P
Philemon
What does Atwill mean by calling Thelema satanic? What does “satanic” mean when you think of the Bible the way that Atwill thinks of the Bible?
Being a Christian would be a philosophical or religious identification centred on a spiritual principle. Paul, who essentially invented the idea of Christ was not, apparently, talking about an historic person so much as a spiritual being. Of course Paul can be interpreted in other ways too. There are Christians who do not think Jesus is literally historic with no great discomfort. There are scholars who insist that there is no firm evidence of an identifiable individual who can be confidently said to be the Jesus of the Bible. But that does not mean he did not exist - just that it is pretty irrelevant. Seriously, who remembers Marconi or Edison when we think radio or electric lights? A thousand years from now historians might be arguing whether either was a real person. It may matter to a historian, but we are not natively historians. Our native turf is myth - and the Jesus we have now is way more myth than anything else.This is the line of reasoning that I have a tremendous difficulty with. Of course you could still believe in God if you were to decide that Jesus never walked the Earth, but what point would there be in calling yourself a Christian?
Granted. I will take the odds. Huge coincidence that Mithras was born on the same day. But I do also grant that God may have reserved a special day for such moments events.I suppose there is a small chance P(Jesus existed)/365 that he was indeed born on Christmas day!
David
I guess one question I have is that if there's an element of conspiracy in the rise of Christianity, whence comes the morality in the gospels? Who at the time the alleged conspiracy was being forged was advocating this morality? It strains credulity to think that a bunch of cynics at that time could have made it up out of whole cloth, especially in a society barbaric by today's standards. So it would seem reasonable to assume that the morality was borrowed from some contemporary sect that wasn't Christianity, and moreover, that the cynics could recognise its appeal, seeking to interweave it into the gospel narrative in order to -- what, exactly?
What would the motive be? Why not omit much of the morality and stick to a mythos that would inform much of the Christian religion? Why would anyone seek to pepper the gospels with so much morality at a time when, in the Roman empire at least, morality was very different from what is found in the gospels? I can't weigh it up. Someone enlighten me.
Because the historicity of Jesus (at this point) is irrelevant towards his affect on historical Western civilization and towards the impact of his teachings on the lives of people everywhere, it doesn’t follow that it simply does not matter if he existed or not. The truth matters.
I guess one question I have is that if there's an element of conspiracy in the rise of Christianity, whence comes the morality in the gospels? Who at the time the alleged conspiracy was being forged was advocating this morality? It strains credulity to think that a bunch of cynics at that time could have made it up out of whole cloth, especially in a society barbaric by today's standards. So it would seem reasonable to assume that the morality was borrowed from some contemporary sect that wasn't Christianity, and moreover, that the cynics could recognise its appeal, seeking to interweave it into the gospel narrative in order to -- what, exactly?
What would the motive be? Why not omit much of the morality and stick to a mythos that would inform much of the Christian religion? Why would anyone seek to pepper the gospels with so much morality at a time when, in the Roman empire at least, morality was very different from what is found in the gospels? I can't weigh it up. Someone enlighten me.
Right, I think this is a good point. And the funny thing is, when I read the gospels, I don't get the feeling that the Romans are being portrayed as the good guys. The tax collectors etc are looked down upon and are considered scum. Jesus has run ins with them all the time. And what did Rome want more than anything? They WANTED THEIR MONEY. I don't understand why they would make the tax collectors look so bad. It doesnt make any sense.
Yes but couldn't that be part of the conspiracy - appear to be the enemy of the Romans, but don't actually fight them. The Jews were hardly likely to fall for a religion that bowed down to the Romans!Right, I think this is a good point. And the funny thing is, when I read the gospels, I don't get the feeling that the Romans are being portrayed as the good guys. The tax collectors etc are looked down upon and are considered scum. Jesus has run ins with them all the time. And what did Rome want more than anything? They WANTED THEIR MONEY. I don't understand why they would make the tax collectors look so bad. It doesnt make any sense.
I didn't watch this interview either but seen thelemic is satanic. Damn I hate Christians and religion
Another thought - a lot of people dictate their emails and texts now. The speech to text thing also makes very weird mistakes and often butchers what a person means to say. Perhaps that could explain an email that says something like, “Let’s meet at Todd’s place for dinner. I have a chicken nugget dressed in oil and vinegar. Let me know how many people will want some so I know how many times to cut it.” Or... maybe not.
“Thelema favor” - maybe “a little favor”?
Edit: Looking at the wikileak email (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/39459) I see the word appears to be used in the subject line as well as the body of the text. That makes it seem less likely to be in error. It is funny though thinking of someone who doesn’t know how to attach a photo to an email as being someone who, nevertheless, wields megatons of evil occult force. One last shot at deciphering this - perhaps “the email” got mangled as “Thelema.”
I would guess that for him, it just means a group of people that try to invoke non-existent evil spirits by doing vile things to other peopleWhat does Atwill mean by calling Thelema satanic? What does “satanic” mean when you think of the Bible the way that Atwill thinks of the Bible?
Yeah. I didn't like Atwill ducking this. Crowley is definitely not satanic in the sense that he worshipped or invoked Satan. There word is thrown around loosely these days, so Atwill really should have said what he meant by the term. Crowley is deeply problematic because many people who have 'researched' him have conclusions and opinions at complete odds. Maybe they all have something to say - like Crowley being the elephant and all the commentators being blind men.I did listen to the episode, but I didn’t hear anything that clarified how Atwill defines “satanic.” Seriously, what does that word mean to Atwill?
Yes but couldn't that be part of the conspiracy - appear to be the enemy of the Romans, but don't actually fight them. The Jews were hardly likely to fall for a religion that bowed down to the Romans!
David