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

[applesing]

Could he be sufferring from dementia or some sort of illness? How over the top.

 

I have wondered this, as well. It's just unbelievable that he will not let this go. He is not helping himself or his organization.

[Imprimis]

Here's what I don't get about this: If someone is utterly and wholly confident in his beliefs/teachings, why should there ever be a need (unless you were in a debate setting) to attempt to "prove" someone else's beliefs wrong? And, especially in this manner?

 

Shouldn't the beliefs/teachings be able to stand on their own merit and speak for themselves?

 

To launch what appears to be an endless bombardment against those whose beliefs aren't in complete alignment with his seems counterproductive and unprofessional, not to mention mean-spirited.

[pdalley]

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 had already decided I wouldn't use Ham's products before this happened. I didn't like his style or presentation.

His words - as I have read them - not what I have heard he said but what I have seen with my own eyes - confirmed that decision. The thing that turns off a number of people from Christianity are people like Ham who claim if you don't believe in X, Y and Z then you really aren't a Christian.

 

He ignores the fact that others have the gift of discernment as well as Pastors and other spiritual advisers. He is not the sole voice on curriculum. He seems to lack the ability to disagree with theology without launching into a personal attack on a person who disagrees with him. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt on this - trying to believe he is merely passionate on the subject. No, this proves - to me - he's the one determined to keep this alive and attack people personally.

 

I have read Dr Enns' curriculum and Ham's criticism of it. Ham takes huge chunks out of context. His claims - in so far as this curriculum promoting certain ideas - are incorrect.

 

I don't think it's petty or judgmental of me to decide I want no part of someone like that. He wouldn't think me worthy anyway. I'm a Christian because I'm not perfect not because I am. God made the world - I don't care if it took him 7 days or 700 years or 7,000 years or 7 million years. God's ways are not my ways - God's time is not my time. He made the world and I'm glad He did.

 

And people wonder why I loathe organized religion. :glare:

Edited April 2, 2011 by pdalley

[LaissezFaire]

 

 

 

SWB can hold her own.

 

Amen!

[EJCMom]

I have wondered this, as well. It's just unbelievable that he will not let this go. He is not helping himself or his organization.

 

I don't know that I agree that he's not helping himself or his organization. In fact, I'd be really curious to see how much he was taking in in donations for his Noah's Ark attraction before all of this brouhaha, and how much he has taken in within the last couple of weeks. I'm not a betting woman, but if I were, I'd wager that he's seen a sharp increase in donations.

[Debbie in OR]

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 agree with the bolded part. This is about to make my head explode.

 

There are always two sides to a story...as such, I have taken Hamm and Enns off of my hook and put them on God's hook. Let Him deal with it...He always does in the way that only He can.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Debbie in OR

[delaney]

I had already decided I wouldn't use Ham's products before this. His words - as I have read them - not what I have heard he said but what I have seen with my own eyes - confirmed that decision. The thing that turns off a number of people from Christianity are people like Ham who claim if you don't believe in X, Y and Z then you really aren't a Christian.

 

He sounds for the world to me like a big ole Pharisee. He ignores the fact that others have the gift of discernment as well as Pastors and other spiritual advisers. He is not the sole voice on curriculum. He seems to lack the ability to disagree with theology without launching into a personal attack on a person who disagrees with him. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt on this - trying to believe he is merely passionate on the subject. No, this proves - to me - he's the one determined to keep this alive and attack people personally.

 

I have read Dr Enns' curriculum and Ham's criticism of it. Ham takes huge chunks out of context. His claims - in so far as this curriculum promoting certain ideas - are incorrect.

 

I don't think it's petty or judgmental of me to decide I want no part of someone like that. He wouldn't think me worthy anyway. I'm a Christian because I'm not perfect not because I am. God made the world - I don't care if it took him 7 days or 700 years or 7,000 years or 7 million years. God's ways are not my ways - God's time is not my time. He made the world and I'm glad He did.

 

And people wonder why I loathe organized religion. :glare:

Amen !Isn't the underlying belief of religion to be loving and accepting? Who is he? Ghazi? Routing out the infidel and forcing the unbelievers to agree with him sounds very extreme.

[Holly IN]

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.

