Cunningham compared Cincinnati Zoo to Bull Connor for pulling out of planned partnership with Creation Museum
SUMMARY: Radio host Bill Cunningham compared the Cincinnati Zoo to Eugene "Bull" Connor, the Birmingham Public Safety commissioner infamous for using dogs and fire hoses against civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s. Cunningham made the remark while criticizing the zoo's decision to pull out of a promotional partnership with the Creation Museum, which seeks to "affirm the truth of the biblical record of the real origin and history of the world and mankind" and reportedly contains a display featuring "a triceratops with a saddle on its back."
On the December 2 broadcast of his Cincinnati-based radio show, Bill Cunningham compared the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden to Eugene "Bull" Connor, the Birmingham Public Safety commissioner infamous for using dogs and fire hoses against civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s. Cunningham made the comparison while discussing the zoo's decision to pull out of a promotional partnership with the Creation Museum, which, according to its website, seeks to "affirm the truth of the biblical record of the real origin and history of the world and mankind." The Louisville Courier Journal reported on December 1 that the zoo ended the partnership after receiving complaints that the Creation Museum -- which contains a display featuring "a triceratops with a saddle on its back" -- "promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission."
Cunningham stated of the zoo's decision: "[I]nstead of the zoo standing up against intolerance of Christianity and the bigots, they buckled under, and they did what every Bull Connor type have done since the days of Birmingham, Alabama: They allowed the passions of the mob and the opinions of the few to take the nation, or in this case the zoo, on a religiously bigoted course from which they had better get out of quickly." Cunningham also proclaimed, "We cannot put up with a religiously based discriminatory organization and the bigots at the Cincinnati Zoo who would do this to the Creation Museum. It's not necessarily about the museum; it's about publicly practiced bigoted racial discrimination against individuals who have a different faith set. Whether it's race discrimination or religious discrimination, it cannot stand."
Earlier in the broadcast, Cunningham said: "So I would imagine if the zoo would do a marketing deal with the NAACP, if there would be a lot of white racists that send emails to the zoo complaining about associating with colored people, would the zoo back down because of these emails?"
According to a December 1 press release by the Creation Museum's publicist, the marketing partnership between the zoo and the Creation Museum would have allowed visitors to pay a reduced price if they purchased tickets for both the zoo's Festival of Lights and the Creation Museum's Christmas event, Bethlehem's Blessings.
From the December 2 edition of Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham:
CUNNINGHAM: The zoo said, quote, "When we partner with the Reds, we don't get these kinds of emails," unquote. "It's pretty clear this is more of a distraction." So I would imagine if the zoo would do a marketing deal with the NAACP, if there would be a lot of white racists that send emails to the zoo complaining about associating with colored people, would the zoo back down because of these emails? And how about the bigots who exhibit discrimination against Christianity? They're in the same category of the Ku Klux Klan and white racist bigots who would complain if the zoo would partner with the NAACP. So I guess the standard is if five or 10 people send emails to the Cincinnati Zoo complaining about a partnership deal, that means the zoo pulls it, right? So if they partner with a black organization and white racists complain, do you think the zoo would pull the promotion?
[...]
CUNNINGHAM: Why is there no outcry from the Christian community, which is 85 percent of us? We cannot put up with a religiously based discriminatory organization and the bigots at the Cincinnati Zoo who would do this to the Creation Museum. It's not necessarily about the museum; it's about publicly practiced bigoted racial discrimination against individuals who have a different faith set. Whether it's race discrimination or religious discrimination, it cannot stand. This would not happen against any other religion in the Tri-State. It would be an outrage if Islam or Muslims were targeted in such a fashion.
So the next time the zoo comes up for a levy, they're gonna have one forceful advocate right here educating and informing you once again. At a moment in history when the zoo had an occasion to stand up against intolerance and against the bigots, and instead of the zoo standing up against intolerance of Christianity and the bigots, they buckled under, and they did what every Bull Connor type have done since the days of Birmingham, Alabama: They allowed the passions of the mob and the opinions of the few to take the nation, or in this case the zoo, on a religiously bigoted course from which they had better get out of quickly.
The zoo had better reconsider what they've done because they're gonna have forceful advocates throughout the Tri-State working hard to make sure that a zoo levy never passes again as long as the leaders of the zoo are bigots, and that's exactly what they are.
Burned to the ground? You are entitled to your opinions about religion and this museum, but to advocate it go up in flames not only displays your incredible intolerance, but is flat out scary stuff.
But.. but, from the ashes will arise the return of our newest messiah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster who tricks all those scientists just for kicks!
LOL. OK fair enough. I am just expressing my opinion, but I would not advocate domestic terrosim to make the point. Obviously I have a very strong opinion on the matter. The very idea of what they do there offends my very life's philosphy. Science IS my religion. The Scientific Method IS my life's philosphy. I have no problem with religious beliefs when they are in church or used as a guding force in someones personal life. But to present creationim as either fact, history or science is a out and out LIE. And a rather egregiuous one. To believe Genesis as a literal, historical fact is to embrace flat out stupidity. There is no scietific basis for any aspect of the creation model, whatsoever. THAT'S fact. And the curators of the creation museam are scientific infidels.
(That being said, for god's sake, don't go burning anything down!!!)
Fair enough for me too. We all have our opinions on religion and faith, just like politics. To most, it is very personal, I understand that. I have my faith but I don't expect anyone else to agree with it or even accept it, what I do expect is simple respect and a "agree to disagree" philosophy. Bygones be bygones so to speak. My religion teaches me that much, I wish those who believed as I do, and those who do not, could at least afford each other basic human decency and respect.
Nice,
You are still expressing a biggoted point of view and you don't know it.
The creationist belief runs counter to yours just as your runs counter to theirs. Just let it go at that. I find your objection laughable because scientific "facts" are disproven every day and new scientific 'facts' replace the old ones.
I am not sure how many believe Genesis as a historical fact or history. There may be a few, but even so, it doesn't really matter as creation either occurred 14-15 billion years ago or some thousands of years ago. I think many more believe in intelligent design and the Bible creationism as an allegory that while not factually accruate, does provide some truth. It makes for interesting discussion but either way, none of us were there then but are here now.
No one says you have to agree with them. Arguing with such certainty about Science makes you the same as those who argue so passionately about Creationism. You are both dogmatic in your beliefs. Those beliefs just happen to be different.
The creationist belief runs counter to yours just as your runs counter to theirs. Just let it go at that. I find your objection laughable because scientific "facts" are disproven every day and new scientific 'facts' replace the old ones.
It has been conclusively proven that dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million to 230 million years old. Creationists are laughably wrong to deny it.
It can't possibly be the same. Even if facts occasionally change, the scientific method remains the same. Believing in an objective, self-correcting process is not even remotely similar to believing in Bible stories.
Brab,
I agree there are differences, however to say that facts occasionally change is to agree that scientific "facts" have been proven time and time again to be wrong. It is inherent in science. Much of what we know today as far as science goes, contradicts what was scientific fact of a generation ago. We all probably agree that science will again find something to disprove what we believe now.
So believing in Science is to say you believe in stuff that will eventually be proven wrong.
As a point of discussion? How is that any better than Creationism? (BTW, I don't believe in Creationism but science cannot itself provide any proof of the original cause. That proof lies beyond science.
If a "fact" is proven wrong, then it is not a "fact".
Science cannot disprove Creationism, but that's not really the point... it is not science's job. Evolutionary science can only examine the evidence and present an answer that matches the evidence.
Creationism is based on an untestable premise, therefore it falls outside the parameters of science. People are free to believe it, but to teach it in our schools as "science" is foolish.
It's better than Creationism because it's objective and self-correcting. It's a means by which to understand the universe without any ulterior motive or bias getting in the way.
However, it is proven here, that it generates a religious like fervor and an intolerance toward those who disbelieve. Why is that better?
I don't accept your premise. If you recognize the objectivity of science, then you should understand the scorn for people who want to compromise that. Moreover, people can believe whatever they want, but if there's no rational basis for it then they should not push it on the general public. Promoting science does not stop people from holding their own personal faith, but it's not quite the same the other way around.
it is utterly absurd to compare creationism to evolution and then claim each deserves an equal airing. and that brings up the question, why limit the views to those two. why not scientology, because the space aliens came here? where's your "tolerance" there? if someone wants to claim that evolution was guided by a superior being, that's up to them. when someone wants to claim that dinosaurs lived among people, that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. stop playing the victim because others refuse to buy the fairly tales.
You know, I wonder how our Fundie Friends would react if a Public School system wanted to teach the appearance of Moroni in North America as historic fact.
ever read the book of mormon? i got through two pages. mark twain called it "chloroform in print". i would bet money that joseph smith wrote it. we know what a faker he was. he didn't decide god wanted polygamy until his wife no longer held his interest. the book of mormon is clearly meant to mimic the king james bible. as this link notes, "it came to pass" is half the book.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BoM/topics/twain.html
I have no doubt that Smith wrote it. There's a really good book called "Under the Banner of Heaven" that chronicles the early history of the Mormons. Smith was a con man. He had these pebbles he called "Peeping stones" that he would put in his hat; then he would stick his face down into the hat and "read the future". This was one of his scams before he dreamed up Mormonism, his ultimate con job.
The fact that Mormonism is the fastest growing religion in America, and is obviously making a brazen play for national political power scares the hell out of me. These people are nuts.
i am sure it was smith or perhaps someone he hired. there is no way that is the "word of god". i am not really an "atheist", quote unquote. perhaps there is something beyond this, or perhaps not. i don't know. but the thing about mormonism is that it's recent history, not some events 2000 years ago. we know smith was a con man, and yet people believe. i know a woman at work who is a mormon. and, no surprise, a big bush and mccain supporter. she and her conservative buddies go on about what a genius palin is. it's not that i am some huge liberal, i just can't take the stupidity in the gop.
If a scientific fact is disproven, then it is no longer a fact, and hence why science is there in the first place.
The creationism museum is just flat out silly, and incredibly wrong. They try to present religion as a scientific FACT, and they're not even close.
Science has a basis on which to base itself, as in, research, results, quantifiable facts, that can be re-produced by others that follow behind you. Science is not a faith, religion is, science is provable, and repeatable. Trying to equate science with religion is wrong headed and the 2 are completely and utterly separate things altogether, and are incomparable. Religion is based on faith, as in, take the Bible's word for it, it's all good.
Science is based on what you can prove.
Mags,
I agree with you. What is apparent is that there are people who hold what is essentially a religious belief about science the same way some people hold a religious belief about creationism.
Wrong. Truly scientific beliefs are based on evidence. Creationism is based on superstition and faith.
Nerzog,
Truly scientific beliefs eh? What caused the big bang? Is that cause scientifically proven?
You've got "evidence" and "proof" mixed up there, Barn.
The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day. Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's General Relativity as formulated by Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[1] If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the phrase 'Big Bang' during a 1949 radio broadcast, as a derisive reference to a theory he did not subscribe to.[2] Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to figure out the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its collective frequencies sketched out a blackbody curve, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Do you ever tire of being wrong or mistaken?
Mags,
I understand the big bang very well but thanks for the information.
What I think is interesting here and perhaps you could delve into this from your perspective, is the following:
the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant.
So again, what in science accounts for or describes the initial condition?
It can't be known. And, guess what? Creationism only sets that puzzle back one step, so it's no better.
If the Universe is too complex to have come into existence without a creator, then so is God. Who created God?
Your premise is flawed.
Just because the universe had some of original cause does not mean that God has to have one. Judeo-Christian theology says God always has existed.
Atheistic creationism says the universe was created out of nothing. You believe that on faith alone as there is no proof. How is that faith any different than believing in God?
You have no concept of logic... So let me help you- If something was created, who created the creator? To say, 'Well, this book I read SAYS the original creator HAS NO creator, so that is THAT" is NOT logical. Imagine if most people thought your way... there would be no phones, internet, spaceships, etc., because they would all be to busy reading and creating pulp fiction for 10 year olds because they wouldn't have the education to do anything else!
mr.l,
Can you explain the how this iconprehensibly large universe was created out of nothing? Where is the logic in that?
I don't understand your leap from the differing theories regarding the origin of the universe to somehow there being no phones or internet. Perhaps you could explain the logic in that???
"Just because the universe had some of original cause does not mean that God has to have one"
Oh, really? Why?
this creationist museum is telling everyone the earth is only 10,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. I've been to a few of their sites, they also claim that god purposely tricked us by putting dinosaur bones in the earth.
Mags,
I've seen that too. It doesn't make sense to me either. However the circular logic is the same as consipiracy theorists.. that is that no proof proves the conspiracy is actually secretly there.
I thought that link earlier showing Jesus with dinosaurs was laughable. However I don't care if people believe it.
I don't care either, but I don't want them teaching it as science in public schools, which is what this debate inevitably boils down to.
I thought this debate was over the anti-religious bigotry of preventing the Creationist Museum from having a marketing agreement with the Cinci Zoo.
It is religious intolerance plain and simple. Nobody from either the Zoo or the CM said the Zoo agreed with the Creationist Museum's beliefs.
I've seen marketing agreements between grocery stores and the local zoo. Is the zoo endorsing the groceery store? Of course not.
Cunningham is right. The zoo caved in to anti-religious bigotry.
the anti-religious bigotry of preventing the Creationist Museum from having a marketing agreement with the Cinci Zoo
You're really spinning here, AA. One party has decided to discontinue a business relationship. Your imaginary bigots, as helpful to your persecution complex as they might be, are just that- imaginary.
And said religious bigots come from Cunningham's radio show, and nowhere else. The anti religious tilt is what HE put on it. This is sort of like the War On Christmas, just because some stores want their employees to say, "Happy Holidays" in an effort to include everyone, certain people take it to mean they are anti religious and don't want Christmas (of course, Christmas being one of those holidays that they want you to be happy for).
Anyway, I never thought that saying Merry Christmas made much sense, unless of course you were saying it ON Christmas. I mean, you don't go around saying, "Happy Birthday" to everyone on days that are not their Birthday do you? Same thing. Christmas is one day per year, and the holiday season, stretches from T-giving, through New Year's.
The truth is always intolerant of falsehood. Cunningham's identification of the Creation Museum with Christianity is false. Bull Connor wielded his billy club and unleashed dogs against defenseless people who courageously stood up for the truth of their humanity. Like those victims, the Cincinnati Zoo is also courageously standing up for the truth, this time against radio bullies like Cunningham who play to the ignorant mob.
OK. I see I have given the zoo way too much credit here. I have since learned the real hero is biologist and blogger P. Z. Meyers. Also, believe it or not, the reference to Bull Connor's dogs in connection with this anti-museum has a history. I believe the following is a MUST READ: http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/anti-museum-overview-review-answers-genesis-creation-museum ["The Anti-Museum: An overview and review of the Answers in Genesis Creation "Museum," by Daniel Phelps, President, Kentucky Paleontological Society]
The creationist belief runs counter to yours just as your runs counter to theirs. Just let it go at that. I find your objection laughable because scientific "facts" are disproven every day and new scientific 'facts' replace the old ones.
True, but they are disproven by other scientists, who do research and LEARN MORE about the current model. It has never been disproven by those clinging to medieval druidic dogma. The questions about eveolution are HOW and WHEN it all heppened and in what order. There question is NOT about WHETHER it happened. Its the details, not the overall model that are being fleshed out.
And the two ideas are far from equal. One is based on observation, data and physical, tangible, measurable evidence. The other is based on the irrational belief in document of inderterminant age, writtne by god-knows-who. Putting aside that numerous claims in generous have been proven to be demonstrably false, the two ideas were not of equal footing, validity-wise, right form the start.
"numerous claims in genesis"
If you would have told me when I was a kid that a day would come when evolutionary biology would actually be questioned in the media I would have called you crazy.
Guess that's where these people are, Crazyfu__ingtown USA.
And here's one of my favorite pictures I've found in these internet tubes.
To be fair, Gov. Jindal was very young and impressionable when that picture was taken.
Geez, Kyle, enough of the Republican apologist stuff. ;0)
I agree with WK, that these are the residets of Crazyf'intownUsa, but even if we allow that the insane deserve the same civi rights as the rest of us, at what extra-insa level does withholdng financial support equal physically assaulting somebody?
Jindall is a religious whackop. Just like Palin, Huckabee and every pother dangerous republican. The party needs to kick these funny-mentalists to the curb or they will wither die (politically.) And if they do manage to get elected, our country will continue to trail the rest of the world in acedemics and the sciences. Religion won't save us, as a people or as a country. Only science will. To believe otherwise is dangerous.
(And before anyone suggests that there are inherent "dangers" in science (ie.: nucelar weapons) make sure you are not conflating SCIENCE with ENGINEERING. Science is only the knowledge - which is ALWAYS good to know. ENGINEERING is the application of that knowledge - which can (obviously) go either way.)
Nice,
If you don't apply science, how will it save us?
Because science provides the basis on which to base solutions. He said that already. Either you don't understand, or are being obtuse on purpose.
Mags,
Never being obtuse on purpose. Thanks for your correction. I did misread it.
We all agree that Science does not exist in a vaccum. You have to apply it. So Scientific knowledge in and by itself is interesting but useless unless applied to real world problems. Sometimes that application is used for evil and sometimes for good. Got it. Sorry for the confusion.
If I could just chime in here, I'd like to add that I'm truly sorry that Jesus Christ, along with the saddle, was not invented until millions and millions and millions of years after Triceratops graced planet earth.
You are mistaken, Jesus Christ was not invented. He was real but either you don't understand or are being obtuse on purpose.
As an aside, I have no problem with your belief that the Jurassic Period existed.
Yes, inventions are real.
How old are dinosaur fossils?
Do you think the carbon date of dinosaur fossils is a belief?
Of course it is. You believe that carbon dating is accurate. You base your beliefs either at face value because somewhere you read that it is accurate and believe what you read is true or you yourself have investigated and performed the calculations measuring radioactive carbon delay and in the end believe your calculations are correct. Either way, you believe it to be accurate.
personally, I too believe carbon dating is accurate. But I am no scientist and take at face value the writings of others who say they believe it is accurate.
hahaha.... carbon delay should read cabon decay.
Dinosaur fossils range from 65 million to 230+ million years of age, not because you or I believe it to be accurate. They are that old because they are that old.
Jesus the man was real, (as far as we know); Jesus the Messiah was invented.
Nerzog,
Do you know that for a fact?
AA, since you are all for the big J (and so am I in his real way), how are you doing on the book he REALLY wrote, A Course In Miracles? I'm on page 45- tough read, but worth it in the end, I've been told.
If you can't answer other people's question, then stop asking your own.
No, I don't. Neither do you know the opposite as a fact. There is no hard evidence that Jesus ever existed. We have alleged "eye witness" accounts, but no proof.
The resurrected savior was a common religious theme of the time, so it is possible that Jesus is just one more myth that happened to catch on because Constantine latched on to it.
The Cincinnati Zoo exists to educate. The Cincinnati Zoo can't be having displays of cavemen playing hide and seek with dinosaurs. That would be factually inaccurate and run counter to their commitment to science.
I think he has a point. A zoo should use its exhibits to battle intolerance and bigotry, and the best way for the Cincinnati zoo to do that would be for them to complete their Garden of Eden enclosure and put a couple of Christians in it. (I've heard they breed in captivity very well, too).
That's the ONLY way they breed.
So the 'passions of the mob' = people who study science and voice their concerns that a non-science entity is making a joke of themselves and education. Hoooo- kay! Following notsocunning's logic, ANYBODY who has a different set of beliefs, etc., should be allowed to share their ideas with others. That... that, sounds TOTALLY UNAMERICAN!! These idiots spin themselves into knots just for the hell of it, don't they?
And I say this as one of the 15% non-christain minority who secretely went to catholic school through 13th grade (I did this to study their strange ways and, well, let's just say by 2nd grade, I had a handle on all the religious stuff and wanted out).
Also off topic, but I never figured out where Spike Lee came up with the name of Ray Allen's (Go Celtics!) character, Jesus Shuttleworth, in the movie He Got Game until I read up on Bull Conner (Shuttleworth was one of the blacks involved in Conner's legacy of brutality).
To: mr.l, I, too, am (was) a product (victim) of not only twelve years of Catholic schools, but studied to be a PRIEST for 3 years! I was the only non-Catholic in the school, but absorbed the ideology and was baptized in my junior year. The local priests were highly moral and educated men who inspired me to become one of them. At NO time were scientific facts disputed or rejected. The scriptures were guides to morality and a way of life, not substitutes for reality. My release from the fantasy of religion came gradually BECAUSE of my extreme exposure to that experience and just the process of growing up. The few crazies I knew about were the extreme fundamentalists who DID preach the literal reading of the Old Testament were regarded as just that-crazies. i never thought that these nuts could actually have any influence on a national level. They are making us the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
Don,
I agree there are a few extreme fundamentalists that hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, but I do believe they are a small minority.
In my view, the literal interpretation of the Bible really is moot. We live here and now, not at creation. If you believe it happened 10,000 years ago by God and I believe it happened 15 billion years ago out of nothing, what difference does it make? We disagree about something that happened long before we were born.
Heck, some of us are Democrats, some Republicans. The great part about living in the United States is that we are free to hold our own opinions and form our own beliefs. Just because someone has beliefs different than yours does not make them any less of a person or any less intelligent. They are just different.
ps. Which of those you call nuts, have any influence on a national level?
Sarah Palin, for one...
A small minority? You've got to be kidding right?
The difference is that science, and information actually tells us what happened. The Bible tells us to believe their parables and stories as what actually happened.
What nuts have influence on a national level you ask? You've have not been paying attention, here's just a small list (now and in the past):
Pat Robertson
John Hagee
James Dobson
Jerry Falwell
Billy Graham
The Pope
Liberty and Regent Universities
Bob Jones University
That's just a quick list.
Mags,
You forgot Obama. As a professed Christian don't you think he also merits mention as do all of the past Presidents, including Carter who may have been the most religious in the modern era. I also noticed you did not include any ministers on the left. Your bias is showing.
Your statement is in error about the Bible. Look up the definition of parable.
ps. Did any of the above try to push Creationism on the rest of us?
ps. Citing the Pope is way out there if you ask me. If you are going to do that, you should have also included Ayatollah Khomeini and Dalai Lama and Oama bin Laden.
Comparing the Pope to the Dalai Lama, Khomeini, and Bin Laden? Seriously? First of all, Bin Laden is not a religious leader. The Dalai Lama is, but he doesn't lead the largest religion in the world that has its own country, and has embassies around the world as well, as the Catholics do. If you don't think that the Pope has an affect on international events, I can't help you.
And as far as a parable goes, it can be defined as:
A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as actors while parables generally are stories featuring human actors or agents.
Which is what Jesus uses in his teachings ALL OF THE TIME. Have you ever read the Bible? Many years of Cathechism taught me that the Bible is chock full of parables. You can't wing a dead cat in the Bible without hitting a parable.
Mags,
You were asking about nuts who try to have influence on the national level. I simply gave you a few foriegners and one Christian President that some might consider nuts. Why you are picking on Christians I do not know. It seems to me you are showing anti-Christian bigotry.
Obviously you didn't get my point about parables. Try to stay with me here... You stated, erroneously, that Bible tells us we have to believe the parables "as what actually happened". You can see by your own definition that you disproved your original point.
I know very well that Jesus used parables to teach, that is why is why I called you on it.
Besides that, show me in the Bible where it says we must believe those parable "as what actually happened". I think Don will back me up on that.
It's not the same. Why? Who is in constant touch with Obama who is a pastor and who counsels him on political matters? You can't name one. Same for Carter.
See, here is the difference. Obama and Carter both have their fervent belief in Christianity, but I do believe that they believe that their faith and religion is their own, and nodboy else's.
Did any of the above I mention try to push creationism, or it's more slickly packaged Intelligent Design:
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/search.aspx/search?q=intelligent%20design
Focus on the Family is a pretty big proponent of ID, and Dobson used to have weekly conference calls with George W. Bush, and has counseled him on things such as abstinence education, and Supreme Court justices.
Mags,
You are bringing up so many straw men and incorrect statements, it is getting a bit silly. I never said Obama or Carter had pastors who conselled them on political matters. You are trying to change the subject.
GW, for that matter, keeps his faith as his own, the same as Obama and Carter.
Oh Dr. Dobson is not a "pastor" so your comparison agains falls apart.
Besides that you left out that Dr. Dobson did not advise GWB on Intelligent Design, which itself is different than creationism. So whether he believes in ID or not, it is irrelevent. Whether he called GW every week is a different subject. Do you have any proof for that claim?
Besides, you left out the elephant in the room. Until he tossed his pastor of 20 yrs., Rev. Wright, under the bus, Obama called Wright his spritiual mentor. Isn't Rev. Wright a little bit extreme?
Robertson told the city of Dover, PA "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city." This was after they voted out of office all of the school board members who supported ID creationism in schools. He also claimed that god "told me personally that He wants school boards to include intelligent design in their curriculums."
Hagee claims God’s “curse” and “doom” is upon America because of two key issues: reproductive freedom and broad support for the teaching of the theory of evolution.
While Dobson at least isn't a YEC, he has given repeated praise to anti-evolution and pro-ID books and films.
Falwell said " I will continue to stand against the evolutionary and secularist tides by proclaiming that God spoke the heavens and the earth into existence in six literal days."
Billy Graham did not reject the fact of biological evolution. He was a believer in theistic evolution, and I have little problem with that position as long as it doesn't disregard scientific reality and natural causes.
Pope Benny's been a little wishy-washy on the topic of evolution, but his most recent comments have also fallen into the category of theistic evolution.
Currently, Liberty University is looking for biology teachers with "a young-earth creationist philosophy." Furthermore, the school asserts "there is now mounting evidence that man and dinosaurs did indeed live on earth at the same time" and says that "the chances are good" that there were dinosaurs on board Noah's Ark. - From Wikipedia - sources cited there.
Regent University doesn't offer any degrees in the sciences and doesn't seem to take any official positions on the topic of evolution. They have, however, offered the following seminars: Tools for Resolution: A Scientific Model of Creation, Origin of Life: Comparing Models, Scientific Challenges to the Evolution Model, Scientific Support for the Creation Model, Cosmic Design: Fine Tuning the Universe and Hope, Purpose and Destiny
This is on page 1 of the biology book Bob Jones University has used:
Or does it come down to parsing the definition of "pushing creationism?" I'd say it does look like they do.
Liberty University might be able to find a few "Young Earth Biologists", but I bet they'll play hell finding any "Young Earth Geologists." Geology pretty much deflates the Young Earth nonsense.
I saw some Regent University students interviewed on one of the Cable News channels a while back, and I remember one bright young future lawyer saying that "We have to get the Constitution back to the Biblical principles it was founded on and forget about all this individual rights stuff".
These are the Troglodytes who currently infest Bush's Justice Department. We can only hope Obama gives them a good flushing.
When school boards across the country try to either introduce or even replace the teaching of science with creationism it is not moot. By mis-educating students, through the watering down of legitimate science, the effects will be felt for many decades, placing our young people way behind enlightened societies. It make a big difference. I don't have "faith" in science. It is not a question of "belief", but of a system that, through the laws of physics and tested formulas, presents data that has been the foundation of rational thought for centuries. I have no respect or tolerance for those who want to dumb-down the educational advantages fought for over many decades against witches, voodoo and fairy tales. Anyone can believe whatever they want, but they have no right to impose those beliefs in the classroom.
The primary difference between Creationism and Evolution is the Science part. Evolution is a theory which was formulated to explain the evidence, and has to be fine-tuned as new evidence is found.
By contrast, Creationism starts with a conclusion and backtracks to find evidence which supports that conclusion. The problem with this approach is that their conclusion is ultimately untestable, and they cherrypick the evidence and even distort it to fit their agenda, rejecting any evidence which does not support it... sort of like Darth Cheney did with the WMD intelligence.
Creationism in schools is one of my pet peeves, and I fear that the Religious Right is going to dig all this stuff up again, now that they have nothing else to do. They'll need something to rally the drooling masses and build up their coffers for the next election.
I fully expect to see a flurry of new efforts to get creationism in the schools, the Ten Commandments on every Courthouse, and the odious Gay Marriage Amendment into our Federal Constitution.
I don't know of anyone who wants to replace science with creationism. That is a pretty broad statement.
What is at issue is how we came into being. Christians believe God is the initial cause. Creationists attached a timeline to it of somewhere around 10,000 years ago.
Big Bangers believe the universe started 14-15 billion years ago.
ID people have no argument with the Big Bang or the physics (ie., science) that points to that starting date.
What is missing from the big bang theory is the initial cause. Science cannot explain the initial cause.
Introducing creationism or ID into discussions about "how we got here" and/or the big bang does not prevent anyone from discussing how science arrives at it's conclusions or replace science with creationism. Creationism can be discussed and the scientific arguments against it also discussed. It would be very interesting and enlightening for students to understand why some people believe in creationism over scientific "facts". There is no threat to science to discuss alternative theories and allowing the discussion of creationist theories in now way replaces "science". On the contrary, it probably reinforces "science". However, some people do believe in creationism, (a very small group if you ask me,) so bringing it up in discussions about the big bang, only respects the opinions of the parents and the beliefs they want to pass on to their children.
It is good to know that people form different conclusions on the same evidence. Science has always had competing theories. I've seen and learned of countless "battles" between competing theories even though many of them are not now widely believed. Even today we have in countless areas of science, and astrophyics, competing ideas and theories. Some good, some not. Adhering to only allowable theory on any scientific subject is shortsighted and does not reflect the real world of science.
Competing scientific ideas are fine. The problem is that Creationism and ID (Creationism Lite) are NOT science.
AA - just a comment on your response to Don:
You said,
"In my view, the literal interpretation of the Bible really is moot. We live here and now, not at creation. If you believe it happened 10,000 years ago by God and I believe it happened 15 billion years ago out of nothing, what difference does it make? We disagree about something that happened long before we were born."
To some degree you're correct. A literal interpretation of the Bible really is moot - until religious whackjobs use grassroots organizations to gain political power, then use that power to push their interpretations of not only the Bible, but their so-called "Christian World View". As a former member of this whacky group, I can tell you that their number one goal isn't to get to heaven. It's to take control of the U.S., use the powers they gain to push their religious nutjobbery on the rest of us - codify it, and punish misdeeds accordingly.
Sorry, but that's not the society I want to live in. I would venture to guess that you feel the same way. Imagine having to live in a world where you're stoned to death for infidelity. These people are no better than the Muslim extremists against whom we're waging our 'War on Terror'.
And this group of religious nutjobs are actually a large voting block in this country. The right-wing wouldn't have nearly a prayer at political power unless they used the religious in this country to get elected. Do some research on Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. You'll find that Robertson isn't the holy man he portrays himself as - and Falwell - not a stand-up guy either (well, at least not anymore, if he ever was). ;)
CSL,
I disagree completely with your contentions.
America is the land of the free. Liberals, conservatives, radicals, reactionaries, anarchists, federalists, and every other type have the freedom to express their ideas and shape goverment policies. It is the way it is.
America has built in safeguards, starting with the Constitution, that prevents religious tyranny.
To compare religious conservatives with Muslim extremists is just plain stupid. No religious conservative wants to stone people. I can't believe you would even say something so ridiculous based on absolutely no proof.
Your repeated derisions of those religious are in fact the same type of bigotry against conservative religious people that you claim they have toward secular leftists. You are far more intolerant than Robertson or Falwell only your intolerance is aimed at religious. Why is that?
If you don't like Falwell or Robertson as religious leaders, you don't have to follow them. I don't.
You're putting words in my mouth. I don't believe myself to be intolerant of religious folk. I'm not saying that religious folk cannot worship the way they see fit. I am not saying that religious folk should be cast to the sidelines because of their beliefs. What I am saying is that there is NO PLACE FOR RELIGION IN GOVERMENT. People like the dead Falwell and the brain-dead Robertson are faux Christians who aspire for power, using religion to get their power. And don't tell me that they don't want power. Witness: Huckabee and Robertson's failed presidential bids. Same for Alan Keyes.
And I do say that Christian extremists are comparable to Muslim extremists. Anyone who wants to take over government to put their perverted religious beliefs into place at the point of a sword or gun are definitely extremists. These extremists on both sides believe in the infallibility of their religious tomes and take their words literally. Of course, I don't believe in stoning people for their personal choices, but the religious, especially those with a literal take on the Bible, believe in it. To me, those that espouse death for anyone else are either anti-Christian or faux Christian. Jesus never said to bomb your enemy. Jesus never said to kill others because they don't agree with you. Jesus never said that a government should be set up following his teachings. Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself and when you're slighted, to turn the other cheek. These wingnuts don't believe in that. We all know it. Witness Sarah Palin's pseudo-revivals, falsely called campaign events. What did people there yell? "Kill him", etc. Christians, indeed.
And as I said above, I grew up with these crazy folks. I know what they want and I know what they are capable of.
Tell me, have you ever been to a church where the pastor and other church elders handling poisonous snakes? Do you know what their rationale behind 'handling snakes' is? If you're good with G-d, the snake should be able to bite you, poison you, and G-d will rescue you. HOW FREAKING CRAZY DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO DO THIS? How crazy do you have to be to believe this nonsense? How brainwashed are you to believe that this is the right way to behave? Have you witnessed these nutjobs first hand? My former church handled snakes. When I became old enough to get the hell out of there, I did.
And do I really need to get into Falwell and Robertson's quotes from the past, about G-d sending hurricanes to punish EVERYONE because of 'the gays'? I wonder if Robertson ever received a message from G-d about his blood diamond smuggling in Africa? Has G-d ever sent a message to Robertson telling him that bilking seniors out of their meager SS checks every month is OK?
Are movies depicting the end days, with people getting their heads chopped off unless they accept the mark of the beast the way to get people to worship and believe the same way? I saw this very movie over 20 years ago - and it scared the bejesus out of me. So, religion because of love, or religion because of fear? "Christian" whackjobs play the fear card - just like Muslim extremists do. It's all terrorism, just different forms.
Sorry for the long post, but you have to understand that I come from a background that is filled with this craziness. The most formative years of my life were influenced by this bullcocky - and it's more prevalent than you know.
I don't see the Muslim extremists as the only threat to us. Christianists are as well - for the same reasons.
AA is doing what Religious Right apologists often do.... playing the victim card. If we object when they try to teach their fairy tales in public schools as science, or plaster their Religious tenets on our Government buildings, then they accuse us of "Religious Bigotry" and suppressing their rights.
It's nonsense, of course.
CSL,
I've never heard of any Christian religion using poisonous snakes in their sermons. My guess is that your parents belonged to an extremist denomination. Do you remember what that denomination was called? Frankly, from your telling and earlier discussions I don't blame you for getting out.
I do not answer for Robertson or any televangelist. I do not care for them myself. However I see your point. Robertson and others like him take a literal view of the Bible and force current events, both natural and political, through that fram of reference.
Getting back to your second paragrpah. If you could name the Christian groups who try to force people into their belief by the point of a gun. I would stand with you in opposing such groups. I agree that is not true Christianity.
You should know by now that the false meme of people yelling "Kill him" at Palin rallys has been thoroughly discredited by the Secret Service. The only one who heard it was the reporter who reported it.
I had to laugh when you said Palin's campaign events were pseudo-revivals. Apparently you never watched any of Obamas. they took revivals to a whole new level!
Do you remember the movie you saw? I can see why a youngster, (I assume you were young,) would be scared. I saw Snow White when I was little and it, like the Wizzard of Oz, scared the bejesus out of me too.
However, no Christians kill non believers just because they do not believe the way Muslim extremists do. You only need look at last week's news in Mumbai to see the difference.
Just as a shot in the dark, could that movie be "The Devil's Rain"?
I don't remember the name of the movie. As I said, I saw it over 20 years ago. It's taken therapy and lots of alcohol to forget even the small amounts that this religion did to me.
I saw the film with my then girlfriend (yes, see, we gay folks can at least TRY to conform, right?) who was a member of a Southern Baptist church.
My family was part of a very conservative Pentecostal church, so conservative, in fact, that they saw Pat Robertson as liberal! (Ok, not so much, but you get my point).
I thought a little about what we both wrote yesterday. I do want to mention (I probably didn't do a very good job at explaining this yesterday) that I don't believe that religious groups should be discriminated against, even if their beliefs and behavior fall outside of what most 'Christians' believe. Believe what you will. Leave others alone. Leave your religion out of politics. Just as some right-wingers don't want their tax money going to the NEA, welfare and abortion doctors, I don't want my tax money going to a pseudo-museum that discredits science for a book of parables/allegories/fairy tales. If this religious institution wants to run a museum, power to them. Just keep tax money and government out of it.
My understanding of the saddled triceratops is that is sort of an intentional joke, something for kids to sit on and have their pictures taken. It's not like it's supposed to be some realistic depiction of anything, so I'm not sure why it bears mention here.
That being said, of course this is just an attempt to blur the very clear line between matters of science and matters of faith. The Cincinnati Zoo has every right to decide that such an association does not lend them any credibility, whether people had to point that out to them or not. There's nothing really questionable about that action, as far as I'm seeing.
Your first paragraph could apply equally to the book of genesis. Except that I saw through that garabge at the age of five, having read a couple of books on dinosaurs myself by that time. I stumped the nun in my Sunday school (she was a pro, and I was 5!) and I haven't bought into the BS ever since.
And no, nmothing question about Cin Zoo's actions at all. They clearly did the RIGHT THING here.
I agree. I heard a report a while back that Bush's interior department put books in the Grand Canyon gift shop that claimed the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's Flood. Let's hope the Obama administration has a little more respect for science.
Nerzog,
I heard Obama is putting Bill Ayers writings in every school.
It would be nice if you could provide evidence to back up your claim. Otherwise you might be promulgating a falsehood to further your own beliefs.
See my point?
Ask, and you shall receive:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801
Thanks Mags!
I always like to see claims backed up. Lest anyone think otherwise, let me categroically state, I was joking about Ayers to prove a point.
I knew that you were joking about Ayers.
AA, Magnolialover did the work for me. I may be too lazy to Google a link, but I would never intentionally mislead you.
It did take me about 3.123 seconds to come up with that article.
Well, I appreciate the effort. I heard the story on the radio a couple of years ago. I didn't really think that the facts were in dispute, so I didn't bother to look it up.
"I heard a report a while back that Bush's interior department put books in the Grand Canyon gift shop that claimed the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's Flood. Let's hope the Obama administration has a little more respect for science." - Nerzog
Let's also hope that the Obama administration has a little more respect for the general population who are smart enough to know better.
I can relate I never bought into the Sunday School stories either. The story of Job and the tale of Noah's ark especially made me skeptical. I couldn't really put my finger on why at that young age, but they just didn't seem to make any sense.
An allegory is a narrative where similarities between the narrative are used symbolically to suggest something else; a journey could be used allegorically to suggest a person's journey through life, etc.
Much of what I was taught as a child I did not understand. It was only when I came back to it as an adult did I begin to understand.
So God didn't really flood the earth? Is that what you're telling me, that the flood was just a symbol for something else?
If you are asking me, I believe it is an allegory. So my answer is yes.
Some day we can discuss it if you like. I have to run. Thanks for the discussion.
I very much look forward to learning what you imagine the flood was symbolic of. The thread is open for 72 hours.
Brab,
Here's my interpretation, although I don't dwell on the subject. The flood is symbolic of baptism and God cleansing the world of evil just as baptism is believed by Christians to wash away original sin.
Others may have a different take.
So God told Noah to build the ark so that he and his family could avoid baptism? It's been a while since I've read the Bible, but I'm really not sure that particular story bears a lot of symbolic analysis. It seems pretty straightforward.
Christian apologists have been working for centuries to retrofit their doctrine onto the Old Testament stories, so they can pretend that Jesus was foretold by the Old Testament.
I think you are correct... the people who wrote down the story of Noah most likely took it literally.
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
----
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
----
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Like I said, straightforward. Unless God sees baptism as destruction and death, there's not much room for interpretation here.
Brab,
You are the one being dogmatic. Of course there is room for interpretation unless you take the Bible literally at face value. It is evident that many non-Christians are more literal in the beliefs about Christianity than most Christians.
You ignore the fact that allegories can occur at many different levels. The Bible has stories that teach to every generation.
Just because you decide to interpret the story of Noah literally and come to your own conclusions means only that. If you don't see the allegory, so be it.
The Jews who heard the story before Christ had a different set of allegorical reference points. They probably saw the story as a message to Obey God's laws, to believe in God, to be good, that there is evil in the world. If some had a literal interpretation back then, the lessons learned are very much the same lessons we can learn in today's generation. They lived in an age when people died much younger. Disease, famine, or the whims of kings could wipe them out at any time. Their view of the world was much harsher than the extremely comfortable world we live in 2500 years later. I imagine the world was more unforgiving and people lived much closer to death than we do. So they accepted the references to death by the hand of God in a much different manner than today.
Judeo-Christianity believes in an unfolding of God's word. Revelations happen over time. Just because earlier generations viewed God's word through the prism of their existance does not mean our generation has to use the same prism. Each new generation gains deeper insight into God's teachings. All through history, up until the 1800's did all of mankind believe in slavery. We now all accept that slavery is wrong. Christians spearheaded the effort to abolish slavery.
We all must interpret God's word through our frame of reference and the times we live in. Obviously the writers at the time of the Old Testament did not have the knowledge we have today. These allegories framed God's teaching in ways they could be understood at the time. The ancient texts teach today as well as they did when they were written.
Christian theology allows for that constant unfolding revelation. Many critics miss it because they frame so much Biblical writing which in fact is allegorical as literal. I've seen others here make that mistake time and time again.
I didn't say the entire Bible had to be taken literally. There are certainly things that can be taken as symbolism instead of literal truth.
So what you're saying is that none of it is actually symbolic, opposed to what you said before. It's more of a cautionary tale. "If you don't behave, you will be killed". If that's the case, then why the mention of the rainbow, the promise that God would never do it again? How can the message of "this could happen" be consistent with "God won't do this to you"?
I'm no expert, but I do believe that the flood story was originally meant to describe spiritual rebirth. It's more apparent when you read the older version of the story recorded in The Epic of Gilgamesh (here). The line "When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding, the flood was a war--struggling with itself like a woman writhing (in labor)" is a clue.
It seems the writers of Genesis included stories that were well known to the people, but modified them to suit their purpose, which was to foster loyalty to the tribal hierarchy and the tribal god at its head. Thus a story of spiritual rebirth becomes a morality tale in which a vengeful God destroys the wicked and spares the righteous.
That may be true, but then the Bible version does indeed involve God killing everyone and everything save for those on the ark. At that point it has lost its symbolism.
It's an interesting point. It's sort of similar to the hijacking of Eastre, taking a Pagan holiday and using it as a bridge for conversion to Christianity.
I knew that Easter had pagan roots, but I didn't know about how, as you aptly put it, it was hijacked and put in the service of Christianity. I find that very interesting.
God killing everyone but a select few happens in both versions, Biblical and Sumerian, of the flood story. I think that is consistent with the theme of spiritual rebirth, for which the death of the mundane is a necessary precondition.
Also, the Genesis flood story was originally two different versions by two different unknown authors, which were then combined by an unknown redactor. This may explain the contradictions.
Brab,
I believe The whole story is an allegory. Saving those on the ark is symbolic of saving those who believed in and followed God.
I don't know about hijacking... that is a bit extreme. Any Pagan who wants to can have "Eastre".
Obviously you wouldn't say Kwanza hijacked Christmas. However the idea of the bridge is a nice allegory. :-)
It's still not particularly clear what you believe. If it's just about saving those who believe in God, that's supposedly still the case now, right? Those who believe are saved, those that don't go to Hell. So the Covenant still confuses me. The promise from God that such an event will not happen again doesn't seem to mesh with that very well. Do you see what I mean?
I think "hijacking" is fitting. If there's a genuine Christian reason for the observation to be influenced by the phases of the moon, to the point where it can land in March or April, then I'm eager to hear it. As it is, that would seem to be much more consistent with some sort of seasonal celebration, like Pagans are more likely to have.
Didn't you tell me that there are no parables in the Bible, then how could there be allegories, since they're the same thing:
http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_561564950/allegory.html
No, you misread my post. You said the Bible taught that parables were to believed as actually happening. I simply pointed out one of your many errors.
In the fifties and sixties, I was taught evolution by Catholic nuns, priests and Christian Brothers. Believe it or not, we were taught to think for ourselves.
That's why I don't understand the churches wishy-washy position on evolution today.
Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).
The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
Since you NOW have started going back to those who MADE decisions for the church, do you agree some of their creeds were crazy? When the bishops and cardinals VOTED (how ridiculous is that- voting to see if something is infallaible) in one of the Nicean conventions, they DECIDED women had souls... BY 6 VOTES out of 400! Animals lost out by 4...
No, I do not agree at this point. You must be more specific.
You are unfamilliar with how the church fathers operate on matters of major theological questions. They came together, discussed the issues, presented arguments where they disagreed, prayed for guidance and voted. They still occasionally do that today. In recent history we had Vatican I and Vatican II.
I am not up to date on all the votes of the church fathers at the two councils of Nicea. Do you have any link regarding that vote you mentioned?
The church has made many errors along the way. That is different than the creeds, which are statements of belief. So in response, I do not believe the Nicene creed is crazy. The creed says nothing specific about women either having or not having souls.
"It's not like it's supposed to be some realistic depiction of anything, so I'm not sure why it bears mention here"
Thank you, I thought I was the only one who didn't get why it was brought up here. The rest of your post is very well said, totally agree.
It's no joke. these people believe dinosaurs and man co-existed.
Walk Through Biblical History
"This walk through history is the centerpiece of the Creation Museum and features amazing scientific and biblical answers for the world we live in today.
This one-way, self-guided tour begins at the Canyon Entrance as you enjoy viewing a dinosaur excavation! Everyone has the same facts, but we don’t all have the same starting points. Using the Bible as your starting point, prepare to travel back 6,000 years to the dawn of creation as you enjoy the Six Days Theater. Witness the true time line of the universe unfold through the 7 C’s of History. The final three C’s of Christ, Cross, and Consummation provide a powerful finale to our centerpiece in the Last Adam Theater—illuminating God’s redemptive plan throughout history."
Of course they believe dinosaurs and man co-existed, and that's obviously laughable. What I was saying is that the saddled triceratops isn't taken seriously by anyone, even the people who put it there. It's as significant as a penny unicorn ride at a supermarket. The fact that they believe in dinosaur/man co-existence is exactly what should be pointed out, not the nonsense about the triceratops.
Whatever.
Maybe the saddled triceratops represented some kinky sexual connection between man and dinosaurs. Let's ask Rick Santorum if he has an opinion about man/dinosaur sex...since man and dinosaurs were so intimately acquainted. ;>)
Don't know how to post images here, but for those who will say that the above quote and link does not specifically state that the Creationist Museum believes man and dinosaurs; check the image at the end of this link.
fyi - also at their website.
Over the last day or so, the Creation Museum has received quite a bit of media attention across the Cincinnati region. The Cincinnati Zoo and the museum entered into a business agreement where a combo ticket to both attractions would be available at a savings of up to $9 for an adult ticket during the holiday season. The promotion was cut short due to the zoo receiving dozens of angry calls and e-mails about the partnership.
The purpose of the cross-promotion with the Cincinnati Zoo was indeed to promote two great events in the Cincinnati region that commemorate the season. Unfortunately, the promotion ended before most people were aware of it. With that in mind, we invite you to check out the Creation Museum for yourself at a reduced rate.
From Tuesday, December 2, through Thursday, December 11 (except Saturday, December 6), the Creation Museum will continue offering the savings that patrons would have received with the Zoo/Creation Museum combo ticket. The discounted rates are: $12.95 for adults, $11.95 for seniors and $6.95 for children 5-12.
The Creation Museum remains committed to promoting tourism in the Cincinnati region—including this excellent zoo—for our valued partners and guests.
A press release is now available on our publicist’s website.
So?
The lengthy and pointless copy & paste usually means AA's punting.
round,
All this controversy is over getting a combo ticket for the Museum and the Zoo. Nobody is pushing any religious views here on anyone. Only those interested in attending both attractions would buy the tickets.
It was the intolerance by some toward the Creationists that bullied the Zoo officials to cave in. The funny thing is those engaging in this type of intolerance don't even see it. Nice Guy Eddie started it all off and proved Cunningham is right.
"From Tuesday, December 2, through Thursday, December 11 (except Saturday, December 6), "
Of course not Saturday, December 6. That's a heavy-traffic museum day. Wouldn't wanna lose money there, now would we, dear money-hungry faux Christians?
Roundhouse, the Creation "Museum" should be re-named the Creation Gallery. A museum is (usually) a place for some instructive history of mankind's achievements in an ACCURATE setting. A gallery is not concerned at all with that premise. Any idea, be it fantasy, interpretive history, commentary, or political posturing, is welcome. There are no limits to the imagination in a gallery. Nobody walks into a gallery expecting to see the "truth". (I taught Art History for over 30 years.) The ongoing fascination with "Mona Lisa" is a search for the facts surrounding its origin. Every few years more and more studies add yet another insight, peeling away its mysteries. But the whole process is geared to getting at "truth". That is the function of any great museum. That is not the goal of the Creation "Museum".
Hmmm.. wonder if you ever thought the same thing about Maddame Toussad's Wax Museum? ;-)
My understanding of the saddled triceratops is that is sort of an intentional joke, something for kids to sit on and have their pictures taken. It's not like it's supposed to be some realistic depiction of anything, so I'm not sure why it bears mention here.
They think triceratops is a fictional creature for the kids to play with, hense the saddle.
You may be right about the saddled triceratops, but what does that saddled triceratops say to those who don't have your understanding of it as an intentional joke? There are, as you know, millions of people who believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Putting up that display without some explanation of it's intentional joke (or something along those lines) only reinforces the ignorance of some of these people.
Also, I wonder if the Cinci Zoo receives tax money from the city or the state? If so, wouldn't such a partnership (more than likely a financial partnership) run contrary to the separation of church and state?
To Commonsenseliberal: Ever see Lewis Black's routine about creationists? He says that they watch "The Flintstones" as if it were a documentary.
Of course I have! Lewis Black is one of my favourite comedians!
I think the museum establishes that ignorance in other ways. It's pretty clearly not supposed to be serious, from all I've seen and heard.
The bottom line for me is that I wouldn't be surprised to see the same sort of thing at an institution that followed scientific guidelines. Wherever it is, I think it's silly enough that it doesn't really bear a lot of explanation. And I think if they did pretend it was serious, it would classify them as completely bonkers, while as it is they are just disingenuous and mildly humorous at times.
Ok, I can accept that. Reflecting on it, it may just be a joke, or their attempt at humor, or just a place for kids to take pictures. I do hope, however, that people don't truly believe that dinosaurs and people co-existed.
I think they do believe dinosaurs and people co-existed, note the exhibit that was mentioned elsewhere in the thread:
That is quite significant and explicit as an example for criticism of the museum. The picture above is exactly what should be noted as a means of discrediting them, since they seem to expect people to take that seriously.
Here's the proof for all you blashphemers... ;>)
http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=120&a=1236
IRONY 101,
Thanks a LOT! I just spit my coffee all over my lap-top. The link was so hilarious I had to send it to everybody. The scary thing is there are many people "out there" (and I mean WAY out there) who actually believe this stuff.
Wow!
I wasn't drinking any coffee but I had the same reaction. It takes all kinds.
One thing I'm still wondering: Just what the heck is it that Cunningham would have had "Bull" Conner do?
If there were going to be human models, would they be called Fred and Wilma?
Most people in Cincinnati know that Bill Cunningham is a simple-minded blowhard who routinely gets his panties in a bunch over trivia. Move along, nothing to see here.
Randy
Randy,
I imagine someone will some day. Check out this museum in Cleveland. Below is a blurb from it's website:
A Christmas Story House, now restored to its movie splendor, is open year round to the public for tours. Directly across the street from the house is the official A Christmas Story House Museum, which features original props, costumes and memorabilia from the film, as well as hundreds of rare behind-the-scenes photos.
Speaking of Cleveland and museums. If you ever get the chance, you really should take a day to wander through the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is great!