Christian neofascism

[cucamelsmd15]

Originally Posted by Krackels

You have good points and the only thing I can say is that the burden of whether these kids are being taught sound doctrine or not fall completely on the shoulders of their parents and guardians.

As to the cardboard cutout of President Bush, well I have to agree it doesn't belong in a place of worship.

The church I used to go to would lick the dirt off of the boots of Bush. I dont go to that church anymore. If you were voting anything but a straight Republican ticket, you were Satan in the flesh, but they would spout off the next sentence about corruption...

[rimfire]

Originally Posted by crushert

"Christian neofascism?" Please. Everything under the sun these days gets classified as "fascist" that someone doesn't like. By definition, fascism is:
....
While I am not a charismatic Christian, classifying this as "Christian neofascism" is grossly inaccurate.

If interested in a more balanced view of the film, you can read an interview with the film's directors:
On Fire at Jesus Camp

Well there is some disagreement on the term - although maybe neofacism is not correct and fundamentalist would have been better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofascism_and_religion
"Although the assertion that religious fundamentalists and militants are "fascists" can often be understood as a hyperbolic political attack that uses the term "fascism" as a political epithet or slur, there are also some scholars who have used the term in discussing certain religious movements."

"Christian fascism" or "Christofascism" is a term used primarily on the political left, as well as by some libertarians, to describe what they see as an emerging proto-fascism and to warn that action is needed to stop the possible emergence of a theocratic society on the road to fascism.

...Calling some portion of the Christian Right "Fascist" has become an increasingly popular tendency in the political Left, including the Christian Left.

As far as the interview being more "balanced" I would say it is "more balanced" from the christian viewpoint and the truth probably lies somewhere in between the interview and the ABC story. This film will be viewed by many non-christians that will see this as extreme, like Wahabism in Saudi Arabia (which is not considered militant), and maybe even consider it threatening considering some statements made.

It is fanatical belief in ones cause or religion that breeds militants and terrorists and the first step is indoctrinating the children.

[einheit 13]

Originally Posted by billwing

I don't think you can say that. Say you have five people in a room who all believe that they are the oldest person in the group. Maybe they all appear to be about the same age.
The fact that they all think that they are the oldest person doesn't mean that they are all wrong. One of them is right.

Say you have Zues, 'God', Allah, and Odin in the same room......which one is older, which one is right??

[Krackels]

Originally Posted by boater1217

Fanaticalism on one side always begets a fanatical reaction on the opposite. Look at Northern Ireland. Look at our own Civil War. Compromise is difficult when neither extreme is willing to move. It is the us againist them mentality.

If that's considered fanaticism then we've already seen the fanaticism on the other side. Gay Pride marches, liberals burning guns because we can't be trusted with our own freedom, and people that think that creation science is nothing more than an attempt to get Christ into schools.

I'll have to go on the record with Newkid and say that I don't think there is anything wrong with children that receive Christ at a young age and want to be devout. I also believe that the bible speaks truth to all of life. It's a Christian's manual, guidebook, and the living everlasting word of God. I do also believe that Homosexuality is a sin, evolution is nothing but a farce created and perpetuated by fools, and abortion is wrong except in the rare occasion that childbirth will kill the mother.

It's not that all Christians are expected to be Republicans, but my experience has shown that Republicans represent what most evangelical Christians support. I'd vote democrat if they actually represented the majority of the people, or any other party providing there was a good chance to win. Heck I voted for Toomy instead of Senator Spector in the last election because he believed in what I stood for.

[jkswiss]

You guys ever watch the Colbert Report?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N4DJznVkFfU

Creationism vs. Evolution.

Ken puts it very eloquently.

[beardman2]

Religion is a touchy topic. My personal belief is that all religions are generally created to explain the same otherworldy force. so technically they are all correct. I also believe the natural state of any human is to live in peace. So any religion that pushes the opposit is a bit screwy. General a few peoples way of keeping the power they have.

You can fear for the children but the truth is there is someone of another faith that is peacefull that would look at your children and could call them "brainwashed".

as always "IMHO" religion = humans explination for the unexplainable. Using that belief to promote death, war, oppression, hate etc etc is a function of someone trying to hold on to or gain more power and has nothing to do with the religious world.

There are a whole lot of people who would hate me for saying most peaceful religions are essentially the same thing. Oh well I've been hated for much less I guess.

I see the ultimate expression of religion as helping others. I personally have no problem with missionaries going to africa etc etc as long as its done with love and no one is forced to change or looked at with disdain if they don't.

Again IMHO you can easily respect a budist or muslim even if you don't share the same religion.

Maybe I'm just a little too hippy on this subject though.

[billwing]

Originally Posted by einheit 13

Say you have Zues, 'God', Allah, and Odin in the same room......which one is older, which one is right??

My post meant to show, perhaps poorly, that you can't say that everyone in a group must be wrong merely because they all think they are right. They could all be wrong, true. But there is the possibility that one may be right.

[Krackels]

Originally Posted by jkswiss

You guys ever watch the Colbert Report?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N4DJznVkFfU

Creationism vs. Evolution.

Ken puts it very eloquently.

Neither does a good job really convincing anybody. Although I have to admit that what Ken says at the end is very telling, "I don't reject that for scientific reasons, I reject it for theological ones. Which is I don't choose to believe in a deceptive Creator." This is almost a circular problem existing from throwing out the Genesis record of creation. We try to find our own way to explain the How of everything ignoring the bible and as a result people decide, "Well some of the bible's better than none", so they throw out the Genesis record of creation. I believe that's where his theological problem arises. There can be no death happening millions of years ago because we know through the geneological record of the bible that the earth is at most 40,000 years old. And death wasn't always in existence. Death came about as a consequence when sin entered the world through Adam. So because we've sought to find our own way to explain it, some have thrown out the Genesis account taking the Jefferson approach to the bible, but as a result of throwing out the Genesis account people never hear about the creation. It's a circular problem.

As to the fossil record. Well there are too many flaws in traditional evolutionary thought to go into it here. But I will say that any fool knows that soil erodes if not protected by roots and such. So I could show you a stream bank that was eroded until the banks were 20 feet high and you might say that this stream is pretty old, but the same erosion we are both looking at could be done with a massive amount of water over a short amount of time.

As to the 'deceptive God' remark that Ken made. You see the same argument with people trying to come to terms with distant starlight and people that argue, "Well maybe God created the light in transit." (I know i was one of those before I knew any better.) Therefore we can in essense see stuff that never truly existed; it's deceptive. It's much more rational to understand that the speed of light can't be seen as a constant as we've seen it affected by gravitational forces.

ETA: it's not very coherent, but I haven't had my coffee yet.

[beardman2]

I've always felt that one didn't have to disproove the other. But then I guess you have to not take the bible as 100% fact.

[Krackels]

Originally Posted by beardman2

I've always felt that one didn't have to disproove the other. But then I guess you have to not take the bible as 100% fact.

I believe that Creation science and evolution are diametrically opposed to each other. After all one teaches death came about as the result of sin and the other teaches death always existed, and is in fact necessary for advancement (so in the case of theistic evolution death was part of God's original design-big theological issues there).