Home > Uncategorized > Jesus is not the Savior, You are!

Jesus is not the Savior, You are!

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

“The New Aeon proclaims Man as Immortal God, eternally active to do His Will. All’s Joy, all’s Beauty; this Will we celebrate.” -Aleister Crowley

God’s will is expressed by every man and every woman doing their wills. Man & woman’s will is not inherently opposed to God’s, but an expression thereof.  In doing our own will we fulfill the Will of God.

“Thou must (1) Find out what is thy Will. (2) Do that Will with a) one-pointedness, (b) detachment, (c) peace. Then, and then only, art thou in harmony with the Movement of Things, thy will part of, and therefore equal to, the Will of God. And since the will is but the dynamic aspect of the self, and since two different selves could not possess identical wills; then, if thy will be God’s will, Thou art That.” (Liber II)

Each person is a center of God’s Light, we do not need to borrow or depend upon another’s Light. Every man and every woman is a star, and the flame of God burns in the core of every star and the heart of all people. In giving forth our own light we give forth the Light of God.

Each person is a vehicle of God’s Love. The stars of Mankind get their fill and will of love as they will, when, where and with whom they will! In performing acts of “love under will,” we express God’s Love.

This isn’t Will, Light, and Love of God that is clouded with the morbid insistence on your wretchedness, baseness, sinfulness, and unworthiness. On the contrary, “Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us.” (The Book of the Law)

“Bring us through Temptation! Deliver us from Good and Evil! That Mine as Thine be the Crown of the Kingdom even now.” (Book of Lies, ch.2)

We need not look up to God but look with even eyes… no, the same eyes!  In a sense, Jesus was an example of the Man-God, who was both Man and God. In him was God made Man and Man made God. God ’sent’ Jesus to show that God & Man are & can be One. When we come to know ourselves as God and perform our Will as one with God’s Will – that is when we become our own savior. We do not need a savior from sin, but a savior from the restriction – external & internal – that inhibits us from full expression of Will.

(join the discussion on the XiD Facebook page!)

Love is the law, love under will.

Advertisements
  1. January 7, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    Each and every one of us is antichrist. The fulfillment of the prophecy in Revelation is that Christianity has been transcended by the apotheosis of every human being.

    • January 7, 2010 at 9:19 pm

      93 ac2012 – Thanks for the comment! Indeed, there are many mysteries in the Book of Revelation that Thelema and its own Holy Books help to finally reveal.

  2. Achad
    January 7, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    93!

    If God truly is infinite, as Christians suppose, then there can be nothing that is not God. “There is no part of me that is not of the gods!” Likewise, if God is infinite, there is no objective center of the universe; our universe is centered around the one focal point which is our conscious awareness. Thus we are each the Sun in our own solar system, constantly moving in our orbit — simultaneously shifted by the gravity of other stars and bearing our own gravitational pull.

    As stars with our own orbits which we must consciously manoeuvre, and as gods free from external moral codes, we must determine for ourselves what is lawful. Violating the laws of our own nature is the only sin, and only we can redeem ourselves therefrom. Unawareness of this nature precludes the ability to do what is “right,” and thus we must seek the greatest self-knowledge in order to ascertain the nature of our Will. Right and wrong are not static imperatives (“thou shalt not kill”), but rather are dynamic and situational (“in general, do not kill, but if you do so in the course of saving lives, or _______, then it may be okay”). Harmonising with this dynamic will free you from stasis, which is death.

    • January 7, 2010 at 10:11 pm

      93 Achad – Thanks for your comment, great thoughts. Indeed, a future post will go into the nature of the Mystery of Evil within the Law of Thelema. Stay tuned!

      • Anthony
        January 27, 2010 at 1:26 am

        I think that you have beautifully summed up the basic tenet of our “religion”. Thank you.

    • Andre Fauth
      January 15, 2010 at 12:29 pm

      93

      “Right and wrong are not static imperatives (“thou shalt not kill”), but rather are dynamic and situational (“in general, do not kill, but if you do so in the course of saving lives, or _______, then it may be okay”). Harmonising with this dynamic will free you from stasis, which is death.”

      That is exactly the same example I use when I’m talking with some people that want to know more about “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”.

      93 93/93

  3. rey
    January 7, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Thelema is retarded stupidity. Doing whatever the hell you want isn’t a religion and it ain’t going to ‘save’ anybody.

    • January 7, 2010 at 10:16 pm

      93 rey – Thanks for the comment. Thelema does not mean ‘do whatever the hell you want.’ Take the time to read some of the posts which address this very assertion multiple times. “‘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.” While we appreciate your comment, we would more appreciate you taking the time to learn the basics about what we are talking before denouncing it as mere “retarded stupidity.” If you still feel such when you’ve read through the blog posts, then so mote it be. Love is the law, love under will.

      • rey
        January 9, 2010 at 9:56 am

        Maybe your retarded clown who thought he was some kind of Satanist should have learned to write before coming up with the stupidest law ever made. ‘Do what thou wilt’? I mean seriously, you’ve got a moron who wants us to think he’s in touch with Satan imitating KJV English. What an idiot. He’s like a Joseph Smith for Satan worshipers. He went all Book of Mormon to give his asinine meaningless ‘law’ an air of authority. My law for thee is get thyself a brain.

    • Neal "thePuck" Jansons
      January 8, 2010 at 8:40 pm

      Only if you don’t know the difference between “Will” and “whim”.

    • Moe
      January 8, 2010 at 9:43 pm

      rey,

      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

      “Thelema is retarded stupidity.”

      I couldn’t disagree more. Thelema is the Law, and you ARE governed by it whether you choose to recognize that or not. It really makes no difference. You live it every day whether you are aware of it or not… It’s all a question of how well you live it. You are free to choose to restrict yourself, and to adhere to antiquated values and ideas that have now been nullified, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

      “Doing whatever the hell you want isn’t a religion”

      You are definitely right there, especially considering the fact that this is not the meaning of the Law of Thelema…. Perhaps you would think about taking a moment to dig a little deeper into what it actually does mean?

      “and it ain’t going to ’save’ anybody.”

      It saved me.

      Saved me from thinking I had a license to do what ever I wanted because some irrational belief would absolve my “sins” if I just asked for it.

      Saved me from the intolerance bred in myself by the teachings of the slave religion known as Christianity.

      Saved me from the notion that I was bad, and sinful, and damned, and therefore needed to grovel before some “IDOL”…

      Thelema Saved me from Slavery, and I will never forget the power of that.

      Love is the law, love under will.

      Light, Life, Love and liberty be upon you, rey. Yea, verily may they be upon us all.

      Moe

      • Kevin Stevenson
        January 12, 2010 at 3:38 am

        Moe:

        “Thelema is the Law, and you ARE governed by it whether you choose to recognize that or not. It really makes no difference. You live it every day whether you are aware of it or not.”

        Thus, it was Thelema that determined rey would say that “Thelema is retarded stupidity.”

        If your right, then you must be wrong…and vise versa!

      • January 11, 2011 at 3:47 am

        I am very happy that you have discovered the power of the absolute force of focused direction. Now you must learn to transcend its formative power and yield it up to its bright sum. Jesus is not an object to be used as fodder. He is Sactum Summum. Ipsissimus. He is nothing. He reduces all things to zero. He is the goal and its making. Please ponder the holy book in meditation. Give the masters words a new chance to flourish in your rebirth of enlightenment. What you have discovered is truly amazing. It can become Zero. Do as thou wilt!

  4. Alex Mou
    January 7, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    Rey – It’s my understanding that when Thelema says “do what thou wilt” it is talking about something called the “True Will” and not just your desire.

    Obviously if you did whatever you wanted, there would be problems. You might want to get your degree, but also want to party all the time and never study. If your “True Will” is to get a job in forensic pathology, then getting a degree is part of that Will, and then of course studying and foregoing partying (or partying in moderation instead) is necessary. Since partying restricts you from doing your Will, partying is “sinful” (“The word of Sin is Restriction” says Thelema). If your Will is instead to become a bartender, stripper, etc, then partying could actually aid you and thus is not sinful for you. Does this make more sense?

    Disclaimer: I’m coming from a Christian background. I’m making no claims to represent Thelema, I’m just here to understand. Jesus said to “love thy neighbor” and how can you do that without understanding him or her?

    • January 9, 2010 at 7:58 pm

      93 Alex Mou – Thanks a lot for your comment. Your insights are much appreciated, and I generally agree with your assessment of True Will. Will is not mere ‘do as you please’ or ‘do as you like.’ Love is the law, love under will.

  5. January 7, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    Thanks for the comment on my blog. I am tempted to agree with “rey” even after reading your blogposts… 🙂 Christ has already defeated death – Christianity will never be dead. Humanism and Thelma all die and decompose with the human body. No matter how much we want to believe we are something better, we are still humans – dust – with nothing good until we look outside ourselves. Of course, its tempting to want to believe we are the center of the universe.

    Christianity will be alive when we are all long forgotten.

    Thanks again for your comment.
    Miss Pickwickian

    http://www.theerraticmuse.blogspot.com

    • January 7, 2010 at 11:41 pm

      93 Bethany – Christianity is already dead! Humans are more than dust and we can find something good looking inside ourselves. It is quite a morbid position to think that all goodness is outside of oneself! Thanks for reading & making a comment!

    • Ryan
      January 8, 2010 at 7:13 am

      Bethany,

      Pardon such a long post for my first post here ever. I am a fellow Christian who has followed Jesus all the way into the Age of Aquarius, and have acknowledged the Now Age by publicly confessing my belief in Thelema. I appreciate your enthusiasm for Truth! Although, like most of us who believe every word of the Bible is inspired, it came to my attention, at the age of 14 (I am now 29), that the 3 Roman based Christianity mindsets, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Pentecostalism (due to a meeting with a Greek professor, who is a brother-in-law, of a gymnastics coach of mine), that our founding fathers intentionally twisted the meaning of our inspired writings, for the sake of manipulating everyone. And, with this in mind, you may agree with me when I say the following:
      1) Jesus never called his followers Christians.
      2) Christianity as descended from Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Pentecostalism, is not the same thing as the expression that Apostle Peter and Apostle Paul experienced and knew.
      3) If you and I desired to return to the wonderful freedom offered by Jesus and his Apostles, experienced by pre-Roman Christianity, wouldn’t we have to embrace a death of the distortions offered to us by the aforementioned Satanic Trinity above?

      Before Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, he asked a woman, “Do you believe I AM the resurrection and the life?” This was a tough question for her since resurrection implies that someone has already died. But according to Jesus, resurrection is a state of being, rather than an actual “event.”

      Thelema as the death of Christianity, is not the same thing as saying, “Thelema, the death of the resurrection of Jesus.” On the contrary, Thelema supports the resurrection of our brother in two statements from our holiest book, “The Book of The Law”:
      “I peck out the eyes of Jesus as he hangs on the cross” April 11th, 1904
      “Every man and woman is a star.” April 9th, 1904

      You and I both believe Jesus is human. He proved this by letting his enemies crucify him. Aleister Crowley’s declaration that every man and woman is a star, includes Jesus, and proves Aleister Crowley confesses Jesus is Lord. [He defines elsewhere in The Book of Thoth, that the Sun is the symbol of the Lord of light, life, love, and liberty]. If Jesus really did bear the sins of the whole world upon the tree, and still remained Son of God, then how could any supposed sin that you and I have today, keep us from still being Sons of God? And, in the book of Job “God” asked him, “Where were you when the morning stars sang, and the Sons of God shouted for joy?” God compares the symbol of Stars to the concept of Sons of God; if Job did not pre-exist, then why would God ask him to remember where he was at the time of creation? Even though the story shows that the bad things Satan did to him were of God’s inspiration, the end of the story makes it clear that Job never blamed God for it. How come? Job must have been in charge of the whole thing on some level if his conclusion was to never blame God.

      What is death? We cannot be happy that Jesus defeated death unless we first know what it is. Jesus said, “I have authority to lay my life down, and raise it up again.” Both death and resurrection were parts of Jesus’s state of being. He willingly surrendered his life out of his control, and then on the third day he proved that he was always in control! That short failure of his Will (and we know that it was not his True Will to suffer since he begged his Father for another option), was revealed to be extremely short lived; after he demonstrated power over death, he began exercising his Thelema with extreme extravagance, walking through walls, and even eating fish with his disciples! Even Jesus raised from the dead, enjoyed all things that we enjoy upon the face of the earth (He now was free to do his Will, which he previously enjoyed to some degree)

      Concerning Aleister Crowley, who identified himself as The Beast 666, if he indeed was the wickedest man in the world ever, Jesus bore his sin in his body, and completely erased it on the Third Day, because the Resurrection body of Jesus become void of all the sins of the world. Now, as a Christian I have to ask, then will Aleister Crowley be saved? “that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the GLORY of God the Father” (Phillipians 2:10-11). It doesn’t say that every knee should bow to Jesus; the emphasis is not on Jesus, but on the Father.

      There is a reason I capitalized the word Glory as a SHOUT. For as a Christian I believe every knee will bow (in acknowledgement of God as Father) and confess Jesus is Lord; however, as a Thelemite, I do not interpret it like Rome would have us. The word Glory in Greek means “thought, opinion, judgment; appearance.” So the meaning here cannot be that people are bowing down to God against their wills. On the contrary, this verse should read, “and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the APPEARANCE of God the Father.” If we are to regard the theme of the symbol of Stars in Thelemic philosophy to be equal to the concept of Sons of God, then we realize that the sons of God who “shouted for joy” at the time of creation, were all of us! Jesus was one of those Stars. It says concerning the confession of Jesus as Lord (a Star), that the reason our tongues should confess this is “to the appearance of God the Father.” (Notice it doesn’t say God the creator). It says this confession should take place even “under the earth.” How could the confession of Father God by those in hell make our Father God manifest, unless they themselves are confessing a realization of themselves being an individual manifestation of Father?

      So The Beast 666, if indeed he is in a hell at the center of the earth, if he confessed today, that Jesus is Star, he would also realize God as his Father. How can you be in hell and remain there if you regard God as your Father? What Father would allow His child, no matter how wicked, to suffer, unless that child really wanted to suffer? But here is the good news (Gospel); he who called himself 666, said, “Every man and woman is a Star”; and if he believed it (as his words and his deeds prove), then we know he confessed the Lordship of Jesus (was, and is and is to come). Romans 10:9,
      “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

      As a Christian I could argue with a huff and a puff that Jesus is the only Lord; that is absurd. And it causes great confusion as well, for Jesus never said he is the only Son of God; nor did Jesus ever claim he is the only Lord. Yes, the Nicene creed says that Jesus is the “only begotten of the Father.” But are we going to trust the Nicene Creed or Scripture? The same writer who wrote the book of John wrote another one called 1st John, and there is no difference between the word begotten used by Jesus when it says in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world and gave his begotten (Greek does not say only) Son” and also 1st John 5:1, “Everyone who believes Jesus is Christ is begotten of God.” Rome never told us the word begotten means “uniquely born.”

      Every child of God is Unique, “every man and woman is a Star.” I look forward Bethany, to hearing the unique things you have to say.

      Life, Light, Love, and Truth,
      Pentecostal Thelemite

    • Moe
      January 8, 2010 at 10:54 pm

      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

      Speak for yourself, Bethany, because you do not speak for me when you say that:

      “we are still humans – dust – with nothing good until we look outside ourselves.”

      Perhaps this is true of you, but I find an immeasurable amount of “good” in myself, and refuse to see myself as inherently “bad”. This is the slavery that your beliefs have bred into most of us. It has helped to create all the perversions and evils in the world today, and I’ll have absolutely no part of it.

      I implore you to look within yourself and see your own beauty and goodness. It is there, you have just been fooled into believing it isn’t. This is the true slavery.

      Unto you may there be granted the accomplishment of your Will. Yea, the accomplishment of YOUR will.

      Love is the law, love under will.

      Moe

      • January 8, 2010 at 10:56 pm

        93 Moe – Thanks for your comments! Indeed it is sad to know the extent of self-denial that Christianity has bred into people. People thinking “…nothing good until we look outside ourselves” shows the importance of this endeavor to announce the Law of Liberty.

    • January 11, 2011 at 3:51 am

      Thelema is not religion or that farce Humanism, which is merely a maskerading form of satanism. It is a magical formulae whereby one reduces oneself psycologically to zero. The purpose of this? To see clearly without self-deception and biases that rot the soul. What do you think the master(Yeheshua) was doing in the desert for 40 days?? Watching the sunset? Playing with sand?

  6. January 7, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    You just commented on my blog. Thanks for reading. I’m looking for a conversation more than I am a debate so I hope I don’t come accross any other way. I just commented back…would you mind continuing the conversation?

    http://johnnymelendez.blogspot.com/2010/01/book-of-revelation.html#comments

    • January 7, 2010 at 11:41 pm

      93 Johnny – Thanks for the comment. As you can see there are already many comments on this website so I’d appreciate it if you continued the conversation here. Thanks for reading!

  7. January 7, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    yes of course. I pretty much just said I find it interesting how much you connect your religion with Christianity. I am no expert having just researched it for the first time, but to me it seems you connect it with Christianity more than others in your religion. Is there a reason? …or am I wrong in saying others don’t?

    Also, I would just like to ask why you would say Christianity is dead?

    And lastly, why do you believe what you believe? Like what is it about Thelema that you feel makes it the best religion or one true religion or however you see it.

    I understand I’m askin a lot so if you just want to address part of this, that’s totally cool too. Thanks.

    • January 8, 2010 at 12:31 am

      93 Johnny – I appreciate the continued comments. I connect Thelema with Christianity for a lot of reasons. I live in America which is largely a Christian nation so I find it most pertinent to speak about Christianity, let alone the influence which Christianity has had on Western culture in general. It has influenced everyone in the West, even if they are not Christian. The Beast 666 himself connected Thelema with Christianity very often – there are many great parallels, many of which are mentioned on this blog. While Thelema would also say ‘Buddhism is Dead’ ‘Islam is Dead’ in the same way, we find it most pertinent to focus on Christianity.

      Why do I think Christianity is Dead? From the About page: “We know there are billions of Christians as of this new vulgar decade of 2010. There are certainly a lot of Christians and they are not dead, nor do we want them dead. On the contrary, we want them to Live fully. Christianity as a whole is dead, having been choked by the exoteric dogmas accumulated over centuries of superstitious and fearful tragedies. The message of Christ has been perverted and used for political power. One need only take one glance to the right at the Sermon of the Mount as taught by Jesus and another glance to the left at the decadently opulent Vatican to see one of the most basic hypocrisies. Christianity may be dead, but Thelema [Greek for ‘Will’] lives.”

      I believe what I believe because of my experience. Thelema has, over and over again, proved its validity on the physical, mental, moral, emotional, and spiritual planes. Time and time again the beautiful simplicity and depth of the Law of Thelema has saved me from and brought me through times of deep desperation, confusion, and suffering. I’ve found the truths of my inmost spiritual experiences expressed in both plainer language and more poetic language than I could ever achieve myself. Further, its understanding of the unity behind religions and yet still going farther with its own ideas I find highly appealing. Every time I read the Book of the Law, or something like De Lege Libellum (google it!), I am reminded why Thelema is the purest expression of Truth in this Aeon.

      Thanks again for taking the time to read the material & comment.

      • January 8, 2010 at 6:11 am

        Hey. I honestly like a lot of what you have to say.

        Are there any like rituals, or any kind of structure (like authorities in the faith). I just took a world religions class. And honestly after looking up thelema online, I’m so surprised I have never heard of it. It seems to be everywhere. It almost seems more like a philosophy than anything else though. How would you say it is a religion before it is a philosophy?

        Like I said, some of the stuff you said, I could not help but agree whole heartedly, especially what you have to say about “christianity.” As a Christian, the separation between what the church is supposed to be and what it is, frustrates the heck out of me. Can I ask you to consider whether the following is a possiblity?…

        Is it possible that while America at large proffesses to be Christian, they in fact are not? What if the real Christian church was so small…or so behind the scenes, that we rarely see an example of the true church.

        Here is what I know…Matthew 25 shows a picture of Christ separating His church from the rest…

        The one difference He uses decipher between the two aren’t what you would think. It has nothing to do with who professes to be Christian or who is on a church roll, but has everything to do with who helped the oppressed.

        So maybe if we define the church the way the Bible does (instead of looking to church attendance or self-proffessing, looking at the oppressed and seeing who is helping them), we will actually see that the church is alive and active, and can in fact identify with Jesus, who we would say is also alive.

        So yeah…I am so sorry if I come accross as preachy…Can I just ask if you think any of this is a possibility? (i am considering that it is…and it’s something that I honestly struggle with..because in my mind as well the separation seems too great for the church to be alive.)

  8. January 8, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Thelema, thanks for commenting on my blog. Here’s my response to your comment:
    Thelema, Christianity is NOT dead, but alive, just as Christ Himself is alive after being raised from the dead nearly 2 thousand years ago! Are you an atheist? Would you like a free copy of my novel, John’s Quest? It’s about an agnostic who finds Christ…
    ~Cecelia Dowdy~
    http://www.ceceliadowdy.com
    http://www.ceceliadowdy.blogspot.com

    • January 8, 2010 at 3:40 am

      93 Cecelia – Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. Christ’s word has been superseded by the Word of The Beast 666: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

      • Ryan
        January 8, 2010 at 9:42 am

        Christianit,

        I know what you mean brother, having received the Mark of the Beast myself; but I disagree. Since Iesous is 888 and means something to the effect of A Rainbow (800) Universally Assembled (80), as an intention (8), Christ Iesous being the Word alive forever, cannot be separated from itself. Jesus is an English word and created by Rome yes; the Master has destroyed Jesus in all of its Roman attachments and implications.

