this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
884 points (100.0% liked)

196

16488 readers
1567 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 54 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That's why I'm a Satanist.

No big book of dogma to follow. We aren't trying to convert you. Just fuckin' chill and hail Satan.

[–] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (7 children)

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 47 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

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 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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 5 points 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 7 points 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 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tigerjerusalem@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 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 31 points 9 months ago* (last edited 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.

[–] FakeGreekGirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 9 months ago (10 children)

They basically uphold him as a symbol of rebellion against an unjust, totalitarian authority.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 15 points 9 months ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] haruajsuru@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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)

[–] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Asians have the concept of yin and yan which is more logical and realistic than the God vs Satan fairytales.

[–] Emptiness@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Wait, there's good religions??

[–] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yea it's Pastafarianism for me

[–] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

embrace the chaos.

if i ever wnated to start believing in a higher power, i'd be a satanist.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 24 points 9 months ago (4 children)

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."

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] too_high_for_this@lemmy.world 14 points 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.

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Most Satanists are atheists

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Love it. Read it every morning.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

obligatory This Land Is Mine

(not 100% sure if it's relevant to this specifically but it's def relevant to Israel)

[–] unmarketableplushie@pawb.social 16 points 9 months ago

FYI, Nina Paley is a TER"F".

It is a good video though, it's a shame it's made by such a shithead.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TimeNaan@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Usually, religion is just a front for different political interests

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

What no historical materialism does to a mfer.

[–] CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

"el" literally just means "god" lmao

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (17 children)
load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] pearable@lemmy.ml 12 points 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 6 points 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.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago

/c/im14andthisisdeep

[–] padge@lemmy.zip 3 points 9 months ago

Oh man, I haven't seen a Pearls Before Swine strip in ages

load more comments
view more: next ›