Home > Uncategorized > Quotations on the Life of Thelema and the Death of Christianity (part 1)

Quotations on the Life of Thelema and the Death of Christianity (part 1)

(NOTE: AL refers to Liber AL vel Legis, or the Book of the Law which is the central text of Thelema)
Every man and every woman is a star.” -AL I:3

* * * * *

“The only possibility of ‘evil’ is that the Will may be hampered. On the contrary, to the slaves of ‘Jesus,’ there is scarce an act which is not of the nature of ’sin’. ‘Even our righteousness is as filthy rags.’ ‘There is none good, no, not one,’ etc., etc., ad nauseam — et praetor! To us, then, ‘Jesus’ is the very fount and origin of all possible ‘evil,’ for he synonymous with the idea of Restriction on every plane. The Christian conception of sin as the will of the natural man, the ‘Old Adam,’ is the basis of all internal conflict — of moral insanity.” (comment to Liber LXV)

* * * * *

The word of the Law is THELEMA.” -AL I:39

* * * * *

“I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.” -Book of Lies, ch.45

* * * * *

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” -AL I:40

The word of Sin is Restriction.” -AL I:41

* * * * *

“There shall be no property in human flesh. The sex-instinct is one of the most deeply-seated expressions of the will; and it must not be restricted, either negatively by preventing its free function, or positively by insisting on its false function. What is more brutal than to stunt natural growth or to deform it? What is more absurd than to seek to interpret this holy instinct as a gross animal act, to separate it from the spiritual enthusiasm without which it is so stupid as not even to be satisfactory to the persons concerned? The sexual act is a sacrament of Will. To profane it is the great offence. All true expression of it is lawful; all suppression or distortion is contrary to the Law of Liberty. To use legal or financial constraint to compel either abstention or submission, is entirely horrible, unnatural and absurd. ” (Commentaries to Liber AL)

* * * * *

Thou hast no right but to do thy will.” -AL I:42
Love is the law, love under will.” -AL I:57

* * * * *

“Every star must calculate its own orbit. All is Will, and yet all is Necessity. To swerve is ultimately impossible; to seek to swerve is to suffer. The Beast 666 ordains by His authority that every man, and every woman, and every intermediately-sexed individual, shall be absolutely free to interpret and communicate Self by means of any sexual practices soever, whether direct or indirect, rational or symbolic, physiologically, legally, ethically, or religiously approved or no, provided only that all parties to any act are fully aware of all implications and responsibilities thereof, and heartily agree thereto.” (Commentaries to Liber AL)

* * * * *

Be goodly therefore: dress ye all in fine apparel; eat rich foods and drink sweet wines and wines that foam! Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always unto me.” -AL I:51

* * * * *

“The God-idea must go with other relics of the Fear born of Ignorance into the limbo of savagery. I speak of the Idea of God as generally understood, God being ‘something “not ourselves” that makes for righteousness,’ as Matthew Arnold victorianatically phrased his definition. The whiskered wowser! Why this ingrained conviction that self is unrighteous? It is the heritage of the whip, the brand of the born slave.” (Commentaries to Liber AL)

* * * * *

Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us.” AL II:20
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.” -AL III:60
Advertisements
  1. January 4, 2010 at 3:40 am

    “The only possibility of ‘evil’ is that the Will may be hampered.”

    The only way to hamper evil is to draw near God.

    James 4:7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

    ——————————————————————————

    “To us, then, ‘Jesus’ is the very fount and origin of all possible ‘evil,’ for he synonymous with the idea of Restriction on every plane.”

    James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

    God is never tempted to do wrong, and he never tempts anyone else.

    James 1:14-15 Temptation comes from our own desires, which entice us and drag us away. These desires give birth to sinful actions. And when sin is allowed to grow, it gives birth to death.

    Luke 11:11-13 If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

    —————————————————————————–

    “the ‘Old Adam,’ is the basis of all internal conflict — of moral insanity.”

    Deuteronomy 24:16 “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.

