So, what strategies do you have for distancing from those who do sick things?

[crossfire]

Continuing from this hijacked thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...ype-of-people-that-commit-sick-things.187065/
What other strategies do you use when you are stuck in the difficult spot between those who commit sick stuff saying you are wimps for not doing it, and those who assume you agree with the sick stuff? Luciferians get falsely accused about this stuff as much as Satanists do. Perhaps we can compare notes?

 

[Mindmaster]

I don't think that the people are doing sick stuff to follow their path, they are just doing sick stuff because they are sick people who like to do sick things. Sick people exist in all religious and non-religious contexts and it hasn't much to do with any particular path. The only difference is that in the LHP it is more likely that the person doing such things admits to it, but I hardly doubt it is any more common with them. Speaking from my personal experience, Christians are just much more quiet about their vices since there isn't a culture of tolerating the behavior.

Ultimately, the problem is that it is a distraction and just because two people sit in a room with the sick person doesn't mean they silently approve of their doings they probably just see them as having no effect. From the outsider looking in perspective, they just take the easiest available target and use that as the basis of criticism. So I guess the question is whether you wish to freely associate with these people knowing that they will draw the ire of others and transfer guilt to you by association? That's a question that you really can only answer for yourself.

Personally, I expect my associations to make me look good in every way. That means they don't talk about their fetishes and strange obsessions in public or in chat rooms. If they cannot do that for me, then they are going to bring trouble to me in some way in the future or make me look bad via association. Having simple standards like this basically eliminates most of the problem...

 

[EtuMalku]

Unfortunately because of some stupid rule in place (yeah go ahead and reprimand me) we can't really discuss a certain organization that engages in the heaviest antinomian rituals towards their LHP pursuits. Speaking of which, are we really 'allowed' to talk about such terrible, awful, scary stuff in the LHP DIR?

 

[Mindmaster]

Unfortunately because of some stupid rule in place (yeah go ahead and reprimand me) we can't really discuss a certain organization that engages in the heaviest antinomian rituals towards their LHP pursuits. Speaking of which, are we really 'allowed' to talk about such terrible, awful, scary stuff in the LHP DIR?

So many edgelords, so little time. We could make several arguments about how worthless antinomianism is to the left-hand path and how little it is actually practiced. The first people calling themselves antinomians were Christians who believed that they didn't have to follow ethics or morality because only God was qualified to decide those issues. Of course, they just did what the LHP does -- picked their own natural preferences. It is a logical fallacy to say what is natural is right because it doesn't imply that it is good or justifiable in any real sense. It is natural for a murderer to kill people without any real reason. Few people would believe that person's actions are good or right or even useful. Honestly, I think most people claiming to live in such a lawless way are just lazy and that's how they'd be whether they were LHP or not. LHP just gave them somewhere to hang their hat.

 

[EtuMalku]

We could make several arguments about how worthless antinomianism is to the left-hand path and how little it is actually practiced.

I'd be interested in hearing this since I see it alive and quite practiced in many of Western LHP systems.

Of course, they just did what the LHP does -- picked their own natural preferences. It is a logical fallacy to say what is natural is right because it doesn't imply that it is good or justifiable in any real sense. It is natural for a murderer to kill people without any real reason. Few people would believe that person's actions are good or right or even useful. Honestly, I think most people claiming to live in such a lawless way are just lazy and that's how they'd be whether they were LHP or not. LHP just gave them somewhere to hang their hat.

Antinomianism can be traced to the 2nd century Gnostics, (the Davidists and Familists are the most well known antinomian Gnostic cults) from which the concept that moral law is not obligatory emerged.

In practice Antinomianism originates from the Indian Tantric sects - reversal of normal natural patterns, contrary to nature and cosmic law. Tantric doctrines indicate that the natural universal flow through the human body is from left to right, energy enters from the left and exits through the right. In addition the left hand reaches towards the north and the right hand to the south indicating a cosmic flow.

Antinomianism is a praxis of spiritual dissent manifesting into spiritual freedom, it is an internal alchemy, a defiance of ideas and experiences that are not your own, a path to individualism. The path of the heretic is the path of non-union, one of separation / division.

 

[Mindmaster]

Antinomianism is a praxis of spiritual dissent manifesting into spiritual freedom, it is an internal alchemy, a defiance of ideas and experiences that are not your own, a path to individualism. The path of the heretic is the path of non-union, one of separation / division.

This statement itself is completely the antithesis of being antinomian. You even have to reject this concept completely to actually be as such in that you cannot have any dogma or creed that you follow. Zero guiding principles, rules, and whatever to be truly lawless. Even specifying some sort of consensus about whether individualism or conformity are valuable or what things must be done or that union / separation are valuable or not completely screws the pooch. You can't make these type of lists without basically creating a creed of them. If you understand what I am getting at?

Basically, the use of the term by anyone on the LHP is flawed, and that's not your fault or anyone else's here it has just entered into the vernacular of the left-handed path by people not understanding the term fully. None of us were responsible for it, but it has happened nonetheless! It is impossible to be a Luciferian, Satanist, or whatever without immediately losing the antinomian attribution by default. You have to accept someone else's idea of what those terms mean in some degree and to be antinomian you have to flatly reject them all without exception!

 

[EtuMalku]

This statement itself is completely the antithesis of being antinomian. You even have to reject this concept completely to actually be as such in that you cannot have any dogma or creed that you follow. Zero guiding principles, rules, and whatever to be truly lawless. Even specifying some sort of consensus about whether individualism or conformity are valuable or what things must be done or that union / separation are valuable or not completely screws the pooch. You can't make these type of lists without basically creating a creed of them. If you understand what I am getting at?

Basically, the use of the term by anyone on the LHP is flawed, and that's not your fault or anyone else's here it has just entered into the vernacular of the left-handed path by people not understanding the term fully. None of us were responsible for it, but it has happened nonetheless! It is impossible to be a Luciferian, Satanist, or whatever without immediately losing the antinomian attribution by default. You have to accept someone else's idea of what those terms mean in some degree and to be antinomian you have to flatly reject them all without exception!

I'm not sure what you are explaining but it sure isn't Antinomianism in its Tantric or modern form.

"Antinomianism, states that practitioners think of themselves as ‘going against the grain’ of their culturally conditioned and conventional norms of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. True Lords of the Left-hand Path will have the spiritual courage to identify himself [sic] with the cultural norms of ‘evil’. There will be an embracing of the symbols of … whatever quality the conventional culture fears and loathes." - Dr. Stephen Flowers

"One of the commonest misapprehensions about antinomianism claims that it causes (or is synonymous with) libertinism - doing `whatever you want' regardless of other peoples' values or lives. Luckily Nietzsche (that Islamophile) settled this point once and for all for everyone, no matter what their sect or belief: 'beyond good and evil' means nothing without that 'self-overcoming' or 'sublimation' which utterly rules out the banality of a pointless and self-defeating 'evil'. The antinomian may commit crimes in the eyes of society or the Law, but only out of a personal ethics which reaches unimaginably higher than any moral code. Antinomian ethics does this precisely because it is Imaginal, 'made up' by the individual, personal and central." - Hakim Bey

Aquino’s use of the Wewelsburg castle “violated moral and secular prohibitions”, to attain “dangerous and unwelcome knowledge”.
Antinomianism. (Temple of Set)

The function of antinomianism is to dissent from established religious, cultural and social ideas that are often not the result of personal experience. The purpose of this spiritual dissent is to come to conclusions and ideas about the objective and subjective environment - on a personal level - that are your own.

 

[Mindmaster]

@EtuMalku

You're missing the point. Someone who is really antinomian in nature is living outside of all definitions. Others have redefined the term, but those definitions themselves are failures. You can't define it other than by living in a lawless manner, as anything else makes a dogma or creed automatically. If you state, "You must do this and this to be acting in an antinomian fashion way.", you are immediately wrong. Antinomianism in the truest sense doesn't even consider society, religion, or ideas about transgressing against these institutions. They consider themselves exempt from all of those ideas and live in a manner with no concern whatsoever of whether they are dissenting or resisting anyone. They also do not have to overcome them because they don't believe they exist. Antinomian ideas and atheism have a lot in common, and much like an atheist thinks there is no reason to resist the God that doesn't exist so it is for them. They do not think the morals, laws, dogma, and whatnot exist at all, so they are unlikely to have any need to bother to resist them other than when they impinge on their freedoms.

All of these ideas stated are attempting to reclassify what is at best quasi-antinomianism for the real thing. Unfortunately, you either have all of the antinomianism or nothing -- much like atheism -- you can't kinda/sorta practice the idea. It's really all or nothing and you can't partway do it. That is most of what makes it truly difficult in practice.

 

[crossfire]

Antinomianism is the term used by Christians to refer to "following your conscience" rather than following the Laws of Moses. Heterodoxy is the term used for "breaking the law."

edit to add: "breaking the law" or doing harm just for the hell of it is one method for "searing your conscience." In this sense the two methods are incompatible. If you break the law in order to do something to satisfy your conscience, then the two terms are compatible.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Depends what kind of sick stuff.
Some label incest and polygamy as sick too but I wouldn't poke my nose in them.

In case of acts that hurt people or other innocent living beings, try to help them out and counsel them.
If still continue after 99 times of forgiveness, punishment must be harsh.

And surely the consequences of crimes such a hate crimes, murder, child rape, genocide, war crimes, etc. Then probably death (though exceptions in certain cases if they were coerced, forced or had to endure suffering from the victim before, then just psychological help to recover them).
In my view that is.

 

[EtuMalku]

@EtuMalku

You're missing the point. Someone who is really antinomian in nature is living outside of all definitions. Others have redefined the term, but those definitions themselves are failures. You can't define it other than by living in a lawless manner, as anything else makes a dogma or creed automatically. If you state, "You must do this and this to be acting in an antinomian fashion way.", you are immediately wrong. Antinomianism in the truest sense doesn't even consider society, religion, or ideas about transgressing against these institutions. They consider themselves exempt from all of those ideas and live in a manner with no concern whatsoever of whether they are dissenting or resisting anyone. They also do not have to overcome them because they don't believe they exist. Antinomian ideas and atheism have a lot in common, and much like an atheist thinks there is no reason to resist the God that doesn't exist so it is for them. They do not think the morals, laws, dogma, and whatnot exist at all, so they are unlikely to have any need to bother to resist them other than when they impinge on their freedoms.

All of these ideas stated are attempting to reclassify what is at best quasi-antinomianism for the real thing. Unfortunately, you either have all of the antinomianism or nothing -- much like atheism -- you can't kinda/sorta practice the idea. It's really all or nothing and you can't partway do it. That is most of what makes it truly difficult in practice.

It seems to me that, just like the discussion on East/West LHP, there is not one Antinomianism definition that fits all, there are older traditions and modern ones.

 

[Kapalika]

Continuing from this hijacked thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...ype-of-people-that-commit-sick-things.187065/
What other strategies do you use when you are stuck in the difficult spot between those who commit sick stuff saying you are wimps for not doing it, and those who assume you agree with the sick stuff? Luciferians get falsely accused about this stuff as much as Satanists do. Perhaps we can compare notes?

Speaking; as a Satanist and an (technical?) atheist... and both of those things are something I rather don't like to openly discuss identifying as...

But speaking from those perspectives, as a nontheist (that seems a better term for what I am) I don't really see any issue with "sick stuff" in of itself. Everything must be taken in a context.

But speaking as an initiated Satan(ist) I should say that I am probably more often than not at odds with people who do "sick things" that harm other people. If there is no suffering or rights being violated, then it isn't really my business. I would be against, for example, killing some innocent person. But I might be okay with an animal sacrifice.

Some might even say the blood magic I am involved in is "sick" even though I'm not hurting anyone or anything there either. Some might say I'm sick just by the fact that I have made music glorifying the Satanic archetype and the concept of Satan. Heck even a lot of sex magick probably looks sick to people (particularly if it's the fun kind with ropes and stuff).

"Sick" is very subjective. But to me, if someone can't handle a little bit of blood magic, necromancy, sex magic (vanilla or BDSM/whatever), violent imagery or stuff like that I don't really see how antinomian they really are... at least if I am understanding the usage here. I'm not sure the one I'm seeing used a lot actually follows the definition I see in dictionary.com and Wikipedia. Wikipedia mentions it as being part of the Left Hand Path and modern Satanism but over the years I've only really seen it manifest in nontheistic satanism as the inclination towards being a hedonistic jerk with little consideration of most people. That is rather par for the course (even if unfortunate) for modern society and human history in general so I don't see what's so special about that.

If Satanism is humanism in a devil's mask as some commentators have said over the years, it might be antinomian in the more traditional christian sense (just without the Christian god) but that isn't unique and doesn't make one very much if at all different from secular humanists. I would hope that 'modern' Satanism, being about the Christian Satan, would at least be willing to explore the taboo, the forbidden and the unquestionable. Some things are probably best left alone such as murder, but that doesn't mean that everything is off the table. It just means you need some kind of standard for what is allowed to be acted upon.

Satanism tends to be dogmatic, and my own group has rules for what we can and can't do. We disavow many "sick" things but we also do many "sick" things. Who's to say who's the sicker one? Many sick things are accepted by society and my group doesn't illusion itself as being immune. We just think our values are better and act on those. To most of society we are "sick" but they are just as if not more sick to us.

As far as what I do to differentiate myself between those I find to do "sick" things in the name of religion... I simply point out that I'm not part of their religion. I think a lot of terrorists do sick things in the name of several religions. Like shoot up Sikh churches because they think they are Muslims or because it has black people in it, or behead Buddhists for their faith. They might even glorify and celebrate the execution of an innocent man and symbolically like cannibalize him.

Notice how my examples didn't include any supposed or real Satanists or any other occult group. Usually when it's claimed that someone who killed someone was a Satanist it's not true. I've never really heard of very many credible stories of an actual Satanist, Luciferian or whatever killing someone. And the few times that it did seem that they did something "Satanic" it's more resembled Christian propaganda about Satanism than actual Satanism. For example many many years ago two very disturbed Russian teenagers reportedly stabbed someone 666 times and buried them with an inverted cross. Their understanding didn't seem too authentic, but say if they had some kind of Satanic literature and did it in some kind of proscribed ritual they then probably would probably be legit.

So I just kind of point out that kind of thing. Nothing in Satanism (with a few infamous exceptions that are mostly just talk) actually advocates doing sick things that hurt people, and of those very few, Far-Right groups that do they are all theistic as far as I am aware. It is actually much more common that major world religions have had and do do sick things on a large scale.

Also many people think I do agree with sick stuff, but that isn't that bad of an assumption since 90% of my society agrees with very sick stuff and doesn't even realize how sick it is. So again it's pretty subjective. Really the only true answer is just talking plainly.