Fellow Christians: Do you think Revelation is starting?

[United States of Peace]

Would you allow a sign stating that 'God does not exist'?

No, as it is a declarative absolute statement. If instead it was a sign supporting a secular non-religious holiday such as "Happy Festivus" or "Happy Winter Solstice" I would be perfectly fine with.

Would you allow a sign saying "God Does Exist"?

[Typhlochactas]

Would you allow a sign stating that 'God does not exist'?

No, as it is a declarative absolute statement. If instead it was a sign supporting a secular non-religious holiday such as "Happy Festivus" or "Happy Winter Solstice" I would be perfectly fine with.

So is the meaning behind a nativity scene.

[United States of Peace]

Not necessarily, I believe non-believers go to purgatory. Though I do not tell atheists "You're going to purgatory because you do not believe in God."

But...that's what you believe. What else would you tell them?

You could be polite and talk about the weather instead.

[Typhlochactas]

But...that's what you believe. What else would you tell them?

You could be polite and talk about the weather instead.

That would definitely be productive for civilization.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Which is why I said in real life. I thought most of the people I met on the internet merely feel superior because they are behind a screen and harbored extreme views because they were young and uneducated. I however, have based my views on those I have met in real life. The only relatively kind, not hot-tempered atheist I have ever met was my 60 year old Jewish History teacher, who I might add, wasn't always pleasant. Yet he had the same problem. He felt that all others that did not share his view were simply wrong and were flying in the facts of everything if they disagreed with him.

Isn't that the whole selling point of Christianity?
"Believe and be saved, or don't believe and be wrong and damned."
We're just using your dichotomy (of people being right and wrong, that is), only without the intellectual dishonesty of scaring people into believing based on fear of a nonexistent and supremely horrible punishment for supplicating your god.
So what, now we're supposed to be all morally relativistic when it comes to questioning and going against Christian beliefs, but when THEY are applied to other things, they're supremely correct and supersede all else?
Hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Not necessarily, I believe non-believers go to purgatory.

Oh, that's totally different. Really. Mm-hm. That changes EVERYTHING.

Though I do not tell atheists "You're going to purgatory because you do not believe in God." Whereas an atheist would say to me "You're going to go poof because there is no God, you are speaking to an imaginary friend agreed upon by millions of others." I do not support double standards.

I'm sorry to hear your Strawman-atheist is so rude.
And you just did, implicitly, as I'm a non-believer. Apparently, the only thing separating you and me is our willingness to be honest with each other - you don't actually have the guts to tell me the consequences for my perceived slights against your god directly.

"Do unto others as thou would have them do unto you." I do not call you stupid for your religious beliefs, I expect the same courtesy.
I do not tell atheists they are going to purgatory,

You just did, in a roundabout and watery way.

I expect atheists to not tell me that I'm going to go poof when I die and that when I pray I speak to an imaginary friend.

Again: are you that insecure that you literally CANNOT TOLERATE contrary viewpoints? Do they offend you so much? Is your faith so weak?

My religion comforts me, I like the idea of Heaven, I'm not sure what your atheism does for you, but I like the idea of knowing my God forgives me and welcomes me. I believe you are wrong, and I can say "I believe you are wrong" but I do not say, nor have I said "You are most definitely wrong" and I expect the same courtesy; funny how I never seem to receive it.

What the fuck is the difference between wrong and most definitely wrong?
Hypocrisy again. I have to constantly tiptoe around your beliefs, but you're free to snipe at and infringe on mine, trampling on free speech and the nonestablishment clause to do so.
And yeah, because your conception of "your courtesy" is inherently unfair to the other side.

[Kintuckistan]

I believe the evil of men will wax worse and worse, it is the job of the church to continue to walk the Lord's paths regardless.

Pray, study, worship the Lord. Looking forward to Sunday. God bless.

[Tmutarakhan]

See, my view on secularism is this: with the whole nativity scenes on court lawns and whatnot, I would allow it to occur. My view is that not respecting an establishment of religion can be done two ways, either purging society of religion (which has been done in the past and is infamous/notorious for the horrors it's caused) or allowing whatever religion that exists to place what they want on the court lawn

Why not LEAVE THE COURT LAWN ALONE???

I am okay with a nativity scene being on the court lawn

Doesn't the CHURCH have a perfectly good lawn?

I am okay with a Menorah on the court lawn

Doesn't the SYNAGOGUE have a lawn?

[ I am okay with a sign that says "Happy Festivus" on the court lawn.

Doesn't KRAMER have a lawn? Oh, he lives in Manhattan, I guess he doesn't.

I would equally not be okay with a religion that worships penises putting a gigantic blow-up penis on the court lawn as that would also be considered inflammatory. I do not advocate a state religion or a preference of one religion over the other

These two sentences contradict each other. I find a lingam much less offensive than a crucifix; why does your particular taste overrule mine?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Actually, Tmutarakhan, Festivus was invented by George's dad - who did have a lawn!
Problem solved.

[Euronion]

See, my view on secularism is this: with the whole nativity scenes on court lawns and whatnot, I would allow it to occur.

It should not, as it violates the nonestablishment clause.

My view is that not respecting an establishment of religion can be done two ways, either purging society of religion (which has been done in the past and is infamous/notorious for the horrors it's caused)

Forcing religion has had much the same effect.

or allowing whatever religion that exists to place what they want on the court lawn as long as it is not inflammatory.

You can't make that judgement for people in what should be a secular society.

I am okay with a nativity scene being on the court lawn, I am okay with a Menorah on the court lawn, I am okay with a sign that says "Happy Festivus" on the court lawn.I am not okay with signs, such as ones from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, that say "Religion causes hatred and hardens minds" as it can be considered inflammatory.

Why? Are you that insecure? Don't those people have a right to free speech?
What harm does it do?
And what about Islam, I wonder?

I would equally not be okay with a religion that worships penises putting a gigantic blow-up penis on the court lawn as that would also be considered inflammatory.

Not to those people!
Again, you are in no position on what is inflammatory or not for society. Why don't you just come out and say you want to ban shit you don't agree with?

I do not advocate a state religion or a preference of one religion over the other,

You just said you would advocate for Christianity and Judaism over the Penis Worshippers.

I think the government should merely allow people to express their beliefs, on and off their property

Unless they're inflammatory, which is such a wildly debatable term it's as good as worthless.
And a courthouse lawn is not "their property" - it's PUBLIC property. Which is different and subject to the nonestablishment clause.

because in reality, all the taxpayers come from different faiths and religions and therefore they should be allowed to express their views on government property as opposed to having their right stripped from them.

Unless you don't agree with them or they make you, personally, feel bad.[/spoiler]

1. I disagree. It would not be establishing preference for a religion as all religions and no religions are welcome.
2. Where did I say that forcing religion was a good thing?
3. It has nothing to do with insecurity at all. The person is free to post that sign on THEIR front lawn, but messages that can be explicitly construed as insults should not be allowed on public land. A nativity scene does not explicitly say "Atheism is horrible, it hardens the heart and mind and is responsible for human suffering" and if it did then it should be removed. There is a fine line between free speech on private property and free speech on public property that is meant to be malicious.
4. Of course not to those people. Stoning women to death is not considered offensive to Islamist extremists but it is considered offensive to the rest of us sane people, that does not mean that suddenly because they do not consider it offensive that others do not consider it offensive. Besides, I think it is pretty obvious that a blow-up penis in front of a courthouse is inflammatory. Just as a religion that uses the swastika as their Holy Symbol would not be able to put an iron swastika on the court lawn. If the penis worshipers also worshiped pencils, then they are more than welcome to put a pencil on the court lawn.
5. I never said I'd advocate Christianity and Judaism over Penis Worshipers, In the sense that the penis worshipers would not be allowed to put something that is obscene and offensive to others up.
6. A penis is inflammatory, a vagina is inflammatory, an absolute declarative worded malicious message is inflammatory. A bunch of Kings and animals crowded around a baby in a crib is not inflammatory, an iron object that holds several candles is not inflammatory, a crescent moon is not inflammatory.
7. Public=Tax Payer funded. Therefore if the taxpayers can legally walk on the lawn, they have the right to put stuff on the lawn.
8. Oh yes, because I do not support blow-up penises in front of courthouses, I obviously want to censor newspapers and have all those who disagree with me sent to the Siberian gulags.

[United States of Peace]

It should not, as it violates the nonestablishment clause.

Forcing religion has had much the same effect.

You can't make that judgement for people in what should be a secular society.

Why? Are you that insecure? Don't those people have a right to free speech?
What harm does it do?
And what about Islam, I wonder?

Not to those people!
Again, you are in no position on what is inflammatory or not for society. Why don't you just come out and say you want to ban shit you don't agree with?

You just said you would advocate for Christianity and Judaism over the Penis Worshippers.

Unless they're inflammatory, which is such a wildly debatable term it's as good as worthless.
And a courthouse lawn is not "their property" - it's PUBLIC property. Which is different and subject to the nonestablishment clause.

Unless you don't agree with them or they make you, personally, feel bad.[/spoiler]

7. Public=Tax Payer funded. Therefore if the taxpayers can legally walk on the lawn, they have the right to put stuff on the lawn.

Can you walk on a US military base? No, you can't, despite it being tax payer funded.

[Avenio]

7. Public=Tax Payer funded. Therefore if the taxpayers can legally walk on the lawn, they have the right to put stuff on the lawn.

So I could put up a sign advertising my pizza parlour on the courthouse lawn?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Euronion:

1. Not the penis religion, IE one that offends YOUR sensibilities.
2. I'm just presenting both sides of the coin here.
3. Then if the line's so fine, then just leave the damn public spaces alone. And if you were truly secure in your beliefs, you wouldn't care what us mean ol' atheists were saying.
4. Funny you should mention the Swastika - it actually is holy to Buddhists and Hindus, as well as certain native American tribes. That's where Hitler got it. If you go to India, you'll see it a lot. It's not inflammatory AT ALL to them - would you ban it? Even though it's roughly equivalent to the Cross to them?
5. ...Which consists of advocating Christians and Jews over the worshippers, as you arbitrarily find a penis more offensive than a cross.
6. Why? Based on what? Every religious symbol can be misconstrued, every symbol means something different to someone else. In your case, it's entirely arbitrary, and exists purely to justify your prejudices.
7. By that logic, people have the right to just mosey into the Pentagon. It's taxpayer funded, after all!
Nope. That's not how it works. At all.
8. It shows your use of the word "inflammatory" strictly means "I want to ban what offends ME." What the hell is so offensive about a penis anyway?
And your use of the desperate, typical slippery-slope fallacy does you no credit, although it certainly isn't on the side of legitimate civil rights.

Both sides of your argument are compromised - if you were legitimately against the establishment clause here, you wouldn't mind atheists/penis/swastika worshippers putting stuff up.
And if you were FOR it, (IE for the Constitution, really), you'd agree with me that nothing at all should be put up.
You're really twisting both ends in an attempt to basically get the government to act on your prejudices.

[Euronion]

Isn't that the whole selling point of Christianity?
"Believe and be saved, or don't believe and be wrong and damned."
We're just using your dichotomy (of people being right and wrong, that is), only without the intellectual dishonesty of scaring people into believing based on fear of a nonexistent and supremely horrible punishment for supplicating your god.
So what, now we're supposed to be all morally relativistic when it comes to questioning and going against Christian beliefs, but when THEY are applied to other things, they're supremely correct and supersede all else?
Hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Not necessarily, I believe non-believers go to purgatory.

Oh, that's totally different. Really. Mm-hm. That changes EVERYTHING.

Though I do not tell atheists "You're going to purgatory because you do not believe in God." Whereas an atheist would say to me "You're going to go poof because there is no God, you are speaking to an imaginary friend agreed upon by millions of others." I do not support double standards.

I'm sorry to hear your Strawman-atheist is so rude.
And you just did, implicitly, as I'm a non-believer. Apparently, the only thing separating you and me is our willingness to be honest with each other - you don't actually have the guts to tell me the consequences for my perceived slights against your god directly.

"Do unto others as thou would have them do unto you." I do not call you stupid for your religious beliefs, I expect the same courtesy.
I do not tell atheists they are going to purgatory,

You just did, in a roundabout and watery way.

I expect atheists to not tell me that I'm going to go poof when I die and that when I pray I speak to an imaginary friend.

Again: are you that insecure that you literally CANNOT TOLERATE contrary viewpoints? Do they offend you so much? Is your faith so weak?

My religion comforts me, I like the idea of Heaven, I'm not sure what your atheism does for you, but I like the idea of knowing my God forgives me and welcomes me. I believe you are wrong, and I can say "I believe you are wrong" but I do not say, nor have I said "You are most definitely wrong" and I expect the same courtesy; funny how I never seem to receive it.

What the fuck is the difference between wrong and most definitely wrong?
Hypocrisy again. I have to constantly tiptoe around your beliefs, but you're free to snipe at and infringe on mine, trampling on free speech and the nonestablishment clause to do so.
And yeah, because your conception of "your courtesy" is inherently unfair to the other side.

1. This is a debate thread in which I state my beliefs, you asked a direct question and I answered directly. Now you wish to construe this in a way that implicates me being a hypocrite? I think not.
2. I can tolerate contrary viewpoints. I am fine with an atheist says "I do not believe in God" I'm okay with that. What I'm not okay with is when they start insulting me. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STRENGTH OF MY FAITH! it is unpleasant, it is harassment and it makes me uncomfortable when I am getting yelled at and insulted by people, excuse me for being a human who has feelings. I'm sure you would not like someone doing the same to you.
3. The difference between "I believe you are wrong" and "You are definitely wrong" is that one is an absolute declarative statement in which you are stating the other person is wrong and you are correct. The former statement is merely stating what you believe and therefore not imposing what you are saying on others.
4. When have I sniped and trampled your rights or your beliefs? you are completely twisting my words around to try and serve your purpose while ignoring what I have repeatedly said. Let me give you a readers digest version of our conversation. You claim that all Christians believe that all nonbelievers go to hell and you asked me if that was the message of Christianity. I said it was not and that I personally believed that nonbelievers go to purgatory. Did you catch the "I personally believe" part? You then say that then I am being a hypocrite by telling you that you are going to purgatory. You see the inconsistency? what I believe and what is are two different things. I am not God, I have no idea where you go.
5. When posting a sign on public property meant to incur anger and hatred towards a certain group of people, it is not protected by free speech. By the way, it's called the ESTABLISHMENT Clause, and it is no way definite. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" aka, Congress can't pass a law that declares a National Religion. Care to point to the part in the Constitution where it says "Penis worshipers can put blow-up penises next to the nativity scene outside courthouses"? In the end, I believe and declarative absolute statements are two different things. Here are some examples:

There is No God
There is a God
You are Wrong
Religion is horrible
America is horrible
All Americans are stupid
All Atheists have no hearts
You are going to Hell

I believe There is No God
I believe There is a God
I believe You are Wrong
I believe Religion is horrible
I believe America is horrible
I believe All Americans are stupid
I believe All Atheists have no hearts
I believe You are going to Hell

(except in the case of the latter as it can come off as quite offensive)

P.S. might want to tone it down a bit. From this side of the screen it looks as though you are rather angry.

[Euronion]

7. Public=Tax Payer funded. Therefore if the taxpayers can legally walk on the lawn, they have the right to put stuff on the lawn.

So I could put up a sign advertising my pizza parlour on the courthouse lawn?

Well in that case it would be a private enterprise. If the state wants to make an extra buck by giving you an advertising license than sure.

[Tmutarakhan]

P.S. might want to tone it down a bit. From this side of the screen it looks as though you are rather angry.

From THIS side of the screen, you look like the one who is in a full rage.

[Neutraligon]

So I could put up a sign advertising my pizza parlour on the courthouse lawn?

Well in that case it would be a private enterprise. If the state wants to make an extra buck by giving you an advertising license than sure.

So how is a church putting symbols on a public lawn any different. Churches are after all private businesses?

[The Godly Nations]

The End is always occuring. I can't remember a single year where it isn't occuring- a few days ago, last year, the year before that, some nutbag preacher comes out and says 'It is the end', we stand around, watch, and then laugh him off.

[Cannot think of a name]

The End is always occuring. I can't remember a single year where it isn't occuring- a few days ago, last year, the year before that, some nutbag preacher comes out and says 'It is the end', we stand around, watch, and then laugh him off.

Well, to be sure, the laughing starts a lot earlier.

[Neutraligon]

The End is always occuring. I can't remember a single year where it isn't occuring- a few days ago, last year, the year before that, some nutbag preacher comes out and says 'It is the end', we stand around, watch, and then laugh him off.

Well, to be sure, the laughing starts a lot earlier.

Considering we are laughing before the next...oops to late.

[Tmutarakhan]

Well in that case it would be a private enterprise. If the state wants to make an extra buck by giving you an advertising license than sure.

So how is a church putting symbols on a public lawn any different. Churches are after all private businesses?

They should certainly have to pay more than the pizza parlor.

[The Godly Nations]

The End is always occuring. I can't remember a single year where it isn't occuring- a few days ago, last year, the year before that, some nutbag preacher comes out and says 'It is the end', we stand around, watch, and then laugh him off.

Well, to be sure, the laughing starts a lot earlier.

Well, the world has ended, what, at least twenty times since the year 2000. By that reckoning, most of us dead 20 times over.

[Neutraligon]

So how is a church putting symbols on a public lawn any different. Churches are after all private businesses?

They should certainly have to pay more than the pizza parlor.

Actually if it were on a pay system (which I don't support) the system should be based on the location of the advertisement and how much space it takes up. A larger display should be more expensive.

[Avenio]

Well in that case it would be a private enterprise. If the state wants to make an extra buck by giving you an advertising license than sure.

What if I was advertising, say, a branch of Doctors Without Borders? Would I be able to put advertising all over the courthouse lawn?

[Euronion]

Euronion:

1. Not the penis religion, IE one that offends YOUR sensibilities.
2. I'm just presenting both sides of the coin here.
3. Then if the line's so fine, then just leave the damn public spaces alone. And if you were truly secure in your beliefs, you wouldn't care what us mean ol' atheists were saying.
4. Funny you should mention the Swastika - it actually is holy to Buddhists and Hindus, as well as certain native American tribes. That's where Hitler got it. If you go to India, you'll see it a lot. It's not inflammatory AT ALL to them - would you ban it? Even though it's roughly equivalent to the Cross to them?
5. ...Which consists of advocating Christians and Jews over the worshippers, as you arbitrarily find a penis more offensive than a cross.
6. Why? Based on what? Every religious symbol can be misconstrued, every symbol means something different to someone else. In your case, it's entirely arbitrary, and exists purely to justify your prejudices.
7. By that logic, people have the right to just mosey into the Pentagon. It's taxpayer funded, after all!
Nope. That's not how it works. At all.
8. It shows your use of the word "inflammatory" strictly means "I want to ban what offends ME." What the hell is so offensive about a penis anyway?
And your use of the desperate, typical slippery-slope fallacy does you no credit, although it certainly isn't on the side of legitimate civil rights.

Both sides of your argument are compromised - if you were legitimately against the establishment clause here, you wouldn't mind atheists/penis/swastika worshippers putting stuff up.
And if you were FOR it, (IE for the Constitution, really), you'd agree with me that nothing at all should be put up.
You're really twisting both ends in an attempt to basically get the government to act on your prejudices.

1. No, one that is culturally and widely unacceptable and is under the law considered obscene.
2. ok, since you did not quote, I'm not sure what part of my post you are referring to.
3. The Public squares should be places for self-expression that promotes good-will and happiness. A Negative Declarative Absolute Statement directed at one group of people is not a promoting of good-will and happiness.
3 b. "If you are so secure in how you look, then you shouldn't care what we mean ol' high schoolers are saying" harassment is harassment, being mean is being mean, there is no excuse for it. I may be perfectly fine with the way my body looks, that doesn't mean that I don't get upset if someone decides to walk up to me and call me ugly, do you not agree?
4. Actually you are incorrect, Hitler took the swastika and tilted it. There is another Buddhist symbol that I am aware of, several in fact (I've been to a Buddhist temple), The lily flower, the wheel with the many spokes, the Buddha himself, the shroud of enlightenment etc.
5. Yes, I do, because in the case of the penis, it is under the law, obscene. therefore something illegal should not be posted outside a courthouse.
6. No, it is not purely arbitrary, it fits US society and if anyone wishes to challenge something as offensive or not, they can take it to court and the court can decide whether or not the image/message is offensive.
7. "If they have the right to walk on the lawn, they have the right to put stuff on the lawn" unless there is a new Policy in place which allows me to enter the Penatgon willy nilly, your comment is irrelevant.
8. No, ban stuff on public property that is either and absolute declarative statement or obscene under the law. I find nothing offensive about penises, unless they are being displayed in public where someone who does not wish to see it can encounter it.
9. As I said again, promoting of good-will, swastikas, and negative absolute declarative statements targeting a group of people are not a promoting of good-will. I have no objection to atheists putting up a "Happy Winter Solstice" sign or something of that nature. I draw the line when the sign points to the nativity scene and says "that right over there, it's a myth." if you wish to put something like that up, then do it on private property.

[Farnhamia]

Euronion:

1. Not the penis religion, IE one that offends YOUR sensibilities.
2. I'm just presenting both sides of the coin here.
3. Then if the line's so fine, then just leave the damn public spaces alone. And if you were truly secure in your beliefs, you wouldn't care what us mean ol' atheists were saying.
4. Funny you should mention the Swastika - it actually is holy to Buddhists and Hindus, as well as certain native American tribes. That's where Hitler got it. If you go to India, you'll see it a lot. It's not inflammatory AT ALL to them - would you ban it? Even though it's roughly equivalent to the Cross to them?
5. ...Which consists of advocating Christians and Jews over the worshippers, as you arbitrarily find a penis more offensive than a cross.
6. Why? Based on what? Every religious symbol can be misconstrued, every symbol means something different to someone else. In your case, it's entirely arbitrary, and exists purely to justify your prejudices.
7. By that logic, people have the right to just mosey into the Pentagon. It's taxpayer funded, after all!
Nope. That's not how it works. At all.
8. It shows your use of the word "inflammatory" strictly means "I want to ban what offends ME." What the hell is so offensive about a penis anyway?
And your use of the desperate, typical slippery-slope fallacy does you no credit, although it certainly isn't on the side of legitimate civil rights.

Both sides of your argument are compromised - if you were legitimately against the establishment clause here, you wouldn't mind atheists/penis/swastika worshippers putting stuff up.
And if you were FOR it, (IE for the Constitution, really), you'd agree with me that nothing at all should be put up.
You're really twisting both ends in an attempt to basically get the government to act on your prejudices.

1. No, one that is culturally and widely unacceptable and is under the law considered obscene.
2. ok, since you did not quote, I'm not sure what part of my post you are referring to.
3. The Public squares should be places for self-expression that promotes good-will and happiness. A Negative Declarative Absolute Statement directed at one group of people is not a promoting of good-will and happiness.
3 b. "If you are so secure in how you look, then you shouldn't care what we mean ol' high schoolers are saying" harassment is harassment, being mean is being mean, there is no excuse for it. I may be perfectly fine with the way my body looks, that doesn't mean that I don't get upset if someone decides to walk up to me and call me ugly, do you not agree?
4. Actually you are incorrect, Hitler took the swastika and tilted it. There is another Buddhist symbol that I am aware of, several in fact (I've been to a Buddhist temple), The lily flower, the wheel with the many spokes, the Buddha himself, the shroud of enlightenment etc.
5. Yes, I do, because in the case of the penis, it is under the law, obscene. therefore something illegal should not be posted outside a courthouse.
6. No, it is not purely arbitrary, it fits US society and if anyone wishes to challenge something as offensive or not, they can take it to court and the court can decide whether or not the image/message is offensive.
7. "If they have the right to walk on the lawn, they have the right to put stuff on the lawn" unless there is a new Policy in place which allows me to enter the Penatgon willy nilly, your comment is irrelevant.
8. No, ban stuff on public property that is either and absolute declarative statement or obscene under the law. I find nothing offensive about penises, unless they are being displayed in public where someone who does not wish to see it can encounter it.
9. As I said again, promoting of good-will, swastikas, and negative absolute declarative statements targeting a group of people are not a promoting of good-will. I have no objection to atheists putting up a "Happy Winter Solstice" sign or something of that nature. I draw the line when the sign points to the nativity scene and says "that right over there, it's a myth." if you wish to put something like that up, then do it on private property.

Cite me some case law declaring all images of human genitals "obscene," please. You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.