Outside the Camp

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ I've been reading this site and it has some interesting stuff however (and please read clearly) I do not endorse this site's theology.

[Sea Skimmer]

Are you going to be specific about why you posted this or does this thread simply have no point?

[General Mung Beans]

Are you going to be specific about why you posted this or does this thread simply have no point?

Discussion of the web site in general.

[Formless]

Why the fuck do you think we care? I don't go around posting random links to atheist or anti-creationist websites for no purpose and expect people to find something worth talking about. This isn't even trolling, this is just spam.

[RazorOutlaw]

I haven't read a whole lot about Calvinism and Arminianism so I don't fully understand why every Calvinist site (or whever these people get their theology from) feel the need to blast Arminians so often. In my experience, it would seem that a Calvinist site isn't complete unless they mention just how much the Arminians are lost, going to hell, or are heretics. They seem locked in this battle that just about nobody else seems to care about.

An interest in religion is a good thing, if you ask me, so I think it's pretty neat that you reading about this on your own. But next time I wouldn't mind being pointed in the direction of something I should read on a website from a Christian sect I've barely heard about.

[Sea Skimmer]

Discussion of the web site in general.

That isn’t a real answer. Obviously something made you interested in that that website enough, positively or negatively, that you thought it was worth posting, having people read and getting reactions from people on. But if you don’t tell is why or what that was you aren’t stimulating a discussion. That’s what the point of making a thread on SDN is. Just posting a link with no comment and no quote from the websites isn’t doing anything productive. It is just pointless spam.

Honestly I have no idea what to say about that site as I looked at it for about .075 seconds in total. I’m not the militant atheist type who hates it on sight, I just don’t care one bit and have no reason to form opinions on it. Now you tell me why you posted it and maybe we can have a discussion going on. That gives the thread a point.

[Surlethe]

Why the fuck do you think we care? I don't go around posting random links to atheist or anti-creationist websites for no purpose and expect people to find something worth talking about. This isn't even trolling, this is just spam.

If you don't care, don't fucking post.

Mung, you need to pinpoint a contention or set of arguments for discussion. "The website" is just too broad a subject; nobody will start talking about it. If you haven't done this by 10 tonight (EST), I will lock the thread.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I haven't read a whole lot about Calvinism and Arminianism so I don't fully understand why every Calvinist site (or whever these people get their theology from) feel the need to blast Arminians so often. In my experience, it would seem that a Calvinist site isn't complete unless they mention just how much the Arminians are lost, going to hell, or are heretics. They seem locked in this battle that just about nobody else seems to care about.

Jacobus Arminius studied at Calvin's academy in Geneva but ultimately rejected and denounced the Calvinist principles that some people are pre-determined to enter heaven and that wealth is a measure of one's worthiness.

[LionElJonson]

Wow. Their site design looks like something out of 1999.

[RazorOutlaw]

Jacobus Arminius studied at Calvin's academy in Geneva but ultimately rejected and denounced the Calvinist principles that some people are pre-determined to enter heaven and that wealth is a measure of one's worthiness.

Thanks, I recall reading that Arminius had once been a Calvinist. I'm still hung up on their continuing conflict, however, because what the Arminians believe in doesn't seem all that different from a mainstream religion like Catholicism believes in today. Is it just a personal grudge? Do they feel that threatened that a splinter group believes what everybody else believes (and here I make the assumption that most Christians believe in works/accepting Christ as key points to get in to heaven)?

[Themightytom]

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ I've been reading this site and it has some interesting stuff however (and please read clearly) I do not endorse this site's theology.

This is what is causing negative response Mung, you just dropped a bunch of scripture on a bunch of Atheists, claimed you didn't endorse it but that it was interesting. if you posited that this site contains some kind of Truth, you would be gleefully debated by other members. if you claimed this site was horseshit, you would be gleefully JOINED by other members in deconstructing it. You offered no premise however so your thread is a bit of a non starter.

My first thought at looking at this site was "Hey someone still uses Geocities the format is easy to read, but tedius and rudimentary. I had to click like twelve links before I got any content suggesting this site is intended as a resource for a dedicated population, not necessarily to attract the attention of the public at large.. When I find content I got this:

1. All of the Bible is given by inspiration of God and is thus without error. It is the very Word of God. It does not merely contain the Word of God, as if it contained the erroneous words of men mingled with the perfect words of God. The doctrine of inspiration is the first principle from which all biblical doctrines are derived. Its truth is revealed to man by God. [2Sa 7:28; 23:2; Psa 12:6; 25:5; 111:7-8; 119:43,89; 138:2; Dan 10:21; Joh 17:17; Act 3:18; 1Co 2:4,12-16; 2Ti 2:15; 3:15-17; Heb 1:1-2; 2Pe 1:20-21; 3:15]

2. There is no part of Scripture that contradicts any other part of Scripture. [Psa 19:7-9; 2Co 1:18-20; Heb 6:17-18]

That is an irrational cul de sac and I don't want to read any further. Clearly aspects of scripture do not agree with themselves. Every time someone makes that argument, the argument is slowly taken apart logical piece by logical piece until it is clearly a dead issue. then the argument comes back in the form of "Well we don't fully understand the intent of scripture and its something I personally believe, so its untouchable." and proceeds to float off to fantasy land. Sound familiar?

Another interesting section:

3. The truth of total depravity does not mean that all men are as outwardly immoral as they possibly could be

Fair enough. Skeletons in the closet and all that O.o

It means that every faculty of the soul of every natural (that is, unregenerate) descendant of Adam is completely polluted with hatred of the true and living God, and all of the natural man's thoughts, words, and deeds (even his kindness, morality, and religion) are dead works, evil deeds, and fruit unto death.

They Took The Time To Clarify That Only The unregenerate Were Descendants Of Adam? What Does That mean?

It means that every natural descendent of Adam owes a debt to God's law and justice that he cannot pay.

Just like Bank of America...

I

t means that every natural descendent of Adam is spiritually dead, having no spiritual understanding, a lover of darkness rather than light, a slave of sin, unable and unwilling to obey God and come to Jesus Christ for salvation.

Speaking of closet immorality, is anyone else seeing some closet racism here? the implication that Christianity is only for descendants of Adam? Are there descendants of someone else running around?

This truth is contrary to the damnable poison known as "free will," which seeks to make the creature independent of the Creator and seeks to make the Potter depend on the clay, according to the devil's lie, "You shall be as God."

How does one choose to believe in God, if there is no free will? how does one choose not to? Sounds like predestination crap to me.

[LionElJonson]

How does one choose to believe in God, if there is no free will? how does one choose not to? Sounds like predestination crap to me.

You don't, if I understood it correctly. God just arbitrarily picked some unknown number of people to be Saved, and condemned all the others to hellfire.

Needless to say, this sort of thing doesn't exactly square off against God being a loving God very well.

[General Mung Beans]

Well here's the discussion point: Do you their interpretation of the Gospel and God is a correct view derived from the Bible? Because if their view of God is true I might quite frankly end up a misotheist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheist

[Hillary]

Wow! A group of Christians who think that all the other groups have got it wrong and only THEY know the true word of God. Not heard that one before.

Well here's the discussion point: Do you their interpretation of the Gospel and God is a correct view derived from the Bible? Because if their view of God is true I might quite frankly end up a misotheist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheist

Their view of God is their view of God. There are so many interpretations of the bible and most of them can be defended by reference to the text. This is because the bible is so contradictory and the character of God so inconsistent that trying to define him is simply a matter of opinion.

No view of God is "true" in the way you mean it, as the countless inconsistences mean the bible cannot possibly be 100% accurate. This means that you end up having to choose which bits you think are true and dismissing the rest, i.e. subjectivity rules.


*edited to add the comment at the top after reading their banal website.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well here's the discussion point: Do you their interpretation of the Gospel and God is a correct view derived from the Bible? Because if their view of God is true I might quite frankly end up a misotheist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheist

Actually, just about any view of god which has any scriptural accuracy should lead to this view, namely misotheism or dystheism.

