Answers in Genesis Steals Money from Couple

| 134 Comments

Answers in Genesis hosted a “date night” last night at their Kentucky Kreationism Komplex, where couples could attend a talk by Ken Ham, dine in the main hall, and attend a concert. Talk about romance! And since AiG has pledged to not discriminate in order to obtain government subsidies, we all expect them to welcome gay couples to their event, right? Wrong.

Unfortunately, we were told at the door that we would not be allowed entry.

They explained to us that the Creation Museum Date Night was a “Christian environment”, therefore the presence of two men eating dinner together would not be allowed. The very sight of this would “add an un-Christian element to the event” and “disrupt the evening for everyone”.

But Answers in Genesis didn’t send them packing without a dessert; they refused to refund the tickets. We knew they were a bunch of scholastic frauds, but now we know they are a bunch of criminal frauds as well.

134 Comments

Any word on whether or not the couple will be pressing charges or attempting litigation? I imagine that the wording of the advertisement for this activity will be a very important piece of evidence in such a case.

They explained to us that the Creation Museum Date Night was a “Christian environment”, therefore the presence of two men eating dinner together would not be allowed.

So I suppose a painting of the Last Supper, showing 13 men eating together, would really freak them out!

What I’m really looking forward to is for a non-fundie biblical scholar to apply to work at Ark Encounter. Could they legally deny employment to such a person who has qualifications?

I wonder why a gay couple would want to hang out with those bigots anyway… Or maybe they just did not know about AiG’s homophobic stance?

Could they legally deny employment to such a person who has qualifications?

I am afraid the answer to that question is probably yes. Religion trumps everything in the United States. I once had a brief dealing with a denominational university which restricted its hiring to members of a particular religious affiliation – and yet were allowed to call themselves Equal Opportunity Employers.

Matt Young said: … and yet were allowed to call themselves Equal Opportunity Employers.

BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

I guess they saw the part about “inspiring message about love” but they didn’t see that part right after it that said “and the biblical view of marriage”. Just kidding. They knew they were gonna make some waves. :P

I wonder if they had shrimp on the menu, after all eating shrimp and lobster is also an abomination found only a few paragraphs up in Leviticus from where it says homosexuality is an abomination. Strange thing is the person who wouldn’t let the couple in broke two of the ten commandments by bearing false witness (when stating that the ad page stated gay couples weren’t allowed) and stealing. Funny how being gay somehow trumps those two even though homosexuality didn’t even make into the top ten. Then again we always knew the Hammites were hypocrites.

The very sight of this would “add an un-Christian element to the event” and “disrupt the evening for everyone”.

I’m wondering, just where in the Bible is homosexuality outlawed?

I know about the one line in Leviticus, IIRC, something like “If a man lies with another man as with a woman he has committed an abomination and must be put to death”, but is there anything else.

Considering that Leviticus is basically a laundry list of dozens of things that deserve the death penalty, ranging from back-talking your grandfather to taking up two parking places, I’m wondering if there’s any further justification outside Leviticus for the virulent antipathy conservative Christians seem to have for gays.

An antipity which, one assumes Jesus probably didn’t share. After all, he palled around with 12 men who seemed to take little interest in women. Granted, these guys probably weren’t exactly the alpha male type, or they wouldn’t be inclined to be “desciples”, but given the societal pressures of the time to pair up and produce offspring, you’ve got to assume that at least some of them.… well, had the time to go off and be disciples because they… um… didn’t have much going on in the gotta-get-my-gal-with-child department.

I mean, if we took everything in Leviticus seriously, I suspect most of us would probably be flogged 3 times a week and be dead by the end of the month.

I fact, now that I think of it, I’m beginning to suspect that Leviticus probably didn’t get laid much, either.

I don’t think there was a dude named “Leviticus”. (I think it was named after “Levon” by Elton John, if I’m not mistaken.)

So, Kentucky Christians, you can go to the Creation ‘Museum’ and soon its other new ministry, Ark Encounters, and you can rest assured that you won’t see any gay couples – however you can run into a guy who was found not guilty by reason of insanity after shooting his ex’s husband three times on his first out-of-state visit in 11 years. Does that make you feel better?

Ted Herrlich [Enable javascript to see this email address.] http://sciencestandards.blogsp

Jesus wasn’t too good to eat with the “sinners.” AiG should probably read their bibles.

They even find ways to pervert their patriarch, did their “Jesus” ever turn anyone away?

So exactly when will the complaints be filed to end those government subsidies?

we always knew the Hammites were hypocrites.

Hammycrites?

@stevaroni: yes, there are other references. Paul has a go at them more than once. See the list at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.c[…]gay/long.htm

Ken said:

So exactly when will the complaints be filed to end those government subsidies?

Not sure it can, since this was to do with the Creation Museum, not the upcoming Ark Park. The museum didn’t get those mind-bogglingly stupid $37 million dollar subsidies. I can’t actually find out whether it’s classified as a commercial or a religious not-for-profit venture, but I’m presuming the latter.
Now when it comes time for the ark park to get underway, they will have to keep from discriminating against prospective employees at least. It will probably chafe at them and there may be a few slip-ups, since they seem so prone to excluding people that don’t already agree with them. You know, like Jesus did?

stevaroni said:

… something like “If a man lies with another man as with a woman he has committed an abomination and must be put to death” …

Given the wording of those passages and the long tradition (Jewish as well as Christian) of “interpreting” scripture to subvert many of the rules, eg the sabbath ones: the men just have to be a bit more creative and do it up against the refrigerator or something to not be lying down. That’s nowhere near as much of a fudge as most of the other examples of rule-wrangling. It’s actually quite literal.

The Cult of Ham

(Really. It’s not baloney.)

As I have said for almost as long as I have been commenting on creationists, creationism is about right wing authoritarian politics. Religious claims, although plausibly “believed” at a conscious level, serve mainly to provide sorely needed ethical justification.

I’m not talking about who or what is “sincere” or ascribing any conscious awareness of scheming or anything else, so please let’s not get into a fruitless mind-reading contest here.

What I am talking about is easily objectively observable priorities.

When I very first became significantly aware of creationists back in 1999, I thought that some of them might be people who took spiritual meaning from a traditional religious interpretation, and were trying to resolve a discrepancy between that and science. I had this false expectation because I was raised in a rural Baptist church whose members were largely honest. Creationism never came up, and education was highly respected, but certainly some of the less educated members may have had “creationist” ideas.

It did not take me long to see that this was not the case, and that there is an almost one to one correspondence between being a creationist and being a standard issue authoritarian, homophobic, misogynistic, economically-ignorant-luxury-loving-austerity-preaching, cowardly-threat-making, send-some-other-guy-to-war-loving, climate-change-denying, pollution-loving, nihilistic, late-post-modern American “conservative movement” right winger.

There are plenty of people (or at least some people) who call themselves “conservatives” who are not creationist. Anyone who answers this in a way that implies that I said otherwise is lying.

Anyone who answers this by ascribing some sort of science denial to “the left” will be guilty of 1) making a morally bankrupt “it’s okay if the other guy does it too” argument, 2) probably false equivalence, belief in “the healing power of crystals” or the like is not equivalent to trying to use tax money to teach science-denying religious dogma as “science” to a captive audience of students and 3) probably lying, as most superstitious beliefs are at best distributed in a politically neutral way.

The extent to which creationism overlaps with the post-modern right wing movement is remarkable http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/[…]he-earth-is/

The “religious” claims creationists make will ALWAYS fit with the agenda.

Once you have their money, never give it back.

It has been widely remarked that Ken Ham looks like a chimp. Now we know that he acts like a Ferengi.

michaelshopkins said:

Once you have their money, never give it back.

It has been widely remarked that Ken Ham looks like a chimp. Now we know that he acts like a Ferengi.

That is an odious blood libel to foist upon anybody. What heinous thing did chimpanzees and Ferengi ever do to deserve such unforgivable slander?

Wheels said: Now when it comes time for the ark park to get underway, they will have to keep from discriminating against prospective employees at least. It will probably chafe at them and there may be a few slip-ups, since they seem so prone to excluding people that don’t already agree with them. You know, like Jesus did?

There has already been a post on Pharyngula covering an employment ad for the “Ark Encounters” that requires one of the typical Ham “faith oaths” to work there.

–W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Poor poor poor homosexuals - I wud like to know if they’re okay, do they have a recoveryblog or something?

J

michaelshopkins said: Now we know that he acts like a Ferengi.

Tcha! As long as your money is good, the Ferengi don’t care about race, creed, color, or sexual orientation.

Reminds me of Fat Freddy Freak getting thrown out of Amsterdam: “We Dutch are very tolerant people. We can stand anything but a tourist with no money.”

W. H. Heydt said:

There has already been a post on Pharyngula covering an employment ad for the “Ark Encounters” that requires one of the typical Ham “faith oaths” to work there.

–W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

I saw their job openings page but it didn’t mention anything specific about Ark Encounters, which (according to this page) won’t even be hiring until 2013. I think those are just posts for AiG and the Creation Museum.
Then again, now that I’m looking at PZ’s post from a few days ago, his quoted list has an entry for Ark Encounters where there isn’t one on their current hiring page.

Stephen P said:

@stevaroni: yes, there are other references. Paul has a go at them more than once. See the list at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.c[…]gay/long.htm

I know this isn’t really the right venue but since you mentioned it, what the h-ll maybe somebody out there can answer this one for me. I’d love to understand one thing about Christians. (I used to be one.) 12 years of christian schooling. I even taught in a Catholic H.S. As one of my students once said,”There’s nothing like a Catholic education to make you a non-believer.” And she was right! But why do Christians listen to Paul? He never saw Jesus, he never talked to Jesus, we only have his word for anything and half of what he did say the rest of the disciples disagreed with. Why is he so big in the Christian world?

Poor poor poor homosexuals - I wud like to know if they’re okay, do they have a recoveryblog or something?

Say, why don’t you get right on that and make one?

oh, wait, your concern was fake and your point vapid.

move along.

But why do Christians listen to Paul? He never saw Jesus, he never talked to Jesus, we only have his word for anything and half of what he did say the rest of the disciples disagreed with. Why is he so big in the Christian world?

Maybe because Paul says things Christians like to hear. I’m convinced that if there ever was a physical Jesus, he’s been embellished beyond recognition with attributes pilfered from all the other mythical characters of the time. I’m also aware that the orientation toward persuasion, accuracy irrelevant, hasn’t changed from that time to the present day.

So the most economical explanation is, these guys were all making stuff up, and did a fairly slapdash job of comparing notes. And like anyone else, they make up stuff that meets the needs of the moment and the particular audience being persuaded.

Paul just made up better stuff.

Mary H said: Why is he so big in the Christian world?

Because it gives a justification for a “common enemy”. The so called religious leaders don’t really care, they just want your money.

“The art of truly great popular leaders in all ages has consisted chiefly in not distracting the attention of the people, but concentrating always on a single adversary…”

SEF said: That’s nowhere near as much of a fudge as most of the other examples of rule-wrangling.

[Apologies for the long post.]

Religious rule fudging is an interesting thing and they get creative too. I heard that some very observant Jews do not cook on Saturdays because it would violate the Sabbath rules. But they put a pot of water on a stand and light a candle under it before sunset on Friday. Any cooking done with that water had technically started on Friday and so on Saturday they are merely completing the cooking started earlier. So that is ok. So they cook on Saturday and sprinkle a few drops of water from this pot, and now they have not violated any harm. Another Jewish friend of mine said that many of his neighbors keep a jar of quarters next to the stove and ask a kid on the block to come in light the stove and take the quarter from the jar. Their interpretation is that only lighting a fire is prohibited cooking is not. Handling money is prohibited, not allowing a kid to take a quarter from a jar.

Please don’t think it is confined only to the Jews. Our Hindu family has many such rules including quite a few regarding travel. One such rule is called the “soolam” (Trident) concept. On certain days of the week travel in certain directions are prohibited (Look at the soolam direction marked for every day in this calender http://www.egctraders.com/Hindu_Cal[…]_June_09.htm ) I think this concept pre dated religion and it is a very primitive rule to prevent over exploitation of neighborhood resources in the hunter gatherer era.

But in this definitely non-hunter gatherer age this is very inconvenient. So my parents would pack a suitcase and leave it in the neighbour’s house before sunset the previous day, if soolam conflicts with our airline reservations! The suitcase has left, means the journey has technically began the previous day and so they are not violating the soolam rule the next day!

But my grandma would be furious at this technical evasion of the rules. “This is not correct. You are courting with danger! Just by packing a suitcase you cant fool God! If soolam stops you traveling east on Monday, you must sleep under another roof Sunday night that is the right way to follow the soolam rule!” God rest her poor gentle soul, for she herself could not bring herself to say, “If soolam says you cant go East on Monday, don’t go East on Monday”.

Hindus and Jews have not had States and Legislatures providing them with enforcement mechanisms for their rules for quite a few centuries. And thus these rules are being ignored with some kind of fig leaf and eventually peters out and gets completely ignored. None of the load factor optimizing algorithms for the buses, trains and airlines in India factor in the “soolam” rule! Looks like we are at least a few centuries away from discussing these rules in this clinical fashion for Christians and Muslims.

related to the issue of honesty, and AIG being a great example of an organization of liars, I often see Hugh Ross put up as an examplar of honesty from the creationist viewpoint here on PT.

I have just as often vehemently disagreed with that assessment, which only seems focused on the fact that he isn’t a YEC.

he is, in fact, JUST as dishonest as Ken Ham is, if not even more so.

In case you need direct evidence in support to reference, I give you this gem:

God loves horses and whales. He knows because of their huge size and small populations that they will go extinct rapidly. When they do, he makes new ones.

how many lies are in this?

-his claim of the mathematics involved in mutations, evoltuion, and population sizes. -that we only see evolution in species with immense population sizes -that evolutionary biologists have never considered the mathematics involved (Fisher is rolling in his grave) -there are no transitional fossils -and, of course, the reason animals that have slow breeding rates don’t go extinct, which is what I quoted above.

the man is a shyster.

PLEASE

do NOT present Ross as an exemplar of honest argumentation, EVER.

here ends this public service announcement.

FL said:

(FL) If you’re like me, you’ve probably met a few people whose bottle is their god.

(Science Avenger) No, I haven’t, and I doubt you have either.

Oh, I’ve known quite a few who drink enough daily to kill an ass.

Oops, Mr. Avenger. Seems you done told the tale, yes? First you deny what I said, but in the very next breath, you go ahead and CONFIRM what I said.

See, you and I have met the same people, and we’ve seen what their god does to them. We know all that drinkin’ comes with multiple price tags, and I don’t mean the kind you see on the window at the liquor store. You don’t “drink enough daily to kill an ass”, without some consequences.

Salvation is needed when you see slow-motion tragedies like that. Deliverance is needed. Healing. Somebody somewhere has got to pray for God’s help, God’s intervention, instead of pretending that real tragedy ain’t happening with their own neighbors and personal acquaintances. That’s how I honestly feel about it.

FL

Way to totally ignore the post you were pretending to respond to. I take it from this we can conclude that “posting inane dishonest bullshit on Panda’s Thumb” is your god.

It’s interesting, isn’t it? You hear all these homophobic nutcases claiming that sexual orientation is a choice, and yet not one of them will explain when, how, or why they chose to be straight.

Of course, the folks claiming that homosexuality is a choice seem to have a disproportionate probability of getting caught cheating on their wives with meth-dealing man-whores, or guys they pick up in airport bathrooms, or rentboys they hired to “lift their luggage”, and yet never explain why they made THAT choice either.

harold said:

FL -

If homosexuality is a “choice”, why don’t I remember “choosing” to be heterosexual?

Yes, but the stories should have already been circulating and Paul had access to the original apostles.

have you considered the obvious?

that they didn’t exist?

have you considered that Paul also might be a fabrication?

seriously, you might want to look into that, as there apparently is considerable evidence to support the idea that Paul, based on the writings attributed, was a construct.

why is there the apparent acceptance here that ANY of the tales are actually based on the lives of real individuals?

To me, and many historical anthropologists, the evidence suggests otherwise.

heddle said:

Robin,

Well, considering that there were no “gospels” when Paul was writing his letters, this really isn’t that much of an oddity. The “bible” we have today is essentially a 4th century invention.

My goodness, why do people just parrot stupid things?

Why indeed…

The canon as we know it today was pretty much in place around 200. (Mostly as a response to the anti-semite and heretic Marcion, who created his own canon, spurring the church to get its act together.) By that time lists and and letters identified the four gospels, Acts, Paul’s thirteen letters, Jude, two epistles of John (the second of which is possibly what we now consider the second and third.) Revelation, and a second Revelation due to Peter. (This book is known and was read in some churches –its lurid treatment of the state of the damned is believed to underlie much medieval writing on the subject including Dante’s Inferno. )

Some believe the epistles of Peter are omitted by error. Regardless, we have essentially a recognizable canon, with the notable absence of Hebrews and James.

It was not a fully recognized collection until around the 4th century:

“In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven book NT canon,[9] and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[10] The North African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the twenty-seven book NT canon together with the Old Testament Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[11] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[12][13] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[14] or if not the list is at least a 6th century compilation.[15] Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[16] In c. 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. Christian scholars assert that when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.”[17][18][19]”

Further though you’ve missed the whole point of course. Even if we go with a really liberal view here and conclude the whole bible was pretty much intact by 200, it still demonstrates that Paul would not have had any gospels to work from prior there to. Particularly since his letters were included in that initial collection, on what are you basing your claim that he had such to work with?

Do you you even check things or just rinse and repeat? You do know that Dan Brown is a fiction writer, not a historian?

Yes, and unlike you I reference actual scholarly work and apply actual critical thinking as opposed to dogmatic belief to such. You do know that that Apologetics is about as useful as Dan Brown’s, right?

Furthermore in 1 Tim 5:8 Paul writes: Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”and “The worker deserves his wages.”

The are two quotes from Paul taken from “Scripture.” The first is from Deuteronomy, and the second from Luke 10:7. Paul, in fact, does quote Luke.

Except that actual scholars agree that the author of Luke is unknown and that was not likely Luke the evangelist at all:

“According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke being the author is strong enough that the author is unknown.[48][49][50] The Book of Acts contradicts the letters of Paul on many points, such as Paul’s second trip to Jerusalem for an apostolic council.[51][52] Paul placed an emphasis on Jesus’ death while the author of Luke instead emphasizes Jesus’ suffering, and there are other differences regarding eschatology and the Law.[6] Paul described Luke as “the beloved physician”, leading Hobart to claim in 1882 that the vocabulary used in Luke-Acts suggests its author may have had medical training. However, this assertion was contradicted by an influential study by Cadbury in 1926, and has since been abandoned; instead it is now believed this language reflects merely a common Greek education.[53][54][55][56][57]”

There is little doubt Paul knew the author of Luke and likely wished to elevate the authority of that person as much as he elevated his own authority. Was he familiar with the writer’s work? Sure. Was it part of actual scripture by the time Paul wrote about it? No.

First, there’s no evidence that any of the apostles actual wrote anything, so why would they write anything about Paul? Second, there’s no evidence that any of the apostles were actual aware of Paul anyway, so why would they even care? And further, since Paul’s letters make up the most recent pieces written (from a dating standpoint), how could there be anything commenting on them?

There are so many things wrong with this pile o’ b.s. it is hard to know where to start. For example, do you consider’s an apostle’s own writings about Paul to be an indication that he knew about Paul:

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. (2 Peter, 3:15.)

By all evidence, 2 Peter was likely written by Paul. Most scholars recognize it as a forgery and do not attribute it to Peter.

And further, since Paul’s letters make up the most recent pieces written (from a dating standpoint), how could there be anything commenting on them?

Again, very wrong. Paul’s writings are not the most recent. They are considered the earliest of the NT.

Sorry, wasn’t clear. Since Paul’s letter are the recent to the supposed events from a dating standpoint pieces…

In other words, yes…his were written before the gospels, that reflected the life of Jesus. How would any of the gospel writers reference Paul’s work? Why would they?

Oh…and that reminds me of something else to consider: if Luke was written after Paul’s letters, on what basis, nevermind authority, was Paul claiming Luke’s work was “scripture”?

It’s interesting, isn’t it? You hear all these homophobic nutcases claiming that sexual orientation is a choice, and yet not one of them will explain when, how, or why they chose to be straight

hmm. Considering that so, SO, many homophobes have eventually been outed as actually homosexual in the last decade or so, one has to wonder…

maybe they do indeed CHOOSE to be “heterosexual” (and constantly force themselves to be so), and thus, like all of their beliefs, they project that onto others.

Moreover, it would explain their irrational hatreds. I mean, if you had to constantly force yourself to be someone you’re not, so you wouldn’t “go to hell”, you’d probably have a lot of resentment to project, too.

It would explain a lot.

Robin said: Um…no, FL, you’re wrong as usual. A & E were most definitely NOT “adequately informed”. How could they be? There was no such thing as “sin” until they committed their actions. There was no such thing as “consequence” or “wrong” or “evil” or anything like that. On what then would they have any understanding of God’s prohibition? What would it even mean to them? Nothing.

Not just good and evil; they also had no experience of death. So threatening them with death would be like me threatening you with eueuidhtn if you respond to this post.

Of course you can assume they understood everything perfectly and its still a horrible story. No matter how heinous the crime or how well-understood the punishment for it, we wouldn’t punish people’s children, grand children, etc… for someone’s actions today. We’d consider that to be barbaric, horrific, and fairly stupid.

FL said:

Do you dispute this, Tulse?

FL

I’m not Tulse, but I dispute the existence of your Big Fairy and your Little Fairies of Sin & Soul/Spirit. I dispute the existence of your Hell. I dispute that 12 step programs are particularly effective, in fact evidence shows that no treatment is more effective in treating alcoholism than A.A.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/h[…]/25drin.html

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange[…]iveness.html

http://www.practicalrecovery.com/pr[…]fectiveness/

I also speak from personal experience as the son of an 12 step alcoholic and from my quarter century working with substance abusers.

My father’s terror based Christian Beliefs (Okie Baptist) were a lifelong source of torment for him due to his repeated failures to control his alcoholism despite his devout Beliefs and “working” the 12 steps.

Tulse said:

FL, I asked if alcoholism were merely a choice, that is, if the person can be held completely and solely culpable for their addiction. I didn’t ask if choice were necessary to overcome it, but whether the condition itself is purely a personal choice. In other words, do alcoholics intentionally sin? You seem to believe that it is right for your god to condemn someone who dies an alcoholic to eternal torture, so I presume you think that the addict has complete responsibility for their condition, right?

I knew a guy who claimed God cured his drug addiction. At least three times. Usually shortly before he fell off the wagon again. I’d ask if he still feels that he’s getting divine help, but he died. Of a drug overdose. As expected. Religiously-run addiction campaigns are shit, they just tack on an extra addiction.

So, FL, is that person, who devoutly believed in and worked for your imaginary friend until he died of a condition he credited that god with curing, currently burning in hell? Did that useless, fictitious god of yours lie to him by promising a cure, or simply sit on its holy ass and allow him to lie to himself? Or is the simple fact that there is no such being, never has been, and the dependence on an invisible man in the sky to deal with addiction led to the only result it can, in the end, an ODed corpse, crying out for help to the very last, too strung out on the drug you call religion to realize he was pleading with something that only existed in his own head?

jaycubed said:

evidence shows that no treatment is more effective in treating alcoholism than A.A.

This is ambiguous – I think based on context that your meaning is that a 12-step program is less effective than not treating an addiction (and not that there is no treatment superior to a 12-step program). Am I correct about this?

SWT said:

jaycubed said:

evidence shows that no treatment is more effective in treating alcoholism than A.A.

This is ambiguous – I think based on context that your meaning is that a 12-step program is less effective than not treating an addiction (and not that there is no treatment superior to a 12-step program). Am I correct about this?

Yes, not having any treatment is slightly more effective in preventing alcoholic relapse than is 12 step treatment. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

FL, I asked if alcoholism were merely a choice, that is, if the person can be held completely and solely culpable for their addiction. I didn’t ask if choice were necessary to overcome it, but whether the condition itself is purely a personal choice.

Well, now you’re getting into qualifiers like “merely” and “purely” and “solely culpable”. And as I’ve already said, other people in your life or my life may indeed have had a hand in the sin addictions that you or I experience.

“Daddy was addicted to Jim Beam. Always drank it. He gave me my first sip when I was a kid, and the next, and the next. Now, years later, Daddy’s passed away but I’m stuck to Jim Beam too. I can handle it, even though I drink enough daily to kill an ass.” “Daddy used to hit my Mommy sometimes when I was a kid. Now I’m an adult, I’ve got my own life…and now I slap my bitch too sometimes, to keep her in line.”

Those are everyday examples. In each case, sooner or later, the time comes in which the individual himself makes THE VOLUNTARY CHOICE to obey the same horrific devil, to walk in the same tragic path of sin-addiction. That’s what the individual is responsible for–their OWN sin choices, not Daddy’s.

***

In other words, do alcoholics intentionally sin?

Yes. YES. Line up all those sin habits mentioned in 1 Cor. 6, every single one of them is a YES. We’re talking intentionality here. You ARE responsible for your OWN chosen sins (not somebody else’s, but just your own).

Your own sin choices, are yours. They ARE your intentionality. It’s YOUR bottle of Jim Beam sitting next to you this afternoon. YOU bought it at the liquor store. Nobody else.

***

You seem to believe that it is right for your god to condemn someone who dies an alcoholic to eternal torture, so I presume you think that the addict has complete responsibility for their condition, right?