 

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, ?.

 

No flames from me but total agreement. I have tried to stay out of this whole arguement or issue. Several friends of mine have asked me WHY WHY WHY am I going to this Midwest conference?????WHY?? Don't you know what they did??? I told them I am staying out of the whole Hamm vs. SWB stuff or Ham vs. Erns. (I can't believe either way because Midwest never showed proof that Ham actually said what he said or produced the track of his supposed talk) So it is all pointless to me.

 

Sigh!!! I like/love both Hamm's stuff because I am a very firm believer that the Bible is the Truth (100% real and literal). I like/love SWB's stuff. I do not agree with Peter Erns at all but that doesn't stop me from liking SWB.

 

I read Ham's article on SWB. I honestly do not see it as an attack at all. I see it as he is questioning her article. Now I have to go read SWB's article that he is talking about. I really do not want to waste my time on this. Just wanted to give Mindy a :grouphug:. I firmly believe though this whole thing is getting out of hand on all sides (some on here on this forum and some on the Ham side....meaning some here are attacking Ham and some on Ham side is attacking SWB)....It is getting really old for me because I LIKE BOTH!!!!

 

:chillpill:

 

Holly

[WTMCassandra]

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

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I am ***so*** missing rep right now!

[Holly IN]

n

Edited April 2, 2011 by Holly IN
removed by author

[Joy at Home]

Honestly don't see what all the hoopla is over this latest post. He is not attacking SWB personally, but disagreeing with her interpretations. What's wrong with that? Are we now all supposed to agree with SWB and a pox on our house if we don't and say so publicly? Was there not just a thread turn nasty on the high school board because someone had the audacity to voice concerns about mature themes in one of SWB's books.

 

I love SWB. The Well Trained Mind has changed the way I educate my children and I have immense respect for her. But she can handle this. Public debate about theology is nothing new. Personal attacks I can't tolerate, and we are not talking about the convention catastrophe here. He has every right to disagree with others' stated positions on hermeneutics.

 

SWB is a big girl, and I fear some of us get just as vicious and nasty defending her as we claim others are in attacking her.

 

Lisa

[WTMCassandra]

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.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Teachin'Mine]

This is very sad. There's so much persecution of Christians from without. Must we really do it from within?

[Justin from WTM]

Hi all: as one of the moderators, I'm just giving a friendly reminder that we don't like personal attacks on Ken Ham or other such figures. Post all you want about your agreement or disagreement with his theology, methods, message, blog posts, etc. And post about your thoughts/reactions to controversy or on what you'll be doing as a result.

But we do not want our forums to become arenas for bashing. So please, no speculations on Mr. Ham's mental or spiritual state, or his motives, unless you're his counselor or pastor, in which case you shouldn't be divulging it anyway.

 

Not trying to stifle debate, but let's keep it clean.

 

Thanks.

[mcconnellboys]

I was at convention all day Friday and the only signs I saw of all this there was a lady wearing a t-shirt. I only saw her from the back as I was leaving for the day, but the back of her shirt said, "I support Ken Ham and AIG." I'm not sure if there was anything more on the front and I didn't seen anyone else there wearing anything, not even a button. I did not hear a single word being said about the controversy, either.

 

There were a few vendor tables that were empty, but that could have been for a number of reasons. As far as I know, all the big vendors were there. There were no large "gaps" in the hall.....

 

I'm not sure why the Philly convention has been cancelled, but I do hope for the sake of all homeschoolers that this can be worked out amicably....

[TheAutumnOak]

Honestly don't see what all the hoopla is over this latest post. He is not attacking SWB personally, but disagreeing with her interpretations. What's wrong with that? Are we now all supposed to agree with SWB and a pox on our house if we don't and say so publicly? Was there not just a thread turn nasty on the high school board because someone had the audacity to voice concerns about mature themes in one of SWB's books.

 

I love SWB. The Well Trained Mind has changed the way I educate my children and I have immense respect for her. But she can handle this. Public debate about theology is nothing new. Personal attacks I can't tolerate, and we are not talking about the convention catastrophe here. He has every right to disagree with others' stated positions on hermeneutics.

 

SWB is a big girl, and I fear some of us get just as vicious and nasty defending her as we claim others are in attacking her.

 

Lisa

 

I understand what you are saying, but I think the timing of everything is what is upsetting people...The post he posted today is about a review SWB did 5 years ago...Why talk about it now?...What point is he trying to make?

 

I need to reread the blog post, but at first read I actually agree with what he has said...I just wonder why now...

[Holly IN]

I was at convention all day Friday and the only signs I saw of all this there was a lady wearing a t-shirt. I only saw her from the back as I was leaving for the day, but the back of her shirt said, "I support Ken Ham and AIG."

 

Same here. I also saw alot of buttons stating "I stand with Ham". I saw no problems with that. There were no talk about this controversy to my knowledge. Saw several empty booths in the exhibit hall. I didn't see any picket signs or anything like that. The crowds were def. thinner than last year. Could be because of the controversy but also could be the economy with so many people out of jobs right now. It is very expensive to go to a convention esp in Cincy. Food were very pricey!! OUCH!

[Karis]

His statements come from his blog. So to see them - one must go to / subscribe to his blog.

 

who's actually beating this dead dog? (Going back to it.) What he says on HIS blog is his business. We all have strong opinions on stuff.

 

Are people upset because the distinctions are being put out there?

 

because Ham is bringing up these issues?

 

Because people are feeling attacked themselves?

 

Because of a fear of other people being "misled?" "misinformed"

 

Because of what he said? The fact he said it? Because he keeps talking/ blogging?

[Holly IN]

His statements come from his blog. So to see them - one must go to / subscribe to his blog.

 

who's actually beating this dead dog? (Going back to it.) What he says on HIS blog is his business. We all have strong opinions on stuff.

 

Are people upset because the distinctions are being put out there?

 

because Ham is bringing up these issues?

 

Because people are feeling attacked themselves?

 

Because of a fear of other people being "misled?" "misinformed"

 

Because of what he said? The fact he said it? Because he keeps talking/ blogging?

 

 

Very good points!! Ham has every right to post what he wants on his blog just as much as Wile or SWB or you or me....:D

[Joy at Home]

I understand what you are saying, but I think the timing of everything is what is upsetting people...The post he posted today is about a review SWB did 5 years ago...Why talk about it now?...What point is he trying to make?

 

I need to reread the blog post, but at first read I actually agree with what he has said...I just wonder why now...

 

I can only surmise that he feels compelled to further draw distinctions between the hermeneutical differences of certain segments of the homeschooling community. Perhaps feeding his base, giving them some of the problematic (in his view) scriptural interpretations he used in forming his opinion (which he ill-advisedly stated at the conventions).

 

I may or may not agree with his choices, but I continue to feel that, as a Bible scholar he has every right to publicy disagree with theology, as long as it is done respectfully and does not pull the "you are not a Christian because you believe x, y, and z". I, for one, will leave it to God to determine that. But I find differences in hermeneutics thought provoking and don't find it in bad taste to debate these issues publicly.

 

Also, many here posting about what a nut this guy are those that don't subscribe to any Christian doctrine or reject religion entirely (spoken in love, not judgment). It's understandible that his dogma and his manner of disseminating it would offend because it is not an area they have a strong attachment to. Many serious Christians have no problem discussing hermeneutics and pointing out differences (made with my previous disclaimers), and don't see the mere act of contrasting viewpoints as an aggressive, offensive act, per se. Remember, his view of scripture and his opinions he just stated are believed by some here on this board. Just as I would never want to see anyone speak insensitively about the many faiths and beliefs on this board, I also do not take kindly to calling his theology nutty or over the top. Please be respectful of the scriptural beliefs of all here.

 

Lisa

[JadeOrchidSong]

:glare:

 

 

It's times like these that make me very proud to be an atheist.

 

:iagree:

I am not an atheist. Times like these make me wish I were an atheist. I do envy you now. :lol::lol:

[TheAutumnOak]

I can only surmise that he feels compelled to further draw distinctions between the hermeneutical differences of certain segments of the homeschooling community. Perhaps feeding his base, giving them some of the problematic (in his view) scriptural interpretations he used in forming his opinion (which he ill-advisedly stated at the conventions).

