The Yezidis and the...
 
Notifications
Clear all

The Yezidis and the Peacock Angel

Page 3 / 3

 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
To condemn an entire culture, race or religion based on one incident and to justify and advocate intolerance toward that race, religion or culture appears part of the same old weary problem than it does any kind of solution.

If people wish to declare war on something I suggest they declare war on their own sleep.

I respectfully disagree, Z. I judge cultures, races, religions and other such groups based on how they systemically regard the sovereignty of the individuals who compose them, based upon the following criteria:

"Camlion" wrote:
whether or not an individual among this group has the right to to live in the way that he wills to do; to work as he will, to play as he will, to rest as he will, to die when and how he will; to eat what he will, to drink what he will, to dwell where he will, to move as he will on the face of the earth; to think what he will, to speak what he will, to write what he will, to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will, to dress as he will; to love as he will, when, where, and with whom ye will.

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

PS to last, there is less likely to be an constrained or conditioned consensus among entire racial groups regarding these criteria, of course. These are more likely applicable to cultures, religions and such.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Camlion" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
To condemn an entire culture, race or religion based on one incident and to justify and advocate intolerance toward that race, religion or culture appears part of the same old weary problem than it does any kind of solution.

If people wish to declare war on something I suggest they declare war on their own sleep.

I respectfully disagree, Z. I judge cultures, races, religions and other such groups based on how they systemically regard the sovereignty of the individuals who compose them, based upon the following criteria:

"Camlion" wrote:
whether or not an individual among this group has the right to to live in the way that he wills to do; to work as he will, to play as he will, to rest as he will, to die when and how he will; to eat what he will, to drink what he will, to dwell where he will, to move as he will on the face of the earth; to think what he will, to speak what he will, to write what he will, to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will, to dress as he will; to love as he will, when, where, and with whom ye will.

Too bad there isn't such a known culture, race or religion on Planet Earth other than a hopeful, informal and still very nascent Thelemic one.

I find it ironic to quote The Prophet's archaic language in this thread. What about woman, do they enjoy the same rights?

Attacking people for not being enlightened in the way we desire doesn't change anything. My evidence for this assertion is the last two US led wars.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
To condemn an entire culture, race or religion based on one incident and to justify and advocate intolerance toward that race, religion or culture appears part of the same old weary problem than it does any kind of solution.

If people wish to declare war on something I suggest they declare war on their own sleep.

I respectfully disagree, Z. I judge cultures, races, religions and other such groups based on how they systemically regard the sovereignty of the individuals who compose them, based upon the following criteria:

"Camlion" wrote:
whether or not an individual among this group has the right to to live in the way that he wills to do; to work as he will, to play as he will, to rest as he will, to die when and how he will; to eat what he will, to drink what he will, to dwell where he will, to move as he will on the face of the earth; to think what he will, to speak what he will, to write what he will, to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will, to dress as he will; to love as he will, when, where, and with whom ye will.

Too bad there isn't such a known culture, race or religion on Planet Earth other than a hopeful, informal and still very nascent Thelemic one.

I find it ironic to quote The Prophet's archaic language in this thread. What about woman, do they enjoy the same rights?

Attacking people for not being enlightened in the way we desire doesn't change anything. My evidence for this assertion is the last two US led wars.

Nascency is where things begin. "Man" = mankind = humanity, but yes, not PC sensitive by present standards, I guess. No one is attacking, per se, it is actually a matter of defending others.

As per AC:

The general welfare of the race being necessary in many respects to your own, that well-being, like your own, principally a function of the intelligent and wise observance of the Law of Thelema, it is of the very first importance to you that every individual should accept frankly that Law, and strictly govern himself in full accordance therewith.

You may regard the establishment of the Law of Thelema as an essential element of your True Will, since, whatever the ultimate nature of that Will, the evident condition of putting it into execution is freedom from external interference.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Camlion" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
To condemn an entire culture, race or religion based on one incident and to justify and advocate intolerance toward that race, religion or culture appears part of the same old weary problem than it does any kind of solution.

If people wish to declare war on something I suggest they declare war on their own sleep.

I respectfully disagree, Z. I judge cultures, races, religions and other such groups based on how they systemically regard the sovereignty of the individuals who compose them, based upon the following criteria:

"Camlion" wrote:
whether or not an individual among this group has the right to to live in the way that he wills to do; to work as he will, to play as he will, to rest as he will, to die when and how he will; to eat what he will, to drink what he will, to dwell where he will, to move as he will on the face of the earth; to think what he will, to speak what he will, to write what he will, to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will, to dress as he will; to love as he will, when, where, and with whom ye will.

Too bad there isn't such a known culture, race or religion on Planet Earth other than a hopeful, informal and still very nascent Thelemic one.

I find it ironic to quote The Prophet's archaic language in this thread. What about woman, do they enjoy the same rights?

Attacking people for not being enlightened in the way we desire doesn't change anything. My evidence for this assertion is the last two US led wars.

Nascency is where things begin. "Man" = mankind = humanity, but yes, not PC sensitive by present standards, I guess.

Liber Oz was written at a particular place and time and was considered a magical operation for the context it appeared in. I see no reason to rigidly and dogmatically adhere to its outdated language.

"Camlion" wrote:
As per AC:

The general welfare of the race being necessary in many respects to your own, that well-being, like your own, principally a function of the intelligent and wise observance of the Law of Thelema,

Declaring war on others is neither intelligent or wise.

"Camlion" wrote:
it is of the very first importance to you that every individual should accept frankly that Law, and strictly govern himself in full accordance therewith.

This looks akin to my suggestion of declaring war on one's own sleep. Nothing in there about trying to control or convert other people.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

AC from Duty, as was the quote above:

Governments often exhibit the most deplorable stupidity, however enlightened may be the men who compose and constitute them, or the people whose destinies they direct. It is therefore incumbent on every man and woman to take the proper steps to cause the revisions of all existing statutes on the basis of the Law of Thelema. This Law being a Law of Liberty, the aim of the legislation must be to secure the amplest freedom for each individual in the state, eschewing the presumptuous assumption that any given positive ideal is worthy to be obtained.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4209
 
"zardoz" wrote:
If people wish to declare war on something I suggest they declare war on their own sleep.

The most sensible remark I've read in this thread so far.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Camlion" wrote:
AC from Duty, as was the quote above:

Governments often exhibit the most deplorable stupidity, however enlightened may be the men who compose and constitute them, or the people whose destinies they direct.

Indeed, including a Thelemic government which this thread postulates/presumes.

"AC" wrote:
It is therefore incumbent on every man and woman to take the proper steps to cause the revisions of all existing statutes on the basis of the Law of Thelema.

Declaring war on others, advocating intolerance, and the anger shown in this thread are not "proper steps."

My point earlier is that religious intolerance is just as ugly whether it be Islamic, Xtian, Yezidic, or in the name of Thelema.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
Declaring war on others, advocating intolerance, and the anger shown in this thread are not "proper steps."

I could argue that anger is a quite natural reaction to danger, to impending threat, and that suppression of this natural reaction is artificial, unnatural and unhealthy. A threat to what, you may ask? A threat to the freedom and independence of the individual which is necessary to his or her proper function in life. I know that you are an advocate for personal Attainment, Z, and so am I, but Attainment is not for everyone - as Crowley came to see - it is for the very few with and interest and an aptitude for the Work. For the rest, the freedom and independence of the individual which is necessary to his or her proper function in life is what is required, and the Yesidis are an example of one of many groups who would deny these necessities to their people.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Camlion" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
Declaring war on others, advocating intolerance, and the anger shown in this thread are not "proper steps."

I could argue that anger is a quite natural reaction to danger, to impending threat, and that suppression of this natural reaction is artificial, unnatural and unhealthy. A threat to what, you may ask? A threat to the freedom and independence of the individual which is necessary to his or her proper function in life. I know that you are an advocate for personal Attainment, Z, and so am I, but Attainment is not for everyone - as Crowley came to see - it is for the very few with and interest and an aptitude for the Work. For the rest, the freedom and independence of the individual which is necessary to his or her proper function in life is what is required, and the Yesidis are an example of one of many groups who would deny these necessities to their people.

True enough. Anger almost always comes as a fear based reaction. Fear is the forerunner of failure.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
True enough. Anger almost always comes as a fear based reaction. Fear is the forerunner of failure.

Google 'fight or flight,' it's about nature and survival. 🙂


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 456
 

Aeternitas, you bring up moral relativism, OKontrair, you affect a lofty disdain for engagement.

Have neither of you read AC on "mixing the planes"?

Yes, moral systems are relative to perspective; but once that persective is taken, the world crystallizes objectively as +/- relative to that perspective. There is no cosmic reason that forces you to care for the ichneumon wasp, but once you care for it, then it's very much a plus if it gets its larvae inside another insect, and that larva eats its way out of the living insect.

You are God, but God expressing as a human being, with fellow-feeling and care for human flourishing (one must presume 🙂 ). God in this guise very much cares about a particular perspective, the human perspective, and the world falls out as +/- relative to that. (Human flourishing is of course interdependent with the homeostatsis of life on the planet, and other good stuff, but that should be taken as understood.)

To hold the perspective of the Absolute does not mean that one must tippy-toe around the sensibilities of ancient modes of life that are (at least huge chunks of them) inimical to human flourishing, for fear of offending them. And I mean all of them.

According to AC, a message has been given from the gods/God, a proclamation has been made, that individualism is to be the guiding principle for the next few thousand years, that individualism as a principle is the best way to further human flourishing. This is either true or false, objectively. If you don't believe that it's true, and don't wish to take a stand for it, to fight for it, that is of course your choice - but it's what AC believed for and fought for, that's for sure.

The above is the case quite alongside the fact that from the perspective of the Absolute, individualism is a lie. There is no contradiction, because these truths are on different "planes" (like the Buddhist concept of "two truths").


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"gurugeorge" wrote:
The above is the case quite alongside the fact that from the perspective of the Absolute, individualism is a lie. There is no contradiction, because these truths are on different "planes" (like the Buddhist concept of "two truths").

Quite so. The fact that we may 'Understand' that certain aspects of our apparent manifestations as individuals are illusory does not mean that these illusions do not have rules that must be played by, nor does it mean that we can opt out of the game - at least not in Thelema. Thelema implies embracing the illusion so that we may realize the fullness of possibility serially, as 2, self and not-self divided, regardless of the fact that 0 is also the 'ultimate Reality.' There are necessarily two sides to this equation.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
My point earlier is that religious intolerance is just as ugly whether it be Islamic, Xtian, Yezidic, or in the name of Thelema.

Oh come now, don't be ridiculous. You can't categorize my anger towards the Yezidi who murdered that woman for daring to exercise her free will as "religious intolerance"; I may have framed my anger is vaguely Thelemic terms, but they murdered someone for a stupid reason, because they are a bunch of murdering bastards. Of course I'm intolerant of such thuggery. Everyone should be.

You're saying my "religious intolerance" is "ugly"? Erm. no, it's not. Murdering people because you don't agree with who they marry is ugly.

If I went out and killed a woman because she married a Nigerian man, and then a Christian person commented on that, saying "Scripture says 'thou shalt not kill'"- would you defend me and criticise the "religious intolerance" of the Christian? Of course not.

Be sensible. Stop messing about.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Do Thelemites have something against women marrying Nigerian men that I'am not aware of? Or were you just using Nigerians as an example because you don't like them either?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I disagree with what happened, and the people that perpetrated the act are certainly criminals, though their mentality is not unfamiliar. But their views to not make their actions justfied.
But this incident is not reasonable cause to condemn the Yezidi people as a whole and to label them all as "low life scum suckers."
I'm not sure what country you are from graspee, but your attitude is not unlike those of many americans who who openly and actively persecuted people of muslim and arabic backgrounds after September 11th 2001. It is exactly the same mind set.

Consider the above example that you give; now imagine if the Christian had said "that man that killed that Nigerian man is a Thelemite/Crowleyan, all Thelemites/Crowleyans are murdering sinners."

You should stop messing about and take the time to look over some of the wording you have used and think.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

A good point, Aeternitas, a bit disappointing that it had to be spelled out.

Compare the recent Welsh case of child abuse from the gang who used Crowley as an excuse for their destructive conduct. However unacceptable we may find such conduct, the fact remains that every major sacred corpus of writing in human history has been successfully used by criminals as authority or excuse for their behaviour. The texts themselves often support it, although obviously they are just texts and we are not automatons and must bear responsibility for choosing to allow a mere book to usurp our power, our Will.

The Book of the Law contains so very many passages which may be thus abused.

gaspee, ask yourself the following questions.

Did the act stem from Yezidi doctrine, or did it have nothing to do with it?

Are such acts characteristic of Yezidi culture or religion?

Liber Al says:

"Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs."

"Aum ! All words are sacred and all prophets true ; save only that they understand a little ; solve the first half of the equation, leave the second unattacked. But thou hast all in the clear light, and some, though not all, in the dark."

Those who profess a religion can only profess their part of it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"graspee" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
My point earlier is that religious intolerance is just as ugly whether it be Islamic, Xtian, Yezidic, or in the name of Thelema.

Oh come now, don't be ridiculous. You can't categorize my anger towards the Yezidi who murdered that woman for daring to exercise her free will as "religious intolerance"; I may have framed my anger is vaguely Thelemic terms, but they murdered someone for a stupid reason, because they are a bunch of murdering bastards. Of course I'm intolerant of such thuggery. Everyone should be.

You're saying my "religious intolerance" is "ugly"? Erm. no, it's not. Murdering people because you don't agree with who they marry is ugly.

Sorry you missed the point and that you're unable to listen to input.
Go ahead and wallow in your righteousness, if it makes you feel better.

Yes, religious intolerance is ugly, this thread is a very mild example of it but still very ugly nonetheless.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I give up. It's like arguing with blocks of butter.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Yes well, imagine how much worse your intellectual idea war would have fared with the Yezidi. They're far more invested in their own interests than anyone here but when faced with our protestations you concede within a few days. Keep in mind these people have been fending off the self-righteous for centuries.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"graspee" wrote:
I give up. It's like arguing with blocks of butter.

You don't argue, you insult. How clever is that?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 

Bored with this now.

Locked.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 3
Share: