# The Devil in Classical Music



## Guest

I think that the devil issue has never been discussed. Why not begin a new thread?

*1° the tritone:*

The tritones spans three whole tones, like the diminished fifth or augmented fourth. This interval, the gap between two notes played in succession or simultaneously, was branded Diabolus in Musica or the Devil's Interval by medieval musicians.

A rich mythology has grown up around it. Many believe that the Church wanted to eradicate the sounds from its music because it invoked sexual feelings, or that it was genuinely the work of the Devil - it apparently was the sound used to call up the beast!

There is probably an other reason of the ban. Musicians thought that this particular dissonance didn't work technically, and people were taught not to write that interval. And you can read into that a theological ban in the guise of a technical ban...

*2° Satanic performances:*

The Devil's Interval enjoyed great popularity among composers in the 19th Century, when you have got lots of presentations of evil built around the tritone.

a- Wagner's Gotterdammerung has one of the most exciting scenes - a pagan, evil scene, the drums and the timpani. It is absolutely terrifying, it is like a black mass.

b- Many other composers presented Sabbath dances, for instance:
- Berlioz in the last movement of his "Symphonie fantastique";
- Saint Saens in the "dance maccabre".

What do you think about this issue? Must we look upon it as Poetry, Folklore, or Real Satanism (like in Metal) ?


----------



## Rondo

Alnitak said:


> it apparently was the sound used to call up the beast!


Was the beast's name Maria, by any chance?

lol...Im just playing with you. 

Yeah, Ive heard that particular interval played in many pieces, both melodically and harmonically. There's a small part in the Star Wars main titles where you can hear woodwinds (either clarinets or flutes in a low register) play it harmonically, and in many, many others....if you listen closely you can hear them in a lot of pieces.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Alnitak said:


> a- Wagner's Gotterdammerung has one of the most exciting scenes - a pagan, evil scene, the drums and the timpani. It is absolutely terrifying, it is like a black mass.


I'm guessing that you're referring to Hagen's _Call of the Vassals_ early in the 3rd scene of Act III. I could write an essay about that scene, but I wouldn't want to digress too far from the thread! The force of the music implies the power of Hagen, himself the most successful character (in terms of his plans being accomplished) in the entire Ring (at least up to that point, anyway). [I'm indebted to Holman's "Ring Concordance" for that observation.]

However, so that I don't stray too far, I'll give you some of my impressions, based on music such as that which you've mentioned. When I hear the conclusion of _Symphonie Fantastique_, or Mussorgsky's _Night on Bald Mountain_, I think of the fiendish power/terror aspect. When I hear Gounod's _Faust_, I think "lord of dark persuasion." Unfortunately, when I hear "Danse Macabre" anymore, I think 'Squirrel Nut Zippers.'


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Eric683 said:


> Was the beast's name Maria, by any chance?
> 
> lol...Im just playing with you.


O.K.: Sing along to the Bernstein melody from _West Side Story_: "Maria, I just met a beast named Maria " We're sailing very close to pirate shores, now.

Big E: Are you a fan of Spencer's _The Faerie Queene_?!


----------



## Rondo

Chi_town/Philly said:


> O.K.: Sing along to the Bernstein melody from _West Side Story_: "Maria, I just met a beast named Maria " We're sailing very close to pirate shores, now.
> 
> Big E: Are you a fan of Spencer's _The Faerie Queene_?!


Sounds familiar...


----------



## Guest

We can also cite, as an example, Liszt's use of the tritone to suggest hell in his Dante Sonata;

and Beethoven in the beginning of Act II in his opera Fidelio, where the timpani are tuned a tritone apart, to A and E flat, instead of the usual perfect fifths, to set the mood for the dark dungeon.



Chi_town/Philly said:


> I'm guessing that you're referring to Hagen's _Call of the Vassals_ early in the 3rd scene of Act III. I could write an essay about that scene, but I wouldn't want to digress too far from the thread!


Why not start a new thread?


----------



## rojo

I'm partial to Ligeti's L'Escalier du Diable; does that count?


----------



## tutto

stravinski was the devil himself...


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

tutto said:


> stravinski was the devil himself...


And if a sound-bite was sought for this quote, I guess we could cue up "Infernal Dance of the Katschei" from The Firebird 
Strangely, Stravinsky's work habits were in contrast to the tempestuousness evident in his early works. Mostly, he assigned himself set hours on a daily basis. This contrasts with the approach of a Holst, who once said "never compose anything unless the act of not composing of it becomes a positive nuisance to you."
Funny... Stravinsky's place in musical history is obviously more secure than Holst's- but now that we're more than a generation removed from _Fanstasia_, Holst's The Planets is more prominent in the public eye than any piece of Stravinsky's.


----------



## Marina

*The fiddle.*

Does anyone actually know why Satan chose the fiddle to make his music. - Satan was a former angel, and a trumpet might have suited him better - and surely wouldn't burn so easily!

Is it because the fiddle is an instrument to tickle human ears by friction of a horse's tail on the entrails of a cat?

Is it because Paganini, the first, convinced everybody that the Devil stood unseen at his side while he played?

Is it because:

Nero said to Rome: "If to smoke you turn,
I shall not cease to fiddle while you burn"

To Nero Rome replied: "Pray do you worst,
'Tis my excuse that you were fiddling first"


----------



## Ephemerid

Rondo said:


> Was the beast's name Maria, by any chance?


LOL

But a tritone is implied in moving from a dominant 7th chord back to tonic (typically would resolve on the root and the third of the tonic)

(key of C): 
*F* > E
*B* > C
G > G

Yikes! The devil really is everywhere! 

To add to the list: A Soldier's Tale by Stravinsky (and tritones abound in it)

From where I am from, the southern US, there are still pockets of fundamentalists who worry about "satanic" rock music (backmasking, etc.). Back in the 80s in the town I was unfortunately stuck in (Monroe, Louisiana) there were a few record burnings (and a few burnings of Care Bears, I kid you not!) at certain fundamentalist churches. I remember thinking to myself thankfully these people never heard of Mussorgsky, Wagner, Paganini, Berlioz, Stravinsky and so on becuase they would be horrified! Black masses, virgin sacrifices, faustian bargains, pagan rituals, etc. etc.

But tritones can be used to evoke beauty too-- like "Maria" a nice enough melody, or Debussy's Afternoon of the Faun-- the main melody rises and falls in a tritone interval. I know I've used the tritone interval in the past as well (usually in the lydian mode) in a um, non-diabolical context.

~josh


----------



## Marina

Sarasate : concert fantasy on Gounod’s Faust
Tartini: Sonata in G Minor “Devil’s Trill”
Bazzini : The Dance Of The Goblins
Brahms : Walpurgisnacht
Grieg: Puck


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Marina said:


> Satan was a former angel, and *a trumpet might have suited him better* - and surely wouldn't burn so easily!


Wouldn't a trumpet harm his lips?


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Marina said:


> Sarasate : concert fantasy on Gounod's Faust
> Tartini: Sonata in G Minor "Devil's Trill"
> Bazzini : The Dance Of The Goblins
> Brahms : Walpurgisnacht
> Grieg: Puck


Thank you for the list, Marina. I'll download the 5 demoniac files.


----------



## MJTTOMB

What difference does it make anyways? Religion has no right to meddle with a musicians work. If They want to get rid of the music, they may as well just write the music themselves.

Also, a note that metal is not Satanism. Metal is sacrilege, yes, but not Satanism. I enjoy metal. That does not make me a Satanist. I can't say I favor either side. It's like an argument between whether unicorns or dragons are better. Although unicorns are nice and pretty. I'm not sure of the existence of either.

But from a purely musical standpoint, to forbid that interval would be to forbid the Dominant 7th chord, and few composers would be able to live without the dominant seventh. For instance, G Dom 7 contains G, B, D, and F. B, D, and F form B dim.

Lol, i looked back, and this has already been said, but oh well.


----------



## Ephemerid

As far as the silly "metal = satanism" idea, this is (predictably) an idea that originated in American fundamentalism, along with its typical paranoia about backmasking. In some of those circles, it isn't just metal though-- its all "secular" pop & rock music (curiously, country music seems to escape all these wild accusations. Classical music is ignored I suppose-- inspite of Belioz' drug induced Symphony Fantastique or that Vaughan-Williams and Shostakovich were atheists, etc. etc.). 

I remember back in the early 90s in Louisiana coming across a book in a Christian book store cataloguing a whole bunch of "evil" musicians and giving the reasons why... It didn't surprise me to see the "usual suspects"-- Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath, et al But what did shock me was to see Lionel Ritchie, ABBA, Barry Manilow (ok, so he's an atheist, whio cares?), and other "soft rock" acts. And this wasn't just a raving Chick tract sort of thing either... 

~josh


----------



## Ephemerid

Oh, and speaking of backmasking, if you record yourself saying "A nice guess" with an American southern drawl (it has to be with that sort of accent oddly enough) and run that backwards, it says "satan"!  LOL

~josh


----------



## artisan

Oh, gee! did I have to see this thread? I am familiar with a lot of people who think all music but classical is "evil". I used to have a bad taste in my mouth for classical music because of this. I do not think that music itself is bad, but what people do with it. Just because some bad person does something bad with his music doesn't make the music bad. And just because somebody decides notes played in a certain way are bad, that doesn't make it bad either. I've heard people come up with some _really_ weird things, like sliding from one not to another is of the devil (so Amazing grace is bad?) I've also heard it is against the rules to go from a 1 chord to a major 3rd chord, and that it should never be done because it is evil ( I guess that makes the hymn "Wonderful Grace of Jesus" bad too!) What else will people come up with? Ok, ok, I should quit ranting. I sound terrible.lol


----------



## Marina

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> Wouldn't a trumpet harm his lips?


You're probably right. Satan is so delicate. 



YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> Thank you for the list, Marina. I'll download the 5 demoniac files.


You're welcome.

But, be careful not to sign anything!


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Marina said:


> You're probably right. Satan is so delicate.


Sticking metal devices to your lips in a hot environment (as hell indeed is) can be something hard to undertake, even if you are pure maleness, as we are sure *Satan *is.


----------



## Marina

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> if you are pure maleness, as we are sure *Satan *is.


Interesting. But how can you be sure of that?

BTW, If Satan is not a Girl, tell me please why men are so fascinated by him?


----------



## Tré

This topic is very interesting. Lots of depth and potential. I suppose tomorrow I will take a shot at doing some research and listening concerning all this you guys are talking about. Any advice on where to start?


----------



## millionrainbows

Ephemerid said:


> As far as the silly "metal = satanism" idea, this is (predictably) an idea that originated in American fundamentalism, along with its typical paranoia about backmasking. In some of those circles, it isn't just metal though-- its all "secular" pop & rock music (curiously, country music seems to escape all these wild accusations. Classical music is ignored I suppose-- inspite of Belioz' drug induced Symphony Fantastique or that Vaughan-Williams and Shostakovich were atheists, etc. etc.).
> 
> I remember back in the early 90s in Louisiana coming across a book in a Christian book store cataloguing a whole bunch of "evil" musicians and giving the reasons why... It didn't surprise me to see the "usual suspects"-- Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath, et al But what did shock me was to see Lionel Ritchie, ABBA, Barry Manilow (ok, so he's an atheist, whio cares?), and other "soft rock" acts. And this wasn't just a raving Chick tract sort of thing either...
> 
> ~josh


There are some interesting precedents in literature: Lautremont's* Maldoror, *and the book *Against Nature.
*


----------



## science

Ephemerid said:


> As far as the silly "metal = satanism" idea, this is (predictably) an idea that originated in American fundamentalism, along with its typical paranoia about backmasking. In some of those circles, it isn't just metal though-- its all "secular" pop & rock music (curiously, country music seems to escape all these wild accusations. Classical music is ignored I suppose-- inspite of Belioz' drug induced Symphony Fantastique or that Vaughan-Williams and Shostakovich were atheists, etc. etc.).
> 
> I remember back in the early 90s in Louisiana coming across a book in a Christian book store cataloguing a whole bunch of "evil" musicians and giving the reasons why... It didn't surprise me to see the "usual suspects"-- Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath, et al But what did shock me was to see Lionel Ritchie, ABBA, Barry Manilow (ok, so he's an atheist, whio cares?), and other "soft rock" acts. And this wasn't just a raving Chick tract sort of thing either...
> 
> ~josh


There was a really interesting racial aspect to it as well, associating that "Satanic" beat with the "savage" music of Africa.

I once had a theory that I still play around with a bit now and then that the music of relatively free peoples feature powerful rhythms, but the power of those rhythms is dangerous to traditional (pre-modern agricultural) states, which have to create more carefully controlled music. It's an analogy to (or extension of) Weber's distinction between charismatic (~powerful rhythm) and traditional (~less rhythm) religious/political authority.

I really don't know whether there's anything to it. But I suspect there may be.


