Jesus Camp:

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

In answering the original post about the movie and this group I'm going to dip out of this thread quoting Jesus quoting Isaiah in how I "believe" Jesus would respond to that group and what they are teaching each other and those children. Matthew 15: 7-9



peace and prayers guys!
Jesus, not just for Sundays Anymore!

Nice. Beautiful quote.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Speaking of the whole "one TRUE God" concept, these remarks by Al Sharpton are interesting. Champion of diversity my ass. He sounds more like Muqtada al Sadr

[Hog1]

I read things like that, and I just have to shake my head in disgust.
The "rev" Al, and his type are, who, and what, they are.
His time with his maker is coming..........

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

C'mon Saden - you're smarter than that. One chapter of a 1000 plus page book written (at least) over 2000 years ago as an example of the underlying religion's "bizarreness"? And then to equate this same passage as being an equivalent basis as a suicide cult? Are you just being purposely obtuse? or do you really believe this is a legitimate comparison of the two religions?

I'm not being facetious. I simply don't think Christianity should get a pass, be it one passage or the whole book (i.e.Ezekiel). You can't simply ignore the Old Testament and pretend it is invalid. And while the New Testament is much tamer than the Old Testament, it is still contains inconsistencies (world is still 6000 years old).

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm not being facetious. I simply don't think Christianity should get a pass, be it one passage or the whole book (i.e.Ezekiel). You can't simply ignore the Old Testament and pretend it is invalid. And while the New Testament is much tamer than the Old Testament, it is still contains inconsistencies (world is still 6000 years old).

Who is saying that we should ignore the old testament? As I stated Christianity is founded in the teachings of Judaism. Jesus was a literate jew who could (and did according to the NT) quote judaic scripture.

People have devoted lifetimes to understanding the message and meaning particular books of the Bible (I am sure the same can be said of the Koran, Talmud and other sacred books). I have, as we speak, a 5000 page tome that gives a cursory background, using comparitive language translations from the original greek and hebrew of both OT and NT. Taking any book, passage or quote from the bible (old or new) without an understanding of who wrote it, why it was written, whether it's a poetic, prophetic or historical book/chapter/verse will, of course, lead to inconsistencies. Can many verses, statements, stories be taken out of context and not lose their meaning? Of course (the 10 Commandments and the beatitudes jump to mind). Does that mean all must be? Of course not. Even those that CAN be taken out of context gain a greater depth of meaning when their context is understood.

Again, it seems you want thousands of years of wisdom on the meaning of life wrapped up neatly in a non contradictory, self explanatory, easy bake oven answer and it just ain't gonna happen - Not in Christianity, not in islam, not in judaism nor in any other religion that is worth study or devotion.

When you find a religion with easy answers to all life's problems - well, you just entered 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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm not being facetious. I simply don't think Christianity should get a pass, be it one passage or the whole book (i.e.Ezekiel). You can't simply ignore the Old Testament and pretend it is invalid. And while the New Testament is much tamer than the Old Testament, it is still contains inconsistencies (world is still 6000 years old).

Of course, if God in fact did create the universe, then any "hard" evidence that the world is more than 6000 years old isn't so hard anymore, now is it?

Again, this boils down to what Joe Redskin has been saying all along, that it's in many ways irresponsible and foolish to try to explain the infinate in terms of tangibility.

Down the road, we may quite possibly come to realize the true origin of all living things, attributable to something that isn't infinite. But at the very least, its certain that we are incapable in the present of such knowledge.

I actually think trusting incomplete scientific explination based on assumption and groupthink is just as if not more irresponsible than someone who believes blindly in religion (i.e. Jesus Campers).

That of course is discussion for another day and thread.

[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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Of course, if God in fact did create the universe, then any "hard" evidence that the world is more than 6000 years old isn't so hard anymore, now is it?

My little brain hurts from trying to comprehend what you're trying to say. Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Again, this boils down to what Joe Redskin has been saying all along, that it's in many ways irresponsible and foolish to try to explain the infinate in terms of tangibility.

