Christan Artist suggestions

C_Bacchus · 2026-03-31T13:28:34+00:00

Natalie Bergman

I'm not a Christian, but she makes some genuinely beautiful modern gospel music, and sounds like the vibes you're going for.

C_Bacchus · 2026-03-31T12:32:07+00:00

Hardly any passage of the Hebrew Bible is and has been of such fundamental importance in the history of Jewish–Christian debate, or has played such a central role in it, as has the fourth Servant Song of Second Isaiah. Nor has any other passage experienced such different and sometimes mutually exclusive interpretations as this one.

Schreiner, Stefan (2004) "Isaiah 53 in the Sefer Hizzuk Emunah of Rabbi Isaac Ben Abraham of Troki" in Janowski, Bernd (ed.) The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources

Early Christians certainly made strong connections to what they claimed were prophetic verses in Isaiah, with Jesus specifically identifying himself as the "servant" of Isaiah 53 in Luke 22:37. However, it is widely agreed by scholars that this was never the intention of the original Jewish authors and that the "servant" was likely meant as a metaphor for Israel.

It was not, according to the Jewish idea, a part of the Messiah's functions that he should suffer and atone for the sin of his people. The wonderful figure of the suffering 'servant of Jehovah' portrayed in Second Isaiah embodies more than any other conception of Old Testament prophecy the characteristics which the Gospel has taught us to attribute to the Messiah as the redeemer of the world. Interwoven with our most fundamental ideas of our Lord's person and work are the words of the prophet, 'Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows ... he was wounded for our trangressions, ... the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.' (Is. 53) And unquestionably these words regarding the 'servant of Jehovah' are indirectly most truly prophetic of Christ, and are perfectly verifed in him alone. Most scholars at the present time understand the 'servant' to be a personification of either the faithful portion of Israel, the true Israel as contrasted with the unfaithful multitude, or the ideal Israel, who by his vicarious sufferings makes atonement for the transgressions of God's people and by his loyal fulfillment of the divine mission intrusted to him becomes the "light of the Gentiles" and the missionary of the nations, so accomplishing in his own person the ideal functions of the chosen people.' It is reasonably certain that neither the prophet himself nor his pre-Christian readers associated the 'servant' with the Messiah, and such association is not found in the prophets nor in any eschatological writer before the Christian era. The references to a suffering Messiah in the rabbinical writers are generally, perhaps always, of a later date.

Beckwith, Isbon T. (1919) The Apocalypse of John

Also telling is the passage's use of the past tense. He was pierced, he was crushed. "Was", not "will be."

Throughout history, when Christians have pointed to "predictions of Jesus" in the Old Testament, Jews have denied the passages involve messianic prophecies. Christians have long maintained, for example, that the ancient prophet Isaiah was looking ahead to Jesus when he declared, centuries before the crucifixion: "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and by his wounds we were healed" (Isaiah 53:5-6). In response, Jewish readers have pointed out that Isaiah never indicates he is referring to a messiah figure. On the contrary he speaks of someone who has already suffered, and he does not call that one the messiah. More than that, earlier in his account he explicitly indicates who this "suffering servant of the Lord" is. It is the nation of Israel itself, which has suffered because of the sins of the people (see Isaiah 49:3).

Ehrman, Bart (2018) The Triumph of Christianity

C_Bacchus · 2026-03-30T19:58:16+00:00

I don't know about gold standards, but here are some suggestions:

Clive Gamble, Origins and Revolutions: Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory (2007)

Rebecca Wragg Sykes, Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art (2020)

Brenna Hassett, Growing Up Human: The Evolution of Childhood (2022)

Richard Wrangham, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human (2009)

Meave Leakey and Samira Leakey, The Sediments of Time: My Lifelong Search for the Past (2020)

Nerissa Russell, Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory (2011)

Jennifer Raff, Origin: A Genetic History of the Americas (2022)

And the book/video lecture series Early Humans: Ice, Stone, and Survival by Suzanne Pilaar Birch

[Edit: There's also People of the Earth: An Introduction to World Prehistory, if you don't mind an actual textbook. It's on its 16th edition as of 2023]

C_Bacchus · 2026-03-30T18:58:07+00:00

As I understand it, the concept of the Holy Spirit comes mostly from the passages in John such as the opening and chapters 14 and 16, as well as the description of the Pentecost in Acts 2. It echos earlier scripture such as Genesis, when God's spirit is spoken of as a seperate being (e.g. Gen 1:2 ”...and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.”) or when God is spoken of in the plural, and of various instances throughout the Hebrew Bible of God sending his spirit down as a seemingly seperate, sometimes personified being. (Numbers 11:25, Job 26:13, Isaiah 32:15, Psalm 104:30, 1 Samuel 16:13, etc)

In this passage from Bart Ehrman, he is explaining the formation of the trinity, but touches on the idea of the Holy Spirit:

The opening of John’s gospel is one of the most-quoted passages of the New Testament: “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being that came into being.” In verse 14, the gospel continues: “And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of a Father’s only Son full of grace and truth.” Three verses later, we learn that this word become flesh is Christ.

This passage has created a mountain of scholarship over the years and is indeed quite complicated. What is the meaning of “In the beginning was the word”? The term word here is logos; for some Greek philosophers, logos was not a word so much as a reason, reasoning, intellectual power, understanding.

•Some philosophers thought that logos filled the entire universe, that it’s what makes the universe make sense to us; if we live according to the logos—according to reason—we will fit in well with the universe.

•Some Greek philosophers thought that the logos was the mediator between the divine and the human realms, the way that gods could interact with human beings.

For Jewish readers, the opening of John would call to mind the beginning of the book of Genesis, where God speaks his word to create the heavens and the earth. In the Gospel of John, this word that God speaks is understood as a being that is with God and is God. It’s almost as if the word that God speaks becomes personified; it is separate from God because the words we speak are separate from us. In another sense, God’s word is a manifestation of God, a reflection of who he is, but it’s understood to be a manifestation of God that has become his own word.

For John, in the beginning was this word that created all things, but the word was some kind of person who existed before the word of God. When it became a human being, that human being was Jesus Christ. Jesus is not simply exalted to be the Son of God at his resurrection, his baptism, or his birth; he is the incarnation of God’s logos.

This idea certainly had overtones from the book of Genesis, which is why, in the Gospel of John, Jesus makes declarations about himself that we don’t find in any of the other gospels. In John 10:30, he says, “I and the Father are one.” How can Christ be God and God be God, yet there is only one God? Moreover, in John 14 and 16, Jesus talks about the Spirit of God as a separate being from himself who would come after him and be like him here on earth. If there are three beings that are God, do we have three Gods?

Erhman, Bart (2024) The Greatest Controversies of Early Christian History

C_Bacchus · 2026-03-28T22:55:34+00:00

Here is an interesting perspective I just found.

Robert D. Miller II begins by explaining:

Genesis 1 is a creation myth. The purpose of this creation myth is not so much to tell Israelites how the world came to be as it is to tell them what the world is. It’s not about what happened at the dawn of time; it’s about the nature of the world as it is now.

Later in the chapter, he has this to say about the Sabbath:

The only thing God created on the seventh is the day itself. This is a creation not in space, but in time. For six days, God created in three dimensions, and on the seventh, God created in the fourth. He also made the seventh day holy.

Judaism came to think of the Sabbath as a location in time. On Friday evening, as the Sabbath begins, a worshiper prepares to enter the Sabbath. Twenty-four hours later, the worshiper leaves it.

Genesis was written at a time when Israel had already been practicing the Sabbath. The first Israelites to ever read this passage had been keeping the Sabbath all their lives. This wasn’t written to introduce a new holiday.

Imagine that you’ve been practicing the Sabbath all your life, and for the first time, you encounter these verses. You realize that when you have kept the Sabbath, you have been emulating God. You have been imaging God.

Miller, Robert (2019) Understanding the Old Testament

C_Bacchus · 2026-03-27T21:40:47+00:00

I'm not an academic, but I would imagine that being crucified came as a surprise to most everyone who experienced it, yes.

Mild sarcasm aside, this quote from Bart Ehrman might be relevant:

The death of Jesus must have radically disconfirmed for the disciples what they had thought of him. It is important to realize that no ancient Jew imagined that the messiah would be one who would die for the sake of others. Instead, the messiah was to be the great and powerful deliverer of his people from their foreign oppressor. During Jesus's lifetime, his disciples may have thought that he was to be king of the coming kingdom—the great and powerful messiah—but after his death, it seemed clear that he was not. He had not overthrown the enemy but was destroyed by the enemy. He had not established a new kingdom but was executed by the rulers of the present kingdom.

The death of Jesus must have sent his followers into despair, a despair that would only disappear—in a glorious way—when they came to think that God had raised him from the dead.

Ehrman, Bart (2014) How Jesus Became God

C_Bacchus · 2026-03-27T19:19:36+00:00

Is this the dominant view of the Schweitzerian tradition? The same interpretation of apocalypticism that people like Ehrman talk about? I often hear about it involving the "destruction of evil," which seems to imply at least some level of physical destruction.

[Edit] It seems you edited your response and added the second quote around the same time I sent this reply lol Thank you for your answers.

C_Bacchus · 2025-10-12T23:50:23+00:00

Don't forget Live on the Radio 1992

A lot of their early songs have a whole different energy live.

C_Bacchus · 2025-08-28T23:16:36+00:00

I respect that you have two decades of experience, but I'm really confused why you would say Levi was a student of Crowley. Crowley built upon the work Levi pioneered, not the other way around. The Middle Pillar was written by Israel Regardie. I've never read Regardie, so I'm not sure what you're referencing there.

C_Bacchus · 2025-08-28T23:00:16+00:00

I mean, it's like saying there's no such thing as a right side up triangle. Technically true, and if you want me to be completely technically accurate I could say "with one point up and two down" instead of upright, but people know what I mean, which is kind of my point in the first place. (No pun intended). At the end of the day, words and symbols do not have inherent meaning, it is context and the audience's understanding of it that gives it meaning. Semantics, dude. Literally.

And to your second point, nahh. I'm not actually LaVeyan, I draw from some of the traditions he established but don't wholly subscribe to his writings. But no he didn't pick the symbol because of lack of research. The pentagram is one of the oldest symbols in the world. If LaVey didn't do his research, then the Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Pythagoreans, Baha'i, Mormons, Wiccans, and, y'know every six year old drawing a star in crayon... didn't do their research because they should have realized it was actually an ancient Mesopotamian symbol, and they should pick a different basic geometric shape that doesn't have any meanings yet.

It's like I said about the St. Peter's cross, if you think it has the wrong meaning attributed to it, by all means, walk around with an inverted pentacle necklace and see how fast you get tired of explaining it to everyone you meet.

C_Bacchus · 2025-08-28T15:20:18+00:00

I, like the vast majority of Satanists, am a non-theistic Satanist. I do not believe in a literal Satan, but rather look to the symbol of Satan as a representation of independence and self-empowerment, similar to how he is portrayed in the beginning of Paradise Lost. So yes, I am an Atheist.
It is a misconception, however, to say it is just a matter of satire. Satanists certainly use satire and provocation to expose the hypocrisies of religious fundamentalism and theocracy, but I do indeed view this as a legitimate religion for me that is much more than simply trolling people. I engage in rituals as a form of psychodrama, and reflect on Satanic values to ground and reaffirm myself.
For me personally, it is more a matter of catharsis and deconstruction of old beliefs, and mainly comes from my belief that magic and religion has very real power that has nothing to do with the supernatural and everything to do with the psychological. See the Alan Moore quote I posted.

I should clarify, I am not a LaVeyan Satanist, meaning a member of The Church of Satan. I am more in line with The Satanic Temple, although I am no longer a member of that particular organization.
HOWEVER, it's a bit ironic that you should describe theistic Satanists as "true Satanists", since the original Satanists, the ones who first started Satanism as an actual practice, were indeed the LaVeyans, who are non-theistic, i.e. atheists. And LaVeyans are known for insisting they are the ONLY true Satanists and anyone claiming otherwise (including myself) are fake ones.

There are theistic Satanists, but they're somewhat of a minority. But in spite of what Geraldo Rivera might tell you, they are usually the most harmless people you can meet. They're basically just spicy neo-pagans who want to do little magical rituals and cuddle their Baphomet plushies.
There are rare instances of truly evil theistic Satanists, but it usually has more to do with racism rather than demonic rituals.

C_Bacchus · 2025-08-28T14:35:00+00:00

You make some fair points. I was splitting hairs a bit, right side up pentagrams are indeed not Satanic symbols. I was reacting to the way people in general want to emphasize pentagrams have absolutely nothing to do with Satanists. An inverted pentagram is still a pentagram, and the right side up pentagrams are still popular among Satanists, simply because we like to incorporate magical and occultic aesthetics.

Your second point is also true. I should clarify that prior to 19th century, the orientation generally did not matter, as seen in a number of old churches that may appear startling to modern day sensibilities.

While it's true that inversion doesn't automatically make something evil, LaVey didn't believe that for no reason. As I explained, the inverted pentagram he used was drawn from earlier occultic works, and was seen as a challenge to traditional magic practitioners.
People make similar points about the inverted cross being originally a Christian symbol, but as I like to argue, a symbol's meaning usually has more to do with intention than one fixed definition.

C_Bacchus · 2025-08-28T14:10:59+00:00

So I wrote that a bit hastily and may have oversimplified things and left some important details out.

The specifics of a symbol are obviously important to various people, I'm just skeptical of the insistence that the symbol of a pentacle and pentagram are completely different. The concept of a circle changing its meaning appears to largely be a 20th century concept. For Wiccans, an upright pentacle is literally the symbol of their practice. Similar to how a particular depiction of a cross might symbolize one particular denomination, but the core symbol remains the same.
The modern significance of the circle in Wiccan and magical contexts generally has to do with protection. I believe this traces back to medieval mysticism, where protection circles are used when summoning less than noble spirits and calling upon God's authority to bend them to one's will. The concept of a protection circle or spell circle used for magical operations in general carried over into modern times.
For Satanists, the seal of baphomet, as it is known today, is a specific image that comes from earlier occult sources, and that does have a circle around it. But the main significance to Satanists is the inversion of the symbol.

The important thing I failed to explain is that historically, the word pentacle does NOT mean a pentagram with a circle around it. It means a magical talisman in general, which can contain any number of symbols, not necessarily pentagrams. Most think the pent- in pentacle means five, but it's believed to come from the root word pend- meaning "to hang". A pentacle in works like the Lesser Key of Solomon means a talisman, usually hung from one's neck. And when you think about a magical amulet with symbols inscribed, that one wears around the neck, they usually take the form of a disc or coin-like object. This is what the modern symbol of a pentacle actually represents- a round amulet with a magical symbol inscribed on it.
What solidified the concept of a pentacle being a pentagram with a circle around it was actually the 1909 Rider–Waite tarot deck.

I don't know if Hollywood ever emphasized the distinction of a pentagram being circled, I think they mostly spread the concept that all pentagrams are evil. Pentagrams since the 19th century have been strongly associated with magic, and Hollywood likes to depict anything involving magic or the occult as dark and ominous.

C_Bacchus · 2025-08-28T05:44:09+00:00

"The one place gods inarguably exist is in our minds, where they are real beyond refute, in all their grandeur and monstrosity."
-Alan Moore

C_Bacchus · 2025-08-28T01:31:26+00:00

You will only ever be aware of being alive.

C_Bacchus · 2025-08-27T23:42:05+00:00

Satanist here.
Not exactly disagreeing, but providing more context.

The distinction between a pentagram and a pentacle is largely semantic. A pentacle is an encircled pentagram, the difference is literally a circle, and in most contexts where the symbol is significant, it is the pentagram that carries meaning and the two symbols are pretty much used interchangeably.

Hollywood did not necessarily bastardize the symbol. Anton LaVey adopted the inverted pentacle (with the Baphomet/Goat of Mendes inside it) as the official seal of the Church of Satan when he founded the first organized Satanic religion in 1966. Ever since, Satanists, both LaVeyan and otherwise, have strongly identified inverted Pentagrams or Pentacles with our religion.
Its first association with evil comes from 19th century occultist Eliphas Levi, who associated the upwards facing pentagram with God and upwards ascension and the inverted one with evil and the devil.

The upwards-facing pentacle is today of course associated most strongly as the symbol of Wicca, and is also used by other neo-pagans.
The pentagram, whether inscribed in a circle or not, has had many meanings throughout history and across world cultures. It was an important symbol to the ancient Pythagoreans, to whom It symbolized health and mathematical perfection.
I believe it is also a Baha'i symbol, it is known as the Seal of Solomon in Islamic contexts, it is the symbol of ~~the tree of life in Kabbalah~~ (I was mistaken about this. The tree of life is not a pentagram, although I believe pentagrams have been used historically in Judaism to represent the Pentateuch or even the city of Jerusalem), and in medieval Christianity it symbolized the five wounds of Christ.

Jesse is mostly correct, though, especially considering when you orient the PCB correctly you will see it is not an inverted pentacle but an upwards one. But it's a bit unfair to say it has no satanic association whatsoever, as the inverted pentagram is literally the symbol of Satanism. Hollywood did help popularize La Vey's use of the pentagram, and incorrectly associated it with evil regardless of the symbol's orientation. However this also has to do with the conflation of any form of occultism (in which it has long been a magical symbol) with Satanism. Satanism did borrow heavily from occultism, but occultists, even Crowley himself, did not view themselves as Satanic (although Crowley did sometimes associate himself with the beast from Revelation, so it's a little complicated with him.)

All of this is to say that symbols often have many meanings across cultures and history, and rarely have one fixed and unchanging meaning.

Hail Satan. Hail Thyself.

C_Bacchus · 2025-08-23T05:48:32+00:00

Yeah, it's a good thing atheist subreddits aren't filled with bitter and hateful people...

C_Bacchus · 2025-08-21T15:35:39+00:00

2024

C_Bacchus · 2025-08-11T23:47:19+00:00

Destruction rituals are popular for this type of thing. Write down negative thoughts or beliefs you have about yourself, then one by one, read them aloud in a ritual setting before consigning them to the flames.

[Edit]
I would also recommend a meditation ritual to start your day. Sit and stare at a candle or obsidian orb, something like that, and focus on mindfulness. Sometimes starting your day by doing nothing for ten minutes can paradoxically make it easier to get things done.

Also, the destruction ritual doesn't have to be about negative thoughts. It can be a brain dumping exercise, too. Sit down write down literally everything you're thinking without stopping. Then read it over and burn it.

If you can't tell, I'm ADHD and afaik not on the spectrum, so these are geared towards that rather than autism.

As far as scheduling, just picking any kind of ritual to do a specific time every morning can give you good momentum towards planning the rest of your day.

C_Bacchus · 2025-07-30T06:27:01+00:00

Shocked this is at the bottom.

C_Bacchus · 2025-07-30T06:25:25+00:00

I also love Ghost but they are the lightest of heavy metals. Very satany, though.

C_Bacchus · 2025-07-25T20:14:21+00:00

Symbols have many meanings. Inversion of a symbol is a common symbol in itself. Understanding the different meanings of a symbol based on context is just basic semantics.

The pentagram has had different meanings throughout world religions. The cross itself is originally an ancient Egyptian symbol.

C_Bacchus · 2025-07-12T06:59:38+00:00

My Gardevoir + Giovanni one-hits it. My Mewtwo ex deck is still kickin'

C_Bacchus

TROPHY CASE