Satanists are crowdfunding a statue of Lucifer to sit in front of the Oklahoma State Capitol

[compl3x]

...and has no place in the public space.

 

Which is why this whole thing exists in the first place: putting inappropriate things in public places.

 

The God of the bible causes more violence that Satan ever does, seriously read the damn thing. From the eyes of a non believer the 2 are different sides of the same coin. Quite frankly no "do what you're told or be tortured" story can possibly be good.

 

 

'Tis OK. God is the creator, he is free to cause as much pain and suffering as he sees fit. He'll still have millions of loyal (scared?) fans.

[Shiranui]

How about this fine fellow?

 

[mudslag]

Your opinion. Though with no explanation of why "retarded article" is retarded, or why your opinion is so not retarded.

 

Obviously a lot of people don't agree with the basis of the article on how the 1st amendment should be interpreted. I've read history and I think it makes sense that it was only to prohibit an official Christian denomination. I thought he was rather open-minded on the subject for a Christian, especially since the argument could be used by Oklahoma to remove the 10 commandments statue as well as prevent a statue of Satan. But either decision would be non of the federal governments business.

 

 

 

It is absolutely my opinion. Bryan Fischer has a long history of making asinine remarks that fly in the face of common sense. Look up his videos to see how retarded his statements are. Second, per the 1st Amendment, as you said, it's your opinion and this article and view of the 1st Amendment comes down to pure interpretation, one that many would disagree. Christianity was far from the only denomination/religion at the time but like any denomination or religious view, views are going to be skewed either in favor for or against depending on who's viewing it. In this case, Christians who share this particular view will view argue that the 1st Amendment was written, as you said, to prohibit Christianity becoming the official religion. Fischer is expressing nothing more then we are the chosen ones mentality with that argument. So again the article is retarded, specially given the author. 

 

As far as Im concerned, while I think it's petty to put up a satanic statue, I also believe that if you choose to allow one group to express themselves, it's equally petty to exclude others from doing so too. 

[FloatingFatMan]

... Why not a statue of Hitler while you're at it. Whether or not you believe it exists, Satan is a symbol of evil, and has no place in the public space.

 

Read the bible from cover to cover, making especially sure that you keep a full tally of how many people Satan kills, and how many god kills, then come back here and say that again with a straight face, I dare you! :p

[TPreston]

... Why not a statue of Hitler while you're at it. Whether or not you believe it exists, Satan is a symbol of evil (according to my religious beliefs), and has no place in the public space.

Fixed, which renders your argument null and void, Have a nice day.

 

Your opinion. Though with no explanation of why "retarded article" is retarded, or why your opinion is so not retarded.

Obviously a lot of people don't agree with the basis of the article on how the 1st amendment should be interpreted. I've read history and I think it makes sense that it was only to prohibit an official Christian denomination.

If that's what they intended they would have so, They didn't; Its left delibritly vague so you can slot in anything from allah to zeus, Do you expect us to believe this was an accident? That the didn't know there were other religions ?

We don't need a King James Constitution. Leave the interpretation to your bible.

This has shown the true colours of fundamentalist christians, Calls for executions, vandalism and deportation. Im sure glad the constitution keeps them from turning America into the christian version of Iran.

[Nerd Rage]

Read the bible from cover to cover, making especially sure that you keep a full tally of how many people Satan kills, and how many god kills, then come back here and say that again with a straight face, I dare you! :p

 

I definitely agree.  The so-called "Merciful God" is a stone cold killer for much of the bible.  Thou shall not kill.......unless God does it, then it's legit.  :)

[FloatingFatMan]

This has shown the true colours of fundamentalist christians, Calls for executions, vandalism and deportation. Im sure glad the constitution keeps them from turning America into the christian version of Iran.

 

Yeah... Not so sure it's completely managed that... :/

[FloatingFatMan]

I definitely agree.  The so-called "Merciful God" is a stone cold killer for much of the bible.  Thou shall not kill.......unless God does it, then it's legit.   :)

 

I wonder how Andre S is doing on the God vs Satan body count thing... He's not been back since I suggested he check it! ;)

 

Tell you what, I'll be helpful!   The current count is:   God: 2,270,365  -  Satan: 10  (roughly)

 

I think the Christians are praying to the wrong fella, personally. ;)

[Arachno 1D]

In this book, I?ve tried to count all of God?s killings: those that are numbered in the Bible and those that are not; the ones that God did himself; those that he instructed others to do; and those that, while he may not have taken an active role in, met with his approval.

Of course, some killings are easier to count than others. When God burned to death 250 men for burning incense in Numbers 16.35, we know how many were killed. But how many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptian children did he kill? There?s just no way to know for sure.

So I have two tallies: one for the killings in which numbers are given in the Bible, excluding the others; and another that uses both the biblical numbers and estimates when numbers are absent.

How many did God kill?

Here?s the total, if you use only numbers that are provided in the Bible: 2,821,364.

Who has killed more, Satan or God?

How many did Satan kill in the Bible?

I can only find ten, and even these he shares with God, since God allowed him to do it as a part of a bet. I?m talking about the seven sons and three daughters of Job (Killing 133).

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/25/how-many-people-did-god-slaughter-in-the-bible-steve-wells-has-written-a-book-documenting-every-kill/

[FloatingFatMan]

Well, I -did- say roughly!   Seems I was being generous and under-estimated by a large amount!

[Arachno 1D]

Whats a few souls here or there to an omnipotent being?

[Andre S. Veteran]

Read the bible from cover to cover, making especially sure that you keep a full tally of how many people Satan kills, and how many god kills, then come back here and say that again with a straight face, I dare you! :p

I'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make. Satan is a figure of evil in all 3 monotheisms. How many people God kills in the Bible does not change that fact.

 

... Why not a statue of Hitler while you're at it. Whether or not you believe it exists, Satan is a symbol of evil (according to my religious beliefs), and has no place in the public space.

 

Fixed, which renders your argument null and void, Have a nice day.

Not according to my religious belief, but to every belief system in which Satan exists, i.e. all 3 monotheisms. Therefore Satan is a symbol of evil for everyone. Not everyone adheres to one of these belief systems, but no one holds that Satan is a figure of good, so that's irrelevant.

[firey]

 

I'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make. Satan is a figure of evil in all 3 monotheisms. How many people God kills in the Bible does not change that fact.

 

Not according to my religious belief, but to every belief system in which Satan exists, i.e. all 3 monotheisms. Therefore Satan is a symbol of evil for everyone. Not everyone adheres to one of these belief systems, but no one holds that Satan is a figure of good, so that's irrelevant.

 

 

But wouldn't someone who kills more be more inheritently evil than someone that doesn't?  If Hitler publically hated jews, but only killed 2 but someone who was more private about it but kill 100,000 would Hitler still be more evil than the other person?  And don't tell me that it's not valid, as it 100% is.  You are saying you believe that someone who has does less harm, is worse than someone who has done a lot.

[Andre S. Veteran]

But wouldn't someone who kills more be more inheritently evil than someone that doesn't?  If Hitler publically hated jews, but only killed 2 but someone who was more private about it but kill 100,000 would Hitler still be more evil than the other person?  And don't tell me that it's not valid, as it 100% is.  You are saying you believe that someone who has does less harm, is worse than someone who has done a lot.

Again, how does that make Satan not a figure of evil? The question is simply irrelevant.

 

In any case, the number of deaths one is responsible for is a poor indicator of his morality. First God is also responsible for everything that exists in the Bible, and for saving mankind from its own sins, so that should count for something in the balance. Whereas Satan does nothing but evil. Secondly, killing is not always immoral, much less evil. The US government kills a whole lot of people all the time, yet few would consider it to be evil.

 

In any case, again, that is beside the point.

[firey]

Again, how does that make Satan not a figure of evil? The question is simply irrelevant.

 

In any case, the number of deaths one is responsible for is a poor indicator of his morality. First God is also responsible for everything that exists in the Bible, and for saving mankind from its own sins, so that should count for something in the balance. Whereas Satan does nothing but evil. Secondly, killing is not always immoral, much less evil. The US government kills a whole lot of people all the time, yet few would consider it to be evil.

 

In any case, again, that is beside the point.

 

It's not beside the point though.  So, Satan is evil (though proof of this is only told to us by someone who is also evil).  Satans only "Sin" was that he made adam/eve think for themselves.  Instead of being told what to do, he broke the free of the bond that god had.  If Satan had not for all intents and purposes allow eve to go by her own free will, then he wouldn't have been cast away.  

 

God is responsible for everything that exists, so he is responsible for Satan, he is responsible for wars, famine, death, etc.  He forced people with threats to listen and follow him.  He THREATENS people by saying you have to believe in me or I will kill you, or you will die in some horrible other way.  

 

Also, pretty sure Jesus was the one that died for his sins.. which even then god was like "i don't give a fuq about this kid.. kill him" instead of being like "How can I save my son, and find someone else to suffer".   Yet we are supposed to respect and follow his word (10 commandments) and believe he is awesome, and the best, better than all the rest?  And that someone GOD Created, and in the bible does far worse things than, we are supposed to hate?

 

Also, lots of people think the US Gov't is evil.

[Andre S. Veteran]

It's not beside the point though. 

Is it beside the point because the point (at least the one I was making and to which some responded) is that Satan is evil. I don't see what discussing the morality of God in Judaism or Christianity does to change that fact.

 

In fact I wonder what your point really is. If you are Jewish or Christian, or at least if you happen to know what these belief systems teach, then you should know that they teach that God is a figure of good. If so, your current line of argumentation only serves to point out that these belief systems might be incoherent, i.e. that they teach that God is a figure of good when they depict it as evil. But I fail to see what that has to do with the topic at hand, which is whether a statue of Satan has its place in the public space.

 

Secondly, in any case these are tired lines that have been argued millions of times for several millenia, and you can find no shortage of explanations and arguments about God's morality in the Old and New Testament. I would enjoy discussing that if not for the fact that it has nothing to do with the topic.

[domboy]

It is absolutely my opinion. Bryan Fischer has a long history of making asinine remarks that fly in the face of common sense. Look up his videos to see how retarded his statements are. Second, per the 1st Amendment, as you said, it's your opinion and this article and view of the 1st Amendment comes down to pure interpretation, one that many would disagree. Christianity was far from the only denomination/religion at the time but like any denomination or religious view, views are going to be skewed either in favor for or against depending on who's viewing it. In this case, Christians who share this particular view will view argue that the 1st Amendment was written, as you said, to prohibit Christianity becoming the official religion. Fischer is expressing nothing more then we are the chosen ones mentality with that argument. So again the article is retarded, specially given the author. 

 

As far as Im concerned, while I think it's petty to put up a satanic statue, I also believe that if you choose to allow one group to express themselves, it's equally petty to exclude others from doing so too. 

 

I can neither agree nor disagree on your opinion of Bryan Fischer per say (I'm not that familiar with him), I just think that the idea he stated in this article of taking the historical context and using it to explain the 1st amendment makes sense. I didn't say Christianity was the only religion at the time, but in reading Colonial American history I've found many of the colonials made the same mistake as the European nations they'd left in that they'd setup an official Christian denomination in their colony and make life really bad for anyone that wasn't part of that church... until the latter group would leave and start their own colony... and do the same thing. So it would be logical for the founding father to have this at least partially in mind when writing the 1st admendment to prohibit the federal government from doing the same thing. With a state church at least you can move to a different state... a federal church would be the European nations all over again. Note that I'm not arguing for state churches or religions, but I don't think setting up the 10 commandments or a statue of Satan is doing that.

 

I actually agree with a lot of what you said, so thanks for explaining why you thought it was "retarded". I may not wish to see a statue of Satan setup there, but I rather see it than both be gone as I believe freedom of religion is something we as a nation would be much worse off without.

[TPreston]

Not according to my religious belief, but to every belief system in which Satan exists, i.e. all 3 monotheisms.

Except Satanism.

Except Satanism.

Is it beside the point because the point (at least the one I was making and to which some responded) is that Satan is evil.

According to your religious beliefs.

 

then you should know that they teach that God is a figure of good. If so, your current line of argumentation only serves to point out that these belief systems might be incoherent, i.e. that they teach that God is a figure of good when they depict it as evil. But I fail to see what that has to do with the topic at hand, which is whether a statue of Satan has its place in the public space.

Because good and evil of either character is entirely dependent on which religion you believe in.Not something the government should be validating.

First God is also responsible for everything that exists in the Bible, and for saving mankind from its own sins, so that should count for something in the balance

That must have been easy considering he "created" the "problem" to begin with.

Other peoples opinion that your god is the most evil creature in the universe and his salvation system is more of a crime than the holocost a billion times over are just as valid as yours on satan.

Freedom of religion;

[The Rev]

Basic principle of the Establishment Clause. You either allow all religious symbols, or you allow none. If you pick and choose then you are showing preference which is against the 1st Ammendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Funny, I don't see anything about the house and senate voting whether or not to allow the statue at the Capitol....  You know, I think today's society has totally EFFED the meaning and purpose of the 1st Amendment to suit their agenda...  I hate to single out liberals, but they do seek to create an even playing field, which I can understand to a point...

HOWEVER...  Honestly, where in that line of language does it say anything about whether or not the government can show favor to one religion over another, as long as they are not outright making laws or enforcing bans?  No one says the satanists can't assemble....  But as far as whether or not it's fair that they be allowed to erect a statue of Satanism on state government property...  Sorry, but that's neither making a law or preventing the free exercise.....  Satanists are free to preach their BS wherever they want...  But that doesn't give them an inalienable right to place a permanent statue on US govt property. 

 

EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'm not a super Christian conservative...  I am a liberal leaning moderate who increasingly believes that Christianity (Specifically Christ) is an even bigger scam than the generic belief in "God." 

[TPreston]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Funny, I don't see anything about the house and senate voting whether or not to allow the statue at the Capitol....  You know, I think today's society has totally EFFED the meaning and purpose of the 1st Amendment to suit their agenda...  I hate to single out liberals, but they do seek to create an even playing field, which I can understand to a point...

