General Question

Jiminez's avatar

What are your thoughts on the movie "Jesus Camp"?

Asked by Jiminez (1248points) March 24th, 2009

Have you seen it? If not, here it is:

It’s probably the most maddening thing I’ve seen in quite a long time.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

61 Answers

VzzBzz's avatar

Thanks for the link because I haven’t seen it as many times as I’ve said I would but keep forgetting.

crisw's avatar

I’ve only seen snippets from it, and they horrified me. YouTube’s blocked at work; I’ll have to check it out at home.

Qingu's avatar

It made me mad and hopeful at the same time. Because these people’s religion requires a bubble-world to survive, and that bubble can only last so long. It’s probably getting weaker and weaker thanks to the internet and other modern communication.

I do wish the movie cut down on the editorializing music and that moderate Christian radio guy, but I didn’t think it was too bad.

Ivan's avatar

Probably the scariest movie I’ve ever seen.

SuperMouse's avatar

I found Jesus Camp terrifying on many, many levels. I was horrified to see young children so brainwashed. I was disgusted to see parents let their children walk up and “testify” to complete strangers. I was disturbed when I saw parents live vicariously through their son as he preaches. It has been awhile since I watched it so I am sure I am missing several harrowing scenes.

Please Note; This answer is coming from a spiritual individual who believes very strongly in God (although I am not Christian). I think it is important to point out that I am by no means an atheist, but I found the dogma and the way it was presented to these children incredibly unsettling.

@Jimenez, have you checked out the Jesus Camp discussion board at IMDB? It is a very interesting read.

Amoebic's avatar

I had started writing up something that Supermouse said much more eloquently.

I’d like to add that I believe these type of evangelicals are a (loud, vocal) minority on the extreme end of the scale, and hopefully not representative of a growing problem so much as a peculiar phenomenon.

resmc's avatar

Scary. Basically what SuperMouse said, even tho Amoebic just said what i’m saying now. Not exactly childabuse perse, since that tends to be physical/emotional… but taking over a young person’s mind before they’re able to grow much defenses is pretty damn abusive, intellectually & spiritually.

It really struck me like a foreign culture, in all honesty… (grew up rather sheltered, surrounded by hippie heathens and Catholic relatives).

Ivan's avatar

@resmc If you agree with Dawkins, it most certainly is child abuse.

_Liz's avatar

haven’t seen it.

resmc's avatar

@Ivan Am definitely ok with the idea of it being that, so long as a distinction’s made… there’s millions (at least) of kids not being fed for completely unsatisfying reasons, yet that tends just to be guilt-or-pity-inducing background noise to us – and, it strikes me as a bit wrong, as bad as this is, to get way more worked up about a bunch of comfortable American kids than we do about many more whose lives are threatened. Both are abusive, both may not get labeled as such tho should, yet they’re not exactly equivalents.

(And, full-disclosure, this is entirely hypocritical of me to say, not having doe anything at all to help child starvation in the world)

ubersiren's avatar

It was the best comedy I’d seen in a long time!

adreamofautumn's avatar

The movie literally scared the hell out of me. Preparing children to be religious “warriors”? Aren’t we persecuting the rest of the world for the same thing? It really is completely unnerving. I feel like these children are being cut off from growing the ability to think critically and for themselves which is really bad for them now and in the future.

PupnTaco's avatar

Scared the shit out of me.

crisw's avatar


I think one of the differences (and this isn’t meant to be callous) is that the starving poor child doesn’t directly affect our lives, while the fundamentalist child can grow up into an adult that attempts to have a profound effect on our lives.

resmc's avatar

@crisw Very true. Yet, this is such a common barrier – hard not to run up against it at every turn, sometimes – that it’s not a very satisfying reason to accept the gulf in our sense of urgency between then two.

crisw's avatar

Maybe not to accept it, but certainly to understand it. The Prop 8 folks here in CA, for example, are chipping away at this moment at freedoms that are very important to people I hold dear; this certainly heightens the urgency.

