Sympathy for the devil

[Whaleboy]

The Romans weren't exactly adversed to the concept of ritualised bloodshed for the masses or the state. Nothing changes

[GePap]

But sacrifice is so unsporting- where is the raw excitment! Unless you did it Aztec style, and as far as I can tell, the Druids were not big on spectacular drama.

[Sava]

this thread looked dumb, but Speer's rants made it worth reading.

[Whaleboy]

Speer makes Apolyton worth reading...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Speer makes Apolyton worth reading...

[Elok]

Well, the Romans had no problem with bloodshed, but the gladiators and "decimation"-one tenth of the population getting killed off to encourage the rest to behave-was regulated butchery. Random people getting whacked by independent groups is against the best interests of any state.

[Sava]

Random people getting whacked by independent groups is against the best interests of any state.

It worked for the Romans, considering they dominated the world for the better part of over a thousand years.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sava
It worked for the Romans, considering they dominated the world for the better part of over a thousand years.

World?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sava
It worked for the Romans, considering they dominated the world for the better part of over a thousand years.

Prior to the conversion of the Roman republic into an empire gladiator sports were actually not that frequent. They could only be held after the death of a prominent public figure. It was Julius Caesar who came up with the idea that games could be held to commerate the historical death of a prominent Roman, thus opening the way for games anytime the emporer durn well pleased. The original games weren't that bloody, in most cases gladiators were spared if they had given a decent performance. Of course, there are no statistics on the number who died of wounds after a fight. The emporers introduced lavish spectacles, which were the real blood festivals of the games.

The power of Rome was definitely on the wain by 400 AD. The date of Rome's ascendence to world power can be debated. I would choose somewhere around 50 BC, about the time when Gaul and Egypt were incorporated into the empire. Someone might argue for an earlier date, after all even by 100 BC the empire already included Italy, Greece, Iberia, Illyria, and much of North Africa. By 50 BC however the empire had grown to completely encircle the Mediterranean Sea.

[Namaste]

From what I understand, LaVeyan Satanism is basically about the complete absence of any God altogether and uses Satan as essentially a symbol for freedom. The "religion" is generally anti-spiritual and entirely centered on the physical world and an embrace of it. Ayn Rand (yep, that goofball again) was a major influence on LaVey when he wrote the Satanic Bible.

The Yezidi of Kurdistan on the other hand, believe in a chief angel called Melek Taus (The Peacock Angel) which corresponds to the Judeo-Christian satan, but it's not quite the same thing. Melek Taus is seen as the supreme power on Earth and the creator of the material world.

As for Wicca, I actually had a discussion like this with one of my friends. Wicca really cannot claim any serious continuity to druidic practices. I forgot exactly what she told me that day, but basically wicca utilized essentially only the scraps of known pagan beliefs and the gaps were filled in with quite a bit of imagination in the 1950's. That doesn't make it a false religion though, so if you find spiritual fulfillment in it, then by all means go with it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
this thread looked dumb, but Speer's rants made it worth reading.

Speer's rants are worth something?

[Verres]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
The Romans liked their blood. Druidism was too close to monotheism for the Romans to be able to cope with. Thus they destroyed it.

What do the druids have to do with the devil?? For a start, they were pre-Christian. Very keen on reincarnation and oak trees....but that doesnt really seem particularly satanic to me

[Whaleboy]

What do the druids have to do with the devil?? For a start, they were pre-Christian. Very keen on reincarnation and oak trees....but that doesnt really seem particularly satanic to me

I think I was trying to say that the fact that a culture was particularly bloody may not have deterred the Romans because of their violent history and practice. I'm going out on a limb there though.

[Al B. Sure!]

If God is omnipotent, what is Satan? How can this implacable enemy of God exist?

easy... God allows Satan to exist to make things more interesting...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ah. So he's a sadist.

[Al B. Sure!]

Speer's rants are worth something?

says the liberal...

really, mr.fun, stop with this nonsense like taking racial awareness classes and reading on the effects of the civil war on race relations... that **** is just plain silly. i noticed something in my college's course catelog called "Hispanics in Philadelphia", a class discussing exactly what the title says.

i showed that to a few people and the reaction was all the same... what the hell kind of class is that? what could you possibly learn from that? what could you learn that had any use? is this just one of those anthropological things where sheltered white intellectuals 'study' the fascinating species of 'brown humans'.

please, leave behind this liberal bullshit and be normal!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Are you the spokesman for normality, freak?

[Bereta_Eder]

interesting how the devil came to be depicted as a creature with horns and clafs cloves cloafs???!! hwat the english word? anyway he's the spitting image of the ancient god pan. demonizing them they did the older religions. very funny. and then i guess it spread throughout the world

[Al B. Sure!]

Laz:

perchance... actually, he probably is just a jerk who either 1) is obsessed with us following his orders so he puts in the devil to make it harder for us to do as God wants or 2) he just doesn't give a damn and wants people to go to hell

of course, assuming these, which are perhaps the most likely explanations for the existance of Satan, assuming these, God can not possibly be "love"

[Al B. Sure!]

Laz...

normal... conservative... same thing

[Shi Huangdi]

"If God is omnipotent, what is Satan? How can this implacable enemy of God exist? "

The same way you or I could make ourself an enemy of God an oppose his work and still exist. God gave both humans and angels free will with which we can do as we like.

[Bereta_Eder]

whereas poor pan was not the devil, running around pulling little pranks he did. playing his flute in the forests and generally enjoying himslef. but then again i guess demon also got a bad conotation after christianity, whereas before it just meant spirit. it was a systematic badmouthing of the older religions and satan came to be identified with them. in shape, terminology etc. then it spread and now its freakin everywhere.

[Bereta_Eder]

I stood upon the balcony with my brand new bride
the clink of bells came drifting down the mountainside
When in our sight something moved
- lightning eyed and cloven hooved -
The great god Pan is alive!

He moves amid the modern world in disguise
it's possible to look into his immortal eyes
He's like a man you'd meet anyplace
Until you recognise that ancient face
The great god Pan is alive!

At sea on a ship in a thunder storm
on the very night that Christ was born
A sailor heard from overhead
a mighty voice cry "Pan is dead!"
So follow Christ as best you can
Pan is dead! Long Live Pan!

From the olden days and up through all the years
from Arcadia to the stone fields of Inisheer
Some say the Gods are just a myth
but guess who I've been dancing with
The great god Pan is alive!



not really though

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The same way you or I could make ourself an enemy of God an oppose his work and still exist. God gave both humans and angels free will with which we can do as we like.

Simply put, freewill cannot coexist with omniscience.

[Tiamat]

Simply put as well........evil has to exsist for good to exsist. One cannot exsist without the other, therefore God and Satan would not exsist without each other.

[GePap]

You don't need satan to have God..becuase God need not be always good. You can argue that God=Truth, but truth need not be good. It is, above morality, and beyond it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Simply put, freewill cannot coexist with omniscience.

I think the debate here has more to do with omnipotence, that why does an omnipotent God allow evil to exist? It's the same reason why men are allowed to make decisions contrary to God's will. God voluntarily constrains his own power, for in allowing men to sin, it also allows them to worship God with their heart, rather than being mere automatons.

Now there are several explanations for omniscience, one starts from the question of how can God hear everybody's prayers? The answer is that God is outside of time. To God, everything happens before him. he may see your actions in the future, but that does not mean he controls them. For God, it makes no sense to talk of a present or a future.

Now, as for God requiring Satan to exist, such a god would not be God. God requires nothing, for his own existence outside of himself. If God creates all things, why would he need a creator?

This explanation allows for God to remain perfectly good, while also allowing for the existence of evil in the world.

[Whaleboy]

Albert Speer: The new Fez

[Elok]

Originally posted by Sava
It worked for the Romans, considering they dominated the world for the better part of over a thousand years.

I said INDEPENDENT groups. State-conducted extermination is documented and controlled, and usually doesn't dispose of anyone the gov't. will miss, unless the secret police misread their CO's handwriting and whack the wrong guy by accident.

The free-will vs. omniscience debate makes no sense to me. Unless you make it your life's objective to spite or surprise god, his ability to foresee your choices does not in any way limit your liberty.

[The Mad Viking]

To discredit Wicca based on lack of continuity, you must also be willing to discredit modern Christianity...

...the discontinuous leaps of ideology from OT to NT, from Jesus' teachings to Paul's writings, and from NT to Catholic dogma are truly staggering...

religion=dodgy

no need to single out Wicca...