Øjeblikket;6293746 said:
Not always true. A religion, in short, is the adherence of a group of people to a specific sort of "spiritual" dogma; a dogma that sustains a group's spiritual ideologies. Thus, Satanism contains and implies a certain dogmatic tradition. One's personal ideologies being religiously adhered to is another thing; it is not a religion, however.
I don't know where you came up with that definition. You just described what religion means to you, basically a particular stereotype about a group of people and their beliefs. Satanism has no one "tradition," it's mostly an incoherent mish-mash of pagan and anti-Christian ideas. You make it sound like Satanists are Scientologists. Religion IS ideology. That's not a put down of religion; it's ideas and beliefs.
Øjeblikket;6293746 said:
Get off the fence then. I can agreee that a person should be allowed the freedom to express whatever he or she so cares to express in his or her music, but such freedom of individuality legitimized under the banner of Satanism is adherence to dogma, not a personal art. My point is this: if a man would pretend to lead other impressionable young men and women through music into a cathartic state then it is only wise not to pretend it is anything more. In the example we are discussing, my point is that whatever his name is has the actual strength of a flower that grows too tall on a weak stalk. Wind-bent, you see. It's nothing more than drama. Depending on where you're from, it's either comical or serious business and art. Those are my points
You're basically calling out this guy for being skinny and a misanthrope, and saying he's not what he says he is. It doesn't matter. The fact that we can't tell whether it's serious business, art, or bluster pretty much sums up how silly it is to call the guy out for trying to be what he want to be. People made the same comments about Dissection's singer, about the bluster in his rhetoric and the fact he was only a musician trying to sell records, and he ended up helping kill someone and then killing himself years later.
Øjeblikket;6293746 said:
Um, "good" Satanist. wtf? No, if whatever his name is claims to be a Satanist while vocalising songs about conquering in the name of Satan, or whatever, then it is foolish of him to pretend it is anything more than an act put on for the impressionable - the church included. If he wanted to be real, he would work out and eat more - a whole lot more. I'm simply saying he's no real threat.
Why does he have to be buffo to be a "real" Satanist? Why does he need muscles to kill people? Why does that even matter? The guy could go buy a gun and some gasoline and kill plenty of people that way. And who the fuck says Satanists have to kill people? LaVey's Satanic bible (which I'm not saying is canon or anything, just an example) even preaches against political and social violence.
Øjeblikket;6293746 said:
Why have you gone all preachy? What is your point. Can you read what I'm saying objectively?
Nope. By objective, you mean I should agree with you, using your own subjectivity. You're not being objective, why should I? Why should anyone for that matter? I'm not trying to be fair, I'm being honest.
Øjeblikket;6293746 said:
Depends on his competition. Any real challenge to his alleged conquering business would, no doubt, land the vocalist in question in some serious pain. Even a small child can be "cruel" to a frog. An adult that pretends to "unleash evil into the world", yadda yadda yadda, by means of force, or if he so claims, agrees to engage forces stronger than himself. In this field our singer in question is like the lone flea that intends to seize the dog by giving his ear some bother.
He's not a revolutionary, he's a self-proclaimed Satanist. If he wants to unleash evil and be cruel, he can do it fine without engaging "forces stronger than himself." I don't understand, you're basically calling him out continually for being a pussy after talking all this violence and murder shit. That's fine, but you also say it makes him a bad Satanist. I don't know if you're with me here, but there's a logic leap. Satanists don't have to kill people. Does anyone understand that anti-cosmic crap that Nodveidt used to talk about? No, so why would you impose what you think is a good Satanist on this guy?
Øjeblikket;6293746 said:
What are you talking about? Is Mike Tyson not buff? Do you think he is incapable of knocking a whole lot of dudes the fuck out? Think about how many other buff boxers you are saying can't fight because they're "meaty". You need to get a clue kid.
Rofl, really laughed out loud at that at my desk. Want me to list every example of every sort of person / profession that can put weight and muscle mass to use? Of course a fucking boxer would be able to use his weight and power to kill someone. That's clearly my point. But you hardly need that body mass to kill anyone. Guns? Explosives? Flammable materials? Knives? Why the hell does he have to look like 1990s Glen Danzig?
Øjeblikket;6293746 said:
Not only that, but you make my point for me. If whatever the heck his name is, the vocalist for Gorgoroth, had some physical training to match his alleged dogma of conquering through the unleashing of evil (we assume an aggressive behaviour is implied here), he might be considered as something more than a fool, and he wouldn't be so scrawny. Does that strike you as a riddle or something?
As you alluded to in your first paragraph, the guy intends to do his damage through his music, and the ideas he intends to transmit. He doesn't need a huge physique to kill or hurt anyone, and he doesn't need to be buff for these acts to potentially have an impression on the people he wants to follow him.
That he hasn't is more because he's likely not a very smart guy and not very committed, although he's obviously a sociopath. What I'm arguing to you is that his physical size is irrelevant to his capacity to commit violent acts and his commitment to his beliefs, especially since for you size = potential violence = real Satanist.
