• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Define a Pagan Witch?

The sick thing that springs to mind... and it is something that does make me feel physically sick... was his experimentation on whether a cat really did have 9 lives and the twisted ways he tested the theory - something he admitted to doing... his sexual acts, drug taking and all that don't bother me in the slightest :)
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
I will be gone for 2 days. I work at the Renaissance Festival (look at the writing link... there is a picture of me in costume on the home page), so I won't be back until Sunday night.

Merry meet, till merry part, till merry meet again!
 

Gnosti Seauton

New Member
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law

The sick thing that springs to mind... and it is something that does make me feel physically sick... was his experimentation on whether a cat really did have 9 lives and the twisted ways he tested the theory - something he admitted to doing... his sexual acts, drug taking and all that don't bother me in the slightest

Ahhh that, yeah that kina bothered me as well. But lots of Autrocities are made in the name of science. Remember science doesn't pay any attention to morals. And if it were some scientist in a lab thats exactly what it would have been. Either way we as cat lovers think it to be a completely inhumane act. But an Elephant in Siam wouldn't care in the least bit. Morals are subjective and not truth. However much I disagree with that test (which I do) I can not dispute that fact.

I would also to add that (so there's no mistake) I am not a Crowleyite, I am a Thelemite. I defend Crowley for one reason and one reason only. My honour is in his and his in mine. It follows somewhat of the precept of honor thy father. That is honor him but you don't nessicarily have to agree with all that he does. I am a Thelemite to and through and Crowley being the Prophet of the new Aeon and the proclaimer of the law of Thelema, the lies which are spread about him reflect back on us Thelemites. Like wise when I do something whether good or bad reflects back upon Thelema and Thelemites as a whole. Azh you've wittnessed this fact first hand so in defending him I am defending myself and my own faith.

Love is the law, love under will.
 
I have indeed witnessed it first hand and you probably have more respect from me because of it, and not only because you're a friend!

I did actually say I respected Crowley, although I don't follow his path or his teachings ;) I just don't like the cat-thing!
 

Gnosti Seauton

New Member
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law

I was just re-reading throught this post and saw a couple of things I should comment on.


I'm just saying that modern witchcraft may have developed from a combination of the adoption of Christian views of witches and the revival of the "Old Religion", and then slowly but surely had tried to eradicate ALL Christian views (despite fluffy bunnies running around claiming to "sacrifice cats to Satan" and be able to levitate.)

I'm not so sure this accurate. In any part.
Firstly I don't think "Wicca" arose from anysort of Christian thought at all. The Mystery schools have been around for a much longer time than Christian cults. And seeing the form and style of Wicca I belive it to have it's ancestery in these respectable foundations. However I have a distaste for most wiccans (not ALL) , not because they're wiccan but because they're fluffies and don't know the first thing about their beliefs. I hold the same against Christians that have never read the bible. Or Thelemites that have never read the BOL etc etc...

Secondly there is no proof that there ever was an "Old Religion" that is a united religion practiced world wide. In fact most wiccans and other Neo-pagans pick and choose their dieties from various sources whether it's the greek, egyptian, Roman (same as greek with Different names) Zoroastrian or Hindi or Hebrew. And very few neo-pagans stay with the same pantheon their entire life (even Gods are disposable in todays society. If ones not working for you throw him out with yesterdays garbage and choose a new one)

However, I think we are going around in circles on this topic

I think you're right.


You seem to respect Crowley and believe the Golden Dawn was completely original.

I know this was addressed to Azh but I think I should add something here.
There is nothing wrong with respecting a man for what he has contributed to your world. If it weren't for Crowley you may not even have Wicca today. And if it weren't for the Golden Dawn the Occult Revival might not have ever taken place.

However the Golden Dawn was by no means original in fact the entire structure was believed to be written by Eliphaz Levi and placed in a book later found by MacGregor and Colleages and formed from that it is thought (and there is evidence to back this up) that Eliphaz Levi got it from a much older Mystery School. (There are Mystery schools btw that date back to Biblical time, they like mordern Mystery schools expounded qabalistic teachings and modes of living by the holy way)

I don't respect Crowley

If it is your will then so be it, however I don't think one is prepared to make such a disicion based of such little knowledge of the subject. Read pro and Anti-Crowley material alike and make your desicion in the scientific way. (ie Don't make so many presumptions)

and I think that the Golden Dawn, while undoubtedly full of intellegent individuals, was just looking for attention and trying to create their own version of Satanism. (And I don't just say that they were a kind of Satanist group for no reason. While not actually worshipping Satan

The Golden Dawn was filled to the Brim with intellegent people. In fact there were no unintelligent ppl. in the Golden Dawn. Secondly at teh time of the GD there was no known Satanic school that didn't come until much later. The funniest bit about this comment is that it also shows your lack of understanding towards satanism as well becuase even satanists don't worship satan. They're ego worshipers and as such they're completely oppisite to GD members who wished to destroy their ego so that they could be a proper vessel for the Divine.

