133 thoughts on “VBS Day #4: Themes”

    1. You must be one of those “evil-utionists”. God created the Ferris wheel and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!

  1. So I clicked on through. As redhot indicates,the theme is “IncrediWorld Amazement Park – A Thrill Ride Through God’s Creation.”

    Yeah, from Answers in Genesis. Sigh.

      1. Lol. I couldn’t disagree with you more. Not only do they have theology which directly contradicts orthodox Christianity (“Just get rid of evolution, and society’s ills will go away!”), but they have been telling people who don’t know better lies for years – and making money at it. No one gets to make up “science”. Not even Ken Ham.

        1. You know what pisses me off. The fact that the government taxes my HOUSE for loser schools that teach evolution which I don’t agree with.

          At least Ken Ham provides a product that people WANT to buy. It’s capitalism at work. There’s nothing wrong with making money.

          And evolution is JUST a theory.

        2. Mominator, if you disagreed with math, would you object to paying taxes that support schools that teach math?

          Because not believing in evolution, without which no modern biology, biochemistry, or medicine makes sense, makes about as much sense as not believing in math. 2+2=4 is, after all, just a postulate. You can’t prove it without resorting to the postulate itself.

        3. I’m very afraid of what Ken Ham would sell as math if there was a market for it by claiming the liberal math was a conspiracy.

        4. BigGary,

          Comparing Math which is absolute doesn’t compute b/c Evolution is just a Theory. So I’m not following your logic.

          Aren’t you liberals all for choice? Ya know, pro-choice?

          Why can’t I choice the school my child goes to based your the fact that I am pro-choice in my child’s education? Again, liberal logic never computes.

        5. Mominator: It goes back to the principle that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

          You don’t have to believe in the theory of gravitation if you don’t want to, but not believing in it will not allow you to fly without an aircraft.

        1. Excuse me for stating the incredibly obvious, but Ken Ham is no scientist.

          Scientists don’t go around trademarking their projects and trying to put other scientists out of business.
          Scientists don’t personally attack people who disagree with their findings.

          And (in case the foregoing isn’t obvious enough) scientists base their work on observing nature, not on finding excuses to defend a preconceived conclusion.

        1. I see no legitimate arguments here. AIG is solid as a rock, so is their science, so is the God they serve, which is the most important thing. I would put AIG scientists up against any others on this planet.

          This reminds me of little yapping dogs chasing around a grizzly. They keep yapping but they aren’t changing any outcomes.

    1. I don’t believe in evolution either, but when the “argument” resorts to name calling its no longer a valid argument.

      I’ve read several comments on different threads that basically said, “[Insert creation scientist] is a fraud/fake/not a real scientist” and “[Insert creationist organization] are liars and are making things up.” Can anyone please direct me to actual documentation of all of these supposed lies (books, websites, anything)? I really would be interested in looking into them if they exist. Specifics please! I’m not going to reject an entire organization based on a few vaguely worded, unspecific negative reviews.

  2. actually . . . I think Creationism has pretty good PR. Look, it’s got a shiny Ferris wheel and friendly dinos to pet and everything!

    It’s dry, dusty evolution that could use the help.

      1. Of course it’s george right, it guaranteed to george in interwebz constitution: to have right to mess mess with keyboards, spellingz and grammar… george mess with gram-ma too when she frisky.
        :wink: :grin:

        1. Sometimes george just gets on here and types his own stuff. I’ve tried to get him to make his own avitar and profile, but he just grins, takes over my keyboard and goes on. :wink:

    1. Creationism has unbelievably successful PR. Polls indicate a large number of Americans believe in it or are undecided, despite (or because of??) Creationism having zero credible evidence to support it, and its being only very tenuously connected to anything in the Bible.

      The Flying Spaghetti Monster can only envy Creationism’s reputation.

      1. Well personally I find it very hard to believe that there was nothing and then suddenly there was something. How did that happen?
        I know things evolve and change, but it all had to start somewhere. It’s just as likely that God set up the foundation and it all went there from, as it is that it just…..happened.

        1. No disagreement with your statement, Lily, but that’s not at all similar to the idea that the book of Genesis should be read as a science textbook– an infallible science textbook.

          I’m not saying Genesis is wrong, I’m saying its writers never heard of science and had no intention of making any scientific claims.

  3. I’m not sure about that “IncrediWorld Amazement Park” and their colors of the day. Those colors look mighty suspicious if you ask me. Kinda – dare I say it – gay. :mrgreen:

  4. Though I don’t think Darrell was trying to put down creationism with his post I’m still going to make this statement.

    I’m willing to wear the target. I really like Answers in Genesis and I’m a creationist and though my grammar says otherwise I’m not a simpleton who can’t think through some science. For some reason people around here like to yuck it up about people who believe in a literal creation as the bible says in Genesis 1. Just because there are people who can’t defend it well doesn’t mean it’s not true. It also doesn’t mean you couldn’t conclude that ex-nihilo means that God didn’t say it with a bang, mind you. Am I going to go toe to toe with people, no. Do I think it can certainly matter in regards to salvation, yes. Literal Adam according to Jesus and so by faith I’m going to accept it and the rest of the story.

    As far as the VBS, yes, it’s lame. It’s SUPER lame but I’m starting to conclude what I already knew as a kid when my dislike for VBS began; VBS is kinda lame. Even though I still have my thumbprint turned mouse medallion with my name on it from 1986.

    1. Sorry, but no, it doesn’t matter with regard to salvation. That’s the Ken Ham et. al. trick: say that belief in non-6-day creation “denies the atonement” or some such, and then out of the other side of your mouth, say that you didn’t just question the salvation of evolutionary creationists and long-dayers. I do appreciate the tone of your post, but turning creationism into a primary doctrinal issue is something that I can’t let pass without comment.

      1. I figured somebody would take it that way. Yes, I know there are “nuances” in creation science and how some Christians want to reconcile what they feel is evolutionary science and the bible. These are views that I’m just ignoring here. Neither am I versed enough nor do I have the energy momentarily to bring it up.

        I’m not saying salvation by doctrinal checklist . I am saying if it becomes allegory that’s dangerous hermeneutical ground that I personally don’t want to stand on. That first literal Adam necessitated the Last Adam, I Cor 15:45. I’m not going to question someone’s salvation, I’m not the Judge. I think Creation is an important doctrine but only Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of Salvation. But if Jesus who knows everything and made everything agrees with the account then I’m in pretty good company. :smile:

        And thanks for the tone of your post, too. I appreciate “kid gloves”.

        1. Some things in the Bible are obviously metaphorical and allegorical. I don’t think even the fundiest of Fundies believe that Jesus is or was literally a road or a vine. So why do you find it so unacceptable that some people think the first couple of chapters of Genesis (which, by the way, contradict each other) are allegorical?

        2. @Big Gary

          The main reason is because of the style of writing. It is written as a narrative. The only reason people read it as allegory now is to reconcile with the older earth theories out there that dominate the landscape. That’s the extremely short version.

        3. Ronnie, John 6:53-57 is one of the reasons I want my daughter being in a church that takes the Lord’s Supper more often that four times a year. I don’t have many options where I live. Where we go they probably would do a dance with this verse but I take it literally.
          Like Jesus disciples said, “this is a hard saying”. And no matter how many times I read it I say the same thing but if Jesus says I’m to eat His body and drink His blood and know that He gives His life to me in this, then OK. I just believe Him; my little mind doesn’t try to think beyond it. Manna was a type and He is the real bread from heaven. Do I understand the mystery, the how, etc? Not entirely.
          Same for baptism, I take it as Scripture says too. PS- I’ve come to these conclusions apart from creeds, though I’m not against them.

        4. Fundy Fascinated – The parables that are in the Bible are also told as a narrative. Why do consider those to be allegorical?

          beensetfree – I will applaud you for your consistency :smile: (even though I completely disagree with you). :wink:

          Nearly every YECer I know are vehemently opposed to transubstantiation and most transubstantiation-ers I know are not YEC.

