AvasMom Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This guy is really going to make my head explode one of these days. What a nasty, vicious man. Does he ever stop? Ever? http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/04/02/susan-wise-bauer-%e2%80%9cwhy-paul-would-have-flunked-hermeneutics%e2%80%9d/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithical Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I really think he's in over his head "taking on" the likes of SWB and Dr. Enns. He pulled quotes out of context of her review, and is running with his interpretations (funny, that!). I found the opening paragraph of SWB's review of Dr. Enn's book (about reading Sumerian poetry and how that relates to Paul's new heaven and new earth description) compelling and quite interesting, and he doesn't include it in his "review" of her book review on his blog. The simple fact that Ham and his ilk are ignoring HUGE chunks of human culture and history in order to fit their very small view of God's creation doesn't do God's creation justice. argh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen500 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I think he should change his conclusion from Bottom line—this book strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith! to Bottom line—this book strikes at the very heart of Ken Hamm's interpretation of Christian faith! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Researcher Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 :glare: It's times like these that make me very proud to be an atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvasMom Posted April 2, 2011 Author Share Posted April 2, 2011 Do you think he realizes that SWB and Enns have REAL PhDs? Er, duhhh. Yeah, I'd say he's in over his head. I'll take your BA and raise you a couple of PhDs Mr. Ham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 At least now I know what the whacko looks like. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This guy is really going to make my head explode one of these days. What a nasty, vicious man. Does he ever stop? Ever? http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/04/02/susan-wise-bauer-%e2%80%9cwhy-paul-would-have-flunked-hermeneutics%e2%80%9d/ Wow! :001_huh::confused::001_huh: I guess one could say the bright side is that the more he spews, the more he reveals his true nature. But still... wow! :001_huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvasMom Posted April 2, 2011 Author Share Posted April 2, 2011 :glare: It's times like these that make me very proud to be an atheist. Ouch. FWIW, atheists are ugly to each other too sometimes. Although, I must say as much as I appreciate healthy debate and think it has incredible value (iron sharpens iron and whatnot) among Christians, the nastiness and lemming type attitude I've seen lately is embarrassing. People on FB who have used SOTW and WTM all this time are like "Oh Mr. Ham now I'm starting to question whether we should use WTM and SOTW!! What should we do??? Think for me pleeeeeeease!!" Makes me want to run red hot pokers in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 It's all over his facebook too. I am truly saddened by this attack. UGH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvasMom Posted April 2, 2011 Author Share Posted April 2, 2011 I really want to post a comment saying that if he has a criticism of PHP's ministry that he should email them privately instead of attempting to post for all the world to see. You know that comment would last all of about 10 seconds though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Is this a sudden thing for these attacks? Why is he doing it now? What happened that this is the issue right now? Is it driving people to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvasMom Posted April 2, 2011 Author Share Posted April 2, 2011 Is this a sudden thing for these attacks? Why is he doing it now? What happened that this is the issue right now? Is it driving people to him? I think the trigger was that he had to be at a conference with Enns. That lit the match. I think when he got canceled is when the dynamite exploded. Now he is just out for revenge on anyone he sees as party to his public humiliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This guy is really going to make my head explode one of these days. What a nasty, vicious man. Does he ever stop? Ever? http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/04/02/susan-wise-bauer-%e2%80%9cwhy-paul-would-have-flunked-hermeneutics%e2%80%9d/ :blink: This guy has some nerve. :thumbdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Here is his big problem. He blundered. He did something he should not have done. He slandered speakers at a conference instead of debating ideologies and then he went on to break his contract by telling people not to buy X from X. He can defend his own products; he is welcome to debate ideas. He was never welcome, as stated in the speaking contract, to attack the faith of others or to slander other presenters. He was expected to be professional, gracious, and to let his ideas stand on their own merit. What he should have done was acknowledge that what he did was wrong and ask Dr. Enns and Susan for forgiveness. He should be a grown up and step up to the plate. Then, if he wants to debate the inherrancy of the scriptures, or the principles of hermeneutics, then by all means do so. One does not have to do that in the inappropriate manner that he did. Instead, what he is doing is handing out more invective. Unfortunately, this is all happening at about the same time that AIG is beginning to advertise a Bible curriculum that they will put out for young children, K/1st. It now leaves his arguments subject to the criticism of having a monetary gain motivation. So even if there is no ulterior motive, it is too late to remove that suspicion from the equation. All in all, a serious tactical error on his part. While many in the Christian world will agree with his stance, many more are alienated and disallusioned with their brother in Christ for continuing on in this manner. It does more harm than good and from what I can tell, it is causing former AIG supporters (at least in our neck of the woods) to distance themselves from him. It's all very, very sad. The whole thing is distasteful. Though Dr. Enns and SWB disagree with aspects of Mr. Ham's ideology, they have not chosen to make personal attacks, nor attempt to influence other homeschoolers to not buy his products. They have not chosen to alienate other Christians through invective. I wish Mr. Ham had chosen the higher ground. The "fleeing the appearance of evil". The upright path. As of last week, I would not have said that I would absolutely refrain from purchasing something from AIG. But, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. I have no patience for this any longer. He's let this go on for too long. Susan, keep fighting the good fight in the way that you do. You have Christian love, perseverance, forebearance, grace, and mercy. In short, you remind me very much of the Fruits of the Spirit! I am grateful for you! Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plansrme Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Ouch. FWIW, atheists are ugly to each other too sometimes. Although, I must say as much as I appreciate healthy debate and think it has incredible value (iron sharpens iron and whatnot) among Christians, the nastiness and lemming type attitude I've seen lately is embarrassing. People on FB who have used SOTW and WTM all this time are like "Oh Mr. Ham now I'm starting to question whether we should use WTM and SOTW!! What should we do??? Think for me pleeeeeeease!!" Makes me want to run red hot pokers in my eyes. Could not agree more on the lemmings and pokers. In that vein, Thursday night at Cincy, I saw a big sign on an attendee's backpack: "When Kem Ham is back, I'll be back." Wanted to go up to the lemming and say, "Dude, do you not know where you are?" Moreover, I refused to buy a Bible curriculum because of its 6-day stance. Someone please tell Enns to get busy on the higher grades! Terri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 It's funny to me because I do agree with inerrancy of the Scriptures but I also agree that as far as modern hermeneutics goes, the writers of Scripture took great liberties! In fact, that was one of our first classes in Hermeneutics class at a very conservative evangelical seminary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvasMom Posted April 2, 2011 Author Share Posted April 2, 2011 Very very well said Faith! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in VA Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I fail to see what he's attacking. I completely agree with Susan Wise Bauer's writing in the review, at least the pieces Ham quotes. What's the problem? She's saying that we shouldn't see Scripture as just a divine message that doesn't use the cultural context of the time. I agree with that. She's saying the Bible has some contradictions and is messy, and can be harsh. Ok, so what? Ken Ham is going to disagree with that? Well, yeah, the Bible hangs together really well, but there are difficult passages. There are harsh parts, there are things we don't understand--SO WHAT? To not acknowledge that is just dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Researcher Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Here is his big problem. He blundered. He did something he should not have done. He slandered speakers at a conference instead of debating ideologies and then he went on to break his contract by telling people not to buy X from X. He can defend his own products; he is welcome to debate ideas. He was never welcome, as stated in the speaking contract, to attack the faith of others or to slander other presenters. He was expected to be professional, gracious, and to let his ideas stand on their own merit. What he should have done was acknowledge that what he did was wrong and ask Dr. Enns and Susan for forgiveness. He should be a grown up and step up to the plate. Then, if he wants to debate the inherrancy of the scriptures, or the principles of hermeneutics, then by all means do so. One does not have to do that in the inappropriate manner that he did. Instead, what he is doing is handing out more invective. Unfortunately, this is all happening at about the same time that AIG is beginning to advertise a Bible curriculum that they will put out for young children, K/1st. It now leaves his arguments subject to the criticism of having a monetary gain motivation. So even if there is no ulterior motive, it is too late to remove that suspicion from the equation. All in all, a serious tactical error on his part. While many in the Christian world will agree with his stance, many more are alienated and disallusioned with their brother in Christ for continuing on in this manner. It does more harm than good and from what I can tell, it is causing former AIG supporters (at least in our neck of the woods) to distance themselves from him. It's all very, very sad. The whole thing is distasteful. Though Dr. Enns