Post by darkf00l on Apr 19, 2011 11:45:00 GMT -6
[submitted by request]
submitted by Thè Dárkfool on facebook, Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 11:52am
I would first like to start with Satan as it has been historically defined. Satan (or Ha-Satan), in Hebrew, has been defined as meaning both ‘adversary’ and ‘accuser’. As a noun, an adversary is a person, or a group, that opposes or attacks another person, or group, etc. An adversary can also be seen as an opponent in a contest (a contestant). As a verb, to be adversarial is to be antagonistic: a person or a group contending against another. To be adversarial suggests becoming an enemy who fights determinedly, continuously, and relentlessly. A formidable antagonist suggests one who, in hostile spirit, opposes another, often in a particular contest or struggle.
An accuser shares many of the same attributes as an adversary, but differs slightly. As a noun it simply means a person, or group of people, who charge other individuals, or other groups, with a fault, an offense, or a crime. As a verb, it is the act itself of a person, or a group of people, charging other individuals, or groups, with a fault, an offense, or a crime.
So how do these two definitions define what Satanism is? In the definition of an adversary, one sees a relentless hostile spirit; one who attacks. In the definition of the accuser, one sees a less hostile definition, and simply sees one who ‘points the finger’.
At this point, I would like to put the suffixes of ‘ism’ and ‘ist’ aside from the word ‘Satan’.
By these definitions, I therefore conclude that a Satanist (noun) is an ‘accuser’ who evaluates the faults of others, the faults within themselves, and the faults within the world around them. Although a Satanist (noun) may or may not be hostile by nature, they can, at the very least, recognize the hostility of the world around them, as the world’s nature is, for the most part, undeniably adversarial.
Another factor in determining what Satanism is falls on how successfully and effectively the ‘accuser’ utilizes ‘adversarialism’. For example, there are many (some whom I could name) who have pointed fingers unjustly towards others. The very act of their doing so was what caused their own downfall. This, in turn, destroyed their definition of Satanism due to the deterioration of their credibility via imagined wrong-doings and of counter-productive pride. A true adversarialist not only knows the importance of taking a position and of taking the offense, but also when and where it is necessary to do so. There are times and there are places in which one must take a stand (accuser) and when one must utilize a more hostile approach (adversarial).
I will now return to the ‘ism’ and ‘ist’ of ‘Satanism’ or Satanist’. The suffix ‘ism’ pertains to “a principle, belief or movement” as well as “the defining attribute of a person or thing”. Within the context of Satanism, the ‘ism’ simply refers to the definition of a thing; therefore, I have already concluded my definition of what Satanism is by outlining the aforementioned accuser/adversarial approach.
The suffix ‘ist’ refers to “one who follows a principle or system of belief” as well as “A person who uses something” followed by “person who holds biased views.” Therefore, again, a Satanist is one who follows the principles of an accusational and adversarial approach. A Satanist is also one who is biased in the sense that they view this approach as an effective means to an end.
Are there other definitions of Satanism? Of course. However, one definition of what Satanism is, will often contradict another definition of what Satanism is. This, in turn, creates conflict. This, in turn, causes a person or a group, to oppose or attack another person, or a group. This, in turn, causes a person, or group of people, to charge other individuals, or other groups, with a fault, an offense, or a crime. This is Satanism.
submitted by Thè Dárkfool on facebook, Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 11:52am
I would first like to start with Satan as it has been historically defined. Satan (or Ha-Satan), in Hebrew, has been defined as meaning both ‘adversary’ and ‘accuser’. As a noun, an adversary is a person, or a group, that opposes or attacks another person, or group, etc. An adversary can also be seen as an opponent in a contest (a contestant). As a verb, to be adversarial is to be antagonistic: a person or a group contending against another. To be adversarial suggests becoming an enemy who fights determinedly, continuously, and relentlessly. A formidable antagonist suggests one who, in hostile spirit, opposes another, often in a particular contest or struggle.
An accuser shares many of the same attributes as an adversary, but differs slightly. As a noun it simply means a person, or group of people, who charge other individuals, or other groups, with a fault, an offense, or a crime. As a verb, it is the act itself of a person, or a group of people, charging other individuals, or groups, with a fault, an offense, or a crime.
So how do these two definitions define what Satanism is? In the definition of an adversary, one sees a relentless hostile spirit; one who attacks. In the definition of the accuser, one sees a less hostile definition, and simply sees one who ‘points the finger’.
At this point, I would like to put the suffixes of ‘ism’ and ‘ist’ aside from the word ‘Satan’.
By these definitions, I therefore conclude that a Satanist (noun) is an ‘accuser’ who evaluates the faults of others, the faults within themselves, and the faults within the world around them. Although a Satanist (noun) may or may not be hostile by nature, they can, at the very least, recognize the hostility of the world around them, as the world’s nature is, for the most part, undeniably adversarial.
Another factor in determining what Satanism is falls on how successfully and effectively the ‘accuser’ utilizes ‘adversarialism’. For example, there are many (some whom I could name) who have pointed fingers unjustly towards others. The very act of their doing so was what caused their own downfall. This, in turn, destroyed their definition of Satanism due to the deterioration of their credibility via imagined wrong-doings and of counter-productive pride. A true adversarialist not only knows the importance of taking a position and of taking the offense, but also when and where it is necessary to do so. There are times and there are places in which one must take a stand (accuser) and when one must utilize a more hostile approach (adversarial).
I will now return to the ‘ism’ and ‘ist’ of ‘Satanism’ or Satanist’. The suffix ‘ism’ pertains to “a principle, belief or movement” as well as “the defining attribute of a person or thing”. Within the context of Satanism, the ‘ism’ simply refers to the definition of a thing; therefore, I have already concluded my definition of what Satanism is by outlining the aforementioned accuser/adversarial approach.
The suffix ‘ist’ refers to “one who follows a principle or system of belief” as well as “A person who uses something” followed by “person who holds biased views.” Therefore, again, a Satanist is one who follows the principles of an accusational and adversarial approach. A Satanist is also one who is biased in the sense that they view this approach as an effective means to an end.
Are there other definitions of Satanism? Of course. However, one definition of what Satanism is, will often contradict another definition of what Satanism is. This, in turn, creates conflict. This, in turn, causes a person or a group, to oppose or attack another person, or a group. This, in turn, causes a person, or group of people, to charge other individuals, or other groups, with a fault, an offense, or a crime. This is Satanism.
