Christian Prison

[Sir Rhetor]

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/ ... rison.html
http://www.drudge.com/news/127323/oklah ... ian-prison

So apparently Christians saved up enough money to build their very own prison. This prison will hire only Christians, which is certainly against the law. Another important piece of information is that it is not a maximum security prison, and it will only be for prisoners at the end of their sentence.

The prison is obviously set up to be primed for proselytizers, who will share the Bible with the criminals.

Is this a good idea, or is it discriminatory, disastrous, and ironic?

[East of Eden]

What is good or bad anything is a matter of opinion, not debate.

Earlier you said

Not to worry, I'm sure they won't be learning bad Christian theology.

Being that good and bad, by your own admission, is a matter of opinion, how could you possibly assure that they won't be learning "bad" theology? Since when do christians all share the same opinion on what's "good" theology and what's "bad" theology?

Joey was apparently afraid they would teach them to stone people, to which I replied they wouldn't be teaching bad Christian theology, i.e. stoning people.

Can we agree that stoning people would be bad Christian theology?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 49:

You and Joey have already gotten my answer to what was an inane question to begin with. What is good or bad anything is a matter of opinion, not debate. The answer I gave would certainly be accepted by most Christians I know. There's a difference between not getting an answer and not getting an answer you like. If this silly psuedo-'gotcha' thread is the best your side can manufacture, it says a lot.

Exactly, good and bad depend on one's opinion.

Now I ask, how can we know Jesus' opinion is an accurate reflection of the wants or wishes of God?
---------------------
From Post 51:

Joey was apparently afraid they would teach them to stone people, to which I replied they wouldn't be teaching bad Christian theology, i.e. stoning people.

Actually, I explained to East of Eden that I was using that term as a metaphor for any actions a Christian might entertain.

I 'pologize for phrasing this in a manner that would allow someone to disregard the intent of the question, and to instead key in on the phrasing, rather than the intent of the question.

I asked how we might determine what is a "good" or "bad" theology, and how can we know folks who harm others in their God's name aren't right to do so. If one's god says to harm another, how can we tell this god doesn't actually want this harm? How do we know Jesus has the correct theology?

When challenged on this, All East of Eden has done is to continually duck, dodge, dance, and weave around the question:

Who determines "good" or "bad" theology as it relates to this Christian prison?

Is it the theology of Fred Phelps? Or the theology of some other person?

In case folks hadn't noticed, folks don't go to prison for being good. Once there they are exposed to some extreme ideologies, and my fear is these notions may find support in various passages within the Bible. Either the Bible will be considered literally, which has its own problems, or it will be open to interpretation. It is this interpretation that concerns me most, because folks can find support for just about any notion in the Bible.

We are told this God hates certain folks - homosexuals, fornicators, and various others, and my concern is these already troubled individuals are going to be exposed to this God's hatred, and they will act on that hatred.

Can we agree that stoning people would be bad Christian theology?

No.

I have no way to confirm the Bible is an accurate representation of the wants or wishes of its proposed God.

Can East of Eden confirm the Bible is an accurate representation of the wants or wishes of its proposed God?

[East of Eden]

Exactly, good and bad depend on one's opinion.

Now I ask, how can we know Jesus' opinion is an accurate reflection of the wants or wishes of God?

I believe Jesus to be God, if you're asking me if this can be proved on the internet, the answer is no. Just as you can't prove your position.

Actually, I explained to East of Eden that I was using that term as a metaphor for any actions a Christian might entertain.

So why should I be asked to respond to your definition request as it relates to a metaphor?

I 'pologize for phrasing this in a manner that would allow someone to disregard the intent of the question, and to instead key in on the phrasing, rather than the intent of the question.

I asked how we might determine what is a "good" or "bad" theology, and how can we know folks who harm others in their God's name aren't right to do so. If one's god says to harm another, how can we tell this god doesn't actually want this harm? How do we know Jesus has the correct theology?

When challenged on this, All East of Eden has done is to continually duck, dodge, dance, and weave around the question:

Another whopper. You're morphing this thread from prisons to asking someone on the internet to prove that Jesus is Lord.

Who determines "good" or "bad" theology as it relates to this Christian prison?

How about we agree that stoning someone is bad theology? Nobody is doing it anyway, at least among us infidels.

In case folks hadn't noticed, folks don't go to prison for being good. Once there they are exposed to some extreme ideologies, and my fear is these notions may find support in various passages within the Bible. Either the Bible will be considered literally, which has its own problems,

Why, they might start loving their neighbor?

or it will be open to interpretation. It is this interpretation that concerns me most, because folks can find support for just about any notion in the Bible.

Your exagerated fears are once again groundless - the results of the program are dramatically less reincarceration, not whatever keeps you awake at night.

We are told this God hates certain folks - homosexuals, fornicators, and various others, and my concern is these already troubled individuals are going to be exposed to this God's hatred, and they will act on that hatred.

I doubt if they'll be learning your caricature of Christianity.

[JBlack]

What is good or bad anything is a matter of opinion, not debate.

Earlier you said

Not to worry, I'm sure they won't be learning bad Christian theology.

Being that good and bad, by your own admission, is a matter of opinion, how could you possibly assure that they won't be learning "bad" theology? Since when do christians all share the same opinion on what's "good" theology and what's "bad" theology?

Joey was apparently afraid they would teach them to stone people, to which I replied they wouldn't be teaching bad Christian theology, i.e. stoning people.

Can we agree that stoning people would be bad Christian theology?

So in other words, you didn't really mean to say that you're sure they won't be learning bad theology, you just meant to say that you're sure nobody is going to tell them to stone people. Is that correct?

If not, then I have to ask the same question joey asked. Who's version of "good" theology will these prisoners be learning? I highly doubt that you can assure they're be learning theology that every christian agrees is good.

Maybe no one is going to tell them to literally go stoning people, but will they, for example, be learning to hate gays "with good Christian love"?

[East of Eden]

So in other words, you didn't really mean to say that you're sure they won't be learning bad theology, you just meant to say that you're sure nobody is going to tell them to stone people. Is that correct?

If not, then I have to ask the same question joey asked. Who's version of "good" theology will these prisoners be learning? I highly doubt that you can assure they're be learning theology that every christian agrees is good.

Nice strawman with the inserted 'every Christian' bit. BTW, Christian is normally capitalized.

Maybe no one is going to tell them to literally go stoning people, but will they, for example, be learning to hate gays "with good Christian love"?

Since you're the one wondering, why don't you find out? Not that I object to it, but I doubt they cover what God's opinion on sodomy is, or as you wierdly put it, 'hate'.

I'm much more concerned about the inmates that don't take the class, as you should be.

[JBlack]

Nice strawman with the inserted 'every Christian' bit.

Nice how you didn't even bother to address the question.

BTW, Christian is normally capitalized.

I know it is. It was a typo.

Not that I object to it, but I doubt they cover what God's opinion on sodomy is, or as you wierdly put it, 'hate'.

Your God doesn't hate homosexuality?

I'm much more concerned about the inmates that don't take the class, as you should be.

Someone who doesn't believe in the bible should be more concerned about people not taking bible class?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 53:

Now I ask, how can we know Jesus' opinion is an accurate reflection of the wants or wishes of God?

I believe Jesus to be God, if you're asking me if this can be proved on the internet, the answer is no. Just as you can't prove your position.

So you can't admit Jesus' is the accurate take on God's wants or wishes, or that you can't show Jesus is God.

Either way we're still left wondering who has the good theology.

Who determines what is good (or bad) theology?

Actually, I explained to East of Eden that I was using that term as a metaphor for any actions a Christian might entertain.

So why should I be asked to respond to your definition request as it relates to a metaphor?

Whether you respond or not is up to you. I merely pointed out that I was using the stoning reference to refer to all actions, and how can we tell whether the proposed god wants us to act in a given fashion.

Another whopper. You're morphing this thread from prisons to asking someone on the internet to prove that Jesus is Lord.

Actually, I'm trying to get you to answer one question:

How can we tell who has the good (or bad) theology?

I don't 'preciate the implication I'm a liar.

If I'm wrong about something tell me, and I'll adjust accordingly.

Who determines "good" or "bad" theology as it relates to this Christian prison?

How about we agree that stoning someone is bad theology? Nobody is doing it anyway, at least among us infidels.

Again, I 'pologize to the observer for my original phrasing. It's obvious East of Eden prefers to address stoning, rather than the real question, and I take the blame.

Who determines what is good (or bad) theology?

I can't agree to stoning being good, bad or indifferent theology. I have no way to know the wants or wishes of the proposed god.

In case folks hadn't noticed, folks don't go to prison for being good. Once there they are exposed to some extreme ideologies, and my fear is these notions may find support in various passages within the Bible. Either the Bible will be considered literally, which has its own problems,

Why, they might start loving their neighbor?

A clear example of the tortured reasoning involved in religious belief.

My point is the Bible contains passages that can be seen to support hateful notions, so...

How can we determine what is good (or bad) theology?

or it will be open to interpretation. It is this interpretation that concerns me most, because folks can find support for just about any notion in the Bible.

Your exagerated fears are once again groundless - the results of the program are dramatically less reincarceration, not whatever keeps you awake at night.

There are no results for a program that has yet to be implemented.

Who determines what is good (or bad) theology?

We are told this God hates certain folks - homosexuals, fornicators, and various others, and my concern is these already troubled individuals are going to be exposed to this God's hatred, and they will act on that hatred.

I doubt if they'll be learning your caricature of Christianity.

Do you deny the Bible contains these passages?

Do you deny the likes of Fred Phelps embrace this theology?

Who determines what is good (or bad) theology?

My point in all this is that regardless of what is ultimately taught, there are passages in the Bible that can indicate the proposed God hates certain folks. Then we've got folks who'll be taught these are the actual words or intent of God. They will be told to act on "what God puts in your heart" or some such similar language. We have the potential to have folks being 'rehabilitated' who could very well find justification for violence or hatred within the very book their learning 'rehabilitated' by.

Who can confirm they know the wants or wishes of God?

[East of Eden]

Nice how you didn't even bother to address the question.

If you're asking if I'm sure they won't tell them to stone people, yes I'm sure of that. Would you like to put money on it?

It was a typo.

OK, I've seen some on your side do it intentionally to make some kind of point.

Your God doesn't hate homosexuality?

He loves those with same-sex feelings, but hates the sin of homosexual activity, just as He hates heterosexual sin and whatever sin you and I commit.

Someone who doesn't believe in the bible should be more concerned about people not taking bible class?

Given the demonstrated positive results for the rest of society for the class-takers, yes. I doubt if even non-Christians fear someone walking behind them who is coming home from a Bible study.

[East of Eden]

So you can't admit Jesus' is the accurate take on God's wants or wishes, or that you can't show Jesus is God.

To the satisfaction of someone who has already chosen to reject God, no.

I don't 'preciate the implication I'm a liar.

By implying I haven't already answered your question, you are.

There are no results for a program that has yet to be implemented.

There are positive results for similar programs.

Do you deny the Bible contains these passages?

I deny they are applicable to Christians. If you want to discuss bronze-age Israelites, start another thread.

Do you deny the likes of Fred Phelps embrace this theology?

I know very little about Fred Phelps, but I'll take your word for it. You don't judge a philosphy by its misuse. If you're pulling another whopper and trying to make him representative of Christianity, can I use Stalin as the poster boy for your side?

Who determines what is good (or bad) theology?

Joey, I am answering this for the last time. You are asking me, and my answer was and is theology that follows the word and deed of Jesus. Again, it is an inane question to begin with as what is considered good or bad about anything is a matter of opinion, not debate.

If you want to have a discussion on politics and religion, fine. If you want to have an irrational pissing match, count me out.

My point in all this is that regardless of what is ultimately taught, there are passages in the Bible that can indicate the proposed God hates certain folks. Then we've got folks who'll be taught these are the actual words or intent of God. They will be told to act on "what God puts in your heart" or some such similar language. We have the potential to have folks being 'rehabilitated' who could very well find justification for violence or hatred within the very book their learning 'rehabilitated' by.

On the one hand we have positive results from similar programs. On the other hand he have projected negative happenings from an atheist with an axe to grind. If they ever do happen in real life instead of inside your head, get back to me.

[JBlack]

Nice how you didn't even bother to address the question.

If you're asking if I'm sure they won't tell them to stone people, yes I'm sure of that. Would you like to put money on it?

No, that wasn't the question.

Your God doesn't hate homosexuality?

He loves those with same-sex feelings, but hates the sin of homosexual activity, just as He hates heterosexual sin and whatever sin you and I commit.

This belief that God hates homosexual activity leads to sad and dangerous things in the minds of the wrong people.

Someone who doesn't believe in the bible should be more concerned about people not taking bible class?

Given the demonstrated positive results for the rest of society for the class-takers, yes.

Correlation doesn't prove causation.

I doubt if even non-Christians fear someone walking behind them who is coming home from a Bible study.

Please. The idea that anyone who commits a violent crime must not be a true Christian is bogus.