        I’d like to suggest that “The Christ” is manifested in flesh about every 2000 years, and previous examples of this are Enoch (Age of Taurus), Melkizadek (Age of Aries-Tzaddi sounding a lot like Melkizadek), YHSHVH (Age of Pisces), and Aleister E. Crowley (who’s name adds up to 666.) The book of Hebrews says that YHSHVH came in the Order of Melkizadek, and I believe that he came in the order of Enoch, and 666 came in the Order of YHSHVH. You probably already believe something similar to this, yet I also see 666 as The Christ; so Cecelia should feel free to still accept Christ’s Word in it’s current form known to us here as Thelema.

        “Love is the law, love under will”,
        Pentecostal Thelemite

    • Ryan
      January 8, 2010 at 9:23 am

      Cecelia,

      I wrote a response to Bethany a little bit ago, and since you mentioned the word “agnostic” and finding Christ, I’d like to possibly bring up a discussion with you about Gnosticism, since I am a participant in the weekly ceremony called “The Gnostic Mass.” I do not know yet how you define agnostic, nor am I implying that Gnosticism is the same thing as Agnosticism. Here, I will define Gnosticism as the assertion there are no mediators between God and man. Since I am a Christian I understand what it is like to defend Jesus as the only and one true way to God. After all, John’s book says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.”

      Before, I say anything else, I want to emphasize that Faith in the resurrection of Jesus, has born many positive results, both historically, and in my own life. As matter of fact, when I was a freshman in high school, I was attending an American Baptist Charismatic fellowship, and we witnessed many miracles and healings, etc. in our meetings. Also, an evangelist from Ellensburg, WA. and his wife, invited me to stay with them for a Youth summer camp and I went. With them I met their children, one who’s name is Theresa, and I learned that their daughter, molested and left for dead under a bridge, was documented clinically dead by doctors; and simultaneously to all of this, the community of faith rose up and began to exercise their Faith in the Resurrection power of Jesus. I say all this to emphasize that I have met another human being (besides Jesus) who has been raised from the dead, through Faith in resurrection. In my post to Bethany I go into detail about how I define resurrection. But in celebration of resurrection, I encourage you to go to their website: http://www.amiraclestory.com .

      So Jesus is recorded by John as saying “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. Interestingly enough, we learn later from Luke in Acts 19:8-9 what Jesus meant, “Then Paul went to the synagogue and preached boldly for the next three months, arguing persuasively about the Kingdom of God. But some became stubborn, rejecting his message and publicly speaking against The Way.” The question that arises is “way to what?” Jesus was claiming to be “The Way” to the Father, but Paul asserted that The Way is the Kingdom of God. We learn that the Kingdom of God itself is the Way to the Father. What is often ignored by Christian Evangelists (I no longer bear this guilt), is that you’ll hardly ever hear them say Jesus is the way to The Father; they’ll say “God.” It is because subconsciously, we did not really believe God is the Father of All.

      Ever before Jesus suffered, he taught his followers to pray “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” Every good Hebrew knew what that name was; and Jesus having a conversation about the Kingdom of heaven with a Rabbi, talked about spiritual birth saying, “flesh gives birth to flesh; spirit gives birth to Spirit.” There is a 4 letter word (and being so holy to some Jews) was never spoken out loud. Jesus was not afraid to declare the 4 letter word, called The Name of God. This name is the name which we confess in Ecclessia Gnostica Catholica, in our Creed, during the Gnostic Mass. This name is the name which means Father, Mother, Son, and Daughter. I have carefully studied this name for 9 years now; and historically, it has always been known as such. It is a four letter word used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures called YHVH, containing no vowels. It has always meant Father, Mother, Son, Daughter, dogmatically in Jewish Circles.

      Paul and Nicodemus both knew this as “The name of God”, and the Daughter of God has always been considered by the Rabbis to be synonymous with the terms, “The Kingdom/Holy Spirit/The Physical Universe.”

      To say “Our Father who art in heaven” is a confession that we are also in heaven, since we live in the same house as our Father. In addition, to ask for “Thy Kingdom come” we are also asking for our Kingdom to come. The Mother and Daughter share the same letter, so that the term Holy Spirit is a Double Name, and is hidden in the Trinity. Since God is One, God is all 4 and therefore, to be baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is to be baptized into the name of YHVH. All of this takes place in Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, since we are the only Assembly who acknowledge this Word, and this name as our own True Identity, without denying its parts.

      Every time a Roman Catholic prays “Our Father” without also believing they come from God, they are lying to the God they pray to, and also lying to the person standing next to them. A baby exists before it is born. How hypocritical I was to hate the abortion doctors who get paid to abort infants in the womb, when I myself took great pains to abort the pre-existing spirit of those around me and paid ministers to do so! I used the power of God to heal the sick, and I used the wonderful stories of the dead being raised, all to support my message which kept my fellow humans buried in the tomb of their soul. Birth means “becoming aware of your environment.” The Jewish Rabbis, who were custodians over the meaning of YHVH, knew that God’s name [identity] included The Daughter, who is The Holy Spirit, the whole physical universe, and since she is One with God, we know the whole Universe is Spirit, the Holiest Spirit of them all.

      The word YHSHVH (Joshua), contains the 4 letters which Jesus (a master Rabbi), was aware of. I believe that these 5 letters correspond to the higher meaning of death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and coming of the Holy Spirit [Day of Pentecost], the 5 events which define “The Gospel” or Good News. When we receive our environment (The Holy Spirit/Universe), we become united with the Daughter of God (the Universal Church, Ecclessia Gnostica Catholica) and we are filled with the Universe.

      Most of the time, when we see the words believe “in” that are mentioned in the New Testament, the Greek actually says “into.” Also the word “call upon” the name of the Lord means “to sirname one’s self” and to be sirnamed means to receive another person’s name as your own identity. So when YHSHVH said, “For God so loves the world that he gives his Unique Son, that whomsoever believes INTO him, shall not perish but have Aeon life” it means believing into the identity of Father, Mother, Brother, and Sister, the Universe being tangible, and therefore, The Kingdom of God is near you. How near is it?
      Romans 10:6-8,
      “But faith’s way of getting right with God says, ‘Don’t say in your heart, Who will go into heaven (to bring Christ down to earth). And don’t say, ‘Who will go down to the place of the dead’ (to bring Christ back to life again). In fact, it says, ‘The word is very close at hand: it is on your lips and in your heart.’ And this is the word of Faith which we preach.”

      We learn here that the Word of Faith the disciples preached never ever tries to bring Christ down from heaven. So why is it that Roman Christianity, Protestantism, and Pentecostalism say that you must receive Jesus into your heart? Faith would never say that. Faith says that Christ (The Third letter in YHVH), is so close to everyone, that it is already in our hearts, and on our lips. When we confess YHSHVH and sir-name ourselves with that name, we have called upon the name of the Lord and are immediately saved. Saved from what? Saved from trying to get into a heaven we’re already in.

      I hope you make lots of money from your book. Health and wealth are the right of every Son and Daughter of YHVH according to our Law of Thelema.
      -Pentecostal Thelemite

  9. Dan Bloom
    January 8, 2010 at 5:18 am

    thelma, how did you find my blog about Jews in Asisa so fast? I just posted 3 minutes ago. are you GOD?

    • January 8, 2010 at 5:33 am

      93 Dan – How did you figure out the Secret so fast?! “There is no god but man.”

  10. January 8, 2010 at 6:22 am

    Johnny :

    Hey. I honestly like a lot of what you have to say.

    Thanks

    Are there any like rituals, or any kind of structure (like authorities in the faith).

    Yes. Look up Liber E and Liber O – Yoga and Magick. Check out ‘Liber ABA’ / ‘Book Four’ also known as ‘the Big Blue Brick’ because of how it looks…

    I just took a world religions class. And honestly after looking up thelema online, I’m so surprised I have never heard of it. It seems to be everywhere. It almost seems more like a philosophy than anything else though. How would you say it is a religion before it is a philosophy?

    Yes, it is quite widespread. It is a philosophy and a religion. It is a paradigm. You can call it many things. Crowley called it a religion many times and other times complained that calling it a religion implied things that he did not like (such as adherence to the superstitious-theistic notion of God)

    Like I said, some of the stuff you said, I could not help but agree whole heartedly, especially what you have to say about “christianity.” As a Christian, the separation between what the church is supposed to be and what it is, frustrates the heck out of me. Can I ask you to consider whether the following is a possiblity?…

    Is it possible that while America at large proffesses to be Christian, they in fact are not? What if the real Christian church was so small…or so behind the scenes, that we rarely see an example of the true church.

    If that is true, there is a huge, gigantic ‘false’ church!

    Here is what I know…Matthew 25 shows a picture of Christ separating His church from the rest…

    The one difference He uses decipher between the two aren’t what you would think. It has nothing to do with who professes to be Christian or who is on a church roll, but has everything to do with who helped the oppressed.

    Thelema is all about the Rights of Man. See Liber Oz.

    So maybe if we define the church the way the Bible does (instead of looking to church attendance or self-proffessing, looking at the oppressed and seeing who is helping them), we will actually see that the church is alive and active, and can in fact identify with Jesus, who we would say is also alive.

    The Church of Thelema, the E.G.C., is indeed ‘active.’ Jesus is no longer the archetype of the perfected man, being the Suffering Man like Osiris (and others). Now is the Aeon of the Crowned & Conquering Child who is sinless, pure will, pure joy, beauty & strength, leaping laughter, delicious languor, innocence, and other such qualities. Love is the law, love under will.

  11. January 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    Ryan :

    Christianit,

    I know what you mean brother, having received the Mark of the Beast myself; but I disagree. Since Iesous is 888 and means something to the effect of A Rainbow (800) Universally Assembled (80), as an intention (8), Christ Iesous being the Word alive forever, cannot be separated from itself. Jesus is an English word and created by Rome yes; the Master has destroyed Jesus in all of its Roman attachments and implications.

    93 Ryan – Thanks for your comments. Nowhere have I said Jesus is dead or Christ is dead, but Christianity is Dead.

    I’d like to suggest that “The Christ” is manifested in flesh about every 2000 years, and previous examples of this are Enoch (Age of Taurus), Melkizadek (Age of Aries-Tzaddi sounding a lot like Melkizadek), YHSHVH (Age of Pisces), and Aleister E. Crowley (who’s name adds up to 666.) The book of Hebrews says that YHSHVH came in the Order of Melkizadek, and I believe that he came in the order of Enoch, and 666 came in the Order of YHSHVH. You probably already believe something similar to this, yet I also see 666 as The Christ; so Cecelia should feel free to still accept Christ’s Word in it’s current form known to us here as Thelema.

    Indeed, The Beast 666 is the Christ of this New Aeon, being Antichrist to the Old Aeon and past Christ. There is a fresh influx from the LOGOS and we understand it clearer now: There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt. Many thanks for your comments.

