Answers in Genesis' Idolatry

[Surlethe]

I wrote this essay on what I perceive to be the idolatry of the Answers in Genesis organization. Obviously, I'm approaching from a Christian perspective, so take what I write with a grain of salt, but the central thrust of the essay should be objective enough. I'm interested in some feedback on the essay, if you ladies and gentlemen would be so kind.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Eh... Idolatry is one of the commandment that even fundies don't seem to grasp, simply look at the crucifex.

[Rye]

I'd meant to get around to writing something about the hypocrisy of AiG in regard to something else, too, namely:

Revelation 22:18-9 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."

and

Deuteronomy 4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

and then compare those with:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 2/noah.asp

Yeah, way to go! Time to listen to Behemoth's "Sermon to the Hypocrites" methinks. It took ages to find that page, I only half remembered it. I hope you appreciate the effort.

[Setesh]

The only flaw I see is the same flaw I ran into at Fresh-hope.com, bible literalists do not accept that the bible was written by men. For them it is the complete and unchanging word of God. Though I never took this particular tact before I can't see them taking 2 seconds to scream "IT IS GOD"S WORD" and consider the argument won.

[Darth RyanKCR]

The only flaw I see is the same flaw I ran into at Fresh-hope.com, bible literalists do not accept that the bible was written by men. For them it is the complete and unchanging word of God. Though I never took this particular tact before I can't see them taking 2 seconds to scream "IT IS GOD"S WORD" and consider the argument won.

Not quite but you are on the right track. My issue with that essay is it's fundimental assumption is flawed and then argues against it (strawman?) Let me give you an example:

You are given instructions on how to build something (a LEGO set). You will need to follow the instructions exactly or you will not come out with the same object that is pictured on the box and in the instructions. The manufacturere (LEGO) created those instructions for you to follow. The instructions tell you exactly what the manufacturer intented for you to follow. No about of telling you that LEGO loves you will allow you to build the set correctly unless you follow the instructions. Does this mean that I as a builder of the set look at the instructions as LEGO or greater then LEGO? No it's their instructions to me on how to build the set I bought. That's what AIG is doing and going by.

[Surlethe]

My issue with that essay is it's fundimental assumption is flawed and then argues against it (strawman?) Let me give you an example:

You are given instructions on how to build something (a LEGO set). You will need to follow the instructions exactly or you will not come out with the same object that is pictured on the box and in the instructions. The manufacturere (LEGO) created those instructions for you to follow. The instructions tell you exactly what the manufacturer intented for you to follow. No about of telling you that LEGO loves you will allow you to build the set correctly unless you follow the instructions. Does this mean that I as a builder of the set look at the instructions as LEGO or greater then LEGO? No it's their instructions to me on how to build the set I bought. That's what AIG is doing and going by.

What are you trying to compare to this analogy, and why should I believe that this analogy isn't false?

[Metatwaddle]

I think acceptance of your argument depends on whether people already accept that the Bible was influenced by its human writers. A real inerrantist will consider that the Bible is the perfect word of God, and therefore they won't consider it fallacy or idolatry to take it literally. For them, the Bible is the best way to know God's nature, so saying things like "people don't come to God through the Bible, only through Christ" won't make any sense.

I have a bunch of thoughts on this, but I'm afraid they're a little bit unclear. I'll just ask you a question: is acceptance of the Bible tantamount to the acceptance of Christ? In other words, is it possible to believe everything in the Bible and still not be a Christian?

[General Zod]

I think acceptance of your argument depends on whether people already accept that the Bible was influenced by its human writers. A real inerrantist will consider that the Bible is the perfect word of God, and therefore they won't consider it fallacy or idolatry to take it literally. For them, the Bible is the best way to know God's nature, so saying things like "people don't come to God through the Bible, only through Christ" won't make any sense.

I have a bunch of thoughts on this, but I'm afraid they're a little bit unclear. I'll just ask you a question: is acceptance of the Bible tantamount to the acceptance of Christ? In other words, is it possible to believe everything in the Bible and still not be a Christian?

The problem with Biblical inerrancy is that there's so many contradictions and annoyingly vague paragraphs if you actually pay attention to the thing that even inerrents have to make some concessions or their belief structure collapses. But the thing is most don't always seem to agree on how to resolve those inconsistencies, which is probably why there's so many splinter sects of Christianity in the first place.

[Surlethe]

I think acceptance of your argument depends on whether people already accept that the Bible was influenced by its human writers. A real inerrantist will consider that the Bible is the perfect word of God, and therefore they won't consider it fallacy or idolatry to take it literally. For them, the Bible is the best way to know God's nature, so saying things like "people don't come to God through the Bible, only through Christ" won't make any sense.

The point I'm making isn't that literalism is idolatry; it's that Answers in Genesis have replaced God with the Bible. Perhaps that doesn't come through clearly enough?

I have a bunch of thoughts on this, but I'm afraid they're a little bit unclear. I'll just ask you a question: is acceptance of the Bible tantamount to the acceptance of Christ? In other words, is it possible to believe everything in the Bible and still not be a Christian?

Oh, sure. Say you live in the world of a Biblical inerrantist. Satan believes everything in the Bible, and isn't Christian.

[Surlethe]

<snip>

Yeah, way to go! Time to listen to Behemoth's "Sermon to the Hypocrites" methinks. It took ages to find that page, I only half remembered it. I hope you appreciate the effort.

Yeah, I do. I wasn't aware of the Deuteronomy passage, and I think that's more useful than the Revelation one (since "book" is too easily equivocated in the latter). Thanks!

[phred]

quick question. is the AiG group one of the ones that insists on using the the king james version? and why are you using it Rye?
Its something that bugs me about the Baptists that have started going door to door here.

[Setesh]

quick question. is the AiG group one of the ones that insists on using the the king james version? and why are you using it Rye?
Its something that bugs me about the Baptists that have started going door to door here.

The KJV is one of the more popular versions, and according to a lot of Baptists the only correct one. Its also the easiest one to quote in online debates thanks to SAB.

*snip LEGO analogy*

You rather missed the point of both AiG and the essay then. What he's pointing out (and they rather blatently do) is that, continuing your example, they are saying the instructions themselves are more important then the lego company or the lego set your building. Add to that the instructions arrive in a language you can't read that doesn't translate well verbatum. Your translated instructions are filled with engrish, but all the creepy LEGO fanatics say they are meant to be that way.

That said the 'basics' of AiG

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.

Pretty much every dipshit inerrentist who can thump the bible says this. They have yet to prove it, or even vaguely defend the position with any argument that makes sense.

The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

Usual 'the bible is true because it says so' circular argument. Also touches apon that idolatry, did not men write it down, did not men translate this bitch, did not men whittle down the original 250 books of faith into the new testament we see today, did those men not have free will with the ability to alter for their own gain or at the very least fuck it up via stupidity. If so why call it 'The Word of God' whe we have no concept of how much they mangled it. Or made shit up, or mistook hebrew uphemisms for miricles.

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

Except there is not a shred of evidence beyond the bible this happened. Say there is a God, would he have even tried to explain evolution to these primative screwheads? Hell no they lack the background to have understood it. Even if it was explained to them they would have said 'magic' and be done with it.

The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

Evolution happens just not much of it. This is basically saying "Okay you proved this is how this works, and it could have happened but we're saying it hasn't happened for very long."

Of coarse the [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html]horse[/url] fossil record does pose a problem they usually lie their asses off to get around. Or refuse to answer.

The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

Granted the Hebrews didn't even make this one up, they stole the legend from other cultures. That said there is no evidence the flood ever happened. Not only geologic but there were civilizations around during the 'flood' era that never noticed any such thing. (The Dawenkou culture in china for instance)

The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.

This one always bothered me not just from the biological idiocy of it, but the moral implications.

If Adam and Eve did not possess knowledge of right vs. wrong.
Then they lacked the ability to chose right from wrong.
Therefore they did not sin because they lacked the ability to chose, much as a baby does.

Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.

Since we are made by God, who is perfect therefore cannot ere, then our flaws are intentional and therefore not our sins are God's fault not our own. That said, there is ample evidence things died before humans existed therefore we did not bring death into the world. Though we do cause a lot of it.

[Setesh]

Fucking Urls, sorry about that they were dressed proporly in preview.

[Rye]

quick question. is the AiG group one of the ones that insists on using the the king james version?

come to think of it, I've never known literalists that use any other version.

and why are you using it Rye?

I couldn't remember the exact bible references but knew they existed, so I googled something similar and the KJV quote came up.