While not actually worshipping Satan, they seem to pretty much adhere to the Nine Satanic Statements:
Untrue and I will display why.

1. Indulgence, not abstinence.
Entirely untrue as they taught disipline and hardwork and feeding of the higher self and eradication of the ego the complete oppisite of modern satanists

2. Vital existence, not spiritual pipe dreams.
Not sure what you mean by this statement. Maybe you mean the belief that one should take care of life first and worry about death when it gets here. OR perhaps you should work to work, not for some vain hope of some imaginary after life.

3. Undefiled wisdom, not hypocritical self-deceit.
Guilty as charged.

4. Kindness to those deserving of it, not love wasted on ingrates.
This is untrue as well there is no evidence to support this at all. In fact the whole GD thought and A.'.A.'. thought for that matter is helping your fellow human realise his or her divine potential. A far cry away from the selfish love in which your trying to protray them to have.

5. Vengeance, not turning the other cheek.
This is not enitrely true either. The true rule is more of along the lines of "Being kind is not stepping outside ones integrity" that is be kind be loveing but don't put your self in foolish positions were you can be hurt. If you do it's your own fault. This makes one take responsibilty for ones own actions and it's much more mature than the whole you did this so I'm going to do this BS. Thats sooo pre-school.

6. Responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires.
Not sure what you mean in this statement.

7.Man as just another animal - the most vicious of all. 7. Gratification of all ones desires.
Absolutely ludicrous and did I mention completely untrue. The GD did not see us as being just another animal. We are concidered to be much much more with the ability to become even more evolved. However it is our responsiblity to take care of our wildlife.

8. The best friend that the Christian Church has had as he has kept it in business for centuries.
However true this might be. I don't believe any GD member has ever gone on record saying that.

And they seem to fit into the mold that Satanists drew for themselves:

1. They do not worship a living deity.
2. Major emphasis is placed on the power and authority of the individual Satanist, rather than on a god or goddess.
3. They believe that "no redeemer liveth" - that each person is their own redeemer, fully responsible for the direction of their own life.

1. Not true, they don't worship a dead diety.

2.Firstly there should be no "satanist" in that sentence and it should be replaced by ceremonial magician. But other than that this statement is for the most part true.

3.The first part of this is a completely false accusation. The latterhalf is true. And a good precept to live by. As part of this worlds problems are caused by ppl not wanting to take responsibility for thier own actions.

Thats all for now, as the rest has been wonderfully commented upon by Azh.

Love is the law, love under will.
 
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: satanism and the GD...uh ok!...

And there are ,many forms opf modern satanists...not all are ego worhsipping anton lavey wannabes....

But I could care less about satanists actually.......

So Gnosti chap you a proper fully paid up memeber of the GD? a "frater"?????JUst wondering......
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
Firstly I don't think "Wicca" arose from anysort of Christian thought at all.

When I said "modern witchcraft" I did not just mean Wicca. This may not be completely true of Wicca, but when looking at modern witchcraft as a whole there are two different things you will see: a revival of the "old ways", and a borrowing of Christian images of witches, demons, magic, and other practices. They are not nesessarily BOTH present in one tradition, but they ARE both present in witchcraft (which is, again, much broader than just Wicca). And, as much as we want to, we can't completely discount the fluffy bunnies who embrace the Christian vision of "witchcraft", because that is their religion and they have reasons for believing in it.

Secondly there is no proof that there ever was an "Old Religion" that is a united religion practiced world wide.

I didn't say that it was a worldwide practice of the "Old Religion". I said that there were revivals of the "Old Religion"... whether it be Druidism, Egyptian beliefs, Germanic paganism, Nordic paganism, or any other set of "Old Religion" beliefs. "Revival of the Old Religion" means there was a return to the pre-Christian belief systems... and yes, I agree that most modern pagans are eclectic in their beliefs.

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote.

