Jesus Camp

[Nidogod]

Only if you expand your definition of "justifiable" to include allowing parents and church members to inflict brainwashing and emotional trauma on small children, and since we live in a society where children are taken from their parents and put in social services for years because their parents with their doctor's support took their kids off ADD medication, I think it's safe to say it is entirely NOT justifiable and these people belong in some sort of rehab.

The kids didn't seem to traumatized though. Brainwashed, sure, but we're all brainwashed to whatever extent. I found that scene where the kid said he watched Harry Potter and the others looked at him like a psychopath funny.

Jesus was probably steeped in the idea that he was holy from birth, because after you tell such a ridiculous lie it is impossible to backtrack without looking like an idiot. So Jesus went and spoke to the masses, and taught them the way of peace and died for it.

Doesn't explain his waterbending powers though...

[Keke Le Cat]

Not if it happened as recorded, no. But what if it were very shallow water he walked on? Or what if by turning the water into wine he really just purchased more wine?

[RedCheetah]

Secondly, why is Jesus' death on the cross so ludicrous to you?

Mainly because I doubt the man existed to begin with. I've talked to people who have studied this thoroughly but the best answer they can give me is "absence of proof is not proof of absence". The atrocities done in his name are staggering, and with little to no proof of his actual existence there is no reason to keep claiming he lived and did the things attributed to him. To keep going on saying Jesus existed is to keep the door open to more of this:

http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/article...0Bloodshed.pdf

[God]

i think a jesus-like figure most likely did exist, of course considerably different from the image given to him, who preached the same general kind of stuff and maybe did some tricks that made people think he was magic. the burden of proof in debate, though, falls on the person arguing for the belief, so as far as debating goes, the 'jesus didnt exist' crowd likely wins.

[Mario The Black Knight]

Jesus, the man himself existed. There is pretty much no querstioning that. Historically, he was a real person. Just some aspects of his life were made to seem greater than they really were by followers and gospels and stuff like that.

[God]

there's plenty of questioning, for example: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

[Mario The Black Knight]

Well, that seems just a bit biased to me. I mean some of it makes sense, but it seems like it's trying hard to prove it's point. Like based on that logic, Ghengis Khan didn't exist either. His grave has never even been found, and I don't remember seeing much written by him, being as that he was a tribal leader. Most of his records were written after his death too, but no one really questions his existance

And who started the religion if not Jesus? I mean what about the apostles, are they all fake too? And what about all the followers that all beileved in his religon during his lifetime? I'm sure the hype of the religon spread between illiterate peasents much quicker than it did with the gospels and all that. It just makes sense that he did exist in some capacity. Not exactly as the bible and all that protray him, but as a person he must have existed. Like with 2 human parents and no miracles, just some guy who came up with an alternative religious beilef system other than being Jewish

[The Lacemaker]

I've always looked at a large proportion of Christianity as more theoretical, fabricated than literal to illustrate the omnipotent power and influence of God. That's why I can't take the Creation Story seriously, seeing as the first book of the Bible, Genesis, was supposedly written by Moses who transcribed the word of God. And while it takes on the perspective of eyewitness accounts, no one was alive at the time of the birth of the world, no one can say they had a friend called Lord whom they saw build the earth. If anything, back then, whenever it was, those millenniums ago while it is said Moses was leading thems people to the Chosen Land and all, I'm sure the understanding we have now of the creation and development of the world outweighs the knowledge and understanding they had back then, and yet people still claim some guy who had God speak to him had more understanding than the evidence we have today.
The Creation Story serves as an illustration of God's power for the religion and no one should take it seriously.

But enough about that. Now as for the existence of Jesus, it's my idea that this is the same case. Jesus is supposedly the Son of God, with miraculous powers to heal and died for the sins of man. It's all quite fine and dandy, the morals such as hanging out with the underdogs, repenting sins and preaching and giving salvation to the dying race of man, but the existence of such man just doesn't seem right. Like said, all accounts of Jesus are hearsay. We so no evidence today of the existence of the man, no trace of him and all these great deeds he has said to have done, healing lepers and all, they come only from another's pen. And it seems as though these scriptures have snowballed through time, building followers and faith to become the widespread organised religion it is today where it eventually became truth for them. Although existence or not, I believe I can safely say that his socalled powers he possesses are easily challengable.

Another point I have to make is that the Bible isn't some sort of evil, traumatising influence, after all, if we look at the amazingly, unimaginably widespread influence it has had on our history, our culture, the entire world, you can't necessarily say it's bad. If we look at European art, particularly during the Renaissance, without Christianity we wouldn't have the Sistine Chapel and its brilliant art. And the Bible has a few good morals in there, with Moses it's advocating anti-slavery, while even in the last few centuries we have seen such heinous acts as the African Slave Trade while we proclaim ourselves to be civilised and above that time. Don't kill, that's pretty important. Love thy neighbour, well it has a message. Christianity was and is an amazingly large part of our soceity and I wouldn't call it a traumatising influence.

[The Lacemaker]

Jesus Christ wasn't really out to create a new religion, he's said to have been a Jew but being the Son of God, his dad told him to correct the things wrong with Judaism, as in things like Jews being the Chosen People to be in the Covenant with God, and people ailed with sicknesses, such as being born blind, were smiten by God for being a sinner, but he comes in there going all like 'God loves everyone, the sick, the poor, men and women'. The ones who accounted his travels, what with the New Testament, seperated for Jewish beliefs in the old scriptures and Old Testament, that's what started a second religion.

[Bluebabe kitten]

I wanted to share this with the member sof PD. Post your options.

Jesus Camp 1of 9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD2Hyiitpys

Is this lady serious? I can't believe she's teaching these kids this stuff.

[The Editor]

I still can't quite understand the choice of the word "ludicrous". What's ludicrous about death? Death isn't funny. And just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you laugh it. I demand a retraction, because you are showing atheists (and agnostics, come to think of it) in an undeservedly poor light.

[RangerGirl]

I'm not judging by a very narrow view. The Bible calms God has done many things, which are, concerned Godly. Rising up from the died, turning water into wine or however it goes. If God doesn’t guarantee happiness, why do they pray for it? You say I’m Judging by a narrow point of view but its all in the bible. Why place my faith in a Mass Murder and a Judgmental God. Why would anyone.

God promises trials, with the strength available to get through them, to those who follow Him; if they're praying for happiness, they're not praying for something Biblical.

I still can't quite understand the choice of the word "ludicrous". What's ludicrous about death? Death isn't funny. And just because you don't believe something doesn't mean you laugh it. I demand a retraction, because you are showing atheists (and agnostics, come to think of it) in an undeservedly poor light.

"ludicrous [loo-di-kruhs]
–adjective
causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable: a ludicrous lack of efficiency."

I refuse a retraction. I merely imply that atheists and agnostics seemingly find it ridiculous.

[Hero]

God promises trials, with the strength available to get through them, to those who follow Him; if they're praying for happiness, they're not praying for something Biblical.

In present Day very few stick too the Biblical way.

[RedCheetah]

One of the biggest problems I have is people comparing the evidence for Jesus to that of say, Leonidis or Alexander the Great or any other famous ancient man. The difference is huge. Leonidis didn't have a politically powered church holding him as a deity for centuries. Alexander wasn't claimed to have had god like powers and wasn't used as an icon for two faced propaganda. There was no massive cult driving to historize these figures and exaggerate their deeds. There also wasn't anyone trying to cover trails that they might not have existed.