He is the son of Odin and price of Asgard. I have a bunch of his comic books.

Oh THAT Thor. I tried to find a good photo of an Incubus but all that was coming up was photos of the band Incubus. The one I posted was by Doris Valejo.

If I was a neo Pagan I would worship Thor

If I was a Christian, I would probably worship the comic book Thor also.

Okay, so, I decided NOT to read through 30-odd pages of posts right at the moment and just throw something out there, just to get in the flow of things. Now, I am not going to give my opinion until there have been a few responses to this so that I can get an accurate feel of what people think. Here it is:

"Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

WHAT was Crowley's intended meaning when he stated this, and how do people feel about this as an alternative to "Do as thou wilt and Harm None"?

I think his meaning is just what he said. If one takes the idea of having a "free will" or freedom to heart, one cannot put any conditions on that, even if it is a kind condition like "harm none."

Like the ten commandments, "harm none" can only be a suggestion if the idea of a "free" will and freedom is adhered to.

Crowley did not follow the 'harm none" creed. It is a high ideal to "harm none" when you consider that we eat meat and step on bugs and kill harmful bacteria. In fact, it is probably impossible to "harm none."

So that is probably what he meant by that. He had no delusions that he could do as he wanted and "harm none" and neither should anyone else.

Those are my thoughts on it.

Thor,the God of Thunder, will smite all the Christians with his hammer.

Will and intention are the roots anyone's power. The ability to make a choice is the law, meaning that there is a decision, action and reason behind everything. It does not discriminate and is therefore just and equal in its rewards and punishiments. No need has ever existed to define what is right or what is wrong. People see bad things happening to them or others and feel that is wrong and therefore will and intend to change and or prevent it. Those who do not will it or make intentions about it are the ones who prevent it. Don't get me wrong i am not speaking of apathy. I am speaking to true nature of creation and reason for things. Choice, intentions, reactions, cause and effect only occur becuase it is willed to be so. It is the whole of the law or fundamental make up of the universe becuase it encompasses all law. A better wording might be " As it willed so shall it be. " or in laymens terms, You shall harvest what you plant, pray that man has the wisdom not to sow seeds of destruction.

Excellent.

In a thought universe, all things are born from thought which is conceived by the true self, the "I AM."

Well stated and very true, but I tend to think he was going a bit deeper than just "What you will is what you create." What many people misunderstand about Crowley is that he was a large proponent of consequence, and I believe what he was stating was more along the lines of "There are natural consequences to everything. You can DO whatever it is you want, as long as you are willing to accept those consequences." He knew the creative power of thought, and he knew that what some would chose to create would have some pretty severe results. It was a warning, as much as it was giving license to act.

"Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

That is what I understand as the law of attraction and the "free will" that everyone claims we have.

If you want to claim or allow a "free will" zone or society, the whole of the law must be do and think as thou wilt.

Yes there are consequences.

But there can be no "free will" if the law is "harm none."

The commandment states "Thou shalt not Kill." But that is a guideline and suggestion or else it is a law made by mankind, not by God or by physics. People kill each other all the time. People do as thou wilt all the time. But they will pay the consequences.

The ideology of harming none is a human ideal that is clearly superior to any creator that may have created this universe.

This unviverse is an extremely dangerous place, and life on earth was "dog-eat-dog" long before man (or dogs) had even evolved into being.

So clearly humans have a desire to be even more highly moral that the universe which gave birth to their existence.

I think that's admirable and even a good rule of thumb for building a religious creed. I think it's also very good in terms of individual human interactions. I think it's better to just try to get away from harmful people rather than seeking revenge, or to take them out of the picture altogether.

Clearly in some cases it's not an option. In some cases the only way to stop a lethal enemy is to take lethal action.

I personally feel that any religious creed that denounces self-defense and self-preservation is over idealistic.

Just the same, having a creed of harming none is probably a good ideology to at least try to uphold as much as reasonably possible.

Without such a creed a culture could easily fall into the trap of harming their enemies unnecessarily and too quickly. Or even jumping on harm as a way of defense rather than putting it as a desperate last resort.

I think even the most religious of people will kill to preserve their loved ones and their culture and then just feel that they have 'sinned'.

Just because a religion states that something shouldn't be done doesn't mean that the followers are going to adhere to it in all situations.

I think religion and religious values are more like something that we would like to aspire to in a perfect world.

But this world isn't perfect.

And therein lies the fallacy of trying to adhere to perfect ideals.

Just the same, using harm as a means of casual defense is not good.

When does it cross the line from being 'defense' into just becoming spiteful offense?

I'll never understand the above mindset.

Making something a law doesn't affect "free will" because you still have the free will to break the law.

You have the "free will" to jump into a pool of molten lava. But if you choose to do so you will die be the law of the universe says that a human body can't survive in a pool of molten lava.

By your way of thinking, then clearly we have no free will at all.

Look at it this way. If you harm another, it will adversely affect your karma. Therefore we still have the "free will" to harm another, but we will pay for that action by having your karma adversely affected.

That the kind of LAW we're talking about here.

When I think of a law I don't think of a suggestion. To "harm none" is a lofty ideal and a suggestion, it is not a law.

Even "Thou shalt no kill" is a suggestion. All man made laws are suggestions and they have man made consequences.

______________



______________

What makes you think we don't have free will? I did agree that there are consequences for all actions and thoughts.

The free will is that you can still choose your actions and thoughts in spite of the consequences.

Or perhaps you are thinking that when we have to "pay" the consequences then it is not "free" because we had to "pay" for them.

If payment of Karma or consequences means that you have no free will then I agree, your will is not free, you will have to pay for your decisions in the end.

I'm not the one who suggested that we have no free will.

I was responding to your comment:

You said, "But there can be no 'free will' if the law is 'harm none'."

All I was saying is that I don't see any connection between laws and free will.

The unviverse is full of laws, but that doesn't interfere with free will.

If you step off a cliff you will fall. That's the law of the universe.

But that dosn't affect your 'free will' to step off a cliff.

I'm just saying that I don't see any connection between laws and free will. Laws don't restrict free will.

Criminals are a perfect example of this.

Then we agree.

And Crowley's statement, "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." is then the true statement of free will,

and the creed "Do as thou wilt, but harm none." is a noble goal.

To even call Crowley's statement a 'law' is nonsensical.

To remove all restrictions is to have no law at all. Especially if you're talking about a 'religion'.

And if it's not a 'religion' then why bother having any statements at all?

It was Crowely's religion. (I did not call it a law, he did.) He called it "The whole of the law."

In a sense you are right, it removes all man made restrictions.

I guess you could call it the law of free will.

But there are still the laws of physics or the laws of nature and the law of cause and effect, etc.