Dealing with the tough-minded

[M.W.]

fellow asc2kers

i sometimes post at a site that consists largely of tough-minded
materialists, atheistis, christian bashers, etc. this site is owned
by acharya s., who's works, the "christ conspiracy" and the "suns of
god" effectively deconstruct major religions and show them to be
based on ancient astro-theology. her work was a major factor in
propeling me out of the stagnate orthdox rut that i was wasting away
in. it is often not sufficiently realized by her "fans" that acharys
is not an atheist but somewhat of a mystic. for some years i was
always a moderating voice on her site promotiing the idea of some
kind of hazy, moderating deist position, such as held by jefferson
and other founding fathers.

now that i've gotten some real meat to offer i go back occasionally
to rattle the cage just to see if anyone is interested. i'm not
trying to force feed, just put out some bait. why not! that's what
worked for me!

bill g

#####


hi, joe, some interestng material in your posting. as it happened
there was some discussion of aleister crowley on another discussion
group with speculation revolveing around his actual spiritual
orientation as contrasted to his public image.


--- in superconsciousness@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=kdeu7uafnqw5oihangcau7jyoscpnyrn8afdwt 2x_xzupqcty81_srbqgackh3uknpkkrza98mk7dhyouwci9_xl ucgv7jixoave), joemlalik@w... wrote:
>
> in "magick without tears", aleister crowley answers a disciple's
> question,
> "do you believe in god?" ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ムâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒ ã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â©1991 edition,
> pp 215-217:
> cara soror,
> do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

### from my understanding, the above sentiment is more a corollary
of the "law" not its whole. one argument --from a perspective of a
god differing from that of the common assesment -- and played
againsts the authenticity of the ten commandments as being derived
from ultimate spiritual reality is that of its inclusion of the
negative "shalt nots"

of course the inclusion of the "shall not's" makes sense from the
historically held commonsense idea that god is a supreme oriental
syle despot ruler who -- according to his own pleasure --is laying
down do's and don'ts designed to govern hunan behavior ... and with
the breaking of those rules -- by rebellious malcontents -- will
result in his supreme personal displeasure, followed of course by
punishment now or later....unless of course some savior personality
comes rushing in to save the day/eternity. naturally a conclusion
shared by virtually all subscribers to the superconciousness site is
that this banal earth-model suppostion concerning the nature of god
is supreme b.s..



> p.s. i thought it a good plan to put my fundamental position all by
> itself in a postscript; to frame it. my observation of the universe
> convinces me that there are beings of intelligence and power of a
far
> higher quality than anything we can conceive of as human; that they
are
> not necessarily based on the cerebral and nervous structures that we
> know; and that the one and only chance for mankind to advance as a
whole
> is for individuals to make contact with such beings.

(bill thought, how could i let that opoening pass?)


now. joe, that makes intelligent sense! one of the most highly
respected of ufo investigators was don elkins. this guy was
something special; he held four degrees, taught physics, was a major
arline pilot etc. etc. ( his accomplishments really allow me to feed
my inferiority complex.)

don's investigation into ufo phenomena led him into more subjective
psychic investigation. the result of this work produced an incredible
body of information, supposedly from --what you longed for above --
an incredibly advanced alien contact (actually, an entire planet's
worth of a social memory complex group) it should be understood that
communicating with something of this order is not akin to shooting
the breeze with your friendly next door neighbor or posing questions
to dear abby. the agenda is rather tight and designed for a specific
purpose that must be understood and adhered to.

i would suggest you google llresearch.com and play with their
search facilities. or, take a look at the law of one. this is not
religion per se, but rather a philosophical description of the
nature of the universe.

my apologies to all for the great amount of pro-spirituality stuff
i've been indulging in recently. ... the devil made me do it.



bill g




(as ra pointed out, even reaching one person means reaching all...
making the effort worthwhile. i'll keep trying to nudge a bit here
and there until the spirit shuts me up )

[Petrus]

hey bill,

>i sometimes post at a site that consists largely of tough-minded
>materialists, atheistis, christian bashers, etc. this site is owned

i have some relatives who while outwardly atheists, i tend to suspect are
closet theists. the main reason why such people take the stance that they
do is because they object to the sts stuff present in formal religions...in
the case of such people, their "atheism" doesn't actually have anything to
do with god at all.

this doesn't apply to everyone...but truly strong atheism is very rare.
there are some who claim to be pure/hardcore rationalists, but all they've
really done is adopt science (or their perverted concept of it) as another
religion itself. such people often fairly openly worship charles darwin in
particular.

