YEC Cult Characteristics?

[Ivellious]

Well, in the sense of the video, he did not really seem to distinguish. And that was part of my problem with the tone of the video. First, that he equated being YEC with actively participating in the antics of many YEC leaders; and second, that simply being a YEC/JW/Mormon was some kind of sign that you are part of the next Heaven's Gate.

There are leaders of all faiths (mainstream Christianity included) who utilize shady cult-like tactics to grab and keep hold of new members of their faith. That should not be a condemnation of everyone of that faith or belief as being a cult member. I just wanted to point out that I see a distinction that was not addressed in the videos.

[RickD]

I understand what you're saying, Ivellious. I guess I just assume the distinction, so I didn't notice that the speaker wasn't making a distinction between all YECs, and the specific men that he named. One thing about cults, is that the leaders manipulate their followers, because the followers are ignorant of scripture. Usually followers in a cult take the leader's interpretation as gospel. The cult leaders pretty much tell the followers what to believe, and questioning the leader's beliefs is severely frowned upon.

[Ivellious]

True. And in some cases, extremes of any faith can take on that "never question the leader" mentality. Though, I really don't think a ton of YECs care whether they question or wonder about their beliefs and most I've met (not many, to be honest) are rather forthcoming that they understand why people have doubts about their belief. By the same token, the local Jehovah's Witnesses are rather friendly people and have been extremely open to conversations with me about their faith and why I won't join up. And most Mormons aren't with 12 wives and selling off their 8 year old daughters into marriage/sexual slavery. All I'm saying is that it's easy to point out the select few and their devoted followers who act like a cult, when in reality it's not ok to generalize and say "YEC Christians are a cult" in the way that some people do.

That's all I meant to say. sorry, I tend to ramble and jumble up my points when it gets late.

[RickD]

No, you weren't rambling, Ivellious. The distinction I see, is that most Christians that believe in YEC, don't believe in YEC first and foremost. They believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and just believe that YEC is the way God created. Ken Ham's entire ministry at AIG, and his creation museum, is rooted in Young Earth Creationism. His whole livelihood lives or dies upon YEC. The everyday Christian who believes in yec, has no such stakes in YEC. And, since the age of the earth isn't a salvation issue(even Ken Ham admits this), then to build one's life upon something that shouldn't be a dogmatic belief, while continually misrepresenting fellow Christians who believe differently(on a non salvation issue), seems a little cultic.

[jlay]

Jlay, let me ask you this. If Ken Ham's YEC interpretation is correct, and there was no animal death before Adam's sin, then according to Ham, OEC compromises scripture. Would it be fair to say, using that same logic, that if Ham's interpretation is wrong, and there was animal death before Adam's sin, then Ham is Compromising scripture?

Absolutely.

We're not necessarily talking about cults in the sense of a group of a bunch of weirdos living in a compound somewhere, whose leader is brainwashing members.

Actually, that is exactly what we are talking about. That is the implication the presenter makes regarding his 'expertise'. In fact it is good you point this out, because the word cult is one of those words that can be equivocated. yes, orthodox Christians would see JWs as a cult, but not in the sense of say the Branch Davidians, or Heaven's Gate. But this is the inference from the get go on these videos.

[Kurieuo]

Jlay, let me ask you this. If Ken Ham's YEC interpretation is correct, and there was no animal death before Adam's sin, then according to Ham, OEC compromises scripture. Would it be fair to say, using that same logic, that if Ham's interpretation is wrong, and there was animal death before Adam's sin, then Ham is Compromising scripture?

Absolutely.

We're not necessarily talking about cults in the sense of a group of a bunch of weirdos living in a compound somewhere, whose leader is brainwashing members.

Actually, that is exactly what we are talking about. That is the implication the presenter makes regarding his 'expertise'. In fact it is good you point this out, because the word cult is one of those words that can be equivocated. yes, orthodox Christians would see JWs as a cult, but not in the sense of say the Branch Davidians, or Heaven's Gate. But this is the inference from the get go on these videos.

