Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggybabie
As far as the original "Satanist" comment, though, honestly a lot of people have a major misconception. LaVey Satanists are atheists. It's a non-theistic (no gods) religion, much like Buddhism or Taoism. More of a philosophy.
They do not believe in a devil or "boogeyman". The devil is just a metaphor for the things Christianity calls "sins". LaVeyan Satanists say things like "lust", "gluttony" and "pride" ("Tha DEVIL, Bobby Boo-shay!") are only human nature, and love should be shared for those who deserve it, not ingrates or enemies who will not appreciate or reciprocate it. Instead of turning the other cheek or letting yourself be walked all over, seek vengeance. It's all about balance and moderation of these things.
Personally, some of it's a bit TOO abrasive for my tastes. I'm not big on vengeance, for example, or fighting, or the sort, unless it's a last resort. I'd be more with the passive aggressiveness of Buddhism on things like that. But, I do think a lot of things about the "religion" Anton LaVey created make sense. I respect philosophy over theology, but even that said, many theistic religions are still cool mythologies with some good lessons.
|
Quite right in your initial description of LaVeyan Satanism. As a person who has read, studied, and owned much of LaVey's published work, to me, it boils down to little more than a mystified and ritualized form of secular humanism. Personally, (regardless of the mysticism and ritual) the secular humanist perspective cuts too close to nihilism, and both philosophies leave me a bit empty at the end of the day. In my estimation, Anton LaVey would have made a more effective argument for his philosophy on life if he left out the obvious mockery of Christian ritual. I think I understand his motives in this, but by making a ritualized religion he accomplished two things: 1) He attempts to parody the predominant religion of the West, which is Christianity; 2) He succumbs to some of the same flaws of the regimented ritualism of contemporary religion. In this sense, I think the philosophy fails, it would have been more successful being espoused as a type of secular humanism, sans the symbolic ritual.
Even with that said, the premises of secular humanism I find, like you, to be a bit too abrasive in regards to the conclusions that follow. As I stated above, I find a Hindu metaphysical construct to best address some of the problems of duality of phenomenon, the nature of "good" and "evil," etc.