Theology is what scholars in seminary studying for the priesthood do. 
Religious Studies and Theology are not the same thing. Theology is 
generally done from a believer's position but it is not part of 
mainstream academia...

 No one is saying that one would ignore Yeats' beliefs. The point is 
that the scholar should be discussing Yeats' beliefs and drawing on 
evidence to back up arguments, not the religious beliefs of the scholar.

 Al

Mandrake of Oxford wrote:
> **
> * Dear Friend*
>  
> *you wrote:* 
> Anyway, I would refer to Wouter Hanegraff's call for 'methodological 
> atheism' in the study of Western Esotericism, which was reiterated at 
> the last AAR conference. * *
> ** 
> *Shouldn't it be 'methological agnosticism' rather than 'atheism' - or 
> maybe even the 'radical empiricism' of william james??*
> ** 
> *I'm still slightly unconvinced about the need for strictures on 
> people's approach - how does it work in mainstream theology - i've 
> heard plenty of lectures in which the very learned professor manages 
> to be a believer and a scholar? There is also the possibility that the 
> rigidly 'atheistic' commentator will actually ignor certain things a 
> priori. Thus so many books continue to omit ritual data such as 
> timings etc. Or in say the study of ritual substances - its 'assumed' 
> any magical properties are down to ideology or taboo etc. *
> ** 
> *In the Yeats case, its commonplace to try to 'read' his poetry whilst 
> studiously ignoring the underlying religious notions - which seems odd 
> to me. Yeats (and indeed crowley) may well be part of the process by 
> which a more 'goddess' orientated spirituality reemerged in the 
> twentieth century.*
> ** 
> *I'd say there is room for a middle way.*
> ** 
> ** 
> *'Love and do what you will'*
> ** 
> *mogg*
> ** 
> ** 
> ** 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  Although I disagreed with him on certain counts - I'm a performance 
> theorist and I think neglecting practice and practitioner's beliefs on 
> the whole is a mistake - I do support the notion that making a 
> statement in an academic context that is solely based on personal 
> belief or based on uncritically repeating the beliefs of who you are 
> studying is a problem. How is the belief in God - especially how Yeats 
> conceived it - even remotely 'universal'?! Even within the Golden 
> Dawn, that concept varied widely, even among those who considered 
> themselves Christian.
>
> For instance, I think Goddess-oriented Pagans would have a huge 
> problem of conceiving of God this way, even if they consider Yeats a 
> 'great magician.' And despite what often gets stated, there's a huge 
> crossover between pagans and ceremonial magicians. One can certainly 
> talk about cross-cultural currents, like the divine feminine and its 
> influence on beliefs and practices, but you can't 'preach it' - as if 
> it were unquestionable Truth - and expect to be taken seriously in an 
> academic setting.
>
> */mina <[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
>
>         This is not a personal belief but the universal one about the
>         Divine feminine, the  hidden Goddess in Yeats's poetry. I have
>         many and oldest references as I wrote. I want to say that
>         Yeats is not a personal but universal poet and adept. I got a
>         message as a result of academic study but it seems to be from
>         a miracle and magic one. Therefore it is important message for
>         us to research and follow the real magic in our age. Nowadays,
>         Yeats looks like a defeated magician and only a poet. Do you
>         think so? However, we can study and share about Yeats's
>         message for his descendants based on his poetry books not a
>         personal belief. Then do you think Yeats's belief
>         about Immortal Rose is from personal belief?  I got already
>         many references, but you said that it is my personal belief. I
>         have told about Universal message in symbols of the greatest
>         adept and white magician's magic poetry.          
>          
>                Mina
>          
>          
>
>
>         */Al Billings <[log in to unmask]>/* ¾²±â:
>
>             mina wrote:
>             > Al,
>             > How can you prove Magic and God in here then?
>
>             You can't and that isn't the purpose of this list. This is
>             an academic
>             list, not a religious practitioners list, regardless of
>             the beliefs of
>             some members.
>
>             > Do You believe in God or not?
>
>             Not in the slightest depending on what the word "God" is
>             supposed to
>             mean in your context? It is a word without any specific
>             meaning.
>
>             Do I believe in a monotheistic (singular) divine creator
>             of the cosmos
>             that exists outside or beyond said cosmos? Absolutely not.
>             Why should I?
>             Because a 2,000 year old book says I should?
>
>             > People can't prove God and Christ, but there are a lot
>             of Christians
>             > in the world.
>
>             True but this is an academic list, not a Christian list.
>             If you want to
>             discuss the existence of Christians, their beliefs, why
>             they believe
>             what they do, in an academic manner, please feel free. If
>             you want to
>             have a theological debate based on personal beliefs, this
>             probably isn't
>             the place.
>
>             > I think that human is prove of God, certainly.
>             > Man can embody but man cannot know it until God shows.
>             > Therefore, God shows something for the chosen man to
>             tell it. Yeats I
>             > think was chosen as he showed. We don't need any
>             evidence to believe
>             > if God allows for us to see it.
>             > Even Christ showed magic for people to believe but many
>             people don't
>             > believed
>             > him. Therefore, how can I give a prove.
>
>             I guess you aren't an academic then?
>
>             I know I sound like some kind of imperalistic atheist (and
>             I'm not as a
>             member of the OTO, a former Hermetic magician and a Vajrayana
>             practitioner on my own time) but this is supposed to be a
>             space for
>             discussing the academic study of magic (see the title of
>             the list), not
>             one's personal beliefs unless they relate to the former.
>
>             Al
>
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         *180° ´Þ¶óÁø ¾ßÈÄ! ¸ÞÀÏ*
>         ¸Þ½ÃÁö È®ÀÎÀ» ÇÑ ´«¿¡? »õ·Î¿î ¾ßÈÄ! ¸ÞÀÏ
>         <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_kr/taglines/mail5/*http://kr.content.mail.yahoo.com/cgland>ÀÇ
>         ¹Ì¸®º¸±â âÀ¸·Î °¡´ÉÇØÁý´Ï´Ù.
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
>     <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/>
>