What else?!

Richard

Besides mandating the pecking order, Paul elsewhere says that women should always cover their head and keep their mouth shut in church.

Judaism was the religion of Jesus; Christianity is a religion invented by Paul, who never even knew the man Jesus.

Anyhow, there is one huge difference between Thelema and most versions of Christianity. Thelema doesn't say that you'll burn in hell forever if you don't believe.
 

Grigori

Anyhow, there is one huge difference between Thelema and most versions of Christianity. Thelema doesn't say that you'll burn in hell forever if you don't believe.

Thelema also doesn't have lists of hundreds of things that are 'gods will'. There is no one size fits all that is written down for us to attempt to follow. 'God's Will' is individual and revealed to us as individuals. I'm often struck by something the OTO's says to potential members: "We don't know or care what your Will is". This of course doesn't mean the Will is not restrictive, it just means there is little relationship between the restrictions of a church and the restriction of the reality of getting things done within the set time frame of mortality. Quite different to some orthodox churches that seems pathologically obsessed with what other people are doing and devote much time and effort to enforcing their interpretation of gods laundry list of acceptable behaviours on not only their members, but also their society and the world at large.

Galatians 5:13 -- As for you, my friends, you were called to be free. But do not let this freedom become an excuse for letting your physical desires control you. Instead, let love make you serve one another.

1Peter 2:16 -- Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."

I don't see any similarity here at all. This is a moral code applied to sexual expression, which introduces a conflict between 'love' and 'physical desires'. I see no parallel in Thelema to this. I'd love to see someone find the equivalents to Liber Oz in Christian literature http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib77.html

Jas 1:25 -- "But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets, but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing."

This I'm fine with. It doesn't really define anything about the philosophy of the religion, and could be applied to any spiritual practice, so I think is as true for anyone as another.
 

Abrac

I never said there aren't differences between Christianity and Thelema, obviously there are. What I was commenting on is one specific aspect, the idea that Thelema teaches freedom but Christianity doesn't.

I will admit that Christianity does teach restriction, but so does Thelema. If you say "Do what thou wilt, but not what you want," you've introduced restriction -- a self-imposed restriction perhaps, but Christian restriction is the same, self-imposed not forced. In this sense there's no difference at all between Thelema and Christianity.
 

Grigori

I never said there aren't differences between Christianity and Thelema, obviously there are. What I was commenting on is one specific aspect, the idea that Thelema teaches freedom but Christianity doesn't.

I will admit that Christianity does teach restriction, but so does Thelema. If you say "Do what thou wilt, but not what you want," you've introduced restriction -- a self-imposed restriction perhaps, but Christian restriction is the same, self-imposed not forced. In this sense there's no difference at all between Thelema and Christianity.


The difference to my mind is primarily about what the restriction is. I don't think any Thelemite suggests that Thelema is free of restrictions, the difference is what the restriction is. The suggestion the Thelma is equivalent to the freedom of "Do what you want" is vehemently rejected by Thelemites as seen in this thread. It seems we all agree on that at least.

Do you consider that the restriction comes solely from the Old Testament is Christianity? Or where does it come from in Christianity if not taught by Jesus or the New Testament?

How that restriction affects individuals and society at large is my defining concern I guess, and why I find the idea of a similarity in the type of restriction so incomprehensible. I'm not arguing with the idea that a concept such as 'Will' is restrictive; if we consider one defining 'Will' then restriction is clearly indicated. However I don't see a parallel between Christianity and Thelema in the nature of that restriction, because the definition of Will is so diverse and individual in Thelema. Christian restriction is not self-imposed as you've suggested. A majority of Christian adherents are indoctrinated and eternally tied to the church while still in diaper's. Restrictions are then onwards imposed by god's church under threat of eternal torture and damnation. Of course we can argue that hell-fire is a choice I s'pose :laugh:

In Thelema you may not join the church until you are 18 and able to make that decision for yourself as an adult. That's a big difference to my mind. And most significantly you are not called to go against you own nature for the love of god under threat of punishment. To be fair I may well find a giant political organisation based on Thelemic thought just as offensive as I find many Christian equivalents if that existed. When my inbox each morning is filled with new examples of brutal death and misery inflamed by the 'love of Horus' then perhaps we shall agree some more ;) Let's talk about it again in a couple of millennia :D
 

