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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 59:

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 choose my beliefs, I'm compelled by the evidence, or in this case the lack of evidence. I'm ready, willing, and able to change my position given sufficient evidence.

>snip irrelevant point<

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

There are positive results for similar programs.

As McCulloch pointed out, this doesn't really support much. We don't know if those who are less likely to reoffend are more likely to enter such programs. We also have the issue of using public funds to support a religious institution that will be allowed to discriminate based on one's religious beliefs.

Do you deny the Bible contains these [hate supporting] passages?

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

Fred Phelps disagrees with you.

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?

Fred Phelps finds support for his theology in the Bible.

Who's theology is correct here, and how do we know?

I'm not advocating an all atheist prison program. I'm not advocating that only atheists may work at a prison, or that only atheists be admitted, or that we should use public funds if we did, so Stalin wouldn't apply.

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.

I think I finally get it. We must look to the words of Jesus...

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

I understand the idea that Jesus represents the Christian take. That I get. But then I come back to the likes of Fred Phelps, and his theology regarding Jesus' words. Who's right?

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

How can we know Fred Phelps' theology is "irrational"?

I understand that East of Eden reads Jesus' words and likely takes from those words that we should all love one another (within reason), we should all try to help one another, and we should all strive to just be good folks in general. I would even agree that East of Eden's take is correct. This still doesn't address how other folks would apply their own take to other passages, such as the one I reference above.

I'm not trying to say that all, most, many, or the majority of Christians take a more hateful stance, just pointing out that a hateful stance can be supported - rightly or wrongly.

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.

Do you deny that some self professed Christians have killed their children to speed them on to Heaven?

Do you deny that some self professed Christians have bombed abortion clinics or killed abortion doctors?

My point again is that these folks found support - right or wrong - for their notions in a book that is wide open to interpretation. How can we know those folks' aren't accurately representing the wants and wishes of God or Jesus?

I'm not trying to just point to the bad apples, there's plenty, plenty, more than plenty good, fine, right, honorable folks who follow the Christian religion. They far outnumber the bad apples. My point is this prison is dealing with bad apples from the get-go, and there's the potential for some to find support for their wrong notions. Of course we can say they're not true Christians, on that I can even agree (given my limited understanding of Jesus' principles). I'm trying to point out that the Bible is so open to interpretation, and we're giving these already bad apples access and tacit or overt support (at public expense no less).

What we have is an establishment that is discriminatory
1- Only those with certain beliefs allowed to work.
2- Only those with certain beliefs allowed to attend.
3- Preferential consideration for release based on one's religious beliefs (no Muslim, Jewish, etc. program of equal scale).

We are sending already bad apples into an institution that is at its core discriminatory. They will be learning a philosophy / theology that some folks and their otherwise harmless (even legal) acts are abominations to God, and there's not a problem with this?

(edit for clarity)

[East of Eden]

No, that wasn't the question.

Then if you want an answer, ask your question for pete's sake.

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

Correlation doesn't prove causation.

That would invalidate this statement you just made: "This belief that God hates homosexual activity leads to sad and dangerous things in the minds of the wrong people."

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

So what teachings of Christ are they following?

[East of Eden]

I don't choose my beliefs, I'm compelled by the evidence, or in this case the lack of evidence. I'm ready, willing, and able to change my position given sufficient evidence.

The same goes for me.

Fred Phelps finds support for his theology in the Bible.

And John Hinckley shot President Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. So what?

Who's theology is correct here, and how do we know?

If you're asking me personally, Scripture, tradition and reason are pretty good yardsticks. Fred flunks all three.

I'm not advocating an all atheist prison program. I'm not advocating that only atheists may work at a prison, or that only atheists be admitted, or that we should use public funds if we did, so Stalin wouldn't apply.

I was pointing out that because the atheist Stalin was, it doesn't connect you all with him. Just as Fred has nothing to do with the rest of Christendom.

I think I finally get it. We must look to the words of Jesus...

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Excuse me, but don't you think these words were just made up by his followers as part of the grand conspiracy?

You are taking out of context this passage either willfully or out of ignorance. The inevitable result of Christ's coming is conflict - between Christ and the antichrist, between light and darkness, between Christ's children and the devil's children, between family members, and between me and you.

Do you know any Christians who are killing people because of this passage?

I understand that East of Eden reads Jesus' words and likely takes from those words that we should all love one another (within reason), we should all try to help one another, and we should all strive to just be good folks in general. I would even agree that East of Eden's take is correct. This still doesn't address how other folks would apply their own take to other passages, such as the one I reference above.

I'm not trying to say that all, most, many, or the majority of Christians take a more hateful stance, just pointing out that a hateful stance can be supported - rightly or wrongly.

By that reasoning we should shut down our whole education system as someone could misinterpret something and act violently. Why, someone could learn evolution and decide to exterminate the lesser races. Oh wait, that's been tried.

What we have is an establishment that is discriminatory
1- Only those with certain beliefs allowed to work.
2- Only those with certain beliefs allowed to attend.
3- Preferential consideration for release based on one's religious beliefs (no Muslim, Jewish, etc. program of equal scale).

While there is no establishment of religion going on, it probably would be a better idea to have these programs run through normal prisons and be completely voluntary. There are far more scary things prisoners are exposed to than the teachings of Jesus.

We are sending already bad apples into an institution that is at its core discriminatory. They will be learning a philosophy / theology that some folks and their otherwise harmless (even legal) acts are abominations to God, and there's not a problem with this?

Male gay sex is far from harmless, and shortens one's lifespan about as much as smoking cigarettes does. It's almost as if God knew what He was talking about. Often when God says, 'Thou shalt not', what He really means is, Don't hurt yourself.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 63:

Fred Phelps finds support for his theology in the Bible.

And John Hinckley shot President Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. So what?

Do you really not understand my point?

Fred Phelps uses the Bible to support his hatred. I really think you don't wish to address the difficult notion that folks can find support for their hatred in the Bible. That is fact, and continually trying to dodge the implications of that fact does little to support the notion of a Christian prison, using public funds as a facilitor.

Who's theology is correct here, and how do we know?

If you're asking me personally, Scripture, tradition and reason are pretty good yardsticks. Fred flunks all three.

He says you flunk. Who's right?

My point is that folks can, will, and have pointed to biblical notions to support their hatred, their violent acts, and their oppression of others. We should not use public funds to support a prison that is going to give credence to such - again, right or wrong.

I'm not advocating an all atheist prison program. I'm not advocating that only atheists may work at a prison, or that only atheists be admitted, or that we should use public funds if we did, so Stalin wouldn't apply.

I was pointing out that because the atheist Stalin was, it doesn't connect you all with him. Just as Fred has nothing to do with the rest of Christendom.

This doesn't address my point that some self-professed Christians find support for hatred, violence, and oppression in the Bible.

As an atheist I am connected to Stalin on at least that point alone. But as I said, I'm not advocating we create a prison full of the discrimination I outline later in that post.

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Excuse me, but don't you think these words were just made up by his followers as part of the grand conspiracy?

They're in the Bible. If I consider the Bible is correct, I must consider Jesus said this.

You are taking out of context this passage either willfully or out of ignorance. The inevitable result of Christ's coming is conflict - between Christ and the antichrist, between light and darkness, between Christ's children and the devil's children, between family members, and between me and you.

You make my point well...

Conflict.

I've been accused of being the antichrist simply because I reject god belief. I've been on the wrong end of beatings because some thought me Satan come to earth.

Do you know any Christians who are killing people because of this passage?

No. However, to deny that folks don't kill others due to their understanding of the Bible is to deny reality.

By that reasoning we should shut down our whole education system as someone could misinterpret something and act violently. Why, someone could learn evolution and decide to exterminate the lesser races. Oh wait, that's been tried.

Not at all.

Education based on fact is a good thing. Hitler used religion as well as scientific notions, so that's kinda offsetting penalties for both of us.

What we have is an establishment that is discriminatory
1- Only those with certain beliefs allowed to work.
2- Only those with certain beliefs allowed to attend.
3- Preferential consideration for release based on one's religious beliefs (no Muslim, Jewish, etc. program of equal scale).

While there is no establishment of religion going on...

Christian prison. Yours is a fine example of the convoluted logic one must employ to maintain religious faith.

While there is no establishment of religion going on, it probably would be a better idea to have these programs run through normal prisons and be completely voluntary. There are far more scary things prisoners are exposed to than the teachings of Jesus.

Thank you for admitting this program should be run under normal prison systems. I also agree that there are worse problems than religion involved.

We are asking the public to fund a religious organization (Christian prison), based on an ideology that incites many to hatred or discrimination. Beyond that, we're funding a prison that by its very mission discriminates, and by extension teaches that discrimination to those it seeks to rehabilitate. That no other perspectives will be considered for employment shows that this particular program is promoting a hatred of sorts, in that it will refuse to allow anyone but it's "God selected" staff.

Male gay sex is far from harmless, and shortens one's lifespan about as much as smoking cigarettes does.

Please cite your stats for this claim.

It's almost as if God knew what He was talking about. Often when God says, 'Thou shalt not', what He really means is, Don't hurt yourself.

Can you show this is correct (good) theology?

What evidence do we have that a god has spoken to anyone?

How can we know the Bible is an accurate reflection of the wants or wishes of God, and therefore "good" theology?

[East of Eden]

Do you really not understand my point?

Fred Phelps uses the Bible to support his hatred. I really think you don't wish to address the difficult notion that folks can find support for their hatred in the Bible. That is fact, and continually trying to dodge the implications of that fact does little to support the notion of a Christian prison, using public funds as a facilitor.

Do you not understand MY point? By your reasoning the prison shouldn't show any Jodie Foster movies because of John Hinckley's actions.

He says you flunk. Who's right?

Me.

My point is that folks can, will, and have pointed to biblical notions to support their hatred, their violent acts, and their oppression of others. We should not use public funds to support a prison that is going to give credence to such - again, right or wrong.

You keep implying it is more likely these Bible studies are more likely to produce a Fred Phelps while ignoring the evidence for changed lives. Only a bigot would say new Freds are more likely than someone with a positively changed life. Do you really think your bogeyman Fred offsets the good work done by say, World Vision? This is just one Christian relief organization that serves 100,000,000 people in 100 countries, regardless of creed.

This doesn't address my point that some self-professed Christians find support for hatred, violence, and oppression in the Bible.

And self-professed atheistic Communists killed 100,000,000 the last 100 years. By your reasoning the government has a duty to suppress atheism.

I've been accused of being the antichrist simply because I reject god belief. I've been on the wrong end of beatings because some thought me Satan come to earth.

Because of your beliefs you've gotten verbal beatings? I know the feeling.

No. However, to deny that folks don't kill others due to their understanding of the Bible is to deny reality.

Back it up. Total up the good charitable works done by Christians compared to these 'Christian' killings.

Education based on fact is a good thing. Hitler used religion as well as scientific notions, so that's kinda offsetting penalties for both of us.

You might want to take a look at the following book. Darwinism isn't a sufficient causative factor to explain Nazism, but it is a neccessary one. Again, if we accept the premise of the book as the following distinguished reviewers do, then by your reasoning we should stop teaching evolution in schools.



FROM DARWIN TO HITLER:

EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY

by

Richard Weikart

From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany was released in 2004 (paperback edition in 2006) with Palgrave Macmillan in New York, a major publisher of historical scholarship.


Dustjacket blurb:

In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.

Richard Weikart is professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus. He has lived in Germany over five years, including one year on a Fulbright Fellowship. He has published two previous books, including Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein (1999), as well as articles in German Studies Review, Journal of the History of Ideas, Isis, European Legacy, and History of European Ideas. For more information, see his professional vita. For information about speaking engagements, please contact him via e-mail (click here).


Praise for From Darwin to Hitler:


"Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and 'racial hygiene'. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power." -- Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third Reich

"This is one of the finest examples of intellectual history I have seen in a long while. It is insightful, thoughtful, informative, and highly readable. Rather than simply connecting the dots, so to speak, the author provides a sophisticated and nuanced examination of numerous German thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who were influenced to one degree or another by Darwinist naturalism and their ideas, subtly drawing both distinctions and similarities and in the process telling a rich and colorful story." -- Ian Dowbiggin, Professor of History, University of Prince Edward Island and author of A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America

"This is an impressive piece of intellectual and cultural history--a well-researched, clearly presented argument with good, balanced, fair judgments. Weikart has a thorough knowledge of the relevant historiography in both German and English." -- Alfred Kelly, Edgar B. Graves Professor of History, Hamilton College, and author of The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914

"This is truly a well-crafted work of intellectual history, and one directly relevant to some of the most consequential ethical discussions of our present time. Christians and all people of good will would do well to ponder these arguments, recognizing how easily the best and brightest can commit the worst and darkest under the progressive banner of biological 'health and fitness.' The book should provoke much debate and discussion, not only among historians but among ethicists and scientists too." --Thomas Albert Howard, Associate Professor of History, Gordon College, author of Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University

"The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed. Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively explains." --Phillip Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance

"If you think moral issues like infanticide, assisted suicide, and tampering with human genes are new, read this book. It draws a clear and chilling picture of the way Darwinian naturalism led German thinkers to treat human life as raw materials to be manipulated in order to advance the course of evolution. The ethics of Hitler's Germany were not reactionary; they were very much 'cutting edge' and in line with the scientific understanding of the day. Weikart's implicit warning is that as long as the same assumption of Darwinian naturalism reigns in educated circles in our own day, it may well lead to similar practices." --Nancy Pearcey, author of Total Truth and co-author of The Soul of Science and How Now Shall We Live

"Richard Weikart's masterful work offers a compelling case that the eugenics movement, and all the political and social consequences that have flowed from it, would have been unlikely if not for the cultural elite's enthusiastic embracing of the Darwinian account of life, morality, and social institutions. Professor Weikart reminds us, with careful scholarship and circumspect argument, that the truth uttered by Richard Weaver decades ago is indeed a fixed axiom of human institutions: 'ideas have consequences.'" --Francis J. Beckwith, Associate Director, J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, and Associate Professor of Church-State Studies, Baylor University

"Richard Weikart has provided bioethicists with an excellent resource in From Darwin to Hitler." --Center for Bioethics and Culture Newsletter

"Weikart has written a significant study because it raises key ethical questions in broad terms that have contemporary relevance. His historicization of the moral framework of evolutionary theory poses key issues for those in sociobiology and evolutionary pscyhology, not to mention bioethicists, who have recycled many of the suppositions that Weikart has traced." --H-Net review on H-Ideas

". . . Richard Weikart's excellent new book. In precise and careful detail Weikart narrates an indispensable chapter of cultural and intellectual history . . ." --National Review

"This important work of intellectual history will act as a catalyst for rethinking the scientific and social forces that shaped the racial policies of the Third Reich." --Choice

"This book will prove to be an invaluable source for anyone wondering how closely linked Social Darwinism and Nazi ideologies, especially as uttered by Hitler, really were." --German Studies Review

Thank you for admitting this program should be run under normal prison systems. I also agree that there are worse problems than religion involved.

You're welcome.

Please cite your stats for this claim.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

Actually according to a study in the link gay male lifespans are significantly shorter than those of cigarette smokers.

Can you show this is correct (good) theology?

Are you talking about the gay issue?

What evidence do we have that a god has spoken to anyone?

Both Biblical testimony and the testimony of Christians alive today. We've been over this, but Jesus Christ spoke to my wife as part of her conversion experience.

How can we know the Bible is an accurate reflection of the wants or wishes of God, and therefore "good" theology?

You're really asking, "Is the Bible True?", which should be another thread over on the Apologetics forum.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 65:

Do you really not understand my point?

Fred Phelps uses the Bible to support his hatred. I really think you don't wish to address the difficult notion that folks can find support for their hatred in the Bible. That is fact, and continually trying to dodge the implications of that fact does little to support the notion of a Christian prison, using public funds as a facilitor.

Do you not understand MY point? By your reasoning the prison shouldn't show any Jodie Foster movies because of John Hinckley's actions.

I would agree it would be wrong for the prison to teach Jodie Foster is the saviour, unless such could be shown to be fact.

I feel confident the observer will see you don't wish to address this point, but rather continue diversionary tactics.

[Fred Phelps says your theology flunks]. Who's right?

Me.

And we know this how? How do we know yours is the correct theology?

You keep implying it is more likely these Bible studies are more likely to produce a Fred Phelps while ignoring the evidence for changed lives.

As McCulloch and others pointed out, we don't know if those less likely to reoffend are more apt to attend this program.

Only a bigot would say new Freds are more likely than someone with a positively changed life.

Actually, what I'm saying is that bigots can, will, and have found support for their notions in the Bible.

Do you really think your bogeyman Fred offsets the good work done by say, World Vision? This is just one Christian relief organization that serves 100,000,000 people in 100 countries, regardless of creed.

Please offer stats for that claim.

And self-professed atheistic Communists killed 100,000,000 the last 100 years. By your reasoning the government has a duty to suppress atheism.

I'm saying the government has no business making religious decision for anyone, atheists included.

I've been accused of being the antichrist simply because I reject god belief. I've been on the wrong end of beatings because some thought me Satan come to earth.

Because of your beliefs you've gotten verbal beatings? I know the feeling.

Yet one more example of the distortion of intent or intellect one must make in order to maintain religious belief.

It feel confident the average observer will see through your attempt to distort my words.

Back it up. Total up the good charitable works done by Christians compared to these 'Christian' killings.

How many good Christian works make up for one Christian motivated killing?

You might want to take a look at the following book. Darwinism isn't a sufficient causative factor to explain Nazism, but it is a neccessary one.

You may wish to look at the following quotes of Hitler...

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

Again, if we accept the premise of the book as the following distinguished reviewers do, then by your reasoning we should stop teaching evolution in schools.

Please reread that post. I admitted Hitler used such scientific principles to inform his ideology. He used Christian notions too.

I note Hitler targeted mostly Jews. What religion has the most motivation, and longest running record, of seeing harm to Jews? I agree this is less of an issue in the current day, but it shouldn't erase thousands of years of history.

Thank you for admitting this program should be run under normal prison systems. I also agree that there are worse problems than religion involved.

You're welcome.

Let's debate the issue hard, but let's agree where we can.

Really that's my sole point here. I do fear what may happen if folks are only given one religious perspective, to the exclusion of all others. I fear this Christian prison will gloss over or not adequately address some of the harsher parts of the Bible. I fear it will do so with no attempt to actually show these Bible claims are true.

Please cite your stats for this claim. [Homosexual death compares to smoking]

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

Hopefully you'll forgive me for not accepting reports from an organization that hides, transfers, or otherwise covers up the rapists in its ranks.

Actually according to a study in the link gay male lifespans are significantly shorter than those of cigarette smokers.

Again, I reject all data offered by a bunch of paedophile hiders.

Can you show this is correct (good) theology?

Are you talking about the gay issue?

I quoted you right before I asked. Yet one more indicator of how one must ignore, misunderstand, convolute, distort, or otherwise gloss over stuff in order to maintain religious belief.

I quote again...

It's almost as if God knew what He was talking about. Often when God says, 'Thou shalt not', what He really means is, Don't hurt yourself.

How do we know this is what God really means? What with our only verifiable link the this God being the very folks He considers so fallible, how can we trust anything man has written in the Bible?

What evidence do we have that a god has spoken to anyone?

Both Biblical testimony and the testimony of Christians alive today. We've been over this, but Jesus Christ spoke to my wife as part of her conversion experience.

"The bible is true because it says it's true" is a circular argument, devoid of reason.

Your wife is not here to support her claims, so we can't quiz her to find out if her claims are accurate.

How can we know the Bible is an accurate reflection of the wants or wishes of God, and therefore "good" theology?

You're really asking, "Is the Bible True?", which should be another thread over on the Apologetics forum.

As we are discussing a Christian prison, I'd dare say it'd be kinda important to find out if the book these folks are gonna teach from is accurate.

[FinalEnigma]

I've been accused of being the antichrist simply because I reject god belief. I've been on the wrong end of beatings because some thought me Satan come to earth.

Because of your beliefs you've gotten verbal beatings? I know the feeling.

No, he means physical beatings. He, and others are physically assaulted and beaten directly becasue of christian theology. this is undeniable. Such people cannot possible be blamed for being a little wary when someone wants to teach the very same theology that caused them physical harm to a large bunch of people who are predisposed to crimes, violent and otherwise, within an institution where these people are captive audience. and in such an institution, where ONLY Christians are employed, it makes the danger that much more real, because its sheltered and not accountable to anyone but Christians.
If you were trying to create a place to teach some very extremist theology to as many people as you can, this would be a very good way to do it. And you cannot say that extremist theology won't be taught, because, as you say yourself, what is and is not good theology is a matter of opinion.

No. However, to deny that folks don't kill others due to their understanding of the Bible is to deny reality.

Back it up. Total up the good charitable works done by Christians compared to these 'Christian' killings.

Joey said that some people kill others due to their christian beliefs. The charitable works by Christians do not affect this.

Only a bigot would say new Freds are more likely than someone with a positively changed life.

Can we leave the sidehand insults out of this?

Also, I would like to comment on that word being used in that manner. Many Christians in America can and do claim to be persecuted for their religion. This is absurd. In America, in my experience, it's usually the Christians doing the persecuting. Probably becasue they are simply the majority.
Words ought to be used in their proper context, and the word bigot being applied here seems inappropriate. It's a big word, you understand, and those who really are being targeted by bigotry might understandably object to such casual use.

[JBlack]

No, that wasn't the question.

Then if you want an answer, ask your question for pete's sake.

I asked for clarification on what you meant by you're sure they won't learn "bad theology". By "bad theology", did you simply mean stoning? I think "bad theology" would cover alot more than just stonings. Plus different branches of Christianity have different views on what's "bad theology". So, are you sure they won't be learning "bad theology", or are you just sure they won't be learning to stone people?

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

So what teachings of Christ are they following?

What's your definition of Christian? I guess in your view, someone must follow the teachings of Christ in order to be a Christian.
In my view, anyone who believes that Jesus is their Lord and Saviour is a Christian.

[East of Eden]

I would agree it would be wrong for the prison to teach Jodie Foster is the saviour, unless such could be shown to be fact.

I feel confident the observer will see you don't wish to address this point, but rather continue diversionary tactics.

The diversion is yours. Do you deny John Hinckley shot the POTUS, a very serious crime, because he wanted to impress Jodie Foster? Once again, by your reasoning, Jodie Foster movies should not be shown in prison lest this happen again. Do you agree, or do you have a double standard?

How do we know yours is the correct theology?

Going back to my answer you kept ignoring, Fred ignores the example and word of Jesus. Jesus predicted false disciples would come. If Fred is the worst that could happen from these classes, we don't have much to worry about. He has 70 adherents, hasn't killed anyone, and about every Christian denomination has condemned him. He does sound a little like you when he discusses the Catholic pedophilia problem, as you do below.

As McCulloch and others pointed out, we don't know if those less likely to reoffend are more apt to attend this program.

They are certainly less likely to reoffend after they attend the program.

Actually, what I'm saying is that bigots can, will, and have found support for their notions in the Bible.

So what? See my comments on John Hinckly and Darwinism.

Please offer stats for that claim.

http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/who-we-are

You ignore the many groups like this (they usually don't make the news) to focus on Fred making statements to his tiny congregation. Sorry, but an unbiased observer would say Christianity is a huge force for good strictly from a utilitarian standpoint, apart from claims of ultimate truth and eternity.

I'm saying the government has no business making religious decision for anyone, atheists included.

Let me ask you for clarification here - is your argument here that such Christian prison programs shouldn't be allowed at all or that they should be strictly voluntary? I would also agree they should be voluntary.

How many good Christian works make up for one Christian motivated killing?

Fred hasn't killed anyone. Your question is like asking how many good scientific works make up for Darwinist inspired genocide.

You may wish to look at the following quotes of Hitler...

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

Hitler made such public statements early in his career while trying to gain power. Your Mein Kampf quotes are from 1925. I'd be happy to discuss the 'Hitler as Christian' canard in another thread.

Please reread that post. I admitted Hitler used such scientific principles to inform his ideology. He used Christian notions too.

His genocide wasn't motivated by the teachings of Christ. I admit he used Christian language to gain power, as many politicians do.

I note Hitler targeted mostly Jews. What religion has the most motivation, and longest running record, of seeing harm to Jews?

Islam by far. Anti-semitism is part of the fabric of Islam, and is legitamized by the word and deed of the 'prophet'. Jesus harmed no one.

Please cite your stats for this claim. [Homosexual death compares to smoking]

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

Hopefully you'll forgive me for not accepting reports from an organization that hides, transfers, or otherwise covers up the rapists in its ranks.

What's the use of this forum if you won't look at evidence you allegedly want, but instead make an ad hominem attack? My link is a serious article written by an MD and has over 80 footnotes, most from non-Catholic sources. Stop the gratuitous Catholic Church bashing and tell me what facts in the article you disagree with, or don't waste my time asking me questions the answers to which you don't look at.

Again, I reject all data offered by a bunch of paedophile hiders.

See above. Actually they are homosexual hiders, as about all the perps and victims are male.

I quoted you right before I asked. Yet one more indicator of how one must ignore, misunderstand, convolute, distort, or otherwise gloss over stuff in order to maintain religious belief.

When it comes to ignoring (see above), misunderstanding, convoluting, and distorting, you're up at the top. It had to be said, my friend.

"The bible is true because it says it's true" is a circular argument, devoid of reason.

I'm not saying the Bible is true because it says so. Another Christian put it better than I can:

"There is a proper, vlogical, non-fallacious way to argue that the Bible is true. It isn’t true because the Bible says so, but because Jesus said so. That may seem a fine distinction, but it’s a vital one to recognize. That is, the four gospels – when tested according to the very same, standard, empirical tests used to test all documents of Greco-Roman antiquity, prove to be reliable, primary source (eyewitness/close associate of eyewitness) evidence for the life of Jesus; in those documents, Jesus claimed to be nothing less than divine; Jesus validated his claim by his sinless life, miracles at will, and his forthcoming resurrection; because he proved his claim to divinity, whatever he says can be trusted, and he claimed that the Old Testament scriptures were true and infallible, and likewise put his stamp of approval on the forthcoming New Testament.

So the argument that the Bible is true because it says so is certainly circular and invalid. But examining the historical case for the reliability of the documents – as one would for any other ancient document – leads to the valid conclusion that Jesus put his imprimatur on the Bible as trustworthy and true."

Your wife is not here to support her claims, so we can't quiz her to find out if her claims are accurate.

My wife already put a lengthy post here a while back in response to you. How many times does she have to do it? How would your quizing her ascertain whether that event really happened?

As we are discussing a Christian prison, I'd dare say it'd be kinda important to find out if the book these folks are gonna teach from is accurate.

You're right, it is extremely important, but the question is a little deep for this thread, and would be better addressed on the Apologetic forum.

[East of Eden]

No, he means physical beatings. He, and others are physically assaulted and beaten directly becasue of christian theology. this is undeniable.

I would like to hear if that happened from Joey. If it did, I'm sorry and hope the perps were punished.

Such people cannot possible be blamed for being a little wary when someone wants to teach the very same theology that caused them physical harm to a large bunch of people who are predisposed to crimes, violent and otherwise, within an institution where these people are captive audience. and in such an institution, where ONLY Christians are employed, it makes the danger that much more real, because its sheltered and not accountable to anyone but Christians.

If you hear that more violence is the outcome of these Christian programs, let me know. So far the result I've seen is less reincarceration.

If you were trying to create a place to teach some very extremist theology to as many people as you can, this would be a very good way to do it. And you cannot say that extremist theology won't be taught, because, as you say yourself, what is and is not good theology is a matter of opinion.

What extremism, the Golden Rule?

Also, I would like to comment on that word being used in that manner. Many Christians in America can and do claim to be persecuted for their religion. This is absurd.

Not to the former Miss America from California.

In America, in my experience, it's usually the Christians doing the persecuting. Probably becasue they are simply the majority.

Examples?

Words ought to be used in their proper context, and the word bigot being applied here seems inappropriate. It's a big word, you understand, and those who really are being targeted by bigotry might understandably object to such casual use.

I agree that word is a loaded term best left out of these discussions, sorry.