NYC Satanists Want to Erect Monument Next to OK's 10 Commandments

[TLK Valentine]

OK well Satan comes from Judaism and Christianity, so they're going to have to get their own evil guy. You can't go in and say the symbol of evil isn't the symbol of evil.

OK well the cross comes from Rome, so you're going to have to get your own symbol. You can't go in and say the symbol of capital punishment for criminals isn't the symbol of capital punishment for criminals.

Or... you can realize that what is a certain symbol to one people may be a symbol of something completely different to another.

Da Vinci Code - Symbols - YouTube

 

[KarateCowboy]

OK well the cross comes from Rome, so you're going to have to get your own symbol. You can't go in and say the symbol of capital punishment for criminals isn't the symbol of capital punishment for criminals.

Or... you can realize that what is a certain symbol to one people may be a symbol of something completely different to another.

The cross was never a religious thing in Rome, and it was not a 'symbol of capital punishment'. Furthermore, we're talking about a person who existed for thousands of years in Western civilization before these yokels came along.

You're allowed to have your own opinions, not your own facts. Pretending the Prince of Evil isn't evil is disingenuous. How about this? Whenever I like one of your posts, I'll throw insults at everyone and degrade everything you hold sacred. Then when you report it I'll say "That means something different to me. To me, disrespect is a sign of respect"? Sound good?

Your relativism is old hat and doesn't hold air.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The cross was never a religious thing in Rome,

I never said it was.

and it was not a 'symbol of capital punishment'.

Indeed -- it was the instrument of capital punishment.

But of course, an instrument symbolizes different things to different people. Don't believe me? Head down south and ask different people what this particular instrument of capital punishment means to them:

Furthermore, we're talking about a person who existed for thousands of years in Western civilization before these yokels came along.

As did the cross, before a certain group of carpenter-worshiping "yokels" came along. What's your point?

You're allowed to have your own opinions, not your own facts. Pretending the Prince of Evil isn't evil is disingenuous.

The facts are that this particular character is considered the "Prince of Evil" by you, but not by others -- and you're trying to tell them what they can and can't do with it.

The facts also are that the traditional "devil" archetype:

comes from the traditional Greek mythical satyr.

So not only are you presuming ownership over the symbol of the devil as though you had the copyright on him, but you're trying to tell a group of people who have no reason to care about your opinion not to do the exact same thing you guys already did centuries ago.

My opinion? That's just adorable!.

How about this? Whenever I like one of your posts, I'll throw insults at everyone and degrade everything you hold sacred. Then when you report it I'll say "That means something different to me. To me, disrespect is a sign of respect"? Sound good?

Good? Doesn't even sound like anything would change. I get insulted here all the time by people claiming they're trying to "save" me.

Your relativism is old hat and doesn't hold air.

Of course, the most obvious flaw in your analogy is no relativism is necessary in your example -- we have an undisputed authority around here regarding who has or hasn't been insulted: We call them the mods.

You, OTOH, are claiming yourself as the authority as to what Satan can and cannot be a symbol of -- and nobody accepts you as such an authority; why should they?

 

[KarateCowboy]

So not only are you presuming ownership over the symbol of the devil as though you had the copyright on him, but you're trying to tell a group of people who have no reason to care about your opinion not to do the exact same thing you guys already did centuries ago.

No, I am not. The devil was what he was before I ever was.

You, OTOH, are claiming yourself as the authority as to what Satan can and cannot be a symbol of

No I am not. I am pointing out the objective reality that he symbolizes evil. He finds his source in Christianity, and his source determines his nature. By the way, who gave you the authority to claim I wouldn't have such authority to begin with? Finally, how do you have the authority to claim that I am claiming authority? As if your authority were somehow legitimate?

-- and nobody accepts you as such an authority; why should they?

How are you an authority to say nobody accepts my authority? Don't we all have to accept your authority to declare that first? I don't see anybody accepting your authority to say that, so you have no authority. And, how do you have the authority to make claims about the meaning of my claims, and whether or not I am claiming authority? And, why do you have the authority to say 'Satanists' can make up their own facts about Satan? How do they have the authority to say that he doesn't mean what he does mean?

