Block, SkipCaptcha
195
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 101:
Line 101: − + − + − + − + + +
Talk:Answers in Genesis (view source)
Revision as of 23:33, August 23, 2011
, 23:33, August 23, 2011→Dispute with Creation Ministries International, financial origins of
The article says that...
The article says that...
'''1.''' AiG US withdrew from the group of sister AiG organizations, that they all had been sharing the one web-site run by the American ministry, and that this effectively forced the remaining organizations in Australia (the parent organization), New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa to rebrand, as Creation Ministries International (CMI).
'''1.''' AiG US withdrew from the group of sister AiG organizations, that they all had been sharing the one web-site run by the American ministry, and that this effectively forced the remaining organizations in Australia (the parent organization), New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa to rebrand, as Creation Ministries International (CMI). <br>
'''2.''' AiG US stopped distributing Creation magazine and the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation (both published by the Australian ministries), switching subscribers to the new Answers magazine published by the American ministry.
'''2.''' AiG US stopped distributing Creation magazine and the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation (both published by the Australian ministries), switching subscribers to the new Answers magazine published by the American ministry.<br>
'''3.''' CMI claims that this was unethical, unlawful, and '''harmed their ministry'''.
'''3.''' CMI claims that this was unethical, unlawful, and '''harmed their ministry'''.<br>
'''4.''' On its website, AiG US does not discuss the lawsuit between itself and CMI, but does state that the parting was due to how to best present their common YEC message.
'''4.''' On its website, AiG US does not discuss the lawsuit between itself and CMI, but does state that the parting was due to how to best present their common YEC message. <br>
From what I recall, the definition of the (sacred) ministry being harmed includes the merchandizing of publications. For that matter, what is Ken Ham's own answer to the question of what justifies the merchandizing of (sacred) ministry? Does he think the Apostles saw to the distribution of copies of their own letters by way of selling the copies like a man sells vegetables at a farmers market? And, if the demand for copies of those letters had been as high as the demand for the publications of AiG, does Ken Ham think the Apostles would have been justified---in the opinion of Jesus himself---to sell them like common produce as the means of meeting that demand? [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
From what I recall, the definition of the (sacred) ministry being harmed includes the merchandizing of publications. For that matter, what is Ken Ham's own answer to the question of what justifies the merchandizing of (sacred) ministry? Does he think the Apostles saw to the distribution of copies of their own letters by way of selling the copies like a man sells vegetables at a farmers market? And, if the demand for copies of those letters had been as high as the demand for the publications of AiG, does Ken Ham think the Apostles would have been justified---in the opinion of Jesus himself---to sell them like common produce as the means of meeting that demand? [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
...Any thoughts, anyone? [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
...Any thoughts, anyone? [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Nevertheless, although the dispute wound up including financial issues its origin was an attempt to dilute personal power in the interests of Godly ministry. That is in my reading at least (my reading has been fairly extensive). [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:33, 23 August 2011 (EDT)