The Satan of Oklahoma

[Akar]

It's not their fault you're unable to disassociate the biblical Satan from the literary Satan.

I don't think there's anything lame about standing up for people's first amendment rights.

I think "honest to god occult worship" might be a bit oxymoronic, though?

[Kyriakos]

Can't help using satire when dealing with the Satyr.

[Cyclops]

It's not their fault you're unable to disassociate the biblical Satan from the literary Satan.

I don't think there's anything lame about standing up for people's first amendment rights.

I think "honest to god occult worship" might be a bit oxymoronic, though?

"Honest to God occult" is in no way oxymoronic, as occult means hidden and refers to divine as well a diabolic teachings. In the book of Job YHWH literally boasts a how much of his wisdom is unknown even to his own most devoted worshippers.

I mean a temple to "literary" Satan might be something of an oxymoron. I take the point Satan appears in the literary tradition but its always as the fallen angel, I mean its not like he's an everyman figure.

Its good if they are keeping religious groups honest by insisting on the rights of all. it does seem mean to use him as a trigger like that somehow, there's lots of good faith Abrahamists who would find a statue of The Enemy intimidating or saddening. the manipulative leaders of mainstream religions who seek to use law to impose belief in the US provoke this response I guess.

Can't help using satire when dealing with the Satyr.

Prefer a sauterne with Saturn myself. Just don't stay for dinner.

[Akar]

"Honest to God occult" is in no way oxymoronic, as occult means hidden and refers to divine as well a diabolic teachings. In the book of Job YHWH literally boasts a how much of his wisdom is unknown even to his own most devoted worshippers.

Well maybe not oxymoronic, but I certainly found the phrase to be a bit humorous.

I mean a temple to "literary" Satan might be something of an oxymoron.

It's not really a temple, that's just the name of the organization. They're a first amendment activist group.

I take the point Satan appears in the literary tradition but its always as the fallen angel, I mean its not like he's an everyman figure.

Why does that matter?

there's lots of good faith Abrahamists who would find a statue of The Enemy intimidating or saddening.

Yes, there would be. And there's plenty of nontheistic or non-christian people who would find a Christian statue offensive or ridiculous. That's the entire point of doing it, to highlight the ridiculous hypocrisy of religious groups who try to impose their beliefs on others.

[Cyclops]

Well maybe not oxymoronic, but I certainly found the phrase to be a bit humorous.

Fair enough and it does serve as a sort-of synonym for diabolic. Just nitpicking coz it feels bad man.

It's not really a temple, that's just the name of the organization. They're a first amendment activist group.

I guess the name is maybe there to attract protections for religious expression too? Sounds clever but there's plenty to mock, and that deserves mockery too.

Why does that matter?

Just nitpicking really. Good Guy Satan is my favourite literary Satan. I mean Satan in the Bible is a pretty fascinating person and is arguably a literary figure there. He gets called the Father of Lies but in Genesis 2:2 he is honest and gets smashed for it. Then we get told it was all God's Plan, so why is Satan punished? It was a set up man.

Yes, there would be. And there's plenty of nontheistic or non-christian people who would find a Christian statue offensive or ridiculous. That's the entire point of doing it, to highlight the ridiculous hypocrisy of religious groups who try to impose their beliefs on others.

I guess this gets me in my soft spot and that's why I am uncomfortable, my own hypocrisy gets shown up too. I mean in a tolerant society why wouldn't I tolerate Satan? Bloody makes me squirm saying it. Now some twit will mention Popper.

[Akar]

I guess the name is maybe there to attract protections for religious expression too? Sounds clever but there's plenty to mock, and that deserves mockery too.

Seeing as Christianity is pretty much the only religion that keeps trying to build their religious stuff on public lands it makes perfect sense to me to name your organization after a Satan.

Just nitpicking really. Good Guy Satan is my favourite literary Satan. I mean Satan in the Bible is a pretty fascinating person and is arguably a literary figure there. He gets called the Father of Lies but in Genesis 2:2 he is honest and gets smashed for it. Then we get told it was all God's Plan, so why is Satan punished? It was a set up man.

I say "literary Satan" solely to differentiate from Satan as he's viewed by Christians, specifically American Protestants. The biblical Satan is definitely a literary figure too, but he's viewed in a different light within that context I think. My understanding is that Satan isn't really even considered to be a specific person until later translations, when the Hebrew "adversary" is mistranslated into a proper name.

I completely agree that if you choose to go down the predestination path of Christianity that the Satan story (and honestly the entirety of Genesis) reeks of a set up. I haven't been a Christian for a long time, but that never sat well with me when I was.

I can't believe that it's wrong to teach someone about the difference between good and evil.

I guess this gets me in my soft spot and that's why I am uncomfortable, my own hypocrisy gets shown up too. I mean in a tolerant society why wouldn't I tolerate Satan? Bloody makes me squirm saying it. Now some twit will mention Popper.

I mean, I think this right here is evidence that they're doing what they've set out to do, isn't it? We're discussing what we, as a tolerant society, want to allow.

Obviously their end goal isn't to erect statues of Satan outside of every court house or anything.

[conon394]

I completely agree that if you choose to go down the predestination path of Christianity that the Satan story (and honestly the entirety of Genesis) reeks of a set up. I haven't been a Christian for a long time, but that never sat well with me when I was.

Although it does seem rather the logical conclusion to an all powerful, all knowing god with a predetermined plan (predestination that is)

[Cyclops]

Although it does seem rather the logical conclusion to an all powerful, all knowing god with a predetermined plan (predestination that is)

No one is ever happy, are they? Western Dualism is either a sterile win with a stacked deck (and the pretty dusty punchline "oh God doesn't want you to suffer but its in the plan, you see") or a endless spinning wheel ("your time will come...and go again") that's every bit as disappointing as Eastern Monism ("stop hitting yourself") and don't get me started on subcontinental infinite pluralism ("I am you as you are me as you are he and..." [hits blunt]).

[conon394]

No one is ever happy, are they? Western Dualism is either a sterile win with a stacked deck (and the pretty dusty punchline "oh God doesn't want you to suffer but its in the plan, you see") or a endless spinning wheel ("your time will come...and go again") that's every bit as disappointing as Eastern Monism ("stop hitting yourself") and don't get me started on subcontinental infinite pluralism ("I am you as you are me as you are he and..." [hits blunt]).

Personally that's why if I had to make choice I opt for the Greeks. The gods that made everything are remote and don't care about you anymore than a sloth. The the ones running the show sort of (locally at least usually unless somebody else brings serious mojo) are powerful and if you get the contract right they will help, maybe - but nothing is guaranteed and you better have a lawyer check the fine print - and if a cheap one not their bad.

[Cyclops]

Personally that's why if I had to make choice I opt for the Greeks. The gods that made everything are remote and don't care about you anymore than a sloth. The the ones running the show sort of (locally at least usually unless somebody else brings serious mojo) are powerful and if you get the contract right they will help, maybe - but nothing is guaranteed and you better have a lawyer check the fine print - and if a cheap one not their bad.

Hide yo wife, hide yo kids.

I dunno, the idea of Gods changes so much. Strictly transactional Gods (goats in, rain out) seem predictable at least.

[Akar]

if you go with the greeks theres a statistically likely chance that zeus will your wife

[Kyriakos]

She'd have to look extraordinarily beautiful, like Leda.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Is Zeus really so picky?

Europa, Aigina, Themis, Alkmene, Ananke, Antiope, Asteria,........

[Kyriakos]

I have to suppose they also looked great.
Besides, it is probably hubris not to

I think the christian god is more genocide-happy, however. Zeus is content as long as he is #1 and you don't forget you are only a mortal.

There were a few philosophical "religions" as well, including Xenophanes-Parmenides idea of a Singularity ("all is One"), Pythagoras with numbers, Plato with the highest archetype being a god itself. Later on, in early christian times, you had the various gnostic religions with both a benevolent and a sinister deity (but there the sinister deity tends to be the god of the material plane).

[conon394]

if you go with the greeks theres a statistically likely chance that zeus will your wife

I think most marriages can survive a fling and plus you get some sort of demigod/hero out of the deal.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I would not complain about a demigod/hero or a new female minor godess.^^

I'm always struggling with the idea of only one allmighty being, as things in the real worlds are mostly multicausal.

Different gods working against each other sounds more plausible.

[Sir Adrian]

It's not really a temple, that's just the name of the organization. They're a first amendment activist group.

The Irony of a first amendment group using the father of lies as a symbol.

[Akar]

I think most marriages can survive a fling and plus you get some sort of demigod/hero out of the deal.

As long as the fling is with a supernatural being, sure.

[conon394]

As long as the fling is with a supernatural being, sure.

Not sure I agree I can think of a lot situations where a person in an otherwise committed and long term relationship can slip up and regret it and need a little check turning and forgiveness. I mean I'm not talking serial re occurrence because than the other person is just being played or they are in for the relationship for some other gain than trust.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

It depends if it was clear between both sides from the beginning, that it should be an open relationship. But in most cases that doesn't work well.^^