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

[Athernar]

I don't see any accepted meaning of the term that would apply. If you're going to argue that I am denying a right, then you should be able to name that right.

 

Yes, I am familiar with gnosticism, why?

 

I'm not arguing you're trying to deny a right (As I don't think it should be a right to have a statue there, none of them should be there), I'm arguing you're trying to deny equal representation - given that Christianity is already represented, to deny the same treatment to Satanists is denying equal representation.

 

I.e. The door was opened, you cannot selectively shut it when someone you don't like goes to walk through.

 

As for Gnosticism, interesting. So you are then also aware that the teachings of said religion views the Christian god to be evil?

[Andre S. Veteran]

I'm not arguing you're trying to deny a right (As I don't think it should be a right to have a statue there, none of them should be there), I'm arguing you're trying to deny equal representation - given that Christianity is already represented, to deny the same treatment to Satanists is denying equal representation.

Well if what you mean by equal representation is not a right, then what's wrong with denying it?

As for Gnosticism, interesting. So you are then also aware that the teachings of said religion views the Christian god to be evil?

Gnosticism is not a single religion with well-defined teachings but a group of ancient religions with various different beliefs. Could you clarify to what exactly you're referring to, and what's the point you're trying to make?

[Joe User]

Hum, nothing, and I don't need to. Why do you ask?

 

If you don't have the right to define it, then how can you use your definition as an argument against it? Why is your opinion worth any more than anyone else's?

[Athernar]

Well if what you mean by equal representation is not a right, then what's wrong with denying it?

Gnosticism is not a single religion with well-defined teachings but a group of ancient religions with various different beliefs. Could you clarify to what exactly you're referring to, and what's the point you're trying to make?

 

The Christian statue has no right to be there, and thus neither does the Satanist statue, but since the Christian statue is there you have "opened the door". Therefore the Satanist statue has just as much justification to be there, otherwise you are denying equal representation.

 

--

 

What I'm referring to with Gnosticism is the Demiurge, the creator of the physical world (Essentially the Christian God) that in branches of Gnosticism is viewed as evil.

 

The point I'm trying to make by raising Gnosticism is that religions aren't consistent with their views and representations of various figures. Now I think about it, a better example may have been the Islamic view of Jesus (Prophet) vs the Christian view (Son of God).

 

Basically, to say Satan is consistently viewed as a figure of evil is incorrect. As there most likely are religions/sects that may view him as having been maliciously misrepresented by an evil manipulative figure masquerading as "God".

[mudslag]

I'm not sure what good it would do to repeat myself at this point, since I've already done so many times in the last few pages of this thread. If you wish to keep restating this argument like I never answered it (and you never objected anything to the replies I gave), more power to you.

 

 

Please repeat it for the rest of us who havent read through the last 11 pages. Satan is viewed as evil through the major religions, given that not everyone accepts those religious views, it's as equal of a valid point for some to say Satan wasn't evil as it is for those who think Satan was evil. Therefore Satan being viewed as evil is purely subjective. 

[compl3x]

 

Apparently some have decided that God is really the evil one in the biblical story and Satan's rebellion is justified, but the biblical view of good and evil is that the very essence of God is the definition of good, so anything that is opposite of that is evil. In other words, a system of moral absolutes with God as the baseline. Not sure how you can call Satan tame from a biblical perspective, as the bible describes Satan as prowling around the earth like a roaring lion, seeking those he may devour, or something like that. Yes, according to the old testament, God destroyed or had Israel destroyed a lot of evil people. I don't see much different to that than something like WW2... most see the war to stop Hitler as just because of the evil he was causing. Yes, a lot of innocent people die in wars unfortunately...

 

Is there a particular person or people you think should have been spared in some of those biblical war stories?

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I entirely disagree with the premise that God is evil in the Bible, that's an extremely minority view and completely ill-informed. Reams of litterature were written on the topic since, well, ever, so I don't see the need to discuss this here, especially since I don't even see what that has to do with the topic. The topic is a statue of Satan, not God, so whether God is evil in the Bible is irrelevant.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

But that doesn't matter. Even if Satan is only a symbolic figure of evil, is a symbolic figure of evil to be allowed in the public space? Especially one that everyone recognizes as such and that many hold as a real, existing force? This makes obviously no sense.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Well then the question should be whether the statue of God should be demolished, not whether the statue of another religious symbol (and another Christian one at that) should be built. 

 

 

It's a statue of the ten commandments, not god, but your point is fair. Unfortunately, removing things like this has been difficult and has been protested in the past. Christians have even described it as persecution. How removing a religious icon from public land is persecution is entirely beyond me.

 

Removing this one might not offer a deterrent to future mayors/leaders erecting things like this in a cynical attempt to curry favour with their Christian electorate. I think erecting a Satan statue might. The constitution doesn't seem to be impeding the erection of these monuments, maybe we need Satan himself to settle this issue.

[Athernar]

It's a statue of the ten commandments, not god, but your point is fair. Unfortunately, removing things like this has been difficult and has been protested in the past. Christians have even described it as persecution. How removing a religious icon from public land is persecution is entirely beyond me.

 

Removing this one might not offer a deterrent to future mayors/leaders erecting things like this in a cynical attempt to curry favour with their Christian electorate. I think erecting a Satan statue might. The constitution doesn't seem to be impeding the erection of these monuments, maybe we need Satan himself to settle this issue.

 

Precisely. The statue of Satan is more or less a prime example of "a taste of your own medicine".

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Now the Druids will want a Wicker Man. And they damn well better be allowed to have it!                                                                                                      /s

 

 

 

 

Please note: I am in no way trying to impugn the Druids in anyway, some of my best friends are Druids.

[Memphis]

 

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.

 

 

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. 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.

[lexa000]

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.

 

But hold on, I'm going to write a book, and in this book, I'm going to depict Warwagon (sorry Warwagon) as having a good sense of humor.

 

Because I've written about how Warwagon suddenly has a good sense of humor, does that magically make it so?

 

Man, I would have started writing books years ago if I'd known this!

 

...

 

Just because one side depicts the other as Evil in their stories, does not make it correct.

[T3X4S]

NOT funny...

LOL - Oh yes it is -

Its not about the statue. Its about the people wich will start worshiping in that place, dangereous , sadic retards bowing their heads before the statue. You can expect several incidents in front of that religious monument they want to build.

I know, right ?!   At least with the other religions, there is never dangerous people or several incidents going on, right ?   /extremesarcasm

[T3X4S]

Andre S.  in the wise words of Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

[+Raze Subscriber²]

But hold on, I'm going to write a book, and in this book, I'm going to depict Warwagon (sorry Warwagon) as having a good sense of humor.

 

Because I've written about how Warwagon suddenly has a good sense of humor, does that magically make it so?

 

Man, I would have started writing books years ago if I'd known this!

 

...

 

Just because one side depicts the other as Evil in their stories, does not make it correct.

 

Wait..what...hold on...are you saying Warwagon does not have a good sense of humor?    Why you...well that's just plain evil!      ;)

[lexa000]

I'm going to stand by Mudslag in that Warwagon's sense of humor being good or not is purely subjective. (Ok, so I might be paraphrasing a little, and taking his comment completely away from his actual point, but it still applies here as well.)

 

Edit: To keep on topic, I get their point of petitioning to have the statue built, but I can also see how a large number of people are going to misinterpret the whole thing as The Satanic Temple trying to convert young impressionable children.

 

(As though they haven't already got enough to lead them astray, like the magical land of ponies and rainbow farting cats.)

[domboy]

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.

 

 

 

Yes, God destroyed almost everything in the flood... but you apparently missed the part where He gave humanity 100 years or so worth of warnings that if they didn't repent from the evil they were doing that they would be punished. Noah, and his immediate family (his kids and their spouses and kids) are the only ones that listen according to the text.

 

I have yet to find an instance in the bible where God destroyed someone on a sudden whim... all the examples I can think of were all people or people groups that were corrupt to the core and had been for some time. And He usually gave them lots of warnings.

 

There is a difference between humans fighting due to differences of opinion and a biblical instance of God ordering the destruction of someone is that again in the bible, God is the baseline for what is good and evil, not His creation. 

 

Obviously if you don't agree with the moral absolutes (good and evil) as defined by God in the bible, then of course you will probably see some or many of God's actions in a whole different light.

 

 

 

If being a rebel makes you evil, then some of the most evil people in the world are revered by millions of people who are now free thanks to their actions.  :p

 

Darn you Ghandi, you evil evil man!  Darn you too,Martin Luther King, you evil evil man, you!  Curse you Joan of Arc, you reprehensible evil woman!

 

I never said being a rebel makes you evil... wow... must have worded something badly.

 

Pride was the sin Satan (Lucifer at that point) committed in that He thought he should be God, which led him to rebel. There are of course plenty of examples in history where rebellion was the right course of action.

[Arachno 1D]

Hmm ..............

 

Biblical account

After Onan's brother Er was slain by God, his father Judah told him to fulfill his duty as a brother-in-law to Tamar, by giving her offspring. However, when Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before climax^[2] and "spilled his seed [or semen] on the ground", since any child born would not legally be considered his heir.^[3] He disregarded the principle of a levirate union, so God slew him. (Genesis 38:3-10)

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

[rr_dRock]

Hmm ..............

 

Biblical account

After Onan's brother Er was slain by God, his father Judah told him to fulfill his duty as a brother-in-law to Tamar, by giving her offspring. However, when Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before climax^[2] and "spilled his seed [or semen] on the ground", since any child born would not legally be considered his heir.^[3] He disregarded the principle of a levirate union, so God slew him. (Genesis 38:3-10)

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

 

I better hide my towels then... God's gonna come looking for me.

[mudslag]

God must be holding out something big for the Kleenex company.

[Sebass]

Don't you know this already...God and Satan are friends playing good cop and bad cop :D

[Dashel]

You guys keep confusing the existence of Satan with his identity. The only thing that believing in an Abrahamic religion or not changes is whether you believe Satan exists or not. Regardless of whether Satan exists or not, and hence regardless of one believes in an Abrahamic religion or not (and that you presume that I do amuses me, as I've been an atheist during a long a time and would have still defended the same point of view), Satan is a character that personifies evil. There is simply no other definition of Satan, or no other belief system in which Satan exists.

 

This is just basic logic. The nature of a thing and its existence are two separate ideas. I am appalled that I even have to point this sort of thing out.

 

I disagree.  Its less about our confusion than your insistence.  It's no coincidence that those who believe in his existence also believe in the only nature you will entertain, while putting your fingers in your ears to the recent phenomenon that those who don't believe in his literal existence take liberties to reinterpret the nature they see in such a figure.  I think the quote from Wikipedia makes that clear to backup our point.  I never made any presumptions about your faith or lack of.

 

Its simply a move out of the Roman playbook of turning Ares into Mars...gods get recycled all the time. 

[DConnell Member]

I think instead of building the statue.. they should be raising the funds to destroy/demolish the 10 commandments one.

 

How is a representation of one of the first written law codes inappropriate for a government building? Would Hammurabi's code be better since it isn't mentioned in the Bible? It's older, so technically a better choice. It's just less well known.

 

Amazing how "freedom of religion" got so badly misinterpreted . . . it's not meant to be freedom from religion, and certainly not forced on people.

[Athernar]

How is a representation of one of the first written law codes inappropriate for a government building? Would Hammurabi's code be better since it isn't mentioned in the Bible? It's older, so technically a better choice. It's just less well known.

 

Amazing how "freedom of religion" got so badly misinterpreted . . . it's not meant to be freedom from religion, and certainly not forced on people.

 

Modern courts generally try to uphold justice rather than the absolute rule of law - religious "law" is generally the exact opposite, barbaric and unjust.

 

Sorry to break it to you, but freedom of religion in these contexts absolutely does mean freedom from religion, because it's a case of all or none. You keep the place areligious, or you let everyone have their own statue.

 

And somehow, I don't think the people in favour of the Ten Commandments would be very pleased when Islamic imagery starts going up beside theirs, or as in this article - Satan.

[Nerd Rage]

Old architecture had gargoyles and looked pretty nice, in my opinion.  Am I the only one who think it would look awesome to have a huge demon on the steps leading into the capitol building?  :laugh:

[Arachno 1D]

Haven't they got enough Devils disciples inside already?

[TPreston]

Amazing how "freedom of religion" got so badly misinterpreted . . . it's not meant to be freedom from religion, and certainly not forced on people.

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.