Ham strikes again...this time he goes after SWB in earnest

[asta]

The blog post

 

And oh look - he hawks his book "to really wake up the Christian public regarding the compromised teaching rampant in Christian universities" (available May 1st!) at the bottom of the post.

 

No, of course none of this is about money.

 

Or opportunism.

 

Or marketing off of someone else's name.

 

Of course not.

 

 

asta

[Jen500]

Why aren't other Christian religious leaders speaking out against Ham's behavior (not his beliefs)? Or are they. Or his Ham not really big potatoes as far as the Christian world goes. I had never heard of him before coming to this board.

[EJCMom]

You know how you're supposed to read the fortune in your fortune cookie and end it with, "in bed"? I think I'm going to start ending HWMNBN's blog and Facebook posts with, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

[pdalley]

Why aren't other Christian religious leaders speaking out against Ham's behavior (not his beliefs)? Or are they. Or his Ham not really big potatoes as far as the Christian world goes. I had never heard of him before coming to this board.

 

 

I know Dr Jay Wile called him out. http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4602

[elegantlion]

And oh look - he hawks his book "to really wake up the Christian public regarding the compromised teaching rampant in Christian universities" (available May 1st!) at the bottom of the post.

 

No, of course none of this is about money.

 

Or opportunism.

 

Or marketing off of someone else's name.

 

Of course not.

 

 

asta

 

I read that and wondered where the link to the informercial was. :confused:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Why aren't other Christian religious leaders speaking out against Ham's behavior (not his beliefs)? Or are they. Or his Ham not really big potatoes as far as the Christian world goes. I had never heard of him before coming to this board.

 

I think that while many Christians are young earth, many more are in the camp of believing that God is the creator without there being an essential belief in a literal six days.

 

And I think that Ham is pretty small potatoes. Which is why the kerfluffle is such a great thing for him and his organization. He is able to spin it as an assault on Christianity, which I don't think is what it is or was.

[*anj*]

Why aren't other Christian religious leaders speaking out against Ham's behavior (not his beliefs)? Or are they. Or his Ham not really big potatoes as far as the Christian world goes. I had never heard of him before coming to this board.

 

I don't think that he's big potatoes. Some people who listen to Christian radio may be familiar with him because he does/used to do little 60-second "think about this" things. But I doubt that most outsiders have any idea about any of this. I think that it's only a big deal in certain homeschooling circles.

[Michele B]

Well, he had this to say about the Catholics in January:

 

"Bottom line: if the Pope believes in the Big Bang and the Pope believes Genesis is an allegory, he is teaching something that contradicts and undermines the Word of God."

 

Of course, the Pope's thoughts on exegesis of Genesis are far more nuanced than "it's an allegory"--perhaps breathless newspaper articles aren't the best place to discover the theology of other Christians--but I doubt that matters much to Ham.

 

Does Ken Ham take the Bible literally when Jesus says in John 6:55-56 "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." The Pope takes that literally. :001_smile: That would be my question to Ken Ham, but I would have to "like" his FB page to ask it. Well, maybe....

[Sevilla]

I've been scrolling through Ham's blog. It looks like he's been working on this for awhile and it's not just focused on Enns but on all prominent teachers/scholars/institutions who don't agree with his (narrow) view of Genesis - including in his opinion 'compromised' places like Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College (neither of which are bastions of liberalism in any degree - as far as I'm aware, students at Moody still can't drink alchohol or attend movie theaters).

 

See his post against John Walton's "Lost World of Genesis 1" book that discusses how he's going to talk about these issues more in the next few months (coinciding with the publication of his newest book on the issue of churches/Christian universities who don't follow his view): Wheaton College and False Teaching in Tennesse - Februrary 2011. One facet of Ham's teachings that comes out in his blog posts is a strong anti-intellectual/anti-academic approach to the Bible - he refers to scholars like Walton as proposing 'elitism' in interpreting the Bible.

 

I attended a seminar by AIG six years ago that included a pointed attack on Hugh Ross (including quoting him out of context) to make it seem he didn't accept the infallibility of Scripture when he is a conservative evangelical Christian. One of my colleagues raised their hand and confronted the speaker about this, and the AIG speaker quickly backpedaled and said they didn't want to dicuss specific names (nevermind the AiG slide of the quote from Hugh Ross with his name featured prominently on the screen...). This isn't anything new, and it's going to increase IMO (based on what he says in his blog). But it also helps to see it's not focused exclusevly on SWB but rather that she is part of a larger picture of AiG's movement as an organization in 'defending the faith.'

Edited April 5, 2011 by Sevilla

[Michele B]

I think that while many Christians are young earth, many more are in the camp of believing that God is the creator without there being an essential belief in a literal six days.

 

And I think that Ham is pretty small potatoes. Which is why the kerfluffle is such a great thing for him and his organization. He is able to spin it as an assault on Christianity, which I don't think is what it is or was.

 

:iagree:alas and alack.

[H.S. Burrow]

Well, he had this to say about the Catholics in January:

 

"Bottom line: if the Pope believes in the Big Bang and the Pope believes Genesis is an allegory, he is teaching something that contradicts and undermines the Word of God."

 

Of course, the Pope's thoughts on exegesis of Genesis are far more nuanced than "it's an allegory"--perhaps breathless newspaper articles aren't the best place to discover the theology of other Christians--but I doubt that matters much to Ham.

 

 

Hmmm.....the Pope has a Doctorate in Theology and, let's see......Ken Ham has a Bachelor's in Applied Science....

 

I think I'll go with the Pope on biblical matters.

[TheAutumnOak]

I don't think that he's big potatoes. Some people who listen to Christian radio may be familiar with him because he does/used to do little 60-second "think about this" things. But I doubt that most outsiders have any idea about any of this. I think that it's only a big deal in certain homeschooling circles.

 

This is probably true...I heard of Ken Ham before this all started, but only recently...I really first learned who he was when we were sent a notice that he was added to the list of speakers at the PA Convention...When I mentioned him doing a class to another mom, she was very familiar with who he was...I had heard of the Creation Museum though...

[AvasMom]

Does Ken Ham take the Bible literally when Jesus says in John 6:55-56 "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." The Pope takes that literally. :001_smile: That would be my question to Ken Ham, but I would have to "like" his FB page to ask it. Well, maybe....

 

Like him, comment, and then immediately unlike.

[Aubrey]

Does Ken Ham take the Bible literally when Jesus says in John 6:55-56 "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." The Pope takes that literally. :001_smile: That would be my question to Ken Ham, but I would have to "like" his FB page to ask it. Well, maybe....

 

I pointed this out to one of his followers on the GHC FB page. She insisted the whole Bible be read literally & then said that verses like "women should wear headcoverings" were just "expressions of worship" that some might choose or not. :001_huh:

 

It was quite a shock to me to realize (just a few yrs ago) that none of us takes the (whole) Bible literally. I'd been raised to believe that MY denomination DID. :lol:

[asta]

Well, he had this to say about the Catholics in January:

 

"Bottom line: if the Pope believes in the Big Bang and the Pope believes Genesis is an allegory, he is teaching something that contradicts and undermines the Word of God."

 

He really should use the Vatican's search engine.

 

Since I've never seen it written here at this site, what the heck - here is the Catholic Church's version of events. It is quite elegant, IMO:

 

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

TO MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR PLENARY ASSEMBLY

 

Clementine Hall

Friday, 31 October 2008

 

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

I am happy to greet you, the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your Plenary Assembly, and I thank Professor Nicola Cabibbo for the words he has kindly addressed to me on your behalf.

 

In choosing the topic Scientific Insight into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life, you seek to focus on an area of enquiry which elicits much interest. In fact, many of our contemporaries today wish to reflect upon the ultimate origin of beings, their cause and their end, and the meaning of human history and the universe.

 

In this context, questions concerning the relationship between science’s reading of the world and the reading offered by Christian Revelation naturally arise. My predecessors Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II noted that there is no opposition between faith’s understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences. Philosophy in its early stages had proposed images to explain the origin of the cosmos on the basis of one or more elements of the material world. This genesis was not seen as a creation, but rather a mutation or transformation; it involved a somewhat horizontal interpretation of the origin of the world. A decisive advance in understanding the origin of the cosmos was the consideration of being qua being and the concern of metaphysics with the most basic question of the first or transcendent origin of participated being. In order to develop and evolve, the world must first be, and thus have come from nothing into being. It must be created, in other words, by the first Being who is such by essence.

 

To state that the foundation of the cosmos and its developments is the provident wisdom of the Creator is not to say that creation has only to do with the beginning of the history of the world and of life. It implies, rather, that the Creator founds these developments and supports them, underpins them and sustains them continuously. Thomas Aquinas taught that the notion of creation must transcend the horizontal origin of the unfolding of events, which is history, and consequently all our purely naturalistic ways of thinking and speaking about the evolution of the world. Thomas observed that creation is neither a movement nor a mutation. It is instead the foundational and continuing relationship that links the creature to the Creator, for he is the cause of every being and all becoming (cf. Summa Theologiae, I, q.45, a. 3).

 

To “evolve†literally means “to unroll a scrollâ€, that is, to read a book. The imagery of nature as a book has its roots in Christianity and has been held dear by many scientists. Galileo saw nature as a book whose author is God in the same way that Scripture has God as its author. It is a book whose history, whose evolution, whose “writing†and meaning, we “read†according to the different approaches of the sciences, while all the time presupposing the foundational presence of the author who has wished to reveal himself therein. This image also helps us to understand that the world, far from originating out of chaos, resembles an ordered book; it is a cosmos. Notwithstanding elements of the irrational, chaotic and the destructive in the long processes of change in the cosmos, matter as such is “legibleâ€. It has an inbuilt “mathematicsâ€. The human mind therefore can engage not only in a “cosmography†studying measurable phenomena but also in a “cosmology†discerning the visible inner logic of the cosmos. We may not at first be able to see the harmony both of the whole and of the relations of the individual parts, or their relationship to the whole. Yet, there always remains a broad range of intelligible events, and the process is rational in that it reveals an order of evident correspondences and undeniable finalities: in the inorganic world, between microstructure and macrostructure; in the organic and animal world, between structure and function; and in the spiritual world, between knowledge of the truth and the aspiration to freedom. Experimental and philosophical inquiry gradually discovers these orders; it perceives them working to maintain themselves in being, defending themselves against imbalances, and overcoming obstacles. And thanks to the natural sciences we have greatly increased our understanding of the uniqueness of humanity’s place in the cosmos.

 

The distinction between a simple living being and a spiritual being that is capax Dei, points to the existence of the intellective soul of a free transcendent subject. Thus the Magisterium of the Church has constantly affirmed that “every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not ‘produced’ by the parents – and also that it is immortal†(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 366). This points to the distinctiveness of anthropology, and invites exploration of it by modern thought.

 

Distinguished Academicians, I wish to conclude by recalling the words addressed to you by my predecessor Pope John Paul II in November 2003: “scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly gratefulâ€.

 

Upon you and your families, and all those associated with the work of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, I cordially invoke God’s blessings of wisdom and peace.

 

© Copyright 2008 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana

[Aubrey]

Like him, comment, and then immediately unlike.

 

Blitz Kreig. But I think it's a bad idea. I don't know how it works exactly, but "liking" something on FB makes it easier to find in Google. I've read that it "creates a permanent link." Surely that means "unless someone unlikes it," but...I don't know. I tend to think it's better to post questions to Ham on your own status bar or blog. Will he see it? Doubtfully. But is that the point?

 

I'm afraid that "like-post-unlike" looks like doing the same kind of thing he's doing. I'd rather stick to my world, where I might have a chance of making a difference. :001_smile:

[Violet Crown]

He really should use the Vatican's search engine.

 

Since I've never seen it written here at this site, what the heck - here is the Catholic Church's version of events. It is quite elegant, IMO:

You've clearly never been in charge of newspaper circulation. I mean, yawn. How about, "Pope Disses Bible, Embraces Ape-Men, Admits Dawkins Is Right"? I think that would meet the standards of either the New York Times or The Guardian.

[Michele B]

Blitz Kreig. But I think it's a bad idea. I don't know how it works exactly, but "liking" something on FB makes it easier to find in Google. I've read that it "creates a permanent link." Surely that means "unless someone unlikes it," but...I don't know. I tend to think it's better to post questions to Ham on your own status bar or blog. Will he see it? Doubtfully. But is that the point?

