Satanic Monument In Oklahoma's Statehouse

[PhuturePriest]

At what level do people finally learn to use the term 'literally' properly?

 

Literally 40 or so.

[PhuturePriest]

So I'm just gonna come out and say it: I'm not comfortable with it at all. I don't live in OK so it's less of my concern, but if it happened in my state or hometown I'd be very unhappy. I'm also not all that comfortable with putting up the ten commandments in a public place like that. So at least I have some shred of ideological consistency?

I've always had a hard time with Satanists. It's hard for me to not see them as some kind of enemy or nemesis, even if my religion insists I love my enemies. (Many forms of) Satanism is disgusting and vile and stands for pretty much the opposite of Christianity.

It's hard for me to tolerate it.

 

Satanism does obviously confuse me. It seems like it's just a thing for hell raisers, really. (Bonus points for most wicked pun of the year.) (And another one! I am on fire!) (Okay, now I'm just showing off my devilish wit.)

 

Anyway, more onto the point, if all you know about a religion is there is a God who is all-good and just and his enemy is a fallen angel who hates you and wants you to suffer for all eternity, why worship that fallen angel? It makes no logical sense.

[brandelynmarie]

so, some angry atheists got together to make a plan to irritate/upset christians and they decided that a statue of satan would do the trick. similar idea to the flying spaghetti monster church.

I do not believe in him, er, um....it, but I do have a certain fondness for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Of course, it could be because I have a certain fondness for Italian food. :eat:

[Lilllabettt]

I usually enjoy reading your posts and I don't mean to be a jerk since I do like and respect you a lot as an individual.  However I find the seeming contempt for the intellectual capacities of most people kind of unsavory when it's accompanied by a seeming lack of any substantive understanding of the jargon being thrown around to justify the 'upwards of 90% of the country lacks the intellectual capacity to get how amesome the system they live in is.'

 

 

Let me try again.

  

So ... human beings, most of them, do not have the mental capacity to separate their identities from what they believe, what they do, etc.  At like stage 2 they might say "I am my love for comic books" or "I am my being good at math and bad at soccer." At stage 3 they might say "I am my job as a teacher" or "I am a mom" or "I am a peacemaker" "I am a person who is respected" etc. A person at stage 5 knows that "I" am not my job, what I believe, what I am good at,  ... all of those concepts are just like marbles in a jar that the person can pick up or put down and they are separate from themselves. At stage 5 a person can tear down all those roles, literally have an internal coup, whenever they want, and not have any sense of loss of identity. 

 

I get how this could come off as snobby. Let me assure you that I am right there with most people in the 3rd order of mental complexity.  

 

In previous epochs of human history, when people set up a legal system,  they tried to get it "right." They tried to make it as good as they could get it. When they were finished they had a system they endorsed as "correct."

 

The american form of constitutional democracy was explicitly created without any attempt to get it "right," acknowledging in fact that any attempt to get it "right" would fail. Instead they engineered a system that would leave enough room for the law to tear itself down. Think about that: They made it legal for the law to tear itself down.

 

My buddy TJ, Mr. freedom-loving slave owner dude, wrote many times about how they set up the government with the idea that a revolution would be necessary to destroy it and start again every 20 years or so. And in fact what they did was set up a system that would facilitate that. They invented the process by which the law could gradually revolt against itself. And that is why we are still on our first republic. The french are on #5.

 

 

Most people can't do this and yet they created a non-organic system that can do it. It's incredible. 

 

Edited May 3, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Lilllabettt]

At what level do people finally learn to use the term 'literally' properly?

 

 

At the same level they start spelling judgment without the e. 

 

See what I did there. 

[brandelynmarie]

Lilllabettt, would you say the saints are at a stage five? :saint: That they are so able to trust in God that they are willing to lose everything to follow Him?

(:hijack: My apologies, but this is fascinating :) )

[Winchester]

They made a system that would not forbid courts from discovering law. Just like the common law that reigned prior. The constitution merely sought to escape the unwritten constitution that the crown enjoyed.

 

It wasn't a miracle. It was a variant on previous themes. 

 

 

This is not to imply that they believed law was discovered. From early behavior, they seemed to believe law existed only on the level of the declaration of the ruling class. The idiots were possibly not aware that they'd established a ruling class.

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2014 by Winchester

[PhuturePriest]

Let me try again.

  

So ... human beings, most of them, do not have the mental capacity to separate their identities from what they believe, what they do, etc.  At like stage 2 they might say "I am my love for comic books" or "I am my being good at math and bad at soccer." At stage 3 they might say "I am my job as a teacher" or "I am a mom" or "I am a peacemaker" "I am a person who is respected" etc. A person at stage 5 knows that "I" am not my job, what I believe, what I am good at,  ... all of those concepts are just like marbles in a jar that the person can pick up or put down and they are separate from themselves. At stage 5 a person can tear down all those roles, literally have an internal coup, whenever they want, and not have any sense of loss of identity. 

 

I get how this could come off as snobby. Let me assure you that I am right there with most people in the 3rd order of mental complexity.  

 

In previous epochs of human history, when people set up a legal system,  they tried to get it "right." They tried to make it as good as they could get it. When they were finished they had a system they endorsed as "correct."

 

The american form of constitutional democracy was explicitly created without any attempt to get it "right," acknowledging in fact that any attempt to get it "right" would fail. Instead they engineered a system that would leave enough room for the law to tear itself down. Think about that: They made it legal for the law to tear itself down.

 

My buddy TJ, Mr. freedom-loving slave owner dude, wrote many times about how they set up the government with the idea that a revolution would be necessary to destroy it and start again every 20 years or so. And in fact what they did was set up a system that would facilitate that. They invented the process by which the law could gradually revolt against itself. And that is why we are still on our first republic. The french are on #5.

 

 

Most people can't do this and yet they created a non-organic system that can do it. It's incredible. 

 

How is this something only 6% of the population can understand? I understand it perfectly and I can barely do algebra.

[Basilisa Marie]

Satanism does obviously confuse me. It seems like it's just a thing for hell raisers, really. (Bonus points for most wicked pun of the year.) (And another one! I am on fire!) (Okay, now I'm just showing off my devilish wit.)
 
Anyway, more onto the point, if all you know about a religion is there is a God who is all-good and just and his enemy is a fallen angel who hates you and wants you to suffer for all eternity, why worship that fallen angel? It makes no logical sense.

I know people who are Satanists. They don't usually think Satan is real, but operate with a system based on selfishness. Not just normal annoying selfishness, but on a deep, fundamental level. Most don't worship Satan or bahomet, but believe their self is the ultimate "end". Like others said there are lots of people who believe that who aren't Satanists.

But yeah, Satanism just makes my stomach sour. I have a hard time tolerating them.

[Lilllabettt]

Lilllabettt, would you say the saints are at a stage five? :saint: That they are so able to trust in God that they are willing to lose everything to follow Him?

( :hijack: My apologies, but this is fascinating :) )

 

 

yes!  Many of the saints would be classified as stage 5. Mother Teresa for example. 

although development on the order of mind scale is NOT the same thing as moral development.  You can be holy at any stage, and no stage is "better" than any other. A good metaphor is that at stage 2 you can drive an automatic. At stage 3 you can drive an automatic or a stick.  Driving a stick is no better than driving an automatic, but at stage 3 you can do both. 

[Winchester]

Driving a stick is better. More control, downshift options. Rear-wheel drive with a standard transmission is the height of driving.

[Lilllabettt]

How is this something only 6% of the population can understand? I understand it perfectly and I can barely do algebra.

 

 

Well I understand it too, but I am at stage 3.  It's not really a question of understanding how the theory works- cuz higher stage doesn't mean being smarter or having a higher IQ.

 

What I mean is that only 6% of the population "does" stage 5.  Some studies put it at 1%. 

[Winchester]

There was no such theory. Judicial review already existed, and that's all that you're talking about. The constitution was a simple contract creating what amounts to a homeowner's association. It wasn't intended to catalogue acceptable behaviors, rule on local or state matters, create a massive body of laws and regulations. Interpreting whether a contract was obeyed wasn't a new concept, either.

[4588686]

Let me try again.

  

So ... human beings, most of them, do not have the mental capacity to separate their identities from what they believe, what they do, etc.  At like stage 2 they might say "I am my love for comic books" or "I am my being good at math and bad at soccer." At stage 3 they might say "I am my job as a teacher" or "I am a mom" or "I am a peacemaker" "I am a person who is respected" etc. A person at stage 5 knows that "I" am not my job, what I believe, what I am good at,  ... all of those concepts are just like marbles in a jar that the person can pick up or put down and they are separate from themselves. At stage 5 a person can tear down all those roles, literally have an internal coup, whenever they want, and not have any sense of loss of identity. 

 

I get how this could come off as snobby. Let me assure you that I am right there with most people in the 3rd order of mental complexity.  

 

In previous epochs of human history, when people set up a legal system,  they tried to get it "right." They tried to make it as good as they could get it. When they were finished they had a system they endorsed as "correct."

 

The american form of constitutional democracy was explicitly created without any attempt to get it "right," acknowledging in fact that any attempt to get it "right" would fail. Instead they engineered a system that would leave enough room for the law to tear itself down. Think about that: They made it legal for the law to tear itself down.

 

My buddy TJ, Mr. freedom-loving slave owner dude, wrote many times about how they set up the government with the idea that a revolution would be necessary to destroy it and start again every 20 years or so. And in fact what they did was set up a system that would facilitate that. They invented the process by which the law could gradually revolt against itself. And that is why we are still on our first republic. The french are on #5.

 

 

Most people can't do this and yet they created a non-organic system that can do it. It's incredible. 

 

How is that different from any other constitutional system with formal mechanisms for amendment?

[Winchester]

Bald eagles, bro.