Aeon418

Just when you thought you had seen it all, it gets better! First Thelema was synonymous with Satanism. Now it's Christianity! :laugh: I suppose atheism will be next. It makes me think of the tale of three blind men and an elephant. "It's a serpent! No, it's a tree!" :laugh:

Not to start a flame war, but the trouble with Thelema is that if it is approached in a silly, ignorant, superficial or short-sighted way it can appear to be many different things. There are some aspects that are decidely anti-Christian, but that doesn't mean it is Satanism. And there are other aspects that may seem very Christian. In fact you might wish to reflect of this statement that Crowley made in, The Equinox of the Gods. (p.135-136)
Aleister Crowley said:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law! Refuse this, and fall under the curse of destiny. Divide will against itself, the result is impotence and strife, strife-in-vain. The Law condemns no man. Accept the Law, and everything is lawful.

Refuse the Law, you put yourself beyond its pale. It is the Law that Jesus Christ, or rather the Gnostic tradition of which the Christ-legend is a degradation, attempted to teach; but nearly every word he said was misinterpreted and garbled by his enemies, particularly by those who called themselves his disciples. In any case the Aeon was not ready for a Law of Freedom. Of all his followers only St. Augustine appears to have got even a glimmer of what he meant.
I suppose you might be able to consider some parts of Thelema as direct continuations of Christianity. A post-Christianity that fulfills it and completes what was left undone. But don't make the mistake of thinking that any Thelemite is waiting for a bathrobe wearing, bearded hippy to come floating out of the sky to save them. Or, heaven forbid, Aleister Crowley. }) :laugh:
In his new comment on AL 1:40 in the Old and New Commentaries, Crowley said, "From these considerations it should be clear that 'Do what thou wilt' does not mean 'Do what you like.' It is the apotheosis (highest form, Abrac) of Freedom; but it is also the strictest possible bond."
This quote from Magick Without Tears might have been written just for you, Abrac.
Aleister Crowley said:
So much of The Book of the Law deals directly or indirectly with morals that to quote relevant passages would be merely bewildering. Not that this state of mind fails to result from the first, second, third and ninety-third perusals!

"When Duty bellows loud 'Thou must!'
The youth replies 'Pike's Peak or Bust!
'"

is all very well, or might be if the bellow gave further particulars. And one's general impression may very well be that Thelema not only gives general licence to do any fool thing that comes into one's head, but urges in the most emphatic terms, reinforced by the most eloquent appeals in superb language, by glowing promises, and by categorical assurance that no harm can possibly come thereby, the performance of just that specific type of action, the maintenance of just that line of conduct, which is most severely depreciated by the high priests and jurists of every religion, every system of ethics, that ever was under the sun!

You may look sourly down a meanly-pointed nose, or yell "Whoop La!" and make for Piccadilly Circus: in either case you will be wrong; you will not have understood the Book.

Shameful confession, one of my own Chelas (or so it is rather incredibly reported to me) said recently: "Self-discipline is a form of Restriction." (That, you remember, is "The word of Sin ...".) Of all the utter rubbish! (Anyhow, he was a "centre of pestilence" for discussing the Book at all.) About 90% of Thelema, at a guess, is nothing but self-discipline. One is only allowed to do anything and everything so as to have more scope for exercising that virtue.

Concentrate on "...thou hast no right but to do thy will." The point is that any possible act is to be performed if it is a necessary factor in that Equation of your Will. Any act that is not such a factor, however harmless, noble, virtuous or what not, is at the best a waste of energy. But there are no artificial barriers on any type of act in general. The standard of conduct has one single touchstone. There may be—there will be—every kind of difficulty in determining whether, by this standard, any given act is "right" or "wrong": but there should be no confusion. No act is righteous in itself, but only in reference to the True Will of the person who proposes to perform it. This is the Doctrine of Relativity applied to the moral sphere.

I think that, if you have understood this, the whole theory is now within your grasp; hold it fast, and lay about you!
Crowley's comment "but it is also the strictest possible bond." is a bit of an enigma until you look at it in comparison with Christianity.
No, it's only an enigma if you don't understand it.