Satanic temple sparks uproar by unveiling statue of Baphomet in Arkansas state capitol

a reply to: Scrutinizing

Simply common sense, I challenge anybody to tell me what the difference is between somebody going to hell for being a drunk, or going to hell over some idol statue, going to hell for not believing there's a devil, as opposed to going to hell for worshiping the devil.

Probably no different than someone who goes to hell for self righteousness or judgment.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Atheists, satanists, choose one. They are not the same.

It makes sense if you attempt to understand their tenants instead of interjecting your beliefs onto their beliefs.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Atheism is void of any beliefs at all.

No it isn't. You are thinking of Nihilism.

a reply to: Scrutinizing

That Baph statue isn't AGAINST Christianity and the group aren't against Christian values. They're more about each to their own as long as it doesn't intrude on others. They're asking why a Christian statue gets to be on a secular square? The Baph might have been rolled out if someone had plonked a Buddha statue too...or a Ganesh.

To be fair, I think the US Gov has already been aligned with Christian symbolism. On that point, it's half redundant to protest. 'In God We Trust' is all over your currency and the religious denomination is a major factor in a politician's career chances.

I've nothing against Christianity (or yourself) either and hold the belief that Church and State should always be separate.

Cool-looking statue if you ask me.

a reply to: Kandinsky

It's nothing so noble as to "make people ask questions". They could care less if they inspire anyone.

They exist to piss Christians off. That's it. All of this is out of spite. It's hatred, pure and simple.

Hate is what all of this is about, and it's 100% transparent.

Twitter should ban their hate speech. But it's chic to hate Christians.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Kandinsky

It's nothing so noble as to "make people ask questions". They could care less if they inspire anyone.

They exist to piss Christians off. That's it. All of this is out of spite. It's hatred, pure and simple.

Hate is what all of this is about, and it's 100% transparent.

Twitter should ban their hate speech. But it's chic to hate Christians.

Turn the other cheek.

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
a reply to: Kandinsky

Maybe because one of them symbolises the rules our countries are based on and the morals our culture has developed around.

There is nothing in the Constitution about worshiping god or not coveting your neighbor's wife.

The other symbolises evil.

Actually, it is a Pagan iconography that Christians demonized and tore down out of hatred and forced worship in ancient times.

I wonder why we don't usually have Baphomet statues lying around, hmmm.

Because ancient Christians didn't tolerate other religions but their own and forced conversions at the end of a pointy object. Then tore down all those statutes.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Kandinsky

It's nothing so noble as to "make people ask questions". They could care less if they inspire anyone.

The phrase is "couldn't care less". You just said that they aren't at the minimum point of caring about inspiring people yet.

They exist to piss Christians off. That's it. All of this is out of spite. It's hatred, pure and simple.

If celebrating a statue to prove a point about religious freedom pisses you off then you don't truly honor the country's principles of freedom of religion.

Hate is what all of this is about, and it's 100% transparent.

Twitter should ban their hate speech. But it's chic to hate Christians.

Got any examples of their hate speech from Twitter that warrants them being banned? Because I think you are just blowing smoke here.

a reply to: NthOther

Twitter should ban their hate speech. But it's chic to hate Christians.

I don't hate Christians and still agree with the spirit of their protest. We've had the same problem over here. Public servants insisting on saying prayers before civic meetings and we're a secular state. The non-religious politely sit and wait while religion is needlessly brought in where it's not strictly wanted. Staying secular respects ALL people and ALL beliefs.

As for the rest...I don't know them as people and have no idea if spite is a factor here. Maybe a little? Who knows.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Kandinsky

It's nothing so noble as to "make people ask questions". They could care less if they inspire anyone.

They exist to piss Christians off. That's it. All of this is out of spite. It's hatred, pure and simple.

Hate is what all of this is about, and it's 100% transparent.

Twitter should ban their hate speech. But it's chic to hate Christians.

What does Revelations say about how Christians shall be viewed come the end times? 'You shall be hated in all nations, for my names sake'.

If you are a Christian, things appear to be ticking along nicely regarding all that.

What does that tell you?

a reply to: NthOther

Why not edit out the ad-homs in your post before it gets removed by staff? There's no need for it.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Why? I'm not a Christian.

It's ok for me to point out douchebaggery when I see it.

But what if I was? You'd only be making by point. You assholes poke and prod and aggravate until you get a response, then bitch about how un-Christian the response was.

Do you have a point? Or are you just trying to piss people off?

It is ok for you to point out perceived douchebaggery when you see it.

They were making a point how it can be offensive to have symbols of ideology in the public domain, and that of a state building.

How is saying separation from church and state is being an asshole or poking and prodding?

They stated their intentions by putting up the statue to show hypocracy, and others have said those are not their intentions, some have taken it further, implying it was mean spirited.

Those are my points, and I feel I've been consistent about them throughout the thread.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Christianity is only on decline in the west as secularism is on the rise, but overall the world is getting more religious, not less. Christianity is making big gains in Latin America now. It's easy to pretend like Christianity is under assault by secularists in the west, but that ignores the world wide situation on top of it being an invented narrative (Secularists don't care if you worship Christianity or not, they just don't want it in their faces all the time).

Most state and federal Congress people have the "Don't be mean to baby jesus" belief. Christian representation/symbolism in the government will survive.

Good for them. It may be trolling in a sense, but I'm all for these sorts of acts that highlight hypocrisy and privilege within our systems.

It's also funny to see people "wail" and "gnash teeth" while they complain about being victims, when they seem to be nothing more than spoiled bitches.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

What does Revelations say about how Christians shall be viewed come the end times? 'You shall be hated in all nations, for my names sake'.

If you are a Christian, things appear to be ticking along nicely regarding all that.

What does that tell you?

How is saying the public domain (that we all pay for) and state buildings (that we all pay for) should be void of favoritism hate?

You can tell me I'm going to hell, that's your opinion and belief, I wouldn't view it as hate, but rather part of your ideology. You may even say those things to try and save someone, so in that regard it could be out of love.

Much of our reality is based off of perception.

Either way, I defend the right to religious freedom, I even don't like when people just knock religion just because they don't agree with it. But try and get your religion in any part of the government and then I will be on the other side of the argument.

Not because I'm being a jerk, but because I believe in my beliefs as strongly as someone who is religious. And my belief is the government should represent all citizens and tax payers the same.

It's temporary, so can't measure up much care. If it was permanent on private land... Wouldn't really care.

Public land, then freedom from religion clowns would have to sue.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
It's temporary, so can't measure up much care. If it was permanent on private land... Wouldn't really care.

Public land, then freedom from religion clowns would have to sue.

Other than to assert some sort of dominance or privileged of one belief over the other, I've never understood why these religious symbols on public property matter whatsoever.