The other complaint was that the atheist's cars had *gasp* bumper stickers on them. He has a picture of them.
If these are the worst bumper stickers Ken Ham can find on an atheists car, he's not looking hard enough. Here's what they say. (There was a lisence plate that said, "NO GODS" that I left out.)
Obama-Biden
DNA is life, the rest is translation.
Ethics IS My Religion
I give evolution two opposable thumbs up!
Marriage Is Defined by LOVE!
The World is My Country. To Do Good is My Religion.
I guess Ken Ham is against our president, against having ethics, against doing good, against marrying for love, and denies that DNA is the code of life. The truth comes out.Also see P.Z. Myers take on it.
Also see the new Whitebird's Law in the comments.
47 comments:
You took the words right out of my mouth. I figured that bumper-stickergate was probably worth a mention at the next meeting.
The fact that he counted the Obama Biden sticker as offensive really shows you something about what a miserable dimwit this Ham fellow is.
Sav,
You know, I think I could find bumper stickers that are much more offensive just by sorting through the box that Dar has. It leaves me wondering just how mild of a statement they'll take offense to.
Billyist,
My thoughts exactly. If supporting our president is an offense, I don't think we could do anything that'll please these guys.
This guy hasn't even read his Bible, apparently. There is at least one verse that supports the atheist-humanist views as portrayed on the bumper stickers.
"...and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" 1 Corinthians 13:2.
Lorena, Ham has read his bible I'm sure, just like every other millionaire creationist. He just ignores the parts that don't agree with his doctrine, like every other fundamentalist.
Even fundamentalists are Cafeteria Christians. They just don't admit it.
Robert,
No mention of how childish it was for adults to jump on something marked for 12 or younger?
As for the bumper stickers, Ken ask for people to pray for the people that had them. No biggie there either. Don't you think our President could use all the prayers he can get?
Atheist made fun of Ray for his trip to "find" evidence of evolution but they turn around and do the same. How does this further either agenda?
Mark
Speaking of bumper stickers, one of my favorites is: "Come the rapture, can I have your car?"
Some others:
* Religions are Just Cults With More Members
* Don't Pray In My School and I Won't Think in your Church
* If You're Born Again, Do You Have Two Belly-Buttons?
* Militant Agnostic -- I don't know and you don't either
* GOD Protect Me from Your Followers
* Sorry I Missed Church, I've Been Busy Practicing Witchcraft and Becoming a Lesbian
* Stop Using My Name to Justify Your Bad Decisions -- God
Here's a link to those cited and more.
Mark, your probably right about it being childish to jump on that dino, though I would have done it too. That saddled dino has become something of an icon for the creation museum. When all those evilutions saw it, they couldn't help themselves I'm sure. I would have been right there in the middle of it, you bet. I admit that I can be a bit childish.
I'm not familiar with Ray Comfort's trip to find evolution. I haven't been to his blog since last year. Knowing Ray, I doubt it was a sincere search.
Mark, he obviously found those bumper stickers offensive or he wouldn't have posted them. It's funny how people take offense to such minor things. I think it's more indignation than actual defense of a belief.
Ham also complained about the noise the group generated. It was a group of almost 300! 300 southern baptists would have made just as much noise.
Mark: Let's be clear. There was no jumping. You can argue that it was childish, but PZ did nothing to damage the display; he was careful in both mounting and dismounting. Watch the video.
Ham interpreted the bumper stickers as being indicative of people who need special attention via prayer. Think about that for a moment. Being an Obama supporter means you need prayer? Ham thinks that voting Democrat deserves supernatural intervention. He's nuts. Nevermind that someone who understands biology ("DNA is life...") also needs intervention.
"Security" at the Shameless Hut of Indoctrinating Trash was amped up, and by all accounts, virtually nothing happened. Head of security originally said that minimal (nonsupernatural) intervention was required, but now they say, "Oh, I forgot, they were loud and we had to shush them over and over." Not buying it.
"Security" at the Shameless Hut of Indoctrinating Trash was amped up, and by all accounts, virtually nothing happened. Head of security originally said that minimal (nonsupernatural) intervention was required, but now they say, "Oh, I forgot, they were loud and we had to shush them over and over." Not buying it.
