>>66
In fact, you seem nice enough, I'll try to explain why he's such a douche.
1- "I would guess that the guy who has chosen to show off his self-perceived knowledge of the word "Abrahamic" in this post is the same guy who is blethering on about "Enochic daemons" and so on in the thread above."
That's a wrong assumption; part of his "everyone here but me, sparkling flower of illumination, is homogenous" idea.
2- "I'm not in a position to critique the "charlatanisme hautement coloré d'Aleister Crowley et de ses compagnons" (sorry, I only have a French edition of Gershom Scholem here and I don't want to misquote him), but this kind of vain, pretentious jiggery-pokery with religio-philosophical terms that DO actually mean something is the major thing that annoys me about the "Cracky religionist" types."
The usual "story of his life": intellectual sounding trivia about his own person with no bearing on the discussion. Also, more one-single-group-against-me talk.
3- "The term "Abrahamic religion" only comprises Judaism, Christianity and Islam insofar as, and by sole reason of the fact that, all three of these religions explicitly state that the God that they worship is one and the same with the God whom the Jewish Pentateuch suggests was first explicitly recognized as the One God by Abraham, the first of the Patriarchs of Judaism."
Good stuff. Actual information.
4- "To talk about "Cracky worship" as an "Abrahamic religion" is an absolute nonsense because Abraham plays exactly NO role in the set of beliefs - insofar as these beliefs have any substance or consistency at all - that have grown up amongst you people about Cracky."
Acceptable; arguable. Stuff for a discussion.
5- "The random claim - which I'm sure one of you will now feel inclined to come back with - that the "Cracky religion" is "Abrahamic" because the God that Abraham worshipped was actually a Goddess, and the Sky Queen, is just another additional piece of nonsense because it robs the term "Abrahamic" of all specific sense and meaning."
Wrong speculation, but just a misunderstanding so far.
6- "If you are claiming that you can substitute the particular "divine Cracky principle" that you claim to believe in for the specific understandng of the Divine Principle we find in the story of Abraham, then you have as much right to claim that this "divine Cracky principle" is "really" behind the beliefs expressed and defended by ANY religious or purportedly religious tradition."
Saved by the "if", but really a little too sharp for a line of thought that might be based on speculation.
7- ""Your own religion", then, would be quite as much a "Hindu-istic", "voodoo-istic", "theosophistic", or "Scientologistic" religion as it is an "Abrahamic" one."
False conclusion off a false premise.
8- "Or, in other words, your use of the term "Abrahamic" would be revealed for what it is - a vain, sad, puffed-up attempt to put yourself across as the "serious thinkng man" you quite evidently are not and never will be."
Chest beating and a sacrifice to the god of irony.
Now 3,4 and 5 would have made for an excellent post. Throw in 6 or 7 for a bit of trolling to spice everything up a little.
But 1, 2 and 8 are just plain douchery; no critique, nothing valuable or useful, just purely Alex' selfindulgence and delusions.