...and Crowley be thy Name

sweet_intuition

Rosanne said:
Originally Posted by sweet_intuition
Lol... another Crowley is evil, Waite is authentic melodrama...lol <snip>
So fighting about it wont make a diff.



hehehe you are so right! I was just responding as mimers kindly pointed out, to a challenge on my views in the aforesaid 'other thread'. It does get a tad boring - so I tried to be clear (as mud to some lol) ~Rosanne

PS: You butchered my quote to make it sound like I'm favoring your point of view.
 

Aeon418

Rosanne said:
I was just responding as mimers kindly pointed out, to a challenge on my views in the aforesaid 'other thread'.
Rosanne, you are entitled to hold any views you like about Crowley. If you wish to believe that Crowley was a satanist (whatever that may be?), that's your business.
The trouble starts when personal opinion, hear say, bad research, and a quick "Google" for rumours of supposed evil, are passed off as facts. That sort of stuff deserves to be challenged.
 

Rosanne

sweet_intuition said:
Lol... another Crowley is evil, Waite is authentic melodrama...lol

It really doesn't make a big diff... Those who are attracted to Crowleys beliefs and writings will always respect him and revere him, same goes to those attracted to Waite's work.

So fighting about it wont make a diff.

Didnt mean to Sweet_Intuiton- here's your full quote and I agree with the middle bit I lopped as well. ~Rosanne
 

Rosanne

Aeon418 said:
Rosanne, you are entitled to hold any views you like about Crowley. If you wish to believe that Crowley was a satanist (whatever that may be?), that's your business.
The trouble starts when personal opinion, hear say, bad research, and a quick "Google" for rumours of supposed evil, are passed off as facts. That sort of stuff deserves to be challenged.
You presume too much- just because someone does not agree with you about Crowley does not mean they have not attempted to find out for themselves and have come to their own conclusions. I personally do not find facts out much by google-ing anyway. I certainly have not learned anything of value from you so far as regarding Crowley. Mostly people here will point in the right direction of where to read and what -and as some here know I am an avid reader. Please do not patronise me by stating what is blantantly clear- of course I am entitled to hold views about Crowley. That is what the thread is about-as once again you seem to refuse to see.~Rosanne
 

Aeon418

Rosanne said:
That is what the thread is about-as once again you seem to refuse to see.~Rosanne
But in your original post you are making an out of context reference to a portion of Abramelin where the four princes are summoned. Even though the name Satan is mentioned it has nothing to do with Satanism and neither does it imply that Crowley was a satanist either.
 

Rosanne

The Oxford English Dictionary offers three definitions of the word “Satanism”:
1. A Satanic or diabolical disposition, doctrine, spirit, or contrivance. 2. The characteristics of the ‘Satanic school.’ 3. The worship of Satan, alleged to have been practised in France in the latter part of the 19th century; the principles and rites of the Satanists.
This first definition originated from An Apologie of the Church of England written by Thomas Harding (1565). During the 16th century, the word Satanism referred to both Protestants and Catholics, depending on which Christian group was using the term. The second definition refers to any writings or teachings of authors and poets such as Lord Byron/Aleister Crowley. And, the third definition refers to the actual worship of Satan as a god.
This was before the 1960's. It is the second definition I am referring to. I do not think Crowley 'Satanic' by the way.There is a difference.
If you wish to believe that Crowley was a satanist (whatever that may be?)
How does this quote fit with this one?
Even though the name Satan is mentioned it has nothing to do with Satanism and neither does it imply that Crowley was a satanist either.
either you know what a satanist is or you don't ~Rosanne
 

Aeon418

Rosanne said:
This was before the 1960's. It is the second definition I am referring to. I do not think Crowley 'Satanic' by the way.There is a difference.
That's one problem solved. I now know "your" definition of Satanism. The trouble is that you used the word without any kind of context. That is very misleading. Don't you think so too? And it's an old trick. Using a well known term with an alternative but less common meaning(s) provides you with an escape route that lets you make inflammatory statements, only to claim that you meant something else later on. It's the equivalent of calling someone a b*stard and later claiming that you only meant illegitimate. ;)

It still does not explain how you connect the Abramelin to satanism, or how Crowley's use of it makes him a satainist of any kind what so ever.
 

Rosanne

In my opening post I said this you ****( edited out insult as I should not have written what I thought- I reacted in a personal way to the insinuation that I was a liar and calling people names is against forum rules) ........

Q. Now the biggie! Do you think Crowley a Santanist?
A. In the terms of how it was understood 1900-1960 before leVey- yes I do
and although I am not going to re read Confessions again I have found
this partly pertinent quote ..

You know something?- your tone and posts show exactly how much a follower of Crowley you are. Would you have rather I quoted one of Crowley's delectable poems?...no wait I can remember a quote without unpacking some books. "I might be a Black Majician, but I am a bloody good one" (A Crowley). I also know about the great recitation of the Abramelin- did he finish it? ~Rosanne
 

star-lover

what theheck is a satanist anyone????

i refuse to befreaked out about that any longer
 

Aeon418

Just because you are having to back peddle, there's no need for personal attacks. That's pretty childish, yes? :rolleyes: Also your comment on the tone of my posts is a complete non sequitur and an obvious dodge. (Besides which, plain text carries no tone. You are projecting.)
Your reference to the Abramelin ritual as proof of Crowley's supposed satanism, no matter how you wish to define it, just does not stand up. Your going to have to dig for some other dirt, and I'm sure you will too. :rolleyes: