Misotheism and Maltheism


In my history i have been accused of “blaming God” for my obstacles.

It´s funny how if a person thinks a supernatural entity goes out of “his” way to help a person one s considered to have faith.

If one believes in a good, benevolent God one is a beliver and if it is followed by acts, cultic or otherwise one could be considered religous.

If one belives in a bad, mad, deluded, sadistic or evil God, creating the world for his own means, going out of his way to personally sabotage one…..strange looks follows.

 

 

Yet, ideas like these are not new or unique in any way.

The Gnostics saw the creator God (or Demiurge) as evil or deluded in some of the traditons lumped together under that name (Gnosticism).

In their view the real absolute and impersonal God (The Arche, Monad, Bythos and other names) did not, and will never create anything (though there are purely idealistic emanations from him forming the “Pleroma” or “fullness”.

Creation of a material world was seen as more or less a mistake (one of the Aeons of the Pleroma creatng the Demiurge or….”God”).

However, Gnosticism being emanationistic, influenced as it often is, by Neoplatonism, as spark of the Pleroma remains in man.

Notice how many mythologes includes a theme where the Gods or the God creating and keeping the cosmic order also want to prevent wisdom and knowledge ever reaching man.

Usually there is a bad guy ruining that (Satan, Loki, Prometheus).

Perhaps there is wisdom and “wisdom” (the Divine being protective and wanting to introduce it in its own time and perhaps in reasonable portions. Or the whole thing could be part of “the plan” as some religions would hold).

 

Suffice to say that who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in mythology is not as clear as it might seem.

Let us pretend that the terms “good” and “evil” are not philosophically imbecile and use them anyway.

 

Which one represents the true nature of "God"? From: http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2011/11/evil-god-challenge.html

 

Ancient polytheistic religions usually didnt have concepts like the Judeo/Christian “good/evil”.

Gods competed and reacted in different ways to eachother (as forces do).

Some forces where perhaps unbalanced. Some might be balanced but destructive to other forces or concepts but not “good” or “evil” in the way we usually think of it today (besides, morals differ between cultures and philosophies which ofcourse reflects in mythologies).

 

Anyway, misotheism (a dislike or distrust of Deity) or Maltheism (the belief in a malign Deity) are not stranger than the oposite and just as much part of Theological thinking as the oposite or any other viable philosophical concept of personal Divinity.

Neither Atheism, nor Satanism are escapes for the one who belives in an oppressive God.

Thelema and Theism


“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”

In an answer on Tumblr it was stated that “Thelema is atheistic”.

I do not think this is entirely correct.

 

Stele

First of all we have to distinguish between atheism, nontheism, apatheism and so on. Atheism is a statement that one does not belive in the existence of Deity.

Several religions dont have a central God but this leaves them either nontheistic or transtheistic  Crowley mentions that we dont know wether God(s) exist or not (and it is not relevant to the great work any more than faith is ).

Buddhism and Taoism are fundamentally and originally nontheistic, or in short, religions without a central or creating Deity.

Later versions ,syncretized with local polytheistic cults have made them rather transtheistic. Meaning that there is no ultimate God. Ultimate truth is not a sentient being or “God” but a “state” (actually not even that term suffices….since no term does). Their Gods are in a sense like man (though on a “higher” level), on the way to the same goal, the same union or henotheosis with the ultimate.monadic truth.

Similar thoughts could be found in ancient Greece among several philosophers.

Terms like Kether (Kabbalah), Bythos (Gnosticism), Monad (Neoplatonism) and in the east Moksha, Nirvana and so on being this first emanation without duality (and thus obviously without a “personality” too).

To categorally say that all Thelemites are atheists is simply wrong ( i am not an atheist and i have been a “devout” Thelemite for over 20 years ).

Among fellow Thelemites there are differing ideas on Deity, cosmology, objective reality and even wether Thelema is a religion or not (Crowley makes statements to both ).

Defining Deity is a problem within comparative religion and philosophy of religion that one encounters rather soon.

Anthropologists have the same problems with “Religion, Magic, Good, Evil” and many other “Christocentric” concepts that doesent nessecarly apply to another culture or philosophy.

Besides, the argument is made that the only “Divinity” in Thelema is “the universe”. That would make it Pantheistic, not Atheistic.

In some cases there is not only cultural or philosophical differences to the concept of “Gods” but also demi Gods, daemones, angels, lwas / orixas and other supernatural beings to wich there are different opinions to wether they are “Gods” or not.

Clear is that Crowley did think of supernatural beings influencing the lives of man (in one way or another). I´m thinking of (some of ) “The Secret Chiefs” that seems to be more than human.

If Aiwass, why not Michael? If Michael, why not Thor?

There is also a statement that Satanists do not generally worship Satan or think of him a a literal Deity.

This is correct for LaVeyan Satanism (wich actually states that it is,literally, atheistic) and other “philosophical Satanism”.

There are however several (and quite diverse ) forms of Theistic Satanisms.

Both Gnostic such, “inverted Christianity” and others.

Just like entire ontologies, cosmologies and epistemologies of different religions differ, so does their concepts of “God(s)”.

The Greek “Theoi”, Roman “Dei”, Norse “Aesir” and Egyptian “Netjeru” are not understood exactly the same, even if Christian ethnocentrics call them all by the Germanic term “God”.

God is not even viewed the same way throughout Christendom (with rather big differences like unitarian, trinitarian and even monolatric views of him as a physical being ).

Complex philosophical systems focused on the individual such as Thelema will obviously render diverse thoughts on the concept too.

One Liber Al quote that is supose to disprove the existence of anything supernatural is: “Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof.” And, the text states that “there is no other God than me.” .

To ME it clearly says “there is no OTHER God than me”

If you now look at “Every man and every woman is a star”

The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs.”

Hadit being a point of view (a center, a “star” or “khab”), Nuit being the starry sky, the circumference / sum of all possabilities, each star being a Hadit from it´s own point of view that statement makes perfect sense (and in a sense also proves your own divinity ).

In short, if Jehova literally exists, his “center” would also be Hadit and he to a “star”.

This would be equally true for Santa Claus though.

Liber Al II: 23 says : “I am alone: there is no God where I am.”

This being Hadit, too makes sense. Like the Thelemic Hermit (who is not alone at all in the traditional sense ) he says that he is “alone”. Being the center of the center of the center ad infinitum, ofcourse he is alone. Hence “center”. There can only be one absolute middle.

AC

The quote “There is no God but man” is also presented in the answer, given with a clear “only truth” interpretation despite the fact that this can be seen in a number of philosophical ways, including Gnostic ones, solipsistic ones and a bunch of others (and some of them combinable ).

The question is not “Is Thelema Theistic in any sense of the word”, but “Is this Thelemite Theistic in any sense of the word?”.

 

“Love is the law, love under will”

He is here! Asabragr, Björn, Hloridi, Thor”! The sky is black but burning! No wonder they call him “Hloridi” ( = Noisy Rider). *Preparing Blot*


I´m telling you, standing in the rain calling, performing the Blot, sky criss crossed by lightning is a mighty feeling!

Bragi


“Bragi” by Carl Wahlbom (1810-1858).
Bragi is the skaldic god of poetry in Norse mythology.
Bragi is generally associated with bragr, the Norse word for poetry. The name of the god may have been derived from bragr, or the term bragrmay have been formed to describe ‘what Bragi does’. A connection between the name Bragi and English brego ‘chieftain’ has been suggested but is generally now discounted. A connection between Bragi and the bragarfull ‘promise cup’ is sometimes suggested, as bragafull, an alternate form of the word, might be translated as ‘Bragi’s cup’. See Bragarfull.

Bragi is shown with a harp and accompanied by his wife Iðunn in this 19th century painting by Nils Blommér.

Snorri Sturluson writes in the Gylfaginning after describing OdinThor, and Baldr:

One is called Bragi: he is renowned for wisdom, and most of all for fluency of speech and skill with words. He knows most of skaldship, and after him skaldship is called bragr, and from his name that one is called bragr-man or -woman, who possesses eloquence surpassing others, of women or of men. His wife is Iðunn.

In Skáldskaparmál Snorri writes:

How should one periphrase Bragi? By calling him husband of Iðunnfirst maker of poetry, and the long-bearded god (after his name, a man who has a great beard is called Beard-Bragi), and son of Odin.

Polytheism


When i search for polytheism on Tumblr i get a whole lot of not so educated Abrahamic “monotheistic” bullshit, rewriting history and explaining what is wrong with it.

Too bad.

1. To refer to polythistic religions as primitive is not only bigotry but outright stupid.

These are customs and cultures that in many cases where around in one form or another for thousands of years before two guys invented Christianity in Rome (and no, neither was named Jesus and only one of them even met him).

2.Abrahamic “monotheists” (i only consider certain forms of Islam as truly monotheistic. Christianity is a text book case of soft polytheism….just like most forms of Hinduism) like to spell God with a capital “G” when its a monotheistic God, and with a “g” when its a polytheistic God. That says a lot.

3.Romantic shrines to pagan Gods, supposedly Germanic, built in Victorian times or during the nazi romanticism are NOT part of any culture, Germanic or otherwise.

Well. Now there is a post by a polytheist, about polytheism tagged “Polytheism”

Religion as a Christian concept


 Religion as a Christian concept The social constructionists In recent years, some academic writers have described religion according to the theory of social constructionism, which considers how ideas and social phenomena develop in a social context. Among the main proponents of this theory of religion are Timothy Fitzgerald, Daniel Dubuisson and Talad Assad. The social constructionists argue that religion is a modern concept that developed from Christianity and was then applied inappropriately to non-Western cultures and European pre Christian cultures.

The social constructionists

In recent years, some academic writers have described religion according to the theory of social constructionism, which considers how ideas and social phenomena develop in a social context. Among the main proponents of this theory of religion are Timothy Fitzgerald, Daniel Dubuisson and Talad Assad. The social constructionists argue that religion is a modern concept that developed from Christianity and was then applied inappropriately to non-Western cultures and European pre Christian cultures.

Similar views to social constructionism have been put forward by writers who are not social constructionists. George Lindbeck, a Lutheran and a postliberal theologian, says that religion does not refer to belief in “God” or a transcendent Absolute, but rather to “a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought … it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” Nicholas de Lange, Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies at Cambridge University, says that “The comparative study of religions is an academic discipline which has been developed within Christian theology faculties, and it has a tendency to force widely differing phenomena into a kind of strait-jacket cut to a Christian pattern. The problem is not only that other ‘religions’ may have little or nothing to say about questions which are of burning importance for Christianity, but that they may not even see themselves as religions in precisely the same way in which Christianity sees itself as a religion.”

Similar views to social constructionism have been put forward by writers who are not social constructionists. George Lindbeck, a Lutheran and a postliberal theologian, says that religion does not refer to belief in “God” or a transcendent Absolute, but rather to “a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought … it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” Nicholas de Lange, Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies at Cambridge University, says that “The comparative study of religions is an academic discipline which has been developed within Christian theology faculties, and it has a tendency to force widely differing phenomena into a kind of strait-jacket cut to a Christian pattern. The problem is not only that other ‘religions’ may have little or nothing to say about questions which are of burning importance for Christianity, but that they may not even see themselves as religions in precisely the same way in which Christianity sees itself as a religion.”