 

I may or may not agree with his choices, but I continue to feel that, as a Bible scholar he has every right to publicy disagree with theology, as long as it is done respectfully and does not pull the "you are not a Christian because you believe x, y, and z". I, for one, will leave it to God to determine that. But I find differences in hermeneutics thought provoking and don't find it in bad taste to debate these issues publicly.

 

Also, many here posting about what a nut this guy are those that don't subscribe to any Christian doctrine or reject religion entirely (spoken in love, not judgment). It's understandible that his dogma and his manner of disseminating it would offend because it is not an area they have a strong attachment to. Many serious Christians have no problem discussing hermeneutics and pointing out differences (made with my previous disclaimers), and don't see the mere act of contrasting viewpoints as an aggressive, offensive act, per se. Remember, his view of scripture and his opinions he just stated are believed by some here on this board. Just as I would never want to see anyone speak insensitively about the many faiths and beliefs on this board, I also do not take kindly to calling his theology nutty or over the top. Please be respectful of the scriptural beliefs of all here.

 

Lisa

 

:iagree:This post is also very well said...

[Jean in Newcastle]

I can only surmise that he feels compelled to further draw distinctions between the hermeneutical differences of certain segments of the homeschooling community. Perhaps feeding his base, giving them some of the problematic (in his view) scriptural interpretations he used in forming his opinion (which he ill-advisedly stated at the conventions).

 

I may or may not agree with his choices, but I continue to feel that, as a Bible scholar he has every right to publicy disagree with theology, as long as it is done respectfully and does not pull the "you are not a Christian because you believe x, y, and z". I, for one, will leave it to God to determine that. But I find differences in hermeneutics thought provoking and don't find it in bad taste to debate these issues publicly.

 

Also, many here posting about what a nut this guy are those that don't subscribe to any Christian doctrine or reject religion entirely (spoken in love, not judgment). It's understandible that his dogma and his manner of disseminating it would offend because it is not an area they have a strong attachment to. Many serious Christians have no problem discussing hermeneutics and pointing out differences (made with my previous disclaimers), and don't see the mere act of contrasting viewpoints as an aggressive, offensive act, per se. Remember, his view of scripture and his opinions he just stated are believed by some here on this board. Just as I would never want to see anyone speak insensitively about the many faiths and beliefs on this board, I also do not take kindly to calling his theology nutty or over the top. Please be respectful of the scriptural beliefs of all here.

 

Lisa

 

But Lisa, I agree with his doctrinal view of Scripture (and creation too) but what he said on his blog regarding hermaneutics was very lacking in understanding. As I pointed out in an earlier post, what SWB said about the Apostle Paul's hermaneutics vs. that of modern day hermeneutics is what is taught in very conservative evangelical schools -schools that would agree with his doctrinal view of Scripture and creation. The conclusions he's drawing from her statements don't hold water logically. I do not think he's a "nut" but I do think that he's crossed some boundary lines that God has for believers.

[justamouse]

 

I may or may not agree with his choices, but I continue to feel that, as a Bible scholar he has every right to publicy disagree with theology, as long as it is done respectfully and does not pull the "you are not a Christian because you believe x, y, and z". I, for one, will leave it to God to determine that. But I find differences in hermeneutics thought provoking and don't find it in bad taste to debate these issues publicly.

 

 

Lisa

 

But he did just that. And, they have it on tape.

[mcconnellboys]

I am also grateful that Dr. Enns has stayed completely silent through all of this (insofar as I've been able to determine, anyway).

 

This case seems similar to others I've seen: a person blunders, but their ego will not allow them to admit it and back down or ask for forgiveness, so they continue to press the point and make things worse....

 

Hold strong, Susan!

[Joy at Home]

But Lisa, I agree with his doctrinal view of Scripture (and creation too) but what he said on his blog regarding hermaneutics was very lacking in understanding. As I pointed out in an earlier post, what SWB said about the Apostle Paul's hermaneutics vs. that of modern day hermeneutics is what is taught in very conservative evangelical schools -schools that would agree with his doctrinal view of Scripture and creation. The conclusions he's drawing from her statements don't hold water logically. I do not think he's a "nut" but I do think that he's crossed some boundary lines that God has for believers.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this, Jean.

 

Regarding his hermeneutics, that is, respectfully, not the point. We can debate the logic or lack thereof of his or anyone else's interpretation of scripture. What I am referring to is the assertion that he was out of line (and much, much worse) for giving voice to his beliefs.

 

Lisa

[Joy at Home]

But he did just that. And, they have it on tape.

 

I am not referring to the convention fiasco. That is why I never commented on those many threads.

 

I am specifically referring to the blog post the OP linked to.

 

Lisa

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:blink: This guy has some nerve. :thumbdown:

 

:iagree::iagree:

[TheAutumnOak]

:001_huh: I think I am more confused about this issue than I was before...It is time for dinner!

[mcconnellboys]

Rebecca, you can google now quite easily (because so many others have recently called it up) and find articles about Westminster dismissing Dr. Enns. They apparently did so even though the board members voted NOT to do so. I also found their articles and I would dare say that those may contain some things that other Christians would not agree with 100%, as written, either.....

 

I was also just thinking about how very many ministers I know who have been asked to leave one congregation or another, not because they have done something "wrong,", but because of differences of opinion that come up over time....

[justamouse]

I am not referring to the convention fiasco. That is why I never commented on those many threads.

 

I am specifically referring to the blog post the OP linked to.

 

Lisa

 

But his viewpoint has not changed, and that IS what he thinks and those prior posts and what he has said is prologue to this.

 

This isn't an isolated incident to be understood on its own, is what I'm saying.

Edited April 2, 2011 by justamouse
random h insertion

[AvasMom]

Honestly don't see what all the hoopla is over this latest post. He is not attacking SWB personally, but disagreeing with her interpretations. What's wrong with that? Are we now all supposed to agree with SWB and a pox on our house if we don't and say so publicly? Was there not just a thread turn nasty on the high school board because someone had the audacity to voice concerns about mature themes in one of SWB's books.

 

I love SWB. The Well Trained Mind has changed the way I educate my children and I have immense respect for her. But she can handle this. Public debate about theology is nothing new. Personal attacks I can't tolerate, and we are not talking about the convention catastrophe here. He has every right to disagree with others' stated positions on hermeneutics.

 

SWB is a big girl, and I fear some of us get just as vicious and nasty defending her as we claim others are in attacking her.

 

Lisa

 

For me, it's not that it's SWB specifically, it's the fact that 1)its an endless bombardment and 2)pulling in people that aren't involved. In this situation it's between Ham and Enns. SWB is not relevant to his Big Problem with Enns so just yanking someone in from the sidelines and poking them in the eye is just not ok. Whether it's SWB or the man on the moon, it's wrong and IMHO it's important to say so.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, Jean.

 

Regarding his hermeneutics, that is, respectfully, not the point. We can debate the logic or lack thereof of his or anyone else's interpretation of scripture. What I am referring to is the assertion that he was out of line (and much, much worse) for giving voice to his beliefs.

 

Lisa

 

Yes but he used words like attackers of Christ. That crosses the line in a big way IMHO.

[Joy at Home]

For me, it's not that it's SWB specifically, it's the fact that 1)its an endless bombardment and 2)pulling in people that aren't involved. In this situation it's between Ham and Enns. SWB is not relevant to his Big Problem with Enns so just yanking someone in from the sidelines and poking them in the eye is just not ok. Whether it's SWB or the man on the moon, it's wrong and IMHO it's important to say so.

 

Anyone who puts an opinion in writing knows that their words are forever public domain for the scrutiny of others. SWB wrote a review in which she concurred with hermeneutical beliefs that Ham thinks are wrong. They are her words, giving an opinion, not only of the curriculum she was reviewing but addressing specific reasons why she concurred with the hermenuetics of Enns. Thus, I do not see it as "yanking someone from the sidelines and poking them in the eye". I do see it as critiquing her written opinions, which is done all the time in every sphere of society.

 

Lisa

[Imprimis]

Regarding his hermeneutics, that is, respectfully, not the point. We can debate the logic or lack thereof of his or anyone else's interpretation of scripture. What I am referring to is the assertion that he was out of line (and much, much worse) for giving voice to his beliefs.

