Maybe a tangent, but the mythology of Satan isn’t associated with any moral or ethical being. Per my understanding of the standard myths around Satan, he wants literal murder and destruction of humanity. I don’t understand why reasonable or serious people (those uninterested in shock tactics) would care about associating themselves with the symbology or character of Satan. Is this any different from associating yourself with any other literal mass murder wanting entity? For example, Church of School Shooters?
I get that the idea is to expose the silliness in organized religion, but associating yourselves with an entity that represents destructive tendencies or desires is equally silly.
I’ve no opinion on the Satan display, it’s just people arguing over symbols. When those symbols prevent someone’s self actualization, then it’s something to worry about.
Some view Satan as a symbol for the rebellion against tyranny and questioning authority. His questioning of the Christian God is admirable in my opinion. Christians seem to use him as a warning for what happens if you question them but I don’t see him as a destructive character, quite the opposite in some ways.
Religious people are not all fanatics, or all opposed to the self actualization of others, so adopting symbology that they would find abhorrent does not win favors or friends. In fact, religious zealots get some sort of existential validation by the existence of Church of Satan etc. I think choosing a symbol associated with destructive ideas is not good marketing if you’re aiming for people who aren’t angsty about religion, or biased against people of faith. I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to let people be themselves, including have faith. The problem is that we’ve forgotten that separation of faith and state is needed for civil discourse and social harmony.
You’re conflating the Church of Satan with The Satanic Temple. Two different things. The latter does not believe in the supernatural.
The problem is that we’ve forgotten that separation of faith and state is needed for civil discourse and social harmony.
This is exactly the main point of TST. To fix this problem.
I don’t consider myself a member, despite agreeing with all of their 7 tenets (I challenge you to read them and tell me which you find objectionable), because I’m personally not a fan of all of the baggage associated with “Satan” and Abrahamic religion in general. I don’t need all of that just to be a secular humanist or whatever.
That said, I’m glad they exist and I support all of their efforts to try to stop Christian nationalism from taking hold of our country.
Man, you are reeaally over upset by this. Unless you are a hypocrite calling yourself a Christian, they are not calling you out. They are not angsty; they are political progressives fighting against hypocrisy and the force of religion in the public sphere (which is to say, government and schools).
If you truly believe that the problem is we have forgotten the separation between faith and state, you would probably be supportive of them.
I get that the idea is to expose the silliness in organized religion, but associating yourselves with an entity that represents destructive tendencies or desires is equally silly.
Many religions have gods raped and murdered. And we see them all over the place. There’s literally a smash hit game called Hades. Holy Hell, we literally named a planet after it.
Okay? So what’s the point? Hades is equally unreasonable for associating with as a rational or civil person. If you want people to think you have good judgment I don’t think associating with symbols that represent murder and destruction makes sense. The problem is that Satan’s myth is all about destruction, whereas the same cannot be said for God. If you’re retconning Satan then that’s a different story I suppose.
I mean, both are about destruction though. If we just go by destruction caused, God kills so, so many more people in the Bible, and significantly more are killed in the name of God to this day. I mean, God’s wrath is literally legendary.
I don’t think the Satanic Temple really “retcons” much of Satan, it just views them in a different light. Despite the rhetoric, biblical Satan doesn’t really do that much outside of angering God by offering free will. As a symbol, he already champions self-determination. Now sure, there’s been a lot of biblical fanfic written in the last 2,000 years that has made him into a symbol of destruction, but all that fanfic was written by Catholics, not by the Satanic Temple. Should they really be held responsible for how Satan was portrayed in Milton’s Paradise Lost, a completely fictitious image made-up wholesale in 1667?
Well, Satan’s inspiration origin is Zoroastrian, where that entity was thought of as destructive will. There’s nothing inherently interesting about destruction for the sake of it, which is what that entity represents. God OTOH can make claims of being about more than just destruction. That’s the problem. So either retcon Satan or just be okay with being associated with murder symbol.
Maybe the modern Christian conceptualization of Satan comes from that, but the view is not Biblically supported. And isn’t that what’s supposed to matter to Christians?
Satanism stems from an enlightenment era conception of Satan, not the medieval.
In the satanic temple’s case they also adopt some of the more classic imagery as a way to push against Christianity when it oversteps its bounds. The more grotesque image of satan eorks perfectly for this as it’s much easier to show the hypocrisy with than any other I’ve encountered.
Side note: as far as i know, god is the only character in the bible that already has, and has promised to again destroy the world. Satan (which translates to the accuser or adversary) has mostly just questioned god and tested peoples faith.
So cutting away the popular notions from centuries later actually puts satan in a much more favorable light.
It sounds like you need to actually read up on the history and tenets of The Satanic Temple. The name is ironic, poking fun at the pearl-clutching American Christofascists and calling them out on out their hypocrisy.
What did the serpent do? He never told anyone to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (also, can we stop for a second to recognize how awful it is that god was so against humans learning the difference between good and evil? The fuck??), he just describes it, and Eve eats it. As far as I remember, he never directly tells her to eat it.
Who destroyed all life on earth with a flood (lol right).
Who is the one that slaughtered Job’s family, and ruined his life, over a wager? Satan certainly never had that kind of power.
You should look into what the Bible actually has to say about Lucifer/Satan, compared to what your cultural understanding of the character might be.
Maybe a tangent, but the mythology of Satan isn’t associated with any moral or ethical being. Per my understanding of the standard myths around Satan, he wants literal murder and destruction of humanity. I don’t understand why reasonable or serious people (those uninterested in shock tactics) would care about associating themselves with the symbology or character of Satan. Is this any different from associating yourself with any other literal mass murder wanting entity? For example, Church of School Shooters?
I get that the idea is to expose the silliness in organized religion, but associating yourselves with an entity that represents destructive tendencies or desires is equally silly.
I’ve no opinion on the Satan display, it’s just people arguing over symbols. When those symbols prevent someone’s self actualization, then it’s something to worry about.
Some view Satan as a symbol for the rebellion against tyranny and questioning authority. His questioning of the Christian God is admirable in my opinion. Christians seem to use him as a warning for what happens if you question them but I don’t see him as a destructive character, quite the opposite in some ways.
Religious people are not all fanatics, or all opposed to the self actualization of others, so adopting symbology that they would find abhorrent does not win favors or friends. In fact, religious zealots get some sort of existential validation by the existence of Church of Satan etc. I think choosing a symbol associated with destructive ideas is not good marketing if you’re aiming for people who aren’t angsty about religion, or biased against people of faith. I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to let people be themselves, including have faith. The problem is that we’ve forgotten that separation of faith and state is needed for civil discourse and social harmony.
And that’s exactly what they’re doing
You’re conflating the Church of Satan with The Satanic Temple. Two different things. The latter does not believe in the supernatural.
This is exactly the main point of TST. To fix this problem.
I don’t consider myself a member, despite agreeing with all of their 7 tenets (I challenge you to read them and tell me which you find objectionable), because I’m personally not a fan of all of the baggage associated with “Satan” and Abrahamic religion in general. I don’t need all of that just to be a secular humanist or whatever.
That said, I’m glad they exist and I support all of their efforts to try to stop Christian nationalism from taking hold of our country.
Man, you are reeaally over upset by this. Unless you are a hypocrite calling yourself a Christian, they are not calling you out. They are not angsty; they are political progressives fighting against hypocrisy and the force of religion in the public sphere (which is to say, government and schools).
If you truly believe that the problem is we have forgotten the separation between faith and state, you would probably be supportive of them.
Many religions have gods raped and murdered. And we see them all over the place. There’s literally a smash hit game called Hades. Holy Hell, we literally named a planet after it.
Okay? So what’s the point? Hades is equally unreasonable for associating with as a rational or civil person. If you want people to think you have good judgment I don’t think associating with symbols that represent murder and destruction makes sense. The problem is that Satan’s myth is all about destruction, whereas the same cannot be said for God. If you’re retconning Satan then that’s a different story I suppose.
I mean, both are about destruction though. If we just go by destruction caused, God kills so, so many more people in the Bible, and significantly more are killed in the name of God to this day. I mean, God’s wrath is literally legendary.
I don’t think the Satanic Temple really “retcons” much of Satan, it just views them in a different light. Despite the rhetoric, biblical Satan doesn’t really do that much outside of angering God by offering free will. As a symbol, he already champions self-determination. Now sure, there’s been a lot of biblical fanfic written in the last 2,000 years that has made him into a symbol of destruction, but all that fanfic was written by Catholics, not by the Satanic Temple. Should they really be held responsible for how Satan was portrayed in Milton’s Paradise Lost, a completely fictitious image made-up wholesale in 1667?
Well, Satan’s inspiration origin is Zoroastrian, where that entity was thought of as destructive will. There’s nothing inherently interesting about destruction for the sake of it, which is what that entity represents. God OTOH can make claims of being about more than just destruction. That’s the problem. So either retcon Satan or just be okay with being associated with murder symbol.
You’re the only one getting upset about this.
Maybe the modern Christian conceptualization of Satan comes from that, but the view is not Biblically supported. And isn’t that what’s supposed to matter to Christians?
Satanism stems from an enlightenment era conception of Satan, not the medieval. In the satanic temple’s case they also adopt some of the more classic imagery as a way to push against Christianity when it oversteps its bounds. The more grotesque image of satan eorks perfectly for this as it’s much easier to show the hypocrisy with than any other I’ve encountered.
Side note: as far as i know, god is the only character in the bible that already has, and has promised to again destroy the world. Satan (which translates to the accuser or adversary) has mostly just questioned god and tested peoples faith. So cutting away the popular notions from centuries later actually puts satan in a much more favorable light.
It sounds like you need to actually read up on the history and tenets of The Satanic Temple. The name is ironic, poking fun at the pearl-clutching American Christofascists and calling them out on out their hypocrisy.
You should look into how many people Satan killed in the Bible vs. Yahweh.
Spoiler alert: Satan: 0, god: countless (several genocides).
What did the serpent do? He never told anyone to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (also, can we stop for a second to recognize how awful it is that god was so against humans learning the difference between good and evil? The fuck??), he just describes it, and Eve eats it. As far as I remember, he never directly tells her to eat it.
Who destroyed all life on earth with a flood (lol right).
Who is the one that slaughtered Job’s family, and ruined his life, over a wager? Satan certainly never had that kind of power.
You should look into what the Bible actually has to say about Lucifer/Satan, compared to what your cultural understanding of the character might be.
😭
deleted by creator