Why Keep Posting Religion on a Conspiracy Site?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

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)[/quotethe evidence that the Church is truly godless or satanic even, going by their own definitions.

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

You are aware that you attack all religion and people discussing religion on ATS in the friggin headline of your thread? And you expect people to respect that even so, any mentioning religion in this your sacred thread is derailment. Hm. Help me here, I don't get it...

Im gonna have to assume that english is not your first language? Would I be correct? This is not my friggin thread. I have not attacked anyone. Explain to me WHY a friggin thread about unicorns, or aliens needs a biblical verse inserted? Being off topic is thread derailment. Period. Once again, not my thread, read slower or get translation software.

a reply to: dianashay

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.

And I mistakenly have decided that they named the car Ford because
Genesis 32:22
And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two womenservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok.

Joshua 2:7
And the men pursued after them the way to Jordan unto the fords: and as soon as they which pursued after them were gone out, they shut the gate.

Judges 3:28
And he said unto them, Follow after me: for the LORD hath delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over.

Isaiah 16:2
For it shall be, that, as a wandering bird cast out of the nest, so the daughters of Moab shall be at the fords of Arnon.


Perfect post who could not agree on every point.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

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.

Well, for one the mentioned kind never subscribe to one of the 4000+ religions on earth (sic.), never do they apply courtesy or show respect or decency in discussions relating to any of said 4000+ religions.

My kind

There you go...

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.

Things aren't always black and white. And like I said, eventhough I am not a very religious person, infact I am not religious at all, except perhaps if I am to some breathtaking concert or having just survived something even more breathtaking-- I am not religious, but somehow I still have to defend stuff of moral matters, often concerning gays or whatever people were doing in Sodom and how stupid I am to believe this believe that. Sod that crap. THAT's the nonsense which is irrelevant and completely arbitrary to any discussion. It's hate and has no place in a discussion and should be moderated more carefully. But since you ask, though coupled with a sharp object, the pen is mightier than the sword, and the Bible is a remarkable piece of truly timeless human literature, bringing light to several different religions and customs in the ME between a mythical Eden believed to have existed some 6000 years ago, and the time after the fall of Jerusalem in year 70.

Inspired by your words, I know I may be stabbing my own back here, or shooting my own foot, or disembodying my own bleeder here, I am certainly not known to be especially polite or tactful-- but the thing is, trolling, no matter in which form or shape, well, it's trolling. Some Christians tend to it, sure, but so does a rather uniform group of non-Christians, a few specimens in this thread I'd bet. The kind you identify with in your reply who "believe that the bible, church, and faith are deeply intertwined". There are obvious connections between the Bible and the Church, but did you know it was illegal for any common Catholic to own a copy of the Bible, or even read it with own eyes, and certainly in no other language than Latin-- until just a few decades ago? Not strange though, since the Bible is the evidence that the Church is truly godless or satanic even, going by their own definitions.

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

You are aware that you attack all religion and people discussing religion on ATS in the friggin headline of your thread? And you expect people to respect that even so, any mentioning religion in this your sacred thread is derailment. Hm. Help me here, I don't get it...

What I am aware of is that english cannot be your first language. I AM NOT THE OP. Im not sure how you got to that conclusion, maybe god told you. You get it now?

a reply to: Char-Lee

and here I thought it was spelled 'fjord'

oh noooo

yet another conspiracy in our midst. When will it ever end? lol.

That's it. Ban fjords too.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Well how about if it is on public display and also having used taxpayer money from the Endowment of the Arts? You care not what your taxpayer dollars are doing?

He's in the news again. On Thursday in New York, an art gallery opens a new Serrano show including his photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine. The "artwork" made news in the 1980s, when it was learned that Serrano had received a National Endowment for the Arts grant — meaning your money — for his work.
The fact that tax dollars paid him for such an act of religious bigotry was the hook that allowed politicians to engage in what the left mocks as "the culture war."

And just to show Presidential bias

Yet coming as it does so close to the anti-Muhammad video — which was quickly and loudly condemned by the president and other government officials — some Christians are demanding equal treatment. They want the president to denounce Serrano with similar force.

And then there's always Hollywood

There wasn't as much outrage a few years ago, when Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" urinated on Christ for a joke. David didn't rationalize the act, as did Serrano, reasoning like some cruel and narcissistic child that he used his art to question what was acceptable.

articles.chicagotribune.com...

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

and here I thought it was spelled 'fjord'

oh noooo

yet another conspiracy in our midst. When will it ever end? lol.

That's it. Ban fjords too.

Thankyou for this, I had to know! Interesting little things!Learned something new and went off topic, but well I think the whole thread is basically off topic at this point :-)

Ford
"Not to be confused with fjord."

A ford is a shallow place with good footing where a river or stream may be crossed by wading or in a vehicle.[1] A ford is mostly a natural phenomenon, in contrast to a low water crossing, which is an artificial bridge that allows crossing a river or stream when water is low.

Geologically, a fjord (/ˈfjɔːd/ or /ˈfɪɔːd/; also spelled fiord) is a long, narrow inlet with steep sides or cliffs, created by glacial erosion. The word comes to English from Norwegian, but related words are used in several Nordic languages, in many cases to refer to any long narrow body of water other than the more specific meaning it has in English.

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 that you need to be careful.

When you prize equality above liberty, you necessarily lose liberty because there then needs to be an all-powerful gatekeeper who must then become the arbiter of what is and isn't "fair" and "equal." Right now, you don't see where it could be bad because you think you have only to gain from this, but trust me, when it comes for you, and it will, you will understand what you're losing in order to hurt those you don't like.

And when the dust settles, there will be the gatekeeper class that resides above you and keeps you down, and you will have handed them the power thinking you were making it all fair and equal, and you will be, equally fair and miserable with everyone you knocked down on your way to the power you will never have.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

So what are you saying?? Do you want a picture of piss christ hung up next to every permanent monument placed on public land??? Was that picture contracted by the government?? Answer is no.

More and more it seems you are pushing for a theocracy. So you didn't like the artists picture so what. I don't care for a lot of things called art nowadays but there really isn't any parallel between what an artist does and placing of public monuments.

In 1987, Serrano's Piss Christ was exhibited at the Stux Gallery in New York and was favorably received.[10] The piece later caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors, including United States Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms, outraged that Serrano received $15,000 for the work, and $5,000 in 1986[11] from the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts. Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and he lost grants due to the controversy.[12] Others alleged that the government funding of Piss Christ violated separation of church and state.[13][14] The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ.[15] Supporters argued that the controversy over Piss Christ is an issue of artistic freedom and freedom of speech.[15]

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ": that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.[16]en.wikipedia.org...

Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content.

Several copies were sold one went for $314,500. Art isn't about controlling content it is in the eye of the beholder. The catholic nun knows it why don't you?

Did you know the Nazi's destroyed a lot of art they didn't like? I am not saying you seem to share a mindset or anything just thought it was an interesting fact.

a reply to: Grimpachi

you can thank democracy for the fact that we dont already live in a theocracy. thats half the reason we split from england. but then you got these silly gooses who want to crawl back to the days of monarchism and kiss the shiny boots of Yahweh the Grand Fuhrer himself.

but i cant argue with their ability to post on these forums. there is a religion forum and they have every right to post their thoughts on it.

a reply to: Tangerine

Wow, that was profound.

Did you come up with that all by yourself or did you need help?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh I don't care that they post on these forums I sometimes find the threads amusing because of it. The only thing I dislike intensely is when science forums are invaded with walls of scripture repeatedly. I have gotten good at skimming over them though.

It is what it is though and of course they are free to post how they please it is just such a waste of space where conversation could be had. Thats all.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

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?

Apparently, you've forgotten your own topic. I suggest that you review your own posts.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Grimpachi

Well how about if it is on public display and also having used taxpayer money from the Endowment of the Arts? You care not what your taxpayer dollars are doing?

He's in the news again. On Thursday in New York, an art gallery opens a new Serrano show including his photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine. The "artwork" made news in the 1980s, when it was learned that Serrano had received a National Endowment for the Arts grant — meaning your money — for his work.
The fact that tax dollars paid him for such an act of religious bigotry was the hook that allowed politicians to engage in what the left mocks as "the culture war."

And just to show Presidential bias

Yet coming as it does so close to the anti-Muhammad video — which was quickly and loudly condemned by the president and other government officials — some Christians are demanding equal treatment. They want the president to denounce Serrano with similar force.

And then there's always Hollywood

There wasn't as much outrage a few years ago, when Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" urinated on Christ for a joke. David didn't rationalize the act, as did Serrano, reasoning like some cruel and narcissistic child that he used his art to question what was acceptable.

articles.chicagotribune.com...

OK, OK, we'll let you carry the cross in the Easter parade.

cancelled.

sorry

My brain is done for the day.

a reply to: Grimpachi

So what are you saying?? Do you want a picture of piss christ hung up next to every permanent monument placed on public land??? Was that picture contracted by the government?? Answer is no.

Ummmmm, no? I'm afraid you didn't understand the point I was trying to make. Did I word it wrong? I said that one of the goals of communism was to promote ugly art forms. You suggested that these ugly art forms are not being shoved in everyone's face publicly. I cited a specific incidence of a public showing of such art, and explained that it was produced with a grant from the National Endowment for the arts, which by it's own description on it's websiste states

federal agency that funds and promotes artistic excellence, creativity, and innovation for the benefit of individuals and communities.

arts.gov... and is therefore patronized by your tax dollars. I asked you if you thought that using tax money was an "in your face" display of ugly art. Well that was the implication anyway. Have I brought you up to speed?

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.” 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

whitelocust.wordpress.com...

This goes hand in hand with the communist goal to

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

All of this related to displaying things in public. I wondered if it would offend you to see sacrilegious art in public.

Did you know the Nazi's destroyed a lot of art they didn't like?

And should I be surprised? Did you know that the Communist Chinese destroyed priceless Tibetan temples and art? And did you also know that facism and communism are both spun from the same cloth of Totalitarian control by Big Government?

a reply to: Tangerine

You also did not get the point. It looks more like you just wanted to get in a snarky comment to me.

a reply to: Grimpachi

The only thing I dislike intensely is when science forums are invaded with walls of scripture repeatedly

Ok I can appreciate this. You just want a rational scientific discussion, that's completely understandable. While we can understand many amazing things through scientific observation, science still does not explain all the mysteries. I am one of those people who believe that science and religion don't necessarily have to oppose each other. For instance if you take certain biblical ideas allegorically, one can begin to transcend how the authors tried to portray a time sequence. HIndu cosmology is a wonderful representation of such as can be seen from the concept of one day in the life of Brahma(the creative principle)

The puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point, Brahma rests for one night, just as long as the day.

en.wikipedia.org...

Makes sense to me. Creative Principle/Brahman Brahma/God the Father
So while scientific theory can explain how the stars formed etc..... the truth of the matter is that the creation of the Universe cannot be fully explained by scientific theory alone.
Theologians have discussed the creation in interesting terms

In theology, the common phrase creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"), contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God).

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Ummmmm, no? I'm afraid you didn't understand the point I was trying to make. Did I word it wrong?

Did you word it wrong? I can't say on that but I can say I am still trying to figure out how you are drawing a parallel of an art grant and subsequent prize to monuments placed on public property.

I get that you don't like the persons art but honestly who are you to judge? It isn't like the artist tried to make it into a monument.

BTW you seem to have gotten the history of that art piece a bit wrong. Anyway you claimed it was shoved in peoples face I believe you are wrong there as it wasn't forced on anyone. It has been exhibited at many galleries but forced on none. There have been quite a few little nazi types in the past who have vandalized or tried to destroy it as well.

Did that bring you up to speed?

The way you push your communist stuff reads exactly how I imagine a theocracy pusher would present it.

All of this related to displaying things in public. I wondered if it would offend you to see sacrilegious art in public.

Well first of all I don't pay any public art much attention but even if I did find art offensive then so be it. That may be the intention. Art is meant to invoke all types of thoughts but isn't meant to be idolized. The sacrilegious doesn't mean much to me but since it does to you don't you feel that every church is being sacrilegious? After all even the ten commandments has a line about creating such monuments like the ten commandment ones. Again irony.

The christian religion seems to be guilty of being sacrilegious quite a bit doesn't that bother you?

Going back to a comparison between art and monuments well they are not the same thing though I see you keep trying to equate them. Sorry they aren't. There is such a thing as artistic freedom and freedom of speech you also have your freedom to worship as you choose as far as govt land goes there is the establishment clause. I will ask you bluntly do you wish to change those things and do you wish to make the US into a theocracy?

Anyway, since this is a conspiracy site and you asked....


coolinterestingstuff.com...

Some of the more broadly sweeping theories claim documentation of the Jesus bloodline; secular historical proof of Jesus’s existence, in the form of correspondence between Saint Paul and Emperor Nero; secular historical proof via the same correspondence that Jesus did not exist; contemporary depictions of Jesus (that is to say, formal portraits of Jesus made by people who actually saw and depicted him in real life, whereas the earliest known depictions of Jesus, which clearly intended to represent him directly, date from the late 2nd Century AD).

This line of the theory can go on ad infinitum, and has accused the Church of hiding proof in the Archives of the existence of various Biblical relics, either the relics themselves, or reliable documentation as to their whereabouts, including the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, the True Cross, the truth about the Shroud of Turin, and many others.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Ok I can appreciate this. You just want a rational scientific discussion, that's completely understandable. While we can understand many amazing things through scientific observation, science still does not explain all the mysteries.

You're right that it doesn't explain all the mysteries and I am fine with that. I am not OK with looking to ancient texts trying to make things fit allegorically or not to fill in those mysteries with god of the gaps.

I don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer as opposed to I believe this without any evidence to support it.

Makes sense to me. Creative Principle/Brahman Brahma/God the Father
So while scientific theory can explain how the stars formed etc..... the truth of the matter is that the creation of the

Well I am glad it makes sense to you and you are welcome to believe what you wish. You and I would only have problems if at some point you tried to force what you think makes sense on to me without the evidence to back it up.

Universe cannot be fully explained by scientific theory alone.

Thats true for now maybe even forever but like I said I am OK with that. I would rather have the right answers or no answers over made up answers that can't be substantiated.

Theologians have discussed the creation in interesting terms

I expect theology from theologians. I expect answers backed by evidence from science. I don't care to intermingle the two.