Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AvasMom

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

Recommended Posts

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

 

Odd meaning it's not just a random critique of theology. It's part of his bigger agenda with Enns and such. That's what makes this post look harsher than it would otherwise appear. The drama overshadows what might otherwise just look like a debate post. The surrounding events definitely make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

I see what you are saying but I find it hard to separate this blog post about SWB from the previous batch of blogs related to this whole fiasco IMHO. He lost any credibility IMO by attacking others Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see what you are saying but I find it hard to separate this blog post about SWB from the previous batch of blogs related to this whole fiasco IMHO. He lost any credibility IMO by attacking others Christianity.

 

Of course he did, to many, but I personally refuse to let biases interfere with sound judgment and clear thinking.

 

I see the pack closing in around him (meant lightheartedly:grouphug:), much to his own making, but I still insist that debating scripture (previous disclaimers, blah, blah, blah) is done in theological circles all the time and is, to me, quite fascinating. There is nothing intrinsictly wrong with it. The problem here is Ham's past comments have caused others to view what he says in a different light.

 

Lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Yeah, over-vigilant can't stop himself. It happens all of the time, you do something you shouldn't, and you have the choice to come clean or you have to keep covering your tracks.

 

I didn't mind KH opinion, he is entitled to it and I welcome him giving it in a non-condemning manner. I don't mind him giving references, and calmly stating where he differs. I did enjoy reading SWB review of Enn's book, how nice of KH to provide it for us....

 

I don't get how he can condemn anyone for wanting to study the scriptures deeply and in their context. Hey, scripture can take the scrutiny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course he did, to many, but I personally refuse to let biases interfere with sound judgment and clear thinking.

 

I see the pack closing in around him (meant lightheartedly:grouphug:), much to his own making, but I still insist that debating scripture (previous disclaimers, blah, blah, blah) is done in theological circles all the time and is, to me, quite fascinating. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. The problem here is Ham's past comments have caused others to view what he says in a different light.

 

Lisa

 

But that's not biases, that's taking all the information into consideration. We don't always have so much information to use to draw conclusions about the authors intent in posting. In this case we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:)

 

I can understand why Great Homeschool Convention would not sell the tape...If Ham has done something in his class that he was not suppose to do and it involves others, I can totally see why they would not make the tape public...Most likely we will never hear it unless we were there, or someone has a private tape...

 

Why would they sell or advertise something they disagree with?...I wouldn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, over-vigilant can't stop himself. I wondered about dementia as well. Or just really stubborn. It happens all of the time, you do something you shouldn't, and you have the choice to come clean or you have to keep covering your tracks.

 

I didn't mind KH opinion, he is entitled to it and I welcome him giving it in a non-condemning manner. I don't mind him giving references, and calmly stating where he differs. I did enjoy reading SWB review of Enn's book, how nice of KH to provide it for us....

 

I don't get how he can condemn anyone for wanting to study the scriptures deeply and in their context. Hey, scripture can take the scrutiny!

 

I think he's just stubborn. Besides, how many times have one of us been wrong and then thousands of people line up to support us and slap us on the back? Um, probably never. It's hard enough to admit you've been a jerk but when you have minions rooting you on too? That's almost impossible. Ham makes my brain spasm but I can understand the difficulty in admitting error here. He still needs to do it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odd meaning it's not just a random critique of theology. It's part of his bigger agenda with Enns and such. That's what makes this post look harsher than it would otherwise appear. The drama overshadows what might otherwise just look like a debate post. The surrounding events definitely make a difference.

 

 

The way I see it (in simple terms):

 

Ken Ham believes in a strict and literal interpretation of scripture. He feels threatened by others who voice a different hermeneutical view than his. He does this because he feels like once compromise is made in a strict interpretation, all scripture loses its integrity. He feels it is his job and part of his ministry to advocate for this belief and point out teachings contrary to what he and his ministry believe.

 

This may be very oversimplified, but this is the bare bones of how I see it. So his "agenda", I suppose, is to defend his view of scripture.

 

So, what's the problem?

 

To me, the problem comes in when we denigrate others personally and question their salvation because of their interpretation of scripture, which he has done. I do not condone this.

 

I do see a distinction, however, between critiquing someone's body of work/views without attacking them personally. This is where he has failed in the past. Hopefully he will take a higher road. Maybe not. Thankfully for me, my faith in God and my view of hermeneutics do not rise and fall with one man.

 

Lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that's not biases, that's taking all the information into consideration. We don't always have so much information to use to draw conclusions about the authors intent in posting. In this case we do.

 

:iagree:

 

Even in the education of our children, we teach them to consider the author's life and predisposition to certain things when reviewing material he/she wrote...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. ~2 Timothy 2:16

 

Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. ~2 Timothy 2:23

 

A perverse person stirs up conflict, and a gossip separates close friends. ~Proverbs 16:28

 

Without wood a fire goes out; without a gossip a quarrel dies down. ~ Proverbs 26:20

 

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.~Ephesians 4:29

 

 

Ladies,

 

Let us be godly and take the high road, It takes two to quarrel. At this point, there is nothing left to argue and we are down to idle gossip. We are here to support one another and build each other up and we can do that without tearing someone else down, even those that we may feel are worthy of disrespect. Let us acknowledge that two wrongs don't make a right and move on to higher standards and get back to discussing the beauty of classical inspired education, the love we have for our families and each other, and for those of us who are believers in Christ, the thankfulness that he gives us grace because it's not an easy thing for most of us to give. For those that are not Christian, please forgive us for being a poor reflection of God's grace and mercy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the review in its entirety from the link that SWB posted, I'm even more confused as to where he is coming from. In reading his insertions about her review, it makes me wonder if he actually understood what she was saying in the review. I also wonder if he's actually read the book and does he understand where Enns was coming from in his conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. ~2 Timothy 2:16

 

Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. ~2 Timothy 2:23

 

A perverse person stirs up conflict, and a gossip separates close friends. ~Proverbs 16:28

 

Without wood a fire goes out; without a gossip a quarrel dies down. ~ Proverbs 26:20

 

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.~Ephesians 4:29

 

 

Ladies,

 

Let us be godly and take the high road, It takes two to quarrel. At this point, there is nothing left to argue and we are down to idle gossip. We are here to support one another and build each other up and we can do that without tearing someone else down, even those that we may feel are worthy of disrespect. Let us acknowledge that two wrongs don't make a right and move on to higher standards and get back to discussing the beauty of classical inspired education, the love we have for our families and each other, and for those of us who are believers in Christ, the thankfulness that he gives us grace because it's not an easy thing for most of us to give. For those that are not Christian, please forgive us for being a poor reflection of God's grace and mercy.

 

Thank you for this AuntPol...Thank you so very much :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:iagree:

 

Even in the education of our children, we teach them to consider the author's life and predisposition to certain things when reviewing material he/she wrote...

 

 

Of course, but Ham's body of work goes back years and years, so to that end, there is much available to form a fair conclusion as to his beliefs and motivations. There is more than the recent scandal which, which amount to Ham being overzealous in his defense of scripture and personally attacking others who don't believe the same.

 

Lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He makes my head explode. There's just so much bull pucky you don't even bother because it's such a waste of air.

 

 

 

 

Yes, and you know who he now is ranking right up there with? Those Westboro Baptist Church people.

 

 

Well, now... to be fair, I think he won't cross that line until he launches a lawsuit against Enns, SWB and/or GHC. Westboro are nutters, IMO, but what makes them particularly slimy nutters is the fact that they use their spew as a means to sue people so they can get more money to spew more spew.

 

I think I'm going to coin that "the spew/sue factor."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

Lisa

 

Lisa,

I think you answered your own question in your post below.

 

The way I see it (in simple terms):

 

 

To me, the problem comes in when we denigrate others personally and question their salvation because of their interpretation of scripture, which he has done. I do not condone this.

 

 

Lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lisa,

I think you answered your own question in your post below.

 

Tina,

 

Of course we all know that Ham has done this in the past.

 

I am specifically referring to the outrage on his latest blog post. Again, evaluating writing on its merit and not with past biases, etc.

 

Lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, now... to be fair, I think he won't cross that line until he launches a lawsuit against Enns, SWB and/or GHC. Westboro are nutters, IMO, but what makes them particularly slimy nutters is the fact that they use their spew as a means to sue people so they can get more money to spew more spew.

 

I think I'm going to coin that "the spew/sue factor."

 

You can only coin it if you can say it five times fast. :D:bigear:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He makes my head explode. There's just so much bull pucky you don't even bother because it's such a waste of air.

 

 

 

Yes, and you know who he now is ranking right up there with? Those Westboro Baptist Church people.

 

 

 

Justamouse, this is just salacious and disgusting rhetoric, and you have just lost credibility in this conversation.

 

Lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

What you may be missing is that Hamm did not simply say he thinks he is right and others are wrong. He said that the others who he thought were "wrong" were also not Christians (attackers of Christ) because they held views differing from his.

 

If I understand the Christians correctly (and I think I do), it was THAT specific commentary -- calling into question the Christianity of others -- that was such an egregious offense. He sought to wound the core of their beliefs by claiming they were not, in fact, the Christians they said they were. He assaulted their very faith in doing so.

 

It is NOT the same as saying "I think this, and I think you are wrong in thinking differently."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, after reading the actual review and then Mr. Ham's post again...I am *gobsmacked* at how desperately he is reaching. I mean, it's just disgusting.

 

And in what SWB writes and how he further tries to paint her (and Enns via Ham's interpretation of Enn's book through SWB's review-which HELLO!-pick it up and read it yourself!) as a non orthodox Christian is entirely .... I'm saying swear words in my head.

 

And, sadly for Mr. Ham, the review just proves the awe and affection SWB holds for God, Christ and the bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you may be missing is that Hamm did not simply say he thinks he is right and others are wrong. He said that the others who he thought were "wrong" were also not Christians (attackers of Christ) because they held views differing from his.

 

If I understand the Christians correctly (and I think I do), it was THAT specific commentary -- calling into question the Christianity of others -- that was such an egregious offense. He sought to wound the core of their beliefs by claiming they were not, in fact, the Christians they said they were. He assaulted their very faith in doing so.

 

It is NOT the same as saying "I think this, and I think you are wrong in thinking differently."

 

And I have criticized him for this. I did not jump to his defense in any of the convention threads. I stated earlier that is not fair game. It is above our pay grade to decide who is Christian.

 

But I have no problem with him continuing to contrast differences in beliefs as he did in his blog post, which I don't see as anything offensive.

 

Lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justamouse, this is just salacious and disgusting rhetoric, and you have just lost credibility in this conversation.

 

Lisa

 

You don't particularly listen to anything I say, anyway. I see a person who is willing to go to far lengths to slander other Christians online, in conventions and is unwilling to not just defend his particular interpretation, but to ask other people to question the morality and faith of other Christians.

 

Flee from evil, yes, the evil he is spewing. And there is no moral high ground in what he's doing as to those 'other' people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't particularly listen to anything I say, anyway. I see a person who is willing to go to far lengths to slander other Christians online, in conventions and is unwilling to not just defend his particular interpretation, but to ask other people to question the morality and faith of other Christians.

 

Flee from evil, yes, the evil he is spewing. And there is no moral high ground in what he's doing as to those 'other' people.

 

 

If you can draw comparisons between the special kind of evil that is Westboro Baptist and Ham, then I just don't know what to say:confused:

 

Perhaps articulating a position without personal insults and degradation would be nice. Oh wait, that only works one way . . .

 

Lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so getting back to the topic of Ham's post :)...I'm curious about the part where he is shocked that SWB would say the apostles weren't particularly skilled at exegesis. Why is that shocking? The scribes and pharisees were the scholars of that day, not the fisherman and other working class people. Why would Ham expect that they would be OT scholars and why is it such a terrible thing to say that they weren't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I have criticized him for this. I did not jump to his defense in any of the convention threads. I stated earlier that is not fair game. It is above our pay grade to decide who is Christian.

 

But I have no problem with him continuing to contrast differences in beliefs as he did in his blog post, which I don't see as anything offensive.

 

Lisa

 

 

Taken on it's own, there is nothing wrong with it. Taken in context with recent events, it appears insidious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so getting back to the topic of Ham's post :)...I'm curious about the part where he is shocked that SWB would say the apostles weren't particularly skilled at exegesis. Why is that shocking? The scribes and pharisees were the scholars of that day, not the fisherman and other working class people. Why would Ham expect that they would be OT scholars and why is it such a terrible thing to say that they weren't?

 

I understood the idea to be not that they were uneducated, but that they had a different understanding in interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

I don't know about the gospel writers, but Paul, at least, was a good Pharisee and would have been well-studied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so getting back to the topic of Ham's post :)...I'm curious about the part where he is shocked that SWB would say the apostles weren't particularly skilled at exegesis. Why is that shocking? The scribes and pharisees were the scholars of that day, not the fisherman and other working class people. Why would Ham expect that they would be OT scholars and why is it such a terrible thing to say that they weren't?

 

I thought that was the whole point - that one of the reasons they were chosen was because they were not scholars- they were regular people. In the Bible God consistently chose unlikely people for leaders - Abraham, Moses, Joseph, David, Saul....

 

The Bible studies I've participated in the point was made with the exception of the Apostle Paul - who was a Pharisee and a scholar - the Apostles were regular Jewish people. Peter was constantly putting his foot in his mouth when Jesus was with them. It wasn't until after Resurrection that Peter was able to preach to the masses.

 

Odd thing to pick at... I agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a wonderful quote by Ester Maria in another thread. She is talking about the way in which Jewish people (over simplifying my terms here) understand their sacred writings.

 

"It's possible that that's in Philo (I can't recall it to my mind right now, though I studied Philo with the eldest kid last year) - I just wanted to remind that a general "division" of the layers of interpretation includes four levels. It's known by the acronym PaRDeS - it includes p'shat (literal, simple, direct meaning), remez ("a hint", a deeper allegorical meaning extending over the literal meaning), d'rash (something like a comparative / legal meaning) and sod (a mystical level).

Imagine it musically: the text can be read in four different "keys" which at the same time coexist."

 

If the NT writers had any concept of this 4-layer approach( being jewish), is it any wonder the Bible is messy ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that was the whole point - that one of the reasons they were chosen was because they were not scholars- they were regular people. In the Bible God consistently chose unlikely people for leaders - Abraham, Moses, Joseph, David, Saul....

 

The Bible studies I've participated in the point was made with the exception of the Apostle Paul - who was a Pharisee and a scholar - the Apostles were regular Jewish people. Peter was constantly putting his foot in his mouth when Jesus was with them. It wasn't until after Resurrection that Peter was able to preach to the masses.

 

Odd thing to pick at... I agree with you.

 

I think that even if they were regular Jews, if they went to synagogue, even not as scholars, they knew the scriptures and oral tradition very well (though I'm not extremely familiar with ancient Jewish worship apart from the OT, I do know it's rich in oral tradition).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

:iagree::iagree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After reading the review in its entirety from the link that SWB posted, I'm even more confused as to where he is coming from. In reading his insertions about her review, it makes me wonder if he actually understood what she was saying in the review. I also wonder if he's actually read the book and does he understand where Enns was coming from in his conclusions.

:iagree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that even if they were regular Jews, if they went to synagogue, even not as scholars, they knew the scriptures and oral tradition very well (though I'm not extremely familiar with ancient Jewish worship apart from the OT, I do know it's rich in oral tradition).

 

 

From what I understand Jewish youth were very familiar with the scriptures. I took them not being skilled at 'exegesis' meant that they did were not as familiar with the depth and meaning of the scriptures as scholars such as the Apostle Paul. I believe scholars - Scribes and Pharisees - spent much of their time studying the scriptures - something the other Apostles would not have had as much time to do as they all had other jobs before becoming Christ's followers. (I could be off base here as I now recall Paul/Saul was a tentmaker as well as a scholar)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the article and then rereading Ham's post, I would almost put money on the idea that he didn't read Enns' book. I would imagine, from what I've seen in his personality lately, he wouldn't want to "stoop" to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. ~2 Timothy 2:16

 

Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. ~2 Timothy 2:23

 

A perverse person stirs up conflict, and a gossip separates close friends. ~Proverbs 16:28

 

Without wood a fire goes out; without a gossip a quarrel dies down. ~ Proverbs 26:20

 

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.~Ephesians 4:29

 

 

 

:001_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had never even heard of Ken Ham until all of this happened. He has not made a good impression and I certainly won't be rushing out to buy his companies products.:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I understand Jewish youth were very familiar with the scriptures. I took them not being skilled at 'exegesis' meant that they did were not as familiar with the depth and meaning of the scriptures as scholars such as the Apostle Paul. I believe scholars - Scribes and Pharisees - spent much of their time studying the scriptures - something the other Apostles would not have had as much time to do as they all had other jobs before becoming Christ's followers. (I could be off base here as I now recall Paul/Saul was a tentmaker as well as a scholar)

 

No, no, that's what I had been taught, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had never even heard of Ken Ham until all of this happened. He has not made a good impression and I certainly won't be rushing out to buy his companies products.:(

 

Me either. I had vaguely heard of AiG but mostly I just knew of Dr. Dino for creationist stuff. Now I'm just reminded of why I walked away from the church for 10 years. I can't deal with paternalism and condescension. It makes me irrational and prone to violent rages. :001_huh: (kidding...mostly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had never even heard of Ken Ham until all of this happened. He has not made a good impression and I certainly won't be rushing out to buy his companies products.:(

 

 

Exactly and exactly. Here's the thing: I might have been able to agree with him on some things, but he has completely alienated me with his behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

You're a brave lady. Way to go!! I really liked your post. I was thinking some of the same things. Christians disagreeing over how to interpret Scripture is nothing new. Why can't we just agree to disagree and quit griping about who said what and when and to whom?