----------



## science

BTW, does anyone know of a fully, unapologetically Satanic opera? The classical music tradition has long made room for Nietzsche (~Strauss and Delius), we can go right to the source. The serpent in Genesis 3, traditionally recognized as Satan (nothing in the text itself indicates that) really could be a figure like Prometheus, a heroic figure, sacrificing himself to bring divine knowledge to humanity. Plus, afaict, the serpent is the most honest character in that story (Adam is a bit less than eager to acknowledge his deed - "the woman _whom thou gavest me_," suggesting it's really all Lord God's fault - even if he technically doesn't tell a lie).

Milton, despite himself, couldn't help making Satan the hero of his story. Did that show up in Penderecki's opera?

If not, or maybe even if it did, I figure the serpent deserves an opera. After all, it's not just every day that a god says, "Behold, the man is become as one of us."


----------



## Jobis

Music seems to me too beautiful to convey something evil. I'm more in favour of the emancipation of the dissonance, the tritone has been discriminated against for far too long! :lol:


----------



## lupinix

1. I'm not Christian, I hope that this isn't a problem
2. Satanists are Christians, in the sense that they are "within the boundaries of Christianity", the devil is a Christian concept, and therefore I don't take Satanism serious at all
3. Pagan doesn't mean it mean it has anything to do with evil or the devil, in the most original sense it just meant "country-dweller", "villager"
4. If you are afraid of the tritone, I wouldn't take the risk of listening to any music composed after 1600, most of it is full of it. I have even heard examples of medieval music in which the tritone is used kind of harmonically. Possibly because the tritone was mainly thought of as the devil when it was used melodically


----------



## lupinix

Jobis said:


> Music seems to me too beautiful to convey something evil.


I totally agree! 


> I'm more in favour of the emancipation of the dissonance,


At least this seems the natural evolution of music so far


----------



## PetrB

Alnitak said:


> I think that the devil issue has never been discussed. Why not begin a new thread?
> 
> *1° the tritone:*
> 
> The tritones spans three whole tones, like the diminished fifth or augmented fourth. This interval, the gap between two notes played in succession or simultaneously, was branded Diabolus in Musica or the Devil's Interval by medieval musicians.
> 
> A rich mythology has grown up around it. Many believe that the Church wanted to eradicate the sounds from its music because it invoked sexual feelings, or that it was genuinely the work of the Devil - it apparently was the sound used to call up the beast!
> 
> There is probably an other reason of the ban. Musicians thought that this particular dissonance didn't work technically, and people were taught not to write that interval. And you can read into that a theological ban in the guise of a technical ban...
> 
> *2° Satanic performances:*
> 
> The Devil's Interval enjoyed great popularity among composers in the 19th Century, when you have got lots of presentations of evil built around the tritone.
> 
> a- Wagner's Gotterdammerung has one of the most exciting scenes - a pagan, evil scene, the drums and the timpani. It is absolutely terrifying, it is like a black mass.
> 
> b- Many other composers presented Sabbath dances, for instance:
> - Berlioz in the last movement of his "Symphonie fantastique";
> - Saint Saens in the "dance maccabre".
> 
> What do you think about this issue? Must we look upon it as Poetry, Folklore, or Real Satanism (like in Metal) ?


Since you have to believe in one supreme deity (good) to believe in something like a Satan (a single embodiment of evil), all it is to me is....

an augmented fourth, period.

It sure does show up in less-imaginative film and pop music -- rather baldly inserted and not well used -- as a musical shorthand symbol for 'evil.' In those contexts, I find it just a too obvious and often inept use in less than great music, and a bit tedious and funny.


----------



## Morimur

Ephemerid said:


> Oh, and speaking of backmasking, if you record yourself saying "A nice guess" with an American southern drawl (it has to be with that sort of accent oddly enough) and run that backwards, it says "satan"!  LOL
> 
> ~josh


*Oh mah Lerrd!*


----------



## Blake

lupinix said:


> 1. I'm not Christian, I hope that this isn't a problem
> 2.* Satanists are Christians, in the sense that they are "within the boundaries of Christianity", the devil is a Christian concept, and therefore I don't take Satanism serious at all*
> 3. Pagan doesn't mean it mean it has anything to do with evil or the devil, in the most original sense it just meant "country-dweller", "villager"
> 4. If you are afraid of the tritone, I wouldn't take the risk of listening to any music composed after 1600, most of it is full of it. I have even heard examples of medieval music in which the tritone is used kind of harmonically. Possibly because the tritone was mainly thought of as the devil when it was used melodically


This is a good point that I think many miss. Although many religions believe in the existence of "evil" entities, but yes, Satan belongs to Christianity. So, if you believe in Satan than you must believe in God and/or Christ…. Because Satan isn't so without his counterpart.

