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.

 

Why Keep Posting Religion on a Conspiracy Site?

page: 16
45
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Specimen

All I know is that IF the topic of religion (as an organization or any biblical text, because they are a man-made, created from fictional, made-up speak as a means of manipulation and/or ) is off-limits,

then any and all topics (quoted from the doctrine of) ANY organized group with a set of ideals, practices, laws and verses having any number of dogmatic practices (ie: Freemasonry, Shriners, Boy Scouts, Democrats, Republicans, The Medical Association, etc) are also subject to this rule? *see my comment on page 14

Those factions were man-made and created out of thin air at one time or another just as atheists proclaim the bible was.

If so, then what is left to discuss? What becomes of any discussion when the percentage of the topics censored exceeds the population of those only discussing something other than?




posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: schadenfreude

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.


One of the most "commonly accepted lies" on the net & frankly I'm sick of hearing it.

Isn't the Bible full of contradictions?

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?


The opposite point of view to the claim that there are contradictions in the bible is the claim that there are none. There are many. You lose.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

So the judges have agreed pretty much with you, they have not allowed newer displays. So i guess your quibble is that people keep trying to place them


A monument to unbelief erected on public land

Just reading this interesting case.
www.christiancentury.org...


Guidelines for privately funded public monuments on the Bradford County Courthouse lawn require that the monuments commemorate “people, events and ideas which played a significant role in the development, origins or foundations of United States of America or Florida law or Bradford County.” Both the Ten Commandments and the atheist monument meet those requirements, Sexton said.

The atheist monument—which looks like a backward letter h—is engraved with the words of several Founding Fathers, as well as a quotation from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams in 1797. It reads, “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”


Personally I see it as Caesars area and personally don't feel the fight is worth it. If we gain equality for all it would require satanist groups and many other to clutter every area of public land. I do find it strange how we many times are not allowed a Christmas display on private property and even the flag itself is not allowed in many areas. I think private property would be the place for the displays as long as it was not something breaking local decency laws if in sight of public.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: jonnywhite

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi




Ehh they pick and choose what they want to follow.

Clearly everyone in every walk of life is doing just this on every subject all the time.
That is called freedom. I reject and I decide to accept by my will alone. No one should be bother by this.

Amen, and the Why of thigns is so difficult to answer and yet so profound. Science seeks the How, but its answers are limited in scope and only pertain to How.


Never thought of it that way, but I find that above quite elegantly spoken. Well done



if religion says the Earth emerged 6000 years ago and science says that's impossible then science has the upper hand.


Or simply not the right dictionary or the elemental counting skills needed. Here's a fun one. God creates everything in six similar periods of time called a day. The mantra is that one day for God is 1000 years for regular bleeders. Now, according to the Bible Adam was made on the sixth day and according to Genesis and royal Sumerian genealogies Adam was born around 6000 years ago. Now, this tells us not only that a day is something other than merely a 24hr period of various lighting conditions, but that God stayed on Earth when he did these things and Adam was created in the sixth of these cycles:

==> 6000 x 365 x 6000 = 13 140 000 000 years.

I'd say that is pretty close to what science says. Don't you? And it was written like that a few centuries BC. Quite amazing.


No, it is not remotely close to what science says. Familiarize yourself with science.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi

If we gain equality for all it would require satanist groups and many other to clutter every area of public land.

That is the nature of equality. Do you support equality for all, or just Christian majority views?



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: ParasuvO

I figured out a long time go we know so very little about just about everything



This is the best argument about nearly everything...things are changing, we are learning new things which brings all new ways to look at everything.
When I was in school they told us that no...there was no way there could ever be any more added to Periodic Table of the Elements, that we had found them all!

We have so much to learn, we still are bound on one tiny planet and all we know is what has been discovered in a very few years of mans existence. The people that insist the "science" knows this or that for sure...proven, make me both want to laugh and to cry!



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Char-Lee




Could you clarify your position on religious items on public property again? I assumed posts such as this meant you wanted them gone.


No problem. As I have already stated I am fine with the supreme court's rulings on religious monuments on historical buildings.

My question throughout the thread has been why do religionists feel the need to place religious monuments on public lands. It should be easy to recognize that question refers to ongoing attempts at tagging public lands.

I have asked that question several times but no one has answered.


You're attempting to discuss something with people devoid of integrity. By now, that should be apparent. It reminds me of the deal I made with a fundamentalist who wanted me to read a specific book. I agreed to do so on the condition that she read a book of my choice. I read her book and when I told her I had done so, she announced that, despite her promise, she had had no intention of reading mine. This is, of course, a very minor example but I find it to be very typical of encounters with fundamentalists. On a separate issue, I urge you to avoid playing dueling scriptures with them. It simply grants authority to the Bible.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

I have no problem with the things people put on private property though I am limited where I live because of a homeowners association which I dislike intensely but it is my own fault for moving here. As to the dual monuments both christian and atheist I think they are tacky but it is there choice they are just inviting a monument to Xenu/scientology there.

There are several cases where religious monuments could stay so I assume they passed the muster for being inclusive/secular. I guess if you are not for equality and inclusion it would be best not to open the door where the groups one dislikes can't get their foot in. If one does decide to open those doors then they need to be prepared for the consequences.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Murgatroid

So absolute is not truth, it is a state of nothingness, which is only true to itself.


Just bumping in to defend Murgatroid here, not something I often do btw, Old Hermes Trismegistus would beg to differ, not just Jesus and Plato. Dealing with the truth is one of the most lethal things you can do. It's like sticking your head out of a train. It's all about timing really. And knowing your way around sarcasm and irony can literally save your life.


Meaningless entirely, every part of it is using logic that is unable to see any farther than it is allowed too.


Exqueeze me, but that's sodding nonsense, not all truth is self-evident. In fact, very little of what can be called Truth is is in any way self evident. Only a very few words in the dictionary are onomatopoetika, and yet, you will have to understand profound codes and cyphers called language in spoken and written form to get the full understanding of it.


A problem arises when people confuse truth with fact. Truth is a belief. There are many beliefs and, as such, there is no such thing as THE Truth. Put another way, one person's truth is not another person's truth. Unlike truth, facts are supported by testable evidence. I know that it is common to use the words interchangeably but it leads to problems, especially when someone wields truth as the sword of a supernatural deity/creator.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi

So the judges have agreed pretty much with you, they have not allowed newer displays. So i guess your quibble is that people keep trying to place them


A monument to unbelief erected on public land

Just reading this interesting case.
www.christiancentury.org...


Guidelines for privately funded public monuments on the Bradford County Courthouse lawn require that the monuments commemorate “people, events and ideas which played a significant role in the development, origins or foundations of United States of America or Florida law or Bradford County.” Both the Ten Commandments and the atheist monument meet those requirements, Sexton said.

The atheist monument—which looks like a backward letter h—is engraved with the words of several Founding Fathers, as well as a quotation from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams in 1797. It reads, “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”


Personally I see it as Caesars area and personally don't feel the fight is worth it. If we gain equality for all it would require satanist groups and many other to clutter every area of public land. I do find it strange how we many times are not allowed a Christmas display on private property and even the flag itself is not allowed in many areas. I think private property would be the place for the displays as long as it was not something breaking local decency laws if in sight of public.


So you're opposed to equality for all?



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi

If we gain equality for all it would require satanist groups and many other to clutter every area of public land.

That is the nature of equality. Do you support equality for all, or just Christian majority views?


I think I already answered that question pretty clearly. I said personally I would feel the property has nothing to do with God it is Caesars do you understand the implication or should I cite a biblical verse?

I also as a citizen would hate the fight to lead to 2000 monuments from opposing factions in every public space. To bad it had to come to this but it is time for it the rejection of the references to god.

I find the old religious and non religious monuments beautiful and what would being a tourist be without them? But then again i can see many of the most wonderful in cemeteries including the commandments.
So here we are...2 Timothy 3:2

1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,




posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: jonnywhite

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi




Ehh they pick and choose what they want to follow.

Clearly everyone in every walk of life is doing just this on every subject all the time.
That is called freedom. I reject and I decide to accept by my will alone. No one should be bother by this.

Amen, and the Why of thigns is so difficult to answer and yet so profound. Science seeks the How, but its answers are limited in scope and only pertain to How.


Never thought of it that way, but I find that above quite elegantly spoken. Well done



if religion says the Earth emerged 6000 years ago and science says that's impossible then science has the upper hand.


Or simply not the right dictionary or the elemental counting skills needed. Here's a fun one. God creates everything in six similar periods of time called a day. The mantra is that one day for God is 1000 years for regular bleeders. Now, according to the Bible Adam was made on the sixth day and according to Genesis and royal Sumerian genealogies Adam was born around 6000 years ago. Now, this tells us not only that a day is something other than merely a 24hr period of various lighting conditions, but that God stayed on Earth when he did these things and Adam was created in the sixth of these cycles:

==> 6000 x 365 x 6000 = 13 140 000 000 years.

I'd say that is pretty close to what science says. Don't you? And it was written like that a few centuries BC. Quite amazing.


No, it is not remotely close to what science says. Familiarize yourself with science.


map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Measurements by the WMAP satellite […] enable us to determine the age of the universe is 13.77 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 0.4%


However until recently before we had the WMAP data, the ruling mantra of physics was that the Universe was between 13 and 14 billion years old. I'd say 13.14 billion years (the Bible) compared to 13.77 billion years (WMAP) is at least within the same range, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
They have the right to preach just as you have the right to tell them not to...
it’s that simple. Of course you have an aversion to proselytizing—no problem—a lot of people do—but I believe if it’s done with respect to others it’s all right.

I don’t like it either when people presume that others are ignorant and their way is the ONLY way...
I'm an Integral Spiritual where we believe ALL people have some truth and ALL people have some falsehood.

To select what’s best for one is the best way, imo…

Overall though, religion is so ingrained and prevalent in the world (whether we like it or not) that this forum has to have a viable representation of religious folks. Indeed that adds to the holistic tapestry of our world and its vast spectrum of ideas.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




You're attempting to discuss something with people devoid of integrity.


There you go again dear, calling people names... realy?



[Integrity] is a personal choice, an uncompromising and predictably consistent commitment to honor moral, ethical, spiritual and artistic values and principles.[1]



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




If one does decide to open those doors then they need to be prepared for the consequences.

We agree on that.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell




They have the right to preach just as you have the right to tell them not to


Actually no, on ATS you do not hold the right to tell others not to speak. That is not a right although many do it and infringe on others speech. You do have the right not to read it.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

on the subject of Truth,
and comparing it to the subject of religion
and the basic premise of the OP's subject was to ask why censorship of religion is not activated here.

lets say for example,

I hate Ford (the motor company) and I suggest Ford never be discussed here because my Ford has broken down too many times and I've heard of them being in too many accidents considering it is supposed to be the car of the year.

People who are lovers of GM are right on that boat, loving to hate Ford from day 1. The Lambro drivers are laying low or might pounce with an occasional diss of either party.

'ok', says the site management. 'No more Ford'.

Later, someone discusses an article about a prisoner 'escort' being shot. Oh oh, no no, no mention of the word 'escort', because it could be misconstrued as being a term associated with Ford.

Then someone mentions President Ford. oh my. Harrison Ford? Francis Ford Copula? What to do?

No more discussion allowed either on American History and the Capitalism/Depression and the Economy (on and on) effect either because if you cannot include Ford's introduction of mass production/conveyor belt industry to the world.

I guess what I am saying is that ...Truth or nay, a subject such as religion has it's fingers in EVERY part and walk of real life (despite the fact that religion has been taken out of many public school board's curriculum). To avoid the topic would be almost impossible, even to the most reasonable of conversation.

It isn't because I am a bible thumper either. I just think that censorship of something so deep and diverse in our cultures would be impossible and not to mention unjust.







edit on 13-10-2014 by dianashay because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Murgatroid

So absolute is not truth, it is a state of nothingness, which is only true to itself.


Just bumping in to defend Murgatroid here, not something I often do btw, Old Hermes Trismegistus would beg to differ, not just Jesus and Plato. Dealing with the truth is one of the most lethal things you can do. It's like sticking your head out of a train. It's all about timing really. And knowing your way around sarcasm and irony can literally save your life.


Meaningless entirely, every part of it is using logic that is unable to see any farther than it is allowed too.


Exqueeze me, but that's sodding nonsense, not all truth is self-evident. In fact, very little of what can be called Truth is is in any way self evident. Only a very few words in the dictionary are onomatopoetika, and yet, you will have to understand profound codes and cyphers called language in spoken and written form to get the full understanding of it.


A problem arises when people confuse truth with fact.


Like what happens when you think along the lines of...


Truth is a belief. There are many beliefs and, as such, there is no such thing as THE Truth. Put another way, one person's truth is not another person's truth.


I don't know if you are familiar with Ayn Rand? If not you should check her out, she was quite the character. Among other things she sees humanity's quest for objective truth as to "seek a noble vision of man’s nature and of life’s potential."

Without truth there would be no need for evidence and there would be no facts to any claim? Unless we seek out the sense of things we become senseless. Mindless. Non-intuitive instinct-driven eaters and sweaters.


Unlike truth, facts are supported by testable evidence. I know that it is common to use the words interchangeably but it leads to problems, especially when someone wields truth as the sword of a supernatural deity/creator.


True (pun intended)

edit on 13-10-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: moved quote



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Grimpachi




If one does decide to open those doors then they need to be prepared for the consequences.

We agree on that.


Woohoo one small step moment.

I think we can probably agree on much more.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Meaningless entirely, every part of it is using logic that is unable to see any farther than it is allowed too.

Nicodemus basically said the same thing...

Even though he was the most renowned Bible teacher of his day, he still struggled to understand these things.


“Only in receiving can we know.” ~ Hilary of Poitiers

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? John 3:10-12

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ~ 1 Corinthians 2:14

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. ~ 2 Corinthians 4:3

originally posted by: graphuto
the Bible plainly says that those who aren't saved, literally can't understand God and His Word.





top topics



 
45
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join