and SWB disagree with aspects of Mr. Ham's ideology, they have not chosen to make personal attacks, nor attempt to influence other homeschoolers to not buy his products. They have not chosen to alienate other Christians through invective. I wish Mr. Ham had chosen the higher ground. The "fleeing the appearance of evil". The upright path. As of last week, I would not have said that I would absolutely refrain from purchasing something from AIG. But, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. I have no patience for this any longer. He's let this go on for too long. Susan, keep fighting the good fight in the way that you do. You have Christian love, perseverance, forebearance, grace, and mercy. In short, you remind me very much of the Fruits of the Spirit! I am grateful for you! Faith Very well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvasMom Posted April 2, 2011 Author Share Posted April 2, 2011 Could not agree more on the lemmings and pokers. In that vein, Thursday night at Cincy, I saw a big sign on an attendee's backpack: "When Kem Ham is back, I'll be back." Wanted to go up to the lemming and say, "Dude, do you not know where you are?" Moreover, I refused to buy a Bible curriculum because of its 6-day stance. Someone please tell Enns to get busy on the higher grades! Terri Forget Enns doing higher grades, I've decided to wing it and make my own bible curriculum for my kids. Our beliefs differ in a major major area of Christianity and I'm tired of sifting all the time. My new pastor's wife just finished her PhD and is a professor of theology so I'm going to buy her coffee one day soon and hold her hostage for a brain picking session and then go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 It's funny to me because I do agree with inerrancy of the Scriptures but I also agree that as far as modern hermeneutics goes, the writers of Scripture took great liberties! In fact, that was one of our first classes in Hermeneutics class at a very conservative evangelical seminary. Jean, you are so right. Most conservative seminaries I know teach this as well. The interesting thing here is that, at this point, Mr. Ham has bitten off more than he can chew. His background is secondary education science, not Divinity. He would do well to take a few classes in formal logic and rhetoric. Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 What a jacka**! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 *sigh* Yes, this really is distasteful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) . Edited April 3, 2011 by Penelope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This guy is really going to make my head explode one of these days. What a nasty, vicious man. Does he ever stop? Ever? http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/04/02/susan-wise-bauer-%e2%80%9cwhy-paul-would-have-flunked-hermeneutics%e2%80%9d/ Why stop if it is bringing him fame and fortune. Go to google images. He has his face plastered all over. (I can just hear my mother's sotto voce comment: "Seems he has the right last name." :D) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Here is his big problem. He blundered. He did something he should not have done. He slandered speakers at a conference instead of debating ideologies and then he went on to break his contract by telling people not to buy X from X. He can defend his own products; he is welcome to debate ideas. He was never welcome, as stated in the speaking contract, to attack the faith of others or to slander other presenters. He was expected to be professional, gracious, and to let his ideas stand on their own merit. What he should have done was acknowledge that what he did was wrong and ask Dr. Enns and Susan for forgiveness. He should be a grown up and step up to the plate. Then, if he wants to debate the inherrancy of the scriptures, or the principles of hermeneutics, then by all means do so. One does not have to do that in the inappropriate manner that he did. Instead, what he is doing is handing out more invective. Unfortunately, this is all happening at about the same time that AIG is beginning to advertise a Bible curriculum that they will put out for young children, K/1st. It now leaves his arguments subject to the criticism of having a monetary gain motivation. So even if there is no ulterior motive, it is too late to remove that suspicion from the equation. All in all, a serious tactical error on his part. While many in the Christian world will agree with his stance, many more are alienated and disallusioned with their brother in Christ for continuing on in this manner. It does more harm than good and from what I can tell, it is causing former AIG supporters (at least in our neck of the woods) to distance themselves from him. It's all very, very sad. The whole thing is distasteful. Though Dr. Enns and SWB disagree with aspects of Mr. Ham's ideology, they have not chosen to make personal attacks, nor attempt to influence other homeschoolers to not buy his products. They have not chosen to alienate other Christians through invective. I wish Mr. Ham had chosen the higher ground. The "fleeing the appearance of evil". The upright path. As of last week, I would not have said that I would absolutely refrain from purchasing something from AIG. But, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. I have no patience for this any longer. He's let this go on for too long. Susan, keep fighting the good fight in the way that you do. You have Christian love, perseverance, forebearance, grace, and mercy. In short, you remind me very much of the Fruits of the