>always a moderating voice on her site promotiing the idea of some
>kind of hazy, moderating deist position, such as held by jefferson
>and other founding fathers.

it's actually interesting. i understand that jefferson is venerated by
americans perhaps even somewhat more than the other founders for being the
author of the bill of rights, but in all honesty the more i read about him,
the more i suspect that he wasn't the being of light that most people think.
he was an elitist, among other things, and was one of the main proponents of
the electoral college model. he did not believe that people should be able
to vote for the executive directly, or that *everyone* should necessarily be
able to vote, either...it was pretty much limited to white adult males
initially, and for quite some time afterwards. he was also an advocate of
particularly vicious forms of corporal and capital punishment for
homosexuals.

it's also worth remembering that the drafting of the constitution was not
inclusive...it was very much a closed-door affair. yes, there was a
reasonable sized group involved, but they didn't take input from outside
sources...they basically went off and cloistered themselves and discussed
among themselves how it was going to be written. that was in accordance
with their philosophy, and i have no doubt that if jefferson were alive
today he would defend the way they did it on that basis.

why am i saying this...am i simply wanting to bash the us founders here?
no, i'm not...i've had a great interest in these people for a number of
years, and i will agree with anyone who says that they were not only largely
well-intentioned, but were also men of considerable intellect. i am writing
what i am in the interests of maintaining a perspective of objectivity about
them. there were sts/heirarchical/elitist elements in what they did, as
well as the positive stuff, and i can remember at times when having read
about them, thinking that the seeds of the current situation in america were
actually being sown back then. it is worth remembering that of all the
other democratic systems in the world, hardly any of them are a pure
republic. rome demonstrated the weakness inherent in the republican model,
and among other things, it is the same weaknesses that caused rome's
collapse that have come back to haunt the us today; namely, the inability to
protect other branches of government from the excesses of the executive.

[Jake Almond]

> my apologies to all for the great amount of pro-spirituality stuff
> i've been indulging in recently. ... the devil made me do it.

rofl :)

it's synchronous that you should be posting stuff on this note; i
actually came to the forum today with the intent of posting something
regarding christianity! i may as well just go ahead and do so here,
hope you don't mind bill - its slightly off the subject.

my mother is a christian. she stopped attending churches a few years
ago as she does not agree with the kinds of things being preached
there nowadays. basically she studies on her own and with a close
circle of friends (like me really). she is a very empathic, kind and
wise woman, who is discovering many concepts and paradigms that are
very close to the ones i am discovering myself. however all of the
things she considers truths or beliefs are 'restricted' by the bible
and christianity.

in my last post i mentioned tarot cards. now, i am currently living
with my parents (house pricing is insane over here), and my mother
noticed my tarot deck (which was openly on view in my room; i dont try
and hide things). she just came and spoke to me about the tarot cards.

basically she said (i'm paraphrasing here) 'i can't stop you doing it,
but i felt strongly that i had to tell you to not go down that path;
it leads to destruction. divination is very dangerous.'
i nodded and thanked her for the advice. she had a similar
conversation with me nearer the start of the year, regarding a book i
had 'opening to channel'.

in both of these cases i have considered what she said - my mother is
of course me, acting out a different person, so i should consider her
opinion. ironically i considered the conversation with her to be like
a tarot card; another perspective on an aspect of my life.

just thought i'd share this - any comments are welcome!

jake

[Petrus]

hi jake,

> very close to the ones i am discovering myself. however all of the
> things she considers truths or beliefs are 'restricted' by the bible
> and christianity.

do you know what the basis is in her mind for those restrictions? normally
from what i've seen, they're fear based. (as in, "if i deviate from what
the bible says in any way at all, i'm going straight to hell, so i mustn't
ever do so.")
another thing to be aware of is that the majority of churches engage in mind
control, often involving subtle forms of hypnotic suggestibility. (during
singing hymns etc, and especially with some of the "spontaneous" stuff that
the charismatics in particular do) what that means is that although she
might have left the church, it's very possible that she is still suffering
from the residual effects of said mind control.

> basically she said (i'm paraphrasing here) 'i can't stop you doing it,
> but i felt strongly that i had to tell you to not go down that path;
> it leads to destruction. divination is very dangerous.'
> i nodded and thanked her for the advice. she had a similar
> conversation with me nearer the start of the year, regarding a book i
> had 'opening to channel'.

i'm curious as to what her negative experience/s with tarot cards in
particular might have been. in terms of channelling in particular i
possibly have a better understanding of her opinion, though. to channel or
not to channel is a decision that of course every individual must make for
themselves, but i think it was ra who said that a person attempting to
channel would likely receive greetings from beings of like mind,
polarisation wise. as i said to someone else on here in regards to this
subject, not all of us have as high a level of sto polarisation as carla/the
others with her, and thus are unlikely to attract beings that are themselves
as strongly sto polarised as ra was. thus, in my own case anywayz, my own
less pure polarisation would be a good reason for me not to attempt it,
since i would possibly be putting myself in fairly serious danger, at least
physically speaking. though of course as i said, this is a decision that
every individual must make for themselves, and your own milage may vary, to
quote the saying. to me, the fact that your mother told you straight out
*not* to do something would indicate that although she may have left the
church herself some years hence, she unfortunately still retained some sts
inclinations...at least from the point of view of telling others what to do,
i mean.

> in both of these cases i have considered what she said - my mother is
> of course me, acting out a different person, so i should consider her
> opinion. ironically i considered the conversation with her to be like
> a tarot card; another perspective on an aspect of my life.

my guess is that she wants to keep you from harm and feels that that is her
duty as your mother, and as such, her basic intentions are positive.
however as i said, i detect a distortion there from the point of view that
ra talks about not allowing others to make their own decisions as being sts
or control oriented...i think ra also mentions honouring the right of
individuals to make their own choices, and that all we can really do from an
sto perspective is offer people information about our own or others'
experiences, which they can then use if they are willing to perhaps avoid
potential harm. the decision however in an sto scenario always remains with
the person.

[E. Drake]

hi jake,
in response to the tarot in general. i believe that ra spoke to the tarot as a
subject worthy of one of the three gateways of piercing the veil as it were. i
also believe he spoke to the point with regard to the tarot as being a device
which if studied/contemplated upon steadfastly, that it would in effect
magnetize the meditator/contemplator of same as it simply is resonant with the
individualized logos that created this particular galaxy. the material also i
believe went on to state that it was only the "major arcana" that was worthy of
study, and thus meant to convey anything, and that in fact the minor arcana was
created by the priests, thus distorted for divination purposes, and as such akin
to parlor game and effect.

now, this being so, assuming my recall is better than the dubious
billybrainfogged's, help me here if i'm wrong goggle fiends and gang, as i do
all this with mirrors and memory only, eating pizza and juggling simultaneously
whilst sipping beer, would make your mother somewhat right, albeit stated in her
victorian chastisement manner of fear, love, and concern for satan's grip no
doubt.

but you see, if your logic holds water, that she is you, not only was she in
fact communicating as you, but to a more distorted yet higher effect ra as well,
given that she may have better simply shared that "jake, thistarot thing is
transient in nature only if not used for the higher purpose of meditation upon
the archetypes inherent, created so, through, and by the logos of this galaxy,
and which if utilized to it's higher good will magnetize that which you are,
to that which created this."

perhaps this is what she in fact would have meant to convey, but somewhere
between her lips and your ears she was distorted, thus thwarted, in her attempt
to convey same by what she would otherwise have interpreted as scarey-dude
himself. she might better have offered:

"divination is very transient which could be dangerous, or the very least a
waste of better time spent on the major arcana as was originally intended by the
inventor...ra somethinmajigger."

hey, its saturday, and a beautiful one at that, here in clearwater florida on
the back porch overlooking the gulf. magnificent.

p.s....according to my recall, it would have it that ra offered it (the tarot)
originally to the priests. am i right? if not, i'll join billybrainfogged in a
few beers later given that we wouldn't notice the difference in shared senility
anyway...but who would care with today's view of the aqua green clearwater beach
view suitable for beer in any case.

faithfully i remain,

drake






jake almond <the_fonz@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=tfge_drecwav6iqu9b8fekw0vbfusebrnhr3r8 kzdrkjwt0riwmlvwtoazfrtnw49ahi7q40arevxbalq_0nxw)> wrote:
my mother is a christian. .
now, i am currently living
with my parents (house pricing is insane over here), and my mother noticed my
tarot deck (which was openly on view in my room; basically she said (i'm
paraphrasing here) 'i can't stop you doing it, but i felt strongly that i had to
tell you to not go down that path; it leads to destruction. divination is very
dangerous.' i nodded and thanked her for the advice.




---------------------------------
yahoo! music unlimited - access over 1 million songs. try it free.

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jake Almond]

drake
>the material also i believe went on to state that it was only
>the "major arcana" that was worthy of study, and thus meant to
>convey anything, and that in fact the minor arcana was created by
>the priests, thus distorted for divination purposes, and as such
>akin to parlor game and effect.

jake
i see. so would studying these minor arcana archetypes
cause 'detrimental' effect by attaching me to 'negative' entities?
would i perhaps be focusing on things that weren't in my best
interest for ascension, sto etc?

petrus
>do you know what the basis is in her mind for those restrictions?
>normally from what i've seen, they're fear based. (as in, "if i
>deviate from what the bible says in any way at all, i'm going
>straight to hell, so i mustn't ever do so.")

jake
i would imagine what you suggest is the case. i've never directly
asked her about this, but i assume her beliefs are still rooted in
the concepts of hell, if she is still taking 'the bible' (or at least
the many-times-re-written-to-aid-religous-control-document)
literally. if its any help the bible she has is the new king james
version. can't say i really know much about the differences.

petrus
>in terms of channelling in particular i possibly have a better
>understanding of her opinion, though.

jake
indeed; it is of course possible to connect with an entity which does
not resonate with you well, and thus you may (even if
unintentionally) end up with distorted information that's not in your
best interests.

petrus
>my guess is that she wants to keep you from harm and feels that that
>is her duty as your mother

jake
yeah - actually i forgot to mention, when she was telling me she
actually said something along the lines of 'i mean this as your
mother but also in the respect of me individually; in relation to my
own studies and beliefs'.

thanks a lot, both of you, for your thoughts! very much appreciated.

peace, love and learning.

jake

[E. Drake]

good morning jake,

you ask:
i see. so would studying these minor arcana archetypes
cause 'detrimental' effect by attaching me to 'negative' entities?
would i perhaps be focusing on things that weren't in my best interest for
ascension, sto etc?

_______________________________________



drake: the following is of course all conjecture on my part, as i do not
believe ra spoke to anything of the minor arcana other than what was mentioned :



>..."the minor arcana was created by the priests, thus distorted for divination
purposes, and as such akin to parlor game and effect."


the ra focus was strictly on the major arcana, with but a brief mention to the
minor (as i recall?). in this light i am not even sure it would be proper to
suggest that there is even an archetype as such in the minor arcana? ra did not
share/give the minor, only the major. the original galactic logos presumably did
not create a minor arcana as this was (i recall?) created by the priests?



having said that however, i would go on as to your question as it brings up
interesting conversation. i would imagine the study of anything is a good
thing...if used to highest good. i can think of no exceptions. example: the
study of sts, and we have a great deal of it, mind you , here in the ra
material. but it begs the question as to what purpose? why indeed need we study
so much on negativity? because it seems that indeed it fosters and rounds out
understanding in general, thus giving understanding more dimension. sts study
advances study of sto? seems indeed we have on this plane, it would seem , the
inherent requirement of the understanding of opposites and parallels in order to
understand greater our original focus of what it is we wish to understand. how
interesting.



thus, we have judgment, a necessary thing. i can not judge up unless i
understand the principle of down, good, if no understanding of the principle
bad, night to day, yes to no, the small mindedness of some, unless there be the
larger mindedness of others etc. etc.



in this context judgment may be transposed to discernment. when the word
judgment and discernment are used in sto context, they needn't be distinguished
one from the other. when used in antithesis, judgment becomes sts and
discernment becomes sto, but they both emanate from the same position.
interesting. even this mental gymnastic requires judgment?



my point is that i can not see a single example of anything jake, with respect
to the study of anything ,that might cause 'detrimental' effect by attaching you
to 'negative' entities?

playing in the sandbox with shovel and pale, if done with enough concentrated
effect and intent, might cause negative attachment, whist studying lucifer in
your library over a brandy might create an epiphany.



i would prefer the latter as to the former as much as i would the study of the
major to the minor, not as a result of better or worse, but more to the point of
being more efficient.



i remain faithfully,



drake





jake almond <the_fonz@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=wgn7uhuaw70dyntdua38xgddt2dx5r03ydknfq pazy_nbuqgaxh0ahmr-2imymikseufc1krvaftq2u36ply)> wrote:

drake said to jake originally:


>the material also i believe went on to state that it was only
>the "major arcana" that was worthy of study, and thus meant to
>convey anything, and that in fact the minor arcana was created by
>the priests, thus distorted for divination purposes, and as such
>akin to parlor game and effect.





---------------------------------
yahoo! music unlimited - access over 1 million songs. try it free.

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]