In response to the question of abandoning Thelema and The Book of the Law:

"This* is not in contradiction with the absolute right of every person to do his own True Will. But any True Will is of necessity in harmony with the facts of Existence; and to refuse to accept The Book of the Law is to create a conflict within Nature, as if a physicist insisted on using an incorrect formula of mechanics as the basis of an experiment."

~One Star in Sight

*-In referance to rejecting Thelema as put forth in The Book of the Law.

All of these philosophys have truth in them but non seems to contain ALL truth.
Perhaps we need to start again and find a new system or use all of them as they seem usefull to us.
I don't think Liber Al answers all these questions or that the idea of the true will solves all of them. Unless someone has come up with a brilliant theory, the kind of theory that doesn't fall apart when tested against reality. If you have such a theory do tell me.
zbest Wishes Robert.

I'll nibble at your bait. The whole basis of your concerns dodders on one tiny but magnificent point...the words All and Truth. If you would care to eludicate what you mean by All Truth, we may be able to come up with something.

In the mean time, I'll assume you mean Truth that can represent All the facts of Nature. Thelema & The Book of the Law have done this. Look to the word of the Law. It means Will. All things are Will. The mind is Will. The body, Will. There is no distance between Will and the 'material' world. Materials are things which one can work with, thats what makes them 'matter'. Hence, matter itself is Will.

As for your mountain analogy. All I would suggest is that you start climbing! All truth isn't contained in philosophy or reason. Its contained in working to find it 'through' such things.

Where in this thread has anyone suggested abandoning Thelema and The Book of the Law. Thelema has antecedents to the Cairo Working, and thus did not start with Liber AL; that's a far cry from contemplating junking it. As for "abandoning" Thelema, you might as well "abandon" the Tao.

Have I overlooked a thread, or is there something which I haven't cottoned on to? 😯

Michael,

What are the antecedents of Thelema you refer to for the Cairo working? Were they self constructed antecedents? i.e. built upon a personal sepher sephiroth of number, letter, sound or form(s), or were they based upon inspired literary works? i.e. Mythology or the Tao Teh Ching?

or...were these antecedents oracular, being received 'mediumistically' from oblique angles of experience prior to the Cairo working?

I am interested in your views.

Best

Charles

I was really referring to a variety of things such as the Dee-Kelly scrying which speaks of "the age that is to come", Rabelais, the tantric tradition of svacharya (undoubtedly I've misspelt it and am now a laughing-stock), and a few more, the specifics of which escape me at this precise moment. Then of course there's Taoism, with which Thelema has great affinity. There was a good article spread across two issues of Mezla in the 1970s by Crowley and called 'The Antecedents of Thelema'. Worth a look, as the actress said to the bishop.

Michael,

As I read your previous post, the word "Taolema" came to mind!

Kyle

Thanks Michael...

The Antecedents Of Thelema (October 1926 ev) was also published in the rather wonderful Thelema Lodge Calendar (November 1993 ev) and is available online at Bill Heidrick's site: http://www.billheidrick.com/tlc1993/tlc1193.htm

Paul

In Mexico the law defines something as a religion as long as it has the following:
1) Some form of conception of the divine in a well-structured manner (meaning some form of dogma o system).
2) Some form of "sacred space", meaning, sacred holidays, sacred ground (churches, cementeries, etc.)
3) Some form of reunion ritual (a mass of any form).

Recently there was a controversy regarding the cult of the "santa muerte" (the holy death), they wanted to be protected by the law, but didn't meet some of the requirements. Try an imagine the scare of the catholic church by this!

Thelema would be a religion by this law, in the form of the Iglesia gnostica catholica I guess. But, at the same time, there must be less than a thousand thelemites in this country, including me.

I was responding more or less to this:

Can I toss this question out?

I agree fully with the idea that Thelema is a FORCE that is rolling throughout the Universe and expands in human lives to bring about what we can describe in Crowleyan terms as a Star rushing along its true course and the results that go along with it...

BUT-!

What do you think about those who encounter Liber AL (the Aeonic Transmission), give Crowley some consideration and then say: "This is bunk-the guy's a weirdo and this Liber Al thing is a bunch of rubbish...?" and then keep rushing along their starry course...?

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

HAPPY THREE DAYS OF THE WRITING OF THE BOOK OF THE LAW!

Crowley put as the subtitle to The Equinox; The Aim Of Religion, The Method Of Science. To me Thelema is not just a religion but half of it is of a religious nature, it’s more of a super religion as in above and within religion per se. To say that Thelema is purely occult science seems to me miss the point a bit. Like Science can be too analytical and throw the ‘baby’ of synthesis (unlike alchemy) out with the bath water.
I was brought up a devout Atheist, as in I was taught that religious people were mentally ill and either needed medication or to be put out of their misery, the crueller the way the better. I later realised that Atheism is a religion too, as in that scientific theory is not always based on scientific evidence, as we still have precious little of that on some of the grander theories out there. There is only one tiny lot of empirical data that backs up the Big Bang for instance and yet it is scientific heresy to say that that is not enough evidence to prove it.
Religion does actually have its uses too. I mean this in a cultural or group sense more but it has a lot more importance that some would like us to think. The Holy Three Days Of The Writing Of The Book Of The Law are upon us again. I for one will on the 8th Nuith Day, after reading Chapter 1, will open a bottle of Champagne and toast the Goddess of All. Then on the 9th Hadith Day, after reading Chapter 2, will smoke a joint and drink some red wine in honour of Hadith the Hidden God. For the 10th Heru Ra Ha’s Day, I will do a small Phoenix Mass on my own or with friends and read Chapter 3. Is this religious? I think it has all the hallmarks of religion. If this really annoys people who call themselves Thelemites then I have to ask what are they doing here really. They seem to want to share their interest in Thelemic philosophy but actually disagree with any of its practice. They only want recognition as magickal philosophers or something like that socially but want to shun any attempts to make a social or group consciousness to Thelema as a whole. I agree with the idea of stopping an orthodoxy smothering Thelema, especially in the early days we are in though but perhaps saying that all religious practice should be stamped out is a bit extreme don’t you think. It’s all a bit Presbyterian Protestant really for my liking. Thelema should be fun too not just an ordeal, and the culture of Thelema as a religion, is how we can share in this way of life together.
I say all of this when my practice of Thelema is actually more like an Alchemist than a Priest of Thelema. I do though think that I am culturally a Thelemite by religion though and that defines me as opposed to being a Christian or Jewish scientist. Please feel free to share how you celebrate the Three Holy Days.

Alex

Love is the law, love under will.

This is one of those topics which can be debated until ones hand goes limp.
Is Thelema a religion? I believe this was the topic focus. So I shall answer to that.
Yes, I believe so, but then I am a creature of faith and instinct, just as I have faith that the sun will rise on the dawn and set at dusk.

On a mental note, religion seems to have become a dirty word, primarily due to the actions of the blind and ignorant who hide behind its veil. Religion is necessary for a very good reason, that being social order and cohesion, Mankind needs guidance for, left to his own devices would destroy himself and this Eden... One does ponder when watching current events, is the sudden surge of religious fervor a desperate attempt to regain what was lost, or a reaction to the self-destructive impulses of our species?

My own belief on Crowley and Thelema is that he was a prophet delivering the Law, the clarity of this was evident when I read Liber Al, yet think not as man less ye see not.

In Love, Night and Faith
Rev. D

But... but... Hume said... but...

On a mental note, religion seems to have become a dirty word, primarily due to the actions of the blind and ignorant who hide behind its veil. Religion is necessary for a very good reason, that being social order and cohesion, Mankind needs guidance for, left to his own devices would destroy himself and this Eden...

Not only do I disagree but this flies in the face of Thelema itself. This is saying 'doing your will will make the world self destruct, so conform to society for cohesion.'

One does ponder when watching current events, is the sudden surge of religious fervor a desperate attempt to regain what was lost, or a reaction to the self-destructive impulses of our species?

What sudden surge of religious fervor?

My own belief on Crowley and Thelema is that he was a prophet delivering the Law, the clarity of this was evident when I read Liber Al, yet think not as man less ye see not.

In Love, Night and Faith
Rev. D

The entire argument rests on how you define religion, and how you define Thelema - and everyone has different ideas about both those words.

210 & 65,
111-418

Not only do I disagree but this flies in the face of Thelema itself. This is saying 'doing your will will make the world self destruct, so conform to society for cohesion.'

How so? and that is certainly not what I'm saying at all. Curious interpretation.

What sudden surge of religious fervor?

Don't see it? just as well, most vexing it is - must be the change.

The entire argument rests on how you define religion, and how you define Thelema - and everyone has different ideas about both those words.

That's because people are always complicating things, personally I prefer the KISS method lol. They cannae see the forest for the trees, so complex, so serious. Why not instead sit back, have a smoke, glass of claret and enjoy, then ask oneself, does it really matter? How do I see and feel about these things?

Then the only definition that should matter, is your own.

Rev. D

I was at Erwin Harris' blog earlier and played the jerk, and I came into this forum for the first time and I've got a little thesis I want to do. It seems to me that on one hand, there are texts where Crowley wants to reject the whole idea of mystery altogether, in other words, where he wants to narrow his view to fit what is so really a worldview of narrow scientism. Then in other passages, Crowley wants to delve into that mystery and, I believe, finds that it cannot be explained in terms of science.

Here is my proposal, and I believe that Crowley was headed there, and my memory of the Liber AL is not great, but I believe that it appears in there somewhere, that Science is reality. Verifiable fact. But, the narrow view of scientism is not broad enough to engage the entirety of human experience, and there are certainly facts that are part of that hypothetical broader view of Science that have been categorized as "supernatural."

The idea is, in my mind, not to collect a gang of worthy followers of some sort of creed, but to broaden what Science, as a study of facts that can be verified (some may know about falsifiability and negative proof and I just don't want to attack that right now.) can study and understand. Further, not to project a consciousness on the world that believes it has understood the entirety of existence, as both the religious person and the person guilty of scientism do with their narrow view.

