Which LHP Religion is the Antithesis of the RHP?

[jasonwill2]

The Church has a very dark and bloody history themselves. Even the Bible is more violent and gory than any horror movie. As for the Satanic Bible it doesn't mention it. It does talk about treating people as they deserve to be, but I would wager most Satanist, or LHP people in general, would not murder someone because not that many people want to go prison, and some would face the death penalty. Unless it was self-defense I would not kill someone just because chances are I wouldn't get away it and prison is just not a place I want to be as it would put an end to my goals.

The way the ONA throws around the word sinister makes me think they are a joke. And it strikes me as a twisted, literal, Nazi-esque interpretation of Neitzsche with their approach to Social Darwinism.

I know I wouldn't murder someone but in self-defense. It follows that if Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, and that we believe in vengeance instead of turning the other cheek, that one wouldn't harm someone who hasn't wronged them.

 

[Orias]

I know I wouldn't murder someone but in self-defense. It follows that if Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, and that we believe in vengeance instead of turning the other cheek, that one wouldn't harm someone who hasn't wronged them.

If its self defense then its not murder.

Just saying

 

[Iti oj]

Idk what my question is but it has to do with the topic of the anti christ. Word it as you will if understand.

 

[blackout]

I'd say a murderous Satanist and a murderous Christian prisoner are both closer to the LHP, because Christ clearly says you shouldn't murder and The Satanic Bible and ONA literature seems to allow for it sometimes. I'm saying that I don't care whether people trust in God or Satan or only physics, I judge RHP vs LHP by behavior, not by what people believe is behind the system. I'd say a Satan worshipper who acts selflessly to all others is ultimately following the RHP and just getting the name of God wrong.

The Christian Church is really stupid and constantly does stuff that doesn't go along with what Jesus said, so I don't blame people for hating them. But I think the modern church is just the Pharisees, it's not really Christianity.

But from the posts in this thread, I can see that people split the LHP/RHP dichotomy in a lot of different ways.

What does this mean, this "acting SelfLess'ly to ALL others"?

 

[Hexavibrongal]

The Church has a very dark and bloody history themselves.

Several people here have brought up the hypocrisy of the church, but to me that frames the LHP/RHP as a political dichotomy rather than philosophical one, because the church itself is just a political organization with no cohesive philosophy -- oppressive and violent acts taken by the church are clearly a different philosophy than the one that Jesus taught. Framing LHP/RHP as a political dichotomy seems perfectly valid, but I prefer to think of the dichotomy in purely philosophical terms because I'm uninterested in the church or what it does. In my opinion, this dichotomy can be best defined by comparing the philosophy of Jesus (not the rest of the Bible or the church) to the philosophies of Lavey and the ONA.

Jesus asks you to act as if others are ultimately more important than yourself. Turn the other cheek, sell your possessions and give to the poor, renounce physical pleasure so that it doesn't impede your selflessness. To me Gandhi also embodies these ideas -- passive resistance, total non-violence. There are quite a few who have taught similarly.

In contrast, my impression is that LHP philosophy asks you to consider yourself first. The extreme version of this is the ONA, where some people are considered so much less important than the self that they may be exported or exterminated. Satanism seems to be a less extreme version, weighing most other people as slightly less important than the self unless they get in your way or cross you.

 

[jasonwill2]

Several people here have brought up the hypocrisy of the church, but to me that frames the LHP/RHP as a political dichotomy rather than philosophical one, because the church itself is just a political organization with no cohesive philosophy -- oppressive and violent acts taken by the church are clearly a different philosophy than the one that Jesus taught. Framing LHP/RHP as a political dichotomy seems perfectly valid, but I prefer to think of the dichotomy in purely philosophical terms because I'm uninterested in the church or what it does. In my opinion, this dichotomy can be best defined by comparing the philosophy of Jesus (not the rest of the Bible or the church) to the philosophies of Lavey and the ONA.

Jesus asks you to act as if others are ultimately more important than yourself. Turn the other cheek, sell your possessions and give to the poor, renounce physical pleasure so that it doesn't impede your selflessness. To me Gandhi also embodies these ideas -- passive resistance, total non-violence. There are quite a few who have taught similarly.

In contrast, my impression is that LHP philosophy asks you to consider yourself first. The extreme version of this is the ONA, where some people are considered so much less important than the self that they may be exported or exterminated. Satanism seems to be a less extreme version, weighing most other people as slightly less important than the self unless they get in your way or cross you.

The ONA doesn't exist, why don't you get this?

 

[Hexavibrongal]

The ONA doesn't exist, why don't you get this?

I'm not sufficiently convinced whether the ONA does or does not exist as a group, but as I said before, their philosophy does clearly exist in writing and in practice throughout history under many different names.

 

[jasonwill2]

I'm not sufficiently convinced whether the ONA does or does not exist as a group, but as I said before, their philosophy does clearly exist in writing and in practice throughout history under many different names.

Satanists have only been around for 200 or so years. Secondly, Friedrich Nietzsche lived only 100 years ago, and I've never heard of social dawarnism being used for real but in Nazi Germany.

Anyway... tired mode typing =p

Can you give some examples maybe?

 

[Adramelek]

Satanists have only been around for 200 or so years. Secondly, Friedrich Nietzsche lived only 100 years ago, and I've never heard of social dawarnism being used for real but in Nazi Germany.

Anyway... tired mode typing =p

Can you give some examples maybe?

Actually mainstream Satanists have only been around since 1966 with the foundation of the Church of Satan and the Age of Satan by the Magus Anton LaVey. However, the original Priesthood of Set can be dated as far back as over 5,000 years ago.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[jasonwill2]

Actually mainstream Satanists have only been around since 1966 with the foundation of the Church of Satan and the Age of Satan by the Magus Anton LaVey. However, the original Priesthood of Set can be dated as far back as over 5,000 years ago.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

I'm talking about the portrayal or reverence of Satan in a positive light, which goes back to the 1800's when several alternative and positive interpretations started popping up in some views and literature.

 

[Kori Houghton]

Secondly, Friedrich Nietzsche lived only 100 years ago, and I've never heard of social dawarnism being used for real but in Nazi Germany.

You have a huge learning curve to get around before you can make a credible statement on this topic.

 

[blackout]

What does this mean, this "acting SelfLess'ly to ALL others"?

Still hoping for a response from Hexabrivongal.

What does it look like? this "acting Selflessly to all others"?

BONUS QUESTION: How does a Self, go about Self'less'ly?

 

[Hexavibrongal]

What does it look like? this "acting Selflessly to all others"?

BONUS QUESTION: How does a Self, go about Self'less'ly?

I feel like I've already answered this question in quite a bit of detail in this thread. I don't know what kind of answer you're wanting that I haven't already given.

 

[Sylvan]

I personally do not think that they exist, and if they do, they need to be recognized for the hypocrites they are. Social Darwinism is sick; the LHP celebrates life. If people are weak, they will die off WITHOUT engineered natural selection.

Thanks for the info. I agree entirely.

I do however know someone who was corresponding with some people who claimed to be ONA years ago, and he said when he met american members they were racist idiots. So there are at least a handful, and they are probably all talk. Then qippothic entities he was working with burned his house down and he reevaluated his direction. :slap:

 

[Orias]

Several people here have brought up the hypocrisy of the church, but to me that frames the LHP/RHP as a political dichotomy rather than philosophical one, because the church itself is just a political organization with no cohesive philosophy --

Politics is a philosophy.


And theirs being "Do as I say not as I do".

Why do you think so many people follow it?

 

[jasonwill2]

You have a huge learning curve to get around before you can make a credible statement on this topic.

Could you qualify this statement? Did he not live about 100 years ago? Tell me, where else has social darwinism been used?

I meant it in the sense of killing off "biologically inferior" people. I was not referring to just plain old genocide such as the Armenians, Kurds, Randwa, or even with the situation in Darfur.

Those are more religiously or politically motivated as opposed to using natural selection as an excuse (social Darwinism) for killing.

Correct me if I used the terminology wrong. It was my understanding that the Germans, as the "master race" could kill off those not worthy to be enslaved based on a justification of evolutionary superiority.

Though given were I learned that, it could of just been an excuse for saying that evolution is evil... stupid Christian textbooks.