The Debacle of Empty-Bucket Words

Like in the old days of English literature when books had really long phrased OR titles:

The Debacle of Empty-Bucket Words
OR
How I Learned to Love Humpty-Dumpty
by Shoving the Egg-Head of a “God” off the Wall
OR
How I Learned to Stop Using the Vacuous, Empty-Headed Term, “Love”

Preface:
“Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

First, the last. I suppose for centuries, “love” has been empty-headed, empty-bucketed, meaning whatever any one in changing centuries applied to the term. Like all words, “love” that chameleon’d-squiggled-word changes in time and place and comes to mean whatever any particular human means it to mean.

Need I give many examples from history, literature, and media, especially movies, to show how ambiguous, contradictory, and empty-bucketed, “love” has been?

Heck, even Christian leaders can’t agree. Millions of them disagree about what “God is love” means. And some leaders get etymological, scholarly, and cite Greek, speaking of the over-inflated word, “agape.” But even in Greek, they don’t agree! (It's Greek to me;-)
Because even then they often mean something entirely different from other Christians.

For instance, Augustinian-Reformed Christians claim that God both loves and predetermines billions of humans to eternal damnation. What?! How could God lovingly torture billions of humans for ever?

And God "loves" some humans so much, he wills for them to get cancer, die in car accidents, drown, burn to death, and so forth!

OR take a look at how the Anabaptist leader Chuck McKnight claims that multiple sexual partner relationships—polyamory--are based in “love,” in “agape-love”!

Huh?!
According to McKnight, and others, the only rule of Christianity is “love.”

We've heard this before!

Paul Tillich, the famous Protestant theologian claimed, "Love is the ultimate law” while himself committing adultery, etc.
Tillich, Systematic Theology, v. 1, p. 152

And Christian ethicist Joseph Fletcher wrote an infamous, controversial book, Situation Ethics, in 1966.

It closed with this view:
“When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the plane crew were silent. Captain Lewis uttered six words, "My God, what have we done?" Three days later another one fell on Nagasaki. About 152,000 were killed, many times more were wounded and burned, to die later. The next day Japan sued for peace. When deciding whether to use "the most terrible weapon ever known" the US President appointed an Interim Committee made up of distinguished and responsible people in the government. Most but not all of its military advisors favoured using it. Top-level scientists said they could find no acceptable alternative to using it, but they were opposed by equally able scientists. After lengthy discussions, the committee decided that the lives saved by ending the war swiftly by using this weapon outweighed the lives destroyed by using it and thought that the best course of action.”

Supposedly, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians was more loving in the long run and therefore more justified!

Whew…Talk about Orwellian…yes, war is peace, hate is love, slaughter is kindness…
--
LOOK at this STRANGE DIALOGUE BETWEEN JOSEPH FLETCHER AND A CONTRARY CHRISTIAN LEADER:

"This book is a transcript of the February 11, 1971 dialogue between Montgomery and Joseph Fletcher (who wrote Situation Ethics: The New Morality). Here are a few examples of their exchanges:

FLETCHER: "I think there are no normative moral principles whatsoever which are intrinsically valid or universally obliging.... If we are, as I would want to reason, obliged in conscience sometimes to tell white lies, as we often call them, then in conscience we might be obliged sometimes to engage in
white thefts
and white fornications
and white killings
and white breakings of promises
and the like." (pg. 15)

FLETCHER: “I want to suggest that methodologically there are basically only three alternatives strategies… the three options open to conscience at work are to be simply labeled as legalism, antinomianism, and situationism… In between these [first] two extremes lies situationism… and a mediating position in the spectrum. The situationist enters into troubling moral situations armed… [with] some reflective generalizations about what is ordinarily and typically the right thing to do. But unlike the legalist he refuses to absolutize … any normative principle… he is prepared to depart from a usually applicable generalization if in the particular case the consequence of following the rule is to minimize rather than to optimize … the first-order value to which he’s committed.” (Pg. 19, 23-24)

