nnmns I think of God as more than benign, sure the gracious and kind part is part of His character but the “self-limiting” is not all powerful. That’s what it says about me.

You had a hunch I’d be here. I’m not sure what you mean by the “self-limiting” part and it not being all powerful.
The ad seems innocuous but I can see how it might be against their old policy. I wonder if the old policy was always applied, but no evidence is given that it was not.

DART had no choice. It’s a clear-cut freedom of speech issue. Is the majority always right? Of course not. The voice of the minority should always be protected, no matter what your personal opinions might be.
That’s what America is all about.

I defend the right of atheists to advertise their “wares” just as other religious groups do. However, I also defend the right of any business to refuse to carry any ad it deems inappropriate for its own reasons.

Free speech is great, of course!
It’s not free when you have to pay to post.
Every form of speech has boundaries. Magazines, newspapers and media networks, from television to cable to the web, routinely turn down ads for any reason.
Bus companies should deny whomever they will.
The Gospel has power beyond money, free speech. The Gospel can never be silenced.
Get on the bus! It leads to heaven.

Become a preacher and abandon your ethics. It leads to prosperity.

The Gospel can never be silenced…?
Well, I suppose that’ true IF the church is given power to enforce belief at gunpoint, as happened in centuries past; and IF parents are encouraged to indoctrinate their children to shun rational questioning of belief with threats of hellfire, as happens today.
Oddly enough, no one ever had to coerce or indoctrinate people to get them to believe in gravity. I guess some truths are real and universal, whereas others are, uh, debatable.

“”…whereas others are, uh, debatable.”"
Like gravity, there is no way to provide evidence of it’s existence that cannot be used to provide evidence of God’s existence. Gravity was unmeasured and unknown for most of human history and remains a force which thwarts integration into a universal cohesion of understanding of the universe. There is no material proof gravity exists, only differential measurements, mathematical demonstrations and universal acceptance of the results. In fact, every spectacular scientific revelation is a revelation of the omnipotence of God.
God remains an unseen, undeniable power which machines cannot measure but the human soul feels, measures and understands.
The Creator of gravity and of the human senses, which strive to see all the unseen things, can indeed be seen in every little thing. God is The basis of all truth and therefore is humanities only source of understanding.
The heavens declare God’s glory. Just look.
Don’t even need a machine.

I’m sorry, nnmns, but I find your statement to be extremely offensive. I have been involved in Christian ministries for nearly fifty years. I have worked hard to maintain an ethical approach in every area. I have never cheated on my wife of forty years; I have never taken one dime that did not belong to me. I have lived on salaries that most of those who post here would call substandard. I have maintained ethics, and never had, nor do I need, prosperity. The few “preachers” who do follow your statement get caught and get out of the ministry. Your statement reflects an extreme and reprehensible distortion of the truth and a strong anti-Christian bias.

More evidence of GC’s deceit.
The entire point of contrasting gravity to religious doctrine is that one is universally recognized and accepted, and the other is entirely without evidence and accepted by some but not all, and even that level of acceptance has required coercion and indoctrination through the centuries.
But GC, displaying his usual obliviousness to anything outside his dogmatic notions, seeks to equate a basic law in physics with his theological fantasies, perhaps to diminish the former while inflating the latter.
It doesn’t work, GC. Christian doctrine has survived by dint of coercion and indoctrination; scientific truth survives because it is true.

Interesting posts, but what have they got to do with “freedom of speech” in public life, as on bus posters? People who were in the minorty for so many years are asking themselves and to each other, let’s use our freedom to say what is on our minds, just like the majority do. So this is what they did in Iowa, and over in England. It’s a shocker for the first time to see, because it’s different than the norm. After a while you say, this is their belief, and so be it.
HfC: Christian doctrine has survived by dint of coercion and indoctrinatlion, scientific truth survives because it is true.
Scientific truth is easier to check out for you to see if it is true;
Such as what the Medical Science says about homosexuality, easy to see how right they are, but the naysayers won’t allow themselves to study GLBT to see how right on the Medical is. They don’t want to acknowledge the truth in front of them because it would change what they are indoctrinated to believe that is printed in s few verses in the Bible.
There are many who are coerced and indoctrinated by their religions, but I don’t think that is the reason that it has survived. It survives because of God’s Spirit, and many let themselves be manipulated into thinking different ways that God never intended them to. That is why religion survives.

How truly sad. And if an add representing a church or religion was torn down, would it go quietly by the way side…I doubt it as too many people would scream.
Let the add stand and re-run the add. Christianity isn’t the only belief or lack of belief in this country.
All i honestly have to say is suck it up. If Christians want the right to advertise their religion they need to allow others the same right, be it another religion or no religious beliefs.

Only God’s truth survives because all truth is from God and evidence of God.
Science is a way for man to discover God’s creation and manipulate it for man’s material benefit. Science is good, but it cannot discover any truth other than what God has revealed through creation.
It all points to God.
Bus advertising excepted.
The Gospel doesn’t need bus advertising, isn’t hindered by bus advertising.
Bus advertising is indeed debatable, but totally diversionary.

WC nnmns is purposely offensive just as this group of atheist have declared no less than war against Christians and God. They force the transit line to use the word God when it suited their purpose yet if Christians would have used God on the ads they would have protested but they sense it is time for war and that they may have an upper hand in that war so they purposely offend. The word of God says that “God will not be mocked” let us pray that God will reveal Himself in this war and that His victory be celebrated the battle lines have been drawn.

Nicely written, Henrietta.
“Science is a way for man to discover God’s creation and manipulate it for man’s material benefit.” GC
OH Please! You really expect folks to believe that? And you’re right, the gospel doesn’t need bus advertising…it has plenty of folks who otherwise try to shove it down someone’s throat.
War and victory, cknuck? We still have too many men and women being killed and maimed in the Middle East, a real war. We have enough war’s…this isn’t one. Co-existance with one another would be much better. Why should this be a war?

Science can discover only from man’s perspective. The knowledge of man is like unto a dust mote.
God is omniscient.
God made everything.
If science chooses to measure something else…well, there is nothing else.
But, even science admits when it does not understand.
Unlike those without God.

Now we are talking about war….
Well, I suppose that was inevitable. Doctrinal religion is a set-up for war. Doctrine establishes walls that separate people into categories: those who hold the right beliefs and support God vs those who hold the wrong beliefs and oppose God. The more dogmatic and heavily doctrinal, the less capacity there is for co-existence. The most sadly ironic evidence of the inability to countenance different views was the Christian-vs-Christian wars of past centuries. To defy doctrine is interpreted as being an enemy of God. Here it is, the year 2009, and hordes of American Christians see themselves as targets of a “war” being waged against their faith and against God–that braying jackass Bill O’Reilly has made a fortune ranting on TV about the “war” against Christianity, against God, against Christmas.
But there is no war against God. There is no war against Christianity in general. There is sometimes a defensive war fought against specific attempts by some fundamentalist Christians to subvert the Constitution. And it is telling that people who belong to the largest religion on Earth could be upset because some atheists dare to challenge their beliefs in a series of ads.
Question: If religious doctrine were self-evidently true, why would you care if anyone challenged it? Would it not be like taking out ads that say, “Gravity is a fraud!” No one will believe such an ad, because gravity is a self-evident, experienced, verified fact. Conversely, to fight against a set of atheist ads is tantamount to a confession that religious doctrine is not self-evidently true and therefore might not stand up to scrutiny.

“”If religious doctrine were self-evidently true, why would you care if anyone challenged it?”"
…because we hate to see people perish. Especially hate to see them, deceitfully, trying to take others with.
Love is the motivation.
You are loved and given every chance to accept the truth up until the day you leave your material body behind.
Then atheism, paganism, and sin really takes it’s toll.
Anger proves you have emotions which have been awakened concerning this God-Question.
Why be so riled if there is no God?

GC,
The “anger” you sense is your own. YOU are the one who ends every other posting with a snarling dismissal of the groups that make your anger boil over–atheists, liberals, humanists. You claim to speak out of love, but all that comes across is your anger and resentment. I have said before that you should look to the log in your own eye before criticizing others for the motes in their eyes–but you haven’t heard. Your anger drowns out everything else.
I am not an atheist, but I have no argument with atheism. I am not religious in any doctrinal sense, but I have no argument with true faith, either. I definitely AM scornful of idolatry, especially the form of idolatry that has become the predominant religion in America–bibliolatry. And I AM hostile to attempts to suppress atheists’ views–that goes with being an American, a rationalist, and someone with enough knowledge of history to know what atrocities have ensued when self-appointed spokespersons for God set the limits on what is permissible to say and think.

Proselytizing is annoying, rude, and insulting. This is as true for one group as it is for another. It cheapens the advertiser/missionary/door-to-door promoter and does little more than make their group seem desperate.
It is one thing to offer something – a service, and event, even a product. It is far different to say one position is simply better than another. I think this atheist group has stooped to using the same tactics that aggravating religious groups use. Perhaps a better strategy would strengthen everyone’s situation.

jesterfyl,
The story here describes a message that tells atheists–undoubtedly a minority in a society that is positively besotted with religiosity–that they are not alone. How do you see that message as connoting a position of superiority?

It is truly a fuzzy gray line between proselytizing and simply promoting. My own denomination has crossed the line a couple of times with humor, but across nonetheless. I guess simply saying who they are and not who they are not is my suggestion.
I feel it is my duty as a person of faith to protect those who do not agree with me, to allow them the space to speak their hearts, and not to be trod upon by a graceless majority. There is no war against God or religion. This is but one more example of people looking for ways to disagree rather than finding places of unity and strength.

H4C the story tells that one group was in compliance not mentioning God and the other group forged ahead and changed the rules to it’s convenience so that they could use God’s name even though Christians were not. It’s very simple an aggressive attack. The only thing now they have opened the door don’t cry later.

jest there always have been war against both God and believers, from both inside and out and according to the bible and the words of Jesus there always will be. Of course the true believer knows “we” do not war against flesh and blood but against the spiritual root of evil and it’s principalities.

WC, cknuck I didn’t mean to insult all preachers. I respect some preachers on here. Notice I said “Become a preacher and abandon your ethics. It leads to prosperity. Sorry I wasn’t clearer; English’s fuzziness is both good and bad.

nnmns I didn’t know I had commented on that statement and you speak a lot clearer English than I do any day

I’m with H4C. Telling someone who’s discovered there isn’t a god that they are not alone is not proselytizing, it’s stating a fact. There are other atheists. If Christians limited themselves to telling believers they are not alone I’d be ecstatic.

nnmns that is the most ridiculous statement I have heard in a long time, although I have never respected your sense of fair play this position supports my thoughts. I have watched you snipe and ambush every Christian exploring this site and dare express an opinion. Atheist have taken action whenever they see God posted anywhere yet this group uses His name to proselytize atheism publicly. Attack Christians for proclaiming God publicly and then denounce Him publicly. Just a bunch of dry gulching, sniping low roading one sided preachers.

Just what part of my statement do you find so ridiculous, cknuck? And it’s the existence of “God” that’s in question between religious and atheists so how would you propose we talk about our position without using the g word?

“…English’s fuzziness is both good and bad…”
Insulting, condescending comments like this are one more demonstration of evil intent under the cover of rhetorical flourish. In this case criticizing someone’s grammar under the guise of self-deprecation.
Fall for that? It was a straw man set-up! Where I actually know what the statement meant, but decided to dodge it because I don’t wish to deal with it, don’t understand it or simply reject it. So, I create a false problem or argument that I am better able to contend with. Or, I would just divert, project, dodge and weave, hoping to make people look at the straw man and not what is actually at hand.
These pages are strewn with straw men.
Does a straw man live in a straw house, I wonder?
Is this the life you desire?
Build a house out of the bricks of God’s truth, upon the Rock Himself.

GC I really, really urge you to get back on your meds! For your own good, if not Beliefnet’s.

cknuck,
I think you are a decent person, and I am sincerely saddened to see such hostility in your words. Please, don’t lash out–just stop and think for a moment. Is an atheist message really an attack against God? How could that be? You would be accusing atheists of attacking something that they themselves do not believe in? If they are not attacking God, are they attacking faith in God? Sometimes. Saying “I don’t believe in God” is not an attack on faith, but saying “I don’t believe in God, and anyone who does is an irrational, credulous fool” IS an attack–if not on faith per se, then on the rationality of those who have faith. I have been the target of the latter kind of attack; doesn’t harm me or threaten me.
Maybe your anger is not about attacks on God or on faith in God, but attacks on one religion–your religion. Is your religion above reproach? The best way to defend your religion, I think, is through honest self-examination…
* Acknowledging that there have been horrible crimes as well as inspiring acts done in the name of God.
* Acknowledging that fanaticism is not a synonym for “really, really devout.”
* Recognizing that strong faith is resilient and unafraid to ask tough questions even when there are no answers or only troubling answers, whereas rigid doctrinalism and dogmatism bespeak a brittle faith that dares not acknowledge such questions.
* Refraining from calling for or predicting apocalypse, and attributing natural disasters to God.
Do you think that Christianity would be the target of as much criticism if these were the fruits by which Christians were known?

cknuck: “Just a bunch of dry gulching, sniping low roading one sided preachers.”
I’m glad we agree such preachers do exist. I’ve told you over and over why I attack bad religion and, admittedly I’m not real talented with words or always restrained so sometimes good religion takes a hit, too. Sorry, good religionists.
Now as to “attacking God” you just can’t wrap your mind around the idea of not believing in a god, can you? To me, attacking “God” would be like attacking the Easter Bunny. And to you, I presume, your god is all-powerful so what would be the point of attacking it? It would be like attacking a mountain with a toothpick, only even less significant. So why the verbiage about “attacking God”? I presume you’re really concerned about attacking the idea of a god and happily that is a lot more vulnerable. But it seems to be surviving so you can relax.

Get a grip H4C and quit it with the dramatics, do you think I really talk like that? I’m just expressing what has been done is unfair on one side to ask Christians to make no public display concerning God and then turn around and use God’s name in such a confronting matter. You can dance around it all you want but if people want to use unfair tactics it only goes to show a lacking of character. It established agenda and attack. To not to believe in a thing should be benign, but this is aggressive. It is promoting organized religion, so what’s good for the goose…

nnmns I count you as one of those preachers for sure and when I return from my meeting I will tell you why.

nnmns my reason in saying so is that you preach all day long here about the pitfalls of believing in God and the joys of atheism. You would persuade anyone who is persuadable, open or vulnerable. No different then those you continually accuse. It is a cheap preacher’s trick employed all of the time by those who wish to increase their flock by any means.

I don’t threaten anyone with Hell or ostracism from a community and I don’t occupy a slot on the radio dial. And I only do it because some organized religions try to take over parts of the government, thus impacting me and mine. And I get no money out of it. So I’d say I’m a lot different than those dry gulching, sniping low roading one sided preachers.

nnmns the most dangerous of you preachers don’t get paid, I am so sure this group does not get paid anymore than the KKK gets paid getting paid is not a indicator.

people obsessed don’t do a thing for pay they do it to satisfy ongoing hate.

And yet, cknuck, who is it who has been spewing hatred here? Who is it who has called on God to show those damned atheists a thing or two? Who is it who has rebuffed a hand extended in a gesture of peace?
There is no escape from the truth Jesus spoke: You are known by your fruits.

cknuck I also don’t advocate that bad things happen to any groups of people so I greatly resent comparison to the KKK. You are going around the bend here, son.

For me, this conversation has gone on long enough. See you elsewhere.

H4C Jesus said in a similar situation “I didn’t come to bring peace but a sword.” I don’t seek peace or compromise with those who would pervert the word of God or to cause a new believer to stumble. That is serious to believers and those who trivialize salvation are most certainly not my friends. Is that hard to understand? or do you think you can say anything about God, the Gospel, or salvation over and over and expect me to just accept it? No I’ve got something to say also in rebuttal

cknuck,
I am certainly not discouraging you from expressing your beliefs and your strong disagreement with me or others whose beliefs differ from yours. I am suggesting that disagreement need not be voiced with hostility.
And I am asking you to consider that no one–not even the most militant atheist–WANTS to “pervert” the word of God or to cause a new believer to stumble. To say that someone WANTS such things is a direct accusation of sinister and malign motives.
Those who challenge how you and many other Christians interpret the Bible are NOT trying to “pervert” the word of God; indeed, they may be trying to correct what they see as perversions in how you and others interpret it, or they may simply be saying that they disagree with the entire concept that the Bible is the word of God. If you disagree, by all means, say so–but do not impugn the motivations of the people with whom you disagree, for they are as committed and sincere in their views as you are in yours. Thus, there is no basis for hostility and unfounded accusations.

Once again, the Gotcha! got me, and my user-name dropped out. The previous posting is mine.

There is no hostility intended just the truth concerning the bible, people like you and nnmns wish to tie the hands of bible believing Christians while at the same time insult our relationship with God I simply will not allow that with silence.

You speak about the truth concerning the Bible as YOU see it. But others see it differently in terms of interpretation and authority.
But to return to this topic, how does an ad that tells atheists that they are not alone “tie the hands of Christians”?
As for insulting others, does it not occur to you that your words are deeply insulting to non-Christians? How often have you sneered derisively at my beliefs? (That okay–I don’t take insult at such words.)
And finally, no one is suggesting that you remain silent in the face of statements that you believe are false; this is not an either-or choice between venom-drenched denunciations and silence, for there is a third path, of reasoned response and debate.

venom is in the eye of the beholder and every time you talk I see venom, it’s good to know you now know what it is like.

glad to return the favor

“…who is it who has been spewing hatred here? Who is it who has called on God to show those damned atheists a thing or two? Who is it who has rebuffed a hand extended in a gesture of peace?
There is no escape from the truth Jesus spoke: You are known by your fruits…”
Readers, take note of the challenges.
The offense of the Gospel is clearly on display.
It is an offense to those who perish.
Those who parish have turned away from truth, denied God and have begun to lead others in those ways.
Yet, there is light, a voice crying from the wilderness.
Not mine, but the Spirit of all truth.
But in this darkness, the Spirit is continually blasphemed.

ETC., ETC., ETC., GC. and more ETC.

So easy to discredit truth!
Make light of it, call names, etc. etc.
Then, IT WILL DISAPPEAR!
etc.

“then IT WILL DISAPPEAR!” G C
Not many agree on just what “truth” is…thus your “truth” may not be my “truth.” Think we went through this once before…the truth discussion. As to what the “offense of the Gospel” actually means? If my opinion of those words is different than yours, does that count as an offense? In your eyes, apparently. You and I just disagree on those stories and the “truth” of them. I find them entertaining, but not the last word on anything.
Hope your day has gone well. )