Creation museum causes Chrisitans to feud... lawsuits ensue

[Superman]

I just received this in an email from the American Atheists.

You know, I think that fellow non-creation types were almost giving these screwballs far too much credit. They're incapable of unifying, even for a cause like this.

And by the way, does anyone want to argue with me again that Christians aren't complete egotistical morons?

CRACKS IN CREATIONIST RANKS: REPORT CHARGES "UNETHICAL/UNBIBLICAL"
CONDUCT BY ANSWERS IN GENESIS GROUP, LEADERSHIP

At the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY., dioramas and other exhibits
depict a lavish Garden of Eden where all life -- including dinosaurs
and human beings -- co-existed in peaceful bliss before Eve succumbed
to temptation and bit into the apple.

About 6,000 years later, however, if you believe in a literal
interpretation of Genesis and the rest of the official bible, all is
not well, and a simmering feud among leading creationist groups has
deepened.

An investigative report assembled at the behest of an Australian
creationist group charges that their U.S.-based counterparts,
including Ken Ham, head of Answers in Genesis (AIG) have engaged in
"unethical" and "unbiblical" actions.

Mr. Ham recently presided over the opening of the $27 million AIG
Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. The 60,000-square-foot facility is
a state-of-the-art facility designed to counter Darwinian evolution,
and
instead argue the case for so-called "Young Earth creationism."
According to Ham and others promoting this doctrine, Jehovah created
the universe, along with our planet and all life, about 6,000 years
ago. Creationists also assert the bible is to be taken literally, and
should govern all aspects of human life -- a view Mr. Ham and others
describe as "Biblical Supremacy."

A copy of the report, obtained in advance by AANEWS is now posted on
the web site of Creation Ministries International. While word of the
"split" within creationists has been a topic of news stories and
bloggers for years, details of the legal dispute are only now being
made public.
A story in today's Herald-Leader newspaper by Andy Mead ("Museum group
sued by fellow creationists") paints Mr. Ham as a power-hungry
manipulator who broke away from the Australian-based group and pursued
his own agenda, including aggressive fund-raising campaigns to launch
the Creation Museum.

Accusations against Ham and his coterie of associates were detailed in
a 40-page document titled "2007 Briese Committee of Enquiry into the
dispute between AiG-USA and CMI-Australia." The investigation was
headed by Clarrie Briese, criminologist and former Chief Magistrate in
New South Wales, Australia. Briese served on the state Crime
Commission, and was described as "well known in committed Christian
circles as a committed Bible-believer." Briese was originally tapped
to probe allegation made by Dr. Ian Plimmer, an Atheist and
geologist,
who often debated creationists. A statement from the CMI Chairman
states:

"Following the formal 2-page report to the committee, Clarrie Briese
felt so strongly about the issues his 'paper trail' uncovered, and
their relevance to, and importance for the health of, creation
ministry organisations in general, that he felt it necessary of his
own accord to prepare and issue this supplementary Chairman's report
of more than 40 pages..."

The report was "overwhelmingly supportive" of the Creation Ministries
International position. Briese added that Mr. Ham and his AIG-America
group "will doggedly continue to deny any wrongdoing on their part."

Ham described the allegations as "totally preposterous and untrue."

The report establishes a time-line leading up to the current legal
dispute beginning in the 1980s when Ham, an Australian native and high
school science instructor established the Creation Science Foundation.
This group morphed into the Creation Ministries International. Mr.
Ham linked up with the U.S.-based Institute for Creation Research, the
leading American organization promoting creationist doctrine. In
1994, he moved to Kentucky along with his "Answers in Genesis"
ministry and began seeking money to open a creationist museum.

According to the Briese report, trouble began around 2004 when former
associates of Ham back in Australia questioned the tactics of their
U.S. -based brethren, suggested that AIG-America had become
bureaucratic and was straying from their original mission. A former
associate, Dr. Carl Wieland, sent out a letter warning friends that
"the whole thing is heading in the direction of a Ken Ham ministries
rather than Answers in Genesis."

"The report also details a complex and confusing series of events in
which the board of CMI came to Kentucky, signed an agreement that gave
extraordinary powers to the U.S. group, then returned to Australia
and fired Wieland," reports Andy Mead in the current Herald-Ledger
story.

Disputes over everything from the content of creationist literature to
prices and authorship quickly followed. Both sides repeatedly cited
the bible to defend their respective position, and accused the other
of seeking publicity. Mr. Ham defended his record of working to build
"the largest creationist museum in the world, an impressive facility
which would not only bring Christians to the Word of God on creation,
it would be a powerful witnessing tool for the spread of the gospel of
Jesus Christ concerning salvation..."

