Is LaVeyan Satanism part of the Left Hand Path?

[1137]

One very interesting aspect of LaVeyan Satanism, which most seem to overlook, is that Satan is seen as an aspect of nature, in this case one intiminately related to hedonism, pride, our animistic, base nature. The problem with this is that LaVeyan Satanism is essentially about not fighting our nature, giving into it and submitting certain aspects of the universe. This is, so far as I can tell, the exact opposite of what the WLHP seeks to accomplish, which is a mastery of ones nature, a separation from the greater Nature as a whole. Submission to "forces of nature" is essentially the defining trait of the WRHP.

We also have the issue of Peter Gilmore, a man so dogmatic he believes all who disagree with him "are on some level insane," and holds "nothing but contempt for them." It doesn't take a lot of explaining to show why this may contradict the ideology of the WLHP. Further, the Church of Satan as a whole tens to hold the claim that it is the only valid form of satanism, despite objective and even academic fact disagreeing with this. It may be more an unwritten rule, but when I think WLHP I don't think about denying objective facts just to claim ones sect is the only valid version.

 

[Serpent Child]

No.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Imo this sounds too similar to people who say X school of Buddhism isn't *REAL* Buddhism because it's theistic, or because it has some strongly dogmatic view. (Ditto people saying Satanism isn't *real* Paganism) If I were talking to either Gilmore about Satanism or anyone about LHP in general I'd probably the same thing: a combination of lay use and ambiguous, decentralized views means definitions are more flexible than one singular view. So sure, I would say that some people could feel Satanism is within or without LHP and both could be valid.

P.s. I think a couple Christians have developed a facial tic because I have a friend who identifies as Christian but does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

 

[Serpent Child]

LaVeyan Satanism is simply another form of Atheism.

 

[Laika]

One very interesting aspect of LaVeyan Satanism, which most seem to overlook, is that Satan is seen as an aspect of nature, in this case one intiminately related to hedonism, pride, our animistic, base nature. The problem with this is that LaVeyan Satanism is essentially about not fighting our nature, giving into it and submitting certain aspects of the universe.

I was under the impression that the left hand path was a revolt against the anti-humanist nature of the "right hand path" which values the spirit and the divine above the material. So in trying to return to the "natural" state of man as an animal being, LHPs are "re-humanising" their members against the de-humanising submissiveness and self-sacrifice of RHP religions like Christianity and Islam that cripples mans ability for personal freedom.

This is, so far as I can tell, the exact opposite of what the WLHP seeks to accomplish, which is a mastery of ones nature, a separation from the greater Nature as a whole. Submission to "forces of nature" is essentially the defining trait of the WRHP.

cautiously, I would suggest that perhaps self-knowledge of what man's nature is a necessary precondition to achieving self-mastery. In a sense, self-knowledge and self-mastery are complimentary to one another. But I don't know how appropriate that is.

We also have the issue of Peter Gilmore, a man so dogmatic he believes all who disagree with him "are on some level insane," and holds "nothing but contempt for them." It doesn't take a lot of explaining to show why this may contradict the ideology of the WLHP. Further, the Church of Satan as a whole tens to hold the claim that it is the only valid form of satanism, despite objective and even academic fact disagreeing with this. It may be more an unwritten rule, but when I think WLHP I don't think about denying objective facts just to claim ones sect is the only valid version.

Not really in a position to judge on this one, but it would strike me that trying to enforce a conformist orthodox of what satanism is would be opposed to Satanism as a non-conformist, libertarian and individualistic belief group. So I'd probably agree.

 

[Deidre]

I'm exploring this right now, and belong to another site now that has helped me to gain a better understanding of the LHP and the path of Setians. It would seem that there are Setians who believe in the literal existence of Set and there are those who don't. Just from a Christian background, it reminds me of fundamentalists vs non-fundamentalists. But, it's probably way different than this, of course.

If I end up following this path, I refuse to get wrapped up in following a person or an organization, like I did when I was a practicing Catholic. The whole point of LHP in my mind, is to free one's self of the rules and regulations that many religions impose upon their followers, and to embrace self. Not in a selfish way, but in a liberating way. To know one's self, is the greatest knowledge of all.

LaVeyan Satanism strikes me as somewhat nihilistic. I could be wrong though, it's just a feeling I get.

 

[EtuMalku]

LaVey's CoS (pre-Gilmore) certainly was part of the 'western' LHP if not THE defining philosophy behind it. LaVeyan Satanism was termed the 'Immanent Branch' of the LHP as it is practiced in the western world today. It's criteria being antinomian and initiatory magical deification of the individual self. Here is external antinomianism at some of its finest where one assumes the role of an absolute Adversary (Satan). The individual carnal ego is able to realize its own "godhead".

 

[Mindmaster]

One very interesting aspect of LaVeyan Satanism, which most seem to overlook, is that Satan is seen as an aspect of nature, in this case one intiminately related to hedonism, pride, our animistic, base nature. The problem with this is that LaVeyan Satanism is essentially about not fighting our nature, giving into it and submitting certain aspects of the universe. This is, so far as I can tell, the exact opposite of what the WLHP seeks to accomplish, which is a mastery of ones nature, a separation from the greater Nature as a whole. Submission to "forces of nature" is essentially the defining trait of the WRHP.

No, and it never has been.

To be on a path, you have to be going somewhere - LaVeyean Satanism is the end of the road both philosophically, and as you are apt to mention via Peter Gilmore and others affiliated with CoS exhibit dogmatic behavior in regard to their beliefs. I had made posts about this when I initially came to RF and they are floating around here somewhere, they were not well received. Imagine that... I'd made posts in certain other forums in this regard, and of course I was also warmly received on that one as well.

I do find that LaVeyean Satanism is a useful start to approaching the LHP, but that's all it is.. a start...

 

[Mindmaster]

I'm exploring this right now, and belong to another site now that has helped me to gain a better understanding of the LHP and the path of Setians. It would seem that there are Setians who believe in the literal existence of Set and there are those who don't. Just from a Christian background, it reminds me of fundamentalists vs non-fundamentalists. But, it's probably way different than this, of course.

If I end up following this path, I refuse to get wrapped up in following a person or an organization, like I did when I was a practicing Catholic. The whole point of LHP in my mind, is to free one's self of the rules and regulations that many religions impose upon their followers, and to embrace self. Not in a selfish way, but in a liberating way. To know one's self, is the greatest knowledge of all.

LaVeyan Satanism strikes me as somewhat nihilistic. I could be wrong though, it's just a feeling I get.

Generally, there is no advantage to seeking an organization in regard to the pursuit of the LHP but if you are looking at as a social club it is valid. All of the work in this regard is really done within you, so anyone that tells you that you need some sort of grand poobah to do whatever is already being very deceitful. When I started out, the only organizations that existed in any real way were the Church of Satan, and the Temple of Set. I joined neither, and still have no interest even though I am aware that ToS is theistic friendly (they simply don't tell their membership how to think). I know there are a bunch of people around here who are members of various groups, but that group membership doesn't help them become a better in any way. The secret of the LHP is there is no secret, it's all there for anyone to use to make themselves a stronger person if they desire it enough.

 

[Mindmaster]

LaVeyan Satanism is simply another form of Atheism.

Rather, a dogmatic philosophy that appends itself to base atheism. Atheism, in itself, doesn't quantify the nature of certain things in the way LaVeyean Satanism does. It doesn't espouse anything but "I know of no God(s)". It doesn't nominate science to be the law or anything else and those are misunderstandings of the term.

At this point, I feel the CoS in particular does more damage than good because it doesn't know where to place the demarc between being faith and being a philosophy in the worst way - it won't admit to itself that it is one.

 

[Mindmaster]

Imo this sounds too similar to people who say X school of Buddhism isn't *REAL* Buddhism because it's theistic, or because it has some strongly dogmatic view. (Ditto people saying Satanism isn't *real* Paganism) If I were talking to either Gilmore about Satanism or anyone about LHP in general I'd probably the same thing: a combination of lay use and ambiguous, decentralized views means definitions are more flexible than one singular view. So sure, I would say that some people could feel Satanism is within or without LHP and both could be valid.

P.s. I think a couple Christians have developed a facial tic because I have a friend who identifies as Christian but does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

In fairness, the LHP is pretty nebulous but I still lean on the fact that the first thing you need to do to be on a path is going somewhere. LaVey Satanists will no doubt say that they are doing that "in the real world" versus the "spiritual" as a defense, but that equates to a sum-zero equation. I know of no one who isn't trying to "go somewhere" in the "real world" regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. You're not doing something by doing nothing extra, etc. If you're a seeker, you basically find LaVey Satanism wanting... I still find it "inspiring", just not satisfying...

 

[Deidre]

Generally, there is no advantage to seeking an organization in regard to the pursuit of the LHP but if you are looking at as a social club it is valid. All of the work in this regard is really done within you, so anyone that tells you that you need some sort of grand poobah to do whatever is already being very deceitful. When I started out, the only organizations that existed in any real way were the Church of Satan, and the Temple of Set. I joined neither, and still have no interest even though I am aware that ToS is theistic friendly (they simply don't tell their membership how to think). I know there are a bunch of people around here who are members of various groups, but that group membership doesn't help them become a better in any way. The secret of the LHP is there is no secret, it's all there for anyone to use to make themselves a stronger person if they desire it enough.

I'm so effing excited about this, you have no idea!

Thank you for explaining this. I have much to learn, but what I've read about this weekend, I'm just so enthusiastic about this. It's like a side of me, or maybe all of me, has been dormant while following Christianity. Not that I hate any one religion, but I'd say that the LHP is portrayed as evil and suspect, but I can't help but wonder if that has just been part of the 'lore, and all this time, it's really been backwards. It's amazing to me, in a sad kind of way, that the LHP is looked at as evil simply because it teaches that we should be looking within and not without, in terms of becoming our best selves. But, such is life with many religions, especially the Abrahamic faiths - they are very dictatorial in nature.

 

[VioletVortex]

By technicality, yes. However, it's followers tend to be in need of a social dogma, so I can see how you could argue against its LHP status.

 

[Mindmaster]

I'm so effing excited about this, you have no idea!

Thank you for explaining this. I have much to learn, but what I've read about this weekend, I'm just so enthusiastic about this. It's like a side of me, or maybe all of me, has been dormant while following Christianity. Not that I hate any one religion, but I'd say that the LHP is portrayed as evil and suspect, but I can't help but wonder if that has just been part of the 'lore, and all this time, it's really been backwards. It's amazing to me, in a sad kind of way, that the LHP is looked at as evil simply because it teaches that we should be looking within and not without, in terms of becoming our best selves. But, such is life with many religions, especially the Abrahamic faiths - they are very dictatorial in nature.

*** BIG WALL OF TEXT WARNING **
​

You're welcome! The LHP is basically about having the freedom to act as one needs to for their physical, emotional, and spiritual health as justified by the rules of ones nature. Conventional religions are challenged by this notion because it shifts authority from the church to the individual, and certainly we can't trust ourselves now can we? This is evil only in that the entirety of the ten commandments and similar proscriptions are null and void. Ultimately, it's useless for me to list what is allowed other than to explain it that simply. Free of a concept of sin, most people revert to their true passions, and the LHP encourages this.

I guess the best way to simplify it is: The LHP is the adult path - giving one control of their immediate world, and the RHP is that of a child fearing the discipline of a sky daddy who will crack them on the knuckles (or worse) when they screw up. One way encourages exploration, and expansion of the individual - the other creates slavishness, uncertainty, and apprehension. The end result of the RHP is neurosis, or worse Stockholm Syndrome - a human being neutered and broken down, and unable to ever achieve perfection. Mind you, I use that term "perfection" in only a way conducive to ones personal psycho-spiritual-emotional subjective aesthetic. It is obvious that you see this, or you wouldn't be here.

I view Satan as the embodiment of perfected humanity, the spiritual impetus that moves our fundamental nature. It is through him (this is convenience, saying spiritual beings have sex is a tad silly) that the gift of our liberation from the slave gods has been given. We have a choice to acknowledge or to not acknowledge that gift, but he has given us that ability to even ask: "Why?" Understand, that just saying that is a thought crime against the deity in most religions and then decide which one is interested in really seeking the truth. Satan is not slighted if you choose ignore him, he is "adulting", and adults respect other adults and their wishes - even when they don't agree.
The only true love is a selfless love, one that gives and doesn't create a debt. If there is a God, why do you owe him? That's the part I never got, I'd never demand such tribute from my own children. How can he? Why must you kneel and be second guessed, or be sinful in some way by exercising your own intrinsic nature? Better yet, if you screw up, isn't it his fault? He "made" you right? Just a few things that never made sense to me... I'll posit that he cannot be the true creator, if only that he must lead with the rod. I cannot believe the "true creator" would act out of any emotion but love. Why is this basic spiritual understanding is so difficult for mainstream religions to grasp?

I just mentioned the above to clue you into my thought process, and the only way to really learn about these things is to listen to various perspectives and see how they sit within you. I can speak for one individual theistic Satanist, me, and no other. My own understanding of the universe is still evolving, and is constantly changing. In that spirit, I'd recommend you to a few books that should help you _greatly_ with navigating these subjects:

** warning, RF is swapping my links to its links that it can make money of off them - strip the "religious forums crap" off if you don't want to give them money when you buy the book, I only want to post virgin, non-revenue links. **

My Name is Legion by S. Connolly. This book is about various LHP types, and their individual stories. There really is nothing else like it on the web, or anywhere else. It's pretty theistic/dark pagan heavy, so fair warning.

Uncle Setnakt's Essential Guide to the Left-Hand Path - This is raw nuts and bolts, you can roll your own path with little more than this book. It navigates you through a complete system of self-initiation into the LHP, and is written by the former High Priest of the Temple of Set, Don Webb. Might be a bit complex for beginners, but it is philosophically and practically complete.

Pacts WIth The Devil by Christopher Hyatt & Jason Black - The history and the use of just that, the when, the where, and the why. I find this one mostly an entertaining read, but it addresses concepts like moral relativity, origins of the LHP, the philosophy of liberation, etc. I consider this useful in seeing how LHPers "tick". This is one of the most accurate in regard to the factual data, that's why I recommend it over others that have slants. Hyatt isn't an LHPer per Se, but Black is - my guess is that when they co-authored the book it was to keep the presentation balanced, and they did just that.

Sorry for the length, but I realized I never really gave that little list out on here so I took the time. Anyway, any questions are welcome as always.

 

[Deidre]

Thank you ^^ I will bbl to ask some questions. But overall, I totally get it.

 

[Deidre]

@Mindmaster - I posted something in my journal this morning based on a book I bought yesterday on Luciferianism. Brief yet it captures how I'm seeing this path. If you wish to read it I'd be interested in your thoughts and if you're familiar with that book. TIA

 

[Mindmaster]

@Mindmaster - I posted something in my journal this morning based on a book I bought yesterday on Luciferianism. Brief yet it captures how I'm seeing this path. If you wish to read it I'd be interested in your thoughts and if you're familiar with that book. TIA

I'll have a peek at it sometime today (through the miracle of kindle unlimited, and my insane reading speed)... Anyway, I think it's important to read about different perspectives - just don't feel the need to glue them all together. Take the bits that make sense, and roll your own LHP. If there is anything I can say to a beginner that is critically important, it is that step that matters the most. The LHP must serve you, rather you serving it.

 

[Serpent Child]

Rather, a dogmatic philosophy that appends itself to base atheism. Atheism, in itself, doesn't quantify the nature of certain things in the way LaVeyean Satanism does. It doesn't espouse anything but "I know of no God(s)". It doesn't nominate science to be the law or anything else and those are misunderstandings of the term.

At this point, I feel the CoS in particular does more damage than good because it doesn't know where to place the demarc between being faith and being a philosophy in the worst way - it won't admit to itself that it is one.

In the satanic bible Anton LaVey literally states LaVeyan Satanism is a philosophy, not a religion

????

 

[Mindmaster]

In the satanic bible Anton LaVey literally states LaVeyan Satanism is a philosophy, not a religion

????

It doesn't matter what The Satanic Bible says, it matters what the Church of Satan does in this case.

The only thing that separates an atheist from a LaVey Satanist is dogma.

dog·mat·ic
(dôg-măt′ĭk, dŏg-)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2.
a. Asserting or insisting upon ideas or principles, especially when unproven or unexamined, in an imperious or arrogant manner: "People in recovery groups can be dogmatic, asserting that the group's way is 'the way' or bashing other approaches" (Anne M. Fletcher).
b. Characterized by such assertion, often with an unconsidered rejection of criticism: a dogmatic adherence to a single educational model.

(from dogmatic)

2a & 2b easily apply to the entire Church of Satan, and all of the authorities of that "organization"... (if you can call it that, it is not registered anywhere...) At least, if my experience means anything, YMMV. There is no real proof that the material LaVey looted from Rand, Redbeard, and Nietzsche is useful. Most of the groups that have utilized any of this have folded up, yet you will be verbally lashed upon for gutting these sacred cows in their presence.

I personally use nothing of The Satanic Bible except for a few choice quotes, better to jettison the cagey occult system and the cut and paste than to let it interfere with the proper understanding of such things. I used to have a lot of respect for LaVey until he want onto his jihad against other left-hand path groups, implying they are false or have no credibility, etc.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Satanism is actually older than LaVey. LaVey just made his own version of Satanism and Satanism was never meant to be Atheistic.