I am not a fan of Enns and I would not use a Bible curriculum authored by him. Doesn't make me stop using SWB's products that I like. We keep feeding the drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am so annoyed by the paternalist and condescending attitude he and his followers have toward the rest of us. We don't need help. We are perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves if the book is in keeping with our views or not. We are perfectly capable of discerning which of SWB (or anyone else's) recommendations are appropriate for our homeschool based on their content, philosophical/religious views, price, etc. I don't need my hand held in a curriculum hall, at amazon.com, or the bookstore. I'm an adult and if anyone starts treating me differently, my opinion of them will be diminished.

 

TOTALLY agreeing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he should change his conclusion from

 

Bottom line—this book strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith!

 

to

 

 

Bottom line—this book strikes at the very heart of Ken Hamm's interpretation of Christian faith!

 

:iagree:

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course he did, to many, but I personally refuse to let biases interfere with sound judgment and clear thinking.

 

I see the pack closing in around him (meant lightheartedly:grouphug:), much to his own making, but I still insist that debating scripture (previous disclaimers, blah, blah, blah) is done in theological circles all the time and is, to me, quite fascinating. There is nothing intrinsictly wrong with it. The problem here is Ham's past comments have caused others to view what he says in a different light.

 

Lisa

 

 

I guess, to me ,the difference is that someone who wanted RESPECTFUL debate might have said something like this: "I have always believed that X verse meant Y. I wonder how you arrived at your particular interpretation" vs. "that person must be a non-believer or an enemy of xianity".

 

See the difference?

 

I don't necessarily think that a person disagreeing with SWB is bad. It is HOW you debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Clapping, well put!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess, to me ,the difference is that someone who wanted RESPECTFUL debate might have said something like this: "I have always believed that X verse meant Y. I wonder how you arrived at your particular interpretation" vs. "that person must be a non-believer or an enemy of xianity".

 

See the difference?

 

I don't necessarily think that a person disagreeing with SWB is bad. It is HOW you debate.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess, to me ,the difference is that someone who wanted RESPECTFUL debate might have said something like this: "I have always believed that X verse meant Y. I wonder how you arrived at your particular interpretation" vs. "that person must be a non-believer or an enemy of xianity".

 

See the difference?

 

I don't necessarily think that a person disagreeing with SWB is bad. It is HOW you debate.

 

 

Yes, of course I see the difference:001_smile: As I stated, respectful debate is key. I concur that Ham's previous comments during the conventions were not appropriate in that venue.

 

Which is why I feel that moving on, Ham's recent blog post is more in line with scholarly, appropriate debate. His blog post, which is what I'm defending (while most here seem to be outraged by), does not personally attack anyone nor does it call into question their Christianity or salvation. It is just plain old hermeneutical debate that goes on all the time.

 

It seems that people who demonized Ham for his convention behavior and claimed outrage at his personal comments, are now outraged again at his blog post, which seems to be omitting the very personal attacks they objected to.

 

lisa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering if all the ladies posting on KH's FB page that they feel the need to purge their homes of SWB'S work will also be leaving this board? She has a very big influence here as well, being The Overmind and all that...just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, of course I see the difference:001_smile: As I stated, respectful debate is key. I concur that Ham's previous comments during the conventions were not appropriate in that venue.

 

Which is why I feel that moving on, Ham's recent blog post is more in line with scholarly, appropriate debate. His blog post, which is what I'm defending (while most here seem to be outraged by), does not personally attack anyone nor does it call into question their Christianity or salvation. It is just plain old hermeneutical debate that goes on all the time.

 

It seems that people who demonized Ham for his convention behavior and claimed outrage at his personal comments, are now outraged again at his blog post, which seems to be omitting the very personal attacks they objected to.

 

lisa

You mean besides that last line, "Bottom line—this book strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith!"?

 

 

I find it a very odd blog post. I can't really see anything to get upset about in SWB's comments there or in the ideas Enns is supposed to be talking about (not that I've read the book). Not being an evangelical, perhaps I'm missing something, but none of it seems to me to be anything that justifies digging up a years-old review, calling its ideas unorthodox, and concluding "How we need to pray for the church to return to the authority of the “God-breathed†Word. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...