I'm surprised this hasn't turned more nasty. I guess Jac isn't around to read this? If he did probably broke his keyboard while typing away or something...

What is "compromising Scripture" anyway... unless any of us are able to interpret to 100% accuracy, and I doubt it, then does that mean all of us at some point compromise Scripture?

[Jac3510]

I'm surprised this hasn't turned more nasty. I guess Jac isn't around to read this? If he did probably broke his keyboard while typing away or something...

What is "compromising Scripture" anyway... unless any of us are able to interpret to 100% accuracy, and I doubt it, then does that mean all of us at some point compromise Scripture?

Nope, I haven't read this thread. I saw the title, saw who posted, and immediately recognized the hate filled vitriol I've come to expect. I was banned for pointing out the logical fact that if I'm right on the Gospel, then those who disagree with it don't believe the Gospel. I was told that was offensive and such language was uncalled for, and yet here OECs are doing the same thing (arguably worse) to a YEC and its not only tolerated, but celebrated. And the guy who started this thread himself has complained about Ham calling Ross a cult leader in the past (did it here). He and I have gone back and forth about the cult charge.

It's just divisive. It's nasty. It's mean. It's rude. It's unChristlike. It's tolerated and celebrated here. It disgusts me, so no, I haven't read the thread, and if Jlay can have this discussion in a reasonable fashion, more power to him. I have no more interest in having a reasonable discussion about this than I would about trying to have a reasonable discussion with a white supremacist or anti-semite or any other hate filled moral buffoon to try to show them the error in their ways.

Some ideas deserve reasonable discourse. Some deserve contempt. The idea that YECs are cultish is absolutely in the latter. I make no apology for saying as much. I won't read the words of those who defend the statement, as I find such statements nothing less than contemptible themselves. Reading them would do nothing than further divide me from otherwise Christian brothers.

There, how's that for nasty? At least I didn't call anyone cultish.

[narnia4]

I didn't watch the videos, but I wish that, on the personal and national and international levels, both sides of this could keep this very big conversation respectful. It doesn't even come down to the issues, its a childish shouting match. Granted YECers can be insulting and immature, but turnabout isn't fairplay. Talk of cults or someone not believing the Gospel just should never become a part of the discussion imo.

What would it look like if both sides admitted that the issue is just a matter of interpreting a small number of passages in a different way? Sure one side is right and one side is wrong, but if someone claims to be a believer in Christ who holds Scripture in high regard and is interpreting it the best he knows how, than why insist that this person or group of people couldn't be just that?

As for my opinion, this might not be exactly on-topic but its kind of a dilemma for me. Its hard because scientific evidence seems to all point one way, but my reading of Scripture slightly favors YEC. I think OEC is a possibly interpretation, but to me a YEC reading is more natural... but its close. So ultimately it almost feels as if it comes down to whether I'm going to read something into the text because it fits alot of evidence, or whether I'm going to take the interpretation that I think fits the text slightly better? This is only for myself now, as indicated you can legitimately read Genesis and come up with a position that fits OEC. So bottom line is that neither position effects much of my theology, but I lean toward YEC.

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
I have no more interest in having a reasonable discussion about this than I would about trying to have a reasonable discussion with a white supremacist or anti-semite or any other hate filled moral buffoon to try to show them the error in their ways.

Now jac that seems a little harsh of a comparison. While I disagree with Ken Ham, I certainly don't equate him with a white supremacist or anti-semite or any other hate filled moral buffoon, like you compared him to. I know Ham can tend to be a little dogmatic at times, but wow. I thought all you YECs stuck up for each other?

[Canuckster1127]

Jac, you're a hypocrite on this my friend.

You start a thread fishing for this and then you elevate yourself above while spewing your own invective.

[Canuckster1127]

ANd with regard to this,

himself has complained about Ham calling Ross a cult leader in the past (did it here). He and I have gone back and forth about the cult charge.

It was Hovind, not Ham. But you weren't really interested in accuracy in this response were you Jac? Just more looking to unload and complain while pretending you're above all this this, perhaps when it was you who started a thread bring Ham back up again when nobody was and then sat back and complained when you got the response you were looking for

Smiling while reading this though.

The fact is that the 5 characteristic of cult-like activity that this police officer has been trained in are demonstrated pretty clearly and the irony is that those complaining about it are having a discussion about it on an OEC board where such exchanges are permitted and encouraged while the topics of conversation on their boards don't allow such exchanges, which come to think about it, ties right in with those characteristics.

I don't believe all YEC believers are cult-members or cult-like by any means. But Ham is becoming more and more isolated, even being cast out by other YEC leaders from conferences because he's growing more shrill and vitriolic and can't follow guidelines of common manners and respect with others. I wouldn't go as far as the presenter on this or as broad, but I think he has demonstrated his points with long, in-contect presentations of AIG and other groups showing that this indeed is the type of methodology that they employ.

So if that bothers you Jac, go ahead and respond and be glad you're at a place where you can even do that. It's far more than Ham, AIG and many other YEC groups provide for and allow.

And even though you won't acknowledge that likely .....

You're welcome.

[Jac3510]

Now jac that seems a little harsh of a comparison. While I disagree with Ken Ham, I certainly don't equate him with a white supremacist or anti-semite or any other hate filled moral buffoon, like you compared him to. I know Ham can tend to be a little dogmatic at times, but wow. I thought all you YECs stuck up for each other?

Not equating the two. I am illustrating that some ideas are worth nothing more than pure contempt, and the idea that YECs are cultish is one of them. That idea gets nothing but disdain from me, just as much as the idea that OECs are cultish gets nothing but disdain from me. As I said, I only commented on this because K made a passing (probably humorous) reference to my lack of involvement in the discussion.

I won't bother engaging in that conversation, either. I'm content to sit on the sidelines and point out that I think that people who make such insinuations are moral buffoons, at least in this area, and that I won't engage in the particulars of why I think it's wrong because it's a waste of precious time and energy. Some things are worth it. Some aren't.

I said it once: I'll emphasize. Some ideas are worth reasonable discussion. This isn't one of them. It's worth absolutely nothing more than my utter contempt, and that's what it gets. Is disgusting and unChristlike. It's divisive and hypocritical and I have less than no respect for the assertion.

There. I think I've made my point. Those who find this worth discussing can obviously continue. People aren't obligated to hold my indignation on this issue. So you all continue on. I've nothing more to say.

[Canuckster1127]

Interesting contrast here too:

http://creation.com/cults-and-creation

This is the Group from Australia the Ken Ham's group came out of (and was subsequently the focus of a large law suit back in Australia) I believe.

See how they do the same thing here in this article associating not just the leadership but the entire scope of Old Earth Creationism equating it with cults and other cultic organizations?

[RickD]

From that Creation Ministries International article:

Rejecting a straightforward interpretation of the book of Genesis to accommodate modern ideologies (Colossians 2:8) such as evolution, old-age creationism, progressive creationism, and theistic evolution, causes the entire theological foundations of Christianity to crumble. Thus it is not surprising that we find a near-universal association (as both cause and effect, to varying degrees) of such a departure from biblical authority within cults whose beliefs are far removed from biblical Christianity.

Notice the part that I underlined for emphasis. Can someone tell me how old-age creationism, and progressive creationism "causes the entire theological foundations of Christianity to crumble"?
Now, jlay, you and I have discussed this before, and if I remember correctly, you said that while you don't agree with OEC/Progressive Creationism, you don't think it "causes the entire theological foundations of Christianity to crumble". The theological foundations of Christianity, is the Atonement of Christ. OEC certainly doesn't cause the atonement to crumble.
Bart, you've certainly done your research on this.

These, if I can call them, "fringe" YEC groups, certainly misrepresent Progressive Creationists. One might even say their dogmatism is "cult-like".

[RickD]

I just had a quick look through the site Bart posted earlier:
http://creation.com/
It's interesting to say the least. I recommend all old earth compromisers look through some of the articles on the site. It's beliefs and misrepresentations of OEC are similar to Answers in Genesis. They like to conflate OEC and TE, just like AIG.