        5. Big Gary – They only contradict each other if you read them like a textbook. :wink:

          If you think they might be different because they are teaching us different things, well then… :grin:

        6. @Ronnie

          Again, the short answer is context. (I mean no disrespect w/ these short answers; I just don’t think a massive debate would work well in this format.) Jesus was attempting to teach a lesson when he told parables. It’s easily detectable; just like it would be in every day conversation. When I read Genesis, the rest of the book seems to be a story of actual events of things that happened. I see no reason to reinterpret the first 3 chapters thereby separating them from the rest of the book.

        7. FundyFascinated –

          Context? So, by context, which would you mean:

          – That the first creation account obviously reads like poetry?

          – That the two creation accounts appear to contradict each other?

          – That the first account has internal problems with creation order (c.f. day 1 vs day 4)?

          – That the Genesis creation accounts destroy other creation accounts from the surrounding ANE religions?

          – That, in the context of God’s other revelation of Himself (i.e. creation), a “plain” reading makes no sense?

          :wink:

        8. Ronnie-

          No. I referred to context in answer to your question. Your question was why I don’t consider Jesus’ parables literal since they are narrative and not allegorical.

          My point was that the context of Jesus’ teaching and the obvious flow of the conversation demonstrate that he wasn’t being literal. Hence you get phrases like, “The kingdom of heaven is like….” Clearly, he intends to create imagery to communicate spiritual truth.

          Genesis, on the other hand, does not read this way. It is a book of stories about various people (Cain and Abel, Abraham, Joseph, etc). We read the whole book as a narrative except for the beginning because it’s inconvenient.

          My point is that the context doesn’t allow for it. Again, not to be rude, but your other points are just Red Herrings. None of them have anything to do with how Genesis should be read. They have to do with whether or not it is reliable. That’s a different argument.

        9. So you want to look at context to make sense of the parables but not ignore context to support your eisegetical reading of Gen 1-2?

          By the way, your last paragraph is pretty much a summary of why your position is flawed. All of those questions I asked, those “red herrings”, ARE context. The “the obvious flow of the conversation demonstrate[s]” that your interpretation is flawed.

          P.S. “We” don’t read it as narrative. “We” recognize that Genesis 12+ reads a LOT differently than Genesis 1-11; it reads like one would expect a history to read. “We” recognize there is a clear division in the text with Gen 12-50 being its own periscope.

          And, to be clear, “we” would include most Bible commentators, early Church leaders, ancient Jews, a majority of Christians, and modern day Jews.

          :smile:

        10. Fundyfascinated, have you joined the forum? It would be the place to dialogue further. Though a forewarning, you probably won’t scratch much more than the surface until you get deadlocked so it might be a waste of time and your comments work just fine in this format. I’ve appreciated them immensely. Sincerely.

        11. I’m a YEC transubstantiation-er –(please mentally correct the spelling if necessary!) I don’t personally know anyone else with my same views. But I am glad to be receiving Jesus every time I attend church–mostly twice a week. My former fundy church was down to once a quarter I believe.

    2. I don’t have any problems with Answers in Genesis or what they stand for either. They aren’t fundy by any sense of how it gets defined on this site (not KJVO, inter-denominational, etc.), and I truly see Christ in not just their message but in how they present it and themselves.

      They’re a popular target, for sure – but I think it’s harder to find a better example of people living as Christ taught us to.

      1. “but I think it’s harder to find a better example of people living as Christ taught us to.”

        You didn’t just say that. Please.

        There lots of better examples.

    3. I agree with the complaint of “beensetfree”. And yes we all must remember that Moses didn’t write the book of Genesis 4,000 years ago so that you and I could stand up today and defend Creationism.
      His intent was to show that it was the God of Abraham who brought all things to be and not the many gods of the Egyptians which were the only gods that they knew at that time. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

      1. The word used for God in the Genesis creation story (“elohim”) is plural.

        That makes it a little hard for a literalist to insist that the main intention was to assert monotheism.

    4. I posted my support upthread before I even read your comment. I’m with ya all the way on AIG, they are awesome!

      Many SFLers have a very similar overall attitude on “dispensationalism” You’re simply crazy if one believes such things.

      I contend that these hard core beliefs are holdovers from their fundy days, because we were taught very many wrong things then, EVERYTHING must be wrong that came from the IFB, and that simply isn’t so, and they are as “fundy” about “that” as they used to be on holding onto the KJV, for instance.

        1. I’m attempting to conyey that SFLer’s won’t often allow for beliefs in a young earth or dispensations, I’m not arguing for the “truth” of either of these things, though I do believe in both. It is PC on SFL make fun of these beliefs, though both are certainly viable.

        2. @Greg, yes, I’ve seen that.

          If I were to make fun of people praying to Mary or people speaking in tongues, then I would be told I’m not being very Christian. There is a double standard there.

        3. Its good to hear someone (besides the fundies who like to troll and call everyone bitter) point it out. I’m really tired of hearing some people on these threads talk about people who don’t fall into their specific theological camps like they’re morons who haven’t studied their own positions out as much as they have, and then condemn fundies for doing the same thing.

          It’s far too easy to just transfer the old fundy mindset of “I’m always right and if you don’t agree you’re an idiot” to the new non-fundy ideas.

    5. I believe in a literal 6 days of creation. Our church has never put on a VBS to my standards. “We” wait until the week before and panic. This year I refuse to participate in the panic.

      1. I offered to help out once, (first time ever) went to the meeting and they were about to give me an entire class of boys, even though I was fundy, I still knew how to say no, and ended up helping someone else who had done it before.

        Looking back, there were some real “fundy” things done during those times, but I think most of the kids had a great time, and I do think it made a few kids actually think alittle.

        I still remember when I “participated” in VBS, I always had a good time. I was definitely looking fwd to the ice cream at the end, but really is that so bad? Btw the Baptist church I grew up in wasn’t awful, it was later on that I got into a real bad one.

  5. Makes no sense…SMH. Why can’t they just lift a theme off a popular secular movie like my former church does?

  6. Actually now that I see the website, the logo they have on there is cute…should have saved the effort and just made a huge banner of that…

    1. It makes me so sad to hear about the distasteful ways Ken Ham has reacted to critics. There is plenty of dirt to find in google. It’s not enough to sway my view of the bible but I’m certainly disappointed by Ken Ham.

      1. People will always disappoint us. And I’m not dissing YE Creationism; just pointing out Ken Ham isn’t quite the man he would like his financial donors to believe.

        1. It’s an interesting story and one worth paying attention to, but it would be good to hear AIG’s reason for taking this action before coming to any conclusions.

        2. I don’t have the slightest idea who this Ken Ham guy is. I’ve never heard of him and I doubt if anyone else has except for a couple of people on this board. The one thing I do know for sure is that ANYONE who believe the bible and in creation is a fool. It’s actually embarrassing that even some of the posters on here are obviously clinging to their religion, even though I know that face to face we would all deny the bible. I wish some of these posters would just go away and go to some moronic christian board where fools such as them can congregate all to themselves.

      2. Ben Set, I too am disappointed that there are still right wingers and christians running around. I recently found this site and find it refreshing and funny, although I’m deeply saddened that some people on here are probably closet christians from the things they say. Tell those people to get the phuck out of here and to leave our blogs alone.

        1. Actually a high percentage of us are not “closet Christians” but the authentic article as our comments indicate. I’m not sure why you said earlier that “face to face we would all deny the Bible.” I am one who on this board on in person will not deny God’s Word, and I know there are many here who share my opinion.

          While there are unbelievers who comment here, this is not primarily an atheist board and it is not anti-Christian.

          And I don’t mind being called a fool for the sake of Christ.

        2. “ANYONE who believe the bible and in creation is a fool.”

          I suppose that would also include God? Anyone who believes in God is a fool?

          Psalm 14:1 – The fool has said in his heart “There is no God.”

          Guess what that makes you? :wink:

        3. “ANYONE who believe the bible and in creation is a fool.”

          I suppose that would also include God? Anyone who believes in God is a fool?

          Psalm 14:1 – The fool has said in his heart “There is no God.”

          Guess what that makes you? :wink:

        4. I didn’t know blogs were primarily the domain of the the atheists and the irreligious.

          An along with PW I am neither a “closet” Christian nor prone to deny Christ, the verasity of Scripture or the Gospel. I am not ashamed of any of it. I deplore the fact that there are those who do things in the name of Christ and who put Christian labels on blatently non-Christlike behavior, but human nature is what it is.

        5. Ken Ham is a sinner like everyone else. I don’t know his intentions but from what I’ve read and heard him say he loves Christ and trusts Him as Savior and tells people about him. I’m disappointed that he may have used low tactics to protect his work and think if it’s true there might be some need for public repentance. As far as his science being wrong or not credible enough for people in the “real” scientific community, wherever that is, does anyone call professionals to the table when they construct stories about animals from bone fragments like Lucy? Or make wild speculative claims that they can’t reproduce in a lab that requires much faith to believe and lines up with an atheistic worldview? Bad science happens frequently from what I can tell.

          Amen to believing and being unashamed of Jesus and Scripture. The cross is foolishness unless you’re counting on Christ to save you; then it’s the power of God. I Cor. 1:18. I’m wretched and you’re wretched even if you think otherwise. Yes, I’d tell you to your face the Gospel of Jesus Christ is for you too.

          If you want us to relegate Christian beliefs to a philosophical option instead of truth and the bible to an archaic throwback I think you’ll find plenty of competent people who’d say otherwise. (Not calling myself competent)

          Ultimately I’d hope Christians would enjoy science, we have nothing to fear from it. Miracles such as found in the bible stand outside the scientific realm and our God does too. He made the laws of the universe and it’s amazing when we scratch the surface of creation but I put my trust in the One who made it, Jesus.

        6. I have to say, I LOLed at this post:

          “I recently found this site and find it refreshing and funny, although I’m deeply saddened that some people on here are probably closet christians from the things they say.”

          Closet Christians? In what way are the Christian who post on this site closet Christians? Just because we have ceased to hold to fundamentalist pseudo-doctrine doesn’t actually mean we’ve stopped being Christians or that we’ve become some kind of secret Christians (though many fundies would disagree :grin: ).

          “Tell those people to get the phuck out of here and to leave our blogs alone.”

          Were you under the impression that one group of people with one set of ideas had exclusive claim to the internet? You do know that the owner of this blog is a Christian, right?

          The mindset here is amazingly similar to what I encountered in fundamentalism… That’s both funny and scary.

        7. I think we’re being pranked (read the name backwards), but I can’t tell by whom or for what purpose, if it’s an atheist mocking Christians or a fundamentalist mocking us and saying we might as well be atheists by attacking the IFB or someone just enjoying getting folks riled up.

        8. Oh then he’s a bit late for that thread where everyone was supposed to write something pro fundy or something, I see the name backward is prank cats. Well at least he got one thing right. Cats. LOL! :mrgreen:

      3. I watched a DVD of a talk Ken the Ham did when he was in Belfast. He doesn’t come across as a Foaming-at the Mouth Nutter – at least at the begginning. Part way through, though, it clicked with me – Ham was not really arguing for Creation, but for his absolute belief that he is RIGHT and speaking for God, and anyone who disagrees with him is not only WRONG but out to destroy the Gospel.

        I am a Christian, because God interfered in my life in a very real and rather spectacular way, not because I believe (or not) that God created the world in exactly 144 hours.

    2. Disgraceful :evil: Its sad that probably the only thing that will cause people like this to “wake up” to how much damage their actions are doing is if enough people withdraw their financial support that they are in danger of going under. Ken Ham and AiG aren’t the only creationist organization.

    1. The messenger is just being shown to be not all he’s cracked up to be. That’s a separate issue from the message, which also has plenty of issues on its own.

    1. Heeee. Thanks, Don; somehow I’ve missed that until now.

      Re: 6,000 year old earth

      C’mon now. BEER is older than that: there’s chemical evidence on pots in archaeological excavations in China of beer brewing by 7,000BC.

      1. In the beginning, beer …

        Seriously, if “wine” can mean “grape juice,” then maybe every mention of “water” or “waters” in Genesis 1 really means “beer.”

    2. Given the cultural and technical currency of most Fundies, they are more likely to use this dinosaur film than the one you suggest, Don:

  7. I actually think the whole setup looks pretty cute. Never been to the Creation Museum (though I want to…I’m a sucker for museums and I work at one). Must have been fun to work on. Also, it sorta reminds me of the Vollis Simpson Whirligig Park in my town…look it up! It’s also known as Acid Park.

    Sorry, lots of color makes me a little crazy.

  8. My church is doing an AiG themed VBS, and I wish they would have chosen a different curriculum. I do not like AiG. They try to make OEC sound like unbelievers, which is not true.

    They are so caught up in their money-making they will not be honest about the situation, IMHO.

  9. There are 3 responses to “Scientific” young-earth creationism:

    1. “It is true!” This can be disproved many, many ways. It simply isn’t, and Ham & co are dishonest.

    2. “It appears old, but really isn’t.” Two responses – the first is that it makes God into an artful deceiver. The second is that it is no different than believing in Last Thursdayism.

    3. YEC is false, and the earth is old. This doesn’t conflict with Scriptures, and is supported by the evidence.

      1. Don, not sure what you mean by that? Personally, I’m ambivalent about a historical Adam, but leaning towards Adam as a representative of humanity, real or not. Let’s not forget, the name Adam used as a Personal name in Genesis 2-3, means Man in Hebrew. You can see the allegorical/mythological trend there (and, like others before me, I maintain that the word ‘myth’ can be a good word – one can have “True Myth”). I refer you to the link I posted higher up – here it is again: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Hummel_Gen1_JASA.pdf

        1. I’m just saying according to your logic if God actually formed Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him making him a living soul… then your logic says that God had to form him as a baby, otherwise God is an, “artful deceiver.” Your “artful deceiver” label limits such a god to rudimentary acts of creation that have to mature on their own rather than full-blown, completed acts of creation. If God is not capable of fully formed acts of creation then he should not be worshipped as an omnipotent being… and by the very definition of God, cannot be God.

        2. Also Don, you are arguing from a singularity (Adam) to the Cosmos as a whole. If everything is created with an apparent history, then you have the situation where you have false histories – ie, starlight telling things that never happened, bones of dead animals that never lived, radioactive decay that never happened etc etc. Then, of course, you cannot answer my question to you – how do you know you were not created Last Thursday, with memories of things that never happened?

        3. See, it all depends on one’s view of God. God’s special revelation as found in Scripture said on the seventh day he rested from his creative acts. So, yeah I’m sure it wasn’t last Thursday.

        4. Sorry Don, but that is a self-refuting argument. Scripture is a physical artifact. If we can’t look at physical artifacts and draw reasonable conclusions, then there is no reason we would be able to do so with Scripture either. :wink:

        5. fundyfascinated – so, in the non-literalist view, Genesis 2 tells us that through man’s actions/desires, sin entered the world.

      2. Just as a footnote: I invariably get questioned (interrogated) about miracles, the Virgin Birth etc when I make this point. Let me forestall it here be observing that miracles are by definition counter-natural, not the rule (if everything is a miracle, then nothing is a miracle), and also, they tend to be, or are accounted for as singularities.

        1. At least we have a thread that shows the true ethos of this blog: to discredit Christianity and show what a farce it is and what fools they are who believe in the bible. It’s fun and humorous to make fun of odd foibles that a minority segment of Christianity believes in, but once in awhile it’s refreshing to see a thread such as this that shows what true fools Christians are and people who believe in God. This would include ALL Christians of all stripes and not just those who are in the small sect known as IFB. I’m not sure why the owner of this blog has such an obsession with the foibles of such a small segment of Christianity known as the IFB when Christianity as a whole deserves our rebuke and hatred. It’s nice to see us branching out and mocking Christianity as a whole in threads such as this instead of just focusing on the narrow sect known as IFB.

        2. “Anything that I don’t like/disagree with deserves rebuke and hatred.” Congratulations! You’ll fit right in with many fundamentalists Christians! Or, really fundamentalists of any number of religions.

          :lol: :lol: I know you’re trying to be taken seriously, but I really can’t help but laugh at these kinds of things. Your tirade is just so unreasoning and blindly hateful, that you only differ from the fundy Christians (who you so hate) in the particular idea you espouse.

          Pastor’s Wife might be right about this being a fake, though. We have some very talented trolls and fake Poes on this blog!

        3. Just (successfully) read the name backwards for the first time… prank cats?

          Oh, Darrell, what have you started with that Friday challenge? :razz:

  10. Look what you started here, Darrell. :-P

    I’m going to put the hover text together and posit the entire display invites to run to the ferris-wheel-turned-flying-machine because it’s only 6 days until THE DINOSAURS ATTACK! And be sure to bring your sparkly items since the only barrier to slow them is sparkly paper. They fear the sparkle!

    :mrgreen:

  11. It seems to me that fundamentalist opposition to evolution has grown into an irrational rejection of science in general; get my kids immunized–uh uh, none of that science voodoo for my family (people did fine before vaccinations-smallpox wasn’t really that bad), global warming–just those sneaky scientists trying to get one past us(oh oh, my neighborhood is burning down–just a coincidence I’m sure)and if you got the cancer, don’t be suckered into chemotherapy–drink beet juice 24/7.

    1. OK, but did it cure the cancer?
      I’m guessing “no.”

      Turning orange would be a small price to pay for being cured of cancer. But, while I’m aware of studies that imply that consuming a lot of carotenes (the stuff in carrots or beets that can turn your skin orange or red) can help prevent some cancers, there is no evidence to my knowledge that consuming carotenes can cure cancer in people who already have it.

  12. of course it “cured” him; sadly, only a months later,the cancer “came back” and he passed away. I didn’t know him personally; I heard testimonials about him from a fellow fundy church member of mine who was trying to convince me, as a teenager, to stop taking insulin and use herbs to cure my diabetes. He was a former member of Jack Hyles’ church and had been in the circle who used to practice “chelation”: a service offered by a chiropractor in that church in which, supposedly, the patient was hooked up to a machine that passed oxygen bubbles through his blood. The whole thing turned out to be bogus, and the “doctor” eventually went out of practice for accidentally paralyzing someone during a chiropractor visit. Did this deter his followers from thinking he was the greatest thing since sliced bread? Well these were the same people who listened to Jack Hyles every week . . .so of course not.

  13. I’m now a theistic evolutionist and I have some issues with AiG, but I’ve got to say, my fundie church’s creationist VBS is still one of my most fun childhood memories. It’s one of the few things I don’t have the heart to mock.

  14. Evolution is just a theory, and I wish they would stop teaching it in schools.

    Relativity is just a theory, and I wish they would stop teaching it in schools.

    Gravity is just a theory, and I wish they would stop teaching it in schools.

    Don’t try using the “just a theory” argument against evolution unless you actually understand what science requires for something to be called a theory. It doesn’t mean what you want to think it means, and saying “it’s only a theory” only reveals how little the one making the argument actually knows about science.

    1. I believe the words “Amen Brother!” would be the Pentecostal response called for here. I’m not sure though, as I’m Lutheran :)

  15. Status update by a (still fundy) FB friend:

    VBS ended today.110 kids accepted Christ,$2500 raised for missions.What a great week! I am already pre-registered for next year!

      1. Not unusual to take offerings in some VBS programs. And missions does seem to be a favorite thing to give said offerings to. That being said, I do hope that with having gotten that much money, that it was a LARGE VBS, not one in which the kids were guilted or bribed to give!

  16. I am confused by the use of a ferris wheel as a decoration, even if it is part of the curriculum.

    “Hey kids, this big cut out of a ferris wheel in the background is to remind you of a theme park that you won’t be going to this week. You’ll be playing in a field for recreation.”

  17. For a brief & horrifying moment I thought this was my former fundy church. Why do fundy churches look so similar?! Is that taught at fundy colleges too? Pew style, carpet choices, balcony design…? So weird how they all look so eerily similar.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>