Why Keep Posting Religion on a Conspiracy Site?

originally posted by: Tangerine

Asking a question is not making a claim of fact. Surely, you know that.

So my second question is closer to your claim - you are insinuating that you have seriously never heard of this Jesus character?

What rock have you been hiding under?

a reply to: Grimpachi


Oh yes, without a doubt, companies should pay for their own toys - I have no quarrel there. In fact, I believe it to be fascistic for government to involve itself in business so deeply as to be funding private projects on behalf of said companies.

In the matter of art, however, I think that if the Endowment for the Arts (if it simply HAS to exist) is going to fund anti-religious works, it should equally fund religious works, so as to be impartial in the matter. But then we run into problems with the Separation Clause. If that is the case, and the government cannot fund religious themed artwork (I think there would be a hell of an uproar), then to maintain impartiality, should they not also be barred from funding anti-religious art works?

Seriously, what I believe in the matter is that the Separation Clause bars government from exerting an opinion in the matter either way - it can neither endorse nor attack a religion, and properly has no legitimate say at all in matters of religion. You know - a "separation" between government and religion. If that's the case, it properly shouldn't be funding statements in either direction.

I apologize if there are any misspellings - I'm notorious for them, and am tinkering with a new OS (Zorin OS). It's a lovely operating system, but the handy-dandy ATS spellchecker I've come to rely on isn't working in it.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I hate it when I have to star an atheist's posts, and you are consistently jamming me up into that position.

We're probably both gonna go to hell for that!

I think you and I could get along - I wouldn't try to convert you to whatever religion this is, and I don't think you'd try to convert me to whatever religion that ain't.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Tangerine

Asking a question is not making a claim of fact. Surely, you know that.

So my second question is closer to your claim - you are insinuating that you have seriously never heard of this Jesus character?

What rock have you been hiding under?

I was questioning the poster's implication that Jesus existed. I'll bet you could have figured that out. In fact, I'll bet you did figure that out.

a reply to: nenothtu


First off don't worry about spelling with me. That isn't an issue as long as I can understand your point.

In the matter of art, however, I think that if the Endowment for the Arts (if it simply HAS to exist) is going to fund anti-religious works, it should equally fund religious works, so as to be impartial in the matter. But then we run into problems with the Separation Clause. If that is the case, and the government cannot fund religious themed artwork (I think there would be a hell of an uproar), then to maintain impartiality, should they not also be barred from funding anti-religious art works?

Here is the thing that I think a lot of people have been mislead to believe about so called anti religious works such as the piss christ which from here out I will call PC. You see Serrano didn't apply for a grant from National Endowment for the Arts stating what type of art he would produce for one thing it wouldn't be much of a competition if the final pieces had already been known. BTW the grant was for 5K and as I have shown before the content of the art was not restricted so he could have done something very religious or none at all. Second that art piece was received by the public and was open to interpretation a Catholic Nun who was also an art critic said it was not blasphemous however some senators interpreted it differently. You see the separation clause was not breached because the state did not commision a religious or anti religious art piece they commissioned an art piece the artist decided on the content.

Because of this thread I have learned a lot about PC looking up articles on it. If it hadn't have been brought up here I would have never looked into this stuff on my own. I did find that many of the articles that were against it had incorrectly stated that the piece was commissioned for 15k that was untrue. First prize at the art show was 15K and PC won. Something else I didn't know about PC is that there was also milk christ, OJ christ, and blood christ. The artist played with several mediums. What can I say artists are weird.

To the point though. The state can't fund religious or anti religious themed art but in the case of the grant from the National Endowment for the Arts it can give a open grant for a art piece with the content left to the artist. They are funding art not a theme.

I hope I was able to explain that clearly.

originally posted by: Tangerine

I was questioning the poster's implication that Jesus existed. I'll bet you could have figured that out. In fact, I'll bet you did figure that out.

By posting a counter implication?

So your just in it for the battle then, and care nothing for fact?

At least I've seen no fact to support your implication, no more than from the other side. I doubt you're going to win many converts like that.

Be that as it may, I'm questioning YOUR implication that jesus DIDN'T exist.

Aren't implications fun?

a reply to: Grimpachi

I can live with that. If I'm reading you right, you would have had no issues if the piece had been some variant of an Eastern Orthodox icon or something - at least no more issue with that than with the PC, and if that's correct, I'm ok with that.

HAD it been such an icon, I have no doubt there would have been squalls and screams from the opposing camp, just as there were from the fundamentalist Christian camp as the event transpired. Since neither of those squalls or screams emanated from you or I, let's go have a beer and call it a day!

We can discuss Stupid Politican Tricks and wasted governemnt funding over the brew.

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: jude11

Ummm...

I guess I probably fell asleep and missed something.

There is now a problem with religious posters making religious posts... in the religion forum?

