# Fair is fair, right?



## Ridge Walker (Jan 9, 2014)

Design proposal for monument on Oklahoma state capitol grounds.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/01/07/satanists-release-design-proposed-oklahoma-state-capitol-monument

RW


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2014)

Yep.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 9, 2014)

They wanna put a billy goat statue at the capital..... LOL.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> They wanna put a billy goat statue at the capital..... LOL.



Can you believe it!?!? That IS weird unlike statues of a 2000 yr old guy nailed to boards.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 9, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> They wanna put a billy goat statue at the capital..... LOL.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 9, 2014)

I find this funny as well, but for different reasons. None of this matters. It doesn't matter if it is the Bull God, Zeus, The Virgin Mary, or Michealangelo's Creation on the Sistine Chapel Ceiling. 

It is all depictions of fairy tales.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Can you believe it!?!? That IS weird unlike statues of a 2000 yr old guy nailed to boards.



"Hey, hey, hey! That's not funny".


----------



## Ridge Walker (Jan 9, 2014)

A satanic prayer at school wouldn't be a bad idea either. The christians could just ignore it, no harm done.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> A satanic prayer at school wouldn't be a bad idea either. The christians could just ignore it, no harm done.



Before football games.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 9, 2014)

I think it says a mouthful about the new age atheist mentality.
I say go for it guys.


----------



## Ridge Walker (Jan 9, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> I think it says a mouthful about the new age atheist mentality.
> I say go for it guys.




This has nothing at all to do with atheists.  It's a religious monument.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> This has nothing at all to do with atheists.  It's a religious monument.



"Satanists, Atheists, Buddhists....all the same"


----------



## erog (Jan 9, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> This has nothing at all to do with atheists.  It's a religious monument.



I agree, move this thread to "Other Faiths."


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 9, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> Design proposal for monument on Oklahoma state capitol grounds.
> 
> http://www.religionnews.com/2014/01/07/satanists-release-design-proposed-oklahoma-state-capitol-monument
> 
> RW



I don't have a problem with it.  After all, the writings of the founding fathers were filled with references to Our Dark Lord Satan.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 9, 2014)

erog said:


> I agree, move this thread to "Other Faiths."



It'll just be ignored there -- along with every other thread.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> It'll just be ignored there -- along with every other thread.



lol


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 9, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> I think it says a mouthful about the new age atheist mentality.



REALLY????  Come on Ronnie... I think that says more than a mouthful about you.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Can you believe it!?!? That IS weird unlike statues of a 2000 yr old guy nailed to boards.



Or ritualistically drinking his blood and eating his flesh on a regular basis...


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> Or ritualistically drinking his blood and eating his flesh on a regular basis...



eww....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> eww....



I used to look forward to the snack......


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I used to look forward to the snack......



I ate the little hard cracker last time I went, too.


----------



## hummdaddy (Jan 9, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I used to look forward to the snack......



they didn't give me enough to get my buzz on....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 9, 2014)

lol... mine was just grape juice... Sometimes I took a few crackers.... 

I would definitely not partake if I found myself in the situation...


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

hummdaddy said:


> they didn't give me enough to get my buzz on....



I liked going to Mass with my friend Tony because they used real wine.  I felt so naughty drinking it.


----------



## Ridge Walker (Jan 9, 2014)

I was always kinda grossed out thinking about the backwash in the chalice.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> I was always kinda grossed out thinking about the backwash in the chalice.



We got little shot glasses.


----------



## Ridge Walker (Jan 9, 2014)

Not us, although they did wipe the rim of the chalice with a napkin between sips. Of course they just used one napkin for the entire mass. Yuck. How that wasn't a health code violation I don't know.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> Not us, although they did wipe the rim of the chalice with a napkin between sips. Of course they just used one napkin for the entire mass. Yuck. How that wasn't a health code violation I don't know.



Reminds me of a rumor about a cup being passed around at Peter Frampton concerts.  Yick.


----------



## hummdaddy (Jan 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> We got little shot glasses.



preparing you for the world


----------



## hummdaddy (Jan 9, 2014)

i wasn't trying to be offensive,i just thought that was funny....it does seem more sanitary than the old school way


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 9, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> I think it says a mouthful about the new age atheist mentality.
> I say go for it guys.


Now that's just ignorant.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jan 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> We got little shot glasses.



I'd love to have one of those communion sets we used in the Presbyterian church,  a silver tray with different tiers of shot glasses.  You could fill them with different liquors and have shot girls circulate with them at parties.

That statue cracks me up every time I see it.  Shame it's not going to last two days before some idiot with a Jesus fish on the bumper of his pickup runs it over.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

ridge walker said:


> this has nothing at all to do with atheists.  It's a religious monument.



exactly!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 9, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> Design proposal for monument on Oklahoma state capitol grounds.
> 
> http://www.religionnews.com/2014/01/07/satanists-release-design-proposed-oklahoma-state-capitol-monument
> 
> RW



I hope you don't mind I ask this question additionally.

Like many of the first two A's in this forum, I feel a sense of fear of the movement and influence from those that want the ten commandments monument. I guess though, that feeling is normal. I'm used to it. It's scary to think of monuments like this goatee guy with kids around him being plastered all around. 

IMO it's the same fear, just this has additional fear of the unknown because it's not the norm that I've lived with all my life... Anyone else feel that way?


----------



## hummdaddy (Jan 9, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I hope you don't mind I ask this question additionally.
> 
> Like many of the first two A's in this forum, I feel a sense of fear of the movement and influence from those that want the ten commandments monument. I guess though, that feeling is normal. I'm used to it. It's scary to think of monuments like this goatee guy with kids around him being plastered all around.
> 
> IMO it's the same fear, just this has additional fear of the unknown because it's not the norm that I've lived with all my life... Anyone else feel that way?



for some reason people fear freedom


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 9, 2014)

I think I heard this on Breaking Bad actually, and it makes sense. People don't actually want freedom, they want the freedom to be comfortable. Something like that. 

Anyway, I think this is more of a change than a fear of freedom for. Maybe more specifically a fear of the unknown than change.


----------



## hummdaddy (Jan 9, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think I heard this on Breaking Bad actually, and it makes sense. People don't actually want freedom, they want the freedom to be comfortable. Something like that.
> 
> Anyway, I think this is more of a change than a fear of freedom for. Maybe more specifically a fear of the unknown than change.



it's always been there,just the thought of it being in your face scares you....think how others must feel!!!

the erosion of our freedoms came from where?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 10, 2014)

Someone start the stopwatch when the statue is erected. How long until it is vandalized by the love thy neighbor and do unto others crowd.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 11, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> This has nothing at all to do with atheists.  It's a religious monument.



I think his point was the new atheist are not so much 
a-theistic as they are anti- Christianity.   One would think ideologically an atheist would either be:  1) equally as opposed to a satanic statue or prayer at a football game or 2) equally as apathetic.  That's not the case though as evidenced by the posts on this thread.  A satanic statue draws smirks whereas the Cross draws fire.  Why is that and what does is say on a deeper level about the atheist and his innermost thoughts?  More to the point:  Does this ideological hypocrisy exists because the atheist knows on the deepest level that Christianity is true, and the others aren't?  If not then how do you explain this paradoxical treatment of the two?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 11, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> "Satanists, Atheists, Buddhists....all the same"



In the sense that none are Christian......yes, but there is a world of difference.

The satanist is either a theist or a paganist, depending on WHO OR WHAT exactly he holds as his deity.   Either way he holds something/someone as transcendent.

Buddhism is in fact an atheistic religion.  It holds that there is no transcendence beyond what is attainable by the individual.


----------



## Ridge Walker (Jan 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think his point was the new atheist are not so much
> a-theistic as they are anti- Christianity.   One would think ideologically an atheist would either be:  1) equally as opposed to a satanic statue or prayer at a football game or 2) equally as apathetic.  That's not the case though as evidenced by the posts on this thread.  A satanic statue draws smirks whereas the Cross draws fire.  Why is that and what does is say on a deeper level about the atheist and his innermost thoughts?  More to the point:  Does this ideological hypocrisy exists because the atheist knows on the deepest level that Christianity is true, and the others aren't?  If not then how do you explain this paradoxical treatment of the two?



I'm pretty sure that most atheists want a separation of church and state. Whether it is a christian church, church of satan, buddhist temple is irrelevant. Keep it out of government. Simple.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 11, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think I heard this on Breaking Bad actually, and it makes sense. People don't actually want freedom, they want the freedom to be comfortable. Something like that.
> 
> Anyway, I think this is more of a change than a fear of freedom for. Maybe more specifically a fear of the unknown than change.





> People don't actually want freedom, they want the freedom to be comfortable. Something like that.



Good point.  On a political/cultural level it appears as Americans could care less what freedoms we cede to the government (the executive branch in particular) as long as American Idol comes on at its regularly scheduled time.  Just entertain us.  Caligula should only have been so lucky to have a citizenry as ours.

Freedom only works within a structural framework.  Without an overarching framework of shared values and beliefs total freedom devolves into anarchy.  Anarchy never last long.  It's always replaced by a powerful government.  

For the entire history of this country we have either implicitly or explicitly shared values that were Christianocentric....if that is a word.  These shared values formed a structural framework within which our freedom not only existed but drew its power.  Today we have deconstructed this framework to the point that we have very few of these shared values left.   As a result the center isn't holding and and as a nation, we have lost our identity.  Not only do we no longer know where we are.  We don't know who we are.  

In the name of separation of church and state, social welfare, political correctness, pluralism, tolerance and the like we have severed all the ties that served as tethers to this Christianocentric??? identity.  Never have we been so free in that we may pursue any lifestyle we chose without fear of public castigation and never have we been so enslaved that to speak against a lifestyle choice invites castigation and reprisals to the point that the government is beginning to dictate what speech is allowed in Church sermons.  

In the name of hedonism we have washed ourselves of anything sacred and embraced the concept of a governmental nanny who we think we can control through the democratic process.  The problem is that the populace 
is much to much enthralled pursuing its hedonistic ventures (American Idol anyone?) than to be bothered with the boorish task of governance in any case other than those which affect their individual pursuits. 

 Hence you have exactly what we see today.  A strong man comes into office and takes advantage of the situation, annexing all the power he can.  Congress cedes it over by the bucket loads, because the populace is so happy pursuing their hedonistic avenues no one cares what happens outside of their bedrooms.  Just keep the government out of the bedroom is all they ask.  Done says Congress.  Done says the President.  That is all you need to have a fundamental transfer of power and move from a democracy to a totalitarian state.   

Hitler used fear, shame, pride and hatred to move Germany from a democracy to a totalitarian state.  Obama and the liberals have used hedonism to move us toward it.  It's our new National Identity.
It's  as you say.  People aren't concerned with freedom, only comfort.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Good point.  On a political/cultural level it appears as Americans could care less what freedoms we cede to the government (the executive branch in particular) as long as American Idol comes on at its regularly scheduled time.  Just entertain us.  Caligula should only have been so lucky to have a citizenry as ours.
> 
> Freedom only works within a structural framework.  Without an overarching framework of shared values and beliefs total freedom devolves into anarchy.  Anarchy never last long.  It's always replaced by a powerful government.
> 
> ...



In blue above you ARE talking about the "entire" history beginning when the Europeans came over right? Because I am pretty sure the were not many "Christianocentric"  Americans here for the 10,000 years before that.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> In blue above you ARE talking about the "entire" history beginning when the Europeans came over right? Because I am pretty sure the were not many "Christianocentric"  Americans here for the 10,000 years before that.



They like to claim that they invented the Golden Rule.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think his point was the new atheist are not so much
> a-theistic as they are anti- Christianity.   One would think ideologically an atheist would either be:  1) equally as opposed to a satanic statue or prayer at a football game or 2) equally as apathetic.  That's not the case though as evidenced by the posts on this thread.  A satanic statue draws smirks whereas the Cross draws fire.  Why is that and what does is say on a deeper level about the atheist and his innermost thoughts?  More to the point:  Does this ideological hypocrisy exists because the atheist knows on the deepest level that Christianity is true, and the others aren't?  If not then how do you explain this paradoxical treatment of the two?




I never had a Satanist knock on my door.  If Christians would just mind their own business like the Hindus, Satanists and Wiccans no one would have any problems with them.  Look at the Amish.  They don't bother anyone.  Why don't you be more like them?  

Keep all religious monuments off public property.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2014)

It seems to me that most Atheists are realistic. They would rather have ZERO religious monuments of any sort on any Government properties but they are also not so narrow minded that if ONE monument is allowed for one religion then supporting the idea that ALL monuments representing ALL religions should be allowed. Being realistic, they know that more likely than not the decision will be that it is easier to allow NONE than ALL and they are realistic to know that the followers of the first monument would rather have theirs removed than share the floor space with any others.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> In blue above you ARE talking about the "entire" history beginning when the Europeans came over right? Because I am pretty sure the were not many "Christianocentric"  Americans here for the 10,000 years before that.



Yes


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 11, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I never had a Satanist knock on my door.  If Christians would just mind their own business like the Hindus, Satanists and Wiccans no one would have any problems with them.  Look at the Amish.  They don't bother anyone.  Why don't you be more like them?
> 
> Keep all religious monuments off public property.



Does it really bother you that much for someone else to care about you.

Penn Jillette , an atheist, said this regarding Christian evangelism.



> “I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a he11, and people could be going to he11 or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?
> 
> “I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”



I really admire him for this, because it shows that he truly has compassion for his fellow man.

In any event he "gets" why Christians knock on doors.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes



The old "Americans" had a long Un-Christianocentric head start at Freedom. Despite separation of Church and State there were many Christianocentric people in the Gov't that helped proselytize those first Americans by whatever means necessary. What values were shared to the Native Americans?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The old "Americans" had a long Un-Christianocentric head start at Freedom. Despite separation of Church and State there were many Christianocentric people in the Gov't that helped proselytize those first Americans by whatever means necessary. What values were shared to the Native Americans?



Christianity as a slogan has certainly been used in many instances throughout history to perpetrate crimes to include genocide.  That being said I think any intellectually honest person could not assert that those actions are in keeping with the precepts of Christianity, and were only conducted under the auspices thereof.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Christianity as a slogan has certainly been used in many instances throughout history to perpetrate crimes to include genocide.  That being said I think any intellectually honest person could not assert that those actions are in keeping with the precepts of Christianity, and were only conducted under the auspices thereof.



Can you tell us just what/how/who has kept the precepts of Christianity since Christ? The Church? A certain denomination? There are all these things done by Christians, for Christians, in the name of Christianity....and all anyone can do is pass it off as them being results of not real Christians or under suspect motives.
It is hard to swallow the Christian values shtick being constantly mentioned with the start of America when the history of what happened to the earliest Americans is a direct result of the people with those values. Be like Jesus...except when you are stealing, raping, killing, starving, massacring, lying, butchering.....And for those Christians not doing that..be like Jesus.. but do nothing to stop it....Once we get all the heathens taken care of then we will act like Christians. The Christianity claims are not backed up by the actions throughout history. Maybe the earliest of Christians were close...maybe a modern sect or denomination are closer than others....but as a whole there are more un-christian Christians than anyone would ever care to admit.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Christianity as a slogan has certainly been used in many instances throughout history to perpetrate crimes to include genocide.  That being said I think any intellectually honest person could not assert that those actions are in keeping with the precepts of Christianity, and were only conducted under the auspices thereof.



An intellectually honest person could not assert that those actions are in keeping with Christianity...agreed.

Being that actions speak louder than words what could an intellectually honest person say about Christians, not the precepts of Christianity, throughout their history?

I am not pointing fingers at one group as the majority of religions now are a far cry from their earliest beginnings, but since Christianity is the main religion used in here it gets more air time.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Does it really bother you that much for someone else to care about you.
> 
> Penn Jillette , an atheist, said this regarding Christian evangelism.
> 
> ...




May I offer a sacrifice to Satan for your well being?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 12, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Can you tell us just what/how/who has kept the precepts of Christianity since Christ? The Church? A certain denomination? There are all these things done by Christians, for Christians, in the name of Christianity....and all anyone can do is pass it off as them being results of not real Christians or under suspect motives.
> It is hard to swallow the Christian values shtick being constantly mentioned with the start of America when the history of what happened to the earliest Americans is a direct result of the people with those values. Be like Jesus...except when you are stealing, raping, killing, starving, massacring, lying, butchering.....And for those Christians not doing that..be like Jesus.. but do nothing to stop it....Once we get all the heathens taken care of then we will act like Christians. The Christianity claims are not backed up by the actions throughout history. Maybe the earliest of Christians were close...maybe a modern sect or denomination are closer than others....but as a whole there are more un-christian Christians than anyone would ever care to admit.



I can only repeat what I've already stated.  There has much good that has been done by Christians down through the ages also.  Many focus on only the bad.  As far as who carried the mantel down through the ages, I would say ultimately God through various denominations and individuals.  I'm sure volumes have been written on this.  I can't quote them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 12, 2014)

bullethead said:


> An intellectually honest person could not assert that those actions are in keeping with Christianity...agreed.
> 
> Being that actions speak louder than words what could an intellectually honest person say about Christians, not the precepts of Christianity, throughout their history?
> 
> I am not pointing fingers at one group as the majority of religions now are a far cry from their earliest beginnings, but since Christianity is the main religion used in here it gets more air time.



Only the truth.  Much bad has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity, and much good also.  The bad did not conform to The precepts of Christianity, and in fact was directly opposed to the precepts..  The good was in accordance to the precepts.

That's all.

  It's my view the good far outweighs the bad.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> May I offer a sacrifice to Satan for your well being?



It would be a waste of time.  He's in the destruction, not construction, business.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It would be a waste of time.  He's in the destruction, not construction, business.




You don't really know what Satanists claim to be about.  Here:

The Nine Satanic Statements
Beliefs of the Church of Satan


These statements are the opening words of the Satanic Bible, published in 1969 and written by Anton LaVey. They are basic principles guiding LaVeyan Satanists. This document is © Anton Szandor LaVey, 1969.

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
Nothing is to be gained by denying oneself pleasure. Religious calls for abstinence most often come from faiths that view the physical world and its pleasures as spiritually dangerous. Satanism is a world-affirming, not world-denying, religion. However, the encouragement of indulgence does not equate mindless submersion into pleasures. Sometimes refrain leads to heightened enjoyment later, in which case patience and discipline are encouraged. Finally, indulgence requires one to always be in control. If satisfying a desire becomes a compulsion (such as an addiction), then control has been surrendered to the object of desire, which is never encouraged.

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
Reality and existence is sacred, and the truth of that existence is to be honored and sought at all times, never to be sacrificed for a comforting lie or an unverified claim one cannot bother to investigate.

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
True knowledge takes work and strength. It is something one finds rather than what will be handed to you. Doubt everything and avoid dogma. Truth tells of how the world truly is, not of how we would like it to be. Be wary of shallow emotional wants, for they frequently can only be satisfied at the expense of truth.

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it [not] love wasted on ingrates!
There is nothing in Satanism that encourages wanton cruelty or unkindness. There is nothing productive in that, but it is also unproductive to waste your energy on people who will not appreciate or reciprocate it. Treating others as they treat you will form meaningful and productive bonds while letting parasites know that you will not waste your time with them.

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
Leaving wrongs unpunished merely encourages miscreants to continue preying on both yourself and others, and those who do not stand up for themselves end up being trampled. This is not, however, an encouragement for misbehavior. Becoming a bully in the name of vengeance is not only dishonest but it also invites others to bring vengeance upon yourself. The same goes for illegal actions of retribution: break the law and you become the miscreant that the law should come down on swiftly and harshly.

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible...!
Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires! Real leaders are determined by their actions and accomplishments, not their titles, and real power and responsibility should be given to those who can wield it, not to those who simply demand it.

7. Satan represents man as just another animal...!
Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his â€œdivine spiritual and intellectual development,â€� has become the most vicious animal of all! Elevating the human species as somehow innately superior to other animals is blatant self-deceit. Humanity is driven by the same natural urges that other animals experience. While our intellect has allowed us to accomplish truly great things (which should be appreciated), it can also be credited with incredible and wanton acts of cruelty throughout history.

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins...!
Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification! In general, the concept of â€œsinâ€� is something that breaks a moral or religious law, and Satanism is strictly against such following of dogma. When a Satanist avoids an action, it is because of concrete reasons, not simply because dogma dictates it or someone has judged it â€œbadâ€�. In addition, when a Satanists realizes that he or she has committed an actual wrong, the correct response is to accept it, learn from it, and not do it again, rather than mentally beat himself or herself up for it or begging for forgiveness.

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had...!
Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years! This last statement is largely a declaration against dogmatic and fear-based religion. If there were no temptations, if we did not have the natures that we do, if there was nothing to fear, then few people would submit themselves to the rules and abuses that have developed in other religions (specifically Christianity) over the centuries.



Regardless, would you be touched and by my offer and accept it thankfully?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Only the truth.  Much bad has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity, and much good also.  The bad did not conform to The precepts of Christianity, and in fact was directly opposed to the precepts..  The good was in accordance to the precepts.
> 
> That's all.
> 
> It's my view the good far outweighs the bad.



An excerpt from the book "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" from the chapter "The Three Pillars of the Christian Faith -- Miracles, Prophecies, and Precepts"

MORAL PRECEPTS THE THIRD PILLAR OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
It is declared, in view of the many wise precepts which issued from the mouth of Jesus Christ, that "he spake as never man spake." (John vii. 46.) If this were true, then Gods must have been very numerous prior to the Christian era. For there is not one of the moral maxims or perceptive commands which he gave utterance to that cannot be found literally or substantially in the older bibles of other nations, or the writings of the Greek philosophers, and the religious dissertations of heathen moralists, who gave out moral and religious lessons for the instruction of the world long prior to the birth of Christ. Even the Golden Rule, which Christian writers, ignorant of oriental history, have erroneously ascribed to Jesus Christ, and lauded him as being the author of, is found variously expressed in the writings of several heathen or oriental nations. We find it in the Chinese bible at least five hundred years older than ours, almost word for word as Jesus uttered it. We will here present it as expressed by different writers.



    Golden Rule by Confucius, 500 B.C.

    "Do unto another what you would have him do unto you, and do not to another what you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest."


    Golden Rule by Aristotle, 385 B.C.

    "We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us."


    Golden Rule by Pittacus, 650 B.C.

    "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him."


    Golden Rule by Thales, 464 B.C.

    "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."


    Golden Rule by Isocrates, 338 B.C.

    "Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you."


    Golden Rule by Aristippus, 365 B.C.

    "Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for another's welfare as your own."


    Golden Rule by Sextus, a Pythagorean, 406 B.C.

    "What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them."


    Golden Rule by Hillel, 50 B.C.

    "Do not to others what you would not like others to do to you."



Here is the Golden Rule proclaimed by seven heathen moralists and a Jew long before it was republished by the founder of Christianity; thus proving it to be of heathen origin, and proving that it does not transcend the natural capacity of the human brain to originate, and hence needs no God to reveal it. Indeed, it is one of the most natural sentiments of the human mind. "Would I like to be treated thus?" is the first thought which naturally arises in the mind of a person when maltreating a neighbor; thus showing that the Golden Rule is a spontaneous utterance of the moral feelings of the human mind.


Love and kind Treatment of Enemies
Love to enemies is considered to be another praiseworthy precept, which Christ has erroneously the credit of being the author of. We have heard the declaration made in the Christian pulpit, that Jesus Christ was the first moral teacher who inculcated love to enemies; a moat transcendent error, as the following historical citations will show. Most of the religious books and religious teachers of the ancient oriental heathen breathe forth a spirit of love and kindness toward enemies.

The following is from the old Persian bible, the Sadder: --



    "Forgive thy foes, nor that alone;
    Their evil deeds with good repay;
    Fill those with joy who leave thee none,
    And kiss the hand upraised to slay."

    The Christian bible would be searched in vain to find a moral sentiment or precept superior to this. Certainly it is the loftiest sentiment of kindness toward enemies that ever issued from human lips, or was ever penned by mortal man. And yet it is found in an old heathen bible. Think of "kissing the hand upraised to slay." Never was love, and kindness, and forbearance toward enemies more sublimely expressed than in the old Persian ballad.


    "Treat thine enemy as though a friend, and he will become thy friend," was expressed by Publius Syrus, a Roman slave, which is a wiser admonition than that of Christ, "Love thine enemy," as it is a moral impossibility.


    "All nature cries aloud, Shall man do less
    Than heal the smiter, and the railer bless?" (Hafiz, a Mahomedan.).


    "Bridle thine anger, and forgive thine enemy; give unto him who takes from thee." (Koran, Mahomedan bible.)


    "Let no man be offended with those who are angry at him, but reply gently to those who curse him." (Code of Menu.)


    "Let him endure injuries, and despise no one." (Ibid.)


    "Commit no hostile action for your own preservation." (Ibid.)


    "To be revenged on enemies, become more Virtuous." (Diogenes.)


    "To strike a man, or vex him with words, is a sin." (Zend-Avesta, Persian bible.)'


    "Even the intention to strike is a sin." (Ibid.)


    "Desire not the death of thine enemy." (Confucius.)


    "Acknowledge benefits, but never revenge injuries." (Ibid.)


    "We may dislike an enemy without desiring revenge." (Ibid.)


    "Pardon the offenses of others, but never your own." (Publius Syrus.)


    "The noble spirit cures injustice by forgiving it." (Ibid.)


    "It is much better to be injured than to kill a man." (Pythagoras.)


    "You can accomplish by kindness what you cannot by force." (Publius Syrus.)


    "Better overlook an injury than avenge it." (Publius Syrus.)


    "It is enough to think ill of an enemy without avenging it." (Publius Syrus.)


    "It is a kingly spirit to return good deeds for evil ones." (Ibid.)


    "Learn for yon orient shell to love thy foe,
    And store with pearls the hand that brings thee woe;
    Flee, like yon rock, from base, vindictive pride,
    Emblaze with gems the wrist that rends thy side." (Hafiz.)


    "To revenge yourself on an enemy, make him your friend." (Pythagoras.)


    "It is not permitted to a man who has received an injury to revenge it by doing another." (Socrates, in his Crito.)


    "Seek him who turns thee out, and pardon him who injures thee." (Koran.)


    "Return not evil for evil." (Socrates.)


    "Endure all things if you would serve God." (Sextus.)


    "Desire to be able to benefit your enemies." (Ibid.)


    "Receive an injury rather than do one." (Publius Syrus.)


    "Be at war with men's vices, but at peace with their persons." (Ibid.)


    "Cultivate friendship for an enemy." (Pittacus.)


    "Be kind to your friends that they may continue so, and to your enemies that they may become so." (Ibid.)


    "Prevent injuries if possible; if not, do not revenge them." (Ibid.)


    "An enemy should not be hated, but cured." (Seneca.)


    "To act unkindly toward an enemy will increase his hate." (Antonius.)


    "Be to everybody kind and friendly." (Ibid.)


    "Speak evil of no one, not even your enemies." (Pittacus.)



Thus it will be observed that love and kindness toward all mankind, both friends and enemies, is not confined to the teachings of Christ or to the Christian religion, as many have erroneously supposed, but is unquestionably a natural sentiment of the moral instinct or moral impulses of the human mind, and hence is no proof that their teacher is either a God or divinely inspired.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> You don't really know what Satanists claim to be about.  Here:
> 
> The Nine Satanic Statements
> Beliefs of the Church of Satan
> ...



All I can say is:

You're right, but I know what satan is about.

*WOW!, just WOW!!!*

and 

No.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> and
> 
> No.



Which Precept is that?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 12, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Which Precept is that?




Matthew 7:6

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Or 

James 4:7

7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Take your pick.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> You don't really know what Satanists claim to be about.  Here:
> 
> The Nine Satanic Statements
> Beliefs of the Church of Satan
> ...



....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea



This jargon is just naturalism with "Satan" added into the mix.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 13, 2014)

I don't want the thing there either, but as long as we have the ten commandments, why not add this thing?



SemperFiDawg said:


> I think his point was the new atheist are not so much
> a-theistic as they are anti- Christianity.   One would think ideologically an atheist would either be:  1) equally as opposed to a satanic statue or prayer at a football game or 2) equally as apathetic.  That's not the case though as evidenced by the posts on this thread.  A satanic statue draws smirks whereas the Cross draws fire.  Why is that and what does is say on a deeper level about the atheist and his innermost thoughts?  More to the point:  Does this ideological hypocrisy exists because the atheist knows on the deepest level that Christianity is true, and the others aren't?  If not then how do you explain this paradoxical treatment of the two?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 13, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> ....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea
> 
> 
> 
> This jargon is just naturalism with "Satan" added into the mix.




Yep.  Or maybe just naturalism without the window dressing of civility and smuggled in morality.  Heck, let's just call it for what it really is....the true face of rebellion.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 13, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't want the thing there either, but as long as we have the ten commandments, why not add this thing?



Hey, I'm all for it.  I think it's a great visual aid.  On the right you have the beauty of Gods love and grace of mankind as exemplified by the Ten Commandments.  On the left you have this grotesque statue of a beast with his hands on our children.   I can think of few more compelling symbolisms.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 13, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't want the thing there either, but as long as we have the ten commandments, why not add this thing?


To me none of them belong there. Believe in whatever you want but do it in your homes and churches.
Fortunately that's the direction we are going.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 13, 2014)

They need the 10 commandments from the Quran next. Then a Wicca symbol. Then on and on. Then...put up a Yard Sale sign.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 13, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Matthew 7:6
> 
> 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
> 
> ...



Neither fit.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 13, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Christianity as a slogan has certainly been used in many instances throughout history to perpetrate crimes to include genocide.  That being said I think any intellectually honest person could not assert that those actions are in keeping with the precepts of Christianity, and were only conducted under the auspices thereof.



Except in the bible. That was ok.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 13, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hey, I'm all for it.  I think it's a great visual aid.  On the right you have the beauty of Gods love and grace of mankind as exemplified by the Ten Commandments.  On the left you have this grotesque statue of a beast with his hands on our children.   I can think of few more compelling symbolisms.



That is obviously an opinion of the matter. I don't really like either of them. We can also have a cross with a bloody guy hanging from it, examples of the ritual of eating his blood and flesh... Preists with their hands on our children... Either way.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> ....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea
> 
> 
> 
> This jargon is just naturalism with "Satan" added into the mix.




I'm sure you understand that I lump Satanists in with Christians and Muslims and the like.  I find flaws in all of y'alls machinations.  

There is a lot of overlap with Wiccans and pagans.


----------

