It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Satan's Statue design unveiled in Oklahoma

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
O.o why baphomet? why not a shining star? lol a goat? seriously? a friggin goat...
Goats are awesome yea.. but not statue awesome. people are going to walk by and think about milking it or making cheese.

Mexicans will think of goat blood soup. sangre de chivo and cheese. goat cheese.

yea I dont know about this one Okies. Its too cheesy. Might as well put a bucket and a block of cheese up there.




posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by payta
 


This doesn't look like an idol AT ALL.

Yes, little children, come and sit in the lap of the goat. That's perfectly normal.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Satanist are free to choose their fate. To acknowledge Satan(The Adversary) and follow him is to acknowledge God and oppose him. That's a losing battle every time. Lets be logical for a second. God created Satan and everything else. Who decides the final outcome of a new building: the building itself, or the Architect?


You couldn't be any farther from the truth. LaVeyan satanism not only does to worship the JudeoChristian devil, it worships NO deities at all. It's philosophies are based on individualism, secular humanism, religious skepticism, freethought, epicureanism and "eye for an eye" morality. It is an atheistic philosophy that adapts the image of satan as as backdrop or symbol of pride, carnality, enlightenment, undefiled wisdom, and of a cosmos which Satanists perceive to be permeated and motivated by a force that has been given many names by humans over the course of time.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   

MadMax9
reply to post by payta
Satan appears only in the Bible and this does not describe him. Any official who allows it is both stupid and ignorant.


As is the individual that speaks about thins they c.early don't understand. The Church of Satan has nothing to do with JudeoChristian tenets or mythology.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   

UxoriousMagnus They can't put in their "tenets" that they like to kill, torture and rape little kids.....then smart people like you would turn away in horror.
edit on 7-1-2014 by UxoriousMagnus because: (no reason given)


I'm personally offended by this. I've never raped a kid and the only torture or killing I took part in was in the Army and had neither philosophical connotations nor an affect on my brains pleasure center. Are you generally a happy outgoing person? You know what they say about ignorance being bliss don't you?



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Who decides the final outcome of a new building: the building itself, or the Architect?


Neither, the Owner does. Therefore, according to The Book, Satan is the God of this world, and it belongs to him (Luke 4:5-6; 2 Corinthians 4:4). The Bible is the Inerrant Word, right? Case closed.



UxoriousMagnus

and if I say I worship .... let's say ... lamps or beer bottles.....then should I also be able to put statues of "my" deities? So now every government property from LA to NY will be covered in every ridiculous religion man comes up with?


Well, the First Amendment was designed to prevent such foolishness. Unfortunately, Christians have lobbied for years to subvert the Constitution and diminish the separation of Church and State, and the door has now been opened. Therefore, anyone who does not appreciate "every ridiculous religion" i.e. all of them, being celebrated in the public square should take it up with Christians not Satanists.
edit on 3Wed, 08 Jan 2014 03:32:33 -060014p032014166 by Gryphon66 because: combating entropy



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by payta
 


Well if kids are accustomed to sitting in Ronald McDonald's, Santa's and the Easter Bunny's lap, then why not this as well?

You know that as soon as this goes up, more than kids will be sitting there, I see new youtube videos of 18 year-old girls....and you know the rest of the story.

But this is a country of freedom of religious expression, if that's what they want, they have to be allowed under the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

peter vlar

MadMax9
reply to post by payta
Satan appears only in the Bible and this does not describe him. Any official who allows it is both stupid and ignorant.


As is the individual that speaks about thins they c.early don't understand. The Church of Satan has nothing to do with JudeoChristian tenets or mythology.


Baphomet isn't part of mythology?

And this idea of Satan presented as such does come from the Christian description in the Middle Ages. Even my brother that is Celtic Pagan will tell you that.

As the Bible clearly does not describe Satan as a goat, but rather a cherub that was covered in jewels and had musical ability, the Middle Ages went further in description. But who knows what all those people in the Middle Ages were seeing, they had some very strange rituals back then.

But yes, Baphomet is part of mythology, and you can see in the pictures how people say the Knights Templar used that mythology. But Baphomet comes from Italian rituals, not the Celtic horned god. If anything, he would come from Pan, of Greek mythology.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

WarminIndy

peter vlar

MadMax9
reply to post by payta
Satan appears only in the Bible and this does not describe him. Any official who allows it is both stupid and ignorant.


As is the individual that speaks about thins they c.early don't understand. The Church of Satan has nothing to do with JudeoChristian tenets or mythology.


Baphomet isn't part of mythology?

And this idea of Satan presented as such does come from the Christian description in the Middle Ages. Even my brother that is Celtic Pagan will tell you that.


Well that settles it then, your brother says it is so thus it must be so. Sure Baphomet is a part of mythology to the extent that it was the alleged idol of worship by the Knights Templar. It is tangentially connected to Christianity as a byproduct of a slander campaign. That shouldn't be confused with Baphomet being a part of Christian traditions and taught by the church. Very different things.


As the Bible clearly does not describe Satan as a goat, but rather a cherub that was covered in jewels and had musical ability, the Middle Ages went further in description. But who knows what all those people in the Middle Ages were seeing, they had some very strange rituals back then.


Who knows what they we seeing? They weren't seeing a Baphomet, its not real. In LaVeyan Satanism it serves as a backdrop, a theatrical prop not a figure of worship.


But yes, Baphomet is part of mythology, and you can see in the pictures how people say the Knights Templar used that mythology. But Baphomet comes from Italian rituals, not the Celtic horned god. If anything, he would come from Pan, of Greek mythology.


No offense, but the first sentence you quoted from me mentions 'the individual who speaks about things they clearly don't understand' and I think it still applies in this instance. There is a huge difference between appropriating imagery from Judeo Christian mythology and being a part of said mythology. Satanism is an atheistic principle, there is no worship of deities period let alone the worship of satan. The closest you can get to the Christian definition of Satan worship is the rejection of Christ and God. I would suggest reading up a little on the topic in general and the COS in particular. Sadly, the main tenets of satanism are actually more Christ like than most conservative Christian groups I've encountered.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


What I was referring to was the fact that people said it was not part of mythology. Yes, it was part of mythology.

You can say the image was appropriated, however, the statement I was making that Baphomet was a part of mythology based on prior mythologies. You can say all you want about LeVay's Satanism not being connected in any way to a being referred to as Satan, but in their own archives are videos of them calling forth Satan. I don't care what image they claim, that has little to do with the statement about the mythology.

As LeVay's followers say Satan is just a metaphor for Self-indulgence, which you are promoting, then how is it possible to call on a metaphor to present itself to have sex with the women followers, if said being or entity does not exist other than simply a metaphor?

And isn't it called INVOCATION of Baphomet? Definition of invocation....

in·vo·ca·tion (nv-kshn) n. 1. The act or an instance of invoking, especially an appeal to a higher power for assistance. 2. A prayer or other formula used in invoking, as at the opening of a religious service. 3. a. The act of conjuring up a spirit by incantation. b. An incantation used in conjuring.


Ummm, if there is no belief in a higher power or not spirit, then Satanism better use a different word. But they invoke, that means they pray to, and if they are praying to for the purpose of conjuring, then that means they believe in an entity and that isn't atheist.

If you say Satanism is just a form of Self-indulgence, then there's a lot of Satanists invoking something.....what is it again? Oh yes, Baphomet. Satanists better call the ritual a different name, because invocation means you are praying to a higher power and attempting to conjure it.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   

WarminIndy
reply to post by peter vlar
 


What I was referring to was the fact that people said it was not part of mythology. Yes, it was part of mythology.

You can say the image was appropriated, however, the statement I was making that Baphomet was a part of mythology based on prior mythologies. You can say all you want about LeVay's Satanism not being connected in any way to a being referred to as Satan, but in their own archives are videos of them calling forth Satan. I don't care what image they claim, that has little to do with the statement about the mythology.


Fair enough but appropriating iconology is still not the same thing as worshipping said icon.


As LeVay's followers say Satan is just a metaphor for Self-indulgence, which you are promoting, then how is it possible to call on a metaphor to present itself to have sex with the women followers, if said being or entity does not exist other than simply a metaphor?

And isn't it called INVOCATION of Baphomet? Definition of invocation....

in·vo·ca·tion (nv-kshn) n. 1. The act or an instance of invoking, especially an appeal to a higher power for assistance. 2. A prayer or other formula used in invoking, as at the opening of a religious service. 3. a. The act of conjuring up a spirit by incantation. b. An incantation used in conjuring.


I'm well aware of what invocation means but thanks. Could you link one of these amazing invocation videos from the CoS website? The last time I looked, there was only one video of any rituals and it was made as a mockery of theistic traditions. In other words, its a joke to screw with those that can't be bothered to learn anything about what the CoS is about.


Ummm, if there is no belief in a higher power or not spirit, then Satanism better use a different word. But they invoke, that means they pray to, and if they are praying to for the purpose of conjuring, then that means they believe in an entity and that isn't atheist.

Please see above, it's not serious, it's a joke and you obviously don't get it.


If you say Satanism is just a form of Self-indulgence, then there's a lot of Satanists invoking something.....what is it again? Oh yes, Baphomet. Satanists better call the ritual a different name, because invocation means you are praying to a higher power and attempting to conjure it.


Seem times you can led a horse to water but he won't believe it's water so you've just got to put his head under til the bubbles stop floating to the top. THERE IS NO INVOCATION OF BAPHOMET.
www.churchofsatan.com...

We chose this date for our Satanic High Mass to continue our tradition of showmanship, feeding off the anxiety of the massed herd who believe in the myth of Jesus and who irrationally fear a simple number mentioned in the most surreal section of their New Testament.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   
As an Okie, I'd be surprised to see such a statue like that erected anywhere in Oklahoma and, if it is allowed to go up, I doubt it'll stay there long.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


a personal attack instead of talking about the subject at hand.....typical really for someone who has nothing to offer



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
 


That's certainly one interpretation but I don't see where I levied any attack personal or otherwise. If by nothing to offer you mean I explained the same thing repeatedly to someone who isn't interested in understanding the true nature of something then sure,I guess I'll go with that. Ironically, it was your post that was a personal attack and had absolutely nothing to offer.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   


Huffing and puffing over putting up a statue in OK when it's already in our faces 24/7, I guess they just want it to be more obvious to all the half-wits out there?

From the research I have done, there are at least 4 denominations of Satanism.

1. The belief that by worshiping Satan, when you die and go to hell, you will experience the sin you most indulged in a 1000 times greater then ever before.

2. The belief that when you die, rather then going to hell, you are reborn in another material body to continue carrying out all your wants and desires.

3. The belief that Satan will win the battle of Armageddon and if you served him, you will be glorified and made a king on earth.

4. The belief that Satan is just a metaphor for self indulgence and it's all about you and nothing else.

The 4th denomination seems to be the latest one that has been promoted and popularized especially with the advent of Hollywood. There is speculation (even by Satanists themselves) that this denomination is just a "front" for the 3rd, to deceive what they consider to be Plebs into serving their own ends, a mainstream pop-culture injection that is really just a Psy Op at it's core.
edit on 11-1-2014 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
As is oft repeated:

The Church of Satan (COS) that Anton LaVey started in 1966 (source of The Satanic Bible, et. al.) is an atheistic organization that describes the devil and associated rituals as stage props. It is the philosophical offspring of Machiavelli, Rand and Barnum. Arguably, LaVey started the whole thing as a joke among his social circle. There are good points and bad points in the COS teaching. Modern COS encourages individual rational thought and responsibility for one's own actions, which I think would go a long way to curing our societal ills. Sadly,as is the case even with "joke religions" if the idea survives, over time, it attracts dogma and evolves a financial infrastructure to bilk folks out of their coin. Religion is the second oldest profession, unless you count it with the first oldest.

There are other less formalized groups that profess an actual being/god named Satan, often called theistic Satanism. In this broad category, one usually discovers that Satan is really another entity like the Egyptian Set or the Latin Lucifer and so forth. Often, the tables are turned on the Judeo-Christian God who is portrayed as a cruel, ego-obsessed maniac that wishes to enslave humanity, and the Satan figure is basically a figure of enlightenment, self-knowledge and independence.

Frankly, I'd still rather see a Baphomet in the public square rather than poor Jesus tortured and broken on a Roman cross for all time.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


As I've said before, the tenets taken from the site in the OP are tremendously more impressive than typical theist tenets I've come across in my experience and research. I find it amusing that I am more encouraged by the principles of a Satanic organization than I am by the average Judaic establishment.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   


............................................................................................
and if I say I worship .... let's say ... lamps or beer bottles.....then should I also be able to put statues of "my" deities? So now every government property from LA to NY will be covered in every ridiculous religion man comes up with? Or should we allow just ones from very well documented and respected and followed religions to the God that most of us pray to? Or do we allow none?


If you want a statue of a lamp I wouldn't complain. I hate the idea of any religion getting legal favor over another. I don't mind satanists at all, they've always left me alone to live my own life, I can't say the same for followers of other religions. I'd say I respect them as much as any other religion.

Allowing none would be as you put it, retarded.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   


.....................................
well....we agree on the Catholic church....sorry all Catholics in advance but I think it is just as evil as the church of satan.
Just because they put forth a nice facade doesn't mean they aren't completely evil. This is totally evil and disgusting. They can't put in their "tenets" that they like to kill, torture and rape little kids.....then smart people like you would turn away in horror.
edit on 7-1-2014 by UxoriousMagnus because: (no reason given)


As a non christian, who is honestly no fan of the christian god, I can't help but question what's so evil about Satan?

When you think about it, all Satan really did was give man knowledge, and oppose a tyrant (In my eyes anyway). The bible documents the christian god committing/commanding genocide , and I could list so many parts of the bible that I find morally reprehensible, but I'll just let you take my word for it that I think he seems like a bad guy.

Despite my opposition to the morally flawed christian god, I have zero issue with those that worship him building their statues and churches on public land. I live in a small town of only 7000+ people, but we have about 8 churches here, there are christian symbols all over the place. It doesn't bother me at all.

I truly value religious freedom. I may debate you and give my honest beliefs if you open yourself up to it, but otherwise I don't care.

In another post there was talk of the biblical god destroying america over the statue, that only adds to him being a tyrannical asshole. If everyone suffers because satanists are allowed to exist in peace, then his judgement kinda sucks.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MadMax9
 


....so this statue is just something plain ugly and deliberately provocative...

Yes - deliberately provocative. Why do you think that is? :-)


Therefore is should not be allowed. Satan appears only in the Bible and this does not describe him. Any official who allows it is both stupid and ignorant.


So, what you're saying is - this monument would be OK with you as long as they make Satan more Satan-y?

God, I love ATS



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join