-14 votes

Brainwashing Kids 4 Christ! Just $39 + S/H

Check out this commercial for a creepy new teddy bear, created by "christian" Pastor John Hagee, that indoctrinates fundamentalist christianity into your unsuspecting child...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYNACoftcPg&feature=player_em...

My question is, If christ/god of the bible was really real,then why the constant need to trick and scare people into believing?

http://www.jhm.org/Catalog/Product/KT205/Promises%20To%20Gro...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nice quote...

Is that from 'Orthodoxy'?

Yes,

in the Maniac chapter. Page 25 in my copy.

the bible gets the following wrong:

slavery:
in the bible slavery is good

age of the earth:
the bible says it's 6,000 years old but we know it's a lot older

the earth's shape: the bible says the earth is flat with 4 corners

No, the Bible doesn't

teach that slavery is good. The trajectory of history, according to the Bible, is toward liberty.

The Bible doesn't say that the world is 6,000 years old.

"The four corners of the earth" is metaphor.

it does and i could certainly post them for you

but you would just say i took them out of context or don't have the wisdom to understand, etc etc...it's really a tiresome game you lot play.

When the MSM takes a sentence or two

out from the whole body of Ron Paul's work, yanks it out of context and twists it out of all recognition and declares that that is what Ron Paul says, we who know the whole body of Ron Paul's work AND LIFE recognize what has been done. If we reply to them with their RP quote put back into the context of RP's entire body of writing, they could claim that we are being tiresome with our claim that they took the quote out of context. Tiresome is about all they could claim.

Even most RP supporters don't really understand the entirety of what RP believes or they wouldn't, for example, feel the need to question his speaking at a state home school curriculum fair. They would already know why he is doing it.

I know, it's a tiresome game we RP supporters play when we continually trot out the need to keep RP's words and actions in context.

wow, that's quite a stretch!

so many words, so little substance

Shotgun approach? :)

Slavery:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

This seems to be a good summary of the topic:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

Age of the earth:
Where does it say '6000 years'? That is one theory, based on folks trying to calculate years from genealogies, etc; but it doesn't state an age of the earth explicitly. And anyway, no length of time from the end of Creation to the expulsion from Eden is given.

Four corners:
Come on -- that's just a figure of speech. CS Lewis wrote whole stories using the Medieval view of the nested spheres of the planets and cosmos, knowing full well they were not really that way. We still use phrases like 'the four corners', 'the sun moved across the sky', 'the seven seas', 'where east meets west', etc., etc.

Check out Isaiah 40:22, Job 22:14 if it is roundness you seek. Job 26:7 for possible reference of Earth 'hanging' in space.

Those views are about as "Christian" as an agnostic's.

Not sure anything you've said is found in Christianity. At least not the Christianity of my Bible.

don't tell me i don't know what christianity is

can read and i once was a christian myself. you people crack me up.

Hmm...

...not sure you read your first article all the way through. The scholar says he still believes that Christ is the Son of God and that he doesn't mean for people to doubt the biblical texts. He's just thinking tradition has added more descriptive details to the execution than are actually stated there. I'm not saying I agree with his view, but to prop up his view as denying the Christian faith is misleading.

At the end of the article:

Mr Samuelsson said: "That a man named Jesus existed in that part of the world and in that time is well-documented. He left a rather good foot-print in the literature of the time.

"I do believe that the mentioned man is the son of God. My suggestion is not that Christians should reject or doubt the biblical text.

"My suggestion is that we should read the text as it is, not as we think it is. We should read on the lines, not between the lines. The text of the Bible is sufficient. We do not need to add anything."

Further Research Will Show...

"That a man named Jesus existed in that part of the world and in that time is well-documented. He left a rather good foot-print in the literature of the time." refers only to literature written many many years after Jesus' time. If you read my article and its comments you will see no one has been able to claim otherwise, including all Bible Scholars. My article covers this stuff at a fairly deep level.

Also the Flat earth concept was not covered very well in this thread but is covered exceptionally well in my article "Sowing The Seeds For A Peace Revolution" [but not all in one place]
- http://www.dailypaul.com/241312/sowing-the-seeds-for-a-peace...

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

I was pondering...

...the saying 'the four corners of the world', and it kind of makes sense when describing the point furthest from your position on a globe. If I draw orthogonal circles, intersecting at the point I'm standing, wrapping around the sphere, these four lines of the circles meet on the opposite side of the globe from me. You know how we call the point where the state lines between Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico meet 'Four Corners'? If you envision the four corners meeting at the point opposite the globe from you, could that not be a way of getting the point of 'the ends of the earth from our perspective' across, regardless of whether it was 2D or 3D?

In any event, it's probably just a figure of speech, conveying the ideas of extremities with respect to one's position.

Yep poster came from a

Yep poster came from a monkey!.... I don't think millions of years ago! LOL

Phxarcher87's picture

Got to love G.K.

“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
― G.K. Chesterton

THE CLASS OF CITIZENS WHO PROVIDE AT ONCE THEIR OWN FOOD AND THEIR OWN RAIMENT, MAY BE VIEWED AS THE MOST TRULY INDEPENDENT AND HAPPY.
James Madison

Also from G.K.

"If the cosmos of the materialist is a real cosmos, it is not much of a cosmos."

so then

Does ol' GK think that god came from everything or nothing?

Don't teach your kid anything

Leave it to the State! Then they will be good little citizens. Right. I don't think you have a clue what you are saying. Parents have a responsibility to instill in their children a strong value system and moral code. Whether it is some silly bear or not doesn't matter. The problem with too many kids today is that they have been thrown out in the snow to let the state and the media give them their moral code and how to think. How's that working for ya?

Why not just give birth and let the wolves raise your kid. Maybe just deposit them in the sand like turtles and hope they find their way to the sea.

I hope you stick with puppies and kittens and don't have any live humans to be responsible for.

Healthnut4freedom

The lip of truth shall be established forever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment...Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight. Prov 12:19,22

people are/can be moral without religion

people aren't evil and made better through religion, this bear shows that even the most "religious" are nothing but sheep in wolves clothing.

the golden rule is enough. no religious mumbo jumbo is necessary.

Ignore

wrong place.

What people fail to understand is..

these people pushing these items ARE NOT CHRISTIANS...

they are false prophets giving Christians a bad name, and its true for about 99% of America's pastors, im sorry if this offends some, but this is truth.

Most people today have no idea what a Christian is, or what they are supposed to do AS a Christian.

Andy Stanley a major "Christian" leader called Obama our "Pastor in Chief." He is nothing more than a suck up, sell out, and that's true of MOST of the pastors today. They would be shocked if they ever had to really teach the Truth of Christianity.

the christian spectrum is broad, but I think we can agree

that this guy is on the fringe and is hardly the christian most others are

agree 100%

agree 100%

As true today as it was then.

Ezekiel 22:25,26

There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof.

Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

Agreed!

This is craptastic bear! As a Libertarian I will teach my kid as I see fit. As long as they do not harm others as the golden rules stands. I see no problem with parents teaching their kids about the God of their choosing.

Freedom baby!
I hope you made this thread out of haste.
This does not sound like a normal DailyPaul post.

You contradict yourself by

You contradict yourself by saying, "The only moral thing to do in my opinion is to teach your children to think for themselves, be curious, and follow the golden rule." How do you plan on imparting these moral values to your children without "teaching and/or conditioning" them to believe it is the proper way to act. I might disagree with what another parent teaches their child or how they teach their child but is not my job to tell them they can't. It is okay to dialogue with people about what is wrong and why as you are doing here. I am just trying to point out the contradiction that it is possible to raise your children in a moral vacuum. Even atheist who don't believe in a god try to impart morals to their children.

You base this on the falsity of morals coming from religion

They don't. Morals are nothing more than long-standing social lessons that have evolved into what is termed common knowledge. People think they are a given. People think they are passed down from the founders of society or even from some deity. People think they are carved in stone and immutable to change.

Sorry, but none of that is the case. Morals and their cousin ethics, are not where we get the golden rule. They come FROM the golden rule in that they are derived from this two sided coin.

On the first side is to do good to others so they'll do good to you. This is a great way for a society to live because it breeds happiness and charity.

On the flip side is don't do bad to others so they won't do bad to you. This is also a great thing to live by because it not only personalizes the harm being done, it places a social stigma on those who do bad inflicting peer pressure.

By teaching kids the golden rule as a social truism, not as a proven fact, the OP is simply saying that the kids will learn these two most basic building blocks of morality and will use them in their daily lives to collect any others that follow the same path. This is not a moral vacuum. It's a progression of layers laid on sound, reasoned foundations.

This is the basic rule being proposed by the OP and in no way does this relate to any religion. In light of this, your last sentence now sounds like the old days of claiming heresy for certain acts. Wow, it's just amazing this is so easily missed in society, "Even a hedonist or heretic tries to teach GOD'S morals to their kids."

Where in my statement did I

Where in my statement did I say anything about God's morals. I was not trying to start an argument about which religion is right. I was merely pointing out that every parent will teach their children what they believe to be correct. If as you say the golden rule is a social truism, than teaching it to your children is simply passing on a belief system. And if it is only a belief what makes it any more right or wrong to teach it to your children than any other belief system.

It seems I mistook your use of the word "even"

as implying that you meant religious morals. For that part, I stand corrected.

As to the other point, I'll use a comparative illustration. Was it wrong for the German's to teach their kids to support Hitler in the days leading up to and prior to his atrocities? Skipping the unequal comparisons of the evil behind it, I'm asking about the question itself. If half of society has opened their eyes to a certain tyranny, should they allow the other half to continue to preach said tyranny just because they think they're right? Obviously, that's the extreme of the question here.

What the answer is is very tough. I don't have the solution but I know it's wrong to teach kids that Hitler is a great guy because he's standing up for "us" and "our country". I don't care which side he's on, blind faith (aka indoctrinated from youth) is flat out wrong.

Regarding the golden rule being an equal belief and subject to the same standards, I don't agree. I don't know of any society (short of the Zionist/Rothschilds/Bilderbergs) that don't believe in it. It may not be traceable to fact but it is universal at it's core.

We are sentient creatures.

We are sentient creatures. Children aren't stupid.

There can be no 'conditioning' if you are teaching your child to be wary of it in the first place. Teaching your child to think for themselves instantly gives them the opportunity to explore the world at its fullest. Teaching your child that someone they can't see is always watching them and judging them, rewarding them for their behaviour is forcing a subjective and personal belief onto them, i.e conditioning. Santa as well as God falls under that definition.

The three values the OP mentioned are not subjective. They are proven ways to gain knowledge and live a fruitful life.