I’m not sure his first name was “Van”. Transit to his friends, perhaps.
Now Jim Morrison, his dad was an Admiral who had something to do with Tonkin Gulf, maybe there’s some devil connections there, given all the bloodshed that led to. Much more indicative, I’d have thought, than a song which is (n’t) about heroin. And Woody Harrelson’s dad was a professional killer who killed a federal judge for a drug lord. Families, eh? Anyway, singing about drugs isn’t exactly prima facie proof of devil worship, especially if you don’t actually do it.
You didn’t just get the names wrong, you confused two different people. Van Morrison is alive and there’s nothing Satanic about him. Jim Morrison wasn’t a Satanist, but he did do the dark poet thing. There’s no reason to include Van Morrison in this silliness.
Two people can be ridiculously wrong just as easily as one person can. There’s no reason to interpret “girl” as “drugs that work on the hypothalamus” when the more obvious interpretation is that it means “female human being.” The rest of the lyrics don’t suit your interpretation. The full verse is:
“Standin’ in the sunlight laughin’
Hidin’ behind a rainbow’s wall
Slippin’ and a-slidin’
All along the waterfall”
Please tell me how it makes sense if read as:
Standin’ in the sunlight laughin’
Hidin’ behind a rainbow’s wall
[Injecting heroin]
All along the waterfall
I was referring to the guy who sang with the Doors. When I typed it I made a mistake.
It’s a matter of interpretation just like a lot of scripture. You have yours and we have ours.
I just saw this same thread on from 2007 and you were saying the same things then.
But when a guy says he has met Satan several times he is talking about the real thing especially when he’s associated
with the guy who started the church.
When a performer has 3 dice on his arm that equals 666 he is talking about the real thing - the anti-Christ.
Just my humble freaking opinion but I’ve enjoyed this thread.
Then Brown Eyed Girl is irrelevant to your thread even if it was about heroin.
Yes and no. You can interpret a song however you like. When you talk about what the artist intended to say when he wrote it, you’re entering a different realm - there are right answers and wrong answers there. What you’ve said about all these performers is factually incorrect.
The comment was an obvious metaphor.
Manson does not believe in that stuff, and he does most of it to be provocative.
You can’t defend a statement that is factually incorrect by saying it’s just your opinion.
I get that some people pretend to be Satanists in order to shock their parents or sell records, and I get that some atheistic people subscribe to the Church of Satan as a life philosophy, but what would be the allure of Satan worship to people who believe in the basic mechanics of Christianity and thus believe that they are condemning themselves to an eternity of horrific torture, which seems to be what XXX19 is talking about. I mean, even a small child grasps that it’s not worth it to steal the twix bar if it means daddy’s going to whack them with a belt later. Why would any rational person be interested in the deal? I wouldn’t think Satan would get many takers by actually meeting with people. Better to just seduce them into a sinful life without the Satan-worshiping part, and collect their soul at the end.
They contrast themselves with LeVay, whom they call a symbolic Satanist.
My summary of Vera is that Theistic Satanists interpret the Dark Lord as a sort of Prometheus character, one who rebels against the Gods in order to extend liberty to humans.
I suppose it could, but in context . . . the interpretation should really be a “horses, not zebras,” thing. And in this usage “horse” does not mean H; it means F.
A cult of that kind – the Gnostic-derived Church of Saint Satan and Pandaemons, described by a local Calvinist bishop as “Christian diabolism” – features in one of the stories in The Adventures of Doctor Eszterhazy, by Avram Davidson (set in 19th-Century Europe, in the Triune Monarchy of Scythia-Pannonia-Transbalkania). It’s well worth a read if you can get hold of it.
Frankly, I read the bible and have a hard time figuring out which one was the “Evil” one again.
God kills millions of people in the bible, everything from killing everyone in the world in the flood to the folks in Sodom for throwing a killer Oscar Party (or something) to killing David and Bathsheba’s baby to show David it was wrong for him to take Urriah’s wife.
The number of people Satan kills in the Bible? Ten. The children of Job whom he offs by having a roof fall in on them at dinner, on a bar bet with God that he could get Job to curse God.
Sounds like you missed the single most important line in movie:
The Satanic cultists are about to sacrifice the baby. Piper is convinced: “They can do it! They’ve found a way to bring Hell to Earth!”
THE ACCOUNTANT: Let me let you in on a little secret, Miss. The Dark Lord . . . Satan . . . Beelzebub . . . Lucifer . . . he’s really just the warden of a very large prison. He’s a quiet man, actually, thoughtful, and he’s well-read. And I happen to know that the idea of murdering children in his honor annoys him greatly.
And even with Job’s family, God told Satan to do it: “The LORD said to Satan, ‘Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.’”
If you put someone up to a crime, aren’t you also culpable when they carry it out?
The real question here is what Satan is, assuming he exists. He is variously and, when you think about it, inconsistently conceived of as:
God’s dutiful tempter/tester – the “Shaitan,” the “Adversary,” more like a prosecuting attorney than the Enemy of Mankind; that’s role he plays in Job.
The tempter-for-the-sake-of-tempting-and-damning – that’s the role he plays in Faust. This one is the Enemy of Mankind. Why – why he wants to draw more and more souls into Hell – is not entirely clear. In Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, Mephistopheles seems to be in love with Faustus and catching his soul is the only way he can think of to consummate his love; but that’s rather a special case without broader theological implications; Mephistopheles himself explains his interest, or that of demons in souls generally, in “misery loves company” terms, which might have broader theological implications. In The Screwtape Letters demons are hungry to get souls because souls are their food, but the less said the better of a God Who would set things up that way.
God’s dutiful jailer/torturer – simply the warden of a very large prison, Hell. A warden, if his job is secure, ordinarily cares little how many more prisoners will come his way.
The Avatar of Evil – this Satan has to be evil because he is evil, just by definition, like Ahriman in Zoroastrianism. He embodies the principle of evil in the universe. Whatever God loves, he hates, and vice-versa. This at least provides a convenient explanation as to why Satan wants more souls, etc., he’s just evil.
The Rebel – The Man Who Would Be King, divine-scale version; that bright angel who durst defy th’Omnipotent to arms, who accounts it better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. This is the Satan with whom many humans – especially Americans – can really identify.
I suppose it could, but in context . . . the interpretation should really be a “horses, not zebras,” thing. And in this usage “horse” does not mean H; it means F.