If it weren't for Crowley you may not even have Wicca today.

Part of what Azhria and I were arguing about was whether or not Crowley had anything to do with the creation of Wicca. She said he didn't... you say he did. Which is true?

If it is your will then so be it, however I don't think one is prepared to make such a disicion based of such little knowledge of the subject.

My own beliefs follow the creed "and it harm none, do what you will." Anyone who intentially harms another creature loses my respect. He was known for his little "experiements". I don't care what other great things he did with his life. I may respect some of the knowledge that came from him as a scholar, but I don't respect him as a person. If that is a biased view, then I am sorry, but I can't change it.

The Golden Dawn was filled to the Brim with intellegent people. In fact there were no unintelligent ppl. in the Golden Dawn.
Yes, many religious scholars are intellegent people. That doesn't give their beliefs any more validity than the beliefs of other people.

When I said that Golden Dawn seemed to follow the Satanic principle of "Indulgence, not abstinence, you said:

Entirely untrue as they taught disipline and hardwork and feeding of the higher self and eradication of the ego the complete oppisite of modern satanists

"Indulgence, not abstinence" means embracing the sensual world (enjoying beauty, sex, and other things that are sometimes either ignored, looked down upon, or outright considered "sinful" by Christian views). You seem to think that indulgence is a negative thing. However, this statement encourages people to understand that "We are spiritual beings having a physical experience." (to quote a bumper sticker) Satanists believe that humans were given bodies, minds, and senses for a reason, and that to deny the sensual world is wrong.

Golden Dawn practiced orgies (again, this is not wrong, in my opinion, as long as everyone involved was willing) and basically did what they wanted, even if Christian bigots said "This is sinful. Repent and be saved."

I am not using the Satanic Principles against them. I am saying that Satanists may have used Golden Dawn as a basis for their own views. I don't know why you are so against this idea. Every religion borrows from others; NONE are truly original. If Golden Dawn didn't get some of their ideas from Christian views of Witchcraft (again, I ask you about the rumor that Crowley and Mathers called on demons in one of their mock "battles" against each other, using the Christian names of the demons), then where did they get them from? They were an eclectic group... they drew on ideas from everywhere. Even I, as unknowledgable as I am, can see that.

When I said "2. Vital existence, not spiritual pipe dreams" you wrote:

Not sure what you mean by this statement. Maybe you mean the belief that one should take care of life first and worry about death when it gets here. OR perhaps you should work to work, not for some vain hope of some imaginary after life.

A pipe dream is a vain dream that will never happen, given the harsh reality of life. This Satanic statement urges Satanists to see through pretty spiritual illusions to the harsh reality of life. It talks about how many people have blinded themselves with spiritual "Truths".

I am willing to bet the Golden Dawn's members didn't blind themselves to the way things really were. As you say, they were intellegent people, and they didn't have a dogmatic system of belief designed to eradicate personal responsibility and offer comfort when understanding is really what is needed.

A far cry away from the selfish love in which your trying to protray them to have.

You think "Kindness to those deserving of it, not love wasted on ingrates" is a negative thing? You do know that these are the Satanic statements. You seem to have a certain prejudice against Satanists. These are not negative statements, but a practical ones. Love those who deserve love. Don't show kindness and baseless forgiveness to people who really deserve to be told off. Turning the other cheek only works up to a certain point.

This makes one take responsibilty for ones own actions and it's much more mature than the whole you did this so I'm going to do this BS.

Ah, yes, because if you ignore another person's behavior and turn the other cheek, they will just immediatly stop hurting you. I personally think that if someone comes up and slaps me, they should be slapped back, or they will never understand why it hurts another person. If I just ignore them and turn the other cheek, I am inviting them to slap me again, and do more violence to get a reaction.

When I said "Responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires" you said

Not sure what you mean in this statement.

You seem to think these are MY statements. They are not. I am quoting the Nine Satanic statements put out by the Church of Satan several years ago.

The idea that "man is just another animal" encourages us to be humble. Christians think that after God himself, we are the supreme beings of the universe, and that everything else is below us. This is an arrogant view, and discourages responsibility. When we understand that we are animals, just like all other creatures on the planet, we can feel a connection to them and understand that our intellegence makes us responsible for protecting them, instead of believing that they are just there for us to abuse, eat, and lord over.

You wrote in response to that quote

Absolutely ludicrous and did I mention completely untrue. The GD did not see us as being just another animal. We are concidered to be much much more with the ability to become even more evolved. However it is our responsiblity to take care of our wildlife.

