From: Darrin Hyrup Area: RPSTOVAL To: Gerald Del Campo 29 Apr 92 02:15:18 Subject: Re: LIBER OZ In a message dated Tue 28 Apr 92 20:44, Gerald Del Campo wrote: > GDC> Crowley wrote that during WWII, [...] > DH> I was aware of that actually, considering we had discussed it in the > DH> past. However I believe it goes beyond what was going on > DH> historically. The rights of man deserve careful examination, and > DH> Crowley gave us a damn good place to start! :) GDC> True. But what I was trying to point out was that most people are GDC> shocked by the statement: "Man has the right to kill those...", GDC> especially since Crowley wrote it. The fact that man DOES do these GDC> things is often overlooked by those who can't accept this simple GDC> fact. Good point. It usually strikes me odd when people ignore what is going on around them. :) GDC> Personally, I would hate having a whole society of people killing GDC> eachother and saying "it was my will" in defense of their actions. Perhaps. If we had a whole society who actually knew their Will, and followed it, there probably wouldn't be any trouble anyway. :) GDC> P.S. 12th Commandment: Thou shalt not be asleep when your plumber GDC> comes over to fix your faucet >:^) Hehe. 13th Commandment: Thou shalt call or otherwise notify clients before showing up on their doorstep to fix their plumbing. :) 93, Darrin 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tim Maroney Area: RPSTOVAL To: Bobby Meizer 26 Apr 92 21:31:46 Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: THELEMA WITHOUT CHRISTIAN In a message to Tim Maroney written on Saturday, April 25, 1992 at 10:55:55, Bobby Meizer writes: BM> Don't you read Harlequin romances any more? Go take a long walk off a short Pierrot! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Bobby Meizer Area: RPSTOVAL To: Tim Maroney 26 Apr 92 22:20:20 Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: THELEMA WITHOUT CHRISTIAN In a message to Tim Maroney written on Saturday, April 25, 1992 at 10:55:55, Bobby Meizer writes: BM> Don't you read Harlequin romances any more? In a message to Bobby Meizer written on Sunday, April 26, 1992 at 21:31:46, Tim Maroney writes: TM> Go take a long walk off a short Pierrot! Why you Marceau-and-ceau! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Saracen Area: RPSTOVAL To: Darrin Hyrup 28 Apr 92 11:39:00 Subject: Re: LIBER OZ Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ...after much pruning to save bandwidth... From: DARRIN HYRUP >It says that MAN has the right to kill those who would thwart their rights to >freedom. I agree with that. However, because it is your right, doesn't mean >it is mandatory. Nor does it neccessarily mean Man as in the individual, but >rather at may be referring to the whole of mankind, in reference to mass >murderers, criminals, sex offenders, etc. I agree with you here...I just forgot to mention this the first time around. Thanks for bringing it up. :} S> and then since there would be far fewer people getting in each others S> way... and eventually people would not stand in each others way ond S> only do their own Will. >Which assumes they know their Will ahead of time. It is the rights of MAN >and Kings, not neccessarily of the slaves, who usually do not have any >idea of what their Will is, if they even realize that they have a Will. More what I was thinking of was the worst case scenario wherin few of the 'slaves' would survive. S> As far as how we KNOW we were free...because we would be healthy and S> happy. Also because we would have the right to chose. >People can be healthy (and even happy) in captivity. But that is not >neccessarily my definition of freedom. Just out of curiosity...what is -your- definition of freedom then? >Well, we are not all idiots but, as it says in Liber AL; "the slaves >SHALL serve." Its up to us who are not sheep to do our part. As for our >say, there is always protests, petitions, letter writing campaigns, lobbying, >voting (to some degree), phone calls to representatives, etc. Then what of the increasing trend towards making political activism illegal...the censorship of political speakers and music that the PMRC and other consevative groups have effected in many of the recording studios and record retailers? If those who do care about problems can not find out what is going on because the media is unwilling to report what is going on in the world, is that any different from being unable to effect change for the better? S> Two things I would like to add to this... S> What is your opinion on what happens when someone dies? >You mean, like in reincarnation? Seperation of the Ego? That kind of thing? I asked this question because in some traditions the death of the body is not that horrible a thing (i.e. *bzzzzzz* wrong answer...back to the end of the line and try it again)...and if that is the case...is it a truly -harm-ful thing to kill someone? (emphasis added for reference to the witches rede) [stuff deleted on solution to population problems...] Unthelemic or not...I tend to think that forced sterilization after 2 children is better than China's solution. :/ I would much rather (if it were possible) to simply be able to convince people not to have more than 2 children. Love is the law, love under Will. Ann 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: RPSTOVAL To: Saracen 30 Apr 92 00:47:18 Subject: Re: LIBER OZ In a message dated 28 Apr 92 11:39:00, Saracen wrote: S> [stuff deleted on solution to population problems...] S> Unthelemic or not...I tend to think that forced sterilization after 2 S> children is better than China's solution. :/ I would much rather (if S> it were possible) to simply be able to convince people not to have more S> than 2 children. Forced sterilization would be counter-productive, as most people would instinctively figure out a way to "beat the system" in order to rebel against an over-governing government. Personally, I want the right to control my bodily functions...I fight for womens rights to choose, so to agree with forced sterilization would make me a hypocrite: I just can't agree. Why not reward those that only have one child? Reverse the current social process of welfare. Instead of giving more money to a person with 3 kids than a person with 2, why not reward couples who refrain from having children at all? And give them slightly less for two, and even less for 3, and so on... This would appeal to people's greedyness...I think it would be most effective, and you wouldn't violate anybody's rights. So, what ya think? ;) Gerald ... RPSTOVAL Oasis: Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718