Maddenation

Worship Wasn’t Like This

Oh boy. Every once in a while I’ll get an email forward or I’ll look at a friend’s “buddy info” on instant messenger, and something ludacrious shows up. Today it’s this link: Jesus Saves!. Who makes these things? Besides it being set in Comic Sans, it looks well thought out and designed. Who believes this stuff? As my friend Matt remarked, “I hope lots of kids go to that site and believe everything.” That would be something.

While you’re at it, look at this site.

DanFunnies10/06/03 13 comments

Comments

David • 10/07/03 4:47 PM:

I’m not sure I get the tone of your post. You’re right, both sites are nicely done. You know I agree with you on comic sans, but if there’s ever a use, it’s on that site. I don’t hate it in that setting.

As for who believes this stuff? Lots of people, what’s so wrong with it? “The Truth For Youth” seems like a really good page.” Good facts and stuffs. Oh, I just checked those weird cartoons. They might be okay, although they seem alarming initially. (I don’t feel like actually reading them). Okay, maybe I should read the stuff before thinking it’s benign. The part railing on music is a little overboard. Maybe I’ll write something later that is more learned and intelligent. Oh well.

Dan • 10/07/03 5:05 PM:

You didn’t just write that, DID you? Did you LOOK at any of it?

Patrick • 10/08/03 10:39 AM:

A while back I encountered a couple of articles on this same site, including one on a fundamentalist science fair, which I sent to Dave (because he’s a science teacher at a Catholic school), and he responded similarly, but then seemed to renege, after he actually read the article, which includes “Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False”, “Women Were Designed for Homemaking”, “Rocks Can’t Evolve, Where Did They Come from Mr. Darwin?”, “Thermodynamics of Hell Fire” (not the joke), and, the seemingly contradictory, but nevertheless interesting:

Life Doesn’t Come From Non-Life
Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

and

Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria
Eileen Hyde and Lynda Morgan (grades 10 & 11) did a project showing how the power of prayer can unlock the latent genes in bacteria, allowing them to microevolve antibiotic resistance. Escherichia coli bacteria cultured in agar filled petri dishes were subjected to the antibiotics tetracycline and chlorotetracycline. The bacteria cultures were divided into two groups, one group (A) received prayer while the other (B) didn’t. The prayer was as follows: “Dear Lord, please allow the bacteria in Group A to unlock the antibiotic-resistant genes that You saw fit to give them at the time of Creation. Amen.” The process was repeated for five generations, with the prayer being given at the start of each generation. In the end, Group A was significantly more resistant than Group B to both antibiotics.

Make sure you go to the site to see the pictures too. Doesn’t this sort of thing scare your pants off?

Patrick • 10/08/03 10:41 AM:

Another article of note reveals the devil’s plot to enslave us through Apple computers. Please read it. Your soul is at stake.

David • 10/08/03 1:08 PM:

Actually, no I didn’t. It somehow got posted. I was writing at first, then came back to it, after realizing those sites were bizarre, then, when I went back to edit and add, it was posted. I must’ve hit the button while carrying my laptop to and from my classroom. Anyway, not a big enough deal for me to mind. :) Keep smiling.

Oh, and Pat, please re-post the email I sent you. I absolutely aware of what the site had on it. For those who didn’t read it - I was simply saying that I wanted to show the site/articles to my students. We had just started an assignment on the nature of science - one of the objectives is to create students who are able to read more critically and logically. Thus, that ridiculous science fair and evolution site was a perfect match. Seriously Pat.

As for the site Dan posted, yeah, from the intro I thought it looked pretty alright. I’m just so stupid.

Dan • 10/08/03 1:27 PM:

By LOOK at any of it, I mean, “look, read and digest what they’re saying” because, to be clear, I find what they say appalling, insulting, and offensive. Now, my pants are still on, haven’t been scared away, but my goodness, how can the brains behind this sort of religious scheme get away with it? I guess they must believe it along with their unquestioning, hyperfaithed, other-religion-insulting, “what’s religious toleration?” sheep who follow what these sites preach.

This link is off the jesussaves.us giftshop. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it. Make sure you “view larger images”.

The following is an excerpt from the site. The image is of an elephant wearing Hindu attire, and it asks Habu the elephant:

“Hey, Habu… How many gods do you have?”

“I don’t know…I lost count!”

—Wouldn’t you rather have just one God who loves you a bunch than a bunch of gods that don’t love you at all? Jesus loves everybody, even the unsaved like Habu! Remember to pray for habu and others like him that they may find Jesus and accept Him into their hearts!

Would I rather? “Hmm. One God who loves me sounds like the best option. I’ll have that, please.”

Dad • 10/10/03 11:57 PM:

One of the key differences between the creationist view and the evolutionist view is the age they give to the earth. Creationists believe the earth is a few thousand years old, while evolutionists (and scientists) believe it is billions of years old. We tend to take for granted that geologists can date the age of fossils in the hundreds of millions of years, but few of us understand their methods.

How do we know that dinosaurs lived and eventually died off millions of years before human beings arrived on the scene? I thought immediately of carbon dating (using C14 decay to determine the age of once-living fossils), but this site, among others, indicates that carbon dating is only good to about 50,000 years. Older materials must be dated by different methods, such as using other radioactive compounds. I confess, I don’t understand the other methods.

Radioactive carbon 14 is continuously produced in the upper atmosphere through the action of cosmic rays. Thus, we know the fraction of total atmospheric carbon that is C14. All living things continuously exchange carbon with the atmosphere and have the same fraction C14. When living matter dies, however, this exchange stops and the carbon 14 simply decays in place. This can be measured, but for dating objects more than about 50,000 years old (~10 half-lives) the method is no longer accurate.

Similar techniques are used to measure radioactive decay for other materials (potassium, uranium, etc.) and determine the age of minerals containing them. The problem I have is how do they know where to start? Do they just assume the uranium was all U238 at the beginning? What if there was already lead present when the rock was formed? What is meant by rock “formation”? I don’t doubt the scientists are right. After all, a lot of them have taken a look at the data, and they generally agree on at least the order-of-magnitude estimates. Still, it would be nice to understand the methods enough to feel that I can support them. Anybody want to enlighten me?

The point is, of course, that we believe a lot of what scientists tell us without understanding how they know it. That leaves a lot of room for alternative theories like creationism that poke fun at the “crazy science” that suppports evolution. Some of the arguements for creationisn are actually quite compelling, especially to the untrained. Religion isn’t always easily reconciled with science, as history has told us. I remember the words of the Baltimore Catechism I studied in grade school: “Q: Who made me? A: God made me.” Today, I might add, “But He took his sweet time about it.”

Arpan • 10/24/03 6:19 PM:

I am a Hindu. However, Hinduism and the label Hindu is inaccurate because both of those names are relatively new. The name Hinduism leads one to believe that Hinduism is a religion with dogmas. However, “Hinduism” arose out of Santana Dharma and later Vedic Culture. I will not reduce myself to the petty name-calling and defamation this cartoon eludes to. God is within me, God loves everyone, and I will learn to love Christians regardless of what they do or call me. In addition, any informed rational person would agree that this cartoon is inaccurate. Hindus believe in an omnipresent god (Atman), that is god is everywhere: within me, within you, everywhere. Therefore, because of the belief that god is omnipresent it is unreasonable to assume that Hindus worship many gods. Simple laws of physics or even common sense would tell you that to objects cannot occupy the same sense. To clarify, when Hindus pray to deities they are praying and worshiping one facet of God and the qualities embodied by that deity, they are not worshiping that deity as a god itself. It is often said,” Hinduism is monotheistic in belief but polytheistic in practice.”

AJ • 10/24/03 9:30 PM:

Arpan, you must be confused. This post is about how crazy the science-christianity site is, not how great and right their cartoon is. In fact, you are addressing a part of the comment that is really a joke about how the cartoon doesn’t even make a great argument for Christianity. The cartoon says you should choose Christianity because it has one god and that’s convenient. Dan is remarking about how ridiculous that reason is.

I’m pretty sure (although right now not that certain) that Hindus and those who practice Hinduism can understand sarcasim. But just in case this is the so-called punchline of the joke:

Would I rather? “Hmm. One God who loves me sounds like the best option. I’ll have that, please.”

I appreciate your willingness to defend your beliefs. I am fairly certain, however, that nobody here is attacking you. I, for one, am intersted in your points of view and what the foundations of people’s beliefs are.

By the way, perhaps where you come from people hear,

“Hinduism is monotheistic in belief but polytheistic in practice.”

and they say, “Oh, yes. I remember that old phrase. Heard it ALL the time when I was growing up.” But, just for the record, I’ve never heard such a saying and so your last argument holds little salt with me.

So there.

Patrick • 10/25/03 5:08 PM:

Arpan’s the third person we don’t know who’s commented, right? or fourth? In any case, it makes you wonder how he found it. I wish people would mention in their comments what they’re doing here andhow they got here. The difficulty occasioned by Arpan’s post is that it makes you want to make fun of him because he so obviously either didn’t read or didn’t understand the tenor of our comments. I mean, who’s he to come in here and act like we were attacking Hindu beliefs (especially when we were doing the opposite)? But if we make fun of him because of his cluelessness, then he’ll think we’re making fun of his beliefs. He shouldn’t, but given his track record, he will. So how do we let Arpan know that we agree with him, but he should know who he’s arguing against before he blarbs off. Dan, did you get an email confirmation from Arpan? Do you want to email him? Finally, thank you, AJ, for your quick and witty reply to Arpan.

Dad • 10/25/03 6:53 PM:

I never took Arpan’s comment as attacking us, he was only agreeing with Dan that the cartoon was stupid (and inaccurate). I don’t know much about Hindus, but have always had a respect for them. I do have trouble with reincarnation, which I believe is part of the Hindu faith, but I certainly have no problem with their “God is omnipresent” belief.

Arpan • 10/26/03 8:51 PM:

I found this site by searching on Google using the serach terms: Habu & (other phrases from the cartoon). By no means did I mean to write an angry response to anything anyone posted on this site. I was merely joining your chorous of disapproval of the cartoon from the Hindu perspective. It’s refreshing to read your Christian views on this website that I can agree with (for the most part). When I posted my earlier message I was in the process of posting it on multiple sites that made mention of the cartoon, so it might have been understood out of context. I am glad we cleared that up, so that we can continue a more meaningful converstaion on this website, perhaps about the following question: What are your individual views, as liberal Christians, regarding Hinduism (or more accurately Vedic Culture)?

Patrick • 10/27/03 9:38 AM:

Cool. I’m glad Arpan came back, and I’m glad he got the tenor of our own posts on the subject of the jesussave.us website and its insulting cartoons. In any case, sorry to have doubted you, Arpan, and maybe I misread the tone of your own post (but it did seem like you had us aligned with the purveyors of the cartoon). I don’t know if we’re “liberal” Christians, except in contrast with fanatical fundamentalists, which I’d like to disown completely, move them into another species entirely, so they would stop sullying the name “Christian.” What we are, I think, is well-educated Christians who aren’t afraid of thinking about the difficulties of belief. This leads me, at least, to respect other beliefs (though my critical side makes fun of irrationalities like those on the site). Unfortunately, I don’t know much about Hinduism (I did not know that it should be called “Vedic Culture” either), and so I can’t comment on it, except to say that the Hindus I’ve met have without exception been kind, interesting people. This speaks well for their beliefs.

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

Please capitalize your name properly and use the same information each time you comment. We will not send you spam, and your email address will not be posted.


Remember me?

Formatting
*bold*=bold
_italic_=italic
"link":http://url.com=link


Related Entries
Validation

XHTML & CSS