    • Ryan
      January 8, 2010 at 8:05 pm

      I am very glad you started this discussion group. The conversations are never boring. And you are never putting anyone down for expressing their views. Keep up the great voice of freedom here!

      • January 8, 2010 at 8:07 pm

        93 Ryan – Thanks for the comments & encouragement.

  12. January 8, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    The first deception of humans by the devil was accomplished with the inclusion of certain facts. Those facts, however, were taken out of context so as not to show the end result. I find the same true with Thelema. Just enough facts are included to allow one to question, at the very least, the teachings of Christianity.

    They were first called Christians at Antioch, not Rome as you suggest (but are careful not to say). They were called Christians because the light of the risen Christ and the power of His Holy Spirit lived in them, and people tended to abhor this. The term “Christians” literally means “little Christs” and was meant to mock those who believed in Jesus as both God and the resurrected Son of God. This is something you have in common with those at Antioch.

    Never fear. We wear the name with pride and pray that God will indeed make us like these “little Christs” they are saying we are. As it is written, “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4, written by the apostle Paul before he ever made it to Rome by the way) Scripture says that God made man out of the dust of the earth, but it was not until He breathed into Him that Adam became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)

    To those who would turn from the teachings of God’s Word I offer these verses, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-8)

    You want Law, check out my site at http://david-pttc.blogspot.com/

    • January 8, 2010 at 6:44 pm

      93 David – That last line is sure useful, isn’t it? The Muslims have lines just like that in their Holy Book, too… Luckily we don’t make threats of eternal punishment when Thelemites happen to read other books… Thanks for dropping by!

    • Ryan
      January 8, 2010 at 8:14 pm

      “The first deception of humans by the devil was accomplished with the inclusion of certain facts.” I do not want to presume that you are only going to use the Bible to support your Thesis. If so, where in the Bible do you arrive at the conclusion of this? Are you saying that there was a deception by the devil before the garden of Eden story?

      “They were first called Christians at Antioch, not Rome as you suggest (but are careful not to say). They were called Christians because the light of the risen Christ and the power of His Holy Spirit lived in them, and people tended to abhor this. The term “Christians” literally means “little Christs” and was meant to mock those who believed in Jesus as both God and the resurrected Son of God. This is something you have in common with those at Antioch.”
      I am aware that people who resurrected with Christ by faith, were called Christians, rather than calling themselves Christians. I’d like you to explore the word Christian further. My studies into the suffix ‘ian’ isn’t what you’ve heard in church (as did I) that it means “little Christs”. Ian means “pertaining to” or “having to do with.” So yes, I consider myself a Christian, because I have to do with Christ. So what is your definition of Christ? Are you saying you consider yourself a “little Christ?”

  13. societyvs
    January 8, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    “In him was God made Man and Man made God. God ’sent’ Jesus to show that God & Man are & can be One.” (CID)

    Here’s snag numero uno for me…I don’t believe Jesus was God or could be God…since there is only One. I don’t think Jesus showed God and man are ‘equal’ in way, shape, or form…but are united as One when we follow the teachings of God…which in the gospels come through Jesus.

  14. January 8, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    As an Independent Fundamental King James ONLY Christian I must disagree with you. God is VERY much alive and without God we are nothing.

    We are all entitled to our own oppions, but I will say, if it wasn’t for my Savior and Lord I would not be where I am today! Jesus died on the cross and rose again 3 days later and NO one will ever change my mind on that. The end times are near and we as Christians need to warn people that salvation is of the utmost importance.

    Thank you for stopping by my blog and I hope you will stop again.
    This is the day that the Lord hath made I will rejoice and be glad in it.
    Rejoice in the Lord alway and again I say rejoice!

    • January 8, 2010 at 8:10 pm

      93 Paula – I never said God is dead! I said Christianity is dead. Big difference! I am not here to change your mind on whether Jesus was crucified & resurrected but rather to show you that his Law has been fulfilled & superseded by the Law of Thelema. Not ‘Thy Will be done’ but ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.’ Thanks for your comment!

    • Ryan
      January 8, 2010 at 8:39 pm

      Paula, how are you today? Would you agree with me that the Bible says in many places that it was already the last days back then? And, would you also agree with me that after Jesus rose from the dead he did his will completely, having finished his Father’s Will on the cross? And if we are also risen with Christ through Faith like Ephesians says, haven’t we also been set free to do our own Will?

      -Pentecostal Thelemite.

    • Alrah
      January 9, 2010 at 1:05 pm

      That Christianity is dying in the Uk is simply a fact backed up by government statistics. Only about 7% of the population go to a Christian Church regularly. Most people don’t believe in God here either. Christians feel they are the persecuted minority here, commonly seen as ‘nutters’, and keep thier faith hidden if they are in the public eye.

      You might not like it, but it is a fact (see the National Centre for Social Research – http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/british-social-attitudes-26th-report). Eventually America will follow suit, as it is learning it has to follow suit in it’s economic policies also (although still 10-15 years behind), and America will be psychologically healthier for it!

  15. revenator
    January 9, 2010 at 12:08 am

    Pretty bold title for your post. Since I believe you are wrong and I am god (just kidding) you cannot be right.

    Since the Creator God is God and you are not and he sent His Son to save I would say you are wrong.

    I simplify a great deal because a true class on theology would not be desired because you don’t believe in the One and only true God.

    Do what thou wilt, I’ll continue praying for you.

    • Moe
      January 9, 2010 at 12:34 am

      93 Revenator,

      I have an idea for an experiment….You keep praying, and he can keep posting, and we’ll see who gets more responses… I’ll be very interested to see your results, assuming you end up with any.

      93 93/93,
      Moe

      • January 9, 2010 at 12:41 am

        93 Moe – “Success is your proof” (The Book of the Law). Thanks for the comment

    • January 9, 2010 at 12:40 am

      93 revenator – Now you’re gettin the hang of it! 😛

      I believe in the One and only true God. The only difference is we claim possibility of identification with that One God, while you insist on seeing divinity outside yourself and the only possibility of redemption coming from another.

      As I’ve said before, Luckily, I don’t need the love of Jesus Christ because I have my own light, being a star in my own right even as you are. “Every man and every woman is a star!” Even as the Rosicrucians said: “May thy mind be open unto the Higher! May thy heart be the Centre of Light! May thy body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross!” Jesus was an image of this mystery, for Jesus was the Sun of God, and his death is a reflection of and reflected by the “death” of the Sun at the Winter Solstice (even as the Sun is “crucified” by the ecliptic & equator at each Solstice), his rebirth at the Vernal equinox, etc. Jesus is a symbol of the God-Man, where God has become Man and Man has become God – Deus est Homo. Love is the law, love under will.

    • Moe
      January 9, 2010 at 12:43 am

      Rev, that was a bit rude. I appologize for that. But we both know your “prayers” are in vain. I get a little offended when Christians force their so-called “Blessings” and “Prayers” on people. It is condescending, and rude. But pray away, if it’s your Will. It makes no impact anyway.

  16. January 9, 2010 at 5:33 am

    “Each person is a vehicle of God’s Love.”

    God don’t make no junk springs to mind. i agree here but add more to it. each is a vehicle yet mark by their own experience and culture and bound to it’s rules and assumptions. you can’t escape it. Jesus didn’t escape it which leads me to:

    “In him was God made Man and Man made God. God ’sent’ Jesus to show that God & Man are & can be One.” (CID)”

    Jesus was very much Jewish. While I cannot say if Jesus is God or not, what I can say is that I meet God through Jesus. The Apostle Paul’s words, “God was in Christ.” The third person of the Trinity then would be the embodied Spirit or any human being. Jesus is 100% human, with all of the limitations that come with it. Jesus did not know of his own death, did not come to die but to show us the potential of how to live. Jesus was not some super-being, who knew of germ-theory or electricity (as I would expect God to know) and was just holding out on us. Jesus was filled with wisdom and compassion and “in whom God was pleased to dwell.” Jesus was bound by his culture and context just as we all are. He was a subversive sage, social prophet, and a movement founder who invited his followers and hearers into a transforming relationship with the same Spirit he himself knew and into a community whose social vision was shaped, not by the core value of purity as was the temple’s vision, but the core value of compassion

    While you and many other readers on here note that Christianity has somehow re-adopted this purity code that y’all are rejecting. i too react against this yet i’m still in the Christian tradition because i know that this is the pop-bastardization of ancient doctrines and dogmas of the church. even y’all are reacting to this whether you know it consciously or not. it is not what the “Church” believes or what Calvin called “the right belief.” i’d recommend a read through the Institutions if you’re so inclined. you’re prolly not, but i figure i researched where you pointed me to, i guess i’d do the same. take it or leave it. peace be with you either way.

    • January 9, 2010 at 7:57 pm

      Luke :

      “Each person is a vehicle of God’s Love.”

      God don’t make no junk springs to mind. i agree here but add more to it. each is a vehicle yet mark by their own experience and culture and bound to it’s rules and assumptions. you can’t escape it.

      Of course. Just like there are different types of cars in different countries but they all perform the same function of getting you places, so are the various men & women different vehicles & expressions of God.

      In general you seem to express a more esoteric understanding of Christianity. We agree and only say: why keep the vestiges of superstition? Why even retain the names of these “pop-bastardizations” to use your phrase? We keep moving, take a further step up the Ladder just as Christianity was from Judaism, and have the new Law: Do what thou wilt. Love is the law, love under will.

      • January 11, 2010 at 2:43 am

        Christianity in it’s worst form is supersessionist. carrying on this bad idea is a worse-idea. another reason i can’t support your line of thinking. it’s neo-colonialist and anti-tradition.

        plus humans are supersitious period. we won’t get away from that as we aren’t capable of being completely rational. humans are very irrational and infact, better for it.

    • Kevin Stevenson
      January 11, 2010 at 11:42 pm

      Luke:

      Just curious. Were did you get this idea. Or are you just making stuff up as you go along? And all you ideas about Jesus, are they from some reliable source, or are they too your own situated constructs? If the latter, why do you announce them as though they are anything beyond emotive and autobiographical?

      • Kevin Stevenson
        January 11, 2010 at 11:43 pm

        The first idea I was talking about would be:

        “The third person of the Trinity then would be the embodied Spirit or any human being”

  17. Achad
    January 9, 2010 at 6:56 am

    93

    “you’re prolly not, but i figure i researched where you pointed me to, i guess i’d do the same.”

    “I simplify a great deal because a true class on theology would not be desired because you don’t believe in the One and only true God.”

    I feel like it’s presumed that Thelemites aren’t interested in truth and are closed-mindedly holding to our beliefs, while ours are all rooted in logic, while we don’t assume the same about people, even those who make statements like:

    “NO one will ever change my mind on that” based on faith and not reason.

    Let’s keep it civil and assume we’re all looking for truth, whatever that may be. Agreed?

  18. societyvs
    January 10, 2010 at 1:22 am

    “We keep moving, take a further step up the Ladder just as Christianity was from Judaism, and have the new Law: Do what thou wilt. Love is the law, love under will.” (CID)

    I just wrote a blog on Thelema and Crowley – feel free to come defend the man and his ‘true will’ ideology…or not…but I will respond to this quotation.

    You talk of a ‘moving up the ladder’ – from Judaism to Christianity to Thelema (which introduces a new law – which is not what Jesus taught as the law from Judasim – which is where Jesus derived his teachings from). Crowley did not derive his teachings from Jesus’ teachings or Judaism (fact). Can I prove that? Yes.

    Jesus taught ‘treat other how you want to be treated – this is the whole of the law’. In another teachings he says ‘Love God and love your neighbor as yourself as the whole of the law’. These teachings come directly from the Torah (Judaism). In Mark 12:30-32 it summarizes 3 things:

    (1) Love God (Deut 6:5)
    (2) Love your neighbbor (Lev 19:18)
    (3) God is One (Deut 4:35)

    These are Judaic tenets and are easily the 3 most important one’s used in that day in time – and are still now used (ie: the Shema, teffilin, and mezuzah)

    So what Jesus taught was not ‘new’ – no – it was very old and related back to that figure that handed down teachings on Sinai to Moses. Jesus is re-hashing these ideas a true about God and God’s relationship with humanity.

    As for ‘Do what thou wilt. Love is the law, love under will’…well this is a ‘new version/definition of law’. This is not related to that God on Sinai – and in fact is not related to godliness – but something else…self-introspection (which can be fulfilled in loving one’s self in the actual Torah context). However, this definition is different in the sense it is also ‘selfish’.

    It excludes God – let that be known. It excludes neighbor. It changes the definition of love to something of a sexual nature. It offers no real explanation of what one’s will actually is.

    I studied some of this recently, and the ‘true will’ idea – which is simply finding and completing one’s destiny. It’s mediated by finding one’s daimon – and getting in touch with that entity. It involves aspects of magic and an egyptian god-head of sorts (which is not new or even a new aeon of humanity – it’s ancient). It seems more occultish in nature than Christian.

    It’s no secret Crowley did not like his own Christian traditions – he left them and sought new avenues of expression for ‘his spirituality’. But at the end of the day – this philosophy of thelema is ‘his personal journey and his spirituality’. It involves many aspects of many different fields of spiritual journey – all which gets determined by his teachings (although the true hypocrisy here is he did whatever he wanted to find this system – yet restricts you in your endeavor ie: via everything having to go through his teachings).

    Crowley dictated the ‘book of the law’ via his personal daimon – his guardian angel he ended up calling him – aiwass (or 93). The numbering system comes from kabbala and is really rather useless IMO – since numbers can be used to say anything. Crowley admits this was something outside of him that revealed this info to him he dictated in 1904 over 3 days. And he does not give any of that credit to God for the dictation. This is all disputable – nonetheless – it has no grounding in Christian roots from his own explanation.

    “The voice claimed to be that of Aiwass (or Aiwaz) “the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat”, or Horus, the god of air, child of Isis and Osiris and The Crowned and Conquering Child of the New Aeon, which was to be announced through his chosen scribe “the prince-priest the Beast”.” (Wikipedia – Crowley)

    Yeah, that has no roots in Judaism and the God fo Sinai…in fact…one could say this is the same system the Jewish nation was fleeing while in Sinai (Egypt). And of that aeon of Egyptian understanding was that brutal for one nation – I am not sure another ‘new aeon’ will be any better of the same system.

  19. Achad
    January 10, 2010 at 6:58 am

    93 brother,

    I just wrote a blog on Thelema and Crowley – feel free to come defend the man and his ‘true will’ ideology…or not…but I will respond to this quotation.

    Kurt Goedel died due to paranoia and mental instability, but his mathematical theorems are still valid. The validity of a statement or belief should be judged on its own merits, and not because of some perceived personality flaw in an individual. Thus, defending Crowley — a racist, sexist, drug addict, and so forth — is not necessary. The fact that he was enormously successful in spite of his many flaws, however, seems to speak for itself. “Success is thy proof.”

    You talk of a ‘moving up the ladder’ – from Judaism to Christianity to Thelema (which introduces a new law – which is not what Jesus taught as the law from Judasim – which is where Jesus derived his teachings from). Crowley did not derive his teachings from Jesus’ teachings or Judaism (fact). Can I prove that? Yes.

    The previous aeon of mankind can generally be categorized as the “Aeon of Osiris” or the “dying god.” Jesus was not the only example of a god that was killed, resurrected three days later, etc. Dionysus, Osiris, and many others follow the same formula of birth, death, and rebirth. Each aeon builds on the previous one in many ways, and likewise Crowley’s builds on the dying god formula which Christianity follows. You might also be interested in the similarity of verses in Liber AL to those found in the Bible, at least one of which is pretty much word for word. I would say you are correct, however, that Christian cosmology is not used as the framework for Thelema, in that we don’t accept the Torah and so forth as a foundational holy text. That is to say, we are not an Abrahamic religion.

    So what Jesus taught was not ‘new’ – no – it was very old and related back to that figure that handed down teachings on Sinai to Moses. Jesus is re-hashing these ideas a true about God and God’s relationship with humanity.

    “Crowley’s teachings” are not new, as can be seen in one of his own (unfinished) essays — The Antecedents of Thelema (http://www.ashami.com/eidolons/The_Antecedents_of_Thelema). Crowley was a renowned syncretist who put together many ancient practices and theories with a *new understanding thereof*. New understandings are what categorize the shift in aeons. In the Old Aeon we see the sun being born each morning and dying each night, creating the illusion of sunrise and sunset. In the New Aeon, we understand that this is merely our geocentric perspective, and that while it is true in a sense, it is more true to say that the earth revolves around the sun, creating this illusion based on their relative positions. This new understanding *supercedes* the old aeon understanding.

    As for ‘Do what thou wilt. Love is the law, love under will’…well this is a ‘new version/definition of law’.

    “Do what thou wilt” thus supercedes “Thy will be done” — with a new understanding of God and Will.

    It excludes God – let that be known. It excludes neighbor. It changes the definition of love to something of a sexual nature. It offers no real explanation of what one’s will actually is.

    It excludes an external, Abrahamic view of God. Instead we see a shift in understanding on what God means. We are all cells in the body of the whole (as opposed to separate from it) — heck, I think many churches are shifting gravitating towards this. “God” itself is centered within each of us. “Every man and every woman is a star” and our gravitational relations to them are relevant to our own wills. As such, neighbors are not excluded. You might also be interested in Crowley’s writings on Thelemic ethics, where he declares that if you deny a man certain rights — you declare that those rights no longer exist. . .for you. That sounds similar to the Golden Rule, to me. One’s will cannot be explained because it is only knowable to oneself and not another. However, the nature of the will is commented on in many places throughout Crowley’s work.

    (which is not new or even a new aeon of humanity – it’s ancient)

    See my comments on syncretism and new understandings, and your previous statements on how Crowley’s stuff is new.

    It seems more occultish in nature than Christian.

    I’d argue that the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a famous occult society known as the Golden Dawn was founded by Episcopalian Christians. Occult merely means “hidden” as in “hidden [or secret] wisdom.”

    It involves many aspects of many different fields of spiritual journey – all which gets determined by his teachings (although the true hypocrisy here is he did whatever he wanted to find this system – yet restricts you in your endeavor ie: via everything having to go through his teachings).

    There are many theories on “The Comment” at the end of Liber AL. Some say it was to prevent people from discussing AL and forming dogmatic interpretations — so that each can interpret the Law for themselves. Others say it was put in place as a challenge to true Thelemites. It suggests burning Liber AL after the first reading and not studying it. If it is truly one’s Will to study Thelema, that supercedes this rule apparently imposed by the Comment. There are many theories, but one thing that is more than a mere theory is this: Thelema is not Crowleyism. Crowley was vital to Thelema, but a Thelemite is free to engage in the study and practice of Thelema however he or she wills.

    The numbering system comes from kabbala and is really rather useless IMO – since numbers can be used to say anything.

    I know many Thelemites who agree with this. Others, however, think the numbering is useful as a free association sort of thing to help you discover ideas — similar to how freewriting before an essay can help with creativity. Gematria can also be useful in connecting correspondences during ritual to make it more psychologically potent. Whatever your views, I don’t think the validity of the ancient system of the Hebrews and Greeks — which was used to convey messages in the Bible, and without which many Biblical passages are meaningless and absurd — has any bearing on the validity of the Law of Thelema.

    And he does not give any of that credit to God for the dictation.

    Aiwass is arguably the voice of god. Also, many Thelemites do not believe in God the same way as modern Christians do.

    93 93/93

    • January 10, 2010 at 7:20 am

      93 Achad – Thanks for your comment. Great post and interesting ideas, I have nothing to add! Love is the law, love under will.

    • Kevin Stevenson
      January 11, 2010 at 11:34 pm

      Achad,

      “Success is thy proof.”

      You seem to enjoy announcing this, as though that settles it. My question is: What proof do you have for believing it? Or is it something you take on blind faith? “Thus saith Crowley”?

      • Achad
        January 14, 2010 at 9:48 am

        I believe an equivalent statement would be “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”

        No, I don’t take anything in Liber AL on blind faith. All statements I accept hold up on their own. For example, it makes sense to me that the value of a philosophy is in the results it delivers than the person speaking it. I was quoting this statement to illustrate a point, rather than using it as my reasoning. It sums up what I said prior to saying it.

        I already went into Goedel and so forth, as a mere example of the application of what I wrote. Fact is, if someone says something true, it doesn’t matter if that person was a drug addict or anything else: it’s still true. As far as matters of conduct, if someone tells me “addiction is bad” and is an addict, he or she is all the more qualified to know. Crowley teaches a philosophy of individual liberty and harmony with the universe. He also outlines a means of achieving specific results, which he outlines in his writings. One can engage in the practices he outlines and one will either have success or not have success. If one has success, Crowley’s philosophy works — if not, it doesn’t. Christianity offers no such measure of success.

        The law is “do what thou wilt” not “do what Crowley wilt,” and thus it’s none of my business what Crowley in the realms of his personal finance, indulgences, etc. If “do what thou wilt” works for me — and it seems to be doing just fine! — and makes sense (and it does! I don’t even have to blindly accept it without evidence), all the ad hominems in the world don’t make Crowley’s statement any less true. Let’s not forget Jesus trashing temples and so forth — does that make anything he said any less valid?

    • Kevin Stevenson
      January 11, 2010 at 11:37 pm

      Achad:

      “Aiwass is arguably the voice of god.”

      Great. Let’s hear your argument then. Remeber, don’t appeal to Crowley’s work, as that would be “circular reasoning,” something you condemn, right?

      • January 12, 2010 at 4:25 am

        93 Kevin – That is not an example of circular reasoning, but establishing internal coherence. If I say to you “x + y = 4 but don’t appeal to the math book which says ‘with x=3, what does y equal’ because that is circular reasoning!” that is absurd. Its a You should look up the term ‘circular reasoning’ to know what you are talking about. Love is the law, love under will.

      • Kevin Stevenson
        January 12, 2010 at 10:31 pm

        What special pleading. If a Christian appeals to another part of Scripture to explain a difficult text in question, you can it “circular reasoning.” But if you do the same, it’s called “internal coherence.”

        Would you like to demonstrate how you make this seemingly arbitrary distinction?!?

      • January 13, 2010 at 10:47 am

        93 Kevin – Achad called someone out on circular reasoning, not I. Secondly, as I remember he was talking about something like this:Circular reasoning. What you were saying is ‘explain this person’s work without referring to their work because that would be circular reasoning.’ That just isn’t the same. Thanks for the comment anyhow! Love is the law, love under will.

      • Kevin Stevenson
        January 14, 2010 at 3:44 am

        Re-restating your original assumption isn’t helpful. I’ve asked you for a reasonable distinction between circular reasoning and internal coherence; and how Christianity falls under the former while Thelema enjoys the latter.

        I realize that Achad was the one making the charge, that’s why my remarks were addressed to him, not you; you took it upon yourself to jump in the mix before anyone else could answer.

        You’ve bragged to me elsewhere that Thelema “has its own doctrine of reason/logic.” This must only be in reference to judging the claims of Thelema itself, while everyone else’s system is scrutinized by the good old fashion logical laws. How arbitrary?!?

        All this, and you’ve not even skirted my challenge to the circularity of beginning with you own reason, and then using reason to justify your appeal to the ultimacy of your reason. If you can’t see this, I can’t help you.

        And yes, Hume. Hume’s observations were in reference causal reasoning, induction; not abstract reasoning (i.e., mathematic, logic inference, etc.). They hide stuff like that in books.

      • Achad
        January 14, 2010 at 9:51 am

        Well Kevin, the reason it’s internal coherence is because I’m talking about the role of Aiwass within Thelema. We have a specific context for the word “god” and so forth. I’m not saying Thelema is true merely because Aiwass says it is, but I am responding to the comment that Crowley doesn’t give credit to “God” for the dictation — whatever we may mean by God. I do feel like you’ve taken what I said out of context, and that you misunderstand the fallacy of circular reasoning.

      • Kevin Stevenson
        January 15, 2010 at 12:52 am

        Totally unhelpful, Achad. I’m still waiting for the argument.

      • Бојан
        January 15, 2010 at 11:14 am

        It could be the voice of a god (or the god, whichever floats your boat). It could be an example of multiple personality disorder. Or it could simply be a tool Crowley used since he could see that people have a hard time accepting certain concepts unless they were “given by (a) god”. Personally, I care not which is true since it works (for me). I can understand, accept and live with any of those choices (or any other that might arise). The fact is that one cannot know for certain – regardless of written proof, and regardless of authorship of said proof – who or what Aiwass is. It requires belief, and you already know my position on that 🙂

  20. January 11, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Luke :

    Christianity in it’s worst form is supersessionist. carrying on this bad idea is a worse-idea. another reason i can’t support your line of thinking. it’s neo-colonialist and anti-tradition.

    plus humans are supersitious period. we won’t get away from that as we aren’t capable of being completely rational. humans are very irrational and infact, better for it.

    Neo-colonialist? Anti-tradition? Are we trying to have a real conversation here or are you kidding? I can’t even tell what you are commenting on here, Luke. Try to stay within the bounds of this blog post, but thanks for dropping by anyhow. Love is the law, love under will.

    • January 11, 2010 at 2:46 pm

      i am trying to communicate the dangers of supersessionist thought that you’re carrying on here. Christianity didn’t surpass Judaism but parted ways due to a corrupt temple system. once the temple was destroyed circa 70 C.E. Judaism went the way of the rabbinic tradition they now have. Christianity is but one expression of worshipping the same God.

      what you’re purposing, and it is “within the bounds of this blog post” is a departure from tradition based on a colonial attitude of supersession. this doesn’t work on many levels. first and foremost, you’re supercede’n a misunderstanding of Christianity. then, like all the christians that drive me nuts and when cornered they cite “faith” you recite “love is the law, love under will” which, like i’ve said before, you need to define and explain better.

      • January 11, 2010 at 4:11 pm

        93 Luke – Jews do not accept Jesus as Messiah or as their God. Christians do. To conflate that is historically and theologically just flat out wrong. You should probably look up ‘supersession’ as it doesn’t just mean ‘surpass.’ Just because I am not talking about your unorthodox, made-up version of Christianity where you deny whatever you feel is convenient regarding God and accept him as some ‘inexhaustible depth.’ That’s of no concern to me – yours is one obscure doctrine using Christian language among innumerable, and I have little beef with them. Read the other comments: the Christianity I am addressing is the Christianity practiced by most people. Also, feel free to read the 1000s pages written on Thelema outside this blog, including many explanations of that phrase. Love is the law, love under will.

      • Anthony
        January 27, 2010 at 2:39 am

        Would it be too much to ask that you refer to the first two posts of this blog for a concise definition of the aforementioned tenet “Love is the Law, Love under Will”? Many of these arguments will be rendered moot by an effort at understanding the elegant words used there. 93.

  21. societyvs
    January 11, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    “The validity of a statement or belief should be judged on its own merits, and not because of some perceived personality flaw in an individual. Thus, defending Crowley — a racist, sexist, drug addict, and so forth — is not necessary. The fact that he was enormously successful in spite of his many flaws, however, seems to speak for itself. “Success is thy proof.”” (Achad)

    However, we are not speaking of math here (a science) but more of a religious experience – so the example of Goedel is meaningless (everything can be tested no matter his psychological state). Crowley was more a ‘spiritualist/philosopher’ – so I think he is to be judged (as the new dawn of this aeon – the beast/prophet) – by his actions…since this belief system was of his creatio and based solely on his experience.

    It’s the same with Christianity mind you – who would follow Jesus if we found out his lifestyle was less than conducive of someone we would consider ‘godly’? NO matter what percieved Aeon we are speaking of – character speaks louder than words.

    “Each aeon builds on the previous one in many ways, and likewise Crowley’s builds on the dying god formula which Christianity follows.” (Achad)

    That’s one interpretation of the texts of the NT and their meaning – an added in meaning that cannot be found within the texts message (ie: NT). There is no ‘dying god’ formula in the NT – unless God the Father died at some point and I am not sure where to find that story. As for Crowley, should I just accept his claims based on his perspective of such notions in theology and history – no matter how slanted and biased they sound?

    “Crowley was a renowned syncretist who put together many ancient practices and theories with a *new understanding thereof*.” (Achad)

    Crowley basically threw together a variety of belief systems – meshed them into his own personal system – then presented them to the world as thelema. I’m sorry – there is not much originality in this system that wasn’t already discussed in theology or even philosophy prior – including the ‘true will’ – which is basically fate (covered in a new name). Even his daimon experience can say to have mimicked Joseph Smith or even Mohammed. For originality he gets a ‘C’ that’s for sure.

    As for his ideas on sexual repression – that actually did happen in the 60’s with the sexual revolution – and that has revealed a lot to humanity about human sexuality and some of the mis-givings that go along with that lifestyle (over the next 40 years). If it wasn’t for the sexual revolution we wouldn’t have learned about sexually transmitted diseases (apparently it is not ok to be sexually free in all situations – we do need to restrict this or we can get into serious trouble). It also has introduced the idea of ‘choice and cheating’ into the mainstream part of society – divorces are at 50% right now…simply because of the lack of sexual restrictions. We can get into more of this – I just want to show some of what Crowley taught was tested and found ‘wanting’.

    ““Do what thou wilt” thus supercedes “Thy will be done” — with a new understanding of God and Will.” (Achad)

    Judgement call – you may think this – I don’t. Reason – I don’t think a man like Crowley was significant enough to usher in a new decade – nevermind a new Aeon.

    “I’d argue that the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a famous occult society known as the Golden Dawn was founded by Episcopalian Christians” (Achad)

    I would argue they are. Christian teachings at their root do not enforce the ideas of the occult whatsoever – and there is really no teachings to back up the statement you made about them not being ‘mutually exclusive’. Find me one Christian scripture where the occult or such imagery is being proported by Jesus or the authors of the books of the NT. As for Gentile inclusion of such ideas into Christianty – I won’t argue that (that’s obvious).

    “Thelema is not Crowleyism” (Achad)

    Sure it is. Where did this system of belief arise from? Is it or is not the sole produce of one man named Aleister Crowley who developed the framework for the idea over his career since 1904? Or is there another person who developed this theory alongside (or without the knowledge) of Crowley?

    “which was used to convey messages in the Bible, and without which many Biblical passages are meaningless and absurd” (Achad)

    That’s an assumption Achad – likely made originally by Crowley – and now made by you. Show me one passage where the numbering system is being used – as in a biblical code type thing – that makes the passage more meaningless? Now by code, I mean how Crowley’s daimon can be numbered 93 and that has some supposed meaning – because it is numerical in value. You can take me straight to Revelations if you want (cause that’s where I am guessing this convo is going).

    “Aiwass is arguably the voice of god. Also, many Thelemites do not believe in God the same way as modern Christians do”

    Finally, something I do agree with and is my original contention all along – Christianty and Thelema are not co-existent of one another – and any portrayal to so will result in failure…since the laws of both are in serious contention.

    I will use point (a) of your comment to show this quite easily ‘Aiwass is arguably the voice of god’.

    (a) Aiwass as the voice of God is not a Christian doctrine – we have no clue who Aiwass is and whether or not he is some figment of someone’s imagination

    (b) Jesus in John’s gospel is proclaims as the ‘word of God’…meaning Jesus claims to have at least spoken on behalf of God (like the prophets). Not Jesus or any prophet before him (in the Christian tradition) claim to have made contact with ‘Aiwass’ – as some go between of God and man – or as God’s voice – no such claim is ever made. Mot by Moses, Abraham, Noah, the judges, the kings, the prophets, Jesus, or a single disciple. No history of Aiwass until Crowley in 1904…it’s a pretty recent creation.

    (c) How can a Christian not be sure that Aiwass is not some spirit other than God? Crowley is always talking about how the true will is discovered in convo’s of one with their ‘daimon’ (very close to demon if you ask me)…which is also an angel. Christians are quite clear on this ‘whether an angel or some supposed prophet of God brings another message other than the gospel – let them be accursed’.

    (d) In this case, we seem to have another angel that is teaching a new law based on a variety of ideas not based in Torah/Prophets. This is not Christianity – it’s basic law is anti-Christianity and proclaims the death of Christianity…which I am more than ready to dialogue on.

