Letters to the Editor
-
Darn Women corrupting everything!
Is it me, or is it maybe, possibly, an ensie-weensie little bit misogynistic to believe that women were the cause of all evil on earth? Isn't kind of convenient that the Genesis mythology came out of a male-dominated society, and they blamed their corruption all on women? Of course, if you flip forward to the Middle Ages, the Roman Church made it clear and official- women were considered to be "a necessary evil." Necessary for the propagation of the species, evil because they corrupted and caused men to sin. "Its not my fault-she bewitched me, she made me do it." This obviously excuses us men from any responsibility for anything, as long as a female is available to blame. The classic rape excuse/defense/justification of "it's not my fault, look how she was dressed, she was asking for it, I couldn't help myself, blah, blah, blah, is a perfect example of just how ingrained this type of thinking is in our society.
Oh, and for all the people who are commenting on just how mind-numbingly dumb this museum is, and how it makes no sense intellectually. Consider what the Genesis myth lays down as the ultimate bad thing that a person can do- eat from the tree of knowledge. That's right, the first and most important lesson is that thinking and knowledge are bad, bad, bad.
Michael
-
This is so cute.
God created Eve with long hair and Adam has already been to the barber. Barbers in Eden! Who knew?
I wonder why they have all those stupid water lilies?
-
Lordy
This museum is a vomit pile of idiotic stupidity. I wonder if they have a Wing of Biblical Contradictions? A called "Incest: How the human race began." Then maybe they can put together a wing called, "Who did Adam and Eve's kids marry?" And maybe a great "Incest Stories of the Bible" wing. Lot and all of them can cavort and titilate the square heads who not only deliberately retardate themselves but want to take us all with them.
What an utter, utter disgrace this is.
-
not really a tree, not really a fruit
Consider what the Genesis myth lays down as the ultimate bad thing that a person can do- eat from the tree of knowledge. That's right, the first and most important lesson is that thinking and knowledge are bad, bad, bad.
Your problem is that you are taking this literally. The Bible isn't talking about an ACTUAL "tree of knowledge", it's--
--Oh, wait. We're in a metaphor free zone here.
Sorry, you're right. It's stupid.
-
Good God!
One more thought- God creates Adam and Eve, makes them horny and curious, makes a tree with fruit that will explain all about the world that they are innately curious about, and finally, equips the Garden of Eden with an evil snake to lure them into doing the stuff they are not supposed to do. Then God punishes Adam and Eve for doing exactly what "he" set them up to do. Doesn't that make God kind of a jerk? I mean, what if I gave people the ability to do the most amazing and fun thing, and then told them the were forbidden to do it- jeez, I'd be a real asshole wouldn't I...Oh never mind, that's sex- God did that one too...
Michael
-
Were Adam & Eve really caucasians?
I'm confused.
-
Build It and They Will Come . . .
One of Hitler's minions, I think it was Goebbels, spoke of the "Big Lie." In pre-WW II Germany, the Nazi's built museums that "proved" the Aryan race's superiority, while simultaneously denigrating all who weren't "pure." They used models too, such as skulls that proved the criminality and sub-species attributes of the "other." And in the Creation Museum, we have the same concept, not that these pathetic fundamentalists are trying to promote a holocaust, but they have learned that "truth" for Americans is what can be projected, portrayed. Hence we have that famous statement from one of Bush's neo-conservatives, often quoted, in which the man in question stated, and I paraphrase, "We create our own reality, and while you are questioning that reality, we have already moved on."
I suggest that some folks imbued with reason, children of the Enlightenment, open a museum, a nice one that tells the American public the truth about the bible, a book that has become an idol for most American christianists. We are not a nation of reason but rather a nation besot with projected imagery, hence Disney World, hence the Creation Museum. Why not a museum that exposes the bible for what it is, merely a compilation of texts brought together during the Emperor Constantine's time by christians promoting their own brand of christianity? But wait how could a diorama of roman era bishops compete with plastic dinosaurs? They couldn't, and only rational people would visit anyway. But lest we think that only Americans are prone to this silliness, I urge everyone to go on-line and read about the Dutchman who recently built a replica of Noah's Ark, showing how God saved Noah and mankind from a flood.
And we wonder why a majority of Americans still think that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9-11? If you want to find those folks, they are at the Creation Museum.
-
wearedoomed
Amen brutha...
oh wait... shit. I mean, "woohoo".
-
Do the grizzly bears in this museum
...have big, pointed teeth? If so, what does a vegetarian need with teeth like that? If they don't have big teeth, then they're not really grizzly bears, are they?
I would also love to know if Adam and Eve are shown with belly buttons or not. If they have them, then why is God shown as a liar? They weren't born, so when did they get their belly buttons?
If they don't have belly buttons, then let's look at their feet: do their feet ahve calluses or not? If not, how can they walk? Without calluses, your feet will just bleed. If they do have calluses, then how and when did that happen? Calluses imply a past history, just like belly buttons.
In fact, all parts of a body imply a past history. Bodies have to grow and develop and toughen before they can be used. All living beings depend on their past history and can't function without it. Hence if Adam and Eve are just shown as standing, then it has to be asked: when did they learn to stand?
There's also a glaring contradiction in the article:
"We are going to answer the questions Bryan wasn't prepared to, and show that belief in every word of the Bible can be defended by modern science."
and then later:
As Ham later tells me, the conclusions of modern science are not to be trusted, as they are biased by the fickle reasoning of man and a modern antagonism toward faith.
So how can they defend the word of the Bible with modern science, if they don't even believe in it?
The most amazing thing about this story is how much money is being put into pure stupidity.