Neither of us were there so can we really say if they were being loud ? Not really. My point is simple and I look at it from both sides, if you go some where to enjoy a exhibit or what ever have respect for those around you. That's a good rule don't you think? It doesn't matter if you agree with what you are looking at or not be respectful. I know that we have fanatics on both sides of the issue. The question is are you going to further your agenda by this type of behavior?
I took Ken's comment about the bumper stickers different than you. I guess because I am a Democrat but I have never and never will vote straight party tickets. I look at each canidate and make my own choice. I'm not an Obama fan but He is our president. Pray for him to make wise decisions. As for the other bumper stickers Ken felt like these people need prayer. Again what's the big deal? That's his right. Just like it is the right of the people to put the stickers there to begin with.
"The question is are you going to further your agenda by this type of behavior?"
What type of behaviour? Like you said none of us were there, so how does either of us know how the SSA was behaving? From the videos I've seen, they were pretty mild. The worse things that seemed to have happened was that some adults had their pictures taken on a prop meant for the kids, they were a little loud because they were a big group, a few cars had secular messages on their bumper stickers and a guy said that he wasn't going to buy anything from the gift shop. Sounds to me like a normal day just about anywhere. Heck, you have that same experience going to Wal-Mart.
I've already said that if I go to that fun house called a museum, I'd want to get my pic taken on the dino too. Hey, why don't you and I meet at the "museum" some day and you can take my pic with the saddled dino. It's about half way between us, I think. We could go for some sushi after or something. It'd be fun.
Robert,
I just might take you up on the offer.
Mark
My statement isn't based on fanaticism or bias, it's based on an analysis of the facts -- an analysis you sidestepped in order to toss out the tired "you weren't there" argument.
I'll repeat myself, because I don't think I can put it more succinctly: Head of security originally said that minimal (nonsupernatural) intervention was required, but now they say, "Oh, I forgot, they were loud and we had to shush them over and over." Not buying it.
"You weren't there" is a piss-poor argument; see forensics. But you be sure to pray for me, Mark, because I accept that science and reasoning work; clearly there's something wrong with me.
Robert Madewell "From the videos I've seen, they were pretty mild. The worse things that seemed to have happened was that some adults had their pictures taken on a prop meant for the kids, they were a little loud because they were a big group, a few cars had secular messages on their bumper stickers and a guy said that he wasn't going to buy anything from the gift shop."
Don't you see how bad that all is? I mean, if there raucous behaviour got amped up any higher, one of them might have cursed!
Read your statement again. You claim first security was "amped up", please provide your evidence for this claim. Next you say "by all accounts" whose accounts? PZ Myers or the museum? Again provide proof or stop crying about it. This type evidence can always be interpreted two ways. Have you been trained in Forensic video analysis? No? Didn't think so. Their purpose for going was to create Controversy nothing more.
"Their purpose for going was to create Controversy nothing more."
Mark? Why do you come to my blog, if it's not to cause a little controversy? I'm not complaining, because I see nothing wrong with causing controversy. You see it's caused Ken Ham to shudder. He doesn't want controversy because he can't back his claims up with anything but the bible (and sometimes his claims can't be backed up by the bible).
I think (can't prove) that Ham is in it for the money. He doesn't care if he's right or not. All he cares is that people will believe him and support his ministry. His ministry rakes in millions, he doesn't want that to end. (Same goes for Comfort.)
Mark "Liar for Jesus" Morrison wrote...
You claim first security was "amped up", please provide your evidence for this claim.
The warning letter the "museum" sent to PZ Myers (which was then subsequently posted verbatim on his blog) stated as much.
You may be shocked but I come here because I find your post interesting, most of the time. What better way for me to understand your position than to get it from you? But while I am here I will not shy away from giving my thoughts and beliefs anymore than you would.
ethinethin said...
Mark "Liar for Jesus" Morrison wrote...
You claim first security was "amped up", please provide your evidence for this claim.
The warning letter the "museum" sent to PZ Myers (which was then subsequently posted verbatim on his blog) stated as much.
Could you include the link? I looked over PZ'S blog and couldn't find it. Maybe I over looked it?
I just wanted to give a Christian's view of why people with these bumper stickers might need to be prayed for.
Obama-Biden
Pro-choice, Liberal leaning. If you haven't noticed, most Christians are conservatives, because the Bible is against abortion for any reason, against gay rights, etc. So this is anti-Bible, and therefore anti-God.
