Evidence for God from Science

deleted

Nothing veiled Jac. Check your pm's and we can continue this by pm if needed.

Jac3510 wrote:The irony . . . you engage in bitterness to protect the faith. I'm sure that non-Christians find the backbiting and vitriol proof of the love of Christ. And for someone who talks as much as you do about avoiding dogmatism and systematic theology, you come across all the more as dogmatic. Your arguments presuppose a systematic theology . . .

Call it an ad hominem if you like. I'm not making an argument, Bart. I'm making an observation. You can do with it what you like. I'm telling you that you are coming across as bitter and angry. If that's okay with you--if you ca justify yourself in that regard--then fine. I'm not your judge. Just sharing a thought.

We all see things from whatever little prism we're looking through at the time so where you may see bitterness I see concern. I don't have a problem with you defending Ham, Jac, in so much as you both agree on YEC issues. But the way you make it seem is as if you're also in agreement with much of what he says with respect to linking (even equating) YEC belief with belief in God. I think this is what Bart is criticizing and what he is guarding against. We keep saying that the YEC/OEC debate, while an important one, is not a salvation issue but Ken Ham has surely made it one and by you defending him the way you do you are coming across as believing the same thing. My 2 cents, whatever they're worth (probably a lot less than 2 cents).

deleted

I've said what I have to say on the matter as well.

In the future Jac, please address the issues raised and not the poster in this manner.

Thanks

Jac3510 wrote:John, contrary to Bart's assertion, I'm not defending Ham. I don't hold to Ham's version of YEC, much less some of the implications he draws out from it. In fact, in the apologetics course I teach here at a local seminary, I make it a point of telling my class that I don't engage in "creation apologetics." So why would I feel the need to defend Ham at all? Of course, had Bart taken the time to ask me what my motives were rather than assume me, he might have found something totally different.

As I said, I've said my peace on the matter. I'd have said the same thing to any YEC advocate whose words came across (to me) as contemptuous about Ross. In fact, I used to work at a YEC school, and I made the same observation to them with regard to their tone about him. You all can have any "last word" you like.

But this is not about having last words as we (ok you and Bart) seem to always fall into this never-ending cycle of back and forth with no resolution. I'd like a chance to resolve this if I can, what do you consider contemptuous words?

deleted

In all fairness, I see Bart was really targeting Ham and the division he causes (the irony is noted albeit Ham's division declares quite adamantly that one side has no faith which I interpret as aren't truly Christian). This is wrong, and Ham does lead many astray and causes Christians especially in churches who condone Ham, to feel outcast or have to tread sensatively so as to not bring one's Christianity into question from others.

Ham's campaign is not one of love in Christ, it is one of love of his interpretation of Scripture and hate against those who have fallen into Satan's lies (i.e., those who disagree)... his zeal is good, but poorly and wrongly channelled. I wouldn't put them on the same level, but Ham for me is like a Benny Hinn (only different categories).

Other YECs like Felgar, yourself and others I respect the opinions... but Ham while quite aggressively YEC does do Christianity much harm in my opinion, not just to those outside Christ's church, but those inside. Note, my remarks are personal opinions of Ham, and not YECs like yourself. I believe Bart originally was targeting Ham too and not necessarily YECs at large.

As I've has many conversations with Bart about YEC and Ham, I'm sure this was about Ham and his methods, not YEC in general. The only difference I see between Ham and Hinn, is that Hinn has repented of his errors, and Ham hasn't.(not that Hinn was sincere, because he still continues in error). If God came and confronted Ham, and told Ham that the universe is billions of years old, I believe Ham would probably argue with God, and call Him a compromiser.

Jac, with all due respect, please take off the hairshirt and stop with the dramatics. You've never been gagged from discussing issues on this board and anyone looking at your history in terms of span and number of posts can see that without any difficulty.

I've spoken directly and clearly to you as to what I see as issues and I've made it clear as respectfully as I know how, that there are boundaries that all of us are expected to maintain in terms of decorum.

If you have an issue with me personally you are always welcome to address them with me by PM or you are welcome to approach another moderator. Believe it or not we talk and I ask regularly behind the scenes to be told by others on the team if I'm being unreasonable and when I'm told I am, I listen and adapt accordingly.

I make no apologies for my opinion of Ken Ham and AIG in general and I'm not afraid to speak it. Ham is a public figure and he's fair game to discuss, especially on a Creationist forum. He's certainly not shy to speak his opinions even when they get him thrown out of home-schooling conferences or cause controversy in other areas. I expect he would want people to be as blunt as he is or he would change his own very public behavior.

If you want to disagree with me on my opinion on Ham, you're welcome to do so and have always been. Address the issues regarding the statements as to whether they are true or fair and if we need to disagree that's fine. You're a smart guy and very trained in debate. You know (and even alluded pretty clearly that you knew earlier in this thread) that you were engaging in an ad hominem course and I called you on it. That's all there is to say about it. If you're not happy with the moderating on this board or believe you deserve special status, with all due respect, that is your issue and you must deal with it and reconcile it as you need, but the option of publically criticizing the moderating team, whether it is me or anyone else on the team is one that is no longer open to you. If you (or anyone else) has an issue, use the appropriate means I've mentioned above and I assure you that you'll be treated with respect but there's not a guarantee that your concern will be completely agreed with at all times. When it is agreed with we'll work to improve ourselves.

RickD wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Maybe. I might be more sensitive and over-reacting to the journalist's methods in the story. I claim no neutrality with regard to my opinion of Ham and AIG and I own that bias. It just saddens me to watch what I see as a continued descent as he and AIG continue to alienate and separate from others becoming more and more isolated and unchallenged in their thinking.

More and more isolated, I agree. Unchallenged? I think they are being challenged more and more, actually. At least from those outside their own little world, anyway.

I still wonder how many curious, open atheists are going to be completely tuned out to the gospel, when they equate Jesus Christ, with Young Earth Creationism.

Sorry I didn't respond earlier to this. Of course you're right that there is plenty of opposition externally. To me, one measure of what makes something a cult or cult-like is when internally there can be no challenges or questions made of the leadership without that in and of itself becoming grounds for expulsion. Ham is retreating into a smaller and smaller connected community in which he's becoming increasingly the big fish in a reducing pond. He's now being rejected on the basis of his attitude, tone and techniques even by some fellow YEC leaders. Who is there to hold Ken Ham in check on these issues? Who will he listen to? Those who do then are put in the gun-sights of his organization and following and it's become about power and justifying all sorts of boorish behavior on the basis of being "right."

That's a time honored and historically demonstrable set of elements that often leads to cults where such established toxic leaders are freed from internal restraints and left to do as they wish and justify it however they wish.