SeventhSense's avatar

I feel so much for the poor children who are sensitive and will be wracked with guilt and shame for their whole lives at not being able to “change the world”. Where’s does God figure into all this? They make the devil out to be beyond powerful also. It doesn’t say much about their faith in an omnipotent God. How about stressing these words of Jesus to alleviate their fears:
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” Poor little lambs. How many do you think will have nightmares about being consumed by beasts. I mean what a burden to put on a child. But I don’t think we need to polarize this issue or it will only exacerbate it. These groups will be slowly assimilated just like the entrenched racist groups of the Old South.

MacBean's avatar

Oh! I’ve reviewed this one! Lemme find it…

There is simply not enough D: in the world. I have just paused this film nine minutes into it. Already I have seen parents grabbing children’s arms and forcing them into the air when the children were asked to raise their hands if they believed in something. I have seen a 250+ lb. woman bitching about Christians who are fat and lazy and don’t want to give up a meal. I have heard Dubya called “a holy man charged with creating a Christian society.” I’m not sure if I’m going to be able to get to the end of it… Later: I made it through! I would like to hear what an actual Evangelical Christian or two think of this film. I wonder if they think they’re portrayed fairly. Because I’m looking at it and going “OMFG THEY ARE BATSHIT INSANE.” But… I don’t feel like it’s really skewed that way. The people are just filmed talking about and practicing their beliefs and their faith. There isn’t any voice over to sway the viewer’s opinion. Even the statistics that are presented every now and then are in print on the screen. I still found it to be one of the most distressing things I’ve ever seen. :( [Rating: ****]

Michale's avatar

That is scary as anything I’ve ever seen. I’m serious. It freaked me out quite a bit.

Ria777's avatar

my personal “holy shit!” moment came early in the film when the one kid said that Galileo should have just shut up like the Church told him to do.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

It’s reminiscent of film from 1930s Germany, particularly of Hitler Youth rallies. We are fortunate in this country that these people are in the minority. However, even as people are moving away from religion in general, the ranks of these people continue to grow.

During the last election campaign, some Evangelical preachers flagrantly violated the law by politicking from the pulpit, daring the IRS to do something about it. I hope to God they do. These people have way too much money and way too much influence in public affairs. If people going to these megachurches start getting notices from the IRS that their tithes are considered political contributions for tax purposes, maybe it will take some of the fight out of them.

SeventhSense's avatar

Yes these people are ignorant and yes they are promoting ignorance through their “silly science”. And yes they are proposing a highly personalized interpretation of history. It’s done in other cults and families across the planet every day.
None of these people are promoting actual violence. Orthodox Judaism has more scriptual basis than Christians for violence. I have a female friend who was wearing a tshirt in an Orthodox section of Israel and she was spit on right in her face for “being a whore”. The Qur’an also has as doctrine, the killing of infidels if they are not converted. That’s not just fear mongering for the right. Passive resistance in its purest form like that practiced by Gandhi and Martin Luther King is actually very bold and hardly appears passive either. It takes much bravery to be hurt or killed for one’s cause.
The danger I suppose is through ignorance when people think that it is an actively agressive violent thing like blowing up an abortion clinic. But the incidence of this are extremely rare. Some of these persons are actually just looking for a more authentic experience which in itself isn’t a bad thing. It’s when they all start to come together under an umbrella of ignorance and politics that it’s sad. They’ll all either assimilate or maybe the Fanatical Christians, Moslems and Jews will have the Battle Royale and all kill each other. But if the Christians are really radical then they will lay down their lives for love. But that’s a real hard sell.

Jiminez's avatar

Their conception of love is perverse and is actually violent; it has no respect for diversity of opinions or free thought, so I think they do advocate violence. This is seen in the way they defend Israel’s genocide and their perception that wars against Islam are holy (and just) wars.

SeventhSense's avatar

Yes, but there are many groups who have no respect for diversity of opinions or free thought and they don’t commit violence. And there is no greater supporter of Israel and the violence it commits then our government. We send them billions for aid and much directly for the military.

Qingu's avatar

@SeventhSense, your characterization of extremist Christians as “nonviolent” when compared to other religions doesn’t really hold up historically. Do we really need to bring up the Crusades, the Inquisition (both in Europe and the Americas), and all the religious wars fought over Christian sectarianism and heresy?

Only recently have Christians begun interpreting their religion as being in opposition to slavery and killing unbelievers. Of course, this has much less to do with Christianity itself, and much more to do with the spread of secular, Enlightenment ideas about morality, which modern Christians seem to like a lot better than the actual morals of their religious text.

SeventhSense's avatar

Historically yes the Roman Catholic Church was brutal as were varying degrees of Protestantism here and abroad. But it was the devout members among different churches that wanted to abolish slavery here in the states because of its immoral nature. The enlightenment ideals were a direct result of Protestant ethics which broke from the church in Rome and allowed for freer discourse.
Please point me to any passage in the Christian New Testament that points towards violence of action as a doctrine of behavior. Contrarily, when the centurion came to take Jesus to be crucified and was swiftly separated from his ear by Peter’s sword, he was rebuked by Jesus who said “my kingdom is not of this earth” and that he would gladly lay down his life. All the violence was directed at Jesus, not the other way around regardless of how some have perverted his teachings. As well as crucifying him, they also attempted to stone him.

Jiminez's avatar

Oh, our government is violent, definitely. Thanks in large part to the Evangelicals and their lobby. Many passages of the Bible advocate outright violence and murder. I, in no way, consider Christians non-violent. What they advocate doing to our environment and the natural world is violent in and of itself.

SeventhSense's avatar

I’m with you on that and Jesus definitely wasn’t a Christian!
What I am saying though is that anyone who gets to the heart of Jesus’ teachings will find no violence but only passive resistance as that practiced by Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

crisw's avatar

I’d question the “no violence” bit. After all, withering a fig tree because it wasn’t fig season and the tree had no fruit was hardly an act of passive resistance or compassion. As the author of God is Imaginary proclaimed, Jesus was a jerk.

SeventhSense's avatar

Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned [to hell].
This is a misnomer there is no word for hell in the original texts.

When a person says, “ask anything in my name, and I will do it,” what does he mean? Presumably, Jesus means that if you ask for anything, he will do it. What else could he possibly mean, unless he is being dishonest?
He said my “Kingdom is not of this earth”
Any request has to be considered in that context. God is not Santa Claus.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

This is metaphor as nothing is more important than the world to come, spiritual world

The problem is in trying to comprehend his words as a fundamentalist. He spoke in metaphor and he spoke most openly against the religious order which abused the people.

Qingu's avatar

@SeventhSense, Southern Christians were understandably confused by abolitionism, since the Bible explicitly and repeatedly condones slavery.

Enlightenment ideals stemmed from protestantism only with respect to the fact that protestantism challenged the moral authority of the church. Enlightenment ideals were based much more on the actual philosophy of humanism and in the politics and aesthetics of ancient Rome and Greece.

All of Revelation is violent. Jesus says “I have not come to bring peace but the sword.” He also says that he has not come to abolish the old laws but to fulfill them, and that anyone who teaches others to follow the OT laws will be called “greatest” in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17). Most of Jesus’ parables are thinly veiled threats promising torture for anyone who doesn’t believe in his cult.

You are free, of course, to cherry-pick the New Testament for hippie-style verses and ignore the morality of the entirety of the Old Testament. Just don’t pretend your moral philosophy has much to do with the Bible.

SeventhSense's avatar

For bright people I find the lack of comprehension or consideration of metaphor as laughable. But perhaps the reason is simply a desire to dispose of the whole religion thing rather than take into consideration a different praxis for evaluating it.

On the surface Zen looks like bunk even more so but the understanding of a thing is often experienced through a direct involvement. And there’s method in the madness.

Most of Jesus’ parables are thinly veiled threats promising torture for anyone who doesn’t believe in his cult

What kind of nonsense is this statement? Early believers were routinely executed and tortured themselves.

Qingu's avatar

If you’re going to claim something in the Bible is a “metaphor,” you actually need to explain what you think it’s a metaphor for.

Simply invoking the word “metaphor” doesn’t magically make the scary Bible verses go away.

crisw's avatar

“God is not Santa Claus.”
In all seriousness, what is the difference between belief in the Christian God and belief in Santa Claus? Most Christians, when asked this question, simply get offended rather than actually answering it. If you try and make your decisions about what is true and valid in the world based on evidence, and if you believe that all theories must have empirical support in order to be valid, then the evidence for the existence of the Christian God is just as weak as the evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. The mere presence of belief does not make that belief true.

SeventhSense's avatar

There is no measurement of what we imagine to be the immaterial and no definite measurement of the material, the further down the worm hole we go or the further we expand into space. The Buddhist’s said the same things that Einstein expanded upon but only said it 5000 years ago. Much of the words of Jesus have no doubt been bastardized for political expediency, but the import of his message is clear from experience. I hate to appear arcane but it is essentially a code of types. Can it be proved by the discursive mind? No, because that standpoint presupposes subject and object. I propose there is no such distinction outside of our imaginations.
For example, one could effectively discount vanilla ice cream as less than creamy and delicious. But to the one who had tasted by firmly planting said spoonful in mouth, all discussion would seem meaningless. Furthermore the one who had not tasted may even accuse said individual of being an elitist ice cream snob.
It’s not a striving nor an understanding but more simply a return to original mind. So there’s no seeking for that outside oneself in the form of gifts or magic but an awareness of that which is and always was complete. Awareness is bliss and without parallel.
Now granted my experience is outside the norm but I don’t claim to be a Christian, Buddhist or religious yet can not fail to see the inseparable nature of all.

crisw's avatar

So, basically, God and Santa Claus are equally real…or equally figments of our imaginations.

Qingu's avatar

@SeventhSense, can you please explain what on earth you’re talking about, and how it relates to either of our posts? Would it help if I get high first?

As for Jesus’ parables being threats, read them. God is characterized as a slavemaster. We humans are characterized as his slaves. God is away from the house for a while, and when he gets back he’s going to be super-pissed at all the slaves who are disobedient, and kill them and torture them. The parables are not hard to understand. Jesus is really just threatening unbelievers with punishment when his alleged daddy gets back.

resmc's avatar

@crisw It’s entirely understandable, on a personal and casual-observational level… do you think it’s possible to understand this on a more macro/societal level, and from that become better at diminishing its power over our perceptions & thus behavior?

crisw's avatar

Ah, I miss the easy quoting feature!

I’m not entirely sure which statement is “entirely understandable,” so I’m not sure how to answer :>)

resmc's avatar

@crisw – Me, too! The one side benefit is, it helps you get to know the names a bit.

That sense of urgency we feel towards moral/social issues nearby versus far away.

crisw's avatar

Ah, see, I thought you meant the Santa Claus thing :>)

I don’t know how easy it is to do anything about it on a societal level, as I think it’s human nature to care much more about what affects you personally. Peter Singer has tried to espouse a philosophy of equal caring,, suggesting that we should give until it hurts, basically- – but his argument has some gaping holes in it- and, again, human nature is a very hard thing to change.

Jiminez's avatar


What I am saying though is that anyone who gets to the heart of Jesus’ teachings will find no violence but only passive resistance as that practiced by Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Right; passive resistance but also a general disagreeableness and a never-ending intolerance. Christians will never tolerate the existence of atheists. Their faith makes it a moral imperative for them to convert people to Christ. Jean-Jaqcues Rousseau believed that Christianity was incompatible with civil society (and he was a pretty devout Christian!). People of other faiths (and non-faiths) on the other hand can effectively not worry about what you believe and be perfectly fine.

thegodfather's avatar

Interestingly, progressives will watch this movie and be horrified by it. But at the same time, these people react with horror for the progressivism going on in their country. In this way, I found the film to be excellent in holding up a mirror to our society. Rather than smash cups in proclamation against the state, or express horror at the brainwashing, why can’t we open up dialogue and public discourse? I find this “brainwashing” behavior manifested in very many different ways, even among so-called liberal schools: I personally have attended the university classes that perpetuate colonizing apparatuses of knowledge, expecting students to adhere to scientific method of analysis as though it were the end-all epistemology of the universe. In this way, I don’t see much of a difference between the “horrors” of indoctrination at the university and the “horrors” of indoctrination at a pentecostal youth camp. What’s missing from both of these is an epistemological humility, where lines of inquiry open up and folks are willing to concede—in fact, totally risk their notions of life and the universe, and what’s morally right—in order to understand others from another community. This doesn’t mean we must agree, in fact, often we will agree to disagree, but at least we can say with some confidence that we have tried to understand someone in their world and treat their thinking and beliefs humanely.

TheKNYHT's avatar

George Bush anointed by God as a Holy Man??? Okaaaay . . .
George Bush has given a lot of credibility to Christianity?!
I take issue with those statements, most certainly!
The lady leader who talks about fixing this world, is talking about something even Jesus didn’t accomplish when He walked this Earth.
Christians aren’t asked to “change this world” but to proclaim the gospel, and pray that the LORD will touch and transform hearts and lives. That’s a BIG difference!
The only Person who will succeed in ultimately changing, indeed, in transforming this world is Christ at His Second Coming, and for those who are ready and waiting, we will see that sort of change transpire.
Its not going to happen through militant Christianity, Kingdom Now, Reconstructionist sort of theology.
I have VERY mixed feelings about the first two clips I watched.
Its a Christian parents responsibility to teach their children the Bible and its truths; that can’t be seen as abusive except by those who believe the Bible is equivalent to Grimms Faery Tales.
Yet to instruct a child that its UP TO THEM TO CHANGE THE WORLD? That’s a burden no one should be made to shoulder!
This world contains souls; some will believe, and others will not, and that’s just how it is!

manoffaith3112's avatar

If I told you my year old Honda did not have a maker…would that make sense to you?\

How about a painting. Did any artistic painting not have an artist? It just came out of no where?

How about a building. What if I told you a building just appeared out of huge explosion, and there it was. No maker it just came out of nothing with no effort?

How about even a can of pepsi? No factory made it. It just appeared out of no where. Magically. That would be insulting a person’s intelligence.

So is that how everything came about on this earth? There was a big bang that caused the universe to be made, and after billions and millions of year a single cell organism just appeared?

In other words every thing was made from nothing. Doesn’t seem very smart to me. In fact to have any belief in that takes way more faith then Christanity does. In fact something out of nothing sounds like a fairy tale.

It makes more sense that a creator made mass, space, and time. That the creator made these things including time, but isn’t restricted at all by time. The vast amount of species and the beauty of the world had to have had a maker. It didn’t magically appear. But came from an infinite being who has always been here, and always will be here.

manoffaith3112's avatar

The bible says “God is love”...“That God so loved the world”

Jesus gave up His life for His friends because He loved them.

God is a Holy and Just God, but He is a God who made a way of escape, and a way to get to know him.

crisw I am so sorry that your view of Jesus is expressed the way you do. If any Christian has offended you; right now: I ask for forgiveness in that person’s behalf. Or forgiveness for how Christanity has left a bad taste for you. From what you wrote you seem fairly angry, and the reality is that there is a God who loves humanity, and me, as well as you. Sometimes people act badly who are Christians, and sometimes there are false conversions of people who act like they’re Christians but aren’t.

Taken in context the theme of the bible is God’s effort to have a relationship with mankind, and the bible points to Jesus. I do not want to add to any misconception of the good news. And the film Jesus Camp is not a great representation of what Christians who walk the walk and talk the talk are really like.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

@manoffaith3112 , do more moderate Christians go so far as to denounce the “Jesus Camps” of the world?

manoffaith3112's avatar

Strange as it may seem (not being sarcastic I promise) there are smart Christians who can discern the real faith when it happens. Also the false things when they happen. Sometimes false Christians do way more damage then any thing else perhaps more damage then some work by demons.

Fanaticism many times lead people into narrow thinking or even cults. Like that Southburrow Baptist church leader who is some kind of hateful nut case. He is definitely a wolf in sheeps clothing, and he is not very smart at that. What a nimrod.

I’ve personally seen a fanatical bunch that wasn’t pretty when they came to church. The leader had a sick wife who was having to stay at home while a pretty young thing was always around him any ways. Just for fun I asked her out, and she said she couldn’t do that until she checked it out with the leader of the bunch. He would play his guitar and sing the words to songs so strangely he’d bite his lips until they bled.
Another nimrod coming around from the back side of evil.

So, in answer to your thoughtful question. Yes Christians who know Jesus in an intimate way would shun evil or fanaticism that is with out the truth even if its under the banner of Christanity. After all evil is evil.

manoffaith3112's avatar

Okay, finally finished watching the whole thing. I know I’m a little late, and perhaps not many will read this by now. But I finished Jesus camp finally. Ted Haggert was a real joke; he was a hypocrite besides saying the wrong thing while being humorous.

However, I really liked the Levi kid and his siblings. They could not be more sincere about their faith. I think all the kids were precious and sincere, too.

But the political swing on the part of Becky Fisher was a little out there. She really needs some help with her presentation, and her direction. Plus lets face it this is an extreme example. I should know this after having gone to several pentecostal Children’s church camps while growing up. It used to be Children’s camp wasn’t a lot different from regular church except for the fun activities.

I’ve been reading the bible to my kids since they were little. And my wife and I live the life in front of them. But we both believe they should ultimately make their own choices on what they want to believe, and hopefully it will be a choice of faith. I do not stuff it down their throats, or make it a requirement. Fortunately they both want to be Christians at this time.

In fact my daughter is being a great witness at her school. She is inviting other kids and they are coming to church. And she shows interest in other’s while wearing Christian T shirts to school. She even decided to wear a cardboard sign that she made to school that has bible verses written on it. We had to fight for her right to wear it since a kid turned her in, and it happened to be a kid whose mother is an atheist. For awhile the school vice principal wouldn’t let her wear it at school which really upset her. But now she wears it about every day to school, and is trying to both help other’s and bring them to faith in Christ. She just started doing these things on her own this year as a junior. It was totally up to her, and she wanted to do this.

However, pushing a political agenda is not the healhiest thing in the world at such a young age. Its a lot better to let the sons and daughters know about God’s love and judgement; live a Christian life before them or else skip it; and let them make the choice on how far they want to go with it. Pushing a political agenda kind of cheapens the gospel message. The young people are smart enough they’ll know what they want to do when they grow up.

By the way I don’t think Mr.Busch was God’s man as president.

TheKNYHT's avatar

@Qingu You said:
“your characterization of extremist Christians as “nonviolent” when compared to other religions doesn’t really hold up historically. Do we really need to bring up the Crusades, the Inquisition (both in Europe and the Americas), and all the religious wars fought over Christian sectarianism and heresy?

“Only recently have Christians begun interpreting their religion as being in opposition to slavery and killing unbelievers. Of course, this has much less to do with Christianity itself, and much more to do with the spread of secular, Enlightenment ideas about morality, which modern Christians seem to like a lot better than the actual morals of their religious text.”

That’s one person’s take on the subject.
Here’s another (my own). Its a matter of those ‘Christians’ that committed atrocities in so-called ‘Holy Wars’ and Inquisitions, and the establishment of God’s City in a wretched attempt at what some call a Theocracy, all of which was in OPPOSITION to the teachings of Christ.
Christ (not the Roman Church) was absolutely not about political wars, or the acquisition of lands or souls via military means; in no way did He endorse His followers killing “infidels” in His Name, or torturing others to convert to what was believed to be THE Church and God’s representative on this Earth.
You attribute Christians more benign conduct today to the spreading of secular, Enlightened ideas about morality.
Quite incorrect, if by Christian you are referring to followers of Christ and His Word; I am such a one and I don’t agree with the Enlightened age or secular thoughts on morality, unless it somehow, almost accidently, parallels Christian doctrine. There are others who call themselves Christian and pass the Bible off as merely allegory and not to be taken too seriously, but just a nice collection of stories to exemplify a certain morality thats beneficial to mankind (I do NOT hold this view!)

I think the reason that Christians today don’t mirror the religionist sectarian/denominational Christians of the Dark and Middle Ages is because of the fact that we adhere more closely to the Words of Christ and the Bible as a whole within the context of Jesus Christ as the primary Subject and Interpreter of the scriptures (Christians then hardly had access to scripture in the Dark Ages unless they spoke Latin, and the common man didn’t in those days).

TheKNYHT's avatar

Thank you for your insightful, thoughtful contributions; I greatly admire your fortitude, sincerity, and conduct as a Christian. It would seem that you hold to a literal view of scripture, and are conservative in your exegesis.
I also can attribute design as demonstrated in this universe in micro-cosmic and macro-cosmic venues only to a Designer.
I foresee that a time is coming when Atheistic evolutionary theory will go by the way side, as will biblical Christianity (when the harpazo takes place) leaving the world with a Theistic brand of evolution. Its not that the world at large will adhere to a belief in God in the usual sense, its just that they will concede that some Intelligent Force started the ball rolling, using evolution as its primary mode of operation.
If you wish to discuss this further, send your comments my way as we are presently somewhat off topic for this particular question.

benjaminlevi's avatar

I love it how they say that Harry Potter would be put to death in the old testament.

TheKNYHT's avatar

@benjaminlevi Put to death? Well maybe not, maybe they would simply force him to grind meat for kosher sausages? : p

benjaminlevi's avatar

@TheKNYHT Well the lady said, quite unequivocally, that Harry Potter should be put to death for being a warlock.

Crusader's avatar

Perhaps Jesus Camp is a reflexive response to liberal indoctrination and socially conservative persecution everywhere in America,(though fiscal moderation needs to balance the social conservative and until then is can be inferred it is a political expedient tool for wealthy,) particular in economic, social, and political circles of the social conservative middle-class.

CMaz's avatar

As a Christian and TV producer. I found it boring. As usual with the “faith”. It get overbearing and too “voodooish”. I have no problem with your “faith” getting you excited and pumped up. But within the confines of the “Movie” and how a movie is made. It sometime makes these “high energy” examples too big for the big screen and you get lost and confused with the overdose of drama.

Crusader's avatar


Yes, it seemsthe films was direced at Charismatics judging from the responses here. This is rather strange for thenono affiliated, and often threatening to social conservative Christian (the Real Christianity) opposition. Plenty of liberal films about liberal worship tat degenerate to effective cult worship of money, power, mention of that. If you are a producer, you must know the first rule of production, Know you Audience. ‘Voodooish’ may be an interpretation of one who has not explored the other denominations. Actual Voodoo performs human sacrifice, I doubt you are even a Christian.

CMaz's avatar

First so we do not get into a flame ware. This is all good stuff. :-) I am a Christian. Do not be so judgmental to make such a call as “I am not a Christian”. My walk, and the cross I bare, is between me and God alone. I certainly would not pass judgment on you. Not my place.
Do I follow, being so immersed in a “Pentecostal” environment, a mainstream direction. No I do not. Beware of false profits. Believe me, they are every where. And, as much as it is partially a “know your audience” idealism. There is much more to the formula than that, in order to get maximum penetration, of your audience. For the “super naturalistic” christian. It is my way or the highway to hell. Sorry, not that cut and dry.
Like I said, we all have a cross to bare, and it is as complicated as we are individuals. And, I said “voodooish” which gives me some abstraction to it’s meaning. But still making a point. “The Real Christianity?” I leave that decision between you and God. “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. John 6:26

Ron_C's avatar

You have to ask yourself, what kind of sick mind could conceive of such a concentration camp for children?

You should also ask how a parent could subject their child to this torture.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther