What truths do all religions have in common?

[Liu]

A core truth is they all lack a means of verifying the truth they claim outside of personal experience.

5 reasons why anecdotes are totally worthless

Uhm, not all religions claim the subjective experiences of their adherents to be objective truths.
While there are some claims of objective truths in many versions of my religion, there still are versions of it that are fully atheistic and that put a lot of emphasis on the fact that while it may be the right religion for those who feel benefited by it, it certainly is not for everyone. Well, admittedly, those versions then tend to make a dogma out of rational thinking instead, but I guess it's because many people simply like having some kind of guidelines or official list of common ground.

While I'd like to think this is true, I'm not sure that all 15 are shared by all religions. Perhaps a few, but based on my experiences with adherents' behaviors, either the principles are not common to all religions or the adherents simply choose not to follow them.


From the link:

15 Great Principles Shared by All Religions

1. The Golden Rule / Law of Reciprocity – The cornerstone of religious understanding. “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.” – Christianity
2. Honor Thy Father and Mother – Knowing them is the key to knowing ourselves. The day will come when we shall wish we had known them better.
3. Speak the Truth – “Sincerity is the way of heaven, and to think how to be sincere is the way of a man.” – Confucius
4. It’s More Blessed to Give than to Receive – Generosity, charity and kindness will open an individual to an unbounded reservoir of riches.
5. Heaven is Within – “Even as the scent dwells within the flower, so God within thine own heart forever abides.” – Sikhism
6. Love Thy Neighbor / Conquer With Love / All You Need is Love– Acts of faith, prayer and deep meditation provide us with the strength that allows love for our fellow man to become an abiding part of our lives. Love is a unifying force.
7. Blessed Are the Peacemakers – When people live in the awareness that there is a close kinship between all individuals and nations, peace is the natural result.
8. You Reap What You Sow – This is the great mystery of human life. Aware or unaware, all are ruled by this inevitable law of nature.
9. Man Does Not Live by Bread Alone – The blessings of life are deeper than what can be appreciated by the senses.
10. Do No Harm – If someone tries to hurt another, it means that she is perceiving that person as something separate and foreign from herself.
11. Forgiveness – The most beautiful thing a man can do is to forgive wrong. – Judaism
12. Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged – This principle is an expression of the underlying truth that mankind is one great family, and that we all spring from a common source.
13. Be Slow to Anger – Anger clouds the mind in the very moments that clarity and objectivity are needed most. “He who holds back rising anger like a rolling chariot, him I call a real driver; others only hold the reins.” – Buddha
14. There is But One God / God is Love – Nature, Being, The Absolute. Whatever name man chooses, there is but one God. All people and all things are of one essence.
15. Follow the Spirit of the Scriptures, Not the Words – “Study the words, no doubt, but look behind them to the thought they indicate; And having found it, throw the words away, as chaff when you have sifted out the grain.” – Hinduism

The common truth that I find is, although some religions are more tolerant of others' religious beliefs than others, all think their religion is on at least some level more correct than others.

Lol. The majority of those are not in my religion, and for the others I can easily think of other religions that lack them.
Also, those aren't even truths, they are advices that sometimes are helpful but not entirely reliable.

 

[Nakosis]

Uhm, not all religions claim the subjective experiences of their adherents to be objective truths.
While there are some claims of objective truths in many versions of my religion, there still are versions of it that are fully atheistic and that put a lot of emphasis on the fact that while it may be the right religion for those who feel benefited by it, it certainly is not for everyone. Well, admittedly, those versions then tend to make a dogma out of rational thinking instead, but I guess it's because many people simply like having some kind of guidelines or official list of common ground.

I might be able to agree if you can provide an example of this. Religion can be seen as a fairly broad term.

 

[Liu]

I might be able to agree if you can provide an example of this. Religion can be seen as a fairly broad term.

Yeah, I guessed that I might get this counter-argument of what even counts as a religion.

My own religion is a kind of pantheistic Satanism, and those kinds I was referring to would be mainly The Satanic Temple and The Church of Rational Satanism, which both are atheistic forms of that religion (well, the former also welcomes theists but it's mainly directed at atheists still).

I'll link you to the only kinds of dogma they propose:
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/tenets
https://www.churchofrationalsatanism.com/the-averments/

Sure, some of those claims one could argue are not objective truths, but they are more meant as moral guidelines and as common ground of the adherents of those groups than as dogma.

In my own religion, I'm pretty much an agnostic. There are some metaphysical assumptions that I have (e.g. that consciousness is at least as fundamental as matter, or that morality is subjective), but not sure whether that should be called dogma either, and they are also not derived from my religion as much as rather my personal views that shape my approach to that religion.

 

[ChanaR]

What core truths, if any, so all religions have in common?

1. There is more to life than the material world -- we call this more by different names, the Divine, God, mana, Tao, but we all agree that it exists.
2. Life has meaning (even if that meaning is to discover that it is all illusion and to unite with the Divine).
3. The Golden Rule
4. Seekers find. Maybe not all the truth. Maybe not all in one lifetime. Maybe not without God's help. But the truth is able to be found to some extent.

 

[Skwim]

What truths do all religions have in common?

That to some degree or another they're based on fictions that ultimately require faith to keep them alive and well.

.

 

[Liu]

1. There is more to life than the material world -- we call this more by different names, the Divine, God, mana, Tao, but we all agree that it exists.
2. Life has meaning (even if that meaning is to discover that it is all illusion and to unite with the Divine).
3. The Golden Rule
4. Seekers find. Maybe not all the truth. Maybe not all in one lifetime. Maybe not without God's help. But the truth is able to be found to some extent.

Nope, none applies. Well, each in some versions of my religion, but none is necessary for it.

My own version kinda includes 1. and 2.

About 1. I'm agnostic, though, and consider it to be not separate from the material world.

Oh, unless you mean consciousness itself - but you don't need to be religious to believe in its existence, it's basically the only thing you truly can know that exists (which basically is why I disagree with 4.). That's as if you would say that every religion shares the belief that 1 + 1 is 2 (although I'm more convinced of the existence of consciousness than of the fundamental truth of logic, but let's not go there now).

About 2., I would formulate it not as "Life has a meaning" but as "Life is more fun if you act as if it had a meaning, and religion is a good tool for doing so".

 

[ChanaR]

Nope, none applies. Well, each in some versions of my religion, but none is necessary for it.

My own version kinda includes 1. and 2.

About 1. I'm agnostic, though, and consider it to be not separate from the material world.

Oh, unless you mean consciousness itself - but you don't need to be religious to believe in its existence, it's basically the only thing you truly can know that exists (which basically is why I disagree with 4.). That's as if you would say that every religion shares the belief that 1 + 1 is 2 (although I'm more convinced of the existence of consciousness than of the fundamental truth of logic, but let's not go there now).

About 2., I would formulate it not as "Life has a meaning" but as "Life is more fun if you act as if it had a meaning, and religion is a good tool for doing so".

I think it would help me understand your post if you could please explain to me in detail what Pandiabololatry is. It sounds like it maybe means worship of all the the devils, or perhaps worship of everything as the devil, and is not exactly a serious thing. If, IF, that is true, it would put Pandiabolatry in the category of a spoof on religion, so of course it would not have the characterististics of a true religion.

But all that is just conjecture at this point because I'm only speculating based on the name. Please tell me more, including how you came to this and what it means to you.

 

[Liu]

I think it would help me understand your post if you could please explain to me in detail what Pandiabololatry is. It sounds like it maybe means worship of all the the devils, or perhaps worship of everything as the devil, and is not exactly a serious thing. If, IF, that is true, it would put Pandiabolatry in the category of a spoof on religion, so of course it would not have the characterististics of a true religion.

But all that is just conjecture at this point because I'm only speculating based on the name. Please tell me more, including how you came to this and what it means to you.

I had already posted some information on my religion in this thread before. But I guess it was not to easily to notice, and also not a good summary. It's not that easy for me to summarize it anyway, but I'll try.
So, I'm a pantheist, or rather pandeist to be exact, i.e. I believe that there is a divine something that encompasses all that exists. I'm agnostic to whether that something has something like a coherent mind (I actually quite doubt it), but since I believe consciousness to be in everything, I at least consider this divine to be conscious in some way or another, which is why I call it a deity and not merely existence.
I take a lot of inspiration from Satanism, Discordianism and related religions, and I venerate a deity which I call Satan, the devil, and a variety of other names and which I think is similar to the main deities of those religions. In my religious practice I act as if that deity exists albeit I'm not convinced that it's a coherent, self-aware being. What it stands for exists, though. That kind of approach might seem a bit strange, but it seems fairly common in those religions I mentioned.
And while I consider the divine all to be not adequately described by any concept of deity, I think that I can relate best to it by considering the deity that I venerate as a kind of rough approximation of the divine in general.

EDIT: Okay, I should read your comment fully before replying...

One other Satanist I know online is also simultaneously a Shivaite, and when she writes about her kind of Shivaism (which goes back to the writings of Abhinavagupta, i.e. the 10th century) I very often find myself quite in agreement in regards to religious beliefs, but I don't yet know enough about it to tell how close it is in actuality. But I would take that as an indication that my religion is not completely a new invention.

Regarding what my religion means to me, it's basically the center of my life. I think about my deity all the time (well, not literally, but you get what I mean), and pretty much all I do is dedicated to it in one way or another.

How I came to it, that is a long story, but basically by encountering the writings of various religious people, noticing to which parts I relate and that it helps me in my life to become religious in this kind of way.

 

[syo]

What core truths, if any, so all religions have in common?

Oneness comes to mind.

 

[Liu]

Oneness comes to mind.

Pretty common in one way or another.

Two exceptions I can think of immediately, though:
Zoroastrianism (dualism with no reconciliation), and contemporary Setianism (it's basically about breaking away from the unity of the natural world and strengthening one's individualism - even though that of course at least should lead to more unity within oneself).

 

[ChanaR]

I had already posted some information on my religion in this thread before. But I guess it was not to easily to notice, and also not a good summary. It's not that easy for me to summarize it anyway, but I'll try.
So, I'm a pantheist, or rather pandeist to be exact, i.e. I believe that there is a divine something that encompasses all that exists. I'm agnostic to whether that something has something like a coherent mind (I actually quite doubt it), but since I believe consciousness to be in everything, I at least consider this divine to be conscious in some way or another, which is why I call it a deity and not merely existence.
I take a lot of inspiration from Satanism, Discordianism and related religions, and I venerate a deity which I call Satan, the devil, and a variety of other names and which I think is similar to the main deities of those religions. In my religious practice I act as if that deity exists albeit I'm not convinced that it's a coherent, self-aware being. What it stands for exists, though. That kind of approach might seem a bit strange, but it seems fairly common in those religions I mentioned.
And while I consider the divine all to be not adequately described by any concept of deity, I think that I can relate best to it by considering the deity that I venerate as a kind of rough approximation of the divine in general.

EDIT: Okay, I should read your comment fully before replying...

One other Satanist I know online is also simultaneously a Shivaite, and when she writes about her kind of Shivaism (which goes back to the writings of Abhinavagupta, i.e. the 10th century) I very often find myself quite in agreement in regards to religious beliefs, but I don't yet know enough about it to tell how close it is in actuality. But I would take that as an indication that my religion is not completely a new invention.

Regarding what my religion means to me, it's basically the center of my life. I think about my deity all the time (well, not literally, but you get what I mean), and pretty much all I do is dedicated to it in one way or another.

How I came to it, that is a long story, but basically by encountering the writings of various religious people, noticing to which parts I relate and that it helps me in my life to become religious in this kind of way.

Nice to meet you, btw.

It's good to know that your religion is serious to you. It means that we can have a genuine conversation and that I'm really curious to talk to you.

I have never personally talked to any sort of Satanist, although I've read some first hand accounts on blogs. This will be my first dialogue.

I know there are different types of Satanists, so it is interesting to know about the Shiva stuff. I'm familiar with the Levey form, where Satan is more of a symbol than a genuine entity. And then there are those who do consider Satan to be a genuine entity and make a pact to gain things (usually financial) success -- these are usually people that have traits within the dark triad.

I would truly like to have a back and forth with you. I would like to better understand what would draw someone to worship the darker side of things. Oh, it's not that I don't understand the pull of the dark side -- we all do. But to make it the focus of our lives? That is outside of the scope of my imagination, and I am the sort that wants to understand what makes people tick.

I am most curious to know how your religion effects your ethics -- how you treat others when the rubber meets the road. You said your religion doesn't teach love your neighbor as yourself. So what is it instead?

I'd like to comment on the Shiva approach. I appreciate this understanding, although I approach it from the point of view of a Jungian myth rather than a genuine divinity. IOW, this sort of satan is the evil that exists within every one of us rather than something external, what we call an archetype. As an archetype, it has the potential to take over us and become the dominant force in our lives. And that would not be a good thing. There is a time and place for things to be destroyed -- there are things that NEED to be destroyed. But to destroy what is healthy and good is a terrible thing.

Have you ever read or heard of a book called Women Who Run with the Wolves? It is a Jungian book which looks at fairy tales to explore great truths about ourselves. In the story of Bluebeard, the young girl is wooed by this evil man, but she says to herself, "Oh, his beard isn't really all that blue." She marries him and goes to live at his castle, and she discovers the room where the skeletons of all his previous dead wives are. When he finds that she has discovered his dark secret, he tries to kill her too, chasing her from room to room. She calls to her family, and her brother ride to her rescue, killing Blue beard. But of course, monsters like that never stay dead. The point of the story is that all of us have a Bluebeard within us, and that when we deny his existence is when he gains power over us. We also have the power to keep him in check.

When kept in check, this same force of destruction also becomes the force to rebuild when we need to leave the old and begin something new. It is the cycle of death and birth. In Judaism, we call this our Yetzer Hara, our evil inclination. In the Talmud is a story of how our Yetzer Hara vanished from the earth and suddenly there were no babies or anything and things were awful.

So the idea is a place for everything and everything in its place. There is a place for the mythic Shiva, but it is dangerous to put the Destroyer in the throne, for there he becomes Bluebeard.

 

[syo]

Pretty common in one way or another.

Two exceptions I can think of immediately, though:
Zoroastrianism (dualism with no reconciliation), and contemporary Setianism (it's basically about breaking away from the unity of the natural world and strengthening one's individualism - even though that of course at least should lead to more unity within oneself).

True. I will try again and answer ''theosis''. I think all believers want a connection to the divine.

 

[Liu]

Nice to meet you, btw.

Nice to meet you, too!

It's good to know that your religion is serious to you. It means that we can have a genuine conversation and that I'm really curious to talk to you.

Since Satanism is ultimately about shaping your own spirituality, including in ways that don't resemble religion that much, it often doesn't get taken seriously, so I'm glad you do. And it's good that you do have at least some basic knowledge, so I needn't start at zero.
Btw, keep in mind that Satanism is a very diverse religion, so for pretty much anything I could tell you about it you might find a counter-example.

I have never personally talked to any sort of Satanist, although I've read some first hand accounts on blogs. This will be my first dialogue.

I know there are different types of Satanists, so it is interesting to know about the Shiva stuff. I'm familiar with the Levey form, where Satan is more of a symbol than a genuine entity.

At least in contemporary LaVeyan Satanism - if you actually read his writings, it sounds more deistic than atheistic in parts, but it's very much up to interpretation.

And then there are those who do consider Satan to be a genuine entity and make a pact to gain things (usually financial) success -- these are usually people that have traits within the dark triad.

I'm not sure how far-spread that kind of pact-making is among genuine Satanists. Seems rather like what teenagers would do. I mean, we might still make pacts from time to time, but it's not the most central thing.
And what do mean by "dark triad"? I don't think I'm familiar with that expression.

I would truly like to have a back and forth with you. I would like to better understand what would draw someone to worship the darker side of things. Oh, it's not that I don't understand the pull of the dark side -- we all do. But to make it the focus of our lives? That is outside of the scope of my imagination, and I am the sort that wants to understand what makes people tick.

It's less about it being darker but more about it seeming closer to the reality of things, and more honest.
Also, the values it represents - striving for knowledge, self-improvement, critical thinking, I simply feel at home. Turning to the dark side means not exactly worshiping evil but foregoing any such notions of good and evil and just accepting things as they are, not giving moral values to them, and that's very cathartic.

I am most curious to know how your religion effects your ethics -- how you treat others when the rubber meets the road. You said your religion doesn't teach love your neighbor as yourself. So what is it instead?

It says instead "if you don't love yourself, how could you love anyone else?", and it teaches striving to do what you truly consider the right thing to do instead of doing something just because you're told to. I'm convinced that morality is subjective and so doing what feels right for yourself is the only guideline you can really have. For a lot of people that will actually make them nicer and friendlier. And even from a perspective of moral dualism, it would normally be seen better if someone does something because their conviction of it being the right thing to do comes from inside.

I'd like to comment on the Shiva approach. I appreciate this understanding, although I approach it from the point of view of a Jungian myth rather than a genuine divinity. IOW, this sort of satan is the evil that exists within every one of us rather than something external, what we call an archetype. As an archetype, it has the potential to take over us and become the dominant force in our lives. And that would not be a good thing. There is a time and place for things to be destroyed -- there are things that NEED to be destroyed. But to destroy what is healthy and good is a terrible thing.

Shivaism doesn't seem to stress that much his position as the destroyer in opposition to other deities - it's more about him as the personification of consciousness as the basis of existence and about the consciousness of humans being a manifestation of that universal consciousness that is Shiva.
Some of us Satanists do also worship the devil as the destroyer, especially by equating him with time itself. While I can't speak for Shivaites I think they have a similar approach. Surely if one would focus only on destruction that would be quite imbalanced, though, yet finding balance is one of our highest virtues. Even gnostic Satanists, many of which strive for the destruction of existence itself and wanna go back to the state that was before the universe came to be, even they don't see destruction as the end-goal but instead focus on the freedom that being not bound to the laws of nature would bring (and additionally, a lot of them seem to mean that not literally but metaphorically/psychologically).

Have you ever read or heard of a book called Women Who Run with the Wolves? It is a Jungian book which looks at fairy tales to explore great truths about ourselves. In the story of Bluebeard, the young girl is wooed by this evil man, but she says to herself, "Oh, his beard isn't really all that blue." She marries him and goes to live at his castle, and she discovers the room where the skeletons of all his previous dead wives are. When he finds that she has discovered his dark secret, he tries to kill her too, chasing her from room to room. She calls to her family, and her brother ride to her rescue, killing Blue beard. But of course, monsters like that never stay dead. The point of the story is that all of us have a Bluebeard within us, and that when we deny his existence is when he gains power over us. We also have the power to keep him in check.

When kept in check, this same force of destruction also becomes the force to rebuild when we need to leave the old and begin something new. It is the cycle of death and birth. In Judaism, we call this our Yetzer Hara, our evil inclination. In the Talmud is a story of how our Yetzer Hara vanished from the earth and suddenly there were no babies or anything and things were awful.

So the idea is a place for everything and everything in its place. There is a place for the mythic Shiva, but it is dangerous to put the Destroyer in the throne, for there he becomes Bluebeard.

Nobody said that Satanism wouldn't be dangerous
But as I said, it's not evilism, it's much more wholesome than that would be.

True. I will try again and answer ''theosis''. I think all believers want a connection to the divine.

