Wow. In capitals and with exclamation point! Impressive! Or I mean IMPRESSIVE!
STRONGLY
How strongly? And why didn't you add a "!" to it? I mean you capitalized it and all, presumably for emphasis, but adding a few "!!!" would help in that area.
So, how is this debunked? And what is it that he "debunked"? Was it the jebus bullshit myth? Wiki says that is the religious part of "zeitgeist". Is that "proof" in your movie? If so, where?
If it's "clearly disinfo", then perhaps you can prove it? It doesn't take wading through a 2 hour video to prove something like this.
If it doesn't have naked women in it doing naughty things, I'm not going to watch it, and I bet that you didn't watch it either. You probably made the claim without bothering to check it out for yourself.
Most satanists don't even believe in a literal satan. And I know very little about Crowley.
Most people who call themselves satanists lie about the fact they DO in fact worship satan. And you HAVE spoken in detail about Crowley in the past, so you appear to be a bit dishonest in what you say about your knowledge of him and his legacy.
Perhaps I was confusing Michael Acquino with Aleister Crowley. No difference basically, but I'll see if I can find your comments on Crowley when I have more time.
Edit: Oh looky here, silly me, it was on the very thread that I linked to. You tried to explain how you really knew what Crowley meant in one of his more questionable writings.
Do you understand what "will" means, when he says "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"? Does that mean that you can do whatever you want to do? No, it doesn't mean that.
Do you know, without looking it up, what evocation and invocation are?
If you want to know what he is writing about, then try going to the source. I told you that Crowley was hard to understand. You insist on reading at the surface level when these things are never written to be understood at the surface level.
oto-usa.org/faq.html#q_thelema
Did Crowley really sacrifice children? No. Crowley never performed or advocated human sacrifice. His much-quoted allusion to frequent "child-sacrifice" (Magick In Theory & Practice, Chapter XII) was a metaphor for a specific practice of sexual magick that did not involve harm to any individual, but diverted the energies of sexuality from physical reproduction to other purposes. The 'child' or 'Bud-Will' that is sacrificed in such a practice is a particular manifestation of the magician's Will, and not a physical, human child. Human sacrifice in any form would be incompatible with the principles of Thelema, as a violation of the right of every individual to live as he or she wills.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
”I say to each man and woman, you are unique and sovereign, the center of a universe. However right I may be in thinking as I do, you may be equally right in thinking otherwise. You can only accomplish your object in life by complete disregard of the opinions of other people.“ - Aleister Crowley
Jesus Never Existed
PSUSA posted on 2010-11-03 14:55:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Perhaps I was confusing Michael Acquino with Aleister Crowley.
And perhaps you're a fucking liar. lol! And I did not speak in "detail" (your word, not mine) about anything.
And BTW, did you watch the video? That was a rhetorical question. I can guess the answer.
BTW pt.2: Do you like my current sigline? It's from the holey bobble, after all. ;) You see, I don't have to post anything from any "satanist", when I have the entire xtian bobble to work with. It's chock full of bullshit. The hard part is deciding which scriptures to use.
And I did not speak in "detail" (your word, not mine) about anything.
Your rambling in post 10 of the thread I linked proves otherwise.
BTW, isn't it a "satanic virtue" to lie?
You see, anyone who feels the need to associate themselves with an entity which is seen as the embodiment of evil is a bit disturbed, where either consciously or subconsiously that person DOES see "satan" as his or her "god".
It's no different than being a holy roller banging on the "good book" claiming every word in it is true. It's just that you use a different book, and do the same.