Home > Uncategorized > Thelema unites that which Christianity divided apart

Thelema unites that which Christianity divided apart

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

“The word of the Law is THELEMA… The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse.” -The Book of the Law

One problem with Christianity, and symptomatic of Western thinking in general, is its tendency to see opposites as completely irreconcilable: God is opposed to Devil, God’s will opposed to man’s will, Life opposed to death, and even saintliness opposed to sinfulness.

The Holy Books of Thelema assert the complementarity and even Unity of opposites over and over again. Constantly we are urged to accept all things including both high and low, good and bad, dark and light:

“My adepts stand upright; their head above the heavens, their feet below the hells.” (Liber Tzaddi)

Instead of striving merely to the heights and light, we must also strive to our depths and to darkness to be at complete equilibrium. The Beast 666 writes:

“The male must have completed himself and become androgyne; the female, and become gynander. This incompleteness imprisons the soul. To think ‘I am not woman, but man” or vice versa, is to limit one’s self, to set a bar to one’s motion. It is the root of the ‘shutting-up’ which culminates in become ‘Mary inviolate’ or a ‘Black Brother.””

The terms ‘Mary inviolate’ and ‘Black Brother’ are specific symbols used in The Book of the Law and Liber 418: The Vision and the Voice (which Crowley believed to be only second in importance to the Book of the Law) which can be studied therein. The basic idea of both these symbols is where the Ego shuts itself off from the world, insisting on a separate identity, proclaiming “I am I!” instead of the mystic statement of love under will, “Thou art That, and That am I!” This goes back to the idea presented in the beginning of this post: the person represented by ‘Mary inviolate’ or ‘Black brother’ refuses to accept the complementarity and even unity of opposites, including self vs. other.

This is also begins to show how people accusing Thelema of base ‘selfishness’ and ‘egocentrism’ are actually fundamentally incorrect. They would be closer to the truth, though, if they insist on ‘Willishness’ and ‘Willcentrism.’

We of Thelema do not divide but unite all things in “love under will” since Love is union. We unite in ourselves:

  • God & Devil
  • Light & darkness
  • Masculinity & femininity
  • Good & evil
  • High & low
  • East & West
  • Life & death
  • Virtue & vice, etc.

In this way, Thelema is a system of incorporation – Love that expands, assimilates, and includes all things – rather than castration, i.e. “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out” [Mark 9:47, Matt. 5:29]. In this way we heal the rift in ourselves that Christianity has caused along with the attending neurosis & obsession over sin & salvation.

In short, Thelema unites that which Christianity has divided – the Soul of every man and woman.

“For Perfection abideth not in the Pinnacles, or in the Foundations, but in the ordered Harmony of one with all.” (Liber Causae)

Love is the law, love under will.

Advertisements
  1. Neal "thePuck" Jansons
    January 26, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    93,
    Best post in the series yet. Your understanding of Thelemic mysticism, philosophy, and theology mirrors very closely my own.
    93, 93/93

    • January 27, 2010 at 12:16 am

      93 Neal – Thanks a lot! Very much appreciated. Love is the law, love under will.

  2. January 29, 2010 at 1:32 am

    May I humbly suggest that by trying to marry both God and the devil, you are heading for a divorce that ends in Hell.

    Our Lord Jesus warned us about the devil that we might Not fall under his spell. It’s glaringly obvious that you single out Our Lord as ‘not the Saviour’ but give the fallen angel his title – the devil. This very obviously points out that you honour the fallen angel. If Jesus were NOT the saviour, may I ask how you or I or anyone would know much about the devil? We understand because when Our Lord came from Heaven, He told us that He (Jesus) had seen the devil fall like lightning from Heaven. If you acknowledge that what we know about the devil was told us by Jesus, then Jesus must be given acknowledgement for how Jesus knew this. Jesus was in Heaven when he saw the devil fall, then he went from Heaven to earth informed us, then returned to Heaven…’from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead…’

    How would you or anyone know about the devil unless we were instructed by the bible that he is a fallen angel, was ‘a liar from the beginning’ and trawls the world for the ruination of souls?

    • January 30, 2010 at 3:31 pm

      93 Mary – I appreciate your concern, but the marriage of God and devil allows us to have our heads above the heavens and our feet below the hells. We have no fear of men, gods, death, or hell then, especially threats of future punishment in a ‘here-after.’ I’m glad you are aware that I assign Savior to Lucifer, though I have also clearly said that the Antichrist has come to fulfill Christ’s message, not simply attack and destroy Him. BTW you seem to never mention Satan’s normal ascription to the serpent in Eden: how come? Love is the law, love under will.

  3. Kevin Stevenson
    January 30, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Neal “thePuck” Jansons :93,Best post in the series yet. Your understanding of Thelemic mysticism, philosophy, and theology mirrors very closely my own.93, 93/93

    39 Neal:

    Has anyone ever told you that you look just like child-star Fred Savage?

    That your theosophy is reflected by the content of this blog is a good indication that it’s time for a serious paradign shift!

  4. Kevin Stevenson
    January 30, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Thelema :93 Neal – Thanks a lot! Very much appreciated. Love is the law, love under will.

    XiD:

    I notice that the clear antithesis of ‘love and hate’ didn’t make it into your list above. If love is defined as “union” (of opposites?), and love and hate are opposites, how is love changed, once mingled with an equal and opposite measure of hate? The statement “Love is the union of love and hate” is absolutely preposterous, unless you equivocate the term love in the sentence. What is love before the union; and what is it after union with hate?

    In a different sense, I agree with Neal, This is the best post yet. When I say best, however, I mean the best display of the absolute irrationality that your antichrist spirit has driven you to.

    Your central doctrine is the dissolution of antithetical categories, such as “good and bad.” This is an essential rejection of the law of noncontradiction (i.e., That A cannot be not-A in the same sense and the same relationship). Having done this, you cannot self-consistently contest the following proposition: “Thelema is false.” Furthermore, you have no epistemic right to use all the moral categories you do in your caricatures and attacks on Christianity.

    Because you are a creature of God, living in his world, you have the ability to talk like you do, but you simply cannot live as though it were true. The only way that you can even express your hatred for Christ in any meaningful, intelligible way is if what you say is utterly false and Christianity true. Thelematism is a fine proof that Christianity is the only reasonable position for humanity to embrace.

    So, in that sense, I appreciate what you’ve said here. You will bring Christ glory, even in spite of yourself. For that, I’m thankful.

    May God the Holy Spirit grant you the gift of repentance.

    • January 30, 2010 at 3:27 pm

      93 Kevin – Add it to the list. Im sorry the ‘etc.’ didn’t clue you in, and then you jump to conclusions based on your false assumptions. That tends to be a common thread with your posts, Kevin.

  5. Neal "thePuck" Jansons
    January 30, 2010 at 5:56 am

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

    Hello, Kevin. It seems you want to talk about hate and logic. The latter of these is one of my favorite subjects, as I have two degrees on philosophy and I specialized in formal logic and philosophy of mathematics. I TAed in logic for two years and have taught both beginner and intermediate classes, covering up to and including first and many-ordered sentential and predicate logics.

    First, you have to understand that when a Thelemite, or any person who truly believes that spiritual principles are also metaphysical principles, means several levels of things when they use a word like “love”. Love is the principle of unification, a tendency of disparate things to come together, releasing energy and extending the nature of each. As such, it applies to everything from sex to romantic love to gravity to fusion. Now, continue this analogy to the physical plane and you will see that your question of hate is a bit meaningless…hate is simply repulsive charge or valence, the principle that divides the united so that they may possess the opportunity to once again be united in love. The most important metaphysical formula of Thelema is 0=2…this is the formula of hate, if you want to call it that, except the animosity is an illusion borne of misunderstanding. The reverse formula is that of love, 2=0, where the disparate elements have become united completely, resolving their charge. Just as in nature, all hate is is the repulsion of charged entities. In physics bringing together such forces releases vast light and energy, and the same is true on all other levels.

    Secondly, your notion of the rules of logic is simplistic, more on the level of the 19th century than the 21st.

    1) The axiom of non-contradiction is not necessary to the parsing of truth values of well-formed propositions. Please see paraconsistent logics, fuzzy logics, and quantum logics. The main reason these logics have been developed in that logic doesn’t really work, or rather it only works in the realm of thought; any place the rubber meets the road, such as complex systems like the internet, weather, etc, it just doesn’t work anymore. If one attempts to parse using logics susceptible to the Principle of Explosion, the first inconsistency will render the entire argument useless, making many, many things that we do, from your anti-viruses heuristics testing to weather prediction, impossible.

    2) Logical possibility is not equal to metaphysical possibility. Logic is a tool for thinking about things, metaphysics is the things. Go ahead, try it. Come up with “true” statements that are metaphysically false. They will follow all the rules of normal sentential logic, but be absurd because of the content.

    3) Axioms aren’t axiomatic, they are pragmatic. Please see the work of Quine and almost any philosopher of the modern era.

    Thelemism doesn’t imply any hatred of Christianity, per se. I don’t hate Christianity. I think the exoteric portions of it are absurdities made to keep barbarians in line, while the esoteric portions have been superseded and corrected by the new formula of the Aeon. Of course, not being privy to the esoteric portions, how would you know?

    Keep that rhetoric up, though. I’m sure it will help you sleep at night. Every element in the world cries out that the formula of the Dying God has been superseded by that of the Child. Even the remains of Christianity are busy trying to embrace the new Aeon because nothing about the old one makes sense to them anymore (at least the parts not fighting lawsuits over molested kids or blaming natural disasters on Haitian pacts with the non-existent devil). Health and Wealth, Rapture, Spirit-filled…pick your poison, they are all a “different gospel”.

    Keep kicking and screaming all you want, but you know in your heart “those damn kids” have take over and no Dying-and-Reborn Daddy is going to ever be paid attention to again, not really. You might be able to terrify the stupid about Hell for a little while longer, but not many, and not for much longer, because it just won’t make sense to them, while, whether they put in terms of “personal growth” or “following bliss”, almost everyone already believes “Do what thou wilt”, regardless of their professed religion, and the ones who don’t are dying off everyday.

    All those things the Christians freak out about…gay marriage and the acceptance of sexual freedom, legalization of drugs, free thought in general…they are all happening, and have been happening steadily for slightly over a century. Why do think that is so? Did you think you were going to get a choice about the Procession of the Aeons? Did the pagans get a choice when it was the Dying God’s turn? You mistake what Crowley announced…it wasn’t just a new religion, it was a new state of existence, a new metaphysical principle that was going to define human consciousness.

    Crowley once said a similar thing to a student of his who was caterwauling about the ethics of chapter 3 of the Book of the Law:

    “You disagree with Aiwass—so do all of us. The trouble is that He can say: ‘But I’m not arguing. I’m telling you.'”

    “Do what thou wilt” is not a normative statement, it’s a constituting statement. It doesn’t say what we should do so much as what is going to occur. It is occurring, hence the world the way it is.

    I don’t know what you’re complaining about. St. John predicted all of it. You guy’s have been praying for the “End Times” forever…I see the whining at Rapture Ready all the time. Well, here it is. Your End Times have come. The Beast was here, along with several Scarlet Women…came and went. I suppose, in a fit of natural egotism you thought your End was going to be everyone’s end, but…well, it’s not all about you. You wanted the end of the world, you got it…the end of YOUR world.

    Look around you. Look at the governments, the businesses, the styles, the media, the music, the culture in general. Look at the natural, intuitive choices of the younger generations. Then ask yourself honestly if this situation is being governed by a paternalistic Dying-God rather than the Crowned and Conquering Child.

    You had your chance, 2000 years of it. It’s time to share the toys with the other children.

    And no, no one has ever told me I look like Fred Savage.

    Love is the law, love under will.

    • January 30, 2010 at 3:26 pm

      93 Neal – Epic post. Love is the law, love under will.

      • Neal "thePuck" Jansons
        January 31, 2010 at 7:19 am

        93,

        Thank you, care frater.

