From: Gerald_Del_Campo@sorinc.UUCP (Gerald Del Campo)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Unity
Distribution: world
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:08:26 PDT
Organization: Shades of Reality BBS - Medford, Oregon

In a message dated Tue 25 Aug 92  5:28, cward@Think.COM (Christopher)
wrote:

 C> Gerald_Del_Campo@sorinc.UUCP (Gerald Del Campo) writes:
|> Why do the personalities of the men have to enter into the equation?  I
|> consider the teachings of the Bible to be quite warped, and certainly
worth
|> questioning.  You seem to subscribe to the idea that a person needws to
be
|> perfect to bring a perfect principle to light.  This is very Xtian
outlook.
|> Crowley was just a man, as was freud, and Jesus, etc.  Why do you expect
|> them to be any less warped than any other man.

 C> I almost didn't respond to this since it does not appear to be asking a

 C> questions but just a subtle (or not so subtle) christian-bashing post. 
I don't bash Christianity.  I simply do not subscribe to its principles.  I
taught Catholicism to elementary school kids preparing for Comfirmation and
First Communion.  I longed for the priesthood since I was a child.  I do
not bash any belief whether it is there to make slaves of the simple man or
not.

 C> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but for the record, I take usage
of
 C> the term "xtian" as derisive and find people who use it are generally 
 C> talking from their genitals not their intellect.

The abbreviation "Xtianity" is approved by the Catholic Church as a proper
abbreviation.  If it insults you write a leter to the Vatican.

As to the intellect:  any decision originating from the intellect must be
based on facts.  I felt your statement about Crowley was not based on
facts.  There is no need to insult one another.  It will only make us both
look like children.

 C> No I don't think every author has to be perfect.  Some, like Freud and
 C> Crowley, had some serious personal problems that not only colored their
 C> writings but both men seemed quite blind to their deviations.

If you cannot perceive the jewels contained in Crowley's works this does
not make him warped, or incorrect.  He simply did not strike a harmonious
chord with you... just as Xtianity with me.

 C> Also, Crowley wasn't a very good writer.  Expression of ideas in print
 C> is a talent 

This is an opinion that many would not share with you.  If you say "Crowley
sucks" do you expect everyone to agree with you?

(not one I can claim myself!) 

(Nor myself)

 C> and other authors with this talent have come along and reworked things
at
 C> least into a form more understandable by me.

I see your point.  I agree with you; since others have smoothed things out
I have derived much more benefit from his writings myself.  But the source
of the material is also an important factor.

 C> They have taken "Crowley's truth" and filtered out a good portion of
the
 C> Crowley to get at the truth.

Here you insinuate that Crowley never published the Truth.  He may have
"hid" it from the profane... he might have toyed with the gullible; but he
published as much of the truth as can be communicated.

|>  C> In a highly personal and subjective field like psychology or
magic(k),
|>  C> the personalities of the writers play a much more important role
than
|>  C> in more rigorous fields like physics.
|> 
|> Why?

 C> Because it's personal.  A book on what is good art by some neo-nazi,
 C> skinhead, cubist might not be the one I want to learn to paint from. 
The
 C> author's point of view may be so diametrically opposed to mine that I
find
 C> the book offensive yet the guy in art class next to me can't get
enough.
 C> Such is art!
 
You said it!  So what is the point in arguing over something as objective? 
If I insulted in my posts I apologize, as my intention was not to flame.  I
just wanted to show the other side of the coin.

|> You would be surprised how much of these "new works" are simply
|> regurgitated works of Crowley.

 C> No, I wouldn't.  In fact, strict regurgitations are almost worse.  The
 C> ones which filter and enhance are the keepers.

Well, when debating whether Regardie was better than Crowley I always picke
Crowley  ;)

Love is the Law.
Gerald

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

Newsgroups: alt.magick