Someone filled out the web form without leaving an E-Mail address. Let me quote their statement: question:

 

“Yeah, my question is, how can you worship evil? Bunch of freaks. I'm not any kind of holy ruler by any means but you people are STRANGE!!!!!!”

 

 -----

 

I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that the person who wrote the above is at least as smart as I am.

 

If this is true, then they have read through our site, and have found the only mention of the word WORSHIP: http://www.lylyth.org/beliefs.html

 

There are four basic credos listed on this page. The two lists of nine (the Statements and the Postulates), do not mention worship at all. The Four Noble Truths and the Charge of the Goddess do.

 

We will turn our attention to the Four Noble Truths first. Now, I'm not the author of the Four Noble Truths, but I believe I have a pretty good grasp on them - as they are very clearly stated

 

  1. There are neither gods nor devils, save that which exist in the mind of the human that created them.
  2. The only path to happiness is in the worship of the self.
  3. Self-Worship consists of three parts.

* Intelligence
* Individuality
* Indulgence

4.   Love and hatred must be expressed as they are felt, lest the two become confused.

 

Given this context, the question "why do you worship evil?" implies very specific things about the beliefs the questioner has about their self. Simply put, they consider the self Evil. Furthermore, the questioner comes from the point of view that human nature in general is evil - not just that they themselves are evil. This philosophy expresses itself more succinctly in the views of Xun Zi, in his work "Tian Lun." To quote:

 

Human nature is bad. Good is a human product. Human nature is such that people are born with a love of profit If they follow these inclinations, they will struggle and snatch from each other, and inclinations to defer or yield will die. They are born with fears and hatreds. If they follow them, they will become violent and tendencies toward good faith will dies. They are born with sensory desires for pleasing sounds and sights. If they indulge them, the disorder of sexual license will result and ritual and moral principles will be lost. In other words, if people accord with human nature and follow their desires, they inevitably end up struggling, snatching, violating norms, and acting with violent abandon. Consequently, only after men are transformed by teachers and by ritual and moral principles do they defer, conform to culture, and abide in good order. Viewed this way, it is obvious that human nature is bad and good is a human product.

 

Mencius, an earlier Confucian scholar, has a more optimistic view about human nature

 

Gaozi said, “Human nature is like whirling water When an outlet is opened to the east, it flows east; when an outlet is opened to the west, it flows west Human nature is no more inclined to good or bad than water is inclined to east or west." Mencius responded, "Water, it is true is not inclined to either east or west, but does it have no preference for high or low? Goodness is to human nature like flowing downward to water. There are no people who are not good and no water that does not flow down . Still water if splashed can go higher than your head; if forced, it can be brought up a hill This isn't the nature of water; it is the specific circumstances. Although people can be made to be bad, their natures are not changed."

 

 

The Temple of Lylyth rejects both views. Additionally, we are not "Lockian," believing that human nature is inherently a blank slate. Part of our dogma is that human life begins before birth. Even if you reject the idea that a fetus or embryo has an independent life, you must acknowledge that biologically, they are alive. Ignoring such "dangerous" concepts as genetic predispositions towards certain behavior/personality traits, no one is possibly born a "blank slate." They are born with months of experiences gained while inside of the womb.

 

So, where does that leave the Temple of Lylyth's position on "human nature?" My own beliefs on human nature are much closer to that of Confucius himself. To quote the Anelects, when Confucius was asked about the teachings of another philosopher, "The Master said, 'Heaven produced the virtue that is in me. Hwan T'ui -- what can he do to me?'" When reading this, keep in mind the Confucian idea of Heaven is different from the Christian idea of the Afterlife, or the Celestial idea of the night sky being "the heavens." Heaven, in Confucian terms, IS THE DARK FORCE IN NATURE - Heaven is the Ruling Principle that Governs Nature. In fact, if one was translating for a Satanic audience, it would be MORE accurate to say "Hell produced the virtue that is in me. Xun Zi uses Heaven in the same way - his work is actually about the Guiding Principle of Nature - and does not mention the Afterlife, the Abode of the Gods, or any other concept a Westerner would associate with "Heaven."

 

The belief of the Temple of Lylyth is that Mencius' example apply to us, to the Lylythians of the world. We are innately good. As far as the whole of humanity goes, I would refer to the Confucian quote: "Heaven produced the virtue that is in me." Klippoths exist; no one can argue that. While Anne Frank believed that all people were innately good, she still wound up at a concentration camp, the victim of genocide. Trying to argue if klippoths are born or made is just another facet of the Nature vs. Nuture issue, and not likely to be solved any time soon.

 

What about the other mention of worship, within the Charge of the Goddess?

 and to me all things must return.

Keep pure your highest ideal; Strive ever towards it; Let naught stop you or turn you aside. For I am the Gracious Goddess, who gives the gift of joy unto the heart of man. Upon Earth, I give the knowledge of the spirit eternal; and beyond death, I give peace unutterable. Nor do I demand aught in sacrifice. For behold, I am the mother of all living, and my love is poured out upon the Earth. From me all things proceed, and to me all things must return.

Let my worship be within the heart that rejoiceth; for behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals. Let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and humility, mirth and reverence within you. And thou who thinkest to seek for me, know thy seeking and yearning shall avail thee not unless thou knowest this mystery: That if that which thou seekest thou findest not within thee, then thou wilt never find it without thee. For behold, I have been with thee from the beginning, and I am that which is attained at the end of desire.

 

All right.  Let’s look at this methodically.  Assuming that the Goddess is the personification of evil, the charge could be rephrased in the third person as:

 

Evil gives the gift of joy unto the heart of man.  Upon Earth, evil gives the knowledge of the spirit eternal, and beyond death, evil gives peace unutterable.  Nor does evil demand aught in sacrifice.  For behold, evil is the mother of all living, and evil’s love is poured out upon the Earth.  From evil, all things proceed, and to evil all things must return.

 

Did the anonymous questioner mean to imply this?  I assume not, because as he said, he is not a “holy ruler.”  However, this is the “yardstick” by which the word “Christian” becomes an epithet.  As much as Christians talk about their God being love, there is no love in their hearts.  As much as Christians extol the power of goodness, their goodness is a mixture of self-denial, self-deceit, and self-righteousness.  Otherwise, the above nonsense is just a neo-Satanic word-game, and one the Temple of Lylyth refuses to play.  No sane person could take the text above and apply it as a sensible definition of evil.  If anyone attributes this text to my Temple, or myself, they are misquoting me so far out of context that any a fool could fail to see their agenda.  Furthermore, it would be about as silly as changing the translation of Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians from “love” to “hate.”

 

In the interest of fairness to people of all faiths, I should mention that my basic faith in human nature being slightly more “good” than it is “bad” compels me to say that Christians (as a group) are not like the epithet above, finding evil in everything good and pure.  Then again, the millions executed as witches might beg to differ.

 

I do not believe it is necessary to apply the same rule of rephrasing to the second paragraph of the Charge.  One should note that the charge is abbreviated.  While I understand those who wish to hold the entire Charge as sacred, it has a bit of a “keep holy the Sabbath” attitude, which is contraindicated by the idea of “natural religion.”  While the Temple does have holidays, the observance of any Sabbat or Esbat is completely up to the individual in both form and frequency.

 

As a last thought, I would invite the original questioner to continue this discussion with the Temple.  Lylythian Ethics is extremely situational, as it is based not on Divine Command (where an action is good or evil because an Omnipotent Entity coded it into the very fabric of the universe), but rather extremely situational.  An individual action cannot be judged without looking at both circumstances and intent.  Further more, both of these must be broken down into the components of conscious and unconscious intent, (see Ole Wolf’s essay, “Intentions Unintentionally Spoken”), and controllable and uncontrollable circumstances.  Killing someone in self-defense is almost universally acceptable as good, but imagine if the reason you have to defend yourself is due to relentless taunting.  The Temple of Lylyth does not belief in universal principles (a.k.a. moral platitudes).  For example, my mother always told me “people aren’t for hitting.”  However, my mother has not to the best of my knowledge killed anyone who tried to threaten her.  This is not due to lack of trying.

 

The rejection of moral platitudes includes the rejection of “might is right” and “the ends justifies the means.”  The problem with the former is that it essentially gives philosophical permission for anyone who is mightier than the Temple of Lylyth to crush us like over-ripe tomatoes.  Might-is-right means that every rape ever committed was a right-action, because the rapist has physical might.  Might-is-right means that every rapist who has ever won in court, because his lawyer was able to use the perverse Christian sexual morality to paint the victim as a “slut” is right: because they have the legal might to get away with it.  For those of you who are not familiar with the apocryphal Eden legends concerning Lylyth, she would be the last person to condone rape as “right.”  The more-than-obvious problem of “the ends justify the means” is that the means becomes part of the ends.  If you have no idea what I’m talking about, then you have a serious problem with understanding the relationship between cause and effect, and should consider seeing a neurologist.  (This defect of reason was the subject of the book “Descartes’ Error,” by noble prizewinner Dr. Antonio Demasio).

 

If anyone has any more questions or concerns about Lylythian ethics, please contact me.

 

Be Good to each other.

 


Copyright 2001, Temple of Lylyth

Original question copyright to anonymous questioner, in accordance with all global, federal, state, county, city and personal laws

Back to Documents