Posted on 12/30/2006 7:58:37 AM PST by truthfinder9
I noticed the miltant YECs over at AIG have stepped up their unchristian attacks on other Christians. I wonder if their drop in funding has anything to do with it. Or maybe their methods and actions are finally catching up to them.
And read Poor Ken Ham:
Isn't it illegal for members of a nonprofit to financially benefit from the donations of their supporters? Seems like Ken Ham was living high off the hog.
I realize this will make all of you militant YECs angry and red in the face, but really, when are Christians going to stop sending money to groups that so obviously misuse it?
Are you claiming to be a Christian yourself?
Some of my concerns are:
The tone of your post is most ungracious. You are gloating, enjoying other Christians' pain, and by your post encouraging others to join you. Hatchet jobs on fellow believers are contrary to Scripture.
There is nothing out-of-line about a $120,000 annual salary for a ministry head (e.g., Hugh Ross earns more).
There are better ways to make your underlying point, one with which I agree, by the way. Don't resort to the same methods you find so distasteful when AiG uses them.
No, I'm not gloating or enjoying anyone's pain.
I simply stated some facts:
AIG's attacks on other Christians
AIG's financial carelessness
etc
AIG has made a habit of refusing to be accountable to anyone. Their reduction in money has simply highlighted their internal problems.
And no one mentioned RTB or Hugh Ross, but they're known for very strict financial accountability (and $120,000 has a very different value in California than in Kentucky).
Be quiet, and listen to Him.
Of course not, unless they are embezzling. In that case, it doesn't matter whether the employer is a nonprofit organization, a private business, or a government entity. Theft is theft.
If the supporters of a nonprofit organization believe that its employees are overcompensated, then they may become ex-supporters, and direct their donations elsewhere.
And what's it to you how other people distribute their financial support, anyway?
I'm not upset, and I'm not the one whose Christianity was immediately called into question by my posting.
I gave you some excellent advice. Now, I'm praying that the Holy Spirit is able to bless you and, ultimately, others through you.
My Christianity "was immediately called into question" by someone who didn't want to address the issue and instead attacked me. It's called an ad hominem attack. It's what people do when they can't argue a point with facts.
Now people can think with their minds or their emotions. YEC groups have thrived on emotionalism and few want to address that. People can pretend there aren't problems in Christinaity and ignore them so they don't offend anyone.
The problem is that it's not the biblical way to address problems.
This is just a hatchet job from evolutionists.
Who knows if there is any truth to it. Anyone supporting evolution is a liar so I doubt what's being posting in such a gloating manner. Such a preoccupation with money ... someone else's money, no less. Oh well.
Gloat away and hope it's true, evolutionists!
Your "Christianity" is legitimately questioned because of your behavior. You're too BLIND to see it or understand WHY. What a pity.
That's from someone calling people liars. What a pity.
I have not witnessed any attacks by Ken Ham nor am I bothered by his salary. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am not mad at AG.
Ken Ham is well known for calling Christians who disagree with his view as "compromisers," "Rossites," inflammatory things like "[Ross'] uncritical acceptance of long ages logically leads to a racist conclusion."
I've read all of Ross' critques on YEC and never, never, does he write things like Ham does.
I'd like to see a legal citation on that, please. Then I'd like to see evidence of a "lavish lifestyle" of the parties in question.
Just sounds to me like you and Ken Ham define "facts" differently. From all I've seen and read of/from Ken Ham, his is a gentle but brave soul. Perhaps you just don't like the way he sees the facts, and vice-versa. You don't have to support his work. Surely you believe others are free to support him, salary and all.
I hust guess I don't think name calling and emotionalism is a substitue for solid scholarship. Other people might not mind so much.
I hust guess I don't think name calling and emotionalism is a substitue for solid scholarship. Other people might not mind so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.