|
I haven't seen anyone mention Satanism in previous pages, so I'll be the resident Satanist. AMA, spiritual fellows
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:Are you Church of Satan, Satanic Temple, or other? An excellent question! I started with Anton LaVey's writings/philosophy, so remain primarily founded in Church of Satan. When I was a child, and into my adolescence, I grew up in both Catholic tradition and Evangelical denominations of many stripes; Souther Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. Long story short, I was dissatisfied with all of them and I realized that the primary "product" these religions were "selling" was the catharsis of relief from guilt and that most of them were geared towards the production of this guilt. Of course, mileage varies per practicioner, and socioeconomic factors all contribute to peoples' experiences with churches and congregations, but as a product of a small town, I feel a lot of guilt a lot of the time. Reading my illicit copy of The Satanic Bible with a flashlight under my sheets was a sort of revelation that I could do good works of my own volition because it made me feel good, and that I wasn't obligated to the hateful religious zealots that surrounded me just because Jesus said so. Now, as a more politically-aware and active adult, I find LaVey's whole deal kind of embarrassing in many respects, and involvement the Satanic Temple seems like the natural progression, as they use religion as a vehicle of political change. That said, I am also extremely lazy and haven't officially joined the Satanic Temple. However, I support what they do. Also, I think the rituals and magical elements of the Church of Satan are a lot of fun. Edit: The "other," I think, is devil worship, which is by-and-large, to be avoided. Most devil-worship is also grounded in white supremacy and, unfortunately, there's a lot of overlap with white supremacists and "satanism." Night10194 posted:Are you worshiping Satan as God's prosecuting attorney or the 'lives in hell' style (presumably as something other than the prince of evil, because I'm pretty sure Satanism doesn't worship Satan as being a bad dude)? If the latter, is there any incorporation of the former and the way Satan appears in the Old Testament? Another excellent question. Neither. Satanists don't worship Satan as a theistic entity or idea. We worship the best parts of humanity as exemplified by the romantic notion of Satan put forth by the likes of Milton. Anton LaVey created Satanism as a direct rebuttal to what he saw was the wasteful, and often hypocritical, excesses of Catholicism and Evangelicalism of his time. A lot of his stuff is hokey or even irrelevant, now, but the idea of being unapologetically human, and endeavoring to be the best human one can be is still appealing to me. Many goons will write off Satanism as "religious Objectivism," and they're not entirely wrong, but not entirely accurate, either. It's more accurate to say that it's The Golden Rule of "do unto others as you would have done unto you," with the caveat that you don't need to feel guilt over "doing unto others as they have done to you," or indulging in purely selfish pursuits. Edit 2: Satanism can also be better described as "secular humanism with fun robes and groovy rituals" CarpenterWalrus fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Feb 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I got started in "non-traditional" religious philosophy when I bought a copy of the Principia Discordia, and will also field questions about Discordianism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Do you think there is anything to the ritual practice other than secular humanism with some performance art? Absolutely! The ritual magic is really what sets Church of Satan apart from even other Satanic groups like Temple of Satan. This question really gets at the core of what ritual is: the good ones break down that anxious insincerity. Even though I'm not a Catholic, I find Mass to be really emotionally affective. Same thing with the whipped-up fervor I used to feel when I would go to Evangelical revivals. It's all meant to focus everyone's spiritual "energy," for lack of a better term, to achieve a singular purpose. Ritual often comes before belief, I find, and is an excellent vehicle for fostering that belief. Without getting too much in the weeds, the primary difference between "Right-Hand" ritual like Catholic mass, and "Left-Hand" ritual like the Satanic Black Mass, the target of that focused belief is what or whom you're trying to commune with. For "Right-Hand" religions, you're trying to become more closely aligned with the religious ideal, or god-head; God, Jesus, Mohammed, etc. For "Left-Hand" religions, you're trying to improve what is already at the core of yourself; trying to become the god-head. This is why the trappings of the robes, incense, music, candles, altar, and the naked lady on the altar are so important--not in and of themselves, but because they make it easier to buy into the whole scenario and forget how doofy it is. Edit: When people point out how silly the trappings of the Satanic rituals are, I point out the opulence and garb of Catholic churches and clergy. Not as a "whatabout" kind of thing, but to illustrate how affective they are in inspiring belief. I was lucky enough to be able to tour the Vatican and papal residence in 2013 and it's difficult not to believe in Catholicism while you're there in the seat of its power. People underestimate aesthetics in religion, and LaVey specifically recognized it as important to Satanism. CarpenterWalrus fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Feb 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:Hail Eris. drat I hope I didn’t throw out my copy of the Principia when I moved. I bet it’s in storage. Hell yeah, my dude. I was 19 when I got heavy into Discordianism and I'm sure it was loving annoying to most people around me. I successfully started a religious-based student organization at the state college I was attending at the time to eat hot dogs and drink a bunch of wine as part of the religious meetings. I got away with it because I was able to show them in the text where it said that was part of the requirements and no one wanted even a hint of lawsuit in TYOL 2005. Still, I took it seriously and managed to get three other people to join my branch of the POEE and, for a while, we had a good time coming up with offices, titles, and holy names while getting sloppy on cheap wine.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Welcome to the thread CarpenterWalrus. Do you have any silly hats in your ceremonies? Thanks! I've always been a religion nerd and minored in religious study in college, so a thread like this is catnip to me, and I'm glad I found it. I have many silly hats, none of which I've used for religious ritual. The parallels drawn to Catholicism are fair--Satanic rituals often involve a priest directing the ceremony around an altar, with robes, a chalice, incense, and organ music, etc. It's not a direct one-for-one, but since LaVey was developing his philosophy as "blasphemies" of the popular Christian sects of his time, some aspects are mirrored. Ultimately, the rituals aren't as important to Satanism as they are to Catholicism, so it's rare to find Satanic adherents who are into it. The Satanists I've met are all atheist with varying interest in the more occult aspects. Honestly, I think it's the aesthetic and the "freaking out the squares" that appeals to a lot of us. I'm not above being an edgelord so far as that goes, on occasion, but for the most part neither hide nor flaunt my association with Satanism. LaVey himself argued that even though there's no belief in deities or theistic entities, Satanism qualifies as a religion because of how it places the individual practitioner as the "god-head" of his or her or their own spiritual ideal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
On the subject of silly hats, there's an OTO/Thelema temple in my neighborhood that has services every Sunday. This thread may be the excuse I need to do a trip report for (once I've got the vaccine).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
White Coke posted:How often do people tell you to get behind them? Lol, very rarely; I'm more of a lead-from-the-front kind of guy and, while I am an agent of Satan, my duties are largely ceremonial.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Are you old enough to remember the "Satanic Panic"? I'm curious how it was viewed from the other side. I was a child in the 90's, but from a small, rural town of about 4000 people. Catholicism and Southern Baptism were the most prominent denominations and you better believe I was told about the dangers of D&D, Magic: The Gathering, Pokémon, comic books, Halloween, rock and roll, black people, games that used dice or cards, etc. As a kid, the things the angry adults were telling me were scary, but the games/music/people themselves weren't scary at all and were kind of cool. This dissonance is probably the first domino that eventually led to a crisis of faith in my late teens and embrace of non-theism in my adulthood. Take note, parents who want to keep their kids away from "evil" or "satanic" pop-culture: if you make it forbidden and dangerous, you're making it tempting. Eventually your children will find out these things are harmless and destroy whatever confidence they may have had in whatever else you've told them about religion. If holy-rollers wanted to kill my interest in D&D, they would've done better to make me spend hours doing math to resolve one combat scenario. Praise the Lord and pass the Lego! From what I've read in this thread, I don't think any of you folks would do that, but still, it's worth saying. It's kind of wild seeing another Satanic Panic happening right now. I've never kept my religious beliefs hidden at work, but you can definitely tell who's becoming/become red-pilled with right-wing conspiracy by how they react to seeing a pentagram ring or Baphomet coffee mug. I had a Zoom meeting yesterday and one of my co-workers was apparently "scared" by a small Baphomet statue on shelf in my home office, and the pentagrams on a Perturbator poster on the wall. What can you do but shrug and move on with your business?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
ThePopeOfFun posted:Are you surprised that the trappings of a system specifically designed to subvert and blaspheme someone's entire worldview comes across as frightening? Especially when said individual believes in a spiritual realm, replete with demons. Like yeah they're going to be scared, that's the whole point. A good and fair point. I do my best to not be antagonistic, for what that's worth. I genuinely love religion as a whole, and I have personal grievances with institutions and how religion's used moreso than with individual believers, so when someone reacts adversely to my own expression of belief, I shrug it off. In the last office job I worked at, I was pulled into HR to discuss my pentagram ring and my response was, "what religions are employees allowed to have here?" The official company response was that religious iconography was banned from the office, but was never enforced, and no one ever bothered me about it again. There's really no reason people can't be adults about this kind of thing, especially since it's been a while since we've burned a witch in the US.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
ThePopeOfFun posted:I feel you. I asked that as a huge metal head. Like, I can handle pentagrams and decay and goats, but I know better than to wear it to grandma's. That being said, I have a theory that metal dons the scary trappings to frighten away the kind of people who harmed others during the satanic panic. For sure, and I don't want to give the impression that I've ever experienced religious persecution at all or to position myself as some kind of victim in any way because of what I believe. I think you've hit the nail on the head with regard to the aesthetics of that whole scene and, to be honest, I dig that. The things I wear are going to be provocative to some people sometimes and I accept it. I just never want to be one of those people who go looking to start fights with people over stuff like that. StrixNebulosa posted:Forgive me if this has been asked before, but wait - since when are pentagrams seen as explicitly satanist? I was under the impression that they're more for magic in a general sense. Which still frightens the hardcore christians*, but it's not explicitly satan-related. I believe it started with LaVey's development and use of the Leviathan symbol, the Baphomet goat head and enochian runes around the points, in the 1960's that kicked off that association. Otherwise, the pentagram was used throughout medieval and rennaisance as a symbol of material wealth and fortune, and used in Wicca as a symbol of protection.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. I don't know, but I would think so, if for no other reason than Anton LaVey was American, and founded his system in opposition to American brands of Christianity. I would put money down that the Satanic Temple has more popular support than the Church of Satan for a number of reasons, but not least of which are their commitment to high-visibility good works.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Dang, I'm bummed I missed that question. Thanks, NikkolasKing! That's a good answer and, to add something, these are the folks who tend towards the Romantic, Milton ideal of Satan as the tragic hero. I don't know much more than that about them, but they seem mostly ok. Sometimes they're self-serious, but WHOMST AMONG USLutha Mahtin posted:i always forget, which satan church is it that's run by a bunch of crypto-nazi type people. anyway, avoid that one, they sound bad You're probably thinking of the Order of Nine Angles, which isn't even crypto-nazi. They're full on Nazi fucks. Anything that's got a whiff of Nine Angles is to be vehemently rejected, by everyone. CarpenterWalrus fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Feb 25, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:What do Satanists believe about hell? If someone is a bad Satanist, are they sent to heaven? legit lol'd over here. No, most Satanists are atheist, so no reward or punishment other than what you experience up top. You make your own Heaven and Hell on Earth!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
I consider the pomp and circumstance of Catholic ritual to be its greatest strength. I, personally, have known a few agnostics who've full-on converted to Catholicism because of the appeal of the rituals. I think if Catholic leadership leaned into its aesthetic, it could attract a lot of Millennials/ Gen Z who're looking to slot into that spiritual infrastructure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2021 07:44
|
|
|
Of course, there's lots of reasons why people SHOULD be uncomfortable with the Catholic Church right now, not least of which are those listed posted above. The contradictory, often hypocritical nature of how some things are considered sins vs others is extremely off-putting to most people who think about it. I don't want to poo poo on religions or religious adherents too much, though, so I'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Faith is not an academic exercise that takes place inside your head. Faith should inspire you to love other people and help them get through life. Without that, your faith is pointless. I like this take. Part of the reason I get so frustrated with the breed of Evangelical who argues for Bible literalism and "Bible-as-science" or historical fact is that they seem to be waging a war on the idea of faith itself. If you can prove something conclusively, it's no longer a matter of faith. It seems like, to this crowd, the idea of faith being mysterious is an insult.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
ThePopeOfFun posted:Hey Guns winning souls without even posting. It's a miracle. well, dang, if we're winning souls in this thread, i need to step it up
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2021 06:55
|
|
|
If we find evidence of any sacred text literally written into the human genome on any level, then I will convert to that religion. But seriously, though, that would basically invalidate everything to do with faith. What was the whole point of Abraham and Isaac if not to illustrate the need to have faith despite evidence to the contrary? Edit: I wanna tell you folks again how much I've enjoyed this thread. This thread inspired me to finally pull the trigger on getting an avatar and I purchased an account for a friend, to boot. He kept asking for summaries of replies in this thread via text.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 03:01
|
|
|
I think I follow what you're saying, here, but my question then becomes what's the difference between fact and faith, if any? The word "faith" kind of loses meaning, because then it's simply "knowledge."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:An object of "faith" is a claim which you hold as true although it hasn't been rationally proven. Faith is the act of holding that claim as true. A "fact" is a claim which you hold as true because it has been rationally proven. I see what you're saying here. If this is the case, then there's no such thing as Abrahamic faith, only the indisputable fact that the religion of Abraham is the correct one. I wonder how, then, the idea of faith even got introduced to Abrahamic religion, if it runs counter to the doctrine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
Tias posted:
Counterpoint: HAIL SATAN
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:There was a great Buddhist meditation teacher named Atisha who was traveling to Tibet to meet with the people there. He had heard that, in general, the people of Tibet were all very good-natured, open-minded, and flexible. He chose to bring with him a mean-tempered tea boy to keep himself “on his toes” and to stay aware. Tea ceremonies are generally intended to be peaceful, methodical, and slow-paced rituals which serve as a contemplative experience for those involved. The Bengali Tea Boy’s ceremonies were different. He broke dishes, threw plates, spilled the tea, shouted, and was quite annoying to all involved. His tea ceremonies were a chaotic mess. Nonetheless, the meditation teacher chose to continue to bring the Bengali Tea Boy with him wherever he went. When asked why he continued to employ this terrible tea boy, Atisha stated “I want him with me because he is my greatest teacher. He reminds me to be patient. He reminds me to be compassionate. And, he gives me many opportunities to practice tolerance.” Keeping an entire human being around as humble-drip is some next-level Buddhist smug game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
Nessus posted:How can you tell someone is "speaking in tongues" vs. just gabbling random syllables or reciting the lyrics to Prisencolinensinainciusol? From my experience in churches where this was relatively common, the answer is group consensus. It depends on the mood of the room. If everyone's caught the same wave and are cresting at the same time, then it would be rare for anyone to question the ecstatic outbursts. But, when someone busts out the tongues early or late, that's when folks in the congregation might just smile and nod. No one was ever confrontational about it, but it's more of like, "oh bless linda's heart she tries." To be frank, speaking in tongues is just babbling random syllables, free-jazz style, and people who try to tell you it's a literal angelic language with its own syntax and rules are trying to sell you something. The thing that makes speaking in tongues important is its usually the apex of the ritual crescendo for a particularly energetic sermon or revival. It's the joyous sound lifted up, the aural and physical expression of an inexpressible faith.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:I just wanna say your (chill, measured) Satanism and sincere posting is an interesting and appreciated (imo) contribution to the thread. In my opinion. Thanks! I like Buddhist parables like the one I commented on, because the lesson gleaned from them varies wildly depending on current perspective. I read that story to my wife yesterday and her response was, "Hrm, that's pretty insightful of the monk. He knows what he's got to work on and hired help to do it." I can see that point of view, but to me, it seems very cruel for Atisha to drag this Bengali boy around to do a job he clearly hates for people he doesn't like to the detriment of everyone's (but Atisha's) experience. The Satanist would not feel obligated to invest time or emotional energy into someone who doesn't enrich their own life or provide some emotional or material gratification. Through this lens, Atisha is behaving in accordance with Satanism, since he finds personal value in the conflict between his annoyance and frustration caused by the Bengali boy and the personal, spiritual satisfaction of overcoming those negative emotions. Also, he totally gets to humblebrag to all the other Buddhists about it, afterwards.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
Haha, that would be pretty great if Atisha and Bengali Tea Boy had a Andy Kaufman/Bob Zmuda act going. "I'm sorry, folks, but Bengali Tea Boy won't come out to do the tea ceremony until everyone's put out their incense"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
ThePopeOfFun posted:My friend memorized her youth pastor's "spirit language." Wouldn't an interpreter for the tongues of the Holy Spirit be heretical? This is a genuine question, since I have never encountered a service or church where this is the case. Seems like Evangelicals would bristle at the idea of a person putting themselves between a worshipper and God, but I'm curious to hear some reasons why this would be preferred. As for me and MY HOUSE, the only Angelic language we recognize is Enochian!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:It's something that comes up in a lot of Orthodox and Patristic spiritual literature, that if we're more focused on spiritual gifts and special powers, then we're more susceptible to prelest (spiritual delusion), which will harm our relationship with God. This, right here, is a huge lesson many Evangelical sects would do well to marinate in. For a while, I would semi-regularly make trips to and spend time in Louisville, KY. I got in the habit of reading the obits of the Courier-Journal and finding the deaths related to snake-handling churches. There was always at least one every time I visited. Of course, that's their prerogative, and I understood the symbolism of it. What I don't understand is why you would take that spiritual risk. Say, for example, a new preacher steps up to replace the last preacher who died after he got bit by a cottonmouth during a service. Clearly, the last guy's faith faltered and he was unworthy to lead the congregation. New Guy's very popular, his sermons are engaging and the services are spiritually satisfying. Everyone likes New Guy; he goes to all the christenings, birthdays, delivers meals on wheels and visits with the elderly. Everyone agrees he's a truly Godly man. Then he, too, dies of a snakebite during a sermon. That would then be ascribed to a lapse in faith, right? The congregation would have to believe that he died because he was unworthy. Does this wipe out all his good work and spiritual goodwill? And as New Guy is on the floor of the church, or on his way to the hospital, as he's dying does he feel overwhelm with guilt as well as fear, for his lack of faith? That's a real roll of the dice that I don't see backed up scripturally.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
Dang, I'm sorry I slept on this thread over the last few weeks. You folks had some good conversation. I observed Walpurgisnacht with libation and burning many cigars with friends over Discord. I followed it by attending a double feature of Midsommar and Alucarda at a drive-in on May Day. My birthday was also mid-April. One's birthday and Walpurgisnacht are the main holidays of modern Satanism, so this time of the year is always laden with celebration for me.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 10:06
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:What is sex if not sexual intercourse...? Sex is fun and, like all fun things, people can and do become emotionally invested in it. If you're speaking about American Conservatism, then you're arguing from the premise that all sex should only be utilitarian. This has its basis in the American brand of Protestantism, but you're confusing it with international Catholicism, which regulates sex for very different reasons. Ultimately, religions which try to control how people engage sexually do so because that's an excellent way to control their behavior, in general. You control how and when people gently caress and you can get them to do basically whatever you want. Also, dude, I'm really bummed out on your behalf if you've never found sex to be anything other than mechanically satisfying. NikkolasKing posted:
Edit: This is also a pretty hosed up take. It's not helpful to assume that everyone who gets their rocks off in a different way from you is shallow and desperate. Edited for clarity CarpenterWalrus fucked around with this message at 18:42 on May 10, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:I see this claim on the internet, and only there, a lot and it infuriates me how disingenious it is. While I don't doubt that there are cults that do so, I have never ever met a religion that wants to control people. Yes, some commandments and rules might be very strict, depending on the religion, and yes, some people are power hungry or otherwise want to control others and yes, sometimes the power hungry people are religious people. But it sounds like a conspiracy theory that a religion wants to control people. Most Christian sects control how and under what circumstances people have sex. Sex before marriage is a sin (PS only the right kind of marriage counts). Sex for fun is a sin. Sex between same-sex people is a sin. Masturbation is a sin. In some sects, sexual excitement and fantasy are lumped in with "adultery" and "covetous thought." Sexual "purity" is a powerful concept to the American Christian and great pains are taken to adhere to that idea. It seems difficult to believe that you'd be unaware of things like purity vows, purity rings, purity balls, girls signing over their virginal purity to their fathers, the Christian side-hug, etc., if you're deeply religious. These things aren't secret at all. Based on some of your spelling, you probably aren't American. The CoE very famously forbade divorce to the point that death and murder was the preferable alternative. Is this not an attempt to control how people have sex? The Catholic Church forbids birth control, either as a means of maintaining their population or by ensuring pregnancy as a punishment for sex, or encouraging Catholic marriages by saying having children out of wedlock is sinful. Again, these policies aren't secret. It's worth examining why you, personally, feel attacked by recognizing these things.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
You've a good point here, I can absolutely reword this to be more clear.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:TIL apparently Buddha prescribed cow urine as a medicine for most/all diseases and ailments. It's one of the Buddha's most ignored teachings. Haha! I knew that sounded familiar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4GdnDZhUMo
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Slimy Hog posted:I don't even know where to start with this other than to say you have a flawed and very narrow understanding of the way Christianity views sex Please elaborate! As far as I know, I haven't said anything that's factually incorrect. You might argue about WHY Christianity regulates sex among its adherents, but to say that Christianity doesn't have those regulations, rules, and laws is demonstrably false. The whole point of this thread is elucidation and I welcome correction.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:valiantman is finnish This is insightful, thank you! A quick search also shows that the CoE only allowed divorced people to get remarried starting in 2002, and at priests' discretion. Seems along the same lines as Catholicism outright banning divorce. It's also worth being very clear that I am not out to offend or attack anyone. I'm placing no value judgement on how religions regulate sex among their believers, only that many do, since that seemed to be a point of contention earlier in the thread.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Here’s a point to start thinking about how complicated an issue sex in Christianity is: Carnaval I've always understood Carnaval and celebrations like it to be sort of release-valves for otherwise pent-up and repressed urges. They typically come just before or after periods of abstinence like Lent, right? On a smaller scale, evangelicals hold revivals in the same tents, on the same grounds, with the same organ player and audience as carnivals. Anton LaVey was inspired to write the Satanic Bible in part because he played organ for both the carnivals and preachers and saw the same people going to both events: first to get freaky, then to repent. And, just because the Church allows carnival, carnivale, carnaval, etc. to exist, doesn't mean that they condone the typically promiscuous activity that happens there. I still see carnaval/carnival as part of the cycle of guilt/forgiveness that is Christianity's bread and butter.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:guilt: butter With a delightful side of catharsis or potato salad, depending on where your church is.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:You do realize you're talking about practices that have existed in entirely different times, cultures, and contexts, right? Even if that overly simplistic answer was in fact the majority reason behind one such practice in one particular context, it wouldn't explain them all. It's almost like painting the world's largest religion as exactly the same everywhere is overly simplistic! Of course I'm speaking broadly. I'm not discussing specific practice or dogma, but trying to point out general principals. My original assertion was that most sects of Christianity have rules and laws that govern how and when their adherents have sex, which was met with incredulity. Carnaval was brought up to counter that, and held up as an example of Christianity's complicated relationship with sex. Sure, ok, but it doesn't help understand why Christianity has those restrictions in place to begin with or to argue against the fact that Christianity does, in fact, attempt to control its believers' sexuality. Again, that's not an attack on Christianity, it's recognition of a fundamental aspect of it.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
Slimy Hog posted:I'm not going to address all the points in your post because I don't have time, but here are a few: Comparison isn't equation. Almost ALL sects of Christianity have rules about what kinds of sex are ok, and who gets to have it and when. The specific rules vary based on culture and flavor of sect, but they all have them. Since you're averse to discussing American Protestantism with Christianity, broadly, I'll stick to Catholicism here. The Catholic church censured a treatise on the morality of sexual pleasure written by a nun as recently as 2012. Sex for fun being sinful is quite silly, I agree and yet: https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-theology-and-oral-pleasure Fornication is defined as two unmarried people having sex with eachother, and it is "gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality." Some sources in my relatively quick search show Catholicism linking unwed sex with adultery, but not all do. It's been a while since Sunday School, but I think adultery is a sin. It's weird to me that people are getting upset that I would point out that Christianity does, in fact, have rules and regulations that govern how Christians should gently caress. I truly do not understand the hostility. Like would it be just as upsetting to say Catholics don't eat meat during Lent? Please explain to me why these statements are so disturbing. CarpenterWalrus fucked around with this message at 20:56 on May 10, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I guess my issue is that you're presenting sexual moors as a uniquely Christian or religious thing. There are plenty of examples of Christian groups that don't care or focus heavily on general sexual behavior, but your argument that any sort of judgement or expectations around sex are unique to, or at the very least, essential to, Christian practice, and that is abnormal. The group of cultures which believe "don't cheat on your spouse, and unrestrained sexual practice is dangerous" is basically every culture, religion, and identity. I don't want to make the argument that it's exclusive to Christianity at all, and I apologize for not being more clear and concise in my earlier posts. I edited them for clarity, but still, the fault is mine for that. Sexual restriction is pretty essential to most forms of Christianity and has been since the founding of the Holy See. Such restriction is not unique to Christianity, or any of the Abrahamic religions or their various off-shoots. It's not unique to Western religion, nor Eastern, and the specifics, of course, vary from place to place. I guess the original point I was trying to make is that, in America, the conservative disdain for sexual pleasure could arguably be traced to its specific Protestant cultural origins, and that this is not unique to Americans or Protestants.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 21:00
|
|