The Satan of Oklahoma

[Dracula]

Dracula,

Every word of it is true. In every instance of people in Scripture meeting God or Jesus now in the glory, each one fell on their faces filled with fear. Up to that point I had been and still was the owner of a toy concern in Forres and Buckie plus having been in management from the age of twenty so I wasn't prone to accepting anything but on my terms. I always thought that Christians were sissies, more or less that because they were forced to attend church from infancy. And so here was this proud almost arrogant man brought to a state of fear by something outwith my capabilities to stop and it lasted for some seven hours.

And you didn't expect any other feelings from god .. but fear ... ?! You didn't feel god's majesty or glory, or to raise above this petty world, but you felt fear, and desperation ?! It was a daemon, "verily I say unto you".

And besides, if it was Jesus, there's no point of him making fuss about the hard death. Why ? Because he wanted to die for the people. If one willingly commits an act, by his own choice, not forced, what is there so much to comment about it, how he died ?! Even, it would've been petty, if it was him. So it was a daemon.

[Kyriakos]

I think that a web forum like this one is not a good place to discuss personal experiences, moreso of this kind.

[basics]

And you didn't expect any other feelings from god .. but fear ... ?! You didn't feel god's majesty or glory, or to raise above this petty world, but you felt fear, and desperation ?! It was a daemon, "verily I say unto you".

And besides, if it was Jesus, there's no point of him making fuss about the hard death. Why ? Because he wanted to die for the people. If one willingly commits an act, by his own choice, not forced, what is there so much to comment about it, how he died ?! Even, it would've been petty, if it was him. So it was a daemon.

Dracula,

The first question one then must ask is why would a demon show me Christ on the cross? That would be the most stupid thing for it to do when one considers that at the time the Sanhedrin would want it covered up never mind Satan. But what happens next? He rises from the dead three days later and that I accept, believe, with all my heart. The demon has been defeated.

Concerning Jesus, if what we read is correct, no-one saw His resurrection coming, not even His disciples. He knew though because that was the purpose of His coming as a human. After His rising and exposure some still doubted within the discipleship, why? Because they had no expectation of it. Yes, in figurative language He had told them but such was their lack of faith and understanding then, that all that had happened before was lost to them. Indeed it took the events of Pentecost to change their mindset totally. It was as though until then they were walking in a dream.

Kyriakos,

But that is what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about. It is about the personal experiences of all His followers and it's called witnessing for Christ and the changes He only can wring. It's about telling people that Jesus Christ does change lives. I am not ashamed that He changed me, nor am I ashamed to tell the guys here especially as most don't know of these things.

[Gaidin]

Dracula,

The first question one then must ask is why would a demon show me Christ on the cross?

[Habelo]

Why is there a black kid and a white girl?

[basics]

Gaidin,

Satan is perceived as an angel of light whereas Jesus is portrayed as an uncomely sacrifice who gave Himself to the cross. Satan did not die on a cross as Jesus did so differentiating between the two is rather easy if one follows Christ. My point being that every time you retort in the fashion you do a question rears up, " is it of Satan or God?"

[Gaidin]

[Kyriakos]

Gaidin, pls don't troll :\
@Basics: this is why it is not a good idea to have such discussions in these forums; people are not likely to engage in serious discussion of some topics, regardless of the poster (in this case yourself) deeming the topic as important.

Why is there a black kid and a white girl?

The black kid originally looked a lot like Obama

[Gaidin]

Gaidin, pls don't troll :\

It's not trolling if it's a legitimate question. I really couldn't care less if he doesn't like how it's asked. Especially when I get better answers from other people anyway.

Kyriakos, pls don't back seat mod when I ask questions.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

This is incorrect. The claim that a statue of Satan would connote his Biblical personification of evil, transgression and temptation is an entirely secular one: you need only read the relevant passages to see how Satan as a literary character is formulated. Christianity, at least, has ancient texts defining the characters of its theology. Modern day Satanism, however, simply takes an ancient mythological figure as a symbol for their own worldview (usually celebrating the human potential for pleasure/ sensory experience etc). Satanists and, to continue the example, Nazis, take an ancient symbol/ mythological figure and arbitrarily attach their own worldviews and beliefs. Christian claims about Satan are textual, whereas Satanist claims are merely symbolic: as such, the Christian description is far more accurate: the Satan described by Satanists is not generally the Satan described by the Bible. The word ‘Satan’s is taken and given new connotations, with –in many instances- the specific aim of antagonising Christians.
.

To be fair, the majority of physical characteristics that this statue has inherited from the Christian tradition aren't even Christian in their origin - they're a composite of characteristics of deities and folklore figures coming from a variety of traditions much older than Christianity, and with the Christians ascribing a new meaning to them in the same way you claim the Satanists are doing. (In order to associate the old deities with evil) Even the pre-Christian Jewish traditions surrounding Satan aren't even too clear about what Satan actually is.(Nor are New Testament accounts really) One common interpretation of the Lot legends from Genesis is even that Satan is (perhaps one of many) loyal (and ulitmately good) servants of YHWH who is meant to test the faith of believers.

If we take your position as valid, then we must decide that Christian appropriation of existing traditions is different than newer examples of the same thing because the Christians did it at an earlier time, and over a longer period of time than Satanists. (And killed off or converted many of the people they took the ideas from, which so far Satanists have yet to do) We'd also have to come up with some kind of conclusion about what this implies for other religions which share some version of the same folklore and mythology, but which differ on the nature of these characters: The Yazidis for example, worship a deity called Melek Taus, who is often equated with the Christian Satan, or the Islamic Iblis. If it happens that the Yazidi belief was proved somehow to be the older interpretation of Satan, would this mean that it's only appropriate to portray this mythological character in a way representative of their beliefs? Do Muslims get a say in how Jesus should be portrayed?

[Dracula]

To be fair, the majority of physical characteristics that this statue has inherited from the Christian tradition aren't even Christian in their origin - they're a composite of characteristics of deities and folklore figures coming from a variety of traditions much older than Christianity, and with the Christians ascribing a new meaning to them in the same way you claim the Satanists are doing. (In order to associate the old deities with evil) Even the pre-Christian Jewish traditions surrounding Satan aren't even too clear about what Satan actually is.(Nor are New Testament accounts really) One common interpretation of the Lot legends from Genesis is even that Satan is (perhaps one of many) loyal (and ulitmately good) servants of YHWH who is meant to test the faith of believers.

Come on ...

If we take your position as valid, then we must decide that Christian appropriation of existing traditions is different than newer examples of the same thing because the Christians did it at an earlier time, and over a longer period of time than Satanists. (And killed off or converted many of the people they took the ideas from, which so far Satanists have yet to do) We'd also have to come up with some kind of conclusion about what this implies for other religions which share some version of the same folklore and mythology, but which differ on the nature of these characters: The Yazidis for example, worship a deity called Melek Taus, who is often equated with the Christian Satan, or the Islamic Iblis. If it happens that the Yazidi belief was proved somehow to be the older interpretation of Satan, would this mean that it's only appropriate to portray this mythological character in a way representative of their beliefs? Do Muslims get a say in how Jesus should be portrayed?

You don't clearly state do you have an idea. Things were copied from all to many all around always. None can regulate it post factum nor can put it in order as it is essentially a falsification. Nor can one prescribe a certain attitude to subjective things. A distant link to something however does not reject a closer link. That something may appear in another way in an ancient religion doesn't mean it has to be taken as relevant.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Valden was claiming that Christians have some kind of claim over the interpretation of Satan because he comes from their religious traditions, and that Satanists are just appropriating a Character from Christianity for their own purposes. (Implying that Christians have a right to have their interpretation accepted, while Satanists do not) All I really did was take this line of argument to its logical conclusion, which is a bad one.

[basics]

It is funny that bound in the pit Satan still holds sway over the bulk of the world's population. More flock to see or read horror stories in which he is the central character rather than seek out a Saviour from that bondage. Because it is a bondage and the world for the best part is unaware of it. His ambition is to stop as many as possible from seeking Jesus Christ and that began at Creation itself. For some to say that he was borrowed from other religions, well, there were no other religions at Creation. It wasn't invented until Babel so the Christian message precedes them right back into the garden at the fall.

[Dracula]

Valden was claiming that Christians have some kind of claim over the interpretation of Satan because he comes from their religious traditions, and that Satanists are just appropriating a Character from Christianity for their own purposes. (Implying that Christians have a right to have their interpretation accepted, while Satanists do not) All I really did was take this line of argument to its logical conclusion, which is a bad one.

Actually I would prefer these images to be accepted. Why not also Satan as the Good Shepherd ? Or story how he turns water into wine as in Cannah ? Satanists will be lauphed all over for such things.

[sumskilz]

Even the pre-Christian Jewish traditions surrounding Satan aren't even too clear about what Satan actually is.(Nor are New Testament accounts really) One common interpretation of the Lot legends from Genesis is even that Satan is (perhaps one of many) loyal (and ulitmately good) servants of YHWH who is meant to test the faith of believers.

Here's a fun one, check out I Chronicles 21:

Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel. So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Go, number Israel, from Beer-sheba to Dan, and bring me a report, so that I may know their number.”

Now the same story in II Samuel 24:

Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.” So the king said to Joab and the commanders of the army, who were with him, “Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beer-sheba, and take a census of the people, so that I may know how many there are.”

Sometimes it's easy to confuse God and Satan.

[DaniCatBurger]

Ketuvim vs Nevi'im

[basics]

Here's a fun one, check out I Chronicles 21:

Now the same story in II Samuel 24:

Sometimes it's easy to confuse God and Satan.

sumskilz,

Just read the two versions that you quoted and don't see the problem that you do. In both we find the action of both God and Satan but the influence is different inasmuch as God's anger is against the people whilst Satan's influence is solely on David. What we are seeing here is that although God was with David, Satan could still influence that king as his life showed. So no, I would say that God cannot make people sin and so there is quite a difference between God and ole Diablos.

[clone]

. So no, I would say that God cannot make people sin and so there is quite a difference between God and ole Diablos.

god may not but nature is and nature is not good or bad. its simple nature

[Gaidin]

I find it hilarious. God and satan inspire same action and WE ALL GOOD! No paradox here.

[basics]

god may not but nature is and nature is not good or bad. its simple nature

clone,

That's quite true but since Adam it has become a fallen nature in the eyes of God. That's why rebirth is so important because even the smallest iota of sin has to be punished and that before death. Satan cannot help all his followers do this but the thing is that they are so deluded they believe he has that capacity.