>>70
This kind of thing is even worse than the Crowleyisms and the original misuse of the term "Abrahamic".
There is nothing in the least "succinct and laudable" about the post you praise.
It dismantles a clearly structured argument and makes various undemonstrated assertions about the dismantled parts of it, as if they had no relation to one another, concluding that the whole thing is a "false conclusion off a false premiss" without making any attempt to explain HOW the premiss is wrong or just what the RIGHT premiss may be.
Leaving aside all the "magick" and so on - which I mentioned only because the "Crowleyist" and the guy who used the term "Abrahamic" adopted, it seems to me, a very similar tone of pseudo-cultured authority - the central question I raised was:
Is Crackyism an "Abrahamic" religion in ANY sense that a competent historian of religion would accept as meaningful?
Or is it only "Abrahamic" in some crackpot sense that a Theosophist or a Scientologist might seize on to endow their eclectic jumble of mystical verbiage with the (false) dignity of a real and profound religious tradition (i.e. the sense that the "faith" demanded of Abraham by his God was "really" faith in Abraham's true being as an extraterrestrial "Thetan" maroooned in a terrestrial body or some such asinine shite).
The question of whether I am "drawing false conclusions from false premisses" in my post can only be decided if you explain JUST WHAT THE PREMISSES OF CRACKYISM are in this respect - and, yes, if you wish, you may confine your answer to the beliefs of those Crackyists who "emphasize the Abrahamic aspect"