Why Keep Posting Religion on a Conspiracy Site?

a reply to: inbound

And I think I've posted that different people have different ideas of relevance.

Look at the Ebola threads, there are so many loony theories running around in those that it will make your head spin, but should people be barred from posting in them for holding a conspiracy-oriented POV? On a conspiracy forum? Similarly, for those who actually do believe in religious prophecy, it's something like a great conspiracy tying many things of significance together in the world.

I think you will find this all over in life, but then again, "if everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." - George S. Patton

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Jesus message was not to condemn generally, in fact the only people he did condemn were the money grabbers at the temple and the religious leaders of the day because they were abusing his people.
The most culturally hated people of the day, tax collectors and harlots and there type were embraced by him, not condemned.
Fundamentalists that preach sinners are going to burn forever, are truly clueless, and deserve the scorn heaped upon them by the non-believers. And for that matter, even from Christians that have progressed beyond that archaic false dogma, by just studying the bible.

Unrepentant sinners will have some problems, yes. Accepting Christ is much more than just calling his name and treating it like a "Get Out of Sin Free Card."

But everyone is a sinner. I think you misunderstand the difference between loving the sinner and hating the sin. Even Christ told the woman who was brought before Him by the Pharisees to go and sin no more.

a reply to: jude11

Well. for two reasons:

1. Anytime there is a conversation regarding conspiracies someone will bring up religion. Are we supposed to ban users that do?

2. Almost every trouble spot in the world revolves about 'someone's' religion..... it would be nearly impossible to speak of the issues in the middle east without bringing up someone trying to impose their beliefs on others.

a reply to: wulff

I've used that same arguement since page 14 Wullf and it went nowhere lol.

I think most agree that the topic is moot, because it would be impossible to have a conversation about almost anything without religion being brought up as an underlying factor from the root of the issue.

a reply to: ketsuko

Oh I get it for sure, there is balance to be had however in what one poster talked about people condemning others, Jesus has been delegated to judge, not envious fundamentalist Christians who get a sick joy by condemning people to burn, when there morality doesn't match theirs.
They have no say in the matter. In the future Jesus will judge the sheep and the goats(people), he makes the call, and nobody else. So yes there are those that don't make it because of there morality. But it's highly presumptuous and judgmental for anybody to make the call in advance of Jesus final judgement.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Jesus message was not to condemn generally, in fact the only people he did condemn were the money grabbers at the temple and the religious leaders of the day because they were abusing his people.
The most culturally hated people of the day, tax collectors and harlots and there type were embraced by him, not condemned.
Fundamentalists that preach sinners are going to burn forever, are truly clueless, and deserve the scorn heaped upon them by the non-believers. And for that matter, even from Christians that have progressed beyond that archaic false dogma, by just studying the bible.

Unrepentant sinners will have some problems, yes. Accepting Christ is much more than just calling his name and treating it like a "Get Out of Sin Free Card."

But everyone is a sinner. I think you misunderstand the difference between loving the sinner and hating the sin. Even Christ told the woman who was brought before Him by the Pharisees to go and sin no more.

Your silly claims are just that -- claims. They are not facts. Stop pretending that they are.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh I get it for sure, there is balance to be had however in what one poster talked about people condemning others, Jesus has been delegated to judge, not envious fundamentalist Christians who get a sick joy by condemning people to burn, when there morality doesn't match theirs.
They have no say in the matter. In the future Jesus will judge the sheep and the goats(people), he makes the call, and nobody else. So yes there are those that don't make it because of there morality. But it's highly presumptuous and judgmental for anybody to make the call in advance of Jesus final judgement.

What Jesus? You make claims of fact that you can't possibly prove. The real offense is in you and others making claims of fact that aren't fact but belief. Do you get that? Do you know how to remedy it?

They have no say in the matter. In the future Jesus will judge the sheep and the goats(people), he makes the call, and nobody else. So yes there are those that don't make it because of there morality. But it's highly presumptuous and judgmental for anybody to make the call in advance of Jesus final judgement.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Firstly, morality has nothing to do with actual biblical Commandments. Mores /Morals are cultural/societal dogmas (man made), NOT biblical in context. Even actual laws (again man-made) are similar (if not directly derived from biblical ideals).

Secondly, in regards to someone (who is not Jesus) being 'presumptuous' in their attempt to accuse others of misdeeds and thereby going to hell in a hand-basket (actually not so, they will just be non-existent) you are accurate. Ignore those people in totality. 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.

a reply to: ketsuko

Who said anything about theocracy?

The poster I was conversing with seemed to be endorsing a theocracy so I asked them. There are several people who post on this site that do endorse such a thing. Hope that answered your question.

But if it's acceptable to fund sacrilege and disrespect, then why isn't it likewise acceptable to fund respect in a 10 Commandments monument?

