Jesus Camp Review

Off Topic
101

[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Also, I never stated my position on the existence of God.

No, but you specifically called out atheists and their take on a moral question based on what they believe.
[/quote]

I asked a question specifically aimed at atheists because I am specifically interested in how the atheist forms his/her moral foundation. I didn’t “call out atheists”.

I didn’t involve belief in a deity at all, and I think that’s where we’re not connecting. I involved disbelief in a deity only.

Can you explain your ideology without contrasting it with the competing ideology? Why is that so hard for people to do?

I’m not interested in a theism vs. atheism debate. T-Nation folks tend to be smarter than the average bear, so I had hoped I wouldn’t get a typical knee-jerk response.

[quote]
It seems what you were asking was:

“Is it absolutely wrong to murder an entire classroom full of children? If so, then why?”

But then, you already know the answer to that…[/quote]

That is what I meant. I didn’t think I had to qualify the question in terms of an absolute considering the context.

102

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
It’s not my personal position nor do I speak for anyone else. [/quote]

Funny how these distancing disclaimers are left out of your originals posts, and are only brought to light when someone calls bullshit.

For a guy who claims not to be Christian, your way of thinking shares much in common with them.

And since you know this, why do you think this is? Because they are intellectually dishonest hypocrites?

Perhaps this will help:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/index.shtml

103

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Also, I never stated my position on the existence of God.

No, but you specifically called out atheists and their take on a moral question based on what they believe.

I asked a question specifically aimed at atheists because I am specifically interested in how the atheist forms his/her moral foundation. I didn’t “call out atheists”.[/quote]

Split some hairs, why don’t you?

[quote]Then you turn around and claim you are not defending religion, but want a serious answer to why murdering children is wrong. If that is really what you wanted to know, why involve belief/disbelief in a deity at all? It should have nothing to do with the question you want an answer to.

I didn’t involve belief in a deity at all, and I think that’s where we’re not connecting. I involved disbelief in a deity only.

Can you explain your ideology without contrasting it with the competing ideology? Why is that so hard for people to do?[/quote]

It isn’t, but you can’t seem to ask a direct question without muddying the water with all sorts of non-essential bullshit.

[quote]I’m not interested in a theism vs. atheism debate. T-Nation folks tend to be smarter than the average bear, so I had hoped I wouldn’t get a typical knee-jerk response.

It seems what you were asking was:

“Is it absolutely wrong to murder an entire classroom full of children? If so, then why?”

But then, you already know the answer to that…

That is what I meant. I didn’t think I had to qualify the question in terms of an absolute considering the context.

[/quote]

So, basically, you wanted to know what the grounding for atheist morality was sans creating a deity who made things “wrong”, but instead you asked a morbid question concerning murdering children.

Perhaps this will give you the answers you seek:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/

104

[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
It’s not my personal position nor do I speak for anyone else.

Funny how these distancing disclaimers are left out of your originals posts, and are only brought to light when someone calls bullshit.

I see it as a position that logically follows from atheism.

For a guy who claims not to be Christian, your way of thinking shares much in common with them.

However, I know that atheists don’t actually behave this way and I doubt there a many that arrive at the same conclusion.

And since you know this, why do you think this is? Because they are intellectually dishonest hypocrites?

Perhaps this will help:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/index.shtml
[/quote]

Jesus Fucking Christ in a handbasket. You assume the worst about everything I write.

105

[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
haney wrote:
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.

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

Don’t know what dictionary you’re using but how do you figure one can have faith with questioning things?

Can you say “oxymoron”? I knew that you could.

For one specific example (there are countless others):

Matthew 21:21:

I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

So much for “No where [sic] does it say…”.

In fact, anytime the Bible commands one to “have faith” or “believe”, that is exactly what it is saying.

I can’t wait to hear how I have misinterpreted everything. I’m gonna go make some popcorn.[/quote]

Can you say taking it out of context?
You totally missed what he was saying, and that paragraph has nothing to do with asking for proof in God.

no misinterpretation you just seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

I will ask though why not try to prove my statements wrong? Instead of addressing my points, or even the passages I used you just side step and try and throw out a red herring.

106

I would say any person who claims to be a Christian that doesn’t have doubts in their faith would be a liar.

I don’t think I have had a day of my Christian life that has not had some doubts in my faith. In fact the whole study of apologetics while its purpose is to prove Christianity correct, and defend the faith. It more than likely based off of some need to prove that your faith is placed correctly.

So why there is even an argument that to have faith requires no questioning, and no need for reasonable proof is beyond me. It is ridiculious at best.

Honestly to say that would be to say that the entire field of apologetics is unbiblical. While you can make that argument, I think you be an extreme minority in that believe.

I do find it funny that these nay sayers dismiss

Paul’s conversion
Nathan
Jesus miracles to prove who he was
The miracles of the Apostles
Gideon
Elisha
Elijah
All of the prophecies
All of the miracles of the prophets
Moses
King David
etc…

Don’t believe the Bible all you want, but don’t try in make an argument from it that doesn’t exist either.

107

[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
No, but you specifically called out atheists and their take on a moral question based on what they believe.

I asked a question specifically aimed at atheists because I am specifically interested in how the atheist forms his/her moral foundation. I didn’t “call out atheists”.

Split some hairs, why don’t you?
[/quote]

Ok, my interpretation of the phrase “call out” is “an adversarial challenge”. In elementary school “to call someone out” was to challenge them to a fight. Since you accused me of “calling out atheists”, I assumed that you meant I was challenging atheists in an adversarial manner. Judging by your initial response, and repeated assumptions that I’m a typical Christian trying to bash atheists, I think you have misinterpreted the intent of my question from the start.

If I’ve done anything, it’s been to avoid non-essential bullshit. I don’t know where you think I can’t ask a direct question. My question was direct. You tried to bring in Christianity. I threw it out because that was muddying the waters. Tell me what my non-essential bullshit is and I’ll remove it from the discussion.

Through the use of logic and reasoning a “morbid” question can be answered without resorting to an emotional response.

108

I’m sorry, Michael. I have nothing against you personally, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to take your arguments seriously while looking at that avatar of yours. :wink:

109

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I’m sorry, Michael. I have nothing against you personally, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to take your arguments seriously while looking at that avatar of yours. ;)[/quote]

Admit it. You envy my flexibility.

110

[quote]panther2k wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
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.

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

Thanks. Good call, Harris.

[/quote]

Yeah…but YOU idn’t know what you were talking about, did you?

Back to class, son.

111

[quote]KombatAthlete 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.

There was a man named Jesus that said he was the son of God. He was really the son Joseph, a carpenter, and Mary. He was one of MANY people at the time that claimed he was the son of God, many of whom performed ‘miracles’, and was the most succesful of the bunch. Eventually the Roman government killed him as a criminal. [/quote]

Wow. Thanks for setting us straight on that. I guess we can close the book on that one.

112

I have to admit I’m at a loss when it comes to this new, increasingly pervasive anti-religious bent in this country.

We are at a point now where the biggest social infraction possible is not recognize and “value” our societal diversity. Oh, 'cept religion. That just won’t do.

See. Stereotypes are bad. ‘Cept for the religious, right? They are all bible-thumpin’, Darwin-hatin’, gun-totin’ rednecks who are hell-bent on taking over the govenment and making you pray against your will!

Do you know who my most religious friends are? Blacks. All of them. They value their faith tremendously, are VERY socially conservative, and spend HOURS upon HOURS going to church each Sunday and studying scripture during the week.

But the ‘stereotype’ of the religious American is the white, southern bigot. But American blacks are religious in equal, if not greater numbers. So why aren’t THEY the target of our scorn. Why aren’t we making documentaries about thier faith?

Easy. They vote democrat. And the liberal democrats are leading this charge against religion.

113

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
I have to admit I’m at a loss when it comes to this new, increasingly pervasive anti-religious bent in this country.

We are at a point now where the biggest social infraction possible is not recognize and “value” our societal diversity. Oh, 'cept religion. That just won’t do.

See. Stereotypes are bad. ‘Cept for the religious, right? They are all bible-thumpin’, Darwin-hatin’, gun-totin’ rednecks who are hell-bent on taking over the govenment and making you pray against your will!

Do you know who my most religious friends are? Blacks. All of them. They value their faith tremendously, are VERY socially conservative, and spend HOURS upon HOURS going to church each Sunday and studying scripture during the week.

But the ‘stereotype’ of the religious American is the white, southern bigot. But American blacks are religious in equal, if not greater numbers. So why aren’t THEY the target of our scorn. Why aren’t we making documentaries about thier faith?

Easy. They vote democrat. And the liberal democrats are leading this charge against religion. [/quote]

You mean percentage, not numbers, right?

114

[quote]human743 wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
I have to admit I’m at a loss when it comes to this new, increasingly pervasive anti-religious bent in this country.

We are at a point now where the biggest social infraction possible is not recognize and “value” our societal diversity. Oh, 'cept religion. That just won’t do.

See. Stereotypes are bad. ‘Cept for the religious, right? They are all bible-thumpin’, Darwin-hatin’, gun-totin’ rednecks who are hell-bent on taking over the govenment and making you pray against your will!

Do you know who my most religious friends are? Blacks. All of them. They value their faith tremendously, are VERY socially conservative, and spend HOURS upon HOURS going to church each Sunday and studying scripture during the week.

But the ‘stereotype’ of the religious American is the white, southern bigot. But American blacks are religious in equal, if not greater numbers. So why aren’t THEY the target of our scorn. Why aren’t we making documentaries about thier faith?

Easy. They vote democrat. And the liberal democrats are leading this charge against religion.

You mean percentage, not numbers, right?[/quote]

Obviously. Mis-stated that. Still a powerful voting block that’s always there for the left. A voting block they won’t risk offending. So while they spout off about the ‘Christian Right’ and try to fight white Evengelicals, they are pimping themselves in black churches, feigning prayer for votes.

115

[quote]harris447 wrote:
panther2k wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
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.

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

Thanks. Good call, Harris.

Yeah…but YOU idn’t know what you were talking about, did you?

Back to class, son.
[/quote]
Let’s recap:
Strike 1- You were wrong about anyone calling me an idiot.
Strike 2- You call me out for a typo when you can’t tell your ass from a keyboard.
Strike 3- “Existential theories that don’t exist”- oops, actually, they do!

That’s three buddy, you’re already out.

116

I’ve finally got a little time to be long winded (and make lots of new enemies).

It’s so common for smart people to throw logic out the window on topics they have an emotional investment in. No where is this more the case than with religion. We’ve got billions of (smart) people who actually believe in the silliest of things. Things like Jesus, the bible, other religions, etc.

If you want to believe in God, I’m cool with that. You’ve got a 50/50 chance. There either is or there isn’t. We really don’t have any evidence one way or another. If you want to believe in an entire religion, you are just lying to yourself, sorry for stating it so bluntly.

If you tell me something to the effect of all major religions have similar fundamental principles that were guided by God’s hand and the religions themselves differ simply because they were developed in different cultures, I think that’s reasonable. But I also think someone who has such a belief should have the intellectual discipline to know they take that belief purely on faith and there is nothing observable or remotely likely to back it up.

Regarding Jesus. Assuming the historic account of the Bible has some rough accuracy this is what I think is the most probable explanation for the conception of Jesus and his “resurection”. It is far more likely that Mary took a lover before Joseph and couldn’t admit it to him or that Joey spilled his seed on Mary’s virgin pussy which resulted in pregnancy than it was truely a “Immaculate Conception”

After all, virgin girls have been known to get pregnant and it’s very common for non-virgin girls to claim virginity. These things happen in real life all the time. There’s no reason to think an immaculate conception has ever taken place. The former is much more likely.

My answer for the Resurrection is a little more spoty but still much more likely than Jesus actually arising from the dead. Jesus didn’t die on the cross. He was barely alive and most everyone assumed he was dead. His rescuers probably said he was dead to keep the Romans at bay. He slowely recovered and when he was well enough he came out. People were amazed. It was a miricle. He was resurrected from the dead. Sorry, but no.

Even if my account is wrong, it’s still more likely the whole story is a farse than it is Jesus was truely resurrected from the dead.

Anyway, have a happy Thanksgiving everyone, and If I don’t get a chance in a month from now, Merry Christmas to all!

117

[quote]on edge wrote:

There’s no reason to think an immaculate conception has ever taken place. [/quote]

Well, it has, just never in mammals. Some species are able to parthenogenetically reproduce, so if Mary were a gecko, her production of offspring without benefit of male partner would be considered far less miraculous. The only problem is, the product of parthenogenesis is always female, which Jesus of course was not.

118

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Do you know who my most religious friends are? Blacks. All of them. They value their faith tremendously, are VERY socially conservative, and spend HOURS upon HOURS going to church each Sunday and studying scripture during the week.

But the ‘stereotype’ of the religious American is the white, southern bigot. But American blacks are religious in equal, if not greater numbers. So why aren’t THEY the target of our scorn. Why aren’t we making documentaries about thier faith?[/quote]

In my experience, American blacks tend to be more humble about their faith, while white evangelicals seem more prone to take an arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude.

(Are there any black evangelical talk show hosts?)

More importantly, it is predominately the white evangelicals that have been going after political power, trying to legislate their ideas on morality into law, and trying to replace science education in our schools with creationist mumbo-jumbo. Black religious leaders seem more interested in addressing social problems within their own communities.

119

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
so if Mary were a gecko…[/quote]

…you could call Jesus and save a bundle on your car insurance.

120

[quote]GERRY.P.SHARMAN wrote:
I see no difference between these wack jobs than any other CULT . They claim to be peacefull religious people ,but they preach nothing but hate for those don’t share their beleifs …And I’d suspect heavily that at the heart of these groups that there is someone getting rich just like in any other large organized CULT .[/quote]

What is the difference between a cult and a religion besides the fact that religions usually have more members? Pliny the Younger back in the day described Christianity as a “degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagent lengths.”