"Jesus Camp"

[wanderingone]

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...

Good intentions are not enough - plenty of people have done things like allow their children to die all while praying away for healing when the treatment has already been provided by God. Love God all you want, ignore the resources available and bad is just bad.

 

[TheManeki]

The theory of evolution is not all there is.

The theory of evolution was not intended to explain everything. It seems the only people who think that it was are fundamentalists.

 

[PetersKeys]

True, but "coming from apes" sounds like we're down the evolutionary line from modern-day chimpanzees, which of course is false.

I didn't say chimpanzees, I said apes, which encompass all the species. Just because you ignorantly think Im saying we came from chimpanzees dosen't mean I said so.

Apes don't have human reason, so somewhere in time human reason came into play. Unfortunatly if that was true we should see other species of apes with human reason. We don't. We are the only species on earth, out of millions that possess human reason and free will. Apes act on instinct not reason.


By the way there are about only 4 genuine transitional fossils that have been found. And nearly all of them have been very skeptical. A couple have been known to be scams. And most "hominid" skulls are simply skulls of very old apes.

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species​

We see, that even by Darwins own standard, there should be thousands of transitional fossils being found. But there are not. If anyone dosen't recognize the problem with this then they are taking evolution with the same faith that creationists have. In reality both theorys are equal to each other and one should not have a higher pedestal than the other in schools.​

 

[cantata]

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.

Of course.

However, there are ways and means. "You're a liar and a hypocrite if you do X" is not much of an argument for not doing X. There's all the guilt and none of the reason. Cultivating empathy rather than fear and guilt seems to me to be far kinder, and far more efficient, actually. If I have children, I would prefer that they are kind and selfless because they want to be - because it feels good, because it's beautiful - rather than because they're afraid of my or God's anger if they are not.

The techniques used at that camp amount to emotional abuse. I do not think they will produce healthy adults.

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.

Well, firstly, the rather creepy bit is that they almost seem to be praying to the president, not for him.

Secondly, would you say the same if Obama won the election and they had a cutout of him at the camp? (Except that they wouldn't, of course, because if Obama wins, he won't have been ordained by God to win America back for Christ; he'll have been appointed by Satan, or some such nonsense.)

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.

Sure, but again, I don't see a need to introduce young children to the abortion debate, for example, before they are old enough to understand why people have abortions and why other people object to them doing so. What it amounts to is a man standing at the front of the room and saying "Some women kill babies. Isn't that evil?" and any young child with any sense of empathy will probably say "Yes!" A young child is not in a position to critically assess the claim that a foetus is a baby, or the claim that there are no good reasons to have an abortion, or, frankly, many other claims about abortion. And therefore you are essentially making their mind up for them by giving them a highly emotive and one-sided account before they are old enough to make an informed decision for themselves.

I guess it depends what you want more: your children holding all the same views about you, or your children being well-informed and able to think critically in order to decide for themselves and form their own opinions.

 

[cantata]

I didn't say chimpanzees, I said apes, which encompass all the species. Just because you ignorantly think Im saying we came from chimpanzees dosen't mean I said so.

I didn't say you said so. I said you claimed that we "came from apes", and that to say that implies some line of descent from modern-day apes to human beings. I said nothing about what you personally may or may not be implying. I merely dislike the phrase because it is misleading to many.

Apes don't have human reason, so somewhere in time human reason came into play. Unfortunatly if that was true we should see other species of apes with human reason. We don't. We are the only species on earth, out of millions that possess human reason and free will. Apes act on instinct not reason.

*sigh*

Other hominid species had the beginnings of reason. Homo sapiens probably wiped them out. There's your answer.

By the way there are about only 4 genuine transitional fossils that have been found. And nearly all of them have been very skeptical. A couple have been known to be scams. And most "homid" skulls are simply skulls of very old apes.

Oh! By "transitional" you mean "transitional between other hominid species and humans". Why didn't you say so?

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species​

"Oh gosh! Evolutionary biologists, come quickly! There's a bit of The Origin of Species that no one's noticed before in which Charles Darwin advances a killer objection against his own theory! Looks like you've been pursuing that old 'natural selection' theory for nothing after all!"

Read some current literature on evolutionary theory and then get back to me, yeah? Because I can assure you that objections like this have not gone unnoticed - and they evolutionary biologists have not failed to deal with them.

The debate in the scientific community about whether evolution happened is over. There is no conspiracy. It simply answers too many questions to be completely false. And I can almost guarantee that the debates which remain are beyond my ability to understand, and yours as well, without serious study of the relevant subjects.

Unless you think there's a conspiracy amongst biologists and geologists to maintain evolutionary theory's credibility in the face of its falsity, I'm afraid you must accept that some people just know more about biology than you do, and there it is.

 

[IzzyPop]

I didn't say chimpanzees, I said apes, which encompass all the species. Just because you ignorantly think Im saying we came from chimpanzees dosen't mean I said so.

Apes don't have human reason, so somewhere in time human reason came into play. Unfortunatly if that was true we should see other species of apes with human reason. We don't. We are the only species on earth, out of millions that possess human reason and free will. Apes act on instinct not reason.

Once again, we are apes. Much as a great dane is a canine, we are apes. And most great apes are able to use reason. Is it instinctive to utilize tools?

By the way there are about only 4 genuine transitional fossils that have been found. And nearly all of them have been very skeptical. A couple have been known to be scams. And most "hominid" skulls are simply skulls of very old apes.

Here is an incomplete listing of the various transitional fossils we have found so far. It is a couple more than four.

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species​

It is a good thing that evolution has moved on a bit since Darwin's day. Go read up on how fossils are created, then you will see why they are relatively rare.

We see, that even by Darwins own standard, there should be thousands of transitional fossils being found. But there are not. If anyone dosen't recognize the problem with this then they are taking evolution with the same faith that creationists have. In reality both theorys are equal to each other and one should not have a higher pedestal than the other in schools.​

Can you give me one scientific advance that has come from creationism? Can you show me how creationism can be falsified? If the answer to either of these is no, then creationism fails as a science and has no business being taught in a classroom.

 

[PetersKeys]

"Some women kill babies. Isn't that evil?" and any young child with any sense of empathy will probably say "Yes!" A young child is not in a position to critically assess the claim that a foetus is a baby, or the claim that there are no good reasons to have an abortion

So your saying that only by sick human conditioning the empathy in a child can be lowered in order for him to justify murder? Do you realize that by claiming this you are saying that the empathy in humans must be manipulated and lowered? Most young children are not tainted and corrupted by the outside world and thus it is honorable that such a child would say this because empathy is a good thing and our deep consciousness and instinct tends the know better rather than someone trying to justify who has already been tainted by pro-abortion and feminist proproganda. Anyone uncorrupted by the world knows that abortion is murder simply by just looking at it, and only by years of mental conditioning, supression of empathy and self conscious, and extreme perverted justification can someone actually claim abortion is not murder. That in itself says something greatly.

 

[PetersKeys]

Once again, we are apes. Much as a great dane is a canine, we are apes. And most great apes are able to use reason. Is it instinctive to utilize tools?

Oh really? Do you have any books on philosophy that have been written by apes as of yet? Any ape versions of Platos Republic? I would love to know their views on the world

 

[TheManeki]

Oh really? Do you have any books on philosophy that have been written by apes as of yet? Any ape versions of Platos Republic? I would love to know their views on the world

Considering that humans belong to the ape family, then there have been lots of books on philosophy written by apes, including Plato's Republic.

 

[cantata]

So your saying that only by sick human conditioning the empathy in a child can be lowered in order for him to justify murder? Do you realize that by claiming this you are saying that the empathy in humans must be manipulated and lowered? Most young children are not tainted and corrupted by the outside world and thus it is honorable that such a child would say this because empathy is a good thing and our deep consciousness and instinct tends the know better rather than someone trying to justify who has already been tainted by pro-abortion and feminist proproganda. Anyone uncorrupted by the world knows that abortion is murder simply by just looking at it, and only by years of mental conditioning, supression of empathy and self conscious, and extreme perverted justification can someone actually claim abortion is not murder. That in itself says something greatly.

If you ask most people, "Is killing babies wrong?" the answer will be "Yes." Essentially these children are being told that abortion = killing babies, so their response is unsurprising. If you framed the question differently - say "Is it wrong to force someone to go through terrible pain and suffering and give up their body as a life-support machine for someone else?" the answer will probably be "Yes" as well. Would it therefore be manipulating children's empathy to tell them that some people think abortion is murder? If you withhold evidence or points of view from children, they will not be able to make informed choices, especially if you happen to be regarded as an authority by those children.

The children in this documentary are not reasoning that abortion is killing babies. They are being told that it is. They are not in a position to understand that there is a debate to be had and why.

You think that feminist conditioning makes people accept abortion. Other people think that religious conditioning makes people think abortion is murder. Perhaps people are blanker slates from the outset than you assume.

 

[cantata]

Oh really? Do you have any books on philosophy that have been written by apes as of yet? Any ape versions of Platos Republic? I would love to know their views on the world

Humans are apes, so yes, assuming Plato was human, we have many books written by apes.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Oh really? Do you have any books on philosophy that have been written by apes as of yet? Any ape versions of Platos Republic? I would love to know their views on the world

What you're talking about there is language. Not reason. Way to backpeddle.

 

[PetersKeys]

What you're talking about there is language. Not reason. Way to backpeddle.

If apes had reason they would be able to learn the human language very easily.

Humans are apes, so yes, assuming Plato was human, we have many books written by apes.

You can do better than that..

If humans really are apes then other forms of apes would have the same characteristics as we do. There would be similar civilizations, technology, philosophy, etc.

 

[cantata]

If apes had reason they would be able to learn the human language very easily.

Apes are physically unable to make the sounds that humans can. They lack vocal chords.

However, they can be taught sign-language and other forms of communication with humans and other members of their own species.

Also, the human language? How parochial of you.

 

[cantata]

You can do better than that..

If humans really are apes then other forms of apes would have the same characteristics as we do. There would be similar civilizations, technology, philosophy, etc.

We are defined as apes by our biology, not our behaviour. Genetics says you're wrong.

 

[selfinflikted]

If apes had reason they would be able to learn the human language very easily.




You can do better than that..

If humans really are apes then other forms of apes would have the same characteristics as we do. There would be similar civilizations, technology, philosophy, etc.

Oh boy. Methinks you should look into cladistics a little further, as your apparent lack of understanding could easily be remedied by even a cursory understanding of biology 101.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Also, the human language? How parochial of you.

But of course, everyone knows Jesus was a white man who spoke English with an American accent.

 

[cantata]

But of course, everyone knows Jesus was a white man who spoke English with an American accent.

Of course! My mistake

 

[PetersKeys]

If you ask most people, "Is killing babies wrong?" the answer will be "Yes." Essentially these children are being told that abortion = killing babies, so their response is unsurprising. If you framed the question differently - say "Is it wrong to force someone to go through terrible pain and suffering and give up their body as a life-support machine for someone else?" the answer will probably be "Yes" as well. Would it therefore be manipulating children's empathy to tell them that some people think abortion is murder? If you withhold evidence or points of view from children, they will not be able to make informed choices, especially if you happen to be regarded as an authority by those children.

The children in this documentary are not reasoning that abortion is killing babies. They are being told that it is. They are not in a position to understand that there is a debate to be had and why.

You think that feminist conditioning makes people accept abortion. Other people think that religious conditioning makes people think abortion is murder. Perhaps people are blanker slates from the outset than you assume.

Ask any young child, that has never heard of abortion. "If a mother kills her unborn child in her womb, is that bad?"

Tell me how many will say yes. and how many no. Children without any conditioning at all. I think you'll be surprised. This shows that if we look at abortion for what it truely is, and what our conscious truely feels deep down then that is what it is. Our instinct "knows" its murder. Even the most staunch pro-abortion feminist will feel "something" if she is taken to an abortion clinic to view an actual abortion in action.

Go take a look at an actual abortion in action being performed by the doctor. What does your instinct feel?

 

[cantata]

Ask any young child, that has never heard of abortion. "If a mother kills her unborn child in her womb, is that bad?"

Yeah, because that's a super-neutral question.

Ask any young child, that has never heard of abortion: "If a woman has a foreign body in her womb that will cause her life-threatening pain in nine months' time, is that bad?"

Tell me how many will say yes. and how many no. Children without any conditioning at all. I think you'll be surprised. This shows that if we look at abortion for what it truely is, and what our conscious truely feels deep down then that is what it is. Our instinct "knows" its murder. Even the most staunch pro-abortion feminist will feel "something" if she is taken to an abortion clinic to view an actual abortion in action.

Go take a look at an actual abortion in action being performed by the doctor. What does your instinct feel?

Because how things look is an excellent guide to how ethical they are, of course.

Your initial question is hopelessly loaded, anyway.