Pastor at the Creation Museum: "Is this how Christians treat people?"

[laconicsax]

Pastor Aaron Gardner went with the Secular Student Alliance on their trip to the Creation Museum. He made two blog posts on his experience.

One on what happened: http://pastoraaron.info/2009/08/11/scarlet-a-for-a-day/

While I did not have T-shirt (a symbol anyway) it was obvious that there was a distinctive way that we were being treated because of the shared identification. There were hateful glances, exaggerated perceptions, waxing surveillance by security, and anxious but strong ‘amens’ accompanying a lecture on “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” by Dr. Jason Lisle.

Is this how Christians treat people? Is this how we follow Jesus’ commandment to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us? I cannot help but think that many Christians are fearful of atheists. It is a sort of xenophobia that runs along lines of faith and belief. What we tend to forget is that atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists are people too. If our attempt to preserve our belief means that we are treating these people like animals, are we really holding up principles that are based on a creation worldview?

There have rarely been times in my life that I have been ashamed of people that I call “brothers and sisters in Christ.” This was one of them. To be judged by people that share my beliefs because of the name tag I wore was appalling. We forget that Jesus not only commanded that we love our enemies and pray for them, but he also sought out people who were rejected by the religious order, embraced them, spent time with them, and partied with them. It was not a covert operation to get them to say the sinner’s prayer (which was not invented until the 20th century) and get them to change their ways. Jesus knew that spending time with them was like good medicine: those who are well do not need a doctor.

Yes, there are Christians who behave this way. Moderate and liberal believers tend to dismiss them as 'not real Christians' or some other subtle variation on the no true Scotsman fallacy.

The other on the content of the museum: http://pastoraaron.info/2009/08/14/atheism-at-the-creation-museum/

It has been a week since my trip to the Creation Museum where I, a Christian, wore the badge of the atheist. I have been exposed to the evidence that young earthcreationists champion as proof of the literal validity of the first chapters of Genesis, so I had certain expectations. Among them was an expectation that such a facility would be intellectually stimulating, challenging, and solidly grounded.

Instead I was thoroughly embarrassed, and this time I am not talking about jeers and stares.

...

From the very title of the lecture there were issues. It proved not to be a talk about creation at all, but rather “proof” that anything but a firm belief in the Bible as the infallible last and first word on everything was completely erroneous. According to Dr. Lisle the only possibility for truth was the Bible and that not only do secular scientists have nothing to stand on, they also have no basis or reason to be moral people.

As a justification, he claims to have had open dialogue with atheistic evolutionist friends. It would seem that Dr. Lisle does not know what “open dialogue” means, because with his extremely narrow bias, his talk showed that he was not willing or able to see a different perspective on the issue. He has obviously not considered the fact that if we are not moral people then we would have a completely barbaric state that would not be able to be contained. He was saying these things in the presence of an audience which was mostly SSA members with only a few quiet snickers. If these people had no morals would they have not brought bags of tomatoes?

True to form, Pastor Gardner, as a moderate believer invokes the 'Scotsman' fallacy by saying that his god is the Abrahamic god and of the Christians he encountered, "I am an atheist to their god."

Seems he answers his own question of "Is this how Christians treat people?" by classifying a group of Christians, whose behavior he objects to, as not real Christians--even going so far as to claim that they don't even pray to the same god that he does. He's just nicer about his "xenophobia that runs along lines of faith and belief."

Pot, meet kettle.

[Merlot]

1. I like what the pastor has to say and agree with him

I don't think he's treating people badly by noting their bad behavior. He does not appear to return the behaviors shown to him.

He's allowed to object to people who don't treat others with respect.

[laconicsax]

2. He's doing what they do, only he's just being nicer.

He criticizes the Creation museum fundies for religious xenophobia then says that those same fundies aren't the kind of Christian he wants to be associated with--that they aren't even part of his religion. It's pure hypocrisy. The only difference between him and the fundies is that they're far more likely to express their religious xenophobia in a violent way.

[Merlot]

3. It's ok for him to criticize those that he disagrees with

it's how he treats them that matters. He's not being a hypocrite unless he treats others badly.

From reading his post it appears that he was very thoughtful in his viewpoint and why he disagrees with them. He did no put them down or treat them badly.

And in my experience, many cristians are very intolerant of anyone who thinks differently than they do.

[laconicsax]

4. I'm not saying it isn't.

If Person A says of Group B, "they're intolerant in how they exclude others, Christians should be loving and inclusive" and excludes Group B from his definition of Christianity, then Person A is a hypocrite.

[damntexdem]

7. You are basically saying what 'they' do ...

but you're not being nicer.

[laconicsax]

12. I never said I was.

[hyphenate]

5. I don't see how he would be the "pot"

because as a progressive believer, he is one of the people that stands in the gap between the radical religious right, and the more savvy real existence of progressive Xians.

I think some days that it's more than a gap, and more like a chasm that separates the RRR from being progressive. I would love to see more people switching over to the real view of a world millions of years old, not only because it is what science has unveiled, but because those people who can look to a "creator" as a non-interfering and uninvolved force are more likely to accept a world evolving as fast as we are.

No matter what else happens, we have to accept that while we don't believe or have questions, these people believe that they happily have the answers.

I have no trouble with that as long as they respect my beliefs at the same time, but when someone tries to proselytize, they go beyond my tolerance and become a noisy intruder in my head.

[laconicsax]

9. He engages in a softer version of the same behavior he criticizes.

He criticizes the fundies as not being good representatives of Christianity by expressing a "xenophobia that runs along lines of faith and belief" towards atheists (1st blog post), then comes right back and concludes that those fundies aren't Christians (2nd blog post) because their faith and belief is different. He denounced the whole group because they didn't live up to his ideals of acceptance.

[hyphenate]

15. Well, don't we all do that at times?

For example, my own experience with the fundies has never been good to start with. Several online people I have encountered made me look at them as little more than idiots. And then one of my best friends went overboard with it all as well, and I saw how destructive her new-found beliefs could be.

I'm sure I'm not alone in the way I came to despise them, and so I can relate to their stories as well.

In fact, a dear friend of mine was a chemistry teacher who showed excellent information and facts to counter creationist thinking. I was sold even long before that.

The creationists, fundies and anyone else who shares this narrow thinking are wrong in their viewpoint, of course, but to themselves, we're the wrong ones. When we call them out, we are greeted with an immovable force that believes with all its heart that we are working with their devil.

That's a force that is hard to reckon with, and one with a ferocity that might be difficult to push out of the way. The best way to handle it is to proceed forward with our own truths, and hold fast until they are little more than ashes. Once we get there, we will prevail, but currently, we must put up with their inane mutterings.

[laconicsax]

18. It is a common reaction, but that doesn't make it right.

While reading something by Christopher Hitchens concerning his politics or seeing/listening to an interview on the subject gives me a similar "I don't want to be associated with this guy as an atheist" reaction, I don't take it to the next level of 'Hitchens isn't a true/real athiest.' He's an atheist whom I strongly disagree with on some issues, including atheism.

My attitude towards group identity is that the right to self-identify is paramount and that if someone identifies as belonging to a group, it's not my place to challenge it. If Hitchens identifies as an atheist, then I have no right to claim otherwise no matter how reprehensible his opinions may be. It's the same thing with Ayn Rand--I can't stomach her concept of objectivism, but I have no right to speak to her atheism. If I did, I would make a hypocrite of myself, and that's something I am loathe to do.

What I will not do however is remain silent in the face of religious fundamentalism--it is a force that seeks to remake our society in its own image. I believe that the religious moderates need to take it upon themselves to stand up to the fundamentalists rather than simply disassociate. Saying, "oh, they're not really Christians" or "I don't agree with them" and then defending them when challenged does more harm than good.

Pastor Gardner could use his influence to speak against them and perhaps urge like-minded clergy to join him, but instead he chose to criticize their actions in a blog post, invoke the 'Scotsman' fallacy in another and leave it at that. If the 75% of the population that professes adherence to Christianity shared his world view, I could probably live with that--I would much rather see religion simply as an arcane tradition that brings some people comfort than an active force seeking to impose its values on others.

[damntexdem]

6. Hurrah for Gardner. He judged Xians on the basis of a set of criteria.

He didn't say there weren't Xians based on those criteria, he said they did not live up to the criteria, that they didn't seem to even understand the criteria, that they were embarrassing to other Xians.

Your post starting this thread reminds me of no one so much as ... the creationists that Gardner criticized.

[laconicsax]

11. How can you conclude that "he didn't say they weren't Christians?"

He said of them in his second blog post, "I am an atheist to their god...I believe in the God of Jesus; the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Issac."

He would probably say the same of Zoroastrians because Zoroastrians don't believe in the Abrahamic god.

He claims that he believes in the Abrahamic god, but not in the god of the creation museum fundies. This precludes, by his terms, those fundies from believing in the Abrahamic god, which last I checked, was the god of Christianity.

The only way that doesn't accuse them of not being Christians is if Christianity is a polytheistic religion with different gods that can be freely rejected.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. True to form, you're reading this through the lens of...

your own bias.

A "Christian" is simply defined as one who accepts Christ to some extent or other. Most often, this is simply a matter of faith that Christ died for our sins, often with vast amounts of additional doctrine and belief. The National Council of Churches requires a church to state that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins, and not much more. Several sects, such as Unitarians and Quakers refuse to put that in writing, so are not permitted membership, but they are still more or less accepted in the Christian tradition. Christian Science and a few others are really off the scale, so they don't enter the debate.

Considering the extraordinary range of belief and lifestyles "Christianity" encompasses, few would seriously bother with no true Scotsman silliness, but there is plenty of room for debate within over the details. Pastor Gardner is not saying that they are not Christians, but bemoaning the type of Christians that they are.

They share essentially the same faith in Jesus, which makes them brothers and sister in Christ, but disagree over this little sideshow involving Genesis, and the literal interpretation of scripture. The simple truth is that whatever one thinks about Genesis, or any of the Bible, it has little to do with one's faith in Christ.

[laconicsax]

10. He claims that they don't believe in the same god.

That's hardly a statement of 'brotherhood in Christ.'

First blog post--brotherhood in Christ, they're wrong to not engage in it.
Second blog post--we don't believe in the same god.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. He did not say that at all. What he used was...

a common literary device emphasizing the difference between their beliefs in the nature of God.

Both fully believe in the Abrahamic God and, presumably, the Trinity, but they differ in their belief on the need for us to defend and define God. The greatest God remains a mystery, never fully knowable to us, and foolish attempts to define an anthropomorphous God are especially doomed to fail.

As I said before, there is plenty of room in 2,000 years of Christian thought to differ in the details. The postings both accept that, but decry this Creationist refusal to accept, or respect, other interpretations and details.

[laconicsax]

17. Then we'll have to leave it as a difference of opinion.

While I can see your point, to me, saying "I'm an atheist to their god" isn't a literary device emphasizing differences but a negative statement concerning belief in a god.

I'm an atheist to their god because when those like them tell me that god exists, my reaction is "I don't believe you."

[charlie]

19. I think you're being unduly hard on the guy

"I'm an atheist to their god" is a rebuke, a strong one. It would be a No True Scotsman dodge if it was a dismissal ("Well, they're posers. What's for lunch?"), but it isn't. The problem of bad Christian behavior vexes him. To the point where he thinks the church is dying. To the point where he calls himself "reluctantly Christian" and disaffiliates himself from Christianity at large.

Here are a few excerpts from another post. It's long, so you'll probably want to read the whole thing there:

Other large groups of Christians mutilate the Bible, pulling verses from every which way and use them to support their own hate-ridden agendas. Whether it is racism in the 1960s, slavery in the 1800s, or hatred of gays and atheists in the 21st century, groups of “Christians” have easily felt no remorse for taking words from their holy book and slaying people both philosophically and literally. Somehow they have forgotten Jesus’ expressed love for other races, those who were sexually promiscuous, and those who exerted authority to take advantage of others (though it may have been expressed in different ways).
...

The spark that ejected me from that delusion was not from the church, but from outside. I began to have conversations with gays and atheists, many of whom had felt the ravaged sting of the viper that I suddenly realized I was crawling back into bed with. I realized that while that did not define who I was and what I believed it was something that I have associated myself with.

Christianity, in its present form, is not a gift of God. Religion of today is a system of belief that over the centuries has been corrupted by wealth, power, and blood. People who claim Christianity across the centuries are responsible for the Crusades, for the Spanish Inquisition, and for silent observation of the Holocaust. People who claim Christianity have used the Bible to support the buying and selling of human beings, the dehumanization of men and women according to the color of their skin, and the murder of people who preform abortions and who profess attraction to members of the same sex.

It was never intended to be that way. Christianity was an original design of a man named Jesus who lived in the region of Palestine that was called Nazareth. He was a historic person who challenged his people’s wildest expectations for a Savior and whose legacy is alive today. The details of his life are locked in ancient writing and his testimony endures in the lives of those who have been changed by that message. He modeled the expression love and acceptance of those who society had forgotten, and he modeled what it means to criticize those within one’s own faith community and challenge them to return to the truth.

Jesus Christ is the reason I am a Christian, not Christianity.

http://pastoraaron.info/2009/08/25/relucantly-christian

[TreasonousBastard]

20. As I said, you're reading it through the lens of your bias....

which you now seem to be admitting. You can't use your own understanding of the words and transfer it to him. They're his words and you have to use his meaning.

[RLBaty]

13. Testing a fundamental position!

The article references Jason Lisle as one of the champions of the "young-earth, creation-science" movement.

I had an opportunity for an on-line exchange with Jason some time ago. While he or his folks shut down the discussion before allowing Jason to be "pinned", the exchange did help further establish that the fundamental position he holds, and those of his movement I have encountered, may be summed up as being:

> I've got my interpretation of the
> text regarding the real world and
> that trumps any real world evidence
> to the contrary.

In other words, being quite geocentric, they don't want to really admit to the proposition that their real world claim might be subject to falsification with reference to the real world evidence.

That's good to know, in my opinion, when dealing with young-earth, creation-science promotions and promoters.

Following my name below is an excerpt from the exchange with Lisle. I suspect most serious students of the issues involving young-earth, creation-science will note the fallacy is not with my proposition but with Jason's false analogy to the resurrection issue.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty


################################

Mega Conference 2005

http://info.answersingenesis.org/mc2005/?p=42#17

Dr. Jason Lisle Says:
July 27th, 2005 at 4:10 pm

I'm glad the presentation has generated some discussion.

I wanted to respond to a few of the statements on this blog.

Mr. Baty argues:

> "If God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by some
> to mean it was six 24-hour days
> occurring a few thousand years ago,
> and there is empirical evidence that
> things are actually much older than
> a few thousand years, then the
> interpretation of the text by some
> is wrong."

Hopefully, the fallacy here is pretty clear:

This approach is eisegetical (reading into Scripture based on outside ideas), not exegetical.

To illustrate, imagine that we applied this same hermeneutic elsewhere:

> "A common interpretation of the
> Gospels teaches that Jesus rose
> from the dead. Yet, there is empirical
> evidence that dead men stay dead,
> and do not rise. Thus, the interpretation
> (that Jesus rose from the dead) must
> be wrong."

Clearly this would not be a good way to read Scripture.

When Scripture clearly teaches something (be it Christ's resurrection from the dead, or the days of creation), let us accept what God has said, and not try to bend the Scriptures in the direction we wish them to go.

Let us not modify the inerrant Word of God based on our fallible understanding of the limited evidence we have in the cursed, fallen universe.

###########################
###########################

[laconicsax]

14. That's what you get.

It's all circular.

God exists because it says so in the book that God wrote.
The Bible is true because the Bible says so.

[zbdent]

21. It always makes me wonder ... if all these atheists have no regard for human life

and people who are religious (as the vocal minority of Christians try to paint them as) ...

how come there are still Christians alive? I would have thought that the atheists would have murdered every single one of them ...

[rexcat]

22. Some many Christians, so few lions!

[darkstar3]

23. Laconic, you said everything that needed to be said and then some,

and normally that means that I would simply be silent, but I just wanted you to know that I agree 100% with you, and damn if I can figure out how people can miss the simple point of pot vs. kettle...

:hi:

[laconicsax]

24. It's hard to see it when you're used to playing the part.

[Leontius]

25. And you play your part so well

typical.