Misinformation about other religions

[crossfire]

If you would like a non-religious example of antinomians and heterodoxy, you can look at the most well developed antinomian movement of feminism. (Feminism refers to the nomos they critique as "The Patriarchy.") Critiquing the patriarchy via reason is antinomianism. Burning your bra is heterodoxy. Know the difference.

 

[Kapalika]

Worship is not part of LHP Luciferianism, (Lucifer bows down to no one) so the difference between theistic and non theistic LHP Luciferianism is not really relevant. Worship is considered RHP by LHP Luciferians.

While you might have the tendency to merge, others might have the tendency to separate. Non-worshippers tend to want to be separate from worshippers. I see this as quite reasonable. Same goes with Antinomianism and Heterodoxy. Antinomianism tends to want to be separate from Heterodoxy, while Heterodoxy considers them to be the same thing. Again, I see separating them as being quite reasonable.

That's a false dichotomy though. Theistic Satanists often say they don't worship either. I don't see Luciferianism as any different in that respect.

Also I don't understand how you can claim that antinomianism "tends to want to be seperate from heterodoxy". That just defies any sense to me. Even if you do your own thing these groups always form traditions and orders and become a heterodoxy anyway. We've even seen this develop in several Satanist sects over the last 50 years multiple times. And ya, we Shaivia LHP would consider it the same thing, since that's what it's been for over 1,400 years at least for us.

However the difference just seems to be in level of organization and age even if we distinguish them. So I don't really see the point.

Anyways the problem with making more and more DIRs is they never get used. It's kind of pointless then. If everyone is in keeping with the idea of increasing understanding and not misrepresenting a smaller amount of DIRs shouldn't matter, as most LHP are fairly like minded anyway. Even between those who are theists and atheists. At least it wouldn;'t look like the forusm are totally dead. Instead of 1 topic in any given DIR once every week you would see threads, maybe one every other day pop up (not exact but you get the picture). That does wonders for perception of forum activity and will actually cause more people to join. At least thats been my experience with forums when you consolidate underused sections

 

[Kapalika]

If you would like a non-religious example of antinomians and heterodoxy, you can look at the most well developed antinomian movement of feminism. (Feminism refers to the nomos they critique as "The Patriarchy.") Critiquing the patriarchy via reason is antinomianism. Burning your bra is heterodoxy. Know the difference.

I don't really catch what you are getting at. Perhaps we could make a discussion or one on one debate topic if you wanna be socratic about it. Or go to PM. I'd like to discuss this more but it's getting off topic.

 

[crossfire]

That's a false dichotomy though. Theistic Satanists often say they don't worship either. I don't see Luciferianism as any different in that respect.

Do LHP Satanists consider Satan worshippers to be RHP?

Also I don't understand how you can claim that antinomianism "tends to want to be seperate from heterodoxy". That just defies any sense to me. Even if you do your own thing these groups always form traditions and orders and become a heterodoxy anyway. We've even seen this develop in several Satanist sects over the last 50 years multiple times. And ya, we Shaivia LHP would consider it the same thing, since that's what it's been for over 1,400 years at least for us.

One example of an antinomian movement that separates itself from heterodoxy is the Nastika Buddhism, which has been around for over 2,500 years. (Granted there are some Buddhist schools that do practice heterodoxy, but they are a definite minority.) Buddhism calls the nomos it resists/refutes "Mara."

However the difference just seems to be in level of organization and age even if we distinguish them. So I don't really see the point.

The difference is in practice and beliefs, not merely organization.

Anyways the problem with making more and more DIRs is they never get used. It's kind of pointless then. If everyone is in keeping with the idea of increasing understanding and not misrepresenting a smaller amount of DIRs shouldn't matter, as most LHP are fairly like minded anyway. Even between those who are theists and atheists. At least it wouldn;'t look like the forusm are totally dead. Instead of 1 topic in any given DIR once every week you would see threads, maybe one every other day pop up (not exact but you get the picture). That does wonders for perception of forum activity and will actually cause more people to join. At least thats been my experience with forums when you consolidate underused sections

There are plenty of common areas, such as the LHP DIR outside of the subforums. The subforums serve as an area where specific sects can discuss their beliefs and practices among themselves without having to worry about others coming in and misrepresenting their beliefs, to bring it back to the topic of the OP.

If you want a separate subforum for Eastern LHP, why would you disparage other LHP movements from having their own subforum?

 

[Kapalika]

Do LHP Satanists consider Satan worshippers to be RHP?

Depends. A bunch don't, some do. I don't.

One example of an antinomian movement that separates itself from heterodoxy is the Nastika Buddhism

From everything I've ever understood or read Nastika is just rejecting the Vedas, idea of God and atman. I don't see how that's an antinomian movement. It's just atheism. Historically all of Buddhism was considered Nastika. So I don't really get what you are getting at.

The difference is in practice and beliefs, not merely organization.

You can't have one without the other. Practice without belief isn't sincere and belief without practice is just pretending.

If you want a separate subforum for Eastern LHP, why would you disparage other LHP movements from having their own subforum?

I didn't. However look at the modern satanist sub DIR. by the end of the first page it goes back 7 years, and only 6 topics date back the last year. The LaVeyan section has only had one post a year ago, and then 3 years before that, going back 11 years on the first page. The theistic section only has 5 topics in the last year, going back 3 years on the first page.

So ya, they are not really used. My point is Satanism is over represented compared to the rest of the LHP DIR. An arguement against my suggestion would be that the Vamachara sub DIR wouldn't get used. Maybe. However considering how often the topic comes up in the main DIR off and on it would be at least as active as any other sub DIR if not slightly more. At least a few people have an interest in it and as another Hindu here pointed out they might post in there had they noticed it before.

However maybe that isn't much of a solution but I thought it might help mitigate in at least that case. I'm more worried overall about the general pattern on the forums for people to do it to others to seem more right than them. As others said this happens in other DIRs as well. I do think its slightly different in debates but even then people too often cross the line. Is it the place of a protestant to say that a Mormon isn't a Christian?

It's that kind of deal but also if the Protestant claimed the Mormon believed something they really didn't to make them look dumb. That kind of thing. That isn't an example I've seen, just a hypothetical. Maybe a more specific example would be some of the stuff people say about Islam sometimes. Heck even saying someone believes in a god in the sky is an example of what I mean although that's just more mocking and not literally saying they believe that.

 

[crossfire]

Depends. A bunch don't, some do. I don't.



From everything I've ever understood or read Nastika is just rejecting the Vedas, idea of God and atman. I don't see how that's an antinomian movement. It's just atheism. Historically all of Buddhism was considered Nastika. So I don't really get what you are getting at.

You didn't include my entire quote, namely about Buddhism calling the nomos it resists as "Mara."

One example of an antinomian movement that separates itself from heterodoxy is the Nastika Buddhism, which has been around for over 2,500 years. (Granted there are some Buddhist schools that do practice heterodoxy, but they are a definite minority.) Buddhism calls the nomos it resists/refutes "Mara."

You can't have one without the other. Practice without belief isn't sincere and belief without practice is just pretending.

You were worried about misrepresenting beliefs per the OP, no? Hence, the DIRs.

I didn't. However look at the modern satanist sub DIR. by the end of the first page it goes back 7 years, and only 6 topics date back the last year. The LaVeyan section has only had one post a year ago, and then 3 years before that, going back 11 years on the first page. The theistic section only has 5 topics in the last year, going back 3 years on the first page.

So ya, they are not really used. My point is Satanism is over represented compared to the rest of the LHP DIR. An arguement against my suggestion would be that the Vamachara sub DIR wouldn't get used. Maybe. However considering how often the topic comes up in the main DIR off and on it would be at least as active as any other sub DIR if not slightly more. At least a few people have an interest in it and as another Hindu here pointed out they might post in there had they noticed it before.

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a Vamachara subforum, but that doesn't mean that the Theististic and Modern Satanism subforums should be eliminated, either. They are good to have in case anyone has a specific question for either Theistic Satanists or Modern Satanists without having to worry about the Theistic Satanists misrepresenting the Modern Satanists and vice-versa.

However maybe that isn't much of a solution but I thought it might help mitigate in at least that case. I'm more worried overall about the general pattern on the forums for people to do it to others to seem more right than them. As others said this happens in other DIRs as well. I do think its slightly different in debates but even then people too often cross the line. Is it the place of a protestant to say that a Mormon isn't a Christian?

Hence, the need for separate DIRs.

It's that kind of deal but also if the Protestant claimed the Mormon believed something they really didn't to make them look dumb. That kind of thing. That isn't an example I've seen, just a hypothetical. Maybe a more specific example would be some of the stuff people say about Islam sometimes. Heck even saying someone believes in a god in the sky is an example of what I mean although that's just more mocking and not literally saying they believe that.

Again, hence the need for separate DIRs.

 

[Kapalika]

You didn't include my entire quote, namely about Buddhism calling the nomos it resists as "Mara."

I didn't see how it was relevant to the definition of nastika. As far as I am aware Mara is a spirit that tempted the Buddha and is generally associated with samsara and desire. As I understand it such types of beings also exist in astika.

Seriously though, perhaps we should start a topic on this. There's a lot I want to say on it as I think we are in disagreement, based on my own experience with tantric Buddhism and Buddhists in general IRL (all the way from Vajrayana to Middle Way). Would you want us to make a 1 on 1 debate topic about this? I can try to be socratic about it to learn your viewpoint if you attempt the same for me.

