Hell and Hamnation at Work

Fundamentalism: The Voice of Voris  (See here
  for the video)

Quoting myself in a recent correspondence to James Knight:

The best sense I've made of pathological manifestations of the faith revolve round the common themes of social marginalisation and alienation, social anonymity, tribalism, paranoia, conspiracy theory and above all a desire to have a sure-fire secure epistemology either based on "The word of God" and/or gnostic revelation that can be used to oppose "profane" & "secular" knowledge.

James Knight has recently provided an interesting perspective on pathological religious communities by focusing on the role of leadership. See here. He also links to this article on the sociology of leaders who exploit their position by talking up the fears, scares and threats which draw a close knit community together and which discourage challenges to its leadership.

It is clear that leadership gurus are an important component contributing to the maintenance of the sectarian status quo; in particular, when the sect is embattled there is a need to talk up the paranoia and persecution complexes which help cement the group to its leaders. Ken Ham, who James mentions, is a classic case. Ham’s rhetoric against his detractors is always set at maximum fire power and he never minces his words; in particular Christians who don’t agree with him are one of the main targets of his condemnatory bulls: They are accused of quite extreme sins of compromise, of heresy, of attacking the Cross of Christ and of following another Jesus (I can provide references). In this light Ham’s claim that Young Earthism is not a salvation issue is ungenuine and merely academic. For Ham Biblical literalism is every bit a faith testing shibboleth. He also tells us that Biblical literalism is an authority issue. But with that I certainly agree; after all, in the final analysis it’s about the divine authority of Ham’s opinions. If one identifies one's opinions with divine authority it is no surprise that detractors are perceived to be indulging in the worst of heresies and one will condemn them in the strongest possible terms.

Upping the ante can sometimes, however, result in diminishing returns. The Jehovah’s Witness did this with their rhetoric surrounding 1975 which lead many of their followers to believe that the end of "this system of things" was set for that year. Of course, like many of their other “prophecies” 1975 fell through and for a while membership eased off. But either people have short memories or are stupid, (probably both), because it wasn't long before the membership recovered with the input of a new batch of inexperienced and ignorant recruits. So perhaps the sectarian world''s strategy of living off sensationalist capital actually works. It may pall for a bit, but the supply of fresh faced dupes who are ripe for exploitation seems inexhaustible; they are the sects renewable  resource that keep it running.

See also Micheal Voris who provides us with a fine example of a Catholic fundamentalist guru going forth with all guns blazing. Fundamentalist rhetoric has just two settings: Maximum volume and maximum volume.

See also:
http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/arbitrariness-in-mature-creation-theory.html

Ken "Slam'em" Ham is leader of the pack

AiG a Micky Mouse Outfit Admits Ken Ham!

Face palming faux pas: AiG have a funny idea of promoting the faith!

Recently the Biblical literalists of Answers in Genesis started a bill board campaign. When I saw the cartoon below I was completely convinced that it was a send up by some atheist who wanted to lampoon this campaign.

And then I saw  "c. AiG 2013" printed vertically on the first frame! That's right, this is an AiG conceived and promoted cartoon! I was as gob-smacked as the atheist character in the cartoon: Can anyone be so brazenly naive and not see it? This is a real windfall for those atheists who knew all along that AiG's ministry was about the circular reasoning of self-authentification. But I bet AiG won't see it: Fundamentalists take themselves too seriously to be able to detect irony! 

A similar thing happened to me when I noticed one of Ken Ham's blog posts dated 21st October and entitled "The same quality you expect from Disney world!". My first thought was that this must be Ken complaining about how some atheist has described his creation "museum". You could have knocked me over with a feather when after reading the post it turned out that this was the appropriately inappropriately subliminal remark used by one of Ken's own admirers to describe the Creation Museum. Viz:

The same quality you expect from Disney World can be expected from the Creation Museum

Once again evangelical atheists will be chuffed that Ken Ham has allowed through a statement that compares his Creation "Museum" with Disney Land! This is not really the association that any scientific museum would want to cultivate even if the intent is merely to convey something about the standard of the display.