Mr. Briese, though, took a dim view of all this, noting that the
American-based venture "for all practical purposes (would be) under
the unfettered control and influence of one person, Ken Ham."

"If this does happen to be noticed and raises eyebrows, it can be
pointed out that Ken Ham is the Martin Luther King for this age (as
indeed an AiG promotional cartoon ... depicts him) -- his leadership
doesn't need checks and balances, and that Ken Ham is a man who can be
trusted to always make the right decisions to further the interest of
creation ministries..."

Cautioning against this extraordinary concentration of wealth and
power, Briese added: "One could not imagine a more dangerous
arrangement than the one just described for creation ministries.
History is littered with examples of movements and organizations
bringing ultimate disaster on themselves and their supporters via the
absence of sufficient checks and balances in their structures..."

Allegations continue to fly between the two groups. and the charges
touch upon everything from finances and control to personal behavior.
"The Australian" newspaper has reported that Mr. Ham has expressed
doubts about Mr. Wieland's marriage to a woman who was once Ham's
personal secretary just weeks after his divorce. Ham is also
reportedly working with an associate who accused Wieland's wife or
practicing "witchcraft and necrophilia."

Along with leadership of the creationist movement, considerable
financial resources are at stake.

Blogger and freethought activist Jim Lippard tracked down the
corporate reports known as Form 990s for Answers in Genesis, posting
them to his web site. The figures for 2003-2004 reveal that the group
was taking in over $10 million in 2004, and that Mr. Ham, president of
the organization, received a salary of $125, 739 with over $11,000 in
benefits and compensation for various expenses. Other officers like
CEO Bill Wise took in $121,418 in 2003, while Vice President Kathy
Ellis received $86,068 . Many of the board members received no money,
however.

Attempts at arbitration between the two feuding groups appear to have
failed. On Friday, Ham's organization issued a press release saying
that the charges in the Briese report were "baseless and without
merit."

For further information:

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/100183.html
MUSEUM GROUP SUED BY FELLOW CREATIONISTS

[Elaro]

Ahaha, they're in dispute over the fact that Ken Ham is an autocrat. Oh the irony...

And they say scientists are disunited! When have credible science organisations sued one another, eh? Ha!

[Patrick Degan]

Ahaha, they're in dispute over the fact that Ken Ham is an autocrat. Oh the irony...

And they say scientists are disunited! When have credible science organisations sued one another, eh? Ha!

At worst, they've written nasty equations to one another.

[Darth Wong]

Where money goes, conflict follows. And Christianity, despite Jesus' teachings on self-denial, has always found ways to raise vast sums of money through its official organizations. Small wonder there's no any cessation in the endless litany of scandals and feuds of that bloated pseudo-family.

[Ariphaos]

At worst, they've written nasty equations to one another. 8)

Debates on human linguistic and physical evolution have gotten fairly heated. Some of the material I've seen for linguistics is downright insulting to now-disproved views.

That said, it's been an open secret that Ken Ham probably doesn't believe a word he says, he's just found a way to separate stupid people and their money.

[Justforfun000]

Where money goes, conflict follows. And Christianity, despite Jesus' teachings on self-denial, has always found ways to raise vast sums of money through its official organizations. Small wonder there's no any cessation in the endless litany of scandals and feuds of that bloated pseudo-family.

In general, what is the prevailing opinion on specifically Jesus and his moral teachings by the humanists here. Ignoring his one quote about "not here to do away with the old law". He seemed life he was doing EXACTLY that in many cases as there were contradictions, so I wonder if that particular attributing comment was actually said by him.

In general, are his moral teachings fairly reasonable? Are there some specific things anyone here strongly disagrees with?

I know myself that I don't believe in "turning the other cheek". I don't think that works. Appeasing an aggressor simply keeps him extorting you until force makes them back off. That's my opinion.

[Ariphaos]

"His" teachings are almost entirely borrowed from other traditions. On the JREF forum, I mentioned a few lines that were thought to be originally his, and someone proceeded to point out that those teachings, too (the Beatitudes, for example) were also borrowed, leaving Christianity with nothing of its own.

That said, I do feel strongly that a united humanity could indeed build a Heaven on Earth, as some claim was Jesus' original intent.

[Galvatron]

It's like watching a bunch of retards trying to hump a doorknob.

