Pope negates God and encourages Gay Marriage according to Ken Ham

[Ronin]

Admitting the possibility that the BIG BANG took place, even if saying that it happened because God was behind it, is a direct path to the destruction of the christian faith and opens the doors for teh gayz to get married says Ken.

Original Ken Ham blog entry:
link (http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/01/07/the-pope-on-the-big-bang/)

Analysis from PZ Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/ken_ham_makes_it_easy_to_be_a.php


Some random toughts:

-Gotta love it when the Fundies start the in-fighting.....now where is my popcorn?

-It isn´t every day that the Pope is the reasonable on in the discussion.

-It says something about this Ken fellow when of all the things he is discussion (creation of the universe, earth, life, etc) the thing that really gets him peeved is that it could lead to ze gay marriage.

priceless.

[drone]

Next thing you know, the pope will be saying the world might possibly be older than 6000 years. :dizzy2:

Stuff like this is a direct threat to the literalist fundie evangelicals. I don't say this very often, but "Yeah!" for the Pope.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Admitting the possibility that the BIG BANG took place, even if saying that it happened because God was behind it, is a direct path to the destruction of the christian faith and opens the doors for teh gayz to get married says Ken.

Original Ken Ham blog entry:
link (http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/01/07/the-pope-on-the-big-bang/)

Analysis from PZ Myers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/ken_ham_makes_it_easy_to_be_a.php


Some random toughts:

-Gotta love it when the Fundies start the in-fighting.....now where is my popcorn?

-It isn´t every day that the Pope is the reasonable on in the discussion.

-It says something about this Ken fellow when of all the things he is discussion (creation of the universe, earth, life, etc) the thing that really gets him peeved is that it could lead to ze gay marriage.

priceless.

Ken doesn't understand what an allegory is - if he did he would realise he is talking tosh.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A protestant, an evangelical, slagging off the pope. Now that's a first, haven't had any of that the past 500 years.

He looks decidedly homosexual too.

I think he has been abused as a child, mentally that is. By people telling him when he was five that a strange man can read his mind at all times and if he dares think bad thoughts, like about other men he will be tortured with fire forever. That created all sorts ofmental problems ten years later, when he couldn't reconcile his developing hormonal feelings with what he had been taught. As a result, he now tragically spends his life fighting his inner demons by hunting gays, and by putting his religious ideas - as they were in the period of his traumas, in the crude form of an adolescent boy - on a fundamentalist pedastal, set in stone for all eternity, lest he start to doubt what he needs to be sure of.

[rory_20_uk]

Spoken from the heart, Louis? ~;)

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Spoken from personal experience! After having been a staunch member of Opus Dei since the age of seven I have finally embraced my true inner self. The things Dave does with a banana in front of a webcam! It is enough to throw any man off course.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Eh... this doesn't mean I have to side with the Pope over a fellow ultra-Protestant does it?

In fairness to Ken Ham (I remember when Tribesman went crazy when I quoted his site once in my earlier days, lol), he doesn't mention gay marriage, he simply makes the argument that Genesis must be literal history or else the institution of marriage is meaningless, since its authority comes from the fact that it is a creation ordinance.

I don't see why this has to be the case though... when Jesus references Genesis in Matthew 19 he could be referencing it as an allegory.

Anyway, Genesis itself gives differing accounts of creation... not because they are contradictory, but because they come from different viewpoints.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh... this doesn't mean I have to side with the Pope over a fellow ultra-Protestant does it?

In fairness to Ken Ham (I remember when Tribesman went crazy when I quoted his site once in my earlier days, lol), he doesn't mention gay marriage, he simply makes the argument that Genesis must be literal history or else the institution of marriage is meaningless, since its authority comes from the fact that it is a creation ordinance.

I don't see why this has to be the case though... when Jesus references Genesis in Matthew 19 he could be referencing it as an allegory.

Anyway, Genesis itself gives differing accounts of creation... not because they are contradictory, but because they come from different viewpoints.

Rhy, you're making nuanced arguments about Scripture, are you feeling OK?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhy, you're making nuanced arguments about Scripture, are you feeling OK?

Actually, no. This is the first post of any substance I've made here in ages, my brain is going to pot these days.

Anyway, as I've always said... fundamentalism is not literalism. I realise scripture has other purposes beyond telling us history, and that artistic license is taken at points.

You just have to be honest in how you read things. Going the hardline YEC literatist way is no less dishonest than dismissing everything as an allegory, which seems to have become fashionable these days (usually be people who have never actually read the Bible but think they are knowledgable and cleverer than the 'dumb fundies' because they do this).

[TosaInu]

Test

[Beskar]

You just have to be honest in how you read things. Going the hardline YEC literatist way is no less dishonest than dismissing everything as an allegory, which seems to have become fashionable these days (usually be people who have never actually read the Bible but think they are knowledgable and cleverer than the 'dumb fundies' because they do this).

They only do it not because it is fashionable, because they cannot be attacked on the tripe that is written in the bible.

[Cute Wolf]

Test

does the Pope try to "test" God?

[Rhyfelwyr]

They only do it not because it is fashionable, because they cannot be attacked on the tripe that is written in the bible.

There is an element of that as well. Because most people in mainstream churches are not regenerate, they claim to believe in the gospel but in reality when push comes to shove they are ashamed of it.

"And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me" (Matthew 11:6)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is an element of that as well. Because most people in mainstream churches are not regenerate, they claim to believe in the gospel but in reality when push comes to shove they are ashamed of it.

"And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me" (Matthew 11:6)

Not "most", but there is a significant minority among the clergy who are in it for the high-minded philosophising. It's the natural result of too much ducking and weaving.

That, or they want to sleep with gorgeous women who aren't Christian (or men).

[Yoyoma1910]

Test


does the Pope try to "test" God?

That wasn't a post, that was God testing his wrath somewhere on this planet.

Every time Tosa says "Test" a heathen is smitten... Just like when a bell rings, and angel gets their wings, or when a coffee pot beeps, a beatnik grows a goatee.

[Beskar]

That, or they want to sleep with gorgeous women who aren't Christian (or men).

I would be more worried if they wanted to sleep with gorgeous women who are men.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not "most", but there is a significant minority among the clergy who are in it for the high-minded philosophising. It's the natural result of too much ducking and weaving.

That, or they want to sleep with gorgeous women who aren't Christian (or men).

Ugh, yeah, I know what you mean by those types. Even if they are a minority, they always seem to be in the top positions and influencing how the church does things.*

*Should point out, I had the CofS in mind there, given some of the recent proceedings at General Assemblies I've read about. I think Rowan Williams is more genuine and concerned about actual morality and not just airy philosophy, even if I disagree with his conclusions.