$27 Million Evolution-Debunking Museum To Open

Finally, some good news in the headlines. :2thumbsup:

I hope they make this into a huge nationwide chain of museums.

I bolded part of the article that shows - despite the many rhetoric-based postings that often appear on this site with fabricated, low and inaccurate numbers - many more Americans are smart enough to not believe in the nonsense that is "evolution" than are often given credit for.

I say 50% not believing in the evolution crap that is shoved down their throats constantly in public schools and the media is a pretty good number seeing as reality does not receive the same push of constant propaganda to infest their minds.

Very disturbing how they had to hire explosive-sniffing dogs and extra security to prepare against the atheist/secularist/humanist zealot terrorists who have threatened them. :idea2:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dinosaurs, humans coexist in U.S. creation museum By Andrea Hopkins

PETERSBURG, Kentucky (Reuters) - Ken Ham's sprawling creation museum isn't even open yet, but an expansion is already underway in the state-of-the art lobby, where grunting dinosaurs and animatronic humans coexist in a Biblical paradise.



A crush of media attention and packed preview sessions have convinced Ham that nearly half a million people a year will come to Kentucky to see his Biblically correct version of history.

"I think we'll be surprised at how many people come," Ham said as he dodged dozens of designers working to finish exhibits in time for the May 28 opening.

The $27 million project, which also includes a planetarium, a special-effects theater, nature trails and a small lake, is privately funded by people who believe the Bible's first book, Genesis, is literally true.

For them, a museum showing Christian schoolchildren and skeptics alike how the earth, animals, dinosaurs and humans were created in a six-day period about 6,000 years ago -- not over millions of years, as evolutionary science says -- is long overdue.

While foreign media and science critics have mostly come to snigger at exhibits explaining how baby dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark and Cain married his sister to people the earth, museum spokesman and vice-president Mark Looy said the coverage has done nothing but drum up more interest.

"Mocking publicity is free publicity," Looy said. Besides, U.S. media have been more respectful, mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Looy said supporters of the museum include evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics, as well as the local Republican congressman, Geoff Davis (news, bio, voting record), and his family, who have toured the site.

FROM 'JAWS' TO EDEN

While the debate between creationists and mainstream scientists has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes "monkey trial" in nearby Tennessee 80 years ago, courts have repeatedly ruled that teaching religious theory in public schools is unconstitutional.

Ham, an Australian who moved to America 20 years ago, believes creationists could have presented a better case at the Scopes trail if they'd been better educated -- but he's not among those pushing for creation to be taught in school.

Rather than force skeptical teachers to debate creation, Ham wants kids to come to his museum, where impassioned experts can make their case that apparently ancient fossils and the Grand Canyon were created just a few thousand years ago in a great flood.

"It's not hitting them over the head with a Bible, it's just teaching that we can defend what it says," he said.

Ham, who also runs a Christian broadcasting and publishing venture, said the museum's Hollywood-quality exhibits set the project apart from the many quirky Creation museums sprinkled across America.

The museum's team of Christian designers include theme park art director Patrick Marsh, who designed the "Jaws" and "King Kong" attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, as well as dozens of young artists whose conviction drives their work.

"I think it shows (nonbelievers) the other side of things," said Carolyn Manto, 27, pausing in her work painting Ice Age figures for a display about caves in France.

"I don't think it's going to be forcing any viewpoint on them, but challenging them to think critically about their evolutionary views," said Manto, who studied classical sculpture before joining the museum.

Still, Looy is upfront about the museum's mission: to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with nonbelievers.

"I think a lot of people are going to come out of curiosity ... and we're going to present the Gospel. This is going to be an evangelistic center," Looy said. A chaplain has been hired for museum-goers in need of spiritual guidance.

The museum's rural location near the border of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana places it well within America's mostly conservative and Christian heartland. But the setting has another strategic purpose: two-thirds of Americans are within a day's drive of the site, and Cincinnati's international airport is minutes away.

The project has not been without opposition. Zoning battles with environmentalists and groups opposed to the museum's message have delayed construction and the museum's opening day has been delayed repeatedly.

The museum has hired extra security and explosives-sniffing dogs to counter anonymous threats of damage to the building. "We've had some opposition," Looy said.

A very good idea. You aren't being forced to view it, its not federally funded.

Atheist will de-cry it, but any publicity is good publicity.

If it flies, it flies.
And Muslims can't blow it up because its from the Bible!

*titters and walks off to a corner*

Hey, I know one of the sculptors who's creating the exhibits for this museum! I was just visiting with him this evening, in fact. Great guy; probably very talented (haven't actually seen his work). :yes:

If we could convince the Flat Earthers and the Faked Moon Landing guys to build their own museums next door, we could get a theme park going. It goes without saying we could attract some alien abductionists to the site.

We need to get them all in the same office park, you know, make it into a real destination. Then we could print money, and buy Sealand.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ania/logo7.jpg

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ania/Flat1.gif

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...eMember_lg.jpg

[edit]

Cool! There's an interactive walkthrough with mock-ups of the exhibits!

Quote:

---

Finally, some good news in the headlines

---

Brilliant news .
I was soooo disappointed when the cretinist idiots got the knockback on building bible-world for saying brainless things about Jews .

Wonderful way to spend 27 million dollars. People are starving, homeless are freezing, single mothers are suffering, yet churches see that this is far mor important. Calvanist hypocrits the lot of them.

Honestly 10,000 years? What does the museum say about dinosours? Guess they are merely mal-constructed elephants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If we could convince the Flat Earthers and the Faked Moon Landing guys to build their own museums next door, we could get a theme park going. It goes without saying we could attract some alien abductionists to the site.

---

Why are you comparing joke sites with this very serious museum. That doesn't really make any sense. The museum has no place near any non-serious, joke buildings like what you are suggesting seeing as the museum is 100% serious and based on hard science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Why are you comparing joke sites with this very serious museum. That doesn't really make any sense. The museum has no place near any non-serious, joke buildings like what you are suggesting seeing as the museum is 100% serious and based on hard science.

