No Bibles in Public?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hello. It looks as if they caved in and pulled the ad because of a few haters. I mean, they first accepted the ad and ran it (see the article). So they knew ahead of time what the content/event was.

Peace

And how do you know that these “haters” were hating the Bible specifically and not, say, Greg Laurie, Harvest Church, this particular event, one of the bands listed, etc.?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do find it interesting in all this that - if the facts of the article are all true - Christians get a very small taste of how non-Christians are treated by Christians all the freakin’ time and they act as if they’re being oppressed.

If you’re a Christian reading this thread and you feel this way, maybe you can take this as an opportunity for self-reflection.

"Atheists" bus advertisement again rejected - Stoic Solutions Podcast

 

[Regiomontanus]

I do find it interesting in all this that - if the facts of the article are all true - Christians get a very small taste of how non-Christians are treated by Christians all the freakin’ time and they act as if they’re being oppressed.

If you’re a Christian reading this thread and you feel this way, maybe you can take this as an opportunity for self-reflection.

"Atheists" bus advertisement again rejected - Stoic Solutions Podcast

Hello. Yes, I for one would agree it is equally wrong for some Christians to do that.

Peace

 

[Regiomontanus]

And how do you know that these “haters” were hating the Bible specifically and not, say, Greg Laurie, Harvest Church, this particular event, one of the bands listed, etc.?

Hello.

"However, after claiming the religious imagery on the ads provoked multiple complaints,..."

Take away the Bible and the image is just a man, yes?

Peace

 

[Faithofchristian]

Hello. Yet another person who did not (apparently) read the article. This has nothing to do with the right of the company.

Peace

Apparently, you didn't read your own post #1.
Here's what you said in post #1
(Hello. I found this to be outrageous. Yes, a private company has every right to make the decision. Nevertheless I think it a sad commentary on the state of our society)

So I was in agreement with you.

That a private company has the right to determine what they want and don't want on their property.

But in the case of this pastor he has every right to put on the church property. What ever he chooses.including the bible.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution
( Congress shall not make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof)

Therefore seeing that Congress can not establish no law prohibiting the free excercise thereof.
That also means no State or judge can not either, seeing it's Congress who makes laws.
So any State or judge who trys to do so, is over stepping their boundaries.

Therefore the Pastor was within his right, to excercise his right, in posting the bible on the church billboard.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I do find it interesting in all this that - if the facts of the article are all true - Christians get a very small taste of how non-Christians are treated by Christians all the freakin’ time and they act as if they’re being oppressed.

If you’re a Christian reading this thread and you feel this way, maybe you can take this as an opportunity for self-reflection.

"Atheists" bus advertisement again rejected - Stoic Solutions Podcast

I'm paraphrasing from memory, but I've seen it said "privilege is when being treated like other people feels like persecution"

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Apparently, you didn't read your own post #1.
Here's what you said in post #1
(Hello. I found this to be outrageous. Yes, a private company has every right to make the decision. Nevertheless I think it a sad commentary on the state of our society)

So I was in agreement with you.

That a private company has the right to determine what they want and don't want on their property.

But in the case of this pastor he has every right to put on the church property. What ever he chooses.including the bible.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution
( Congress shall not make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof)

Therefore seeing that Congress can not establish no law prohibiting the free excercise thereof.
That also means no State or judge can not either, seeing it's Congress who makes laws.
So any State or judge who trys to do so, is over stepping their boundaries.

Therefore the Pastor was within his right, to excercise his right, in posting the bible on the church billboard.

Has anyone tried to so legislate this or any other church being unable to display the Bible on their own property?

 

[Regiomontanus]

Apparently, you didn't read your own post #1.
Here's what you said in post #1
(Hello. I found this to be outrageous. Yes, a private company has every right to make the decision. Nevertheless I think it a sad commentary on the state of our society)

So I was in agreement with you.

That a private company has the right to determine what they want and don't want on their property.

But in the case of this pastor he has every right to put on the church property. What ever he chooses.including the bible.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution
( Congress shall not make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof)

Therefore seeing that Congress can not establish no law prohibiting the free excercise thereof.
That also means no State or judge can not either, seeing it's Congress who makes laws.
So any State or judge who trys to do so, is over stepping their boundaries.

Therefore the Pastor was within his right, to excercise his right, in posting the bible on the church billboard.

Hello. I apologize if I misread your previous post. Of course the 1st Amendment only prevents the government from limiting free speech. And so if the billboard was on church property it would be their right to have it. Here though it was a private company that owned the billboard. They caved into some complaints about the "imagery" which would seem to be the Bible. The point of my post/question then was _why_ are some people so offended by the image of a man holding up a Bible (then just a book, with no markings on it)?

Peace.

 

[Audie]

Hello. No. You are just missing the point (giving you the benefit of the doubt).

Peace.

Oh I got your "point" just fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hello.

"However, after claiming the religious imagery on the ads provoked multiple complaints,..."

Take away the Bible and the image is just a man, yes?

Peace

It would be a man preaching, which is also religious imagery.

Edit: it would also be a man that many in that area would recognize as a prominent religious minister.

... though we're talking about the article author's interpretation of what the church representatives said the ad company said the complaints said, so I don't really trust the description to be that accurate. That's a lot of broken telephone, even if everyone involved is being truthful.

And seeing how Harvest Church is using this incident as the seed for a social media campaign to promote their event, I don't actually trust them to be truthful: #StandWithTheBible

 

[Regiomontanus]

Oh I got your "point" just fine.

Hello.

It does not sound like it. But I will take your word for it.

God Bless

 

[Audie]

What? It's the Christian Perspective.

All christians see it the same way.

 

[BilliardsBall]

He more then welcome to buy his own billboards. Not sure the price of them there but plenty of churchs buy theirs out here.



So all the good stuff. Gotcha.

The question is what happens to the flesh AFTER.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The point of my post/question then was _why_ are some people so offended by the image of a man holding up a Bible (then just a book, with no markings on it)?

Perhaps because, being Californians, they recognise the picture as Greg Laurie and don't think much of a man who says things like "Wives need to submit to their husbands as an act of submission to the Lord" or "Homosexuality is outside of God's order", or who calls abortion murder.

 

[Regiomontanus]

It would be a man preaching, which is also religious imagery....

Perhaps. But I think that is stretching things a bit.

Peace

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps. But I think that is stretching things a bit.

Peace

Given the OP, this seems the thread for stretching things.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Perhaps because, being Californians, they recognise the picture as Greg Laurie and don't think much of a man who says things like "Wives need to submit to their husbands as an act of submission to the Lord" or "Homosexuality is outside of God's order", or who calls abortion murder.

Hello. Maybe, but one would think that the complaint would have been about him rather than "religious imagery".

Peace

 

[Audie]

Given the OP, this seems the thread for stretching things.

That is all it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hello. Maybe, but one would think that the complaint would have been about him rather than "religious imagery".

Peace

Assuming that's even what the complaint was. I get the sense that this is just the church trying to spin this to support their PR campaign.

 

[Audie]

Assuming that's even what the complaint was. I get the sense that this is just the church trying to spin this to support their PR campaign.

Now now you are just showing hate.