What I believe–please listen carefully–is that an alcoholic can call on the name of Jesus Christ to be saved and washed from their sins (including the drinkin’), and thereby be cleansed of their sins and justified to go to Heaven, just like what Christ personally did for the ancient Corinthians.

Indeed, this very thing happened to one of my mother’s brothers. Most of his adult life, he was indeed an alcoholic, and hurt his family thereby.

Now, he is free from his sin addiction, he is free from the MONSTER that enslaved him and hurt him. He reported that Jesus Christ actually took away the very desire to drink alcohol, even the very taste of alcohol, out of his mouth. (Recall Step Seven of the 12-step?). He has no desire at all to return to the monster he was rescued from.

But first.…he had to make a choice for himself. He had to take “complete responsibility” for his own sin choices, and come clean about HIS wrongs. When he made his choice, and called on Jesus to forgive him and save him, Jesus stepped right in and rescued him.

That’s the deal. God is not unfair, Tulse. In fact, he knows the whole story with every life. But only HE can deal with your past, re-write your present, and guarantee your future.

Robin,

It was not a fully recognized collection until around the 4th century:

Ah yes. The usual Panda’s Thumb time-dilating goalpost repositioning. Your original quote:

The “bible” we have today is essentially a 4th century invention.

Has now been Lorentz Transformed to:

It was not a fully recognized collection until around the 4th century

No change in meaning there!

Bottom line: the canon, minus perhaps Hebrews and James, was known and grouped by the beginning of the 3rd century. Your original claim—which is total nonsense—is that it was essentially a 4th century invention.

Yes, and unlike you I reference actual scholarly work and apply actual critical thinking as opposed to dogmatic belief to such.

No, what you do is parrot scholars (or actually, wiki posts) you agree with. You do no analyze anyone’s work critically. Vomiting out garbage like:

Except that actual scholars agree that the author of Luke is unknown and that was not likely Luke the evangelist at all:

Is not scholarship. And pasting from Wiki article (without, as far as I see, even giving attribution) is not referencing scholarly work. Besides, I could reference (especially the way you do it) scholars with contradicting analyses—and we could play dueling scholars.

Was it part of actual scripture by the time Paul wrote about it? No.

Says who? There is no time when it becomes scripture. You simply have no proof for this assertion. It may have been, as some argue, that fragments—the so-called “sayings of Jesus”—were passed around during the apostolic period. These may be the basis for the gospels. Maybe not.

By all evidence, 2 Peter was likely written by Paul.

You are just pulling stuff completely out of your ass—and have the balls to declare that you are doing scholarly research. Sorry—but I know what scholarly research is, and you ain’t doing it.

By all evidence, 2 Peter was likely written by Paul. Really. All evidence. Please enlighten. Give a synopsis of the compelling evidence that points to Paul’s authorship of the letter.

This statement in and of itself proves you are no scholar. Anyone careful, as a scholar should be, might write: There has been some debate on the authorship and authenticity of this letter. There has been some debate—even within the church, on whether this book should be in the canon. But no, you write what is completely indefensible By all evidence, 2 Peter was likely written by Paul. There is no such “all evidence” that suggests Paul wrote it.

However, this assertion was contradicted by an influential study by Cadbury in 1926, and has since been abandoned;

I would argue with this (and the assertion of contradictions between Paul’s letters and Luke’s gospel visa vis the Jerusalem Council)—but you are not making the point are you? It is just your giant unattributed quote.

Oh…and that reminds me of something else to consider: if Luke was written after Paul’s letters, on what basis, nevermind authority, was Paul claiming Luke’s work was “scripture”?

Easy: it is likely that 1 and 2 Timothy were Paul’s last letters written about the same time (And therefore perhaps a little after—who knows?)* as Luke’s gospel. That is, Paul’s writings are the earliest NT writings, but it doesn’t mean all of Paul’s writings preceded all other NT writings. Also, Paul may have been referring to early fragments or versions of Luke’s gospel.

_________________________

* See, unlike you I don’t write: Scholars say Luke’s gospel was written in AD 62 and 1 Timothy in AD 63–and then cut and paste from the convenient scholar’s work, QED, game over man, and call it “scholarship.”

If you have anything else to say, post it on the wall.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on February 12, 2011 3:44 PM.

Freshwater files Notice of Appeal (Updated already!) was the previous entry in this blog.

A Valentine’s Day song for your agnostic evolutionist sweetheart is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter