Jesus Camp Review

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I would argue that even in the total absence of religious commandments, societal taboos, moral proscriptions, or legal prohibitions against murder, a great majority of people would not kill a child, one because of fear of retribution by the child’s parents, and two because they would not wish the same fate to befall their own children.[/quote]

That was both simple and eloquent. I’m going to expand on it anyway. :slight_smile:

Your first point summarizes your earlier post on the Golden Rule, or as Michael said, explains why people behave as if killing children is wrong. Your second point addresses his more fundamental question, ie. why killing children is wrong.

The Golden Rule can be interpreted two ways. One is pragmatic: “I’m not gonna do anything bad to you, 'cause I don’t want to give you or your buddies a reason to do anything bad to me.”

But that still leaves us free to slit our neighbor’s throat while he’s sleeping and steal his gold… or shoot his kids… as long as nobody else catches us. Kind of unsatisfying as the sole basis for a system of morality.

The other interpretation of the Golden Rule is: “I’m not gonna do anything bad to you, 'cause I realize that you’re just like me, full of the same feelings, the same love of life and fear of death, and if the bad thing would cause me pain, then it would cause you pain as well, so I won’t do it to you, brother. Or to your family. Instead, let’s go down to the village tonight and have a beer together, play a few rounds of boules, maybe share a few jokes with the new barmaid, and forget our differences.”

I don’t know what to call the latter interpretation. The spiritual interpretation? Anyway, it’s what I was getting at in my previous post when I talked about empathy… and I suspect it’s what certain religious figures were talking about when they said “love thy brother.” But I don’t think you need to hold any supernatural beliefs in order to have empathy and brotherly love for your fellow man.

[quote]jwillow wrote:

That was both simple and eloquent. I’m going to expand on it anyway. :)[/quote]

My simplicity and eloquence can always use a little expansion. You did a good job.

One of the great ironies of war is that when the shooting stops, combat soldiers, fighter pilots and sailors find that they have more in common with their opposite numbers–the people they were shooting at only days before–than they do even with their countrymen back home.

Men on both sides are often surprised that their “enemies”–whom the politicians back home swore were vile, evil, godless savages–are in actual fact men like themselves, with wives, children, mothers, hopes, fears, love and compassion.

That was, I believe, one of the reasons that the First World War, despite the best efforts of the bureaucrats, ended up fizzling out. Too much empathy and brotherly love (which the military terms “fraternizing”) across enemy lines.

[quote]Rah-Knee wrote:
…damn guys, if i need training advice i’ll come back here but if i want serious discussion without being emotionally attacked, apparently i have to go elsewhere.[/quote]

Seems to me you cast the first stone.

If you want serious, respectful discussion you have to extend that courtesy to others.

This is a really interesting discussion, for the most part (I think you know who I’m talking about).

With respect to the original post, I haven’t seen the documentary, but your description of it is indeed frightening. It reminded me of a similar story I had read on CNN about white supremacists. It said how people in the group (I forget which) should enter the army/light infantry because the next war would be a battle “from home to home, in your own neighborhoods.” Chilling stuff.

About the concept of morality: Without dealing with concepts of philosophy or spirituality at all, it seems fairly obvious why certain actions are acceptable while others are not. Humans are better off in groups than they are alone. On a smaller level, an individual in a group or society is better off than an individual by himself. Therefore, humans are wired to behave in ways that promote strong social bonds, which is why we don’t kill our neighbor and steal his wife.

Once societies are formed, they become vulnerable to people who prey on them (i.e. those who kill their neighbors and steal their wives). In order to prevent this sort of behavior, we add social pressures to the more immediate reactions (revenge).

So we are all better off when we obey social rules. But there are some people who just don’t get it, which, I think, is why criminals are often labeled “sociopaths” nowadays.

Note that this is not an argument to say that “morality is relative.” There are certain things, such as wanton murder, which cannot exist for a society to function correctly. However, much of what most people call “morality” is indeed relative (homosexual love, for example).

[quote]harris447 wrote:
panther2k wrote:
I think it is fairly well-accepted that Jesus existed, but far be it from me to argue with someone otherwise. It’s impossible to “prove” anyone existed. If I say [historical figure A] never existed you can’t really prove I am wrong.

Is this really your argument? “You can’t ‘prove’ that anyone existed”?

There’s a sound and throroughly provable reason why people in this thread have called you an idiot.
[/quote]
Nobody in this thread has called me an idiot. Now, if you’re too intellectually feeble to wrap your mind around my statement, that’s your problem not mine.

As for my statement: it was not an argument, I was simply explaining that once a person has made up their mind one way or another, you aren’t going to convince them otherwise. If someone chooses to believe n historical figure by the name of Jesus never existed, despite fairly solid evidence to the contrary, well that’s their prerogative, not mine.

There is a reason nobody in this thread has called you an idiot, I just haven’t figured it out yet.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
panther2k wrote:
I think it is fairly well-accepted that Jesus existed, but far be it from me to argue with someone otherwise. It’s impossible to “prove” anyone existed. If I say [historical figure A] never existed you can’t really prove I am wrong.

