Get thee behind me, Scalia!
Thatās probably the last place you want him.
Underpants gnomes, obviously.
And his name is Keyser Sƶze.
Hahaha. Nice one.
I, like Scalia, am a little confused why everyone seems so surprised. Heās a conservative Catholic. We knew this. Did you seriously expect him to not believe in Satan? The only thing potentially surprising is when he calls Satan a āpersonā, which on the surface might suggest that he thinks Satan is literally walking around the planet in human form. But in the language of traditional Christianity, thatās not necessarily what āpersonā means. Trinitarians refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as āpersonsā, even though at least one of those obviously isnāt and never has been in literal human form.
It is possible to believe in a literal devil and still be open-minded about what is and isnāt a sin, just as itās possible to believe in a literal god (of a particular sect, even) and be open-minded.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case here.
Cue either Sweeny Todd or To Serve Mankindā¦
For anyone who thinks that there is literally no difference between Democrats and Republicans: go ahead, find me the SCOTUS justice appointed by Clinton or Obama who is anywhere near that bugfuck crazy.
Iām sure that to people of Scaliaās bent, a militant atheist is just as crazy.
If there is no Devil, how do you explain Scalia sitting on SCOTUS?
Or youāre a Christian, and donāt think torturing anyone to death can bring salvation, and think that the resurrection overturned the torturing-to-death-ifixion, and think that the celebration of the crucifixion is a bit reminiscent of the myth of Cain sacrificing Abelā¦ or The Wicker Manā¦ But thereās no reason to bring a devil into it, when the Roman Empire was quite capable of killing people.
Even pitiless indifference emulates malice from time to timeā¦
So, is Hot Stuff a little kid who was really bad and died and went to hell before he was toilet trained?
Yes, a bad thing, no doubt about that. Very bad.
Catholics can be a little wishy-washy, since it sounds so harsh; but the implications of original sin and human concupiscence are pretty clear for dead babies (at least the unbaptized ones)ā¦ They really donāt like to talk about the considerable population of too-human-to-abort; but also obviously unbaptized, fetuses that spontaneously miscarry, who would be equally hellbound. And you thought Calvinists were kind of dark.
Iām sure that to people of Scaliaās bent, a militant atheist is just as crazy.
Iām sorry, but the opposite of Scalia is not āmilitant atheistā (whatever that could mean).
To people of Scaliaās bent, reasonable, moderate people are crazy.
Sure, but CS Lewis was a hopped up writer of fiction. Surely itās reasonable to hold one of the Supremes to a slightly higher standard?
Iām assuming āmilitant atheistā refers to all those atheists running around engaging in sectarian violence and persecuting believers with the power of the state, right? Because thatās what āmilitantā means where I come from. Fortunately, Iāve been lucky enough not to meet anyone like that, or, for that matter, even read any news articles about them. Funny. Of course, if you meant something else by āmilitant atheist,ā please feel free to clarify what you meant.
I think people who assign powers to āSatanā which are clearly not in the Bible and elevate him (her? Am I right guys?) to being almost equal to God really are creating a sort of primitive pantheistic/pagan throwback religion.
Maybe itās no accident that the image of a mighty Satan corresponds to the era where Christianity was spreading across Europe. Often the saints were based on local dieties. and Jehovah was merely a replacement for Odin or whatever they called the head honcho. But that still left the job of the king of the underworld or evil trickster Loki wide open. So Satan had to get a promotion so he could make a lateral move onto the thrown of the local version of Hades/Pluto/Osiris