After School Satan

You guys heard about this? I've been seeing this on the news lately. A brief outline for those not familiar, the Satanic Temple wants their after school program in places with Christian after school programs, supposedly on behalf of religious diversity. They're willing to fight legally to get their program included, pressing the point that if their religious program isn't allowed, then no other religious programs should be allowed either.

I know we will all have similar feelings regarding anything to do with Satan, but I can't help but contemplate a few things. America has been known for its religious freedom for some time, is satanism where we draw the line? With Christ being the way, truth and light, Satanism isn't really much more out there than being a Jedi for a religion. Should they have the right to their after school program?

The other thing I couldn't help but think about is footage I've seen regarding public Satanic prayers/incantations, in council meetings for example. There's always a pile of Christians in the room that hardly let them start the prayer, and on the verge of being kicked out by counsel, they whisper their Christian prayers during the spoken Satanic one. I know it's biblical that the world will hate and persecute us because we follow Christ, but I haven't seen Christians get this level of persecution like this Satanist got during his prayer. What does is mean when the world is Christian and persecuted satanism?

I'm actually feeling a certain level of empathy on their behalf. Does that make sense to anyone else?
Thoughts?

Normally it's in very poor taste to through rocks at retards... and then there are satanists..

Those guys are like a 'non-religious' westboro. They exist just to make trouble. Like westboro, they bring nothing positive to the table.

I say let them have their meetings and encourage the Christians to attend them and evangelize them.

Yeah, but what about the golden rule? Would you want a bunch of Satanist disturbing your Christian group? So why do that to them?

While I see a trolling nature to satanism as a whole, I wouldn't compare them to Westboro at all. I'm not really seeing hate at all actually. They just want religious freedom.

I can kinda imagine feeling empathy for people in such a situation.

But let's get very clear about what satanism stands for. Now, I barely have read about the subject so I won't tread into detail, correct me if I'm wrong

Satanism comes across as a very reactive worldview. It even takes its name from the main antagonist of the Bible. So there's not much originality involved. Basically, it just feels like christian-bashing, moulded into the form of a religion/worldview to slip through the nets of the authorities.
And keep in mind that it's a character trait of the satan, not to be original but reactive. In the sense that he only can make bad copies. An actual example is gay "marriage", which is kind of his version of marriage (I'm not speaking lightly here... I've went through the horror of a gay wedding, also in a church service, two weeks ago).

And I think I can remember reading about this whole subject. They had this typical popular focus of science with them, so playing the whole religion (read: christianity) vs. science card. Any serious scientist (like my wife, who does a PhD in biochemistry) isn't thick enough to think that these two are polar opposites. But if you can make the masses believe it is... you're doing the work that is typically an attribute of satan, namely spreading confusion.

So I wouldn't discard your feelings as nonsensical. But keep in mind that it is a worldview that is not beneficial to the world. It can be thrown on the garbage heap, together with islam etc.

But yeah, there's also people involved, which makes things always complicated...

I get a little tired of groups whose "agenda" is only pushed as a front for their true agenda... pushing Christianity out.

ThomasEversole wrote:Yeah, but what about the golden rule? Would you want a bunch of Satanist disturbing your Christian group? So why do that to them?

I believe that I've seen the video that you are referencing. Truth is that I winced at seeing the way the 'believers' acted. They were obnoxious and trampled his freedom of speech.

Personally, I'd never do such. I'd try my best to get to talk with him about what he's doing and why. If I were praying, I'd pray silently.

While I see a trolling nature to satanism as a whole, I wouldn't compare them to Westboro at all. I'm not really seeing hate at all actually. They just want religious freedom.

Yeah, I agree that they aren't similar in their overt methodology. Westboro blares out hateful rhetoric whereas the others don't. However I do question the sincerity of their claim to want religious freedom. Though I wouldn't hold that against them to try to silence them.

I've talked about something similar with a friend and honestly?  I'd just ban them.  I may be a little bit of an extremist here, but I'm less interested in free speech and more interested in what glorifies God.  I understand that he does give us free will and the like, but I do also think we shouldn't spit in the face of He who blesses us and that's what this is.

These people are jokers, they don't take religion seriously and that's why they do this garbage.  They do it for shock value as Westboro and offer nothing real.  It's just a bunch of people who believe we live, we die and that's it.  Their beliefs are toxic and drag down the rest.

They're ridiculous, but they have a point.  If publicly funded space is used for one religion, it should be available for any.  They consider our beliefs ridiculous, so the fact that they're ridiculous in anybody else's opinion shouldn't be the measuring stick.

Now really, I just feel like there should be much less publicly funded stuff and then this all goes away, but that's opening up another can of worms entirely and isn't likely to be reality anytime soon.

d@v!d wrote:

ThomasEversole wrote:Yeah, but what about the golden rule? Would you want a bunch of Satanist disturbing your Christian group? So why do that to them?

