Hollywood and History

[rowens]

@Rowens: I was more just pointing out the discrepancy between society/media/culture's portrayal of Satan as opposed to who he is in myth and scripture. You're right, though- doesn't mean he isn't important. I just mean that Satan isn't a little red man with horns and a pitchfork, just an angel who followed one word of God and broke another. So "Satanic" would refer to a text that is centred around Satan, who is not a character in the Bible at all. "Satanic" means something completely different nowadays.

What you say is true, though society and culture are comprised of myth and scripture; and media, for good or bad and both, is what circulates these myths and keeps them alive and relevant. The neurotic Jewish mind had little need for the Devil to keep it in conflict throughout the Hebrew Bible, and when a small group of psychotic persons started wandering too far from the tribe and getting mixed up with the goyim distinctions had to be made. One could say that the Old Testament is a beautiful display of the neurotic mind at work, while the New Testament, with its monsters and devil, is a lovely expression of the psychotic. But, then again, one could say lots of things, and they probably will.