Jump to content

Menu

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


Recommended Posts

 

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?
It depends on his intended audience. He seems more interested in fervor than fellowship, but I don't get the sense he's preaching to anyone other than the converted. If he is what I think he is, this is going to get far uglier.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 648
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

 

So, according to Ken Ham's definition, Spurgeon was a pagan because he believed the earth was millions of years old. Ken Ham must be a compromiser, because he has posted parts of Spurgeon's sermons on his website. (He removed the parts that referred to the earth being millions of years old.)

 

He just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. :banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on his intended audience. He seems more interested in fervor than fellowship, but I don't get the sense he's preaching to anyone other than the converted. If he is what I think he is, this is going to get far uglier.

 

Can you elaborate on that? What do you think he is? (Cue ominous music)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want a pm too. :lol:

 

 

I mean...he is manipulating people, lying, spreading discord, putting words in God's mouth by trying to redefine Christianity outside the perimeters of what Christ said.

 

Putting words in God's mouth is a sin. Other people might agree with him (about OE people being pagans I mean) but that is not Biblical.

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on his intended audience. He seems more interested in fervor than fellowship, but I don't get the sense he's preaching to anyone other than the converted. If he is what I think he is, this is going to get far uglier.

 

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. And I think I know what you're thinking cause I was thinking the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more interested in fervor than fellowship

 

if I make a prediction in writing, is that a very bad thing? Not something I want to do on the board for legal reasons?

 

You're fine. It's not actionable to state your opinions about someone. Particularly about a public figure. Statements about the future are particularly difficult to prove the falsity of. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're fine. It's not actionable to state your opinions about someone. Particularly about a public figure. Statements about the future are particularly difficult to prove the falsity of. :D

 

I'll have to think about it. :D Not that I don't believe you, but if I want that firestorm aimed at me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to think about it. :D Not that I don't believe you, but if I want that firestorm aimed at me.

 

Well, why don't you start pming all of us then. ;) I have no idea what y'all are getting at. Maybe I haven't been following Ham long enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to think about it. :D Not that I don't believe you, but if I want that firestorm aimed at me.
Yes, that's the flipside of the plaintiff-unfriendly defamation law in the United States. It's actually very hard to libel somone--Penthouse Magazine famously got away with saying that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother--but by the same token, people can say very, very unpleasant things to or about you with complete impunity. God bless the First Amendment!

 

ETA: Or was it Hustler? It's been too many years.

Edited by Sharon in Austin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's the flipside of the plaintiff-unfriendly defamation law in the United States. It's actually very hard to libel somone--Penthouse Magazine famously got away with saying that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother--but by the same token, people can say very, very unpleasant things to or about you with complete impunity. God bless the First Amendment!

 

Actually there is a section about something being so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly be believed...it's parody.

 

The article was a parody. It was in Hustler.

 

In November 1983, Larry Flynt's pornographic magazine Hustler carried a parody advertisement of a Campari ad, featuring a fake interview with Falwell in which he admits that his "first time" was incest with his mother in an outhouse while drunk. Falwell sued for $45 million in compensation alleging invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.[58] A jury rejected the invasion of privacy and libel claims, holding that the parody could not have reasonably been taken to describe true events, but ruled in favor of Falwell on the emotional distress claim. This was upheld on appeal. Flynt then appealed to the Supreme Court, winning a unanimous decision on February 24, 1988. The ruling held that public figures cannot circumvent First Amendment protections by attempting to recover damages based on emotional distress suffered from parodies. The decision in favor of Flynt strengthened free speech rights in the United States in relation to parodies of public figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually there is a section about something being so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly be believed...it's parody.

 

The article was a parody. It was in Hustler.

Yes, Hustler; I'm getting old.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "there is a section"; but if it had been as straightforward as that, it wouldn't have been in front of the Supreme Court. The claim was that an offensive statement, parody or not, had caused emotional distress, and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to damages. The Court found that, wrt a public figure, statements that couldn't reasonably be believed, even where harm was caused, were not actionable. My broader point was that the U.S. courts have steadily increased the burden on the plaintiff in cases of defamation and deliberately injurious statements, in a general move toward increasing the sphere of protected speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

His quotes of Enns have convinced me to purchase the book. It describes my feelings about Old Earth Creation. I don't want to spin off into a debate of which is right or wrong, but for me there is no doubt about the earth's age and to insist that the only way to be a Christian is to believe otherwise, would put me in the "not that type of Christian" camp. I also think it is a large contributor to the reason why many people are turning their back on Christianity as a whole.

 

My main thought while reading was that Ken Ham must refute, degrade and belittle Peter Enns because it threatens his entire foundation, his income, and his powerbase. If respected people in the movement agree with Enns it isn't just a belief issue, it hits his livelihood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Because he has a bully pulpit and if you aren't with him then I think in his mind you are the enemy.

I also believe that other leaders are following the creed of not calling out other Christian's in public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Well, there is a starter kit. One will be sent shortly. Don't worry. We already got word of your new pagan status -- what are good witches for if not tending a crystal ball every now and then? -- and we have your address. Faeries are so handy for that. Bet you never saw them, did you? ;)

 

I have to say, though, that with the huge new rush of sudden pagans in the last few hours, there may be a delay in your delivery kit. Please check it carefully when it does finally arrive. If the goat and 2 chickens didn't make it alive, we can replace them with fresh, and you can keep the dead ones for tossing at your neighbours if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there is a starter kit. One will be sent shortly. Don't worry. We already got word of your new pagan status -- what are good witches for if not tending a crystal ball every now and then? -- and we have your address. Faeries are so handy for that. Bet you never saw them, did you? ;)

 

I have to say, though, that with the huge new rush of sudden pagans in the last few hours, there may be a delay in your delivery kit. Please check it carefully when it does finally arrive. If the goat and 2 chickens didn't make it alive, we can replace them with fresh, and you can keep the dead ones for tossing at your neighbours if you like.

 

 

A delay?! :001_huh: How long of a delay should we expect? You know, we new Pagans have a lot of catching up to do! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ugh. Here.

 

 

  1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
  2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
  3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
  4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
  5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
  6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
  7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
  8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
  9. The group/leader is always right.
  10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

 

Here's another one.

 

 

  1. A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially;
  2. Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality;
  3. Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others;
  4. Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and Satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion;
  5. Leaders who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers;
  6. Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal.

 

 

Does he hit all the marks-no, or, I don't know enough about him to know. But by what I've been reading the past few days (not just his FB page, but the history of this whole movement) I think he hits a lot of these.

 

I think there is a zeitgiest out there. People are afraid. There's wars that are horrific, earthquakes, tsunami's and people crying God's judgment. I hear of prophets saying that the worst days for America are nipping at our heels. I think this quest of Ham's is not only motivated by money, but that this is an opportune time because of the fear out there right now. He is using this as a litmus test. If you believe, you're a real Christian, if not, you're an enemy of Christ. He scoffs at those with higher education, he refused a public reprimand, he praises those who follow him in icky ways. He is making himself into a spiritual authority figure. It's not stopping, every day he's coming out with another attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ugh. Here.

 

 

  1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
  2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
  3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
  4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
  5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
  6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
  7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
  8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
  9. The group/leader is always right.
  10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

 

Here's another one.

 

 

  1. A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially;
  2. Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality;
  3. Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others;
  4. Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and Satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion;
  5. Leaders who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers;
  6. Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal.

 

 

Does he hit all the marks-no, or, I don't know enough about him to know. But by what I've been reading the past few days (not just his FB page, but the history of this whole movement) I think he hits a lot of these.