You were worried about misrepresenting beliefs per the OP, no? Hence, the DIRs.

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a Vamachara subforum, but that doesn't mean that the Theististic and Modern Satanism subforums should be eliminated, either. They are good to have in case anyone has a specific question for either Theistic Satanists or Modern Satanists without having to worry about the Theistic Satanists misrepresenting the Modern Satanists and vice-versa.

Okay, you make a good point. My idea was mostly as people often complain there are too many unused DIRs so why make another? If there just made some kind of dharmic LHP sub DIR it would be nice. Granted at this point it would seem like it would just be me and 2 or 3 others talking in it. Which is heck more active than half the DIRs here.

 

[crossfire]

I didn't see how it was relevant to the definition of nastika. As far as I am aware Mara is a spirit that tempted the Buddha and is generally associated with samsara and desire. As I understand it such types of beings also exist in astika.

It was regarding the definition of antinomianism, not Nastika. Mara is personified. Mara also has many different meanings. The specific instance called Mara that I named was the cultural nomos that Buddhism refutes, namely, but not inclusively, the cultural nomos based upon or contaminated by one or more of the three poisons of greed, hatred, or delusion. One example would be the cultural belief that beings of lower caste couldn't become enlightened. Buddha used logical reasoning to refute this collective cultural nomos/mara. He was employing antinomianism against the nomos referred to as mara.

Seriously though, perhaps we should start a topic on this. There's a lot I want to say on it as I think we are in disagreement, based on my own experience with tantric Buddhism and Buddhists in general IRL (all the way from Vajrayana to Middle Way). Would you want us to make a 1 on 1 debate topic about this? I can try to be socratic about it to learn your viewpoint if you attempt the same for me.

Sure.

Okay, you make a good point. My idea was mostly as people often complain there are too many unused DIRs so why make another? If there just made some kind of dharmic LHP sub DIR it would be nice. Granted at this point it would seem like it would just be me and 2 or 3 others talking in it. Which is heck more active than half the DIRs here.

I would suggest starting a thread in site feedback about it.

 

[crossfire]

That's a false dichotomy though. Theistic Satanists often say they don't worship either. I don't see Luciferianism as any different in that respect.

Luciferianism isn't Satanism. You are misrepresenting Luciferianism in the same manner that you are complaining about in the OP.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry but I have to disagree with your example. Too often people don't know what is in their holy books or doctrine and it's not disrespectful if it's done properly such as "What about Sally 2:23 where it says that..."?

I've never had people take offense when I cared enough to actually look into someone else's belief system enough ask a question from that person's frame-of-reference.

If it is properly addressed, yes. That was the first dialogue. If it's:

Christian: I believe jesus saved us from our sins

Person X: I do not believe this is so

Christian: I can prove it from MY scripture

Person X: I can rebut it using the same foundation/source you gave me

And you can debate back and forth about who interprets scripture best.

If person X says instead: Jesus did not save us from our sins because it says in MY book that he does not, here is the historical evidence, and continue to disprove your logic by offering what I believe, it overrides a honest difference of opinion.

It literally says "the bible is false" to a christian with whom, depending on the conversation, would consider that a huge insult especially when it's proven by an outside source that has no connections to Christianity whatsoever.

It's like a spit in the face.

-

That is very different if Person X decided to prove her point by christian scriptures or christian tried to prove his point by using Person X's scripture.

But if you are using your back up source to prove your point and fact of another person's faith you haven't practice nor know intimately enough to common beyond opinion, it's best to be safe and say "this is my opinion.." or "I disagree because of this..."

but never saying to the christian (as a buddhist, for example), "no, your scripture doesnt say that. It says this. I know this because my suttas say this and you have misinterpreted your scriptures and not everyone believes in their own scriptures correctly, so that is why I am telling you the truth."

That this is not a healthy conversation.

But I don't know what can be done. Christian atheist debates do this all the time (atheist using christian scripture to prove christianity is wrong about something inherit in christian belief he disagrees with)

Arguments are based on emotions "You are wrong.'
Debates are based on evidence/what one can prove; "I am right."

Discussion way both and want to learn from both person's point of view. If christian, atheist, and person X does not want to do this, there is no use in debating.

 

[Kapalika]

Luciferianism isn't Satanism. You are misrepresenting Luciferianism in the same manner that you are complaining about in the OP.

All I said was that they were similar in that respect ("same" as in congruent. it's like saying two different shapes have one or more congruent angles but are still different shapes), not that they are literally the same path with different names (Although there are people who practice both that feel that way that's not how I feel about it).