Ken, you're not supposed to be broadcasting own goals like this; you're supposed to be promoting Christianity, not making it a laughing stock!

Who needs atheists to take the micky when we Christians have got Ken Ham and Co!

Christian Apologists Against Fideism

The atheists would agree!

An article appeared in the October edition of Christianity magazine entitled “Let’s be reasonable”. It’s about the presentation of Christian apologetics and debate. Let me just explain here that my own motives for studying and thinking are not primarily apologetic but rather motivated by a desire to unravel selected mysteries. This has a tendency to intensify my focus on very particular issues and away from the broad “jack-of-all-trades” focus required by an apologist because he or she is servicing an audience. However, there is a lot of very good stuff that comes from Christian apologists. In this particular connection what piqued my interest were these quotes from the article:

David Robertson, pastor of St Peter’s Free church, Dundee says:  “People say no one is ever converted through arguing. That is rubbish. Of course people are only converted through the Holy Spirit, but he uses different means”

Alister McGrath, theologian, says: “As an apologist, I occasionally meet some people who are aggressively anti-Christian. What made them like this was somebody taking a very anti-intellectual viewpoint; that faith is all about not  using your head, refusing to think and just trusting. People who say this kind of thing do create a lot of damage”

I agree completely: The Holy Spirit is as much immanent in reasoning as he is anything else. Fideism is one of the byproducts of a Christian dualism that sharply separates out the supernatural from natural. Fideists are complete failures in what they may think of as the profane field of apologetics and so make their escape into the esoteric "supernatural" knowledge of those who claim to have the inexpressible inner light of the gnostic. Well, fair enough, perhaps they do have esoteric inner light; who knows how the Holy Spirit works in the inner man. However, the ultra-fideists believe they have a superior epistemic based on their arcane intuitions and they are intolerant of those who might claim that reason is a facet of revelation. Here’s an example of fideism that I picked up from a TV program which showcased a Christian “teacher”. As always with fideism it is ultimately self-contradictory: Unless the fideist shuts up completely (I wish they would) one can observe the amusing spectacle of the fideist justifying fideism with reason!

Fideist Number 1: If you always process salvation through your mind you will never enter the fuller things in your walk. You must move from a place of cognitive reasoning ability to a place where faith and belief flows through your spirit and not your head … God is beyond your logic.

Now, below is another farcical example of a fideist using reasoning to justify his fideism. This example is a particularly unpleasant and nasty specimen betraying a self-centered spiritual egotism: The quote has been taken from the post of an anonymous contributor to the comments section of the Christian web site Network Norwich and Norfolk: I have highlighted (in bold) some parts of this text, in particular those parts showing the use of the extreme anti-superlatives to which this kind of person is readily attracted. I have also highlighted those parts which evidence a resort to his "inner light"; that is, his intuitions and feelings which of course he identifies with Christ's authority. As a consequence notice that he has little respect for Bible study because to him intuitive inner light trumps reason; that’s just another way of raising his opinions and feelings to the level of divine authority!

Fideist Number 2:  Debate, debate, debate, even if you win sometimes you lose! What is the church? I want to tell you that in the heavy load that we carry called "the local church" it is very difficult for us to really slow down long enough to not just study the bible but to eat and drink that which it really speaks of which is the very person of Jesus Christ Himself. To intimately fellowship with Him even romantically as His bride even to eating His flesh and drinking His blood. I mean really doing this not just drinking a cup of grape juice and a piece of cracker and acting all introspective and holy in some ritualistic form. Brethren we have been ignorant of the devices of Satan. We have not known that religion and spiritual thinking in the minds of men is SATANS THROWN! (sic) I have had some conversations with members of the Jehovah’s witness cult and I was instructed at the time by the Holy Spirit not to debate with them from their intellect. The Spirit showed...that is EXACTLY what they want. They want to debate with you the scriptures. The moment you want to disprove their interpretation of the scripture with the scripture...they got you RIGHT WHERE THEY WANT YOU! Even if you outdo them with your wisdom... you lose. Because they will never know anything of what you are talking about because they are forming their argument even to "twisting" your words and guess who wins. Satan. You have just participated in and played his game. You want to tell the truth to someone and really help them to know the truth. Direct them to the teacher inside their spirit. Christ in them. Now if you don’t believe Christ is in them...well your gonna have to keep picking up that sword of the word and fighting it out but hear the echoes of our Saviour in the pressure of His passion....(He who lives by the sword SHALL DIE by the sword) The Carnal mind is DEATH the mind of the Spirit (within even deeper than intellect) is LIFE and PEACE. The letter KILLS but the Spirit gives life. Christ the teacher is in all men. Don’t debate with men direct them to Christ within. John said that which denys (sic) Christ in the flesh is the Spirit of Anti-Christ. That simply means "instead of Christ." Watch out if you get pleasure in debate...and pleasure in your doctrine...your church...your way of believing...watch out what spirit you really are in. Of whose domain really has dominion in that realm? Jesus told Peter Get behind me SATAN you do not know the things of God but THE THINGS OF MEN. Christ IN YOU is the hope of glory and Christ in others also!