[Frank Hipper]

The Australian group has been trying to make a name for themselves since they split from AIG; learn all about them here.

[Darth Wong]

In general, what is the prevailing opinion on specifically Jesus and his moral teachings by the humanists here. Ignoring his one quote about "not here to do away with the old law". He seemed life he was doing EXACTLY that in many cases as there were contradictions, so I wonder if that particular attributing comment was actually said by him.

Why assume that any of it is factual at all? The guy could have been a composite character.

In general, are his moral teachings fairly reasonable? Are there some specific things anyone here strongly disagrees with?

One example comes to mind immediately: the bit about how wanting to sin is the same as actually sinning is totally retarded and completely devalues the importance of discipline and willpower in terms of personal character.

[Dooey Jo]

That whole "salvation through faith alone" thing is also a pretty shitty morality.

[Galvatron]

That whole "salvation through faith alone" thing is also a pretty shitty morality.

From Kingdom of Heaven...

Hospitaller: I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What god desires is here
[points to head]
Hospitaller: and here
[points to heart]
Hospitaller: and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man - or not.

And that should be the end of it. Too bad the Bible fucks it all up.

[Surlethe]

You know, I think that fellow non-creation types were almost giving these screwballs far too much credit. They're incapable of unifying, even for a cause like this.

Why do you assume that Christians, and even fundamentalists, are united? There have been multiple sects in the religion since the days of Acts: look at the debate between Peter and Paul in the Bible, as well as the various heresies in the first few centuries of its existence.

[Darth Servo]

That whole "salvation through faith alone" thing is also a pretty shitty morality.

That was more Paul than Jesus, not that it makes much difference since Fundies think the entire Bible floated down out of the sky 2000 years ago.

[Surlethe]

That whole "salvation through faith alone" thing is also a pretty shitty morality.

Interestingly, as I understand it, that's a fundamentalist perversion of the faith, among many. The Bible makes pretty clear at places, if you try to take it all literally, that faith without works is dead, and while you might be saved through faith, you'd damn well better be a good person because of that faith, or else you probably weren't saved in the first place.

Of course, fundies can cherrypick all they want to try to 'disprove' that, but next time one throws up the "saved by faith alone", you can point out that the only place in the Bible the words "faith" and "alone" show up together is in James 2, where it says something along the lines of, you are justified by your actions, not by faith alone.

[Darth Servo]

That whole "salvation through faith alone" thing is also a pretty shitty morality.

Interestingly, as I understand it, that's a fundamentalist perversion of the faith, among many. The Bible makes pretty clear at places, if you try to take it all literally, that faith without works is dead, and while you might be saved through faith, you'd damn well better be a good person because of that faith, or else you probably weren't saved in the first place.

Of course, fundies can cherrypick all they want to try to 'disprove' that, but next time one throws up the "saved by faith alone", you can point out that the only place in the Bible the words "faith" and "alone" show up together is in James 2, where it says something along the lines of, you are justified by your actions, not by faith alone.

Listening to some of the more hard core 'saved by gracers' I almost get the impression they think Ephesians 2:8-9 is the only verse in the entire book.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast."

[Lord Poe]

In general, what is the prevailing opinion on specifically Jesus and his moral teachings by the humanists here. Ignoring his one quote about "not here to do away with the old law". He seemed life he was doing EXACTLY that in many cases as there were contradictions, so I wonder if that particular attributing comment was actually said by him.

I've been reading some books by Steve Berry, "The Templar Legacy" and "The Alexandia Link", where the author merges fact, fiction, and speculation into his stories. If you don't want to be spoiled, stop reading this post now.

The author points out that it took many days for someone crucified to die, and often the Romans would eventually break the legs of the victim to finally kill them after a few days had passed. Then the body would be left to rot and be picked at by birds, etc, until finally it was taken down and thrown in a ditch.

Jesus had to die before the Sabbath, (IIRC), so his death was hastened so he'd die that same day.

Berry also pointed out that Jesus' followers would be nowhere in the area of Jerusalem when he was crucified, for fear of retaliation, so no one would have collected his body anyway, or be allowed to. Traditional Jewish burial procedures would have been to plant ol' Jesus until he turned to bones, then gather said bones in an ossuary.

Berry fabricates the Gospel of Simon, where a man who knew Jesus (a fisherman), wrote his account, and how Jesus teachings moved him to pass them on, and Jesus would actually live on in this way. Simon also collected Jesus' remains well after the crucifiction from the aforementioned ditch.