Humbleness, not arrogance, was what the Statement was about. You are preaching that we are better than everything else on the planet. We are a biological organisms that were just lucky enough to be blessed with intellegence.

When I said "Major emphasis is placed on the power and authority of the individual Satanist, rather than on a god or goddess" you wrote:

2.Firstly there should be no "satanist" in that sentence and it should be replaced by ceremonial magician. But other than that this statement is for the most part true.

I am talking about the Satanist and asking you to compare the Golden Dawn to the Satanists. These statements of Satanic Belief come from the statements Satanists made about their own beliefs... I am not going to cut out the word Satanist because they were talking about themselves. I am asking YOU to look at their statement and see if the Golden Dawn would have agreed. Agreeing that the GD believes the same thing does not mean ceremonial magicians are Satanists. It means that they believe something similar to Satanists. You understand?

Look at these statements again, with the understanding of what they mean, and then tell me that the GD did not agree with most of them. I am not saying that the Golden Dawn ARE Satanists. I am saying that they believed similar things that modern Satanists do, and that modern Satanism may have evolved from Golden Dawn philosophy.

You are looking at everything from a "she is insulting my religion point of view". I am pointing out positive beliefs that I think both religions share. You don't want to see any validity in what I say because you want the Golden Dawn to remain completely original in your mind, instead of seeing the connection it has with other religions. I challenge you to TRY to compare it to Wicca and Satanism, and see what beliefs the three might share, and what images of witchcraft the three religions may have adopted from Christianity (take a look at "The History of Witchcraft" and pay close attention to the pre-Golden Dawn Christian views of what Witchcraft was and witches did, and then tell me if there is still no similarity).

If you do this and still don't see any validity to anything I say, then fine, I will admit that you are completely right and I am completely wrong. But don't tell me that I am uneducated and biased until you understand true Satanism a little better and can look at it from a positive angle instead of the negative one you seem to have right now.
 

ErikaLee

Member
Wow....


Okay, I'm going to try and throw my two cents in here. I am not that educated in the History and Origin of Paganism, but I'm going to explain it the way I see it.

The word Pagan in Latin means "country dweller". Back in the day, long long ago... the Pagans were the farmers out in the rural parts of Europe, and I don't mean just England and France.

They lived their lives by the seasons for planting and harvest and somehow those ideas became involved with a God and a Goddess in different stages of life. Life became Religion and visa versa. When the Catholic Church started trying to convert these people they assimilated or abolished their Religious practices and sometimes the people as well. What is Christianity without a little fear?

That went on for centuries and centuries - from the Crusades to the Burning Times. Some people converted to Christianity but kept some of the old Pagan rituals that revolved around the seasons because that was still their way of life. And some of the Pagan rituals became Christian ones or just part of the traditions of the culture.. the Maypole is a good example.

Now... Pagans nowadays, actually NeoPagans, still hold fast to the ideas of worshipping Nature and the God and the Goddess - Paganism is one of the only ways to get a female Deity and we all know you can't have one without the other.

You can be Pagan without practicing the craft. Rituals and celebrations do not always involve Magic.

So Pagans are those Nature Worshipping, God and Goddess Worshipping folks, who use the fruits of the earth in their lives - Herbs, oils etc.

And Witches are those Magic Doing folks, who use the fruits of the earth in their lives - Herbs, oils etc. You can even be a witch for using Herbs and things WITHOUT Magic, from what I understand.

And Pagan Witches are those Nature Worshipping, God and Goddess Worshipping, Magic Doing folks, who use the fruits of the earth in their lives - Herbs, oils etc.

And the reason I think people use the term "Witch" even tho it has such a negative meaning is because it is empowering - especially to women.

EL
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
LMAO

Good description. I think all parties can agree to this description. If not, start arguing. And, of course, feel free to debate my previous posting. I have already refined my beliefs and understanding simply by talking to you guys (even if I appear to be a hard-headed teenager who has to have everything her way :p ), so please, keep talking.

After we get this pretty much sorted out, I am going to write up our "agreement" on what paganism and witchcraft are (complete with quotes from you guys!), and use that as the introduction instead of what I have on at the moment. I especially think that ErikaLee's description was good... she put it into the simplest, least debateable form that will serve well as the introduction. (I will even quote you guys).
 

Gnosti Seauton

New Member
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law

When I said "modern witchcraft" I did not just mean Wicca. This may not be completely true of Wicca, but when looking at modern witchcraft as a whole there are two different things you will see: a revival of the "old ways", and a borrowing of Christian images of witches, demons, magic, and other practices. They are not nesessarily BOTH present in one tradition, but they ARE both present in witchcraft (which is, again, much broader than just Wicca). And, as much as we want to, we can't completely discount the fluffy bunnies who embrace the Christian vision of "witchcraft", because that is their religion and they have reasons for believing in it.

Bad wording on my part. I apologize. And I would agree with this statement as it is put. But at same time I think this is only to be natural as we have grown up with this image of what a witch should look like act like etc etc and we were told this by the Christian church. However if we are to look at it this way "Wichcraft" was revived in a rebelious spirit against said church. In fact 99.9% of people (at least in america) start practising the "craft" and adopt paganism because their sick of the Christian way of things and are rebelling against it.

I didn't say that it was a worldwide practice of the "Old Religion". I said that there were revivals of the "Old Religion"... whether it be Druidism, Egyptian beliefs, Germanic paganism, Nordic paganism, or any other set of "Old Religion" beliefs. "Revival of the Old Religion" means there was a return to the pre-Christian belief systems... and yes, I agree that most modern pagans are eclectic in their beliefs

In this case it would be old religions. Plural. Not the singular "Old Religion" that you spoke of becuase if something is singular it is one and not many (smiles at the irony and falsness of that statement) Anyways you get my point.

I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote.

And I think you mis-wrote what I interpreted

If it weren't for Crowley you may not even have Wicca today.

Not sure there's evidence to support both sides. Thus the reason why I inserted the word "may" in the statement.

My own beliefs follow the creed "and it harm none, do what you will."

Very similiar to "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" "Love is the law, love under will".....interesting (see above sentence).

Anyone who intentially harms another creature loses my respect. He was known for his little "experiements". I don't care what other great things he did with his life. I may respect some of the knowledge that came from him as a scholar, but I don't respect him as a person. If that is a biased view, then I am sorry, but I can't change it.

The idea that "man is just another animal" encourages us to be humble. Christians think that after God himself, we are the supreme beings of the universe, and that everything else is below us. This is an arrogant view, and discourages responsibility. When we understand that we are animals, just like all other creatures on the planet, we can feel a connection to them and understand that our intellegence makes us responsible for protecting them, instead of believing that they are just there for us to abuse, eat, and lord over.

Ah, yes, because if you ignore another person's behavior and turn the other cheek, they will just immediatly stop hurting you. I personally think that if someone comes up and slaps me, they should be slapped back, or they will never understand why it hurts another person. If I just ignore them and turn the other cheek, I am inviting them to slap me again, and do more violence to get a reaction.

Read the above qoutes in order and tell me there's not a problem there. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what do I know I'm just silly Thelemite.

Also starting with quote #1:

Men of science have a "moral" obligation to discover truth. If the discovery of said truth means that an animal must lose it's life it is for the greater good and did not die vainly. As I said in my above post.

Ahhh that, yeah that kina bothered me as well. But lots of Autrocities are made in the name of science. Remember science doesn't pay any attention to morals. And if it were some scientist in a lab thats exactly what it would have been. Either way we as cat lovers think it to be a completely inhumane act. But an Elephant in Siam wouldn't care in the least bit. Morals are subjective and not truth. However much I disagree with that test (which I do) I can not dispute that fact.

What is more moral Runt, killing one child to save millions of cancer patients or letting those millions of cancer patients die a slow and painful death when you could have done something. Or what is more moral, willingly ignoring truth (becuase it panders not to you prejudices) or trying to discover truth so that others may live, learn, and evolve along side you.

#2

I think the answer lies some what between the 2 extremes. Yes we do have animal funcitionality and are in many ways equal to the beasts of the field. However we have also recieved through one mode or another, certain tools and traits which other animals do not possess. Such as the will to be something more than what we already are (just to name one but many spring to mind) these assets make us resoncible to our fellow creatures and thus higher in the hiarchy. Much like what a parent is to a child.

#3

Here you misunderstood completely what I wrote. What I was saying was that, if someone hurt you then you should refuse to put yourself in a situation where it will happen again. It's that simple. Defend yourself by all means when need arises. But defending ones self is a hell-a-lot different than seeking revenge. By refusing to be around that person you take the wind out of the devil, they have no power over you. Revenge is letting an enemy have control over your actions.

Indulgence, not abstinence" means embracing the sensual world (enjoying beauty, sex, and other things that are sometimes either ignored, looked down upon, or outright considered "sinful" by Christian views). You seem to think that indulgence is a negative thing. However, this statement encourages people to understand that "We are spiritual beings having a physical experience." (to quote a bumper sticker) Satanists believe that humans were given bodies, minds, and senses for a reason, and that to deny the sensual world is wrong.

Golden Dawn practiced orgies (again, this is not wrong, in my opinion, as long as everyone involved was willing) and basically did what they wanted, even if Christian bigots said "This is sinful. Repent and be saved."

I am not using the Satanic Principles against them. I am saying that Satanists may have used Golden Dawn as a basis for their own views. I don't know why you are so against this idea. Every religion borrows from others; NONE are truly original. If Golden Dawn didn't get some of their ideas from Christian views of Witchcraft (again, I ask you about the rumor that Crowley and Mathers called on demons in one of their mock "battles" against each other, using the Christian names of the demons), then where did they get them from? They were an eclectic group... they drew on ideas from everywhere. Even I, as unknowledgable as I am, can see that.

I see no problem with this statement (except 1: explained below) although I still don't equate GD members to satanists in the "Anton laVey" sense. (Just to clairfy for Hoomer) which I'm not sure if you are either but from the looks of it you are.

Demons have been around since the begining of humanity so Christianity has nothing to do with the demon aspect.

Ultimately I think we're agreeing in many many things but mis-undestanding each other. A common thing amongst these boards. And thus why discussion is such a healthy practise. But alot of the time people get offeded and thier feelings get hurt due to these "discussions" but so far so good. :)

I do want to clarify that I have nothing agaist satanists for the most part. I've known a few and they were decent (a little hurt by christian society) people. And then some I have known where just as bigoted as most alot of Southern Baptists. It just depends on the person.

To Hoomer:

And there are ,many forms opf modern satanists...not all are ego worhsipping anton lavey wannabes....

Indeed there are those who understand the formula of satan and therefore understand those energies etc etc..

Then there are those who are Ego worshippers (or Antonites as I like to call them)

And then there are the cult of Kali (the one in indiana jones) style satanist. The First and the last being the most rare.

But I could care less about satanists actually.......

Here here!!!!

So Gnosti chap you a proper fully paid up memeber of the GD? a "frater"?????JUst wondering......

To my regret I am not.
This is for multiple reasons
A: there's not a lodge within 300 miles of where I live (perhaps more).
B: No money to fly.
C:Don't know anyone to vouch for me :(

I am however seeking initiation of some sort in viable group. Yet sadly I have not yet found a initiatory lodge in my area except ones that no longer hold public Gnostic Mass. So no way to get in contact with them and get to know them.

In Texas everything is kind of stagnant. Or at least thats how it appears.

Love is the law, love under will
 
Part of what Azhria and I were arguing about was whether or not Crowley had anything to do with the creation of Wicca. She said he didn't... you say he did. Which is true?

actually, where AC, Wicca and Witchcraft are concerned I actually said it isn't known for sure but that apart from his association with Gardner he had nothing to do with it.
 
I am not a satanist...or follow the Golden Dawn...

I follow the works of RJ Stewart(as a core)...who was taught directly by WG GRay in the 1970's...
Gray was an EX member of the GD that left...and had associations and dealings with Ms Firth (Dion Fortune)......

My "path/school ...whadeva!"...is chthonic based....the Underworld(qlippoth to a GD personage...but NO demons!...lol)...a mix of ritual magic..(qabbalah.angels yadda yadda) and faerys.....

Peersonally I still think I am a beginner...but whadeva...

I have no lodge either..maybe I need to seek one out....

I am meeting RJ for some "work" for the 2nd time this coming weekend....am stoked....

As for the argument..I can see how and why the GD got associated wioth satanism...

1. from an exoteric christian viewpoint they would be "evil".....The whole problem with satan is..he's largely a christian composite figure....exoteric christianity teaches that ANYTHING other than Jesus is evil bad and therefore satanic!....

2. the GD were perhaps at the forefront of the "Occult" revival...as noted leaning heavily upon Levi...then it is NOT unreasonable top my mind that the church of satan and other satanic organisations leant heavily and borrowed from the GD.....

The GD for all its faults IS an empowering system...

3. Crowley's "modern" thelema based organisation the OTO could be viewed as satanic....as is done so by some.....


But this is straying into Lunacy..again my actual concern for satanists....is NOTHING.....

Hmm the GD held orgies...where can I sign up?
 

Gnosti Seauton

New Member
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law

1. from an exoteric christian viewpoint they would be "evil".....The whole problem with satan is..he's largely a christian composite figure....exoteric christianity teaches that ANYTHING other than Jesus is evil bad and therefore satanic!....

2. the GD were perhaps at the forefront of the "Occult" revival...as noted leaning heavily upon Levi...then it is NOT unreasonable top my mind that the church of satan and other satanic organisations leant heavily and borrowed from the GD.....

The GD for all its faults IS an empowering system...

3. Crowley's "modern" thelema based organisation the OTO could be viewed as satanic....as is done so by some.....

Very good points, and from that view point runt is completely right the GD would be satanists, but then so would the Buddists, Hindi, and Pagans.
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
*cries*

I am not saying the GD were Satanists! I am saying that there are striking similarities between both, but to say the GD were Satanists because they seem to believe some of the same things would be like saying that people who practice Druidism are Wiccans.
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
And I think you mis-wrote what I interpreted

LMAO, point taken! I will fix it.

Men of science have a "moral" obligation to discover truth. If the discovery of said truth means that an animal must lose it's life it is for the greater good and did not die vainly.

Everyone already knows that cats do not have 9 lives. That is why kittens die ONE time when drowned in a pond, and don't come back. If Crowley did NOT know that cats die only once, he was stupid and not intellegent at all. By acting in that way, he was trying to get attention and to offend people, and obviously had no true interest in "science" at all. There are better ways Crowley and the GD could have furthered "science" than by needlessly harming animals to test whether or not a mere SAYING was true.

Or what is more moral, willingly ignoring truth (becuase it panders not to you prejudices) or trying to discover truth so that others may live, learn, and evolve along side you.

Oh sure, I will discover LOTS of spiritual truths by killing cats! Sign me up now! (Sarcasm, by the way). Why didn't anyone kill Crowley to see if he really did have spiritual powers?

I think the answer lies some what between the 2 extremes. Yes we do have animal funcitionality and are in many ways equal to the beasts of the field. However we have also recieved through one mode or another, certain tools and traits which other animals do not possess. Such as the will to be something more than what we already are (just to name one but many spring to mind) these assets make us resoncible to our fellow creatures and thus higher in the hiarchy. Much like what a parent is to a child.

I think we are basically agreeing here. I was saying that because we are like animals but more "evolved" we have a responsibility to protect them. You were saying because we are more "evolved" we are NOT like animals, but we STILL have a responsibility to protect them ("much like what a parent is to a child").

Defend yourself by all means when need arises. But defending ones self is a hell-a-lot different than seeking revenge. By refusing to be around that person you take the wind out of the devil, they have no power over you. Revenge is letting an enemy have control over your actions.

Aye, I agree. Understand that I am not saying that the GD took it is far as Satanists probably would. I am just saying that perhaps they are not as inclined to stupidly "turn the cheek" (and keep turning the cheek instead of doing something about their problem) like a Christian would suggest they should do.

Demons have been around since the begining of humanity so Christianity has nothing to do with the demon aspect.

Aye, but Crowley used the CHRISTIAN name for the demon he "called" (Beelzebub). In my opinion, by naming the demon by its Christian name, he gave it the characteristics of a Christian demon. (If there have been demons since the beginning of humanity, then "Christian demons" probably also exist). By working with a Christian demon, he was practicing what the Christians would call "Satanism". While the Christian definition of Satanism, the fluffy bunny definition of Satanism, and the Church of Satan's definition of Satanism are not all the same (or really the same at all), by SOMEONE'S definition Crowley was practicing Satanism (though not by Crowley's definition or by yours, or, truly, even by mine, though I say he was practicing something SIMILAR to Satanism). *takes deep breath after all that*

And thus why discussion is such a healthy practise.

Aye. It is teaching me to write more precisely (*cough* and with more thought)... and teaching me that I am not always right about everything (a tough lesson for every teenager to learn).

However, most of the problems seem to be that I TRY to say something but can't, you guys tell me that it is not true and then proceed to write out what I was TRYING to say but couldn't (grr), and then I argue with you that I was saying what you were saying only it looked like I was saying something else (cuz I can't write).

And I'm supposed to be a "gifted" English student...
 
Top