---

Now let's not be dismissive of other people's beliefs. There is a lot of very good evidence that the earth is flat. How many of you have actually sailed round it yourselves? Seeing is the only proof. Look at those alleged "photos" from space - dead flat two-dimensional disk. Sure people say that's just the paper, but they don't understand hard science. Not to mention it's clear that the "space program" is all fake anyway - God did not give us rocket-powered vehicles at any point in the Bible (well, maybe Elijah).

No-one ever mentions the thousands of explorers that have actually dropped off the edge of the world - currently located near Petersburg, Kentucky, I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Now let's not be dismissive of other people's beliefs.

---

The operators of that site don't believe what they say. It is purposely a non-serious garbage nonsense site. Just look at what it says on the front page for obvious proof of that.

Quote:

---

The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

The operators of that site don't believe what they say. It is purposely a non-serious garbage nonsense site. Just look at what it says on the front page for obvious proof of that.

---

For some reason you believe the filthy rich leaders of those large multi million dollar Mega Churches believe what they say?:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Why are you comparing joke sites with this very serious museum. That doesn't really make any sense. The museum has no place near any non-serious, joke buildings like what you are suggesting seeing as the museum is 100% serious and based on hard science.

---

Hard science does not use faith. It does not believe what it cannot prove. This museum is not based on science, it's sole idiot purpose is to be an annoyance to real scientists. Honestly this is a stain on the surface of the earth. They've spent millions building an idiotic museum, millions more to keep it running. When they could have been proving their faith, showing their faith by helping the communities they were in.

Instead they've shown their greed and ignorance by building a stain on this earth. Their faith alone wasnt even enough to convince others of their truth. So they dressed it up a bit and called it hard science, disgusting. Why is there a sudden need to prove your faith to others. I would assume your good deeds as a christian would be witness enough to convince others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

The operators of that site don't believe what they say. It is purposely a non-serious garbage nonsense site. Just look at what it says on the front page for obvious proof of that.

---

Even if that were true (I suspect the Flat Earth Society are as tired as other non-mainstream thinkers of being accused of crackpots so they get their retaliation in first) there are people who believe the earth is flat.

My science provides evidence that they are incorrect, as it indicates your creationism to be incorrect. I have no idea what your "hard science" would provide, because I don't understand its method, but I imagine there's scope for a flat earth, as the Bible appears to be geocentric. Is the earth the centre of the universe according to your view?

BTW, I have no objection to this museum at all. I have more anxiety about the fantasy peddled by Disneyworld. :beam:

Quote:

---

$27 Million Evolution-Debunking Museum To Open

---

Well.... good for them.... I guess.... :shrug:

If that´s $27 Million less dollars to help child molesting priests re-locate....or $27 Million less dollars worth of people knocking on my door on sunday morning (I swear i´m gonna start answering the door naked)....then I have to say this is a good thing! :2thumbsup:

if people want to spend $27 Million of their own money in a building full of malarkey....hey...more power to them........I don´t think I´ll go there...well...maybe if I REALLY need a laugh one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

For some reason you believe the filthy rich leaders of those large multi million dollar Mega Churches believe what they say?:juggle2:



Hard science does not use faith. It does not believe what it cannot prove. This museum is not based on science, it's sole idiot purpose is to be an annoyance to real scientists. Honestly this is a stain on the surface of the earth. They've spent millions building an idiotic museum, millions more to keep it running. When they could have been proving their faith, showing their faith by helping the communities they were in.

Instead they've shown their greed and ignorance by building a stain on this earth. Their faith alone wasnt even enough to convince others of their truth. So they dressed it up a bit and called it hard science, disgusting. Why is there a sudden need to prove your faith to others. I would assume your good deeds as a christian would be witness enough to convince others.

---

In general I've learned to not support Mega Church leaders because they are either motivational speakers who take the Christ out of Christianity or seed-faith scammers who should be locked up for scamming the stupid or elderly.

The "science" taught in public schools and that evolutionists use requires faith o'plenty. They are speculating based on faith about most of their wild claims which there is no actual proof for, or for which the "proof" is dependant upon their faith in the accuracy of their own flawed human interpretation of something.

This Museum will definitely help the community it's in and the US population at large. Finally the 40% (I recall a Poll posted on this board months ago that listed 60% of Americans do not believe in evolution) or 50% who don't get that evolution is a fraud, will have a great Museum to help them see the light.

This Museum has the potential to put millions of citizens on the right path in life. More than can be said for most other Museums that exist. :egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

The "science" taught in public schools and that evolutionists use requires faith o'plenty. They are speculating based on faith about most of their wild claims which there is no actual proof for, or for which the "proof" is dependant upon their faith in the accuracy of their own flawed human interpretation of something.

---

The evolutionists at least uses a scientific approach, called the hypothetical-deductive method. You could call it speculation if you like, however, it is still a valid method as a scientific base. The opposite is of course the inductive method. Scientists is also using the abductive method, however, the one in question is the hypo-deductive one.

Basically, it was the same method used by Kopernikus. A scientist has a qualified guess about something in the universe, he cannot know for sure. He arrives at his guess through tradition, his own genius or a sudden realization. After you establish such a hypothesis you go about doing you empirical surveys (digging, measurements, etc.) and find if it was a valid guess or not. As it is now, there is plenty of evidence to support a theory of evolution, however, there are still anomalies. Scientists or pro-evolutionists do not hide these, actually they try to arrive either a better version of the theory (with part hypothesis to support the main hypothesis) or discard the theory and come up with another one.

Contrary to this, believers claim universal truth and do not go about changing their views, as soon as something better comes up. Scientists do change they theory according to relevant data. And as it is now, evolution better explains the biological development of this earth than creationism does. That is a scientific fact. To claim otherwise is simply not accurate, no matter how much pseudo-science you come up with.

the muesem can not possiblity debunk evolution. The last 400 years of domestic animal husbandry demonstrates that as a theory natural selection is possible since man has been using artifical selection to change different species to breed certain traits into the animal.

Alert to all people who complain about this 27 mil. going to a museum.
Its a mega church group, not Catholics/Methodists/Baptists/etc. all building one building.

If he wants to build a 'museum' on God's Creation, then I would ask about the necessity of 'museum' since museums are learning centers, knowledge spots if you will. The Bible and Genesis is highly speculative.

However, he is expressing his Freedom of Speech right, by building this 'museum' so that people can get educated about the creationist point of view.
No one is forcing anyone of you to go there, and if you thought that the museum was silly then I hate to tell you to not post, because any Orgah of good Backroom standing 'any publicity is good publicity.'
Britiney Spears anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Is the earth the centre of the universe according to your view?

---

That's relative, in a subjective POV yes, it's the centre of the universe just as I am the centre of the universe.
In an objective POV, well, first find someone/something who/which has an objective POV...
And what you see is not the truth/reality in any way, what about people who are blind? Think of the matrix and that everything you see is just the interpretation of your brain of the signals sent to it by your eyes, created by incoming light waves/particles as far as we can tell.

How dare you say that what you see is reality, can you trust your senses?
I'm pretty sure that you are only a creation of the matrix I live in anyway.~D

The cretinists apparently like preaching to the choir. Because judging by the online walk-through the museum - which seems to spend rather more space and time on yet again ruminating assorted bits of the Bible that haven't a jack to do with the whole creation/evolution topic - the only people who're not already Believers it can convince are ones with a very severe shortage of information and source critique.

Nevermind now the aftertaste of outright naïve infantilism. "T. rex—the real king of the beasts. That’s the terror that Adam’s sin unleashed!" ? "Repulsive. The world after Eden is disturbing. It makes sense only if you believe God’s Word from the beginning. God made everything ‘very good’—but rebellion against God’s Word brought death into paradise." besides a drawing of two vultures munching on a dead antelope (and the artist obviously didn't have a clue what vultures look like anyway...) ?

Who writes that stuff, elementary school kids who think kittens are cute but are horrified at the sight of mommy cat bringing them a bleeding little rodent to eat ? :rtwno:
Geh. Even without the categorical silliness of the whole Creationist thing this so-called museum is an offense to intellect and good taste.

What a waste of money... but if that pleases them well whatever. Paris Hilton blows it on fashion, others blow it on fast cars, these guys blow it on annoying others...

Well whatever, it's their money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Who writes that stuff, elementary school kids who think kittens are cute but are horrified at the sight of mommy cat bringing them a bleeding little rodent to eat ? :rtwno:
Geh. Even without the categorical silliness of the whole Creationist thing this so-called museum is an offense to intellect and good taste.

---

I don't get how you can say that it is "good taste" to not take offense at a world in which brutally butchering lower sentient life forms for food is "normal." Indeed it is good taste to be horrified by that, and rather disturbingly poor taste to not care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

I don't get how you can say that it is "good taste" to not take offense at a world in which brutally butchering lower sentient life forms for food is "normal." Indeed it is good taste to be horrified by that, and rather disturbingly poor taste to not care.

---

People who are not grounded in reality.

How is a cat killing a rodent, a brutal butchering of a lower sentient life form?

How is a cat killing a rodent for food something to be horrified over? How is butchering a cow for its beef something to be horrified over?


Its part of the natural cycle - something that God himself put in place.

Quote:

---

mindful perhaps of a 2006 Gallup Poll showing almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

---

Just because Americans believe it doesn’t make it true. How many things are there that Americans believe, that are as wrong as the day is long? A promotional museum equals fact like the National Enquirer equals truth.

It's not my money, so I couldn't care less.

*proceeds to preach heresy*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

I don't get how you can say that it is "good taste" to not take offense at a world in which brutally butchering lower sentient life forms for food is "normal." Indeed it is good taste to be horrified by that, and rather disturbingly poor taste to not care.

---

Marvellous. :laugh4:

So why did Jesus give those people fish to eat? After all, however miraculous the bounty, the first five were fished out of the lake.

:inquisitive:

I'm pretty sure cats and mice aren't too different in their degrees of sentience and sapience anyway. One is however a carnivore and the other one of the things it feeds on (although as numerous accounts by soldiers on assorted "nightmare fronts" who've had their toes chewed off by rodents point out, mice are quite happy to munch on other animals if the opportunity presents itself as well).

Things eat things to survive. Fact of the world. If you don't like it, file a complaint with the Creator and/or the elementary laws of physics and biology according to personal preference. I can quarantee neither will give a hoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

I don't get how you can say that it is "good taste" to not take offense at a world in which brutally butchering lower sentient life forms for food is "normal." Indeed it is good taste to be horrified by that, and rather disturbingly poor taste to not care.

---

I fail to perceive anything abnormal about it. To say it is not "normal" for the cat to do so is to fundamentally fail to cope with reality, which tends to be rather uncaring and harsh. Indeed, the descriptor "brutal" is entirely inappropriate in the context of nonsentient beings anyway - those are fundamentally incapable of any sort of moral choice, consideration or decision by default. Such adjectives are but naive anthropomorphization.

I find that whole way of thinking downright offensively ignorant, self-centered and outright delusional. It amounts to the statement of "I do not like this aspect of the world because it makes me queasy, therefore it must be somehow unnatural" which is reality-denial and hubris par excellence. As if the world existed for our convenience.

Stinks of an infantile longing after some rosy fantasy world where, as it were, the lion and the lamb sleep side by side - which would beg the question why the lion and its highly sophisticated arsenal for killing and eating the lamb existed in the first place anyway - which is pure escapism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I find that whole way of thinking downright offensively ignorant, self-centered and outright delusional. It amounts to the statement of "I do not like this aspect of the world because it makes me queasy, therefore it must be somehow unnatural" which is reality-denial and hubris par excellence. As if the world existed for our convenience.

Stinks of an infantile longing after some rosy fantasy world where, as it were, the lion and the lamb sleep side by side - which would beg the question why the lion and its highly sophisticated arsenal for killing and eating the lamb existed in the first place anyway - which is pure escapism.

---

Let's be careful please that we don't stumble into personal attacks.

Navaros has a perfect right to promulgate his beliefs, as we have to question them and seek clarification.

However, they are his beliefs and they are shared by many people. Calling those beliefs "infantile" is stepping just a little over the line.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Stinks of an infantile longing after some rosy fantasy world where, as it were, the lion and the lamb sleep side by side - which would beg the question why the lion and its highly sophisticated arsenal for killing and eating the lamb existed in the first place anyway - which is pure escapism.

---

Your knowledge of history is evidently as deficient as your knowledge of science. The answer is, of course, that the Devil put it there. Cats are the Devil's spawn, and the sooner we return to burning them in wicker baskets the better.

[Goes to get his pitchfork]

I can use "naive" instead of course. But I actually think "infantile" is the proper word in the specific instance I used it in - it seems to me that the as such quite understandable longing for a world without death and pain is in fact a longing for the warm comfortable darkness of the womb before birth.

The desire for a "pure land" free of need and suffering is a very recurring theme in messianic peasant revolts brought about by intolerable socioeconomical circumstances for example, and abounds in many very widespread depictions of afterlife (not a few add the threat of an eternity of agony for good measure, but that's beside the point here). I'd say that suggests it to be a rather fundamental human longing - but also primitive and atavistic, as many such impulses are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Finally, some good news in the headlines. :2thumbsup:

I hope they make this into a huge nationwide chain of museums.

I bolded part of the article that shows - despite the many rhetoric-based postings that often appear on this site with fabricated, low and inaccurate numbers - many more Americans are smart enough to not believe in the nonsense that is "evolution" than are often given credit for.

I say 50% not believing in the evolution crap that is shoved down their throats constantly in public schools and the media is a pretty good number seeing as reality does not receive the same push of constant propaganda to infest their minds.

Very disturbing how they had to hire explosive-sniffing dogs and extra security to prepare against the atheist/secularist/humanist zealot terrorists who have threatened them. :idea2:

---

At least we "atheist/secularist/humanist zealot terrorists" aren't killing Christians in inquisition courts, burning them at the stake, forcibly converting them to our beliefs on the threat of beheading, or taking out huge "agnosticism/atheism taxes". Instead, we let you freely express your ideas, build your temples freely, and now also a monumental museum for your religion.

I think this is yet another beautiful example of how the agnostic/atheistic tolerance and enlightenment that begun in the 18th century allows minorities with views contrary to that of the majority (which today happens to be agnosticism and atheism) to express their ideas freely and openly, and be respected for it! I hope all people who visit this museum enjoy it and remember that it is a result of the victory of the free choice over inquisition, crusades, witch burning, forced conversions and high church taxes. Whether you're religious or not, this is worth celebrating! Because today we can make our own choice - whether it is agnosticism, atheism or religion! :2thumbsup: :daisy:

If a "Museum" is a Muse-house, or a place to store and display objects meant to inspire man-thought, I don't understand the objections to this one being established - unless we think that anything less than the Louvre, or without pillars, arches, and marble cannot be a museum.

There's all kinds of museums in the US, from the famous Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, to the less-famous UFO Museum in Roswell, New Mexico. There's even a Menstruation Museum in Maryland, devoted to the plusses and minusses of that biological function.

All have an "agenda" (they would use the word "theme"), and seek to inpire thought on their subject(s). Most were started by individuals or groups, and are run on a non-profit basis. What is different about this one?

If what it inspires is derision, contempt, and a closer reaffirmation of one's own beliefs, I submit that the viewer's/thinker's mind may not be as open to new data as he asserts. One would think that at the very least, a non-believer would find entertainment value, or some appreciation for the presentation.

By golly, that almost qualifies as a rant. Sorry.

Do please go on about how carnivorous behavior relates to the opening of a new museum.

Although I largely agree with the post above, (with the caveat that the world probably does not need a hagiographic Museum of Fascist thought, and so there must be a line somewhere, and nonsense might be on the wrong side of the line too), I don't agree with this:

Quote:

---

If what it inspires is derision, contempt, and a closer reaffirmation of one's own beliefs, I submit that the viewer's/thinker's mind may not be as open to new data as he asserts.

---

Its simply not possible to be open minded to every single bit of bubble-headed nonsense that someone with $27 million to blow might advocate. IMHO its perfectly reasonable, to take an example, to take biology A level, and a degree in biochemistry, and say that yeah, we looked pretty hard at the evidence for speciation by natural and sexual selection, that evidence entirely consistent with those theories was there in abundance, and that henceforth no further debate will be entered into. There is no "debate", any more than there is debate that water is wet. If the lead paper in Nature is ever "Darwin was Wrong: Adam's Skeleton found; one rib missing" then I will happily reconsider.

This isn't being closed minded, its simply prioritising all too finite mental resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

People who are not grounded in reality.

How is a cat killing a rodent, a brutal butchering of a lower sentient life form?

How is a cat killing a rodent for food something to be horrified over? How is butchering a cow for its beef something to be horrified over?


Its part of the natural cycle - something that God himself put in place.

---

Killing other sentient life forms is horrifyingly sick and a disgusting perversion of natural order. What gives one life form the moral right to butcher another just because it is hungry? Reasonably, there is none. But we live in a perverse world where this has become "normal". Still, despite it's "normality", a wise man can see the sickness of it all.

God did not create this cycle. God created perfect peace and harmony. It is due to Adam and Eve allowing Satan to corrupt the natural order that the world became perverse and the butchering of other life forms became "normal", amongst all the other evils in the world.

From the posts in this thread of many who do not understand these concepts I can say a trip to the creation Museum would be great for explaining all of this much better than I could. :2thumbsup:

Excuse me, but where exactly do lifeforms inherently incapable of all and every form of moral choice and decision become concerned with "the moral right to butcher another just because it is hungry" to begin with ? Cows are biologically programmed to eat grass whe hungry, cats to hunt and kill mice; neither has the slightest choice in the matter.

Whether this is due to God having made them that way or some more complicated causes is irrelevant here; the point is that "morals", a singularly human issue, have no bearing on the matter at all.

And one might ask why the heck God made carnivores to begin with if them killing other animals for food was not part of the original design specs in the first place, anyway... Needle-like teeth and short intestine aren't exactly the equipement for subsisting on plants you know.


That aside, I've no issue with a bunch of Creationists with too much money making up such a museum per ce. I merely reserve the right to dispute everything they stand for and claim at every opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Killing other sentient life forms is horrifyingly sick and a disgusting perversion of natural order. What gives one life form the moral right to butcher another just because it is hungry? Reasonably, there is none. But we live in a perverse world where this has become "normal". Still, despite it's "normality", a wise man can see the sickness of it all.

---

Are you then an eater of only Plants? Because if you eat any form of meat you are just another hypocrit. Reason has one look at the bodies and abilities of the life forms involved. Cats have nice sharp teeth and claws for a reason. Man's teeth have the ability to grind and tear for a reason.

Quote:

---

God did not create this cycle. God created perfect peace and harmony. It is due to Adam and Eve allowing Satan to corrupt the natural order that the world became perverse and the butchering of other life forms became "normal", amongst all the other evils in the world.

---

I suggest you read your bible a little more. This contradicts several passages in the Bible, especially Genesis Chapter 1 versus 28-31

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bible, King James version

28 And God blessed them, Gen. 5.1, 2 and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

---

I await an answer that actually makes sense versus your last attempt.

Quote:

---

From the posts in this thread of many who do not understand these concepts I can say a trip to the creation Museum would be great for explaining all of this much better than I could. :2thumbsup:

---

I see no need to go to such a muesem that is actually advocating hypocrisy versus enlightenment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Are you then an eater of only Plants? Because if you eat any form of meat you are just another hypocrit. Reason has one look at the bodies and abilities of the life forms involved. Cats have nice sharp teeth and claws for a reason. Man's teeth have the ability to grind and tear for a reason.



I suggest you read your bible a little more. This contradicts several passages in the Bible, especially Genesis Chapter 1 versus 28-31

---

I don't only eat Plants, and I admit I'm a product of a perverse world and the fall of Adam and Eve has screwed me up just like it screwed up every human. But, at least I can have the moral sense to think about the butchering and realize the sickness of it. I'm sure most people wouldn't be so "fine and dandy" about the butchering of other life forms if they had to do it personally every day, because to be distant from it they can put it "out of sight, out of mind" to large degree. But being put to it directly would oftentimes help the sickness dawn on one who can't realize it otherwise. A innate feeling of disgust would take over, because there remains in man the remembrance of a better natural order.

What I said does not contradict anything in the Bible. "Have Dominion over" does not equal "go butcher any life whenever you feel like it". Those verses you quote said that God gave plants and fruit as food for all life (verses 29 and 30).

It should also be noted that when corruption entered the world, it changed everything. Cats and dinosaurs and man may very well not have been designed as mankind now understand them to exist. Rather, they may very well have devolved into their current forms when corruption entered the world.

That does not compute. Do you mean to say the (supposedly benign) omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent Creator was unable to prevent it ? The notion is incoherent. To argue that He decided to change the matters after a couple of dumb and easily impressionable kids ate a fruit He left sitting well within reach, and might as well have written Eat Me on, and did the nasty would at least make some sense - although it would smack of a total setup and/or hardcore pettiness.

I can understand the idea of changing Adam and Eve as a punishement, but why all the rest of the animals...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

It should also be noted that when corruption entered the world, it changed everything. Cats and dinosaurs and man may very well not have been designed as mankind now understand them to exist. Rather, they may very well have devolved into their current forms when corruption entered the world.

---

wait a minute......HOLD THE PRESSES!!!! :inquisitive:

are you actually suggesting that these animals might not exist in the same shape as they did at the time your God created them?(10 000 years ago give or take 4.5 billion years)
Would that go to mean that these animals....somehow.....*looks around nervously* (dare I say it? :fainting: ) .....Evolved? :idea2: :jawdrop:

ok...now this is getting TOO weird! Who are you mister and how did you hack into Navaros´s account???:eyebrows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

I don't only eat Plants, and I admit I'm a product of a perverse world and the fall of Adam and Eve has screwed me up just like it screwed up every human.

---

Then claim the title of hypocrit, and remember what Jesus stated about hypocrits.

Quote:

---

But, at least I can have the moral sense to think about the butchering and realize the sickness of it. I'm sure most people wouldn't be so "fine and dandy" about the butchering of other life forms if they had to do it personally every day, because to be distant from it they can put it "out of sight, out of mind" to large degree. But being put to it directly would oftentimes help the sickness dawn on one who can't realize it otherwise. A innate feeling of disgust would take over, because there remains in man the remembrance of a better natural order.

---

I don't believe this in the slightest. I grew up on the farm, and have butchered plenty of animals. Never feeling sick about it nor disgust at the necessarity that requires that the human body requires protein in order to grow. I viewed the death and butchering of an animal as a necessity to survival. Should one feel guilty about survival? That runs counter to the word of God as stated in the text of the Holy Bible. Nor does it state anywhere in the Holy Bible, King James version anything remotely what you are claiming in either of your last two posts.

Quote:

---

What I said does not contradict anything in the Bible. "Have Dominion over" does not equal "go butcher any life whenever you feel like it". Those verses you quote said that God gave plants and fruit as food for all life (verses 29 and 30).

---

Read a little deeper, remember that in the bible it also talks about fish as food. What did God provide Moses and the Jews for food? Here is the relative biblical passage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exodus Chapter 16

12 I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God.

13 ¶ And it came to pass, that at even the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the host.

---

Nor did I say "butcher any life whenever you feel like it," it seems your faced with the dilemina of your own making that you feel the need to change my statement to be somthing not in evidence. I find that rather interesting and very amusing as well.

Quote:

---

It should also be noted that when corruption entered the world, it changed everything. Cats and dinosaurs and man may very well not have been designed as mankind now understand them to exist. Rather, they may very well have devolved into their current forms when corruption entered the world.

---

And maybe attempts at literial translations of the bible demonstrate that man has missed the word of God because of man's own corruption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

wait a minute......HOLD THE PRESSES!!!! :inquisitive:

are you actually suggesting that these animals might not exist in the same shape as they did at the time your God created them?(10 000 years ago give or take 4.5 billion years)
Would that go to mean that these animals....somehow.....*looks around nervously* (dare I say it? :fainting: ) .....Evolved? :idea2: :jawdrop:
:

---

Yes indeed. Isn't rather amusing?

Humans also seem to have gotten by right fine for millenia killing animals large and small for sustenance. Including ones they've practically raised into full size from infancy.

If present-day people had to butcher their own meat most would doubtless get a little queasy. Nothing odd about that, as it'd be an entirely new thing to them and gory to boot. I'm guessing it'd take them round two days, or until they get really hungry, to get over virtually all such qualms however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

Would that go to mean that these animals....somehow.....*looks around nervously* (dare I say it? :fainting: ) .....Evolved? :idea2: :jawdrop:

---

No, it means originally all creations were perfect, immortal, and didn't kill each other. After Adam and Eve and Satan, brought corruption into the world, God cursed the world and everything devolved into something much worse.


Comparing butchering animals before the world was corrupted and after the world was corrupted is apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

No, it means originally all creations were perfect, immortal, and didn't kill each other. After Adam and Eve and Satan, brought corruption into the world, God cursed the world and everything devolved into something much worse.

---

The literial translation of the bible doesn't even say anything about devolving animals. It only talks about cursing man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Genesis, Chapter 3

9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, 2 Cor. 11.3 and I did eat.

14 ¶ And the LORD God said unto the serpent,
Because thou hast done this,
thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;
upon thy belly shalt thou go,
and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:


15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel.


16 Unto the woman he said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.


17 And unto Adam he said,
Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,
and hast eaten of the tree,
of which I commanded thee, saying,
Thou shalt not eat of it:
cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;


18 thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; Heb. 6.8
and thou shalt eat the herb of the field:


19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,
till thou return unto the ground;
for out of it wast thou taken:
for dust thou art,and unto dust shalt thou return.


20 ¶ And Adam called his wife's name Eve; 3 because she was the mother of all living.

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, Rev. 22.14 and eat, and live for ever:

23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man: and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

---

The Gardern of Eden was cursed ground for Man. God turned man out of the Gardern of Eden because of his disobedience.

Quote:

---

Comparing butchering animals before the world was corrupted and after the world was corrupted is apples and oranges.

---

That does not address your comments of earlier at all. It seems your having a difficult time of defending your statements that run counter to the written words of the text.

"Devolution" is a bit of a weird term, since it really just means evolution anyway. Save that with the connotation the speaker does not like the direction it takes.

Which, in any case, boils down to living things having changed and God having either done it Himself, or allowed it to happen for His fuzzy reasons (and by means of precondition having made said living things with the proper mechanisms to make change possible in the first place). And since "nature" is per definition His creation to arrange as He sees fit, such developements are just as "natural" as the original scheme - if only because they couldn't happen without His OK in any case...

If I recall Leviticus correctly, doesn't sacrifing animals and burning the flesh produce 'a sweet savour unto the Lord'?

Quote:

---

And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

---

Yeah, God really doesn't like us killing those animals.

Didn't God prefer Abel's animal sacrifice to that of Cain's grain and fruit? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Didn't God prefer Abel's animal sacrifice to that of Cain's grain and fruit? :inquisitive:

---

Yes indeed, which lead to Cain doing a killing.

In its own quaint way, I guess this museum proves that 'dinosaurs and humans coexist'.

Personally i dont get these creationist´s. Why do they have to create this kind of silly theories. Isnt it pretty universally accepted fact that bible was written by men, not God, so its only limited interpretation of men about how things went down.So why take it word for word? There is no mention exactly how God created the World.Maybe he did it by creating the first carbon based organisms and then let them evolve for 45 billion years and that evolution is still processing?
I dont understand why these fundamentalist´s have to always have enemies. Cant it be possible to believe and be atleast little bit rational at same time?:dizzy2:

Is it time for poll ?
Going by the opening post and that posters following contributions is that poster...
A Someone who is a Christian and is on a wind up
B Someone who is not a Christian and is on a wind up
CInsane

Well, I for one will be going along as soon as its open. I never thought I'd ever get a chance to meet P T Barnum in person and I'm not missing it now!

It feels kinda bad to gang up on a single person, but this question is itching me...

@Navaros: you know how halal meat is produced? And who decreed the procedure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Is it time for poll ?
Going by the opening post and that posters following contributions is that poster...
A Someone who is a Christian and is on a wind up
B Someone who is not a Christian and is on a wind up
CInsane

---

Navaros advocating evolution and claiming his own hypocrisy has finally convinced me that he has conducted the most entertaining wind-up all this time.

I think he is a very committed Christian who likes to push our buttons and thus perhaps reveal our own intolerances.

I'm very impressed. :bow:

I am glad to see that nobody is arguing that such a museum shouldn't be built. After all, in the grand scheme of the American economy, $27 million is nothing, a tiny fragment of a drop in the bucket. If people want to donate their hard-earned cash to creating this museum, well, that's what the U.S. is all about.

Other Christian-themed learning centers have been built, with varying success. Heritage USA was a flop, but by contrast, Bob Jones University is thriving. I disagree with the Creation Museum's ideology, but I'm glad they have the freedom to do what they like.

Since there will be primitive humans represented does that mean the females will be topless? Maybe we'll get to see Adam's sausage as well. I bet when John Ashcroft visits he brings a tarp with him.

… I’m pretty sure everyone wore fig leaves back then. :dizzy2:

If those Jehovah's pamphlets I've seen are anything to judge by, they also had pretty impeccable make-up jobs on all the time. :gorgeous:

...why American religious nuts have such a fixation with turning what's supposed to be sacred and profound into cheap and vulgar is quite beyond my comprehension.

Quote:

---

...why American religious nuts have such a fixation with turning what's supposed to be sacred and profound into cheap and vulgar is quite beyond my comprehension.

---

Quite simply it is because they lack faith .

Were that the case they'd have to be pretty queer to make themselves so ridiculous on a regular basis.

I think they just lack good taste in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

...why American religious nuts have such a fixation with turning what's supposed to be sacred and profound into cheap and vulgar is quite beyond my comprehension.

---

It sells better at the gift shop.


Unfortunately, it's not just the religious nuts that do this over here. :stwshame:

That much is obvious from merely seeing import films and other popular media - despite the vetting the import publishers do - but I didn't feel like generalizing beyond the bounds of the topic. ~;p

I wish you were right BG but this reminds me of other people I have met, they hang on to one truth and then warp the whole world around it.

Maybe he is on the wind-up though.

Quote:

---

Were that the case they'd have to be pretty queer to make themselves so ridiculous on a regular basis.

---

Well we can take that as a pun on some other recent very vocal "religeous" nuts , who turned out to be pretty queer indeed:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

But lok on th bright side , Ham has slowly managed to change some of his views because even he could see that they were so ridiculous , give him time and maybe some more of his ridiculous views will fix themself .

The damn fool really should study the scriptures more though , especially the words he uses as "evidence" that are mis-translations of completely different words altogether .

But one ofmy favourites for the young earthers is about the date/time changes from the MT-LXX , because the people at the time had no record of events that had supposedly happened in their historical timeframe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman
...why American religious nuts have such a fixation with turning what's supposed to be sacred and profound into cheap and vulgar is quite beyond my comprehension.

---

Quote:

---

That much is obvious from merely seeing import films and other popular media

---

The Professor & the Midgets (Älykääpiöt) of Kummeli of the much higher, non-cheap, non-vulgar, superior Finnish media.

I am no christian. Still, the ease with which their and any religionists' tenets get bashed, derided, and generally held up to ridicule here is alarming, and disappointing.

On any other subject I see reasoned, if impassioned, debate. Religion? Red cape + Bull.

Never said our TV content didn't suck as well. But we at least have the decency to not import it in bulk. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I am no christian. Still, the ease with which their and any religionists' tenets get bashed, derided, and generally held up to ridicule here is alarming, and disappointing.

On any other subject I see reasoned, if impassioned, debate. Religion? Red cape + Bull.

---

Fair enough, but given that the topic is largely based on faith instead of reason...

The fact is, for a nonbeliever most religious tenets will come across at best as vaguely amusing, or well-meaning but slightly odd; at worst, as downright ludicrous garbage. Neither makes for a convincing basis for argument, but the believers obviously see the matter differently - which results in a bit of a communication barrier. Incompatible premises, you could say.

And being told that for example evolution didn't happen because it conflicts with someone's interpretation of a Scripture gets old pretty fast; persistence on the matter changes that to annoying and eventually downright intellectually insulting - "so I'm supposed to swallow all this just because your dusty Scripture claims it is so?"

My $0.02 for my fellow secularists:

You will never "win" a debate against a creationist by using science-based arguments. They are not valid currency. Faith in the Bible is the only legal tender as far as creationists are concerned. And this is fair enough, because we secularists are just as untrusting of their currency as they are of ours.

The only possible outcome of a secularist and a creationist arguing (at least in the Backroom) is that both of them walk away with a bad taste in their mouth.

Just as science can not disprove faith, faith can not disprove science.

I don't know if he is putting us all on or not, but there has been a lot of scorn heaped on Navaros in this thread because of his beliefs, which is a little disturbing.

The only time creationists should be scorned is when they try to force their beliefs on others.

If they are simply stating their beliefs and holding them out for discussion, then there is no need for scorn.

Have a nice day...

:beam:

Navaros is free to believe what he wants. Belief is a private matter as far as I'm concerned. But expressing it publicly exposes it to the other side of the Freedom of Expression coin - opinion and critique.

And this sort of topic is one where the naysayers have a tendency to be pretty scathing. I suspect it comes partly from a resignation to the fact the discussion won't actually go anywhere, so people just idly and sarcastically pick apart bits that cath their eye to pass the time and on general principle.
Well, I do anyway. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

You will never "win" a debate against a creationist by using science-based arguments. They are not valid currency. Faith in the Bible is the only legal tender as far as creationists are concerned.

---

But people do not have to use science based arguements to slap down a muppet like Ken Hams views , that would only be fair when he foolishly tries to use science himself (which he often does in his books and on his website) , it is just as easy to use scripture to show that he is talking garbage .
While there are many science based arguements completely destroying any credibilty in his "science" based claims , there are just as many scripture based arguements against his claims .
As I have said before , this brand of cretinism is the realm of those who lack faith , and have little knowledge of either scripture or science .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Wonderful way to spend 27 million dollars. People are starving, homeless are freezing, single mothers are suffering, yet churches see that this is far mor important. Calvanist hypocrits the lot of them.

Honestly 10,000 years? What does the museum say about dinosours? Guess they are merely mal-constructed elephants.

---

No, decendents of primordal slime.

Try that they were parts of God's creation that went extinct.

I know, we should spend it on another of the thousands of evolutionary museums. Heck, why spend money on museums, or caffeterias, or theatres? Let's give it all to starving kids!!
That's society for ya. People like museums - if there is going to be one, it might as well be Chistian.

You know MODs, If anyone said half the things about islam or jewdeism that these members are constsantly saying about Christianity, they would be banned. I find it strange that they can discriminate against Christians as much as they like while they still can't say anything about any other religion. Please do tell me why this is.

Sorry if I ruffled any feathers - I hope I roasted them off.
Discrimination has to end on this board. I think I may start a thread in the WatchTower.
Night all

It is true that we tolerate (as in: let stand) posts with content that, if it were on a religion board, might be considered blasphemous or sacreligious by true believers. We do step in when the content is personally slanderous toward another member, per Org rules.

The alternative would be to disallow any discussion of religion at all, lest we offend some sect. Yet, we observe the fact that a religion-related topic gets started every week. The membership here wants to discuss it. So we allow it, and watch closely, without favouring one religion or non-religion over another, as much as humanly possible.

If you feel those efforts are inadequate, you are certainly within your privilege to post a complaint in Watchtower. I look forward to seeing your suggestions for improvement of religion coverage in the Backroom.

I also think that members here know a lot more about western religions (Christianity) then they do about eastern ones like Hinduisms or islam... so naturally people stick to what they know. also religions hold up beliefs as cold hard facts. If i were to say the sun orbits around a teacup, people would quite rightly tell me i am a crackpot(pun intended).

If religion is grounds to say things like homosexuals are this or that, or people who have abortions are this or that, or people who have sex before marriage are this or that. Then people have the right to question, disagree and point out things about religions.

they are a lot of intelligent people on these boards,most of the people here are adults, it would be a shame to limit what can be discussed, or to censor what is said. most people are careful to attack the points, statements or posts and not the person or religions per say'.
~:grouphug: :whip:

It is quite ironic to see the same people who are so understanding/apologetic of radical Islam every time a new article is posted on this board about some horrible muslim practice -whether its stoning women or cutting off children's hands - jump on Navoros and other Christians because they don't believe in evolution lock, stock, and barrel.

Im not particularly Christian, but the hypocrisy by some - not all - of the "seculars" in this thread is pathetic. :shame:

The only thing I've gotten out of this thread is that Navaros is claiming that Satan gave Man meat. Awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The Gardern of Eden was cursed ground for Man. God turned man out of the Gardern of Eden because of his disobedience.

---

All ground, the world itself and everything in it became cursed as a result of Adam's disobediance to God. Not just the Garden of Eden.

Regarding the comments about animal sacrifices: sacrifices were required because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Eventually Jesus became the sacrificial lamb who shed his blood instead. If Adam, Eve and Satan had not corrupted the world then there would be no sin and no sacrifices would have been called for. Do not ask me why without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin; I'm not God so I don't know that. But it is God's law.

@Goofball's comment: That applies to evolutionists just as much. There is absolutely no possible way an evolutionist would ever come away from a debate with the thought that evolution did not happen, even if he suffered a devastating loss in that debate. The evolutionist's zealous faith in his own idea is too strong for that to ever happen.

I like all the scorn in this thread. It illustrates very well just how much zealotry is in the hearts of evolutionists, how zealously up in arms all evolutionists get at opposition to their faith in evolution. It's two sides of the same coin, although evolutionists happen to be on the incorrect side.

@The few different posters who stated that no one said the Museum should not exist: there's been plenty of people saying that in this thread. :dizzy2:

Whoa, wait a minute. Coins have incorrect sides?

Quote:

---

It is quite ironic to see the same people who are so understanding/apologetic of radical Islam every time a new article is posted on this board about some horrible muslim practice -whether its stoning women or cutting off children's hands - jump on Navoros and other Christians because they don't believe in evolution lock, stock, and barrel.

Im not particularly Christian, but the hypocrisy by some - not all - of the "seculars" in this thread is pathetic.

---

What is ironic Panzer is that during your enforced absence you seem to have forgotten or missed which poster has been very vocal in supporting Muslim fundamentalism and the practices associated with it . Also with Judaic fundamentalism .
Would you like to guess who that poster is before you go off on one ?
Here have a clue ....try post #1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What is ironic Panzer is that during your enforced absence you seem to have forgotten or missed which poster has been very vocal in supporting Muslim fundamentalism and the practices associated with it . Also with Judaic fundamentalism .
Would you like to guess who that poster is before you go off on one ?
Here have a clue ....try post #1

---

This must be one the few times I'll ever agree with tribesman. But you are way off with that generalization Panther. Maybe you should go back through some of the old threads before making such a bold statement.

Nav are you seriously trying to say PETA is spreading god's word? Wheat, barley and all other plants are also living creatures. Is it somehow acceptable to Yawe that we choose to murder the apple instead of killing the animals? They both are living, both created, in your theology, by Yawe yet you kill it and feel no shame?

I am aware Tribes, and Ive given my opinion on that as well.

In this particular thread, however, the intolerance of the tolerant seemed a bit more interesting than Nav's new found love for the muslims. I am certainly not rushing to his defence though - as if he needed it. :inquisitive:

Its just funny that certain people are so defensive of people like Nav when they happen to be muslim, but the same thought process doesnt apply to fundi-Christians.

Your irony is not lost on me however - game point to you for calling me on it. :boxing:

IMHO that's because the discussion on Muslim ultras nigh invariably can't see the forest behind the trees. Plus most folks here frankly aren't qualified to discuss the faith to very profound degree on account of sheer unfamiliarity with the subject - which does not keep quite a few folks from issuing rather bold and sweeping statements at near regular intervals, which to my eyes at least have a noticeable habit of stinking of raw ethnocentrism and xenophobia. The confessional questions involved have a marked tendency to get severely mixed up with sociopolitical ones, which are quite different.

Various aspects of Christianity are something most people raised in "Western" cultures very nearly cannot but be fairly familiar with (which doesn't keep people from making incorrect statements about the faith; but that tends to happen rather more rarely and with a rather less hostile tone than with Islam for some odd reason...), ergo they can actually make reasonably informed statements regarding it. Moreover the religious divisor line here does not suspiciously overlap and get mixed up with various far more secular ones.

Besides, when was the last time a Muslim zealot posted anything on these boards ? Fervent Christians do it regularly, and get duly picked on by skeptics. Other faiths are glaringly absent in this regard for some reason.