Okay, so by now everyone knows there is a new Creation Museum in Kentucky. Well, it seems they have various videos portraying the Creationist perspective and these videos use actors. Apparently, Eric Linden, the actor who portrays Adam (of "and Eve" fame) in one 40 second spot has been accused of "participation in projects that don't align with ... biblical standards" and the accusations are now being, um, investigated by Creation Museum personnel.
I have two questions:
(1) If by "biblical standards" is meant anything like how the overwhelming majority of persons described in the Bible (okay, Jesus excepted) actually behaved, how high can those standards be?
And,
(2) Investigate? Since when did these folks care about evidence?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I dunno. Some might consider Jesus to be a troll.
As for evidence ... in some ways I am sympathetic to the creationist cause because I realize that they have an undefeatable acceptance of revelation. Well, perhaps sympathy ain't the right word, but I am hard pressed to claim that I can prove them wrong.
Unlike many of my friends, both on and off the web, I'm not unsympathetic to Creationists at all; I merely believe they are wrong both in their beliefs of the historical truth of the Bible and in their beliefs that such claimed historical truth is in any way important or even relevant to their theological beliefs.
What I find amusing in this particular case though is that if one takes the Bible seriously and literally, one finds that the overwhelming majority of Biblical characters were deeply flawed people whose conduct left much to be desired -- Noah gets drunk, Moses commits murder, David has a harem and sends a rival out to get killed, Peter betrays Jesus and is often clueless, Paul is a pompous egotist, etc.
Second, it would be at least interesting to hear what the test is among such people for when empirical evidence resolves empirical disputes and when it doesn't. Ironically, no one is a Biblical literalist in the sense that some interpretation is necessary to explain (or explain away), say, different versions of the 10 Commandments or differing lists of the Apostles, etc.
Anyway an "undefeatable acceptance of revelation" isn't much different than an undefeatable acceptance of reason and evidence. Some people have an irrational faith in reason, too.
...one finds that the overwhelming majority of Biblical characters were deeply flawed people whose conduct left much to be desired...
Well, it is God's commandments that they would be concerned with, not so much the behavior of those in the Bible except as that behavior reflects adherence with those commands or doesn't.
Second, it would be at least interesting to hear what the test is among such people for when empirical evidence resolves empirical disputes and when it doesn't.
The "test" would be that revelation trumps all human created, etc. evidence.
Well, it is God's commandments that they would be concerned with...
I'd have an easier time believing that if such people didn't pick and choose from among the 613 (or whatever the number is) commandments in the first five books of the Bible.
I'd have an easier time believing that if such people didn't pick and choose from among the 613 (or whatever the number is) commandments in the first five books of the Bible.
Well, I am dealing with the "ideal" believer in revelation.
Anyway, the apparently insoluble conflict between reason and revelation has been something I've been thinking about a lot. It stills seems insoluble. But it was the worth the time spent on it.
Post a Comment