Creationist e-cards

[goat starer]

I can think of nothing to say about this that would not earn me a reprimand for breaking the monastery code so I will let them speak for themselves.......


http://www.christianet.com/christianecards/evolutiontracts/index.htm

[beagle]

Don't say it yourself, quote it: 

Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens.

Have they got a single card for drinking/gambling/profane/internet-using/divorced/living-together/civily-partnered/movie-watching/evolutionist non-believers?  I'm sure my friends would be happier with more than one reason why they won't have to spend eternity swapping E-cards with this lot.

[ivor]

How about one for the Minister who gets caught with a prostitute?  Maybe another for when the Minister's wife put's a round in his back with a twelve gauge.  The later is mostly and American tradition me thinks.    Oh!  One for when the widow gets out of jail after serving two years in jail for blowing the Minister away.  Something like a get out of jail free card almost.   

[beagle]

Interesting idea.

Dear Minister,

Your congregation was deeply saddened to hear about the unfortunate misunderstanding over the prostitute/cocaine/rent boy/wife-swapping party/embezzlement/male voice choir/drug-dealing/ram-raiding/gun-running/obtaining money by deception/people-smuggling.

While of course they retain the utmost faith in your version of events, they feel it would be more seemly if you refrained from conducting any more services until after the trial.
It has to be said that none of your precessors managed to be wrongly accused of all the above simultaneously.

[Griffin NoName]

One needed for throwing toys out of car methinks.

[Maelin]

Wow, those were fantastically funny. Almost as good as Chick tracts. I particularly liked the one where the Devil pops out from behind the 'Adult fairy tales' book and says, "I love this stuff!"

It seems really childish to mock an idea in this way, by misrepresenting it so ridiculously. Do typical creationists really have this poor a grasp on the process of evolution, or do they just pretend to so it's easier to ridicule?

Maelin

[beagle]

I rather "liked" the apostasy ones. 

It seems really childish to mock an idea in this way, by misrepresenting it so ridiculously. Do typical creationists really have this poor a grasp on the process of evolution, or do they just pretend to so it's easier to ridicule?

Bit of both I suspect.  From fundies to the Church of England some of the religious seem reluctant to give up the idea that God intervenes on an almost daily basis according to how we behaved the day before.  The idea that the place might run for a few billion years without tweaking is probably inconceivable, however much evidence has accrued.

[DaveL]

Hmmmm, I'm sure these little doozies offend the intelligence of many believers.

Big Bang theory...out of nothing? Awww c'mon guys. Even heard of dust and gas?  Love the little scientist at the end...he's soooo wacky.

[Bluenose]

These little doozies certainly offend my intelligence, but far worse, IMO, they simply are not funny.  If anything, they only show just how poorly the perpetrators of these childish items understand the most basic concepts of science.

It always strikes me as amusing how these fundamentalists have such a poor grip on the thing they criticise (science) compared to the level of knowledge about religion that most scientific critics of fundamentalism have.  I guess the thing is that those with a scientific bent, whether believers or not, know that you need to understand something to be able to criticise it, OTOH the fundies don't seem to bother.

[Maelin]

Oh no, certainly not funny in the way that they intended. I find them funny in the way that Chick tracts are. For those who don't know, Chick tracts are comic strips by a guy called Jack Chick, about all kinds of things like the evils of homosexuality, how playing Dungeons & Dragons leads to satanism and hell, and how accepting Jesus is the only way to heaven. The idea is apparently to leave them lying around in places where your less-than-properly-faithful friends will find them, and then your friends will miraculously discover Jesus. Many people read them for their unintentional humour value. You can find the complete set here.

After all, you have to laugh when you see this kind of stuff. You'd go insane otherwise.

[Bluenose]

Oh, I don't know, Maelin,

Those tracts scare the hell out of me!  (Pun intended)

They are so dripping in self righteousness, it is apparent that they are the work of a very sick mind. The thing that scares me is the possible answer to the question of just how many people "think" like this?  It seems obvious to me that these people actually don't: think, that is.  Let's just have all our decisions already made for us, no need to ask inconvenient questions, no need to understand, just believe what you are told and you'll be right.  Yeh, right.

BTW, why is there this fixation on the King James Version?  I would have thought that a translation into into English made during the early 17th century would hardly be the most authoritative.  As someone interested in scientific thought I am a firm believer in going to primary sources.  Translations and other later refernces always get something (sometimes the most inportant things) wrong.  But then again, there i go, expecting a reasoned approach from those who are unwilling or incapable of such.

Well, like all good Toadfish, I am quite prepared to let these people think whatever they like and I even defend their right to express their opinions, but I claim the right to point out where I think they are wrong.  I am still scared about how many of these people there might be, 'though...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I guess the thing is that those with a scientific bent, whether believers or not, know that you need to understand something to be able to criticise it, OTOH the fundies don't seem to bother.

Understanding would be the path to hell, believing the lies of the enemy; they are supposed to take things by faith because "reason can be clouded by the devil".


In reality it is more a case of "I already made my mind and I am right" that is often found in politics too, and -as politics- the ones behind such absurd claims usually know the irrationality of them but "the ends justify the means".

[Sibling Chatty]

BTW, why is there this fixation on the King James Version?  I would have thought that a translation into into English made during the early 17th century would hardly be the most authoritative. 

According to urban legend, "If the King James version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me" has been spoken numerous times. It's supposedly a "Ma" Ferguson (first woman Governor of Texas, during the 1930's) original, and it's about her speed...

Most fundamentalists that stick to it have all kinds of convoluted reasons, but you gotta remember that these are folks that just don't take to change very well.

The Wiki article is fairly good on HOW it got to be the 'predominant' English version.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

[Swatopluk]

For some fundies the King James (what edition?) is the only authoritative one because the translators were directly inspired by God and thus corrected all the errors in the "original" texts that got corrupted in the centuries before. The same people tend to also think( ) that Teh Jews are not actually the Hebrews from the OT but impostors with the English being the actual descendants of the original. 

[beagle]

Perhaps we should have the Creationist site produce a "The English are God's chosen people" E-card.
I could live with that. Not sure how it will play in Kansas though.
Or Scotland for that matter.