?

Does that follow for the chemtrail and 9/11 conspiracy forums, too? Are people posting on those topics in those forums now personas-non-gratas?

What about the UFO forums? Should we confine ourselves to talking about baseball or something there?

Just trying to catch up on what I missed in my sleep so I can get a handle on this Brave New World! Don't want to stay TOO far behind the times!

Carefully go through the OP once again because it seems that yes, you were asleep. I can see this by your response.

That's ok tho. Many others here have twisted the OP as well. So far in fact that It's not even recognizable anymore. And this is also addressed in the OP but...if I were to say that is business as usual when posting about religion by a non religious person, it would be wrong.

So I won't say it.

Peace

a reply to: nenothtu



Cool. Yup you read me correctly and I think you are probably right that regardless of the content be it anti or pro religious in nature there would have been as you put it "squalls and screams from the opposing camp".

Most of the art I see being produced today doesn't seem like art to me anyway but what do I know.

Because the world's biggest, most important conspiracy involves control of the world by a banking group who utilizes another group impersonating a certain Biblical group, while convincing another Biblical group to do their bidding based on the impersonation and intentional massive misinterpretation of scripture.

originally posted by: Tusks
Because the world's biggest, most important conspiracy involves control of the world by a banking group who utilizes another group impersonating a certain Biblical group, while convincing another Biblical group to do their bidding based on the impersonation and intentional massive misinterpretation of scripture.

How does one massively misinterpret myths? Because they're not literal, myths defy interpretation. Perhaps the foundational problem is that some people think those myths can be correctly interpreted. Once they've deluded themselves into believing that it's a short step to being manipulated or manipulating others. I understand what you're saying but still have to ask if you have deluded yourself into thinking there is a definitive interpretation.

a reply to: Tangerine

You're wrong. Jesus did not write that. It was written by someone else multiple generations after Jesus allegedly lived by someone who could not possibly have heard him say it. It's like quoting Frodo or Harry Potter and then expecting people to take you seriously. Many of us are sick of proselytizers who have no interest in topics under discussion and simply post to proselytize.

I merely implied that that is the interpretation of the events that occurred when I said: "Even JC drew a line in the sand and declared 'let whoever here who is without sin, let them cast the first stone'. Anyone who accuses is in direct contradiction to this scripture, and is no better than the sinner (and their deed) themselves." in reference to the comments that people that are judgmental (in general) are acting non-Christian to begin with. I didn't mean to imply that Jesus 'wrote' that himself. Jesus wrote nothing and all of his 'words' and ideas were only written after his death by the other prophets that surrounded him in his lifetime. In this case I referred to (John, 8:7) in agreement to those who express disappointment (and rightly so) towards others who are judgmental .

Sorry for the confusion if it was worded in a way to sound as if Jesus himself wrote those words, himself.

a reply to: jude11

So, per your request, I went through the OP again, carefully.

Walk an old man through it, please.

You posted in the religion forum.

You addressed that post to "the religious posters here" in the very first line of that post.

Then you proceeded to protest because they are posting their religious things.

What am I missing here?

I mean, how do you propose that these people discuss religion without... discussing religion?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, there is always someone to be offended and start squalling, and no religion even has to be involved. if they can't do it over "religion", then they'll use "politics" or "personal honor" or something else as the crutch to support their supposed offendedness and to legitimize their squalling.

It will be art ( "too religious", "too irreverent"), fashion ("too short", "too long"), politics ("too liberal", "too hidebound"), sports (I've never seen grown men get so bent out of shape over something they aren't even involved in doing!), religion (geeze, there are just too many "too"s there to even begin listing!), or something else for them to get righteously indignant and eminently undignified over.

I'm probably with you on the "art" issue, though - I don't see much that I would call "art" any more. they lost me when they started claiming those messes that Picasso guy was making were somehow "art"!

As if!

originally posted by: Tangerine

How does one massively misinterpret myths? Because they're not literal, myths defy interpretation. Perhaps the foundational problem is that some people think those myths can be correctly interpreted. Once they've deluded themselves into believing that it's a short step to being manipulated or manipulating others. I understand what you're saying but still have to ask if you have deluded yourself into thinking there is a definitive interpretation.

Even mythology has a structure to it, and can therefore be misinterpreted by screwing around with the structure.

originally posted by: dianashay
a reply to: Tangerine

You're wrong. Jesus did not write that. It was written by someone else multiple generations after Jesus allegedly lived by someone who could not possibly have heard him say it. It's like quoting Frodo or Harry Potter and then expecting people to take you seriously. Many of us are sick of proselytizers who have no interest in topics under discussion and simply post to proselytize.

I merely implied that that is the interpretation of the events that occurred when I said: "Even JC drew a line in the sand and declared 'let whoever here who is without sin, let them cast the first stone'. Anyone who accuses is in direct contradiction to this scripture, and is no better than the sinner (and their deed) themselves." in reference to the comments that people that are judgmental (in general) are acting non-Christian to begin with. I didn't mean to imply that Jesus 'wrote' that himself. Jesus wrote nothing and all of his 'words' and ideas were only written after his death by the other prophets that surrounded him in his lifetime. In this case I referred to (John, 8:7) in agreement to those who express disappointment (and rightly so) towards others who are judgmental .

Sorry for the confusion if it was worded in a way to sound as if Jesus himself wrote those words, himself.
/quote]

You've done it again! You continue to claim that Jesus actually lived. There is no historical evidence (ie. contemporaneous documentation) to prove your claim.

edit on 15-10-2014 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Tangerine

How does one massively misinterpret myths? Because they're not literal, myths defy interpretation. Perhaps the foundational problem is that some people think those myths can be correctly interpreted. Once they've deluded themselves into believing that it's a short step to being manipulated or manipulating others. I understand what you're saying but still have to ask if you have deluded yourself into thinking there is a definitive interpretation.

Even mythology has a structure to it, and can therefore be misinterpreted by screwing around with the structure.

Mythology is the study of myths. I think you mean that myths have structure.

a reply to: Tangerine

Either way. Mythology, as a "study of", must also have a structure. Manipulation of that structure can also skew the perception of the underlying myths it seeks to "study".

ETA: I thought an illustration might be helpful. I've also been reading in another thread where an apparent feminist has been crying the blues about "male dominated society", pointing to the "Sacred Rites" of ancient Sumeria, wherein the "king" was required to bed the goddesses' earthly representative - a priestess - once a year, every year, as an example of just how long men have been holding women under their thumbs purely for their own pleasure. The problem there is that Sumerian "kings" (lu-gal, "Big Man") started out as simple war leaders - generals you might call them - and society was run and governed by the priest class at that time, from their temples.

The lu-gal wasn't calling the shots for the priestess to lie down and be nice... it was just the other way around.

She also makes the explicit assumption that said priestess was "a young girl" to sate the all powerful "king's" lusts. I wonder how many young girls were head priestesses in ancient Sumeria? maybe they got to start out at the top and work their way up from the pinnacle? I dunno. All this time I was thinking more along the lines of those old nuns at the Catholic school.

Manipulated mythology to present quite an opposite narrative.

As an interesting aside, that same apparent feminist wonders why she can't find a man to suit her tastes.

people never fail to amaze me.

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Tangerine

Either way. Mythology, as a "study of", must also have a structure. Manipulation of that structure can also skew the perception of the underlying myths it seeks to "study".

ETA: I thought an illustration might be helpful. I've also been reading in another thread where an apparent feminist has been crying the blues about "male dominated society", pointing to the "Sacred Rites" of ancient Sumeria, wherein the "king" was required to bed the goddesses' earthly representative - a priestess - once a year, every year, as an example of just how long men have been holding women under their thumbs purely for their own pleasure. The problem there is that Sumerian "kings" (lu-gal, "Big Man") started out as simple war leaders - generals you might call them - and society was run and governed by the priest class at that time, from their temples.

The lu-gal wasn't calling the shots for the priestess to lie down and be nice... it was just the other way around.

She also makes the explicit assumption that said priestess was "a young girl" to sate the all powerful "king's" lusts. I wonder how many young girls were head priestesses in ancient Sumeria? maybe they got to start out at the top and work their way up from the pinnacle? I dunno. All this time I was thinking more along the lines of those old nuns at the Catholic school.

Manipulated mythology to present quite an opposite narrative.

As an interesting aside, that same apparent feminist wonders why she can't find a man to suit her tastes.

people never fail to amaze me.

You're confusing myths with history. Your misogyny did also not escape notice. What a waste of time.

a reply to: Tangerine

You've done it again! You continue to claim that Jesus actually lived. There is no historical evidence (ie. contemporaneous documentation) to prove your claim.

I refuse to go round n' round with you about the comments I made to another that complained about
Christians being judgmental and how I explained that it is unChristian to do so so to ignore those comments made by
such a self-proclaimed 'Christian'.

Whether you believe JC exists or not, or the person who I told to ignore THAT (so-called judgmental Christian) type of person believes or not, my point was to remind those that are confronted by judgement that their so-called Messiah (whether you believe he existed or not) would NOT advocate the act of judgement. My advice was to 1. ignore the judgmental person or 2. throw that scripture (John 6:7, that they believe in) right back in their face. One can do either acts of defiance and would be a win-win.

If you have misunderstood me and see it as me 'being all head-rollin' Christian' on you, then you are truly mistaken and clearly reading into things that aren't there. There is nothing I can do about that. I have been as simple in terms as I can get.