I believe that I've seen the video that you are referencing. Truth is that I winced at seeing the way the 'believers' acted. They were obnoxious and trampled his freedom of speech.

Personally, I'd never do such. I'd try my best to get to talk with him about what he's doing and why. If I were praying, I'd pray silently.

While I see a trolling nature to satanism as a whole, I wouldn't compare them to Westboro at all. I'm not really seeing hate at all actually. They just want religious freedom.

Yeah, I agree that they aren't similar in their overt methodology. Westboro blares out hateful rhetoric whereas the others don't. However I do question the sincerity of their claim to want religious freedom. Though I wouldn't hold that against them to try to silence them.

I agree with you completely. Good post David.

I'm getting a vibe here that a few of us here think, Satanists are just there to be against Christianity, there's nothing else to talk about, this is spiritual warfare. Contempt prior to investigation is never a good thing. I myself think it's good to know my friends and my enemies, and I've looked into what Satanism is about.

Satan is literally Hebrew for "enemy" or "adversary". Christians seem to think they're referencing our enemy, Lucifer, the Satan. They're actually closers to the adversary to religious dogma, which hey - I'm not a fan of some religious dogma myself. They're also big on empowering themselves, instead of blindly following something, be it religion or whatever.

...which honestly, if it weren't for the fact that they don't have a belief in God, it sounds like American living. (ie: Do what thou wilt, but harm no one) That being said, I don't think they're a direct or indirect threat to Christians or the faith.

So why are we so eager to tear them down instead of approach them like anyone else outside the faith?

Andreas89 wrote:oAn actual example is gay "marriage", which is kind of his version of marriage (I'm not speaking lightly here... I've went through the horror of a gay wedding, also in a church service, two weeks ago).

And I think I can remember reading about this whole subject. They had this typical popular focus of science with them, so playing the whole religion (read: christianity) vs. science card. Any serious scientist (like my wife, who does a PhD in biochemistry) isn't thick enough to think that these two are polar opposites. But if you can make the masses believe it is... you're doing the work that is typically an attribute of satan, namely spreading confusion.

I don't want to take this topic off course, but I do want to say something regarding this. I think Satan has done a great job allowing/creating a huge misconception in regards to homosexuality and Christianity.

I absolutely agree that the homosexual acts in Romans 1:27 were in error / sin because they weren't in the context of marriage.
No different caliber of sin than heterosexual acts outside of marriage.

The other two New Testament verses used by Christians to go against homosexuality are 1st Corinthians 6:9 and 1st Timothy 1:10.
If you go to the original Greek of these verses, 1st Corinthians 6:9 uses the term Malakoi - which most modern interpretations of this word are "homosexual".  

1st Timothy 1:10 uses the term Arsenokoitai - which most modern interpretations of this word are "men who have sex with men".  

However, the concept of "sexual orientation" didn't exist in the ancient world.  Men having sex with men was ALWAYS associated with rampant lust and non-consensual sex.  (look at Sodom where angels disguised themselves as men and the male residents there tried to force themselves on them)

That's not the case with homosexuality as a sexual orientation today.

The correct translation of Malakoi is "licentious". (another word for promiscuous)
Correct translation of Arsenokoitai is "Abusers of Themselves with Mankind". (that's a very broad definition)

Couple that with FACTS regarding choice. Any man here, if they're honest, will say they don't choose to be sexually attracted to women. It's just biology and the libido works on its own naturally, but yet we think those darn homos intentionally choose against that biology just to rebel against God and make other Christians angry. That is factually not true.

Since there's no choice involved in sexually orientation, how can it be a sin in the confides of a marriage? To me, a gay married couple seems to be as big as a direct stumbling block in faith as a heterosexual couple that has to adopt children to have a family. It's really a non-issue.

Please don't derail this into a gay thread. I'm sorry. We should really start a new topic or take this to pm's...

Anton LaVey, surprised someone knows who he is?, was just a pawn of satan used to kill, steal, and destroy and that's all they are still.  To think they aren't pawns of the devil is silly.  I have actually read about it and do know the underlying beliefs of them, that they're more looking for knowledge, but to disregard that they're pawns of the devil is ridiculous.  Of course, for me, the more I study the Bible, the more I see the intricacies of its wisdom and knowledge woven throughout human history, I'm less worried about, say, the laws of men and more concerned about doing as God wills.

As for the paragraphs that we aren't debating, the simple truth is that 1 Corinthians 6:9 says that those who were receiving the sodomy and those throwing it were both included in those not receiving the Kingdom of Heaven.  Everyone then knew what it meant and it's only taken some few thousand years for people to understand, obviously.  With that in mind and ending the debate which is not taking place because, after your block attack, why not?  I leave with 2 Peter 3:16.  It's  almost as if God foresaw something like this happening.  OK, I'm done.

As someone who works in the schools, you will have to allow this group to organize and create a club.  If one religion is allowed to have a club, then all are.  That's just the way the laws in our land have been interpreted.

If we don't like it, we do have some choices.  First, we can pray against the success of said club.  We can teach our kids why this isn't a club for them and keep them out.  They can influence the culture around them by being salt and light.  However, to just outright ban them from even coming in would result in things like a Bible club or even FCA being tossed out.  Sometimes the birds have to nest in the tree sprouting from the mustard seed.

It wasn't a block attack, Peter. I wanted to include enough information for this point. That being said, it's no consequence that you're done since everyone knows anal sex doesn't exclude people from accepting salvation.

Anton Lavey was little more than a retired carnival worker. He wasn't a murderer or the living bane of Christianity.

Alldat, good post.

Everyone except God and those who read his word, I guess.  In case you didn't look it up, 2 peter 3:16 speaks directly to your twisting of the word.  If God meant for it to be something else, it'd be something else. Y'all just have your own beliefs separate from God.  There's a reason you need paragraphs to explain two sentences that everyone else reads to mean what it was.

What you argue flies in the face of centuries of teaching. Even as William Tyndale, the first translator of the bible to English, as he was being strangled, said "Lord, open the king of England's eyes.". Within four years, the bible was being translated by the king of England and then in 1611 the king James bible used his as a basis for the vast majority. Now, I bring this up to say, despite the persecution, the death, that God was not faithful to have his word translated to English properly? That, as David said, his word is not "as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."?.

I have read some arrogant garbage in the past, but to suggest you have a keener insight than those who came before you, who died before you for translating this really takes the cake. 

As for Anton LaVey, have you ever heard the saying " The greatesttrick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"?. Though from a movie, the quote gives great insight, and Anton helped with that. Did he believe the devil existed? No, but that didn't mean he couldn't just as easily be manipulated by him. 

So, you're not done?

Your post is deliberately insulting to me. Don't you work with the lost in your mission work? How the heck do you not maul them if you can't even handle a conversation on a doctrinal difference?

You think I'm twisting things. I think you're doing the same. Why don't you and I both be done about this stalemate, eh?

Guys, guys! Stop attacking each other immediately! I was merely stating an example, I didn't know it was such a disputed issue here.

ThomasEversole wrote:
However, the concept of "sexual orientation" didn't exist in the ancient world.  Men having sex with men was ALWAYS associated with rampant lust and non-consensual sex.  (look at Sodom where angels disguised themselves as men and the male residents there tried to force themselves on them)

Let's just say that this is historically incorrect; exclusive same-sex relationships were already known in ancient Greece and the Roman empire (the same cultures in which Jesus and the apostles condemned homosexual practices in general). I won't go any further into this, since it has already proven to be a stupid move of mine to mention that example.

You are right, this subject is a mighty tool of satan. See how easily we are distracted from the subject and that we're already attacking each other? I'm sincerely sorry for bringing this up and stirring up the pot, please forgive each other and move on.

I hope you can see past this and at least know where I was getting at with this example.

This will only go on via PM for now, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Oh yes, homosexuality is THE hot button issue here. I've speculated that if people didn't leave with the last post fanfare, but instead made a thread debating homosexuality, that it would just be getting fired instead of quitting.

I'd much rather discuss the After School Satan topic, but since no one is saying anything... I'll at least comment on what you said was historically incorrect.

Your right, there were monogamous homosexual relationships in ancient times, but the concept of homosexuality didn't exist until the late 1800's. Before that, same sex copulation was considered "unnatural love" and (literally) lumped into the same categories as child molestation and incest. Quick reference for all that: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=homosexual

It was a massive stereotype then. When I say "fried chicken and watermelon", whether or not you agree with that stereotype, we both know what it is referring to. Well, back then, if you were a man who had sex with a man, you were just a sex fiend that was probably willing to screw children and family members as well. They were all lumped together in a stereotype - like fried chicken and watermelon are.

Christianity views homosexuality today like most of the world views pedophiles today. This is a topic I haven't been brave enough to make yet.

Most people hear the word pedophile and they think, criminal child rapist... but pedophilia is only the sexual attraction to children, something proven to be on the spectrum of normal male sexuality. More people than we think are this way actually...

It saddens me how some Christians I've met, always men, put their time and energy into spreading the word about Jesus in one way or another, and while they would work professionally with a gay/pedophile/whatever, if a fellow Christian provides objective information regarding their condition NOT being what we thought centuries ago, (sin), then hold on because they're willing to open the gates of hell themselves to dispute it.

Because men's buttholes are the gateway to Satan's embrace.
Because all pedophiles are chomo's and the only reason they're not in jail is because they haven't been caught yet.
Might as well say because fried chicken and watermelon too.

Look, I know I didn't want to stray from the original topic, but this is honestly something I wish Christians understood better and didn't have a completely closed mind about. I've worked with more than a few gay men as a counselor, enough to know that a homosexual disposition only interferes with their relationship with God if other Christians pressure them to be something that they're not.

I only worked with 2 pedophiles as a counselor, but my understanding of them has changed considerably since my last bout of research.

This is exactly why I always stayed out of the theology realm.

I'm not wishing to/don't have the time to post why my firm belief, rooted in Scripture, is that physical expression of same sex attraction is wholly and clearly sinful before God.  And besides, you've asked us to all just let you have the last word here, to have your thoughts and opinions expressed and left alone as if we've all been silenced and have no intelligent or scriptural responses to your "objective" post!

But I'll say that people who don't agree with you and find your reasoning extremely weak don't necessarily just need to understand better and have completely closed minds, as you say.  You don't think that there's anybody who sees differently than you do who's been privy to the ideas and information that you have?  No, they would just make ridiculous statements about men's buttholes being the gateway to Satan's embrace and are just like racists (off topic from the off-topic topic, but I'll say I've never understood the fried chicken and watermelon thing. . . I like fried chicken and watermelon, and I grew up as white as can be in an extremely white part of the country. . . I just don't get it, whatever).  That's unfair and slanderous, whatever anybody's position might be. 


As far as the actual topic, yes to alldat's post.

I don't think a lot of people understand the fried chicken watermelon thing. Doesn't everyone love fried chicken? I'm kinda meh on watermelon myself. My point with that is the gay-hatin' makes zero sense, like the other stereotypes I've mentioned.

Jiminy Christmas, I'm not equating racism to thinking homosexuality is a sin. Where did that come from?

I wasn't trying to get the last word, definitely not trying to silence anyone - was just trying to stop the impending flames. I'd be more than happy to discuss this.

As far as scriptures, apart from Peter saying something about a furnace and referencing a verse that ambiguously says not to twist scriptures, I'm the only one to bring scripture into this. I posted 3 verses from the Bible explaining why I've concluded homosexuality, the sexual orientation itself is NOT a sin.

This is the Christian argument ad nauseum. Homosexuality is wrong. Why? Because the Bible says it. WHERE? No one ever says where because the bible either references fornication/promiscuity or sex outside of marriage in context to homosexuality, as I stated with going to the original Greek.

Of course fornication/promiscuity is a sin, whether you're gay or straight. The nod to homosexuality in the Bible directly refers to ACTIVE SEX. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible that says a homosexual DISPOSITION (no sex) is a sin.

I think that's where the hangup is...

I'm also annoyed that people try to lump God and centuries of dead people on their side as discussion leverage. How about speak for yourself and explain why without the butthurt?

ThomasEversole wrote:There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible that says a homosexual DISPOSITION (no sex) is a sin. 

Very important to keep in mind!

I got a pm. I'm done. God's word is as it is. I'm done here.

I appreciate that individuals are not concerned about the "laws of man" and just want to please God.  However, the United States is not a Christian theocracy, so the "laws of man" do matter in every day life.  Honestly, I think in a lot of cases Christians deserve the trouble of having Satanists or other non/anti-Christian groups hassle them because in many cases they are just using the statutes Christians have pushed for to impose their belief systems on others against them, such as the Satanic coloring books distributed in some Florida schools after a Christian group successfully pushed to allow religious material to be passed out in schools.

This kind of thing is exactly why I prefer for the "state" to be a-religious.

Whew, well that saves me a big ol' post.

messiaen77 wrote:I appreciate that individuals are not concerned about the "laws of man" and just want to please God.  However, the United States is not a Christian theocracy, so the "laws of man" do matter in every day life.  Honestly, I think in a lot of cases Christians deserve the trouble of having Satanists or other non/anti-Christian groups hassle them because in many cases they are just using the statutes Christians have pushed for to impose their belief systems on others against them, such as the Satanic coloring books distributed in some Florida schools after a Christian group successfully pushed to allow religious material to be passed out in schools.

This kind of thing is exactly why I prefer for the "state" to be a-religious.

I understand all that and am conflicted about it. If all things were equal, I'd be happy about it, but they aren't. I keep thinking about the fact that God (is almighty and reigns supreme).

Peter who was Vaak wrote:I got a pm. I'm done. God's word is as it is. I'm done here.

d@v!d wrote:
I understand all that am conflicted about it. If all things were equal, I'd be happy about it, but they aren't. I keep thinking about the fact that God.

Man, these two posts are weird.