• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Must a Religion Affirm a Set of Morals?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Like I said, I don't know too much about LS, so you must have a more rounded-out source on the subject. At the moment, I have Wikipedia:
"He expressed the view that self-indulgence was a desirable trait,[40] and that hate and aggression were not wrong or undesirable emotions but that they were necessary and advantageous for survival.[62] Accordingly, he praised the Seven Deadly Sins as virtues which were beneficial for the individual."
Hate and aggression - good, Seven Deadly Sins - virtues.

"Discussing women, LaVey argued that they should use sex as a tool to manipulate men, in order to advance their own personal power."​

Sex is a tool to be used for personal gains, in particular, manipulation of others.

"LaVey believed in the imminent demise of Christianity.[75] In addition, he believed that society would enter an Age of Satan, in which a generation living in accordance with LaVeyan principles would come to power.[76] LaVey supported eugenics and expected it to become a necessity in the future, when it would be used to breed an elite who reflected LaVey's "Satanic" principles.[77] In his view, this elite would be "superior people" who displayed the "Satanic" qualities of creativity and nonconformity.[78] He regarded these traits as capable of hereditary transmission, and made the claim that "Satanists are born, not made".[78] He believed that the elite should be siphoned off from the rest of the human "herd", with the latter being forced into ghettoes, ideally "space ghettoes" located on other planets.[79] The anthropologist Jean La Fontaine highlighted an article that appeared in a LaVeyan magazine, The Black Flame, in which one writer described "a true Satanic society" as one in which the population consists of "free-spirited, well-armed, fully-conscious, self-disciplined individuals, who will neither need nor tolerate any external entity 'protecting' them or telling them what they can and cannot do."[34] This rebellious approach conflicts with LaVey's firm beliefs in observing the rule of law.[34] Although personally neither a fascist nor neo-Nazi,[80] LaVey was on good terms with various neo-Nazi and other right-wing groups operating in the United States.[81]"​

Some people are more superior than others and the lesser folk should be locked up in ghettos. I assume you can see why someone such as myself would have a problem with this particular idea.

"​
  1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
  2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
  3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
  4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates.
  5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
  6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
  7. Satan represents man as just another animal who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development", has become the most vicious animal of all.
  8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
  9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.[112]"
I find points 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 to be problematic in varying degrees. Some deeper introspection may lead to being against some other points too.

I'd be pleased to see a source that says that LSs don't actually believe in this stuff.
I was thinking of the Eleven Satanic Rules for the Earth:
  1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
  2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
  3. When in another's home, show them respect or else do not go there.
  4. If a guest in your home annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
  5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
  6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.
  7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
  8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
  9. Do not harm little children.
  10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
  11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
And the Nine Satanic Sins:

  1. Stupidity
  2. Pretentiousness
  3. Solipsism
  4. Self-deceit
  5. Herd Conformity
  6. Lack of Perspective
  7. Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies
  8. Counterproductive Pride
  9. Lack of Aesthetics
I see the "problematic aspects" you listed as no worse than, say, the Ten Commandments (which has a number of problematic aspects of its own).

Edit: I hadn't heard about LaVey having ties to Neo-Nazis before. If true, this would be an issue... though about him personally, not necessarily the entire religion.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
As a hypothetical question: LS women appear to have a positive commandment to use their sexuality to manipulate others for personal gains. Say one such woman was working in an office. Her boss is a non-LS man. Would you say it would be moral of her to tempt him so he'll eventually give her a promotion?
If she can pull it off. Under LaVeyan Satanism everybody is responsible for himself - and not only under LaVeyan Satanism. It is an almost generally accepted assumption in our society.
It would be different in a strictly Judeo-Christian-Muslimic society. There it is assumed that men are not capable of rational thought in the presence of sexually attractive women. And even under LVS it isn't moral to take advantage of the incapable.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
mystical union with God had rendered them free from conformance to every moral injuction.

Picking up this comment, if someone is united with the Divine then that person sees as God sees and every action is divine because of that union. So the question of morality does not arise.

But of course people can fool themselves about that union including sincerely thinking that they are united with the Divine when they are not.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I don't think that's true, but I get the rest of your point.
Think about modesty rules and how they are explained. To put it hyperbolic, women have to dress modestly because men get tempted.
It's a reversal of responsibility. I can't handle temptation therefore you are responsible to not tempt me.
Men are weak and women can't wear what they want.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
As a hypothetical question: LS women appear to have a positive commandment to use their sexuality to manipulate others for personal gains. Not doing so appears to be going against a positive commandment. Say one such
woman was working in an office. Her boss is a non-LS man. Would you say it would be moral of her to tempt him so he'll eventually give her a promotion?
As someone who belongs to a religion that appears to have a "positive commandment" to enslave and rape women, I would have expected that you would want to confirm your assumptions before running off half-cocked about what another religion "appears" to say.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
As someone who belongs to a religion that appears to have a "positive commandment" to enslave and rape women, I would have expected that you would want to confirm your assumptions before running off half-cocked about what another religion "appears" to say.
Oh, shoot, you're absolutely correct. I missed the memo about adding a new, 614th commandment that states: "Thou shalt not ask hypothetical questions about other religions in order to further thy understanding of them." My bad. Guess I'm going to hell now.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Must a religion do anything? And when a person is right about something is that humility or is it ego?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Think about modesty rules and how they are explained. To put it hyperbolic, women have to dress modestly because men get tempted.
It's a reversal of responsibility. I can't handle temptation therefore you are responsible to not tempt me.
Men are weak and women can't wear what they want.
As usual, I speak only from a Jewish perspective (you mentioned previously also Christianity and Islam). I'm sure it'll come as no surprise to you when I say that this is a common misconception about Jewish modesty laws.

There are two sides to every coin:

Firstly, there's the Jewish law principle that states: "Ein apotropos la'arayot" - no one is trustworthy in issues of sexual morality. And when we say no one, that means both men and women.
Now, you stated that
There it is assumed that men are not capable of rational thought in the presence of sexually attractive women.
It is not assumed that a man is incapable of rational thought when near an attractive woman - or any sort of woman - it is that a man is not trustworthy in these matters, even if we checked and found that he is capable of rational thought. Further, the same is said about a woman. She, too, is not trustworthy - are we not aware of the reality of female sexual predators? (Interestingly, since we were discussing LaVeyan's views, according to Wikipedia - he held that only women could use their sexuality to manipulate others - but not men...) Are we not aware of female rapists?

When looking more deeply at the Jewish view, one finds that the various laws actually stem from a deep understanding of how human sexuality and inter-sexual attraction works. Even to the most rational-minded people, anything can happen. Just to illustrate this point, the Talmud takes the time to bring several stories about some of the greatest Jewish scholars of the time (smart, intelligent, sharp, rational people) - both men and women - who eventually fell prey to their sexual urges. Considering that the Talmud could have just as easily turned a blind eye to these stories, could have not bothered to insert them at all and have them lost throughout all of history, I think that says a lot.

Secondly, there's another principle that states: "Kol k'vudah bat melech pnima" - all the glory of a king's daughter should remain inside. When Judaism says a woman should be modest, it isn't just for the sake of the men - it's inherently important also for the sake of the woman herself, it builds her character, it helps her carry herself in a dignified manner.

The flip side to this is that there are modesty laws for men as well - just that a lot of people aren't aware of them. Guys can't do whatever the heck they want, either. It may seem harsher for women, but the fact of the matter is: Men and women are different, and there's no changing that. Another flip side is that male Jews have to keep way more commandments than female Jews. That's something else to take into consideration (and no, that does not stem from chauvinism).

So really, it's not a reversal of responsibility, but a sharing of responsibility that both sides have, both to themselves and to each other - after all, people live as part of a society, not in a personal bubble. Yes, we have responsibilities to one another.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
I was thinking of the Eleven Satanic Rules for the Earth:
  1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
  2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
  3. When in another's home, show them respect or else do not go there.
  4. If a guest in your home annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
  5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
  6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.
  7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
  8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
  9. Do not harm little children.
  10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
  11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
And the Nine Satanic Sins:

  1. Stupidity
  2. Pretentiousness
  3. Solipsism
  4. Self-deceit
  5. Herd Conformity
  6. Lack of Perspective
  7. Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies
  8. Counterproductive Pride
  9. Lack of Aesthetics
I see the "problematic aspects" you listed as no worse than, say, the Ten Commandments (which has a number of problematic aspects of its own).

Edit: I hadn't heard about LaVey having ties to Neo-Nazis before. If true, this would be an issue... though about him personally, not necessarily the entire religion.

I didn't see these and linked to the website with these on it lol.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
As a hypothetical question: LS women appear to have a positive commandment to use their sexuality to manipulate others for personal gains. Not doing so appears to be going against a positive commandment. Say one such woman was working in an office. Her boss is a non-LS man. Would you say it would be moral of her to tempt him so he'll eventually give her a promotion?

If you take a wider view of things it's about using personal power to further your own ambitions.
It doesn't confirm to my moral code, but it's a moral code.

Is there any point in discussing it further in the context of this thread?
 

ajarntham

Member
Extremist 'antinomian' sects of early Christianity - including but not limited to Gnostics - were amoral, inasmuch as they believed that salvation in Christ and mystical union with God had rendered them free from conformance to every moral injuction. [. . .]

And then you had the good old Carpocratian Christians, who - according to the partisan wording of the church father st. Irenaeus - taught their "followers to perform every obscenity and every sinful act" as a means of salvation, meaning absolutely free sexual licence and hedonism.

The Carpocratian Christians believed the sex impulse was natural and God-ordained, and that God had made everything common to mankind at the beginning, and so considered patriarchal, monogamous and polygamous marriage to have been introduced through the sins of men. For this reason, they believed in sexual freedom outside the bonds of marriage and practised polyandry, sleeping with each other as they pleased without compunction.[ . . .]

Carpocrates taught that human beings should [my emphasis--ajarntham] strive to live life vigorously, and aim to experience every condition of life ideally in one lifetime.

Very informative, but from your own summary just there it doesn't look as if the Carpocratians were amoral, it seems rather that they just had a different set of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" than we're used to. I suppose one can dismiss it as amorality, or Bizarro-world morality, but they weren't alone in finding the pursuit of experience, including the pursuit of desire, something divine. As Blake wrote in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom," and "He who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence."
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Is there anything about the nature or purpose of religion that requires a religion to affirm a set of morals (or otherwise not be a religion)?

Could there be an amoral religion? If so, what might be the purpose of such a religion?

Would a religion that affirmed a set of morals in any way be superior (or inferior) to a religion that did not?


You've misunderstood religion. To also answer another featured thread, the purpose of religion is not to set a system of morals. It's to form a worldview, a theory of life. "How do I live?" is the question of religion. Jesus answered this as " Love your neighbor, firgive sins. " Moses answered this as "Follow the law." For Jews, morals are the purpose. But not for other religions, necessarily. For Buddha, "Renounce the self."

There have been amoral (Zen Buddhism and Taoism) and immoral (most cults) religions.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Taoism is an example of an amoral religion.
"Taoism differs from Confucianism by not emphasising rigid rituals and social order, but is similar in the sense that it is a teaching about the various disciplines for achieving "perfection" by becoming one with the unplanned rhythms of the universe called "the way" or "tao".[2][4] Taoist ethics vary depending on the particular school, but in general tend to emphasise wu wei (action without intention), "naturalness", simplicity, spontaneity, and the Three Treasures: 慈 "compassion", 儉 "frugality", and 不敢為天下先 "humility"." - Taoism - Wikipedia

I wouldn't call that amoral.
 

iam1me

Active Member
"Taoism differs from Confucianism by not emphasising rigid rituals and social order, but is similar in the sense that it is a teaching about the various disciplines for achieving "perfection" by becoming one with the unplanned rhythms of the universe called "the way" or "tao".[2][4] Taoist ethics vary depending on the particular school, but in general tend to emphasise wu wei (action without intention), "naturalness", simplicity, spontaneity, and the Three Treasures: 慈 "compassion", 儉 "frugality", and 不敢為天下先 "humility"." - Taoism - Wikipedia

I wouldn't call that amoral.

You need to study more than a quick excerpt from Wikipedia. Yes, they emphasize "action without intention," not unlike Buddhism. Karma = moral action, and is characterized as wholesome or unwholesome based upon one's intentions. Neutral Karma = action without intention. Unlike whole and unwholesome karma, neutral karma won't keep one in samsara or the like.

This means that a practicing Taoist (or Buddhist) won't strive to do either good or evil. Ie, they don't strive to live moral lives - they don't strive to do good. Morality is not their concern, not what they are trying to teach. In fact, attempting to live morally is counterproductive to these religions.

Taoism goes a step further than Buddhism in that it teaches that any formulation of good/evil is false. Indeed, the very distinction between good and evil is taught to be illusory.
 
Top