Oh wow, that statue is awesome. I’d love to have it on my lawn. Of course I’d be fine with it in my city. I can see the freakouts coming though.

Yeah, I think it’s pretty cool. That hand gesture he’s doing though. With the index and middle fingers up, I had a Bible for kids when I was little. It had drawings in it, and in the drawings Jesus was often doing that same hand thing. I wonder what it means.

I did some searching and came across the sign of benediction. Could that be the gesture?

Nah, as long as I didn’t have to see it from my window or drive past it every day.

Now if the Devil had a statue of me somewhere, that I would definitely not be okay with.

@Adirondackwannabe Yeah, that seems about right, judging from what I remember of the drawings in that Bible and what this statue is supposed to represent.

I’d rather have that then the Ten Commandments.

As long as it wasn’t on public property. I don’t think religious statues belong in public parks. I wouldn’t want my tax dollars paying for it. Same for a Ten Commandments statue.

Well, there’s a witch not far from where I live, so why not a devil.

Nice, that witch kicks ass. :)

Gonna have to agree with @Lawn though. I like the devil statue, but I would really rather my tax dollars go to something constructive and beneficial to the people and city. To me, religions of any kind have no use.

It’s amusing to find another cult poking metaphoric pitchforks into Christians. And of course, where better than the heart of the Bible Belt. I wonder why the statue’s champions even bother with Detroit, a town where the devil is clearly in command. It’s like carrying coals to Newcastle.

No, I wouldn’t care for it. Historically the devil has been associated with evil so just the association, even though it’s mystical and magical, would bother me. I wouldn’t care for a statue of Ted Bundy anywhere, either.

Either way, it’s all “magic,” and it is really nonsense for adults to display any of them anywhere, like it has some sort of power.

Now, a statue of Zeus I’d like because he’s real! And a unicorn.

@cookieman That’s not a witch! That’s Elizabeth Montgomery! Is she from your town?

Yes, I know she played Samantha, the witch, in Bewitched.

I’m not a fan of the public paying for religious anything. If it takes Satanists putting up monuments to the devil to show why the separation of Church and State is a good thing than I guess I support it. Though I don’t exactly have warm/fuzzies for Satanists or devil statues.

On public property and paid for by tax dollars, no. On private property, paid for by an individual or private company, whatever they want.

Who would not want a statue of oneself.

No.

It’s a neat statue. I’d rather have than than a cheesy Ten Commandments plaque that looks like it was stolen from a cemetery.

LOL stolen from a cemetery. XD

Sure, whatever.

It depends on how tasteful it is.

The Baphomet statue that was recently unveiled is, in my opinion, tasteful as there is no sex, violence, gore, or anything like that aside from showing a topless adult male, something we see at beaches and pools all the time. And it’s of high enough quality to not be a total eyesore the way that artwork by amateurs is often is; the execution shows artistic skill.

Of course, ignorant people will hate anything they feel is remotely connected to Satan out of uninformed spite. And it’s funny since one of the central tenets of Satanism are not too different from a key position of Conservatives; both hold individual’s rights in high regard. But since Satan tolerates “freaks of nature” like homosexuals and left-handed people, many Conservatives feel they must do the exact opposite to prove that they are not “evil” despite having so many other similarities to Satanists.

lol, left handed poeple. GA, but I always figured it was the other way around; that Satanism was created to try and show people acceptance, rather than Conservatives condemning everything Satanists do. (which they do, not saying otherwise, but Chrisitianity is much older than modern Satanism, as far as I know) Or at least this is what I got from Laveyan Satanism. (granted, nothing to do with this group, I don’t think)

I’d play party games like toss the doughnut, 5pts each time you ring the horns, 10pts for the finger.

What a waste of donuts!

The devil and demons have been symbols of evil for 5,000 years, why would we want to celebrate that. If the intention is to divide us, I understand why you would like it. Celebrate division instead of unity, evil instead of good. The only purpose of a statue of the devil is to offend. Saying you worship the devil and you are good guys is an oxymoron. Your doing everything possible to rip us apart. I’m not religious but I do find the intent of a devil statue to be offensive. In our country you have a right to be offensive but don’t try to paint it as anything else.

Doesn’t matter to me. I don’t live next to, or loiter by statues.

@Jaxk Any reason in particular why you assume I worship Satan, or that I want to destroy unity? I posted the article and followed up on this story out of interest, I have not posted my personal opinion on this, other than saying the statue looks cool and that I wouldn’t want taxes spent on it.

@Symbeline You have XX chromosomes and your feet smell. You must worship Satan.

@Symbeline – I was using a generic ‘you’. Easier than saying ‘those of you that’. I can see how you would have read it that though.

Sorry. But that’s what it looked like.

For the record, I don’t worship the Devil. For one, I don’t believe in him, secondly, the philosophy behind modern Satanism, while admirable, does not need a devil icon for it to exist and be applied. We’re full of people here for same sex marriage, free speech, for example. We don’t need a Satanic temple for it. Also, if you look at the website in my link…they just ask for money all the time haha

I did explore Leveyan Satanism as a teen though. I was interested in its live free of Christian shackles philosophy, until later I kind of realized that they do everything they accuse Christians of doing. In short, Laveyan Satanism only existed to bash Christianity. And I think most practitioners didn’t take it seriously; seemed to have mostly been a shock value thing.

But I still think that statue is cool, and have nothing against it.

@Adirondackwannabe Oh so now I reek, do I? Yeah well…you have sex with goats. :p

@Symbeline Well, how did you figure it out? I’m lucky I didn’t have something in my mouth. The keyboard would have taken a whipping. :)

lol

Did you and the goats have pancakes afterward, @Adirondackwannabe?

Yes pancakes with real maple syrup. I go top shelf all the time.

Yes, real maple syrup. Not that fuckin Aunt Jemima garbage. I could use that shit in my car instead of oil.

I should know a Canadian would love real maple syrup.

We have tons in Québec. I remember in Winnipeg we had some, but it was hard to find, and cost the price of a motherfucking RV.

@Symbeline I have a client that makes it. $15.00 for a quart. I can ship it to you if you want. I’ve done it before.

Just knowing it is in town in their own temple will not bother me, not as much as the poor saps they are dooming, that god of their own hands won’t be able to do squat for them once they stop breathing.

Nah, not on public property – and for the same reason I wouldn’t support a giant cross or Jesus statue. Separation of church and state is just that. It applies for all religions, deities, etc.

You giving @Symbeline your syrup too? You’re a two timing goat lover, @Adirondackwannabe!

I once had a statue erected in my honor. They swore that it was pure gold.

Lying bastards, I found it to be 5% silver. Then again, perhaps humans are so flawed that they can’t tell one shiny metal from another. Oh, well.

@Dutchess_III I can’t help it. I’m a male slut. If you want some more let me know.

The devil may indeed be a symbol for evil, but the devil could make a truly strong case regarding exactly whose followers are responsible for the infliction of the greatest levels of misery on the world as well as whose name is invoked more frequently in the performance of all that evil.

@Dutchess_III Oh crap, that didn’t come out right. I meant more syrup. :)

The devil may indeed be a symbol for evil..]
Of course, if there is no God, then there surely cannot be any Devil, Satan (however you want to call him), and no evil of any type present in the world.

@Hypocrisy_Central That’s a completely faulty argument. Evil can exist in many forms.

I’d have no qualms with that being placed somewhere in my city.

I don’t care what is placed in my city, as long as it doesn’t prevent the traffic. If it’s nice it will be a plus.

But I guess many people here won’t be happy seeing a devil in the city.

“The devil and demons have been symbols of evil for 5,000 years, why would we want to celebrate that. If the intention is to divide us, I understand why you would like it. Celebrate division instead of unity, evil instead of good. The only purpose of a statue of the devil is to offend. Saying you worship the devil and you are good guys is an oxymoron. Your doing everything possible to rip us apart. I’m not religious but I do find the intent of a devil statue to be offensive. In our country you have a right to be offensive but don’t try to paint it as anything else.”

It seems that you have a pretty strong opinion based on some misconceptions. Now, you are entitled to have that opinion, but I think you might want to learn a little Theology so you actually know what you are really fighting.

Satanists view the world as neutral, beyond the concepts of benevolent or treacherous, good or evil. There is actually little difference between a LaVeyan Satanist and many Libertarians. To get a close approximation of a Satanist’s mindset, think Ayn Rand. Are you saying that Ayn Rand is evil? I thought you held a few Satanic positions yourself, like opposing government regulation, despising compulsory taxation, and similar.

The purpose of that statue is equality. Try as you might to say otherwise, the simple fact is that the First Amendment’s freedom of religion provision allows people to worship someone other than Jesus. Christians edited the Pledge of Allegiance and put their deity’s name on all our currency. I find that a little beyond offensive, just as I’m sure you would hate having all your money have الله أكبر (“Allahu Akbar”) printed on it.

What perks do non-Christians get? One can put a baby Jesus in a manger almost anywhere in December and get away with it, but try that with a Star of David and a Mennorah and they’ll get some funny looks, and if they aren’t Judeo-Christian, expect outright hostility. Is that equality? When do Wiccans get some governmental love? How about a shout out to all the Buddhists?

You also missed one minor detail; it was originally supposed to be in the same place where a copy of the Ten Commandments was, but they decided to not put it there once NO religion was allowed to erect a statue on public/government property. Let me reiterate that. Once the Ten Commandments were removed, there was no reason to put the statue there as the newly revised law made for a level playing field where all religions had (and were allowed) zero monuments, and that equality was what they wanted all along.

Are Satanists the good guys? Well, I’d rather have a Satanist volunteering at a soup kitchen than a Baptist protesting the funerals of Marines. And I think a religion that forbids sex with anyone other than consenting adults is inherently less evil than one that forces women to marry their rapist.

@Adirondackwannabe Evil can exist in many forms.
How was this evil determined, my certain faulty men? And what made these certain faulty men so special that they could decide or coin what is evil and what isn’t? How did they even have the authority to create, declare, of brand something evil?

@Hypocrisy_Central Hitler was an evil fuck. I dare you to disprove that statement with logic/reason.

@gorillapaws I dare you to disprove that statement with logic/reason.
Why, because the US and England says he was evil? Osama Bin Laden said the US was evil, so i guess he was as correct as the US in regards to Hitler. People can go around saying this is evil or that, and just off them saying it, it must be.

@Hypocrisy_Central Nope, you don’t need to appeal to authority to show that Hitler was an evil fuck. All you have to do is point out that he was responsible for genocide of around 6 million Jewish people. I can’t think of a single moral theory that would justify his actions (perhaps cultural relativism—but that’s more like proof of why that theory is garbage than a moral vindication of his actions).

Hitler killed a whole buncha dudes, and they weren’t all Jews. Also killed Roma, or Gypsies, as is most commonly known. Plenty of others as well.
Doesn’t matter in the end what the specs are though, with the brush of a hand he ended lives. He knew it, he wanted it done. That’s why Hitler sucked. Why the fuck is this even a debate. Demons and devils may be a symbolism of evil, but fuck let’s get real here.

I ain’t never seen no demon, just people. And even if the victors write the books and Hitler was actually a saint, the fact remains that history is still full of dead fuckers everywhere.

Hitler didn’t go off his rocker until his one of his personal doctors Morell – who eventually became the lead personal physician – prescribed the “Golden Pill” for a number of ailments Hitler was suffering (all of which started with a dastardly stomach pain and just grew and grew with each new drug that was added to the golden pill such as barbituates, methamphetamines – this one eventually wasn’t even hid in the guise of the golden pill, morphine, testosterone, among many others).

When the other doctors such as Karl Brandt were able to get ahold of the “Golden Pill” they discovered some of the contents are reported their findings to Hitler’s inner circle who in turn warned those doctors to back off as they were quite content to leave Morell playing “Dr. Feelgood.” Under the assumption that others have made that Hitler may have suffered from bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder, a chemically unstable mind was thrown even more out of whack. Even under the assumption that Hitler was of sound mind outside of his paranoia, all those drugs on a continuous basis is probably more than plenty to destroy the mind of any person.

This is not to say Hitler is not responsible for countless deaths. His actions are still his own. However, it is perhaps that too much blame is focused on him and him alone and not his inner circle as well as Morell. It may be of interest that until Hitler was presumed to have completely lost his mind, it’s suspected that he was trying to figure out a successful way of removing all Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. from his Third Reich in a manner other than mass murder. In a high school history class, we were shown footage of Hitler loading up a ship filled with his “undesirables” and sent it around the world to see if any other country would accept them (spoiler: none did).

Point is, if one were so inclined, it actually wouldn’t be too hard to portray Hitler as some sort of pitiful monster. In fact, it arguably already has been done in the book A First Rate Madness (this isn’t just about Hitler but several leaders who did or potentially did suffer from [a] psychological disorder[s]).

@jerv – You can’t justify bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior. WBC protest at funerals for the express purpose of being offensive. In that respect they are the same as the Satanists. Offensive is the whole point. Basically, what you (and they) are saying is that ‘I have no religion of my own so I will try to denigrate yours’. Frankly I don’t want “a close approximation of a Satanist’s mindset”, thank you very much. And I can only imagine how traumatic it must be for you to see ‘In God We Trust’ on our money. Oh, the horror. Yet another example of the ‘I believe in nothing and I hate it that you do’, mindset.

It is actually about showing the importance of the separation of church and state and the fact that the government can not play favourites with religions.
If you allow christian monuments to oppression and theocracy (ten commandments) then you also must allow monuments to demons.

@Jaxk The question isn’t about whether or not you or I believe in anything, but rather the government’s willingness to plaster YOUR beliefs all over MY money. The people who established this place were around to coin the money and print the notes rather, and they pointedly refused to mention God on either. It was in the 1950s when our political representatives began slipping toward the current moronic standard, that the necessity for “correcting” the oversight became evident. It’s curious how Christianity and the GOP mirror one another. Why is it that the dumber the population, the more numerous and packed are the churches? In the end you gotta ask yourself what Jesus would make of his dad’s name stamped all over the real god we are driven to worship or perish from the heresy of ignoring it.

I find it curious that Christians are so eager to have their God associated with Mammon. I would think Christians would be vehemently opposed to their God being put on money.

Edit, sorry, fucked up my post lol.

HC is right. There is no such thing as “evil.” Only our societal perceptions label things as ‘evil.”

@gorillapaws Nope, you don’t need to appeal to authority to show that Hitler was an evil fuck. All you have to do is point out that he was responsible for genocide of around 6 million Jewish people.
You are making an decoration that Hitler is evil but no sanctioning body that has authority or empirical or all-inclusive truth. That would be no different if I said all Jewish people have the propensity to be tight-fisted or stingy, and say it is true simply because I said it with no proof whatsoever.

@Symbeline Doesn’t matter in the end what the specs are though, with the brush of a hand he ended lives. He knew it, he wanted it done. That’s why Hitler sucked. Why the fuck is this even a debate. Demons and devils may be a symbolism of evil, but fuck let’s get real here.
The real here is that people are trying to float an ideal that is untenable in the manner they are trying to present it. It would be like trying to float the concept of lift when there is no gravity in which lift can be obtained. Trying to float the concept of sound in a vacuum where there is no atmosphere to bake it possible, trying to have the concept of cooked meat without having raw meat first. You cannot have evil without having holiness, no Satan without God. You can’t have up if there is no down, that is the real of it. You can’t say what is not liked is evil because one doesn’t like it, but then deny there is holiness because it requires of you what you don’t want.

(general) You can’t justify bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior.
Oh, yes they do, they do it here on a weekly basis.

@Darth_Algar I find it curious that Christians are so eager to have their God associated with Mammon.
Everything above the Earth, on it, and below it is His, He allows us the ability to use it as we see fit. I have no problem with it because no matter how people perceive it, it is all His, so I can trust the money if it is used for the Kingdom and in turn He will trust me with the money because He knows I will use it for the Kingdom.

@Jaxk As usual, you missed my point. However, I know you well enough to know that your mind has been made up long ago and won’t waste my time trying to reason with you. I must respectfully decline to rise you your bait and remain content in the knowledge that you have proven your inflexibility in a manner I find amusing in it’s irony, especially in light of having this thread open in another tab.

@ragingloli @stanleybmanly You two got my point, so I guess I was clear enough.

@Hypocrisy_Central ”(general) You can’t justify bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior.”
Oh, yes they do, they do it here on a weekly basis.”

Et tu?

….What is the opposite of evil? Because it doesn’t really exist either, except as a social construct.

@jerv Et tu?.
If I point out anything it us usually to compare how both apples are bad but people want to say the red apple is better than the green apple when the only thing different is the color.

Green apples are evil.

@Hypocrisy_Central But surely you must understand what people mean. God or not, killing people sucks. (and other stuff) Everything isn’t black and white, but there is a line that humanity everywhere, regardless of religion or culture, understands. Of course, some people kill because they think it’s right, like Hitler did. Just so this doesn’t get pointed out to me.

Also red and green apples don’t taste the same at all. :p

@Symbeline But surely you must understand what people mean.
I am presenting it at the bar Fluther likes to receive things. In context I can understand what it is trying to say, but still there can be no evil if there is no holiness. Sure people killing people is not desired, but without holiness hence no evil, it is just an action that depending on which end of said action you are on, it is evil or good. It would be no different than rain, if it falls and waters the plants, to the plants it is good. If it keeps falling and floods the lowlands, drowning out human suburbs, to the humans it is bad, but the animals upstream that got the water they need do not care, it is not evil to them, but good. Mass murder, single murder, raping and pillaging, stealing and robbing, etc. is just an action, if you are on the end that suffered loss, it was evil, if you were on the end that gained an advantage, it was OK, or good.

God or not, killing people sucks.
How unfair, fair, nice, or malicious, etc. killing is, is notwithstanding on if it is evil, because without holiness, evil is just like imagination as @Dutchess_III say, it is all about how one wants to see something not how it actually is.

“How was this evil determined, my certain faulty men? And what made these certain faulty men so special that they could decide or coin what is evil and what isn’t? How did they even have the authority to create, declare, of brand something evil?”
The concept of “evil” is decided by men. What is evil to one man, isn’t evil to another.

”... there can be no evil if there is no holiness.” Precisely. And there is no such thing as evil.

@Hypocrisy_Central

Uh-huh, tell yourself whatever you need to.

^ I leave that to other people…..they are far better at it than i could be in a million years.

@Hypocrisy_Central You live up to your moniker.

It is popular belief with no teeth to it, but do keep trying ;-)

In HC’s defense, if he believes in God, then he must believe in good and evil, therefore probably agreeing with us that murder, rape and all ARE evil. I would assume. especially since God Himself says that doing such shit sucks ballsack

Basically he’s just telling all of us heathen unbelievers that we’re the ones percieving everything all wrong and that we’re not allowed to believe in good or evil because we lack faith, which according to HC, is a necessity for said beliefs. I think, if it isn’t that, then what he is saying confuses me a little.

It’s true, it is all labels decreed by absolutely nothing but ourselves, but as I suggested before, generally most people will agree that certain stuff sucks and should not be done. That it does happen doesn’t negate this agreement, but most likely reinforces it.

Oh! Good thoughts @Symbeline. I guess that went over my head. When he was saying (from what I understood) that men decided what was evil I was like, “Wow. He gets it.”
But what you think he is saying is that unbelievers don’t recognize “evil” when they see it? Or that…it doesn’t exist for unbelievers? That every act is the same for unbelievers? Rescuing a kitten from a tree is no different than Hitler killing millions of people?

Yeah, denno how he thinks we see it, or don’t. He says evil cannot exist without holiness, and since we don’t believe in God, we can’t possibly believe in things as being evil in the way we, er, are seeing them. Seems confusing, mainly what I’m saying is that what he’s saying about evil not being as such does not reflect his actual beliefs.

I think. If he just explained that, if it is indeed the case, would make this shit much less funcusing.

”...we’re not allowed to believe in good or evil because we lack faith…”

That’s pretty much S.O.P. when dealing with a “True Believer”, whether discussing politics or religion/morality.

It’s also that “Christian privilege” that is why the Baphomet statue even exists in the first place, but you’ll never get the self-entitled to acknowledge that their own heavyhandedness could possible lead to discontent; they’ll blame Satan, call you a heretic, and go on with their smugness.

@Symbeline [..rape and all ARE evil. I would assume
You say that, and all I am asking is who made it so, or had so much authority that they can say so and it was? Was it a dictator, king, preacher, Prime Minister, Pope, who? Was it a group of people who formed a committee, had a symposium, sat around and agreed how and what to agree on, wrote a paper, posted it to the public who accepted it because these people who wrote it were deemed so worthy. You have your belief of what is evil because someone before you told you it was evil. Even if a group of people said this or that was evil, how could they prove it was over another who thought different?

I think. If he just explained that, if it is indeed the case, would make this shit much less funcusing.
I have said many times where I find evil or not. It will not work for anyone refusing to believe. If you are a Believer than you believe God, who created everything so there is nothing He would not know, if He puts something as evil then it is, I need not try to analyze it, I trust it like a child trust their parent when their parents say time to go to bed. A child may ask, the parents will give them an answer they can handle for their age, but rarely would you see a child debate the parent and ask them to come up with stats or whatever to justify them setting the bedtime at the hour they set it. In my flesh I use to think seeing two hot lesbians go at it was erotic and exciting, even though I also thought what a waste, but I did not see it as wickedness, but other might, but I would have had no way to prove either way just off what I personally believed. The standard I have now is not my standard but His, and I believe it is His handed down to man to put in physical form of the Bible, that is why is a faith, and doesn’t need the smoking gun as others need in what they believe.

@Dutchess_III Or that…it doesn’t exist for unbelievers?
In the world of facts and evidence, everything has an opposite, hot to cold; thrust to drag; heavy to light; stationary to movement; death to life; etc. that is the law if science. If you have no God which equals holiness, you can have no wickedness which equals the Devil, which would be as meaningless as saying that huge metal anvil is heavy and those cotton balls are light in the vacuum of space. If there is no gravity then nothing is heavy or light in spite of what they would be if gravity existed.

That every act is the same for unbelievers?
Only those who are unbelievers would know that. What I do know it people always try to reference my moniker as to say I am wishy washy or a hypocrite. Those who want to see acts other than just acts or occurrences are the hypocrites because they want a system they can’t live under because it would allow for certain things they personally don’t like. Science is neither evil or holy, it is what it is. Where gravity might help something heavy from being blown away in a tornado, call that positive, it will cause a steel worker to plummet five stories to the ground below and maybe certain death if he missteps and his harness don’t hold him, call that unfavorable or a tragedy. Gravity does what it does, it neither cares (if it could) if the recipient of its actions benefitted or not from it doing what it does. How unbelievers choose to see it is how they choose to see it, all actions are what they are, and it is if the recipient benefited or not as to if they see it as evil or not.

Rescuing a kitten from a tree is no different than Hitler killing millions of people?
In a world with no sin, they might different in application but none is worse or better. Saving the kitten might be kinder than killing someone in cold blood, but the killing in cold blood is no more wicked than saving the kitten because there is no standard. Someone who hates cats might see saving one worse than killing a human, who is to say they are not right? If you go off sheer superior numbers than the Nazi were correct in their nation because it was the de facto position to oppress Jews, it was only until the allied powers bested them, that they were taken to task on their actions. How many other dictators did worse overall but because no one bested them, they were correct and not made to pay any consequences.

@Hypocrisy_Central you say that “In the world of facts and evidence, everything has an opposite….” Not true; Orange doesn’t have an opposite.

^ Orange is a hybrid color it is a result of physical law but not original in it like gravity, motion, weight, etc.

And (you forgot) has no opposite. There, I’ve run rings around you logically…
.

No, another Fluther usual of duck, dodge and hide, to ignore the context of what is being talked about. I am sure you would argue that things like hot/cold, rest/movement, up/down, etc. don’t really matter or the fact that orange a insignificant part of the universal scheme proves there is evil, nice try but keep trying though.

“Only those who are unbelievers would know that (That every act is the same for unbelievers.)” I know what my standards are. If something hurts another human unnecessarily, then it’s wrong. I don’t need a God to tell me that.
I was just trying to figure out what your misconceptions are about unbelievers.

I just get the feeling that you think that without God we will all turn in to greedy, amoral base animals with no sense of right or wrong. That we’ll hurt others just to obtain the things we want.

I would love to have it in my house!

“I am sure you would argue that things like hot/cold, rest/movement, up/down, etc. don’t really matter”
You may think a fire is hot.
But to the sun, it is cold.
Hot and Cold have no meaning, except in the context of life forms whose nervous systems interpret sensory data in relation to their body’s optimum operating temperature.

As Einstein’s theory of relativity tells us, movement is only sensical relative to a reference frame that can be arbitarily chosen.
If you are aboard a train, you are at rest relative to the train’s reference frame, but you are moving relative to the planet’s reference frame.

Up and Down only have meaning in the presence of a source of gravity.
If you stand on a planet, the direction towards the core is down, but that vector is different for someone even standing right next to you, even if just by a fraction of a degree.
And when you are in interstellar space, where is up and where is down?

And orange is just an interpretation by the brain of a neural signal coming from the optical sensory organ that reacted to a specific combination of wavelengths of light.

But that of course is all science, which you reject.

(I always wondered how the crew of the USS Enterprise knew if they were right side up, or upside down.)

@Dutchess_III
An arbitary convention.

I think this question came to mind when there was a scene were they were flying “upside down,” and I thought…there is no up or down in space. But…maybe I’m misremembering. I don’t think the writers would make such a glaring mistake.

They make all kinds of mistakes.
Like that episode where Janeway and Paris travelled at infinite speed, turned into lizards and had lizard babies.
And they called that “evolution”.

I do not remember that one!

@ragingloli But that of course is all science, which you reject.
I am not rejecting science; it seems others are trying to use science to dispel the greater part of the physics their scientist have said. From what I have heard, was that science says there is an opposite to everything, at least in physics or natural law, and people are arguing that, if I have with the other way and said there wasn’t, people will argue that there was. No matter if I use science or don’t use science, it is a compulsion for people here go the opposite way. I like science because it displays the work God has done. That is why 90% of science will always be guesswork because man will never understand fully how it works.

I’m ok with a statue of the Devil as long as it’s in the form of Darkness in the movie, Legend.

Are you referring to Newton’s 3rd law, @Hypocrisy_Central? ”When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.” It is also condensed into “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
That’s referring to physics, and it has been proven true.

But you seem to be taking it to the emotional realm, like the Taoist philosophy of Yin and Yang. Taoism isn’t physics. It’s a philosophy, much like all religions are.

You seem to be trying to mix up religion and science.

@Hypocrisy_Central You say that, and all I am asking is who made it so, or had so much authority that they can say so and it was?

I already said that I agreed with @Dutchess_III about how we are the ones labeling and defining good and evil. Nothing else is. We base it, most likely, on survival instinct. Pay attention, damn it, makin me repeat myself. :p

You have your belief of what is evil because someone before you told you it was evil. Even if a group of people said this or that was evil, how could they prove it was over another who thought different?

So? And you have a god that tells you these things. Or rather, you read it in The Bible, or a priest told you…either way, whatever you personally think is good and evil, someone told you too, so what’s the problem, mate?
It isn’t hard to be convinced that murder, rape, abuse, torture and so forth sucks, especially if you happned to have witnessed or experienced something like that. If I torture you, you’re not gonna like it, are you? If you were in the military in your younger days, you probably understand this more than I.

@Symbeline Well what’s your idea of torture. As long as you wear something hot and it doesn’t involve goats it might be fun.

Lol, no goats. As for what I’ll be wearing; a giant frog costume. XD

LOL. How do you know I don’t do frogs as well as goats?

Oh God! This thread is going so evil!

Kind of appropriate isn’t it?

Yes, but I’m telling Mom.

What I find very interesting is that @Hypocrisy_Central is arguing from an atheist POV. Nothing is really wrong, until people say it’s wrong.
However, people have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong, so they are going to continue to campaign against things that are wrong whether God is in the picture or not.
Things that cause physical harm, or terror…we know those things are instinctively wrong.

^ Yup.

The real question is, where does goat sex fit into all this.

Wasn’t there a Greek or Roman god that had the head of a goat?

Well in Greek mythology, there is a being called a satyr, which has horse features…and it always has a permanent erection lol. The Romans, who’s mythology and gods were pretty much the same as the Greeks’, had the faun, which is basically a satyr, but with goat features instead of horse.

Medusa had Snakes on her head but she still made you hard. Seems like that should be perverted enough to get a rise out of someone.

@Jaxk Indeed. Some people would pay extra for that!

Reminds me of a Beavis and Butthead episode where the boys are looking at a statue of a naked guy and Butthead goes, whoa, it’s hard but like, it’s not hard.

@Symbeline So? And you have a god that tells you these things.
You are mistaken me for those poor saps, who have a god who is deaf, dumb, blind, and literally brain dead (he has none to begin with). Their god was fashioned from their own hand, they decided what he would look like, they cast him in concrete or carved him from stone. They had to move him to wherever they want him to go. Their god has no more power than a busted toaster.

Or rather, you read it in The Bible, or a priest told you…either way, whatever you personally think is good and evil, someone told you too, so what’s the problem, mate?
There are things I believed that were not evil to God, but I thought it was. So what I personally think is evil is in part of my own personal dislike and part of what was told by clergy and society. What I know is evil today is because the Spirit speaks to it being evil and the Bible, God’s written word, says so. A living God over a hunk of rock or marble, I will listen to a living God. But I have a name to invoke as to what is evil and what is not, it appears no one else can come up with who decided or designated what is evil and what is not. Seeing that one can actually see this Baphomet, maybe we should take a Fluther field trip and go ask him, where or who coined what evil is, think he will answer if we asked him?

@Dutchess_III However, people have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong, so they are going to continue to campaign against things that are wrong whether God is in the picture or not.
This innate sense, whose is correct or who determines which is correct? If a group of people have an innate sense that women should be property of men, who is to say they are wrong, less you simply play the numbers game and that has not worked in the past, so why would it be now?

Things that cause physical harm, or terror…we know those things are instinctively wrong.
Then instinctively lying to get gain or avoid loss would be logical. Or cheating to get ahead would be logical then.

Whatever applies to, for example, a wolf, and applies to me as well is innate.
You try to hurt my kids, I’ll come after you. That is innate
You try to steal my food when I’m starving, and my family is starving, and I’ll come after you.

Instinctively lying to get gain or loss is perfectly logical. Birds that nest on the ground do it, by pretending they’re injured to lure predators away. I’d lie my ass off to protect my family from a mad man.

Cheating to get ahead is logical too.

However, as humans we have attempted to logically refine these instincts, to develop parameters for when it is, and isn’t OK to lie, or cheat, for the purpose of co-existing peacefully. You just won’t last long in a community if you’re constantly lying and cheating out side of those parameters, because no one will trust you. You might even be killed. Which is logical.

Edit in my above post: I didn’t mean to say “Nah.” I meant “Yeah,” I would be okay with the statue.

But remember…it’s a HUGE statue! Maybe a little, petite one would be best.

I am usually ok with any kind of statuary. Some I like, some I don’t but it always adds to the environment.

The Devil is a spirit and cannot be seen, so nobody knows what he looks like. That being the case, if they wanted to erect a statue of the Devil it would have to be an invisible statue. Would I be offended if they erected a statue of what they thought the Devil might look like? No because it’s only a statue and for all intents and purposes irrelevant. At least for me.

Too many statues can make and city as creepy as Gotham city in detective comics.

Any city

@CorneliusHerkermer Well there are plenty of monuments to the devil’s esteemed opposition. And that big “D” you utilize (correctly) is a form of tribute. There are those who argue that Jesus was necessary in order that statuary and crucifixes be marketed to a gullible public.

Would it have a giant cock?

‘cause I don’t like chickens and wouldn’t what it if it did.

@stanleybmanly. Esteemed in who’s eyes? Esteemed to those erecting the statue perhaps but certainly not in the eyes of everyone. Using a big “D” in this instance is a capitalization rule not a form of esteem or tribute.

I would imagine there are those who would argue that Jesus was necessary in order that statuary and crucifixes be marketed to a gullible public. Unfortunately, there are gullible people who may actually believe that argument and buy into it. People have been preying on other people for centuries with similar marketing ploys but does it make it right? Are statues, in any form, really necessary?

This certainly is not a question about necessity. Monuments, silly or otherwise are value judgements made visible. People should be allowed to erect whatever foolishnes they please, as long as they don’t require me to pay for it , and it doesn’t inconvenience ME.