God is on the side with the biggest summer camp

[hive_king]

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2496 ... SFeeds0312

this is apalling. It's an article about a "jesus camp" where children go and are taught to be good little religious republicans. It smacks totally of indoctrination, in my opinion.

[Taalcon]

The article is based on the release of the movie Jesus Camp. the trailer for it is here.

[Jayelle]

Bible camps have been around for long time, I don't see how this is any different.

[Jebus]

Bible camps are fine. Extremist bible camps, much like extremist any thing, are something to be concerned about.

The movie looks rubbish though, I don't think the camp's a good thing, but the trailer makes it out to be something way bigger then it is.

[Gravity Defier]

If that's what I think it is, I heard about it on Bill Maher's show a week ago. I was disturbed by the small clip I saw; they seemed a bit fanatical.

[hive_king]

Exactly. Bible camp? Fine. Turning children into christian fanatics? Not fine. There's a line somewhere in there.

[hive_king]

Bible camp? fine. Turning youth into fanatics? Not fine. They say they want their charges to have "the same dedication young people have to Islam". Do they really want people who will strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves up for Jesus?

[Dr. Mobius]

Do they really want people who will strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves up for Jesus?

Turnabout is fair play.

[liquifiedrainbows]

Evangelical christians are just as dangerous as terrorists.

[Jebus]

Well, perhaps not quite as dangerous.

[liquifiedrainbows]

Well, yeah they are not as dangerous. What I mean is blind faith in general is dangerous. People who don't think or let someone else think for them can be tricked into doing a lot.

[Jayelle]

Evangelical christians are just as dangerous as terrorists.

Blanket statements and prejudice are not appropriate. Read the rules, please.

[liquifiedrainbows]

If I had said radical muslims are dangerous would you be responding the same way?

[wigginboy]

Its quite possible she would. Yes there is a war on between Muslim nations, but to condemn them for their religion alone is not exactly proper. The 'radicals' might BE Muslim, and it might BE Islam that they are defending, but when it comes down to it, they ARE radicals, and their religion does not EXPECT that they become that way. All the same, the Evangelicals in question (the ones discussed in this thread) are 'radical' members of their denomination. The entire denomination does not condone what they are doing, just that small faction. While Evangelicals ARE stigmatized as being 'off centre' just a bit, I happen to know a fair cross section (while definitely not all) who do not share the beliefs of the Jesus extremists and would definitely not condone the indoctrination of children in such a way as was displayed in the Jesus Camp footage.

[Jayelle]

If I had said radical muslims are dangerous would you be responding the same way?

yes.

...Plus Evangelical does not equal radical. Evangelical churches make up a huge amount of Christianity, and it's ridiculous (not to mention ignorant) to paint them all with the same brush.

[liquifiedrainbows]

Fine. You have led me to say what I REALLY wanted to say.

Religion itself is dangerous.

[vendor]

wow. do you mean organized religion, or belief in deity?

It's a new concept for me. I'm really tryinig not to be obtuse.

It appears that atheists either understand theists and choose not to incorporate the theists' life-choices into their own lives or just don't understand at all.

I can respect those who understand but don't wish to apply the beliefs or religion in their own lives. They have empathy and perspicacity.

The refusal to accept that another person believes in a diety and doesn't wish to study primary points of doctrine when they get in a discussion, and participate only to be argumentative, are really close-minded things to do.

Psychopaths can say something like; emotion itself is dangerous. They can't understand emotion, so they see it as irrational. Everybody else with a rational brain sees the lack of empathy for what it is, a mental illness.

I believe all of us understand emotion.
I believe that all of us here have moral compasses
Psychopaths don't have the choice of empathy. All of us here do.

[Eaquae Legit]

Religion itself is dangerous.

What a stupid thing to say. Of course it's dangerous. Anything worthwhile is. It has great power for good, but with that comes great potential for misuse. He's not a tame lion, you know.

Having said that, you're walking a little close to the line of what's acceptable in this forum. Please be careful.

[liquifiedrainbows]

I do not believe it is worthwhile, but that may be because I am not well-informed. What has come out of it that has helped anyone who was not spellbound by its promises?

Care to enlighten me?

[Jayelle]

To name few:

The Red Cross, World Vision, Salvation Army, MCC, Christian Children's Fund and many, many other organizations who aid in world wide aid.

A more local example? I'll bet you if you look into any soup kitchens or homeless shelters in your area, the majority of them will be run by churches or christian organizations.

Those all seem pretty worthwhile to me.

[liquifiedrainbows]

Yes, they do seem worthwhile to me also.

Unfortunately for your point I highely doubt that it is only religion which prompts people to help other people. Yes they may have come about because of religion, but does that mean that if religion did not exsist people would not help others. I think not.

Religion has started too many conflicts that caused people to need help. Religion sparks division. Division causes war and misunderstanding.

Valid point. Does it prove to me that the world would be better off without religion? No.

[anonshadow]

By that same logic, if religion did not exist, people would continue to kill, and religion is only an outlet for people who would be violent, anyway.

[liquifiedrainbows]

Touche.

[lyons24000]

But you see, that's the problem. Jesus Christ said that his true followers would be "no part of the world". (John 17:16) Therefore, they should take no part in politics or war. That is further agreed upon when Jesus says, "Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you."-Matthew 5:44

With that in mind, any religion that meddles in politics is constituting itself a friend of the world and that is strictly warned against in the book of James. There, James says, "Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God."-James 4:4, 1 John 2:15-17

If any religion is part of the world then it cannot contain Jesus' true followers. That would mean it is false religion. Since false religion is part of the world then 1 John 5:19 would apply to them, too. It says, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is under the sway of the evil one." (Holman Christian Standard Bible) That says that the world is under the control of Satan and so any religion that is part of the world would have to be considered right along with them.

That is why Jehovah's Witnesses believe that religion is the cause of all these problems in the world. Granted, it is not the cause of all of the problems but it is the cause of many of the problems. So, with that in mind, you have to remember L_R, that the problem lies, not with all religion, but false religion.

[Oliver Dale]

This may be too on-topic, but I find the premise of this thread insulting, and incredibly telling about personal bias. The article mentions nothing about republicans, hive_king. That's a dangerous level of close-mindedness you're showing. Yes, many republicans are in the religious right. But not all of them are.

[liquifiedrainbows]

I find it interesting how automatically republicans are associated with that when they were actually associated with much different things before. The meaning of the word republican has changed a lot over time.

[hive_king]

Ollie,

Not all republicans are part of the religious right, but all* members of the religious right are republicans. And nowhere did I even insinuate that all republicans are christian conservatives. I used the term "religious republicans", differentiating them from the more libertarian wing of the party. You are accusing me of things that I did not say, i do not appreciate it.


*barring a statistically small number of third party members

Lyons, it seems to me that Witnesses are still part of the World, because they partake of the government. Your church has petitioned to the Supreme Court, one of the three branches of government, dozens of times. Rutherford himself debated in front of the Supreme Court. This is no different than voting in that it is working within the political system to cause change, and it grants legitimacy on the system.

[anonshadow]

Ollie,

Not all republicans are part of the religious right, but all* members of the religious right are republicans. And nowhere did I even insinuate that all republicans are christian conservatives. I used the term "religious republicans", differentiating them from the more libertarian wing of the party. You are accusing me of things that I did not say, i do not appreciate it.

That's absolutely not true. There are many members of the religious right who are not Republicans because they think that Republicans are too mild. It isn't a minute amount, either. Some may have joined the Republican party since Bush's reelection, but the religious right and the Republican party are two distinctly different entities, and members of one are often not members of the other.

Just because members of the religious right aren't Democrats doesn't mean that they are Republicans, and there are a lot of people who choose not to register with a party at all. I don't have a registered party; neither does my father.

If you're going to make the claim that most members of the religious right are Republicans (or were Republicans before very recently), I'd like to see a source or two.

Not Wikipedia, please. Something more official than that.

[anonshadow]

I find it interesting how automatically republicans are associated with that when they were actually associated with much different things before. The meaning of the word republican has changed a lot over time.

It has. Since it rose up just before the Civil War, the roles and general philosophies of Republicans and Democrats have really turned around. I think it started to happen shortly after Reconstruction, and that FDR really cemented it, but it might have begun later than that.

[liquifiedrainbows]

I know. That is why I said what I said.

[eriador]

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly dividing lines shift...

[Taalcon]

But you see, that's the problem. Jesus Christ said that his true followers would be "no part of the world". (John 17:16) Therefore, they should take no part in politics or war.

This is a point of disagreement. First of all, placing the quote in context (and I'll use the NWT), this was in the context of Christ's prayer to the Father:

13 But now I am coming to you, and I am speaking these things in the world in order that they may have my joy in themselves to the full. 14 I have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.

15 “I request you, not to take them out of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. 17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me forth into the world, I also sent them forth into the world. 19 And I am sanctifying myself in their behalf, that they also may be sanctified by means of truth.

Most understand this as referring not to politics (if all who have Christian beliefs withdraw from any sort of participation in government, then one cannot complain of the degeneracy of values propagated therein when there would be no champions of values you desire to be protected), or to Protective or Defensive Warfare (To defend a nation in danger is simply helping your neighbor in need on a larger scale), but in referring to the specific worldly practices that are in direct conflict to the commandments of God. Neither of those things are explicitly mentioned by Christ.

Participating in False Religion, however, is indeed part of this. Participating in elements that are 'trendy', but are demoralizing and contradict the commandments of God, is indeed part of this.

Many understand and agree that the Kingdom of God is not, at this time, a physical, independant nation. Many also do not agree that being a citizen of a nation, and working towards its betterment, and claiming the protections thereof and working for the protections of others, are considered treasonous to one's membership in the Kingdom of God, as long as one does not let their Patriotism stand before one's willingness to obey the commandments of God.

I believe that warfare for the sole purpose of gaining more territory and riches is in direct conflict to God's commandments. I believe that warfare for the sole purpose of forcing individuals to convert to one's religion is in direct conflict to God's commandments.

I believe that warfare intended to help and assist those under persecution is very much in line with what God would have us to do. I view it as an extention of loving one's neighbor, and clothing the naked.