Love vs. Money | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » General Discussion
T.Volt Aug 9

The original texts and stories are intact regardless of all the jibber jabber. If other people stop researching at a dictionary reading of a word that has a whole history behind it, that's their fault. Thing is, if I have to go by the common understanding, then I have never heard of a sadistic satan, that is, outside of rock music and the horror/shock genre. Not in the bible, or job, or any culture, wherein almost every culture, has a badman who doesn't listen to authority and lives outside the perimeter of "the norm". I'd say here and there you find a cruel and merciless variation, but mostly he is just the dude who opposes the establishment. Satan is just as common as anything else, in my observation.

As for here, on this site, I would hardly consider it Satanism. All people do is post a bunch of pictures, maybe they speak in chat, but in my experience, and it could just be me, they don't. If anything this site is more like, drive-by-sign-up alternative social media.

At the end of the day, consequence is still associated with punishment, even though it is more or less, another word for "result." Things are applied and changed all the time. If I have to look at the "commonly accepted" version of Satanism, it mostly seems to be on the tame side. I really don't see where you get the sadistic version as the commonly accepted one. Maybe by Christians, and people who don't care about Satanism might associate it with Voldemort from Harry Potter at best, or black magic or something.

The Forum post is edited by T.Volt Aug 9
Dark Enlightenment
Answer 1:

If there is a will there are several ways to endlessly discuss the semantics of something completely lost on the largest portion of society...  I mean my version. Fuck all of yours.  The one where your take a stand on every little thing and attempt to endlessly martyr yourself.... but at least I tired.

Answer A:

Satan is a literary character born in first Hebrew parable. (And please spare me the Typhon, Set, Whoever the fuck Azura Mazda faught, shit.) Satan as applies to satan(ism) is ripped right from the Bible itself. 

That "satanicness" is illustrated by the prideful self-immolation of Lucifer. He stole fire and brought it to the people on principle!

Reference aside that is what is at the heart of everything.  Today, it may be a wandering set personally defined ethics sometimes contrasting with its environment, most of the time going unnoticed unless specifically noted.  There are tons of ancillary facets making up how one expresses the "prideful self-immolation". Usually, situational and always due to a personal indignation. And as much as it escapes my need for my own "wall/head banging" lex talionis infinitum, there will come a point where that ends, and I can be all zen about shit... even the rise in jihadist evangelism. 

For the Dark Lord Sayeth:

The trajectory of Satanism, however brash, confrontational, sacrosanct, or vengeful it begins, will always end up sitting under a tree with  śūnyatā, yogachara, vijñaptimātra, a la Madhyamaka.

 That is based on my own observation anyway.

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Aug 9
Anna Aug 9
The dictionary gives a current meaning of a word. If you're lucky, you will also be given some history and the origin of the word. All personal interpretations aside, the original meaning of Satan is simply the adversary of God's people. Later on, he becomes a man of sin, the one who leads to temptation, rejection of God's commandments, embracing the corporeal instead of gnosis. That's the Bible, the original source from which Satan came. Equating the ancient chtonic gods to Satan is a mistake IMO. Satan is strictly a biblical character. However, throughout history the meaning of the word evolved. Milton made him into some sort of a heroic rebel. With the advent of Gothic literature and later horror movies, Satan came to represent what AK wrote about.

@TV. Here: I totally agree with you that it is seemingly nonsensical and arbitrary that the Satan of Job, of all things, later went on to become the root of the adjective satanic, which is synonymous with that which is extremely evil or cruel; expressive of cruelty or befitting hell. If I had OCD, there is little doubt this issue would trigger a fierce episode. If.

There are a few issues at play here. The most important is the difference a symbol and a sign. If you do not happen to have the difference between a symbol and a sign in your back pocket, take a moment to read-up on it. Treating a symbol as if it were a sign is at the heart of nearly all of these endless religious debates. Satan is a symbol. It is not sign. So yes, you’re right, Satan represents all of that which you mention in its fundamentalist sense of the word. It also represents a whole slew of commonly accepted variants – the most commonly understood of which denotes all that which is deserving of hell: greed, malice, cruelty, treachery, and an assortment of other bad behaviors.

It’s really not that hard given how language, myth and ideas evolves and mutate to see that over the course of 2,000+ years Satan went from being god’s district attorney, to being cast out of heaven, to down from heaven, to below the earth, to into hell, to becoming the ruler of hell which is reserved for the punishment of souls, to being the tempter which leads to sin, which leads to hell where he is said to reign and administer said punishment, to at least a sneaking suspicion that buddy just might be some sort of cosmic sadist. Give these loose associations centuries to macerate – largely illiterate centuries, no less – and you’d have to all but plug (yes, I did) your ears and shut your eyes painfully tight to still have a hard time acknowledging how all this came about.

That’s not a bug though, it’s a feature. It’s a feature of the morphology of ideas and language.

To repeat another strikingly similar case in point: the word gothic. It simultaneously relates to Germanic tribes of the 6th century C.E and to a type of architecture that emerged in France some 600 years later. To say, for example, that the Visigoths had no such architecture and thus the dictionary is way off base in its offering of gothic to refer to that particular style of architecture is a mind-bogglingly silly idea - one of reason divorced from reality.

Moreover, if I say gothic and you immediately think “depressed teenagers who shop at hot-topic” you’re not wrong for thinking that either. Not in the least, my friend. In my attempt at communicating an idea, I don’t get to call my audience stupid, ignorant, or whatever else simply because they are aware of and tend-toward the more commonly accepted definitions of words I choose to use. It is up to me to sell the alternative, and that's always a very hard sell whose juice is seldom ever worth the squeeze.

Thus, no one who attaches the label “Satanist” or “satanic” to their lapel has any right at all to complain that people are morons for assuming that by that they mean what the word has come to mean. You don’t get to do that.

Sure, I might know what you mean, and the whopping 15 or so people who come here and bother to read probably know what you mean – but we’re actually the odd-balls making things harder than they really need to be by invoking alternate interpretations of the word at all. It’s an occupational hazard we have none to blame for but our own pedantic selves.

@all – I do also tend to take Satan in isolation. It's a rare day indeed to see four people agreeing on any issue, let alone one so contentious. If I wanted Set, or Typhon, or Odin, or Nergal, or whatever else, I’d make use of those instead. In my opinion if one has to use comparative mythology to justify their choice tutelary divinity they’re about a stone’s throw away from JoS levels of moon-bat kookery.

Afterthoughts and tangents:

-        -  Satan as the adversary of the nation of Israel is not a wrong leap to take. There in fact is a certain logic - as undeniable as it may be uncomfortable to admit - in equating Satan with Nazis. It's at least as thematically consistent as all the rest of the flotsam and jetsam that surrounds Satanism. In many cases even more so.


-        -  Though superficially it is easy to conclude that Satanism is the opposite of Christianity, LaVeyan Satanism is, in my opinion, far more aptly characterized as the antithesis of Mahayana Buddhism.


-         - Acceptance. Acceptance of alternate views and lifestyles cannot be earned simply by repetition or by shouting loudly enough about it. The world does not work like this. While people do have the right to be gay, act like faggots, or let whatever freak flag of theirs fly, they do not have the right to insist or expect that others have to accept or even respect them for it – that their reasoning alone somehow precludes and immunizes them from being found annoying, obnoxious, and worthy contempt. People have the right to dislike anyone for any and even no reason at all. The same goes for words, concepts and ideas. Similarly just because they say Satan represents compassion and some such other nonsense is no guarantee that their intended audience will accept that or any definition. That’s just not how language works. If I say “what’s up my nigger” and I get stomped for it, well___ that’s pretty much my fault for wrongly thinking this dude I don’t even know knows what context I was using the word in. He's not wrong for thinking that I use offensive words to be offensive - even if how that word ever came to mean something offensive is totally beyond my understanding.

The Forum post is edited by PlasmoticJezebel Aug 10
T.Volt Aug 10
Satan has been cruel yet not as much as god. He most represents challenge in one's commitment to authority, namely god. While in some cases he performs cruelty, it doesn't come from a sadistic urge *supposedly, but from god's command, for which early versions of Satan, as you said, was god's personal attorney/right hand.

Many versions of this exist, but all contain the core that one lives by their own pride, even if it hurts, and that there is no backing down from it, no matter how many people hate you back, you will always live by your own way. Is it dumb arrogance? I think for some it is, some not. What matters is at the core, where people are truly coming from. Varies person to person.

I think the essence of Satan is intact, but our society is trying to figure out how to change things again, and we're past the time of the peace love movement, so now people are trying to re-apply what it means to revolt, like always. People are trying to re-examine and define Satanism again. I don't think Satan is as offensive to people as hearing the word nigger, or faggot. Satan usually means asshole, or goth freak. Like, when people talk about a fucked up horror movie or something, I don't hear anyone use the descriptor "satanic", unless of course the move had that element. As a category of worldview and personal application, it is as of now, up in the air. Between TST and LaVey, you have a much watered down version, but at the heart, is the rebel against the norm. The majority of these people living up to Satan, no matter what form, is doubtful. For what it's worth, Satan continues to invoke what it always meant to: Challenge.
The Forum post is edited by T.Volt Aug 11
Well, what Satan has and has not been varies according to one's interpretation of the symbol, what sources they choose to include or exclude, and so on. Saying it's any one way or another outside of the context of a broad academic survey relegates it to something more closely approximating a sign, which is almost always done in order to support a broader narrative, agenda, or conclusion. Doing so often signals "imaginative bullshit ahead". *see: JoS / TST / ToS / countless internet debates on the subject / etc

Can it represent pride? Sure. Does it always? No. But that's how symbols work. 

^Does this warrant a sig heil or a jai jinedra? Both? Neither?

The Jains still have not got the message that Jews find it offensive. Perhaps it was lost in translation.

Symbols - the above being a prime example - can also be reconsecrated in their meanings - that's a whole separate can of worms concerning the arcane powers wielded by the zeitgeist; and who can really say whatits intentions and tendencies are? I choose not to speculate or make sweeping generalizations about what "people nowadays are doing". That's the job of journalists involved in political media with an angle of some sort to sell. Myself being people nowadays most assuredly am not doing much of any of whatever they're reporting on. At least not last I checked.

To reign it back in to where we went wildly off-base from the OP. Love vs Money. At least in the case of love - that word too requires a great deal of qualification. Like with Satan it doesn't stand devoid of ambiguity on its own. One can only speak broadly to it if at all.

The Forum post is edited by PlasmoticJezebel Aug 11
Pages: « 1 2
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Like and Share

Donate - PayPal

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps. You need not a PayPal to donate either just a debit or credit card.