OT, have you all heard about Jon Nödtveidt?

"The Satanist decides over his own life and death and prefers to go with a smile on his lips when he has reached his peak in life, when he has accomplished everything, and aim to transcend this earthly existence. But it is completely un-Satanic to end ones own life because one is sad or miserable. The Satanist dies strong, not by age, disease or depression, and he chooses death before dishonor! Death is the orgasm of life! So live life accordingly, as intense as possible!" - Jon Nödtveidt
 
I remember when I was living in NYC many moons ago, there was this satanic dude who used to host his on show on public access cable tv.....the things you end up watching at 3am when you're too wired to sleep...anyway...

This guy was prancing about his psuedo-castle (I suspect a shitty Brooklyn loft) with his (fake) sword and tells us he's about to recreate a satanic ritual. Lo and behold he strips down to just his sweatpants (Adidas is the preferred attire of discerning satanists apparently) and kneels down in front of his "alter" (see shitty cigarette stained coffee table), chants for a while and then takes out his prized "chalice" and states that now is the appropriate time to drink blood. But alas, our friend tells us he doesn't have any blood with him today (he must have saved that for the prime time network tv version of his show) and says that he'll have to make due with a substitute....Pepsi.

So our rotund little so-called satanic little friend is really a fat dude prancing around his shitty hovel in Brooklyn drinking Pepsi.

If only TV was that good every night....
 
Carrier Flux said:
why would the existence of satan require the existence of god? give me one good reason.

Like most religious ideas, it's all symantics - god (small 'g') is just the idea of an omnipotent being with an untold power over some aspect of our little chunk of the universe. Sometimes, there are lots of them, sometimes it's just the one. God (big 'G') is the dude in charge of the Christian bit. It's just an example of the limited scope of the English language that the same word describes both the idea and one particular implementation of it.

Satan is an idea that just happens to be present is all the Abrahamic faiths as the opposer of God (or whatever His name is), it just means "the adversary" or whatever. So it's pretty clear even from the name that to have a satan, you need a god. You can't be an opposer without someone to oppose.

The idea of him being some big red guy that bleeds evil is just one messy interpretation of the original idea though - Lucifer was the head Angel, he questioned God, God got a bit shirty and insecure about his cock size, and threw Lucifer out of Heaven. As such, Lucifer become God's adversary, hence the name change. His role wasn't to be evil himself, it was to tell people they don't have to follow God's word (thus giving them the choice of being evil if they so wish). So for the most part, the whole idea of Satanism is a bit rubbish; it's an entire religion based around the idea of not following a set of rules - which is essentially what religion is, thus making the entire concept completely obsolete and paradoxical.

The problem is even people who claim to be atheist still see god and the devil as good and bad, which they aren't - they're just opposing ideas. One gives you a set of rules to live by, one tells you that by living you'll set the rules.

The 'Satanism' that people like this Dissection dude follow is nothing to do with actual Satanism. You know how you tell some little kid not to do something, so they do? It's pretty much the same thing - this kind of Big Nasty Evil Satan following only ever happens where Christianity is rife, simply because it's following the God-fearing Christian blueprint of the Devil. It's just a neat way to rebel against the ideas you've been brought up with. No one from a neutral upbringing ever goes "Gee, hating everyone, killing small animals and digging up graves sounds like a wizard basis for belief system!".

However, LaVey Satanism isn't remotely to do with the Big Red Guy, it's simply about the idea preservation and advancement of the self (known as the left-hand path, hence the Entombed album). LaVey made it perfectly clear that he did not believe in devine beings. The irony is that he preached about self advancement and not following other people's rules - in the process getting thousands of people to... er... follow his rules... and pay him for the privilege... thus making himself lots of money, or advancing him if you will. Regardless of what you think about his pseudo-philosophical religious bullshit, the guy was a marketing genius and his legacy of making people look like stupid, ignorant, selfish pricks is almost unsurpassed.

Steve
 
Suicide_As_Alibi said:
Like most religious ideas, it's all symantics - god (small 'g') is just the idea of an omnipotent being with an untold power over some aspect of our little chunk of the universe. Sometimes, there are lots of them, sometimes it's just the one. God (big 'G') is the dude in charge of the Christian bit. It's just an example of the limited scope of the English language that the same word describes both the idea and one particular implementation of it.

Satan is an idea that just happens to be present is all the Abrahamic faiths as the opposer of God (or whatever His name is), it just means "the adversary" or whatever. So it's pretty clear even from the name that to have a satan, you need a god. You can't be an opposer without someone to oppose.

The idea of him being some big red guy that bleeds evil is just one messy interpretation of the original idea though - Lucifer was the head Angel, he questioned God, God got a bit shirty and insecure about his cock size, and threw Lucifer out of Heaven. As such, Lucifer become God's adversary, hence the name change. His role wasn't to be evil himself, it was to tell people they don't have to follow God's word (thus giving them the choice of being evil if they so wish). So for the most part, the whole idea of Satanism is a bit rubbish; it's an entire religion based around the idea of not following a set of rules - which is essentially what religion is, thus making the entire concept completely obsolete and paradoxical.

The problem is even people who claim to be atheist still see god and the devil as good and bad, which they aren't - they're just opposing ideas. One gives you a set of rules to live by, one tells you that by living you'll set the rules.

The 'Satanism' that people like this Dissection dude follow is nothing to do with actual Satanism. You know how you tell some little kid not to do something, so they do? It's pretty much the same thing - this kind of Big Nasty Evil Satan following only ever happens where Christianity is rife, simply because it's following the God-fearing Christian blueprint of the Devil. It's just a neat way to rebel against the ideas you've been brought up with. No one from a neutral upbringing ever goes "Gee, hating everyone, killing small animals and digging up graves sounds like a wizard basis for belief system!".

However, LaVey Satanism isn't remotely to do with the Big Red Guy, it's simply about the idea preservation and advancement of the self (known as the left-hand path, hence the Entombed album). LaVey made it perfectly clear that he did not believe in devine beings. The irony is that he preached about self advancement and not following other people's rules - in the process getting thousands of people to... er... follow his rules... and pay him for the privilege... thus making himself lots of money, or advancing him if you will. Regardless of what you think about his pseudo-philosophical religious bullshit, the guy was a marketing genius and his legacy of making people look like stupid, ignorant, selfish pricks is almost unsurpassed.

Steve

Thank you, sir.
 
Kazrog said:
Insane news, but the world is a better place without this scumbag. And I don't say that sort of thing lightly, in spite of the greatness that was "Storm of the Light's Bane."


The right to the persuit of happiness? What about the right to live? Unless you are picking for one person to have the persuit of happiness over another human. Choosing that right for the people who got themselves into it in the first place by having unprotected sex, choosing them over a child who hasn't done a wrong thing yet in its life. Sorry man but I think that logic is ridiculous.
 
electrya said:
The right to the persuit of happiness? What about the right to live? Unless you are picking for one person to have the persuit of happiness over another human. Choosing that right for the people who got themselves into it in the first place by having unprotected sex, choosing them over a child who hasn't done a wrong thing yet in its life. Sorry man but I think that logic is ridiculous.

I don't even understand what point you're trying to make or what side of the argument you're on. Jon "decided" that a homosexual man didn't have the right to live, and that's now somehow my fault? As is all the unprotected sex in the world. I'm amazing I guess. :goggly:

In other news, toast:

800px-Toast.jpg
 
Kazrog said:
I don't even understand what point you're trying to make or what side of the argument you're on. Jon "decided" that a homosexual man didn't have the right to live, and that's now somehow my fault? As is all the unprotected sex in the world. I'm amazing I guess. :goggly:

In other news, toast:

800px-Toast.jpg
why is there a rusty knife but no fucking peanut butter? how can you eat toast without peanut butter? are you CrRrRrRraaaAAaaaAAZZYYYY???

:rock:
 
You could eat it with jelly.

Or butter.

Or children.

But peanut butter? If I put peanut butter on my fucking toast it would never go down my throat! The stuff hates me!

Jeff