Think about this for a moment, because you are open to the possibility I may as well put it forth. I will also leave aside my well known argument that Jesus cannot be the Messiah if the old testament is true

What has God done? From the beginning of the universe, he has had a plan. This plan included

1) Create a set of rules, the violation of which are called sins, and make the punishment for a violation eternal damnation.

2)Create humankind with the knowledge that they would fall into sin

3)The way out is to accept his aspect Jesus as Lord and Savior and worship him, faith alone is salvation.

4)Provide no real evidence that he (and his son) exist outside of a holy book delivered to a backwater of the planet, allow for the formation of other religions the regional nature of which doom whole continents to hell until the missionaries from that small backwater spread to europe, and from there to those other continents 1500 years after the arrival of Jesus.

5)Plant evidence in the form of fossils that the creation story which is the underpinning of the whole sin problem, to say nothing of the events in the old testament as a whole did not happen as described. Then punish them with eternal hellfire for believing the lie of a god.

6)Allow the Devil to tempt people into sin, and punish people for falling to the temptation of a fallen angel.

All of this was, remember, pre-planned. God created the universe with all of this planned out because he was omniscient. Even if this pre-planning does not impinge on the free will of individuals (which his omniscience does anyway due to a cause-effect problem), it is still fucked up and evil. The usual formulation of the problem of Theodicy has nothing on this.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Jacobus Arminius studied at Calvin's academy in Geneva but ultimately rejected and denounced the Calvinist principles that some people are pre-determined to enter heaven and that wealth is a measure of one's worthiness.

Thanks, I recall reading that Arminius had once been a Calvinist. I'm still hung up on their continuing conflict, however, because what the Arminians believe in doesn't seem all that different from a mainstream religion like Catholicism believes in today. Is it just a personal grudge? Do they feel that threatened that a splinter group believes what everybody else believes (and here I make the assumption that most Christians believe in works/accepting Christ as key points to get in to heaven)?

It's not just that Arminius rejected Calvinism, he also repudiated it saying that the Calvinists beliefs make God into one of the world's greatest evils if he were to predetermine who would be born rich and thus who would get into Heaven.

[General Mung Beans]

Here are some quotes that I find the most problematic and quite frankly horrific:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/spurgeonswallows.htm

God does not permit evil; He decrees and causes evil. And He does it for His own glory. He caused sin to come into the world in order to (1) glorify Himself in the salvation of the elect, (2) humble His people and cause them to continually need the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and (3) glorify Himself in the damnation of the reprobate.

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/marriage.htm

Another common objection is one that appeals to emotional and hysterical sensationalism rather than to the Word of God. The objection put forth is that if a young Christian virgin woman was engaged (betrothed), and during this betrothal period was brutally assaulted and raped, then she would have to break off the engagement with her "husband-to-be" and go ahead and marry and perform all the conjugal obligations of a submissive and obedient wife towards the man who brutally raped her. The betrothed woman has indeed been made one flesh with the man who so violently and brutally forced this one-flesh union upon her. Amnon, likewise, violently forced himself upon Tamar (2 Samuel 13:11-20). Scripture says that she remained desolate. Tamar, just like the betrothed woman put forth in the objection, was the innocent victim of a vicious crime. The aforementioned women's cases are very grievous indeed. But the fact that they were brutally violated does not nullify the truth that sexual intercourse alone makes a man and a woman married, nor does rape give them a "free pass" to become adulteresses by marrying while the rapist is still living. For the one with whom she was forced to become "one flesh" is still living. This woman is under no obligation to perform marital duties to this vicious, perverted rapist. She is, however, out of loving obedience to God, obligated to remain celibate for the rest of her days or until the rapist dies (Romans 7:1-3). Those who make this and similar unbiblically emotional appeals would show hatred to this poor woman by adding damnable insult to injury by asserting that because of rape, she is free to become an adulteress by becoming another man's.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Here are some quotes that I find the most problematic and quite frankly horrific:

Y'know, some explanation why you find them problematic and horrific would be nice. We're not mind-readers. Give us something to work with here.

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/spurgeonswallows.htm

God does not permit evil; He decrees and causes evil. And He does it for His own glory. He caused sin to come into the world in order to (1) glorify Himself in the salvation of the elect, (2) humble His people and cause them to continually need the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and (3) glorify Himself in the damnation of the reprobate.

If you accept the notion of an all-powerful and all-knowing God, then this is the logical conclusion. If God is all-knowing, he'd know that all it'd take for Eve to want to try the forbidden apples was a talking snake. So did he put the trees of knowledge and life behind a wall guarded by archangels with flaming swords atop Mount Doom in the middle of Mordor? Nah. He sticks them in the middle of the fucking Garden of Eden. He doesn't even try to put up a fence!

He also decrees that all minor sins are to be punished with eternal damnation. Which, if he's all-knowing, he knows you're going to commit some minor sin and earn that whole eternal damnation thing. He also knows that not all people will accept Christ as their personal lord and savior. Ergo, he brought sin into the world, knows that people will sin, has the power to stop it (being all-powerful and all that,) but condemns them to eternal damnation all the same. He then tells them that the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to accept Christ. It's like playing Roulette in a casino that's rigged the table to give them the outcome they want, every single time.

So yes, the only reason an all-knowing, all-powerful God would permit the existence of evil is to feed his personal power trip.

[Shroom Man 777]

Here are some quotes that I find the most problematic and quite frankly horrific:

They are right. That is the truth of GOD.

You know when God sent the Angel of Death to kill every firstborn child of Egypt? All those innocent babies? It was because the Pharaoh refused to follow what Moses said and let his people go, right? Well, guess what.

20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.

It was the LORD who hardened the Pharaoh's heart. Because the Lord hardened the Pharaoh's heart, the Lord sent the Angel of Death to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. Because the Pharaoh's heart was hardened. By the Lord.

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."

It looks like He decreed and caused evil. And He did it for His own glory. He caused sin to come into the world in order to (1) glorify Himself in the salvation of the elect, (2) humble His people and cause them to continually need the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and (3) glorify Himself in the damnation of the reprobate.

Yep, that's exactly right. Remember, Mung Beans, God is Love and if you don't follow the true Word of God, then you're going to burn in Hell forever because God loves you because he is all-loving.


=^____________________^=

[Simon_Jester]

If you accept the notion of an all-powerful and all-knowing God, then this is the logical conclusion. If God is all-knowing, he'd know that all it'd take for Eve to want to try the forbidden apples was a talking snake. So did he put the trees of knowledge and life behind a wall guarded by archangels with flaming swords atop Mount Doom in the middle of Mordor? Nah. He sticks them in the middle of the fucking Garden of Eden. He doesn't even try to put up a fence!

He also decrees that all minor sins are to be punished with eternal damnation. Which, if he's all-knowing, he knows you're going to commit some minor sin and earn that whole eternal damnation thing. He also knows that not all people will accept Christ as their personal lord and savior. Ergo, he brought sin into the world, knows that people will sin, has the power to stop it (being all-powerful and all that,) but condemns them to eternal damnation all the same. He then tells them that the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to accept Christ. It's like playing Roulette in a casino that's rigged the table to give them the outcome they want, every single time.

So yes, the only reason an all-knowing, all-powerful God would permit the existence of evil is to feed his personal power trip.

Certainly it's the only reason an all-knowing, all-powerful God would set up the universe the way the standard Christian mythos describes it. It's a bit less horrific if you don't believe in everyone going to Hell for eternity for the "crime" of not being a member of whichever Christian sects happen to have gotten the doctrine right, because then you can at least imagine that the afterlife is just, at which point you can try to explain worldly evil in terms of that afterlife.

This is how many other religions do it: people who commit evil are punished in the afterlife, and people who do good are rewarded. The specifics vary. In Hinduism and Buddhism the "afterlife" is your own next life. In Egyptian mythology good deeds are loyal service to the Pharaoah and the reward is loyal service to the Pharaoh in a better climate. In Norse mythology good deeds involve killing people and the reward is infinite Oktoberfest. In Islam, good deeds are following divine laws and the reward is rivers of milk and honey and a small army of virgins.

But the recurring theme is that good is rewarded and evil is punished. Christianity is practically unique in that, thanks to the way the religion has mutated over time, standard Christian theology holds that good is NOT rewarded and evil is NOT punished- not in human terms, anyway. The only way to be rewarded- to even avoid horrible punishment- is to believe in the big judgmental beard in the sky. Believe and any evil you commit is irrelevant; do not believe and any good you do is irrelevant.

That's an anomaly. Normal religions reward good and punish evil; proper worship of the god(s) may help but it isn't the only thing that decides your fate in the afterlife. Christianity is nearly unique in not following the principle that the afterlife punishes evil and rewards good. I'd argue that this is one of the great fundamental flaws in its doctrine, one of the reasons that so many dissenters have abandoned it in the past few centuries.

People revolt against that idea, and rightly so, because it is revolting. It's a truly disturbing ethical principle when you think about it: the idea that instead of good being rewarded and evil being punished, worshipfulness is rewarded and everything else is punished.

[Mayabird]

That may be more a Protestant thing than a general Christianity thing. They're the ones who ran with the "saved by faith alone, not works" doctrine, which yes, is completely disgusting plus probably is bad for society. Catholics IIRC are supposed to do good deeds...former and current Catholics, help me out here, please? Same with anyone more familiar with the Orthodox churches and so forth.

[The Vortex Empire]

Catholics IIRC are supposed to do good deeds...former and current Catholics, help me out here, please?

I was raised in a Catholic family (though my parents don't go to church or anything like that) and in that parish at least, you are supposedly judged by your deeds alone.

[Thanas]

That may be more a Protestant thing than a general Christianity thing. They're the ones who ran with the "saved by faith alone, not works" doctrine, which yes, is completely disgusting plus probably is bad for society.

I don't think it is a protestant thing per se. It is more a thing of some protestant sects. Heck, all the protestants I know are huge on performing good deeds.

[Akhlut]

That may be more a Protestant thing than a general Christianity thing. They're the ones who ran with the "saved by faith alone, not works" doctrine, which yes, is completely disgusting plus probably is bad for society. Catholics IIRC are supposed to do good deeds...former and current Catholics, help me out here, please? Same with anyone more familiar with the Orthodox churches and so forth.

Recovering Catholic here. Anyway, most of the Catholics I knew tended to view it as a combination of the two. Merely believing in Jesus will not get you into heaven if you're still an asshole or don't do anything of value. Helping people out was highly recommended and viewed as the natural result of believing in and loving Jesus.

[Simon_Jester]

That may be more a Protestant thing than a general Christianity thing. They're the ones who ran with the "saved by faith alone, not works" doctrine, which yes, is completely disgusting plus probably is bad for society. Catholics IIRC are supposed to do good deeds...former and current Catholics, help me out here, please? Same with anyone more familiar with the Orthodox churches and so forth.

You're right, Maya. My mistake.

Thinking about it, Catholicism evolved as the glue that held together western European civilization; it had to at least contribute to the function of that civilization. Many of the modern evangelical sects emerged in the 1700s or later, by which point Western civilization was stable enough not to need them to hold it together. Which means they were under no pressure to employ doctrines consistent with making sure the civilization they live in survives and thrives... and that they turn into harmful cults should be no surprise.

Of course, Catholicism has its own doctrinal problems even though it manages to dodge the bullet of faith-alone salvation.

That may be more a Protestant thing than a general Christianity thing. They're the ones who ran with the "saved by faith alone, not works" doctrine, which yes, is completely disgusting plus probably is bad for society.

I don't think it is a protestant thing per se. It is more a thing of some protestant sects. Heck, all the protestants I know are huge on performing good deeds.

Even in the faith-alone sects you still get people who perform good deeds (or deeds they sincerely believe are good, like trying to convert others into the religion). Following a faith-alone doctrine doesn't make you a sociopath, after all. Many of the faith-alone Protestants will still have altruistic impulses, and they are fairly likely to be encouraged to act on those impulses by the church.

But by and large, faith-alone adherents don't think through the implication of faith-alone doctrine: that the supposedly loving God is supremely indifferent to questions of good and evil, and rigged the universe to torture anyone, no matter how saintly, who did not worship him in the prescribed manner.