> --- In email@example.com, camlion@... wrote:
> >Your observations of the surface characteristics of the issue are
> >true, as far as they go. However, they lack understanding of the
> situation and
> >of the process behind it.
> That's what you think, yes.
> >The evolution of human religion (is there any other kind!?) is
> >fairly simple.
> It's in fact so 'fairly simple' that I would dare say it isn't
> evolution at all in the true sense of the word. Like I said, it
> doesn't make much difference whether its 'Jupiter', 'God' or 'True
> Will' that tells you you should spend your life in devotion to, well,
> rather uninteresting activities (prayers, ritual, whatever)
You see no difference between, a) many, all other than oneself, b) one, other
than oneself, and c) many, including oneself? You may have a very serious
As for the methods of bhakti yoga, some find them useful toward Thelema, but
many others have no use for devotional techniques at all. Similarly, some find
an angelic personification of the Will useful, while others do not.
> >Yes, the true goal of human religion has always been self-
> Might be so, but what exactly is interesting about a monkey that
> believes it is divine? It's still a monkey.
You should add further study of natural history to your to-do list. The
'naked ape' is quite unique and has distinguished itself from the others. (Not
always for the better.)
> Liber Al suffers from exactly the same shortcomings the Bible does:
> why are humans stars and animals not? Because they
> have 'consiousness'? You can't be serious about this. Same old shit:
> humans go to heaven, animals don't.
AL differs from the Bible in many respects. For one, the original exists.
I didn't write anything about stars, animals or heaven. You seem to have many
preconceived notions about me, as well as a curious misunderstanding of the
Law of Thelema. What is your background with the subject of Thelema?
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]