Anyway, great book. But it also gave an account that is very reasonable, and explained why the Gospels were so contradictory, etc. etc.

[Gil Hamilton]

What's funny the article Ken Ham centered all power and wealth generated from his museum clearly into his own pocket.

I will bet 50 quatloos right now that within five years, that crazy ass museum goes completely bottom up and brother Ham there ends up in court on either tax evasion, misappropriation, and/or money laundering from the vast sums of money he's swindled. Who wants a piece of that action?

Come on, it's not like most Evangelical Christian mega-resorts or theme parks involves the head guy being involved in massive amounts of money fraud! Right, right?

[Dooey Jo]

That whole "salvation through faith alone" thing is also a pretty shitty morality.

That was more Paul than Jesus, not that it makes much difference since Fundies think the entire Bible floated down out of the sky 2000 years ago.

True, but then again, very much of Christian doctrine originates from Paul rather than Jesus (even if you get scolded for saying that).

Of course, fundies can cherrypick all they want to try to 'disprove' that, but next time one throws up the "saved by faith alone", you can point out that the only place in the Bible the words "faith" and "alone" show up together is in James 2, where it says something along the lines of, you are justified by your actions, not by faith alone.

But that's heresy! And that's the exact reason I try to refrain from discussing these kinds of dogmas with fundies; interpreting the text in some other way is heretical and that's final. And, being an atheist, I should just shut up, because if I don't believe it really happened, my opinions are invalid (and I believe that's why the retarded Holy Trinity still floats around in theology; you're not allowed to criticise it unless you believe in it, and if you don't believe in it, you're evil and should not be listened to). So instead I let the different kinds of fundies debate among themselves, which usually gets pretty "funny".

[Cykeisme]

That whole "salvation through faith alone" thing is also a pretty shitty morality.

Obviously a higher priority was placed on increasing membership, instead of actually encouraging altruism among your members.

[Justforfun000]

Darth Wong wrote:

Why assume that any of it is factual at all? The guy could have been a composite character.

Very true. Giving it the benefit of the doubt for the most part since it's believed to be relatively factual (by Christians).

One example comes to mind immediately: the bit about how wanting to sin is the same as actually sinning is totally retarded and completely devalues the importance of discipline and willpower in terms of personal character.

Yes that does seem ridiculous from a logical perspective. My assumption is that he meant it a little differently. I would think it would have been ok to have unbidden thoughts arise about lust, but you'd be expected to damp them down. I would think he meant if you literally played out an entire scene in your mind and reveled in it, that this would be the same as actually doing it because you were still sinning in your intention because the mind would be considered an effect on the 'soul'.


Lord Poe Wrote:

The author points out that it took many days for someone crucified to die, and often the Romans would eventually break the legs of the victim to finally kill them after a few days had passed. Then the body would be left to rot and be picked at by birds, etc, until finally it was taken down and thrown in a ditch.

Jesus had to die before the Sabbath, (IIRC), so his death was hastened so he'd die that same day.

It's things like this that make me wonder why the Vatican for example hasn't addressed these issues. Could it be that they know they have no true answer for it and silence is the better part of valor?

[Aaron]

What's funny the article Ken Ham centered all power and wealth generated from his museum clearly into his own pocket.

I will bet 50 quatloos right now that within five years, that crazy ass museum goes completely bottom up and brother Ham there ends up in court on either tax evasion, misappropriation, and/or money laundering from the vast sums of money he's swindled. Who wants a piece of that action?

Come on, it's not like most Evangelical Christian mega-resorts or theme parks involves the head guy being involved in massive amounts of money fraud! Right, right?

I'll take 100 quatloos that it happens in three.

[Solauren]

300 says within 2. Within 18 months if the lawsuit goes well and it turns out he has a mistress that is willing to talk for a book deal.

[Dalton]

"His" teachings are almost entirely borrowed from other traditions. On the JREF forum, I mentioned a few lines that were thought to be originally his, and someone proceeded to point out that those teachings, too (the Beatitudes, for example) were also borrowed, leaving Christianity with nothing of its own.

All religions borrow heavily from earlier myths. Compare the story of Jesus to the story of the Buddha.

[Insert Username Here]

And by the way, does anyone want to argue with me again that Christians aren't complete egotistical morons?

I will. Because, you know, I try not to slam down an entire group of people because of a batshit-crazy minority.

I'm Christian, and I'm not a complete egotistical moron. Slightly idiotic, maybe. And perhaps a bit pretentious. But I haven't quite reached 'complete egotistical moron' status. Still working on it.