DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Shroud of Turin

You are obviously reaching to your very core to find an enemy. And even though I've shown you exactly what is meant in the quote you cited, you continue.

Onward Christian Soldier!

Yes, I am a Christian, but that is not my "religion" .... it is my faith, and my very being.

My religion is Methodist. My life is Christ.

In an earlier post, a "church of pot", or some such, was brought up. Should their adherents be required to never speak publicly about pot ..... because of their religion? If it is a religion ... then they should have the same restrictions. You can carry it out to absolutely ridiculous ends .....

If you are willing to say that someone's beliefs may not be expressed publicly, then NO beliefs should be expressed publicly. That is the natural end of things. It is also the end of the human race.

Yet the SC ruled abortion legal yet you disagree. Now you want to take them at their word on atheism?

Pick and choose, YTown. Pick and choose.

You have a rather humorous way of looking at things. Who said you couldn't express your beliefs publicly? Nobody.

Let me tell you what your issue is. You think nobody else has a right to question your views. And in fact, it's them that you are trying to silence.

There is a difference between Constitutional and being moral. I believe they ruled the way they did on a Constitutional basis, and I also believe that abortion is a highly immoral act. I can believe both, and can work to change that ruling by supporting groups committed to doing just that.

Let's see what happens if I want to ... as an expression of my faith ..... to put up a Christian Christmas display, with a permit, in any downtown area.

You know, or should know, that Christian expression is increasingly seen, and being pressured, to take place inside churches only. Take it outside of that environment, and especially on public grounds, and it is called hostile, intolerant, and so forth.

I have never figured out why someone wants to be tolerated, anyway.

I heard that you had dinner with that amazing chef last week. How was the food? What was he like?

"The food was tolerable. The company was also tolerable." lol Sounds delicious.

But I thought you said earlier that "someone's beliefs may not be expressed publicly"?

It seems to me you are doing exactly what you claimed people may not do.

Oh, so it's not actually that you can't express your views. It's that you have a problem not being able to make a public display out of it.

Maybe we should also place a display of the Ramadan Drummer and the eight pointed star on display as well. Maybe a statue of Buddha?

See, you don't want to just be able to express your faith, you want to cram your faith down the throats of others through public displays.

Those are two different things.

So if they rule another way on that too, you gonna agree with them, right?

See, being able to put a nativity scene in his yard isn't enough. His church being able to place one on their own property isn't enough. You haven't been paying attention have you?

I'd love to see displays of all faiths! There should be statues of Buddha, main deities of Hinduism, some sort of statue that is respectful towards Islam, and Baphomet statues in public places, too!

beat me to it.

Place them all in Town Square. Equal time. Equal space.
but there IS that whole 'graven image' thing to negotiate...

But that is neither literally nor figuratively cramming his religion down someone's throat.


BTW, this is also from the writings of Jefferson in which the "separation of church and state" concept is borne from..

" religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere [only] when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State."


A link to the whole... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amen...liberty_clauses

Yet it does in no way advocate for displays of religion on government property.

Except no one is preventing them from doing that.

Now if a local church put up a Nativity in the town square then tried to block the local Jewish temple from putting up a big 'ol menorah, I would agree that they had no Right to oppose that.

But just because one faith either chooses not to put up a display or doesn't have anything to display given that time of year, I don't see why that should prevent someone who chooses to make a display.

The problem with most people who push the "separation" argument is that they have an incorrect understanding of the concept and their view is based around this idea that if a platform is provided for the expression of an idea then it means the platform tacitly endorses whatever idea is being expressed.

I'm hoping most are intellectually honest enough to understand how that is problematic.

That’s a lie.

Oklahoma had an issue Witt the satanist wanting to put up their statue with the Ten Commandments on government property.

You have a knack for saying a lot of false things.

So let's get back to our comments. Where did anything say that allowing religions to use government property to display religious symbols was being advocated? I sure didn't see it.

You tried to use something that has nothing to do with using government property to support your religious traditions.

Exactly.

If it were advocating for displays then that potentially could be an example of 'establishing'.

A 'display' is nothing more than a format for 'expression'.

If the local Catholic church decided to hold a mass in the city square one Sunday morning, and they abided by all ordinances for any other rally/protest... they would have the Constitutional Right to do so. The Gov't does have the authority to regulate time, place, and manner... but not content.

And the Satanists have a Right to do so.

And a guy who supports BLM shouldn't cast stones about saying false things...

So says the cop.

It's a religious expression based solely on your religious beliefs. Promoting your religious belief system. Supporting a religion.

Are you saying a nativity scene isn't based solely on Christian religious beliefs and teachings?

First, I have no religious traditions. I'm a godless heathen. My plan for the after life is putting my brain and spine in a glass jar until sufficient advances in robotics and cybernetics occurs. Personally I believe there is something in the universe greater than any of us, but I'm not sure the idea of a singular deity is sufficient enough to explain it.

As far as advocating... you're the one who brought it up in response to my wikipedia clip showing Jefferson's thoughts on the criteria where gov't could intervene on religious expression

No Kathy Newman, I am not. It clearly is. That's not the crux of the issue.

There is a distinct difference between the Mayor or City Council using public funds and advertising this year's Nativity seen like the would a New Year's Eve celebration or 4th of July festival

and someone like Ytown applying for a permit as a private citizen and representative of his church petitioning for a spot in the city square to have some sort of display.

Now this isn't to say that there can't be stipulations or rules surrounding it. Like I mentioned earlier.. the gov't can regulate time, place, and manner. So for example, they can have regulations that say you can't put up a structure that can't be just as easily removed, or that you his group can't have thee space for 2 weeks. It may even end being that his group is relegated to having a "live Nativity". But it can not regulate content i.e. deny his group the opportunity to express their religious beliefs.

The satanists statue didn’t go to waste, Detroit got it.

Nobody is stopping anyone from expressing their religion. They have a home and a church. They are free to express them there. You gave no evidence saying any government, be it local, state or federal has a duty to give out permits to promote religion.

Yet here you still are...

Christians are commanded, not suggested, not God hoping we might, but we are commanded to spread the Gospel. It is called the Great Commission. We are not called to hide our faith away.

In Matthew, Jesus taught, "You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house."

Later in Matthew, He gave His Apostles the "Great Commission",

"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

As Christians, we are not meant to hide away from everyone else, and to keep our faith hidden. As shown, this is the exact opposite of what you have suggested. Given the choice between obeying you, or obeying Jesus Christ .... I'm going with Christ every time. (and I don't say this to offend you)

thats funny cause this is exactly what muslims do with their faith, yet yall two religions are constantly beefing with each other.

Yet nobody has asked you to do that. You just feel if you can't set up a nativity seen in the town square, you're suddenly a victim. Isn't that the exact same thing you bash liberals for? Playing the victim? Who is stopping you from speaking about the gospel? Who is asking you not to preach? Nobody.



I'm not offended at all. Somehow you equate spreading the gospel to setting up a nativity scene. You equate it to public displays of Christian symbolism. The gospel is the message. Not some symbols.

The word of God isn't spread through a nativity scene. The gospel isn't being spread by a cross. The gospel is "the word", not symbols.

As an atheist, I have no belief in god(s). I've seen no evidence of it, but would be open to believing if presented with appropriate evidence. I do not contest there is no god(s), but there is no proof of it. On top of that, if there were god(s), I'm 99.9% convinced that no one alive has any idea or truth to it as it stands.

If we were to destroy all scientific knowledge and all religious knowledge, only one of them would get back to where it is right now. Christianity would not be a thing, nor any other religion. There may be similarities in religion, just like how they all built upon one another to get to the point we are now, but there would be no Jesus Christ, Mohammed, etc...

Imagine if the dark ages, and religious persecution towards the scientific community never happened, how much farther along our society would be today.

You're nearly as atheist as I am, you just believe in one more god than I do.

Without Christians, much of the science we have today would simply not exist.

As far as me being close to being an atheist .... not at all. I firmly and completely believe in God, because I have felt His presence in my life. My faith pervades every part of my life. God has answered prayers in my life, in completely unexpected, and some might even say unrealistic ways. God is three persons in one Godhead, and Jesus Christ is my savior. You might as well propose that we are green with purple spots, and communicate telepathically through our feet. I mean, you can propose any idea .... but is it realistic? Not really. Not to me. You might as well be put in a vacuum chamber and try to take a deep breath.

By the way, "The idea of the “Dark Ages” came from later scholars who were heavily biased toward ancient Rome."

Thus says the History Channel. (More below, and here is the link for both)

6 Reasons the Dark Ages Weren’t So Dark - HISTORY
https://www.history.com/news/6-reasons-the-dark-ages-werent-so-dark

It's funny ..... people act like Jesus claiming to be the Messiah was some rare event. There were men claiming to be the Messiah all the time before and after Jesus. They lived, they died. they were forgotten, and their followers scattered. Jesus's followers became cowards after he was executed .... until they saw the risen Christ. Then they became bold evangelists, travelling all throughout the (then) known world, spreading the message of Christ's redemptive work on the cross.

The Romans and the Jews had every reason to make sure that after Jesus's death, that He stayed dead. He wasn't like most previous "Messiahs" who proposed that they would rise spiritually from the dead. He said that he would rise physically. All Rome and the Jewish leaders had to do was produce the body .... they they had sealed in a tomb. (and you can look into how tombs were sealed to see how difficult it would be to open one)

One other way they could discredit this new Christian faith was to get one of the disciples to recant. Just get one of them to say that it was all made up. They couldn't, and 10 of Jesus's initial Apostles died absolutely horrible deaths for their faith. John was poisoned, but survived, and was exiled. Paul was beheaded. Not one of them denied Jesus in order to save his own life. If one had, it could have quickly put an end to this new religion.

Paul is another interesting case. God often takes the least likely for a job. Paul was a pious Jewish Pharisee. He wanted to see every Christian stamped out, because he considered Christianity to be heresy. It's amazing how God took this wealthy and faithful Jew, and turned him into a poor but evangelically driven Christian.

As far as science ..... well, Charlemagne ..... (from the link above)

Charlemagne worked to uphold this lofty distinction, building a strong centralized state, fostering a rebirth of Roman-style architecture, promoting educational reform and ensuring the preservation of classic Latin texts. A key advancement of Charlemagne’s rule was the introduction of a standard handwriting script, known as Carolingian miniscule. With innovations like punctuation, cases and spacing between words, it revolutionized reading and writing and facilitated the production of books and other documents. Though the Carolingian dynasty had dissolved by the end of the ninth century (Charlemagne himself died in 814), his legacy would provide the foundations—including books, schools, curricula and teaching techniques—for the Renaissance and other later cultural revivals.

As far as your idea that if we somehow erased all science and Jesus Christ, then Christ would never be heard of again ...... look throughout the Middle East, when people are coming to Christ because of dreams and visions. There people have everything to lose for converting to Christianity. Everything here in earth, that is. There are people turning to Christ in fairly sizable numbers in China, Africa, India, and even in Iran. Yes, Iran.

There is a film about the women ..... lots of women, and men, who have come to Christ in Iran.



Why do I believe in Jesus Christ? Because I don't have enough faith to not believe.

WOW, this post sure has "drifted away" from the Shroud of Turin...I haven't seen anyone who's non believer tell us how the photo has 3 dimensions.

Other issues- BLM, yes, yet all lifes matter- does that include unborn lives - a child doesn't exist until it comes out of the vagina - legally yes now, but morally, what does your God think?

Calling a guy a cop, guess that was suppose to be an insult. Yes there are bad cops, BUT like there are bad priests, the VAST majority are good, law abiding, MOSTLY everyday HEROES.

I'm for all religions to have access to public property IF they follow the rules.

GOD bless to all, even those who CHOSE not to believe.