 

Lisa

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with him giving voice to his own beliefs; I think the issue arose when he attempted to give voice to others' beliefs, and interpret them through his filter.

[Joy at Home]

Yes but he used words like attackers of Christ. That crosses the line in a big way IMHO.

 

Did he use those words in his blog post?

 

Lisa

[Joy at Home]

I don't think anyone has a problem with him giving voice to his own beliefs; I think the issue arose when he attempted to give voice to others' beliefs, and interpret them through his filter.

 

I don't understand this.

 

Why are we pretending that this is not done in every area of life?

 

We all have our own filter. We see everything through that filter, whether we know it or not.

 

He has certain theological beliefs. He thinks he's right. He thinks others are wrong. He gives voice to this beliefs. He contrasts those beliefs with others who hold different ones, and explains why his are right.

 

What am I missing here?

 

In politics alone, we all do this all. the. time.

 

Have you ever been around this board during the silly season?

 

We all have our own lens through which we view the world. Ken Ham is no different.

 

Lisa

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Here's what I don't get about this: If someone is utterly and wholly confident in his beliefs/teachings, why should there ever be a need (unless you were in a debate setting) to attempt to "prove" someone else's beliefs wrong? And, especially in this manner?

 

Shouldn't the beliefs/teachings be able to stand on their own merit and speak for themselves?

 

To launch what appears to be an endless bombardment against those whose beliefs aren't in complete alignment with his seems counterproductive and unprofessional, not to mention mean-spirited.

 

:iagree:

Sell your own stuff I say instead of slinging mud:glare:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Did he use those words in his blog post?

 

Lisa

 

Yes in a previous one about Enns.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

If you'd like to read the whole of the review--a serious review of a serious academic book--you can do so at this link: http://www.susanwisebauer.com/blog/inspiration-and-incarnation-review/

 

The conclusion:

 

"...we must engage in as much prayer as study of Hebrew vocabulary, as much faith as reading up on the history of the ancient world, as much charity (something remarkable lacking in most of this debate) as Greek grammar. It means that when an evangelical scholar like Enns–teaching in an evangelical seminary, a faithful member of his local church–writes, “There do not seem to be any clear rules or guidelines to prevent us from taking [the process of interpreting Scripture] too far,”we must recognize this as an honest and truthful statement of the difficulties–rather than an open door to chaos."

 

SWB

[Holly IN]

But he did just that. And, they have it on tape.

 

Where is this tape??? This is my point. This tape is not available at all so that is why I have a very hard time believing this. Yes, I read his blog posts.

I can't order this tape because it is NOT available for purchase. WHY????

 

Something is not right here.

 

I agree if Ken actually said what he said then yes he violated the contract but I do not agree with the way Great homeschool handled this. I thought of several other ways this could have been handled. ;) However his blog posts should have no bearing in re: to this homeschool convention. Just my opinion.

 

I would love for somebody to get this "tape" available so we can hear for ourselves EXACTLY what he said word for word. That is why I do not have an opinion on this issue or took a side.

 

All I see this as " so so said this" and "so so said that". Remember the telephone game??

 

I just think everybody needs to calm down on this issue. Take a breather and let's get back to homeschooling our kids. :D

 

Holly (who needs to get ready for the tomatoes:lol:)

[Joy at Home]

Yes in a previous one about Enns.

 

I am commenting on this blog post linked to by the OP. If he said those words in a previous post, I do not agree with them. See previous disclaimers.

 

In this post, I see fair debate. He quotes SWB's own words and contrasts that with his view.

 

I know what he has said and done in the past. I don't agree with it.

 

Here, on his blog, with this post, I see nothing wrong. That was the original topic here, to which everyone responded how out of line it was.

 

Now, if you asked me to evaluate his body of work/statements recently and describe the cumulative effect it may have on forming an opinion about him, that's another story. But I will not leave clear thinking at the door and fairly evaluate his statements in context. Here, I do not see a problem.

 

Lisa

[AvasMom]

Anyone who puts an opinion in writing knows that their words are forever public domain for the scrutiny of others. SWB wrote a review in which she concurred with hermeneutical beliefs that Ham thinks are wrong. They are her words, giving an opinion, not only of the curriculum she was reviewing but addressing specific reasons why she concurred with the hermenuetics of Enns. Thus, I do not see it as "yanking someone from the sidelines and poking them in the eye". I do see it as critiquing her written opinions, which is done all the time in every sphere of society.

 

Lisa

 

You don't think the timing is a little odd?

[Joy at Home]

A note to SWB:

 

Allowing debate on this issue on the board you so generously provide shows the fairness of character we all know about you. It cannot be easy to read posts referring to you, yet you allow it and manage it with such grace.

 

Thank you for not stifling intelligent, respectful debate.

 

Lisa

[AvasMom]

If you'd like to read the whole of the review--a serious review of a serious academic book--you can do so at this link: http://www.susanwisebauer.com/blog/inspiration-and-incarnation-review/

 

The conclusion:

 

"...we must engage in as much prayer as study of Hebrew vocabulary, as much faith as reading up on the history of the ancient world, as much charity (something remarkable lacking in most of this debate) as Greek grammar. It means that when an evangelical scholar like Enns–teaching in an evangelical seminary, a faithful member of his local church–writes, “There do not seem to be any clear rules or guidelines to prevent us from taking [the process of interpreting Scripture] too far,â€we must recognize this as an honest and truthful statement of the difficulties–rather than an open door to chaos."

 

SWB

 

Thanks for posting this. At least now we can read the whole review in context.

[AvasMom]

A note to SWB:

 

Allowing debate on this issue on the board you so generously provide shows the fairness of character we all know about you. It cannot be easy to read posts referring to you, yet you allow it and manage it with such grace.

 

Thank you for not stifling intelligent, respectful debate.

 

Lisa

 

:iagree:

[Joy at Home]

You don't think the timing is a little odd?

 

 

What would be odd about it? The homeschool community has been talking about nothing else for weeks, why not use this opportunity to further explore the differences in theology that started it? (I am speaking here to what I believe might be motivating Ham, not what I believe).

 

Strike while the fire's hot, and all that . . .

 

Lisa

[AvasMom]

I am commenting on this blog post linked to by the OP. If he said those words in a previous post, I do not agree with them. See previous disclaimers.

 

In this post, I see fair debate. He quotes SWB's own words and contrasts that with his view.

 

I know what he has said and done in the past. I don't agree with it.

 

Here, on his blog, with this post, I see nothing wrong. That was the original topic here, to which everyone responded how out of line it was.

 

Now, if you asked me to evaluate his body of work/statements recently and describe the cumulative effect it may have on forming an opinion about him, that's another story. But I will not leave clear thinking at the door and fairly evaluate his statements in context. Here, I do not see a problem.

 

Lisa

 

Under different circumstances I would agree completely. The spirit of recent events has absolutely colored my view of his post. However, in light of what appears to be a continuation of what was started with his critique of Olive Branch Books, I stand by my opinion.

[FairProspects]

What would be odd about it? The homeschool community has been talking about nothing else for weeks, why not use this opportunity to further explore the differences in theology that started it? (I am speaking here to what I believe might be motivating Ham, not what I believe).

 

Strike while the fire's hot, and all that . . .

 

Lisa

 

The odd timing is that he is also currently releasing his own Bible curriculum for K/1st.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I am commenting on this blog post linked to by the OP. If he said those words in a previous post, I do not agree with them. See previous disclaimers.

 

In this post, I see fair debate. He quotes SWB's own words and contrasts that with his view.

 

I know what he has said and done in the past. I don't agree with it.

 

Here, on his blog, with this post, I see nothing wrong. That was the original topic here, to which everyone responded how out of line it was.

 

Now, if you asked me to evaluate his body of work/statements recently and describe the cumulative effect it may have on forming an opinion about him, that's another story. But I will not leave clear thinking at the door and fairly evaluate his statements in context. Here, I do not see a problem.

 

Lisa

 

You are right that this particular blog post doesn't say anything specifically inflammatory. But this particular blog post only makes sense when taken in context - of his other posts. Otherwise I would be particularly :confused: about why he chose to resurrect this particular review. His conclusions on protecting the inerrancy of the Scriptures only make sense in context as well. I disagree with him that the inerrancy of the Scriptures is particularly at risk from that review.