That is all pretty dense, and I'll go deeper into the idea, but my view is that the glory of Thelema, and I mean it, is that Crowley DARED to tell people, "You are not just free, you are absolutely free." Not the message Dick and George want you to hear. What needs to develop further is a science that Crowley saw dimly, a science that is large enough for the things the current scientist must disregard as a challenge to his own ignorance.

I'm just writing a manifesto a minute today.

Yes, you certainly are, but I am still trying to decide whether or not it is at all believable that you knew this...

without knowing this bit...

From this point onward today, you seem perfectly well informed in a very wide variety of areas.

Is it just me after a long night's Holiday Feast, or does this not seem rather trollish? Anyone?

If I'm being a troll, please do inform me. I am not trying to troll the forum. I'm just trying to participate. Again, in my defense, I want to express my opinion, and I try to back it up with some sort of evidence, but interacting with people in this way is not an easy thing for me. If I'm making a mess of your forum, please do send me a pm, and I'll try to revise my behavior.

You're making the usual mistake of participating in a bit of a "brain dump" when joining a Forum that you find exciting, but you're certainly not "making a mess" of the Forum: it's more resilient than that.

I apologize for my hasty appraisal, particularly for the haste.

93 All,

In my personally experience i would say,yes.After all does not our daily practices affirm such? What seperates the Thelemite is their are no Ideals nor standards of the Slave-Gods.

I should also add that Crowley talked about "false Religion" in Liber Aleph
Vel CXI.

A fantastic thread.
I remember going to a Christmas service in the cathedral in Bury St. Edmunds and there was a horizontal crusifix set in water where people were lighting tea lights and floating them in the water. I duly lit my candle and placed it in the centre of the cross (it seemed the right thing to do having recently read the Gospel according to St. Thomas) The look I got from the priest was greatly disproving. So in my opinion from the perpective of the historical definition of Thelema as a religion, I would hope not, but following these divine postings I would also hope so. If religion is performed as a celebration of what we would class as "something which makes us happy, then definatly.
Regards to all,

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

Though personally I have more in common with those who think Thelema should never be allowed to become a religion, I have to say I think exoteric Thelema (or the external machinations of Thelema as a religion) a necessary evil. To most of us it is still just an esoteric tradition but without it having an external side some of the things other spiritual traditions take for granted, never happen.
To explain: firstly exoteric religions have nothing much to do with spirituality, they are there to create funds for projects, anything from pyramid building to buying dilapidated farmhouses in Sicily; secondly they establish rights for people who follow the religions esoteric path, they lobby governments etc..; thirdly and this was the persuader for me, if we don't have Thelema the religion we are likely to get something far worse!
The establishment of Thelema the religion is the Hierophantic task is it not? Crowley explains the Hierophant as the exoteric side of religion, its dogma and laws. I suggest that instead of going down the Roman Catholic model on excommunication and the like, we adopt a more Islamic approach to this problem. What happens in Islam is that it is the death penalty to leave the religion, you cannot be excommunicated or expelled, once you have joined the religion you are only judged as to whether you  are a traitor to it or not. After that anything goes and hence we have Sufism.
Sufism is how to practice anything you want spiritually but stay with the religion of Islam. There are Sufi Tantrics known as the Kashmir Shiavites who worship Shiva, Parvati, Skanda and Ganesh as aspects of Allah, Mohammed and Isa. Yes to the hard-line orthodoxy these people would have problems. A lot of Sufis were killed in Iran for instance. I think though this will solve the problems in Thelema if were to adopt more this approach than some revolting inquisition: Hence, my refusal to leave Thelema but establish a Black Brotherhood Of The left Hand Path instead. Though I'm sure many of the priesthood would like to see me go. Remember Nothing is a secret key to this Law, we must bring everything to naught (as does the House Of God 718); two divided for love’s sake. So allow the White Brotherhood Of The Right Hand Path to build its priesthood and establish Thelema the religion. It will fall eventually and we will have to build another religion in a couple thousand years’ time and no it won’t be perfect, but I don’t see a choice realistically, without undermining everything of value and all the work that has be done so far.

Love is the law, love under will.

ALex

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

So I will help with the Hierophantic Task by opposing it. I will work within Thelema to oppose its orthodoxy. To the non-adepts out there I say don’t worry, this will not break it and I don’t seek to even. Rather I seek to reinforce it, to build it on firmer ground, to strengthen the steel girders that support it, with a scientific test of its theorems at every stage.
Crowley himself said that a Black Brotherhood may be necessary to reinforce love itself in Liber Aleph. We are fortunate that he wrote enough so that almost any act within Thelema can be justified to the priesthood, we just have to work within Thelema and not outside it, as that is truly against it.
If we build Thelema as just a pure orthodox religion it will fall flat quickly. If we make an adept realisation that black can be white and up down and so on and so on, it will flourish, as if by magick.

Love is the law, love under will.

Alex

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

After all I may be 100% loyal to Thelema and it's people but I'm still only 93% in complete agreement with Aleister Crowley the person.

Love is the law, love under will.

Alex

93,
Found this on Tinternet and think it fits in here nicely.

Thelema and the British justice system
In May 2009 Thelema was recognised by Her Majesty's Court Service in the United Kingdom as a religion, as it has both a "Holy Book" (The Book of the Law) and deity (primarily for the purposes of the oath, Nuit) as required in law. John Mitchell of Seaford, East Sussex was on Jury Service at Lewes Crown Court and after providing information to Mr Justice Richard Brown, the Senior Recorder for East Sussex – mainly Liber AL and the article "Your Duty to Mankind" was able to have Thelema recognised as a valid religion. In the article "Your Duty to Mankind" it states that:
Crime being a direct spiritual violation of the Law of Thelema, it should not be tolerated in the community. Those who possess the instinct should be segregated in a settlement to build up a state of their own, so to learn the necessity of themselves imposing and maintaining rules of justice. All artificial crimes should be abolished. When fantastic restrictions disappear, the greater freedom of the individual will itself teach him to avoid acts, which really restrict natural rights. Thus real crime will diminish automatically.
Mitchell was able to prove that Thelema was a religion and created an oath which could be used instead of the affirmation: "I swear upon Nuit and by my own True Will, that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence."
The swearing of the oath was first used after the sitting Judge, Mr Justice Tain ruled it was acceptable; after some confusion due to the regular court ushers being on holiday, word had not got to the judge before the case started causing a delay in proceedings while the legal technicalities were sorted out. Luckily, the stand-in court officer had a copy of the letter from Mr Justice Brown, saying Mitchell could use the oath and swear on Liber AL. Mr Justice Tain ruled that if this is the case, HMCS should be notified so this sort of thing does not happen again to avoid any further embarrassment for Thelemites who are called up to jury service.

Thanks, Crowley666, for drawing attention to this important decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema#Thelema_and_the_British_justice_system

Awesome. Wonder when the U.S. will do the same.

93,
You are most welcome.
I was actually under the impression that it was already classed as a religion in the US.
I thought the O.T.O US was a tax exempt religious organisation, unlike the UK where they are regarded as a Limited Company.

Unsure of my source on that so dont take it as gospel, but I recall reading it somewhere.  Will have a delve on the info super highway and see what I can dig up.

93 93/93

I have found this under the FAQ section of the US OTO site.

http://oto-usa.org/faq.html

"Is O.T.O. a religion ?
No. O.T.O. is a religious organization and magical fraternity that works within the wider context of the spiritual philosophy known as Thelema which technically could be considered a religion"

O.T.O US is tax exempt but only as a non profit organisation, I couldnt find anything to back up my earlier claim that it was a religious organisation so strike that from the record.

However, OTO US do state that Thelema is Technically a religion so will that do?

Another side of the coin would be that Thelema was a Law rather than a religion/philosophy.

Yes, it's listed as an official religion. I did not check Wiki's sources though.

"Many other religions are represented in the United States, including Shinto, Taoism, Caodaism, Thelema, Santería, Kemetism, Religio Romana, Kaldanism, Zoroastrianism, Vodou, and many forms of New Age spirituality."

But, do they still make people swear on the Bible? I've never had to swear in, and jurys don't want me :D, so I really have no experience with Thelema in the legal system.

And, as far as I know, "Thelema" was not on the last census.... counted as "other" probably due to the relative small population of practitioners.

You can make anything a religion here in the U.S.

But can you make it stick?

Well hopefully Thelema will last.

It's that jump between the early adaptors (who tend to be a bit snobbish)

and the next generation (who tend to be a little unforgiving)

Which ever way...

What do you want to make it stick to?

"And, as far as I know, "Thelema" was not on the last census.... counted as "other" probably due to the relative small population of practitioners."

The 2011 UK Census was released today. 184 recorded their religion as Thelemite.

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

Thelema is a religion in that it has a central text or texts, an orthodox establishment or priesthood and a moral teaching or spirituality. This is what is called the right hand path, orthodoxy or theology. Thelema has this all very well developed thanks to Aleister Crowley and it continues to grow in this, though perhaps a bit stifled at times. I suppose it develops in surges in that way, as more people work the system in a religious manner.
Thelema is also a magickal system that has no orthodox beliefs but an ever changing view of reality. This is its left hand path, which is more like a practice than a belief system. It is more like alchemy or tantra than a theology as such. It is important though here to not confuse this with rival orthodox thinking as there are many different ‘thelemas’ in the sense of differing preisthoods. The left hand path does not favour one orthodoxy over another, for that is still just orthodoxy, as one person’s orthodoxy is another’s heresy.  Rather it is to accept that all orthodoxies and heresies have the right to coexist within the system of thought. In this way the left hand path of all religions not just Thelema is opposed to centralised religion and the acceptance of only one view for all.
Any valid spiritual or even, individual material development system, requires both. If you allow it to become too orthodox or just theological it becomes dogmatic and fixed and eventually time will make it no longer relevant. This is what happens to old religions when they die and is in fact what made Aleister Crowley need to do his work to revive religious thinking and build Thelema in the first place. Likewise though there is an extreme of the left hand path, a sort of ‘sinister for sinister’s sake’ whereby the opposition of any theology or established belief system at all, is taken as a stance. This leads to confusion, disintegration and a complete breakdown in communication, where eventually the self and ego rules alone. Hence why in the functioning left hand path the only real dogma is the belief there is something beyond and above the self-ego. So without a left hand path a theology stagnates and spiritually dies as it cannot adapt to any modernisation. Without a right hand path an alchemy has no basis in which to share ideas in the first place, becoming someone’s mere ego trip or cult of personality. Perhaps worse it can become a rival orthodoxy without the practitioner even realising that is what they have done. What makes Thelema so vibrant, at least for now, is that it is both a theology and an alchemy. And I for one say long may it continue to be so.

