Serious theological ? re Thelema; no flame warring allowed

[goblynn]

goblynn, you're my new best friend--you posted a thumb's up after my comment to Danielbeast. Wanna go to the mall? We could get our nails done.

Sure! oh, wait...dang. I painted my nails earlier today. Pedicure, instead? My treat!

I so hope Daniel replies...

[Lost]

So where are all the Thelemites?

Sadly I don't think they are coming back.

[maxomai]

It occurs to me that Bree is being very obedient by getting injections of some mystery substance and by preparing blindly for some ceremony she knows little about. Obedience (of certain types) is a major virtue in many religions, mine included. But on the face of it, I'd suppose the idea of obedience and the idea of following one's own True Will would be incongruous. Is this true? Or is there some theological way in which Thelema would have these two qualities co-exist?

I'm asking, because if obedience *is* contrary to the True Will exhortation, then Daniel (or Gemma or some other friend) would have a real, logical, THEOlogical reason to point out to Bree that Lucy, et al, are not good guys (assuming Bree's religion is some offshoot of Thelema).

A simple answer would suffice, if anyone has one.

You know, this is something we struggle with -- a lot.

On the one hand, blind and unquestioning obediance is a form of sin when it goes against one's Will. On the other hand, a lot of Thelemites join orders where they are expected to obey the dictates of people in certain positions of power (i.e. Hymenaeus Beta or Sabazius). On a third hand (imagine some sort of Indian goddess here), sometimes in order to do your will, you really do need to submit yourself to a guru (original sense -- or in the sense of a dissertation advisor) who can teach you a few things you don't know. A. C. certainly expected people to follow his dictates when it came to the A.'. A.'., and not without good reason.

As far as Bree's religion is concerned, I have no idea what the ceremony is, or what Bree's will is, so I can't answer the question. But if Bree herself feels this is messed up, that's probably a good indication that she's not ready for it. Besides, she's 15, and her parents apparently have no idea what's going on. That would send off blaring alarm bells in anyone.

[maxomai]

So where are all the Thelemites?

Sadly I don't think they are coming back.

I only come here after a new Bree video, to see what's going on and jump in once in a while. I've got way the heck too much on my plate to be a regular right now.

I can't speak for the other Thelemites, but I think one of 'em was on a crusade to make our image clean, and realized that he wasn't getting anywhere.

[TheFatLady]

Very cogently explained, maxomai. You addressed exactly the issue I saw as a dilemma, and applied it directly to what I saw as a chink in The Lucy/Denderah facade. That degree of "on-topic-ness" is quite a relief these days. Maximum thanks.

[goblynn]

That does sound sensible...Bree can't know her own Will if she's unable to see the choices ahead of her, so to speak. Thanks for answering FL's call for info--I enjoyed it, too.

[UpbeatMarshWiggle]

Excellent question...and I wonder if Daniel will/would pick up on that discrepancy.

Thinking about your post makes me wonder this--it seems a trend among faiths (correct me if I'm wrong) to hold that a person can't understand right from wrong until taught the difference, and that individual must be taught in order to recognize how to make a decision on his/her own...what if the Order is considering Bree to still be learning, and thus unable to understand her own will? If that's the case, making these decisions for her would make sense, as would her blind trust in the Order doing "right" (whatever that may mean in *our* view)...

(Did any of that make sense?)

I can't speak from experience about any religion except Christianity. C. S. Lewis (of Narnia fame, but also the most famous Christian apologist of the 20th century) pointed out in his landmark book "Mere Christianity" that the existence of a "moral sense" - the innate ability to discern right from wrong - is what proves that we are in fact created beings. That there has to be a Supreme Being outside our sphere of existence who instilled that sense in us. So, extending that to Christianity in a broader sense, it is the very fact that we can tell right from wrong that makes Christianity sensible to those of us who believe it - just the opposite of what you said.

Just my two cents worth. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your statement is inaccurate as far as Christianity is concerned.

UMW

[goblynn]

I can't speak from experience about any religion except Christianity. C. S. Lewis (of Narnia fame, but also the most famous Christian apologist of the 20th century) pointed out in his landmark book "Mere Christianity" that the existence of a "moral sense" - the innate ability to discern right from wrong - is what proves that we are in fact created beings. That there has to be a Supreme Being outside our sphere of existence who instilled that sense in us. So, extending that to Christianity in a broader sense, it is the very fact that we can tell right from wrong that makes Christianity sensible to those of us who believe it - just the opposite of what you said.

Just my two cents worth. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your statement is inaccurate as far as Christianity is concerned.

UMW

Interesting take...I'm certain Lewis made many great points, not many with which I can claim any familiarity, but I don't know that I agree. As you've said--I'm not saying you're wrong, I disagree with the accuracy. Taking examples from my own life, for instance--I recall repeating a "bad" word my father once said, and was punished for it. I didn't know it was wrong, didn't feel any guilt or shame for having said, and really had no idea what I did until I was corrected. Same thing happened when my brother and I played too roughly with our pets and harmed them; we didn't know better, so when the guinea pig squealed, we laughed. It took interference from others to realize we were doing something wrong.

Personally, I think man, left to his own devices--with no instruction, no correction--will behave similar to an animal: do whatever is needed, obtain whatever is desired. Consequences aren't necessarily considered (at least not in the way we function now). I don't know that man has a moral compass that self-activates...I think it must be fined-tuned and set to a path before he can claim to know right from wrong.

I have no religious affinity outside Christendom, but from a non-religious perspective, I almost feel that the human animal has been given too much credit. I honestly think people must be taught in order to perceive morality.

[sunbean]

Personally, I think man, left to his own devices--with no instruction, no correction--will behave similar to an animal

This is amazing - because we are, of course, plants! Just teasing ya, I actually agree with most of what you said. I think we learn wrong from right through consequence, as you showed with your examples. That is to say, I definitely believe morals are learned through nurture, not nature. But then, I'm an atheist, so I'm completely immoral and have 0 guilt! Again, kidding there.

[UpbeatMarshWiggle]

Interesting take...I'm certain Lewis made many great points, not many with which I can claim any familiarity, but I don't know that I agree. As you've said--I'm not saying you're wrong, I disagree with the accuracy. Taking examples from my own life, for instance--I recall repeating a "bad" word my father once said, and was punished for it. I didn't know it was wrong, didn't feel any guilt or shame for having said, and really had no idea what I did until I was corrected. Same thing happened when my brother and I played too roughly with our pets and harmed them; we didn't know better, so when the guinea pig squealed, we laughed. It took interference from others to realize we were doing something wrong.

Personally, I think man, left to his own devices--with no instruction, no correction--will behave similar to an animal: do whatever is needed, obtain whatever is desired. Consequences aren't necessarily considered (at least not in the way we function now). I don't know that man has a moral compass that self-activates...I think it must be fined-tuned and set to a path before he can claim to know right from wrong.

I have no religious affinity outside Christendom, but from a non-religious perspective, I almost feel that the human animal has been given too much credit. I honestly think people must be taught in order to perceive morality.

Nice response. A couple of thoughts:

1). I think at the outset you have to discard the actions/responses of children. The whole reason parents are around, after all, is to teach survival skills and cultural rules.
2).I underlined that because it's important to distinguish the basic, "universal morality" from cultural taboos. Things like what clothes it's appropriate to wear (or not), which words should/shouldn't be said, how many wives a man should have - those are cultural. Important for a smoothly functioning society, but not (obviously) universally agreed upon.
3). The way that we act in a given situation does not mean we are ignorant of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the act - simply that we choose to act that way anyway. In fact, that's one of Lewis's foundational arguments.

Do consider picking up the book - it's still stocked by every major bookstore, and sells very well even though it's over 50 years old.

Take care,

UMW

[goblynn]

1). I think at the outset you have to discard the actions/responses of children. The whole reason parents are around, after all, is to teach survival skills and cultural rules.
2).I underlined that because it's important to distinguish the basic, "universal morality" from cultural taboos. Things like what clothes it's appropriate to wear (or not), which words should/shouldn't be said, how many wives a man should have - those are cultural. Important for a smoothly functioning society, but not (obviously) universally agreed upon.
3). The way that we act in a given situation does not mean we are ignorant of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the act - simply that we choose to act that way anyway. In fact, that's one of Lewis's foundational arguments.

Understood...though maybe I am unclear on one basic principle of this discussion--how is morality defined, except by cultural rules?

Additionally, how do we define "universal morality"?

[UpbeatMarshWiggle]

Understood...though maybe I am unclear on one basic principle of this discussion--how is morality defined, except by cultural rules?

Additionally, how do we define "universal morality"?

I think (Lewis did, too) that there are some universal "rights and wrongs" that successful human communities seem to follow. For example, as far as I know there's no example of any human society anywhere that embraced the idea of murder as an ok thing. Likewise, while humans disagree about the number of wives a man may have, there's no culture that says a man may have any woman he likes. Christianity (and Islam) both embrace the idea of caring for those less fortunate, the helpless, and the afflicted, although those may not qualify as universal.

UMW

[goblynn]

For example, as far as I know there's no example of any human society anywhere that embraced the idea of murder as an ok thing.

Then how do we account for wars, which--essentially--are socially-acceptable killing sprees? It's still the taking of human life, and one social group consistently finds it acceptable to eliminate members of another, for various reasons. An example would be Islamic extremists finding it acceptable to kill those of other faiths...so, again, we're facing a question of cultural influence.

I suppose I shall simply suggest that we agree to disagree.

[UpbeatMarshWiggle]

For example, as far as I know there's no example of any human society anywhere that embraced the idea of murder as an ok thing.

Then how do we account for wars, which--essentially--are socially-acceptable killing sprees? It's still the taking of human life, and one social group consistently finds it acceptable to eliminate members of another, for various reasons. An example would be Islamic extremists finding it acceptable to kill those of other faiths...so, again, we're facing a question of cultural influence.

I suppose I shall simply suggest that we agree to disagree.

LOL. Perhaps.

I think war is a tough one to argue either way. For the attacked, I think it can be fairly argued that they kill in self-defense, which by most views is morally acceptable. From there, I think it gets murky. But I stand on a belief system which says that mutually armed conflict is not murder - which was Lewis's belief as well. So my construction survives mostly intact.

That's the nice thing about arguing morals and theology -

"Peering into the mists of grey
That shroud the surface of the bay,
Nothing I see except a veil
Of fog surrounding every sail."



Shades of grey everywhere.

UMW

[maxomai]

"Peering into the mists of grey
That shroud the surface of the bay,
Nothing I see except a veil
Of fog surrounding every sail."



Shades of grey everywhere.

UMW

As we distance ourselves from the gods, the black and white becomes grayer and grayer still, eventually devolving into black, just as if we were to move away from the Sun.

Time to find the gods again, IMO.