Jump to content

British Spirituality : William Blake : Taoism : Aleister Crowley


Recommended Posts

Just now, MarpatV2 said:

You are truly single minded in your hatred of Jews Mr Wave. I guess the sabbatical you took didnt cool your beans.

 

wave never hated jews nor do i

 

However there is in existence a cult called the sabbateans who follow lurianic kabbalah

 

So to establish whether or not i'm right about what i'm saying we need to explore the possibility of the involvement of that cult in the globalist conspiracy for example the role of its adherents such as the rothschilds

 

Whether they are involved or not is seperate from how you or i feel about things. The truth doesn't care how you or i feel about things. The truth just is. How you feel about things and the perception you then create from that may or may not be in alignment with reality itself and that is the point of research to find out what reality itself is

 

But those pushing an agenda like you will ignore the truth if it doesn't accord with your agenda and that makes you dishonest

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

While i'm on this subject i want to make it clear that natural law applies to ALL HUMANS. This means that if i am asserting my own natural law rights i am also asserting the natural law rights of all

These people are interested in the high, as well as the low. They are interested in the sky, as well as the earth. They are interested in the outer, as well as the inner. And so they be

William blake was a gnostic and was likely receiving his gnostic knowledge from some source   Crowley in that quote above seems to be pushing a sabbatean ethos of pursuing holiness through s

8 minutes ago, MarpatV2 said:

Lol, Im not but if you want to believe a delusion then thats your choice.

 

So what is this agenda Im pushing, individual spiritual liberty? scares you doesnt it, that others might be different to you. 

 

i already told you....go and watch that clip of mark passio at 2 hours and 53 minutes where he explains the pillars of satanism (i think it was part 2/3 of his natural law seminar on youtube)

 

You clearly have no intention of having an honest discussion here. You just want to wriggle and squirm and misrepresent people and their arguments

 

I'm surprised a thelemite hasn't contacted you and warned you that you are making them look bad!

Edited by Macnamara
Link to post
Share on other sites

While i'm on this subject i want to make it clear that natural law applies to ALL HUMANS. This means that if i am asserting my own natural law rights i am also asserting the natural law rights of all humans including jews

 

It is the sabbateans who are trying to remove peoples knowledge of their natural law rights so that they may rule over everyone

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MarpatV2 said:

See the source image

Aleister Crowley was a false prophet; serving a false god. A man bent on lasciviousness; he was carnal, sensual and devilish. "All men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness."

 

Men like Crowley are unable or unwilling to perceive spiritual realities. Paul explained that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14.) This "True Will" makes this man difficult to teach because he comprehends nothing more than that which he sees with the natural eye! … Talk to him about angels, heavens, God, immortality, and eternal lives, and it is like sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal to his ears; it has no music to him; there is nothing in it that charms his senses, soothes his feelings, attracts his attention, or engages his affections, in the least; to him it is all vanity. This "Man" is proud; his most distinguishing feature is pride, which is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward man. The look of the this "Man" is neither up (to God) nor over (to man), except as the horizontal glance allows him to compete with his fellows. Pride is essentially competitive in nature, the proud want everyone to agree with them. The central doctrines of Thelema: Love, Life, Law are contrary to natural and spiritual law; one cannot find happiness in doing iniquity, in allowing rude animal passions to overshadow spiritual inclinations; "the wages of sin is death."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maedros said:

Aleister Crowley was a false prophet; serving a false god. A man bent on lasciviousness; he was carnal, sensual and devilish. "All men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness."

 

Men like Crowley are unable or unwilling to perceive spiritual realities. Paul explained that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14.) This "True Will" makes this man difficult to teach because he comprehends nothing more than that which he sees with the natural eye! … Talk to him about angels, heavens, God, immortality, and eternal lives, and it is like sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal to his ears; it has no music to him; there is nothing in it that charms his senses, soothes his feelings, attracts his attention, or engages his affections, in the least; to him it is all vanity. This "Man" is proud; his most distinguishing feature is pride, which is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward man. The look of the this "Man" is neither up (to God) nor over (to man), except as the horizontal glance allows him to compete with his fellows. Pride is essentially competitive in nature, the proud want everyone to agree with them. The central doctrines of Thelema: Love, Life, Law are contrary to natural and spiritual law; one cannot find happiness in doing iniquity, in allowing rude animal passions to overshadow spiritual inclinations; "the wages of sin is death."

Yeah, stick to the Sunday school approach, that anything not in the bible is bad

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, steveh583 said:

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

 

I would state clearly that Rabelais was certainly no Christian, though you are taking liberties with St Augustine's quote though I see the man as a North African Kabbalist in any case. There were the people with their own agendas who put the rot into Christianity.

