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


Recommended Posts

So lets have a cluster**** of religious monuments there after all its *freedom of religion* not *freedom from religion*

Or does that only apply to christianity.

 

Why not? I have no problem with others practicing their religions. I never understand how someone can be offended by another's beliefs. The country was founded on freedom of religion. That means everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? I have no problem with others practicing their religions. I never understand how someone can be offended by another's beliefs. The country was founded on freedom of religion. That means everyone.

 

So what you're saying is that discrimination (racism/sexism/homophobia) based on religious grounds is perfectly okay and people shouldn't be offended by it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that discrimination (racism/sexism/homophobia) based on religious grounds is perfectly okay and people shouldn't be offended by it?

 

So you're saying every religious person is automatically racist/sexist/homophobic? Nice open mind you've got. Liberal, I take it?

 

People should be free to live according to their beliefs and conscience, so long as it doesn't interfere with others. A Christian has no right to persecute gays simply for being who they are. But Christians should not be denied the expression of their point of view either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that discrimination (racism/sexism/homophobia) based on religious grounds is perfectly okay and people shouldn't be offended by it?

 

LOL   i know some pretty racist and homophobic atheists.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you should check out your facts a little better. In Judaism, Satan works with god as the prosecutor and is NOT evil. This perception came to being thanks to outside religious influences and pseudepigraphic writings by the end of the second temple period and was incorporated into Christianity and once it took hold their, was adopted into Islam when it came to be. 

Thank you for the precision on Judaism as I hadn't researched the topic. So now I did summarily research the topic, and I don't quite agree with your point. From what I could read, Judaism makes it very clear that Satan is not a force of evil or an autonomous agent that has rebelled against God, as this would (for Judaism) undermine that there is only one God. That said, isn't Satan, for Judaism, a metaphor of temptation, sin and evil desire:

 

Satan in Judaism is not a physical being ruling the underworld, rather, in the Torah, the word Satan indicates ?accuser,? ?hinderer? or ?tempter.? Satan is therefore more an illusory obstacle in one?s way - such as temptation and evil doings - keeping one from completing the responsibilities of tikkun olam (fixing the world). Satan is the evil inclination to veer off the path of righteousness and faithfulness in God.  http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/satan.html

 

 So, in order for us to work for the good that Hashem wants to give us, the good of the World to Come, we need something to deter us. That is the ability to do evil. Satan is our Evil Inclination (Yetzer Hara). The Evil Inclination tries to prevent us from doing good, because Hashem has commanded the Evil Inclination to do that. Why? To give us free will.

 
Each of us every day fights with Satan. We all have temptations, throughout the day. But we, as the Children of Israel, have the power to overcome even angels, if we work at it. Therefore, the Talmud says that men are greater than angels, for we can fight with an angel (Satan) and win. http://www.beingjewish.com/basics/satan.html
 
Satan is a character that appears in the belief systems of many religions, including Christianity and Islam. In Judaism "satan" is not a sentient being but a metaphor for the evil inclination ? the yetzer hara ? that exists in every person and tempts us to do wrong. http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/jewishbeliefsatan.htm

Furthermore, wouldn't Jews recognize in such a statue a depiction of the Christian/Islamic Satan? They should, since that's the figure being depicted (at least I would assume this is what its funders intend to represent, as they aim to cause controversy and it wouldn't cause much controversy to depict the Satan of Judaism). If so, then my point still stands. The statue will be seen by all as a figure of evil because that's the character (the Christian/Islamic Satan) it depicts.

 

Also, monotheism is only practiced by Judaism and Islam (aside from the incredibly small percentage of unitarian christians.) Christianity derives trinitarianism from paganism and is actually a worship of 3 gods.

Well, you're wrong on that count, but that has nothing to do with the topic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Exactly. If Oklahoma is going to allow a Ten Commandments statue, then they should be allowing any recognized religion's statue...

 

I find it somewhat ironic that religious people often complain about freedom of expression/religion... But as long as it gives them what they want, and not what others want. I remember the controversy about the infamous "Ground Zero Mosque," and yet no one would have looked twice if someone wanted to build a temple or church there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the precision on Judaism as I hadn't researched the topic. So now I did summarily research the topic, and I don't quite agree with your point. From what I could read, Judaism makes it very clear that Satan is not a force of evil or an autonomous agent that has rebelled against God, as this would (for Judaism) undermine that there is only one God. That said, isn't Satan, for Judaism, a metaphor of temptation, sin and evil desire:

Furthermore, wouldn't Jews recognize in such a statue a depiction of the Christian/Islamic Satan? They should, since that's the figure being depicted (at least I would assume this is what its funders intend to represent, as they aim to cause controversy and it wouldn't cause much controversy to depict the Satan of Judaism). If so, then my point still stands. The statue will be seen by all as a figure of evil because that's the character (the Christian/Islamic Satan) it depicts.

Well, you're wrong on that count, but that has nothing to do with the topic...

You clearly do not understand the trinity or the fact that both Judaism and Islam consider Christianity polytheism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You clearly do not understand the trinity or the fact that both Judaism and Islam consider Christianity polytheism.

So Wikipedia got it wrong? What about the Nicean Creed? "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty..."

 

Oh I know opponents of Christianity consider them to be polytheists; the thing is that all Christians profess belief in one God.

Job suffered pretty horribly. If you take your Bible seriously, God literally destroyed everything with the flood. If god is all powerful and all knowing every natural disaster is a result of his designed earth. If you believe god designed all animals, including humans, he's obviously responsible for the crappy design flaws. Like susceptibility to disease.

 

The difference between god destroying **** and WWII is that humans participated in WWII. We aren't all knowing & all powerful. We suffer from greed, violence, lust for power and tribalistic thinking which forces us to pick sides and defend ideologies. A perfect god shouldn't ve the victim of such weaknesses, but reading his biography it seems he is just as vicious and capricious as any human.

 

You know, you have a tendency to do 1 of 2 things:

 

Claim a point or position has already been discussed, written about or debated and the outcome has already been determined (usually in your favour) so you don't need to discuss it any further or claim that someone else's argument is irrelevant so you need not address it.

 
You keep arguing Satan is a figure of evil although the evil he is responsible for is trivial compared to the the destruction and wrath god has subjected human beings to. You're obviously of the opinion god can do no evil so you're not really being objective. Hell, you haven't even told me how you would rate or judge evil. If you define evil as suffering caused, indifference to suffering, destruction of human life etc. then god seems guilty of all charges.
 
The ten commandments usually has the punishment of death attached to failing to obey them. Why should such a barbaric list be displayed in public? Ironically on the lawn of a courthouse which is supposed to represent balance & justice.

So you're basically arguing that God is evil in the Bible, and that if I argue that a symbol of evil shouldn't be allowed, then I should also oppose the statue of the ten commandments?

 

Well that doesn't really contradict anything I've said, as I'm not defending the presence of the statue of the ten commandments. I've never made an argument for it in this thread, so you're arguing against a point I never made. Or perhaps you're trying to show that I'm being incoherent by opposing one statue and not the other, but I've simply not said anything about the other. Nor did I wish to express a particular point of view on it.

 

On the topic of the morality of God in the Old Testament, do you really think that in the combined multi-millenial history of Abrahamic religions, no one has pondered these questions (the morality of the flood, etc) and came up with satisfactory answers? I am amazed by how sometimes atheists seem to believe they are the first people to use their brains in History: such pretense and close-mindedness from self-proclaimed rational and open minds! Sometimes you are worse than the very caricatures of believers you construct.

 

In any case, yes, I think your point is irrelevant (and apart from suggesting I am avoiding it, you didn't really show why it was relevant to the topic) and therefore I will not produce in this thread a brand-new thesis on the morality of God in the Old Testament, analyzing every passage, sorry. You can easily find good litterature on the topic online and I don't think you need me to provide you with links from the first page of a google search.

 

You're obviously of the opinion god can do no evil so you're not really being objective.

That's an ad hominem by the way. I could just as easily say: "You're obviously of the opinion God cannot be good so you're not really being objective". But that wouldn't be a valid argument either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying every religious person is automatically racist/sexist/homophobic? Nice open mind you've got. Liberal, I take it?

 

People should be free to live according to their beliefs and conscience, so long as it doesn't interfere with others. A Christian has no right to persecute gays simply for being who they are. But Christians should not be denied the expression of their point of view either.

 

Where did I even remotely imply anything of the sort? Typical delusional Conservative with a persecution complex. (See, I can do this too!)

 

So I take it you wouldn't mind a group of people protesting outside your house holding banners calling for the systematic extermination of every single Christian?

 

LOL   i know some pretty racist and homophobic atheists.....

 

LOL  I know some pretty racist and homophobic non-neo-nazis.....

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Wikipedia got it wrong? What about the Nicean Creed? "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty..."

 

Oh I know opponents of Christianity consider them to be polytheists; the thing is that all Christians profess belief in one God.

So you're basically arguing that God is evil in the Bible, and that if I argue that a symbol of evil shouldn't be allowed, then I should also oppose the statue of the ten commandments?

 

Well that doesn't really contradict anything I've said, as I'm not defending the presence of the statue of the ten commandments. I've never made an argument for it in this thread, so you're arguing against a point I never made. Or perhaps you're trying to show that I'm being incoherent by opposing one statue and not the other, but I've simply not said anything about the other. Nor did I wish to express a particular point of view on it.

 

On the topic of the morality of God in the Old Testament, do you really think that in the combined multi-millenial history of Abrahamic religions, no one has pondered these questions (the morality of the flood, etc) and came up with satisfactory answers? I am amazed by how sometimes atheists seem to believe they are the first people to use their brains in History: such pretense and close-mindedness from self-proclaimed rational and open minds! Sometimes you are worse than the very caricatures of believers you construct.

 

In any case, yes, I think your point is irrelevant (and apart from suggesting I am avoiding it, you didn't really show why it was relevant to the topic) and therefore I will not produce in this thread a brand-new thesis on the morality of God in the Old Testament, analyzing every passage, sorry. You can easily find good litterature on the topic online and I don't think you need me to provide you with links from the first page of a google search.

 

That's an ad hominem by the way. I could just as easily say: "You're obviously of the opinion God cannot be good so you're not really being objective". But that wouldn't be a valid argument either.

 

The belief you claim to hold is known as sabellianism NOT monotheism. Again, this requires a historical study of Christianity. The much older and more accurate Apostles creed does not add the trinitarian language found in the Nicene creed setup by Constantine. Again, the original christian doctrine before Constantine tried to unify the church did not have a belief in a trinity. Not only that, but the idea of a trinity can be traced to the hellenizing of the jews in the second temple period when the Greeks and chaldeans introduced there ideas with trinitarian (Greek trinity Hekate) (Chaldean trinity of Aktiophi, Ereschigal and Nebutosualeth)concepts such as . This period of history is known in Judaism as the maccabees

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Ever hear of the 13th, 14th, 15th, & 19th admendments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find funny.. is that it's in the 10 commandments that you can't say the lords name with a ###### attitude.. but there is absolutely nothing about rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So you're basically arguing that God is evil in the Bible, and that if I argue that a symbol of evil shouldn't be allowed, then I should also oppose the statue of the ten commandments?

 

Well that doesn't really contradict anything I've said, as I'm not defending the presence of the statue of the ten commandments. I've never made an argument for it in this thread, so you're arguing against a point I never made. Or perhaps you're trying to show that I'm being incoherent by opposing one statue and not the other, but I've simply not said anything about the other. Nor did I wish to express a particular point of view on it.

 

On the topic of the morality of God in the Old Testament, do you really think that in the combined multi-millenial history of Abrahamic religions, no one has pondered these questions (the morality of the flood, etc) and came up with satisfactory answers? I am amazed by how sometimes atheists seem to believe they are the first people to use their brains in History: such pretense and close-mindedness from self-proclaimed rational and open minds! Sometimes you are worse than the very caricatures of believers you construct.

 

In any case, yes, I think your point is irrelevant (and apart from suggesting I am avoiding it, you didn't really show why it was relevant to the topic) and therefore I will not produce in this thread a brand-new thesis on the morality of God in the Old Testament, analyzing every passage, sorry. You can easily find good litterature on the topic online and I don't think you need me to provide you with links from the first page of a google search.

 

That's an ad hominem by the way. I could just as easily say: "You're obviously of the opinion God cannot be good so you're not really being objective". But that wouldn't be a valid argument either.

 

 

You're impossible. Now you're arguing you don't even want to express an opinion about this issue. Why you'd go to all of this effort only to end up saying "I don't want to express my opinion on this" is baffling to say the least. You obviously have an opinion on a Satan statue but now the 10 commandments? Umm, bias? Favouring monuments which promote your religion? Yeah. Pretty much.

 

It's funny you accuse me of an ad hominem when a few sentences earlier you accused atheists of being arrogant and closed-minded.  :laugh: You can't argue this position objectively because of your existing belief, you have a bias. Ad hominem isn't always fallacious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 9, 2014, one of the participants in Fox Business New?s ?Mensa Meeting,? Bernard McGuirk, said that members of the Satanic Temple who want to erect a monument in Oklahoma City should be executed.

?They should be able to put the statue up, and then they should be shot right next to it, and then we take it down,? McGuirk said.

 

Source.

 

--

 

Christians calling for murder of innocents, remind me - who were supposed to be the "evil ones" here? :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is always my favorite topic of argument/debate.  Since I am an atheist, I know the evidence suggests I am right. - and 99% of the time, the "forgiving" christian is the one who will get upset -

There are alot of learned people in here about theocracy in general, then there are some hilarious posts by devout christians.  What is awesomely funny is bringing up Noah.  Because it is totally believable that 1 boat could hold every animal.

 

Think they let termites on the ark ?

I tell people "I am religious about not being religious."  But if I had to pick, I think Buddhism is most appealing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but as many things in the bible it could be a metaphor that and it could be totally different to what you refer to as a "boat". I believe, mistranslations in many historical books due to language,culture,dialect changes,misreading "lost languages" or spoken fables which over time can change the way a word or sentence refers to something can even change the meaning or context altogether if one does not understand the original subject "in person" rather than through the written word.

 

Lets go to an absurd level and say I have a Star ship in which I can make land fall in to lakes or rivers. I then visit a time in history some 1000BC, would a person of that period having seem nothing larger than say a sail boat have no contextual word in his vocabulary but boat for the ship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define train

 

train  (tramacr.gifn)

n.
1. A series of connected railroad cars pulled or pushed by one or more locomotives.
2. A long line of moving people, animals, or vehicles.
3. The personnel, vehicles, and equipment following and providing supplies and services to a combat unit.
4. A part of a gown that trails behind the wearer.
5. A staff of people following in attendance; a retinue.
6.
a. An orderly succession of related events or thoughts; a sequence. See Synonyms at series.
b. A series of consequences wrought by an event; aftermath.
7. A set of linked mechanical parts: a train of gears.
8. A string of gunpowder that acts as a fuse for exploding a charge.
v. trained, train?ing, trains
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I even remotely imply anything of the sort? Typical delusional Conservative with a persecution complex. (See, I can do this too!)

 

So I take it you wouldn't mind a group of people protesting outside your house holding banners calling for the systematic extermination of every single Christian?

 

 

The fact that you went from my statement that everyone should be allowed to express their religion to the homophobia certainly implied it. That's where the "as long as it doesn't hurt others" bit comes in. A Catholic can disagree with the gay lifestyle due to his faith; he may not attack or persecute a gay couple because he disagrees with their lifestyle. But that goes both ways - that gay couple should have no right to attack or persecute a Christian for simply disagreeing with their lifestyle. Both instances are wrong.

 

It is possible to coexist with people whose lifestyle and beliefs you don't agree with. And it doesn't require the suppression of anyone's free speech or expression of their beliefs. It's called respect for others, and too few understand the concept these days. And some religious groups fall into that category as well - I won't deny that.

 

And a group outside my house protesting like that would definitely fall in the "unless it hurts others" category. Just like the Westboro Baptist Church is wrong with their idiotic, often inappropriate protests. Just like protesting outside the house of a black family who aren't doing anyone any harm would be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. If Oklahoma is going to allow a Ten Commandments statue, then they should be allowing any recognized religion's statue...

 

 

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and I'm a Catholic. We're not all offended by the existence of other religions you know.

What I find funny.. is that it's in the 10 commandments that you can't say the lords name with a ****ty attitude.. but there is absolutely nothing about rape.

 

That was #13, on the third tablet Moses dropped in "History of the World Part I" :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're impossible. Now you're arguing you don't even want to express an opinion about this issue. Why you'd go to all of this effort only to end up saying "I don't want to express my opinion on this" is baffling to say the least. 

I was only trying to make the point that erecting a statue of Satan is not acceptable because it's a widely recognized figure of evil. I was attacked on this point by several on this thread and responded to everyone to defend this point

 

Unless you have a clear, explicit, counter-argument to make, I don't have anything else to say.

 

You obviously have an opinion on a Satan statue but now the 10 commandments? Umm, bias? Favouring monuments which promote your religion? Yeah. Pretty much.

Satan is a character that appears in the same texts as the 10 commandments. The difference is that the former is a figure of evil and the latter isn't.

 

It's funny you accuse me of an ad hominem when a few sentences earlier you accused atheists of being arrogant and closed-minded.   :laugh: You can't argue this position objectively because of your existing belief, you have a bias. Ad hominem isn't always fallacious.

That was a general remark not targeted directly at you and even less at the arguments you used to defend your position. In other words not an ad hominem. Attacking my argumentation as biased because of my own religious bias is an ad hominem; it fails to address the logic of the argument, which stands by itself. I could have any beliefs and defend the same position.

 

You don't even know what religious beliefs I have or don't have, for that matter. You're making strange and irrelevant assumptions about my character, because you don't really have any logical counter-point to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The belief you claim to hold is known as sabellianism NOT monotheism. Again, this requires a historical study of Christianity. The much older and more accurate Apostles creed does not add the trinitarian language found in the Nicene creed setup by Constantine. Again, the original christian doctrine before Constantine tried to unify the church did not have a belief in a trinity. Not only that, but the idea of a trinity can be traced to the hellenizing of the jews in the second temple period when the Greeks and chaldeans introduced there ideas with trinitarian (Greek trinity Hekate) (Chaldean trinity of Aktiophi, Ereschigal and Nebutosualeth)concepts such as . This period of history is known in Judaism as the maccabees

I didn't claim to hold any particular belief. You claimed that Christians were not monotheists because of their belief in the Trinity, which you apparently perceive as belief in 3 gods. I'm not sure what the historical development of this idea changes to the fact that this doctrine defines that there is only one god, albeit in 3 persons, and that every Christian today professes monotheism, i.e. that there is only one god. This is the explicit text of the Nicean creed (which is professed by almost every Christian today) and is a widely accepted fact. See for instance:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity Christianity (from the Ancient Greek translation ???????, Christos of the Hebrew ????????, Ma??a?, meaning "the anointed one"[1] and the Latin suffixes ian and -itas) is a monotheistic[2] religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism Monotheism characterizes the traditions of Atenism, the Bah?'? Faith, Cao Dai (Caodaiism), Cheondoism (Cheondogyo), Christianity, Deism, Eckankar, Islam, Judaism, Rastafarianism, Sikhism, Vaishnavism, Tenrikyo (Tenriism) and Zoroastrianism and elements of the belief are discernible in numerous other religions.[4]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.