    • January 11, 2010 at 4:26 pm

      93 societyvs – You conflate experience with actions in your first paragraphs. Judging someone by their actions has no necessary relation to their own experiences of situations, which include but are not limited to their outer actions. Conflations of ideas will get this conversation absolutely nowhere.

      Your notion of Crowleyism is just the definition of a prophet. Crowley wrote, and I have written in this blog, that the very phrases of the Law are not new. In this paragraph you complain Thelema comes only from Crowley and in the next paragraph or so you complain that absolutely nothing came from Crowley and nothing is original. You must be aware of this, so I can only find your comments malicious or disingenuous which is really unfortunate. If you want to talk like a mature individual, you’re going to at least have to get your story consistent.

      “It’s the same with Christianity mind you – who would follow Jesus if we found out his lifestyle was less than conducive of someone we would consider ‘godly’?”

      Christ cursed a fig for not producing fruit, said “I came not to bring peace but a sword,” kicked over tables in temples he disagreed with, and died the lowest humiliating death a person could probably die. He also lived 2000 years ago and we know of him through the eyes of loving disciples – its kind of silly to make a comparison. Besides, no one ever said imitatio Crowley is a legitimate practice whereas most Christians agree being like Jesus Christ is ideal.

      “Find me one Christian scripture where the occult or such imagery is being proported by Jesus or the authors of the books of the NT.”

      I suggest turning to the back to that book called ‘Revelation.’ Perhaps read one of 1000s of books written on the symbolism of this book? I am not here to be your encyclopedia about your own archaic religion, frankly, and its getting tiresome showing how what you are saying has no basis in your own holy texts and is often inconsistent with your earlier complaints. Even your mumbling about gematria is only from your own complete lack of awareness on this idea: there are many many people that are even Christian theologians that pay attention to gematria, etc. There are literally entire websites devoted to it run by Christians. Again I am not an encyclopedia for your own archaic religion and its getting tiresome reading your posts when they offer nothing but misunderstandings of both my own word and your own supposed doctrine.

      “Christianty and Thelema are not co-existent of one another – and any portrayal to so will result in failure…since the laws of both are in serious contention.”

      Who ever said they are ‘co-existent’? Do you know what post-Something means? It means after it. Again, if you are serious about having a mature conversation you should probably look at what is being said instead of making stuff up since it makes the conversation go nowhere.

      Now lets go to your little list:
      a) I never said Thelema is pure Christian doctrine. If it was, it woudl be Christianity. It is simple laziness or disingenuousness to think that Thelema includes all Christian doctrines. I’ve explicitly said how they are different in multiple posts regarding the notions of God, faith, and salvation. You can continue to ignore this in order to complain more but I won’t listen to it. Again, Thelema is not Christianity nor did I ever claim it to be – you would know this if you bothered to read the posts on this blog or perhaps even the title.
      b) Just because you’ve never heard of something doesn’t mean it never existed. Did you even bother searching for this information or did you just check your memory banks, have nothing come up for ‘Aiwass,’ and declare that there is no occurrence before 1904? Crowley himself makes a reference to Sumerian deities in the commentary to Liber AL if you are actually interested, which from your comment it doesn’t seem like you are.
      c) Daimon is close to demon, yes. This comment shows how blatantly ignorant you are of the words we are using. Thelema is not Crowleyism. Daimon is not demon. Co-existence is not supercession. Etc. How do you know? Your answer is faith, our answer is direct experience. I’ve addressed this in a past post but again it seems like you selectively ignored it.
      d) “This is not Christianity.” I’m aware. One would not have a blog called ‘Chrisitianity is Dead’ if you were promoting Christianity, methinks. If you are more than ready to dialogoue on, feel free to actually read the blog posts on this site. Dialog does not mean malicious misunderstanding and switching of your story in order to complain, it means taking into account what is actually meant. Until you show a modicum of being able to try to understand what I am saying, I can’t imagine that you are more than ready to ‘dialogue on’ much of anything. Love is the law, love under will.

  22. January 11, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    christianityisdead :93 Luke – Jews do not accept Jesus as Messiah or as their God. Christians do. To conflate that is historically and theologically just flat out wrong. You should probably look up ’supersession’ as it doesn’t just mean ’surpass.’ Just because I am not talking about your unorthodox, made-up version of Christianity where you deny whatever you feel is convenient regarding God and accept him as some ‘inexhaustible depth.’ That’s of no concern to me – yours is one obscure doctrine using Christian language among innumerable, and I have little beef with them. Read the other comments: the Christianity I am addressing is the Christianity practiced by most people. Also, feel free to read the 1000s pages written on Thelema outside this blog, including many explanations of that phrase. Love is the law, love under will.

    and please refer to the writings of Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr, Johnathan Edwards, Cornielus Plantinga, Peter Schmiechen, Jurgen Moltmann, Paul Tillich, Lee Barrett, and Henri Nouwen to further research my “made up and unorthodox” beliefs.

    nor am I conflating Christianity with Judaism. there is a stream that is not supersessionist.. and no, i don’t need to look up the word as i’ve writetn extensively on this subject and know exactly what i’m talking about. you on the other hand, can’t seem to articulate what you mean. aside from cut and pasting thoughts from other people, i can’t find one thought of your own. the only original thoughts i get are when you drop the “enlightened facade” and talk like you did in this comment to me. which leads me to believe that you don’t know Christianity all that well, haven’t read much ehtics or philosophy, aren’t really a ‘god’ or even aspiring to be, do not have all that much interest in love or law but you like the part where you can do what you want, and thusly must be about 16 or so based on these factors. not that being young is a bad thing, it’s just very evident in your writings and consideration and lack of nuance.

    • January 11, 2010 at 6:47 pm

      93 Luke – If you want to have a conversation like an adult, I suggest you don’t write a full paragraph with personal attacks. Did all your Christian writers ever tell you about ad hominem fallacies? Come back when you have something productive to say. Love is the law, love under will.

      • Kevin Stevenson
        January 11, 2010 at 11:28 pm

        Do you have any reply to criticism besides implying that your opponents are less than adults?

  23. societyvs
    January 11, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    “You conflate experience with actions in your first paragraphs” (CID)

    Agreed. However, in order for the merit of Crowley’s ideas to be justified – one needs to discuss the ideas he proposes (his propositions). And since this is not a science but a philosophy – one’s actions also need to be taken into account to see what is being meant by Crowley in his writings. So in that sense, we need to approach Crwoley’s character on some basis to determine some of his philosophy? Agreed?

    “Thelema comes only from Crowley and in the next paragraph or so you complain that absolutely nothing came from Crowley and nothing is original” (CID)

    Okay let’s address what I wrote – since it more question than comment. (a) Is Crowley system of thelema only from him or were there others that developed this idea outside of him? This is important so I can study the other facets of the idea. My complaint about originality still stands – it is only original in that Crowley’s mixture of the various strands of spiritualism are all put together in one system…that’s new.

    “Besides, no one ever said imitatio Crowley is a legitimate practice whereas most Christians agree being like Jesus Christ is ideal” (CID)

    True – so not imitating Crowley (who the new Aeon comes through) is not a legitmate practice of his beliefs on Thelema? If not, than I stand corrected.

    “I suggest turning to the back to that book called ‘Revelation.’” (CID)

    Which I knew where this discussion was going – so discuss away – I’m all ears. As for gematria and the Christian use of it – I also disagree with that strand of interpretation within my own faith so that doesn’t help very much (and I am aware of the use of gematria ie: the bible code and such examples).

    As for Revelations, one example, the 666 number as ‘gematria’. Now it has been thought this referred to Nero based on that numbering system – however that is quite a read back by such inventors of gematria. I would ask – when did gematria exist in Christian circles to make such an assumption? The imagery of John, from a letter that barely made the canon, seems to refer to the characteristic of the numbered person – a ‘beast’.

    One needs to know ‘beasts’ were ripping apart people in the arena’s of Rome and a simple connection can be made. Or perhaps it’s referring to the actions of Roman Emperors – like Epiphanies who sacrificed a pig in the Temple and even wanted to put his image up as God in the temple (not very welcomed – sparked the Maccabee’s revolt). John could simply be referring to leaders of the Emperor cult – or even the Emperor’s themselves.

    “Who ever said they are ‘co-existent’?” (CID)

    Ok, they are not co-existent and no one has made that statement (except for me). I stand by the claim BTW.

    “Crowley himself makes a reference to Sumerian deities in the commentary to Liber AL if you are actually interested, which from your comment it doesn’t seem like you are.” (CID)

    Simple logic here…Crowley wrote in 1904 on this spirit ‘aiwass’ – prior to that there is no mention of such an entity (only based on Crowley’s word). If there is such a mention prior – I would ask you to present it so I can at least verify this is true what you are saying about the Sumerians.

    “Your answer is faith, our answer is direct experience. I’ve addressed this in a past post but again it seems like you selectively ignored it.” (CID)

    Easy solution for my mis-nomers on definitions CID – explain them. What does daimon mean then? We’ve already addressed co-existence…but you want to knit Crowley out from his own system of philosophy – which I claim is his own system of thought…answer me then…who else developed Thelema? It’s really quite simple – help me out here – it’s your system of faith – I just want to know where I am erring.

    “Until you show a modicum of being able to try to understand what I am saying, I can’t imagine that you are more than ready to ‘dialogue on’ much of anything” (CID0

    Ouch. How can a child learn how to read if no one helps him?

  24. January 11, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    “If you want to re-interpret God as an inexhaustible depth and ignore things said about him in the Bible, be my guest but Im not going to pretend like its pertinent to a subject. ”

    aaahh… that’s the sore spot. Of course God is the inexhaustible depth, the creator of all things… Christians believe in the Trinity! Historically understood as God the father, distant, Jesus the son, the reconcilor and savior, and the Holy Spirit “which proceeds from the father and the son.” meaning that God seems very distant. we can experience aspects of God but not the totality. Jesus came the closes and brought us the idea of the incarnation “these things i can do, you can do and greater than these” (John 14).

    why this is relevent is that it proves that WE ARE NOT GOD nor can we be. you’ve acknowledged this as well stating that “we can’t know everything” which would make us not God since God is all knowing and present everywhere. theology 101.

    first sentence true, second false.

    • January 12, 2010 at 4:43 am

      93 Toothface – Interesting ideas. You can certainly view God as the inexhaustible depth in addition to all the ideas on the Trinity that are common, but I meant it in the context of above. Christ himself said “The kingdom of Heaven is within you… Seek ye first the kingdom of Heaven and all things will be added unto you…” and answering some Jews, “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” Love is the law, love under will.

    • Achad
      January 12, 2010 at 5:44 am

      1. God is present everywhere
      2. We are present somewhere
      3. Therefore, we are part of God and *not separate from it*

      As is said by the Thelemic deity representing infinity, “I am above you and in you.” Thelemites are not claiming to be everything. We are cells in the body of God. If we each perform our proper function (or True Will), God is functioning properly. Otherwise, we are a cancer.

