The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Joy of Satan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 636 times Debate No: 75366
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




There are two kinds of Satanists. There are those who literally worship Satan as the "True Father," and those who are atheist, and wear Satanism as a badge. This of course is borderline FASHION. Related to Fascism etymologically speaking" Today"s subject is the theistic Satanist. And we will use "Joy of Satan" Ministries as a prime example of modern "Theistic" Satanism, though not conclusive, as "Joy of Satan Ministries" can only be used as a primer to show how illogical conclusions are rampant among this diverse cult base where every individual seems to have their own belief system, as it"s more convenient and sugar coating to allow one to create their own belief system. That"s fine.
Let"s take a look at this web venue, Joy of Satan Ministries, because it seems to express a base philosophy that is rampant in nearly all theistic as well as atheistic Satanist "Ministries" today, reaching far into the works of Zechariah Sitchin and Michael Tsarion... and other likes" Illogical contradictions are what appear to me to be persistent among these people"s understanding, theistic or not. And you might disagree with me, and that"s fine, I"m not looking for a debate, this is simply the way I see it. When I was in High School, I had a copy of Lavey"s book and I read it front to back.
The first and primary contradiction that appears to be prevalent in all these different theistic Satanic sects and what their "leaders" present is this: They worship Satan as the Truth and the Light, the True Father of humanity and that all religions are actually the enemy of mankind. I"ll respect that as their belief because I despise most religion, and won"t tread on that basic principle or tenet of their philosophy. My problem is when they say that Satan represents the Truth and the LIGHT" and they always use symbols of DARKNESS to portray him. A goat? The Biblical symobl of the scapegoat? The colors of black and red, death and blood? Black is a void. Not life or light. Light is WHITE. They actually use the same symbols that the Abrahamic religions have used to condemn them, of blood and black and red, to portray their "Father" who they claim represents LIGHT, and state that instead, this portrayal of dark black robes, and the head of a goat surrounded by fire and brimstone and death, instead of doves and rainbows and butterflies, are symbols of goodness, like a snake is a symbol of wisdom. But how is the excessive use of the death-head colors black and red, and sometimes a toxic green and vain purple all of a sudden supposed to represent the lighter colors of white and light blue and life-giving green? An evil-looking goat with red eyes that looks like it"s about to eat you is NOT the symbol of good, and all the Satanic Theistic Sects use it. Why isn"t there a Satanic Sect that uses the color of blooming morning glory instead, if they want to say they represent the Truth and Light? Why use black to represent light? It"s a JOKE.
To take it a little further, the Joy of Satan Ministries says that, "they"re not about EVIL." Well, if that"s True, than how come when we scroll down a little further we see that under the "Satanic Witchcraft" section, we find a spell on, "How to Deliver the EVIL Eye?" If you"re not about EVIL than why are you trying to teach people how to deliver an EVIL eye? I won"t pursue the point, I"ll just leave it to you to meditate on and decide for yourself. I find it obviously contradictory that they state they aren"t about evil, and then try to teach you how to deliver the "evil eye." And also how they use black and blood red and colors of darkness, to represent the light. Any of the Satanic Theists you find on the internet are claiming to be messengers of Light, while using colors of darkness to portray themselves. It"s ridiculous. How can anyone believe this utter crap?
If we look up the origins of the word evil, it doesn"t make sense why they would apply them to something that represents Truth and Light, which they claim they represent. The Etymology Dictionary says the word evil, Old English "yfel" means basically "bad, vicious, ill, wicked," and further if you wish to look it up yourself. That"s what the word has always meant, so if you are good and want to represent the Truth and the Light, you can"t be castin" no evil eyes, period. You can"t have it both ways, and say you are good and yet use evil to achieve your agenda of revenge. There is also according to the Etymology Dictionary the concept of Evilly, or the Evil eye (Latin oculus malus) which was Old English eage yfel. The jocular notion of an evil twin, as an excuse for regrettable deeds, from an old motif in mythology. Why are they using these terms if they obviously by definition contradict what they are trying to represent? To give them the benefit of the doubt at this point would be difficult after reading the dictionaries and encyclopedias. Unless they"re creating new meanings for words and defining them how they want to" How about I redefine the word good as evil. Good actually means evil now everyone so get it right. It"s ridiculous. Michael Jackson sang that he was "bad" and everyone thought it meant he was "cool," and people say no means yes. No, it doesn"t. The difference is, that was a trend, this is not. It"s all about fascion.
So, if we read further, in the preposition regarding the JOS Ministry in particular, it states in the "About" section, we read that, "Satan does not in any way fit the Judeo/Christian or Muslim descriptions that have falsely defined him for so long, nor does he conform to the character depicted of him in Anton LaVey"s, "Satanic Bible." So if that"s True, than how come the very cover of the "Satanic Bible," uses the same image of Satan, the goat, that modern theistic Satanists use to represent their belief system? I"m sure this will delve into a more cryptic answer, but the obvious and blatant is the obvious and blatant. Joy of Satan claims Anton LaVey"s Satanic Bible uses a false image, the goat, but JOS uses the EXACT same symbolism" Again, not making sense, and therefore appearing to be a blatant hypocrisy and dumb. Then again maybe this was all part of the plan to deliver these poor lost souls back into the heart of Rome.
And my final misunderstanding, as I"ll call it under the benefit of the doubt, is that JOS says, "THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES HAVE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. IN ORDER FOR SATANISM TO ADVANCE, MONEY IS NEEDED." The donate button is not difficult to see. I"m not sure why something representing real Truth would need money, God don"t need cash". but these guys believe that He does too. Then at the bottom of the page an image appearing to be a Skull with horns is portrayed, rather than a dove and a rainbow, the colors of light, no, the colors of blood and death, yes, and who wants that? Nobody wants that. Now there is some interesting research on JOS, but I have to say, Maxine Dietrich, shut up ya f"n douchebag. Nobody believes you, except these teens who have nobody to love them. Yes, she has a separate site for teens who have no one to love them but Father Satan, totes lame, a way to take advantage of young people who feel alone and rejected by society, especially by a society dominated by religious dogma and bigotry. Kids, this material, in my opinion, is piss, and some of you might like piss, but whatever. I just think it"s dumb, my own personal opinion, maybe you feel that Maxine is you"re light at the end of the tunnel, but my advice is don"t get caught up in all the research presented by this organization and focus on the basic principles it presents, and you will see, it"s ridiculous, absolutely. But again that"s just my own personal opinion. Believe whatever you want to, you have free will, it won"t affect me or anyone else regardless because to people like me it"s lame and a trend overdue of it"s own demise.


I might be misinterpreting what you are saying but by all means, correct me the next round.

I'm going to shorten the whole rant into one sentence: this form of Satanism is false/contradictory since it claims Satan is good, and different from other religions, but uses their negative symbols. I'm not going to go in depth into all your examples, but your first one is why call Satan truth and light when use darkness. Light, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, can be "spiritual illumination." Religion is not meant to be taken literally, and there could be many reasons to use darkness. Black soil is fertile and grows life. It could be any number of things and judging the religion based on color is not a real criteria.

Next, your main second point is why use the goat head when the goat head in Christianity is evil? Well, you did quote that they are not connected to other religions, so you can't judge their symbols on other religions. However, the contradiction is the point. You claim evil/bad, I will use to mean something good. An example is the Impressionistic movement, where "impression" is used as a criticism and insult, but was later turned around and accepted. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster used the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an arbitrary symbol to criticize religion, but later embraced it and started a whole new religion off that. Now you do briefly touch on by saying "and people say no means yes. No, it doesn"t." However that's your opinion that A is always A, whereas other thinkers who push pass the norm would rather say A alludes to B and C. This is a matter of opinion and also many words have roots that differ from what they mean. Trim use to mean in Old English "to make firm or strong; to settle, arrange," while the current usage (and thus is now defined as) "to remove by or as if by cutting."

The bit about money is irrelevant since all religions need money to advance, particularly when a rival/parallel religion has more and in your opinion spreading the wrong idea. It's their duty to spread "truth," a virtue that this form of Satanism agrees with.

Also I would like to remind my opponent to be respectful and not make random baseless assertions (your entire last paragraph), saying it's your opinion doesn't excuse or validate these claims. Thank you, and I'm curious to what you'll say.
Debate Round No. 1


I understand you are probably playing devil"s advocate. We could say blood is divine and a life-force, and therefore red is also a color of life, like wine and the grapes that grow on de-vine. It"s when we get into the "evil" which you haven"t commented on. The "Evil Eye." It isn"t so much as the goat. Look at any Satanic representation of the theosophy. And mind you, I"ll grant that you have given me points to be considered genuinely, which I supremely appreciate. I get the point you made.It"s all kind of a blur though. It doesn"t seem that there is a reconciliation that can be made here, even with my adamant points. Yes, Humic can be intensly incredible for the body. And it"s black. So no, red and black don"t ALWAYS represent death and bloodshed. Sometimes red and black - represent life. But given that, we need to consider when they are representative of death or life, like I mentioned about green and blue. Even orange can represent nuclear, though it is generally considered to represent nurturing. Blue can represent life-giving water, and also blue can represent sadness. When it is used by Satanists in general, whether they be theistic or athe, we have to use our personal judgement. Purple can represent vanity and also courage. The Purple Heart Trail, IH 35, is a major highway that is supposedly dedicated to heroes, or so I think... So this topic is easy to blur for those who have an agenda to do so, and it should be carefully meditated upon. All things have a balance, a negative, and a positive. Red and black, blue and white, green and orange, purple and yellow" all have both characteristics of positive and negative.
It"s the imagery and the messagery associated with colors, that also adds to the picture. Joy of Satan Ministries uses a picture of a goat with horns in black and red. Then it talks about an "Evil Eye" spell. Therefore it"s promoting "evil." And it"s using symbols which were used by the church, to represent itself. And I"ll leave the debate open - to show that the symbols weren"t created by the church. The point I want to make, I"ll be honest, isn"t clear at this point. I just feel that the colors and symbols they use in ALL Satanic philosophical cults, is not "Luciferian" by definition.
Actually all sects and cults of Satansim I have come across profess that they represent Truth and Light and so colors are not necessarily the key factor. Symbols on the other hand are more telling. You seem to make the point that the reason theistic Satanists use symbols that Christianity also uses them is because they belong to Satanism and Christianity hijacked them to condemn them. I get that. But the problem is that, and I have considered the cognitive dissonance manipulated into my mind, is that
A: Joy Of Satan says they "hate" evil, when they teach how to deliver the "evil" eye.
B: They (as well as ALL so-called Satanists) use reprehensible symbols of death to represent their way of life.
I mean there is obviously yes, red and black can mean either life or death. But when you use it to represent what you literally call "evil," and it has a face of a goat with scary red eyes and horns that look like they"re going to screw you". I mean yes horns can represent strenght". Ok it"s getting ridiculous now.

What my main point is, look at that face of a goat with horns and blazing red eyes and tell me if you think that represents something good. I guess it all relies on opinion" I don"t know, which is why I"m looking for other"s ideas. When reading Joy of Satan I feel that it"s actually good and right, but when I delve deeper, I feel that it"s wrong.


I'm just going to refute the two main points my opponent consolidated for me.

A. I've mentioned that when it comes to religion, words and meaning gets distorted in my little bit the last round. It's like how one country's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

B. No, I cannot look at goats with flaming eyes and tell you it represents good. I also cannot look at a snake woman and see anymore meaning. It's because the way you and I were raised puts the stress of good and bad differently from other cultures. It's the whole Plato's cave, on how our perception is based on society's. Goats are actually symbolic and good in other cultures. It's all about being open-minded and accepting.

Note: These arguments can excuse many crazy people/action and there is a large chance you will feel like it's wrong. However if they don't hurt anyone, you cannot be so narrow minded and bad mouth it.
Debate Round No. 2


Sure I understand what you're saying. My main jist is that you cannot say "Father Satan has nothing to do with evil," and then literally promote "evil," without explaining that "your KIND of evil" is actually something totally different. Even if they do mean something different, you have to explain that, or it is assumed that it means the same thing, because you're using the same word without connoting a difference.


Why do you assume the arrogance that just because you don't understand that it, it can't be true. Most people find meaning in their respective religious text that others cannot. I don't understand why the Bible claims that God is omnibenevolent and all powerful, but decides to solve his problem with a genocide. It is inherently contradictory but it's one of the largest religions. Maybe if you took time to open your mind you might, but your views doesn't mean others don't understand. The irony screams out to me and I fully understand.

Just a note, my opponent has accepted all my rebuttals and is just debating on my grounds. None of his original points stand beside the idea that "it's contradictory."
Debate Round No. 3


Isaiah 65:2 says, "I extend my hands all the day unto a people who walk in a way that is not good and is evil." It continues that God says (in my interpretation), therefore when they ask for my help I will not allow myself to be found. It's like eating potato chips and ice cream and cake all your life and then you want God to save you from that heart attack. He isn't going to, because you knew right from wrong, and yet you had free will to make your own decisions and chose wrong. So no, why would you expect him to help you while you feel it screaming out at you? The purpose and meaning of life, to me, is growth. You gotta learn your own lessons, to grow. All things in the universe grow, or they die. Temptation isn't put their because He hates you or wants to destroy you. How can you expect the human race to be worthy of becoming part of a galactic brotherhood if when given the opportunity to do right for yourself and others you do detriment and harm to yourself and others instead? Ever heard the expression, "Heaven can wait?" Yea because you're hear to learn. Heaven doesn't need to intervene to show you the way because if instead of looking outward for answers and instead look inward, there you will find the answers already within.


Con has ignored my reasoning but instead attacks the example. He has given up on his original points since he hasn't respond.
I'll give another example can be Islam, or Judaism. Maybe just proving Christianity makes one example null (I would disagree but I have no intentions of debating this) and there are an endless religions and you can't force understanding on to people in the first place.
Debate Round No. 4


AOP forfeited this round.


Extend all. Vote me.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AOP 1 year ago
Thank you Wylted, just looking for opinions... I don't really know what to think for sure just thought the subject could be discussed.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
I read that whole thing and still have nonideal what you want to debate. If you could make the resolution more clear, I'd likely be willing to debate this with you because of my familiarity with Satanism, both the theistic kind and LaVeyan.

However on a personal note. I don't consider the JOS to be theistic Satanism. It seems to be a more white light RHP type of paganistic belief system than actual Satanism such as LaVeyan Satanism or the Temple of Set
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kman100 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Fofeit by con. I thought that Pro's rebuttals were mostly semantic and not very effective, but Con replied to them even less adequately. Essentially, Con went down to pro's level, which enabled pro to defeat them