There is that word sacrilege again. I already said that word doesn't mean much to me but I looked it up and here is some of what is said about it.

Sacrilege is the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object or person. It can come in the form of irreverence to sacred persons, places, and things. When the sacrilegious offence is verbal, it is called blasphemy, and when physical, it is often called desecration. In a less proper sense, any transgression against what is seen as the virtue of religion would be a sacrilege.

So pretty much anything you don't like can be labeled as sacrilege.

Seems not everyone agrees on what is sacrilege either. I had already posted this.

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.

Art is funny that way as it doesn't invoke the same feelings in everyone. It is open to interpretation.

Let me remind you there is no clause in the constitution about blasphemy or sacrilege but there is a separation clause and that does pertain to public monuments not art. If someone tries to turn piss christ into a public monument I will be there fighting it.

Or is it only that you don't find the positive aspect of that funding to be acceptable, but if someone gets funding to dis religion, then clearly it's not being endorsed?

Who was funded to dis religion??? Can you show that Serrano was given money to specifically dis religion??? I know about the grant which came with no instructions or restrictions in fact it was previously known grants were given without controlling content.

No one is saying Serrano can't make whatever art he wants on his own dime.

The National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, "without controlling content".

As far as the 5k grant goes when you think of monetary return of such a grant the govt made out like bandits.

In 2005, a print garnered $42,000. In 2009, it netted $146,500. In 2011, it went for $50,000. One May 15 2012 was $150,000. Christie’s sold one for $105,000 in 2000, and in 2011 another went for $314,500.

Just in taxes from the sale of the prints the govt recouped its investment many times over so it is one of the few things we made a profit on. However on April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters in 1997 two teenagers attack one print with a hammer at the National Gallery of Victoria.

What I find truly pathetic is that it was in 1987, Serrano's Piss Christ was exhibited at the Stux Gallery in New York and it wasn't until 2012, Piss Christ was on display at the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in New York that religious groups and some lawmakers called for President Barack Obama to denounce it. Seriously WTF it took 15 years of it being on display around the world before it became an issue in the hearts and minds of the US. I do remember how that came about it had to do with a news station and feigned outrage. The senate temper tantrum on the matter was finished back in 1989 so was it just a slow news day that it got dredged up again in 2012.

But like I said if someone or group tries to make it into a public monument I will fight it but until it becomes a monument or is proposed to become a monument then a ten commandment monument and art is not even close to being the same.

a reply to: Tangerine

It's all belief.
All "knowledge" is belief.
All "fact" is belief.
Don't believe me?

Knowledge as Justified True Belief
There are various kinds of knowledge: knowing how to do something (for example, how to ride a bicycle), knowing someone in person, and knowing a place or a city. Although such knowledge is of epistemological interest as well, we shall focus on knowledge of propositions and refer to such knowledge using the schema ‘S knows that p’, where ‘S’ stands for the subject who has knowledge and ‘p’ for the proposition that is known.[1] Our question will be: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for S to know that p? We may distinguish, broadly, between a traditional and a non-traditional approach to answering this question. We shall refer to them as ‘TK’ and ‘NTK’.

According to TK, knowledge that p is, at least approximately, justified true belief (JTB). False propositions cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge requires truth. A proposition S doesn't even believe can't be a proposition that S knows. Therefore, knowledge requires belief. Finally, S's being correct in believing that p might merely be a matter of luck.[2] Therefore, knowledge requires a third element, traditionally identified as justification. Thus we arrive at a tripartite analysis of knowledge as JTB: S knows that p if and only if p is true and S is justified in believing that p. According to this analysis, the three conditions — truth, belief, and justification — are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge.[3]

Initially, we may say that the role of justification is to ensure that S's belief is not true merely because of luck. On that, TK and NTK are in agreement. They diverge, however, as soon as we proceed to be more specific about exactly how justification is to fulfill this role. According to TK, S's belief that p is true not merely because of luck when it is reasonable or rational, from S's own point of view, to take p to be true. According to evidentialism, what makes a belief justified in this sense is the possession of evidence. The basic idea is that a belief is justified to the degree it fits S's evidence. NTK, on the other hand, conceives of the role of justification differently. Its job is to ensure that S's belief has a high objective probability of truth and therefore, if true, is not true merely because of luck. One prominent idea is that this is accomplished if, and only if, a belief originates in reliable cognitive processes or faculties. This view is known as reliabilism.

plato.stanford.edu...

I'm sorry but you have no right to tell anyone what to believe.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Tangerine

It's all belief.
All "knowledge" is belief.
All "fact" is belief.
Don't believe me?

Knowledge as Justified True Belief
There are various kinds of knowledge: knowing how to do something (for example, how to ride a bicycle), knowing someone in person, and knowing a place or a city. Although such knowledge is of epistemological interest as well, we shall focus on knowledge of propositions and refer to such knowledge using the schema ‘S knows that p’, where ‘S’ stands for the subject who has knowledge and ‘p’ for the proposition that is known.[1] Our question will be: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for S to know that p? We may distinguish, broadly, between a traditional and a non-traditional approach to answering this question. We shall refer to them as ‘TK’ and ‘NTK’.

According to TK, knowledge that p is, at least approximately, justified true belief (JTB). False propositions cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge requires truth. A proposition S doesn't even believe can't be a proposition that S knows. Therefore, knowledge requires belief. Finally, S's being correct in believing that p might merely be a matter of luck.[2] Therefore, knowledge requires a third element, traditionally identified as justification. Thus we arrive at a tripartite analysis of knowledge as JTB: S knows that p if and only if p is true and S is justified in believing that p. According to this analysis, the three conditions — truth, belief, and justification — are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge.[3]

Initially, we may say that the role of justification is to ensure that S's belief is not true merely because of luck. On that, TK and NTK are in agreement. They diverge, however, as soon as we proceed to be more specific about exactly how justification is to fulfill this role. According to TK, S's belief that p is true not merely because of luck when it is reasonable or rational, from S's own point of view, to take p to be true. According to evidentialism, what makes a belief justified in this sense is the possession of evidence. The basic idea is that a belief is justified to the degree it fits S's evidence. NTK, on the other hand, conceives of the role of justification differently. Its job is to ensure that S's belief has a high objective probability of truth and therefore, if true, is not true merely because of luck. One prominent idea is that this is accomplished if, and only if, a belief originates in reliable cognitive processes or faculties. This view is known as reliabilism.

plato.stanford.edu...

I'm sorry but you have no right to tell anyone what to believe.

You're seriously confused if you think I told anyone what to believe. Your response suggests that you didn't understand my post or, more likely, conveniently chose to manipulate it.

Why Keep Posting Religion on a Conspiracy Site?

cause we can.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

I nominate yours for best answer.

originally posted by: dianashay

They have no say in the matter. In the future Jesus will judge the sheep and the goats(people), he makes the call, and nobody else. So yes there are those that don't make it because of there morality. But it's highly presumptuous and judgmental for anybody to make the call in advance of Jesus final judgement.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Firstly, morality has nothing to do with actual biblical Commandments. Mores /Morals are cultural/societal dogmas (man made), NOT biblical in context. Even actual laws (again man-made) are similar (if not directly derived from biblical ideals).

Secondly, in regards to someone (who is not Jesus) being 'presumptuous' in their attempt to accuse others of misdeeds and thereby going to hell in a hand-basket (actually not so, they will just be non-existent) you are accurate. Ignore those people in totality. 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.

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.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Would that not eliminate the atheists' religious posts as well? Why could they not exercise a bit of self-censorship and simply walk away from discussions they don't want to have? I do, and it works fairly well for me.

I guess some times I just fail to understand people.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Just to chime in, and butt in on other folks' conversations, I'm against the National Emdowment for the Arts, period. Not a proper expenditure of the public funds. people managed to "do art" for thousands of years without being on the public dole, and there is no reason they can't continue that fine tradition in the modern age.

Whatever happened to the Starving Artist of the good old days - back when the value of a man's art was determined by how much he suffered for it?

Don't we have some roads to build or something that might be a closer approximation of a proper disbursement of public funding?

originally posted by: Tangerine

What Jesus? You make claims of fact that you can't possibly prove. The real offense is in you and others making claims of fact that aren't fact but belief. Do you get that? Do you know how to remedy it?

Do you mean claims of "fact" like stating "What Jesus?"

Or are you insinuating that you have seriously never heard of this character?

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Tangerine

What Jesus? You make claims of fact that you can't possibly prove. The real offense is in you and others making claims of fact that aren't fact but belief. Do you get that? Do you know how to remedy it?

Do you mean claims of "fact" like stating "What Jesus?"

Or are you insinuating that you have seriously never heard of this character?

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

a reply to: nenothtu

Just to chime in, and butt in on other folks' conversations, I'm against the National Emdowment for the Arts, period.

You are free to chime in. I forgot which person I said this to but your position is a fair one. Being against all of it is fine but those who seemed to be fine with the grants and competitions existing except they were having a fit when there was art produced they didn't like did not have a fair position.

I think we all have opinions about what projects should or shouldn't be funded by tax money for example I am against subsidizing the keystone pipeline with our billions to benefit private oil companies. Like saying an artist should starve for his work I say companies should pay for their own toys. That money could pay far a great many roads.

Anyway I can't argue with your position because it is a fair one I can only argue with those who hold less fair positions.

a reply to: Tangerine

They believe it's a fact.
So they state it as fact.
My comment was not really all that hard to understand.