HOWEVER...  Honestly, where in that line of language does it say anything about whether or not the government can show favor to one religion over another, as long as they are not outright making laws or enforcing bans?  No one says the satanists can't assemble....  But as far as whether or not it's fair that they be allowed to erect a statue of Satanism on state government property...  Sorry, but that's neither making a law or preventing the free exercise.....  Satanists are free to preach their BS wherever they want...  But that doesn't give them an inalienable right to place a permanent statue on US govt property. 

 

EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'm not a super Christian conservative...  I am a liberal leaning moderate who increasingly believes that Christianity (Specifically Christ) is an even bigger scam than the generic belief in "God."

You also wont find anything in the constitution about employment discrimination, womens right to vote, black people being...people therefore we should have segregation,slavery and only white men voting.

[domboy]

Except Satanism.

Except Satanism.

According to your religious beliefs.

 

Because good and evil of either character is entirely dependent on which religion you believe in.Not something the government should be validating.

That must have been easy considering he "created" the "problem" to begin with.

Other peoples opinion that your god is the most evil creature in the universe and his salvation system is more of a crime than the holocost a billion times over are just as valid as yours on satan.

Freedom of religion;

 

If by creating the problem you mean He created creatures that had the ability to choose between good and evil, then yes. I guess He could have created a bunch of barely sentient robots instead, and there wouldn't be some that choose good and some that choose evil... they'd all just follow program... well, except the ones running windows... they'd probably get a virus and then evil would be introduced anyway...

[Andre S. Veteran]

Except Satanism.

Except Satanism.

According to your religious beliefs.

 

Because good and evil of either character is entirely dependent on which religion you believe in.Not something the government should be validating.

That must have been easy considering he "created" the "problem" to begin with.

Other peoples opinion that your god is the most evil creature in the universe and his salvation system is more of a crime than the holocost a billion times over are just as valid as yours on satan.

Freedom of religion;

If you're going to use Satanism as a counter example then that just goes back to my original point: you might as well allow a statue of Hitler. After all, some people do admire Hitler, so by your logic, Hitler isn't a universal symbol of evil.

 

If you still think that Satan is only evil according to my religious beliefs (which I've never appealed to - for all you know, I might have converted to Ra?lism recently), then apparently, Wikipedia's article is also based on my religious beliefs! That's amazing, I didn't know! How the anonymous author decided to elect me as the basis of the article, without having ever known even my existence, is beyond me.

 

Satan (Hebrew: ????????? ha-Satan, "the accuser,"[1]) is a character appearing in the texts of the Abrahamic religions,[2][3] who personifies evil and temptation, and is known as the deceiver that leads humanity astray. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

 

:laugh:

 

And again, I don't know why you still bring the morality of God into the discussion, without providing a reason why this is relevant to the question being discussed.

[FloatingFatMan]

^ Not everyone follows the Abrahamic faiths, so your claim that EVERYONE holds Satan as a figure of evil is not true.  I don't, to either.  He's just a character in a badly written story book to me.

 

There's far more "evil" in what some humans do to other humans.

[TPreston]

If you're going to use Satanism as a counter example then that just goes back to my original point: you might as well allow a statue of Hitler. After all, some people do admire Hitler, so by your logic, Hitler isn't a universal symbol of evil.

And if they founded a religion around him they would be free to do so

 

If you still think that Satan is only evil according to my religious beliefs (which I've never appealed to - for all you know, I might have converted to Ra?lism recently), then apparently, Wikipedia's article is also based on my religious beliefs! That's amazing, I didn't know! How the anonymous author decided to elect me as the basis of the article, without having ever known even my existence, is beyond me.

Satan (Hebrew: ????????? ha-Satan, "the accuser,"[1]) is a character appearing in the texts of the Abrahamic religions,[2][3] who personifies evil and temptation, and is known as the deceiver that leads humanity astray. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism

And again, I don't know why you still bring the morality of God into the discussion, without providing a reason why this is relevant to the question being discussed.

Because its all subjective when it comes to religion, You say Satan is evil others say he is a vilified for not being a slave to god.

what's a good religion and what's a bad religion is not something the government should be involved in, Much less what deity is good or bad.

[Slugsie]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

Funny, I don't see anything about the house and senate voting whether or not to allow the statue at the Capitol....  You know, I think today's society has totally EFFED the meaning and purpose of the 1st Amendment to suit their agenda...  I hate to single out liberals, but they do seek to create an even playing field, which I can understand to a point...

 

Oddly enough the meaning of the amendments isn't set in stone the day they are written. It has been down to law makers, policy makers, and the supreme court (especially) to interpret the amendments as required. Time after time rulings have reinforced that when you show preference to a single religion over others then you are de-facto establishing that religion over others. That is also how, for instance, limits have in fact been placed on the Freedom of Speech (shouting FIRE when there is none is a prime example).