Spirit! I am grateful for you! Faith Dear Faith, This is exactly, exactly, how my husband and I feel. I am truly so disheartened in the behavior seen. And also the out of context quotes, etc. By the way- was Dr. Enns truly "fired" from Westminster Theological Seminary due to his book? Rebecca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindyD Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I know I'll be flamed for this, but I'll go ahead. I've seen just as much hatred, anger, and lack of tolerance from the SWB side (not her personally, but on this forum). Just like some people have said they don't want to use WTM or SOTW, there have been plenty of other people that say they'll never use AIG because of this public fiasco. I guess I'm just saying that everything the "other side" is being accused of is something I've seen in some form on "this side" of the fence. At least as far as people commenting and blogging, not the actual people involved. Personally, I didn't see anything ANGRY in Hamm's blog post. I like a lot of Hamm's things. I like and use a lot of SWB's curriculum. I've heard bad things about both people, and honestly, it's just not that big of a deal to me. If everyone would stop complaining about what the other one said or did, the subject would lose steam, and we could go back to agreeing to disagree. Hamm disagrees with Enns and SWB. So what? Really, is anyone surprised that two people disagree on creation? Obviously most people disagree about creation! As for trumping higher degrees over lower degrees, I don't think degrees are the end all, be all. Someone can be an expert on a particular subject without earning a degree (as classical educators have themselves claimed). I'm just kind of over judgemental homeschoolers. Sorry, flame away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithical Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Dear Faith,This is exactly, exactly, how my husband and I feel. I am truly so disheartened in the behavior seen. And also the out of context quotes, etc. By the way- was Dr. Enns truly "fired" from Westminster Theological Seminary due to his book? Rebecca this is what Peter Enns' wikipedia page says about that: "On March 26, 2008, the Board of Trustees at Westminster Theological Seminary voted 18–9 to suspend Enns from his position effective May 23, 2008.[15] Though the faculty voted 12–8 that the work falls within the parameters of the Westminster Confession of Faith,[15] the chairman of the Board said that a majority of the members on the Board at that time felt the book was incompatible with the Confession.[14] As of August 1, 2008, Enns and the seminary agreed to part ways.[16] Following the Board's vote, nine trustees resigned from the board." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAutumnOak Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Here is his big problem. He blundered. He did something he should not have done. He slandered speakers at a conference instead of debating ideologies and then he went on to break his contract by telling people not to buy X from X. He can defend his own products; he is welcome to debate ideas. He was never welcome, as stated in the speaking contract, to attack the faith of others or to slander other presenters. He was expected to be professional, gracious, and to let his ideas stand on their own merit. What he should have done was acknowledge that what he did was wrong and ask Dr. Enns and Susan for forgiveness. He should be a grown up and step up to the plate. Then, if he wants to debate the inherrancy of the scriptures, or the principles of hermeneutics, then by all means do so. One does not have to do that in the inappropriate manner that he did. Instead, what he is doing is handing out more invective. Unfortunately, this is all happening at about the same time that AIG is beginning to advertise a Bible curriculum that they will put out for young children, K/1st. It now leaves his arguments subject to the criticism of having a monetary gain motivation. So even if there is no ulterior motive, it is too late to remove that suspicion from the equation. All in all, a serious tactical error on his part. While many in the Christian world will agree with his stance, many more are alienated and disallusioned with their brother in Christ for continuing on in this manner. It does more harm than good and from what I can tell, it is causing former AIG supporters (at least in our neck of the woods) to distance themselves from him. It's all very, very sad. The whole thing is distasteful. Though Dr. Enns and SWB disagree with aspects of Mr. Ham's ideology, they have not chosen to make personal attacks, nor attempt to influence other homeschoolers to not buy his products. They have not chosen to alienate other Christians through invective. I wish Mr. Ham had chosen the higher ground. The "fleeing the appearance of evil". The upright path. As of last week, I would not have said that I would absolutely refrain from purchasing something from AIG. But, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. I have no patience for this any longer. He's let this go on for too long. Susan, keep fighting the good fight in the way that you do. You have Christian love, perseverance, forebearance, grace, and mercy. In short, you remind me very much of the Fruits of the Spirit! I am grateful for you! Faith This post was very well said...I just have a couple of questions...Did the highlighted occur at one of the conferences this year?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starr Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This post was very well said...I just have a couple of questions...Did the highlighted occur at one of the conferences this year?... Yes, recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) I know I'll be flamed for this, but I'll go ahead. I've seen just as much hatred, anger, and lack of tolerance from the SWB side (not her personally, but on this forum). Just like some people have said they don't want to use WTM or SOTW, there have been plenty of other people that say they'll never use AIG because of this public fiasco. I guess I'm just saying that everything the "other side" is being accused of is something I've seen in some form on "this side" of the fence. At least as far as people commenting and blogging, not the actual people involved. Personally, I didn't see anything ANGRY in Hamm's blog post. I like a lot of Hamm's things. I like and use a lot of SWB's curriculum. I've heard bad things about both people, and honestly, it's just not that big of a deal to me. If everyone would stop complaining about what the other one said or did, the subject would lose steam, and we could go back to agreeing to disagree. Hamm disagrees with Enns and SWB. So what? Really, is anyone surprised that two people disagree on creation? Obviously most people disagree about creation! As for trumping higher degrees over lower degrees, I don't think degrees are the end all, be all. Someone can be an expert on a particular subject without earning a degree (as classical educators have themselves claimed). I'm just kind of over judgemental homeschoolers. Sorry, flame away. I am actually agreeing with you, other than the fact that it is a big deal. No, we shouldn't be judging Mr Ham, but publicly attacking, or writing blogs about people and then going make sure you read my blog about SWB to me is wrong. I'm more concerned that this is actually giving non-Christians a message that judging others is ok, when it is not. Everyone will be judged by God and we should really be concerned what we are doing, saying and thinking. I'm over judgemental people. It actually just makes my heart hurt when this sort of stuff happens. Edited April 2, 2011 by Molly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Yes, recently. It was at Memphis, wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Yes, it did. The Great Homeschool Conference organizers have it on tape as the sessions were being recorded. So, they do not just have the impressions or personal takes of those that attended the seminar, but his actual words. That is why he was disinvited from Cinncinnati. The people who sit on the board of the Great Homeschool Conference organizers are mostly conservative Christians. He was not disinvited because of what he believes, or for defending his beliefs. He was asked not to come based on how he defended what he believes and for personal attacks against other speakers. They do have him on tape calling Dr. Enns "an attacker of the Word - of Christ" and then extending that to SWB. That was not the only comment. So, this is not a grudge being renewed from slights of years past. This is a fresh wound. Dr. Jay Wile ended up on the receiving end of some unpleasantries as well. Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMW Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Well... recently we had an episode in extended family where one person confronted and verbally attacked another, without others hearing... then went online, lied multiple times and caused quite a fiasco. These two people represent VERY different walks of life. Most of the family would tend to side on the attackers "walk of life" side... BUT she had to go on and on (fb) flaming, insulting, speaking rude... and those of us who would normally side with her position were appalled by her incredible lack of manners and self control and judgements. What does this have to do with it? Well... if he continues displaying his true colors, people who are actively and critically thinking are going to call it like it is... no matter WHO they would normally side with. Whatever side I would say that I agree more with would matter less to me when a person slips so low that they disregard manners, tact and respect for another. I have a lot of respect for people that I disagree with so long as they are not hurting anyone and they have basic decency. He has lost that, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KellyKelley Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I really want to post a comment saying that if he has a criticism of PHP's ministry that he should email them privately instead of attempting to post for all the world to see. You know that comment would last all of about 10 seconds though. You could like the site, comment, and leave so they can't ban you and then lather rinse repeat until it drives them insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedarmom Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I know I'll be flamed for this, but I'll go ahead. I've seen just as much hatred, anger, and lack of tolerance from the SWB side (not her personally, but on this forum). Just like some people have said they don't want to use WTM or SOTW, there have been plenty of other people that say they'll never use AIG because of this public fiasco. I guess I'm just saying that everything the "other side" is being accused of is something I've seen in some form on "this side" of the fence. At least as far as people commenting and blogging, not the actual people involved. Personally, I didn't see anything ANGRY in Hamm's blog post. I like a lot of Hamm's things. I like and use a lot of SWB's curriculum. I've heard bad things about both people, and honestly, it's just not that big of a deal to me. If everyone would stop complaining about what the other one said or did, the subject would lose steam, and we could go back to agreeing to disagree. Hamm disagrees with Enns and SWB. So what? Really, is anyone surprised that two people disagree on creation? Obviously most people disagree about creation! As for trumping higher degrees over lower degrees, I don't think degrees are the end all, be all. Someone can be an expert on a particular subject without earning a degree (as classical educators have themselves claimed). I'm just kind of over judgemental homeschoolers. Sorry, flame away. Not flaming, but as a long time AIG follower here are some of my problems with what he is saying !1The recent blog about SWB is on a book review whe did. It just seems to be added fire to a fuel. What is his purpose behind bringiing up a book review. He wants to tie Dr. Bauer in with the author, implying that everything he says she believes. 2) I am a young earth creationist. I think it is good to debate the issue. Where it crosses the line is when the person debating pulls out the " if you don't agree with me you're not a Christian" line Disagreeing is fine, judging one's Christianity is not. If he were to write his own book review, showing where he differs on the author's views that would be great! But attacking the author (or anyone who thinks he may have valid points) is where he is crossing into a judgemental attittude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAutumnOak Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Yes, it did. The Great Homeschool Conference organizers have it on tape as the sessions were being recorded. So, they do not just have the impressions or personal takes of those that attended the seminar, but his actual words. That is why he was disinvited from Cinncinnati. The people who sit on the board of the Great Homeschool Conference organizers are mostly conservative Christians. He was not disinvited because of what he believes, or for defending his beliefs. He was asked not to come based on how he defended what he believes and for personal attacks against other speakers. They do have him on tape calling Dr. Enns "an attacker of the Word - of Christ" and then extending that to SWB. That was not the only comment. So, this is not a grudge being renewed from slights of years past. This is a fresh wound. Dr. Jay Wile ended up on the receiving end of some unpleasantries as well. Faith Wow...I now understand why people feel this may be affecting our conference in PA...I really hope it is just relocated (to somewhere I can actually get to), and not cancelled... Thanks for explaining this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 He makes my head explode. There's just so much bull pucky you don't even bother because it's such a waste of air. Wow! :001_huh::confused::001_huh: I guess one could say the bright side is that the more he spews, the more he reveals his true nature. But still... wow! :001_huh: Yes, and you know who he now is ranking right up there with? Those Westboro Baptist Church people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in MD Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Originally Posted by MindyD I know I'll be flamed for this, but I'll go ahead. I've seen just as much hatred, anger, and lack of tolerance from the SWB side (not her personally, but on this forum). Just like some people have said they don't want to use WTM or SOTW, there have been plenty of other people that say they'll never use AIG because of this public fiasco. I guess I'm just saying that everything the "other side" is being accused of is something I've seen in some form on "this side" of the fence. At least as far as people commenting and blogging, not the actual people involved. Personally, I didn't see anything ANGRY in Hamm's blog post. I like a lot of Hamm's things. I like and use a lot of SWB's curriculum. I've heard bad things about both people, and honestly, it's just not that big of a deal to me. If everyone would stop complaining about what the other one said or did, the subject would lose steam, and we could go back to agreeing to disagree. Hamm disagrees with Enns and SWB. So what? Really, is anyone surprised that two people disagree on creation? Obviously most people disagree about creation! As for trumping higher degrees over lower degrees, I don't think degrees are the end all, be all. Someone can be an expert on a particular subject without earning a degree (as classical educators have themselves claimed). I'm just kind of over judgemental homeschoolers. Sorry, flame away. :iagree: You could like the site, comment, and leave so they can't ban you and then lather rinse repeat until it drives them insane. Do you think doing this would help put an end to the controversy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 The whole thing comes across as a bully in play yard, telling other people you shouldn't play with THESE people. Then when they stand up to you and turn away, he yells after them some silly insult to save face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EJCMom Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This is all about money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KellyKelley Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Do you think doing this would help put an end to the controversy? Not really but this quote is part of it The whole thing comes across as a bully in play yard, telling other people you shouldn't play with THESE people. Then when they stand up to you and turn away, he yells after them some silly insult to save face. He is being a bully by not allowing the other side to be seen or heard and most people will notice that the post keep getting deleted and it makes him look like a fool because he can't defend his argument or that he can't answer the questions in a post so he just deletes it. THe leaving the group part is because if you aren't a member when they remove the post they can't block you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Marple Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This is all about money. My thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen500 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This is all about money. Money and power and ..... This is starting to sound like a history book. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) That seems wrong. Edited April 2, 2011 by LibraryLover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I wonder if people would really continue to devote time and exert energy (mental AND obviously emotional) if it were not SWB and we were not on this particular forum. Some people are like mama bears on this issue. Like he said something offensive about somebody's mama. (Oh no, he didn't!!) SWB can hold her own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAutumnOak Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Not flaming, but as a long time AIG follower here are some of my problems with what he is saying !1The recent blog about SWB is on a book review whe did. It just seems to be added fire to a fuel. What is his purpose behind bringiing up a book review. He wants to tie Dr. Bauer in with the author, implying that everything he says she believes. 2) I am a young earth creationist. I think it is good to debate the issue. Where it crosses the line is when the person debating pulls out the " if you don't agree with me you're not a Christian" line Disagreeing is fine, judging one's Christianity is not. If he were to write his own book review, showing where he differs on the author's views that would be great! But attacking the author (or anyone who thinks he may have valid points) is where he is crossing into a judgemental attittude. The impression I got was that one should not trust SWB's view of the scriptures...That she agrees with Enns views, which he feels is contradictory to what the Bible says...That would lead one to conclude that one couldn't trust SWB's curriculum writings either... Remember, I am not saying this is how I feel...But this is the impression I think he wanted to give by writing about this book review... I will continue to use Well Trained Mind and can't wait to hear SWB speak :001_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 As a fundamentalist myself, I am amazed by this. So, Ken Ham wants us to know that some people who label themselves as Christians (whether we agree with their use of label or not) don't have the same literal translation of Scripture that we do.......So.....what next? He's going to tell us that the sky is blue? That water is wet? Is he going to tell us there are denominations based on differing views of Scriptural interpretation? We are all very well aware of this. For thousands of years now people calling themselves Christians have had various views, opinions, and convictions about very doctrinal, theological, and religious topic out there. THIS IS NOT NEWS! I am so annoyed by the paternalist and condescending attitude he and his followers have toward the rest of us. We don't need help. We are perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves if the book is in keeping with our views or not. We are perfectly capable of discerning which of SWB (or anyone else's) recommendations are appropriate for our homeschool based on their content, philosophical/religious views, price, etc. I don't need my hand held in a curriculum hall, at amazon.com, or the bookstore. I'm an adult and if anyone starts treating me differently, my opinion of them will be diminished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starr Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 As a fundamentalist myself, I am amazed by this. So, Ken Ham wants us to know that some people who label themselves as Christians (whether we agree with their use of label or not) don't have the same literal translation of Scripture that we do.......So.....what next? He's going to tell us that the sky is blue? That water is wet? Is he going to tell us there are denominations based on differing views of Scriptural interpretation? We are all very well aware of this. For thousands of years now people calling themselves Christians have had various views, opinions, and convictions about very doctrinal, theological, and religious topic out there. THIS IS NOT NEWS! I am so annoyed by the paternalist and condescending attitude he and his followers have toward the rest of us. We don't need help. We are perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves if the book is in keeping with our views or not. We are perfectly capable of discerning which of SWB (or anyone else's) recommendations are appropriate for our homeschool based on their content, philosophical/religious views, price, etc. I don't need my hand held in a curriculum hall, at amazon.com, or the bookstore. I'm an adult and if anyone starts treating me differently, my opinion of them will be diminished. Try and post that on his face book. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 :D I'm banned! Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts