Jesus Camp

[JamboJen]

Fortunately it's not long til Match of the Day so all the things I've been thinking throughout this thread will be cut short!

 

Firstly, the Bible Camp thing is crazy and I'm glad the film resulted in them closing it down.

 

I can see where The Doctor's coming from, and also where MJ is coming from. I personally don't believe in God or anything like that. IMO I am too much of a thinker to just believe what people told me as a kid at Sunday School and need proof or something remotely tangible to believe.

 

My mum goes to church every week, and I'm not sure what my dad's beliefs are - he never came to church anyway. My sister and I went with my mum every Sunday until I got old enough to give good reasons to refuse.

 

Lack of mention of dinosaurs was a key point for me. There's proof of dinosaurs and yet no mention in the Bible. If the Bible knew how the world was created, then they should know about dinosaurs.

 

That was 9-year-old logic, and I know now that the Old Testament is just metaphor or something, but it got me questioning it. To be fair to my mum, I don't think she ever tried to make me be a Christian. We said prayers every night and probably had kids versions of some of the Bible stories but I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

 

In that sense I think my mum did pretty much the same as The Doctor's doing with his kids, and that maybe the way he worded his OP makes it sound worse than it is.

 

As I said, I don't believe in God but I am a thinker at times. Because of that I took Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies as a crash higher in 6th year. From everything we did that year, I kind of decided that I believed in Jesus (my mum claims there is some proof that he existed as a man, regardless of who's son he was!) which is I guess what others have said earlier in the thread about this country being based on Christian beliefs etc.

 

At the end of the day, I agree with what Jesus did and said (in terms of how to live and treat people etc, not that he was the son of God) and would like to think that I live my life in that sort of way, although I don't attribute it to a belief in Jesus, more just a good upbringing.

 

Kids should be learning those kinds of things (morals etc) in school, and not told about things form a negative point of view (sin, hell etc) as in those crazy camps.

 

Having said all that, I am one of those "the world would be better off without religion" people. I'm going to try and not make sweeping generalisations, but from experience, some of the most non-accepting people claim to be Christians. I also know a lot of decent Christians, and plenty in the middle who are pretty decent but still manage to be intolerant of other people in certain situations as well.

 

And I know that everyone is probably intolerant of other people or things at times, but it strikes me that followers of a religion which is based on tolerance should probably attemt to practice what they preach and not just pick which parts of their Bible they want to live by and forget about others.

 

As I've said, it's not all Christians by any stretch of the imagination, but I would lump my mum in with the "could-do-better"s on the tolerance front, so I don't feel bad about saying it.

 

Anyway, I've gone off on a massive tangent and have typed the whole way through Match of the Day. Bit late in the season for Reading and Birmingham to start playing football!

[mac]

JJ, what a refreshing and reasonable post - I agree with everything you've said.

 

Will be changing my sig to, "Think, don't pray"

 

Are you and your posse heading over this year?

[colinmaroon]

You have tried in your OP to distance yourself from the lunatics in the TV programme, but my point is that you are similarly deluded and little separates you from them. Belief in divine entities/beings puts you all in

the same basket IMO.

 

 

In your opinion!

 

 

It's only your opinion that you're not the deluded one!!!

 

 

 

.............

[BigC]

I may be church of scotland but even I find this a stupid point. Yes the catholic church tried to sweep the child molestations under the carpet which was wrong but it does not mean that the catholic church molestes children. I mean say it was (and this is probably over the number) but 0.1% of priests who molested children. Well if a country had the same number you would not call the country a child molesting country. As 99.9% dont moleste.

 

Yes the catholic church should of handled the situation better but I agree with the Doctor in that those who commit these acts cannot call themselves christian as it is against the ideals of the church.

 

I agree with everything you say, but they still have some housework to do......

 

Reposted from here: http://www.slate.com/id/2188971/

 

The visit of his holiness the pope to the United States this week will be an occasion for all kinds of manifestation of deference and servility from politicians and from the press. There will also be the usual speculation about the growth of a specifically or distinctively "American" Catholicism: a Catholicism that, for instance, this week sent me a heavy envelope of material titled Catholics for Choice, arguing against the church's dogma on abortion. The phenomenon of "cafeteria Catholicism," by which the faithful pick and choose among the doctrines that do and do not appeal to them, has long been understood. It was Joseph Ratzinger's role, when he was the right-hand man and enforcer of the last pope, to recall the flock to a more traditional and orthodox version of the faith. The chief interest of this trip, at least for Roman Catholics, will be to see how explicitly he addresses himself to a flock that is too used to making up its own a la carte rules.

 

Meanwhile, all this piety and ceremony is a bit of a bore and a waste of media space for the large majority of us who are still not Roman Catholics. How should we get through the week? I have two suggestions.

 

As well as being the head of his church, the Roman pope differs from the other Christian popes in being the head of a foreign state with which the United States maintains diplomatic relations. Small as the papal state may be, the implications of its foreign policy are sometimes of interest. It signed important concordats with the fascist powers in the 1920s and '30s, for example. In the 1990s, it was the only state to recognize the government established by military putschists after the overthrow of Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide. During the period when sanctions and diplomatic isolation were aiming to keep Saddam Hussein in his "box," the only fully accredited ambassador from Baghdad anywhere in Western Europe was in the Holy See. In the recent past, and in response to protests at his remarks on Islam, the pope has agreed to receive more than 20 ambassadors, from nations defining themselves as Muslim, at his residence at Castel Gandolfo. This seems to many of us to be licensing the right of foreign states to interfere, on matters such as the Danish cartoon furor, in the internal life of secular Europe.

 

So journalists and reporters who can manage to get off their knees might want to ask the pope if he is conducting his own foreign policy and, if so, in consultation with whom? Then there is another question, which also raises a matter of diplomatic propriety:

 

Why is the Vatican continuing to shelter Cardinal Bernard Law?

 

It will be remembered that Law resigned his position as head of the Archdiocese of Boston in late 2002. He had little alternative. A series of lawsuits and depositions and disclosures had established beyond doubt that, as my Slate colleague Dahlia Lithwick phrased it, "Law was not only aware of egregious sexual misconduct among his subordinates but was apparently engaged in elaborate efforts to cover up incident after incident of child rape." (I pause to praise her for employing that latter term instead of the grubby all-purpose euphemism abuse.) To be specific, the cardinal admitted in a deposition that he knew that the Rev. John Geoghan had raped at least seven boys in 1984 before he approved Geoghan's transfer to another parish where other boys were at risk. Further disclosures revealed that the Rev. Paul Shanley, who at one point was facing trial for 10 counts of child rape and six counts of indecent assault and battery, had been moved from ministry to ministry in what amounted to an attempt to protect him. Law himself lied to a West Coast bishop about Shanley's history and certified in writing that another rapist priest, the Rev. Redmond Raux, had "nothing in his background" to make him "unsuitable to work with children."

 

A vast majority of Americans told the polls at that stage that they favored prosecution of any clerics who had knowingly failed to act on the exposure of child rape in the church. In certain jurisdictions it nearly did come to that, but in Massachusetts, as Lithwick dryly pointed out, there was no mandatory reporting law. In other words, a person with information about child rape was not obliged to come forward with the facts. Or that, at least, was the shame-faced excuse of the Massachusetts district attorney. However, suppressing information about a crime can also be a crime in itself, and Cardinal Law and seven of his bishops were at one stage subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury.

 

The whole question became moot after his resignation because Law thereupon abruptly moved to Rome and took up a series of positions in the Vatican. He resigned only as head of the Boston archdiocese he had so gravely outraged and was allowed to retain his cardinal's hat. He was appointed as archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore and made a member of the congregations of Oriental Churches, Clergy, Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Evangelization of Peoples, Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Catholic Education, and Bishops, as well as the Pontifical Council for the Family! He took a full part in the conclave that selected Ratzinger as the successor to John Paul II.

 

So, I think that we are entitled to hear, as the vicar of Christ and holder of the Keys of Peter favors us with his presence, whether he regards his brother Bernard Law as an honored guest in the holy city or as someone who has been given asylum. And even if we cannot get a satisfactory answer, it is essential that we hear the question. Will the press do its job, and will our elected representatives remember their responsibilities to so many thousands of tortured and exploited children? Some of us will be watching and keeping an account.

 

 

It should be pointed out that Hitchens is an ardent atheist and critic of religion and some of his ideas (particularly on the Iraq war) are a bit wacky.

 

But he calls it like he sees it, and doesn't tiptoe around issues just because they concern matters of faith, which makes his writing remarkably refreshing.

[BigC]

Doctor,

 

Thank you for your reply. It goes without saying that if all religious people were like you, THEN the world would be a better place.

 

You reply to my point about religion leading to irrationality by saying Christian faith isn't blind, because you have to test everything against the scriptures. That doesn't make sense to me because it fails to rule out "faith healing" "talking to the dead" "psychics" and other similar nomsense that is used to dupe innocent people.

 

I read an article in the Scotsman recently about a man who had gone missing, who was eventually found dead in a tent in the Highlands.

 

In the intervening years, his desperate mother had spent lots of money on psychics, one had said his body was near water, another said he was in a remote part of Wales, which lead the parents on a wild goose chase, spending ?1000's of pounds making trips down to Snowdonia to look for him.

 

I remember a couple of magicians on Channel Four (where else?) a few years back doing a show about "the magic of the bible" where they performed tricks such as turning a staff into a snake etc. If you test that against the scriptures then it's logical to assume they did REAL magic. But of course they didn't.

 

So, my point is that if you test all these things against scripture, then you are likely to come to the wrong conclusion, because the bible teaches that there are angels and ghosts around us, that people can channel the power of god etc etc.....

 

I am confident you have the ability to spot frauds (I bet you are disgusted by the likes of Benny Hinn and Pat Robertson) but I would put that down to your intelligence.

 

But not everyone is blessed with your intelligence.

 

I have enough trouble trying to convince some of the less intellectually endowed people at work that horoscopes are utter nonsense, which to me illustrates how easy it is for people to be duped.

 

If these people were to test their beliefs against the scripture, I would put it to you that their irrational belief would be reaffirmed based on some of the verses that appear in the bible.

 

(I don't disagree with anything you say on the second point. We're pretty much on common ground with that).

[Walter Payton]

I have enough trouble trying to convince some of the less intellectually endowed people at work that horoscopes are utter nonsense, which to me illustrates how easy it is for people to be duped.

 

I've probably done enough thread hijacking today, but I agree with you 100% here! I know it's irrational why it should bother me personally (maybe it's a pride thing!) but when people doing the same job as you that supposedly requires some degree of intelligence make such a fuss about reading their horoscopes every day it really gets on my wick!

[BigC]

I've probably done enough thread hijacking today, but I agree with you 100% here! I know it's irrational why it should bother me personally (maybe it's a pride thing!) but when people doing the same job as you that supposedly requires some degree of intelligence make such a fuss about reading their horoscopes every day it really gets on my wick!

 

If someone asks you what star sign you are, just say "I'm offended that you think I'm stupid enough to believe in that nonsense".

 

If they persist, just say "Well, I'm a ....... which is funny in a way because ......'s are known for their skepticism.

 

I gave those two responses and was told I was arrogant for not respecting other people's opinion.

 

(Kind of true because I freely admit to not respeting other people's opinion if their opinions are not based on evidence, logic arnd reason).

 

I respect the doctors opinion immensely, because he has studied all the evidence. He's just interpreted it differently to me.

 

What I can't stand is idiots who trot out the same arguments against evolution theory, who equate Atheism with evil and who try to interfere in issues that affect other people - like Cardinal O'Brien's recent forray into embryo research which would have been funny due to his blatant ignorance of all the facts, if it weren't for the fact that his opinion was so respected by so many simply because he is a "man of faith".

 

That's where my real beef with religion lies. If I get Parkinsons when I'm 60, his interference now could mean the difference between me being cured or dying a slow painful death in 30 years time.

 

If he wants to believe in God that's his perogative, but when other peoples irrational beliefs affect everyone, a line needs to be drawn.

[The Doctor]

You reply to my point about religion leading to irrationality by saying Christian faith isn't blind, because you have to test everything against the scriptures. That doesn't make sense to me because it fails to rule out "faith healing" "talking to the dead" "psychics" and other similar nonsense that is used to dupe innocent people.

 

The only thing I would say about these things BigC is that they fall well outwith the realm of traditional evangelical theology. No church I have been involved in or would be involved would be dabbling with these issues. (Although I would be happy with healing services, prayer for the sick, the laying on of hands etc. that's not "faith healing" in the terms that according to the context of your post, I think you're referring to. I am dubious of people who claim a gift of healing of themselves, or make any kind of guarantees about 'their' ability, however, and I know we'll disagree on this, I believe that God can and does heal in a miraculous way, but not in every case. Hard evidence is sketchy, I could tell you a personal story, but it's all apocryphal so it's never going to be enough to convince you!)

 

I would teach against talking to the dead or psychics/mediums/spiritualists and the bible very clearly teaches against such activity, even if the exponents claim to be doing so in the name of Jesus. Again the bible teaches about this too, that's the kind of thing I mean when I talk about testing things against scripture or being discerning.

 

It's good to see that we have so much in common though!

 

I agree entirely with what you've said about embryo research for example, I think there are moral issues and I think the church (universal) should have a say, but so should everyone.

 

Ultimately the churches' mission is not to speak out about political or social issues, but to make disciples and spread the gospel. If they were better at doing that they wouldn't need to make arses of themselves getting involved in issues they know little about.

[colinmaroon]

The only thing I would say about these things BigC is that they fall well outwith the realm of traditional evangelical theology. No church I have been involved in or would be involved would be dabbling with these issues. (Although I would be happy with healing services, prayer for the sick, the laying on of hands etc. that's not "faith healing" in the terms that according to the context of your post, I think you're referring to. I am dubious of people who claim a gift of healing of themselves, or make any kind of guarantees about 'their' ability, however, and I know we'll disagree on this, I believe that God can and does heal in a miraculous way, but not in every case. Hard evidence is sketchy, I could tell you a personal story, but it's all apocryphal so it's never going to be enough to convince you!)

 

I would teach against talking to the dead or psychics/mediums/spiritualists and the bible very clearly teaches against such activity, even if the exponents claim to be doing so in the name of Jesus. Again the bible teaches about this too, that's the kind of thing I mean when I talk about testing things against scripture or being discerning.

 

It's good to see that we have so much in common though!

 

I agree entirely with what you've said about embryo research for example, I think there are moral issues and I think the church (universal) should have a say, but so should everyone.

 

Ultimately the churches' mission is not to speak out about political or social issues, but to make disciples and spread the gospel. If they were better at doing that they wouldn't need to make arses of themselves getting involved in issues they know little about.

 

 

 

I agree 100% with what you say on healing - and, as someone who lived 43 years denying there was a God, I have seen healing of a major illness instantaneously - and believe me when I say I am very uncomfortable with much of the "healing" services seen on the likes of the God channel!

 

On the point about mediums/astrologers etc. - in the Book of Isaiah, the Lord effectively warns against anything to do with, and I quote, "mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter;" which somehow conjures a picture of Mystic Meg miraculously out of my imagination!

 

I would also add, however, that not all of this spiritism and the like is fake. It is all too real, and that is the reason God warns against it. As you rightly said, we are warned, for example, in John's first letter, "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits!"

 

 

 

..............

[BigC]

It's sooo boring when you faith-heads agree with me all the time! :-)

 

I have to say I you are both talking sense, however to me it still leaves an unanswered question......

 

One guy was so intrigued by this question that he made a website about it, so I'll just be lazy and give you the link.........

 

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

[The Doctor]

I've had a read of the site, it's interesting and far better written and more compelling than anything written by Richard Dawkins.

 

A lot of it is very unfair, bible verses taken out of context, both cultural context and their context within scripture, but the central question is a good one and not one I'd thought about before.

 

Why won't God heal amputees?

 

Often the writer says that God doesn't answer the prayers of amputees. If you believe that God answers prayer at all, then you have to say that's not true. It's not that God doesn't answer the prayers, it's that the answer is 'no', or at least 'not yet'. So the question remains; Why doesn't God restore the legs of amputees? As I said before, God doesn't heal every illness, no matter how much we pray. For me that raises up two questions; Why is God's healing so apparently arbitrary? Why has God never to my knowledge, restored the legs of an amputee?

 

I alluded to an experience that I had when I believe that I might have witnessed God healing. My Gran was diagnosed with cancer, I prayed, my sister prayed, the church we (all) belonged to prayed. The cancer seemed to disappear. We were told she had cancer, we prayed, six months later we were told she had no cancer. It may well have been a misdiagnosis in the first place, I don't really care, all I was bothered about was that my Gran didn't have cancer and that she got to see her grandchildren married, settled and got to meet three of her great-grandchildren.

 

I have friend, a Baptist pastor who's wife was diagnosed with cancer in her early 30's, she had three young daughters. Despite the church and many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Christians praying for that young wife and mother, a woman who's faith was central to her life and who's life had been a great example of goodness and love, she died last year.

 

It's not fair and it's not right. It's arbitrary in the most iniquitous way. It's even perverse.

 

The only way that I can rationalise it is to look at the big picture. The bible story, the history of God's relationship with man starts with sin entering the world. Sin screws up everything, bringing death and hurt, sickness and earthly mortality. The world becomes something it was never meant to be.

 

If sin hadn't entered the world, Adam and Eve would still be alive.

 

(You understand that I believe this to be metaphor, but it explains the principle of why the world is so messed up. If death was truly just part of life's cycle, if it was just a natural process, Why does it hurt so much? Why does it feel so wrong? I asked before, if evolution brings us to this point in our earth's history, why is the whole world so messed up? It must be just as it's meant to be at this point in time, but it's a pretty crap place to be for most people on earth)

 

Sin brings death and a brokenness, not just to the world, but to our relationship with God. Jesus' restores that relationship, not fully because there is still sin in the world, but he brings the potential for a fully restored, perfect relationship and restores Christians to eternal life.

 

This physical life is next to nothing compared to eternal life, that's the hope of the resurrection for all who believe and follow.

 

I fully realise that this is at best anathema to you and at worst dogma, but bear with me I'm trying to answer the question.

 

I guess it comes down to that big picture, the hope that there's something more, for my Gran, who's healing was much rejoiced but temporary (she died of a heart attack in November 2005), for Anne, my friend, the Pastor's wife who left behind three young daughters and for the amputee who's prayer for healing is answered, but with a "not yet".

 

All can have hope of a fully restored life, eternal life, in heaven, with God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people have written this kind of hope off, "pie in the sky when you die", I once heard. But it's not, not for me, not for those who believe. It transforms their life now. It makes a difference to them now.

 

The fruits of the Spirit, the attitudes that change and grow in your life as you grow as a Christian, as you develop your relationship with God, are; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. That's what happens, what changes in your life, now, when you choose to follow Jesus. Who wouldn't more of that? Who wouldn't rather be that person? It's not just an empty hope, a gamble, an insurance policy for when you die, it's a better way of living today.

[BigC]

Thanks for taking the time to consider a decent response.

 

Now, I know I'm completely over paraphrasing and I do apologise for that, but if I try to get the jist of your central message in seems to be "Maybe he does once they're dead", and "Even if he doesn't, it's still better to think that he does, because it makes you a better, more humble person when you are alive".

 

I'm sure you'll understand why your answer doesn't satisfy my curiosity, but I'm thankful you had a bash at it.

[The Doctor]

No, you've pretty much got it there BigC. Of course when you deconstruct it to that degree it loses something of the hope and majesty, but you're pretty much in a nail/head scenario.

 

*glum*

 

I would have said joyful and hopeful rather than better and humble, but it's semantics.

 

There is a paradigm though that you don't get. It's not "think that He does", it's a faith thing and it's usually because 'the truth', whatever that is, is 'revealed' however that looks, in a supernatural way, through the Holy Spirit.

 

I can understand that if you've never had that experience, someone who claimed to have had would appear deluded.

 

I shall pray that you have a Damascus Road experience!

[BigC]

No, you've pretty much got it there BigC. Of course when you deconstruct it to that degree it loses something of the hope and majesty, but you're pretty much in a nail/head scenario.

 

*glum*

 

I would have said joyful and hopeful rather than better and humble, but it's semantics.

 

There is a paradigm though that you don't get. It's not "think that He does", it's a faith thing and it's usually because 'the truth', whatever that is, is 'revealed' however that looks, in a supernatural way, through the Holy Spirit.

 

I can understand that if you've never had that experience, someone who claimed to have had would appear deluded.

 

I shall pray that you have a Damascus Road experience!

 

So do you never consider the possibility that there was a rational explanation for your "Road to Damascus" moment?

 

I'm sure you have.

 

A jehovas witness once said to me "What if Jesus came knocking on your door instead of us."

 

I said, "Well, if Jesus knocked on my door, I would maybe have bit of a rethink, but I'd also have a few questions to ask as well".

 

"Paedophiles, so whose idea was that then?" That would maybe be my first.

 

I've never heard of a Road to Damascus moment that can't be explained by rational means, although I'm always happy to be proved wrong.

[The Doctor]

I think we might get stuck here trying to work out what my definition of rational compared to yours is!

 

The experience I had of accepting Jesus as my saviour was most akin to falling in love, so from that point of view it's probably quite irrational. I assume that you've been in love and when you are, when you fall in love, you know it's right. It doesn't always make sense, it sometimes costs, it sometimes hurts, but you get involved in it because to you it makes sense.

 

That absolute conviction of feeling, immeasurable, irrational though it may be was enough for me to put my faith in.

 

If there's a rational explanation, I suppose you could say I was weighed down with guilt and saw a way for that guilt to be removed and understood an opportunity for redemption, but it's not the whole truth, in fact it would be quite misleading if I weighed my testimony towards that.

 

The truth is, it was irrational, it was something beyond reason, at least in the first place. Since then, I have decided that much of Christian theology is rational. It has to follow that initial faith step, but the cross, the resurrection, the hope of eternal life do not strike me as unreasonable.

[BigC]

I think we might get stuck here trying to work out what my definition of rational compared to yours is!

 

The experience I had of accepting Jesus as my saviour was most akin to falling in love, so from that point of view it's probably quite irrational. I assume that you've been in love and when you are, when you fall in love, you know it's right. It doesn't always make sense, it sometimes costs, it sometimes hurts, but you get involved in it because to you it makes sense.

 

That absolute conviction of feeling, immeasurable, irrational though it may be was enough for me to put my faith in.

 

If there's a rational explanation, I suppose you could say I was weighed down with guilt and saw a way for that guilt to be removed and understood an opportunity for redemption, but it's not the whole truth, in fact it would be quite misleading if I weighed my testimony towards that.

 

The truth is, it was irrational, it was something beyond reason, at least in the first place. Since then, I have decided that much of Christian theology is rational. It has to follow that initial faith step, but the cross, the resurrection, the hope of eternal life do not strike me as unreasonable.

 

I think that's pretty much what it boils down to.

 

I understand that the feeling is akin to love, but I've never fallen in love with something I can't see, hear or touch.

 

I think we've hit a dead end, so I'll finish with a joke....

 

What's pink and hard?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...... The Financial Times crossword!

[The Doctor]

I like you BigC, always have, always will...

[BigC]

The feeling is mutual Doc!

[Debtor]

Get a room you two!

 

 

All this niceness, it's just not the JKB way!

[Bigsmak]

Just saw these on another site. I'm not trying to offend.

 

 

 

There were a lot more.

[The Doctor]

Just saw these on another site. I'm not trying to offend.

 

 

 

There were a lot more.

 

I'm not offended, but I'd like the opportunity to be!

 

Can you post a link rather than hot link to the photos?

[Rawrrrrrrr]

I'm not offended, but I'd like the opportunity to be!

 

Can you post a link rather than hot link to the photos?

 

Click on properties of both pics and copy and paste it into your browser and it opens them

[Bigsmak]

Here are them all, I wont link to the site that I got them from as it would brake board rules. Ahem!

 

Sorry that you have to click on each one.

 

I find that if it goes to ImageBam and nothing comes up, I hit refresh on the page to see the image.

 

motivator1076769ch5.jpg

 

Prayer_motivational.jpg

 

Religion_motivational.jpg

 

sniper.jpg

 

spiritwater.jpg

 

spoiler.jpg

 

spoilers.jpg

 

thebiblepb2.jpg

 

lecqq.jpg

 

Motivational-religion.jpg

 

1195095638261.jpg

 

automotivator6.jpg

 

blasphemyup6.jpg

 

blind-faith.jpg

 

comedyz79bv9.jpg

 

faith1.jpg

 

intelligentdesign.jpg

 

jesus_saves.gif

 

lightning_rod.jpg

 

Motivational-atheists.jpg

 

Motivational-faith.jpg

 

Motivational-jesus.jpg

 

Motivation-imagine.jpg

[Del1812]

There is nothing wrong with faith. People shouldn't be ridiculed for believing there is more to life than what we can see and hear.

 

Although having said that, I have major problems with organised religions. I don't like the roles of certain people within religions who, while they may do good and maybe their heart is in the right place, can dictate the way people think or act. That just doesn't seem right to me.

 

While I might believe in god or the general idea, I definitely don't believe in 'men of god'.

[Debtor]

Bigsmak the only problem with those pics is the feeling they have been produced by some atheist organisation. Not much wit and a lot of preconceived ideas. The opinions expressed on here, yours included, may differ but at least come from the heart.

If you see what I am getting at.

[King of the North]

Wouldn't want to knock anyone's beliefs, although my standpoint on religion, especially organised religion, would be close to Melbourne Jambos.

 

I have a question.

 

Can anyone explain the apprent rise of 'fundamentalism', across religions, and in this country and in the US, the intrusion of religion into state issues?

 

Example - the rise of privately funded 'faith' schools, and the rise of fundamentalist christian influence in politics.

 

 

 

It strikes me that for a long time the movement in the west was towards secularism..yet that seems to be changing. Why?

[tosheeturtle]

Wouldn't want to knock anyone's beliefs, although my standpoint on religion, especially organised religion, would be close to Melbourne Jambos.

 

I have a question.

 

Can anyone explain the apprent rise of 'fundamentalism', across religions, and in this country and in the US, the intrusion of religion into state issues?

 

Example - the rise of privately funded 'faith' schools, and the rise of fundamentalist christian influence in politics.

 

 

 

It strikes me that for a long time the movement in the west was towards secularism..yet that seems to be changing. Why?

 

Think it?s got to do with globalisation and people believing that their "culture" is going to be lost!! I think if you look at Poland, they have strong links to catholism partly due to the country using this to unity against communism USSR!! Though I don't believe Poland is connected with fundamentalism but I think it?s a good example of how a country has used religion effectively to unity itself!! I believe that people are more aware of the effects of globalisation now. There are people who are scared of this process and believe that their country is being too heavily influence by other cultures!! If you look take for instance fundamentalist religious groups this is what they are scared of and have reacted by closing themselves to other cultures!! I would think that for some the more they fear other cultures the more they cut themselves off from them!!

[Debtor]

Think it?s got to do with globalisation and people believing that their "culture" is going to be lost!! I think if you look at Poland, they have strong links to catholism partly due to the country using this to unity against communism USSR!! Though I don't believe Poland is connected with fundamentalism but I think it?s a good example of how a country has used religion effectively to unity itself!! I believe that people are more aware of the effects of globalisation now. There are people who are scared of this process and believe that their country is being too heavily influence by other cultures!! If you look take for instance fundamentalist religious groups this is what they are scared of and have reacted by closing themselves to other cultures!! I would think that for some the more they fear other cultures the more they cut themselves off from them!!

 

 

 

 

 

Goodness me!

The word 'Fundamental' arose in the US in the 30's when a man felt that the churches there were falling away from their God. He then wrote a book explaining the 'fundamentals' of the Christian faith. Those that took the bible as their way to God became known as 'fundamentalists in the US.

Until the late 80's the word was unknown here. However the situation with the Middle East and radical Arabs and Iran meant the word was often used to refer to Muslims and their terrorist actions. The secular atheists began to use the term 'fundamentalist' to slur Christians and attempt to associate them with Muslim terrorists.

There are of course no similarities whatsoever.

Too often folk liken whatever happens in the US with what happens here. We do not liken the US approach to football to ours why then do we liken their approach to Christianity to the UK way? Middle America and their views differ in many respects from the view of any church in Edinburgh or any other part of the UK, as the people have a different lookout on life in general.

The only way they can be connected is by their basing their faith on the book. They manner of living it out can of course be affected by their culture but this an be amended by living according to the book.

 

Christians cannot be said to close themselves of to 'other cultures' as they should be closing themselves of to 'all cultures' and living Gods way and changing the culture around them for the better! Certainly some folk will run and hide in a form of 'fundamentalism, although in the UK we usually call them the BNP and I am sure they have a different kind of 'fundamental' belief.

 

There are reasons 'Christian fundamentalism' is on the rise. The main one is that Jesus by his Spirit is calling people to himself. This is irrelevant to most but is indeed the reason. Churches while getting smaller as those who really were no more than 'nominal' fall away leaving a more dedicated membership behind. many of course are brought in when they realise just how empty life can be without God. Living in a rich society and having everything does not satisfy and the many questions we all have about life are answered (but not all quickly enough) through Christ's death and resurrection for our sins.

Naturally in wanting a better life Christians will affect politics. Far too little actually take part in attempting to improve life around us, and the more who get involved the better I say.

 

Too early in the morning for me to be writing this.

I back off to bed!

[Bindy Badgy]

Bigsmak the only problem with those pics is the feeling they have been produced by some atheist organisation. Not much wit and a lot of preconceived ideas. The opinions expressed on here, yours included, may differ but at least come from the heart.

If you see what I am getting at.

 

Chances are they were knocked up on Microsoft Paint by someone that had nothing better to do on a wet Sunday afternoon.

[Bindy Badgy]

This made me laugh.

[auldbauldfan]

Sorry guys to revive this thread but I have just sat through about an hour or two of the entire thing.

 

Scariest film I have seen in years.

 

I am an atheist, have been for years, but have always given respect to people who think differently.

 

What I saw tonight was child abuse - not physically but mentally. Indoctrination at a level much worse than the old Soviet government used to be accused of.

 

Incidentally, did not notice too many black faces in the congregations involved!

 

It must be great to be loved by Jesus - but only if your an all AMERICAN guy!

[Debtor]

but only if your an all AMERICAN guy!

 

 

 

I suppose that i likely in an AMERICAN made programme.......

Plenty of black churches and very 'multinational' churches around.