  25. Ryan
    January 12, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Light, life, love, and freedom everyone.

    We are all here because we care about what we believe in. One thing concerning the last Age and this Age which remains the same; The Message has always been an identity issue. The Jewish Priesthood took up stones to stone Jesus for claiming God was his Father, and yet Jesus taught his followers to say “our” Father. In the Age of previous, the Age of Melkizadek, the peoples were seeing the Deity as Motherly, as you have read El-Shaddai (the many breasted one). Now, in this Age of Aquarius, the awareness of the multitudes are of God as our Brother, which means we have equal rights with The Messenger of the Age to the Fatherhood and Motherhood of the Deity. Also, within ourselves, we can see the masculine and feminine principles at work, being aware of both parents.

    When you embrace The Book of the Law, through which the message is written, “Do what thou wilt”, you will discover your direct heritage and link to your 3-fold identity in the Trinity of Being. You now know who your true Mother, Father, and Brother are.

  26. January 15, 2010 at 1:05 am

    Kevin Stevenson :

    Totally unhelpful, Achad. I’m still waiting for the argument.

    Kevin, he gave you an argument very clearly. Whether you think it is a good or correct argument is different, but it is a bit disingenuous to say you are ‘still waiting for the argument.’ Or are you just being intentionally difficult now? Love is the law, love under will.

  27. Бојан
    January 15, 2010 at 11:47 am

    However, in order for the merit of Crowley’s ideas to be justified – one needs to discuss the ideas he proposes (his propositions). And since this is not a science but a philosophy – one’s actions also need to be taken into account to see what is being meant by Crowley in his writings. So in that sense, we need to approach Crwoley’s character on some basis to determine some of his philosophy? Agreed?

    No. Crowley’s main points are very straightforward and he doesn’t muddle them up with inconsistencies. See Liber OZ. And after you have read it once, read it several more times. But read it carefully, so as not to miss any of the points being made. There is no need to “see what is being meant” since it’s pretty obvious. Achad made a good point with the following:

    The law is “do what thou wilt” not “do what Crowley wilt,” and thus it’s none of my business what Crowley in the realms of his personal finance, indulgences, etc. If “do what thou wilt” works for me — and it seems to be doing just fine! — and makes sense (and it does! I don’t even have to blindly accept it without evidence), all the ad hominems in the world don’t make Crowley’s statement any less true.

    Thelemites carve their own way (including modeling it on someone else’s life). Since “There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.” Crowley was a heroin addict. I am not. I haven’t even tried heroin, nor do I intend to try it in the future.

  28. Kevin Stevenson
    January 16, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    Бојан :It could be the voice of a god (or the god, whichever floats your boat). It could be an example of multiple personality disorder. Or it could simply be a tool Crowley used since he could see that people have a hard time accepting certain concepts unless they were “given by (a) god”. Personally, I care not which is true since it works (for me). I can understand, accept and live with any of those choices (or any other that might arise). The fact is that one cannot know for certain – regardless of written proof, and regardless of authorship of said proof – who or what Aiwass is. It requires belief, and you already know my position on that

    Bojah:

    How do you know that pragmatism (i.e., “It works (for me)”) is the correct method of determining that anything is true? In other words, how do you know that pragmatism is true? Have you questioned this assumption? Or is it a belief that you hold in spite of the contrary evidence, thus “surrendering that part of [your] brain”?

    • Бојан
      January 17, 2010 at 10:53 pm

      I question everything. Perpetually. Even if something works 10 times out of 10, there is a possibility that on the 11th something can go wrong.

  29. Anthony
    January 27, 2010 at 2:49 am

    @ Kevin. You cite a great deal of reference works in your casuist attacks. Might your time be better spent applying the principles of Thelema, if only for a short time, to pragmatically assess the effectiveness of following your own path rather than defending with overstated philologist arguments the ineffectiveness of said path? As to circular reasoning, I believe the gist is: attack the works as you will, but leave the author out of the discussion. I hope I have been intelligent enough to be heard here. Love IS the Law, Love Under Will. 93, brothers.

  30. dreadpiratescetis
    January 29, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    AVAST YE SCALLYWAG! I be sailing the seas of wordpress and the tag line “Christianity” and found your site. I be saying that ye know not of what ye be talking about.

    At best what ye be doing is setting up a strawman Christianity like Bill Maher did in Religioulous. Ye assertion of we be gods is trite and be making no sense. Same with how we can save ourselves. Take for example 1 Samuel 3 when Eli was getting the bad news from Samuel that his sons and household would be destroyed, Eli said these faith-filled words, “It is the Lord. Let him do what seems good to him” (3:18). It is the obedience to that which is outside of you that be important and saving. That be Christianity, what ye are pointing out is neither Christianity nor post-Christianity, but a sort-of related thought process that leeches off of a certain reading of Christian doctrine and thought.

    I be liking Luke, Societyvs, and Kevin Stevenson’s objections to what ye be saying. Their objections might be hard to hear, but they are right in their assertions. I find Luke’s writing to be way more orthodox than ye be initially claiming.

    “Love is the law, love under will.” While love is the law, it be God’s love and God’s will that matter. We are to reflect that to one another. Please be noting that thar be a variety of Christian thought before ye be flapping yer gums. Love to you and yours.

    • January 30, 2010 at 3:29 pm

      93 Mr. Pirate – Yea… You are just telling me to read the Bible and such like a good Christian. Your annoyingly bad pirate impersonation doesn’t help your case much either. Take time to actually read some posts and you’ll realize I am indeed talking about ‘God’s love and God’s will’ though my interpretation of those things may differ a bit (for example, I don’t see everything human and earthly as inherently sinful and decrepit). Love is the law, love under will.

      • dreadpiratescetis
        January 31, 2010 at 2:31 am

        You:You are just telling me to read the Bible and such like a good Christian

        Me:No, I’m telling you to know what you are fighting against. I can tell you why Thelema is just repackaged Satanism, and not even the best version of it as LaVeyan Satanism is a great systematic theology both as it is both sound in it’s use of the Bible and understanding of the various Occult religions it borrows from. You version of Christianity, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired.

        Bad pirate impersonation, that may be; yet your logic based on your interpretation is circular and built on a strawman. If you want to fight something and declare it dead, best know what it exactly is.

      • January 31, 2010 at 8:14 pm

        93 Dread Pirates – Do your research. LaVey came after Thelema and copied IT, not the other way around. Satanism also never existed in any organized form and Thelema is certainly not worship of the Christian notion of Satan. You obviously know way more about LaVeyan Satanism than Thelema.

        Feel free to read the comments from your fellow Christians, some of whom I have responded to directly – it makes no sense to call something a straw man when someone else brings in these points. For example, a Christian declared nothing good comes from inside her and only from without… Do you agree with this? Is she not Christian? Is it a straw man or circular logic for me to declare that Christianity leading to people debasing themselves and thinking they are nothing but sin is morbid? No, its not. Blargh, me maties. Love is the law, love under will.

      • dreadpiratescetis
        January 31, 2010 at 8:47 pm

        You maybe right about LaVey copying Thelema. Met more scallywags who claimed LaVey than Thelema. I have read the Christian comments here and each one represents a different strand of Christendom. To declare a movement or religion dead, I would just assume you would have to deal with the wide variety of Christian theologies and denominations… not one pop-understanding of it. Some Christians emphasize the doctrine of original sin and thus sound like everything is debased, as you would like to paint. This be a misunderstanding. I could go further into it if ye be interested.

        As for a Christian declaring nothing good coming from inside, only from without, this is accurate too in certain streams that emphasize the providence of God and the idea of all humanity being dependent on God (doctrine of creation). Thar be some Christians, like the red-letter, the Jesuit, and the social gospel movement who affirm a dependence on God but recognize that the Holy Spirit indwells them (doctrine of the Holy Spirit). What you seek to do is collapse all understanding of sin into one monolithic Christian thought. That would be wrong to do. It would be equally wrong to collapse the doctrine of the Holy Spirit into “we are God” as well which is the mistake I find Thelema and Satanism in general doing.

        I will be covering these doctrines in detail over the course of me bloggings. You’re welcome to provide your opinion on them, be the voice of Thelema in understanding these doctrines as, apparently, I cannot be understanding yer scrawlings.

      • February 2, 2010 at 7:14 am

        93 dreadpirates – Ah thou, scallywag-hunter… My aim is not to refute every single type of Christianity but the main ideas associated with it and believed in by the people I see & know. Many people believe this idea of original sin and constantly proclaim all to be debased – whether they are wrong in your eyes is actually no matter to me because they believe they are right and they will quote Scripture until hell freezes over if need be.

        I recognize there are subtleties of thought regarding all aspects of Christian theology, including sin, but the very idea of sinfulness is rejected. We don’t believe in Original Sin. We don’t believe in Vicarious Atonement.

        To say “We are God” is a misunderstanding in a way, if you take “we” to mean the ego-based temporal personalities of each person. Of course those are not God to the exclusion of other things. The assertion is that the Soul of Man is One with God, that God becomes Aware and active in the world insofar as he becomes (wo)man. Jesus Christ was a symbol of this, and though he is also a symbol of the superstition that Christianity has accrued & forced upon others throughout the ages, he is also this esoteric symbol of the God become Man/Man become God.

        Post a link to a Thelema-related “scrawling” of yours, and I will post comments most likely.

        Love is the law, love under will.

      • dreadpiratescetis
        February 3, 2010 at 9:11 pm

        Ye be sounding very much like one of the Christian mystics or one of the Desert Fathers. Ye maybe onto something here. Ye fly the flag of love and speak of liberation, that be sounding like a hartie that I’d want on my crew! YAR!

      • February 6, 2010 at 4:47 am

        93 Pirate man: Reading “Spiritual Guide” by Miguel de Molinos is part of the Student training in a Thelemic Order known as A.’.A.’. There are a few mystics that I am especially resonant with such as Meister Eckhart. No one ever said that Thelema implies all Christians/Christian mystics are wrong. Indeed, this is the law of love & liberty. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will.

  31. March 5, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    a realy love this blog
    you can visit my blog

    http://procyonlotor.ning.com/

  32. January 11, 2011 at 4:06 am

    Jesus is alive and Christianity is a foul whore who will be cleansed by the breath of the Almighty. It is too bad that we cannot receive truth when it comes to us without pretension. This is why “Love is the Law, Love under the power of the Spiritual Will. For without Will, we are lost in a sea of despair and confusion. Without Love, we become a double-edged sword, dealing out righteous judgement without mercy or forgiveness. The Master has shown us all of these things. It is up to us to follow and stand among the dim shadows to guide the lost back to the path of Truth.

  33. November 24, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Hey there.

    Each person is a vehicle of God’s Love.

    Who is this god you’re referring to in the above sentence?

    And be sure to write down what he tells you when you meet Him in Person. Oh, and you will have a long time to think about what He says.

    Lots of luck. You are going to need it!

    the KingsKid

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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: