Jesus Camp:

[JoeRedskin]

As for the chapter from Exodus you quoted earlier, while I haven't gone through all of it in detail, much of it strikes me as being in the same manner of Hammurabi's code (the original eye for an eye) which was a way to limit damages b/c prior to that it was "your family for my eye". It was probably a codification of general punishments acceptable at the time created to ensure equal treatment under the law.

Does that mean it is word for word applicable today? Of course not. Does it, when its context, is understood show a beginning of where the commandment "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" originated? Maybe. Maybe in the context of humanity's journey the quoted rules represented a great and radical leap forward from the mores of the day. Maybe it IS the beginning of the concept of equal treatment under the law.

These all are questions that may be correct or may not, but only an understanding of the context will get you anywhere close to an understanding of how this one chapter fits into a few millenia of articulated wisdom.

[saden1]

You know, all those people have dedicated countless of hours to studying the bible but we are no more closer to understanding god than people in the 10th century. Christianity has no moral high-ground compared to other religions just because it is older.

In the past there weren't any debates regarding religion because you would've been executed on the spot if you questioned the existence of god or "blasphemed." The fact that we have the ability to question and doubt is a testament to a move away from religion.

p.s. Once you overcome your fear of going to hell it's pretty easy to be objective in matters concerning religion and see it for what it is. You just have to overcome that conditioning you went through as a child first.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

You know, all those people have dedicated countless of hours to studying the bible but we are no more closer to understanding god than people in the 10th century.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak? I have spent significant hours and time studying the bible, texts analyzing the bible (from St. Augustine's time to present), and learning from others who have spent greater time doing so . For myself, reading and meditating on both the bible texts, its commentators, and the teachings of others has given me (and I would assert others who spent time analyzing it), a deeper, richer understanding of God and his plan for us. If the "we" you refer to are those who have not devoted time to the study of God and the collection of these texts and ancient wisdom, you are probably right. But then, those who have only studied arithmetic are likely not to be able to understand much about quantum physics, are they?

Originally Posted by saden1

Christianity has no moral high-ground compared to other religions just because it is older.

I, for one, am certainly not claiming a "moral high ground" b/c of Chrisitanity's age (Hell, if that were true, let's all go perform some human sacrifices, 'cause I think religions based on that have been around much longer than the relatively new religion of Christianity). Rather, b/c of its rich history, I have only asserted that Christianity provides "simple and elegant" guidance to those seeking the answers to humanity's eternal questions. The key of course, is that you must seek these answers - not just pose questions and muse on possibilities. Further, it is likely that other "ancient" religions have similar histories, which, if they speak to you, may provide similar guidance.

Originally Posted by saden1

In the past there weren't any debates regarding religion because you would've been executed on the spot if you questioned the existence of god or "blasphemed." The fact that we have the ability to question and doubt is a testament to a move away from religion.

This statement is so loaded with inaccuracy and naivete that it is offensive. "In the past", as now, and as elegantly pointed out by SBF's earlier quote, Christianity (and Islam, and Judaism, and Buddhism) have been perverted by some to serve the own ends. A common occurrence was for individuals or groups within "established" religions to use there spiritual authority to gain temporal power and then to use that power for their own ends. Certainly, during the Middle Ages in Europe, the spiritual authority and temporal power of the Roman Catholic church was used for very "un-Christianlike" purposes by certain groups and individuals.

Secular powers and individuals have historically used certain themes or aspects of Christianity (and other religions) for their own ends. This has and will always be true b/c (1) Spiritual authority can easily be exploited for personal gain; and (2) people are always looking for simple answers so that they don't have to do the work. (i.e. Jesus Camp). [As an aside, find and read the short story The Grand Inquisitor it is by a Russian author - you'll like it, it's all about how the Catholic church is brainwashing its flock].

The key of course is that this is all done through the perversion of the religion's (in the European Middle Ages, Christianity's) underlying "set of beliefs". The perversion of a message does not render the underlying message meaningless - it just means we must work carefully to seek the actual message and not its perversion.

Originally Posted by saden1

The fact that we have the ability to question and doubt is a testament to a move away from religion.

This is just flat out stupid. Sorry I am trying to retain a civil tone but you insist on making statements that belie an underlying ignorance of religion in general, the history of Christianity and the current state of the more established Christian sects (Roman Catholicism, Presbyternism, Methodism, Episcalinism, etc.).

As a whole Christianity, (again, I will assume it is true for other religions as well), has constantly questioned itself, the existence of God, Christ's relationship with him, and the very nature of Christ himself. As others have pointed out, several counsels were held to discuss and debate the nature of God and, through these contentious counsels, an underlying "set of beliefs" was established. Many didn't agree with the tenets that were established choose not to adopt unified Christianity. Again, in the renessaince and reformation people questioned debated the nature of Christianity's tenets. During all these times, did some people pervert the message of various factions within the church and exploit it for there own ends? Yup. Does that mean the underlying "set of beliefs" concerning Christianity seeks to quash question and debate as to the meaning of life, God's existence and God's place within it? Nope - In fact, I suggest to you that is exactly what Christianity (and any other religion worth devotion and study) tries to promote. The universe is a big place, we can only begin to understand it if we question and seek answers every day.

Originally Posted by saden1

p.s. Once you overcome your fear of going to hell it's pretty easy to be objective in matters concerning religion and see it for what it is. You just have to overcome that conditioning you went through as a child first.

Wow - were you beaten as a child? What kind of conditioning are you imparting to the rest of us? Objectivity concerning religion can be difficult to obtain for any number of reasons. Yes, preconceived notions must always be examined and questioned. However, true Christian upbringing doesn't focus on hellfire and brimstone but on any number of principles provided by religion that teach love, respect, self-sacrifice, self-discipline and introspection.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

p.s. Once you overcome your fear of going to hell it's pretty easy to be objective in matters concerning religion and see it for what it is. You just have to overcome that conditioning you went through as a child first.

That sounds very paternalistic to me ("if we only were so enlightened and not blinded by our fear we would see the world in an objective manner"). Again, I'm not religious, but I don't buy the argument that people are religious purely out of fear. You're saying that literally billions of people from all walks of life and who belong to thousands of different religious groups are religious for the same exact reason. That is not only paternalistic, but is in incredibly simplistic.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

And to finish this thread and make belivers out of you all...

[SmootSmack]

You're calling a lot of b.s tonight aren't you Saden?

Is this going to become like the "F..." threads? Now we'll have the "I Call B.S. On..."

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You're calling a lot of b.s tonight aren't you Saden?

Is this going to become like the "F..." threads? Now we'll have the "I Call B.S. On..."

I don't know, I call it how I see it?