Reincarnation is questionable such as …
“I am a center of expression, for the primal will to good, which eternally creates and sustains the universe.”, Revelation of St John where a believer is given a new body or new clothing, other religions that have it as part of their beliefs.
Then some atheists I know are good people.
I guess the ultimate question is, do you want to be the leader of the pack, create your own universe, those are fair temptations.
Finally, I think its unfair to be tormented for eternity to not handling your life properly, and laws that seem to clash with medical and mental health (including sex or new miracle food that’s forbidden).
Personally, I find murder, theft, bullying, threats, overcompetition, greediness, hypocrisy to be evil, or at least retarded in its design.
An African warlord hogs all resources, starves the people and creates a pestilence. While he lives in the lap of luxury. That’s bullying, that’s theft, that’s greedy, that’s evil.
Hitler and Hussein murdered a lot of people, unless those murdered were going to be the undoing of human civilization, that would be murder, evil.
Harmony and balance is the key, isn’t it?
I guess in my mind would be leaders and followers as good examples of LHP and rhp…
It just seems unfair to live in perpetual fear.
1 Like
Change your mind? No.
If you are acting in such bad faith and inauthenticity that you can not choose for yourself then you do not belong either here or in the Catholic church.
Remember the words of Christ; “You are either hot or cold, for me or against me. I will vomit the luke warm out of my mouth” (Rev 3:16) What goes for Christ goes equally for the Devil.
Step up to the plate, get a grip, take responsibility and choose…
1 Like
Oh I’m not asking to pick for me. I’m saying can you put to me this path is the weak dilutional self destructive path it’s claimed.
The base arguments I’ve heard are understandable, Timothy’s monotone rant that “the creator has to be created therefore it is a lie” has merit but it only a limited argument.
I has reason to argue god could be anti matter. As the theory is anti matter compressing in on itself created matter. Can we test or measure anti matter? If not then it’s a incomplete argument. It’s a good point but in full it’s lacking
My purpose here is to question the questioners
5 Likes
Have a look at Walter Russell’s Atomic suicide it has a compelling theory about the “Creator” in question.
I find his white magnetic light of the Creator to be very interesting.
1 Like
Actually that was one part of his argument I disagreed with almost completely. For that argument to hold any weight one must first assume that there is only one universe (as we understand it scientifically). What creates this universe is not neccessarily what creates another. Also bear in mind that not all RHP defer to a divine authority/creative force, or at least not a sentient one.
4 Likes
Haha…
well simply put @telgega , the LHP allows a person to do whatever they want, whenever they want to do it. Christianity cant compete with that level of freedom. At most, Christianity could tie with the LHP if it bent and broke every rule in the book to allow you to do what you wanted with magick…but it can never top it. Literally everything you’re doing under the Christian banner can be done under the LHP…because there are no rules and regulations you are required to follow except those you place on yourself. So as far as im concerned, the LHP makes Christianity obsolete
2 Likes
By this logic if lhp is individualism and rhp is community.could it be argued that neither are a moral or immoral path. But a path of ideals we agree and adhear to.
1 Like
i guess so. it depends on how you use it. I mean, i dont even necessarily agree lhp strictly means individualism. it certainly can be, and is often used that way…but theres nothing stopping a left hand pather from working purely in a communal fashion and solely for the benefit of others. LHP = freedom
2 Likes
Treading as softly as I can because I don’t want to jump down your throat 
but this forum is NOT a cult, people are welcome from ALL faiths and viewpoints, provided they keep their chill when meeting people who they don’t agree with.
I can literally think of nothing worse that it becoming a “problem” for someone to show individuality, and for some form of conformity, maybe under a mask of “we’re all victims and have to think alike” to start to emerge.
I said the same in response to a thread by Asbjorn only recently here and I stand by that.
@telgega - the chaos magick concept of belief being its own force in magick kind of rules out someone proving you wrong, the use of “subjective synthesis” - synthesising subjective immersion in a belief for a period of time - is also a magickal concept.
You’d probably be more likely to be argued out of Catholicism by a dogmatic Catholic who wants to pick apart your practices than by one of us! 
But I have more on the topic, below…
Except OP has the longest running and most focused working thread on here, with lots of good feedback from people… 
Okay here’s my argument against RHP as I understand that to be defined here and posted my experiences here:
It seems to be the case that all life in our cosmos tends over time towards more freedom, more complexity, and more power both for the individual, and for its species; and towards more variety of territory, experience, and also, more opportunities to increase new lifeforms with the same DNA, or with advanced changes classed as evolution.
Living beings do not spontaneously degenerate their genetics nor restrict the spread of offspring, limit their freedoms, shun novelty, or refuse power and conqest of new territories.
RHP beliefs tend to emphasise conformity of belief, which dictates the entire internal landscape from what is experienced as desirable and disgusting on an emotional level, through to fine intellectual analysis:
-
either in the Abrahamic branches in terms of one body of the faithful under God and seeking the eternal peace of Paradise, with a strong focus on policing both themselves and one another in adhering to one, single, unified understanding of how this can be done;
-
or in the east, towards an even deeper merger back into the godhead, releasing all personal individuation, by accepting a guru as the model of a perfected “self-realised” person whose actions are considered superior to one’s own instincts and normal society, and which must be emulated as far as possible in order to attain the tresults the guru has attained.
These are actions towards less life, less power, less complexity, and less individuality, and are not found in natural patterns - I see them as akin to the way some animal species will reabsorb a fetus that isn’t developing well enough to survive birth.
If God/Source/Parashiva etc JUST wanted eternal bliss, no “suffering” and no separation, “it” could have refused to create individuated life, like an author who wants to write novels, but can’t bear to inflict uncertainty, loss, and mishaps on their characters. A kind of Anti-R.R.Martin!
Likewise, if all God wanted was a heaven where sin was both undesired by its denizens, and impossible to commit, why not simply create endless heaven, and nothing less?
But this didn’t happen, plainly, so we’re left with ideas about a Fall, whether the Garden of Eden, or the concept Brahma lusted after his daughter… they all say manifest life was basically someone’s mistake.
That matches the pathology of shaming oneself and others, of hating life and not feeling entitled to totally revel in it, and the linked attempts to avoid pain and experience that characterise various damaging mental states, including depression - but I don’t just take this from my own experiences but from observations of the world around me, including other people’s mental and emotional malaise.
If the world, if LIFE, is a mistake, a fallen state, why ever try to do anything except kill people who haven’t agreed with you (Abrahamic) on this, or leave them to their miserable fate whilst renouncing everything in hopes of getting back to harmony (eastern)?
Both on a gut level, and also based on the patterns of all life described above, and common logic, I don’t believe these things to be correct, YES I believe we are all “within the mind of the All” BUT we’re here to flourish, not to try and crawl back inside the mythic womb of Union, and cease ourselves out of existence as individuated beings.
If the Source even had a “should” of any kind, it appears on our level of reality to be about seeking more life, more power, and more freedom, as ourselves, and not in attempting to self-erase, or escape.
That is my objection to the RHP, first and foremost - that it’s basically anti-life, because it reveres a state other than embodied life as ultimately superior and to be sought, often by methods that infringe on the rights and freedoms of other living beings.
Unlike the infringements on other lifeforms created by hunting, gathering vegetable food, or by the many species which farm or corral a different being for food or other resources, these infringements in the name of faith have no certain boundaries – a wolf will stop when he’s fed himself, and his pack, and maybe buried some prey for later; a man will stop clearing a forest once the need that drove it is met, but the only killing we see as both indiscriminate and potentially unceasing is motivated by idealism, often simply by the suspicion that someone, somewhere, is thinking wrongful throughts (a concept which has reached its apotheosis in cultural marxism, and the policing of the thoughts of others).
This kind of idealism finds its natural outlet in religion, which surpasses individual madness and can convince entire societies to commit atrocities because they are the right thing to do - see, the Stanford Prison & Milgram experiments for why this is uniquely dangerous.
Going back to the apparent desirability of manifest life, even the fact spirits enjoy possessing people, sharing offerings, inhabiting idols, and so on, seems to indicate this 3-D world isn’t such a terrible place to be.
Physical reality, to me, “just is” and getting used to it, learning to make it a bit nicer and master siddhis and so on, seems to me a good use of it, instead of trying to come up with 1,000 workarounds of how a perfect being fucked up, and will damn people to hell or endless rebirths of suffering for really minor things.
2 Likes
Now that’s a well thought out statement
1 Like
How can you violate the first commandment by being a magician yet still call yourself a Catholic?
1 Like
Magic had nothing to do with worship of a god
1 Like
Regardless, doesn’t the Bible condemn magick?
Depending on the perspective you take while you read it and the other religious texts, it is a “how to” for magick. 
studying it is what lead me to go to the archangel Michael to learn ways to defend myself.
1 Like
The first law states no god before God. Question becomes what is a god per say. Catholics venerate the saints, canonized humans who performed worked of divinity. Technically that breaks the first law. Because it puts a higher being before the Lord.
Catholics also encourage spiritual gifts, something that separates them from most mainstream braches of Christianity.
A vision to a Catholic is a vision from God.
A vision from a baptist might be seen as possession from the devil.
Interesting fact is Moses was branded a warlock by pharoh
2 Likes
Irony is this “god” states he is not the only “god” and that there are indeed many “gods”. 
Another fun fact the name of god used in some systems Elohim means Pantheon or Gods
So in ritual is it used to call on the “Gods”
1 Like
More fun facts and a bit of head turning.
YHVH, ADNI, AHIH and AGLA used in lbrp
YHVH
The “unpronouncable” name of god. If correctly intoned is said to create and destroy reality. Again in the context of viewing divine as an external force the self is not the main seat of creation and destruction.
From the perspective of the black magician our divine or infernal depending on the view power is the seat from which creation and destruction take place.
Adonai - My Lords
So we are calling on the lords in one direction of reality to move in our cause.
AHIH
I am or i will be
A state of being OR becoming depending on intent.
So in another direction we declare our stance of becoming or being.
AGLA
Atah Gibor Le-olam Adonai,“You, O Lord, are mighty forever.” Taken in a state of being it aims this at an outside force. When looked at from the state of becoming you are saying YOUR divine aspects are mighty.
I am not and have never been reglious by societies standards. As such the idea of “Worship” has never sat right with me. But the idea of giving thanks for lessons learned i can agree with, hence why when i work with entites that make themselves known and teach me, i give thanks and i may devote myself to their teachings if it helps me grow. But i do not worship in the sense of surrendering my energy to an outside force.
3 Likes