Well, fanfiction no, but biblical... well, do remember the bible doesn't really say much about satan, other than it (assuming the biblical satan is even a singular being) occasionally trying to tempt people away from its pappy.
And being aligned with the demons, which basically don't seem to do anything except make life as terrible as possible for some poor sods. It's also kind of implied in 1 John that he/she/it is the embodiment of everything wrong with the world, not in the sense of teh gayz, but in the sense of bone cancer in six year olds. Which is part of why I'm quizzing Conradine like this, because presumably they don't worship Satan as represented in the Bible, because I doubt any reasonable person likes cancer in kids.
The devil (heh) is in the details, arx. Each of those gates have something in them that, while broadly speaking in line with what western traditions may consider good, are explicitly contrary to what many western traditions -- especially christianity -- consider holy.
As the example, christianity has a strong message disdaining personal responsibility to any fundamental degree (forgiveness, god's will),
"For faith without deeds is dead."
"It would be better for a millstone to be tied around their neck and for them to be thrown into the sea than for them to cause the least of these little ones to stumble."
Sort of. The thing most people forget about is that if you're not doing your absolute level best to not sin, you're screwing up on a slightly more abstract faith-based level.
encourages what satanism (so far as I'm aware) would consider disordinate passions (such as holy fervor)
I guess? It's not one of the defining features of Christianity, though - frothing is generally a better indicator of doing something wrong than right.
barely gives a damn about intoxicating substances (alcohol, in particular, is broadly speaking A-Okay)
Just because Satanism requires
more asceticism doesn't mean it can't align with Christian values.
is perfectly okay with harming others under many conditions
I've probably made myself clear on this point before, but it's entirely possible to interpret Christianity such that the only time it is ever remotely acceptable to harm a believer or non-believer is when leaving them unharmed would have a definite negative effect on other believers or non-believers, in which case you can make the same argument under Satanism for non-pacifism.
encourages or allows many of the forbidden occupations (particularly the animal slaughter bit)
The only ones you can really interpret Christianity as
supporting are the ones about the arms industry (if you take a slightly contorted approach) and the slaughtering industry. But again, just because it's more ascetic doesn't take it out of line.
encourages divisive speech (proselytizing)
You can make a strong case that if your proselytism is divisive you're doing it wrong, but I'll concede that point.
has desire for (god's) recognition as what amounts to a core tenant of its beliefs
But completely rejects
egoism and narcissistic habits, and requires that you keep your good deeds completely concealed. To a certain extent though, yeah.
and considers the ultimate goal to be the acquiring of an external good (god's blessing/salvation, which cannot come from the self).
Fair point.
Many other western traditions are... well, of a similar nature. The gates are considered unholy because they're contrary to what is considered holy, more or less, so far as I understand things.
The only actual
contrary thing is the ultimate goal being from within/without, though. Asceticism is pretty commonly a holy goal, and that's basically what the gates are, just progressively.
It's a long and weird, although inspirating, story. Our founder brought much of the Theravada teachings with him when he left Siam, but his life philosphy different significantly in several crucial aspect. One of them is that we don't think at the world as an illusion or projection, neither approve a passive acceptation of suffering. Instead, we focus a lot on preventing the suffering, using every tool that science, technology, spirituality and experience could gave us.
Is that life philosophy actually recorded somewhere, though? I assume it must be, since I doubt you keep the text of the eight gates (point of respect: would you rather I capitalised those? Wouldn't like to offend) exactly memorised.
We do not believe in any kind of creative or omnipotent deity; also, for us, Hell is a state of mind ( that we try to achieve ).
...so this actually has nothing to do with Satan except in name?
We do not try to achieve a state of holyness; quite the opposite, we strive to give up the notion that humans are superior to animals, or that an human being can reach a condition of spiritual superiority toward another human being, or another living being at all. The enlightened darkness brings cessation of sufference and inner serenity, it's not an excuse to put oneself on a pedestal.
Apart from the part about animals, this is more ore less what Christians believe, though. It's mentioned more than once that unless you are literally the Second Coming of the Christ you are in no position to judge anyone.
Also, a big difference with western christianity is that we believe that animals has the same right to live as us. Althought we admit self defense ( to not defend your life is to disrespect it ).
Interesting. I kind of expected that second distinction, but less so the first.
About question c, there are really many difference between our goals and those of a christian, but it could be resumed in one concept: personal responsability. In christianity, the burden of sin and the work of spiritual purification is shifted to the Savior; in the Path of Eight Gates, both work and consequences are upon the Acolyte.
I see. That makes sense, although I think people tend to remember the grace in Christianity and forget the faith and its implications.
Poll
71 (27.7%)
Author
Topic: Railgun and Spirituality Discussion (Read 684704 times)