Love is the law, love under will.

Alex

Does anyway really think there is a value in a religion of Thelema? Religious in some orthodox way I mean. Beliefs and dogma, are like the opposite of how I read Crowley(liber Astarte has the warning not to get caught up in working with one deity). I find it strange to be honest. Because there is often suggested an "aim of religion" we have this religious side, which I don't get as someone interested in magick. Why would anyone want thelema to be something other then do what thou wilt and magical exploration? I don't mean this to sound grumpy. But I personally think that when Crowley talked about the "aim of religion" it was directional and not much more. His practises seem to show that. I think if people did his practices, and read his comments, such as his direct criticism of the "holy guardian angle" idea in book 4, they might be happier to ignore Crowley the personality a bit more and thelema the product, and instead find there own way with a little direction from his approaches and general and obvious child-like desire to find his own way and explore. Religion and thelema for me are not connected. This would have been said before and better then me I suspect.
Well it's ok, I have been wrong before, only that I would have little interest if it was a religion.

Now I should have read Pauls first post for an answer to my question of whether anyone see's value in a religion. Obviously people do!
Seems like religion as a topic, is more or less a waste of time to me in relation to magick and liberation.
What's wrong with a bit of magick, exploration and svecharayayaya(Mike Staley you spelt it wrong- I think there are v's and a's I guess :P) as the Indians like to say 😛
Ok 😀

I think that the many organizations about (the various forms of O.T.O., for example), are about as close to "orthodoxy" as Thelema is going to get, for now.

I once asked my college professor why he discouraged citing Crowley as a source. His response was intriguing. He said, "Well, Crowley was more of a practitioner than a scholar or historian." Of course, these words will be argued by some on these boards from here to Sirius, but I do understand his point, knowing the professor personally.

The "aim of religion" crosses "magick" on the road of sympathy and devotion.

The Holy Guardian Angle

(I just had to, as you spelled "angel" wrong. :))

Religion and Thelema do not have to be directly connected. For some, they are. For others, they aren't.

Religion and Magick actually go hand in hand, after a fashion. One immediate connection they share is "belief".

Has nothing to do with either religion or magick.

Are you sure you don't mean, "Sancharaya"?

sancharaya - has His divine presence (wanders) in the (Chara = to move)

The Svecchacharya comment was a little joke about Mr Staley's 6, or so, year old comment that he might be a laughing stock for spelling it wrong. Indian words are brutal to spell sometimes.
Angel and angle get me more than I like to admit. Haha. 
Mikes Shiva Shakti tantra site has Svecchacharya as "The path of doing one s own Will".

Interesting angle. Personally I think magick doesn't need to go hand in hand with religion. It often does, but I feel that is more about using magic within a belief system that you feel is the truth. Religion seems to me about claiming truth.
Magic to me is about exploration. But I can understand your angel(joking. Angle :P).

I almost agree that liberation and magick have little to do with each other. I would say they can exist on their own, perhaps, but for me I personally feel they are connected-in some India traditions they are two of the goals of the magician/tantrik. An interesting quote I once read had the Buddha saying that the 6 magical acts should not be ignored by any Buddhist wishing for liberation. I read that while in a temple for a month when I was younger and have not found that since.
Anyway, thank you for you reply Azidonis

There is no "religion" question in the U.S. Census any more, if I'm not mistaken. A 501.c.3 status is a non-profit status. It might be religious, it might be cultural, my wife ran a 501.c.3 Community Center in Dallas for 10 years.

Great stuff everyone.
Surely Thelema can freely claim the word Religion anew. Religion; word or lifestyle, has been profoundly marred to date. The debate in society and popular publications has sensitised collective culture. We are not free of that influence. If the word or idea makes us uncomortable, we need to understand why.
If it is felt uncool or not trendy to say, I am religious, or my religion is....
Alas we are not yet as free as we think we are.

Word and connotation be damned.

I am not threatened by any idea that Thelema is a Religion....not that I am suggesting anyone else is threatened by a word either  😉

Excellent thread. Practically every angle seems to have been covered. Funnily enough, I found myself agreeing with almost every post.

I first heard of Crowley when I was a teenager, in the context of being a Stones and Led Zep fan, and hearing about Kenneth Anger’s connection to them, and watching his films. I remember thinking Crowley must be a super-iconoclastic anti-religion rebel.

I remember being a little disappointed when I realized he was not anti-religion so much as anti-Christianity. Not being especially religious myself (in the sense of organized faith-based religion), seeing there was a prophet, holy book, special beliefs, and so on, put me off. Of course, as I got older, I started seeing there was a lot more depth and nuance to all this, and that, aside from – as well as within – some of these trappings of organized religion, there was the gnostic/practical enlightenment approach which occupied the central place in his work.

On a side note, it’s interesting how a new religious dispensation tends to vilify and rebel against the preceding dominant paradigm. It’s like the adolescent who needs to establish his/her own identity and radically differentiate him/herself from the parents (part of the individuation process, as Jung would term it). So, just as Crowley came from a Christian household and culture, he spent a lot of energy trashing Christianity. Likewise, Christianity has had this antagonistic relationship toward Judaism, where it came from, beginning in the Gospels. And again, the Jews, who came from Egypt, in Exodus vilify all things Egyptian.

This is a really old thread, but as long as it’s back from the dead, I’ll post a few thoughts.

Is Thelema a religion? Depends on what we mean by “religion.” If we mean any collection of beliefs and practices, then sure, we can call it a religion. Hey, it’s got a prophet and a holy book and rituals and everything. Sure sounds like a religion, right? But the term “religion” is very misleading, especially since there are no standard beliefs and practices that all Thelemites share (aside from accepting Do what thou wilt), no official doctrines regarding creation or life after death, no literal higher power (except as each Thelemite might choose to regard this idea), no moral injunctions (again, aside from Do what thou wilt), and no “teachings” about social issues that the faithful are expected to follow.

The only thing that unites all Thelemites is the concept of Will, the idea that an individual’s authentic inclinations (and not anything else) should direct his or her actions.

So it might be more accurate to say that Thelema is a philosophy of individual action, a philosophy that can be incorporated into various “belief systems,” many of which can be described as religions.

As an obvious example, the OTO practices what I would call a religion based on Thelema. It has specific rituals (including a “mass”) and a specific theology, including afterlife beliefs (there is a page on the Grand Lodge website that actually groups a number of their beliefs under the heading of “theology”!). It also has teachings that are gradually revealed through initiation ceremonies. It even has a code of conduct (as outlined in “Duty” and the various codes to which individuals swear during initiations).

So we can consider the OTO's collection of beliefs to be a religion, but a religion that incorporates Thelema. [This is consistent with the observation that the OTO existed before Thelema and that Crowley rewrote their rituals to incorporate Thelema into its already existing system]

A lot of groups practice different Thelema-based religions (I’m thinking particularly of all the groups that call themselves A.’.A.’.), and plenty of individuals create personal Thelema-based religions.

I had a necromantic urge (i.e. feeling like digging up this thread) because I was considering the fact that the really significant "beginnings" of a truly radical shift in modern history start from 1760 /1776 and not really 1904 and therefore why wasn't there a prophet and holy book just before the time of the Boston Tea Party?  Maybe it would have been more fitting for a praeterhuman intelligence to announce a new aeonic shift around that time and not 1904?  The industrial revolution was under way circa 1750/1760 and it would intensify and accelerate in the following century completely impacting upon the economic system like no other event in history.

Likewise in the political sphere, 1776 led to the overturning of the old order and 1789 allowed for a massive European war in which Bonaparte conquered other countries and uprooted obsolete legal systems and the last vestiges of feudalism.  This all led to the modern democracies (of sorts).  The decades following Bonaprte's defeat would see more radical shifts in scientific understanding and massive new technological advancements in electricity, engineering, chemistry, medicine and communication methods.  Meanwhile symphonic expression and the art of painting would become more expressive and if you like "deeper."

Then I realized my thinking was wrong it was too "materialist."  In terms of timeline and historical analysis there's one issue that gives credence to the fact that Thelema could be thought of as a religion.  These socio-economic and technological upheavals described took place under the watchful eye of the feared and revered Christian church.  Of course, centuries earlier the Renaissance had seen some developments that pointed towards philosophical freedom and this was expressed in pagan art and radical philosophies.  As a review here is a piece from the wiki's Renaiisance Humanism ;The period from the fourteenth century to the seventeenth worked in favour of the general emancipation of the individual. The city-states of northern Italy had come into contact with the diverse customs of the East, and gradually permitted expression in matters of taste and dress. The writings of Dante, and particularly the doctrines of Petrarch and humanists like Machiavelli, emphasized the virtues of intellectual freedom and individual expression. In the essays of Montaigne the individualistic view of life received perhaps the most persuasive and eloquent statement in the history of literature and philosophy.

Two noteworthy trends in Renaissance humanism were Renaissance Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism, which through the works of figures like Nicholas of Kues, Giordano Bruno, Cornelius Agrippa, Campanella and Pico della Mirandola sometimes came close to constituting a new religion itself. Of these two, Hermeticism has had great continuing influence in Western thought, while the former mostly dissipated as an intellectual trend, leading to movements in Western esotericism such as Theosophy and New Age thinking.

In that same vein, Enlightenment  philosophers Voltaire and  Diderot took on the authority of the church per se and in more of a blunt fashion; "Mankind shall not be free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the last priest."~ Diderot and, "Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men".~Voltaire

Furthermore even though anti-clericalism (probably aided and abetted by Masonry) played a massive part in the 1789 revolution, the moral authority of the church was still engrained and paramount in civilization as seen in church-going statistics and the cultural milieu.  The real embryonic death blows to the church's influence were from the emergence of Darwin, Freud and perhaps indirectly, Nietzsche.  Then the time was right for a new religion and moral guide to assert itself and I'd say that 1904 A.D. fits that bill.   

"According to Thomas Jefferson, it was late in the afternoon before the representatives gathered enough courage to address the main point. Their heated conversation was all about axes, scaffolds, and the gallows, when suddenly a strong, bold voice called out from their midst."

[/align:2bg5r7tk]

"Gallows!  They may stretch our necks on all the gallows in the land; they may turn every rock into a scaffold; every tree into a gibbet; every home into a grave; and yet the words of that parchment can never die!" ... etc ... this is the beginning of a long speech.

"The unknown speaker then fell exhausted into his seat. The delegates, carried away by his enthusiasm, rushed forward. John Hancock scarcely had time to pen his bold signature before the quill was grasped by another.
The delegates then turned to express their gratitude to the unknown speaker for his eloquent words. But he was not there.
Who was this strange man, who seemed to speak with a divine authority, whose solemn words gave courage to the doubters and sealed the destiny of the new nation?
His name is not recorded; none of those present knew him; or if they did, they did not acknowledge the acquaintance.
How he entered into the locked and guarded room is not told, nor is there any record of the manner of his departure."

- The subject of 1776, and The Age of Enlightenment, is covered in The Dark Ages, which is freely downloadable from that other thread I just started ... It's titled The Dark Ages.

It smacks of one of those baloney occult legends down there with (1) Atlantean giant blonde guys dispersing to make civilization in America and Egypt or (2) John Lee Hooker having his guitar retuned by the devil etc.  Thanks anyway for that idea though.  My question "(Do you think that) maybe it would have been more fitting for a praeterhuman intelligence to announce a new aeonic shift around that time and not 1904?" was rhetorical.  As I made clear in the ensuing paragraphs, at great length, no it wasn't fitting after all due to the all-pervasiveness of Christian customs and the fear of the Bible.  It would take a long time for that to loosen up. 

In fact I was thinking that since the moral backlash against the Renaissance it would be a long time before there would be an attempt made to create a "Godless" society.  The misguided Nazis tried to introduce some sort of brand of a pagan state (Nordic pantheon public festivals, rune-stone grave stones)  but the real effort was made by equally misguided, imo, Maximilien Robespierre with his Cult of the Supreme Being established during the French Revolution.  It was intended to become the state religion of the new French Republic.

Rhetorical: "language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or
reasonable." ???

All Rhetoric aside, very little in history happens on a single day, or even in a single year (but, of course, sometimes a single event on a particular date is critical). Usually there are decades or centuries that lead up to a change, and then there's a long time where the "old order" still hangs on. It's called a "transition period."

Please note that The Dark Ages "is intended for light, entertaining reading" (as stated in it's manifesto in it's own thread. So, we don't know if a mystery man suddenly appeared in the locked room, or if he was Saint Germain, simply because we weren't there 😉
 

As I made clear in the ensuing paragraphs, at great length, no it wasn't fitting after all ...

Yes, I noticed that ... and wondered why you asked the question in the first place ... since you already had the answer. It sounds more like you were talking to (or debating with) yourself, which is fine, but why bother us with your pre-determined question-answer tricks that others have pointed out to you and us alike?

[/align:14yxt4xo]

... due to the all-pervasiveness of Christian customs and the fear of the Bible.  It would take a long time for that to loosen up.

Take a look around. Religion (Christianity et many als) may have loosened up in your neighborhood, but the world at large remains in a vice-like grip of religious superstition. Blasphemy is still popular in many locales, and it can get you killed. 

It's an interesting thought. 

If I were writing an "occult history" though, I'd put it differently.  One way of looking at it might be that all that stuff that happened in the 1700s was the delayed fruition of the Old Aeon, what it was "supposed to have done" as it were, had it not been hijacked by literalist Christianity for nearly 2,000 years.

IOW, on this line of thought, the Old Aeon was ushered in by the great thinkers of all the various cultures after the death of Ankh-af-na-Khonsu, from roughly 600 BCE and onward (the ancient Greek philosophers, the first Daoists, Buddha, etc.), and its first fruits were the unification of a huge chunk of the world under Alexander the Great, culminating in the "mystery religions" as public manifestations for the ordinary man or woman, and especially the great Jewish mystery religion of Gnostic Christianity (which syncretized the Jewish Messiah figure and made him fit for global consumption, as it were).  Then what happened was that post-Diaspora, this new religion was accidentally Euhemerized, which wouldn't have been so bad in and of itself, except that for a confluence of reasons, that hardened into orthodox, then Catholic Christianity. 

Which, again, might not have been so bad in and of itself, except that the dual movement of a) cosmopolitanism, and b) an individual existential approach to the divine, brought on by Alexander's uniting the world at that time, thus bringing cultures into confrontation with each other, making them question their several tiny senses of "manifest destiny", which was supposed to have been the whole point of the thing (taking religion away from the tribal, communal context - the "Isis" approach to religion of the previous Aeon) got lost in the shuffle, when Catholicism outlawed fresh, individual expressions of gospel and prophecy, and repudiated the Gnosticism that was at its own roots. 

Thus the birth of Jesus Christ as a demonic egregore (as opposed to a generalized symbol for each individual's HGA, each individual's take on "God", which He was originally intended to be) - a kind of roadblock for the individual, filtering their own spiritual development through a political huckster organization (i.e. the Church).

In parallel, without the individual side, what had intended to be cosmopolitanism became atomization.  And the allowance for individual approach (no intermediaries to the divine, but each individual confronting the mystery him or herself) only got put on track with Luther (itself a messy process, no doubt due to it having to be cobbled together quite late in the day).

So essentially, what was supposed to have happened (probably more roundabout 400-500 CE) was delayed for a very long time, and democracy (uprooting the concept of kingship) and liberalism were late, messy manifestations of what should have come much earlier.

(It may also be the case that Islam was a previous, abortive attempt at the same thing - an attempt to correct what had gone terribly wrong circa 0-200 CE)

From an "occult history" point of view, this ought to be a warning to us Thelemites today.  I mean, the thing is probably already fucked, and there will probably have to be "course corrections" by the Secret Chiefs in the future.

Yes 😉  But what a correction. Today we're looking at a resurgence of Islam, and they're bent on "conquering the world."

What people tend to forget is that, in the legend, Set kills Osiris and essentially "takes over" the Aeon of his brother. Now, it's up to Horus to set things straight. "Now let it be first understood that I am a god of War and of Vengeance. I shall deal hardly with them." I always assumed the "Vengeance" was against either the Osirians who perverted the Aeon, or the Setians who usurped the throne. Or both?

Well, not to be That Guy (normally I dislike the "liberal" mealy-mouthedness about all this) but it's not actually Islam that's bent on conquering the world, only the minority who take Islam absolutely literally.  Still, with a religion of a billion-odd, a "minority" is still a sizeable number of human beings in absolute terms.  And while there's always going to be a gap between what people say they believe and what they actually believe and would be prepared to put into action, the polls on what the fabled "ordinary Muslims" believe are quite shocking (e.g. the percentage of Muslims who say they agree with the death penalty for apostasy, stuff like that). 

So yeah, while Islam isn't actually that big a "problem" in real-world terms at the moment, it's a nascent problem that could easily get out of hand if the West doesn't help progressive Muslims reform Islam from within by standing up for its own hard-won heritage of (relative) freedom.  It doesn't take much, just calling a spade a spade, without falling into the trap of divisive hatred.  That's all that rational, sane, and indeed properly religious Muslims need, just a sense of solidarity that reaches across disparate beliefs, and forms a link between human beings as human beings, first and foremost (the cosmopolitanism I mentioned in my post).  And after all, it's not like a "softer", non-literal interpretation of the Koran is foreign to Islam's own indigenous tradition of interpretation - it's happened before, it can happen again.

What people tend to forget is that, in the legend, Set kills Osiris and essentially "takes over" the Aeon of his brother. Now, it's up to Horus to set things straight. "Now let it be first understood that I am a god of War and of Vengeance. I shall deal hardly with them." I always assumed the "Vengeance" was against either the Osirians who perverted the Aeon, or the Setians who usurped the throne. Or both?

I'm not sure one should take anything Liber AL says too seriously as a practical prescription 🙂

(See what I did there? 😉 )

The Qur’an contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with infidels. Some passages are rather violent, containing commands to chop off heads and fingers and to kill nonbelievers wherever they are hiding. Muslims who do not join in this conflict are called “hypocrites” and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the massacre.

Admittedly, it was probably "the minority" of Christians who set off on the Crusades back in the middle ages. It's not so much a matter of what's written in the so-called "Holy" books of any religion. It's the fact that anybody at all is undertaking aggressive action against his/her neighbors over religious differences. Take away the religions and then they'll be fighting over territory. Settle the territorial issues and they'll be fighting over natural resources. Et cetera ad nauseum. People are aggressive and not likely to change ... ever.

But right now, today, it's the Islamic State and their shadows (Al-Queda, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, and other funny names) who are pointing their swords at us (the western world, the Great Satan ;D). Next in the line of aggressors are the godless communists (who now have refound religion and will imprison you for singing anti-Putin songs in church).