  2. Kevin Stevenson
    January 4, 2010 at 3:45 am

    You make some pretty bold assertions; and in some sense, I can appreciate that. My question is simple: Would you be willing to engage in a brief email dialogue? I’m thinking of ~ 500 word exchanges over an agreed upon general topic to which our respective paradigms speak. I’m a confessional Christian skeptic. As such, I don’t believe the position you espouse is real, rational, right or remedial. At the end, we’d both have the liberty to post the dialogue on our respective blogs.

    If you believe that your position is defensible and you’d care to attempt to demonstrate that, please email me and we can get the details sorted out and begin.

    Respectfully,

    Kevin

    • January 4, 2010 at 4:16 am

      93 Kevin Stevenson – Thanks for your comment, and reading my blog. I’d love to have a discussion of that sort. Feel free to e-mail me at any time about the exchange.

      • Kevin Stevenson
        January 4, 2010 at 4:44 am

        I would be glad to, but I’m not finding any contact information on your blog…any ideas?

    • kaspangarigan
      January 4, 2010 at 4:57 am

      For any argument to have a concrete solution is to have a basis. If you agree that the Bible is the basis of our argument then I will be willing to have a discussion of that sort.

      Having no agreed basis will only put us to a scenario of insisting ideas or wisdom of any person or people not acceptable to Christians like me.

      But as you have said, you are a confessional Christian skeptic.

      The only person that you can discuss with are those people who like you has their own private interpretation.

      2 Peter 1:20-21 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

      • Kevin Stevenson
        January 4, 2010 at 5:20 am

        Kaspangarig,

        Forgive me for not being clearer. By ‘confessional Christian skeptic’ I mean that, I am a Christian who holds to the faith of the confessional Protestant tradition (e.g., Westminster Confession of Faith, etc). By skeptic I mean, that as a follower of Christ, I have to take every thought captive to obey him (2 Cor 10:5) and am consequently skeptical of any and all truth claims that would challenge his Lordship and authoritative Word. So, I don’t think you and I have much to argue about, do you?

        Blessings,

        Kevin

      • January 4, 2010 at 5:39 am

        Sorry Kevin, I misunderstood you.

        Really don’t much have to argue but I welcome your comment on my post.

      • January 4, 2010 at 6:31 am

        Just make sure that when you are a follower of Christ you must establish a fellowship to his Church which is found in the Bible. The Church of God.

        1 Cor 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

        1 Thess 2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans,

        1 Tim 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

        Psalm 127: 1 Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain.

  3. January 4, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Kevin Stevenson :
    I would be glad to, but I’m not finding any contact information on your blog…any ideas?

    Contact me at thelemaforbeginners at gmail dot com

    • Kevin Stevenson
      January 4, 2010 at 5:06 am

      Great. Thanks. I didn’t know that that was your site as well. I’ll be happy to get in touch tomorrow. This will give us both time to think about an agreeable topic and other qualifications. I hope we both find it fruitful, as well as our respective readers. Thanks again. I’ll be in touch soon.

  4. January 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    the sum of this post can be stated as such:

    “the second statement is true. the first statement is false.”

    quotes dude, and more quotes. i know not what they mean. to say “Every star must calculate its own orbit.” doesn’t make sense because one has to account for the gravatational field which is set by other stars and planetary orbits, collection enmass working on the individual so that there are no pure individuals but “inter-viduals” which are dependant on one another.

    there is a great deal of radical individualism here in these statements but no one is free, not completely. what language are you typing in? did you program this website yourself? no, you are therefore dependant and your will must compromise with others.

    • January 4, 2010 at 8:09 pm

      93 Luke – You are misunderstanding. It is not independence that is completely removed from interdependence. Just because I emphasize the freedom here does not mean there is also communion/unity/interdependence emphasized elsewhere.

      Every man and every woman is a star meaning “each human being is an Element of the Cosmos, self-determined and supreme, co-equal with all other Gods. From this the Law ‘Do what thou wilt” follows logically.’ One star influences another by attraction, of course; but these are incidents of self-predestined orbits…

      Man is the Middle Kingdom. The Great Kingdom is Heaven, with each star as an unit; the Little Kingdom is the Molecule, with each Electron as an unit. (The Ratio of these three is regularly geometrical, each being 10 to the 22 times greater in size than its neighbour.)… This is the ready test of a Star, that it whirls flaming through the sky. You cannot mistake it for an Old Maid objecting to Everything. This Universe is a wild revel of atoms, men, and stars, each one a Soul of Light and Mirth, horsed on Eternity…

      The Universe is endless rapture, wild and unconfined, a mad passion of speed. Astronomers tell us this of the Great Republic of the Stars; physicists say the same of the Little Republic of Molecules. Shall not the Middle Republic of Men be like unto them? The polite ethicist demurs; his ideal is funereal solemnity. His horizon is bounded by death; and his spy-glass is smeared with the idea of sin. The New Aeon proclaims Man as Immortal God, eternally active to do His Will. All’s Joy, all’s Beauty; this Will we celebrate.”

  5. societyvs
    January 4, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    I’d ask simply – what’s the point of this thelema ideology? What’s the goal – the intended ending exactly?

    I read and I see:

    – we need to lose our ‘restrictions’
    – Doubt has more meaning than faith
    – sexual repression (of any sort) is not acceptable
    – we all determine our own wills (which is also about sexuality in the quote)
    – The ‘God-idea’ must be placed with the rest of the relics of times past

    I have studied some Huxley (in passing fancy) and this sounds a lot like his humanistic ideals of spirituality. Huxley was not exatly a mentor in my personal opinion.

    If the highest watermark for a human is ‘do what you want’ – the lowest watermark is also the same idea…since the idea holds nothing concrete within it. And once we throw sexual repression out the window…we may find doing whatever we want can become it’s own trap.

    The problem is one of response and thinking upon that aspect of reality as well. Why this is not the whole of the law is because it encompasses nothing of ‘law’…it proclaims to be a ‘law unto itself’. It’s basically hedonism and humanism in new robes…and is on practical levels ‘selfish’.

    The reason the idea ‘treat other as you want to be treated’ is the summation of the law is because of it’s regard for ‘the other’ in the scenario…which is the heart of the law (then and now). As people, we can imagine whatever we want – but we cannot do whatever we want…because one needs to consider the ‘other’. Without that – your law is not a law at all…it’s an imagination for a reality that does not exist.

    • January 4, 2010 at 10:57 pm

      93 societyvs – Thanks for reading the blog and taking the time to comment. The goal of Thelema is doing one’s Will. There is pure joy, strength, beauty, laughter and light in this. There is no final aim beyond the doing of one’s Will, it is an end in itself though it is itself a dynamic process!

      “I read and I see:

      – we need to lose our ‘restrictions’
      – Doubt has more meaning than faith
      – sexual repression (of any sort) is not acceptable
      – we all determine our own wills (which is also about sexuality in the quote)
      – The ‘God-idea’ must be placed with the rest of the relics of times past”

      Yes, very good list! While these may mirror some of Huxley’s supposed “humanistic ideals,” for us they spring naturally from “Do what thou wilt” and not humanism. Our humanism is “There is no god but man” and “Deus est Homo” and “Every man and every woman is a star.”

      “If the highest watermark for a human is ‘do what you want’ – the lowest watermark is also the same idea…since the idea holds nothing concrete within it. And once we throw sexual repression out the window…we may find doing whatever we want can become it’s own trap.”

      That is often the first mistake people make. “It should be clear that ‘Do what thou wilt’ does not mean ‘Do what you like.’ It is the apotheosis of Freedom; but it is also the strictest possible bond. Do what thou wilt—then do nothing else. Let nothing deflect thee from that austere and holy task. Liberty is absolute to do thy will; but seek to do any other thing whatever, and instantly obstacles must arise. Every act that is not in definite course of that one orbit is erratic, an hindrance. Will must not be two, but one.” (Liber II)

      Throwing sexual repression out the window is not it’s own trap but the way out of a trap that many have been living in. Even Freud figured out long ago that a lot of our problems – anxiety, depression, obsession, neurosis – come from repression of the sexual instinct.

      ” It’s basically hedonism and humanism in new robes…and is on practical levels ’selfish’.”

      It is hedonistic, yes, but it is also extremely austere. We do not look down upon sex, drugs, and rock and roll but also do not do them for their own sakes. They are done towards the discovery of & expression of True Will. “The sot drinks, and is drunken: the coward drinks not, and shivers: the wise man, brave and free, drinks, and gives glory to the Most High God.”

      “The reason the idea ‘treat other as you want to be treated’ is the summation of the law is because of it’s regard for ‘the other’ in the scenario…which is the heart of the law”

      We have “Love is the law, love under will.” There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt, but the nature of that Will is Love or to unite with others. Further, we acknowledge that “Every man and every woman is a star” with their own Will and right to perform that Will. Even further, we do not hide ourselves in our petty ego so readily as others may and expand our sense of selves to include others, even the world itself – therefore in our selfishness we express altruism and our altruism is an expression of selfishness. This is not a simple idea to grasp, I admit!

      What is an imagination for a reality that does not exist are the fables & fantasies of Heaven, Hell, Sin, God, and Devil as expounded by the normal Christian. “Do what thou wilt” is proven and manifest and fulfilled in each moment. “‘Do what thou wilt’ is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself.” Thanks again for reading and taking the time to comment!

  6. January 4, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    All that you or I believe is by faith, love. Would you consider reading Josh McDowell’s book Evidence That Demands A Verdict? He was the BIGGEST skeptic of Christianity ever. You might enjoy the challenge of his book.

    • January 4, 2010 at 10:49 pm

      93 Debbie – Thanks for your comment. All of what you may believe may be by faith but what I believe is based on evidence and experience. I will take a look at the book you suggested, as I always appreciate a good challenge. Thanks for reading!

  7. January 5, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Evidence That Demands A Verdict < Is an amazing book.

    I would also suggest Theomatics.

    and Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis

    • January 5, 2010 at 7:18 pm

      93 dubiousm0nk – Thanks for your book suggestions, I’ve read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis before and it is definitely a good read. Thanks for dropping by.

  8. societyvs
    January 5, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    “Our humanism is “There is no god but man” and “Deus est Homo” and “Every man and every woman is a star.”” (CID)

    Here’s the problem (for me), I don’t think man is a god…women neither. Neither has the ability to actually create life in and of itself (if we want to speak of ‘dualism’ – see impregnation). Even if life were not the cornerstone of being a ‘god’ – humans function in limitations – revealing a very limited and biased perspective…hard to say a limited and internally biased perspective is god-like.

    As for each us of being a star – that neither here nor there because it makes about as much sense as saying ‘every human is a light’. Even if we were all ‘stars’ – even they, according to many faiths, are considered a part of creation…thus from a creator.

    ““It should be clear that ‘Do what thou wilt’ does not mean ‘Do what you like.’ It is the apotheosis of Freedom; but it is also the strictest possible bond.” (CID)

    I read your whole piece from Liber II and ‘do what thou wilt’ (old english) is precisely ‘do what you will’ (modern english)…and your clarification on the subject is quite meaningless with the directives from Liber II (since they do not end in logical propositions but lofty platitudes). So when I read the directives concering ‘do what thou wilt’ – I do see ‘do what I want’ since the direction os not very clear…except to make choices that suit me and my liberty.

    “Even Freud figured out long ago that a lot of our problems – anxiety, depression, obsession, neurosis – come from repression of the sexual instinct.” (CID)

    No offense but Freud is only one path of many is psychoanalytics or psychology – this does not mean his views on human sexuality are neccesarily ‘correct’. They may be in fact damaging to some – freeing to others. I, for one, do not follow that Freudian path of psycholanalysis as ‘fact’…I lean more towards many problems in adulthood coming from childhood problems (even traumas).

    Your points about sexuality are also way off base – now maybe for you they work (I won’t contend that one) – but for, let’s say, someone sexually abused/raped/molested as a child is sexual expression going to neccesarily free them or scar them more? I personally wonder at the line of thinking you engage in as remedial in any way for this group of people.

    ““The sot drinks, and is drunken: the coward drinks not, and shivers: the wise man, brave and free, drinks, and gives glory to the Most High God.”” (CID)

    Alcohol is but a very small part of expressing freedom – it’s one aspect – and the little proverb written here doesn’t say much to be honest…it’s blatant categorization. I drink and get drunk…am I a sot or am I wise? Who measures that balance and dispenses the label ‘drunk or wise’?

    ““Love is the law, love under will.” ” (CID)

    Define love.

    “man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself.”” (CID)

    Not true. Animals kill one another, let their weak one’s die, share partners, may even sexually assualt in certain cases. Yet those animal kingdoms continue…and in fact…so does humanity even with it’s handful of problems we committ against each other daily. So no, we are not the only species to strive against ourselves…even dogs show jealoousy when a new one comes into their home.

    Cut n dry expression of religious freedom…I got serious questions for what seems like something that is seeking religious freedom – without any penalty.

  9. Simon Magus
    March 13, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    If you really want to know what Crowley thought of Christianity, read it from his mouth. You can easily google these:

    AGAPE vel LIBER C vel AZOTH
    De Nuptis Secretis Deorum Cum Hominibus

    • March 15, 2010 at 3:25 am

      93 Simon – Definitely! There are certainly other documents too that are good to read. Many are quoted in places in blog posts here…

      • Simon Magus
        March 16, 2010 at 2:02 am

        I don’t think you googled either of those two, or you wouldn’t casually speak of “other documents that are good to read”.

        Here’s a quote from AGAPE vel LIBER C vel AZOTH:

        “In our Lord Jesus Christ is the Great Work accomplished.”

  10. March 16, 2010 at 5:46 am

    93 Simon – Im fully aware of the contents of those documents without needing to google them. Im not sure if you are aware but there is a post on this blog called ‘Thelema is not anti-Christianity, but post-Christianity.’ Ive spoken probably in 3 different blogs about Jesus as an image of the God-Man Adept. Maybe you should look around a bit more…? Love is the law, love under will.

    • Simon Magus
      March 17, 2010 at 12:10 am

      I did honestly read nearly everything on the blog, but the ambiguity of the word “Christianity” appears to have provoked some misunderstandings, and I had missed a key entry. After your response, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and dug deeper. The entry called “Jesus is not the Savior, You are!”, clearly shows that you understand things that I claimed you didn’t. You have my apologies.

      In my semantics, I consider esoteric Christianity and exoteric Christianity to be two distinct categories. So in any reference to Christianity, I assume you mean one OR the other. Consider: “we are not blindly against all things Christian but see the Law of Thelema as that which supersedes the Old Aeon of Suffering”. In context, I read “Christian” as “exoteric Christian”, would indicates that the author doesn’t understand the distinction, and is simply discussing a simplistic syncretic view of some mutually compatible elements of Thelema and exoteric Christianity. But I think I see my error in understanding your intended meaning.

      Imagine a Venn diagram, where the esoteric doctrine is red, and the exoteric doctrine is blue. There is some overlap, and that section is purple. That’s a picture of my mental categories. If I’m understanding your categories, your red shape is Thelema, and your Christian shape (combining the esoteric AND exoteric) is blue, and the purple portion is the part of Christianity (primarily esoteric) that Thelema is inclusive towards. Is this correct?

      Since you seem interested in communicating to exoteric Christians the compatibility of Thelema and esoteric Christianity, perhaps using terminology that distinguishes between the two would be helpful. It helps express full inclusiveness, rather than partial.

      But now that I (hopefully) know your meaning, it exposes another issue. Part of your primary thesis is the idea that Thelema supersedes (or “fulfills”) esoteric Christianity, analogous to the popular exoteric conception of Christ “fulfilling” the Old Testament law (effectively superseding it). I admit this is an interesting and very elegant idea. But consider this, at least as a thought experiment. If you were modeling your conception of the Thelemic path on the Tree of Life, which path/pillar would you choose? Now do the same for your conception of esoteric Christianity; which path/pillar represents it? I’m very interested in hearing whether this impacts your perspective.

  1. January 7, 2010 at 6:42 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: