Aeon418 said:
For Ravenest's clarity:
What was the big problem with Christianity and the image of the Christ? It was too one sided. It was all goodness and light. The turn the other cheek mentality. Love thy neighbour. Meek and mild as a lamb to the slaughter. And never say boo to a goose. All well and good for the new age too, which is the same stuff with a christmas tree fairy stuck on the top.
This one sided emphasis on certain qualities, which don't encompas the whole of the human condition, creates by reflex action it's projected alter ego, Satan. Everything that Christ wasn't, Satan was. To heal this wound to our collective psyche we need something that embraces all the aspects of human nature. Both it's positive and negative sides need an image of deity that includes all parts of the self. From the highest spiritual aspirations, to the most primitive and animal of impulses. So long as aspects of human nature are not included in this image they will never be intergrated. They will always be the rejected parts that are projected outwards onto other people. This is the cause of the very abuses and repressions you list. The human race has never been able to get to grips with them because they are the qualities that we are told are not spiritual due to one sided conceptions of the divine who is all goodness and light.
666 - God, man, & animal in one. Now that's holistic. I don't see any room for rejected bits. Do you?
Thanks for the anti-new age lecture explaining the difference between new age and new Aeon, Aeon
You seem to like giving my above post a varied meaning that you keep retaining, regardless of my attempts to bring some clarity. It's like everything I have ever written in this forum is being ignored, and all of a sudden I have this wierd denial christian concept.
Maybe its the way I'm writing? Maybe no-one understands what I'm saying?
Oh well, should I bother .... probably not.
But ... 3 times lucky ?
Aeon418 said:
666 - God, man, & animal in one. Now that's holistic. I don't see any room for rejected bits. Do you?
No I dont. But I'm not talking about rejecting bits, I am talking about the best or better approach. Of course I will 'avoid' things that are 'unThelemic', I will not give up my feedom and individuality, I will not bow down in supplication. etc, if that makes me a newager in your eyes well ....
or how about this, does this explain it ? (and I'm trying my best to use your terms of reference, hence Liber Tzaddi again);
It does help clarity to quote ALL the lines in a concept, not just the first parts, your quote ended here;
39. Beware, beware, I say, lest ye seek after the one and lose the other!
But ... what you didnt quote;
41. But since one is naturally attracted to the Angel, another to the Demon, let the first strengthen the lower link, the last attach more firmly to the higher.
42. Thus shall equilibrium become perfect. I will aid my disciples; as fast as they acquire this balanced power and joy so faster will I push them.
and ...
44. They shall be masters of majesty and might; they shall be beautiful and joyous; they shall be clothed with victory and splendour; they shall stand upon the firm foundation; the kingdom shall be theirs; yea, the kingdom shall be theirs.
Oh-oh, more 'rejection' and 'avoidence' ... Crowley's going all New Age on us! he should have written; ' They shall be masters of majesty and failure, of might and weakness; they shall be beautiful and ugly and joyus and sad, thay shall be clothed and naked with victory and defeat and splendour and dross they shall stand upon the firm foundation and the quicksand, the kingdom will be theirs and not theirs; yea, the kingdom shall be theirs and not theirs.