I hardly need say that I don’t see eye to eye with the Jehovah’s Witnesses but it is very unfair to accuse them of being Satanic; in fact their methods, customs and epistemic philosophy are very similar to other fundamentalist Christians.

Like other fundamentalists the fideist I have quoted sees the world very much in the black and whites of depraved baddies versus spiritual goodies like himself. Unable to see the world in shades of grey he goes straight for the maximum fire power of the spiritual nuclear option, accusing, with loud shouts, those of whom he is unable to successfully reason of heinous sin and being instruments of Satan. Christians who do engage in reason are written off as falling for Satan’s wiles. In the fractious world of Christian sectarianism abusive accusations like this are as bad as it gets. This conceited spiritual bigot, of course, believes that he is above reason and instead receives direct instruction from God and the Christ within Viz “I was instructed by the Holy Spirit”. "The Spirit showed [me]". Moreover, notice that he is very ready to rubbish other Christian's experience of communion over his own.

And yet in spite of the pretensions to a having a deep mystical union with Christ it is ironic that this conceited bigot is engaged in a spiritual ego trip that is manifestly all too humanly motivated. McGrath is completely right “People who say this kind of thing do create a lot of damage”. The only people that a testimony of the above sort attracts are fellow egotists who are tempted by thoughts of being part of a spiritual elite from where they can scream down hell and damnation on all who disagree with them.

Some relevant links:

http://norwichcentralbaptistchurch.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/human-predicament.html  

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/dallas-willard-catches-up-on-gnosticism.html

Onward Child Soldiers

The first video below is a news item about a crop of talented child preachers. Like the young Michael Jackson these kids watch, observe and pick up a repertoire of moves and lyrics. They then spontaneously choreograph their own melodramatic performances. They clearly have acting and imitative talent, although content is rather light as one might expect of such young minds. This child preacher phenomenon has a very "black church" feel about it in that exuberance, melodrama and theatre form an important part of worship in such churches. (Also, children "channelling" spirits is a black theme) But ironically these child performances come over to me as a comedian's caricature and send up of the adult preacher world! I actually enjoyed their "acts"!

Below is a rather different performance. This is very white middle class in flavour. Here young Tinkertell, presumably reciting from a script compiled by an adult, gives her fundamentalist YEC audience all that they want hear. Apart from being a good reader Tinkertell hasn't been given much opportunity to display talent; she's just  been taught to jump through hoops.

(Sept 13: The above video has recently been removed. It showed a child reciting, probably from a script, standard fundamentalist objections to evolution and an old Earth. Those same objections can be picked up from any fundamentalist web site that promotes a literal interpretation of Genesis)

Remarks
I must say that I feel very uncomfortable about this public use of children, a use which puts them in the firing line: They are being thrust into the world of adult affairs with all its ulterior motives, passions and contentions. When she is older Tinkertell might cringe at her video - unlike the child preachers there's not even the redeeming feature of much talent on show. For that reason I perhaps feel a  little better about the child preachers (Provided they are confined to their parent's church services);  at least these young performers  might enjoy exercising their considerable stage talents and benefit from the opportunity to do so. But in both cases adults are investing the performances with far more gravitas and meaning than just the joy of seeing a child given the opportunity to perform: These kid preachers aren't recognised for what they are but are seen as pawns being moved by the Holy Spirit. In poor little Tinkertell's case her mouth is being stuffed full of fifth rate polemic that she doesn't understand and is in no position to critique. These children may have an entirely different perspective on  things when they grow up and may feel they were used.

These children have been groomed into a world of  serious adult "games" that are in fact for real. They have become gun fodder against other adults. It's the difference between seeing kids play Cowboys and Indians with toy guns and actually giving them real guns. They are being sent to the front line and used as both human shields and carriers of warheads. After all, what normal adult could attack a child's performance without looking like a heartless brute? In fact poor old PZ Myers was once caught in one of these nasty fundamentalist child traps; I found the whole thing so immoral that I had to weigh in on PZ's side.

The YEC video is particularly cynical. Recently the atheist community has been banging on about fundamentalists educationally abusing their children. This video, by using a child, is intended to be a "in-yer-face-f*ck-you!" taunt to the atheist community.  The subtext is intended to further provoke by conveying that even children can understand stuff that the likes of PZ Myers et al do not!

It's all very tacky and disturbing and yet twee, kitsch and cutesy at the same time. Ambivalent and conflicting feelings make the whole experience of watching these child performances distinctly uncomfortable and sinister.

Happy Snappy Christians!

Jeff Lucas gives us a new perspective on the Christian Ixthus sign!

When you’ve had contact with the Christian community for as long as I have then you've probably seen just about all the tacky off-colour stuff it can throw at you:  Failed prophecies and failed healings are probably near the top of my hokum list, but then so is the accompanying aggressive spin-doctoring needed to reinterpret failure as either outright success or downright spiritual blockage somewhere (that is, someone’s going to get the blame!). Next, perhaps, are the literalist Godbots who comb the Bible looking for instructions to add to their lists of commands directing life and community and who loudly accuse others of not following the Bible. But then I’m forgetting the abrasive super-spiritual gnostics who see themselves as a spiritual elite and are determined to foist their recipe for revival and blessing on everyone else. Actually, though, perhaps the people deserving top hokum rating are the church patriarchs put up by their gullible following as figures with “covering authority” over their flocks. Of course, I mustn't forget to find a place for the anti-science fundamentalists, the fideists, the Christian conspiracy theorists, and the numerous restorationist start-up fellowships who start to look dangerously like cults populated as they are by spiritual egotists who think their opinions trumps the guidance of all other Christians. In fact, there are so many self-deceived con-artists out there that I'm undecided as to who should get top rating so perhaps they could take  turns at occupying the top slot. But one thing I'm sure of: Whatever special access to the Divine these people may claim, they are nonetheless behaving in an all too typically human way; a way that is repeated again and again in the annals of sectarian history.

Now, Jeff Lucas is a teaching pastor at Timberline Church, Colorado. He also writes a regular column for Christianity magazine and has received the VNP award for Christian authenticity on two occasions. (See here). He has hung out long enough in this Christianity business to have been well exposed to the snapsters I’ve outlined above. He’s definitely seen it all and it shows! For example, check out these quotes from his column in the May edition of Christianity magazine:

From Jeff Lucas’ article: Sorry folks but the VNP censor didn't leave us with much to read!

Lucas, like me, is clearly long in the tooth, but his articles are often a protest against Christians who are very sharp in the tooth and who, recycling the illustration Jeff uses in the quoted article, are like a shoal of snappy little piranha unable to resist the reflex action of biting to bits everything that comes their way. Lucas’ regular column sits on the last page of the magazine after the advert section and this may explain why he seldom gets letters of complaint from sort of people I've outlined above – once they have snapped their way through the mag. chomping at all the "doctrinal error", by the time they get to the adverts section they don't realise that there's still a tasty morsel left on the last page! Christianity magazine obviously wants to keep Jeff Lucas out of bite sight! Perhaps that’s also why our VNP censor rather over did it! Perhaps that’s why Jeff's stuck himself right out in the waterless Colorado Desert somewhere!