 

I think there is a zeitgiest out there. People are afraid. There's wars that are horrific, earthquakes, tsunami's and people crying God's judgment. I hear of prophets saying that the worst days for America are nipping at our heels. I think this quest of Ham's is not only motivated by money, but that this is an opportune time because of the fear out there right now. He is using this as a litmus test. If you believe, you're a real Christian, if not, you're an enemy of Christ. He scoffs at those with higher education, he refused a public reprimand, he praises those who follow him in icky ways. He is making himself into a spiritual authority figure. It's not stopping, every day he's coming out with another attack.

 

So what are you saying? I'm confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what are you saying? I'm confused.

 

I'm saying that he's starting to check off the boxes for being a cult leader. Having had been in one, I sensed it before, but I knew nothing of the history of it. As I read up on the history of this movement, I started realizing why it bothered me so much. Because it was so familiar.

 

Had he stopped I would not have thought twice about it. But this is a pattern for him. And now he's gaining a larger audience because his targets are bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying that he's starting to check off the boxes for being a cult leader. Having had been in one, I sensed it before, but I knew nothing of the history of it. As I read up on the history of this movement, I started realizing why it bothered me so much. Because it was so familiar.

 

Had he stopped I would not have thought twice about it. But this is a pattern for him. And now he's gaining a larger audience because his targets are bigger.

 

OH. I thought you were going somewhere else with that and I was a bit...confused! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ugh. Here.

 

 

  1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
  2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
  3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
  4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
  5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
  6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
  7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
  8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
  9. The group/leader is always right.
  10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Here's another one.

 

 

  1. A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially;
  2. Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality;
  3. Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others;
  4. Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and Satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion;
  5. Leaders who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers;
  6. Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal.

 

Does he hit all the marks-no, or, I don't know enough about him to know. But by what I've been reading the past few days (not just his FB page, but the history of this whole movement) I think he hits a lot of these.

 

I think there is a zeitgiest out there. People are afraid. There's wars that are horrific, earthquakes, tsunami's and people crying God's judgment. I hear of prophets saying that the worst days for America are nipping at our heels. I think this quest of Ham's is not only motivated by money, but that this is an opportune time because of the fear out there right now. He is using this as a litmus test. If you believe, you're a real Christian, if not, you're an enemy of Christ. He scoffs at those with higher education, he refused a public reprimand, he praises those who follow him in icky ways. He is making himself into a spiritual authority figure. It's not stopping, every day he's coming out with another attack.

 

I'm saying that he's starting to check off the boxes for being a cult leader. Having had been in one, I sensed it before, but I knew nothing of the history of it. As I read up on the history of this movement, I started realizing why it bothered me so much. Because it was so familiar.

 

Had he stopped I would not have thought twice about it. But this is a pattern for him. And now he's gaining a larger audience because his targets are bigger.

 

 

This is very similar to what I've been thinking as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A delay?! :001_huh: How long of a delay should we expect? You know, we new Pagans have a lot of catching up to do! :lol:

 

 

Sorry, but even my crystal ball holds no sway over the postal system. ;) :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but are you part of the Judean People's Front or the People's Front of Judea? The difference is vast, you know. :)

 

We are the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad! Suicide squad, attack!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there is a starter kit. One will be sent shortly. Don't worry. We already got word of your new pagan status -- what are good witches for if not tending a crystal ball every now and then? -- and we have your address. Faeries are so handy for that. Bet you never saw them, did you? ;)

 

I have to say, though, that with the huge new rush of sudden pagans in the last few hours, there may be a delay in your delivery kit. Please check it carefully when it does finally arrive. If the goat and 2 chickens didn't make it alive, we can replace them with fresh, and you can keep the dead ones for tossing at your neighbours if you like.

 

I love you Audrey! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

no Kevlar vest?
Ha... I don't need one, I hope. I think Ham is a pathological zealot. So there. I don't know enough about cults to know where the dividing line is, but it seems to me that Ham is done with the practice runs and this is only going to get uglier. As I said earlier: fervor, not fellowship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...