• LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      9 months ago

      okay I understand everyone’s modern definition of Satanism but why are they claiming a title that has traditionally been defined as the source of sorrow and eternal suffering and fire and eternal punishment?

      • UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s one part reclaiming and one part stirring up controversy. Normalizing the idea that demonic Satan doesn’t exist and it’s our own faults and sins to blame while also getting free publicity whenever the Christians get mad and talk about Satanism on the news.

        • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          The problem is, it makes it far too easy to brush it away from a point of ignorance and people who consider themselves devout will never look into it. It serves the interests of Christianity and edginess more than it serves something that would identify itself as, say, biblical scholars. Plus, if they become Satanists, which you may consider a joke label, people who would have had a degree of legitimacy in the eyes of Christians who might be convinced to begin questioning their beliefs can now be much more easily discarded because “Oh, didn’t you know, he’s a Satanist!”

          Trying to argue for the term is akin to arguing identifying as a Nazi not because you really support WWII Nazis but want to reclaim the term of socialism within the national perspective as something that can be realistic without the hate, racism, eugenics, and populism. You would be doing more harm to the point you are trying to argue for. It will get views, yes, but are those the views you want?

          • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            9 months ago

            Comparing Satanists to Nazis is really weird. Hitler was a real person who committed genocide. Satan isn’t real, and he never committed genocide, not even in the Bible.

            Christians, on the other hand, have committed genocide, and so has the Christian God, according to the Bible, but that doesn’t seem to have harmed Christianity at all. Additionally, the Nazis endorsed Christianity, not Satanism; but, again, that association doesn’t seem to have harmed Christianity.

            • UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Have you seen the kill counts?

              God is roughly over 2 million deaths in the Old Testament alone while Satan is around 10 deaths.

          • pearable@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            I grew up a Christian. Many apply the label Satanist liberally to biblical scholars and other legitimate criticizers. I honestly don’t think the label does them much harm. The ability to stand as a “religious” legal barrier against Christian Nationalism is served by their apparent distastefulness. If putting the ten commandments in front of the legal building also requires putting a statute of baphomet in front of the building they might think twice.

          • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Idk about other branches of Satanism, but The Satanic Temple uses Satanic imagery to get Christians to vote against their own legislation and promote the separation of church and state.

            For instance, in many US courtrooms, the ten commandments are displayed. So The Satanic Temple began to display Satanic statues in courtrooms, because our constitution makes it so it’s either all religions are allowed in the courtroom, or none are. This got many Christian people to vote for removal of the Ten Commandments in their state courthouses just so they didnt have to see Satanic statues. This is just one example of many.

            It’s basically just symbolism to make Christians feel the same way they make non-Christians feel when they force their religion on everyone.

            • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              But those cases illustrate how what’s working out is its implied negativity, not how it’s getting those Christians to really inform themselves. I would even argue that part of it is what’s driving parties and political leaders to try to introduce religion more and more into governments, to get rid of the separation of church and state, which even New York’s current mayor seems to argue for nowadays. It’s a short term victory, and a long term loss that’s very beneficial to the rhetoric of certain parties.

          • Tiger Jerusalem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I don’t get the downvotes, you made a really good point. The Hells Angels used to use Nazi iconography not because they were sympathisers, but because they thought it looked cool and it pissed people off. Not the brightest idea if you ask me.

            While I get the idea behind adopting Satan, I don’t think it’ll do any favors against Christians other than call them out. This is why I prefer to call myself an Atheist than Satanist, it gets my point clearer.

            • pearable@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Bikers and Nazi paraphernalia have a deeper connection than “it looks cool and pisses people off.” The biker movement and aesthetic arose from WW2 veterans. They were traumatized by the war and often felt they had no place in society when they returned. Many joined biker gangs in an attempt to find common community with other vets. Many wore plundered Nazi gear as evidence of their service to society and protest against the shit they dealt with from other citizens.

              For sure some were neo Nazis or shit stirrers.

              At the same time, it’s worth examining the narrative Satanists apply to the fallen angels. They see the rebellion of the angels as an act of revolution and bid for freedom against a tyrannical force. They don’t believe in a literal god or Satan but that story has appeal when they see an ascendant Christianity in American politics enforcing Christian dogma on the rest of us.

              I think there’s more reason and purpose in both contexts than they are usually given credit.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        There’s another tradition called Romantic Satanism which was a 19th-century literary movement. It’s basically what happens when a bunch of post-Enlightenment writers go “Hey, what if Satan was actually the good guy?”

        Around this time was a lot of rebellion against both monarchy and the church, and they felt some kinship with the rebel of the story, not the despotic deity he was opposing. (God’s actions in the Old Testament would be considered horrifying if they were carried out by a human.)

        Modern Satanism’s myth of Satan is a kind of reinterpretation or re-imagining, like a feminist retelling of a princess fairy tale.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          What sort of rebellion against this “unjust and totalitarian authority”… Raping children?

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            You mean like all Christian denominations but especially the catholic church does, have always done and always will do unless we stop them somehow?

            • Flax@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah… So do school teachers. Christianity isn’t about raping children. Neither is education.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                9 months ago

                A big part of organized Christianity is covering for and otherwise enabling child rapists, though. Not so for education.

                Besides, not that it makes a single rape acceptable, of course, but education has many positive aspects that can’t be found outside of education. Christianity doesn’t have even one.

      • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s mostly reclaiming a title that zealots use for anyone they don’t like. We take what they call us and make it a positive force for change and justice.

      • HaruAjsuru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I think it also depends on how ppl understand the concept of the word “satanism”. I am an atheist and used to live in a asia country, we don’t use any word like satan like you said “to define as the source of sorrow…” And I don’t think we even have that word in native language. We have something else comparable to that but still what I want to say is that Satanism may sound bad to you but for others ppl It’s not.

        To ppl who doesn’t have any prejudice against Satanism, the Satanic temple does indeed provide good causes, especially even more now given how bad others religions are (I don’t want to name them but I am sure we know who)

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        9 months ago

        My “higher power” is myself. I don’t believe that Satan is real. He’s a mythic figure that I draw inspiration from. He stood up to a tyrant who’s the most powerful force in the universe, got thrown into Hell, and just stood up and said, “Okay, I’ll make my kingdom here.”

      • too_high_for_this@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        9 months ago

        Satanists don’t really believe in Satan. The Satanic Temple is basically the religious embodiment of the ACLU. They’re currently raising funds for The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic. They also run After School Satan in schools that have religious based after school programs.

        The Church of Satan is an outlier and shouldn’t be counted.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    9 months ago

    Pearls Before Swine has become one of my all-time favorite mainstream comic strips. Stephan Pastis is both a comic genius and an insightful commentator. This is one of my favorites:

    Also, he’s constantly putting himself down with his own characters, which I love.

  • CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    9 months ago

    The major ones are about loving people in said religion. People who don’t follow “the rules” can get fucked.

    • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s not really what most of them are theoretically about, but many of their followers treat it as such. I don’t accredit that to religion though, I think some people are simply going to try to opress others regardless of whatever reasoning they use. There are bad people and good people in every population, and blaming the actions of those bad people on their larger group is (usually) to be avoided.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Imagine a nascent nomadic cult of a fictional kingdom called Canaan, grown and composed of the downtrodden of its society, that when the kingdom begins to encounter problems beyond its control because it does not know how to or cannot treat them, like plagues and disease, the cult begins blaming the rest of society for not worshiping their god, El, enough nor in the right way by their real name, and begin eulogizing killing the rest of society off in extremely violent ways after they manage to survive the plague and disease due to their seclusion.

    Imagine then how no one would ever want to admit to being a Canaan because of the risk of getting persecuted when the cult begins to conquer territory, and imagine this happening to such an extent that even the members of the cult, now a full-fledged religion due to its conquests and expansion, denies any relation to said society, making up a story instead about coming from some far off kingdom like Egypt that most people in the region would know of but would not really know the specifics about. It would sound similar enough to already preexisting mythos.

    Imagine if this sort of attitude didn’t just persist into the “modern” world, but involved offsprings of that very same cult holding power and influence in governments throughout the world. It would be a testament to a cultural unwillingness to overcome its own collective ego and overextended fictional narratives to recognize its flawed conception.

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Ah, but see, if you don’t call him by his real name, wackytoodlerpops, you are committing blasphemy by worshipping a false idol. Ergo, free grounds for some chop chop in my cult, at least until we get to the religious stage and actually have to establish a stable society which has to consider things like trade from and mingling with the outside world. That’s sort of why Scientology has had to tone down on its fair game policy.

    • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Imagine if this sort of attitude didn’t just persist into the “modern” world, but involved offsprings of that very same cult holding power and influence in governments throughout the world. It would be a testament to a cultural unwillingness to overcome its own collective ego and overextended fictional narratives to recognize its flawed conception.

      I would say its a testament to the fact that humanity isn’t so stupid they will opress the followers of a peaceful religion for crimes their ancestors supposedly commited.

      That’s a lot of pseudo-intellectual nonsense to mask your obvious antisemitism. The way you snake around your point and avoid naming the religion you are condemning would almost be impressive were it not so awful.

      I feel like I’m the only person who actually bothered to read that and didn’t just mindlessly upvote it.

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I think it’s pretty clear not only what religion I’m referring to, but what branched off sects and eventually separate religions I’m referring to. I think it pretty much has a lot to do with being an atheist, although I guess you consider those the ultimate antisemites as well for seeing the world outside of a fictional religious shell.

        Which peaceful religion are you referring to? I’m having trouble seeing through all the blood.

        Not only are you not the only person, you are the norm of this sad trend.

        • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think it pretty much has a lot to do with being an atheist, although I guess you consider those the ultimate antisemites as well for seeing the world outside of a fictional religious shell.

          If you think Jews should not be allowed in positions of power, you are an antisemite. I literally could not give less of a shit what you believe in. I’ve been an atheist for most of my life, and I’m not an antisemite.

          The peaceful religion I’m referring to is Judaism, the religion thats entire point is to spread good. Before you point out instances of Jews doing terrible things, I am aware that they are capable of wrongdoing like every other group of people.

          think it’s pretty clear not only what religion I’m referring to, but what branched off sects and eventually separate religions I’m referring to.

          So are you referring to all abrahamic religions? If so, you should have maybe just said that instead of writing almost exclusively about the Israelites. Regardless, I still disagree with everything you said regardless of how many religions you drag into it.

          Not only are you not the only person, you are the norm of this sad trend.

          If all of the normal people think you’re a lunatic, you may want to consider the idea that you simply are a lunatic. But you aren’t mentally capable of comprehending the fact you’re just an asshole, so you say every normal person is just a braindead sheep following a sad trend.

            • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              You can say that to any argument regardless of how accurate it is. To prove I have misrepresented your point, you have to show how I did that. Simply saying I did does not add anything of value to this conversation.

              it is possible I misunderstood what you were saying, or you wrote something unintentionally misleading. If this is the case, please elaborate and explain where the misunderstanding occurred. Until then, I’m going to assume your accusation is simply a method of making yourself look correct without actually having to come up with an argument.

  • pearable@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    I mean the trouble is most religions have been used to spread peace and war. The problem is not religion, it’s just the tool. The ruling class will pick up another tool of propoganda to convince the oppressed to act outside their best interests. Feeling smug about being unreligous leaves you vulnerable to alternative methods.

    Racism, sexism, nationalism, homophobia, and ageism all serve to divide us whether on a religious or “scientific” basis. No matter the justification we must examine what the end goal of all methods of social control is.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    To my understanding at least one religion promotes peace through unified belief (more or less) where the only way the religion is peaceful and loving is if you’re a part of the religion. If you believe something different, you’re a heretic and must die, for peace.

    IDK, killing people in the name of peace seems counterintuitive. There are times that you need to kill warmongers to promote peace, but killing them for peace because their sky friend is different than your sky friend seems like it’s a bad philosophy.

    I’ve been aware of this for a while and I have yet to be told I’m wrong, or have anyone provide evidence that I don’t understand what it says. I have, however had people verify the concept to me several times. I’m always on edge around people of that religion because if they’re being told that people from other religions, and people who won’t accept their sky friend as the one true sky friend, should be killed. I’m almost never sure if they’re going to try to kill someone to progress their religion by removing heretics. I just can’t relax while people from that religion are present because of this. Unless I know them pretty well and know that they reject that philosophy.

    Due to this, I’m kind of opposed to “religion is fine as long as it’s believers are peaceful” and I’m more in favor of the concept that all religions should be disbanded as a relic of an era where we couldn’t comprehend a lot of things that science has since explained away.

    I don’t subscribe to any religion because they can’t all be correct, if any are, and because there’s no differentiating information that lends any scientific validity to any one religion, and in the absence of a “God” giving some kind of indicator as to which one is correct, I’m forced to assume that with the plethora of conflicting ideologies, that none of them are correct. I have to believe that if there is a God who wants you to believe and obey one specific set of beliefs, that (s)he would make some kind of effort to clarify which one is correct; this leads me to think that either God doesn’t exist, or doesn’t care. Given that, I just try not to be a “bad person” and live a moral life, and if I die and find out there is a God, and (s)he wants humanity to believe a certain set of gospel, then I’ll have some not so nice words to say to them. Until then, as long as no further information is available about what “God” may actually want us to do, I’ll continue down this path indefinitely, and trying to be nice to my fellow man whenever possible, not because they deserve it, but simply because I want to be treated nicely as a person and not promote the suffering that is already far too common in humanity.

  • belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Its just an excuse to in group/out group. Controlling people with religion wields a tremendous amount if power. Weaponizing climate change denial is another example