Worshipping Worship.

"It is possible to create 'event dependency' where people feel they cannot enter into worship unless they have an 'anointed' worship leader" (says Graham Kendrick)

The 1960s were a traumatic time for Christianity. After rallying a bit during the austere 1950s (at least in the UK) the mold breaking and icon shattering sixties took their toll on traditional Christianity. Many Western Christians (over)reacted by turning to fundamentalist and/or gnostic versions of the faith; both reactions were intimately bound up with an innate anti-intellectualism (Often expressing itself in Young Earthism, Godbotting, legalism, fideism, and above all epistemic arrogance) and have been the subject of this blog on many an occasion. However, in this post I would like to focus on the gnosticisation of Christianity.  Gnosticisation is a kickback against society that takes the form of a retreat into the mysteries of the inner life of soul and spirit, the place where consolation is sought in the warm light of sublime wordless revelations from God. This shift of focus, (which is especially found amongst evangelical Christians) toward unspeakable epiphanies and touches of God has been my study for many years now. In fact I recently commented on the subject in response to an article in Christianity magazine on scholar Dallas Willard. (Willard seems as aware of this gnostic drift toward the esoteric as I am) In fact in the nineties I wrote several articles on evangelical Gnosticism, one of which can be downloaded from here. My current opinion is that this fashionable foray into the deep soul is far more endemic than is extreme fundamentalism which in any case is inclined to confine itself to self-isolating and marginalized Christian sects.*

So, given this background I was gratified to see that another person, namely Christian song writer Graham Kendrick, has also become aware of the contemporary skew toward what I refer to as Christian Gnosticism. Judging from what Kendrick says in the March edition of Christianity Magazine it looks to me as if Kendrick has clearly spotted that there has been a slip and slide in worship events toward a very individualistic striving for the experientially arcane. This endemic gnosticism has clearly shaped Christian spiritual values and influenced what the contemporary Christian scene rates as high spirituality; in short,   the mystical, the inscrutable, the fideist and cabalistic are considered to be where it’s at, or at least where it looks to be going.

Below I have quoted parts of Kendrick’s article and from these quotes it is apparent that the gnostic themes of inner blessing, release of the spirit, initiation into inscrutable experiential truth, and anointed enablers have found their place in our churches; all else is inclined to be undervalued and marginalized.

…..in many churches this focus on creating a personal connection with God has come to dominate the style, mood and lyrics of our corporate worship.

…we now view worship primarily as an experience to be had…

…big worship gatherings can actually be a celebration of mass individuality..

..songs rich in content that stretch the mind can seem to get in the way of creating that intimate experience. They are overlooked because they don’t fit the expected mood, ethos or style of experiential worship. (My emphasis - TVR)

It is possible to create “event dependency” where people feel they cannot enter into worship unless they have an “anointed” worship leader. As a worship leader myself, sometimes it’s as though the expectations are being heaped up – it’s as if everyone is expecting me to take them to an amazing level that they could not otherwise access.

A dominant genre of emotional intensity…. In the end that which doesn’t fit the mood of emotional intensity tends not to be included.

If our gatherings always peak in moments of personal blessing, the subliminal message can be that this is why we exist, rather than being blessed to be a blessing to the world we step out into.

The article is certainly recommended reading for worship leaders as it not only gives Kendrick’s perspective on what I myself would identify as the gnosticisation of church, but also provides practical steps that Kendrick thinks we should take to correct the gnostic drift in our worship.

***

* Footnote: A case of self-isolation that has been the focus of my recent attention is Ken Ham’s organization: The more he becomes aware of his isolation from the mainstream the more his statements become strident and extreme, thus simply reinforcing that isolation. The regenerative logic here is this: “I’m isolated because people aren't getting my message, therefore I must shout louder!”

Oh, and By the Way Ken....

........I've moved amongst quite a few fundamentalists in my time. In fact when I first committed to Christ I was somewhat spiritually intimidated into becoming a fundie myself. But it didn't last very long; when I looked at the state of Whitcomb and Morris' book "The Genesis Flood", I thought "Oh no! Surely I haven't got to defend this travesty of science?". YEC was the first thing to go!  But from day one I was fascinated by the varieties of fundamentalism that at once contradicted and yet looked so much like my new found "faith". They too claimed an epistemic authority as mouth pieces of God's Word and were quick to put me in my place as a heretic with a bad conscience. Think about the logic of fundamentalism - it always comes down to imputing bad consciences to detractors - that's why fundamentalists are such sops for conspiracy theory.  All in all I've done quite a bit of work amongst fundies. That means I know a bit about their group dynamics, their psychology and the psychology of their leaders. So, given your likely personality type, Ken, you can imagine I have lots of ideas about just why you should have bothered to link to such quiet part of the blogosphere as mine; but you just couldn't let it lie, could you? Which reminds me, the word "LIE" (as in "The're all lovers of lies outside my sect") is right up the fundamentalist's epistemic street isn't it?

Hell and Hamnation II

Look in the Mirror Ken!

In my last post I drew a parallel between protestant fundamentalist Ken Ham and “Real Catholic” fundamentalist Michael Voris ; both characters have at their disposal a deep supply of spiritual invective and know how to use it on their detractors. Throughout history the commonality amongst religious sectarians is that they are a people convinced of the divine authority of their opinions and do all they can to make sure that the rest of us are convinced too. What really defines fundamentalists is their epistemic arrogance: They show little real awareness that revelations of all kinds can only be received by humanity through the weak link of human understanding and interpretation. Instead they take for granted they have bypassed all epistemic questions and have a direct connection with the absolute. Concomitantly they are convinced that the authority of their message is manifest to “outsiders” who, they think, must be covering up bad consciences and therefore deserve the moral disapprobation they get.

Well, Ken Ham somehow found my blog post and decided to solicit some supportive back slapping from his Facebook following by commenting on my post; a move I can hardly blame him for given that he is very aware of what he calls the widespread “compromise” in the mainstream church beyond his sect. You can find a copy of Ken’s Facebook follower’s comments below! They conveniently provided me with a sample of exactly the kind of spiritual censure I’d expect. Much of it is just knee-jerk reaction as is evidenced in the automatic assumption I'm atheist.  There is, however, a pathos in these responses: they have locked themselves into a marginalised culture whose survival depends on mutual encouragement.

As for Ken I don’t think he really looked into the mirror I was holding up and made no comment about Michael Voris. What he doesn't see, of course, is that to the average observer sees little difference between himself and Voris apart from some doctrinal fine tuning.

STOP PRESS: In further indication of AiG's marginal position we see on Facebook Yesterday and Thursday Ken Ham lamenting Christian right-wingers Bill O’Reilly and Pat Robertson’s stand against Biblical literalism. YECs are increasingly fighting a rearguard action. See:

http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/posts/343961535721755 

http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/posts/541644369199257

http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/posts/221596944644798 

http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/posts/432596880156306 

Ken Ham shared a link.

19 hours ago

Ken Ham: Every so often I link to a blog to remind you of the opposition we receive and the ridiculous misguided statements people make. I decided to link to this one as I learned a new word 'Hamnation.'

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.com/2013/02/hell-and-hamnation.html

46 people like this.

XXXX: Well, at least he can't say he wasn't warned of "hamnation." No blood on your hands if he chooses to die lost.

19 hours ago • Like • 6

XXXX: pffft

19 hours ago • Like

XXXX: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matthew 5:11

19 hours ago • Like • 16

XXXX: Yea Ken, just ignore this guy. I don't understand why they are so hateful and ridiculous...

19 hours ago • Like

XXXX: People will chose to believe what they want to hear

19 hours ago via mobile • Like • 1

XXXX: Praise God who give ears to hear and eyes to see and his Holy Spirit to understand

19 hours ago via mobile • Like • 5

XXXX: I noticed the blog stated that Ken was becoming "marginalized from the Christian mainstream ".Well done Ken ,Jesus was in the same boat so your in good company. Keep up the good work.

19 hours ago • Like • 9

XXXX: This guy obviously doesn't want to hear how severe sin is to a Holy God and that sin condemns us. He doesn't get that we need to know we are sinners in order to realize our need for Jesus. You're just being the salt Ken, and salt can sting. Keep irritating them, they need to hear the truth.

19 hours ago • Like • 5

XXXX: While the "experts" keep making the noise of tinkling cymbals and sounding brass, you can be sure your message is being heard loud and clear Brother.

19 hours ago • Like • 3

Creation Science 4 Kids Wow, your infamous! Won't it be wonderful to stand tall with the prophets one day and glorify our Lord and Savior?

19 hours ago • Like • 8

XXXX: If we are so similar to the world, why would anyone want to be a Christian? Keep up the good fight brother!

19 hours ago • Like

XXXX: GOD BLESS YOU!

18 hours ago • Like

XXXX: The blogger is appealing to his crowd, funny how I see this point of view mildly expressed through Christians. Guess who has mainstream Christianity's ear through the compromise of Genesis 1-11. Time to recognize the source people.

18 hours ago via mobile • Like

XXXX: never herd any good response from this guy on the subject! just personal attack!

18 hours ago via mobile • Like • 2

XXXX: You notice the guy didn't put any 'solutions' in his article....

18 hours ago • Like • 1

XXXX: Sorry cant get the video to play

17 hours ago • Like • 1

XXXX: I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

15 hours ago • Like • 1

XXXX: Persecution. More glory for God, keep doing what you do!

14 hours ago via mobile • Like • 2

XXXX: Ironically atheists spend more time talking about God and the bible than many christians do. I can't imagine spending my life talking about something I don't believe in. As for condemnation, well, Christ had no problem talking of this and no problem believing in a God who condemns as well as loves. Christ was not an atheist and I'd sooner believe his interpretation of things pertaining to God and condemnation. Well done Ken for standing on the word of God. The fool says in his heart "there is no God", but "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

13 hours ago • Edited • Like

XXXX: I like GODnation better;)

12 hours ago • Like

XXXX: Keep on keeping on, Ken!

11 hours ago via mobile • Like

XXXX: GOD bless you Ken!

Apologists don't apologize!

10 hours ago • Like

XXXX: You're doing what's right.

9 hours ago • Like • 1

XXXX: There really is a Ham Nation http://twit.tv/hn It's an online television show about Amateur Radio "Ham Radio".

Ham Nation | TWiT.TV

twit.tv

Ham Nation | TWiT.TV

4 hours ago • Like

XXXX: I like the fact that he at least reads Ken's blog

2 hours ago via mobile • Like

XXXX:. I find that these are the only arguments that they have. Slander, ridicule, name-calling, assumptive character bashing, bullying... It's a shame that they feel they have to stoop so low but it also shines light on how threatened they feel by the truth that they see in our arguments.about an hour ago • 

That last comment is self referencing and is true of Ken Ham and the writer of the comment! 

Hell and Hamnation:

Not Ken Ham, I know, but  an easy mistake to make.

I was interested to see YEC theme park manager Ken Ham commenting on the news item that was the subject of my last post, namely, the atheist “church” that has recently started meeting in London. (See Ham’s blogpost dated 5 Feb). Ham, needless to say, responds to this news with his usual highly offended self and reaches into his deep supply of censorious terms, quoting from what is probably a well-thumbed part of his Bible, Romans 1, St Paul’s condemnation of Roman society: Ham's lament is one of unrelenting woe: “Shaking their fist at God”, “Suppress the truth in unrighteousness”, “mock the death and resurrection of Christ”, “they are worshipping man”, “The Devil always tries to copy the things of God”.  (It’s worth comparing Ham’s spiritual fulminations with those of Real Catholic Michael Voris.)

Ham puts the blame on the mainstream church:

“…. it’s really because of the church and its rampant compromise on God’s Word that these people are on a journey away from Christianity”  

In some ways that statement is very telling because it’s evidence that Ham and his ilk are feeling increasingly marginalized from the Christian mainstream and this is probably a good thing. But of course in Ham’s epistemically arrogant fundamentalist mind more, yes more hell and hamnation are required to fix the problem! That’s just what we don’t want! If  the atheist church are to remain on speaking terms with Christians, then the last thing we want is for Ken Ham to turn up on their doorstep as their neighbour! This man has a ministry of condemnation: He can only see people who argue with him as thoroughly depraved and will not mince his words in accusing them of such. A personality of his authoritarian disposition will inflame passions and divisions and cause hatred; schismogenesis here we come! Ham is a fine example of the jaundiced fundamentalist mind that readily reads heinous sin and malign motives into a critic's actions and is therefore fertile ground for conspiracy theory . (See also here)

***

Addendum 09/02/13: If you log into your Facebook account and go to this page you can see Ken Ham’s reaction to the above post. How Ken came by this post I can only guess as I generally avoid contact with fundamentalists and nowadays only link to their pages if I have to.

I can’t begrudge Ken the need to solicit some words of support from his Facebook following, given that relative to the greater society the culture he stands for is in a minority, even amongst Christians. But really, the kind of comments we see from Ken’s supporters rather make the point; they live in a world of black and white, the black being the hearts of those heretics, apostates, pagans and atheists they perceive to be ranged “against” them. In this context any criticism is likely to be read as an affront, an insult, a sign of lurking sinister motives and therefore worthy of strong disapprobation.  This sense of persecution connives with their egos in as much as they see themselves as important enough to be the focus of insult and hatred. A world view that includes an expectation of persecution, along with that familiar fundamentalist epistemic arrogance, fortifies the faithful against attack.

Now Ken if you are reading this be assured that I don’t reciprocate your censorious opinions by thinking of you as a particularly bad boy –  like the rest of us you are just being human, all too human.

Churches that aren't Churches?

The above picture has been taken from a BBC news magazine article entitled What happens at an atheist church. Atheists are using a redundant church to meet to together to celebrate: But celebrate what?  “.... a celebration of life” according to master of ceremonies Sanderson Jones. But somehow it all feels just a little uncomfortable and embarrassing: One senses that an object fully worthy of our celebratory focus and abandon is missing from the ceremony and this only serves to recall that phrase  "The God shaped hole".  A yearning for the numinous and eternal seems to be part of our nature.

Atheist Alan De Botton, who is a fan of atheist “churches”, says:

“It should never be called [a church] because atheism isn’t an ideology around which anyone could gather. (as if we didn’t know! – ed) Far better to call it something like cultural humanism.

Militant anti-theist blogger PZ Myers, as I have reported before, hates this sort of thing, perhaps because it could be the thin end of the wedge and construed as admitting that humans have some innate spirituality that seeks satiation; we have an itch that needs scratching. If it's any easier for him to come to terms with PZ could think of it as mental baggage that is part of our "evolutionary heritage". As the psychologist James Moray has said:

The psychological mechanisms are the way in which God makes himself known

Ironically the neighbours of the atheist “church” are an on fire for the Lord black church. (I couldn't think of better and more non-threatening juxtaposition – thank God for black churches!). Their pastor, Bishop Harrison, seems to be a wise man. According to the article:

…he does not see his new neighbours as a threat, confidently predicting that their spiritual journey will eventually lead them to God. “They have got to start from somewhere” he says.

What I do commend is the good humour that exists between the two “fellowships”; so far there looks to be none of that nasty polarized venom we have seen in some quarters where there is a hostile stand-off between anachronistic “heretic burning” Christians and blinkered “rationalists”. May it remain so. But should any of the atheists seek for that “something” which is really worthy of sincere worship, focus and celebration I’m sure Bishop Harrison will be there to help!

Charismatic Stubstep: Dance or Trance?

If you think the services at your church are starting to feel a bit flat and in need of a spirit filled pick-me-up ... no, make that "a spirit filled knock-me-down"... then the people in the above video claim to have the answer. But if your church goes for this style of worship it may need to treat some worshippers for post traumatic stress syndrome; in fact, in video look out for the guy who runs dementedly up the aisle of the church and appears to be making for the door. That brings me to the other health and safety aspect: Make sure you keep the doors of the church locked during the service:  Worshippers involuntarily spilling out onto the streets and running all over the place may end up under a truck feeling a bit flat and you're then back to square one!