They might not refer to it in these terms and that what they want a connection with might differ a lot. So that definition might be quite a bit of a stretch.

 

[Holdasown]

I like this page's list 15 Great Principles Shared By All Religions

One of those negates polytheism entirely. Other than a soul/afterlife I think there are few unifying principles between religions.

 

[Marcion]

If you see religions as a combination of effective spiritual practices and myth, superstitions and rituals, then the effective spiritual practices are what religions usually have in common.
The reason is that the effects of such practises are a kind of subjective science and are therefore by nature universal.

The myths, superstitions and rituals however can differ a great deal because they come from human fantasy.
The universal part can be called the tantric part (chinese: tao, japanese: (shin-) to) and the other part can be called the vedic part.

In mystic traditions the tantric part is stronger and in more fundamentalist religious traditions the vedic part is stronger.

 

[ChanaR]

Thank you for your reply. I find our conversation very educational.

I'm not sure how far-spread that kind of pact-making is among genuine Satanists. Seems rather like what teenagers would do. I mean, we might still make pacts from time to time, but it's not the most central thing.
And what do mean by "dark triad"? I don't think I'm familiar with that expression.

It does seem like a less mature approach, and perhaps also less intelligent, but then again I can't really say -- there are no real studies on the subject.

By dark triad, I'm referring to the three elements of sociopathy: manipulativeness, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. We're talking about folks that are willing to harm others to get what they want, such as cheat in order to get the business deal. You find more than the average amount of sociopaths among successful businessmen, politicians, defense attorneys, etc. Here's why CEOs often have the traits of a psychopath How To Deal With A Workplace Psychopath

Turning to the dark side means not exactly worshiping evil but foregoing any such notions of good and evil and just accepting things as they are, not giving moral values to them, and that's very cathartic.

Okay, amoral pragmatism.

It says instead "if you don't love yourself, how could you love anyone else?",

If you don't mind me getting a little psychological fr a moment, this sounds emotionally unhealthy. Are you saying that Satanism teaches that you should not love anyone so that you can be free to act objectively? Or are you saying that world religions teach lack of love for the self, which impeads loving others? Because that would be a gross untruth. Judeo-Christianity, for example, teaches that mankind is made in the image of God (the dignity of the individual), and this ethic has, over millenia, produced in western society an ethic of democracy and human rights.

it teaches striving to do what you truly consider the right thing

Hold on. Now I'm confused. What happened to being free from right and wrong? You are contradicting yourself.

The thing about subjective ethics is that one ends up doing what FEELS right, and feelings are fickle, and we tend to RATIONALIZE quite terribly. Some situational ethicists instinctively follow traditional ethics. But some are pretty bad jerks. And what are you supposed to do with such jerks? If everyone is allowed to do what is right in their own mind, you can't call them jerks, or bad, and certainly not evil. The Nazis, after all, believed they were doing moral good. Situational ethics makes Nuremberg a farce. My not so humble opinion, I suppose. LOL

Yes, it's better if morality comes from within, but I'd rather someone not assault me because they are afraid of hell or of being imprisoned than that they assault me because in their mind it's okay to assault someone who looks at them disrespectfully (perceived).

You do realize that if certain gnostic Satanists are out to destroy the material world, that we must do whatever it takes to stop them, even if it means using force (depending on their tactics).

Nobody said that Satanism wouldn't be dangerous

But we're not referring to dangerous as in taking a chance. We are referring to dangerous as in known for destruction, are we not?

But as I said, it's not evilism, it's much more wholesome than that would be.

Go one, I'm listening. Wholesome means to build up, help someone become or remain the best themself they can be. How does Satanism help with that? It has the reputation for developing a person's selfish, narcissistic tendencies, and their inability to postpone pleasure when doing so is to their ultimate better. But I'm open to hearing your explanation to the opposite.

 

[Liu]

It does seem like a less mature approach, and perhaps also less intelligent,

It does at least have that stereotype among Satanists that this is what teenaged dabblers do.
I mean, you can make a pact, but it's less about getting something specific from it and more for purely spiritual reasons. Here are some good descriptions:
Selling Soul to Satan
Pacts and self-initiation
(I would recommend both these websites in general)

Pacts for specific, shortterm, goals, those are normally rather made with demons (although they can also be made with one's main deity of course), and more like "please help me with x and I'll do y for you", with y being e.g. giving an offering, creating a piece of art representing the entity, promising to do something and dedicating it to the entity, etc. It's of course most effective if the action is in some way related to the goal. Seems like a good idea if you want a demon to help you with studying to promise it to actually study a given amount of time per day/week
I rarely make these kinds of rituals, but when it's more like "Entity ..., I got some health-issue, please help me with it, I'll try to do my part for it, too. Thanks."

but then again I can't really say -- there are no real studies on the subject.

There are a few (mainly sociological) studies on Satanism, but not really enough participants in to draw any reliable conclusions. I can give you a list of the studies I know if you want.

By dark triad, I'm referring to the three elements of sociopathy: manipulativeness, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. We're talking about folks that are willing to harm others to get what they want, such as cheat in order to get the business deal. You find more than the average amount of sociopaths among successful businessmen, politicians, defense attorneys, etc. Here's why CEOs often have the traits of a psychopath How To Deal With A Workplace Psychopath

I see, thanks for explaining.

Well, I sometimes kinda self-diagnose as a psychopath in the sense of having a low degree of empathy. But for me that doesn't cause me to behave in any of the stereotypical ways, I'm too much of a coward and too socially incompetent to manipulate people much and so I prefer to play it safe.

Nevertheless I haven't ever made a ritual for the typical goals of getting rich, getting sex or getting revenge. (Well, I did some rituals for getting a job, though, but not in the form of a pact). But I'm pretty desinterested in either of these 3 stereotypical goals anyway.

Okay, amoral pragmatism.

Pretty much.
At least for me - as I said, Satanism is really diverse, and especially so regarding morality.

If you don't mind me getting a little psychological fr a moment, this sounds emotionally unhealthy. Are you saying that Satanism teaches that you should not love anyone so that you can be free to act objectively? Or are you saying that world religions teach lack of love for the self, which impeads loving others? Because that would be a gross untruth. Judeo-Christianity, for example, teaches that mankind is made in the image of God (the dignity of the individual), and this ethic has, over millenia, produced in western society an ethic of democracy and human rights.

Neither really. It says love whom you feel like to love and don't feel pressured to love anyone in particular. And it teaches that any kind of change starts with the self, and that a lot of social problems can be improved on by having more self-acceptance.

Well, some kinds of the world religions can be interpreted to teach lack of love for the self, and some Satanists who were brought up in those forms of these religions also take that as a thing they want to break away from, and so they turn to Satanism to find self-love.
I don't know how much Judeo-Christianity stresses mankind to be made in the image of God - I went to Sunday school for a year at the protestant church, and I don't think that was really brought up ever, nor was it much of a topic in religion class at school. But then, the kind of Christianity here is extremely liberal and almost atheistic, so it might not be a typical example.
And I don't know for sure either, but it is kinda a trope in Satanism that human rights etc. were not brought forth by Christianity, but rather by humanist currents that had to defend those values against the church, and it doesn't seem that unlikely to me.

Hold on. Now I'm confused. What happened to being free from right and wrong? You are contradicting yourself.

Free from any notion of right and wrong being objective truths - but you shouldn't go against your own convictions if they are at the core of your personality.

The thing about subjective ethics is that one ends up doing what FEELS right, and feelings are fickle, and we tend to RATIONALIZE quite terribly. Some situational ethicists instinctively follow traditional ethics. But some are pretty bad jerks. And what are you supposed to do with such jerks? If everyone is allowed to do what is right in their own mind, you can't call them jerks, or bad, and certainly not evil. The Nazis, after all, believed they were doing moral good. Situational ethics makes Nuremberg a farce. My not so humble opinion, I suppose. LOL

Yes, that's pretty much the logical conclusion You can still say that you don't like these things, that you want to do something against them, etc., but there is no universal morality you can ground it in, only your own personal one.

