Yamato Posted July 29, 2014 #26 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Hell, I'll go there. Just look at how many stories to rejoice in there are, of our people in our great nation turning the other cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted July 29, 2014 #27 Share Posted July 29, 2014 It would be easier to take their desires seriously if they actually stood for something, instead of just standing against something. If you read the article: "The group says its central mission is to “encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense and justice, and be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by the individual will."" That sounds pretty awesome to me. I think we need this church; it's filling in a lot of holes in our society these days. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted July 29, 2014 #28 Share Posted July 29, 2014 You're picking the wrong guy if you want to go there. I'm not "going" anywhere. You can't criticize and be exempt from criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremiah65 Posted July 29, 2014 #29 Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) I think we should bring back the Greek Pantheon and all associated holidays and celebrations...I could get interested in the feast of Dionysus...partying and wild sex...count me in! On a serious note... I don't think our founding fathers intended for any one religion to be embraced and another scorned...regardless. Yes it's true that some of them were Christians but others were more or less agnostic. Some were Deists, some were theists...but not necessarily Christian or a defined ritualistic religion. I have spent many years of my life reading philosophy, religion and theology...heck I read Anton Levey's book ages ago and read a lot of pagan works as well. For me it is a point of curiosity to understand the mind of people and why they do the things they do. But anyway...all or none. I'm hoping that common sense will prevail and someone, somewhere will have to step away from the pipe and realize the separation of church and state is there for a reason and the "state" maybe shouldn't be giving anything special at all to any of them. Edited July 29, 2014 by Jeremiah65 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted July 29, 2014 #30 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I'm not "going" anywhere. You can't criticize and be exempt from criticism. Well you were going somewhere. Is the church of satan personal for you? Am I honestly supposed to take seriously mainstream satanists? Give me a break. Next to that, they have a belief system that reflects a political party more than it does a religion. I believe the definition of a religion is the belief in a supernatural power. That's my real gripe with this. What qualifies as a religion? Any group of several people who believe in ten of the same things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted July 29, 2014 #31 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Which raises the question, would taxation be more separation or less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted July 29, 2014 #32 Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) Well you were going somewhere. Is the church of satan personal for you? Am I honestly supposed to take seriously mainstream satanists? Give me a break. Next to that, they have a belief system that reflects a political party more than it does a religion. I believe the definition of a religion is the belief in a supernatural power. That's my real gripe with this. What qualifies as a religion? Any group of several people who believe in ten of the same things? You give a religion an exemption from a law you give exemptions to all religions. No matter how stupid they are. That's religious freedom. You can't selectively discriminate. There is no defined line that deterimes what is and is not a religion. To some it is a group of like minded people, to others it is stories that are thousands of years old. I have no connection with any religion. I am as non religious as a person can be. So you can not take mainstream satanists seriously as much as you want. I don't take them seriously either. I also don't take christian seriously. Edit: this stupid tablet makes me jumble sentences up incomprehensibly. Edited July 29, 2014 by Imaginarynumber1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted July 29, 2014 #33 Share Posted July 29, 2014 the separation of church and state is there for a reason and the "state" maybe shouldn't be giving anything special at all to any of them. I think that should be the crux of the issue right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted July 29, 2014 #34 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I think the crux of the issue to first determine what is a religion in the eyes of the law. Only after that, we can then determine who is fit for a religious exemption. Until then, if there is no legally defined line then it stands to reason that the Oxford Dictionary settles the matter. It is defined as the belief in the supernatural and the Satanic Temple explicitly states it has nothing to do with the supernatural. Therefore, no exemption. Argument over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted July 29, 2014 #35 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Well you were going somewhere. Is the church of satan personal for you? Am I honestly supposed to take seriously mainstream satanists? Give me a break. Next to that, they have a belief system that reflects a political party more than it does a religion. I believe the definition of a religion is the belief in a supernatural power. That's my real gripe with this. What qualifies as a religion? Any group of several people who believe in ten of the same things? Satanists don't have belief in supernatural power? Satan's been de-clawed? What? Who didn't inform of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted July 29, 2014 #36 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I think the crux of the issue to first determine what is a religion in the eyes of the law. Only after that, we can then determine who is fit for a religious exemption. Until then, if there is no legally defined line then it stands to reason that the Oxford Dictionary settles the matter. It is defined as the belief in the supernatural and the Satanic Temple explicitly states it has nothing to do with the supernatural. Therefore, no exemption. Argument over. Who defines a religion. It cant be a goverment filled with politicians that only get voted in based on one religion aka Christianity can it. Scientology is only a religion due to power and money. Is that equal. I still hold a beliefe in mankind however fading can I not call me and my merry men a religion or am I stuck in cult status by the very ones you think should dictate what religion is and is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted July 29, 2014 #37 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Satanists don't have belief in supernatural power? Satan's been de-clawed? What? Who didn't inform of this? Satanists actually do not believe in a true biblical Satan. They believe in man, science and the evolution of what we should be more like. Logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skep B Posted July 29, 2014 #38 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I've always ascribed to it being a matter of the societal acceptance that makes a Cult different to a Religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted July 29, 2014 #39 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Satanists actually do not believe in a true biblical Satan. They believe in man, science and the evolution of what we should be more like. Logical. Actually there are three different branches of theistic Satanists, according to the encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism So Fess's definition is met, at least in those cases. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolguy Posted July 29, 2014 #40 Share Posted July 29, 2014 If these fake money hungry preachers on day star have exemption so why can't the satanists 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted July 29, 2014 #41 Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) Actually there are three different branches of theistic Satanists, according to the encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism So Fess's definition is met, at least in those cases. Yes there are those that do believe in Satan but that would put them on equal footing as those that believe in god so yes I agree. My personal opinion is that religion of any sort diserves nothing from the tax payers nor should any religion recieve tax breaks. Its a club, mind you a big one. Pay a membership fee not a goverment break in the all mighty BS. Even the playing feild and all beliefs are done on your time and your dime. Edited July 29, 2014 by The Silver Thong 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted July 29, 2014 #42 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I've always ascribed to it being a matter of the societal acceptance that makes a Cult different to a Religion. Very true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted July 29, 2014 #43 Share Posted July 29, 2014 "Thou Shalt Have a Tax Refund" ~Satan, July 28, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted July 29, 2014 #44 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Who defines a religion. It cant be a goverment filled with politicians that only get voted in based on one religion aka Christianity can it. Scientology is only a religion due to power and money. Is that equal. I still hold a beliefe in mankind however fading can I not call me and my merry men a religion or am I stuck in cult status by the very ones you think should dictate what religion is and is not. I just addressed this in the post you quoted. I think it would be asinine for the government to define a religion. The much agreed upon reference book called The Dictionary is the only place one needs to look to know what defines a religion. When I said until then as if to say until the day the government defines it... It's a figure of speech. It did not mean that I am eagerly awaiting such a day. And Scientology is a crock just like the satanist, except it's slightly successful. So Fess's definition is met, at least in those cases. It wasn't mine. It was imaginarynumbers paraphrased manifesto he linked to on the previous page. I assumed the same thing as you at first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted July 29, 2014 #45 Share Posted July 29, 2014 It wasn't mine. It was imaginarynumbers paraphrased manifesto he linked to on the previous page. I assumed the same thing as you at first. Okay so lacking anything else then, are we ready to consider Satanism a religion and grant them a level playing field? Have you ever listened to Bob Marley btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted July 29, 2014 #46 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I just addressed this in the post you quoted. I think it would be asinine for the government to define a religion. The much agreed upon reference book called The Dictionary is the only place one needs to look to know what defines a religion. When I said until then as if to say until the day the government defines it... It's a figure of speech. It did not mean that I am eagerly awaiting such a day. And Scientology is a crock just like the satanist, except it's slightly successful. I get what your saying and hear where your comming from. I agree with both you and Yamato. A definition of something is somewhat subject to who is giving that deffinition. My deffinition of religion is simple since its all based on the same thing. A belief in what ever the hell you want. I don`t like that but it is what it is and government has no right to give a belief a status or a privilage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted July 29, 2014 #47 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Okay so lacking anything else then, are we ready to consider Satanism a religion and grant them a level playing field? Have you ever listened to Bob Marley btw? No way man, they don't fit the definition of religion. At least the group in question in the op doesn't. Not willingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted July 29, 2014 #48 Share Posted July 29, 2014 No way man, they don't fit the definition of religion. At least the group in question in the op doesn't. Not willingly. What if they called themselves the baptised satanists. Is it the tittle or the belief that excludes them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted July 29, 2014 #49 Share Posted July 29, 2014 No way man, they don't fit the definition of religion. At least the group in question in the op doesn't. Not willingly. You gotta be in the right kind of environment to enjoy Bob Marley man. I agree that atheists don't fit the definition of religion. But theists do. So why wouldn't theistic Satanists? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted July 29, 2014 #50 Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) What if they called themselves the baptised satanists. Is it the tittle or the belief that excludes them. You gotta be in the right kind of environment to enjoy Bob Marley man. I agree that atheists don't fit the definition of religion. But theists do. So why wouldn't theistic Satanists? Guys, if the group in the op is the same as the group in imaginary#'s link on page two, I think, then they disqualify themselves as a theistic religion as officially defined in the English language by stating at the top of their bio as a non-supernatural belief system. They use satan as satire and mockery. That's fine but couldn't we do that too? If we did do you think there's snowballs chance in hell of us being socially or officially recognized as a religion rather than busy body screwballs using religion as a crutch to gain 15 minutes by participating in frivolous political activism? Btw, I've been to that environment plenty of times. Marley doesn't do it for me. Now, Pink Floyd's The Wall, the movie or the album, that does it. Edited July 29, 2014 by F3SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now