        93, 93/93

  6. Kevin Stevenson
    January 30, 2010 at 6:42 am

    “1) The axiom of non-contradiction is not necessary to the parsing of truth values of well-formed propositions.”

    So, then, you mean that the axiom of non-contradiction IS necessary to the parsing of truth values of well-formed propositions?

    • January 30, 2010 at 3:25 pm

      93 Kevin – No. Take the time to actually read what he wrote since he took the time to write it, perhaps? Love is the law, love under will.

    • Neal "thePuck" Jansons
      January 31, 2010 at 7:19 am

      93,

      Let me put it this way…the axiom of non-contradiction is like the “don’t play with fire” rule. For children and the simple, logic doesn’t leave first-order sentential and predicate logics. There, that axiom is all you have, plus some transformation rules and operators. For the grown-ups, however, it’s safe to play without it, so long as you are willing to live with certain other limitations, and learn some other operators. Why not actually look up fuzzy logic, paraconsistent logic, and so on? Why not attempt to broaden your mind by learning something new? It’s fun!

      You know how you can tell someone who hasn’t studied logic? The call first order sentential logic “logic” as if that were the whole discipline. Do you really believe that we haven’t gotten anywhere since the 17th century? You know there ARE still logicians, right? What exactly do you think they do if you think logic stopped progressing 200 years ago?

      You should give up debating religion, a decidedly murky subject, until you learn how to think about the clear and distinct subjects. There is more to logic than what you learned in your freshman year.

      93, 93/93

  7. Pentecostal Thelemite
    February 4, 2010 at 4:29 am

    ON THE SUBJECT OF HYPOCRISY:

    Imagine actually being able to be free from the internal consequences of hypocrisy? The only people Jesus openly condemned were those in religious authority who held moral ideals over the peoples, who told them what to do, how to think, etc. You will not find one instance of Jesus ever judging someone morally; he never told a murderer not to murder, he never told an adulterer not to commit adultery. But he condemned those people who held laws over the heads of others, in order to tell them what to do. I’ve never read a record of it, but Jesus may have indeed prevented people from harming other people, such as preventing people from lying, from adultery, from stealing, from murder; but we just don’t see those instances. Jesus thought that the people doing the most harm were those in religious positions of authority whom he called “hypocrites.”

    Now imagine being freed from the criticism of hypocrisy by embracing the law of Thelema. “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; love is the law, love under will.” So love is a matter of non interference. If everyone else was trying to interfere with your own will, you’d want to retaliate. But if you were actively making an effort to not interfere with other people’s wills while doing your own, you’d start to notice that you have a shield up by virtue of the force of your will in action, and other people realizing that you have no interest to interfere with theirs will begin to look within themselves for what they truly want; rather than what someone else has told them they should want.

    The reason people crucify people on crosses, is because they fear that those doing their true wills are going to point out their own hypocrisy and ruin their superiority complex. The whole basis of the Judaism of 33 A.D. was a corrupt system of spirituality mixed with political motives. Jesus condemned those who tried to control other people under the guise of spirituality wed with politics. And politics is simply a matter of who’s form of control is better. Agreed? So here is what I am noticing; those who want to adhere to their form of Christianity in order to enforce a moral supremacy over others, and yet they themselves do not even inwardly live up to their own standards; they are judging the world around themselves; thereby judging themselves in the process, worthy of the same judgments they are casting upon their fellows.

    I am learning that “love is the law, love under will” is another way of saying that Thelemites go about doing their wills by loving others, and this love is not based on pre-judgments over what is right or wrong in the outward actions; but rather, it is a love which intends on others to do their wills likewise. This cannot be called selfish, as even one person doing their true will, serves as inspiration for everyone else to pursue theirs. This Love is not a sissy; this Agape, of the same numerical value of 93, as Thelema (Will), being a sheild itself in action, will not let you crucify it. And if it pretends to be dead; it will come again in greater power. And that is how much of an accountability I feel in this wondrous Thelemic lifestyle; that I, being free, will pursue my will and no other will say no to it.
    -P.T.

    • July 23, 2011 at 12:13 am

      You are wrong. Jesus was opposed to those people who were supposed to instruct others in God’s Law. They perverted this by adding some of their own traditions in there. “Does not God speak truthfully when He says, they honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me?” Jesus met a leper, and he left clean. He met a dead man, and he was raised to life. He met people possessed by demons, and they walked away free from demonic possession. If it was their moral ideals that Jesus was opposed to He would have said so. Instead Jesus says, “Be sure to obey the scribes and the Pharisees, for they sit in the seat of Moses, but be careful not to do as they do.” Jesus, throughout His ministry, showed how these religious bigots were nullifying the Word of God with their traditions. They loved the honor and respect they received from their high position. Jesus made it clear that they would be judged for their falsehood.

      This being the case we must realize that there are absolutes. You can’t take light and darkness and get them to stay in the same room together. Either you will have darkness with a few rays of light trying to break through, or you will have light, and the only darkness that remains are the shadows. You can’t unite hate and love. It must be one or the other. I know you will claim that you must unify them both, but it doing so you show you hate the Truth and love your own reasoning. You have not unified them, but divided them yourself. And you would have us unite male and female? Good, because God said, “It is not good for man to be alone,” and He created from him woman and said, “For this reason shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.” You cannot unite a blended male/female entity with another male/female entity. Nor can you blend a male with a male or a female with a female. It must be one male and one female in union to create “one flesh”.

      In short, Thelema teaches you a way to accept anything and everything you want to accept and feel good about yourself. That doesn’t make you correct. Just because there are hypocrites in the churches doesn’t give you the right to re-write the Bible and all the absolutes God has put into place.

      Here is an absolute. You speak of love. Do you know what it is? Read 1st Corinthians 13 to get an idea, then flip over to 1st John 4:7,8. This is love, that God stepped down from His heavenly throne, took on the form of human flesh, live awhile among us WITHOUT SINNING, so that He could offer Himself up as that perfect sacrifice for your sins. Did you ever wonder why God can look at you when the Bible says He cannot look upon sin? It is because Jesus took upon Him all of our sin, yours, mine, everyone’s, and the Father COULD NOT LOOK AT HIS SON on the cross because He carried our sin. So it is because of this sacrifice of Jesus for you that God can look upon you, for in Jesus your sin has been removed. However, if you choose not to accept His salvation (Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved) you will have this covering removed. Jesus taught that not only is there a Heaven and a Hell, but that there is a great expanse between them that cannot be crossed over. I write this that you and any here might come to His love and accept His mercy. You are right about some churches and especially some people in those churches being hypocrites. They are judgmental, unloving, false, and they will have to pay for that. You now know the truth and you don’t have to spend your eternity with them in Hell. You can spend it in the Father’s House.

  8. February 13, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    In all honesty your theological imagination is beautiful, and very much related to situational ethics. This gives your theology an ability to be flexible in each situation that makes it strong. Be very careful to define yourself in the negative to another tradition. As you say that you do not carry in your tradition a dichotomy your website is creating one. You are defining yourself in contrast to the dichotomy of Christianity. It is sometimes when you are trying so hard to avoid being something that you become it. Be very careful as you continue in your thought to not define yourself in such a contrast, but instead to build your own theology.

    • February 14, 2010 at 2:31 am

      93,

      The funny thing is that Thelema is often understood as a reaction to Christianity, as an anti-Christianity, and this blog is in part to show that Thelema encompasses many aspects of Christianity, i.e. supersedes it.

      93 93/93

  9. mark
    March 12, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    explain the unity of light and dark, good and evil, etc…i don’t believe they are opposites that would be foolish. I believe that one is–light, good, love–and that the other is the absence of–dark, evil, hate. this thelema, seems light a waste of intellectual time.

    • March 15, 2010 at 3:28 am

      93 Mark: It is a difficult and subtle subject. It is very common for the Western mind to work within the law of the excluded middle: either something is X or it is not-X. X cannot be not-X. The East has many traditions that breach this with the common doctrine of interdependence of opposites. The 2nd chapter of the Tao Teh Ching is the classic account. “Beauty cannot arise without ugliness, weakness without strength;” they are meaningless without each other. There is a definite experience of this truth of Unity of Opposites which is difficult to explain since language worked in normal dualisms. To be one thing and not its opposite is lopsided and throws you off equilibrium: imagine if you had great social skills (extroversion) but lacked the ability to contemplate while with oneself (introversion); imagine if you were extremely severe as a teacher without any mercy: it would be complete tyranny!… or imagine a teacher with complete mercy and no severity: it would be complete anarchy! These are just some ideas surrounding your question – feel free to ask if you have more things on your mind. Love is the law, love under will.

  10. Kevin Stevenson
    March 15, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    Nothing could be a dead as this blog!

    • kalimama93
      March 15, 2010 at 8:23 pm

      93

      Yet, you keep replying… I shouldn’t be surprised, really; you Christians seem to really love your corpses.

      93, 93/93

  11. Joel Love
    August 22, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    Jesus lives in the Book of the Law, hanging on a cross with Horus pecking at his eyes.

  12. September 4, 2010 at 10:09 am

    great blog! you certainly have stirred up the christians. If you have time please take a look at my blog which I am sure will interest you. Keep up the good work.

  13. November 15, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    So your religion is defined in terms of its contrasts with Christianity? That either validates Christianity (thus invalidating yours) or invalidates yours by affirming the validity of Christianity. However you look at it, it’s not looking good for you.

    • November 16, 2010 at 4:31 am

      93,

      No it is not although it helps put a lot of things in perspective to show how it contrasts with Christianity, just like Christianity contrasts with Judaism but shares elements and Islam contrasts with Christianity but shares elements, etc.

      93 93/93

  14. Raymond
    November 29, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    D.W.T.W.

    In simpler terms, imagine lights from many flashlights, each with many different colors. What Thelema is going to do is to unite *all* of this into pure white light, by pointing it to a single spot, not as a single red light, or blue, or green, nor purples, nor any other color, but as a single, unified, and complete, white light.

    93 93/93

    • December 16, 2010 at 4:05 pm

      93 Raymond – Very nice image. “Adonai spake unto V.V.V.V.V., saying: There must ever be division in the word. For the colours are many, but the light is one. Therefore thou writest that which is of mother of emerald, and of lapis-lazuli, and of turquoise, and of alexandrite. Another writeth the words of topaz, and of deep amethyst, and of gray sapphire, and of deep sapphire with a tinge as of blood. Therefore do ye fret yourselves because of this. Be not contented with the image. I who am the Image of an Image say this. Debate not of the image, saying Beyond! Beyond!” -Liber LXV
      93 93/93

  15. XIX
    December 14, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    I disagree. Thelema is a form of Dualistic Monism or a monistic existence that is best described in dualistic terms.

    • December 16, 2010 at 4:07 pm

      93 – Im not sure whether you are disagreeing just for the sake or it, or perhaps to have a link to your blog embedded, but I believe you mean ‘Dialectical monism’ and nothing in this article contradicts the idea of Thelema as dialectical monism whatsoever. In fact, the lists of opposites described in dualistic ways (God/devil, light/dark) pointing towards a unity pretty much is a perfect example of dialectical monism. Thanks for the comment though! 93 93/93

  16. December 19, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Job is a good person “who feared God and turned away from evil,” (Job 1:1) and has therefore been rewarded by God. When the divine council meets, God boasts to Satan about Job and how Job is blameless and upright. Between Job 1:9-10 and 2:4-5, Satan merely points out that God has given Job everything that a man could want, so of course Job would be loyal to God; but if all Job has been given, even his health, were to be taken away from him then his loyalty would wane. God therefore grants Satan the chance to test Job. I myself am a Christian, and I can see a great union there. If your parents just gave you everything you could ever want, you need to prove that you love them and that you deserve to be given everything you could ever want. Love is the law, love under will.

  17. August 3, 2011 at 4:40 am

    93,

    I’m really enjoying the posts on this blog, and the discussions are almost as good. So far you’re doing a really good job explaining all the ways that Thelema supersedes old aeon religions like Christianity. I’m looking forward to your next post.

    93 93/93

  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: