Satanic Love

Is all love pure? Is all compassion worthy of emulation? These are the questions that plague me at the current moment. Perhaps it is merely a philosophical exercise, but I think it is something that should be seriously considered. What is the relationship between morality and love? Ever since Christ, love has enjoyed a highly-regarded position in the field of morals. Love God with your whole heart, your whole mind, and your whole soul. Love your neighbor as yourself. Or something like that.

But can Love become polluted?

Adolf Hitler loved. Is he redeemed (partially) to the extent that he loved? Or is even this most noble trait corrupted in his hands? A similar point can be levied against the mafia don and his lady friend who enjoys the wealth his life style provides. Do they not love each other? Is that a love worth emulating?

I’m inclined to think that pure, honest love won’t lead one astray and yet I have come to believe that there is such a thing—a close facsimile—that does: I call this thing Satanic Love. That is, there is a type of love that leads one astray morally speaking, because it is unhinged from morality. It is Love without regard to morals or truth. There is also such a thing as Satanic Compassion. They are similar, but different.

The most obvious place where I think these concepts apply is abortion. A Planned Parenthood worker counsels a young teen to abort her unplanned pregnancy. The worker thinks she is acting out of compassion or love, but ignores the irreparable moral harm such a vicious act inflicts on the mother not to mention the unborn child who is utterly destroyed.

The baby dies. The young teen learns a number of false tenets. She learns she can have sex without consequence and that every action taken has an easy fix. She learns that she can destroy an innocent life without objection or shame. All because the Planned Parenthood worker has thrown morality out in his/her blind pursuit of a questionable form of love. The same can be said for compassion, but I won’t repeat myself.

So, I would define Satanic Love as love without recourse to morality. That may be unpopular. It may even be wrong. But it was an idea I had that I figured was worth discussing. I’m not sure if I enunciated all the nuances of the idea, but I think I at least delineated a kernel of truth.

Absolutes and the Domain of Reality

What is the nature of Reality? Simple enough question. But not a simple answer. I think I’ve finally gained an insight into what many non-absolutists contend. Well, obviously, they contend that Reality is not Absolute. And from this claim come many errors concerning the nature of truth (truth not Truth). I’ll probably butcher the bulk of this as I haven’t studied philosophy in almost 25 years.

A rock is not Absolute. I get that. Still, let’s look at it a number of different ways. Platonically, there is a rock as an object and a collection of properties that it possesses. The rock is termed a rock because it participates in the Form of Rockness. It is an instance of that transcendental Form which is shared by all rocks (see modern Object Oriented Programming which, in its explanation of Objects is strikingly similar to Plato—in a very general way). Likewise, the properties of the rock are instances of the Forms of those properties. And so on. This makes a simple rock a very complicated object. Perhaps, too complicated. It might be wise to discard Plato and use Occam’s Razor (or is it Ockam’s) to shave all the Forms as someone famous once suggested (I forget who … sorry).

Then, there is Aristotle. The rock consists of a substance in which the properties of said rock adhere. The properties are real. The rock is real. But what the heck is a substance (in an Aristotelian sense). It can’t have any properties (so, good luck imagining it), and yet it is the glue that holds all the properties of the object together.

Nowadays, the metaphysics of today (a non-absolutist metaphysics) has moved beyond this. Now, we differentiate between the property and its referent, i.e. the actual color white on my computer screen and the word (or sign) ‘white’ by which I refer to it. The word ‘white’ is necessarily less than the actual property. In someone important’s words (possibly G.K. Chesterton): no sign of reality exhausts the reality of its referent. There is always more to reality than there is to what we use to refer to it. Hence, how can any combination of signs be absolute? They will always be an inadequate reference to Reality.

True, they will be inadequate for a complete description of Reality, but is a complete description required to obtain truth? I say, no. A rock is not absolute, but whoever claimed it was? Is it not possible that our ‘signs’ are well-understood partial slices of Reality? Cannot these slices be arranged in simple, yet certain, truthful relationships (this can get dicey as the term Absolute might have different possible meanings: for now I mean by the term something that is necessarily true)? “Red is a color.” That seems to be, at first blush, necessarily true. “1 + 1 = 2” Again, necessarily true … as is all mathematics and logic. But my personal favorite is this, which is very dangerous to deny: “I know I am not omniscient.”

Anyway, I guess my point … um, well … I think I forgot my point. My bad. Here goes, anyway. It was something like: claims that Reality is not Absolute do not imply that there is no truth. Truth has a different domain than Reality. Truth is a property of statements made by sentient things and how they stand in relation to Reality (Basically, the Correspondence Theory of Truth). Mars, a piece of Reality, is not true. Even if one claims that Mars is just a flux of particles, or better yet, just a pile of quantum goo, you still haven’t eliminated truth because your statements are only understood because they are conceived to be true. And if you expand the domain of the term “Reality” to include the statements made, then those statements, as parts of Reality, are examples of truthful statements and possibly (in mathematics, etc …) absolutely truthful statements.

Anyway, “1+1=2” and “I am not omniscient.” Denials of such claims just seem stupid to me, but I’m too tired to quarrel with people over such things anymore. I don’t have the energy. And with that, I bid you good night.

Transgenderism and Lycanthropy

I’ve been listening to the transgender-bathroom debate over the last couple of weeks. In light of that ongoing discussion, I have a question. Realize, of course, that I don’t have any training in either psychology or psychiatry, and I even have been diagnosed with a mental disorder myself. So, don’t take what I say below as gospel; I just have a question. I just want information. And I’m being sincere here. If there is a psychologist or a psychiatrist with the answer to my question, please feel free to fill me in.

We’re supposed to accept Transgenderism as normal, as just another equally valid state of being on the human “gender spectrum.” The Left argues that gender is a fluid concept. There are no such sharp distinctions in nature. I think that’s their argument. It strikes me as kind of bizarre, but that is how I understand it at this point in time. My problem is this: Can’t you make the same argument with respect to humans and animals? Or any other living organism?

Basically, the question I am asking is: What is the difference between Transgenderism and Clinical Lycanthropy ( )? In one, a man (or woman) believes he is a woman (or man). In the other, a man (or woman) believes he (or she) is a wolf. One is regarded as the new normal. The other is regarded as a mental illness. I’m inclined to think that both should be regarded as a mental illness. But like I said, I don’t have any university credentials in this field.

Still, I think I’m right. And I invite a professional from the mental health field to explain to me where I’m going wrong.

Passive Morality vs. Active Morality

What is the ultimate nature of morality? What is its proper purpose in one’s life? Many thinkers have tried to answer this in the past. I don’t claim to have a final answer here, but I think I have an interesting insight to throw into the mix. There seem to me to be two types of morality: passive morality and proactive morality.

Passive morality generally refers to those things one should avoid, like sex (if you’re Catholic), drugs, and … oh, I don’t know … human sacrifice (that last should be pretty easy). Proactive morality generally refers to those things one should pursue: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and help the poor. Passive morality usually consists of a list of rules. Specifically, things to avoid. Most of the ten commandments provide ample examples of such. Regardless, passive morality alone is inadequate as a moral system. Morality isn’t just about avoiding vices or avoiding committing evil. One could lock oneself in a room to avoid all the vices of the world and one would hardly live a life worth living.

Proactive morality is the more proper focus of the moral lifestyle. Go out and do something. It’s easier to avoid something than it is to pursue. Passive morality tends to rest in the back of one’s mind; proactive is always in the foreground. When I was growing up, I often wondered: What do I have to do to get to heaven? I wanted to answer that question so that I could get on with the rest of my life. I did not understand that my whole life is an attempt to answer that question, or, rather, the question: What will you do to get to heaven? Your entire life is the answer here. Proactive morality is present in every aspect of one’s life. It is not simply put aside so long as various temptations are not present. Examples of proactive morality include a few selected commandments like “Honor thy father and mother,” “Keep holy the Sabbath Day,” etc…

I’m of the mind that Jesus’ focus was on proactive morality. Don’t ask what the minimum required to get into heaven is. Do the more difficult thing. Make God and morality the centerpiece of your life. If you do that, you won’t be worried about getting into heaven or not; you will be focused on the right things and will have to worry about that question only peripherally. Anyway that seems to me to be an essential part of Christ’s message. Or, at least, my limited understanding of it.

And have I mastered all the nuances of proactive morality? Heck, no. So, feel free to ignore me.


I believe I am the antichrist. What that means in the end, whether I am the antiChrist or the Antichrist, I do not know.        But this entry is not about me. It is about Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, and what I think he did.

It, of course, revolves around my Theory of Satan. You know the one, where Satan is the universe, and Death is his ultimate power. I think of Jesus confronting and conquering Satan and I am just blown away in awe of Him (Jesus, not Satan).

We all know the story of Jesus’ final hours before his crucifixion and resurrection. Others think his motives are mysterious and sublime. I do not. I think I figured a big chunk of it out (but perhaps that is because I am just too arrogant to admit there is something I don’t understand). Can you imagine Jesus’ final hours and the courage it must have taken to face them?

I picture Him in Gethsemane praying, so frightened he is sweating blood. But why is He frightened? He knows what kind of death He is to die. He knows that He is confronting the maker of the garden. That that Force which exquisitely crafted every leaf and twig, every mountain, and every cloud, will be arrayed against him in full fury, bent on inflicting maximum pain and suffering upon Him. He will suffer like no one else in history: He will be scourged, humiliated, and finally crucified.

I can picture him standing, clothed in purple, with a crown of woven thorns upon his head while guards beat him mercilessly. Do not the guards in this picture seem to be emissaries of the Devil? Does not every blow seem to be an attempt to break Jesus and bring him to his knees to beg for mercy?

And the path he treads to the Cross is marked by further brutality culminating in the crucifixion which is probably one of the most horrific death sentences ever conceived by man. Perhaps being burned alive might be crueler, but it is debatable. He takes it all until finally expiring on that Cross.

After that, I believe he descended into the fires of hell where he suffered even more intense pain. And yet, he conquered even that.

Why did He do all this? To save us from that Force which did such to Him. He blocked the blow meant for us and absorbed it Himself. He laid down His life to save us, His friends, from suffering a similar fate.

I realize that traditional Christianity does not interpret those events quite like I do. Traditional Christianity doesn’t admit the role of the Devil in Jesus’ crucifixion. They believe God arranged such as a holocaust-like offering to redeem us from sin. God could only be satisfied by a horribly cruel death inflicted upon an innocent (perfect) man. I just think it makes more sense to blame such cruel agony on the Devil. But I could be wrong.

I believe my interpretation of events is the correct one. And as a result, I am in complete astonished awe of Jesus Christ. No person in this universe, living or dead, can match Him in courage. No one. Hence, He is both unique and special, and He is the Messiah.

Satan is a Liar, and Jesus Christ is the Lord.