism's 'yidams', and perhaps even Yoruba's 'orishas' and
Voudoun's 'loas', though these last are quite debatable).
Personally I can see the value in not distancing the gods into mere
technological tools/weapons. There is quite a difference between an
experience of an 'archetype' and that of a 'god'. It is a subjective
aesthetic, rather than of ontological or epistemological reality.
Richard:
I don't deny Crowley's dictum that Magick is Science and Art,
Philosophy and Religion. But Religion is merely what ties your life
together ....
Response:
I don't remember the 'Philosophy and Religion' part. Perhaps you can
refresh my memory. I only remember 'Science', 'Art' and 'Sport'
from my recent review of _Book Four_.
Richard:
Do you assert, Thyagi, that neo-pagans fundamentally recognize their
inner divinity? Because any Christian of any magical talent will have to
do so also...
Response:
I think that one of things that keeps people from associating neopaganism
with Christianity is the popular concept (born out in my experience of
both groups) that Christians are dependent upon God for their salvation
and neopagans are self-sufficient on the whole, given wise guidance by
the gods but left to their own free will to make their way in the world.
I'd love to hear differently. I know this generalization doesn't apply
to all who bear those labels.
old Thyagi:
The instrument of change seems conceptually different.
Richard:
Self? Boundaries? (Foolish grin)
Response:
I'm talking about popular Christian concepts and popular neopagan concepts.
It seems safe to say that most Christians don't identify with their god(s).
Neopagans make a practice of it in many cases, even if only during ritual.
So not only is one's relationship with the divine different, but the will
of the divine seems to be located in a different place (within/without/etc.).
old me:
3) Christians tend to engage individual dialogue with their god while
supporting one another in the process.
Richard:
The day I see Christians supporting each others' dialogues with
god is the day I start taking Eucharist again... (:
Seriously, Thyagi, the more Protestant forms may encourage a
kind of herd-mind mass hypnosis. Insofar as that goes, they support
each other, just like any group-mind ...
Response:
All I meant was that the main communication with the divine is personal
and individual. On the whole there isn't any group-sharing of the divine
presence. The way to contact God is individually through contemplation,
prayer. The group simply encourages and supports this activity.
Richard:
but when we consider that even
a Lodge of the Great White Brotherhood may be considered a group-mind,
we face the uncomfortable fact that some Christians may have more
magical talent than some pagans...which makes me laugh hard, considering
the attitudes of the involved parties.
Response:
I think this last may be a matter of semantics and different (again? :>)
understandings of concepts. How _you_ would describe all this may be
different than how _they_ would describe their experience. I'm trying
to represent each as they would themselves. I doubt that very many
Christians would consider what they do in any way 'magical'.
old Thyagi:
4) Neopagans tend to unify in a focussed 'working' or 'spell', which
channels psychic energies into the natural world from their circle.
^^^^^^^
Richard:
Indeed, any circle of Neopagans is part of the UNnatural world...(:
Just joshing you. Not Joshing you, though, I'd have to be terse to do that...
Response:
Even if you were joking I want to make myself very clear here. Typically
the neopagan who uses 'sacred space' considers it to be 'between the worlds'.
This is considered by some to be 'supernatural', by others 'supranatural',
by still others natural but separate from that which lies outside the space.
old Thyagi:
I would note that many Christians don't see
their prayers as actually changing the world, nor are they 'using their
god'.
Richard:
You should see the Right-To-Lifers raving about the power of
Prayer. From a distance, that is. It's not very fun to observe it
from up close... (:
Response:
If you go ask them what they mean by that I don't think that they will
tell you that their prayers 'make the results', nor is their god constrained
to act based upon their applied power. The divine has created a system
whereby our devotion can inspire the miracle of salvation in each
of its forms (whether it be the revelation of the sanctity of life or
the realization of the divinity of Christ-consciousness).
old Thyagi:
Many neopagans seem to allow others the dignity of their True
Will, refraining from interfering by virtue of abiding by the 'Rede',
interpreting interference as 'harm'. Some (e.g. Shawn B. - the ....
Christian? Neopagan? Thelemite? Humanoid? ;>) are content to use
any powers at their disposal to aid others in their quest for such
things as 'wisdom' or even 'the fulfillment of their True Will'.
Richard:
What is Truth?
Response:
I would not care to attempt to define it. Nor do I think it necessary
in order to understand my paragraph above.
Richard:
What is True Will?
Response:
It is rather more easy to define 'True Will' that to determine what one's
(or another's for that matter) True Will _is_.
True Will can be compared to the taoist tao/way or the buddhist
dharma. It is one's perfectly harmonized path within the Heaven that
is Earth.
Richard:
Crowley reflected that it might be someone's True Will to be raped
-- see his comments re the Sabine women in _The_Law_Is_For_All_. I think
it comes down to justifying whatever the hell you happen to be able to
get away with. Perfectly valid, but it rather weakens my appreciation
for justice.
Response:
My impression is that it is not so much about justice as it is about
dynamic equilibrium. I think that Crowley's comments are too easy to
misunderstand unless understood QUOTED and in context. If you want to
begin another thread and discuss his ethics, quoting the passage you
mention, I'll be happy to participate, otherwise I'm leaving this one
alone. Way too complex.
Richard:
What are we going to DO?
Response:
Or, as some taoist might say, 'What are we going to not-DO (wu-wei)?'
NOX,
Thyagi
Martin Brynskov
Romanowski) wrote:
...
> [...] Religion is merely what ties your life
> together [...]
...
> LVX
> rmr
Roger!
Martin.
___________________
Martin Brynskov
bryn...@imv.aau.dk
Aarhus, Denmark
Steve Boylan
In article <C6u0M...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, r...@acsu.buffalo.edu
(Richard M. Romanowski) writes:
[attributing all the evils of the world to Christians deleted]
> Don't we call Christians bigots when they say, "We are the
> chosen ones and they are the heathen?"
Well, no, we don't - or, at least, we shouldn't.
If I remember correctly, a basic tenet of most Christian faiths is
that the believers and followers of Christ are a brotherhood. All
who join are members of that brotherhood. Those who don't join are
"them" - the heathens and pagans.
That part isn't bigotry. However, that division of the world has
often been USED to justify bigotry, and some of the other evils
you were listing.
- - Steve
---- ---- WE'RE MOVING!! ---- ----
Our group is moving to new offices at a new site.
My new net addresses are:
boy...@nac.enet.dec.com
boy...@sltg04.nsm.tay.dec.com
Rev. J. B. Bell
Ah, now, excuse me, but "a little something left over" doesn't sound
like a very complementary description. In fact, I think I could use
the word "homophobic" here. So, briefly, what the FUCK are you
talking about?
--Rev. J. B. Bell
William D. Trumbly
a conversation, says:
The orthodox christian church(s) are based on the principle that contact
with god can only occur with the assistance of clergy. I know that this
was significantly weakened by the reformation, but the whole point of
"apostolic" faith is that the ONLY source of revelation is from the
apostles and that as passed down through the clergy. If you can/do contact
god yourself then you are *Gnostic* and thus a very dangerous heretic.
As to the church not doing magic. I can not speak to the protestant side,
but as I studied to be a Roman Catholic priest I feel I can address the
use of magick by that church. The priesthood does acknowlage the use of magic
by and within the church. They acknowlage the Mass as an invocation of God
and the priest as an Initiate. The term used for the rites moving a person
along the path to priesthood are called the Rites of Initiation.
BTW, the use of magick, other than the Mass, was "evil" only if not
authorized by higher authority.
Bill T.
Ray Rich
>cas...@atlantis.CSOS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass) writes:
>
>>In article <C6nw2...@acsu.buffalo.edu> r...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Richard M. Romanowski) writes:
>>>
>>> If we reserve the right to use esoteric powers to change the
>>>world, how justified are we in complaining when people we personally
>>>dislike do the same thing?
>>>
>>simple really....
>
>>we are we....and they are they.
>
> Ah, yes. They're all alike, lazy and shiftless. Wasn't that
>the fine rationale behind the genocide against the American Indians,
>the colonial oppression of autochtones by the British Empire, not to
>mention those cheery little gas chambers and ovens in the Third Reich?
>
>chosen ones and they are the heathen?"
>
>
>Is there something in the nature of their methods that is wrong?
>Is there something in their goals?
>
>Are we justified in using the sword to strike someone else ?
>If we live by the sword, do we complain if and when we die by it?
>
>LVX
>rmr
Arrgh! Someone pull the soapbox out from under this guy.
The point is that Xians are constantly bitching about how any kind
of non-Xian mental or spiritual power is "wrong" or "of the devil"
(not all Xians mind you, just the annoying ones). Thus, they have
no claim to bitch if they do the same in the name of their "god."
What it comes down to is what seperates "miracles" from supernatural
occurances save the authority of Xianity? Who are they to say what
is of god and what is not? Anyway, I think you took things WAY out
of context and went a little overboard. Sure, the guy didn't elaborate
much, but he didn't advocate their mass extinction.
Raymond H. Rich
Paul Harvey
>The orthodox christian church(s) are based on the principle that contact
>with god can only occur with the assistance of clergy. I know that this
>was significantly weakened by the reformation, but the whole point of
>"apostolic" faith is that the ONLY source of revelation is from the
>apostles and that as passed down through the clergy. If you can/do contact
>god yourself then you are *Gnostic* and thus a very dangerous heretic.
Paul of Tarsus was totally convinced that Jesus was going to "come back
to earth" in his lifetime and establish the "rock" that he mentioned.
When this didn't happen, the Christians decided to make up their own
"rock" or church. Clever really. Of course the Gnostics were more of the
opinion that Jesus never left, or in other words, the living God lives,
or heaven is right here right now only most don't see it for what it is
and not seeing it is Hell, etc. The Gnostics who were more or less free
thinkers were not compatible with the church structure the Christians
established in the name of Jesus. The meme took over.
Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva
Bill T. quotes me and writes:
|> All I meant was that the main communication with the divine is personal
|> and individual. On the whole there isn't any group-sharing of the divine
|> presence. The way to contact God is individually through contemplation,
|> prayer. The group simply encourages and supports this activity.
|
|...
|
|> I doubt that very many
|> Christians would consider what they do in any way 'magical'.
|
|
|The orthodox christian church(s) are based on the principle that contact
|with god can only occur with the assistance of clergy. I know that this
|was significantly weakened by the reformation, but the whole point of
|"apostolic" faith is that the ONLY source of revelation is from the
|apostles and that as passed down through the clergy. If you can/do contact
|god yourself then you are *Gnostic* and thus a very dangerous heretic.
Wow, are you sure that this isn't decidedly Catholic? I mean, I thought
the Protestants tossed out the entire idea of 'apostolic succession' in
favor of a direct relationship with their god. I've lots to learn about
Christianity and I hope people won't mind this as long as it continues
within the context of comparing prayer and magick.
|As to the church not doing magic. I can not speak to the protestant side,
|but as I studied to be a Roman Catholic priest I feel I can address the
|use of magick by that church. The priesthood does acknowlage the use of magic
|by and within the church. They acknowlage the Mass as an invocation of God
|and the priest as an Initiate. The term used for the rites moving a person
|along the path to priesthood are called the Rites of Initiation.
|
|BTW, the use of magick, other than the Mass, was "evil" only if not
|authorized by higher authority.
Ok, here you as much as admit that you're not speaking for the Protestants.
What are the comparative # of adherents between Catholics vs. Protestants?
(I'm curious)
And are you saying here that Catholic Priests actually CALL what they do
'magic(k)'? I know there are some hip Jesuit priests, but I didn't think
that Catholicism was this up-front about its practices.
What is the justification for the attribution of 'evil' to these unauthorized
uses of magick? Some passage from _The Bible_? Some official position?
Why, other than blatant politics, do Catholics want to suppress competition?
Thyagi
Stephen A. Creps
>with god can only occur with the assistance of clergy. I know that this
>was significantly weakened by the reformation, but the whole point of
>"apostolic" faith is that the ONLY source of revelation is from the
>apostles and that as passed down through the clergy. If you can/do contact
>god yourself then you are *Gnostic* and thus a very dangerous heretic.
This seems to be referring to Catholicism, despite its apparent
ignorance of Catholic belief. It is absolutely false that the Catholic
Church teaches that "contact with" God can only occur with the
assistance of clergy. It is true, however, that an ordained man is
needed to administer most (but not all) Sacraments.
It is only partially true that revelation comes only from (more
precisely _through_) the Apostles (Scripture and Tradition). The Old
Testament, which is considered part of revelation, did not come from the
Apostles, for obvious reasons. The above are known as _public_
revelation. There is also _private_ revelation, which binds only those
who receive it, as long as it does not conflict with the Faith (which
would indicate it's not really revelation from God).
As far as the Church being apostolic, you have confused Tradition
(the passing down from the Apostles of teachings) with Holy Orders
(the ordained priesthood, which is passed down from the Apostles).
>As to the church not doing magic. I can not speak to the protestant side,
>but as I studied to be a Roman Catholic priest I feel I can address the
>use of magick by that church. The priesthood does acknowlage the use of magic
>by and within the church. They acknowlage the Mass as an invocation of God
>and the priest as an Initiate. The term used for the rites moving a person
>along the path to priesthood are called the Rites of Initiation.
Did you really study to be a priest? If so, why did you not go
through with it? It just seems a little odd, based on what you have
written here.
Anyway, there is no magic involved in Catholicism. Certainly there
is a supernatural aspect to it, but that is because of the nature of
Christ and the Church. The only time I've ever heard a priest use the
word "magic" was when he was saying it's _not_ magic.
>BTW, the use of magick, other than the Mass, was "evil" only if not
>authorized by higher authority.
Totally false.
- - - - - - - - - -
Steve Creps, Indiana University
cr...@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu
exo...@iastate.edu
This is an interesting thread; people are dealing with facts
more than personal beliefs, and that is a good foundation for
a debate.
Simon Richardson
I love it when people come over all PC. Please lets *not* have a PC
creation. May all the NetGods save us from that...
And no, I'm not homophobic. But why should his notion of creation conform
to your notion of political correctness?
William D. Trumbly
Yes it was clever to create a rock out of near nothing. But it was not Paul,
Peter, or any of the other first string evanglist types that did it. It was
Bishop Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, etc. who did that in the second
century. They did it by laying the title "Heretic" on to anyone that did not
follow the church as they viewed it. The work was completed with the concil
of Nicia (sp) to which the gnostics were not invited. It should be noted that
the reason for calling the concil was to define the dogma so that the new
emperor would make the church the state religion. Part of the requirements of
the new dogma was that there was *one* and *only*one* revelation and that was
passed down through the clergy. Indeed, Bishop Ignatius of Antioch wrote:
"Let no one do anything pertaining to the church without the bishop.
Let that be considered a valid eucharist which is celebrated by
the bishop, or by the person whom he appoints... Whenever the bishop
offers the eucharist let the congregation be present, just as,
wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church...
It is not legitimate either to baptize or to hold an agape without
the bishop...To join with the bishop is to join the church; to
separate oneself from the bishop is to seperate oneself not only from
the church, but from God himself."
The gnostics, on the other hand, felt that any revelation was in some
way valid.
Individually they may not agree, but all agreed that God was not the demiurgos
of the orthodox christian.
Sorry for the length: Bill T.
Bill T.
William D. Trumbly
In article <81...@cup.portal.com> Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva quotes me and writes:
>And are you saying here that Catholic Priests actually CALL what they do
>'magic(k)'? I know there are some hip Jesuit priests, but I didn't think
>that Catholicism was this up-front about its practices.
Mostly it isn't, but there are a few. They do spell it magic (ie no k). That
is my impression but I was not "safe" for more than about two years. The Laity
were never to know. As to the use of magic terms, yes they were used. It was
a Jesuit who introduced me to the real activity of the church.
>What is the justification for the attribution of 'evil' to these unauthorized
>uses of magick? Some passage from _The Bible_? Some official position?
>Why, other than blatant politics, do Catholics want to suppress competition?
It is, I think, an old habit rooted in politics. Throughout the Bible the use
of magick for the benefit of God or the Chosen People is always good and any
other use is bad. I think they just extended the idea, but the root is
politics.
Bill T.
William D. Trumbly
Steve Creps writes:
> Did you really study to be a priest? If so, why did you not go
>through with it? It just seems a little odd, based on what you have
>written here.
At the time it seemed the only reasonable solution. I could not hold the
large majority of people in contempt. Nor could I present two concepts I
felt were very divergent as being the same. In the end I have become more
Gnostic than anything else.
> Anyway, there is no magic involved in Catholicism. Certainly there
>is a supernatural aspect to it, but that is because of the nature of
>Christ and the Church. The only time I've ever heard a priest use the
>word "magic" was when he was saying it's _not_ magic.
I take it that *you* never tried for the priesthood. If you had you would have
run into someone to teach you the truth. I think it is one of the tests for
acceptance. You have to be able to know and do magic while assuring the people
that you are not.
:>BTW, the use of magick, other than the Mass, was "evil" only if not
:>authorized by higher authority.
> Totally false.
You have a lot of learning to do. I was there. In the Benedictian Monastery,
in the class rooms, with a couple of Jesuits to teach the Bible and theology
and the Benedictians the rest.
Bill T.
Bill T.
John W. Luther
Excellent! This thread has been blessed with the Exodus Seal of
Approval! :)
John
--
* John W. Luther | *
* S08...@umrvma.umr.edu <-Best for Email | Truth is the Dare *
* 7114...@compuserve.com <-$$$$$! | *
**************************************************************************
John W. Luther
I just got the Spring and Summer 1993 Shambhala catalogue.
It contains the following:
HERMETICA
The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings Which
Contain Religious or Philosophic Teachings
Ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus
edited and translated by Sir Walter Scott
Long a source of fascination to scholars, mystics, and occultists,
this document is the product of a unique philosophical school that
flourished in Hellenized Egypt in the first several centuries of
the common erea. Attributed to the school's legendary founder,
Hermes Trismegistus (from whose name the title is taken), it represents
an adaptation of Plantonism and other contemporary systems to the
needs of people of the time.
available in May
5.5" x 8.5", 560pp., Order #338, Paper $20.00
To order: (617) 424-0228, Weekdays 9:30-5:30, Eastern Time [Tibeten? :)]
Note: I have no affiliation with Shambhala, except as a satisfied
customer :)
Thought someone here might find this of interest.
Peace,
mark
>930511
<snip>
>Ok, here you as much as admit that you're not speaking for the Protestants.
>What are the comparative # of adherents between Catholics vs. Protestants?
>(I'm curious)
>
correctly, it was 57M Catholics, and I can't remember if it was 16M or
37M of the next biggest xian flavor (I know, big diff, but they were still
far outnumbered by the self-proclaimed Catholics). I believe it was either
16M or 11M baptists, for the most popular flavor.
mark
Stephen A. Creps
>> Anyway, there is no magic involved in Catholicism. Certainly there
>>is a supernatural aspect to it, but that is because of the nature of
>>Christ and the Church. The only time I've ever heard a priest use the
>>word "magic" was when he was saying it's _not_ magic.
>
>I take it that *you* never tried for the priesthood. If you had you would have
>run into someone to teach you the truth. I think it is one of the tests for
>acceptance. You have to be able to know and do magic while assuring the people
>that you are not.
>
>:>BTW, the use of magick, other than the Mass, was "evil" only if not
>:>authorized by higher authority.
>
>> Totally false.
>
>You have a lot of learning to do. I was there. In the Benedictian Monastery,
>in the class rooms, with a couple of Jesuits to teach the Bible and theology
>and the Benedictians the rest.
Ah, then you of course know the secret Benedictian handshake? By the
way, which monastery did you study at? I may know someone who went
there.
LeGrand Cinq-Mars
only volume 1 of the Scott edition -- or perhaps a combination of I and II --
but not the rest.
There is also a recent re-translation published by Cambridge University
Press, costing in the neighborhood of 70 small ones (but big enough
when it comes to piling up 70); I skimmed the introduction today in
the book store, and it looks interesting, but not cheap enough to pick
up on a whim.
But it looks more up-to-date and useful than the Scott; it would be worth
checking a library or two, if there's a decent one handy.
--LeGrand Cinq-Mars
Sean M. Foley
Think about this again, we don't necessarily know what true wills are-
I'm sure the late Mr. Crowley knows, but, what praytell does this mean
to us? Remember, Lao-Tze knew what the Tao was, but obviously, it's easy
to metaphor and parable than explain. Your 'True Will' may not well exist
if you are a christian, but it may also exist, but you ignore it purely
because christianity is devotional(honestly, I've only seen maybe 2 people
in my lifetime that were bound to their god by soul, these types of people
are far from the christian norm, in the fact that they are the "adepts" of
the church, so to speak, and usually are very "saintlike" in character,
enough with my glibbness, I will now resume before I start wailing Xian's
like I commonly get off on.). There is very little difference between
any devotional method, regardless of the acting yama & niyama's that show
themselves(for those with less knowledge in hindu practices, this basically
means the active ethical codes that religions or other philosophys uphold).
If we were to talk to a Hari-Krisha, and a Christian, we would find very
little difference in the underlying principals, but topically they are
drastically different, and appear uncompatible(Krisha, is basically the
"christ" of hindu culture, so to speak). But where do ethics fit in?
Actually, they don't, ethics are code of living, not a mighty king of
power whom decides what to do... So basically, if these people were
casting "hexes" and they were christians they woul break their own codes.
What does this mean? well, if you have ever written your own code of ethics
to live by(and I mean written literally), you would know that breaking this
code tends to upset your work, because you'll do anything to restore code
when in normal life, and sub-consciously you TRY to restore it no matter
what after a short time, because it registers as "the way" so to speak;
I'm thinking that even if this group were good at the practical methods
of a hex, it would fail anyway, because they are breaking their own codes.
(If you've even done any type of mysticism, you notice that anything that
creates tensions is utterly horrid to success, if not destroying what you're
doing, the tension keeps you from gaining the state you need to acheive
anything-even clear though). If you live by a certain code of ethics for
most of your life, and break it once, it becomes a HORRIFYING experience! I
can't see how the people in this group could feel utterly comfortable
performing these acts-it's gotta make em uncomfortable at least. Well, enough
of that...
(If you're a Thelemite, don't take the "no True Will" to seriously, all this
stuff is concept, there ain't nothing in this post but fiction drawn from a
tired man's brain)
Basically, nothing exists unless you feel it does-I could denounce the
existance of a telephone on the grounds that all my physical senses can be
deceived, but probablity says that phone would be there 99% of the time, so
it's safer to assume it's real for the time being, until another hypothesis
can be formed. As for Godlikes, Holy Guardian Angels, and the like, we
really cannot prove anything about them other than they are concepts-I cannot
say I have a clue what a Guardian Angel is, other than that which I could
scope out of the lastest snags from the Mr. Crowley rack at the local
bookstore-but, this doesn't mean my Guardian Angel would have much to do
with Crowley's renderings, either. I'd say the hardest part to mysticism
is saying anything correctly(if you find this post disjointed, it ain't as
bad as it could be).
Ahh well, enough meaningless pandering.. Good-Day to all..
-Sean
--
| sfo...@uumeme.chi.il.us | I only look like I have a clue. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love is the Law, Love under Will
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean M. Foley
Disregard my spewing.. :)
loose
>I love it when people come over all PC. Please lets *not* have a PC
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transposing this slightly and changing PC meaning politically correct to
meaning Personal computer, you come up with the folowing reply:
Ugh, gross. I don't like other people's semen all over my screen, thanks
very much. It makes the screen go all funny. It's like when it raining
outside, and all the rain runs down the windows, and sort of messes up
the view, you know. Well, semen on the screen is worse, because it's
right up against the writing and makes it all blurred, and then you just
have to guess what's written on the other side, unless you want to try
licking it all off or something, but god knows what's been all over the
screen before, it may be highly undigestible, so you're better off not
having people come all over the PC at all, as I was saying.
However, this is just an excuse to ramble, so sorry to whoever *did*
write this, I read it wrong first of all, and don't feel like erasing
this.
Fuck off and die anyway.
loose, who is obviously in a really good mood today, OBVIOUSLY.
Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva
Sean Foley quotes me and writes:
|>...I would note that many Christians don't see
|>their prayers as actually changing the world, nor are they 'using their
|>god'. Many neopagans seem to allow others the dignity of their True
|>Will, refraining from interfering by virtue of abiding by the 'Rede',
|>interpreting interference as 'harm'. Some (e.g. Shawn... - the ....
|>Christian? Neopagan? Thelemite? Humanoid? ;>) are content to use
|>any powers at their disposal to aid others in their quest for such
|>things as 'wisdom' or even 'the fulfillment of their True Will'.
|>
|>The ethics of all this are quite fascinating. What if it is this
|>'Craig' person's True Will that his True Will not yet be fulfilled?
|>Then Shawn ...(and perhaps others) are sinning by virtue of their
|>interference in 'Craig's' life and path.
|
|Think about this again, we don't necessarily know what true wills are-
|I'm sure the late Mr. Crowley knows, but, what praytell does this mean
|to us?
I think Crowley defined it well in his writings, buddhists define it (dharma)
well in their mountainous writings, and taoists point to it well in their
writings (tao/way) too. We've got at least these to draw from, so
perhaps any of our noncomprehension (even though this concept in part
exceeds the capacity of the intellect) is our own problem. If you'd
like to know more about it, start a thread dedicated ONLY to it. If
this is what you intend here I think you muddy the waters by bringing in
other concepts.
Note that I'm not talking about defining what ANOTHER person's True Will is.
|Remember, Lao-Tze knew what the Tao was, but obviously, it's easy
|to metaphor and parable than explain.
I never met Lao-Tze. It doesn't seem obvious to me that metaphor and
parable are any more effective at explaining Tao.
|Your 'True Will' may not well exist
|if you are a christian, but it may also exist, but you ignore it purely
|because christianity is devotional
My impression is that Christians tend to use different terms to express
a similar concept. One is 'righteous' or is a 'saint' or is 'led
by the Spirit' or a number of other concepts that have to do with
finding the path that God has chosen for us.
|(honestly, I've only seen maybe 2 people
|in my lifetime that were bound to their god by soul, these types of people
|are far from the christian norm, in the fact that they are the "adepts" of
|the church, so to speak, and usually are very "saintlike" in character,
You provide my example for me. Yes, the concepts surrounding the words 'True
Will' and these other terms (dharma, tao, saint) are slightly different,
but even Crowley compares them on some level and I think that we may be
mistaken if we overlook the basic identity of the EXPERIENCE.
|There is very little difference between
|any devotional method, regardless of the acting yama & niyama's that show
|themselves (for those with less knowledge in hindu practices, this basically
|means the active ethical codes that religions or other philosophys uphold).
I'd like to know why 'devotional methods' prohibit the finding of one's
True Will. It seems to me that devotion, submission to the will of the
divine (islam) only differs conceptually regarding what 'the divine' is.
Experientially I suggest to you that they are the same.
|If we were to talk to a Hari-Krisha, and a Christian, we would find very
|little difference in the underlying principals, but topically they are
|drastically different, and appear uncompatible
This is an awkward comparison. Devotees of Krishna (one sect within the
Hinduism) and the entire Christian religious complex are difficult to
match up. I suspect here that you intend to compare those Christians who
might be considered 'devotees of Jesus Christ' and my comments apply
accordingly. Please correct any misconception on my part.
I agree that the underlying principles are very very similar, yet the
conceptual framework within which the principles are to be found are
different. Vaisnavism and the aspects of Christianity which focus on
Jesus as divine are fundamentally different in terms of cosmology
for example. I get the sense this is what you are saying above. If
so, I'm simply echoing it. :>
|(Krisha, is basically the
|"christ" of hindu culture, so to speak).
This is a hard argument to make to a Hindu, especially among those
outside the vaisnavites. Even within that tradition Krishna is not
really seen as the 'Messiah'. He doesn't fill a role for the society
so much as bring Vishnu's perfection into a time of need. That's how I've
been taught it by various vaisnavites. Perhaps you can clear up my
misconceptions.
|But where do ethics fit in?
|Actually, they don't, ethics are code of living, not a mighty king of
|power whom decides what to do... So basically, if these people were
|casting "hexes" and they were christians they woul break their own codes.
In principle I think you are correct, though in practice it seems that a
lot of Christians wish to influence others through the 'power of prayer
and witnessing'. This differs conceptually from a 'hex or curse', but
the effect is somewhat similar, especially from the perspective of the
recipient who sees that their own 'conversion' would be the worst nightmare
imaginable. ;>
|What does this mean? well, if you have ever written your own code of ethics
|to live by (and I mean written literally), you would know that breaking this
|code tends to upset your work, because you'll do anything to restore code
|when in normal life, and sub-consciously you TRY to restore it no matter
|what after a short time, because it registers as "the way" so to speak;
As Chris English touches on in another thread, we are often at odds with
our own 'codes of ethics' in our behaviors which are directly influenced
by subconscious processes. To write out a defined code would be asking
our subconscious mind to break that code, in some ways. As soon as such
things as behaviors are given absolute value (by oneself or any social
body) this sets up reverberations within us or that society to rebel.
When we discover we've acted in ways which break that code we will be thrust
into upset if we placed a heavy emphasis on not doing so, but I also think
that our motivations for breaking them are quite complex and the situation
you describe (where we literally define it) only makes it worse in some
cases.
|I'm thinking that even if this group were good at the practical methods
|of a hex, it would fail anyway, because they are breaking their own codes.
That would depend upon whether any of us had defined our codes so strictly.
I imagine that most people who 'send harmful energies toward others' either
rationalize it away as somehow 'necessary' or don't have such a defined
code (allowing it to come of its own through actions) and would not be
doing anything except challenging the social mores. Such is one of the
reasons that people 'cast hexes' and 'throw curses' anyway. Rebellion.
|(If you've even done any type of mysticism, you notice that anything that
|creates tensions is utterly horrid to success, if not destroying what you're
|doing, the tension keeps you from gaining the state you need to acheive
|anything-even clear though).
Here I think you may be offering a very limited meaning for the term 'success'.
What is success, anyway? Is it true that success does not involve tension,
even in the short-term? When is what we're 'doing' destroyed? Is this a
'bad thing' that our schemes are so disrupted?
This reminds me of those who talk so negatively about some emotions like
anger and sorrow and try to push them down because they identify the
emotional state with failure, rather than seeing that such things as
wrath and depression may be necessary stages toward the goals in question
(if any are even held).
Often I've found that the 'state I need to achieve' is not readily discernable
to my ignorant conscious mind. Your description here is accurate, from
my perspective, but I would emphasize, as have apparently the Chinese,
that a 'danger' is often also an 'opportunity'.
|If you live by a certain code of ethics for
|most of your life, and break it once, it becomes a HORRIFYING experience! I
|can't see how the people in this group could feel utterly comfortable
|performing these acts-it's gotta make em uncomfortable at least. Well, enough
|of that...
All the people in this group don't have codes of ethics. I know I don't.
I just do my will and be done with it, learning when possible from the
results. Any social conventions people may throw my way in response
("You shouldn't steal because property is sacred."; "You shouldn't express
your anger in ways which others might feel hurt.", etc.) are only so
much more incentive to rebel (a trip-mechanism I think I share with
many adolescents and, generally, other mages). I tend to find ways
to dismiss such moralisms as mind-control.
|(If you're a Thelemite, don't take the "no True Will" to seriously, all this
|stuff is concept, there ain't nothing in this post but fiction drawn from a
|tired man's brain)
Uh, yeah. I don't think this comment betrays a careful look at Crowley, but
I'd be happy to discuss this further if you like.
|Basically, nothing exists unless you feel it does-I could denounce the
|existance of a telephone on the grounds that all my physical senses can be
|deceived, but probablity says that phone would be there 99% of the time, so
|it's safer to assume it's real for the time being, until another hypothesis
|can be formed.
The dualities of 'real/illusion'; 'real/artificial'; 'existence/non...' are
just as much 'concept' as the 'True Will' you seem to dismiss. I think
they are useful concepts at times, and without an experience of unity will
simply lead to pain and frustration.
Your argument about what it is 'safe to assume' sounds like more of
Pascal's Wager regarding assuming the existence of God. It is fallacious
from a philosophical perspective. Followups on Pascal's Wager to alt.atheism.
|As for Godlikes, Holy Guardian Angels, and the like, we
|really cannot prove anything about them other than they are concepts-I cannot
|say I have a clue what a Guardian Angel is, other than that which I could
|scope out of the lastest snags from the Mr. Crowley rack at the local
|bookstore-but, this doesn't mean my Guardian Angel would have much to do
|with Crowley's renderings, either. I'd say the hardest part to mysticism
|is saying anything correctly
I think this is entirely false. I've proved to myself (through experience)
that the phenomenon which Crowley (and those from whom he draws this concept)
calls the 'Holy Guardian Angel' are quite accurate in their renderings, on
the whole. I'm doing a study on just this phenomenon and would greatly
enjoy seeing a discussion in a separate thread relating to other people's
experience in this regard.
What 'proof' amounts to, however, differs for each individual and each
social group (even within social groups, as modern science demonstrates).
Unless we agree what constitutes such proof (and thus establish a consensus
ourselves) any talk about it is rather silly, I think.
Thyagi
.
Simon Richardson
> In <1sqn9v$9...@sun.rhbnc.ac.uk> si...@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk (Simon Richardson) writes:
>
> >I love it when people come over all PC. Please lets *not* have a PC
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Transposing this slightly and changing PC meaning politically correct to
> meaning Personal computer, you come up with the folowing reply:
>
>
> However, this is just an excuse to ramble, so sorry to whoever *did*
> write this, I read it wrong first of all, and don't feel like erasing
> this.
>
What a charming chappie? I wonder what finger tells us...
Login name: lskrbnek In real life: loose
Office: The Undead, 425-6660 Home phone: 69
Directory: /users/u1/lskrbnek Shell: /bin/csh
Last login Fri May 14 13:59 on ttyp5 from macbe19
Plan:
Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate
How sweet. I wonder which of the groups that this article is posted to this
chap reads. Hmmm...
> Fuck off and die anyway.
>
You'll need better magick than that, kiddo...
> loose, who is obviously in a really good mood today, OBVIOUSLY.
>
Just a few more ramblings...
loose
>What a charming chappie? I wonder what finger tells us...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh but I am, *I am*. Shy sway of the hips, coy look in your
direction.
> Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate
>How sweet. I wonder which of the groups that this article is posted to this
>chap reads. Hmmm...
I like my plan. And it's *not* SWEET. Well, actually, just for you,
*smile*, we'll arrange something more saccharin, something more
palatable...mmmm....how about coming over to my place sometime?
Champagne is on me...!
>You'll need better magick than that, kiddo...
So is that where you're writing from? Will I see you there again? I look
forward to our next meeting. :)
>> loose, who is obviously in a really good mood today, OBVIOUSLY.
>>
>Just a few more ramblings...
I have a stockpile specially for you...:P...shlurp.
loose, in a better mood after being noticed by some wonderful guy called
Simon from alt.magick.
RNStonehill
lskr...@unix1.tcd.ie (loose) writes:
>
> Ugh, gross. I don't like other people's semen all over my screen, thanks
> very much.
I thought the same thing when I read the quote. I think the semantics
are too ambiguous. Or perhaps that is what the guy meant...
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of Robert Nathan
Stonehill. Send email to: Robert.N....@Dartmouth.edu.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Lupo the Butcher
>lskr...@unix1.tcd.ie (loose) writes:
>> In <1sqn9v$9...@sun.rhbnc.ac.uk> si...@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk (Simon Richardson) writes:
>>
>> >I love it when people come over all PC. Please lets *not* have a PC
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Transposing this slightly and changing PC meaning politically correct to
>> meaning Personal computer, you come up with the folowing reply:
>>
>>
>> However, this is just an excuse to ramble, so sorry to whoever *did*
>> write this, I read it wrong first of all, and don't feel like erasing
>> this.
>>
>
>
>Office: The Undead, 425-6660 Home phone: 69
>Directory: /users/u1/lskrbnek Shell: /bin/csh
>Last login Fri May 14 13:59 on ttyp5 from macbe19
>Plan:
>
>
>How sweet. I wonder which of the groups that this article is posted to this
>chap reads. Hmmm...
Well, looking at the three, we see several posts to alt.pagan & a couple
of crossposts to alt.magick and alt.satanism. This would seem to indicate
that this person is primarily a reader of alt.pagan. Personally, I find
hir posts to be among the more refreshing on the alt.pagan newsgroup-
this person certainly knows hir history better than most.
Now, do not know what homosexual politics has to do with Paganism, there may be
a connexion somewhere, as Pagans are generally quite liberal folk (Balder
excluded), but the social and political issues atatched to homosexuality has
nothing to do with magick or satanism & I for one, would appreciate it if
this manner of post was not crossposted to these newsgroups.
For those who disagree, a pithy quote; "The Magickal is Non-Political"
and, please take the advice of "loose" and
>> Fuck off and die anyway.
-Lupo the Butcher
William D. Trumbly
Stephen A. Creps writes:
> Ah, then you of course know the secret Benedictian handshake? By the
>way, which monastery did you study at? I may know someone who went
>there.
I did not know that there was one. But then I do not know everything. Is there?
St. Gregory's in Shawnee, Ok. (1962/3).
Bill T.
Sean M. Foley
I agree, proof is a harlot whom cannot be had! But, regardless I think we
can only achieve in our minds what we believe our goal is in the case of
our respective HGA's. Experience is the great license of proof, I didn't
grant it it's place in the last message due to the fact that I was thinking
along entirely different lines, but experiences don't prove they only say
that when "this happens, that probably will happen"; it gives an idea of
results, but there are always the great exceptions. But, never make the
mistake of confusing tendency with proof; it is safe to live by tendency,
but when you consider things 'proof' you close your brain with the bars
of alcatraz(and insure that you will have major problems when circumstance
totally inverts itself; it's better to make things tendencies than relying
on them like some dogmatic notion that cannot be removed from the mind
because it was "depended on".) As for Crowley's explainations, they are
purely ingenious, but as you said, this type of thing is very case sensitive.
(I'm attempting some Enochian pretty soon, with luck, I'll get to my HGA :))
The only problems that I have with Crowley's works is the generational gaps
due to the fact that all of this was written a century ago(and I'm only 18,
so, I'm still 'wet'(more like, having a roaring sea) behind the ears) or
later, and it tends to create difficulties in understanding exactly what he
means(but that time spent deciphering, is worth it), and I haven't found much
material outside of his works that are as consistent, and contain as much
un-reprinted material. Ahh well, good day to all!
IC...@asuacad.bitnet
Homosexuals are the shit left over from the fallen gods. dumbfuck.
La Morte
>
>Homosexuals are the shit left over from the fallen gods. dumbfuck.
Now what the Hel is this?!?!?!?! Prime Flame-fodder, or what?!?!?!?
I wonder if someone left their terminal logged in, and Idiocy struck?
and if the poster's still reading alt.pagan. (I doubt it), a little message
for YOU: I'm actually a witty, intelligent fuck that ruts like a tiger in
heat. Homophobes are the stupid shit left over from the Dark Ages. Get a
life and quit trying to control mine. Nyeah!!!!!
La Morte.
Pagan, Bisexual, and Proud.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why is it that homophobes find gay men threatening, lesbians an
intoxicating challenge, and fantasize about Bi women? Can it be because he's
under the illusion that women are his trained playthings, and gay men tend to
spoil that illusion?
--Me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
loose
>Homosexuals are the shit left over from the fallen gods. dumbfuck.
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
/|\
See post by lstevens, re: *SHIT* HAPPENS |
|
no need to be rude...:)
loose
loose
>The analogy you draw about rain on window = semen on screen just isnt true!
>Semen is far more viscous!!!!
Are you being pedantic?
>And I dont think too many people care as to whether you are in a good mood, or
>not as the case may be
Are you? See, I *care*...O:)
>Just an observation,
Damn fine observation it is too, sonny.
I'm glad you know so much about what semen looks like on a screen.
And about other people caring whether I'm in a bad mood/good mood or not
is really irrelevant. You're just nit-picking. IMHO.
loose
PS
>thumbhere------------[ozzy/lucien: aph...@cch.cov.ac.uk]-------------thumbhere
> ****** Place your thumbs on the asterisks, close your eyes, ******
>******** breathe deeply, count to 10, then open them again. ********
> ****** Let all that stress flow out..........:-) (NeXT mail welcome) ******
I am afraid it didn't quite work...I kept expecting someone to walk in and
find me with my thumbs on the screen, vaguely resembling a fool...not
that this is so difficult.
loose
But nice try...has this worked for anyone, just out of interest?
Matt Hucke
Pedantic? Isn't that what Roy Radow is?
No, that's not the word....
--
And here we are. We're the princes of the universe.
Here we belong, fighting for survival.
We've come to be the rulers of your world. (Queen, 1986)
----===hu...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu ----- There can be only one!===----
Art Taylor
Well, I tried it, but got semen on my thumbs.
--
I eat Jesus, yes I do. For the Bible tells me to. - me
Art Taylor
126 Otis Street
reeses@[fab4box.wa|halcyon].com (509)522-1178 Walla Walla, WA 99362
mark
>
>Homosexuals are the shit left over from the fallen gods. dumbfuck.
Bzzt! Thank you for playing.
Actually, this just needs editing to be true. Substitute "People like this
poster (30350ICEFY)" for the one word, "homosexual", replace the first
period with an "and", and pluralize the last word. See? Works just fine.
mark
interesting little bitch
Laura
Nancy Parsons
[brilliant one-liner deleted in the interest of taste ...]
Count to ten and repeat after me:
"I will NOT post a follow up!"
"I will NOT post a follow up!"
*sigh* What's got into these kids today .... 8-)
Nancy
--
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| nan...@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!nancyp |
|_____________________________________________________________________|