I'm not religious either, but there are certain idiosyncrasies that many overlook.


----------



## hpowders

Marina said:


> Interesting. But how can you be sure of that?
> 
> BTW, *If Satan is not a Girl, tell me please why men are so fascinated by him?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Because females always go for the bad boys. Isn't it obvious?
> 
> He's our role model!!!


----------



## Morimur

*Satanist = Rebel*

A Satanist is essentially a rebel. One who refuses to honor / worship and respect GOD; Father-Son-Holy Spirit. Lucifer paid a hefty price for his rebellion.


----------



## Blake

Only those who believe in the religion can be a Satanist. If it held no importance to them, then why even bother trying to degrade Christ with so much passion? Christianity is their roots that gives them all the nutrients.


----------



## PetrB

lupinix said:


> 1. I'm not Christian, I hope that this isn't a problem
> 2. Satanists are Christians, in the sense that they are "within the boundaries of Christianity", the devil is a Christian concept, and therefore I don't take Satanism serious at all
> 3. Pagan doesn't mean it mean it has anything to do with evil or the devil, in the most original sense it just meant "country-dweller", "villager"
> 4. If you are afraid of the tritone, I wouldn't take the risk of listening to any music composed after 1600, most of it is full of it. I have even heard examples of medieval music in which the tritone is used kind of harmonically. Possibly because the tritone was mainly thought of as the devil when it was used melodically


The religions centered upon a single (good) deity are the ones who also have a single (evil) entity. All the polytheistic religions have deities who have both good and bad attributes, i.e. much more modeled on human behavior. In those, I think you would be hard pressed to find any of those deities as "embodiments of evil." Rather, those religions have no deity as evil, but instead (and I agree with the belief) it is only humans who are capable of evil.

I agree, too, that some inclination to either believe in a single deity altogether must be in place if, in fact, someone is a Satanist; more than often, those Satanists were brought up with the concept and belief in single good deity, and their embracing Satanism is a near exact flip side of the coin -- i.e. all the dogma, rites, etc. mirroring the procedures of the practices of the faith of 'the good deity.'

You find an 'entity form of Satan representing pure evil' with its associated characteristics in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and hardly -- or not at all -- in any of the other religions.


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> The religions centered upon a single (good) deity are the ones who also have a single (evil) entity. All the polytheistic religions have deities who have both good and bad attributes, i.e. much more modeled on human behavior. In those, I think you would be hard pressed to find any of those deities as "embodiments of evil." Rather, those religions have no deity as evil, but instead (and I agree with the belief) it is only humans who are capable of evil.
> 
> I agree, too, that some inclination to either believe in a single deity altogether must be in place if, in fact, someone is a Satanist; more than often, those Satanists were brought up with the concept and belief in single good deity, and their embracing Satanism is a near exact flip side of the coin; i.e. all the dogma, rites, etc. mirroring the procedures of the practices of the faith of 'the good deity.'
> 
> You find an 'entity form of Satan representing pure evil' with its associated characteristics in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and hardly -- or not at all -- in any of the other religions.


It does seem like good and evil are only human concepts to describe what gives us joy and suffering. I don't see other animals struggling with these things….

By the way… I have the utmost respect for anyone's genuine search for truth, so I don't want to come off like I'm pointing fingers here. But I do think that the ability to question ideas that we structure our lives in is incredibly important.


----------



## Morimur

Vesuvius said:


> Only those who believe in the religion can be a Satanist. If it held no importance to them, then why even bother trying to degrade Christ with so much passion? Christianity is their roots that gives them all the nutrients.


Your personal disbelief in something does not make it a lie. The opposite is also true but for the purposes of the subject, an unbeliever does indeed degrade Christ by his unbelief / apathy. The Bible is hardly meant for Christians alone.

In any case, let's move on.


----------



## lupinix

PetrB said:


> The religions centered upon a single (good) deity are the ones who also have a single (evil) entity. All the polytheistic religions have deities who have both good and bad attributes, i.e. much more modeled on human behavior. In those, I think you would be hard pressed to find any of those deities as "embodiments of evil." Rather, those religions have no deity as evil, but instead (and I agree with the belief) it is only humans who are capable of evil.
> 
> I agree, too, that some inclination to either believe in a single deity altogether must be in place if, in fact, someone is a Satanist; more than often, those Satanists were brought up with the fact of a single good deity, and the Satanism is a near exact flip side of the coin, all the dogma, rites, etc. mirroring the procedures of the faith of 'the good deity.'
> 
> You find an 'entity form of Satan representing pure evil' with its associated characteristics in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and hardly -- or not at all -- in any of the other religions.


I couldn't agree more. With all of it  
Also many people now don't seem to realise how many miles apart polytheism (or pantheism for that matter) stands from monotheism, that it is about so much more than just having a lot of gods instead of one. I'm a bit of a polytheist in certain aspects, but I don't follow any dogmatic movement at all and have no clear "pantheon".

And I also don't believe much in the dualism of monotheism and rather think that people are capable of evil than blaming all evil on a diety or his counterpart.


----------



## Blake

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Your personal disbelief in something does not make it a lie. The opposite is also true but for the purposes of the subject, an unbeliever does indeed degrade Christ by his unbelief / apathy. The Bible is hardly meant for Christians alone.
> 
> In any case, let's move on.


Everyone has their trip. I don't run off of beliefs, so I have no reason to bash anyone else's... as they don't threaten some ideology that I might hold. Love and compassion are wonderful though.

Move on or stay… it's all fine with me.


----------



## DavidA

lupinix said:


> 2. Satanists are Christians, in the sense that they are "within the boundaries of Christianity", the devil is a Christian concept, and therefore I don't take Satanism serious at all


Yes, and a Democrat is a Republican as both are within the boundaries of American politics!

Sir, your logic entirely flabbergasted me!


----------



## Morimur

PetrB said:


> The religions centered upon a single (good) deity are the ones who also have a single (evil) entity. All the polytheistic religions have deities who have both good and bad attributes, i.e. much more modeled on human behavior. In those, I think you would be hard pressed to find any of those deities as "embodiments of evil." Rather, those religions have no deity as evil, but instead (and I agree with the belief) it is only humans who are capable of evil.
> 
> I agree, too, that some inclination to either believe in a single deity altogether must be in place if, in fact, someone is a Satanist; more than often, those Satanists were brought up with the concept and belief in single good deity, and their embracing Satanism is a near exact flip side of the coin -- i.e. all the dogma, rites, etc. mirroring the procedures of the practices of the faith of 'the good deity.'
> 
> You find an 'entity form of Satan representing pure evil' with its associated characteristics in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and hardly -- or not at all -- in any of the other religions.


I respect your intellect, PetrB but I do not agree. Is religion responsible for unspeakable evil? Yes. Religion is a human institution. God desires a relationship, not 'religion'. Christianity is very logical and if you do some fair research, you will find answers that will change your perspective. But you must go into it with a clear mind, otherwise you'll just see what you want to see.

I am done with this thread. See you elsewhere, fellas.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> Marina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. But how can you be sure of that?
> 
> BTW, *If Satan is not a Girl, tell me please why men are so fascinated by him?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Because females always go for the bad boys. Isn't it obvious?
> 
> He's our role model!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Doh, think it will bring them power, and babes, natch.
Click to expand...


----------



## PetrB

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I respect your intellect, PetrB but I do not agree. Is religion responsible for unspeakable evil? Yes. Religion is a human institution. God desires a relationship, not 'religion'. Christianity is very logical and if you do some fair research, you will find answers that will change your perspective. But you must go into it with a clear mind, otherwise you'll just see what you want to see.
> 
> I am done with this thread. See you elsewhere, fellas.


I sent this as PM, but in case anyone else has inadvertently taken offense to the post Lope de Aguirre cited:

I am sorry if you anyone read anything with which to find offense in my post. 
I was merely naming those religions which have in their lexicons an entity for evil, nothing more, nothing less.

The idea of a devil, or Satan, as entity, began to form in the Christian beliefs ca. 200 A.D.

Please note, there is not one disparaging remark about any of the religions mentioned in that post, Mono-or Poly theistic.

Best regards.


----------



## lupinix

DavidA said:


> Yes, and a Democrat is a Republican as both are within the boundaries of American politics!
> 
> Sir, your logic entirely flabbergasted me!


Christians are people that believe in Christianity or part of it, at least that is what seems very logical to me...
Democrats and republicans are a whole different story, and besides you are wrong, there are lot's of democrats and republicans outside of American politics, there were democrats and republicans way before there was America. There were NO Satanists or orthodox Christians before there was Christianity.


----------



## millionrainbows

There are different names. The Devil, Satan, Lucifer...

Maybe the tritone is 'the Devil" as far as tonality is concerned. Here's why: the tritone is six half-steps (semitones), like from C to F sharp. It's also the only interval which, when inverted, remains the same interval. So, if you stack them, you get...666....heh, heh....
It also can be seen as unstable, if the bottom note (C) is the root. The 'flatted fifth' is unstable.

Also, if the bottom note is seen as the major third, the top note is a flat-seven. When inverted, they switch places, with flat-seven on bottom and a 'new root' on top; so we have 'modulated' from C to F#, which is a very distant key area. This interchange of root and seventh, in the context of V7-I cycles, is known as 'tritone substitution,' and is used to create more chromatic root movement. As we all know, chromaticism is the undoing of tonality.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> Only those who believe in the religion can be a Satanist. If it held no importance to them, then why even bother trying to degrade Christ with so much passion? Christianity is their roots that gives them all the nutrients.


Well, yes, that may be true in a shallow ideological/dogmatic sense; but if we see The Devil as an archetype, then this archetype can be expressed and embodied in the individual psyche, according to Carl Jung, the imminent Swiss psychologist. Thus, 'Lucifer' becomes the human embodiment of The Devil, and therefore represents the dark side of Man. Thus, no belief one way or the other is really necessary for the Devil or Lucifer to become an active force of evil, since these religious beliefs are merely mythological representations of Human realities which existed long before religion.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Well, yes, that may be true in a shallow ideological/dogmatic sense; but if we see The Devil as an archetype, then this archetype can be expressed and embodied in the individual psyche, according to Carl Jung, the imminent Swiss psychologist. Thus, 'Lucifer' becomes the human embodiment of The Devil, and therefore represents the dark side of Man. Thus, no belief one way or the other is really necessary for the Devil or Lucifer to become an active force of evil, since these religious beliefs are merely mythological representations of Human realities which existed long before religion.


Maybe so. Then again… maybe not. This "dark side" is fed an extreme amount of energy through these beliefs. All of us have the potential to be cruel or compassionate... it's where you decide to focus your attention that feed the "evil" or "good" energies which leads to suffering or joy. So yes, these tendencies have been with man for a while, but these belief systems give them even more fuel.


----------



## DavidA

lupinix said:


> Christians are people that believe in Christianity or part of it, at least that is what seems very logical to me...
> Democrats and republicans are a whole different story, and besides you are wrong, there are lot's of democrats and republicans outside of American politics, there were democrats and republicans way before there was America. There were NO Satanists or orthodox Christians before there was Christianity.


There were, of course, satanists - they just went under a different name. There were also no 'infidels' before Mohammed came - but an Moslem and an infidel are not the same.


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> I
> 
> The idea of a devil, or Satan, as entity, began to form in the Christian beliefs ca. 200 A.D.
> 
> .


Sorry, this is not correct. Satan is mentioned in Jesus' teaching and in the teaching of the apostles, all of which were written on the first century. Satan is also mentioned in some of the Old Testament books.


----------



## violadude

Since this seems to have turned into a religious discussion, might I point out that the name Satan actually comes from Jewish scripture which uses the term to describe people that stand in the way of other people (for example, the angel that stood in the way of Baalam and his donkey was called a "satan"). Then there is mention of "The Satan" in the book of Job which read in context seems more like a deity working on God's behalf rather than some supreme evil opposition to him. 

And then in the periods between Old Testament Scripture and New Testament Scripture the character of Satan evolved into the basic character that we think of him being today. This had a lot to do with the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism and also the general trend of Hellenizing foreign religions that went on in the Roman Empire at the time. The mythos was expounded upon by the Roman Catholic Church as well as writers like Dante and Milton and that's where we get our most imaginative ideas about Satan, for the Bible doesn't actually have much to say about him in detail.


----------



## violadude

DavidA said:


> Sorry, this is not correct. Satan is mentioned in Jesus' teaching and in the teaching of the apostles, all of which were written on the first century. *Satan is also mentioned in some of the Old Testament books*.


The name, and word, Satan does. Not the Christian concept of Satan being the supreme enemy of God and originator of evil, which is an idea most Jewish sects don't recognize.


----------



## millionrainbows

It's interesting that Zoroastrianism, which was the main religion in Persia before Islam, considered "God" to be a combination of evil and good, unlike the way Islam and Christianity now tend to separate good from evil. Zoroastrianism is suppressed now in Iran; apparently it is somewhat of an embarrassment to the Muslims now.

This form of "God" which contains both good and evil is close to the way Carl Jung conceived the God archetype, and this is really a more realistic and psychologically honest way of seeing things, since it more closely models Man's psyche.

The shuffling away of evil, and the rejection of all darkness, is a disingenuous way of dealing with 'the shadow' aspect of the psyche, and tends to partition evil into an unconscious mode, which tends to give it an autonomous quality which is more dangerous and uncontrollable, creating a sort of 'split psyche' or schizophrenia which can wreak havoc.



Vesuvius said:


> Maybe so. Then again… maybe not. This "dark side" is fed an extreme amount of energy through these beliefs. All of us have the potential to be cruel or compassionate... it's where you decide to focus your attention that feed the "evil" or "good" energies which leads to suffering or joy. So yes, these tendencies have been with man for a while, but these belief systems give them even more fuel.


Even if a person, or nation, focusses on what they consider 'the good,' this can backfire, because assuming a 
'good' always means rejecting an 'evil.' Thus, the Inquisition; murder sanctioned because of military reasons, etc.

"Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints;
As heads is tails, just call me Lucifer, 'cause I'm in need of some restraint.
So if you meet me, show some courtesy, some dignity, and restraint;
Use all your well-learned politesse, or I'll lay your soul to waste." -Jagger/Richards


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> It's interesting that Zoroastrianism, which was the main religion in Persia before Islam, considered "God" to be a combination of evil and good, unlike the way Islam and Christianity now tend to separate good from evil. Zoroastrianism is suppressed now in Iran; apparently it is somewhat of an embarrassment to the Muslims now.
> 
> This form of "God" which contains both good and evil is close to the way Carl Jung conceived the God archetype, and this is really a more realistic and psychologically honest way of seeing things, since it more closely models Man's psyche.
> 
> The shuffling away of evil, and the rejection of all darkness, is a disingenuous way of dealing with 'the shadow' aspect of the psyche, and tends to partition evil into an unconscious mode, which tends to give it an autonomous quality which is more dangerous and uncontrollable, creating a sort of 'split psyche' or schizophrenia which can wreak havoc.


There are actually quite a few sects who consider Satan/Devil to be working on God's behalf. They see it as all reports back to the Source. I think it's a neat view.


----------



## lupinix

DavidA said:


> There were, of course, satanists - they just went under a different name.


I have never heard of this, and can't see how this would be self-evident, but maybe my definition of "Satanist" is simply wrong?
To me a Satanist is someone who like Christians believe in "God" and the Devil, and worship the latter one (and rebel against the former or his believers). Please correct me if this is wrong, then I would like to know what it does mean.


----------



## violadude

Hmm the only kind of "Satanist" I'm familiar with is Lavayen Satanism, which doesn't actually say that Satan is real but mostly just promotes a "do what you like" kind of attitude.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> There were, of course, satanists - they just went under a different name. There were also no 'infidels' before Mohammed came - but an Moslem and an infidel are not the same.





lupinix said:


> I have never heard of this, and can't see how this would be self-evident, but maybe my definition of "Satanist" is simply wrong?
> To me a Satanist is someone who like Christians believe in "God" and the Devil, and worship the latter one (and rebel against the former or his believers). Please correct me if this is wrong, then I would like to know what it does mean.


If you are going by strict definitions, with a capital "S," then a "Satanist" is someone like Aleister Crowley, Anton LaVey, or Sammy Davis Jr; if you are more general and flexible in your quest for meaning, then 'satanists' with a little 's' could be considered as those who incorporate the darkness into the light without segregating them, which is what I assume me & DavidA are referring to.

We are attempting to expand the scope of the discussion beyond the defined or proscribed meaning of mythological entities such as Satan, Lucifer, and the Devil, since there seems to be a broad meaning in Christianity already.

Perhaps instead of questioning the definition of 'Satanism,' we would be better off to define *all *of these terms for clarity. Meanwhile, I will continue on into new areas, without so much concern as to whether I am remaining within defined territory.

A lot of this depends on whether you consider these Biblical entities as symbolic, or real, and if you consider them to be 'metaphors' for aspects of the Human psyche.

And even if you consider them to be 'archetypes,' there is always the chance that these archetypes could become 'activated' psychically, in which case they would behave as 'virtual' entities which could control or dominate individuals or groups, such as Nazi Germany or The Manson Family. This is what religion *does;* it activates mythologies through belief.

So really, the fact of their 'real existence' is irrelevant to the 'virtual' effect they gain. Belief, or metaphysics, needs not be proven; only acted upon.


----------



## lupinix

I see, don't think the OP meant satanist in this new definition though, but it is interesting and I see what you mean


----------