MONTGOMERY: “The insurmountable difficulty is simply this: there is no way… of knowing when the situationist is actually endeavoring to set forth genuine facts and true opinions, and when he is lying… Why? Because deception is allowed on principle … .as long as the ultimate aim is love. Consider: if Professor Fletcher acts consistently with his premises… he can to this end introduce any degree of factual misinformation, rhetorical pettifogging, or direct prevarication into the discussion… Our restatement goes: ‘If a situation ethicist … tells you that he is not lying, can you believe him?’… [This leaves] the audience entirely incapable of ever being sure that Professor Fletcher means what he says.” (Pg. 31-32)

MONTGOMERY: “This is precisely the claim of the historical Christian faith: that biblical revelation constitutes a transcendent word from God establishing ethical values once for all… Absolute moral principles are explicitly set forth; these inform love and guide its exercise.” (Pg. 44)

FLETCHER: “Are you saying, sir, that we must in conscience always tell the truth? And if there are exceptions, when might we prevaricate and why?... are you saying that tyrannicide is never justifiable? If it might be, when and why?... were you or weren’t you saying that interruptions of pregnancy are always wrong? But if there are times when it might be done, why would it be?... Christian ethics … have never allowed that human rights are anything but… relative and contingent.” (Pg. 49)

MONTGOMERY: “the greatest difficulty in situation ethics is revealed exactly at this point. The situation ethicist properly recognizes the ambiguity of situations and the extreme difficulty, often, in knowing what ought to be done; but he endeavors, in these situations, to JUSTIFY HIMSELF. In terms of the ethical approach that I outlined, one CANNOT so justify oneself. If, concretely, I were put in the position that you described of either informing a killer as to where a child was hidden or lying about it, it's conceivable that I would have to lie. But if I did so, I would be unable to justify this ethically; in short, I would be unable to get off the hook. In Christian terminology, I would have committed a sin which should drive me to the cross for forgiveness. This is what I find almost totally lacking in your writings: no one is driven to the Cross.” (Pg. 51)

FLETCHER: “you have said in reply to my question ‘Is it always wrong to have an abortion?’---‘Yes, it always is.’ It seems to me absolutely unbelievable that anybody could say that… Since the tragic complexities of life sometimes call us to do what we might call the ‘lesser evil,’ you WOULD be an instrument because the alternative to the abortion would be greater evil than the evil of the abortion.” (Pg. 52-53)

FLETCHER: “It is ethically foolish to say we ‘ought’ to do what is wrong! What I want to argue philosophically… is that the rightness or the wrongness of anything we do is extrinsic, relative, and dependent upon the circumstances, so that to have an abortion out of loving concern for everybody’s best interests involve, is not an excusably evil thing to do, but a good thing to do.” (Pg. 53-54)

FLETCHER: “And I have to say in all candor that when I examine the Gospel account of Jesus’ teaching in light of our question… he said nothing directly or even implicitly about it one way or another. Jesus was a simple Jewish peasant.
He had no more philosophical sophistication
than a guinea pig,
and I don’t turn to Jesus
for philosophical sophistication.” (Pg. 55)

MONTGOMERY: “Well, sir, I think that’s your trouble.” [Laughter and applause from the audience.] (Pg. 55)

FLETCHER: “Aren’t you in effect telling us that in your ethics we are sometimes morally obliged to do what is wrong, and does that make any sense in terms of ethical analysis?” [Applause from the audience.]
MONTGOMERY: “No, obviously it does not make any sense in terms of YOUR ethical analysis, but that’s what we are trying to determine---whether that ethical analysis is right… What I’m saying is that it may be necessary to choose a lesser of evils. But such a choice still remains an evil.” (Pg. 69-70) Situation ethics; true or false?: A dialogue between Joseph Fletcher and John Warwick Montgomery (Dimension books)
Quoted by reviewer Steven H. Propp on Amazon
--

Even the word "LIGHT" means various contradictory things to different humans, including different Friends.

No, we can't escape semantics, so it behooves us to very carefully define words when we use them. And give very lucid examples.

Daniel Wilcox

Part #2: Ultimate Becoming, Divine Process

INTRODUCTION:
(Skip, if you are in a hurry.)

At birth (that of our species, and individually), we humans awoke into this cosmos and have been asking "Why?" ever since.

What makes this so difficult is that while many of our brilliant scientists can make fairly reliable observations of matter and energy, so many of them disagree on almost everything else.

It does appear that we humans can only make educated guesses about--Ultimate Reality, traditionally called "GOD."

