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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s objectively untrue on both counts. The Abrahamic God, if you assume he is real (which is a stretch to begin with) has ruined and killed a lot more folks, as written in the Bible, than Satan.
Satan caused death to exist in the first place. And basically all of the deaths that were “caused” by God were actually to do with that person’s own actions.
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)
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?
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.
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?
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.
Have you seen the kill counts?
God is roughly over 2 million deaths in the Old Testament alone while Satan is around 10 deaths.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They basically uphold him as a symbol of rebellion against an unjust, totalitarian authority.
What sort of rebellion against this “unjust and totalitarian authority”… Raping children?
Sounds like you’re confusing Satanists with Catholics.
You mean like all Christian denominations but especially the catholic church does, have always done and always will do unless we stop them somehow?
Yeah… So do school teachers. Christianity isn’t about raping children. Neither is education.
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.
No, they’re not Catholics.
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.
So should we do the same for nazism? 🤨
Fuck off.
For starters, Nazis are real, and they killed millions of innocent people.
So is Satan, who’s ruined and killed billions
That’s objectively untrue on both counts. The Abrahamic God, if you assume he is real (which is a stretch to begin with) has ruined and killed a lot more folks, as written in the Bible, than Satan.
Satan caused death to exist in the first place. And basically all of the deaths that were “caused” by God were actually to do with that person’s own actions.
source?
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)
Asians have the concept of yin and yan which is more logical and realistic than the God vs Satan fairytales.
Wait, there’s good religions??
Yea it’s Pastafarianism for me
yeah If it ever came up in conversation I’d be more likely to befriend a Pastafarianist than a Satanist.
Because Pasta fun 🍝
Satan scary 😈 🔥
https://sh.itjust.works/post/13769336
the satanist is likely to be making a massive batch of pasta to hand out for free, and you’re welcome to take part
Link to relevant article: https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/pacifists-guide-satanism