site banner
PaperclipPerfector  24d ago (text post)   34278 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

satanic religions of old

There is no old satanic religion. Satanism was invented in the 60s by a topless bar manager.

TIL that religions abhorred by biblical religions and engaged in child sacrifice are not satanic because edgy atheists in the 1960s tried to coin the phrase.

I mean, they aren't? The Bible does not to my knowedge list any old religion that worships Satan. The only Satan-worshippers show up in Revelation.

Particularly for instance Moloch is not said to be identical with Satan.

Also, here's Claude Sonnet (AI):

The Israelites would more likely have seen Molech as:

  • A false god (but still a distinct entity)
  • A "demon" or "shedim" (as mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:17)
  • Simply "an abomination"

The strong identification of pagan deities with Satan seems to have developed more in later theological traditions, particularly in Christian interpretation.

Which matches my knowledge.

I believe the point is more similar to the Jewish take than people are making it out to be. The key element of Christian theology on Satan is that he’s considered the leader of all demons, who are believed to be fallen angels like Satan. Further, Christians hold Satan to be the “father of lies” (John 8:44) and tie back to him the whole concept of a demon pretending to be a helpful being in order to deceive.

When Christians say, “X pagan religion is Satanic,” they generally don’t mean “Y pagan god is literally Satan.” They mean either that the false deity is a demon, a fallen angel who followed Satan out of heaven, playing pretend; or the whole religion is a deceit, entirely false, a fake god, an “abomination,” as Claude put it. As St. Paul put it in 1 Corinthians, “what pagans sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God.”

For instance, Beelzebub (a Hebrew name for Baal, insultingly meaning “lord of flies” or “lord of dung”) seems to get conflated with Satan in the gospels. The religious teachers claim Jesus was performing miracles “by Beelzebub” and Jesus responds with the “a house divided against himself cannot stand, how can I cast out Satan by the power of Satan?” thing. But in contravention to the normal interpretation, I hold this was more of a reference in the vein I’m discussing, that Jesus was suggesting all the demons (including Baal) are in league with Satan and copying his playbook, which is why he describes “Satan” as “a kingdom” and “a house.”

So by saying “Satanic,” Christians often mean something closer to “characteristic of Satan” rather than making a direct insinuation that the followers of some cult are literally worshipping Satan directly, which I agree is incredibly rare but not unprecedented. I’m sure there are a great many Christians who say stuff like “Krishna is literally the devil!!!!!” and I agree that’s silly, but there’s a more nuanced point in the tradition.

Good point!

But then the point of "satanic religions of old", for a Christian, would be equivalent to saying "religions of old", surely? Because there is only one God, so every non-judaic religion is either fraudulent or satanic. Or is it "the set of religions considered demon-worshipping by the OT Israelites"?

Or is the argument more something like "LGBT has become like Molechism"?

TIL that religions removed by centuries and thousands of kilometers from christianity worshipped satan because some internet christian believes their mythology is actually real.

You don't think Jews colloquially referred to child sacrificing religions in their region as satanic? The Talmud discusses such a figure in several places as one who tempts to sin.

No I don't think so.

It sounds like you're not saying "we know they did" but "well they would have, wouldn't they." IMO we actually cannot safely assume that at all.

I was under the impression that, in Judaism, "Satan" doesn't refer to the Prince of Darkness as we understand him today, but refers more to a genericized enemy/big other, as the name Satan comes from "hasatan," which means "the adversary."

Sure. Doesn't mean there were not religions they looked upon similarly. No reason to be pedantic when child sacrifice is involved.

If you believe the stories, Satanism has been around since Cain and Abel.

Since the fall of Satan, surely?

Sure, I guess you could say he worshipped himself. But I don't really think of that as a religion on Earth

IIRC early protestants- especially in Scandinavia- sometimes claimed that Catholic authorities tacitly ignored the existence of satan-worship as a religion of outlaws.

This is not a reliable source, but it does point to edgy white people practicing satanism as an older phenomenon than Anton LaVey. The idea that people on the fringes of Christian societies worshiped satan is itself quite believable, and it seems like a thing that predates LaVey in the modern west.

I'd be interested in reading further if you have any references on this topic.

Satanism's been around longer than that, it's just that it's a bit hard to maintain a continuous tradition when that tradition gets you set on fire if discovered in the only regions where people actually believe in the object of that tradition.

Pagan religions are not Satanic, though. At least, not unless you're a Christian or Muslim and are looking for a supernatural but non-heretical explanation of their existence (they're too different to be corruptions of the true faith, angels would mention that they're only servants, and rival gods aren't supposed to exist, so by process of elimination...).

The Christian scriptures literally refer to pagan religions as basically being satanism.

Well, yes, this pattern goes back over a millennium, though I wasn't aware it had gone back quite far enough to wind up in the Bible (I've read some of the Bible, but not all of it).

The psalms(psalm 95/96 depending on whether you use protestant or Catholic numbering) refer to the gods of gentiles as being demons and St Paul repeats this condemnation in his epistles. This pattern at least as far as Christianity goes is based off of the bible's descriptions of other religions.

The psalms(psalm 95/96 depending on whether you use protestant or Catholic numbering)

Are you talking about this one? Because with the exception of the Wycliffe Bible that doesn't sound very demonic, just impotent.

St Paul repeats this condemnation in his epistles.

I found this, which kinda fits (though note the translation differences); are there others?

1 Corinthians 10:14-22, which Paul is writing to Christians in Corinth:

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats