There's clearly a contrast between two conceptions of God here.
The one from Abraham, used by Christianity and by Islam, is often understood (wrongly or otherwise) to "know better", implying that one should accept one's own fate gracefully because God somehow chose to give us whatever challenges we meet. Some people (mainly segments of Christianity) restrict that certainty to those who "accept God" and believe that "non-believers" may well be punished beyond any reasonable degree.
I won't say that such a notion is wrong per se. I will, however, definitely say that it is dangerous, if not balanced with enough wisdom.
The second, the Luciferianist perspective, apparently doesn't bother with expecting any mysterious plans, salvation or transcendental qualities from a God. It allows for or perhaps assumes that there are (for lack of a better expression) "mysterious forces at work", but altogether rejects the passive religious strategy of choosing one belief to adhere to and hoping for Gods' favor. To the extent that I understand it, this perspective instead chooses to work with the lemons that life throws at it and learn to make the best lemonade it can, discarding any opportunities for gratuituous guilt that it finds along the way.
I would really appreciate it if you who are participating in this thread correct me in this analysis above.
Somewhat in spite of myself, I must clearly state that if a choice is needed, I definitely choose the second approach instead of the first. I don't think that the God of Abraham must be followed in such a resigned and submissive way, but I am pretty certain that the way of submission is both immature and dangerous. That's probably a challenge that Islam will have to face soon rather than later (Islam literally means "submission"). Submission is great for avoiding conflicts with those others who accept the same common authority, but it just doesn't accomplish much else - and we've reached a point in history where much else is indeed needed from a religion, any religion.
That said, and even recognizing that there is a clear parallel between the idea of learning to bring one's own light and my own core beliefs, I must say also that the idea of a LHP doesn't necessarily makes much sense to me. Perhaps it is just a matter of terminology, or perhaps there is a greater need than I recognize for clearly stating that one is not following what I am calling "the way of submission". But the terminology of the LHP often puzzles me, leading me to wonder how exactly they feel about religion, individual choices and even the legitimacy of what they call the "Right Hand Path". Sometimes it looks like there is an unfortunate tendency to present themselves as rebellious, somewhat reinforcing the stereotypes that we probably should strive to dissolve. I'm not sure there is a reason for even being such a distinction between LHP and RHP even. To the best of my knowledge it is a fairly recent invention that involves a hefty degree of cultural misunderstanding at its core.
. You have just made a very convincing argument for why religions who use blind faith and worship as a necessity are not to be taken seriously. Luciferian Philosophy seems to make sense to me, especially in this respect. I have always felt that Lucifer receives a bad rap in all of the religions that espouse the existence of him. Not that I believe in any of it. Just that if I were to believe, I would question the whole Lucifer/God relationship a bit more than the God-fearing religious types do.