 

[USincognito]

The cross was never a religious thing in Rome, and it was not a 'symbol of capital punishment'. Furthermore, we're talking about a person who existed for thousands of years in Western civilization before these yokels came along.

As a Catholic, you should know that Greece and the Middle-East were considered Eastern for a very long time. In fact they remains such in Christendom to this day - Eastern Orthodox Church anyone?

You're allowed to have your own opinions, not your own facts. Pretending the Prince of Evil isn't evil is disingenuous.

That first sentence is ironic because the Jewish Ha Satan was merely considered an adversary - like a debate partner for YHWH in the Old Testament. The Prince of Evil is largely a Medieval creation.
S.C.J. FAQ: Section 12.35. Jewish Thought: What does Judaism believe about Satan?

Judaism does not believe in the devil, but we do believe in Satan (who more properly should be called "the Satan"). As this demonstrates, the Jewish view of Satan is very different than the Christian one. Here's a summary of the Jewish view; you can also find information at Alyza (Gretchen) Shapiro's web site at http://www.geocities.com/alyzab/Jewish/satan.html

The word satan means "challenger", "difficulty", or "distraction" (note that it is not a proper name). With the leading ha- to make haSatan, it refers to /the/ challenger. This describes Satan as the angel who is the embodiment of man's challenges. HaSatan works for G-d. His job is to make choosing good over evil enough of a challenge so that it can be a meaningful choice. In other words, haSatan is an angel whose mission it is to add difficulty, challenges, and growth experiences to life. Contrast this to Christianity, which sees Satan as God's opponent.​

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I was going to say, before USincognito beat me to the punch, that Satan really isn't a Christian symbol exclusively. The original term appears to have had implications more like a legal adversary in court than an apocalyptic opponent.

 

[BlunderAngel]

That's a bit ironic coming from the one who puts exclamation points in front of most your OP titles.

What is not ironic is that you somehow think that is a relevant rebuttal.
And then you mimic Mach. Reiterating Bloom and others point about waving smileys. But I don't think you knew that at the time.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, I am not. The devil was what he was before I ever was.

I was referring collectively, and to the symbol -- you do understand we're talking about symbols, don't you?

No I am not. I am pointing out the objective reality that he symbolizes evil. He finds his source in Christianity, and his source determines his nature.

And you're wrong on two levels -- first, symbols are hardly objective; their meaning is determined by several factors, including culture. Second, the source does not determine the nature of a symbol -- for example, the swastika.

By the way, who gave you the authority to claim I wouldn't have such authority to begin with?

Simple -- Your inability to exercise your alleged authority. You can shout all the orders you want at the Satanists, but if you can't enforce them (and you can't), it's just noise.

Finally, how do you have the authority to claim that I am claiming authority? As if your authority were somehow legitimate?

<snip>

Ok, this is just getting sad. We were having a mature discussion up to this point -- what happened?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I was going to say, before USincognito beat me to the punch, that Satan really isn't a Christian symbol exclusively. The original term appears to have had implications more like a legal adversary in court than an apocalyptic opponent.

Indeed -- there's really nothing in the OT which identifies Satan with evil; that bit of symbolism was added later.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Indeed -- there's really nothing in the OT which identifies Satan with evil; that bit of symbolism was added later.

It is easy to see how it was introduced, though, given that it's fairly clear that the satan presented in the Hebrew scriptures was associated with calamity and trial. An introduction to Zoroastrian ideas regarding Ahura Mazda having an opposite evil force was probably enough to get early Jews wondering if Yahweh might also have an evil opponent, and the satan provided a created being who could fill that role in a monotheistic faith.

 

[WanderingBloom]

This is not targeted at Mach per se, but yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I also fail to understand the use of all the smiley's so proliferate in many post here. They do nothing to either help or enhance an argument.

Well said, WB.

It's like those who use multiple exclamation points. Exclamation points are used to emphasize a strong emotion. Which is why it is available on the post tool bar so that people who post threads can preface the thread title and imply about the content that follows, that there are strong emotions surrounding the news article, etc...
However, using multiple exclamation points in a sentence graduates from a strong emotion to becoming punctuation signs that indicate strong sarcasm.
This is what the waving smiley is being used for by what Daisy Day calls the Master Troll.
It isn't an indicator of someone capable of engaging in adult mature respectful responsible dialog. Rather it is indicative of someone who is Trolling, being sarcastic, and abusive.
They are desperate to garner attention to those characteristics in their posting so they wave to catch the readers eye so they can see that.

Case in point:

That's a bit ironic coming from the one who puts exclamation points in front of most your OP titles.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I was referring collectively, and to the symbol -- you do understand we're talking about symbols, don't you?

Satan is a person whose nature is evil.

And you're wrong on two levels -- first, symbols are hardly objective; their meaning is determined by several factors, including culture. Second, the source does not determine the nature of a symbol -- for example, the swastika.

Simple -- Your inability to exercise your alleged authority. You can shout all the orders you want at the Satanists, but if you can't enforce them (and you can't), it's just noise.

But Satan is an actual person. You can say Jupiter stands for pink marshmallows and not planets, but it just makes you wrong.

Ok, this is just getting sad. We were having a mature discussion up to this point -- what happened?

Well, you started throwing around relativism. Relativism is intellectually infantile and self-refuting, so the discussion was doomed at that point. You're probably just not used to having it thrown right back at you. You claim that it's sad, but you're pointing the finger at a mirror. Finally, you can claim that what I wrote is sad, but without the authority to enforce that claim it's just noise.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Satan is a person whose nature is evil.

But Satan is an actual person.

Prove it.

 

[Sistrin]

Prove it.

Prove you love your mother.

 

[super animator]

Prove you love your mother.

Shifting the burden of proof won't do you any good.

 

[Sistrin]

Shifting the burden of proof won't do you any good.

Your comment is an attempt to avoid the point. I am drawing a parallel. Any time someone demands proof for the existence of God, or in this case the devil, those who demand it consider it a checkmate move played against the believer. My counter is as stated, because no atheist or humanist can prove they love anything, let alone their own mothers. We are supposed take it on faith.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your comment is an attempt to avoid the point. I am drawing a parallel. Any time someone demands proof for the existence of God, or in this case the devil, those who demand it consider it a checkmate move played against the believer. My counter is as stated, because no atheist or humanist can prove they love anything, let alone their own mothers. We are supposed take it on faith.

You don't have to take it on faith. I can, in principle, produce evidence that either increases or decreases your confidence in the claim "Archaeopteryx loves his mother." That you cannot know for certain because you are unable to access my private thoughts does not mean that you cannot, in principle, mount a reasonable case for either that I do or do not love my mother.

At any rate, that question is moot, since you are merely shifting the burden of proof. Why should I believe, as KC does, that Satan is a real person?

 

[super animator]

Your comment is an attempt to avoid the point.

No it's not.

I am drawing a parallel.

And a bad one, and irrelevant.

Any time someone demands proof for the existence of God, or in this case the devil, those who demand it consider it a checkmate move played against the believer.

That is just a projection on your part

My counter is as stated, because no atheist or humanist can prove they love anything, let alone their own mothers. We are supposed take it on faith.

Red-herring brought up on your part.

 

[morningstar2651]

Bringing this back to the discussion of Satan:

The Jews and the Christians don't believe in the same Satan, so why should we be surprised that the Satanist's view of Satan differs as well?

Note: Jews view Satan as a title for an angel, not as the devilish antithesis of God that Christianity depicts Satan as.

S.C.J. FAQ: Section 12.35. Jewish Thought: What does Judaism believe about Satan?

Bringing this discussion back on topic, you should be upset that the state is considering this monument...but you should be even more upset that the state has already granted a similar request for a monument to the 10 commandments.

You should be upset that the state is making any decisions about religious monuments regardless of which religion they are monuments of. The state has no business involving itself with religious displays.

 

[morningstar2651]

Your comment is an attempt to avoid the point. I am drawing a parallel. Any time someone demands proof for the existence of God, or in this case the devil, those who demand it consider it a checkmate move played against the believer. My counter is as stated, because no atheist or humanist can prove they love anything, let alone their own mothers. We are supposed take it on faith.

We can make an inference based on evidence. But this is an unrelated tangent. The discussion was about the existence of Satan.