Jesus Camp

robindch · 07-05-2008 3:06pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I have never heard any Christian say:
"if you don't do what I say, you are going to hell?"

You've told me yourself that I'm going to go to hell, and AFAIR, kelly1 said it about somebody else this morning.

Tim Robbins · 07-05-2008 3:14pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

1. Define indoctrination? I see churches teaching truths as contained in teh Bible.

From dictionary.com
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

2. This certainly does not happen. Jesus encouraged debate and search for truth.

The American Evangelical Churches do not know the meaning of the word debate. It is rare you will see preachers debate with those of opposing or different view. When Richard Dawkins went to debate with ted Haggard he ended up being asked to leave and kicked off his property. They do preaching not rational discourse.

3. I have never seen this happen.

Well all Christian Churches do this. The only church that categorically don't are the Unitarians

All faiths and philosophies do the same. Where do you get that stat?

Lost you here.

BrianCalgary · 07-05-2008 3:36pm

robindch wrote: »

You've told me yourself that I'm going to go to hell, and AFAIR, kelly1 said it about somebody else this morning.

And in your current state you are. But the quote given is not what is taught.

"if you don't do what I say, you are going to hell?"

That is not the Christian teaching.

The Christian teaching is: Without Christ one is lost. Being lost ends up in Hell. (no mention of fire and brimstone). Being saved from lostness leads to heaven.

This is how you are saved.............

In coming to the conclusion of your final destination we had discussed your present opinion on Jesus and your own relationship to Him. It was a one on one discussion, as best can be done on a public board.

BrianCalgary · 07-05-2008 3:52pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

From dictionary.com
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning. .

Any teaching could be construed as indoctrination. My kids are taught history in school from a Canadian bias and viewpoint, this bias and view could be different from the English, French or American teaching of teh same events. That too is indoctrination.
I had a Canadian Studies teacher in High School who was very Anti-American, he taught us from his view. Was he indoctrinating us?

My point is that indoctrination happens everywhere would you have us not teach children until they came of an age that they could decide for themselves?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The American Evangelical Churches do not know the meaning of the word debate. It is rare you will see preachers debate with those of opposing or different view. When Richard Dawkins went to debate with ted Haggard he ended up being asked to leave and kicked off his property. They do preaching not rational discourse..

Maybe Ted Haggard is not a debater. Maybe Richard Dawkins approach was hostile. I dont know the circumstances. I read about debates quite often and there are times when the Richard Dawkins type refuse to debate Christians.

I would personally not debate because I'm not good at it. But I sure dont mind discussing theology and Biblical history. I would never debate a scientist on creationsim, because Im not knowledgable enough to add to the debate.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well all Christian Churches do this. The only church that categorically don't are the Unitarians.

Not all Christian churches scare kids with Hell TR. I have never seen it happen in my church nor do I know any adults who grew up in the church getting hit with such scare tactics. So please do not make this generalisation.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Lost you here.

All faiths and philosophies indoctrinate as they teach their faith and philosophy.

Where do you get the stat that 95% of people follow their parents faith?

In my home only 3 of 5 do. In another friend 2 of 4. Another, 3 of 5. We aren't even close to the 95%.

Tim Robbins · 07-05-2008 4:26pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Any teaching could be construed as indoctrination. My kids are taught history in school from a Canadian bias and viewpoint, this bias and view could be different from the English, French or American teaching of teh same events. That too is indoctrination.
I had a Canadian Studies teacher in High School who was very Anti-American, he taught us from his view. Was he indoctrinating us?

My point is that indoctrination happens everywhere would you have us not teach children until they came of an age that they could decide for themselves?

Difference with religion, is that children are labelled as having a definitive position, they're Catholic or Muslim. It would be equivalent of calling a child a capitalist or a socialist.

Not all Christian churches scare kids with Hell TR. I have never seen it happen in my church nor do I know any adults who grew up in the church getting hit with such scare tactics. So please do not make this generalisation.

Perhaps my definition of scare is different to your's. As soon as you tell a child about hell, you scare them imo.

All faiths and philosophies indoctrinate as they teach their faith and philosophy.

Philosophies don't. You don't bring up your child as a Utilitarian or someone who must use the socratic method.

Where do you get the stat that 95% of people follow their parents faith?

In my home only 3 of 5 do. In another friend 2 of 4. Another, 3 of 5. We aren't even close to the 95%.

Go to your Church and ask them were faith their parents were. I think you'll see the majority of them were Christian, whereas if you go and ask some Muslims in Palestine their parents would be Muslim.

robindch · 07-05-2008 4:34pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And in your current state you are. But the quote given is not what is taught. [...] Without Christ one is lost. Being lost ends up in Hell. (no mention of fire and brimstone).

Well, you're telling me what to do, and telling me that I am going to hell if I don't do it. Then you say that you're not doing an "if you don't do what I say, you are going to hell".

On the contrary, it seems to me that it's exactly what you're doing!

PDN · 07-05-2008 4:35pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

1. I believe that people should learn about religions, faiths etc.
2. I believe people have a right to adopt a theological faith.
3. I believe that some people can benefit from prayer in the same way some people can benefit from mediatation.
4. I believe some people can benefit from prayer in the same way some people can benefit from placebo.
5. I believe some theological establishments have built nice buildings and have nice songs.
6. I believe truth is best found in science and logic even though it's not always fool proof and reliable.
7. I would be an humanist, Pol Pot would be a sociopath.
Should I continue?

Continue? I would prefer it if you began.

None of the above refer to theological beliefs. They refer to how you react to, and how tolerant you are, of those with different beliefs.

Pol Pot's theological beliefs were that God does not exist, that the Bible is a human literally production with no divine inspiration, that there is no heaven or hell etc.

So, Tim, how do your theological beliefs differ from Pol Pot's?

I don't agree with that. They use the similar tactics, communicate the same message as most christian Churches.
1. Indoctrination.
2. Excuse themselves from rational criticism, debate, science etc.
3. Scare kids about hell.

You appear to be quite ignorant about Christian churches.

Churches share and teach values and beliefs, as do most human institutions. That is no more 'indoctrination' than it is for me to teach my daughter that racism is wrong or that giving to charity is good.

Most churches that I have visited are perfectly happy to engage with those who wish to criticise or question. Healthy debate is welcomed. As for excusing themselves from science, I'm not sure what you mean. most churches avail themselves of the results of scientific research where appropriate - but a church does not exist to promote science anymore than a pharmaceutical company exists to write good poetry. The church exists so Christians can share their faith and teach about God. I have a number of scientists and medical doctors etc in my church, but they don't want the church to involve itself in science.

As for children and hell, I don't see any kids in our churches getting scared. I often chat with them before or after church, and they know the basic beliefs of Christianity, but I've never heard any of them express any fear about hell.

PDN · 07-05-2008 4:48pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

From dictionary.com
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

OK, let's accept that definition. My dad indoctrinated me into being an atheist. Then my teachers at school indoctrinated me that racism was wrong.

The American Evangelical Churches do not know the meaning of the word debate. It is rare you will see preachers debate with those of opposing or different view. When Richard Dawkins went to debate with ted Haggard he ended up being asked to leave and kicked off his property. They do preaching not rational discourse.

And how many American evangelical churches have you visited in order to reach this conclusion, Tim? 100? 50? Or maybe ... none?

Actually there are a number of American evangelical churches that enter into debates with those of different views.

As for Dawkins and Haggard - you are prepared to judge a movement of millions on one video clip (doubtless edited) where one evangelical pastor made an ass of himself? BTW, if someone arrived uninvited with a video camera on our church property and expected me to drop everything else and engage in a debate without prior warning, then I would ask them to leave as well. Imagine if I turned up with a VCR at the end of one of Dawkins' classes at university and demanded that he cancel his plans and engage in a debate where I had presented him with carefully thought out questionsbut expected him to answer them immediately with no prior warning! I suspect he, or others, might well ask me to leave the campus. Such antics were street theatre for Dawkins' propaganda film rather than an attempt at serious debate.

Tim Robbins · 07-05-2008 5:14pm

PDN wrote: »

Continue? I would prefer it if you began.

None of the above refer to theological beliefs. They refer to how you react to, and how tolerant you are, of those with different beliefs.

Pol Pot's theological beliefs were that God does not exist, that the Bible is a human literally production with no divine inspiration, that there is no heaven or hell etc.

So, Tim, how do your theological beliefs differ from Pol Pot's?

I disagree. There is a difference between a militant atheist and an atheist.
Secondly, I would change my theological believes if any of the theological religions had any reliable evidence. Would Pol Pot?
Thirdly, you and Pol Pot have the same theological perespective on Islam, can you see how ridiculous your point is?

I share no beliefs with Pol Pot, only disbelief as do you.

You appear to be quite ignorant about Christian churches.

Churches share and teach values and beliefs, as do most human institutions. That is no more 'indoctrination' than it is for me to teach my daughter that racism is wrong or that giving to charity is good.

Yes I'll indoctrinate my children that playing sport is good and I won't indoctrinate my children as atheists, christians, socialist or capitalists. This is because these matters are more complicated than racism and giving to charity and I consider it selfish, one eyed and non sensical to label a child with a perspective that they can't even understand themselves.

Most churches that I have visited are perfectly happy to engage with those who wish to criticise or question. Healthy debate is welcomed. As for excusing themselves from science, I'm not sure what you mean. most churches avail themselves of the results of scientific research where appropriate - but a church does not exist to promote science anymore than a pharmaceutical company exists to write good poetry. The church exists so Christians can share their faith and teach about God. I have a number of scientists and medical doctors etc in my church, but they don't want the church to involve itself in science.

Ridiculous, several times you have excused yourself from discussion on evolution saying "it doesn't matter" when it is antithetical to taking a literal interpretation of the Bible and reduces Adam and Eve to nothing more than a myth and a fantasy.

As for children and hell, I don't see any kids in our churches getting scared. I often chat with them before or after church, and they know the basic beliefs of Christianity, but I've never heard any of them express any fear about hell.

What's the purpose of hell if it's not supposed to scare people?

Tim Robbins · 07-05-2008 5:20pm

PDN wrote: »

Actually there are a number of American evangelical churches that enter into debates with those of different views.

Perhaps you could produce the intellectual achievements of American Evangelicals?

As for Dawkins and Haggard - you are prepared to judge a movement of millions on one video clip (doubtless edited) where one evangelical pastor made an ass of himself?

This pastor was quite high up in the American Evagelicals and even regularly spoke to Bush. I have searched for several debates between American Evangelicals and Atheists on google, youtube - can't find many. The God Channel, an edifice of American Evangelicalism rarely has any.

BTW, if someone arrived uninvited with a video camera on our church property and expected me to drop everything else and engage in a debate without prior warning, then I would ask them to leave as well. Imagine if I turned up with a VCR at the end of one of Dawkins' classes at university and demanded that he cancel his plans and engage in a debate where I had presented him with carefully thought out questionsbut expected him to answer them immediately with no prior warning! I suspect he, or others, might well ask me to leave the campus. Such antics were street theatre for Dawkins' propaganda film rather than an attempt at serious debate.

Produce evidence Dawkins did that. It was simple basic question, nothing clever or esoteric. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence, education and interest in truth should have thought about and being able to answer or give opinion. Haggard was stumped and shown up for yet another American Evangelical who hasn't a clue about Science.

Whereas when Dawkins met Alistir McGrath, an Anglican he was well able to debate, engage in discussion about evolution.

JimiTime · 07-05-2008 5:35pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I disagree. There is a difference between a militant atheist and an atheist.
Secondly, I would change my theological believes if any of the theological religions had any reliable evidence. Would Pol Pot?
Thirdly, you and Pol Pot have the same theological perespective on Islam, can you see how ridiculous your point is?

I share no beliefs with Pol Pot, only disbelief as do you.

You got it now Tim. Now just take your point above and apply it to your comparrison of professing Christians.

robindch · 07-05-2008 5:52pm

PDN wrote: »

As for Dawkins and Haggard - you are prepared to judge a movement of millions on one video clip (doubtless edited) where one evangelical pastor made an ass of himself?

An ass of himself? Perhaps not the best word to apply to Haggard in the circumstances

Up to time when Haggard was revealed to be a practicing homosexual and a drug user, he was the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals. I think it's really quite normal to make a few basic judgments about a movement by the quality, or otherwise, of its leader - who in this case seems to have been something of a hypocrite.

Have you actually seen the interview? It really is quite unpleasant -- you may change your mind once you see it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uokV7UdGW_s

PDN wrote: »

Imagine if I turned up with a VCR at the end of one of Dawkins' classes at university and demanded that he cancel his plans and engage in a debate where I had presented him with carefully thought out questionsbut expected him to answer them immediately with no prior warning! [...] Such antics were street theatre for Dawkins' propaganda film rather than an attempt at serious debate.

I believe that Dawkins interview with Haggard had been prearranged, though his ejection no doubt wasn't. You may view what happened as having propaganda value, but nonetheless, it's what happened and Haggard and his security staff only have themselves to blame for it.

Doctor DooM · 07-05-2008 7:09pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You have the whole message wrong. I have never heard any Christian say:
"if you don't do what I say, you are going to hell?"

I do hear Christians say: Eternal life is gained through a personal relationship with Jesus. Without that then you suffer a second death which is Hell. And this is what both look like.

Moderate left wingers just fine you with a threat of jail time if you do not accept their idealogies.

The Pope is, as far as the Catholic church is concerned, the voice of god on earth, correct? So in the RC faith, if you disobey the pope, and by extension, the church, you are disobeying God and are therefore sinning, no? I am genuinely asking, as this is the way it appears to me.

I can recall not too long ago as a child being told I has commited a mortal sin, for example, for not paying enough respect to a palm frond I had received in mass. A mortal sin! Now of course the lady who said that was no priest.

The threat of hell is there, above you add more to it, but the threat is still there.

Secondly, I would question what you see as moderate left wing, as imprisoning someone for an alternate belief is quite frankly closer to what churches used to get away with. Poor Galileo

Reducing freedom of speech is not really something Dick Spring pushed too hard in his time in power, was it?

wolfsbane · 07-05-2008 11:18pm

robindch wrote: »

An ass of himself? Perhaps not the best word to apply to Haggard in the circumstances

Up to time when Haggard was revealed to be a practicing homosexual and a drug user, he was the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals. I think it's really quite normal to make a few basic judgments about a movement by the quality, or otherwise, of its leader - who in this case seems to have been something of a hypocrite.

Have you actually seen the interview? It really is quite unpleasant -- you may change your mind once you see it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uokV7UdGW_s
I believe that Dawkins interview with Haggard had been prearranged, though his ejection no doubt wasn't. You may view what happened as having propaganda value, but nonetheless, it's what happened and Haggard and his security staff only have themselves to blame for it.

Sorry to just jump into the thread now, but I saw a bit of the 'Jesus Camp' for the first time last night and remembered seeing a thread with that title.

I've read the first page or so and skipped to the last. Here robin's post struck a chord.

Yes, the Evangelical movement in America, as represented by the like of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, is an utter disgrace. A mixture of sincere but gullible Christians; sensuous hedonists who think they are Christians; and greedy wolves like Haggard who pass themselves of as Christian leaders.

The little bit I saw of the camp gave a flavour of this: sincere folk looking to live their lives God's way, but being led in sensuous, irreverent worship. Such worship suits the unconverted but deluded heart, who think God is their buddy and errant boy. The truly converted heart will be unsettled and eventually grieved by it, and hopelfully God will use it to call them out from the influence of false teachers.

It is all a sad travesty of true Christianity. Such corruption the Church has had to fight against from the beginning, and it only gets worse in these last days:
Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

2 Timothy 3:1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was...

12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

PDN · 08-05-2008 12:07am

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The God Channel, an edifice of American Evangelicalism rarely has any.

The God Channel was established by a South African couple, ran for many years in Europe (headquartered in Sunderland), transmits from Israel, but recently extended its broadcasting to the USA for the first time where many viewers see it as a "cute European station so different from American religious TV".

An edifice of American Evangelicalism? :eek: Tim, why do you persist in talking about stuff you obviously know nothing about?

PDN · 08-05-2008 12:18am

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I disagree. There is a difference between a militant atheist and an atheist.
Secondly, I would change my theological believes if any of the theological religions had any reliable evidence. Would Pol Pot?
Thirdly, you and Pol Pot have the same theological perespective on Islam, can you see how ridiculous your point is?

I share no beliefs with Pol Pot, only disbelief as do you.

How can I discuss a hypothetical case of whether a dead person would change his mind in a given set of circumstances or not?

I doubt very much if Pol pot and I share the same theological perspective on Islam at all. However, my point is ridiculous, intentionally so. That is because it shows the absurdity of judging people by whether they share theological beliefs or not when the issue is actually sociological behaviour.

Ridiculous, several times you have excused yourself from discussion on evolution saying "it doesn't matter" when it is antithetical to taking a literal interpretation of the Bible and reduces Adam and Eve to nothing more than a myth and a fantasy.

It doesn't matter to me whether we evolved or not. I'm much more interested in how we live and behave today than in something that happened thousands, or millions, of years ago. Sorry I don't share your obsession with the creationism/evolution debate.

BTW, many Christians believe a literal interpretation of the Bible is consistent with theistic evolution. Neither do they necessarily believe Adam and Eve to be a myth or a fantasy.

What's the purpose of hell if it's not supposed to scare people?

To tell them what is true. Any of the kids in our church who believe in hell also believe that Jesus died in order to save them, and that therefore they need not fear going to hell. No fear.

Turnip2000 · 08-05-2008 12:31am

Show scared me a little to be honest? Kids on fire and all that!!

Specially that kid with the groovy hair!

Tim Robbins · 08-05-2008 9:49am

PDN wrote: »

The God Channel was established by a South African couple, ran for many years in Europe (headquartered in Sunderland), transmits from Israel, but recently extended its broadcasting to the USA for the first time where many viewers see it as a "cute European station so different from American religious TV".

An edifice of American Evangelicalism? :eek: Tim, why do you persist in talking about stuff you obviously know nothing about?

I watched it when I had NTL digital and it was 90% American Evangelicals. It's a reasonable assertion.

Tim Robbins · 08-05-2008 10:00am

PDN wrote: »

How can I discuss a hypothetical case of whether a dead person would change his mind in a given set of circumstances or not?

Well don't pick dead people if you can't consider such questions as they differentiate between my atheism and his.

I doubt very much if Pol pot and I share the same theological perspective on Islam at all. However, my point is ridiculous, intentionally so. That is because it shows the absurdity of judging people by whether they share theological beliefs or not when the issue is actually sociological behaviour.

Disagree. This discourse is becoming fluffy.
Firstly can we agree as to what is wrong with the Jesus Camp people.
If we can't agree that there is no point attempting to derive cause / effect.

It doesn't matter to me whether we evolved or not. I'm much more interested in how we live and behave today than in something that happened thousands, or millions, of years ago. Sorry I don't share your obsession with the creationism/evolution debate.

I thought you were interested if the God as described in the Bible is true.
Evolution didn't just happen, it's still happening. It shows we don't need a creater once we have replicated DNA. Where is that mentioned in the Bible?

Evolution forces Christians to do one of three things:
1. Adjust faith their such that at least part of the bible is nothing more than myth.
2. Deny and turn into a nutbag creationist.
3. Stick their head in the sand

BTW, many Christians believe a literal interpretation of the Bible is consistent with theistic evolution. Neither do they necessarily believe Adam and Eve to be a myth or a fantasy.

An example of a theological position that would be better reffered to as an illogical position.

To tell them what is true. Any of the kids in our church who believe in hell also believe that Jesus died in order to save them, and that therefore they need not fear going to hell. No fear.

No fear as long as they believe what you want them to believe.

PDN · 08-05-2008 11:28am

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I thought you were interested if the God as described in the Bible is true. Evolution didn't just happen, it's still happening. It shows we don't need a creater once we have replicated DNA. Where is that mentioned in the Bible?

No, it does not show that we don't need a Creator. In order to dispense with a Creator you need to get into the issue of abiogenesis and also the question of where matter came from in the first place. it appears, from my layman's perspective, that both atheists and Creationists keep confusing abiogenesis with evolution.

I watched it when I had NTL digital and it was 90% American Evangelicals. It's a reasonable assertion.

No, it's a very poor assertion. God TV is a non-American station that sells much of its airtime to the highest bidders. Those tend to be Americans from within a minority strand of evangelicalism (the Prosperity, or Health & Wealth Movement). That does not make it an edifice of, or even representative of, American evangelicalism.

Your obsession with evolution is, to me, quite amusing. I don't know what the truth is about evolution for several reasons.
1. I am unsure whether the first few Chapters of Genesis were intended to be taken as poetry or as a factual account. My main concern is to interpret the Bible literally and correctly. 'Literally means' recognising each kind of literature for what it is - not mistaking history for poetry, treating the details of Parables as if they were commands, or artificially treating figures of speech as if they were scientific descriptions (eg 'the kettle boiled').
2. I am sceptical about pronouncements as to what is or is not established by science. Science continually revises theories so that one generation accepted as scientific fact is junked by the next generation.
3. I am not totally uninterested in science, although I lack any scientific education or training. I enjoy reading pop-science such as Bill Bryson's book and can happily read the odd copy of New Scientist. However, I am more interested in science that affects lives today than in theories about the past. So, for example, I am very interested in the subject of global warming and in how our science and technology has managed to spectacularly banjax the environment (and what solutions it can offer). This is causing people to die today, and as such I believe it is a moral issue and should be much more important to Christians than the polarised debate between zealots concerning Creationism and evolution.

No fear as long as they believe what you want them to believe.

If they believe what I believe to be the truth then they are trusting Jesus as their Saviour and have no fear of hell. Therefore no fear.

If they don't believe it then they won't believe in Jesus or in hell so again they can hardly be afraid of something they don't believe in.

The only way I can see that a child would experience fear is if they reject what the church teaches about Jesus yet embrace what the church teaches about hell. I've never actually met a child that reached such a strange conclusion. Indeed, surveys by the Barna Research Group consistently indicate that a much higher percentage of people believe in Jesus than believe in hell. This would suggest that people are much more likely to accept the church's teaching about Jesus than they are to accept the church's teaching on hell. Again, this hardly matches with your unfounded assertion that teaching a child about hell inevitably creates fear.

Tim Robbins · 08-05-2008 11:58am

PDN wrote: »

No, it does not show that we don't need a Creator. In order to dispense with a Creator you need to get into the issue of abiogenesis and also the question of where matter came from in the first place. it appears, from my layman's perspective, that both atheists and Creationists keep confusing abiogenesis with evolution.

I said once we have replicating DNA (granted there was a typo should have been replicating not replicated) we do not need a creator, that is a fact.

No, it's a very poor assertion. God TV is a non-American station that sells much of its airtime to the highest bidders. Those tend to be Americans from within a minority strand of evangelicalism (the Prosperity, or Health & Wealth Movement). That does not make it an edifice of, or even representative of, American evangelicalism.

Most of the programs on it are from American Evangelicals.

Your obsession with evolution is, to me, quite amusing. I don't know what the truth is about evolution for several reasons.
1. I am unsure whether the first few Chapters of Genesis were intended to be taken as poetry or as a factual account. My main concern is to interpret the Bible literally and correctly. 'Literally means' recognising each kind of literature for what it is - not mistaking history for poetry, treating the details of Parables as if they were commands, or artificially treating figures of speech as if they were scientific descriptions (eg 'the kettle boiled').
2. I am sceptical about pronouncements as to what is or is not established by science. Science continually revises theories so that one generation accepted as scientific fact is junked by the next generation.
3. I am not totally uninterested in science, although I lack any scientific education or training. I enjoy reading pop-science such as Bill Bryson's book and can happily read the odd copy of New Scientist. However, I am more interested in science that affects lives today than in theories about the past. So, for example, I am very interested in the subject of global warming and in how our science and technology has managed to spectacularly banjax the environment (and what solutions it can offer). This is causing people to die today, and as such I believe it is a moral issue and should be much more important to Christians than the polarised debate between zealots concerning Creationism and evolution.

Press pause on that and go and read Popper first. Evolution is far more solid and reliable than anything about global warming.

If they believe what I believe to be the truth then they are trusting Jesus as their Saviour and have no fear of hell. Therefore no fear.

If they don't believe it then they won't believe in Jesus or in hell so again they can hardly be afraid of something they don't believe in.

Brilliant, why the need to bring up hell at all then?

PDN · 08-05-2008 12:15pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Most of the programs on it are from American Evangelicals.

So what? How does that result, by any kind of logic, in making it representative of, or an 'edifice of' American evangelicalism? Most of the programmes on it are by white people. Does that mean that it is an edifice of white people, or that it is representative of white people? You are using a small subsection of a group to make a generalisation about a much larger group. That is poor reasoning.

Press pause on that and go and read Popper first. Evolution is far more solid and reliable than anything about global warming.

\
I do not view Popper as an authoritative source when formulating my beliefs. Anyway, you are missing my point. My interest in global warming above evolution is not based on whether one is more solid than the other. My interest is motivated by the fact that the issue of global warming is causing suffering and death right now. As someone who spends a considerable amount of my time and money in relieving human suffering that makes it important to me. If people were dying due to their interpretation of whether Adam and Eve evolved or were created in 6 days then I am sure I would spend more time on that particular question.

Brilliant, why the need to bring up hell at all then?

Because we desire to teach what we believe to be truth as contained in the Bible. If we are to understand salvation adequately then we need to understand what exactly we were saved from.

Also, as our children grow older, we want them to have compassion for non-Christians and to share the message of salvation with them. Actually this is the context in which most New Testament teaching about hell occurs. Most teaching about hell is addressed to believers, not unbelievers. The point of hell is not to scare sinners into becoming believers. The point is to provoke gratitude in us for what we have been saved from, and to motivate us to reach out to those who don't know Jesus so as to save them.

Tim Robbins · 08-05-2008 1:45pm

PDN wrote: »

So what? How does that result, by any kind of logic, in making it representative of, or an 'edifice of' American evangelicalism? Most of the programmes on it are by white people. Does that mean that it is an edifice of white people, or that it is representative of white people? You are using a small subsection of a group to make a generalisation about a much larger group. That is poor reasoning.

Oh come on, it's hardly Euosport. It's preaching, programs and ethos is bang on consistent with American Christian Evangelicism.

I do not view Popper as an authoritative source when formulating my beliefs.

Well then don't waste your time with any global warming literature, understanding why a plane flies in the air or why the earth goes roud the sun.

Anyway, you are missing my point. My interest in global warming above evolution is not based on whether one is more solid than the other. My interest is motivated by the fact that the issue of global warming is causing suffering and death right now.

Malaria and HIV / AIDs are causing far more deaths.The theory of evolution is relevant to them.

Because we desire to teach what we believe to be truth as contained in the Bible. If we are to understand salvation adequately then we need to understand what exactly we were saved from.

Also, as our children grow older, we want them to have compassion for non-Christians and to share the message of salvation with them. Actually this is the context in which most New Testament teaching about hell occurs. Most teaching about hell is addressed to believers, not unbelievers. The point of hell is not to scare sinners into becoming believers. The point is to provoke gratitude in us for what we have been saved from, and to motivate us to reach out to those who don't know Jesus so as to save them.

I think that's a load of rubbish. Either the concept of burning in hell is scary for a kid when told by an adult or it isn't. Once you accept that it is, it is a logical consequence that the probability of a child being scared into believing salvation only in Jesus Christ increases. I mean it hardly decreases.

PDN · 08-05-2008 2:32pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Oh come on, it's hardly Euosport. It's preaching, programs and ethos is bang on consistent with American Christian Evangelicism.

No, you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the subject once again. The preaching, programmes and ethos are consistent with a subsection of American Charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity which is in itself a subsection of American Evangelicalism. A large proprtion of American evangelicals (probably a majority) find the stuff on the God Channel to be offensive, blasphemous, and alien to their beliefs and values.

Well then don't waste your time with any global warming literature, understanding why a plane flies in the air or why the earth goes roud the sun.

Now you're just being silly. I don't need to read Popper, or indeed to view him as an authority, to do any of those things.

Malaria and HIV / AIDs are causing far more deaths.The theory of evolution is relevant to them.

Even sillier. First of all, you cannot separate malaria from global warming since many scientists believe that global warming is increasing the incidence of malaria.

Also, whether I choose to believe in evolution or not will not affect how many people die of malaria or AIDS. I prefer to combat those diseases in practical ways - sending medical teams & medicines to affected areas, distributing condoms etc. Are you suggesting I would be more effective if I spent my time in gaining knowledge of evolutionary theory instead?

I think that's a load of rubbish. Either the concept of burning in hell is scary for a kid when told by an adult or it isn't. Once you accept that it is, it is a logical consequence that the probability of a child being scared into believing salvation only in Jesus Christ increases. I mean it hardly decreases.

I don't believe the concept is scary. So I can't follow you in that particular leap of logic. The starting point for instructing a child is telling them about the love of God and of Jesus Christ.

robindch · 08-05-2008 2:40pm

PDN wrote: »

If people were dying due to their interpretation of whether Adam and Eve evolved or were created in 6 days then I am sure I would spend more time on that particular question.

My approach is different -- my interest in evolution, and biology, physics, anthropology and all the rest is driven by a fascination concerning the nature of humanity, and what it means to be human and to be alive. In terms of importance, these things are up there with knowing how to read and write, and makes it someway possible to appreciate the world during the short period while alive to do so.

Personally, I'd have thought that a knowledge of medicine and the evolution of disease and resistance to it, in societies where religion is tracing its own evolutionary course, would have been of enormous interest to somebody who attempts to control both!

robindch · 08-05-2008 2:43pm

PDN wrote: »

Are you suggesting I would be more effective if I spent my time in gaining knowledge of evolutionary theory instead?

I can't answer for Tim, but I'd certainly recommend that you try to understand how disease operates, for which you will need to understand evolution.

Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is worth bearing in mind.

Tim Robbins · 08-05-2008 2:44pm

PDN wrote: »

No, you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the subject once again. The preaching, programmes and ethos are consistent with a subsection of American Charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity which is in itself a subsection of American Evangelicalism. A large proprtion of American evangelicals (probably a majority) find the stuff on the God Channel to be offensive, blasphemous, and alien to their beliefs and values.

Could you give some examples?

Now you're just being silly. I don't need to read Popper, or indeed to view him as an authority, to do any of those things.

Well then you will never understand Science.

Even sillier. First of all, you cannot separate malaria from global warming since many scientists believe that global warming is increasing the incidence of malaria.

How about read Popper, understand Science then go to other Scientists?

Also, whether I choose to believe in evolution or not will not affect how many people die of malaria or AIDS. I prefer to combat those diseases in practical ways - sending medical teams & medicines to affected areas, distributing condoms etc. Are you suggesting I would be more effective if I spent my time in gaining knowledge of evolutionary theory instead?

Well if you take your donations seriously yes. It will mean you research the Science and give the money to the people who have the best understanding.

If you are only donating to make yourself feel better, well then of course it's not necessary to understand the science.

I don't believe the concept is scary. So I can't follow you in that particular leap of logic. The starting point for instructing a child is telling them about the love of God and of Jesus Christ.

There is no leap of logic whether you find the concept scary or not. Logic is a mechanism from deriving conclusion from premise. In this case the logic is sound. The concept of hell being scary is just a premise. Whether that is true has nothing to do with the logic validity of the argument.

That said, I really find it bizarre to have met someone who thinks the concept of hell is not scary. But you are entitled to your opinions.

Puck · 08-05-2008 4:43pm

Spelling science with a capital S now? Interesting.

As for Jesus Camp, it's one of those films that makes me wish the TV was two-way so they could hear me shout my objections. My girlfriend, a Mennonite, is fascinated by it (in a car crash kind of way I guess) even though she's all about pacifism and separation of church and state. Watching it once was enough for me.

bus77 · 08-05-2008 6:23pm

This reaffirms my belief that the catholic church were right to try and keep it in latin.

Fanny Cradock · 08-05-2008 7:58pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well then you will never understand Science.

So the understanding of Science stems from one man?

Zombrex · 08-05-2008 8:56pm

bus77 wrote: »

This reaffirms my belief that the catholic church were right to try and keep it in latin.

LOL

Splendour · 08-05-2008 9:38pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't know if anyone caught the programme. It was on C4 tonight. i don't even know what I want to say tbh. It was quite possibly the most disturbing thing I've seen! I'm sad, angry, confused. Man, i was in tears! Who are these people? In all honesty, its moments like this that I'm convinced that The Holy Spirit is not ambiguous, and that his presence is very much obvious, not a feeling etc, but an unmistakeable experience. Anyone else catch it? Does anyone know if these evil people are still an 'expanding group'? Seriously, I'm just so angry yet sad:mad::( They are 'no different' to suicide bombers IMO! in fact, if the situation arose, I think they'd have no bother blowing a few 'infidels' up.

I know this is a rant of sorts, I just need it off my chest. No wonder there are so many people who think Christians are barmy. Between the institutional abuse in the RCC and folk like these wicked folk, I'm sure there are many who've been stumbled away from Christ. I just want to scream ahhhhhhhhh!!!

Caught about 15 minutes of the programme and I have to agree with you JimiTime.I was sickened by the bit I saw. This is brainwashing-no better than a cult...

PDN · 09-05-2008 7:33pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Could you give some examples?

Examples of how a majority of Evangelicals view the kind of stuff on God TV?

The largest Evangelical denomination in the USA is the Southern Baptists with 16 million members. They refuse to allow anyone who speaks in tongues to be missionaries since such Charismatic or Pentecostal practices are considered incompatible with Southern Baptist values. Missionary candidates who admit to having spoken in tongues in the past are required to certify that they have been free from the practice for several years - the same requirement applied to candidates who admit past involvement with pornography.

The largest African-American Evangelical denomination is the National Baptist Convention (7.5 million members). They have publicly condemned, at their national convention, the Prosperity Gospel as preached by such God TV regulars as Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar etc.

Possibly the most influential Evangelical figure in the US is Rick Warren, pastor of the 20,000 member Saddleback Community Church and author of The Purpose Driven Life. Warren was named one of "America's Top 25 Leaders" in the October 31, 2005 issue of U.S. News and World Report. He was elected by TIME magazine as one of 15 World Leaders Who Mattered Most in 2004 and one of the "100 Most Influential People in the World" (2005). Warren was also featured by Time as one of the most prominent critics to condemn the Prosperity Gospel movement.

Ben Witherington, an influential evangelical theologian at Asbury Seminary in Kentucky, thundered that "we need to renounce the false gospel of wealth and health--it is a disease of our American culture; it is not a solution or answer to life's problems."

Edith Blumhofer, is director of Wheaton College's Center for the Study of American Evangelicals. Wheaton College is where Billy Graham graduated and hosts the Billy Graham Center. Blumhofer has vocally condemned the Prosperity Gospel as a pagan message of materialism.

According to wikipedia: "It cannot easily be argued that it is a part of the evangelical movement. Prominent evangelicals reject the teaching as non-evangelical and none of the major Prosperity Gospel proponents belong to well-established evangelical organizations such as the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability or the National Association of Evangelicals"

Tim Robbins · 13-05-2008 5:18pm

PDN wrote: »

Examples of how a majority of Evangelicals view the kind of stuff on God TV?

The largest Evangelical denomination in the USA is the Southern Baptists with 16 million members. They refuse to allow anyone who speaks in tongues to be missionaries since such Charismatic or Pentecostal practices are considered incompatible with Southern Baptist values. Missionary candidates who admit to having spoken in tongues in the past are required to certify that they have been free from the practice for several years - the same requirement applied to candidates who admit past involvement with pornography.

The largest African-American Evangelical denomination is the National Baptist Convention (7.5 million members). They have publicly condemned, at their national convention, the Prosperity Gospel as preached by such God TV regulars as Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar etc.

Possibly the most influential Evangelical figure in the US is Rick Warren, pastor of the 20,000 member Saddleback Community Church and author of The Purpose Driven Life. Warren was named one of "America's Top 25 Leaders" in the October 31, 2005 issue of U.S. News and World Report. He was elected by TIME magazine as one of 15 World Leaders Who Mattered Most in 2004 and one of the "100 Most Influential People in the World" (2005). Warren was also featured by Time as one of the most prominent critics to condemn the Prosperity Gospel movement.

Ben Witherington, an influential evangelical theologian at Asbury Seminary in Kentucky, thundered that "we need to renounce the false gospel of wealth and health--it is a disease of our American culture; it is not a solution or answer to life's problems."

Edith Blumhofer, is director of Wheaton College's Center for the Study of American Evangelicals. Wheaton College is where Billy Graham graduated and hosts the Billy Graham Center. Blumhofer has vocally condemned the Prosperity Gospel as a pagan message of materialism.

According to wikipedia: "It cannot easily be argued that it is a part of the evangelical movement. Prominent evangelicals reject the teaching as non-evangelical and none of the major Prosperity Gospel proponents belong to well-established evangelical organizations such as the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability or the National Association of Evangelicals"

Well thank you for that information, but the perception amongst mopst Europeans who have tuned in would be the God Channel is representative of American Evangelicals. Maybe this is because most of its programs are American - including huge concerts with 50+ thousand people. Perhaps the Evangelicals need to communicate who they are and who they are not better. I know way more about religion than the average secularist and I am still confused.

Now if I can get back to the point, what I really don't like about the Christian dogma is this concept of hell. If the it didn't have this concept parent wouldn't have to worry about their children getting scared full stop.

However it does, and if you think that it doesn't scare children I really just think that's naieve. Jesus Camp pushed it to the extreme, but if it really does exists maybe they were doing the kids a favour in which case the christians here can't complain as maybe Jesus Camp got the message across clearer then they can and they are saving more kids than they are.

Anyway, I really think this is all nuts. Any philosophy that is worth its salt should in no way scare kids, or have to rely on scaring kids. As far as I am concerned Christianity does. God could have designed it so Hell doesn't exist or made it clear not to scare kids about it. Sadly it's just another obvious thing a loving God would have done and yet more proof it's just all absolute nonsense.

PDN · 13-05-2008 6:14pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well thank you for that information, but the perception amongst mopst Europeans who have tuned in would be the God Channel is representative of American Evangelicals. Maybe this is because most of its programs are American - including huge concerts with 50+ thousand people. Perhaps the Evangelicals need to communicate who they are and who they are not better. I know way more about religion than the average secularist and I am still confused.

Now if I can get back to the point, what I really don't like about the Christian dogma is this concept of hell. If the it didn't have this concept parent wouldn't have to worry about their children getting scared full stop.

However it does, and if you think that it doesn't scare children I really just think that's naieve. Jesus Camp pushed it to the extreme, but if it really does exists maybe they were doing the kids a favour in which case the christians here can't complain as maybe Jesus Camp got the message across clearer then they can and they are saving more kids than they are.

Anyway, I really think this is all nuts. Any philosophy that is worth its salt should in no way scare kids, or have to rely on scaring kids. As far as I am concerned Christianity does. God could have designed it so Hell doesn't exist or made it clear not to scare kids about it. Sadly it's just another obvious thing a loving God would have done and yet more proof it's just all absolute nonsense.

I don't know if that would be true of 'most' Europeans. Doesn't anyone read books anymore? Or even magazines? I have seen articles in Time, Newsweek, various Sunday newspapers etc. that discussed the Prosperity Gospel movement and accurately set it into the context of overall American religion.

As for hell being scary. You appear to be arguing that no philosophy should include anything that might scare children. I find this baffling. Surely the point of philosophy is to discover truth, if we avoid anything that might be disturbing then we might as well just watch Teletubbies.

I think that the subject of death may well be more scary to children than hell. After all, they actually have no way of avoiding death. But I think it is important that children understand about death.

Tim Robbins · 14-05-2008 9:53am

PDN wrote: »

I don't know if that would be true of 'most' Europeans. Doesn't anyone read books anymore? Or even magazines? I have seen articles in Time, Newsweek, various Sunday newspapers etc. that discussed the Prosperity Gospel movement and accurately set it into the context of overall American religion.

Most of my friends would be well read and that would be their opinion. Appreciate we're down to anecdotes now.

As for hell being scary. You appear to be arguing that no philosophy should include anything that might scare children. I find this baffling. Surely the point of philosophy is to discover truth, if we avoid anything that might be disturbing then we might as well just watch Teletubbies.

Religion is not a philosophy. It's dogma. Yes they shouldn't be scared about it until they are mature enough to understand the counter arguments. At least postpone til when they are mature enough to understand the facts of life. However, most religious organisations get them as soon as they can.

I think that the subject of death may well be more scary to children than hell. After all, they actually have no way of avoiding death. But I think it is important that children understand about death.

Well death shouldn't be shoved in kids faces either. But they are incomparable anyway. Death is objectively true. Hell is not. Nevermind avoiding it which is another layer of subjectivity.

Perhaps God could send us clarification on these issues. If he existed. Subjective interpretation of subjectively chosen scripture of which full original copies don't exist is just not good enough for most rational people.

Jesus Camp

Comments