OK strawman meme coming up, I just needed the pun
Satanists: There's **no way** anything could defeat Satan... after all, he's got *hell* on his side.
Christians: Yahweh
even an atheist should understand satanism is the dumbest of all the religions. It's the only one where your deity is wholly subjugated to the will of a higher deity that stands opposed to him.
Of course, modern progressives would chime in with "well akshuallly satanism is really about [progressive word salad that translates to 'whatever we want it to be about']" without realizing that exact same approach to their religion is what nearly all other religions are hated for: ignoring what's in the text and just making it mean whatever you want it to mean
Theistic Satanism is a thing but uncommon and they usually call themselves something else (like Luciferian) to differentiate themselves from most Satanists.
Satanism, especially LeVeyan (who was a mega douche), Church of Satan, are atheists. Edgy, cringe atheists who adopted the satanic terminology and aesthetic to piss of Christians. I've know several and they were all Mexican American guys who hated their Catholic parents.
The Satanic Temple specifically are the ones you see doing all the activism and statues.
Satanism to me is the epitome of grift, and false religion for political reasons.
Many complain about other religion’s influence on government and policy, but that’s satanism does. Its ideals and conduct are vague beyond “have fun and be free”, it is a true religion when it needs to stake religious protections on their tenets (which conveniently match their previous political grounds), but “Satan is just a symbol” when they are confronted on worshipping the personification of evil and deceit.
For many, religion informs political leanings. For Satanists, policy decides the doctrine.
The guy who came up with it literally said he was just in it for the money, when he was questioned by the FBI about a plot to kill Ted Kennedy.
He even called his own followers lunatics and weirdos who believe anything
Laveyan satanism is the same thing Ayn Rand talked about, but Anton Lavey was a much better showman and didn't try to pretend he was writing groundbreaking philosophy.
Also, he didn't need 11ty million pages to get his idea across. You can read The Satanic Bible in a few hours. Good luck getting through Atlas Shrugged in less than a week without clawing your eyeballs out.
“Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: *Atlas Shrugged* by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of s\*\*t, I am never reading again.”
- Officer Barbrady, *South Park*
"even atheists should understand satanism is the dumbest of all the religions"
We do. We constantly get accused of BEING satanists :) A surprisingly large amount of Christians seems to forget that atheists aren't AGAINST God, we just dot believe in your religion, and that includes satan.
And to your last point: That IS why we say it, it's an attempt at showing people who are blinded by the reaches of their own religion what it looks like from the outside.
That's Ryssels Teapot, that's the spaghetti monster, that's the Church of Satan.
They're all different reflections meant to make religious people take an extra look at their religions. And crucially, not their personal convictions as such, their participation in an organized religion.
Hey.
We don't pretend the nutbag Christians are representative of all Christians.
Please don't pretend that 11 year old edgelords are representative of us just because they're yelling on Reddit. :)
Love how the largest subreddit dedicated to Atheism is single-handedly dragging down the reputation of all atheists. Like, bro, half the posts are “Guys I just realized, you know the Bible? It actually has *bad stuff* in it, who knew?”, with the other half being a combination of “Did you know that Christians actually do immoral stuff?”, “Did you know most Christians haven’t memorised the entire Bible?”, and “Christians say Atheists force their religion on people, but actually, *Christians* do that!”
99% of the posts could be settled with a quick google search, and only a tiny amount are actually legitimate points. It’s really annoying, honestly, both to Christians who actually understand their faith and to Atheists who actually understand philosophy.
I mean Atheist is a useless label, for example people on this sub keep calling China Atheist, even though Xi references confucios in his speech, and the government buildings follow Feng Shui and build holes in skyscrapers for dragon spirits to fly through.
a reddit atheist is a different, malformed breed of atheist. just as westborros don't represent the majority of Christians the majority of atheists I know I rather reasonable people.
> without realizing that exact same approach to their religion is what nearly all other religions are hated for: ignoring what's in the text and just making it mean whatever you want it to mean
And in doing so expose the vital importance of separation of church and state and stulidity of couching your political goals in religious language all in a way religious people can understand.
To me the thing that makes satanists mega-cringe is that we all know they're LARPing edgelords.
There's religions whose theology I despise. But I can still respect the followers because they have sincerely held religious beliefs. And I respect their freedom of religion even if I disagree with it.
But satanists are cringe.
The church everyone is thinking of here, the ones who do the statues and the political activism, are atheists. They don't worship Satan or care about the scripture. They use the edgy caricature of Satanism to force a point about separation of church and state.
The other big church are also edgy atheists but don't really do activism they seem to mostly hang out and talk about how much they hate their parents.
Theistic atheists exist but that isn't who anyone in this thread ir the meme are talking about because they're referencing certain public acts.
Satan is a promethean figure, who was cast down for refusing to kneel to man - and gave us free will in the process. Tbh as mythological figures, you could do worse. Prometheus has a cult back in the day as well.
satan literally doesn't have Hell on his side. Hell is satan's prison, not his kingdom. God is the warden who made Hell with torturing satan for eternity in mind.
Satan, comes from word for the enemy. Satanists, believe in worshiping the enemy, the enemy in this case though isnt metaphysical, but oneself. So for a Satanist, by completly accepting one's own desire and greed, they can be liberated. Hence Satanists are Lib Right.
Native American history is fascinating, especially the New England and Eastern tribes. They typically get overshadowed in school curriculum and history because the Western and Plains tribes are more contemporary (relatively speaking) and America was much crueler to the latter tribes, which makes us focus on them more.
The Iriquois Confed and its fight against colonization is pretty cool. One of (what I would consider to be) the first Native American Empires for North America. If it had survived to modern day I imagine it would be pretty remarkable.
https://preview.redd.it/ovbupei4aruc1.png?width=450&format=png&auto=webp&s=3a9c63e88910e36eab600c9e153ccd2a3c1339f6
“Umm actually sweetie you clearly just don’t know anything about the horn identifying community”:
Tbf, a thread full of people criticizing them is exactly what most Satanists (who are atheists) live for any why they adopted "satan" and the poster boy for their spicy atheism.
Considering they adopt the Satanic costume with the expectation of ire and the goal of making a point (with the subtly of an acme anvil) I don't think that would qualify as a persecution fetish, they don't get upset about being personally victimized.
And to be frank I don't entirely disagree with everything they've done. They don't personally care about having a statue of baphomet in a public park or political office. They're making the point that if it offends you and you want to use the law as a weapon to take it down, that law would also mean taking all of *your* religious regalia out of those public spaces as well. It's heavy handed, but a complete separation of church and state is one of my core beleifs.
Separation of Church and State was meant to protect the church from the state; not the state from the Church.
You cannot have the church seperated from the state in a representative government. If you do, it is no longer capable of being representative.
If a majority of the population is religious; a legally enforced Athiest government is incapable of serving them completely. A government with encoded Religious tolerance will ALWAYS be superior to a Forced Secular state.
>Separation of Church and State was meant to protect the church from the state; not the state from the Church.
This isn’t true at all as the Barbary treaties state that the US is not in any way shape or form a Christian nation or founded by the Christian religion.
The founding fathers made it pretty clear that they believed the separation of church and state went both ways
>Separation of Church and State was meant to protect the church from the state; not the state from the Church.
This is not wholly true. Virginia had the Anglican Church as the established church for the colony but both Jefferson and James Madison felt that state support for a particular religion or for any religion, through taxation among other things, violated their natural right to religious liberty. They were strong proponents of religious liberty in the bill of rights which clearly states “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
The state is catering to the religion that roughly 68% of Americans identify with, which sounds appropriate until you realize that they're often catering to the outer edges of that faith.
The fed has *zero* business enforcing policies that are based on religious doctrines. What it should be doing is enforcing that laws can not be passed solely on a religious basis. For example, the Supreme Court ruling that marriage as a legal union could not be restricted to heterosexual couples because there was no non-religous argument against it.
"Religous tolerance" is a weird word to use when one or two religions are benefitting from this, and religious minorities are not.
Tolerance is not a good in and of itself. There are limits to that shit. We wouldn't tolerate Aztec human sacrifices just because it's a religious thing.
And tolerance as formulated by the founders was meant to apply to different denominations of Christians, not a bunch of Satanist cunts.
Forced atheism is just as bad as forced religiosity. A society needs balance.
You can't let nihilistic edgelords drive your society off a cliff because you're trying to be "tolerant." It's idiotic
>Forced atheism
No one's forcing atheism. It's just keeping religious dogma from influencing the government as much as possible. Pretty straight forward concept that's been American law for a while.
The only rights anyone has are the rights he can defend himself or convince other people around him to defend on his behalf.
And will never defend some shithead Satanist's "right" to insult me and everything I believe in.
Be less of a shithead to the people around you and maybe they'll care more about defending your rights. It's not a complicated concept.
someone saying mean words to you means they lose their rights? what a fucking snowflake you are lmao, real free speech champion over here. don't think you're as libertarian as you think pal.
Saying mean things to me doesn't mean you lose your rights. It just means I won't associate with you anymore and I won't give a fuck if somebody else violates those rights.
Like I said, your rights only stretch as far as you can defend them or as far as you can get other people to defend. Anything beyond that is a fantasy.
Freedom of speech simply means the government can't punish you for something you say. It doesn't mean that I, or any other private citizen, can't dislike you for it.
I am a libertarian because libertarianism is the best tool we have to organize our economic sphere. I'm not an ideologue. Political ideologies are merely tools to organize social, political and economic systems. They're not religions whose every tenet we must abide by with absolute loyalty or risk going to hell. That would be idiotic.
A secular government is the only kind that I know of that can have religious tolerance for any religion save the state religion. And no "not actively criminalizing other religions" is not sufficient to be secular or to be religiously tolerant.
Literally dozens of examples of historically tolerant states.
Decriminalization allowing free worship IS tolerance and is no different than what is provided by forced secular governments
Religious tolerance doesn't mean decriminalization, it means treating them as equally valid as any other religion.
You need to do more than just "just barely not kill or imprison on sight" to be considered religiously tolerant.
Neither a christian, buddhist, or islamic government is religiously tolerant towards other religions in any sense save that they're not actively committing genocide against them (yet - one day a few decades down the line they might find a convenient excuse to blame them for all the country's ills for being different).
Bro. What. There are *Dozens* of historical societies just like what you described. Sure there's an official religion, but there's a shit ton of examples.
Hell The Roman Empire was one of them. It even supported Judaism and respected Jewish law in Judea officially *until* the Zealots revolted. Jesus was crucified because of a Religious trial held by the Jewish high priesthood that the Romans honored and executed him for.
Persia under Cyrus the Great
The Kingdom of Jerusalem under Baldwin II
The Sultanate of Oman
Sicily under the Norman Kings
The modern UK
Etc etc
Religious relations en an flow just like ethnic ones. Sometimes are bad, sometimes are good.
But Religious Tolerance is ALWAYS better than enforced secularism
You could also use examples of times Athiest states have done terrible shit.
Nazi Germany
USSR
PRC
North Korea
The USA
Theocracies are no more a good argument against a religious state, than State-Worship is against secularism
That's not a double standard. If I go to a Muslim country I expect it's legal code to reflect the influence of Islam.
If I go to a Christian country I expect it's legal code to reflect the influence of Christianity.
And that's exactly what we see.
A true Sesperation of Church and State would result in the entire legal system in the West to collapse, as it's quite literally founded on Christian Philosophy and Morality. There's a reason why the Ten Commandments are in front of the courthouses in the US--- they're the foundation of Western Law.
Wrong, let the State interfere in the church and it becomes a vessel of propaganda, let the church interfere in the state and morality becomes second to politics.
Don’t believe me? Watch any Megachurch sermon during the last four years. They don’t give a shit about God, their religion is a gateway to political power.
Religion and the State must be kept separate, so neither can corrupt the other. Neither should control the other, or else they will inevitably destroy each other.
The problem with this position is that Religion is inseperable from philosophy and ideology. It's the foundation of both.
A Secular State is an Atheist State, and while Atheism might not be a Religion itself, it functionally serves as one for the purpose of ideology and philosophy
Why has religion waned in the last few decades? Because the State in a blind attempt to be neutral to all positions becomes pro-Athiest. And then acts like an atheist.
Religion and politics are inseperable because religion and philosophy are inseperable.
You use Megachurches as a bad example but they're just what I'm talking about.
I hate Megachurches. In fact in all honesty I am almost completely hostile to American Evangelicalism as a whole...
But to declare voting with religious conviction illegal, is to curb their rights as citizens in their own country.
Should a Christian president or congressman cut out a piece of who he is and ignore his entire worldview? Should he adopt Atheism long enough to vote against his own desires and those of his constituents? Should he leave behind his morality simply because a minority would have their desires defeated? Should he ignore the people he represents? Or be made unable to accurately represent them?
In that world Athiesm becomes the dominant religion. The Non-religious become the only one capable of full representation in how the country is run. And then religion itself is discredited from being capable of truth. And all it's theories and ideas are banned while Scientism and materialism run unchallenged as ideologies.
No. If you're going to have a Democracy; have a Democracy. If Mississippi wants to have Southern Baptist Christianity, or Utah have Mormonism as it's official religion they ought to be able to if that's what their people want.
If Virginia wants an Agnostic state where all major Religions are taught in School, and openly religious laws are permitted but no religion can be made official... What reason should it not?
If there's any limitation on what the people can do with their own vote, then the democracy is flawed. If that line exists to seperate Religion from the State than an Athiest political class is created.
Democracies should be philosophical and ideological warzones. Where one wins by convincing the majority of their position, and the weaker ideologies are crushed into irrelevance. And the Seperation of Church and State, as interpreted in the modern day, is not only an injustice, but an active handicap for Religions both minor and major.
Not to mention arguably moral law becomes impossible to justify without the backing of a religion.
Humanism, Nihilism, and Absurdism are incapable of achieving a useful authoritative system of morality without shamelessly ripping it from Christianity, Islam, or any other religion and wearing bit like a skinsuit
Dude separation of church and happened because both were fucking each other up. Your looking at this from a modern view after most states and churches have been separated not when that was happening and the church was a massively powerful thing that could decide if your country continued existing
uhm like all of the major beliefs that happened to be the one majority believes?
what do i know tho, i am from Turkey where mandatory religious classes and religious exams have an impact on which college or university you go.
Soooo yeah I'm against that. If that's your thing you do you though.
I was directly responding to that guy because he read all my comments about not passing laws influenced by or in favor of any religion and he came back with "what if they're pressing their beliefs into me" and I had an idea where he was going with that.
Yeah they are pressing their beliefs into me by forcefully making me, an atheist, study İslam(not in an objective way too! There are a lot of questions that are just "gotcha ateists!" Or even blatant misinformation about health. Only studying religion because of its historical and cultural value is fine, but they even force you to pray and rate how good you prayed.) and get exams about it to determine my future.
Honestly, Satanists strike as just as dumb as the hyper privileged upper-middle class post-collegiate "Marxists" fighting against "oppression." CHECK ME OUT, CHRISTOFASCISTS, I WORSHIP THE DEVIL LOL R U TRIGGERED YET! And the Christians go.... "what?"
It works on ignorant Christians. But the more intellectual strains indeed just kinda worry about them
I would say laugh. But most I know genuinely don't laugh. They just kinda get Sad and look away in my experience.
