statue of baphomet in detroit - discuss civily

Umbran · Jul 28, 2015

Scott DeWar said:
I know I use this excuse alot, but even though its been almost 4 years, but I am having a bit of trouble reading and absorbing this statement. I had to read it 4 time to make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying: We do have the right of being offended?

Let me rephrase: We get no guarantee to an offense-free life. The government will provide you no protection from offense.

I would imagine the added statement of: We who do get offended do not have the right to brow beat those who do not get offended.

No. At least, I don't mean that.

Our "rights", as I'm speaking of them now, are usually about protection from governmental action. Our "right of free speech" is actually, "The government shall not infringe on your freedom of speech", at least so long as that speech does not do certain forms of harm - our right of free speech is *not* absolute. Our "freedom of religion" is freedom from governmental influence on our religious practices.

So, how does this apply to being offended? It means that, if someone says something that offends you, you can't bring the government in to remove that offense, as that would be government infringing on his or her right of free speech, on your behalf. But, you have a right of free speech, too. So, if he offends you, you can respond.

"Browbeat" starts going into dangerous waters. That may verge into harrassment, which we as a society have agreed is beyond merely expressing yourself.

Dannyalcatraz · Jul 28, 2015

Oklahoma is defying the determination that the Ten Commandments sculpture is unconstitutional and considering changing the state constitution, though how you could create a state constitution which allowed state displays of Christian religion but not other religions while remaining compliant with the U.S. Constitution is a mystery to me.

Yup...and, as I recall, it isn't just a violation of the US Constitution, but OK's state constitution, as well.

MechaPilot · Jul 28, 2015

Legatus_Legionis said:
The statue was not art for the sake of art. I do not agree with the "protest art" aspect either.

They (satanist) tried to exploit a loophole so they could display an idol of the "fallen one" as they had originally planned on public land.

I buy the protest angle, and this is why: if they wanted to put up a statue of "the fallen one," no one would be provoked by its appearance because it would look like a very beautiful male angel, if it were to hold true to the origin story of Satan.

My understanding is that the goat features were added by later artists.

Umbran · Jul 28, 2015

MechaPilot said:
if it were to hold true to the origin story of Satan.

Um... not necessarily.

In Revelations, John describes a "War in Heaven" (Revelations 12). In that, Satan is a seven-headed dragon. Now, there's some question as to whether John was referring to a war at the End Times, at the Birth of Jesus, or earlier. Ohterwise, I don't think Satan's origins are dealt with in the Bible, if my memory serves.

The more typical view of the origin and fall of Lucifer, the most beautiful angel in Heaven comes, I think, from Milton's "Paradise Lost", rather than from Biblical sources. This thing was published in 1667, and is hardly church doctrine. The term "fallen angel" doesn't even appear in the Christian Bible.

Ryujin · Jul 28, 2015

Umbran said:
Um... not necessarily.

In Revelations, John describes a "War in Heaven" (Revelations 12). In that, Satan is a seven-headed dragon. Now, there's some question as to whether John was referring to a war at the End Times, at the Birth of Jesus, or earlier. Ohterwise, I don't think Satan's origins are dealt with in the Bible, if my memory serves.

The more typical view of the origin and fall of Lucifer, the most beautiful angel in Heaven comes, I think, from Milton's "Paradise Lost", rather than from Biblical sources. This thing was published in 1667, and is hardly church doctrine. The term "fallen angel" doesn't even appear in the Christian Bible.

There are also references to him as "day star", "guardian cherub", comments about trading wisdom for splendor, disguising himself as an angel of light, and the like. The references range from beautiful, to terrible.

MechaPilot · Jul 28, 2015

Umbran said:
Um... not necessarily.

In Revelations, John describes a "War in Heaven" (Revelations 12). In that, Satan is a seven-headed dragon. Now, there's some question as to whether John was referring to a war at the End Times, at the Birth of Jesus, or earlier. Ohterwise, I don't think Satan's origins are dealt with in the Bible, if my memory serves.

The more typical view of the origin and fall of Lucifer, the most beautiful angel in Heaven comes, I think, from Milton's "Paradise Lost", rather than from Biblical sources. This thing was published in 1667, and is hardly church doctrine. The term "fallen angel" doesn't even appear in the Christian Bible.

Revelations is a later writing. Satan appears earlier than the new testament. The Book of Job refers to "the accuser," or "the adversary" called "Ha-Satan." In the Book of Job, Satan comes before god, with all the other angels. Satan is then given permission to test Job, implicating that Satan may work for God, and is likely an angel. This possibility of being an angel is further enabled by "Ha-Satan" actually being a title, not an individual's name, or the name of a species of divine/profane creature.

It's also worth noting that the dragon you mentioned has 7 heads, 10 horns, and 7 seven crowns; and that the number and division of these features have been compared to rulers of different empires who persecuted God's faithful. In this way it offers the faithful hope that godliness will prevail over earthly persecution. It's one of the hallmarks of apocalyptic writing. You can see something similar in David's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

Scott DeWar · Jul 28, 2015

I think you meant Danial who interpreted, not David. David was a King of Judea and Isreal before ol king Neb.

MechaPilot · Jul 28, 2015

Scott DeWar said:
I think you meant Danial who interpreted, not David. David was a King of Judea and Isreal before ol king Neb.

You are correct. I did mean Daniel and not David.

Dannyalcatraz · Jul 28, 2015

As a group, angels do not have one set, humanoid form. They can appear as humans, but that is for convenience.

http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-do-angels-look-like-a-biblical-analysis/
http://christianity.stackexchange.c...-the-bible-say-about-the-appearance-of-angels

Umbran · Jul 29, 2015

MechaPilot said:
Revelations is a later writing. Satan appears earlier than the new testament.

I'm aware. But from none of the old testament bits do you get an origin story for an individual.

In the Jewish tradition as I understand it, Satan is by no means fallen. It is instead an *agent* of G-d (and so, not in need of an origin story), whose job it is test people.

It's also worth noting that the dragon you mentioned has 7 heads, 10 horns, and 7 seven crowns; and that the number and division of these features have been compared to rulers of different empires who persecuted God's faithful. In this way it offers the faithful hope that godliness will prevail over earthly persecution.

I am fully aware of all that. However, it is still Satan in that text. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to reconcile the conflict between Satan as a literal entity, and Satan as a metaphorical one.

The whole point is that the "origin story" of Satan is not necessarily as mentioned upthread, and there's not really much of physical description, either. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

statue of baphomet in detroit - discuss civily

Umbran

Mod Squad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

MechaPilot

Explorer

Umbran

Mod Squad

Ryujin

Legend

MechaPilot

Explorer

Scott DeWar

Prof. Emeritus-Supernatural Events/Countermeasure

MechaPilot

Explorer

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Umbran

Mod Squad

Similar Threads