Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Sex and the Angels

Expand Messages
  • absintheskin
    Erin wrote: This is the workings from John Dee and Edward Kelley. I assumed because it was strictly angelic magic it would prove to have a different kind of
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Erin wrote: <i>This is the workings from John Dee and Edward Kelley. I assumed because it was strictly angelic magic it would prove to have a different kind of effect, yet even in just having read the words, I find myself led to (complete accident mind you, not planned at all) to two separate men who again, had I not willed myself away could have potentially led to something more physical.  Is there something regarding sex, wait- not just 'sex', but like impulsion and the NEED to fulfill a physical requirement that is associated with this kind of practice?</i>


      I've been working with Enochian material all summer, and this hasn't come up for me at all.


      My advice is to either make all the temple furniture and not take short-cuts, or else to use a different system.


      Layo




      --- In solomonic@yahoogroups.com, <solomonic@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

      Delving into Enochian readings, and doing some studies on Lon Milo's workings. He mentions a robe in which to 'avoid sexual interactions with the angels'. Also his friend in one of their private attempts mentions having had some very intense sexual experience while he was asleep? I guess? Anyways, since I've delved into the readings (and nothing more) I feel like just studying the language, saying it aloud in my head may have 'awakened' something. All I know is that since these studies two very close intimate encounters have occurred, where a sexual encounter may have been present had I not overcame it with the will power to do so, and I'm not talking Angels. Live people here folks. Every time I have been engaged with this particular type of magick- to put it lightly- the results have always led to me having this ungodly uncontrollable urge to have an intense impulsive sexual encounter with a person of the opposite sex. But those urges usually stemmed
      from my fixings of the Solomon texts. This is the workings from John Dee and Edward Kelley. I assumed because it was strictly angelic magic it would prove to have a different kind of effect, yet even in just having read the words, I find myself led to (complete accident mind you, not planned at all) to two separate men who again, had I not willed myself away could have potentially led to something more physical. 

      I know Aleister Crowley was fond of his orgies and workings with solomonic magick, but I was also under the impression that Aleister became a complete nut job after sometime. (I believe slaughtering a goat during an orgasm comes to mind) Is there something regarding sex, wait- not just 'sex', but like impulsion and the NEED to fulfill a physical requirement that is associated with this kind of practice? If so I'm not entirely sure this is the type of work I should be delving into. Any thoughts?

      Erin

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jake Stratton-Kent
      ... Hi DMK, also - by his account - Crowley once tried a teaspoonful of beer, but didn t like it. ;) ALWays JSK
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 10, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On 6 September 2013 00:37, Donald Michael <dmkraig@...> wrote:
        >
        > Crowley also drank tea, ate meat, used drugs, wrote books and poetry. When he was a child, he drank milk, too.

        Hi DMK,

        also - by his account - Crowley once tried a teaspoonful of beer, but
        didn't like it. ;)

        ALWays

        JSK



        >
        > Is there a connection between these things and his actions? I don't know. What I DO know is that correlation is not causation. Just because a person does one thing doesn't mean it cause another UNLESS you can show proof of it.
        >
        > Also, I don't know what you mean by "nuts," nor do I agree with your statement that "we know that" implying that this meaningless term, "nuts," is believed by all.
        >
        > Do you mean by "nuts" that he was a genius? Then I'd agree. Do you mean by "nuts" that he was disruptive to the lives of people around him? Then I'd agree. Do you mean by "nuts" that he was an excellent chess player? I'd agree. Do you mean by "nuts" that he knew occult theory inside and out? I'd agree. Do you mean by "nuts" that he could be sociopathic and vindictive? Again, I agree. Do you mean by "nuts" that he had a mental disease of some kind? There's no evidence to support that. Besides, I'm not a doctor (and by your use of the term "nuts" rather than an actual diagnosis I'm going to assume you are not a doctor, either), so it would be illegal for me to make a diagnosis (practicing medicine without a license).
        >
        > So no, I don't agree that he was "nuts" because you haven't made clear what you mean by that.
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > "Secrets of the Magickal Grimoires" is now available! Let me know what you think.
        > http://kheph777.tripod.com/indexsecrets.htmlYahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.