Yes, it's better if morality comes from within, but I'd rather someone not assault me because they are afraid of hell or of being imprisoned than that they assault me because in their mind it's okay to assault someone who looks at them disrespectfully (perceived).

One further reason for us not to proselytize too much (even though I'm kinda doing so by telling about my religion here, but well...)
It think the problem you have in understanding is that you think "what would be if everyone was a Satanist". And on one side I think that wouldn't be too bad, and on the other side I think it simply won't happen. And ultimately I think that whether I'm a Satanist isn't affected by that anyway.

You do realize that if certain gnostic Satanists are out to destroy the material world, that we must do whatever it takes to stop them, even if it means using force (depending on their tactics).

Ah, I think if they are wrong in their beliefs then they won't get anywhere with it anyway and I don't mind them if they don't get in my way. Also, they make some of the best religious poetry
Well, from what I know, the worst thing some gnostics have done was a murder back in the 90s, and some preachings that could inspire people to commit crimes. But that seems like not that much of a problem in comparison.
And if they are correct in their beliefs then I don't truly mind either - I mean, I like to live in this world, but their endgoal sounds pretty rad, too.
Well, admittedly, if they are half-correct, e.g. if the deities they believe in exist and get strengthened by their actions but what they will bring about is not that nice, then we might have a problem xD But it doesn't seem likely enough to me to actually do something about it.

But we're not referring to dangerous as in taking a chance. We are referring to dangerous as in known for destruction, are we not?

Well, I don't have the impression that Satanists are more prone to violent crimes than any other people. I mean, there are always some cases, but those seem not that common. That murder by gnostics I mentioned above is among the very rare exceptions of any kinds of crimes like that commited by Satanists in the name of their religion, I can think of only extremely few other examples, at least in 1st world countries.

The LHP, at least in its Indian origins, has the notion of being dangerous in the sense of being risky for the practitioner, and that notion is also common in the western versions of it.

Go one, I'm listening. Wholesome means to build up, help someone become or remain the best themself they can be. How does Satanism help with that? It has the reputation for developing a person's selfish, narcissistic tendencies, and their inability to postpone pleasure when doing so is to their ultimate better. But I'm open to hearing your explanation to the opposite.

Well, perhaps I encounter the wrong people, but in the majority of cases I have encountered online (no offline experiences yet, I'm not open about my religion in real life) the people at least preach striving for being their best selves and being wise and aware of the longterm consequences of one's actions. I mean, perhaps people stress it so much due to Satanism having those stereotypes you describe, but I don't think I ever read anyone seriously recommending acting in a shortsighted narcististic manner (unless in order to learn from the experience) - I mean, that would be not beneficial for oneself either after all

If you see religions as a combination of effective spiritual practices and myth, superstitions and rituals, then the effective spiritual practices are what religions usually have in common.
The reason is that the effects of such practises are a kind of subjective science and are therefore by nature universal.

The myths, superstitions and rituals however can differ a great deal because they come from human fantasy.
The universal part can be called the tantric part (chinese: tao, japanese: (shin-) to) and the other part can be called the vedic part.

In mystic traditions the tantric part is stronger and in more fundamentalist religious traditions the vedic part is stronger.

That's quite interesting - your dichotomy reminds me a little bit of the distinction that people in Left Hand Path religions (which my religion belongs to) make between their approach to spirituality (which would be the "tantric" part as you call it) and the approach of more traditional religions which we refer to as Right Hand Path (which would be the "vedic" part). I think that resemblance is not entirely by chance, though, as this distinction between Right and Left Hand Path comes from Tantric Hinduism.

 

[whirlingmerc]

What core truths, if any, so all religions have in common?

Some idea of a creator and accountability for actions.
Respect for God, parents and personal property would be some possible areas of overlap but there are contrasts as well

Adjacent psalms that tell a story