But even the term causes untold arguments, harmful hostilities, and brutal slaughters. "GOD" is the most conudrummed of all semantic jungles.

Unfortunately, it is almost always a 'con' being 'drummed' into other people's consciousness by Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Hindus, and others.

Usually, one needs to spend hours of writing long complicated explanations of why what others think you mean by "GOD" isn't at all what you mean, nor for that matter is it anything like how the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the general word.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
God--"1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality"

So without further ado, I am, again, going to move toward using UR, and seldom mention the traditional empty-bucket term.

That way, hopefully, most readers won't be sent down millions of other rabbit holes
chasing after Alice and Humpty Dumpty;-(

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
--





POINT #1:

This article will approach the issue/complexity/conundrum/philosophical WHY from our human 'bottom up' of practical daily living. (For those who want very abstract, more technical discussions, please Google that. There are thousands of such fine sites including http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/, https://philosophynow.org/, and http://plato.stanford.edu/.)

We all have presuppositions that we live with that shape our views and our choices and our actions. Millions of humans are unaware of their central presuppositions in a similar way that a fish wouldn't be aware that he exists in the ocean.

We get "thrown" into our society, culture, nation, family at birth and so grow up seeing the world, time, and reality through those particular glasses. Thankfully, millions of us get a good enough education that we learn to distance ourselves from thinking our own colored glasses are the only real view of reality.

SO HERE WE ARE AT THIS MOMENT!

SUBPOINT A: CHOICES

In order to function from moment to moment, each of us assumes that we can make choices, that we can alter our life, that we are responsible, that we can make a difference in the world, etc.

The only exception to this, of course, are the severely mentally ill--those who have no sense of individual self or who have catastrophic delusions.

In my view this is why determinism/fate/foreordination doesn't work in real life despite the fact that some brilliant thinkers claim that all humans are "puppets" and that "human choice" is an illusion.

But those very same thinkers don't actually put into practice their convinced view in their own lives. In fact, it would seem impossible to do so.

Rather, they mostly use their conclusion as a hammer to smash other worldviews that they disagree with.

For example, here is one very clear example:

Biologist Jerry Coyne states almost weekly on his website that no human has any choice. He agrees with neuroscientist Sam Harris that we have no more choice than the mass murderer in Texas whose brain tumor forced him to kill other people.
(Listen to Harris' interview with Jerry Coyne and to his podcast "Tumors All the Way Down.")

According to Coyne, we can't even choose what we want to eat for lunch. Even worse, he argues that every murderer and every rapist has no choice but to murder and rape because it was determined that they must.

Thus there is no moral responsibility, none at all--according to Coyne.

Yet Coyne repeatedly bans individuals on the Internet if they disagree with him or his views; or if (from his perspective) they choose to be "discourteous."

This makes no rational or scientific sense!
(Which is unusual for such a brilliant scientist.
In contrast, Coyne's book on evolution, Why Evolution Is True,
is a lucid, very rational explanation of biology and life!

Take a look at the contradiction.

Today, on his website, Coyne states this:

"But Penn neglects a serious problem when he says this: 'You’re not allowed to hate people for their ideas.' Now that’s just not right. Excuse me for Godwinning, but are we not allowed to hate Hitler, only his Nazism and anti-Semitism? Are we not allowed to hate Jihadi John, who cuts off people’s heads, but only the religious ideology that promoted that action? Are we not allowed to hate Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, whose “theology” has led to the deaths of thousands?"

"The fact is that people instantiate their ideas through their actions, and holding beliefs that can inspire bad acts is itself reprehensible."--Jerry Coyne

WAIT a minute. Coyne declares that no one can even choose what he would like to eat for lunch. And much worse declares that ALL murderers and rapists
aren't morally responsible for their murders and rapes!

YET now he states that people who hold ideas and actions and beliefs that he, Coyne, disagrees with are "reprehensible."

That doesn't compute!

How can anyone be "reprehensible" if they are "puppets" incapable of choice??!!

According to Coyne and other hard determinists' view of reality,
Nazis, Hitler, Jihadi John, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi don't have a choice, can't even move a finger,
let alone choose
what ideas they hold, what beliefs they choose, and what actions they take.

They are only dust in the cosmic wind determined by the laws of physics; always done to,
never able to choose contrary to what has been determined.

Of course, Coyne has already stated many times, too, that he himself has no choice about anything. Nothing!

So I suppose Coyne would now say that he doesn't have a choice but must "hate" others and must write this article.

But see what a confusing, contradictory, endless loop that gets us all into.

The word Coyne uses is "reprehensible" which means "very bad : deserving very strong criticism," but Coyne at the same time says that no human has any choice but to do what has been determined.

Then Coyne goes onto state, "But what about good people who adopt and act on those bad ideas? Don’t they become bad people?"

HUH? Coyne has already stated that murderers don't have any choice, none at all. Neither do civil people. So how in the world could a "good" person "adopt and act on those bad ideas"?

None of us can do 'nothin'.

Some determinists argue that while "human choice" is an illusion, it is yet practical to assume it in daily life.

But, again, notice that in their argument they have temporarily abandoned their determinism and instead now state that any one can choose to "assume" they have a choice, (which is really an illusion), because it is beneficial.

??

Despite all their brilliance, it seems determinists are wrong about determinism because none of them--none of us--can operate from moment to moment, living as a "puppet" or a "wet robot," not choosing.

Such a view automatically incapacitates my next moment because in order to be human I need to assume that I can choose!

SUBPOINT B: ETHICS

Many atheists and non-religious commentators think that religious people live in illusions. And there is a lot of truth to such a charge.

For instance, consider brilliant scholars like Richard Lyman Bushman, winner of the Bancroft Prize, author of the brilliant biography of Joseph Smith, the founder of Latter Day Saints (Mormon).

Bushman is a fine scholar, yet when it comes to analyzing the rampant adultery and promiscuity of Smith, Bushman clearly shades the facts, trying to exonerate Smith, because of his biases, his own faith in Mormonism.

But religious people can also be motivated by objective ethics, not only by illusions and irrational ideas. Many critics of religion fail to realize this.

Neil Carter, a former Christian, and now atheist blogger wrote on his website today, "Your approach to conversation with the devout must also take into account that they themselves are active participants in their religion, continually creating their own personal experience of the divine on a subconscious level, apart from their own awareness."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2016/08/26/what-lies-beneath-the-suit-of-armor/

Evidently this was Neil's own experience and that of the Christians he knew, but I didn't ever experience God in such a way. I never experienced what countless Christian leaders said Christians did--a vivid sense of God's presence--so I thought there was something wrong with me.

In all my years as a Christian, I NEVER once received an answer to even one of my prayers. (These weren't minor prayers or self-centered prayers). But no answer ever came.

Spiritual leaders told me to wait.

I did for years.

I couldn't understand how other Christians were so dedicated to prayer.

And their claims of answers to their prayers appeared to be illusionary, at times very bogus.

So why did I stay with the sinking ship?

My chief reason for being a Christian was always ethical. I was dedicated to human rights, to the good, the true, the just, the equal, and the beautiful, and so on.

Many of those who opposed my faith and hope--
our professors who were secular, (many atheists), other students (at the University of Nebraska, Long Beach State) who were skeptics and anti-religious, and then later other non-Christians--
often supported and participated in unethical behavior.

So even though I found myself constantly doubting my religion, and totally opposed to other parts of it,
I didn't jump ship for a very long time, because of the ethics.

When it became clear that there was another way to be more ethical, one much better than Christianity, then I left.

Some very smart people assert that there are no real ethics, that we humans "construct" ethics, so slavery is really not wrong, but is advantageous to survival and so is correct, though that is only a subjective cultural, societal view. Back in the past, when most humans supported slavery, then slavery wasn't wrong.

This sounds like an atheistic version of how Neil is describing Christian illusion.

If one's ethics aren't grounded, based in, reality, then they would appear to be delusionary.

Besides, if humans have to "construct" ethics, then there is no basis for holding all humans to the same ethical standards. Then morality becomes whatever an society claims it is.

Some non-religious leaders including Bob Seidensticker and Hermant Mehta state that ethics are "programmed" into the human species, but this is clearly denied by nearly all biologists.

1.If there is no programmer, then no programs can be written.

2.Almost all biologists state that evolution has no goals, no purpose, no meaning.

Many of the non-religious biologists go even further and emphasize that homo sapiens aren't better than other species, but only a twig on the bush of natural selection.

3.And even if one decides to think that humans are more important than other species, there is no basis for deciding which traits of natural selection are better, are more ethical than others.

Millions of humans have chosen the very successful behaviors of deception, enslavement, abuse, and slaughter.
Some humans--a minority--have instead chosen honesty, equality, compassion, and non-violence.

If there are no true, real ethics, no actual "oughts" in the sense that philosophers of the past meant such as Immanuel Kant, then how can humans decide which actions are better and which are wrong?

If we humans must "construct" our own ethics, who is to say that it is wrong for parents to mutilate little girls (as over 80% of Muslim parents do in Egypt)?


Or that it is wrong for all women to be in subjection to their husbands and that women can't be leaders (as the vast majority of Muslims, many conservative Christians believe)?

Or that all humans are equal and have unalienable rights (as Enlightenment leaders and human rights organizations claim)?

The whole basis of the Enlightenment, the abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and so forth is that ethics are real and true, and need to be discovered and lived for by everyone.

Some atheists argue that survival is the only true value.

But if there are no true "oughts," then why do they make "survival" an exception?

For many who claim ethics are subjective preferences of human cultures and societies, not objectively real, contradictorily state that the human species "ought" to continue.

But why "ought" we humans to continue if there are no "oughts," none at all?

Besides, a quick glance back down history-way will show the innumerable horrors that the ethics of survival have led millions of humans to commit. Billions of humans have been abused, tortured, and slaughtered including millions of innocent civilians, including many children!

Fairly recently a number of human thinkers have justified the intentional slaughter of many infants, children, elderly, etc. to protect their country and their country's soldiers in the speculative future! This the view of millions of Americans, Palestinians, and others.


Subpoint C

To be continued--


In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox



1 Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll

On the 'devil' of Semantics--from Satanism to Theism

Alice wrote...

"...there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —' [Humpty Dumpty]

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
--

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything...'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
Through the Looking Glass
by Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson)
--

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland
--

Consider the current promotion of The Satanic Temple's new ethics:

– "One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
– The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
– One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
– The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
– Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
– People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
– Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word."
http://valerietarico.com/2015/11/27/seven-satanic-precepts-beat-ten-commandments-as-moral-guide/

These new precepts are marvelous, very good and reasonable, the sort of points that every single human concerned with goodness, justice, and compassion could strongly affirm and practice.

Yes, the precepts represent humanism at its best.

Then why do the supporters of such meaningful ethical statements declare them to be "Satanic"?


What do such humanistic ethics have to do with the selfish ethics from Anton LeVay? For instance, his claim that--

"Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
and
"Blessed are the victorious for victory is the basis for right."

Note that instead of "compassion and empathy towards all creatures," LeVay's focus is on might makes right, wrath, greed, envy, lust, etc.

Of course, like Humpty Dumpty, Satanists can claim the word "Satanism" means anything they want the word to mean.

But many people will misunderstand. Again, why pick a name, Satanism, which represents the exact opposite of compassion and empathy?

Semantics are such a tough issue, like climbing the moon. Read and understand.

from http://www.vice.com/read/unmasking-lucien-greaves-aka-doug-mesner-leader-of-the-satanic-temple
by Shane Bugbee:

"Lucien Greaves of the Satanic Temple, who first showed up at my door over a decade ago, would fall into the former category. He was a young man, too smart for his own good. He wanted a copy of a book I had republished called Might Is Right. It was a 100-year-old tome, long forgotten by most, with the exception of Anton LaVey, who'd found it in a bookstore as a young man and used it as the basis for The Satanic Bible."

"I asked Anton to write an introduction, and he jumped at the opportunity to introduce the book to the world again. By way of thanks Anton invited me to his home and made me a high priest in the Church of Satan."
Shane Bugbee

Doug Mesner: "I illustrated an edition of Might Is Right,
the text of which LaVey had built
The Satanic Bible from,
and which you published—along
with a forward by LaVey—when
you were running Michael Hunt Publishing."
and
"And, yes, we are adding to LaVey. LaVey is an excellent
jumping-off point, but his work was a product of its time,
and it’s appropriate to recontexualize it to today’s reality."

"Anton LaVey’s The Satanic Bible was released in 1969, and contained no indication of the antihuman doctrine alleged by hysterical anti-Satanists."

"I met you, Shane [the interviewer], and you were a priest in the Church of Satan who was conferred with that title by Anton LaVey himself."
http://www.vice.com/read/unmasking-lucien-greaves-aka-doug-mesner-leader-of-the-satanic-temple

Now, don't those remarks sound like the Satanic Temple and the Church of Satan?

Like the Satanic Bible and the book Might is Right?

Like Anton LaVay, Doug Mesner, and Shane Bugbee agree about a lot?

They seem to have a common philosophy and similar bad ethics. LeVay, Mesner, and Bugbee all appear to be for "might is right."

Notice how the official graphics are very similar, too.
There are some differences; read the full interview to see
how Mesner does "recontexualize it to today’s reality."

No where do Mesner and Bugbee deny or diassociate themselves from LeVay's central unethical views, except for "social Darwinism." And even there, Mesner doesn't claim that "social Darwninism" is always wrong, but that only the times have changed.

Yet modern Satanists want people to understand that their view--Santanism--is completely different from the Church of Satan, the Satanic Bible, and Anton LeVay's unethical views.

Yes, like Humpty Dumpty exclaimed, any word can mean exactly what the person in power wants it to mean. Almost all scholars think that words are "empty-buckets" which can carry any meaning including definitions totally contrary to what they meant last year, last decade, last century.

Think of all the changes humans have made to words. For instance, for most people, "free" means that we can make choices, aren't controlled/determined by Fate, Jehovah, or Allah, or the meaningless Cosmos.

Yet, Augustinian-Reformed Christians and almost all Muslims claim "free" means that you only can do what God has foreordained. Their leaders point out that a bullet is "free" because nothing is stopping it from shooting toward its target.

Hello! That isn't "free" in the sense most people mean.

This happened back in the Vietnam War. Words related to war were given new meanings which confused people and caused much destruction. All of this semantic change reminded many people of 1984 by George Orwell where the Machiavellian rulers drastically change what important ethical words mean.

It is very important, too, to remember that words come with heavy historical connotations, and that it takes years for humans to make the transition to a totally contrary definition of a term.

It would seem much better to coin a new word or to use a word not heavily freighted with evil, injustice, slaughter, abuse, etc. like Satanism has been.

Rather than spending hours explaining to people that the new Satanism of the Satanic Temple is different from the Satanism of the Church of Satan, use a more accurate term that clearly explains your worldview. Especially when interviews such as the one referenced are contrary to what the Satanic Temple says are its actual ethics!

Do these unethical statements from LeVay's The Satanic Bible sound like humanistic ones?

"In the closing of the The Book of Satan in The Satanic Bible, LaVey compiled a list of characteristics he endorsed versus those he condemned, adapted from the list found in Might is Right:

Blessed are the strong for they shall possess the earth
Cursed are the weak for they shall inherit the yoke
Blessed are the powerful for they shall be reverenced among men
Cursed are the feeble for they shall be blotted out

Blessed are the bold for they shall be masters of the world
Cursed are the righteously humble for they shall be trodden under cloven hoofs
Blessed are the victorious for victory is the basis for right

Cursed are the vanquished for they shall be vessels forever
Blessed are the iron-handed, the unfit shall flee before them
Cursed are the poor in spirit for they shall be spat upon

Blessed are the death defiant, their days shall be long in the land
Cursed are the gazers toward a richer life beyond the grave, for they shall perish amidst plenty
Blessed are the destroyers of false hope for they are the true messiahs

Cursed are the God-adorers for they shall be shorn sheep
Blessed are the valiant for they shall obtain great treasure
Cursed are the believers of good and evil for they are frightened by shadows...


The Nine Satanic Statements

Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates.
Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.

Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
Satan represents man as just another animal (sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours),
who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development", has become the most vicious animal of all.

Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.[39]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

Confusing isn't it?

In the new statement, the Satanists share, "One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason."

But other Satanists like LeVay state,

"Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates,"
"Cursed are the poor in spirit for they shall be spat upon,"
and
"Blessed are the victorious for victory is the basis for right."

But what in 'hell' does compassion and empathy have to do with the list of the Church of Satan--taking power, not wasting your time with some humans, being indulgent, and getting vengeance?





In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox