Uproar as after-school Satan club forms at Tennessee elementary school
Uproar as after-school Satan club forms at Tennessee elementary school
Satanic clubs, whose members do not worship the devil, usually formed in response to presence of religious groups in schools
Community members in a Tennessee school district want to banish Satan from their children’s halls after the formation of a new club was announced.
The After School Satan Club (ASSC) wants to establish a branch in Chimneyrock elementary school in the Memphis-Shelby county schools (MSCS) district.
The ASSC is a federally recognized nonprofit organization and national after-school program with local chapters across the US. The club is associated with the Satanic Temple, though it claims it is secular and “promotes self-directed education by supporting the intellectual and creative interests of students”.
The Satanic Temple makes it clear its members do not actually worship the devil or believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. Instead Satan is used as a symbol of free will, humanism and anti-authoritarianism.
You're viewing a single thread.
The uproar is the point.
The Satanic Temple makes it clear its members do not actually worship the devil or believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural.
But somehow conservative Christians believe that there are huge swaths of people who agree that their religion is 100% correct but worship the weak bad guy character.
(Which is not to mention that there are actually multiple bad guys who got combined, Satan and Lucifer and The Snake were originally different people)
This is a long standing joke - what do you call someone who believes in Satan?
A Christian.
God is omniscient and thus knew exactly what Lucifer would do. Angels don't have free will. Lucifer did exactly what God intended. God wanted Man to have free will. Free will requires the choice between good and evil. Man is the "bad guy" as well as the "good guy".
If god is omniscient they would know exactly what everyone is going to choose, nullifying free will entirely
Ok Calvin
For those downvoting the above, @captainlezbian@lemmy.world is making a reference to John Calvin, who is considered to be an OG determinist.
(Determinism: The view that God determines every event that occurs in the history of the world.)
If god is omniscient they would know exactly what everyone is going to choose, nullifying free will entirely
Yeah but if God knows every choice that'll be made ahead of time, it doesn't mean he's taking the choice away from the person actually making the choice, they still go through the motion of making the actual choice, and hence, they have free will to make the choice. God just predicted it ahead of time.
Yeah but if God knows every choice that’ll be made ahead of time, it doesn’t mean he’s taking the choice away from the person actually making the choice
That argument would only make sense if god wasn't the supposed creator of the universe and everything in it. If god created everything, is omnipotent and omniscient then at the moment of creation she would have known every single event and circumstance in that person's life leading up to making a certain choice and she would have been able to create the universe differently so that a different choice would have been made.
If you set up all the dominoes, you cannot claim the 100,00th domino falling over wasn't your doing because you only tipped over the first one.
That argument would only make sense if god wasn’t the supposed creator of the universe and everything in it. If god created everything, is omnipotent and omniscient then at the moment of creation she would have known every single event and circumstance in that person’s life leading up to making a certain choice and she would have been able to create the universe differently so that a different choice would have been made.
This actually makes my point though.
God knowing everything doesn't mean that God made you make that choice, God let you make that choice, but knew what that choice would be ahead of time.
You still had free will, you still were the one that had the neurons fire off in your brain, and you made the choice. God was able to predict that choice ahead of time with 100% accuracy.
On a side note, I love that you use 'she' for God.
God knowing everything doesn't mean that God made you make that choice, God let you make that choice, but knew what that choice would be ahead of time.
If she intentionally chose those circumstances to happen so that the choice would be made that way, which she would have to have done being omniscient and omnipotent then that choice being made is 100% her responsibility.
If I put a child alone in a room with a powered on electric band saw, is it the child’s fault for getting their arm sawed off ? They had free will and could have chosen to not go near the saw. Or is it my fault for putting a child in that situation?
If she intentionally chose those circumstances
Why are you assuming she chose them, versus just letting them happen via free will, mapping them out ahead of time, precog style?
If I put a child alone in a room with a powered on electric band saw, is it the child’s fault for getting their arm sawed off ? They had free will and could have chosen to not go near the saw. Or is it my fault for putting a child in that situation?
The childs.
Why are you assuming she chose them, versus just letting them happen via free will, mapping them out ahead of time, precog style?
Because she’s omniscient. That’s the problem with making up an all-powerful, all-knowing god. It comes with some inconvenient logical consequences. When she set up the initial state of the universe she already knew exactly how it would play out (because omniscient), she also could have chosen any other outcome (because omnipotent). It had to be a deliberate decision because as an omniscient being it’s simply not possible to claim ignorance of the outcome, and as an omnipotent being she could have chosen any outcome she desired.
The childs.
Do you really believe this or are you being disingenuous because it doesn’t fit your argument?
The childs.
Do you really believe this or are you being disingenuous because it doesn’t fit your argument?
Truly believe it. The child's neurons in the brain fired off, having them explore/examine the saw. You could say the same thing for any object in the room. A child will look at some of them, but not others.
This is a great example of why I don't believe free will is a coherent concept outside of religion. It's basically a perk that negates God's omniscience as it applies to you, but if you don't believe in God, it's meaningless.
Free will is the ability to be belligerent until death.
Ah, but that is the point, until Man chose it hadn't happened, it is the precognition paradox. Until the event occurs, what is known is all the possibilities.
That's... just like your opinion man.
Then god isnt omnipotent, cause you know, it lacks the power of whats actually to come and is only good at knowing all the hypotheticals. Or may be lacks omnicience, but one could argue that knowing all the possibilities counts.
All that matters is that its lacking something, when it shouldnt
Spirituality is all opinion man.
But no, it not lacking anything.
Except all morality and empathy
How would an explanation of a religious concept have morality or empathy? Words don't generally have Human emotions in my experience.
If there exists a being that experiences time the same way we experience space, do we have any less free will just because the being can continue knowing about it before it happened? The person is making the choice, not the being that knows about the choice.
That last part is intriguing. Do you have any more info that I could read about how/when their unholy trinity was combined into one evil deity?
The wiki article does a decent job. Basically the mentions of him in the texts describe different beings because they were written by different authors for different audiences with much different views. The serpent story has echos of other bronze age ones in that area and the text says as much that El put him there. The story in Job looks like a Cannite legend that got reimagined in Judaism. At some point the people of the region believed in desert spirits that would inhabit people causing them to go crazy and kill other people.
Due to the first exile Judaism started inventing an explanation for why they weren't allowed to freely practice by imagining a being that was opposed to El. Because the pattern had broken. The pattern of the past was: everything fine, Jews sin, god punishs, jess repent, everything fine. However, this time they were trying to repent and weren't able to. Which meant that something was blocking it. Hence Satan. The accuser.
By the time Paul came around the Book of Enoch was popular and to him Satan was a leader of a celestial army of angels. Which is why Paul said that had they known they were killing the son of God they still would have. That were not just following El. Off his writings we see things like Revelations and John where Greco-Roman celestial powers were merged with Satan and Lucifer together.
There was never an idea that someone had 2900 years ago and Christianity is following it. Like all myths it is a combination of different fables, attempts by people to explain their world, and thinkers continuing on a tradition.
I really wish Lilith stayed in the story, I always liked that version of the garden better.
Just curious, do you think she was part of one of the originals and not just a combo of some "heretical" Jewish texts and ideas of the Middle Ages? Legit asking.
I just think it's a better version of the story. If your going to be writing some religious fantasy, might as well make it as interesting as possible.
Which wiki are you talking about exactly? Did I miss something?
Just the regular wikipedia article about Satan subcategory Historical Development
I know that many of the modern misconceptions (according to Biblical canon anyway) about Hell came from Dante’s Inferno. So perhaps it’s also something like that?
Oh, it starts way before Dante. Hell is actually a sort of mismatch of different beliefs. Babylonian, Norse, Buddhist and Greco-Roman belief systems all had an underground afterlife with variable ideas of punishment for the wicked. The Bible just mentions "Gehenna" which was actually a real place on earth where trash was burned. Basically think of someone talking about the local dump. Thing about trash though is it doesn't really burn eternally, it just burns away and it was likely being used as a metaphor. The usage of it also doesn't really mention an eternity, links it with the devil or any of that. People really like rhe idea of someone getting their jist desserts after death so a idea of "bad people just stop existing" was probably kind of doomed to not be super popular. Basically that just leaves a door open for folk belief to stuff somebody else in the Hades/Hel/Ereshkigal role and carry on having a hell just like they did before.
All told Christianity and it's family of belief systems is actually a fairly late adopter of the belief in something like a hell. It's closest thematic relative is probably Buddhist Naraka which was first written about around the 400 BC but there's not a lot of scriptural evidence that anything like that was intended for Christians. At best Judaism has an idea of an afterlife where one is consumed by shame but it sounds more like what happens when a kid is told their parent is disappointed in them and to go to their room.
"Well, they are Satanists. They are just lying."
Got sources for this? Not that I don't believe you I'm just interested in reading up on exactly what you're referring to.
Short of it is that the concept of Satan didn't exist at the time Genesis was written.
From a more literary perspective, there's nothing that directly connects the serpent in the Garden of Eden, the interlocutor in Job, and the later mentions of Satan in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures (and there's not a lot of direct mentions in the Hebrew scriptures). You can kinda make it work if you read between the lines, but fundamentalists will be the first to say you're not supposed to read between the lines of the bible. To them, you take the word as it is written and nothing else.
Naturally, this rigid reading of the bible doesn't work out so well for their beliefs.
To take the Answers in Genesis article on the subject (just because they're a prominent fundamentalist organization), their reasoning is that the bible shows that Satan can enter into a physical being and control them. Notice that they leave out any reasoning showing that Satan did so in that particular case. He could have, and therefore, he did.
So if Satan wanted to, for example, make it so everyone would fail to meet the entry requirements for heaven laid out in the old testament, and end up on hell... could he, theoretically of course, pretend to be the son of God and "change the rules" so that sin is totally ok as long as you say sorry before you die?
Asking for a friend.