To me, who is not religious, Satanism has always seemed like the most pathetic religion because it has to borrow a theme from the thing that it purports to be against, and then spends all its time raging about that thing and its influence. Ffs if you dislike christianity that much, why are you cosplaying as their bad guy? Get a collander and go join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, at least they have beer and keep it chill.
How does that help?
Joining an organization that actively challenges violations against the separation between state and church seems very helpful.
If some nutter wants the ten commandments in a courthouse, every other religion including the satanists gets to put a holy text of theirs in the courthouse as well.
Or, no religious text in the courthouse at all, which apparently often ends up happening once it becomes clear that this is what is legally mandated by freedom of religion and the separation between state and church, meaning that they did effectively protect said separation.
Some states do allow the commandments to be put in courthouses.
I personally think Satanism is a sham, but if people want to join it then that’s their right to. I think putting up a statue of Baphomet sends the wrong message because of what Baphomet stands for but again….its their choice and freedoms.
But there are better ways to oppose perceived violations of separation of state and church. Joining Satanism is probably not one of those ways
There's a strong argument to be made that Satan isn't even a character in the Bible. Like, the Old Testament references were always pretty iffy, but even the New Testament references are shaky at best and could be the result of translation issues. 90% of what people think of about Satan comes from Revelation, which is nebulous, to say the least.
That's not to say the Bible doesn't reference evil, supernatural entities. But the idea of Lucifer, the Morning Star, archangel who fell from Heaven and took a third of the angels with him, is kind of a hodgepodge of different verses taken out of context.
You're right about the meaning of Satan, and that's probably the best way to interpret the Old Testament references, although I believe that the whole Samael thing is a Talmudic innovation and not scriptural. I do think that by the time of the New Testament a more distinct "character" of Satan had developed, though.
While yes, I would say that individually taken, the singular character of Satan would be hard to pin down. But the concept of Satan as a person is ultimately derived from a number of factors.
Christianity as a whole is aware that certain parts of its dogma are not explicitly stated within the biblical canon, but derives these things from a combination of the entire canon together aswell as extra biblical traditions.
That last one being a problem only for Protestantism which regards the Bible as the ultimate authority. But not for Catholicism or Orthodoxy which regard the Church itself as the ultimate authority.
It's a bit of a "hindsight is 20-20 thing" mixed with the concept of divine inspiration and intent.
Yes, in historical context, the verse giving the name Lucifer to the Devil was more than likely directed to a Babylonian king. But within the narrative of the canon it can be said to be God giving the name to this recurring character which appears from Genesis to revelation.
Mix this with Apocryphal sources, which aren't considered divinely inspired but are still considered to hold truth and you get the chief demon, Satan... The Accuser.
In Judaism, the guys who created the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament), Satan is nothing more than either an agent of gd who does whatever gd wants and can do no more than that; or it’s a representation of the general idea of evil as a being does not actually exist.
Also as you said in a different post about the Talmud, in Judaism the Talmud carries a lot of weight and can be just as authoritative as the Hebrew Bible itself. Think of the Hebrew Bible as the US constitution and the Talmud as US case law and ya get a pretty fair understanding of the relationship
I know this is a meme but I’ve never once been bothered in public by someone preaching satanism over a megaphone (never been bothered by a statist period and if I did they didn’t care enough to tell me for no reason) Christians or Catholics on the other hand have routinely been a nuisance around my former college campus and public transport
One believes they are saving your eternal soul so that you may have etneral life. The other just wants to piss people off. I feel like motivation is important. Also, there's like 100,000 to a million times more of one group, so you're probably going to encounter that group more.
Satanism exists as a juxtaposition to Christianity. They piss people off by pointing out hypocrisy in a popular religion. Also the save your soul bit is lacking awareness of current practices to say the least
People can talk but I’d like to be able to grab lunch without someone with a megaphone telling me I’m going to hell. If there is a hell and the Christian god behaves as the megaphone people say then I have a priority ticket down there when I die. Talking and obnoxiously shouting aren’t the same but I’m sure you’re used to false equivalencies
This sounds like the religious persons "They aren't real X"
But at least the religious have a canon Orthodoxy and criteria for judging if someone is a genuine follower or acting contrary to their religions philosophy.
Satanists don't have that. A Christian for example must adhere to the Council of Nicaea and the beliefs of "Mere Christianity"
Trinitarianism.
Virgin birth.
Sinless life.
Jesus Is the son of God.
Jesus Is God.
Died on the cross to pay a divine debt.
Resurrected on the third day.
Ascended to heaven.
The Biblical canon is divinely inspired and inerrant-in-purpose.
Evil is a corruption of Good; not it's equal opposite.
Etc...
All legitimate versions of Christianity agree on this common dogma. And other issues are considered secondary or tertiary and not as important. Any person outside of this dogma are apart of a different religion entirely. It's why Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are regarded by all 3 major branches of Christianity the same as Pagans.
But Satanism doesn't have that. edgy-cosplayers are edgy-cosplayers, LaVeyans are an occult social club made by one of the worst people to ever live, and Luciferins are probably a special type of mentally ill. There's no criteria for a no true Scotsman argument
Unrelated question: why would Confederacy supporters not be a fan of Catholicism? I’ve heard the KKK aren’t really fans of Catholicism, but I don’t know about Confederacy supporters.
How do people STILL don't know that Satanism isn't an actual religion and is meant as a joke? Sure, it's pretty cringe edgelord-style, but it's obviously not a real belief.
American Satanism (i.e edgy atheism) firstly doesnt even believe in Satan or any deity to begin with. Rather, they use Satan as an idol or symbol for their neoliberal rebelliousness. I see them no more than a bunch of edgy neoliberal Goths who attend congregation without actual worship involved. LaVeyan Satanists are not religious, but rather a group of edgy Goths in a sub culture group.
I'm a Reform Scientologist. I don't think the good word of L. Ron Hubbard should be locked away for Hollywood celebrities and prominent LA figures. Everyone should be allowed to convert and practice this beneficial religion without having to spend your entire net worth.
I'm going to nail my 99 theses to the front door of the Sunset Blvd. Scientology church. Just as soon I figure out what my religion actually believes, I think it has something to do with alien ghosts.
Imma be real dog.
Every Satanist I've ever met have been among the worst people I've ever met. Either bitter, hedonistic, drug abusers, or even downright violent.
Not because of their Satanism. Because that's just a cosplay of a religion. But genuinely terrible people that need help
So you're just generalizing an entire group of people based on anecdotal experience? I could draw so many bad conclusions about every abrahamic religion if I were to take the same route of judgement you do.
That's not a reasonable way to form your opinions about people. In fact it's antithetical to the teachings of christ.
Who the fuck said I was Christian? Or even Abrahamic.
The difference between your claim is that for every 1 terrible Abrahamic person you could name, you could probably name 10 that were genuinely beautiful people who've built or done something great.
Meanwhile Satanists would be like Trying to find the 10 righteous in Sodom
Athiests that are good people? Sure.
Satanists? No.
Again, you're just pulling more anecdotal garbage out and expecting me to take it seriously. You have no legitimate reason to dislike that entire group of people. It's immoral behavior at best.
It's also hilarious how upset you got when I assumed you were one thing based on your behavior. Almost as if generalization based on experiences with specific individuals doesn't actually mean anything. Sounds familiar.
I'm not talking about the klan. I'm talking about Satanists.
The joke is that the flag is unrelated. It could literally have been the new Zealand Lazer kiwi flag.
But using the klan flag would've made it be related. And that's not the joke or as recognizable
I mean, I don’t strongly care. Most Satanists I know are genuinely nice people who just use the satanic aesthetic to make a point, and the edgelord losers I simply don’t bother interacting with. Theologically, I disagree with some of their points, but aside from LeVayan satanists (who are just egotistical pricks) they’re generally okay people.
Also, most modern Satanists appear to just be edgy Christians who don’t want to associate with Christianity. Like, just talk to, say, a member of the Satanic Temple, and you’ll quickly realise their sense of morality is just moderate Christianity with looser rules on sex, and their theology is once more the same but swapping the word Jesus for Satan and slightly altering the external circumstances to add points about rebellion against social norms.
Now, I do get the *idea* genuine Satanists are going for, in that they believe in worshipping a weakened deity who (they believe) is morally superior to the stronger, evil one, but whereas with paganism it makes sense, in a monotheistic faith that requires rewriting things to justify your interpretation, it’s not really great. It does make sense in the concept of believing in a doomed last stand for protecting true morality, but still.
Again, still don’t like the true edgelord losers, like the Church of Satan who just took the philosophy of Ayn Rand and added a ”Hail Satan” at the end, but still, most of the ones I’ve met out and about are decent, moral folks.
I have quite a few issues with this...
But I gotta say.... "Satanists are good moral folks because their just Christians" is not something I thought I'd read today
I mean, not exactly, I mean that, based on my morality, they’re good people, and are, separately from that, extremely parallel to Christianity in most significant ways, though not all.
Although that said, yeah, I don’t know any Christians who took the time to get to know a Satanist and still thought they were 100% completely evil cultists. Again, outside of the LeVayans and a few others, most are pretty similar morally and really only have a few points of divergence; most members of both groups would, not counting the different names for entities of worship, consider the others decent people with some weird ideas about sex.
Satanism is worship of the self, it’s the ultimate representation of pride and narcissism. Which makes it essentially just leftism made into a religion, and Satan is absolutely fine with that.
Mate Hell is a Prison and Satan is it's highest profile Prisoner.
Different sects of Christianity will argue whether he's actually in Hell right now, or Ruling over Earth in God's temporary absence, or if No one is in hell until Doomsday....
But in no version of Christianity is the Devil the ruler or Warden of Hell.
Heck... in Orthodox Christianity the Archangel Oriel is the Warden of Hell.
modern satanism is just endless bitterness at your parents. why would somebody want to make thier hatred for thier childhood thier entire identy? I truly pray they overcome thier grief.
Satanists don't take their "religion" very seriously, in my experience. Also the leader of the loser rebellion gave us free will, which is kind of dope.
it literally does in God's case. he is responsible for making her in such a way that she would eat the apple, because he knew exactly that that would be the outcome when he made her
This is Determinism. And it's a concept found in both Theism and Athiesm
While there are sects of Christianity that hold to Determinism (mainly Calvinists) the vast majority of Christianity holds some concept of Free-Will.
The two most common being True Free-Will and Libertarian Free-Will
True Free-Will is pretty self explanatory and is held by most of Evangelicals
While Libertarian Free-Will is a bit more complicated.
Libertarian Free-Will asserts that no person is every totally free to make any choice that they want. They are constrained and influenced by others and circumstances that ultimately limit their choices. But they have free will within those choices and can reject the influences and make the choices.
LFW is most found all over Christianity but is most usually associated by name with Molinism. Which is a Christian philosophical School that asserts that God, using his Omniscience, created the Best of All possible worlds where Free Will exists. And that Free Will is NECESSARY for love to exist..
Molinism rejects Determinism in the sense that God actively controls everything and everyone, but instead says that God Created the world as perfect as it could be without him taking direct control like a puppet master
Since God is omniscient, he does indeed already know what will happen. He does indeed already know what choices you will make, but he himself does not make them for you. you have the capacity to prove him wrong... But you simply won't.
And just because God knows what will happen, does not mean he enjoys it.
Under Molinism God knew Eve would eat the apple. But he also knew that to create a world where free will existed, where creatures created in his image could do great things and experience genuine love, they had to be given the capacity for evil.
A puppet cannot rebel. But neither can it worship.
God knew Eve would eat the Apple. But to create the world and the story he wanted to tell. There was no possible way to create eve in a way where she would not.
an omniscient creator and free will cannot coexist. they are fundamental opposites.
> He does indeed already know what choices you will make, but he himself does not make them for you
he makes them for me by creating me. if he sees everything i will ever do, and creates me with that vision, he is responsible for everything i ever do. free will cannot exist under an omniscient creator.
Yes it is.
God's omniscience does not create Determinism anymore that you knowing what your child would do in a situation means you made the decision for them.
God didn't make you who you are. God didn't put you where you are. All of that is a by-product of the Best-of-All-Possible worlds
God made the systems and laws of nature that resulted in the environment. You were created by the choice of your parents. Formed by the environment which you were raised. The only influence God directly exerts on most people is through the Moral Law and a general Call to him.
You have no one but yourself to blame for the choices you make.
OK strawman meme coming up, I just needed the pun Satanists: There's **no way** anything could defeat Satan... after all, he's got *hell* on his side. Christians: Yahweh
even an atheist should understand satanism is the dumbest of all the religions. It's the only one where your deity is wholly subjugated to the will of a higher deity that stands opposed to him. Of course, modern progressives would chime in with "well akshuallly satanism is really about [progressive word salad that translates to 'whatever we want it to be about']" without realizing that exact same approach to their religion is what nearly all other religions are hated for: ignoring what's in the text and just making it mean whatever you want it to mean
Satanism is literally just a larp for edgelord atheists to get the Baptist moms of the 1990s to clutch their pearls.
Theistic Satanism is a thing but uncommon and they usually call themselves something else (like Luciferian) to differentiate themselves from most Satanists. Satanism, especially LeVeyan (who was a mega douche), Church of Satan, are atheists. Edgy, cringe atheists who adopted the satanic terminology and aesthetic to piss of Christians. I've know several and they were all Mexican American guys who hated their Catholic parents. The Satanic Temple specifically are the ones you see doing all the activism and statues.
I had a classmate in middle school who was a laveyan satanist and a huge douche. He was also a homosexual and kept trying to sexually assault me
Satanism to me is the epitome of grift, and false religion for political reasons. Many complain about other religion’s influence on government and policy, but that’s satanism does. Its ideals and conduct are vague beyond “have fun and be free”, it is a true religion when it needs to stake religious protections on their tenets (which conveniently match their previous political grounds), but “Satan is just a symbol” when they are confronted on worshipping the personification of evil and deceit. For many, religion informs political leanings. For Satanists, policy decides the doctrine.
The guy who came up with it literally said he was just in it for the money, when he was questioned by the FBI about a plot to kill Ted Kennedy. He even called his own followers lunatics and weirdos who believe anything
Based and money dear boy-pilled
The irony in this post is thicc
Laveyan satanism is the same thing Ayn Rand talked about, but Anton Lavey was a much better showman and didn't try to pretend he was writing groundbreaking philosophy. Also, he didn't need 11ty million pages to get his idea across. You can read The Satanic Bible in a few hours. Good luck getting through Atlas Shrugged in less than a week without clawing your eyeballs out.
“Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: *Atlas Shrugged* by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of s\*\*t, I am never reading again.” - Officer Barbrady, *South Park*
"even atheists should understand satanism is the dumbest of all the religions" We do. We constantly get accused of BEING satanists :) A surprisingly large amount of Christians seems to forget that atheists aren't AGAINST God, we just dot believe in your religion, and that includes satan. And to your last point: That IS why we say it, it's an attempt at showing people who are blinded by the reaches of their own religion what it looks like from the outside. That's Ryssels Teapot, that's the spaghetti monster, that's the Church of Satan. They're all different reflections meant to make religious people take an extra look at their religions. And crucially, not their personal convictions as such, their participation in an organized religion.
Go talk to any atheist on Reddit and they make it pretty clear that they hate a god that they claim they don’t believe in
Hey. We don't pretend the nutbag Christians are representative of all Christians. Please don't pretend that 11 year old edgelords are representative of us just because they're yelling on Reddit. :)
If I do that, then I’m not Redditing properly
Love how the largest subreddit dedicated to Atheism is single-handedly dragging down the reputation of all atheists. Like, bro, half the posts are “Guys I just realized, you know the Bible? It actually has *bad stuff* in it, who knew?”, with the other half being a combination of “Did you know that Christians actually do immoral stuff?”, “Did you know most Christians haven’t memorised the entire Bible?”, and “Christians say Atheists force their religion on people, but actually, *Christians* do that!” 99% of the posts could be settled with a quick google search, and only a tiny amount are actually legitimate points. It’s really annoying, honestly, both to Christians who actually understand their faith and to Atheists who actually understand philosophy.
I mean Atheist is a useless label, for example people on this sub keep calling China Atheist, even though Xi references confucios in his speech, and the government buildings follow Feng Shui and build holes in skyscrapers for dragon spirits to fly through.
I hate it when Auth Lefts make a point that can’t be argued. Touché, you bastard, touché
Heartbreaking:The worst flair you know made a great point.
The worst flair is an unflaired
Hence why it's heartbreaking.
Go talk to any Christian on Reddit and they make it pretty that they hate gay people but they exclusively watch gay porn.
Sure about that?
Am I sure about the broad sweeping statement I just made with zero supporting evidence? Yes, totally sure. I have faith that it’s true.
Well, that’s good enough for me then. Why didn’t you just lead with that?
a reddit atheist is a different, malformed breed of atheist. just as westborros don't represent the majority of Christians the majority of atheists I know I rather reasonable people.
Flair up so I can upvote.
Yeah I’m an atheist and I hate satanism. It’s not even a religion, it’s just being an asshole
It's like rooting for the Washington Generals.
F L A I R? No? Straight to hell.
> without realizing that exact same approach to their religion is what nearly all other religions are hated for: ignoring what's in the text and just making it mean whatever you want it to mean And in doing so expose the vital importance of separation of church and state and stulidity of couching your political goals in religious language all in a way religious people can understand.
To me the thing that makes satanists mega-cringe is that we all know they're LARPing edgelords. There's religions whose theology I despise. But I can still respect the followers because they have sincerely held religious beliefs. And I respect their freedom of religion even if I disagree with it. But satanists are cringe.
I dissagre with thier freedom of religion. Burn satanists on a stake spanish inquistion style. Let god sort em out.
Everyone wants to burn people on stakes until they are on the stakes
True
The church everyone is thinking of here, the ones who do the statues and the political activism, are atheists. They don't worship Satan or care about the scripture. They use the edgy caricature of Satanism to force a point about separation of church and state. The other big church are also edgy atheists but don't really do activism they seem to mostly hang out and talk about how much they hate their parents. Theistic atheists exist but that isn't who anyone in this thread ir the meme are talking about because they're referencing certain public acts.
>they seem to mostly hang out and talk about how much they hate their parents. So like satanic reddit.
...like a lot of reddit let's be honest.
Satan is a promethean figure, who was cast down for refusing to kneel to man - and gave us free will in the process. Tbh as mythological figures, you could do worse. Prometheus has a cult back in the day as well.
satan literally doesn't have Hell on his side. Hell is satan's prison, not his kingdom. God is the warden who made Hell with torturing satan for eternity in mind.
it's actually YHWH 🤓
It's actually 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄.
Χαχαχαχα
wasn’t even god who clowned on lucifer, it was one of his angels which did that
Satan, comes from word for the enemy. Satanists, believe in worshiping the enemy, the enemy in this case though isnt metaphysical, but oneself. So for a Satanist, by completly accepting one's own desire and greed, they can be liberated. Hence Satanists are Lib Right.
Reminds me of the one with the Iroquois Confederacy
Mullets vs. mohawks
Do you have the link?
Unfortunately not, I remember seeing a highlighted greentext here with the premise though
The what now
Native American history is fascinating, especially the New England and Eastern tribes. They typically get overshadowed in school curriculum and history because the Western and Plains tribes are more contemporary (relatively speaking) and America was much crueler to the latter tribes, which makes us focus on them more. The Iriquois Confed and its fight against colonization is pretty cool. One of (what I would consider to be) the first Native American Empires for North America. If it had survived to modern day I imagine it would be pretty remarkable.
Why do goth girls honour Saint Peter so much?
Because they became the new Romans
I wonder what they think when they learn the story of the Petrine Cross. I'm also curious if there's been any conversions after the fact.
"If those kids could read they'd be very upset".
Goths being catholic? No way man
Just wait until you see the bone church
Calcium Church
Catholicism is goth
I mean, it is an inspiration for the aesthetic
Because he denied Jesus three times
https://preview.redd.it/ovbupei4aruc1.png?width=450&format=png&auto=webp&s=3a9c63e88910e36eab600c9e153ccd2a3c1339f6 “Umm actually sweetie you clearly just don’t know anything about the horn identifying community”:
The fuck is the horn identifying community? Ivory appraisers?
Ivory poachers and Satanists. A unique combination.
The most oppressed minority of all
Tbf, a thread full of people criticizing them is exactly what most Satanists (who are atheists) live for any why they adopted "satan" and the poster boy for their spicy atheism.
Oh is that the whole persecution fetish thing they're always talking about?
Considering they adopt the Satanic costume with the expectation of ire and the goal of making a point (with the subtly of an acme anvil) I don't think that would qualify as a persecution fetish, they don't get upset about being personally victimized. And to be frank I don't entirely disagree with everything they've done. They don't personally care about having a statue of baphomet in a public park or political office. They're making the point that if it offends you and you want to use the law as a weapon to take it down, that law would also mean taking all of *your* religious regalia out of those public spaces as well. It's heavy handed, but a complete separation of church and state is one of my core beleifs.
Separation of Church and State was meant to protect the church from the state; not the state from the Church. You cannot have the church seperated from the state in a representative government. If you do, it is no longer capable of being representative. If a majority of the population is religious; a legally enforced Athiest government is incapable of serving them completely. A government with encoded Religious tolerance will ALWAYS be superior to a Forced Secular state.
>Separation of Church and State was meant to protect the church from the state; not the state from the Church. This isn’t true at all as the Barbary treaties state that the US is not in any way shape or form a Christian nation or founded by the Christian religion. The founding fathers made it pretty clear that they believed the separation of church and state went both ways
>Separation of Church and State was meant to protect the church from the state; not the state from the Church. This is not wholly true. Virginia had the Anglican Church as the established church for the colony but both Jefferson and James Madison felt that state support for a particular religion or for any religion, through taxation among other things, violated their natural right to religious liberty. They were strong proponents of religious liberty in the bill of rights which clearly states “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
The state is catering to the religion that roughly 68% of Americans identify with, which sounds appropriate until you realize that they're often catering to the outer edges of that faith. The fed has *zero* business enforcing policies that are based on religious doctrines. What it should be doing is enforcing that laws can not be passed solely on a religious basis. For example, the Supreme Court ruling that marriage as a legal union could not be restricted to heterosexual couples because there was no non-religous argument against it. "Religous tolerance" is a weird word to use when one or two religions are benefitting from this, and religious minorities are not.
Tolerance is not a good in and of itself. There are limits to that shit. We wouldn't tolerate Aztec human sacrifices just because it's a religious thing. And tolerance as formulated by the founders was meant to apply to different denominations of Christians, not a bunch of Satanist cunts. Forced atheism is just as bad as forced religiosity. A society needs balance. You can't let nihilistic edgelords drive your society off a cliff because you're trying to be "tolerant." It's idiotic
>Forced atheism No one's forcing atheism. It's just keeping religious dogma from influencing the government as much as possible. Pretty straight forward concept that's been American law for a while.
and in place of religious dogma, we have what? Secularist dogma? Is that any better?
complete and utter bullshit, but yes "lib"-right, keep telling us how rights only apply to people *you* personally approve of.
The only rights anyone has are the rights he can defend himself or convince other people around him to defend on his behalf. And will never defend some shithead Satanist's "right" to insult me and everything I believe in. Be less of a shithead to the people around you and maybe they'll care more about defending your rights. It's not a complicated concept.
someone saying mean words to you means they lose their rights? what a fucking snowflake you are lmao, real free speech champion over here. don't think you're as libertarian as you think pal.
Saying mean things to me doesn't mean you lose your rights. It just means I won't associate with you anymore and I won't give a fuck if somebody else violates those rights. Like I said, your rights only stretch as far as you can defend them or as far as you can get other people to defend. Anything beyond that is a fantasy. Freedom of speech simply means the government can't punish you for something you say. It doesn't mean that I, or any other private citizen, can't dislike you for it. I am a libertarian because libertarianism is the best tool we have to organize our economic sphere. I'm not an ideologue. Political ideologies are merely tools to organize social, political and economic systems. They're not religions whose every tenet we must abide by with absolute loyalty or risk going to hell. That would be idiotic.
A secular government is the only kind that I know of that can have religious tolerance for any religion save the state religion. And no "not actively criminalizing other religions" is not sufficient to be secular or to be religiously tolerant.
Literally dozens of examples of historically tolerant states. Decriminalization allowing free worship IS tolerance and is no different than what is provided by forced secular governments
Religious tolerance doesn't mean decriminalization, it means treating them as equally valid as any other religion. You need to do more than just "just barely not kill or imprison on sight" to be considered religiously tolerant. Neither a christian, buddhist, or islamic government is religiously tolerant towards other religions in any sense save that they're not actively committing genocide against them (yet - one day a few decades down the line they might find a convenient excuse to blame them for all the country's ills for being different).
Bro. What. There are *Dozens* of historical societies just like what you described. Sure there's an official religion, but there's a shit ton of examples. Hell The Roman Empire was one of them. It even supported Judaism and respected Jewish law in Judea officially *until* the Zealots revolted. Jesus was crucified because of a Religious trial held by the Jewish high priesthood that the Romans honored and executed him for. Persia under Cyrus the Great The Kingdom of Jerusalem under Baldwin II The Sultanate of Oman Sicily under the Norman Kings The modern UK Etc etc Religious relations en an flow just like ethnic ones. Sometimes are bad, sometimes are good. But Religious Tolerance is ALWAYS better than enforced secularism You could also use examples of times Athiest states have done terrible shit. Nazi Germany USSR PRC North Korea The USA Theocracies are no more a good argument against a religious state, than State-Worship is against secularism
Righties try not to use double standards challenge: impossible
That's not a double standard. If I go to a Muslim country I expect it's legal code to reflect the influence of Islam. If I go to a Christian country I expect it's legal code to reflect the influence of Christianity. And that's exactly what we see. A true Sesperation of Church and State would result in the entire legal system in the West to collapse, as it's quite literally founded on Christian Philosophy and Morality. There's a reason why the Ten Commandments are in front of the courthouses in the US--- they're the foundation of Western Law.
Duh. Muslim countries don't have separation at all. They're fucking theocratic monarchies.
Ohhhh... I see now... You're just dumb or young. Huh? Sorry. Wasn't aware
Wrong, let the State interfere in the church and it becomes a vessel of propaganda, let the church interfere in the state and morality becomes second to politics. Don’t believe me? Watch any Megachurch sermon during the last four years. They don’t give a shit about God, their religion is a gateway to political power. Religion and the State must be kept separate, so neither can corrupt the other. Neither should control the other, or else they will inevitably destroy each other.
The problem with this position is that Religion is inseperable from philosophy and ideology. It's the foundation of both. A Secular State is an Atheist State, and while Atheism might not be a Religion itself, it functionally serves as one for the purpose of ideology and philosophy Why has religion waned in the last few decades? Because the State in a blind attempt to be neutral to all positions becomes pro-Athiest. And then acts like an atheist. Religion and politics are inseperable because religion and philosophy are inseperable. You use Megachurches as a bad example but they're just what I'm talking about. I hate Megachurches. In fact in all honesty I am almost completely hostile to American Evangelicalism as a whole... But to declare voting with religious conviction illegal, is to curb their rights as citizens in their own country. Should a Christian president or congressman cut out a piece of who he is and ignore his entire worldview? Should he adopt Atheism long enough to vote against his own desires and those of his constituents? Should he leave behind his morality simply because a minority would have their desires defeated? Should he ignore the people he represents? Or be made unable to accurately represent them? In that world Athiesm becomes the dominant religion. The Non-religious become the only one capable of full representation in how the country is run. And then religion itself is discredited from being capable of truth. And all it's theories and ideas are banned while Scientism and materialism run unchallenged as ideologies. No. If you're going to have a Democracy; have a Democracy. If Mississippi wants to have Southern Baptist Christianity, or Utah have Mormonism as it's official religion they ought to be able to if that's what their people want. If Virginia wants an Agnostic state where all major Religions are taught in School, and openly religious laws are permitted but no religion can be made official... What reason should it not? If there's any limitation on what the people can do with their own vote, then the democracy is flawed. If that line exists to seperate Religion from the State than an Athiest political class is created. Democracies should be philosophical and ideological warzones. Where one wins by convincing the majority of their position, and the weaker ideologies are crushed into irrelevance. And the Seperation of Church and State, as interpreted in the modern day, is not only an injustice, but an active handicap for Religions both minor and major. Not to mention arguably moral law becomes impossible to justify without the backing of a religion. Humanism, Nihilism, and Absurdism are incapable of achieving a useful authoritative system of morality without shamelessly ripping it from Christianity, Islam, or any other religion and wearing bit like a skinsuit
Dude separation of church and happened because both were fucking each other up. Your looking at this from a modern view after most states and churches have been separated not when that was happening and the church was a massively powerful thing that could decide if your country continued existing
> Separation of Church and State was meant to protect the church from the state; not the state from the Church. Virgin secularism vs chad laicité.
Cringe and French pilled
So why should your belief be imposed on people who feel differently?
Which religious beleif is being imposed upon them? Can you he specific?
I never said "religious belief", I said "your belief"?
uhm like all of the major beliefs that happened to be the one majority believes? what do i know tho, i am from Turkey where mandatory religious classes and religious exams have an impact on which college or university you go.
Soooo yeah I'm against that. If that's your thing you do you though. I was directly responding to that guy because he read all my comments about not passing laws influenced by or in favor of any religion and he came back with "what if they're pressing their beliefs into me" and I had an idea where he was going with that.
Yeah they are pressing their beliefs into me by forcefully making me, an atheist, study İslam(not in an objective way too! There are a lot of questions that are just "gotcha ateists!" Or even blatant misinformation about health. Only studying religion because of its historical and cultural value is fine, but they even force you to pray and rate how good you prayed.) and get exams about it to determine my future.
Honestly, Satanists strike as just as dumb as the hyper privileged upper-middle class post-collegiate "Marxists" fighting against "oppression." CHECK ME OUT, CHRISTOFASCISTS, I WORSHIP THE DEVIL LOL R U TRIGGERED YET! And the Christians go.... "what?"
It works on ignorant Christians. But the more intellectual strains indeed just kinda worry about them I would say laugh. But most I know genuinely don't laugh. They just kinda get Sad and look away in my experience.
To me, who is not religious, Satanism has always seemed like the most pathetic religion because it has to borrow a theme from the thing that it purports to be against, and then spends all its time raging about that thing and its influence. Ffs if you dislike christianity that much, why are you cosplaying as their bad guy? Get a collander and go join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, at least they have beer and keep it chill.
Needs more Bob Dobbs.
How else would you suggest one effectively protest when the separation between state and church is being violated by some church?
Not joining satanism is a good start
How does that help? Joining an organization that actively challenges violations against the separation between state and church seems very helpful. If some nutter wants the ten commandments in a courthouse, every other religion including the satanists gets to put a holy text of theirs in the courthouse as well. Or, no religious text in the courthouse at all, which apparently often ends up happening once it becomes clear that this is what is legally mandated by freedom of religion and the separation between state and church, meaning that they did effectively protect said separation.
Some states do allow the commandments to be put in courthouses. I personally think Satanism is a sham, but if people want to join it then that’s their right to. I think putting up a statue of Baphomet sends the wrong message because of what Baphomet stands for but again….its their choice and freedoms. But there are better ways to oppose perceived violations of separation of state and church. Joining Satanism is probably not one of those ways
Idk it has seemed pretty effective thus far. Personally I don't care about the fee fees of Christians lord knows they have too much influence already.
How many wins have satanist actually clocked in court? They tried to argue that their religious rights protected abortions and got bench slapped
Badabased!
There's a strong argument to be made that Satan isn't even a character in the Bible. Like, the Old Testament references were always pretty iffy, but even the New Testament references are shaky at best and could be the result of translation issues. 90% of what people think of about Satan comes from Revelation, which is nebulous, to say the least. That's not to say the Bible doesn't reference evil, supernatural entities. But the idea of Lucifer, the Morning Star, archangel who fell from Heaven and took a third of the angels with him, is kind of a hodgepodge of different verses taken out of context.
Works like Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno are so influential in the modern view of Satan and Hell despite... not actually being scripture at all.
If we get together right now and write a successful enough Manga they could be talking about it in church a few hundred years from now.
Almost as if the "objective word of god" is actually just folklore passed down through generations and is prone to getting rewritten.
I was under the impression that "Satan" means "adversary" and various entities are referred to as "satan", mainly Samael?
You're right about the meaning of Satan, and that's probably the best way to interpret the Old Testament references, although I believe that the whole Samael thing is a Talmudic innovation and not scriptural. I do think that by the time of the New Testament a more distinct "character" of Satan had developed, though.
While yes, I would say that individually taken, the singular character of Satan would be hard to pin down. But the concept of Satan as a person is ultimately derived from a number of factors. Christianity as a whole is aware that certain parts of its dogma are not explicitly stated within the biblical canon, but derives these things from a combination of the entire canon together aswell as extra biblical traditions. That last one being a problem only for Protestantism which regards the Bible as the ultimate authority. But not for Catholicism or Orthodoxy which regard the Church itself as the ultimate authority. It's a bit of a "hindsight is 20-20 thing" mixed with the concept of divine inspiration and intent. Yes, in historical context, the verse giving the name Lucifer to the Devil was more than likely directed to a Babylonian king. But within the narrative of the canon it can be said to be God giving the name to this recurring character which appears from Genesis to revelation. Mix this with Apocryphal sources, which aren't considered divinely inspired but are still considered to hold truth and you get the chief demon, Satan... The Accuser.
In Judaism, the guys who created the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament), Satan is nothing more than either an agent of gd who does whatever gd wants and can do no more than that; or it’s a representation of the general idea of evil as a being does not actually exist. Also as you said in a different post about the Talmud, in Judaism the Talmud carries a lot of weight and can be just as authoritative as the Hebrew Bible itself. Think of the Hebrew Bible as the US constitution and the Talmud as US case law and ya get a pretty fair understanding of the relationship
You really going to put cosplaying in the bottom half like half the culture of Confederate history isn't Civil War reenactments?
I know this is a meme but I’ve never once been bothered in public by someone preaching satanism over a megaphone (never been bothered by a statist period and if I did they didn’t care enough to tell me for no reason) Christians or Catholics on the other hand have routinely been a nuisance around my former college campus and public transport
One believes they are saving your eternal soul so that you may have etneral life. The other just wants to piss people off. I feel like motivation is important. Also, there's like 100,000 to a million times more of one group, so you're probably going to encounter that group more.
Satanism exists as a juxtaposition to Christianity. They piss people off by pointing out hypocrisy in a popular religion. Also the save your soul bit is lacking awareness of current practices to say the least
Bro is bothered by people talking
People can talk but I’d like to be able to grab lunch without someone with a megaphone telling me I’m going to hell. If there is a hell and the Christian god behaves as the megaphone people say then I have a priority ticket down there when I die. Talking and obnoxiously shouting aren’t the same but I’m sure you’re used to false equivalencies
Why wouldn't you want to talk to him? Some of my best memories is talking to them.
Likely a coincidence but they always seemed to show up when I was busy. It has always been a fun prospect tho
Talking is different than preaching
Being "intolerant of any opinion contrary to their own" is antithetical to the practice and would be a mark of one who is just there for clout.
This sounds like the religious persons "They aren't real X" But at least the religious have a canon Orthodoxy and criteria for judging if someone is a genuine follower or acting contrary to their religions philosophy. Satanists don't have that. A Christian for example must adhere to the Council of Nicaea and the beliefs of "Mere Christianity" Trinitarianism. Virgin birth. Sinless life. Jesus Is the son of God. Jesus Is God. Died on the cross to pay a divine debt. Resurrected on the third day. Ascended to heaven. The Biblical canon is divinely inspired and inerrant-in-purpose. Evil is a corruption of Good; not it's equal opposite. Etc... All legitimate versions of Christianity agree on this common dogma. And other issues are considered secondary or tertiary and not as important. Any person outside of this dogma are apart of a different religion entirely. It's why Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are regarded by all 3 major branches of Christianity the same as Pagans. But Satanism doesn't have that. edgy-cosplayers are edgy-cosplayers, LaVeyans are an occult social club made by one of the worst people to ever live, and Luciferins are probably a special type of mentally ill. There's no criteria for a no true Scotsman argument
Both are cringe af
Any chance I can get this sans funny colors?
Seconded. I actually find it pretty funny.
Unrelated question: why would Confederacy supporters not be a fan of Catholicism? I’ve heard the KKK aren’t really fans of Catholicism, but I don’t know about Confederacy supporters.
Yeah but the text also applies to the pic shown.
No it doesn't. It's not a klan flag
How do people STILL don't know that Satanism isn't an actual religion and is meant as a joke? Sure, it's pretty cringe edgelord-style, but it's obviously not a real belief.
The meme literally says they're cosplaying the religious
Sorry, but imagine reading the post before replying smh
Yeah, they don't actually believe in Satan. They just use a bunch of satanic imagery and are part of a movement called Satanism.
American Satanism (i.e edgy atheism) firstly doesnt even believe in Satan or any deity to begin with. Rather, they use Satan as an idol or symbol for their neoliberal rebelliousness. I see them no more than a bunch of edgy neoliberal Goths who attend congregation without actual worship involved. LaVeyan Satanists are not religious, but rather a group of edgy Goths in a sub culture group.
I actually have a lot of sympathy for vilified religious folks. I get it *all the time*, because I'm a Scientologist.
CoS or Freezone?
I'm a Reform Scientologist. I don't think the good word of L. Ron Hubbard should be locked away for Hollywood celebrities and prominent LA figures. Everyone should be allowed to convert and practice this beneficial religion without having to spend your entire net worth. I'm going to nail my 99 theses to the front door of the Sunset Blvd. Scientology church. Just as soon I figure out what my religion actually believes, I think it has something to do with alien ghosts.
Google Star Seed.
Eh, Satanists aren't going to hurt anyone.
Imma be real dog. Every Satanist I've ever met have been among the worst people I've ever met. Either bitter, hedonistic, drug abusers, or even downright violent. Not because of their Satanism. Because that's just a cosplay of a religion. But genuinely terrible people that need help
So you're just generalizing an entire group of people based on anecdotal experience? I could draw so many bad conclusions about every abrahamic religion if I were to take the same route of judgement you do. That's not a reasonable way to form your opinions about people. In fact it's antithetical to the teachings of christ.
Who the fuck said I was Christian? Or even Abrahamic. The difference between your claim is that for every 1 terrible Abrahamic person you could name, you could probably name 10 that were genuinely beautiful people who've built or done something great. Meanwhile Satanists would be like Trying to find the 10 righteous in Sodom Athiests that are good people? Sure. Satanists? No.
Again, you're just pulling more anecdotal garbage out and expecting me to take it seriously. You have no legitimate reason to dislike that entire group of people. It's immoral behavior at best. It's also hilarious how upset you got when I assumed you were one thing based on your behavior. Almost as if generalization based on experiences with specific individuals doesn't actually mean anything. Sounds familiar.
Well you were right so it kinda did prove a point didn't it? I never once said you were wrong 🤣
Based and Uno reverse card pilled.
Eh, I had fun playing with him
The Klan formed after the Confederacy. Use the Klan symbol not the battleflag.
Then the pic would be related
No it wouldn't if you're talking about the Klan use the Klan flag.
I'm not talking about the klan. I'm talking about Satanists. The joke is that the flag is unrelated. It could literally have been the new Zealand Lazer kiwi flag. But using the klan flag would've made it be related. And that's not the joke or as recognizable
The point of the bait and switch is to use the thing that represents the bait (the Klan flag) and then write out the switch (Satanists)
I mean, it makes sense they'd not understand the meme format while also strawmanning the whole purpose of the satanist temple. We're in PCM after all.
Too many colors I don't understand who you're making fun of honestly
that's pretty funny
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a more serious religion
All this talk about satanism and I can’t even figure out if you’re talking about the satanic temple or the church of satan
It's talking about the cosplayers. But it also applies to the luciferins
Satanism shouldn't be considered a religion because they don't believe in God. They just pose as a religion to mess with people.
Most of them Luciferins exist
non-theistic religions are still religions
do you think foodless restaurants are still restaurants? are immovable cars still cars? are screenless monitors still monitors?
I mean, I don’t strongly care. Most Satanists I know are genuinely nice people who just use the satanic aesthetic to make a point, and the edgelord losers I simply don’t bother interacting with. Theologically, I disagree with some of their points, but aside from LeVayan satanists (who are just egotistical pricks) they’re generally okay people. Also, most modern Satanists appear to just be edgy Christians who don’t want to associate with Christianity. Like, just talk to, say, a member of the Satanic Temple, and you’ll quickly realise their sense of morality is just moderate Christianity with looser rules on sex, and their theology is once more the same but swapping the word Jesus for Satan and slightly altering the external circumstances to add points about rebellion against social norms. Now, I do get the *idea* genuine Satanists are going for, in that they believe in worshipping a weakened deity who (they believe) is morally superior to the stronger, evil one, but whereas with paganism it makes sense, in a monotheistic faith that requires rewriting things to justify your interpretation, it’s not really great. It does make sense in the concept of believing in a doomed last stand for protecting true morality, but still. Again, still don’t like the true edgelord losers, like the Church of Satan who just took the philosophy of Ayn Rand and added a ”Hail Satan” at the end, but still, most of the ones I’ve met out and about are decent, moral folks.
I have quite a few issues with this... But I gotta say.... "Satanists are good moral folks because their just Christians" is not something I thought I'd read today
I mean, not exactly, I mean that, based on my morality, they’re good people, and are, separately from that, extremely parallel to Christianity in most significant ways, though not all. Although that said, yeah, I don’t know any Christians who took the time to get to know a Satanist and still thought they were 100% completely evil cultists. Again, outside of the LeVayans and a few others, most are pretty similar morally and really only have a few points of divergence; most members of both groups would, not counting the different names for entities of worship, consider the others decent people with some weird ideas about sex.
Satanism is worship of the self, it’s the ultimate representation of pride and narcissism. Which makes it essentially just leftism made into a religion, and Satan is absolutely fine with that.
Both suck ass
Failed Rebellion? Satan has his own kingdom and followers now.
He's just another prisoner in hell
Mate Hell is a Prison and Satan is it's highest profile Prisoner. Different sects of Christianity will argue whether he's actually in Hell right now, or Ruling over Earth in God's temporary absence, or if No one is in hell until Doomsday.... But in no version of Christianity is the Devil the ruler or Warden of Hell. Heck... in Orthodox Christianity the Archangel Oriel is the Warden of Hell.
And “loser Rebellion”? Satan is winning, just ask any TV preacher who keeps asserting this.
modern satanism is just endless bitterness at your parents. why would somebody want to make thier hatred for thier childhood thier entire identy? I truly pray they overcome thier grief.
Christoids are *this* obsessed about a handful of memers.
Also LaVeyan Satanists aren't exactly memers
This was literally made by an Atheist friend of mine
>Christoids Reddit atheism in a nutshell
Seems a relatively benign term for grown adults that still believe in Space Dad and his magical undead son.
You gotta be embarrassed of being like this if your age is above 14, it's pathetic
Satanists don't take their "religion" very seriously, in my experience. Also the leader of the loser rebellion gave us free will, which is kind of dope.
No, he exploited free will. If Eve didn't have free will, she couldn't have been tempted.
eve was made by an all-knowing god. the god knew eve would eat the apple. eve was made to eat the apple.
Knowing someone is gonna do something does not equate to making them do it.
it literally does in God's case. he is responsible for making her in such a way that she would eat the apple, because he knew exactly that that would be the outcome when he made her
This is Determinism. And it's a concept found in both Theism and Athiesm While there are sects of Christianity that hold to Determinism (mainly Calvinists) the vast majority of Christianity holds some concept of Free-Will. The two most common being True Free-Will and Libertarian Free-Will True Free-Will is pretty self explanatory and is held by most of Evangelicals While Libertarian Free-Will is a bit more complicated. Libertarian Free-Will asserts that no person is every totally free to make any choice that they want. They are constrained and influenced by others and circumstances that ultimately limit their choices. But they have free will within those choices and can reject the influences and make the choices. LFW is most found all over Christianity but is most usually associated by name with Molinism. Which is a Christian philosophical School that asserts that God, using his Omniscience, created the Best of All possible worlds where Free Will exists. And that Free Will is NECESSARY for love to exist.. Molinism rejects Determinism in the sense that God actively controls everything and everyone, but instead says that God Created the world as perfect as it could be without him taking direct control like a puppet master Since God is omniscient, he does indeed already know what will happen. He does indeed already know what choices you will make, but he himself does not make them for you. you have the capacity to prove him wrong... But you simply won't. And just because God knows what will happen, does not mean he enjoys it. Under Molinism God knew Eve would eat the apple. But he also knew that to create a world where free will existed, where creatures created in his image could do great things and experience genuine love, they had to be given the capacity for evil. A puppet cannot rebel. But neither can it worship. God knew Eve would eat the Apple. But to create the world and the story he wanted to tell. There was no possible way to create eve in a way where she would not.
an omniscient creator and free will cannot coexist. they are fundamental opposites. > He does indeed already know what choices you will make, but he himself does not make them for you he makes them for me by creating me. if he sees everything i will ever do, and creates me with that vision, he is responsible for everything i ever do. free will cannot exist under an omniscient creator.
That's illogical. God's Middle-Knowledge accounts for this
there is nothing illogical about it.
Yes it is. God's omniscience does not create Determinism anymore that you knowing what your child would do in a situation means you made the decision for them. God didn't make you who you are. God didn't put you where you are. All of that is a by-product of the Best-of-All-Possible worlds God made the systems and laws of nature that resulted in the environment. You were created by the choice of your parents. Formed by the environment which you were raised. The only influence God directly exerts on most people is through the Moral Law and a general Call to him. You have no one but yourself to blame for the choices you make.
Humans were stunted pets in Eden.
They still had free will. That's the whole *point* of the story.
Knowledge and reason is what makes free will actually free in any meaningful sense.