• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

"Jesus Camp"

PetersKeys

Traditionalist Catholic , Paleo-conservative
Mar 4, 2008
536
36
43
✟15,876.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, evolution is the most widely accepted theory as to the origin of species. It has tons of evidence to support it, and little to none to discredit it. Creationism, otoh, is based purely on myth and has zero supporting evidence. I was only correcting you as to what the ToE actually says, since you had it wrong. You are free of course to place your beliefs in whichever theory you like.


I don't know about that. Evolution is still a theory the same way intelligent design is. Not all intelligent design is YEC either. While there are some evidences of evolution(mostly microevolution) there are a great number of gaps and lack of transitional fossils. In fact I don't think there is one official documented transitional fossil to date. Evolution is not the holy grail as scientists want you to think. There is still a great amount of problems and things that it cannot explain. We should have transitional fossils by the thousands if evoltution were 100% true, but we don't.

Also if we came from apes, then you need to consider where all of a sudden human reason came into play. Creatures that rely mainly on instinct don't all of a sudden start spawning creatures with advanced reason, intellect, guilt and are able to philosophize and have free will. When has a monkey inquired about the bigger questions in life?
 
Upvote 0

morningstar2651

Senior Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
14,557
2,591
40
Arizona
✟74,149.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't know about that. Evolution is still a theory the same way intelligent design is. Not all intelligent design is YEC either. While there are some evidences of evolution(mostly microevolution) there are a great number of gaps and lack of transitional fossils. In fact I don't think there is one official documented transitional fossil to date. Evolution is not the holy grail as scientists want you to think. There is still a great amount of problems and things that it cannot explain. We should have transitional fossils by the thousands if evoltution were 100% true, but we don't.

Also if we came from apes, then you need to consider where all of a sudden human reason came into play. Creatures that rely mainly on instinct don't all of a sudden start spawning creatures with advanced reason, intellect, guilt and are able to philosophize and have free will. When has a monkey inquired about the bigger questions in life?
ID is not a scientific theory. The scientific use of the word theory is different from the colloquial use.

Gravity is a theory - the theory of gravitation.

Also, we didn't "come from apes" - we have a shared ancestor. Two different branches. Two different species.

Also, transition fossils exist.
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I don't know about that. Evolution is still a theory the same way intelligent design is.

It's more a theory in the same way that atomic theory or gravitation theory are theories.

Not all intelligent design is YEC either.

It's a start, I suppose.

While there are some evidences of evolution(mostly microevolution) there are a great number of gaps and lack of transitional fossils. In fact I don't think there is one official documented transitional fossil to date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Evolution is not the holy grail as scientists want you to think. There is still a great amount of problems and things that it cannot explain. We should have transitional fossils by the thousands if evoltution were 100% true, but we don't.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Fossils of animals that are alive today will be transitional fossils in millions of years. Evolution doesn't have goals. It just blunders on.

Also if we came from apes,

Which we didn't - we have a common ancestor with apes.

then you need to consider where all of a sudden human reason came into play. Creatures that rely mainly on instinct don't all of a sudden start spawning creatures with advanced reason, intellect, guilt and are able to philosophize and have free will. When has a monkey inquired about the bigger questions in life?

Oh my goodness! Quick, call the evolutionary biologists! They've never thought of that question before!

Seriously, what I don't understand is how people who reject evolutionary theory can think that they know better than the overwhelming majority of the modern scientific community. Great numbers of people who have devoted their lives to the study of the natural sciences - almost all of them highly intelligent - conclude that evolutionary theory is the best theory out there for explaining the existence of life on earth as we see it today and as the fossil record indicates. I can't imagine why anyone without several relevant degrees would have the self-importance to challenge this theory on the basis of what they've read on a few creationist websites. It'd be like if I went on the Flat Earth Society website, read a few articles, and then suddenly started challenging geologists and cosmologists about the structure of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't know about that. Evolution is still a theory the same way intelligent design is. Not all intelligent design is YEC either. While there are some evidences of evolution(mostly microevolution) there are a great number of gaps and lack of transitional fossils. In fact I don't think there is one official documented transitional fossil to date. Evolution is not the holy grail as scientists want you to think. There is still a great amount of problems and things that it cannot explain. We should have transitional fossils by the thousands if evoltution were 100% true, but we don't.

Also if we came from apes, then you need to consider where all of a sudden human reason came into play. Creatures that rely mainly on instinct don't all of a sudden start spawning creatures with advanced reason, intellect, guilt and are able to philosophize and have free will. When has a monkey inquired about the bigger questions in life?

Evolution is a scientific theory. Intelligent Design is a theological theory. When this is properly understood, there is no conflict. For the scientific Christian, ID just means that God has a plan, and He has directed evolution in furtherance of that plan.

It is when, having already rejected evolution on religious grounds, one tries to substitute Creationism and call it ID that one runs into trouble. The model of the universe that Creationism presents simply does not at all match the observed data.

There are versions of evolutionary theory that allow for sudden (one might even say miraculous) "jumps," but the broad outline of evolution is too useful in explaining the observed phenomena to be easily dislodged as the prevailing model. Certainly not by dressing up Creationism as a scientific theory and calling it ID.

But there is a whole different forum dedicated to the Evolution/Creationism debate, and we've de-railed this thread enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheManeki
Upvote 0

stan1980

Veteran
Jan 7, 2008
3,238
261
✟27,040.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Evolution is scientific fact as well. Remember that creationists. Scientific theories seem to be okay when it doesn't contradict the bible (gravity for instance), but when you present a theory with virtually indisputable evidence that contradicts the bible, oh no, it has to be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

WatersMoon110

To See with Eyes Unclouded by Hate
May 30, 2007
4,738
266
42
Ohio
✟28,755.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well, this thread went a bit off topic, didn't it?

I did watch Jesus Camp, but really want to see it again with the commentary from the directors.

Did anyone else notice that the scary blond woman kept saying that the kids "shouldn't just talk about Jesus but not be active about it, not sit around and be lazy" or some such BS, and that she herself didn't look very active or seem to be doing anything but talking about Jesus? She certainly was a...well rounded woman, and didn't really have much room to tell other people to not be lazy.
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Well, this thread went a bit off topic, didn't it?

I did watch Jesus Camp, but really want to see it again with the commentary from the directors.

Did anyone else notice that the scary blond woman kept saying that the kids "shouldn't just talk about Jesus but not be active about it, not sit around and be lazy" or some such BS, and that she herself didn't look very active or seem to be doing anything but talking about Jesus? She certainly was a...well rounded woman, and didn't really have much room to tell other people to not be lazy.

Yeah. "People go to church but they don't want to give up their evening meal for a fast!"

Odd choice of sin to mention - perhaps something close to her heart.
 
Upvote 0

TheManeki

Christian Humanist
Jun 5, 2007
3,376
544
Visit site
✟28,834.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just an aside -- if you liked Jesus Camp, I'd also recommend Hell House. It's a documentary about an evangelical church in Texas (I think it's Texas) that started the "hell house" movement, where they put up a haunted house every Halloween designed to scare Jesus into people.
 
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
46
✟39,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't know about that.

Then I suggest you study up on the subject before you embarrass yourself even more...

Evolution is still a theory the same way intelligent design is.

As other posters have already pointed out, I think you are stumbling over the use of the word "theory" here. It doesn't mean what you think it does. Look it up.

Not all intelligent design is YEC either.

No, it sure isn't. Never said it was.

While there are some evidences of evolution(mostly microevolution) there are a great number of gaps and lack of transitional fossils. In fact I don't think there is one official documented transitional fossil to date.

Again, more study is required on your part. There are plenty of transitional fossils documented. Whether you want to ignore that evidence is quite up to you, but it would also be an exercise in ignoring reality as well. And we all know where people that do that end up...

Evolution is not the holy grail as scientists want you to think.

No, but as I've already said, it's the best explanation for what we currently observe in the animal kingdom. It has the most supporting evidence, and really nothing that discredits it.

There is still a great amount of problems and things that it cannot explain.

This is grossly off-topic, but it is my thread, so I'll indulge you. Name a few of these problems, specifically, please.

We should have transitional fossils by the thousands if evoltution were 100% true, but we don't.

That all depends on what you're willing to consider transitional. Most creationists like to pretend they don't exist and look the other way. However, we do in fact, have them.

Also if we came from apes, then you need to consider where all of a sudden human reason came into play. Creatures that rely mainly on instinct don't all of a sudden start spawning creatures with advanced reason, intellect, guilt and are able to philosophize and have free will. When has a monkey inquired about the bigger questions in life?

More embarrassment on your part. It's already been explained in this very thread that the ToE in no way states that we come from apes. Again, I suggest more study on a subject before you blindly try to debunk it.

In fact, I suggest talking to Aaron Ra. He posts in the creation vs evolution threads and is a great person to talk to about the subject. He's far more learned and eloquent when trying to explain the ToE to the layman. You should look him up and PM him any questions you might have that are beyond the scope of posters in this thread.

Well, this thread went a bit off topic, didn't it?

I did watch Jesus Camp, but really want to see it again with the commentary from the directors.

Did anyone else notice that the scary blond woman kept saying that the kids "shouldn't just talk about Jesus but not be active about it, not sit around and be lazy" or some such BS, and that she herself didn't look very active or seem to be doing anything but talking about Jesus? She certainly was a...well rounded woman, and didn't really have much room to tell other people to not be lazy.

lol yes. She's had the balls to stand in front of those kids and say "America is becoming FAT and LAZY", while she herself has an obvious weight problem. I had to lol irl when she said that. In fact, I can't believe these people were so dumb to let themselves appear so rediculously retarded in a film. I sure wouldn't have consented to it if it was me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheManeki
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
51
✟30,209.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
  • Like
Reactions: TheManeki
Upvote 0

wanderingone

I'm not lost I'm just wandering
Jul 6, 2005
11,090
932
58
New York
✟38,279.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if one wants a child to learn how to drive a car correctly, one doesn't simply hand said child the car keys at 16/17 and say, "Have at it!" A child learns from imitation, example and lessons. Sorry, you don't agree with a churches doctrine; however, you will one day teach your child the things you feel are important in the manor in which you feel it's best presented. I may disagree with your values; however, that doesn't make you a terrible person or a mistreater of children. Remember, your secular motivation likely looks the very same to someone who disagrees, as their techniques do to you. Both are trying to accomplish the very same thing ---- to instill one's values and influence a child to do the "right" thing. Unless you want them to disagree with you, then you may just wish to send them to a "JESUS Camp."

The Bible says, "Train a child in the way he should go, and he will not depart from it." As a general statement, I feel that this is very very true.


Yes most parents will teach their children a set of values.. but I must disagree that just because it's a set of values means it can't be a terrible parent or an abusive parent imparting terrible values, or using terrible means to teach those values that may be a perfectly fine set of values.

To use something I hope is fairly innocuous:

If I want my child to believe reading is important as well as enjoyable I can model a love of the written word, take them to the library, read them stories, help them find things they love to read; to me that would be a fairly sensible way to show a child that I consider reading to be a valuable skill and an enjoyable hobby as well.

I could also choose to force my child to read books they hate, make them take tests on every book they read, refuse to allow them a choice in reading material, drop them off at the library but never actually take a book out myself, spank them for choosing a graphic novel today instead of something I consider my appropriate etc.

My value may be spot on.. but my methods can be rotten.
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if one wants a child to learn how to drive a car correctly, one doesn't simply hand said child the car keys at 16/17 and say, "Have at it!" A child learns from imitation, example and lessons. Sorry, you don't agree with a churches doctrine; however, you will one day teach your child the things you feel are important in the manor in which you feel it's best presented. I may disagree with your values; however, that doesn't make you a terrible person or a mistreater of children. Remember, your secular motivation likely looks the very same to someone who disagrees, as their techniques do to you. Both are trying to accomplish the very same thing ---- to instill one's values and influence a child to do the "right" thing. Unless you want them to disagree with you, then you may just wish to send them to a "JESUS Camp."

The Bible says, "Train a child in the way he should go, and he will not depart from it." As a general statement, I feel that this is very very true.

It doesn't matter what the ideology is that is being taught. The methods that are used at this camp are disturbing.

As you have probably gathered, I don't believe in God and I happen to have quite liberal values. If I had children, however, I would not take them to a camp which expounded my values in the way that the camp in the documentary expounds the values of the parents who take their children there.

- Would I want a cardboard cutout of Richard Dawkins/Charles Darwin/whoever at the front of the room for the children to venerate? No. (In the documentary a cutout of George W. Bush is featured at one point.)

- Would I want the children to be taught war chants about feminism and evolution? No. (The children are involved in the chanting of "This means war!" with regard to secular culture and "sin".)

- Would I want to see children made to cry uncontrollably because they sometimes fail to tell the truth or be kind to other children? No. (The children are called fakers and liars and hypocrites for saying swear words or being unkind or not talking about their Christianity at school, which results in a lot of tears.)

- Would I want children to be told that there is an enormous religious and political conspiracy to undermine their way of life? No. (The children are told that The Government and Secularists are attempting to "take Jesus out of their schools".)

- Would I want children to receive lectures on a woman's right to choose, and for them to be encouraged to picket ex-gay organisations? No. (The children are given a lecture about abortion, and taken to an anti-abortion picket in a large city.)

- Would I want certain children to be vilified and to feel guilty because they find themselves attracted by religion? No. (One child is deeply upset because he confesses that he finds faith very difficult.)

A camp which did these things with my ideology would be deeply disturbing to me, just as this camp is which does these things with a fundamentalist Christian ideology. My horror is only partially to do with the values they are teaching. It is primarily the methods used to teach them which disgust me. Children should of course be taught how to be responsible citizens, but this is not the way to do it. Children this young do not need to be dragged into political arguments, and they do not need to be subjected to emotional abuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheManeki
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Then you never tried to raise a teenager.

One doesn't start when a child reaches his teens. Yes, a young man is going to want to be independent and there will be moments; however, I feel if a child has been brought up to respect himself and those around him, he will eventually see reason. This is in general. Some kids were born to be wild --- some day they will likely have to deal with their own children and reality will set in.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes most parents will teach their children a set of values.. but I must disagree that just because it's a set of values means it can't be a terrible parent or an abusive parent imparting terrible values, or using terrible means to teach those values that may be a perfectly fine set of values.

To use something I hope is fairly innocuous:

If I want my child to believe reading is important as well as enjoyable I can model a love of the written word, take them to the library, read them stories, help them find things they love to read; to me that would be a fairly sensible way to show a child that I consider reading to be a valuable skill and an enjoyable hobby as well.

I could also choose to force my child to read books they hate, make them take tests on every book they read, refuse to allow them a choice in reading material, drop them off at the library but never actually take a book out myself, spank them for choosing a graphic novel today instead of something I consider my appropriate etc.

My value may be spot on.. but my methods can be rotten.

But see, for the "Christian" that is where prayer comes in. If things are being accomplished prayerfully then GOD will bless the intent and provide direction. GOD will turn bad things to good for those who love the LORD. If you are just doing what you feel is right, then that becomes your problem...
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It doesn't matter what the ideology is that is being taught. The methods that are used at this camp are disturbing.

As you have probably gathered, I don't believe in God and I happen to have quite liberal values. If I had children, however, I would not take them to a camp which expounded my values in the way that the camp in the documentary expounds the values of the parents who take their children there.

- Would I want a cardboard cutout of Richard Dawkins/Charles Darwin/whoever at the front of the room for the children to venerate? No. (In the documentary a cutout of George W. Bush is featured at one point.)

- Would I want the children to be taught war chants about feminism and evolution? No. (The children are involved in the chanting of "This means war!" with regard to secular culture and "sin".)

- Would I want to see children made to cry uncontrollably because they sometimes fail to tell the truth or be kind to other children? No. (The children are called fakers and liars and hypocrites for saying swear words or being unkind or not talking about their Christianity at school, which results in a lot of tears.)

- Would I want children to be told that there is an enormous religious and political conspiracy to undermine their way of life? No. (The children are told that The Government and Secularists are attempting to "take Jesus out of their schools".)

- Would I want children to receive lectures on a woman's right to choose, and for them to be encouraged to picket ex-gay organisations? No. (The children are given a lecture about abortion, and taken to an anti-abortion picket in a large city.)

- Would I want certain children to be vilified and to feel guilty because they find themselves attracted by religion? No. (One child is deeply upset because he confesses that he finds faith very difficult.)

A camp which did these things with my ideology would be deeply disturbing to me, just as this camp is which does these things with a fundamentalist Christian ideology. My horror is only partially to do with the values they are teaching. It is primarily the methods used to teach them which disgust me. Children should of course be taught how to be responsible citizens, but this is not the way to do it. Children this young do not need to be dragged into political arguments, and they do not need to be subjected to emotional abuse.

First off, a good cry never hurt anyone. Sorry, but I personally feel strongly that many parents today insist in sparing their children any sense of personal responsibility for anything they do. The world is not like that. People don't like selfish or mean people. It is good they learn that early in life as opposed to later. Children need to be taught to respect their President, no matter if they agree with him or not. They should pray for their President if they believe in prayer. They should respect their elders and those in authority. They also need to be taught how to respond righteously to abuse. And they may need to receive a counterbalance to the excesses of secular society. The theory of evolution is not all there is. Darwinism has it's share of problems. Liberalism is not a good thing as one may assume.
 
Upvote 0