Difference Between the Left Hand Path and Satanism

[Nefastos]

I'm interested, how would you present the difference between the Left Hand Path & Satanism?

Are not both of these about individualism & esoterical striving to one's personal empowerment or development? Is it a matter of religiosity, like LHP worker being able to be an atheist, while a Satanist must believe in some kind of divinity? Or is there more - or less - to it than that?

Would you consider yourself a Left Hand Path devotee or/and a Satanist?

[Wyrmfang]

I wouldn´t certainly make the distinction based on religiosity because the largest and the most well known Satanic organization is mostly atheistic. Maybe Satan worshipper might be the correct term if one wants to emphasize religiosity.

The difference might often be hard to draw, but perhaps Satanism involves a stronger element of opposition than LHP? For example some forms of Wicca, dealing with the darker side of nature might be called LHP, but I think Satanism must be something more aggressive in some level.

Edit: Regarding myself, I have, in many instances, given up both these terms, because often the same points can be made effectively with less provocative terms. When the environment is appropriate. like here, I call myself a Satanist because my focus is in evolution and opposing lies rather than in "dark spirituality" which is commonly used as synonym for LHP, at least in academic studies.

[Nefastos]

The difference might often be hard to draw, but perhaps Satanism involves a stronger element of opposition than LHP?

Sounds good. Although I've often claimed it's absurd to call Satanism something that doesn't see Satan as a real being but only as a symbol, your interpretation is etymologically valid, Satan having both meanings of an and the opponent.

Would you consider yourself a Left Hand Path devotee or/and a Satanist?

Yes and Yes. As a Satanist I remain quite unorthodox, but the name being what it is - necessarily paradox in itself - I don't see that so problematic. I take it almost as granted that if someone considers himself a Satanist, it can't be understood too easily, for such a philosophy necessarily has some puzzling (seemingly, hopefully not actually, controversial) elements.

Maybe the difference could be taken in that light, too: the LHP can be fully rational (although it often isn't), while Satanism has more to do with the subliminal & unconscious side of one's holistic Self.

[Jiva]

Coming from an atheist position I view Satan as a Jungian archetype: fulfilling the role of the wise old man. Jung stated that “Lucifer” would have been a good name for the archetype if the name wasn't so prejudicial. Therefore I see Satan as a part of what could be termed LHP spirituality or philosophy. Having said that, I don't think any archetype can be classified as entirely LHP or RHP.

Although I refer to things as LHP in relation to my personal beliefs, it's more a convenient term to use than an accurate description. I've never classified myself as a Satanist, although perhaps the equally vague label of Satanist is better due to the “paradox in itself”. However I would hesitate to use the term "Satanist" when speaking to someone in person as I consider it a very confrontational term, although this isn't a problem as I barely talk to anyone about my beliefs this way.

[Cancer]

...often the same points can be made effectively with less provocative terms.

Or can they? I'm not stating that I know better, I just think this is an interesting question. If taking it up is too off-topic, then please move this post.

I mean: why isn't Satanism called something else, if some less provocative name could express the philosophy adequately? Hasn't the name's "shock-value" actually got a great importance to its meaning?

Of course it is mostly useless and stupid to make a show of being a Satanist in front of strangers, if there is no other intention than provoking fright (or ridicule!), but in a cultural context the name of Satan is in my opinion definitely a positive statement. It is chosen by Satanists not in spite of, but because it is mostly equated with evil; the point is not to "purify" the name but, by choosing it, to get people to think more about the dark, neglected aspects of this culture and life in general. The name calls forth those aspects, so to speak, and if it became totally neutral, it would no longer serve its purpose.

My approach on this might sound very relativistic, but I want to stress that I do believe in Satan as a really existing archetype and not just a symbol. The name, however, is a symbol and could in theory be changed, though in practice the process would be very long, because in the sphere of culture symbols have a kind of objective existence.

The SoA is, I think, modifying the symbol-structure of our society as a kind of surplus work, and I hope that this is leading people to see trough symbols more clearly, instead of only making Satan's name more acceptable. Because, after it has become acceptable, all the dark and frightful things will just be projected to some other symbol.

[Sebomai]

I won't quote because I'm just madly in love with the ENTIRE previous response. It sums up so many of my own feelings perfectly. I don't discuss in depth details of my practice or faith with just anyone but I'm actually really damned PROUD of using the name "Satanist" for myself pretty openly. It has NO personal negative connotations as even the most horrific aspects of the Dark Mask have entirely positive meanings and applications philosophically and spiritually.

I will add this though. I have seen so so many responses to the question of what satanism is as well as what LHP is that, for me, one of the most defining characteristics of both is their adaptability to individual interpretation. If one removes that flexibility, we risk becoming just as dogmatic as any RHP we may be cranky about. That is why I have an issue with a CoS member saying Satanism IS atheistic. Or a Satan worshipper saying Satanism MUST be theistic. You bring that rigidity into it, remove the phrase "for ME Satanism is..." from the equation, and you've basically got the exact same attitude as the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church and feel it is okay to come up with a big list of what is acceptable belief, practice, etc. The fact that we shy away from that actually makes the SoA one of the absolute most truly Satanic organizations I've discovered, personally. There is a very wide array of personal stances that one can take within the guidelines of the threefold key and none of those stances are declared "wrong." One of our credos could very well be "And it harm none, believe what thou wilt."

[Benemal]

I agree. I would never have joined a brotherhood, that has strict rules and a consensus. That would be like a cult. I was always against religion and SoA is not a religion. I have my unique and insane view and I disagree foolishly, with people who are much wiser than me. I believe, we can't be told the right way, but we have to find it by taking many wrong ones.

[Insanus]

I have my unique and insane view and I disagree foolishly, with people who are much wiser than me. I believe, we can't be told the right way, but we have to find it by taking many wrong ones.

This is true wisdom.

[obnoxion]

I consider being more on the LHP. I am a religious person, and for me it has always been more about worship than philosophy. Having begun to identify myself this way at quite an early age, my views and practices were somewhat aggressive at the beginning, as often is the case with the interests of teenage boys. But since then my spirituality has been very accepting and non-aggressive, and I really cannot see myself as a person in strong opposition. The adoration of the feminine principle is absolutely central for me, and this aspect is also very central to original meaning of the LHP in the Orient, but seems somewhat marginal and misunderstood in Occidental Satanism.