It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi
So you cannot or will not come up with a good reason why religionists feel the need to adorn public land with their religious monuments.
I guess actually you mean don't want them removed as they have in many cases been there a long time. I guess if we remove all the history we definitely need new money and many other things replaced.
So you cannot or will not come up with a good reason why religionists feel the need to adorn public land with their religious monuments.
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: inbound
As I said, I would not bash you or anyone else for your religious beliefs no matter what they are. I guess its more of a "hey! we are not talking about that in this thread" kind of thing. (Not in this one obviously)
Well, you could start by acknowledging that I am not religious for instance, and like most of your kind such a thing is preposterous and normally messes up with your bias that tells you everything bible related is church related, is Christian, has to do about faith. Fact is, that when 'someone tries to insert their favorite scripture into a discussion' (sic.) people allergic to Christianity all go vey oi vey as if it was cyanide coming down stream. The thing is, books like the Bible, Plato's Republic or the Homer's Odyssey contains timeless truths and ever so often you can find time and place for a quote or two, perhaps. Damn some people are willing to go a long way for a lousy fleeze.
That said I can personally get annoyed by people who has to refer to the thermo-dynamic laws and stuff like porridge. It's awful!
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: inbound
until someone tries to insert their favorite scripture into a discussion where it is not relevant.
Where they feel it is relevant and you do not.
Deuteronomy 27:2 "So it shall be on the day when you cross the Jordan to the land which the LORD your God gives you, that you shall set up for yourself large stones and coat them with lime
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 "If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi
I guess actually you mean don't want them removed as they have in many cases been there a long time. I guess if we remove all the history we definitely need new money and many other things replaced.
How you extrapolated that from this I do not know.
So you cannot or will not come up with a good reason why religionists feel the need to adorn public land with their religious monuments.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: grainofsand
Ehh they pick and choose what they want to follow. The Christian religious book is chock full of contradictions. Thats why it is such a go to when they are faced with a dilemma because no matter what it is they want to believe they can find a passage somewhere within it to justify their actions of course they ignore the parts that disagree with them.
It is a conundrum for sure.
originally posted by: inbound
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: inbound
As I said, I would not bash you or anyone else for your religious beliefs no matter what they are. I guess its more of a "hey! we are not talking about that in this thread" kind of thing. (Not in this one obviously)
Well, you could start by acknowledging that I am not religious for instance, and like most of your kind such a thing is preposterous and normally messes up with your bias that tells you everything bible related is church related, is Christian, has to do about faith. Fact is, that when 'someone tries to insert their favorite scripture into a discussion' (sic.) people allergic to Christianity all go vey oi vey as if it was cyanide coming down stream. The thing is, books like the Bible, Plato's Republic or the Homer's Odyssey contains timeless truths and ever so often you can find time and place for a quote or two, perhaps. Damn some people are willing to go a long way for a lousy fleeze.
That said I can personally get annoyed by people who has to refer to the thermo-dynamic laws and stuff like porridge. It's awful!
No, I do not subscribe to one of the 4000+ religions on earth. Im not sure what "my kind" is supposed to mean, but I will take a stab.
My kind
does believe that the bible, church, and faith are deeply intertwined. Please explain to me how they are not, if they are not as you point out.
Once again, this thread, and my comments are related to injecting these things in conversations where they are not relevant to the topic at hand. I guess the most simple way for me to explain my stance on the thread, is to stay on topic. As someone pointed out a few entries ago, there is a subforum for this, and Im quite sure other places on the web to proclaim faith. By people interjecting religious stuff into a conversation thats not about religious stuff, it comes across as derailment
originally posted by: inbound
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: inbound
until someone tries to insert their favorite scripture into a discussion where it is not relevant.
Where they feel it is relevant and you do not.
If you are having a discussion about something religious and I constantly chime in wanting to discuss the batting averages of the new york yankees, you would probably find it irrelevant to the conversation and annoying.
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi
I guess actually you mean don't want them removed as they have in many cases been there a long time. I guess if we remove all the history we definitely need new money and many other things replaced.
How you extrapolated that from this I do not know.
So you cannot or will not come up with a good reason why religionists feel the need to adorn public land with their religious monuments.
Simple most of these arguments have been around removing such items that have been there a long long time, not in the placing of new ones.
Ehh they pick and choose what they want to follow.
The Bible in my opinion is never useful for mature debate outside of religious forums.
For every website you can copy & paste the "contradictions" I can equally do the same from the other POV.
So now who is being disingenuous?