Eaomonomae
New member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2023
- Messages
- 43
What are your guys' perspectives on helping the poor?
The Proto-Christian Roman Empire, it seems like selfless charity didn't really exist. There is a concept of "generosity" for a sense of personal honor, and perhaps broader social duty for generosity to those who deserve it, but all of this was rooted in one's sense of self with one expecting benefits in return for that charity. By no means were the poor viewed as "blessed in spirit" or charity as a means to commune with the divine; the poor were viewed as rabble, weak, wretched, and disfavored by the gods. After all, if they had the gods / goodness favor them, they wouldn't be in the place they were in.
People often viewed the poor as self-infliction; they are in that sorry state of life because they don't have the chops for basic social responsibility. There is a concept of "philanthropy" in Greco-Roman Paganism, via the myth of Prometheus (who is called the friend of humans), but still, it seems that in Ancient Rome, philanthropy was viewed as foolish for those who didn't deserve it and one should perform charity only to the extent that it brought honor and social returns.
Nietzsche - often embraced by most Theistic Satanists - had a view that pretty much lined with this perspective in his view of "Geneology of Morals" and his "Transvaluation of values", identifying weakness and poverty with evil and something to be reviled at.
One of the things that made Christianity so attractive to the masses was their insistence on helping the poor, because the suffering state of humanity was something most people relate to. This was such an issue that Emperor Julian, who tried to bring back the Old Gods, tried to create pagan charities to compete with the Christian charities.
Egyptian Paganism, via the Book of the Dead, on the other hand, seems to view the alleviation of suffering as a must for passage to the afterlife, and that is how the gods will judge you - how much did you perform to alleviate suffering.
Hinduism is somewhere in the middle. The Bhagavad Gita venerates the cultivation of generosity (dana), which should be given only to a worthy person without an expectation of return in the right place and right time. There is corrupt or evil versions of charity, including "rajas" where one gives generosity with an expectation of some return or grudgingly, and "tamas" or dark charity as one giving charity to unworthy people or in the wrong place and time.
Where does JOS stand in this regard? Are Spiritual Satanists more Nietzschean (not my job to help the poor, they are rabble and weak), or are they more Egyptian Pagan (you must alleviate suffering to be saved)? Are they somewhere in the middle?
The Proto-Christian Roman Empire, it seems like selfless charity didn't really exist. There is a concept of "generosity" for a sense of personal honor, and perhaps broader social duty for generosity to those who deserve it, but all of this was rooted in one's sense of self with one expecting benefits in return for that charity. By no means were the poor viewed as "blessed in spirit" or charity as a means to commune with the divine; the poor were viewed as rabble, weak, wretched, and disfavored by the gods. After all, if they had the gods / goodness favor them, they wouldn't be in the place they were in.
People often viewed the poor as self-infliction; they are in that sorry state of life because they don't have the chops for basic social responsibility. There is a concept of "philanthropy" in Greco-Roman Paganism, via the myth of Prometheus (who is called the friend of humans), but still, it seems that in Ancient Rome, philanthropy was viewed as foolish for those who didn't deserve it and one should perform charity only to the extent that it brought honor and social returns.
Nietzsche - often embraced by most Theistic Satanists - had a view that pretty much lined with this perspective in his view of "Geneology of Morals" and his "Transvaluation of values", identifying weakness and poverty with evil and something to be reviled at.
One of the things that made Christianity so attractive to the masses was their insistence on helping the poor, because the suffering state of humanity was something most people relate to. This was such an issue that Emperor Julian, who tried to bring back the Old Gods, tried to create pagan charities to compete with the Christian charities.
Egyptian Paganism, via the Book of the Dead, on the other hand, seems to view the alleviation of suffering as a must for passage to the afterlife, and that is how the gods will judge you - how much did you perform to alleviate suffering.
Hinduism is somewhere in the middle. The Bhagavad Gita venerates the cultivation of generosity (dana), which should be given only to a worthy person without an expectation of return in the right place and right time. There is corrupt or evil versions of charity, including "rajas" where one gives generosity with an expectation of some return or grudgingly, and "tamas" or dark charity as one giving charity to unworthy people or in the wrong place and time.
Where does JOS stand in this regard? Are Spiritual Satanists more Nietzschean (not my job to help the poor, they are rabble and weak), or are they more Egyptian Pagan (you must alleviate suffering to be saved)? Are they somewhere in the middle?