DNA is life, the rest is translation.
Eliminates God from the miracle of life. Eliminating God from his own work is blasphemy, or anti-God.
Ethics IS My Religion
Obviously taking a shot at all religion, and therefore hits Christianity, which is ordained of God. Therefore it is anti-God.
I give evolution two opposable thumbs up!
Pro-evolution = anti-Bible and therefore anti-God.
Marriage Is Defined by LOVE!
Eliminates God from his creation of marriage. Blasphemous and anti-God.
The World is My Country. To Do Good is My Religion.
The Bible says that salvation is not of good works, therefore any religion of "doing good" is anti-Bible and therefore anti-God.
All of these are stances against God, which is terribly dangerous. Christians would feel the need to pray for these people, because unless they change their stance, and we pray they will, they are headed for eternal damnation.
Really, A Christian saying they are praying for you is a good thing. I've asked folks to pray for me many times. Doesn't mean I'm any worse than them, simply that I am not perfect and I know it. People like Ken Ham (in my opinion, as only he and God know his heart) are not saying you are worse people than they are. He (and we) are saying that you need the Holy Spirit's guidance, as we all do, the only difference being you don't realize it yet.
He's chosen to focus on these people, because they are outwardly rebelling against God.
Barbie "Oblivious" Bacon wrote..
Really, A Christian saying they are praying for you is a good thing.
No it isn't. A few weeks ago, Bruce the Agnostic had a great post about this, specifically the how and why it is offensive to non-christians. Go ahead and google that if you want to read it (but I suspect you don't).
Mark was lying for Jesus one day when he said...
Could you include the link? I looked over PZ'S blog and couldn't find it. Maybe I over looked it?
Sure,
Here is the link for you. First one.
"why it is offensive to non-christians"
I thought we were supposed to be the ones easily offended.
googled +"bruce the agnostic" and did not find what you are referring to. Please clarify.
ethinethin, thanks for the link.
But after reading a couple of times I failed to find any amped up behavior. Also PZ seemed to understand the rules. Both sides had a clear understanding of each other, so what's the issue? Ken was upset because they ignored a sign requesting only kids 12 and youger sit on a toy dino. That's your big issue?
I give the group credit for the most part it seemed that they acted reasonable. But in the end it is a privately owned museum and they set their own rules. Don't like their rules ? Then don't go.
Barbie,
Bruce Droppings is the blog you are looking for.
"I thought we were supposed to be the ones easily offended."
Good point! That is actually something I have been working on personally. I used to be horribly offended by anti-atheist statements and still am a little. I recognize that a "low offense threshold" is a character defect. So, I'm working on not being so easily offended like I was when I was more christiany.
Really, we live in a multi-cultural world. Being offended by plurality is not helping anyone. If peace is to be had, we need to be more tolerant.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Barbie. I am a fan of open discussion. You are welcome here. Just remember that I might say something that will offend you. Please, keep in mind that I am just being honest about my beliefs (like you are).
I posted at BruceDroppings one time and was immediately banned. LOL!
I purposely did not violate any of the rules.
I've never really chimed in about the PZ Myers thing. I think, considering how diligent he wanted the SSA to be in following the rules, it's a shame he couldn't do so himself.
I don't care how ridiculous the dinosaur is, or how much fun it was, he flat out disobeyed the very thing he asked everyone to obey.
Sad thing is, he would have earned much credit (at least from this Creationist) had he simply said on his blog, "I got caught up in the moment, but I did disobey the rules. I apologize for that, but maintain that the museum is a ridiculous sham unworthy of consideration."
I mean, word it however you wish, but just say, "I shouldn't have done it. I did, and it was funny, but I did break the rule and shouldn't have."
He talks constantly about the horrible stereotype of the "evil atheist" and then does something like this that just reaffirms the image to alot of people.
He's a sensationalist as bad as Ken Ham.
Riding the dinosaur was "evil"?
No, the "evil atheist" is just the easiest way to describe the stereotype.
your name makes me hungry
"He talks constantly about the horrible stereotype of the "evil atheist" and then does something like this that just reaffirms the image to alot of people."
Now, come on, Barbie. Is getting on a fiberglass dino that was meant for kids, such an evil thing? Heck, if I there, I'd ride it too. I know for a fact that PZ wasn't the first adult to climb on that thing. Ham is only making a scene about the dino because of the nature of his guests. Also, because he can't find anything worse to complain about.
Boo Hoo Ken Ham! Some people disagree with you. Waaaaaa!
"He's a sensationalist as bad as Ken Ham."
I've met Prof. Myers in person. You may actually be right about that one.
Hey Barbie Bacon,
"..against gay rights,"
I think you need to rethink your claim that the Bible is against gay rights. The Bible certainly labels homosexuality as sin, but it also lists drunkenness as sin, so does that mean the Bible is against drunks having rights, too?
Drunkenness is not "an abomination before God" as is homosexuality. However, you are correct that both are sins the Bible condemns. And in a loyal New Testament church, you will never find someone who is a known partaker of alcohol in a leadership role of any kind. Same goes for an adulterer.
And in a loyal New Testament church, you will never find someone who is a known partaker of alcohol in a leadership role of any kind. Same goes for an adulterer.
Bullshit.
Note I said "loyal" New Testament church. The Bible disqualifies such folks from positions of leadership in the church.
And please come up with an actual argument instead of just saying "bull****"
So they're not loyal unless you say they are. How convenient! Just more of the usual christian special pleading.
Why should I even argue the point? You made a bullshit, self-sealing statement.
"And in a loyal New Testament church, you will never find someone who is a known partaker of alcohol in a leadership role of any kind. Same goes for an adulterer."
My question is, how do you tell which church is a Loyal New Testament Church™? Also, how can you be sure that your church is a Loyal New Testament Church™?
I'm sure that Ted Haggard's congregation thought that their church was a Loyal New Testament Church™.
I know you don't like it, but there is only one literal interpretation of the Bible. Many can take scriptures and apply them in one way or the other, but there is only one literal interpretation to each verse. In the qualifications for that type of service, God has very plainly laid out the rules.
You guys take the "Scotsman" argument so far beyond what it says. There are certain instances where it is appropriate to say "No true X would ever Y." If Y is contrary to the very definition of X of course.
But people are fallible. There may be a "loyal" new testament church which hires an alcoholic pastor or whatever without realizing what he is. Then when it is revealed that he is an alcoholic and dismissed, you would say "oh well they were never a loyal new testament church to begin with". That is the logical fallacy.
That's not true. If they didn't know, that's not their fault. He definitely should be let go immediately.
Yes, man is fallible, however, even fallible man can understand things similar to what you find in a history book. If I read "George Washington was our first president" and I trust the author, there's no chance that I'm misinterpreting what it says to say, "George Washington was our first president."
That's not true. If they didn't know, that's not their fault. He definitely should be let go immediately.
Compared to earlier:
And in a loyal New Testament church, you will never find someone who is a known partaker of alcohol in a leadership role of any kind. Same goes for an adulterer.
Never? But you make the concession if the people didn't know, then it could still happen. That is why this was a bullshit statement.
Well I apologize for the mistunderstanding then. My statement was assuming that all parties were being honest. Typically before someone is hired by a church for a position, they are asked about things like their feelings on alcohol consumption and the sort. Few people in a church long enough to be considered for a leadership role are the type who would lie just to get the position. Not to mention usually they've been in church long enough that the congregation knows their lifestyle.
I think I might publish a post about alchohol consumption and christianity, because I do have a few questions (and recipes).
Stephen,
"I know you don't like it, but there is only one literal interpretation of the Bible."
OK...so what is it, and how do you know that you've got it right?
"Many can take scriptures and apply them in one way or the other, but there is only one literal interpretation to each verse."
Actually, all Xians do this to at least some extent.
"You guys take the "Scotsman" argument so far beyond what it says. There are certain instances where it is appropriate to say "No true X would ever Y." If Y is contrary to the very definition of X of course."
That's correct. Now, show us how your special pleading fits the bill.
"If I read "George Washington was our first president" and I trust the author, there's no chance that I'm misinterpreting what it says to say, "George Washington was our first president.""
"Trust the author?" What does trust have to do with it? Either the factual statement is true or not regardless of how well you know the author. Also, you'll note that this is a rather straight-forward example...not quite as straight-forward as "Thou shall not drink while holding a priestly position." The authors of this would have drank wine, so surely they didn't mean to say that no one who drinks wine should hold a position in the church.
Post a Comment