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

[Arachno 1D]

Maybe they should install a statue of Bill Gates outside the building after all some think he is the devil incarnate

[Andre S. Veteran]

^ 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.

What you think of the quality of the writing of the Bible, or whether Satan is fictional or not, is irrelevant; whether fictional or real, badly or well written, this character is a figure of evil. There's no other widely accepted definition of it.

[Andre S. Veteran]

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

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

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.

What if a religion was founded around Hitler? What's your point?

Why do you post a link to theistic satanism? A link is not an argument.

 

I'm not arguing that Satanism should not be considered because it's "bad", but because it's practically irrelevant, just like supporters of Hitler are irrelevant to the social consensus about Hitler, and the outrage a statue of him would cause.

 

You still bring up the point that it is somehow "my" belief that Satan is evil.

 

Fact: Satan is a character of the Old Testament.

Fact: The Old Testament depicts Satan as a figure of evil.

Therefore Satan is a figure of evil.

 

What does have to with me? It has to do with the belief system in which this character appears, i.e. the Abrahamist religions.

[Athernar]

What you think of the quality of the writing of the Bible, or whether Satan is fictional or not, is irrelevant; whether fictional or real, badly or well written, this character is a figure of evil. There's no other widely accepted definition of it.

 

And what of the people that view the Judeo-Christian "God" as a figure of evil (albeit Fictional), such as myself?

[Andre S. Veteran]

And what of the people that view the Judeo-Christian "God" as a figure of evil (albeit Fictional), such as myself?

That's the point FloatingFatMan made, that Firey also made after him, and I've answered both of them already.

[TPreston]

What if a religion was founded around Hitler? What's your point?

I thought it was obvious the floodgates were opened when the first monument was put up, That's my entire point.

"Why do you post a link to theistic satanism? A link is not an argument." Its a perfect rebuttal to your link, Other people believe different things about their deity.

"I'm not arguing that Satanism should not be considered because it's "bad", but because it's practically irrelevant, just like supporters of Hitler are irrelevant to the social consensus about Hitler, and the outrage a statue of him would cause."

The outrage is the price you pay for opening the floodgates with the first monument, If a Satan monument or a wiccan monument is erected and it offends you campaign to remove them all.

[Andre S. Veteran]

The outrage is the price you pay for opening the floodgates with the first monument, If a Satan monument or a wiccan monument is erected and it offends you campaign to remove them all.

 

But the first monument is not a figure of evil. 

 

"Why do you post a link to theistic satanism? A link is not an argument." Its a perfect rebuttal to your link, Other people believe different things about their deity.

But you had already made that argument, and I had already responded to it! I mentioned Satanism in my very reply, so why do you post a link to Satanism as if I ignored what it is? What did you think that link added to what you already said? 

 

I thought it was obvious the floodgates were opened when the first monument was put up, That's my entire point.

But the first monument had nothing to do with Hitler or with a religion around Hitler... so why do you bring up the possiblity of a Hitler religion and how does that relate to the first monument? I'm very confused.

[Athernar]

That's the point FloatingFatMan made, that Firey also made after him, and I've answered both of them already.

 

That doesn't answer the question as you've only demonstrated that Judeo-Christian morality views him as a figure of evil.

 

You're dancing around the core point, the notion that morality or "Good" and "Evil" are subjective, so saying that a statue of Satan shouldn't be permitted because you view him as a figure of evil, bears no more meaning than someone saying the Mona Lisa should be removed because they don't think it qualifies as art.

[Andre S. Veteran]

That doesn't answer the question as you've only demonstrated that Judeo-Christian morality views him as a figure of evil.

 

You're dancing around the core point, the notion that morality or "Good" and "Evil" are subjective, so saying that a statue of Satan shouldn't be permitted because you view him as a figure of evil, bears no more meaning than someone saying the Mona Lisa should be removed because they don't think it qualifies as art.

Again, it's not how I view it (why would that matter?), it's how the religions in which this character is defined view it. Now if you're going to invoke moral relativism (which far from everyone agrees with) to allow a statue of a near-universal symbol of evil in the public space, then I suppose you'd have no moral objection to a statue of Hitler? After all, whether or not the Holocaust was evil is morally subjective?

[Athernar]

Again, it's not how I view it (why would that matter?), it's how the religions in which this character is defined view it. Now if you're going to invoke moral relativism (which far from everyone agrees with) to allow a statue of a near-universal symbol of evil in the public space, then I suppose you'd have no moral objection to a statue of Hitler? After all, whether or not the Holocaust was evil is morally subjective?

 

And there are religions that view him as a figure of good, a liberator in defiance of an enslaving evil tyrant, are they allowed no say?

 

Hitler isn't really comparable here as he was a very real person who is responsible for the deaths of countless innocents, friends and relatives of individuals still alive today. Arguably the closest thing to objective evil there is.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Hitler isn't really comparable here as he was a very real person who is responsible for the deaths of countless innocents, friends and relatives of individuals still alive today. Arguably the closest thing to objective evil there is.

Well you brought up moral relativism to defend your point, i.e. that "Good" and "Evil" are subjective. Now you say that an objective evil exists, which contradicts your previous point. Which one are you defending?

 

If your point is simply one of degree, i.e. that Hitler is a more universal symbol of evil than Satan, I'd answer that, especially in the United States, precious few would not identify Satan with evil, and that a large part of the population believes that Satan is actually real, alive, and way more evil than Hitler. For what it's worth, Hitler has his admirers too.

 

And there are religions that view him as a figure of good, a liberator in defiance of an enslaving evil tyrant, are they allowed no say?

Yes, but I've also just addressed Satanism in reply to TPreston (see last page), so I don't feel like repeating myself.

[Athernar]

Well you brought up moral relativism to defend your point, i.e. that "Good" and "Evil" are subjective. Now you say that an objective evil exists, which contradicts your previous point. Which one are you defending?

 

If your point is simply one of degree, i.e. that Hitler is a more universal symbol of evil than Satan, I'd answer that, especially in the United States, precious few would not identify Satan with evil, and that a large part of the population believes that Satan is actually real and way more evil than Hitler. For what it's worth, Hitler has his admirers too.

 

Yes, but I've also just addressed Satanism in reply to TPreston (see last page), so I don't feel like repeating myself.

 

I never said anything of the sort, read my post again. My point was more that Hitler as an individual had a very real impact on real people that are alive today.

 

So let me get this right, your argument against Satanism is that it's a minority religion and should be oppressed/ignored?

 

Christianity used to be a minority religion too.

[mudslag]

       

 

 

[Andre S. Veteran]

I never said anything of the sort, read my post again. My point was more that Hitler as an individual had a very real impact on real people that are alive today.

All right, so your point is that Satan and Hitler are not comparable because Hitler is a real figure and Satan is a fictional one?

 

Well first, you'll find strong support in the US population for the idea that Satan is a real figure, so that's far from a consensus position. You are making an existential claim about a religious figure to defend your point, which means you're using your personal beliefs about a specific religion to back your position. While I understand that this makes your argument sufficient for you, it doesn't make it sufficient for everyone, it's not an objective argument.

 

Finally I feel that despite this objection my point still stands. Even if there was stronger reason to oppose a statue of Hitler than one of Satan, the fact that Satan is a figure of evil is reason enough to oppose it.

So let me get this right, your argument against Satanism is that it's a minority religion and should be oppressed/ignored?

 

Christianity used to be a minority religion too.

 

My argument is that there's a consensus on what Satan represents, which allows Wikipedia, for instance, to simply define Satan as a figure of evil.

 

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. The term is often applied to an angel who fell out of favor with God, seducing humanity into the ways of sin, and who now rules over the fallen world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

No offense to Satanists, but when you take the character that personifies evil in the dominant religion and make that an object of worship, you're kind of painting yourself into a corner. I don't think this would be unfair discrimination anymore than it is unfair discrimination to Neo-Nazis to repress use of the swastika.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

It is the Devil himself that is causing all the discord in this thread!  He has you all where He wants you.  Praise be to Joe Pesci!  Amen!                                                     /s

[firey]

 

[Joe User]

But the first monument is not a figure of evil. 

 

Who gave you the right to declare a figure is evil and have it apply to everyone?

[trag3dy]

Who gave you the right to declare a figure is evil and have it apply to everyone?

 

You didn't read very many of his posts in this thread, did you..?

[Andre S. Veteran]

You didn't read very many of his posts in this thread, did you..?

:laugh: Thanks. It's depressing.

[Athernar]

 

All right, so your point is that Satan and Hitler are not comparable because Hitler is a real figure and Satan is a fictional one?

 

Well first, you'll find strong support in the US population for the idea that Satan is a real figure, so that's far from a consensus position. You are making an existential claim about a religious figure to defend your point, which means you're using your personal beliefs about a specific religion to back your position. While I understand that this makes your argument sufficient for you, it doesn't make it sufficient for everyone, it's not an objective argument.

 

Finally I feel that despite this objection my point still stands. Even if there was stronger reason to oppose a statue of Hitler than one of Satan, the fact that Satan is a figure of evil is reason enough to oppose it.

My argument is that there's a consensus on what Satan represents, which allows Wikipedia, for instance, to simply define Satan as a figure of evil.

 

No offense to Satanists, but when you take the character that personifies evil in the dominant religion and make that an object of worship, you're kind of painting yourself into a corner. I don't think this would be unfair discrimination anymore than it is unfair discrimination to Neo-Nazis to repress use of the swastika.

 

 

No, the argument is that Hitler has far more palpable and factually verifiable impact on people alive today than Satan.

 

Let's put it another way, what of the Muslims that view Judeo-Christian imagery as evil/blasphemous idolatry?

[blerk]

 

All right, so your point is that Satan and Hitler are not comparable because Hitler is a real figure and Satan is a fictional one?

 

Well first, you'll find strong support in the US population for the idea that Satan is a real figure, so that's far from a consensus position. You are making an existential claim about a religious figure to defend your point, which means you're using your personal beliefs about a specific religion to back your position. While I understand that this makes your argument sufficient for you, it doesn't make it sufficient for everyone, it's not an objective argument.

 

I don't quite follow the what you're saying here... Surely the argument is that Hitler has had a more quantifiable, verifiable effect on people and history than Satan, a figure that a) may not exist and b) is impossible to actually determine as a root cause behind anything?

 

No offense to Satanists, but when you take the character that personifies evil in the dominant religion and make that an object of worship, you're kind of painting yourself into a corner. I don't think this would be unfair discrimination anymore than it is unfair discrimination to Neo-Nazis to repress use of the swastika.

 

But it's discrimination all the same, is it not? That situation would be reversed in other parts of the world, i.e. in Middle East countries, (and the situation is comparable to problems in non-religious matters as well) but it still doesn't make that discrimination right does it? 

[compl3x]

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.

 

If you argue Satan is supremely evil yet compared to his own creator is pretty tame that should raise a few red flags. How do you rate evil? Wrongdoing? Suffering caused? Indifference to said suffering? Or just who you're told who is the most evil character and who you should direct your mistrust and fear towards? That's pretty much the definition of propaganda. "We'll tell you who to hate and fear, and you will, because you should... Because we told you to"

 

As far as evil goes, a lot of people don't even believe in evil in the first place. At least not a supernatural force which is malevolent and trying to "tempt" humans into wrongdoing. I think this notion of evil has held humans back from determining what really makes people act immorally or seemingly without empathy. Blaming an invisible force doesn't necessitate any research or investigation, especially when someone already has a convenient solution for you to combat it (i.e. religious devotion and worship).

 

 

What you think of the quality of the writing of the Bible, or whether Satan is fictional or not, is irrelevant; whether fictional or real, badly or well written, this character is a figure of evil. There's no other widely accepted definition of it.

 

 

You're right that quality of writing isn't irrelevant, but the fact that Bible is the source material for this "evil" creature is entirely relevant.

 

Why does it matter if it is widely accepted? If you went to a part of the United States with a  large Muslim population and they wanted to erect Islamic iconography on public land, people would go insane. But if Islam is "widely accepted" in that area then shouldn't it be fine? I am sure there is no shortage of people who think Islam or Catholicism is "evil". In the U.S. it was once "widely accepted" that Catholicism was "evil/un-American" by the overwhelming Protestant populations.*

 

The point of erecting a Satan statue is probably more to point out you can't favour one faith over the other. You can't value the tenets of Christianity and display them on public land which implies promotion by the state. I think it is entirely disingenuous when people, particularly people in a position of privilege (in this case, Christians), pretend they don't understand this point. Most probably do understand it, they just don't care. That is a hallmark of being privileged.

 

 

All of this could be avoided by not putting religious symbols of any kind on public land. Not Christian, Jewish, Muslim (they'd probably be vandalised and burned down within 20 minutes of erection), Satanist, Hindu, Buddhist etc. Simple. There is no implication of state establishment or sponsorship & no one has to deal with religious iconography they don't like, don't agree with or simply find offensive.

[FloatingFatMan]

What you think of the quality of the writing of the Bible, or whether Satan is fictional or not, is irrelevant; whether fictional or real, badly or well written, this character is a figure of evil. There's no other widely accepted definition of it.

 

To Christians and other Abrahamic followers.

[compl3x]

To Christians and other Abrahamic followers.

 

I don't think he is going to appreciate that point. I wonder what it is like living in a reality where even if people don't believe in what you do they agree with you anyway.

[FloatingFatMan]

My argument is that there's a consensus on what Satan represents, which allows Wikipedia, for instance, to simply define Satan as a figure of evil.

 

 

Your very own quote from wiki refutes your argument.

 

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.

 

Emphasis changed.  Satan is a figure of evil TO ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS.  Other religions use other figures to personify evil that aren't Satan, and atheists tend to hold actual real living (or now dead) people to be figures of "evil", such as the oft mentioned Hitler.

 

Therefore, it is disingenuous at best to claim that Satan is an overall figure of evil as it's a purely subjective issue heavily influenced by whatever the individual happens to believe in. That he's seen as a generic figure of evil in western societies such as the USA or UK just shows how ingrown Christianity has become.  Personally, I don't subscribe to that nonsense.