Nobody dances better than God and Satan. You just gotta love 'em.

So you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell
Wish you were here.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, March 2nd, 2019 3:31am PST - promote requested by eric3579.

Oh come on, we all know Hell has the best music.

@bobknight33 should watch this one. He might learn something.

Though somehow I think he'll just be disappointed there's no appearance by AOC.

There are many different kinds of Satanists. Some are just secular atheists, like Anton Levay. Others literally worship the devil and offer sacrifices to him. These are most likely the former

https://youtu.be/0FbtMOGlyKU

My mom used to date Anton LeVay in the late 1960s. This explains a lot about my worldview.

This from newtboy. Why would I expect anything less?

Expect nothing.
Accept everything.

Maintaining a healthy separation of church and state is a conservative position.
Learn your own politics. *facepalm

The last stage is always "accept everything"

I think you have that backwards....when you accept everything, that's always the last stage.....because you instantly die after accepting the idea that you can breath amonia, or live on pure iocane powder, or make it across the tracks before the high speed train.
Accept nothing, even what was correct the last thousand times. Reexamination never hurts...
...and if you're not careful you might learn something before you're done. (Bonus points if you identify the source)

Acceptance of losing a loved one is harder than accepting your own death.

I stand on my original quote.

Ahhh...Accept the undeniable....accept reality....not accept everything others or history or your own guesswork might suggest.
That I'll agree with, but I wouldn't say it that way. That's not "everything".
I would say question everything, accept that which you can satisfactorily verify. (But that didn't sound good with the other two)

That's a good start until you start to question your sanity when everything falls into place. When you finally believe, you won't believe it.

You’ve always had the power my dear, you just had to learn it for yourself. – Glinda the Good Witch, The Wizard of Oz

If you live in the present and don't question your own sanity now and then, you just aren't paying attention. -newtboy

Never eat anything blue or bigger than your head.-Miss Piggy

Is this the wrong place to point out a pet peeve with groups like 'secular' Satanists? The origin of the idea of Satan is clearly rooted in Abrahamic religion, and as the embodiment of all things evil. When I see self identifying Satanists upset that people presume that Satanism is the worship of the Abrahamic Satan, I lack any sympathy. The name, language and definitions already have existed for a long time, namely:
Satan: The embodiment of evil in Abrahamic religion
Satanism: The worship of the above

Defining your world view as a secular atheist and then labeling that as 'Satanism' is just deliberately communicating badly. I can understand the angle where people want to use it to provoke, but at some point you've gotta step back and acknowledge that yes you were just miscommunicating things badly to draw attention to something.

There's no confusion or miscommunication.
They are using the lax rules designed to promote Judeo Christian religions against them to expose religion's hypocrisy and intolerance publicly, much like Pastafarians but with better organization and iconography.
Were they not clear?

Personally, I’d rather Hail Sagan.

That mission/purpose is clear enough, the miscommunication is in calling that 'Satanism'. To repeat myself, "Satanism" has been well understood to mean the worship of the Abrahamic center of all evil Satan. Calling your movement 'Satanism', and then clarifying that you neither believe in nor worship that Satan and your movement is an entirely separate and distinct secular one is deliberate bad communication.

It's like going around calling my group a antivaxxers, but then clarifying we don't actually oppose vaccinations, we are just against the high profit margins of pharma corps.

When words already have strong definitions deliberately failing to use them and choosing your own new definition isn't clever, it's just bad communication.

@bcglorf

if I could just interject here,and I do not mean to interrupt ,but the origins of satan come from an older,persian religion:the Zoroastrian religion, one of the world's earliest, the supreme deity, Ormazd, created two entities: the chaotic and destructive spirit Ahriman and his beneficent twin brother, Spenta Mainyu,

and while Judaism doesn't have an actual "satan".There are few demon-like figures in Hebrew scripture, but the most famous one appears in the Book of Job. In that book, an "adversary" or "tempter" asks God whether the prosperous man Job would continue to praise God after losing everything. God takes up the challenge, and strips Job of his wealth and family, leaving the man wondering why such a horrible fate befell him.

the Christians took the Zoroastrian take on man's duality and ran with it,using "satan" which is Hebrew for "adversary".

I just thought you might be interested.
okay you two,carry on.

No, it's not. You understand it, so did most people who listened. It's perfectly fine communication and that communication was clear about what they're doing. You may not like the fact they're using the system as they are, but their communication wasn't lacking imo.
If Christianity can abandon every tenet of the bible and stop following it's teachings yet continue to claim to believe in and worship Christ in order to receive the benefits of being a religion, bearing more false witness in the effort, Satanism can do the same without the lies and duplicity.

Um....many anti vaxers say EXACTLY that.

When words are misused by those attempting to control and harm you, misusing them in the same way to stop that is perfectly acceptable to me, especially when you're honest about it like they are (but Christianity isn't). The pretend lava daddy is just as valid as the pretend sky daddy and deserves exactly the same special protections and exemptions....none at all.

That just sounds an awful lot like two wrongs making a right.

Claiming an established well defined name for your group/association, and then proceeding to define your group as something completely different is BAD communication. That is an objective fact, not something that varies depending upon your subjective POV. Whether that bad communication also has some morality attached to it sounds more like what your addressing, which is something I was saying nothing about.

Having groups like Westboro Baptists claiming to be either Christian or Baptist is like you said much the same. Morality wise, infinitely worse. Communication wise they might arguably be more accurate, although their words and actions look nothing like the Christ they claim to follow, I do understand that their group at least claims to truly believe in and follow their God. Secular Satanists apparently neither worship nor even believe in the existence of Satan, making the moniker more misleading. Their push for religious neutrality/separation of church and state however place them as far superior morally. Again, these examples are laden with my opinion regarding morality.

Morality aside though, you honestly can't say that claiming a name for your group with a strongly established meaning and definition isn't bad communication when your group shares neither the beliefs(grammar edit) nor practices of that established meaning and definition.

I thought it's more two wrongs exposing an established and growing wrong.

No, if they COMMUNICATE what they're doing, and do that well, it's not bad communication, and they did. It's not an objective fact, it's only your opinion. Sorry. "Bad" is a subjective word, not objective.

No sir, Westborough is not more accurate. They claim to be Christian, followers of Jesus, but ignore the new testament entirely. That is the antithesis of accurate. Because they lie and claim something doesn't make it accurate, their actions contradict their claims every time to a much greater degree than these Satanists (who I don't think denied the existence of Satan, they could be incredibly devout for all we know, they're simply clear that their main current objective is to stop the government's illegal and immoral support of Christianity to the exclusion of other "faiths", which in no way denies belief in Satan and embodies their churches tenets, unlike "Christian" anti abortionists who compromise their own religious morals to tell others how they must think and live).

Perhaps you are simply confused about what "Satanist" means?
Because you have a specific definition in mind doesn't make it correct .....if you can call Westborough "Christian" then obviously your standards are sub basement low, and anyone is whatever they claim, any evidence to the contrary be damned.

Again, when they COMMUNICATE both their actions and intent, that's not bad communication just because you don't like it, and certainly not just because you make assumptions about their beliefs and their zealotry.

Let me try stepping back to basics then. In English speaking North America, Do you believe the two statements are true?
1. The title/deity "Satan" is widely understood to refer to the Abrahamic Satan.
2. "Satanism" is widely understood to refer to the worship of that same Abrahamic Satan.

I believe in English speaking North America, "widely understood" and "correctly understood" are often divergent.
I believe what is widely understood to be Christianity and the actual definition don't resemble each other, so other religions (new or old) have no obligation to be better.
I believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I believe that nothing shown denies the possibility that they actually believe in the biblical "Satan" or another deity so named, just because the public actions are political in nature doesn't deny the possibility of honest belief and the nature of any worship is 100% open to interpretation, so your entire premise is based on assumptions and an unwillingness to apply the same standards across the board, exactly what they're fighting against.

For these reasons, I find your questions moot.....

.....but yes, those are the "widely understood" connotations of the words, just not necessarily the ultimate denotations.
That...or Vicki Vallencourt....Vicki Vallencourt is the devil.

" I believe what is widely understood to be Christianity and the actual definition don't resemble each other"

I'd largely agree, although I think Christianity is widely understood to mean follower of Christ and the actual definition does match that far. I see Christianity in NA having a different problem with there being so many different opinions/beliefs of what following Christ should look like as to make the term almost meaningless.

To your point about widely understood versus understood correctly, good communication isn't just about speaking accurately, but being understood accurately.

ChaosEngine very succinctly made this point, National Socialism might accurately describe your group, but the public is going to misunderstand it, and I don't think yelling loudly that everyone else is wrong really helps.

So, you admit Christianity has the same apparent issue of using a label that doesn't match the group (i think you admit Christians are fans of Christ, but not followers of his teachings), and there being no set definition of what a Christian (or Satanist) is exactly....then for no reason you give Christians a pass and continue to claim this group is doing it wrong. Um.......

(Edit: redacted -I misread)

I repeat, because their actions are political has no bearing on their beliefs which were barely discussed in the video. You assume they are secular and not religious, #notmysatanists, because someone else postulated that idea, not because they said it, right?

im gonna butt in here with my 2 cents

they are miscommunicating intentionally for attention, but thats what makes it a brilliant propaganda/publicity play. they are turning christianity symbolism against it using the same perks and loopholes churches use to parody and provoke their beliefs. If they came out in suits and said none of us believe in satan this is all just a joke it wouldnt have the same effect. is that any different than many christians who go to church and identify themselves as but dont really believe or follow the supposed teachings?