Basically, you just have to have faith and take it as it is.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I actually think trusting incomplete scientific explanation based on assumption and groupthink is just as if not more irresponsible than someone who believes blindly in religion (i.e. Jesus Campers).

I'm sorry but you can't equate science and faith. Science deals in theories and a set of principles aimed at proving or disproving a theory. Observable and measurable tests are conducted. We have made progress with science, I can't say the same about faith.

[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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm sorry but you can't equate science and faith. Science deals in theories and a set of principles aimed at proving or disproving a theory. Observable and measurable tests are conducted. We have made progress with science, I can't say the same about faith.

First let me say this, faith and science are, fundementally, not at odds. In fact, fundamentally they are similar, each seeks answers to questions. In fact, the thing that initially sparked my interest into the religion I finally joined, after a lenghty period of atheism, was a sign that said "Christ came to take away our sins, not our minds".

As for science, yup, advancements have occurred. But, for all our advancements, there are many things accepted by faith within the scientific community (often euphamisticly termed "assumptions") which in turn form the basis for or fill in the gaps of scientific theories.

The significant difference between science and religion is that religion, faith, and spirituality seek answers to questions that have no timeless "right" answer and they, inevitably, can only provide guidance in how to question and search for answers applicable to us individually, on daily terms and in our daily lives.

When science comes up with the answer to how we should best love our enemy, let me know.

Originally Posted by saden1

We have made progress with science, I can't say the same about faith.

It is clear that you cannot say the same b/c it is fairly apparent that you haven't done much in the way of examining "the state of faith" through the ages. As one who has as least done some examination of the matter, I would suggest to you that it is, in most of the established religions, significantly different than where it was even four or five hundred years ago.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

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

[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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

My little brain hurts from trying to comprehend what you're trying to say. Please elaborate.

Essentially, it is to say that all evidence of the age of the world, I.E. fossil, radiometric dating, and all other types, rely on an assumption that the universe was not intelligently created. For if it was, and bear with me, there are an infinate number of possible explinations to how that stuff came to be. Because of the infinate number of possibilities, that stuff has little meaning in terms of evidence.

It's reasonable to believe that the universe wasn't intelligently created, IMO, but only under the pretense that we do not have the answers currently. Science may very well make many more advances, but probably will never decide for or against faith. In fact, thats what faith is: the belief in the less than certain (Theory of Evolution for example). If it were cut and dry and clear, everybody would do it.

C'mon, we know from you're previous posts that you are way smarter than this. Don't let your arrogance and pride let your argument get out of hand.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Essentially, it is to say that all evidence of the age of the world, I.E. fossil, radiometric dating, and all other types, rely on an assumption that the universe was not intelligently created. For if it was, and bear with me, there are an infinate number of possible explinations to how that stuff came to be. Because of the infinate number of possibilities, that stuff has little meaning in terms of evidence.

It's reasonable to believe that the universe wasn't intelligently created, IMO, but only under the pretense that we do not have the answers currently. Science may very well make many more advances, but probably will never decide for or against faith. In fact, thats what faith is: the belief in the less than certain (Theory of Evolution for example). If it were cut and dry and clear, everybody would do it.

C'mon, we know from you're previous posts that you are way smarter than this. Don't let your arrogance and pride let your argument get out of hand.

Look, as I have said before there may very well be an all powerful entity that created us, the universe, and everything else we don't know about. Having said that I call b.s. on the Bible, the Quran, and the Torah (all 3 are based on each other). I call b.s. on Jesus, Mohamed, and Moses. I call b.s. on all the the far fetched stories. I call b.s. on the contradictions, lack of civility and humanism. I call b.s. on the fact that all of these holy men were born and raised in the middle east. Where are the Chinese born prophets? How about the fact that so many prophet are related? It feels like a family business.

This is what I have come to the conclusion of after much thought and struggle. It's not popular with believers but that's alright. This is about me what I believe.

p.s. I want to know who in here has no fear of hell? Fear of hell and the desire to go to heaven are integral part of most religion. After all you can't chill with Jesus/God and drink Pina Colada if you aren't in heaven.

p.p.s. We may disagree but I got nothing but love for you lot.

-Peace