steveh583

history says different. Admirer of Erasmus, handling parody and satire, Rabelais fights for tolerance, peace, an evangelical faith and the return to the knowledge of ancient Greco-Roman, beyond the "Gothic darkness" that characterizes the Middle Ages, taking up the theses of Plato to counter the excesses of Aristotelianism. He attacks the abuses of princes and men of the Church, and opposes to them on the one hand evangelical humanist thought, and on the other hand popular culture, bawdy, "joking", marked by the taste of wine and games, thus manifesting a humble and open Christian faith, far from any ecclesiastical weight. He shared with Protestantism the criticism of scholasticism and monasticism, but the religious reformer John Calvin also attacked him in 1550.

do what thou wilt is an old phrase crowley borrowed from a Franciscan friar called Rabelais, who in turn took it from St Augustine of hippo. so religious followers who slate it are in fact disregarding the work of christian pioneers

love McKenna. especially the "nature loves courage" quote. jump into the abyss and realise its just a feather mattress.

its just a fact not an excuse. are you saying he somehow had access to health related information the rest of the world didn't back then? seriously? There is plenty crowley can't be excuse for, prescribed medication for a health condition isn't one. if you aren't going to reply intelligently, please refrain from a childish back and forth. life and people are full of grey areas, its never black and white.

sorry you will have to point to where i said either crowley or vaccines are great. you seem to be assuming a hell of a lot. maybe you are one of those guys who could start a fight in an empty room. Crowley obv didn't have access to the scientific, nutritional and medical knowledge that is available now.

sounds about right. he lived outside of his means and openly admitted it. but he wasn't quite the destitute living in a slum his detractors portray towards the end.

you know hes not my friend right? I'm not defending anyone, merely discussing an interesting subject from a well researched, pragmatic standpoint. its you who seems to have a horse in this race. Saying that, I dont think you can "discipline" asthma and bronchitis

lol his skag was on prescription as was common for in those days. his addiction was perfectly legal

i have confessions. there isnt

out of interest, who told you crowley was skint most of his life? I have heard differing accounts. i know he was a bankrupt, but that was towards his winter years. and during his stay at netherwood he still received subs from OTO and american supporters. when he died, £400 was found in a shoebox under his bed, given to him for the future publication of magick without tears. thus kind of indicating a) his misfortunes were overstated, b)his restraint was still in tact when required

it depends how you define anti - christ i suppose. i have met many people who are anti - christianity.

I post this in a previous thread and think its applicable here never has there been more misinformation written about a single person in history that crowley. Basically he was the victim of the worlds first smear campaign by the media (who were offended by his open bisexuality and criticism of the church). The same media you lot still criticise for their treatment of icke. All of you who still believe such twaddle are the same as the sheep who dismiss icke instantly. Its not like there aren't credible biographies covering his (unbelievably action packed) life, or people who worked with him like israelie regardie who will give you a more practical perspective. He wasn't a satanist, he was a thelemite. He wouldn't have given any credence to satanism as this would lend credibility to christianity, something he'd loath to do. He certainly wasn't a "nice" guy, he was selfish, silly and had a ridiculous ego.....but he wasn't evil. Basically he was a trust fund brat, and that attitude spilled over into his work meaning he couldn't walk the path he preached. If you read his actual work it is surprisingly tame and more in the lines of hindu/daoist philosophy. Many people will misquote "do what that wilt" as if its hedonistic, when it actually means "find your divine purpose" IE find your true calling in life. They will also quote a single line about "sacrificing 150 children a year" which is a joke referencing masturbation because he was bound by the literacy laws of the age. if they bothered to read the rest of the chapter, he signs it off basically stating only a complete idiot would take this seriously. crowley was a impish raconteur, as was the popular writing influence of the age (Oscar wilde?) and didn't suffer fools gladly so was happy to encourage his ridiculous reputation. Here is his quotes on black magic : Black magic is not a myth. It is a totally unscientific and emotional form of magic, but it does get results — of an extremely temporary nature. The recoil upon those who practice it is terrific. It is like looking for an escape of gas with a lighted candle. As far as the search goes, there is little fear of failure! To practice black magic you have to violate every principle of science, decency, and intelligence. You must be obsessed with an insane idea of the importance of the petty object of your wretched and selfish desires. I have been accused of being a "black magician." No more foolish statement was ever made about me. I despise the thing to such an extent that I can hardly believe in the existence of people so debased and idiotic as to practice it. on the media : To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worth while. The natural laziness of the mind tempts one to eschew authors who demand a continuous effort of intelligence. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter. People tell me that they must read the papers so as to know what is going on. In the first place, they could hardly find a worse guide. Most of what is printed turns out to be false, sooner or later. Even when there is no deliberate deception, the account must, from the nature of the case, be presented without adequate reflection and must seem to possess an importance which time shows to be absurdly exaggerated; or vice versa. No event can be fairly judged without background and perspective.

i think it was more in terms of negating the aggressive male energy with its opposing force. But its all mere speculation, theres no proof other than crowleys words, and he was known to tell a good tale.