Talossan Christian Fellowship

[Deleted]

tonyweckstrom said:

Dear Sir;

I fear that religion and politics have always had an pugnacious consanguinity throughout history.

Rome's Pope... etc...

Hopefully here we'll not need to officially separate the state from the Church (or of one's' belief)

Having read about satanism in University, it is indeed quite fascinating how some satanists deny the existence of God, but still embrace the theory that Satan, or Lucifer, God's favourite angel was cast out of heaven after the War in Heaven...

Not to ramble... but perhaps those that are Talossan officials, should not take part of this affair in religion, as it would somehow condone one religion over another (in someone's mind)...

Kind regards,

Tony Weckström
Royal Ambassador to Finland

vitooliver said:

As a practicing Satanist, ones such as myself always fear the political consequences of such groups. the TCF would not bother me if I knew for a fact that it would not influence people's politics.

edit: grammar

I would agree, however, it would seem just as limiting for the government to deny our citizens the right to private groups. Talossa does have an official law in support of a seperation between church and state. I just fear that, like in America and many other nations, the private groups could begin to influence politics.

As far as you comment, Satan and Lucifer are two seperate entities. In the bible, KJV, Lucifer is only mentioned once, as a fallen angel. Satan, on the other hand, is a title, given to various beings (angels) doing the will of G-d to test man. There are both Satanist and Luciferians, both groups have theisitic followers (not to be confused with run of the mill devil worshippers) and modern followers. Whatever label one wishes to take, Satanist or Luciferian, helps to inspire which archtype one favours. Satanist understanding "ha-Satan" or "the Adversary" and Luciferians favouring a more rebellion approach.

But, I will return this thread to our regular schedule program: the 700 Club, Talossan Style.

[Owen Edwards]

Must...resist...comical...blasphemy.

[Nic Casálmac'h]

vitooliver said:

As a practicing Satanist, ones such as myself always fear the political consequences of such groups. the TCF would not bother me if I knew for a fact that it would not influence people's politics.

Seems to me you're not the one who should be afraid....

As far as you comment, Satan and Lucifer are two seperate entities. In the bible, KJV, Lucifer is only mentioned once, as a fallen angel. Satan, on the other hand, is a title, given to various beings (angels) doing the will of G-d to test man. There are both Satanist and Luciferians, both groups have theisitic followers (not to be confused with run of the mill devil worshippers) and modern followers. Whatever label one wishes to take, Satanist or Luciferian, helps to inspire which archtype one favours. Satanist understanding "ha-Satan" or "the Adversary" and Luciferians favouring a more rebellion approach.

I don't know anything about Satanists and Luciferians; undoubtedly, I don't want to. However, I do know that Satan and Lucifer, as understand by most (Christians at least), are one and the same being. The name Lucifer means bearer of light, a fitting name for an angel, but not a fallen angel, for which reason he is now referred to as Satan.

However, I think it is unavoidable for private groups to affect politics. To prevent this from happening it would be necessary to isolate all the citizens and prevent them from having any contact with each other, for as soon as a few citizens get together and start discussing something, you have a private group, whether or not it is official.

[Vit Caçeir]

vitooliver said:

As a practicing Satanist, ones such as myself always fear the political consequences of such groups. the TCF would not bother me if I knew for a fact that it would not influence people's politics.

While, as a Deist, I naturally agree with your comment....

captainblaknar said:

However, I think it is unavoidable for private groups to affect politics. To prevent this from happening it would be necessary to isolate all the citizens and prevent them from having any contact with each other, for as soon as a few citizens get together and start discussing something, you have a private group, whether or not it is official.

S:da Casálmac'h brings up an excellent point. The only way to avoid such influence from taking place is to enact police state-like policies, which I think we all can agree is not the best route for Talossa.

Additionally, you must differentiate between mere associations and political action committees. Unless there's a hidden agenda I'm unaware of, this group appears to be just a bunch of friendly Christians who want to sit around a campfire, eat smores, and sing Jesus songs. I see no political agenda behind this, it just looks like something a bunch of people would do on Googletalk when they're bored. If the association's agenda were to "instill the Christian faith and its values into the politics of the Kingdom of Talossa", then naturally I'd feel some amount of concern, but for now, such a group appears totally innocent to me.

At least, that's my opinion.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

I gotta agree with Éovart.

As long as they don't have a bake sale, I don't have a problem

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I actually don't mind if they have a bake sale. I like bake sales.

[Vit Caçeir]

As long as they've got those little Lemon Torte things, I'm fine with a bake sale. ;D

[Vit Caçeir]

vitooliver said:

Now, yes, individuals may influence other's politics, but when they come together in religious common ground is rather scary.

In that case, we might as well write a bill to ban every Church, Mosque, and Synagogue in Talossa, because they all imply religious congregation.

vitooliver said:

History dictates such groups normally work against the greater good, be it the Spanish Inquisition, Wahabist, Protestant v. Catholic in Ireland, Pagan v. Christian, Zoroastrianism v. Islam, the separation of Southern Baptist in America from the Baptist fold to justify slavery, etc.

While your point is well taken, what you see in common between a small group of Talossans and slave owners and religious extremists is beyond my comprehension.

vitooliver said:

But to form a group such as this, as much as you have the right to, and I support that right, will also be met with staunch resistance and questioning

As, under the laws of religious freedom adhered by this Kingdom, you have a right to. Just as these Christians (although my religious beliefs may differ with them) have a right to congregate. I assure you, the moment a pro-Christan/anti-Everything-Else law is put into the Hopper, my suspicion will be just as strong as yours, but as it stands now.... bring on that bake sale!

[Deleted]

It seems I went to hit modify to fix a few grammar mistakes and hit "delete," is there a way to recover my post?

---

*hitting the back button I was able to recover the post, here it is as it was being replied to above this post*

I must admit, it is rather distressing for one to be so close minded as to not wish to learn about another's belief, even it is for mere education. But the he that tempts Job is not Lucifer, but Satan. Not the two, but post-fall. Show me where in the Bible(Christian-KJV) a direct connection between Satan, Lucifer and the Serpent can be drawn? Show me why the bible translates the one reference of the angel of light as Lucifer, an entity that exists in a separate belief altogether from the Judaic reference to such an angel. Or is it the Serpent takes on the role of Ha-Satan, the adversary, to question, to tempt. Could it be that Satan is actually abstract, and not merely one, but a title, that is dynamic, and assigned to different beings/angels/demons. If you wish to show otherwise, I implore you to, as asked, show me where they are the same entity. Until then, the idea that they are one in the same is mere propaganda to spread fear and thus gain converts. This is fairly recent occurrence in Christian dogma, just as the Virgin Mary was not a major figure in 800s CE Christianity, neither was this idea that Satan and Lucifer were the same beings. Chriatianity 100, 500, 800, 1000, 1500 years ago were all different. Altering to ensure survival, this is a tactic that has been used by the Church for ages, an whatever one's feelings towards the Church may be, close mindedness validates as well as ensures the continuance of such a mentality that should have died with the middle ages

Now, yes, individuals may influence other's politics, but when they come together in religious common ground is rather scary. History dictates such groups normally work against the greater good, be it the Spanish Inquisition, Wahabist, Protestant v. Catholic in Ireland, Pagan v. Christian, Zoroastrianism v. Islam, the separation of Southern Baptist in America from the Baptist fold to justify slavery, etc.

If I have offended, that was not my intention. But to form a group such as this, as much as you have the right to, and I support that right, will also be met with staunch resistance and questioning, as was the role of Satan in the Hebrew Bible to tempt and questio Job, as was the role of the Serpent taking on the title of Satan to tempt Eve; in the Christian Bible, Satan to tempt Christ as was the role of the adversary, to ensure the righteous get in heave; and the idea that it is the Satanist role to question all things around him in the Satanic bible, I, too, shall question you.

[Deleted]

edwardwadas said:

vitooliver said:

Now, yes, individuals may influence other's politics, but when they come together in religious common ground is rather scary.

In that case, we might as well write a bill to ban every Church, Mosque, and Synagogue in Talossa, because they all imply religious congregation.

I would not support such a law, but was merely making a point. However, it is a rather valid point.

While your point is well taken, what you see in common between a small group of Talossans and slave owners and religious extremists is beyond my comprehension.

vitooliver said:

But to form a group such as this, as much as you have the right to, and I support that right, will also be met with staunch resistance and questioning

As, under the laws of religious freedom adhered by this Kingdom, you have a right to. Just as these Christians (although my religious beliefs may differ with them) have a right to congregate. I assure you, the moment a pro-Christan/anti-Everything-Else law is put into the Hopper, my suspicion will be just as strong as yours, but as it stands now.... bring on that bake sale!

It is not a far stretch, just as even within my own community there are radicals, they exist in all faiths. Numbers do not have to have an influence on how a group has influence on politics. I am not comparing a small group of Talossans, I am comparing a small group of HUMANS.

[Vit Caçeir]

vitooliver said:

I would not support such a law, but was merely making a point. However, it is a rather valid point.

Just out of curiosity, why not? If you are against religious congregation, but for the existence of such religious institutions, your argument seems rather contradictory to me (unless of course, I am misunderstanding your premise, in which case I would appreciate it if you would correct me).

vitooliver said:

It is not a far stretch, just as even within my own community there are radicals, they exist in all faiths. Numbers do not have to have an influence on how a group has influence on politics. I am not comparing a small group of Talossans, I am comparing a small group of HUMANS.

Your "Talossans vs. Humans" statement is a good point. However, until I see any sort of actual threat of attempted Christian dominance over Talossan politics, I'm going to gamble and guess that no Talossan is a terrorist or extreme bigot, and conclude that this institution, for the time being, is politically harmless and is nothing more than a friendly little "We Heart Jesus" club (which hopefully will get around to having a bake sale).

EDIT: Coding Mistake

[Owen Edwards]

Religion isn't what causes people to do nasty things en masse, people are what cause people to do nasty things en masse - cf Naziism and Communism.

And for the record, the united role of "the Enemy", across the various references thereunto, has been fairly consistent from pre-Christian times - it's a fairly modern advent that it's been deconstructed (notably, say, by Bultmann). Many things change within the Church's body, but the Devil figure is relatively consistent.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Ooh... I'd have to disagree with you Owen. Religion definitely causes people to do nasty things. I mean... the new testament basically calls for the killing of all Jews...

I wonder if this bake sale will have thin mints...

[King John]

The New Testament calls for the killing of all Jews???!! Dude, the New Testament was written by Jews; its central "hero" is a Jew; all the main characters in it (the "good guys" as well as the "bad guys") are Jews; and it doesn't call for killing anyone. This comment would be laughably silly, if it weren't such an ugly thing to say.

Maybe crank the rhetoric down a notch or two?

— John R

[Deleted]

owenfsf said:

Religion isn't what causes people to do nasty things en masse, people are what cause people to do nasty things en masse - cf Naziism and Communism.

And for the record, the united role of "the Enemy", across the various references thereunto, has been fairly consistent from pre-Christian times - it's a fairly modern advent that it's been deconstructed (notably, say, by Bultmann). Many things change within the Church's body, but the Devil figure is relatively consistent.

Nazism attempted to use religion to justify its hatred of jews, i.e. Adolf Hitler adopting a lot of Martin Luther, who was rising as a national hero among the germans in the 1920s, and Luther's hatred of Jews and answer. The difference between the two was Hitler's answer was "kill them as they cannot be converted" while Luther's answer was "kill them or convert them, but get rid of them." This actually goes into another discussion of Classical anti-Semitism v. Modern anti-Semitism (religious based hatred v. race base hatred.) In either statement, it is my belief that one needs the religious backing to have had the hate for the race.

As far as the deconstruction of the devil, I disagree. The role of Satan has been abstract, the understanding, etc. The construction of the devil as some super-entity that combines Satan, Lucifer, and the Serpent is a modern Christian occurrence. There was always a devil, it is what one perceived to be the devil at the time. Early Christianity favored that Lucifer was merely the king of Babylon while Satan (he who played the role) was the devil. Still, two separate entities.