 

I'm afraid that "like-post-unlike" looks like doing the same kind of thing he's doing. I'd rather stick to my world, where I might have a chance of making a difference. :001_smile:

 

You are probably right. Although it is awfully tempting.... I guess I need to exercise some impulse control. *sigh* Those verses should be too precious to me to fling around in a cyper spat.

[Slartibartfast]

You've clearly never been in charge of newspaper circulation. I mean, yawn. How about, "Pope Disses Bible, Embraces Ape-Men, Admits Dawkins Is Right"? I think that would meet the standards of either the New York Times or The Guardian.

 

:lol:

[asta]

You've clearly never been in charge of newspaper circulation. I mean, yawn. How about, "Pope Disses Bible, Embraces Ape-Men, Admits Dawkins Is Right"? I think that would meet the standards of either the New York Times or The Guardian.

 

You're going to have to help old Aspie Asta here. I literally don't know what you're saying.

 

 

a

[Aubrey]

You're going to have to help old Aspie Asta here. I literally don't know what you're saying.

 

 

a

 

She's being sarcastic, Asta. Agreeing w/ you & making fun of the newspapers that so chop up the facts that they're distorted beyond recognition. :001_smile:

[TheAutumnOak]

I know Dr Jay Wile called him out. http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4602

 

Thanks for this link!...This is a good one to read...

[Violet Crown]

You're going to have to help old Aspie Asta here. I literally don't know what you're saying.

 

 

a

My apologies! Aubrey is correct. I was poking at the journalists who write articles about Church teaching (like the one Ken Ham was getting his information from) and who are more interested in the sensational headline than in the complex facts of the matter.

[12Stars]

Does Ken Ham take the Bible literally when Jesus says in John 6:55-56 "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." The Pope takes that literally. :001_smile: That would be my question to Ken Ham, but I would have to "like" his FB page to ask it. Well, maybe....

:iagree:

I have heard of Ham and he tends to object anyone that opposes YEC, and he calls into question their salvation. Which he is not God and cannot make that huge assumption. From my understanding Enns has a theistic evolution take on creation, which is more modern. As an outsider looking into these conflicting views between these two they both have to be discerned and looked at very carefully. I cannot support one over the other, because one is being a meanie.

I do not ascribe to either view. Mostly because I am not a fundamentalist, nor do I agree with Enns interpretation of scripture. So as this is all fascinating to me, I do see divisiveness in all of this.

 

 

Hmmm.....the Pope has a Doctorate in Theology and, let's see......Ken Ham has a Bachelor's in Applied Science....

I think I'll go with the Pope on biblical matters.

Yet again :iagree:

[asta]

She's being sarcastic, Asta. Agreeing w/ you & making fun of the newspapers that so chop up the facts that they're distorted beyond recognition. :001_smile:

 

Thank you, Aubrey. :001_smile:

[justamouse]

(I have to laugh when KH calls Annette perceptive. He's been beating this topic to death for almost three weeks now. Doesn't take a whole lot of perception to figure that one out.)

 

That makes me sick. What a cute little pat on the head. :glare:

 

The blog post

 

It is just *unfathomable* to me how people cannot see how he is cutting portions out and twisting them to suit his needs.

 

From Ken Ham's blog about old-earth creationists speaking at Moody Bible Institute:

 

"How we need Christian institutions to take a stand against the pagan religion of millions of years (yes, it is a part of the pagan religion of atheism to explain life without God) and stand uncompromisingly on the authority of the Word of God—from the very first verse."

 

And here I thought I was an old-earth Christian, and now I find out that I'm actually pagan. So my fellow pagans, do I need to get some black robes, some cool headgear, what??? Naturally, I want to be the best pagan possible, so is there Pagan 101 that I need to read? Paganism for Dummies? Please enlighten.

 

Your New Pagan Friend,

Terri

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

In one fell swoop of Ken Ham's pen the total Pagan membership swells by billions.

 

 

I attended a seminar by AIG six years ago that included pointed attacks on Hugh Ross (including quoting him out of context) to make it seem he didn't accept the infallibility of Scripture when he is a conservative evangelical Christian. One of my colleagues raised their hand and confronted the speaker about this, and the AIG speaker quickly backpedaled and said they didn't want to dicuss specific names (nevermind the AiG slide of the quote from Hugh Ross with his name featured prominently on the screen...). This isn't anything new, and it's going to increase IMO (based on what he says in his blog). But it also helps to see it's not focused exclusevly on SWB but rather that she is part of a larger picture of AiG's movement as an organization in 'defending the faith.'

 

Well at least he's staying true to his character.

 

He really should use the Vatican's search engine.

 

Since I've never seen it written here at this site, what the heck - here is the Catholic Church's version of events. It is quite elegant, IMO:

 

Thank you-that was amazing.

[TheAutumnOak]

From Ken Ham's blog about old-earth creationists speaking at Moody Bible Institute:

 

"How we need Christian institutions to take a stand against the pagan religion of millions of years (yes, it is a part of the pagan religion of atheism to explain life without God) and stand uncompromisingly on the authority of the Word of God—from the very first verse."

 

 

 

I don't agree that to say the earth was around for millions of years means that you are saying the earth was here without God...I don't know for sure if God created the world in 6 24hour days, or if those "days" were the equivalent of 6 million years...I do believe that God created the world, thus I believe that the world has never existed without God...Being unsure about the YE theory doesn't make you an atheist...

[Aubrey]

I don't agree that to say the earth was around for millions of years means that you are saying the earth was here without God...I don't know for sure if God created the world in 6 24hour days, or if those "days" were the equivalent of 6 million years...I do believe that God created the world, thus I believe that the world has never existed without God...Being unsure about the YE theory doesn't make you an atheist...

 

I find this so interesting. I mean, Genesis is *extremely* mysterious, even if you read it literally. What does it mean that the world was "without form and void"? How long was it like that? What does a formless void *look* like? Primordial ooze?

 

I don't know what I think about origins. I enjoy listening to others talk about it & just...Wondering. It's fun to imagine that everybody is right. Like the blind men describing the elephant.

 

In the end, though? I'm not sure that our beginning matters. In the sense that "the poetry does not matter." It's interesting. It's a good job for some people to investigate, posit questions, publish findings & theories.

 

The essential thing might be...that we *are*...and that we *weren't*...and that God effected that change.

[KristinaBreece]

I find this so interesting. I mean, Genesis is *extremely* mysterious, even if you read it literally. What does it mean that the world was "without form and void"? How long was it like that? What does a formless void *look* like? Primordial ooze?

 

I don't know what I think about origins. I enjoy listening to others talk about it & just...Wondering. It's fun to imagine that everybody is right. Like the blind men describing the elephant.

 

In the end, though? I'm not sure that our beginning matters. In the sense that "the poetry does not matter." It's interesting. It's a good job for some people to investigate, posit questions, publish findings & theories.

 

The essential thing might be...that we *are*...and that we *weren't*...and that God effected that change.

 

That seems to be the important aspect for me, as well.

[LizzyBee]

I don't think that he's big potatoes. Some people who listen to Christian radio may be familiar with him because he does/used to do little 60-second "think about this" things. But I doubt that most outsiders have any idea about any of this. I think that it's only a big deal in certain homeschooling circles.

 

Unfortunately, he's not small potatoes in my neck of the woods. I'm a little concerned about how this might affect some of the local support groups.

[Slartibartfast]

From Ken Ham's blog about old-earth creationists speaking at Moody Bible Institute:

 

"How we need Christian institutions to take a stand against the pagan religion of millions of years (yes, it is a part of the pagan religion of atheism to explain life without God) and stand uncompromisingly on the authority of the Word of God—from the very first verse."

 

And here I thought I was an old-earth Christian, and now I find out that I'm actually pagan. So my fellow pagans, do I need to get some black robes, some cool headgear, what??? Naturally, I want to be the best pagan possible, so is there Pagan 101 that I need to read? Paganism for Dummies? Please enlighten.

 

Your New Pagan Friend,

Terri

 

Is that an actual quote by him? How can the earth be new but the pagans be here millions of years??

Edited April 5, 2011 by Sis

[KnitWit]

Is that an actual quote by him? How can the earth be new but the pagans be here millions of years??

 

Huh. There is *that* small problem, isn't there? :snort:

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't agree that to say the earth was around for millions of years means that you are saying the earth was here without God...I don't know for sure if God created the world in 6 24hour days, or if those "days" were the equivalent of 6 million years...I do believe that God created the world, thus I believe that the world has never existed without God...Being unsure about the YE theory doesn't make you an atheist...

 

:iagree:

 

Is that an actual quote by him? How can the earth be new but the pagans be here millions of years??

 

I think he means "pagan religion of millions of years." He is using "millions of years" as a noun and "pagan religion" as an adjective modifying it. Instead of the "Catholic religion" you have the religion of "millions of years."

[Slartibartfast]

:iagree:

 

 

 

I think he means "pagan religion of millions of years." He is using "millions of years" as a noun and "pagan religion" as an adjective modifying it. Instead of the "Catholic religion" you have the religion of "millions of years."

 

He is calling "old earth" pagan!?!?!?!

[AvasMom]

Blitz Kreig. But I think it's a bad idea. I don't know how it works exactly, but "liking" something on FB makes it easier to find in Google. I've read that it "creates a permanent link." Surely that means "unless someone unlikes it," but...I don't know. I tend to think it's better to post questions to Ham on your own status bar or blog. Will he see it? Doubtfully. But is that the point?

 

I'm afraid that "like-post-unlike" looks like doing the same kind of thing he's doing. I'd rather stick to my world, where I might have a chance of making a difference. :001_smile:

 

FWIW, I only did it once and I wasn't mean (look at me justifying myself...shameful...lol!). Anyway, you make a good point. :)

[Carol in Cal.]

He is calling "old earth" pagan!?!?!?!

 

Much as I hate to try to explain Mr. Ham, on any level, I think that what he means here by 'pagan' is not specific to any particular faith, but more the older English usage where 'pagan' means 'not Christian'. So I think, again with that caveat, that what he is saying is the old earth beliefs are not Christian beliefs.

 

I should probably add that in most Christian writing, this would not automatically mean that he is saying that if you have old earth beliefs you are not Christian. It means more that if you really had pure Christian beliefs they would include young earth ones rather than old earth ones. I'm not sure from the context whether that is a nuance that Mr. Ham would put on his statements or not, but he probably would, I think.

[kchara]

He is calling "old earth" pagan!?!?!?!

 

Yep. :glare: Appalling, isn't it?

[Aubrey]

FWIW, I only did it once and I wasn't mean (look at me justifying myself...shameful...lol!). Anyway, you make a good point. :)

 

Don't take it as critical--I know lots of people have done it. :001_smile: Just saying there might be good reason to resist. the. urge. (Because boy, would I like to, too!) :D

[Mrs Mungo]

He is calling "old earth" pagan!?!?!?!

 

Yes, he says he doesn't question anyone's salvation, but this quote should make it quite obvious that he *is* questioning people's salvation and Christianity.

[Carol in Cal.]

Yes, he says he doesn't question anyone's salvation, but this quote should make it quite obvious that he *is* questioning people's salvation and Christianity.

 

I'm not so sure...I think he is saying that this belief is not a Christian one but has non-Christian roots, but that doesn't necessarily say that he is questioning people's salvation and Christianity.

 

(Disclaimer: I'm advocating for clarity here, not for a specific position.)

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not so sure...I think he is saying that this belief is not a Christian one but has non-Christian roots, but that doesn't necessarily say that he is questioning people's salvation and Christianity.

 

(Disclaimer: I'm advocating for clarity here, not for a specific position.)

 

Hm.

 

"How we need Christian institutions to take a stand against the pagan religion of millions of years (yes, it is a part of the pagan religion of atheism to explain life without God) and stand uncompromisingly on the authority of the Word of God—from the very first verse."

 

I dunno if I can give him that much credit. It seems to me that he's saying that believing that the earth is millions of years old is atheism in some form by definition. I can see where you're coming from, I just don't know that I see that in the quote.

[elegantlion]

Much as I hate to try to explain Mr. Ham, on any level, I think that what he means here by 'pagan' is not specific to any particular faith, but more the older English usage where 'pagan' means 'not Christian'. So I think, again with that caveat, that what he is saying is the old earth beliefs are not Christian beliefs.

 

I should probably add that in most Christian writing, this would not automatically mean that he is saying that if you have old earth beliefs you are not Christian. It means more that if you really had pure Christian beliefs they would include young earth ones rather than old earth ones. I'm not sure from the context whether that is a nuance that Mr. Ham would put on his statements or not, but he probably would, I think.

 

His statement is confusing. If he is trying to come across as a more educated biblical scholar, shouldn't he use the vocabulary correctly? Paganism is something completely different than non-christian, isn't that correct? Haven't we had discussion here before?

[Carol in Cal.]

His statement is confusing. If he is trying to come across as a more educated biblical scholar, shouldn't he use the vocabulary correctly? Paganism is something completely different than non-christian, isn't that correct? Haven't we had discussion here before?

 

Yes, it is confusing.

Yes, he should.

Yes, it is, although the term pagan was commonly used for non-Christian in English up until about 30 years ago. It's certainly imprecise.

Yes, we have.:lol:

No, I'm not defending him (you did not ask, but I answered anyway)

[Lovedtodeath]

I find this so interesting. I mean, Genesis is *extremely* mysterious, even if you read it literally. What does it mean that the world was "without form and void"? How long was it like that? What does a formless void *look* like? Primordial ooze?

:iagree:

 

 

Much as I hate to try to explain Mr. Ham, on any level, I think that what he means here by 'pagan' is not specific to any particular faith, but more the older English usage where 'pagan' means 'not Christian'. So I think, again with that caveat, that what he is saying is the old earth beliefs are not Christian beliefs.

Actually, there are pagan myths that sound a lot like evolution (specifically the primordial ooze). I read about them in Ruth Beechick books.

 

I'm not so sure...I think he is saying that this belief is not a Christian one but has non-Christian roots, but that doesn't necessarily say that he is questioning people's salvation and Christianity.

 

(Disclaimer: I'm advocating for clarity here, not for a specific position.)

:thumbup1:

[Carol in Cal.]

Hm.

 

"How we need Christian institutions to take a stand against the pagan religion of millions of years (yes, it is a part of the pagan religion of atheism to explain life without God) and stand uncompromisingly on the authority of the Word of God—from the very first verse."

 

I dunno if I can give him that much credit. It seems to me that he's saying that believing that the earth is millions of years old is atheism in some form by definition. I can see where you're coming from, I just don't know that I see that in the quote.

 

Reasonable minds can disagree on this. :001_smile:

 

Actually, reasonable minds can disagree on this without starting a kerfluffle! :lol:

[elegantlion]

Yes, it is confusing.

Yes, he should.

Yes, it is, although the term pagan was commonly used for non-Christian in English up until about 30 years ago. It's certainly imprecise.

Yes, we have.:lol:

No, I'm not defending him (you did not ask, but I answered anyway)

 

Thank you.

[Lovedtodeath]

Reasonable minds can disagree on this. :001_smile:

 

Actually, reasonable minds can disagree on this without starting a kerfluffle! :lol:

:iagree:and thank you. They can, in fact, disagree on this and still have a lot of respect for each other's intellect. They can even be friends. Or... spouses of all things!

[Carol in Cal.]

Or... spouses of all things!

 

GASP!!!!!

 

 

:lol:

[plansrme]

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/31/who-did-moody-bible-institutes-student-council-invite/

 

 

Yes, that is a direct quote, cut and pasted from the above. I added only the bold print. Should have included the link before, but finding myself a pagan was quite shocking; I can hardly be faulted for failing to post the link that declared me so. And yes, "millions of years" is his gramatically incorrect shorthand for any sort of old-earth belief.

 

Pagan Terri

[Slartibartfast]

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/03/31/who-did-moody-bible-institutes-student-council-invite/

 

 

Yes, that is a direct quote, cut and pasted from the above. I added only the bold print. Should have included the link before, but finding myself a pagan was quite shocking; I can hardly be faulted for failing to post the link that declared me so. And yes, "millions of years" is his gramatically incorrect shorthand for any sort of old-earth belief.

 

Pagan Terri

 

 

Now I just think he is a lunatic and do not respect his beliefs at all. I don't have to respect people calling me names.

 

Reasonable people cannot agree to disagree on whether or not some of us are pagans because we disagree on the age of the earth. That is NOT Biblical. If you make up what it means to be a Christian (and a far different definition than what Christ said) then one would actually have left the realm of "reasonable"

 

I am not a pagan, he is a nutjob.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Sis