Then by that logic, I defy you to prove conclusively that you exist, to the satisfaction of Harris. ;)[/quote]
Well, I was refering to historical figures, but I guess, the logic could be used in the present. :slight_smile: Their actually is a school of thought that prescribes to the theory that nothing exists but everything is a creation of your own mind. We better stop though before Harris’ head explodes from information overload.

[quote]panther2k wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
panther2k wrote:
I think it is fairly well-accepted that Jesus existed, but far be it from me to argue with someone otherwise. It’s impossible to “prove” anyone existed. If I say [historical figure A] never existed you can’t really prove I am wrong.

Then by that logic, I defy you to prove conclusively that you exist, to the satisfaction of Harris. :wink:
Well, I was refering to historical figures, but I guess, the logic could be used in the present. :slight_smile: Their actually is a school of thought that prescribes to the theory that nothing exists but everything is a creation of your own mind. We better stop though before Harris’ head explodes from information overload.
[/quote]

Oh, no, man. Wow, you just got so fucking deep all of a sudden I couldn’t
HANDLE the depths of yout thought, bro-ham.

Would this “school of thought” be, um…The Matrix movies?

I better stop before you blow my mind again!

Nice job PGA. I’ve probably never seen a nicer job of throwing out a controversial topic then quietly slipping out the back door while everyone brawls.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Rah-Knee wrote:
…damn guys, if i need training advice i’ll come back here but if i want serious discussion without being emotionally attacked, apparently i have to go elsewhere.

Seems to me you cast the first stone.

If you want serious, respectful discussion you have to extend that courtesy to others.[/quote]

actually, as i’m sure everyone here would see if they bothered to read all of the posts before jumping in, the original poster called me an idiot for doubting the existence of jesus. my “p.s. fuck you” was addressed to him.

[quote]on edge wrote:
Nice job PGA. I’ve probably never seen a nicer job of throwing out a controversial topic then quietly slipping out the back door while everyone brawls.[/quote]

Hah. Religion is like that. It stirs the soul.

The religious guys never get this right. You’re not supposed to try to prove that Jesus existed, and you’re not supposed to need or ever care about the proof. You’re supposed to just believe it for no other reason than because the Bible says so. And if you can’t take it on blind faith then you’re not a true believer in Christianity.

[quote]postcrime wrote:
The religious guys never get this right. You’re not supposed to try to prove that Jesus existed, and you’re not supposed to need or ever care about the proof. You’re supposed to just believe it for no other reason than because the Bible says so. And if you can’t take it on blind faith then you’re not a true believer in Christianity.[/quote]

Good point. As soon as proof is given faith is not required and it isn’t as special.

A wise god would never prove his existence so he could weed out the the opportunistic weasels.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
panther2k wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
panther2k wrote:
I think it is fairly well-accepted that Jesus existed, but far be it from me to argue with someone otherwise. It’s impossible to “prove” anyone existed. If I say [historical figure A] never existed you can’t really prove I am wrong.

Then by that logic, I defy you to prove conclusively that you exist, to the satisfaction of Harris. :wink:
Well, I was refering to historical figures, but I guess, the logic could be used in the present. :slight_smile: Their actually is a school of thought that prescribes to the theory that nothing exists but everything is a creation of your own mind. We better stop though before Harris’ head explodes from information overload.

Oh, no, man. Wow, you just got so fucking deep all of a sudden I couldn’t
HANDLE the depths of yout thought, bro-ham.

Would this “school of thought” be, um…The Matrix movies?

I better stop before you blow my mind again![/quote]
Umm… no, it is not the Matrix, fanboy. If you really want I will look it up, but it is not really important.

Amazing what happens to common decency and respect on the Internet. I still have not figured out why you attacked me out of no where. But whatever, carry on with your tirade.

[quote]postcrime wrote:
The religious guys never get this right. You’re not supposed to try to prove that Jesus existed, and you’re not supposed to need or ever care about the proof. You’re supposed to just believe it for no other reason than because the Bible says so. And if you can’t take it on blind faith then you’re not a true believer in Christianity.[/quote]

That would be contrary to the Bible its self. No where does it say that we should have faith with out questioning things.

In fact I assert that Jesus even allowed the disciples to question him, and his authority with out chastising them for it.

Joh 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
Joh 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace, be unto you.
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

seems like thomas required proof.

or there is the story of Jesus walking on water.
Mat 14:27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
Mat 14:28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
Mat 14:29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.

but hey you keep throwing out your sweeping generalizations.

[quote]panther2k wrote:
harris447 wrote:
panther2k wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
panther2k wrote:
I think it is fairly well-accepted that Jesus existed, but far be it from me to argue with someone otherwise. It’s impossible to “prove” anyone existed. If I say [historical figure A] never existed you can’t really prove I am wrong.

Then by that logic, I defy you to prove conclusively that you exist, to the satisfaction of Harris. :wink:
Well, I was refering to historical figures, but I guess, the logic could be used in the present. :slight_smile: Their actually is a school of thought that prescribes to the theory that nothing exists but everything is a creation of your own mind. We better stop though before Harris’ head explodes from information overload.

Oh, no, man. Wow, you just got so fucking deep all of a sudden I couldn’t
HANDLE the depths of yout thought, bro-ham.

Would this “school of thought” be, um…The Matrix movies?

I better stop before you blow my mind again!
Umm… no, it is not the Matrix, fanboy. If you really want I will look it up, but it is not really important.

Amazing what happens to common decency and respect on the Internet. I still have not figured out why you attacked me out of no where. But whatever, carry on with your tirade.[/quote]

I “attacked” you because you said something irritatingly stupid.

You try to come across as intellgent, but you can’t tell he difference between “their” and “there” and have to “look up” existential theories which don’t exist.

But it’s cute: you’re a student.

[quote]haney wrote:

That would be contrary to the Bible its self. No where does it say that we should have faith with out questioning things.
[/quote]

Yeah, but what about John 20:29, two lines down, in which Jesus rebukes Thomas, saying that because he required visible and tangible proof, he is less blessed than a believer who takes it purely on faith?

[quote]harris447 wrote:
panther2k wrote:
harris447 wrote:
panther2k wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
panther2k wrote:
I think it is fairly well-accepted that Jesus existed, but far be it from me to argue with someone otherwise. It’s impossible to “prove” anyone existed. If I say [historical figure A] never existed you can’t really prove I am wrong.

Then by that logic, I defy you to prove conclusively that you exist, to the satisfaction of Harris. :wink:
Well, I was refering to historical figures, but I guess, the logic could be used in the present. :slight_smile: Their actually is a school of thought that prescribes to the theory that nothing exists but everything is a creation of your own mind. We better stop though before Harris’ head explodes from information overload.

Oh, no, man. Wow, you just got so fucking deep all of a sudden I couldn’t
HANDLE the depths of yout thought, bro-ham.

Would this “school of thought” be, um…The Matrix movies?

I better stop before you blow my mind again!
Umm… no, it is not the Matrix, fanboy. If you really want I will look it up, but it is not really important.

Amazing what happens to common decency and respect on the Internet. I still have not figured out why you attacked me out of no where. But whatever, carry on with your tirade.

I “attacked” you because you said something irritatingly stupid.

You try to come across as intellgent, but you can’t tell he difference between “their” and “there” and have to “look up” existential theories which don’t exist.

But it’s cute: you’re a student.

[/quote]
Wow, I have one typo in how many posts? Should we count yours? Didn’t think so.

Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s stupid.

But, I’ll admit it-- you have a bigger e-Dick than me.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
panther2k wrote:
harris447 wrote:
panther2k wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
panther2k wrote:
I think it is fairly well-accepted that Jesus existed, but far be it from me to argue with someone otherwise. It’s impossible to “prove” anyone existed. If I say [historical figure A] never existed you can’t really prove I am wrong.

Then by that logic, I defy you to prove conclusively that you exist, to the satisfaction of Harris. :wink:
Well, I was refering to historical figures, but I guess, the logic could be used in the present. :slight_smile: Their actually is a school of thought that prescribes to the theory that nothing exists but everything is a creation of your own mind. We better stop though before Harris’ head explodes from information overload.

Oh, no, man. Wow, you just got so fucking deep all of a sudden I couldn’t
HANDLE the depths of yout thought, bro-ham.

Would this “school of thought” be, um…The Matrix movies?

I better stop before you blow my mind again!
Umm… no, it is not the Matrix, fanboy. If you really want I will look it up, but it is not really important.

Amazing what happens to common decency and respect on the Internet. I still have not figured out why you attacked me out of no where. But whatever, carry on with your tirade.

I “attacked” you because you said something irritatingly stupid.

You try to come across as intellgent, but you can’t tell he difference between “their” and “there” and have to “look up” existential theories which don’t exist.

But it’s cute: you’re a student.

[/quote]
BTW, I just checked and you haven’t made a single post in this thread other than the ones attacking me. So, read a book, learn how to write a coherent, original thought and get the fuck off me.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
You try to come across as intellgent, but you can’t tell he difference between “their” and “there” and have to “look up” existential theories which don’t exist.
[/quote]

No need to look it up. It’s called Solipsism.

[quote]lovehunter wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
PGA wrote:
Shit, I dont believe in god but I sure as hell believe Jesus walked this earth. Anybody that thinks otherwise its an idiot.

I never knew people actually believed Jesus didnt exist…

Personal belief systems aside, could you explain the logic in this?

You don’t believe in god, but you believe in his son? So how did he do it? Where did the miracles come from if not the power of God? How can there be no son, if there is no father?

Or you are saying there was a guy named Jesus, but he wasn’t son of God and couldn’t do all the things the bible said he did? So you don’t believe that there was anything other than a man named Jesus once.

By that logic, whoever states that Jesus doesn’t exist, probably means the miracle performing son of god Jesus didn’t exist. Not that there was ever a man called Jesus before.

I realize I’m making my point by writing your side of my point, so please elaborate on how there is no God, but the son of God, Jesus is possible.

He probably meant Jesus the person not Jesus as the son of God. You know there are a lot of people who believe that there was a man named Jesus that was just a man.
[/quote]

I believe there was a man named Jesus. He was a carpenter’s helper I worked with in Nevada.