 

https://www.truthspoon.com/p/the-neoplatonic-anti-truth.html

 


Additionally two of the principal Church Fathers, founders of the so called Christian church, Tertullian and Cyprian were both from Carthage, the great city of the Phoenicians. Tertullian was a great proponent of the Trinity, a concept taken straight from the Zohar. Cyprian, like Augustine of Hippo received a pagan education and later apparently converted to Christianity.

 

Augustine introduced the concepts of Original Sin and Just War. Augustine too was born in Phoenician North Africa. Aren’t we starting to notice a preponderance of North African influence in the creation of the early church? Also the theme of educated and enthusiastic pagans ‘converting’ to Christianity and apparently bringing all of their pagan baggage with them when formulating the new religion they called Christianity but which had very little to do with the words or acts of Jesus.

 

The majority of the Church Fathers in fact came from distinguished and wealthy families and more often than not, these people often spent a youth completely contrary to Christian values: engaging in homosexuality and libidinous sexual affairs. Again and again one notices the theme of apparent ‘sudden conversion’ at around the age of 30 to Christianity. In fact in the example of Augustine of Hippo it is believed that he abandoned Manichaeism because he could not rise to a position of power within its hierarchy, so one might assume that his adoption of Christianity was merely a way to achieve personal aggrandisement.

 


 

Edited by Truthspoon
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Truthspoon said:

 

I would state clearly that Rabelais was certainly no Christian, though you are taking liberties with St Augustine's quote though I see the man as a North African Kabbalist in any case. There were the people with their own agendas who put the rot into Christianity.

 

https://www.truthspoon.com/p/the-neoplatonic-anti-truth.html

 


Additionally two of the principal Church Fathers, founders of the so called Christian church, Tertullian and Cyprian were both from Carthage, the great city of the Phoenicians. Tertullian was a great proponent of the Trinity, a concept taken straight from the Zohar. Cyprian, like Augustine of Hippo received a pagan education and later apparently converted to Christianity.

 

Augustine introduced the concepts of Original Sin and Just War. Augustine too was born in Phoenician North Africa. Aren’t we starting to notice a preponderance of North African influence in the creation of the early church? Also the theme of educated and enthusiastic pagans ‘converting’ to Christianity and apparently bringing all of their pagan baggage with them when formulating the new religion they called Christianity but which had very little to do with the words or acts of Jesus.

 

The majority of the Church Fathers in fact came from distinguished and wealthy families and more often than not, these people often spent a youth completely contrary to Christian values: engaging in homosexuality and libidinous sexual affairs. Again and again one notices the theme of apparent ‘sudden conversion’ at around the age of 30 to Christianity. In fact in the example of Augustine of Hippo it is believed that he abandoned Manichaeism because he could not rise to a position of power within its hierarchy, so one might assume that his adoption of Christianity was merely a way to achieve personal aggrandisement.

 


 

What you really mean to say is that he isnt YOUR type of christian. So Augustine was Jewish then? Why do you say he was a kabbalist?

 

How can you be truly sure what the words of Jesus, or should we say Yeshuah ben Yoseph, are? do you accept the information in the gnostic gospels, such as those of Phillip, Mary and Judas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saint Augustine was North African Phoenician. Canaanite people. This is where the Kabbalah comes from. Its origins are not Jewish.

 

Quote


 St. Augustine the Punic country people near Hippo called themselves Chanani, i.e. Canaanites.

 

 

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03569b.htm

Edited by Truthspoon
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Truthspoon said:

Saint Augustine was North African Phoenician. Canaanite people. This is where the Kabbalah comes from. Its origins are not Jewish.

I guess it cant claim to be jewish considering the teaching claims it came from Eden and began with Adam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nietzsche Good Quote

Modern man, mass man, whatever racial affiliation he may boast, is anathema to Nietzsche. It is an absurd dream of contemporary culture that we – anyone at all – just by ‘being ourselves’ can surpass the ancient creativity of entire peoples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Truthspoon said:

 

I would state clearly that Rabelais was certainly no Christian

 


 

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, steveh583 said:

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.

 

Lol..... Wikipedia jockey.

 

Anyway, you're being selective with your quotes. 

 

There's plenty of criticism of Rabelais and whether he really was a Christian.

 

But I'm assuming that you don't know the subject...hence the Wiki-riding.

 

I can be a Wiki jockey too bud:

Quote

Most scholars today agree that Rabelais wrote from a perspective of Christian humanism.[30][page needed] This has not always been the case. Abel Lefranc, in his 1922 introduction to Pantagruel, depicted Rabelais as a militant anti-Christian atheist.[

 

Maurice Jules Abel Lefranc (27 July 1863 – 26 November 1952) was a historian of French literature, expert on Rabelais...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...