• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ken Ham banned from convention

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bob Alkire

New Member
Ken Ham, the man behind the Creation Museum and the future Ark Encounter amusement park, has been disinvited from a homeschool convention in Cincinnati next week because he made "ungodly, and mean-spirited" comments about another speaker, according to the convention's organizers. ...​

At issue are criticisms by Ham of Peter Enns of the Biologos Foundation, who has said the fall of Adam and Eve can be construed as a symbolic story of Israel's beginnings, rather than a literal description of human beginnings. (UPDATE 5:10 p.m. March 25: Ham posted audio of what he said about Enns' beliefs.)
On his blog (here and here) and in other statements, Ham takes issue with this view and Enns' homeschool curriculum.​

I'm with Ken on this.​


​
​



​
 
M

mandym

New Member
A quote taken from Ken's blog

It’s not that simple, and if it were, people wouldn’t be talking it about it so much.
Click to expand...

So if a theological liberal is talking about it that automatically means it is not as simple as being literal? What kind of logic is that? He thinks a lot of himself.


I would argue that just because someone makes an argument does not in itself indicate the value of said argument.
 
B

Bob Alkire

New Member
mandym said:
A quote taken from Ken's blog



So if a theological liberal is talking about it that automatically means it is not as simple as being literal? What kind of logic is that? He thinks a lot of himself.


I would argue that just because someone makes an argument does not in itself indicate the value of said argument.
Click to expand...

If you agree or not with Ken's view, it starts out either the first 11 chapters of Genesis are true or our salvation plan is wrong, which would put Christ and the NT as being wrong. Again I happen to agree with him.
 
menageriekeeper

menageriekeeper

Active Member
I'm of two minds about this. I'm a homeschooler who home schools for reasons other than religion. I don't want and don't need a science cirriculum that teaches religion. I can teach my faith quite well right from the Bible. I need a science cirric that teaches SCIENCE! I believe it is my place as the parent to apply my beliefs to the science that is being taught. Because of this belief I'd rather have a cirric that presents all the valid theories along with the evidence supporting AND detracting from each. That teaches my children to make informed decisions about what they believe rather than following someone's party line. (and I have yet to find a science cirric that does this!)

Now some folk are different than I am and they like a cirric that continually indoctrinates their children toward a particular view (whether it be young earth or theistic evolution). And that is up to them.

That said, the convention AND Ken Hamm both over reacted. I don't need or want EITHER of them to decide what is best for my family. If Ken Hamm has something to say, he should do it in an appropriate place and with the graciousness of Christ. Attack theories rather than people.

The convention, if they thought punitive actions were needed, could simply have taken Hamm off the speaker list but allowed space for product demos and sales.

Both sides were wrong in my book.

Let me add:

Homeschooling is becoming more popular every day. It is no longer just religious conservatives that homeschool. Secular society is realizing that public school is not for everyone and homeschooling is a valid and successful way to educate ones children. Homeschooling conventions are going to have to branch out into products that appeal to the non religious or someone else will. Allowing all views to be represented at a convention of this nature will help keep the homeschooling culture a cohesive community with a diverse population. If we alienate different factions of homeschoolers over their veiws of religion, then we begin to lose the momentum of the movement. Don't think we can't go back to the 80's when homeschooling was unheard of. In fighting over issues like the above will tear homeschooling apart from the inside and THAT would be a trajedy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
preachinjesus

preachinjesus

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How we speak of another Christian should be viewed as just as important as the content of what we say about our position.

Here Mr. Hamm acted in an unChristlike spirit towards another Christian. While banned is a harsh word, imho, he was uninvited from speaking...and rightly so.
 
ReformedBaptist

ReformedBaptist

Well-Known Member
Bob Alkire said:
Ken Ham, the man behind the Creation Museum and the future Ark Encounter amusement park, has been disinvited from a homeschool convention in Cincinnati next week because he made "ungodly, and mean-spirited" comments about another speaker, according to the convention's organizers. ...​

At issue are criticisms by Ham of Peter Enns of the Biologos Foundation, who has said the fall of Adam and Eve can be construed as a symbolic story of Israel's beginnings, rather than a literal description of human beginnings. (UPDATE 5:10 p.m. March 25: Ham posted audio of what he said about Enns' beliefs.)
On his blog (here and here) and in other statements, Ham takes issue with this view and Enns' homeschool curriculum.​

I'm with Ken on this.​


​
​



​
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement with Ken on this one too. And I am grateful, as a homeschooler, that Peter Enns was called out. I wouldn't want to waste my money on his curriculum.

And, since the Bible gives a complete worldview, then it has every place to engage science. AiG and other sound creation ministries do not claim that the Bible is a science textbook. But where it speaks upon any subject, it is true.

To take a non-literanl view of Genesis is to take a non-literal view of Christ. Unless there is an actual first Adam, then there may not be an actual Second Adam. As AiG has rightly pointed out, Genesis is foundational to the Gospel.
 
A

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
ReformedBaptist said:
I'm in agreement with Ken on this one too. And I am grateful, as a homeschooler, that Peter Enns was called out. I wouldn't want to waste my money on his curriculum.

And, since the Bible gives a complete worldview, then it has every place to engage science. AiG and other sound creation ministries do not claim that the Bible is a science textbook. But where it speaks upon any subject, it is true.

To take a non-literanl view of Genesis is to take a non-literal view of Christ. Unless there is an actual first Adam, then there may not be an actual Second Adam. As AiG has rightly pointed out, Genesis is foundational to the Gospel.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'm with you. If we do not rightly judge those in the church, then what?
 
A

Amy.G

New Member
preachinjesus said:
How we speak of another Christian should be viewed as just as important as the content of what we say about our position.

Here Mr. Hamm acted in an unChristlike spirit towards another Christian. While banned is a harsh word, imho, he was uninvited from speaking...and rightly so.
Click to expand...

How is calling out false teaching "unChristlike"? Are we not to contend for the faith? Didn't Paul call out Peter for his hypocrisy and "withstand him to his face"?
 
M

mandym

New Member
Bob Alkire said:
If you agree or not with Ken's view, it starts out either the first 11 chapters of Genesis are true or our salvation plan is wrong, which would put Christ and the NT as being wrong. Again I happen to agree with him.
Click to expand...


I was not talking about Ken I was referring to Peter Enns.
 
B

billwald

New Member
>it starts out either the first 11 chapters of Genesis are true or our salvation plan is wrong, which would put Christ and the NT as being wrong.

What does "true" mean? Why does everything have to be true or false. Is every statement falsifiable?

If the NT is wrong then are we any worse off than the human race was 50 years before Jesus was born?

If there is any truth in the NT then there must be truth in the OT. If the OT teaches that God will send a messiah and Jesus is not the messiah then will not God STILL send a messiah?

If Jesus is not the messiah the OT and/or the Jewish religion is not falsified.
 
H

Havensdad

New Member
billwald said:
>it starts out either the first 11 chapters of Genesis are true or our salvation plan is wrong, which would put Christ and the NT as being wrong.

What does "true" mean? Why does everything have to be true or false. Is every statement falsifiable?

If the NT is wrong then are we any worse off than the human race was 50 years before Jesus was born?

If there is any truth in the NT then there must be truth in the OT. If the OT teaches that God will send a messiah and Jesus is not the messiah then will not God STILL send a messiah?

If Jesus is not the messiah the OT and/or the Jewish religion is not falsified.
Click to expand...

Um, thank you Pontius Pilate. :laugh:

Yes. Everything is true, or false. It is either true that man was created in the image of God, and fell, and that Christ died for our sins because of that, or it is false. What a silly statement! No offense, but you sound more like a Hindu or New Ager, than a Christian!
 
A

Amy.G

New Member
Havensdad said:
Um, thank you Pontius Pilate. :laugh:

Yes. Everything is true, or false. It is either true that man was created in the image of God, and fell, and that Christ died for our sins because of that, or it is false. What a silly statement! No offense, but you sound more like a Hindu or New Ager, than a Christian!
Click to expand...

Apparently you are not familiar with billwald. This is typical of all of his posts.


(I like the Pontious Pilot part, that was funny) :laugh:
 
R

rbell

Active Member
billwald said:
>it starts out either the first 11 chapters of Genesis are true or our salvation plan is wrong, which would put Christ and the NT as being wrong.

What does "true" mean? Why does everything have to be true or false. Is every statement falsifiable?

If the NT is wrong then are we any worse off than the human race was 50 years before Jesus was born?

If there is any truth in the NT then there must be truth in the OT. If the OT teaches that God will send a messiah and Jesus is not the messiah then will not God STILL send a messiah?

If Jesus is not the messiah the OT and/or the Jewish religion is not falsified.
Click to expand...

Sorry to continue the derail, but this is important:

So, billwald, are you saying the Jesus is not the Messiah?
 
Aaron

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
A lot of people talking about science and religion here like they're two different things.

What is science?
 
A

abcgrad94

Active Member
As a homeschool mom, I want my kids to have a Christ-centered education, and that includes science. God is the creator of all things, including science. The two are compatible, that is until people start doubting God's word!

I'm 100% behind Ken Ham on this one and I'm proud of him for standing up for truth. I'm sick and tired of hearing how "mean-spirited" he is for simply telling it like it is. We either believe the Bible or we don't, period. He's welcome to come speak to my homeschool group anytime.
 
A

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
abcgrad94 said:
As a homeschool mom, I want my kids to have a Christ-centered education, and that includes science. God is the creator of all things, including science. The two are compatible, that is until people start doubting God's word!

I'm 100% behind Ken Ham on this one and I'm proud of him for standing up for truth. I'm sick and tired of hearing how "mean-spirited" he is for simply telling it like it is. We either believe the Bible or we don't, period. He's welcome to come speak to my homeschool group anytime.
Click to expand...

Amen! :thumbs:
 
H

Havensdad

New Member
Aaron said:
A lot of people talking about science and religion here like they're two different things.

What is science?
Click to expand...

Science is the study and cataloging of observable and repeatable criteria. Since "origins" is necessarily not "observable and repeatable" it is not "science" but "philosophy" or "religion."
 
M

MamaCW

New Member
I agree with the statement by Ken..

Someone mentioned something about him going about it the wrong way. I read the article and-at least from what i read- there was nothing said that came off as a personal attack. He was just straightforward about his disagreement with Enns' viewpoint, and rightfully so.

Someone else mentioned something about homeschooling her children and not for "religious"reasons, and that you could teach your child yourself right out of the bible..Regardless of how you are planning on teaching them..the point here is that people like Enn are spreading their false philosophies to the home-schooled community and are tainting the truth..

If someone doesn't take a stand against these people, then we'll all be "new age, lets take everything figuratively so that we can vaguely interpret how we want to live" crazies..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top