ThirtyThree
Well-Known Member
I have always viewed the right hand path and the left hand path in terms of the pentacle and pentagram.
The pentacle has the point facing up:
1) Man becoming one with God. (Merging with God)
2) "Spiritual" having greater importance over material. (Material is often seen as an obstacle)
3) God over self.
The pentagram has the point facing down:
1) Man becoming (or already is) a "god".
2) Importance of material over "spiritual".
3) Self over God
To apply this to my own faith:
1) I value the supernal over the material. (RHP)
2) I value the supernal I worship over myself. (RHP)
3) I seek to become as a supernal.
By my understanding, I am more RHP than LHP. My issue with both terms is that RHP is often used in a derogatory way, referring to all Christians (for example), as people who just follow a herd because it is there, because they were born into it or that they follow their religion for the same reason. They are likewise often painted as people who follow a religion just because they fear Hell or because they desire the reward of Heaven. It is also said often that all Christians follow their religion or their deity blindly.
I do not agree with any of the above regarding all Christians. Neither do I agree that all Christians do not think for themselves. This is the stigma I notice between those who seem to speak for the LHP and those who are on the receiving end of the accusations. While it is true some Christians do fit the stereotype, it is not true for all Christians.
In fact, the same stereotype can be applied to many who claim they are LHP. There are some in the LHP who follow something just because it seems hetrodox to what is socially, morally or otherwise considered mainstream, like the ONA's "sinister" insanity. There are also many LaVeyans who fall into the same stereotype, quoting the trash wrote by their "Satanic" guru in no different of a way than many Fundamentalist Christians parrot the Bible or a particular pastor they like.
I also can apply this stereotype to those in the LHP who claim an almost copyright over the term LHP, as if it is some type of elite club in which only they can grant membership. The qualifications for LHP have become so twisted, I desire no part of the label.
Then, I feel the same way about the term "Satanism". I no longer even know what is and is not considered a "Satanist". These days, it seems to be about the value of the material over the "spiritual" (what I call the supernal). I am not an Atheist, so the idea of that just repulses me.
In another variation, you have "Spiritual Satanism", (Joy of Satan), which I swear just replaced the name "Jesus" and "God" with "Satan". Other strange theistic paths in "Satanism" have "Satan" painted as a being synonymous with unconditional love. Then you have those who think "Satan" is Enki, the true creator of humanity. Yet further on the scale, you have some absurd anti-cosmic version of polytheistic "Satanism" which worships anti-cosmic supernals in some type of insane Lovecraft version of what seems to be giant space octopus worship?
You also have variations of "Traditional Satanism" which seem more at home some teenager's mother's basement, where people sacrifice black cats and crows to "The Devil" because they have serious un-diagnosed mental health issues or maybe just assume that type of thing is "edgy". Never mind the weird Atheistic formats of "Satanism" as well as those versions of "Satanism" which are theistic but make it clear worship of "Satan" is totally WRONG, because apparently "Satan does not like being worshiped" solely because those people seem to think "Satan" not wanting to bow to God means "Satan" does not want to be bowed to by man? Absurdity, if you ask me.
Regardless, the mess that has become "Satanism" aside, I sincerely wonder what even qualifies and does not qualify as LHP these days?
The pentacle has the point facing up:
1) Man becoming one with God. (Merging with God)
2) "Spiritual" having greater importance over material. (Material is often seen as an obstacle)
3) God over self.
The pentagram has the point facing down:
1) Man becoming (or already is) a "god".
2) Importance of material over "spiritual".
3) Self over God
To apply this to my own faith:
1) I value the supernal over the material. (RHP)
2) I value the supernal I worship over myself. (RHP)
3) I seek to become as a supernal.
- I do not seek to be equal to my deity.
- I seek to conform to the pattern designed for me by my deity.
- I am already an isolate being. I do not seek individuality for its own sake.
By my understanding, I am more RHP than LHP. My issue with both terms is that RHP is often used in a derogatory way, referring to all Christians (for example), as people who just follow a herd because it is there, because they were born into it or that they follow their religion for the same reason. They are likewise often painted as people who follow a religion just because they fear Hell or because they desire the reward of Heaven. It is also said often that all Christians follow their religion or their deity blindly.
I do not agree with any of the above regarding all Christians. Neither do I agree that all Christians do not think for themselves. This is the stigma I notice between those who seem to speak for the LHP and those who are on the receiving end of the accusations. While it is true some Christians do fit the stereotype, it is not true for all Christians.
In fact, the same stereotype can be applied to many who claim they are LHP. There are some in the LHP who follow something just because it seems hetrodox to what is socially, morally or otherwise considered mainstream, like the ONA's "sinister" insanity. There are also many LaVeyans who fall into the same stereotype, quoting the trash wrote by their "Satanic" guru in no different of a way than many Fundamentalist Christians parrot the Bible or a particular pastor they like.
I also can apply this stereotype to those in the LHP who claim an almost copyright over the term LHP, as if it is some type of elite club in which only they can grant membership. The qualifications for LHP have become so twisted, I desire no part of the label.
Then, I feel the same way about the term "Satanism". I no longer even know what is and is not considered a "Satanist". These days, it seems to be about the value of the material over the "spiritual" (what I call the supernal). I am not an Atheist, so the idea of that just repulses me.
In another variation, you have "Spiritual Satanism", (Joy of Satan), which I swear just replaced the name "Jesus" and "God" with "Satan". Other strange theistic paths in "Satanism" have "Satan" painted as a being synonymous with unconditional love. Then you have those who think "Satan" is Enki, the true creator of humanity. Yet further on the scale, you have some absurd anti-cosmic version of polytheistic "Satanism" which worships anti-cosmic supernals in some type of insane Lovecraft version of what seems to be giant space octopus worship?
You also have variations of "Traditional Satanism" which seem more at home some teenager's mother's basement, where people sacrifice black cats and crows to "The Devil" because they have serious un-diagnosed mental health issues or maybe just assume that type of thing is "edgy". Never mind the weird Atheistic formats of "Satanism" as well as those versions of "Satanism" which are theistic but make it clear worship of "Satan" is totally WRONG, because apparently "Satan does not like being worshiped" solely because those people seem to think "Satan" not wanting to bow to God means "Satan" does not want to be bowed to by man? Absurdity, if you ask me.
Regardless, the mess that has become "Satanism" aside, I sincerely wonder what even qualifies and does not qualify as LHP these days?
Last edited:
