Home ND News Mobile Forum Contact Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, September 26, 2006


Review: Jesus Camp

After my post last Tuesday about the documentary Jesus Camp I was lucky enough to have received a review copy of the film a few days later on Thursday.  Over the weekend I watched the film and have come to two basic conclusions about it:

  1. Despite the fact that Becky Fischer, the director of the camp in the film, endorses this documentary I just don’t think it was an entirely fair portrayal of the camp or America’s evangelical Christians in general.
  2. I’m still not very comfortable with everything Fischer and her colleagues are doing at their camps, nor am I comfortable with some of the behavior I saw from the “evangelicals” portrayed in the film.

Let me address the #1 first.

I think it would be fair to say that if you took a bunch of video footage and edited it down to a few selected clips of specific activities and then added in ominous music and commentary from an ardent critic you could make just about any youth summer camp or church service look bizarre, fanatical and even dangerous.  And that is, in a nutshell, what Jesus Camp does to Fischer’s Youth On Fire camp in Devils Lake, North Dakota and the evangelical Christian movement in general.

The evangelical Christian movement is undoubtedly a very easy target for these kind of tactics.  As my friend Julie (herself an adherent to this particular brand of religion and a former camp attendee) pointed out in her reaction to the flim, to outsiders many of the rituals, sayings and customs that evangelicals take for granted can seem strange to outsiders, if largely harmless, even when put in their proper context.  But put them in the hands of a talented filmmaker and they can be made to look very sinister indeed.

For instance, at one point the film shows Fischer leading what appears to be a youth service at her church.  For several minutes she gives what I felt to be a typically standard, if rather forceful, Christian sermon.  She talks of being faithful, honoring God with one’s actions and not leading a double life by being a Christian only at church on Sunday.  When her sermon concludes, though, she tells the congregation that they will all now “talk in tongues.”

Now I've got to admit that the whole talking in tongues thing throws me for a bit of a loop, but upon further consideration I wonder if it is fundamentally any different from other spiritual rituals the average American is more familiar with. Like guided meditation, for instance, or the chanting that is routine in many religions? I don't think it is any different, yet the way this episode of chanting is presented in the film you'd think you were watching footage from some whacked-out congregation in a movie like Rosemary's Baby or something. The scene on camera cuts rapidly to several shots of the chanting congregation while clearly edited and remixed audio of the chanting itself crescendos to a roar.

It seems to me as though the only additional thing these filmmakers could have done to get their point across is flash "THESE PEOPLE ARE CRAZY!!!" on the screen during the scene. And that's just one example of how the filmmakers carry out their agenda during the course of the film. The rest is pretty much the same: Worship scenes manipulated so that they appear stranger than they really are, comments from kids clearly cherry-picked to sound more extreme than they really are, etc. Heck, even the defacto narrator of the documentary is none other than Air America talk radio host Mike Papantonio, an ardent critic of what he calls "fundamentalist Christians."

I don't care what anyone else has to say: This documentary had an agenda, and that agenda was to make evangelical Christians look weird, depraved and even dangerous.

All that being said, though, I wouldn't be fair if I let some of the people portrayed in the film off the hook. In my first post about this documentary I said that one of the things that bothered me the most was a comment from Fischer about wanting the kids in her camp to "lay down their lives" for their religion like the folks in Palestine and Pakistan do. I was subsequently told in the comments that Fischer meant "laying down lives" as devoting one's life to God. That seemed plausible. In the film, though, I got to see that whole statement from her in context and I've got to say that I'm not any less disturbed by it. There's even a quote from one of the camp kids later in the documentary talking about how he thinks it would be "really cool" to die for his religion.

I just don't think there's anyway to defend putting ideas like that in kids' heads. And yet that is clearly what Fischer is doing.

I was also less than impressed by a mother in the film who, while homeschooling her child, basically tells him that evolution should not be taught in schools and that creationism should. A close-up shot of the science textbook the kid was studying from showed that it was titled something like "Creationism In Physical Science." I know a lot of people buy into the creationism thing, but saying that it should be taught instead of evolution? C'mon. That's just crazy talk.

All in all, this was actually a decent documentary, though very one sided as I've already pointed out. Which is disappointing because this topic is such an important one. We are currently in a battle with a global religious/political ideology that is intent on bringing our society down. There is probably no other time more important than now to examine the religions present in our societies and gage what they are and what sort of impact on politics they're having. Sadly, though, this movie (much like a book I recently read about religion and politics) is more about demonizing than exploring and observing.

Does this tick you off? Click here to email your elected representatives right here on Say Anything, or comment below.

Comments

Can someone explain to me why these people speak in “tounges”? How and what causes this to happen?  I have witnessed first hand people speaking in tounges but I never understood why the Holy Spirit would cause someone to speak in gibberish.  Used to think “speaking in tounges” meant that you spoke a language that you shouldn’t know, like latin or chinese. Not speaking in nonsense.

NodakJoe on September 26, 2006 at 05:24 am
Rob
Rob
22120 comments
Send a private message

Seems odd to me too, Nodak.  I don’t understand it…but then I don’t get a lot of things about religion.


The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob on September 26, 2006 at 05:30 am
Avatar for Bat One

Can someone explain to me why these people speak in “tounges”? How and what causes this to happen?  I have witnessed first hand people speaking in tounges but I never understood why the Holy Spirit would cause someone to speak in gibberish.

Nodak,

Although there is a popular perception that the Holy Spirit is behind this phenomenon, this is simply not true.

If you check out any of the Koz Kidz diarists, or the Democratic Underground site some time, you’ll see nothing but mindless gibberish.  It’s simply one more example of that old leftist sectarian credo, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Bat One on September 26, 2006 at 06:13 am
Avatar for HG

I know a lot of people buy into the creationism thing, but saying that it should be taught instead of evolution? C’mon. That’s just crazy talk.

The same thing could be said about ID.  I’m glad this subject came up.  The whole ID isn’t science jargon is a farce. Evolution is exclusively scientific when science is strictly defined from a materialistic philosophical perspective.

HG on September 26, 2006 at 06:40 am
Avatar for HG

Can someone explain to me why these people speak in “tounges”? How and what causes this to happen?

It was a revelatory gift given to communicate God’s will until the canon of Scripture (Bible) was complete.  It was not the gibberish you hear today.  It was in a language or languages familiar to the then known world.

HG on September 26, 2006 at 06:49 am

This is one of the biggest straw men ever concieved by the mind of man.

I won’t even TRY to explain it.  It must be experienced.  The only people who have an opinion are those who don’t understand it.  This can’t be explained only experienced. 

My favorite story in this regard was a large meeting of people who are Pentecostal (Several Thousand).  Visitors were invited.

At one point in the meeting, the leader asked this question, “How many here are baptised in the Holy Ghost with the Evidence of Speaking in Tounges”.  Probably 80% of hands went up.  Then, after he told them to put down their hands, he asked this, “How many of you that do speak in tounges regret or are sorry you ever did?”.  Uproariaous laughter followed.

How preposterous.  For such a wonderful gift, for such a wonderful blessing to be regretful or sorry.

The ones I feel really sorry for are not those who don’t believe in God and therefore miss out on all of this but the ones I have greater pity for are those who call themselves followers of Christ and yet leave the gifts God gives them under the tree.  It’s like saying at Christmas to Grandpa, I like this one, but this one I’m not so sure of. Grandpa would still love you but he would scratch his head as to why you would reject one of his best gifts.

I speak in tounges.  I wish everyone would.  It’s not weird.  It’s wonderful.  I’ve been in pentecost for 25 years. Not for a single day do I regret it.  I have only pity on those who by force of suspision or reason eschew the fullness of the Spirit.

It’s not about going to heaven.  It’s about living Heaven on this side of the veil.

OH, and when everyone prays in the Spirit corporately, As Becky asked the kids to do;  That is the most beautiful of all.  The sound of many waters.  The roar as a mighty rushing wind.  I am thrilled and strengthened every time when we come together and sometimes the leaders instructs us to all pray in the Spirit (Tounges).

Seems like people that have never tried Mangos all have an opinion on what they do or don’t taste like and if we should or shouldn’t eat them.

Those who regularly eat and enjoy Mango’s can’t figure out what the fuss is all about.  So it is with Tounges.


Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this is their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce.       
And they go down fighting.

Gene on September 26, 2006 at 06:53 am
Avatar for Dave

The ones I feel really sorry for are not those who don’t believe in God

I don’t “believe” in anything. I know things. And, by the way, I’m doing okay, so you can spare your sympathy.

Dave on September 26, 2006 at 07:13 am

HG: Where are all the transitional fossils?


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 07:16 am
Avatar for HG

R108,

That there are no transitional fossils doesn’t disprove evolution to its proponents. Evolution is the only theory materialistic science can logically produce. That is, materialistic science excludes any theory except evolution, and therefore must be correct.  It is a fallacy.

HG on September 26, 2006 at 07:51 am

HG: Agreed.  Even in scientific terms, it’s just a theory, which means not yet proved.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 07:59 am
Avatar for dawn

This may sound really crazy to those who don’t believe, but this is just the beginning of persecution of christians that is to come.  Taking something perfectly innocent and making it look threatening and crazy is the agenda of those who want to eradicate christianity and set up a one world religion and one world government.  Pretty soon those of us who would willingly die for Jesus Christ (as a victim - never as a terrorist) may get the chance to do so, when the haters get more desperate than just making us fundamentalists look crazy on film.

dawn on September 26, 2006 at 08:17 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

Rob

to outsiders many of the rituals, sayings and customs that evangelicals take for granted can seem strange to outsiders, if largely harmless, even when put in their proper context.


Outsiders???

Why outsiders Rob? Is that kinda like ..oh,,I don’t know..infidels??

rituals, sayings and customs"seem"strange?

rituals, sayings and customs = strange

People who know and read the Bible -and in particular, the teachings of Jesus in the New testament, know exactly how “strange” these rituals, sayings and customs really are.

proper context?
That sounds kinda…“liberal” minded to me.

The proper context would be the “actual” context; nothing more, nothing less.

To understand the “context,” I watched several different trailers, went to Becky’s website as well as to the websites of her fundementalist associate pastors and supporters.

It’s quite alarming!

I suggest you go see for yourselves.

It’s a whole lot worse than what this film portrays.

Please don’t make excuses for these people.

Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 08:18 am
Avatar for HG

when the haters get more desperate than just making us fundamentalists look crazy on film

Dawn,

That behavior and doctrine is not ‘Fundamentalist’.  It is ‘New Evangelical’.  Please don’t confuse the two.

The problem with the behavior in the video is that it is fanatical.  Motivating people using frenzied emotional manipulation is not Christian.

HG on September 26, 2006 at 08:24 am

Bezu: It’s only alarming to those with a prejudice against Christians, and who believe that they are the same as the Islamists.  If you don’t assume that, those practices are simply strange, but not threatening.  When someone doesn’t threaten you directly, all the threat you feel comes from inside yourself.  Think about it.
Like the Branch Davidians, these people are minding their own business, not bothering anyone.  Do you need to slaughter them, just like Clinton slaughtered the Branch Davidians, simply out of fear?  This is why the Islamics slaughter the people they do; they are afraid of anyone who doesn’t follow their own ideology.  Are you one of those?


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 08:25 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

This may sound really crazy to those who don’t believe, but this is just the beginning of persecution of christians that is to come. 
Taking something perfectly innocent????? and making it look threatening and crazy is the agenda of those who want to eradicate christianity and set up a one world religion and one world government.
dawn 9-26-06

See what I mean?


One world government, 9/11 was an inside job, the anti-christ is under the bed with the boogey-man, the world’s running out of oil, Jesus is coming back in my lifetime, the jews who haven’t been converted will burn, ... and on and on ad nauseum.


Most of this silly “end of times” shit comes from books like Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind Series.”

It’s fiction folks…get over it!!!

Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 08:31 am
Avatar for Bat One

I would like to ask a more “fundamental” question here:

What is it about Christianity and Christians that so frightens those on the Left?  Why are liberals seemingly more fearful of home-grown Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians, none of whom to my knowledge, has threatened to cut off anyone’s head or wipe anyone off the fact of the map, than they are of foreign Islamic fascists whose very real threats they prefer to ignore or rationalize?

Bat One on September 26, 2006 at 08:49 am

Bat: It’s a distraction from admitting that radical Islam is our enemy; if they admitted that instead of attacking the straw man of Christianity, they would have to admit that the President has been right all along, and that the Dems have been wrong all this time.  They simply haven’t the honesty to do that.  They would rather slaughter the Christians, like Clinton did, than admit that the jihadists are our enemy.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 08:54 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

Bezu wrote:
People who know and read the Bible -and in particular, the teachings of Jesus in the New testament, know exactly how “strange” these rituals, sayings and customs really are.

Robert
You misunderstand.
From the perspective of “other” christians, who don’t subscribe to Fischerism and who are in a position to discern the difference betwen christian truth and made up sensationalized balohney,this crap is “way-out-there, over-the-top, off-the-chain,odd ball-looney-toons.”

So this would make your continual assertion of:

It’s only alarming to those with a prejudice against Christians,

rather meaningless!!

Then—and this is really hard to understand—

Do you need to slaughter them? [are you one of those people] who slaughter the people they are afraid of? anyone who doesn’t follow their own ideology. Robert108

Are you friggin’ kidding me..what utter foolishness!

You seem to have a pathological hatred of 1)cops and 2) anyone that’s not christian.

In a very twisted fashion, you often turn your pathological shortcomings back on others!

I’ll not have it!

It’s time for you to lock up the liquor cabinet!

Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 08:58 am

Bezu: I’m sorry, but I can’t make any sense of your last comment, especially the personal attack part.
It is a matter of fact and of history that the Clinton administration slaughtered the Branch Davidians.  It is also a matter of fact that the BDs weren’t bothering anyone.  The Christian sects who expect to be slaughtered by the govt, especially a Dem one, have some legitimate concerns.  I don’t believe that way, but can understand why they might believe it, especially when I read all the fear and hate directed toward this woman and her camp.  As far as I know, she is not involved in any sort of criminal enterprise, and yet you and others want to persecute her.  She is supposedly guaranteed a Constitutional right to free exercise of her religion, but there seem to be plenty of haters who want to shut her down, and to prohibit others from practicing their own religion, especially the more fundamentalist Christian sects.  I think it’s scary, especially when I read all the justification and rationalization in regards to depriving those people of their Constitutional rights.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 09:09 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

Bat One
It’s not a matter of being “afraid” of anyone and it’s not a matter of comparing Christianity with Islam.

My point is that these people are butchering, bastardizing and eviscerating a beautiful religion and because of this, they’re causing Christianity to loose its credibility; and hence, it’s real strength.

You and Robert claiming that people disagree with Fischerism because they’re “afraid” would be tantamount to others asserting that you and Robert are against homosexuality because you are “homo-phobs.”—are you?.... afraid of them???

Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 09:10 am
Avatar for Dave

What is it about Christianity and Christians that so frightens those on the Left?

Faith. I am frightened by people who accept claims without evidence, who believe Reason is a vice and Faith a virtue. This is irrational, and has the great potential to become dangerous.

I am frightened by people who accept on faith that there is an afterlife—such belief cheapens the Heroic in Man. I am frightened by people who believe that Man is not the highest being—that we can never reach our potential, that we’re always subservient.

I am frightened of every belief populations accept on faith.

Dave on September 26, 2006 at 09:14 am

Whatever we’re not up on we’re down on.

Dawn has it right.  Persecution is part of normative Christian Living.  If you aren’t being poked fun at, pilloried or treated pejorativly you may not be living your faith out front and in public.

That’s OK, but I have to look up What Jesus says about that.

BEZU, The sites you noted are alarming to those who don’t “Get it”.

So, be alarmed.  Nothing I can say or not say will assuage your fear. 

And BXZF I’m constantly amused by people like you who make reference to What Jesus Said when they have no idea or only how to take some fragmented verse out of context.

Here’s one for you, Jesus talked more about the infilling and gift of the Holy Ghost than he did about sin. 

And the last thing he told his Disciples was to go wait and get this “Tounges” thing. 

The pharasies thought they (The Disciples) were dangerous too.  So, BEZU, you are in great company.

My $.02 (I stole that from RBB)


Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this is their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce.       
And they go down fighting.

Gene on September 26, 2006 at 09:16 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

Bezu: I’m sorry, but I can’t make any sense of your last comment, especially the personal attack part.
robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 01:09 pm

It Figures that you can’t make any sense out of something quite sensible!!!

Oh, and about any “personal” attacks—-you sir are a master sniper and very skilled in that area!!!

Your whimpering and pathetic response sounds like something from one of the left leaning blogs—=when unable to refute - use the tactic of “claiming” personal attack.

Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 09:19 am

Bezu: Assuming I agree with your characterization of me, what is the relevance?  You are trying to demonize practitioners because of the way they practice their faith, and you assert that you do so on a basis of style.  You don’t like what they are doing.  So what?  Why all the heat and violent threats, combined with intense anger?
Christianity isn’t “losing its credibility” with anyone but those with whom it has never had any credibility.  Note Dave’s comment below.  He, like you, is frightened by someone who believes differently than he does.  One of the great parts of the US is our religious freedom.  Please stop trying to destroy that!


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 09:20 am

Bezu: Personal attacks from you:

You seem to have a pathological hatred of 1)cops and 2) anyone that’s not christian.

In a very twisted fashion, you often turn your pathological shortcomings back on others!

It’s time for you to lock up the liquor cabinet!

Where’s the substance?

From the perspective of “other” christians, who don’t subscribe to Fischerism and who are in a position to discern the difference betwen christian truth and made up sensationalized balohney,this crap is “way-out-there, over-the-top, off-the-chain,odd ball-looney-toons.”

Was that the “sensible” part?  What is your definition of “Fischerism”, or is that simply cheap demonization?


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 09:25 am
Avatar for Bat One

Robert108,

I do not disagree with you, my friend, but I believe there is something more basic at work here.

Christians, at least those who take their faith seriously, represent an unspoken reproach to those who were raised on “if it feels good, do it.”  The notion of a fundamental Right and Wrong, a universal moral creed that cannot be amended or overturned in court, is a direct and fearful threat to the moral equivalence and humanistic arrogance of the Left.

For the secular liberal, the here and now is all there is.  For Christians, on the other hand, there are principles beyond secular expediency and the perspective of life beyond today, which are both in direct contrast with the left’s thirst for power.

Worse yet, Christians vote.  And that is far more deadly a threat to liberals than Islamist terrorism.

Bat One on September 26, 2006 at 09:31 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

Dawn has it right.  Persecution is part of normative Christian Living.  If you aren’t being poked fun at, pilloried or treated pejorativly you may not be living your faith out front and in public
BEZU, The sites you noted are alarming to those who don’t “Get it”.
Gene on September 26, 2006 at 01:16 pm

Persecution is normative——who are you trying to fool- besides yourself?


Make that two straight-jackets please!

Alarming to those who don’t “GET IT”?

I see. kinda like a magic trick eh? You have to “get it”—the secret knowledge- or you don’t know how the trick was pulled off.

By all means Gene, look it up in the Bible and get back to us.
Oh, and by the way, don’t try to pass off truncated concatenations because I’ll hammer you on it-so be prepared!!

Uh..howevr “DID” he make that elephant disappear..hmmmmm

Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 09:36 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

Why all the 1)heat and 2)violent threats, combined with 3)intense anger?
Robert108

1)I rather like the tropics—-2)what threats? (more robert bs) 3)where did you get your psychology degree?

I’m no more intense than you are!!

You’re a hypocrite, a very clever manipulator..
and intellectually dishonest.


P.S.

Make that your last “screwdriver” of the day!!!

Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 09:54 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

Was that the “sensible” part?  What is your definition of “Fischerism”, or is that simply cheap demonization?
robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 01:25 pm

You sure do know alot about demons dude!!
Is that aprt of the trick too? something you have to “GET” also to be part of the exclusive club?

Count me out.

Oh, and you didn’t answer my questions; why are you so afraid of gays and non-christians. Why do you fear them so much. Why do they make you tremble? Why do you want to kill all of them”?
Why do you get so intensely angry when they try to assert their rights? Why do you hate them? Why do you want to violently want to murder all of them Robert?

Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 10:02 am
Avatar for Dave

For the secular liberal, the here and now is all there is.

No, for intelligent, rational, skeptical people the here and now is all there is. As it should be. It’s why it’s so important that we rise up and reach our potential (our potential is not eternal servitude), since we have just one chance at it.

This view discourages senseless violence. Your view encourages it.

Dave on September 26, 2006 at 10:05 am
Avatar for Bat One

My point is that these people are butchering, bastardizing and eviscerating a beautiful religion and because of this, they’re causing Christianity to loose its credibility; and hence, it’s real strength.

Bezu,

Not much on tolerance, or the panorama of diversity are you, even for something as personal as one’s religious faith?  If a devout Catholic takes the “Roman” heritage seriously and prefers a mass celebrated in Latin, is that any concern of yours?  No one is forcing you participate.

If another prefers the fundamental bliss of speaking in tongues, how is that any of your concern?  Is some “primitive” holding a snake to your head and threatening you if you don’t convert?

Once again. what we have here is an inane and fearful example of moral equivalence.  Because Liberals do not regard their creed as religious in nature, they are free to criticize the religious faith of others, yet are themselves immune from critique.  Phooey!

You claim not to be “afraid” of anyone… which, of course wasn’t the question in the first place.  And yet the vocifierous nature of your response betrays your irritation, for if my question wasn’t disquieting to you, then why the anger and resentment?

Incidentally, if you’ll read carefully (this time), you’ll see that my comment had nothing to do with either “Fischerisms” or homosexuality.  Mind you, it’s not bad as strawman arguments go, but after reading a number of your comments, I thought we could expect a bit more from you.  Well, maybe not that much, after all.

Bat One on September 26, 2006 at 10:06 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

Phooey is right bat.

You implied that I was a) liberal, B)secular, and 3) afraid. None of which are true.

And again in this post, you attempt to make those same points, as if someone who vehemently disagrees with the stupidity of “Fischerism” necessarily is somehow guilty of all three. Talk about strawmen!!

The question about whether or not you and robert were homo-phobs was simply to point out the absurdity of your previous implications.

I’ve got to go to work now so try not to miss me too much..

Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 10:18 am
Avatar for HG

R108,

Materialism is a philosophical “theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions”.

It is supposed to follow then that Science, by definition, limits itself to the material that can be observed, measured and verified.

For such a definition of science to be correct it must first be proven that materialism is correct.  No scientific method can be used to prove materialism because it is a philosophy and not material.  Science then cancels out the veracity of materialism.

The problem is it does not logically follow.  How can science exclude that which its existence is premised upon?
Therefore the definition of science is constructed upon a fallacy.

Consequently, evolution as a scientific theory, unnecessarily excludes immaterial evidence.

HG on September 26, 2006 at 10:44 am
Avatar for Bat One

Faith. I am frightened by people who accept claims without evidence, who believe Reason is a vice and Faith a virtue. This is irrational, and has the great potential to become dangerous.

Dave,

I was all set to congratulate you on the sheer integrity of your response, and certainly that kudo is justified.  But in re-reading your comment, it occurs to me that by equating others’ faith with the belief that “Reason is a vice”  is exactly the same kind of irrationality that you accuse others of harboring.  There are plenty of people who manage to balance rational reason and “irrational” faith in their daily lives without resorting to either bigotry or violence.

I am frightened by people who accept on faith that there is an afterlife—such belief cheapens the Heroic in Man. I am frightened by people who believe that Man is not the highest being—that we can never reach our potential, that we’re always subservient.

Cheapens the Heroic in Man?  Unadulterated drivel, Dave!  And all the more so because you completely ignore the other side of the equation, namely the unspeakable “rational” horrors committed by man against man (Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind here), and the soaring acts of beauty and heroism inspired by the various faiths you so decry.

I admire your honesty here.  It is certainly more than the pandering rationalizations offer up by Bezu, et. al.

But the selective nature of your bigotry against faith is no less troubling than theirs.

Bat One on September 26, 2006 at 10:57 am
Avatar for Dave

There are plenty of people who manage to balance rational reason and “irrational” faith in their daily lives without resorting to either bigotry or violence.

Yes, and those people are not being consistent—they’re admiiting through their actions that Reason is superior to faith. To be glib, the most devout Christian still looks both ways when he crosses the street. He knows God isn’t looking out for him

And all the more so because you completely ignore the other side of the equation, namely the unspeakable “rational” horrors committed by man against man (Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind here)

Your “scare quotes” around rational are particularly apropos, as we both know full well that genocide and mass killings are in no way based on Reason, and are in every way based on Faith.

But the selective nature of your bigotry against faith is no less troubling than theirs.

It’s not selective. Faith—all faiths, secular and religious—destroys reason and progress. It is the bane of our existence.

Dave on September 26, 2006 at 11:05 am

Not much on tolerance, or the panorama of diversity are you, even for something as personal as one’s religious faith?  If a devout Catholic takes the “Roman” heritage seriously and prefers a mass celebrated in Latin, is that any concern of yours?  No one is forcing you participate.
Bat One

If another prefers the fundamental bliss of speaking in tongues, how is that any of your concern?  Is some “primitive” holding a snake to your head and threatening you if you don’t convert?

Once again. what we have here is an inane and fearful example of moral equivalence.  Because Liberals do not regard their creed as religious in nature, they are free to criticize the religious faith of others, yet are themselves immune from critique.  Phooey!

That Mr. Bat was beautiful.  Why is it their concern what I do in my closet?  OR teach my Children to do.

I think that’s the same argument they have about Homosex.

But you said it so very well.  Thank You and attaboy.


Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this is their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce.       
And they go down fighting.

Gene on September 26, 2006 at 11:09 am
Avatar for HG

Your “scare quotes” around rational are particularly apropos, as we both know full well that genocide and mass killings are in no way based on Reason, and are in every way based on Faith.

Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, just a few mass killers in the name of atheistic reason.

It’s not selective. Faith—all faiths, secular and religious—destroys reason and progress. It is the bane of our existence.

Didn’t Stalin say something like that?
I know China used to say “Religion is the opium of the people”.

HG on September 26, 2006 at 11:12 am

Gene, Thanks for the insight!  When, where and how did your first expirence with tongues take place?  How does speaking tongues differ from normal prayer and why do think you speaking in tongues is necessary?

I tend to take a very reasoned and logical view of religion and I am having trouble understanding the reason and logic of this practice.  I am not trying to talk you and the practice down but I wish to understand it better.

NodakJoe on September 26, 2006 at 11:14 am
Avatar for Bat One

Dave,

While I understand your point of view, and disagree vehemently with state exclusion of faith, I applaud the fact that you acknowledge the distinction between secular faith and the religious varieties.

Your insistence that faith and reason cannot coexist is, in my mind, both adolescent and tragic, but you are at least honest.

John Galt’s faith in his power to reason should not preclude others from likewise choosing their own faith, religious or secular.  So long as we are each free to choose for ourselves.

Bat One on September 26, 2006 at 11:17 am

Dave, read the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas.

NodakJoe on September 26, 2006 at 11:20 am
Avatar for Bat One

Gene,

Thank you for your kind words.  I had more than myself in mind here.

Bat One on September 26, 2006 at 11:21 am
Avatar for Bat One

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Vladimir Illich Ulyanov (Lenin)

That his successor, Stalin, would kill some 30-35 million people in the name of “the people” would likely have amused Lenin greatly.  Had someone suggested to him the Communism was just a vile and dangerously dishonest faith, that someone would also have been killed.  Truth to power.

Bat One on September 26, 2006 at 11:28 am

Nodak Joe

I was in my mid 30’s.  I had heard a teaching on the Baptism in the Holy Ghost.  I Thought, Wow, that would be something. 

I was alone kneeling in prayer.  I had weeks before prayed and asked God to fill me with His Spirit.  I was hoping he would.  I didn’t know if he would but I was believing for it.

Then soverignly without any promting it happened.  Suddenly like in the book of acts I opened my mouth and words I didn’t make up or had ever learned came from me.  It filled me with such joy.  I felt like I was speaking directly to the heart of God in a way only he could understand.  After a time I was overcome with the power of what had happened. 

Now, as often as I can, whenever I’m alone, when I shower, when I drive and even in Church I find myself enjoying this marvelous gift.  (lots of Spirit Filled Christians love to pray in the Spirit (tounges) in the shower)

It builds my faith.  The very same faith that allows me to trust God for miracles in my life is the same faith I exercise while speaking in tounges.  In that way I am edified, my faith is strenthed.

I’m baffled why everyone wouldn’t want it.  After more than a quarter century of walking in Pentecost I can’t imagine what life would be like without it.

How does it differ from normal prayer.  Well to me, tounges is normal.  But, more to the point, sometimes I just run out of words to say, I am incapable of expressing what I have in my heart, I can’t verbalize what I know I should or I don’t completly grasp the whole situation I know I should or want to pray about.  At that point I pray in tounges with the assurance that the Father hears me, understands and even guides my prayer. 

Reason can be a tyrannical master and sometimes can be the enemy of faith.  It was unreasonable for Peter to step out on the water when Jesus called.  But he did.  I want to abandon reason like Peter sometimes.

I take a reasoned view in many areas of my life but I try hard not to let my intellect get in the way of faith. 

You might be interested in what this LUTHERAN pastor from our area says on the Baptism of The Holy Spirit and Speaking in Tounges.  They are a good read and should answer all your questions.

I am part of a Good Lutheran Church here although it’s probably less like any Lutheran Church you have seen.  We don’t use hymnals, we’re looking for a new drummer and the music is foot-tapable.

And, Thanks for Asking.


Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this is their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce.       
And they go down fighting.

Gene on September 26, 2006 at 12:09 pm

Bezu: The only thing that bothers me about you is that you hate me because I won’t join you in hating Becky Fischer.  You can’t seem to abide disagreement, so you accuse me of doing so, but nowhere have I done anything of the kind.  You are making all this up out of some intense feelings programmed into you(I hope).  Nothing you have written purporting to be about me has any truth to it at all.  What is it about people exercising their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religion that you hate so much?

In case I haven’t been crystal clear:  I evaluate a religion on the basis of what they do, not what they say.  There are no Christian terrorists, mutilating and killing others, and there is no Christian jihad.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Avatar for Dave

While I understand your point of view, and disagree vehemently with state exclusion of faith

Whoa, hold on a second, I never said anything about State exclusion of faith. I believe people should be free to do anything so long as they don’t usurp anyone’s rights; thus, they’re free to practice whichever religion they’d like. My point is that choosing to follow a religion, choosing to abandon Reason in place of Faith, is a regrettable decision that should not be honored or treated with any deference by rational men.

Your insistence that faith and reason cannot coexist is, in my mind, both adolescent and tragic, but you are at least honest.

BatOne, Reason and Faith are two fundamentally opposite ways of looking at the world. Reason says we need proof to believe propositions; Faith says we don’t. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

Dave on September 26, 2006 at 12:49 pm

BatOne, Reason and Faith are two fundamentally opposite ways of looking at the world. Reason says we need proof to believe propositions; Faith says we don’t. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

Every system of logic requires the assumption of basic premises, which must be taken on faith.  Faith and Reason, therefore, are intimately intertwined.  You may think your premises are logical, but that would require earlier premises.  Ultimately, it all comes down to faith.  Sorry, Dave.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Avatar for Clint

Speaking in tongues is not biblical, it’s something conjured up by new evangelicals. They claim they’re getting a revelation by the Holy Spirit. Then they wear it as a badge of honor, a gift that makes them special.

For instance, when the apostles spoke in tongues in the Bible, they spoke in their language and others heard it in their native tongue.

Plus the Bible says that the Holy Spirit will not testify of himself, he will testify of Jesus. Watching some of the craziness that the charismatics try to pass of as “speaking in tongues,” I think we can leave Jesus out of that.

Clint on September 26, 2006 at 01:11 pm

Clint: Even if what you say is true, what do you propose?  Should we have legislation forbidding it?  It is the free exercise of their religion, and as long as it doesn’t violate any existing laws, why should anyone else have anything to say about it?


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 01:14 pm

The Catholic Church holds at the highest levels that Faith and Reason are one in the same.  You can reasonably determine that God exists simply through your consciousness and nature.  Protestants don’t necessarily follow that premise.  But thats a whole other discussion.

NodakJoe on September 26, 2006 at 02:43 pm
Avatar for Mary

Here’s what they do:

“Hundreds of children experience fiery worship, sobbing prayers, and other experiences that leave them shaking and convulsing on the floor.”

“There were so many kids piled up on the floor and there was no room for me.”

“I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places,” Fisher said. “Because, excuse me, we have the truth.”

“We’re kinda being trained to be warriors,”

“The night Uncle Leon prayed for me I was on the floor bawling, and my tummy was shaking,” says 12-year-old Emily, a 2003 camper.

“We’re talking this week about how the devil uses tactics to destroy our lives,”

“The first tactic that he uses is to tempt you with sin.”

“It’s, you’re either with us or you’re against us.”
… Not only are you a sinner, but you are working for the enemy—the enemy being Satan.”

Isn’t this “What they do”

Mary on September 26, 2006 at 03:41 pm
Avatar for Mary

Gandhi once said if Christians lived according to their faith, there would be no Hindus left in India. He knew how powerful the fundamental tenets of Christianity—fighting poverty, caring for the least among us, loving your enemies, eschewing materialism and embracing humility—could be if everyone who called themselves a Christian truly followed them.
Mary on September 26, 2006 at 05:58 pm

Mary on September 26, 2006 at 03:52 pm

“Fighting poverty” isn’t one of the teachings of Christ.  That’s a political myth started by LBJ.
Christian charity isn’t “fighting” poverty; it’s relieving some of the misery of it.
JC didn’t “eschew” materialism, either.  He made a clear demarcation between the material world and the spiritual world.  The oft-misquoted “eye of the needle” saying was a reference to walled cities in His world.  For a fully-loaded camel to pass through the city gate(the eye of the needle), it had to get down on its knees.  This was a lesson about humility for the rich of his time, since they considered themselves superior to the mass of people.  Monarchial systems do that: create sharply delineated classes with no crossover.  It was not a prohibition about being wealthy, which was largely a matter of birth in His day.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 03:59 pm

it’s probably already been said, but i want to get my two cents in to this one, just for you rob: the difference between a christian dying for his faith and a muslim dying for his faith is that christians don’t take innocent civilians with them.


“No Sane man will dance.”—Cicero

Daniel on September 26, 2006 at 04:08 pm
Avatar for WOOF

If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?[/quote] John 3:17

WOOF on September 26, 2006 at 04:14 pm

Daniel: Exactly.

Woof: If the govt confiscates your money and gives it to a drunk or a drug addict, thus ensuring they will continue in their ways, how can the Love of God be in that govt?


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 04:21 pm
Avatar for Bat One

Whoa, hold on a second, I never said anything about State exclusion of faith.

Dave,

My belated apologies.  the correct phrase shold have been “your stated exclusion of faith.”

I am often afflicted with an arrogatn and embarassing disdain for checking my own work… thus the uncorrected typo.  My bad.

Bat One on September 26, 2006 at 05:20 pm
Avatar for Dave

My fault too, Bat. You could have either omitted a “d” or forgotten to capitalize an “s.” I called you out for making a mistake without knowing for sure that you had.

Dave on September 26, 2006 at 06:24 pm
Avatar for nuetral_nick

WOOF: I believe you intended to cite the first Epistle of John, 3rd chapter, seventeenth verse.

robert108: Jesus did teach about helping the poor, but I always understood it as a personal initiative, not a government effort. This should be the work of churches and charity organizations. I think you essentially agree with me on this. Please don’t equate someone talking about Jesus wanting to take care of the poor the same thing as entitlement programs.

HG: Materiaslists do not have a monopoly on science, it existed long before materialism. Another correction would be that science can only explain what can be tested and observed in the material world. This does not mean that in order for science to be valid there can exist nothing beyond the material. It simply means that anything beyond the material is unable to be scientifically proven. I find your statement to be entirely illogical and pointless.

Just to throw my thoughts into the ring, I am very intersted in seeing this film. I used to be involved with Charismatics until I realized how completely illogical and unBiblical they were. The church that I went to was a Rhema affiliate, and they basically preached: 1) treating your pastors with more respect than normal people, 2) giving all your money to the church (Many in the church were struggling) and to the pastors so that God would bless you financially, 3) not reading or considering any ideas outside the Charismatic movement because it was “destructive to your faith,” and 4) never questioning anything a Charismatic preacher said, because they were “God’s annointed ones.”

I think I should qualify my statement by saying that I am still a Christian, but certainly not a Charismatic. The aforementioned brainwashing techniques seemed very dangerous to me whether the people in charge had good intentions or not. I don’t think that be skeptical or doubtful destroys your faith in the least bit. As a matter of fact, I have found it strengthening to my faith to hear other sides out and evaluate their claims. I completely theologically disagree with these people, but I am not in any way suggesting that their beliefs be made illegal. I think we should oppose this ideology with: 1) open and honest discussions and 2) prayer. I should also point out that I have been to similar camps with an organization in Texas known as Teen Mania Ministries, and found them to be just as narrow-minded and brainwashing as Rhema.

nuetral_nick on September 26, 2006 at 06:32 pm
Avatar for Dave

NOdak Joe:

The Catholic Church holds at the highest levels that Faith and Reason are one in the same.

Construct a logical argument proving the Assumption of Mary.

Dave on September 26, 2006 at 07:21 pm

The fact that it occured!  I guess you just have to have some faith that there is truth in the words.  I mean if you are going to go down that road you can call in to question every part of the bible.

NodakJoe on September 26, 2006 at 07:38 pm

To clarify,  When discussing faith and reason one must realize that the knowledge of the person of Christ, his mother and the angels is impossible to know without actually receiving grace from God and having that knowledge shared with you.  It is possible to have salvation and know that there is a God and that he is good with out ever “knowing” Christ.  One can reasonably conclude that God exists.

NodakJoe on September 26, 2006 at 07:47 pm

Also, being that we believe in the Holy Trinity. God and Christ are one in the same.

NodakJoe on September 26, 2006 at 07:50 pm

plus, as we’ve all learned from h2g2, proving God’s existence will cause him to disappear.


“No Sane man will dance.”—Cicero

Daniel on September 26, 2006 at 08:01 pm
Avatar for Dave

I guess you just have to have some faith that there is truth in the words.

Precisely: There is no reason to suspect that this is true. In fact, had Pope Pius gone the other way back in 1950, you’d be arguing the exact opposite. This is the difference between Faith and Reason, and why they cannot coexist.

Dave on September 26, 2006 at 08:08 pm

Dave I could through a nearly impossible scientific method prove to you that Mary’s remains are not on this earth. 

Despite Pope Pius’s dogmatic statements on the assumption it was a tradition that was held in the Church prior to 1950. 

There is no reason to suspect that Jesus Christ even existed. 

Having Faith that Mary was assumed into heaven and that Jesus lived is different that having Faith in God.  Its like having faith that there actually was an King Henry VIII and that the story wasn’t made up.

You can reasonably conclude that God exists.  You don’t need the bible to know God.  You don’t need to know that any of the biblical events ever took place.

NodakJoe on September 26, 2006 at 08:32 pm

Science used to be the study of God and the seeking of spiritual truth through understanding the unknown.  The weakness and errors of what passes for “science” in the present time are attributable to its abandonment of God and it’s commitment to atheism.

HG: Yours and my position on Christian charity are identical.  As with JC’s spirituality in general, it’s all about individual responsibility.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 08:55 pm
Avatar for premiss

Gene wrote: I take a reasoned view in many areas of my life but I try hard not to let my intellect get in the way of faith.

Your comments lead me to believe you are staying firm in your faith.

This came to my mind as I read those words. 2 Tim 3:14 you must continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them.

premiss on September 26, 2006 at 09:18 pm

Robert108:

Science used to be the study of God and the seeking of spiritual truth through understanding the unknown.  The weakness and errors of what passes for “science” in the present time are attributable to its abandonment of God and it’s commitment to atheism.

As opposed to what?  Putting Galileo under house arrest because he had the temerity to suggest that the Earth rotated around the Sun?

“Science” never was about the study of God.  That’s a branch of philosophy.  Science as a separate discipline is totally independent to the question of whether there is a God, or even in a belief in the absence of one.

Science deals with observable, which are measurable quantities, and with those aspects of the universe that can be explained by rational processes.  God, in most theologies, is more than this.  In general, the rational, observable world is a subset of the universe.

As long as this last statement remains true, science may be able to inform religion, but generally the opposite is not true.

Carrick on September 26, 2006 at 09:19 pm

As opposed to what?  Putting Galileo under house arrest because he had the temerity to suggest that the Earth rotated around the Sun?

You are confusing the politics of religion with spirituality; a common mistake today.

“Science” never was about the study of God.  That’s a branch of philosophy.  Science as a separate discipline is totally independent to the question of whether there is a God, or even in a belief in the absence of one.

This is the current atheist view, of which I already spoke.  Your reasoning is circular here.  Read “The Holy Science” by Sri Yukeswar; you might find it enlightening; then again, you might not.

Science deals with observable, which are measurable quantities, and with those aspects of the universe that can be explained by rational processes.  God, in most theologies, is more than this.  In general, the rational, observable world is a subset of the universe.

Agreed.  The universe is a subset of God.  Your definition of science is the one in current vogue, btw. After the Renaissance, “scientists” became uncomfortable with their inability to quantify God, and so abandoned the effort altogether.  An admission of weakness, IMO.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 09:41 pm

Spirituality is the relationship between an individual and the almighty.  Religion is the relationship between people about their spirituality, and hence is a social process.

Science is not the study by an individual, or the contemplation by that individual, of the laws of the universe.  It is by its very nature a process that involves the interactions of many individuals regarding the study of those laws.  Indeed a major “self-correcting” part of science is the review of one’s ideas provided by one’s colleagues.

If you discover something important but do not communicate it, or are unable to successfully convince your peers, you have accomplished nothing of scientific value.

Like religion, science is intrinsically a social process.  It makes no sense to conflate, however, science with spirituality.  To do so, implies a misunderstanding of what science is.  As I have pointed out, science is intrinsically a social process and spiritual contemplation is intrinsically not.  Therefore the analogy of the persecution of Galileo is an appropriate one.

Science is a process that is practiced by human beings, following a set of rules called the scientific method, which is intended to expose what is “scientifically knowable” about the universe.  And we mean by “scientifically knowable” that which is both rational and observable.

God, by his/her/it’s nature is simply not rational, since God is both infinite and transcends the finite, rational universe.

Unless God is at least observable, he/she/it is not knowable from the scientific perspective.  Nor is any private spiritual contemplation on my part ever part of science, because it fails all tests for being part of a scientific endeavor (being primarily a philosophical endeavor, it neither meets the requirements of the scientific methods, nor the requirement of social participation).

That science cannot test the existence or nature of God is not a weakness of science.  It is simply a definition of what that discipline is. Conflating science with the pursuit of God, on the other hand, is to misinterpret the purpose and nature of the scientific method.

Carrick on September 26, 2006 at 10:03 pm

Carrick: Your circular definition of science is the present one; it has not always been so.  Science is what scientists say it is.  It is simply a word with a definition, and that definition has changed over time.
Religion is the politics of spirituality. 
Spirituality has not always been an individual affair, as you assert.  That is the gift to us from Jesus Christ.  For most of human history, the individual has been regarded as far less important than the collective; whether it has been a tribe or something larger, the collective has usually been far more important than the individual.  Even today, only the US is dedicated to the primacy of the individual, and that is a constant struggle.  Likewise, science has always been a collective affair, as you acknowledge with your “peer review” assertion.
With the advent of the personal computer and the internet, individuals have unprecedented access to information, which will undoubted lead to the next scientific, social and maybe even spiritual advances.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Avatar for Mary

Christians cannot afford to endorse anything that is biblically unsound; we’re going to have enough trouble as it is without unsafe teaching passing as what goes for the church these days.
To me it’s pretty simple. Kids are really easy to brainwash. There is a reason every army from the dawn of time has gotten young men to go into battle, their minds are malleable.
If watching this clip doesn’t turn your stomach or cause you to question what they are doing, there is little to nothing I or anyone can say to change your mind, only the Holy Spirit can.
Rick Joyner and company and some of these other mind-manipulators are filling children with visions of worldly glory. I have first hand knowledge of this. They will haul kids in front of “a prophet” who will pump them up with all of “what they will do”…filling them with visions of glory…which is food to a child.
It’s basically this, if you are a prophet, God speaks to you, and you work to do what He wants. You don’t need a cheering section, you don’t need “education on intercessory prayer”…you don’t need all this noise which is used to pump egos into the tasks of their masters.
We are starting to see the divide in the church which will help those who will persecute in the end times.
We have Rick Warren, “why can’t we all get along, but if you don’t agree begone” group, which will link up with others to rid the world of “fundamentalism in all forms”. They will stand in locked-arms with the enemy and not know it to kill and persecute Christians.
We have Christians like those shown in this video giving them fuel, if you can’t see the purposeful similarity between them and the kids of Islam, you are blind.
Meanwhile, those of us walking the narrow path are caught in between.
A friend of mine told me the churches will be full after the rapture, I am really beginning to believe him.
Much that is done in church today is done in the name of Christ, but has little to do with Him.
Blessings,
Mary

Mary on September 26, 2006 at 10:38 pm

Carrick: The Galileo affair was a power struggle between the politics of religion and the politics of science, between two collectives, and the religious collective won.  Since science has become atheistic, and since relition has been under siege, today the science collective would win.  You would probably regard this as progress.  I’m not so sure.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 10:38 pm

I find it interesting that the same people who want the govt to “stay out of the bedroom”, because it is “private”, have little or no compunction with violating the privacy of a church or a congregation, and making very heavy judgements about what is going on there, whether they understand it or not.  This is why the Constitution guarantees us relgious freedom; it isn’t up to someone else to judge my religion, as long as I am doing nothing illegal in my religious practices.  Where’s that tolerance?


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 10:42 pm

Science as a field was developed in the 16th century on.  It never, in its history, had anything to do with the search for God.  That is, was and remains a philosophical rather than scientific pursuit.

By the way, what exactly do you think a circular definition is?  You keep using that word inappropriately.

Carrick on September 26, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Avatar for Christian

From a Christian:

Robert108
I find your statements to be entirely illogical and pointless.

I used to be involved with Charismatics until I realized how completely illogical and unbiblical they were.
The aforementioned brainwashing techniques seemed very dangerous to me whether the people in charge had good intentions or not. I don’t think that to be skeptical or doubtful destroys your faith in the least bit.
“NO ONE” is in any way suggesting that their beliefs be made illegal.[don’t know why you keep mistakenly alluding to that] I think we should oppose this ideology
Neutral nick on September 26, 2006

——————————————————————————-

Robert108:
You’re wrong again.
“Science” never was about the study of God.  That’s a branch of philosophy.  Science as a separate discipline is totally independent to the question of whether there is a God, or even in a belief in the absence of one
As long as this last statement remains true, science may be able to inform religion, but generally the opposite is not true.
God, by his/her/it’s nature is simply not rational, since God is both infinite and transcends the finite, rational universe. That science cannot test the existence or nature of God is not a weakness of science.  It is simply a definition of what that discipline is. Conflating science with the pursuit of God, on the other hand, is to misinterpret the purpose and nature of the scientific method.
Carrick on September 27, 2006

——————————————————————————
From another Christian:

Robert108-wrong again!
Christians cannot afford to endorse anything that is biblically unsound; we’re going to have enough trouble as it is without unsafe teaching passing as what goes for the church these days. If watching this clip doesn’t turn your stomach or cause you to question what they are doing, there is little to nothing I or anyone can say to change your mind, only the Holy Spirit can. Rick Joyner and company and some of these other mind-manipulators are filling children with visions of worldly glory. I have first hand knowledge of this.
We have Christians like those shown in this video giving them {Islamic terrorists] fuel, if you can’t see the purposeful similarity between them and the kids of Islam, you are blind.
Mary on September 27, 2006

——————————————————————————

Robert108
That you both are full of shit dummy. Robert108 what respect I had for you is now 50% less.
ellinas on September 26, 2006

Christian on September 26, 2006 at 10:57 pm

To speed this up, a circular definition is the use of a term to define itself.

I hadn’t actually given a definition of science (rather just a description), so it was actually impossible for me to have made a circular definition.  (It was neither circular nor a definition.)

But what I said was science had two components, 1) a social interaction among peers, and 2) the practice of something called the “scientific method”.

Science is a process practiced by socially interacting individuals who are utilizing a method called the “scientific method”.  Nothing circular there at all.  The scientific method requires that questions be “knowable”, that is testable.  To be testable, they must have precept that are grounded in rational thought and must have some observable and falsifiable elements.

What I have presented here is a noncyclic hierarchy of definitions (which can be easily established by a directed graph of the terms), there is nothing circular about this at all.

If God can be tested scientifically, then science could include the pursuit of God.  Otherwise, the existence and nature God remains a philosophical or theological question, but not a scientific one.

It’s as simple as that.  Though when I draw this distinction, it does not say that the question of existence and nature of God is not important.  Far from it, I am simply saying God is not knowable in this manner.

Finally to claim that science, because it can’t test the existence of God, is “atheistic” is pure and simple bull.  Nor does science put religion “under a siege” by acknowledging that it can’t test for God’s existence or nature.

Really you aren’t making much sense here, though your personal prejudices are showing through pretty clearly.

Carrick on September 26, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Avatar for Christian

Robert108

Finally to claim that science, because it can’t test the existence of God, is “atheistic” is pure and simple bull.  Nor does science put religion “under a siege” by acknowledging that it can’t test for God’s existence or nature.

Really you aren’t making much sense here, though your personal prejudices are showing through pretty clearly.
Carrick on September 27, 2006 at 02:59 am

Well-said/precision logic/lucidly and coherently stated/ incontestable and unimpeachable

Thanks Carrick

Christian on September 26, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Avatar for Bezu Fache

Gene,

Thank you for your kind words.  I had more than myself in mind here.
Bat One (A.K.A. Joan Of Arc) on September 26, 2006 at 03:21 pm

Having visions from God which told her to recover Christendom from heretical domination

Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 11:46 pm

Carrick: This is getting interesting, notwithstanding the aspersions on my character and thinking.  You exhibit more intolerance than usual for disagreement.
Nowhere did I claim that there was a connection with the atheism of modern “science” and it’s functional inability to “test the existence of God”, so that is a nonissue with me.  I did clearly state that modern science has adopted its present atheistic stance because of the inability to quantify God.  God cannot be quantified, so that is hardly a shortcoming of science, just a fact.
The circularity of the definition of science as it is presently defined is that it is defined by the scientists themselves, and not an objective source.  Of course, any method they choose is then “the scientific method”, another bit of circularity. “It is science because science is what we say it is.”
Contrary to your assertion that science didn’t exist before the 16th Century, that is also circular.  By present standards, nothing that doesn’t fit into the present definition is now considered to be science, but in terms of the definitions of the time, science has existed almost as long as humans have existed.  The word itself is derived from the Latin verb, “to know”(scire), and is really about the human thirst for knowledge.  Present day definitions have separated the various branches into “non-scientific” areas, such as philosophy, but this was not always the case.  Was Aristotle a scientist? Archimedes?  They don’t fit into your definition of science, but they were the scientists of their day, including Newton and Einstein, both men of God as well as scientists, and proud of it.  They acknowledged the fusion of spirituality and science; why can’t you?


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 11:46 pm

Christian: You are certainly welcome to your opinions.  You seem to need to speak through others, though.  What original thoughts do you have?


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 11:49 pm

I do find it amusing that my opinions have drawn such strong attack response from some of you.  The most amusing part was the accusation that I was prejudiced because I have an open mind about the defintion of science, instead of buying the current orthodoxy, and that I think Becky Fischer has the Constitutional right to practice her religion unmolested by self-righteous bigots.  I sense magical thinking here.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 26, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Avatar for Bezu Fache

notwithstanding the aspersions on my character
robert108 on September 27, 2006 at 03:46 am

Since when is claiming someone is wrong an “aspersion
on their character?”

Where did Carrick do this? Please respond by putting it in quotes.

Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 11:56 pm

Bezu:  I wasn’t only referring to Carrick there.  You, Christian and ellinas are also included.  Do I have to quote you again?

From Carrick:

you aren’t making much sense here, though your personal prejudices are showing through pretty clearly.

Nothing diane-like, to be sure, but personal attack with no substantive reasoning; “you are wrong because you are a bad person” or something like that.  Not very scientific, was it?  Notice that I said “aspersions”, not personal attack.  Carrick has more class than that.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 27, 2006 at 12:02 am
Avatar for Christian

Robert
I can’t say it any better then the people quoted. I just don’t understand why you keep ignoring what christians are saying.
I don’t understand why you keep saying people want to make it illegal or violate someone’s constitutional rights.
I read this article and the other article on the same subject. I didn’t see where anybody said any of those things.
Even once you accused someone of wanting to slaughter jesus camp people. I didn’t see that expressed by anyone either.
Also you accused many people of hating. I didn’t anywhere see anybody said they hated anyone. I’ve read all the comments in two of the articles and what you say in them is very confusing and doesn’t seem to relate to the actual comments that were made.

Christian on September 27, 2006 at 12:07 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

Notice that I said “aspersions”, not personal attack.
robert108 on September 27, 2006 at 04:02 am

An “aspersion” is a personal attack.

i.e.-a damaging or derogatory remark or criticism; slander- malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report

I am guilty as charged Robbie- I did slam you yesterday- I apologize- but my apology in no way means that I agree with you. Be a gentleman and accept the olive branch!
However,Don’t include Christian in with me and ellinas.

Bezu Fache on September 27, 2006 at 12:20 am
Avatar for Bezu Fache

I do find it amusing that my opinions have drawn such strong attack response from some of you.
robrert108

What’s amusing is that your so called opinions are themselves attacks upon the people who simply disagree with Pentecostalism (i.e. the basis of the Jesus Camp)

Apparently, when you disagree, it’s only an opinion, but when other people disagree, it’s an attack.

Bezu Fache on September 27, 2006 at 12:26 am

Christian: Thanks for replying in your own words.

Even once you accused someone of wanting to slaughter jesus camp people. I didn’t see that expressed by anyone either.
I did no such thing; I asked someone if they wanted to slaughter the people in this camp like Clinton slaughtered the Branch Davidians. I was testing to see how far their hatred of this woman and her camp would take them. I never got an answer, btw.
Also you accused many people of hating. I didn’t anywhere see anybody said they hated anyone.
If you reread some of the comments made toward both Becky Fischer and myself, the hatred is quite plain.  How do you interpret the creation of the term “Fischerism” to describe what she does?  Isn’t that just a tiny bit hateful?
I’ve read all the comments in two of the articles and what you say in them is very confusing and doesn’t seem to relate to the actual comments that were made.

One world government, 9/11 was an inside job, the anti-christ is under the bed with the boogey-man, the world’s running out of oil, Jesus is coming back in my lifetime, the jews who haven’t been converted will burn, ... and on and on ad nauseum.

Most of this silly “end of times” shit comes from books like Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind Series.”

It’s fiction folks…get over it!!!
Bezu Fache on September 26, 2006 at 12:31 pm

Loving? Tolerant? or hateful and intolerant?

if you can’t see the purposeful similarity between them and the kids of Islam, you are blind.
Mary on September 27, 2006

No terrorism, no jihad, no killing, but all this hate.

That you both are full of shit dummy.

No comment.

Oh, and you didn’t answer my questions; why are you so afraid of gays and non-christians. Why do you fear them so much. Why do they make you tremble? Why do you want to kill all of them”?
Why do you get so intensely angry when they try to assert their rights? Why do you hate them? Why do you want to violently want to murder all of them Robert?

Those are all hateful lies. Not only that, but they have nothing to do with any sort of reasoned argument.

One world government, 9/11 was an inside job, the anti-christ is under the bed with the boogey-man, the world’s running out of oil, Jesus is coming back in my lifetime, the jews who haven’t been converted will burn, ... and on and on ad nauseum.

None of this has anything to do with the facts, either.  This is hate-filled ranting.

Enough?


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 27, 2006 at 12:27 am

Bezu:

Apparently, when you disagree, it’s only an opinion, but when other people disagree, it’s an attack.

Nice try at assassinating my character, but not true.  When I give my reasons for differing or disagreeing with you or anyone else, that is not an attack on anything other than your reasoning.  Refuting someone’s reasoning is not an attack.  When you cast aspersions on the other person’s character, that is an attack that has nothing to do with their reasoning; it just expresses anger toward someone who disagrees with you.  That is not an effective argument.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 27, 2006 at 12:30 am

Bezu: Sorry, read the other one first.

I am guilty as charged Robbie- I did slam you yesterday- I apologize- but my apology in no way means that I agree with you. Be a gentleman and accept the olive branch!
However,Don’t include Christian in with me and ellinas.

Of course, I accept your figurative olive branch.  In fact; Barkeep! Olive branches all around for my friends!
I do think “aspersion” is a milder term than “attack”;  that’s the way I meant it, at any rate.

Life would be boring without disagreement, btw.  How else can we test our reasoning, and make corrections, if necessary?


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on September 27, 2006 at 12:34 am
Avatar for Bat One

Bat One (A.K.A. Joan Of Arc) on September 26, 2006 at 03:21 pm

Having visions from God which told her to recover Christendom from heretical domination

Bezu,

WTF?  Leaving aside any distinction between “aspersions,” and personal attacks, what was your point or purpose here?  Other than gratuitously drawing attention to yourself, there doesn’t seem to be any.  Your quibbling makes less sense at 3:45AM than during normal business hours.  Get some sleep.  It may not help your disposition any, but it might just improve your reasoning.

Bat One on September 27, 2006 at 03:36 am
Avatar for Dave

Why exactly is it a virtue to be “tolerant” toward Christians? I don’t tolerate people who believe Australia is a planet, and I don’t tolerate people who believe a virgin gave birth to the son of God 2000 years ago. Tolerating insanity is insanity itself.

Dave on September 27, 2006 at 04:50 am

To Mary:
Your anger about these things is hard to understand. I too have been part of Rick Joyner’s meetings and I get NOTHING of what you saw or said.  His little book, Final Quest changed my life. 

And, as far as prophecy encouraging little kids.  Wow, there’s a bad idea.  Let’s tell them they are idiots and life will never work out.

To Neutral Nick
In the Charismatic world there are lots of flavors.  There are abuses.  There are abuses in the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, The Prespetarian Church.

That doesn’t mean you toss all babies out as you dispose of bath water. 

TO both of you, I seriously doubt you were ever really IN the whole program.  I see lots of people who join a Church, attend meetings, conferences as outside observers.  They stand around a pick on what is happening.  That’s what Pharasies do.  So, call it for what you are.  Critics of what God is actually doing in this age.  Pharasies.  And, since you probably have a little understanding, you will see what Jesus thought of them.  Snakes, Vermin, Whitewashed tombs.  Not to be listened to.  All they did was stand on the outside and critisize.

TO Nodak Joe
I actually got saved in a Catholic Church.  I wasn’t Catholic but I attended a 3 day “Intense Indoctrination” called Cursillo.  It was great. 
We went to Mass, we prayed the Rosary.  I thought it was terrific.  I didn’t become Catholic but to this day I have a special spot of appreciation for the Catholic faith.

I see the Pope as a/the world leader in faith.  I have more in common with what Catholics believe than I do with many mainline denominations.

So, hang in there.  What little we may not see perfectly eye to eye on is insignificant.

What Bat1 said about whatever you do in the quiet is OK with me.  And as Crosby Stills and Nash said, Teach Your Children Well, even at Jesus Camp


Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this is their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce.       
And they go down fighting.

Gene on September 27, 2006 at 05:05 am
Avatar for Bat One

Why exactly is it a virtue to be “tolerant” toward Christians?

Dave,

The virtue, as you call it, isn’t to be found in tolerance toward Christians, but rather tolerance toward everyone where their personal beliefs are concerned.  Christianity makes no less “sense” to the rational than does Zen Buddhism, Paganism, or Islam, although, not surprisingly, there is in this country far more tolerance of those religions and far more concern about subjection their adherents to offense, than is true toward Christianity.

Which brings up the second point about tolerance.  Many of those who are the most intolerant toward Christianity and Christians are the very same liberal hypocrites who self-righteously preach the values of diversity, sensitivity, inclusiveness, and tolerance as part of their secular credo.  And though it is admittedly un-Christian, it is certainly a good deal of fun rubbing their faces in their own dishonesty, hypocrisy, and intolerance.

Bat One on September 27, 2006 at 05:19 am
Avatar for Dave

The virtue, as you call it, isn’t to be found in tolerance toward Christians, but rather tolerance toward everyone where their personal beliefs are concerned.

Why should we tolerate people who believe things that are untrue? Did you “tolerate” the 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Of course not; that’s insane. They believed in things that were absurd. So why does “religion” get deference here?

Dave on September 27, 2006 at 05:25 am
Avatar for Bat One

Why should we tolerate people who believe things that are untrue? Did you “tolerate” the 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Of course not; that’s insane.

Dave,

You are, of course, free to be as tolerant, or intolerant, as you care to be so long as your lack of tolerance does not impede the rights of anyone else to believe whatever the hell they choose, although your efforts at being intolerant strike me as a rather petulant waste of time and energy.  And as I have pointed out before, I don’t see any Christians about threatening those who refuse to convert with swords and car bombs.

Still, crux of the matter is the question of truth.  You regard anything that is not provable (at least to your satisfaction) as being untrue.  I would argue that this is a fairly immature perspective, not least because there are certainly areas of science which are, as yet, unproven.  In the first place, what I may consider satisfactory proof, may be totally unsatisfactory to you, either in matters scientific or in areas of personal conviction.

For those who are religious, it comes down to faith.  Regardless of what their personal religious convictions are.  Besides, our country has a long and deliberate history of religious tolerance, if for no other reason than the well-known fact that selective intolerance never remains selective for very long.  It is a far better society which admits all religious adherents, all points of view and beliefs, and all the kooks, so long as all of them agree to remain “tolerant” of each other.

Bat One on September 27, 2006 at 05:47 am

Robert108:

This is getting interesting, notwithstanding the aspersions on my character and thinking.  You exhibit more intolerance than usual for disagreement.

What are you talking about?

All I said was your personal prejudices are showing through.  I think that is clearly a factual characterization of this, which I obviously regard as nonsense:

Science used to be the study of God and the seeking of spiritual truth through understanding the unknown.  The weakness and errors of what passes for “science” in the present time are attributable to its abandonment of God and it’s commitment to atheism.

It 1) never was the study of God and the seeking of spiritual truth, 2) therefore it could not have abandoned God, 3) where did that come with respect to “commitment to atheism”????  How is “3” anything but a prejudice:

prejudice (n): a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience.

Sounds like an accurate characterization of your position here.

You accused me of circular reasoning… that didn’t hurt my feelings & I didn’t take it as a personal attack.  Why so thin skinned?

Carrick on September 27, 2006 at 06:12 am
Avatar for HG

Carrick,

Materialism is a philosophical “theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions”.

Science, by definition, limits itself to the material that can be observed, measured and verified. This Definition of science is a restatement of the premise of Materialism without first proving the premise.  Thus, circular reasoning.

HG on September 27, 2006 at 06:28 am
Avatar for Dave

In the first place, what I may consider satisfactory proof, may be totally unsatisfactory to you, either in matters scientific or in areas of personal conviction.

The vast majority of Christians don’t want proof; they have faith. I don’t mind people who reach a different conclusion from me on a subject, or those who believe that there is sufficient proof for something when I think there is not. I am bothered by people who don’t care about the veracity of the things they believe, who think Reason is a filthy whore designed to corrupt their faith. Because once you’ve thrown reason out the window—once you’ve decided that it’s a virtue to believe in things with absolutely no evidence—anything is possible. The Assumption of Mary is a perfect illustration of this; one day the Pope decided that the story was true, and everyone decided that he was right. Did he have any proof that it happened? No—but that didn’t stop millions of Catholics from agreeing with him, agreeing with him that the Virgin Mary “was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”

They had no reason to believe this. As I said before, if Pius had decided there was no “assumption,” the Catholics all still would have believed him. Do you not see how dangerous this is? When you throw Reason out the window, any belief is possible.

Dave on September 27, 2006 at 06:34 am
Avatar for HG

Science cannot disover who God is.  However, Science can discover design.

HG on September 27, 2006 at 06:36 am
Page 1 of 2         1 2 >

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

If you want to ignore a fellow commenter, download this.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.