Ken Ham may be in trouble for his Twitter Posts

Ken Ham is upset about a Disney cartoon that shows two dino dudes who want their own family. Ham probably prefers a more biblical family where a proper dude has as many wives as he wants and multiple concubines to boot.

Ken Ham may be in trouble for his hateful twitter posts

Pretty sure Ken Ham would prefer the marriage of Adam and Eve.

1 Like

Not sure he would care for that one either. Rumor has it they didn’t get married in any recognized church.

1 Like

You probably know him better than I do.

Well I’m sure Twitter will just silence his account…… oh wait nvm xd.

I actually have no idea what Elon believes concerning censorship vs hate speech or what he qualifies as opinion vs hate.

I imagine for Ham and his followers it’s just “persecution” and faithfulness and adds more purpose to his decisions.


I’m one of the first people to say that reasonable people can disagree about the authority of the Bible, and that spells a real problem for anyone who wants to legislate biblical morality.

Nevertheless, I believe the Bible, and as I scanned Longman’s chapter on sexuality from his book Confronting Old Testament Controversies, it didn’t surprise me that language like Ken Ham’s will not be easily found.

“There are three passages that speak about homosexual practice in the New Testament, and they all agree with the Mosaic law of the Old Testament. Attempts to reread the passages as if the terms are ambiguous are, in my opinion, unsuccessful. We have nothing to suggest that there is any difference between the Old and the New Testaments on this subject. This lack of movement will be critically important as we consider the teaching of the canon as a whole and its mandate to the church today.”

Tremper Longman

1 Like

I think there are some things to consider.

  1. Throughout the entire Tanakh we never see lesbians condemned. It’s always gay men. There are over 600 laws , you would think one would have been dropped. So why was it not? I think part of the reason why it was not is explained by the next thing to consider.

  2. Throughout the entire Tanakh every story that is about a gay man is about a violent , evil gay man. You never read a single story about a kind hearted loving gay man.

  3. We never see same as marriage attacked. It’s always verses that seem to allude to non married people or either it seems to be hyperlinking back to one of the stories of violent gay men. But we never see anything saying same sec couples don’t get married.

The next thing to consider is does it make rational sense? I mean we understand why it’s bad to steal, kill, lie, cheat, worship other gods, do baby sacrifices in fire and so on. We can see the victim in all of them. But we don’t really see a victim in two adults lovicng each other romantically and being sexually attracted to one another and agreeing to enter into a faithful committed relationship. There is just really nothing harmful or evil about unless you think the Tanakh is condemning it.

What makes better sense is that when homosexual men are brought up, what’s being attacked is violent , sexually abusive adulterous men. I guess there was not really a issue with any significant amount of violent sexually abusive women. Just like now days, the majority of rape and violence is carried out by men. It was probably also like that back then. So some laws and stories were brought up.

Like there is probably a reason the angels did not blind the men until after the rape threats with Lot.

There are also more arguments. I’ve not really studied this very much. It’s only in the last few months I even have bothered to look into the theological and scholarly work of queer Christians. But it’s out there. It’s beneficial to learn from all sides otherwise every verse we see may be interpreted through a single echo chamber. I’m sure that’s happened T you before too. Something you believed the Bible taught 100% and so did all your peers and then a decade later your mind is changed after studying it out. Maybe that’s the case with this as well.


It’s a kind of victimless crime and so is idolatry and 2CV. I’ve been in an argumentative mood today, so I’m going to set the phone down and avoid engaging this subject any further tonight.

However, I would highly recommend you read Longman’s chapter on sexuality in his book Confronting Old Testament Controversies. Best regards.

1 Like

Well in idolatry the victim is Yahweh…
Is 2cv the second commandment?

In those verses Yahweh is also the victim.

Another thing to consider and this has always stood out to me even before I begin to reconsider my position on this.

I’m a big horror fan and I really like studying tropes, patterns , and head nods in horror and looking at the evolution of its style throughout the ages. Horror film historians like Peter Law ( also a preacher ) , Tom Weaver, Jim Wade, Eli Roth and Andrea Subissati often bring up the story telling device of subtext. Subtext is often best understood visually, at least for me but can also be brought up textually. As read between the lines. A certain type of subtext seems to pop up in 1 samuel 17-20+ between two people. Reminds me a lot of the letters between Frobisher and Sixsmith.

1 Like

Careful on the comments, as we try to stay away from politics and sexuality issues.

I am probably more on the conservative site than many of you guys, but, that said, it is interesting to consider that Ham thinks dinosaurs should have a Christian worldview, however you define that. And just free thinking here, perhaps the story of Sodom was really the story of the asteroid destroying the dinosaurs as part of the judgement of God. Or not.


Well I was planning on doing a post on body horror in the Bible but instead am doing it on IG so I can freely use images of the bride from “ Bride of Re-Animator “ and linking it as a visual for the Levite and the dismembering of his concubine lol and how it’s playing a major role in the garden I’m getting ready to begin working on. Been tracking down a lot of grotesquely beautiful statues of torsos , limbs and ect… will take years and years but it’s ignited my desire to quickly begin construction of my house and the new landscaping.

I don’t know if I’m gonna get hate for this, but imo, I don’t see an issue with putting a gay couple in a show unless they make it extreme, such as consistently making it obvious they’re Gay, praising it, etc. i don’t think it’s gonna affect kids if they see the couple treated normally, like any other straight couple in a tv show. Don’t make them go “HEY WE’RE GAY”, just treat them normally. Don’t praise or insult them.
Little kids I doubt will think much of “two Dino daddies wanting an egg”. That’s not their top priority. If a show was doing something like “hey kids! You should be gay, gay is good, BE GAY”, yeah, that’s bad. But simply having a gay couple in it isn’t worthy of so much insult.


Jesus practiced radical inclusion.

I always like to joke with conservatives that gets antsy ( and I know this is not the case with you Phil ) over this subject or evolution, that we should just let the Bible speak where it speaks and move back into a good ole biblical erotica like Song of Songs or the concubine dismemberment story. Something wholesome and bible based or maybe even talk about why I feel that the flogging scene in the passion of the Christ should have rly been drawn out for another 25 minutes and have some screaming , not just groaning , but some squealing to really showcase the price christ paid for us.

If I ever become filthy rich and can blow some money I want to help create a horror film through the lens of fundamentalism of prophets possessed by the spirit and twisting around uncontrollably as their bones pop while automatically scribbling out the scriptures and visually recreate and draw out the hanging ad headlong fall of Judas and of course make the passion of the Christ torture scene look pg ad end it with Mary screaming fleeing a grave from angel that looks like they are described in the Bible as she runs past a shambling bloody wounded Jesus. But within that create a legitimate narrative of a loving messiah. Like focus in on parts of Jesus hanging out with the bad crowd loving them, and risking his reputation by defending the adulterous woman and so on.

I think we are fine regarding comments so far, but the topic sent me down the internet to see what dinosaur sex might have been like. Since both male and female dinosaurs had a cloaca, It might be pretty confusing down at the Jurassic Bar. Better just leave that here and move on. It would be embarrassing to be banned,


How can Ham, like Trump, possibly be in trouble with his p$wer base by being a controversial reactionary? As Oscar Fingal O’Flahertie Wills Wilde knew only too well, there is only one thing worse than being talked about.

The ultimate pain came a little while later, and I wonder if it could be shown in film.


2CV Second Commandment Violation. Some groups would see The Passion.of the Christ as breaking the commandment. Looks like a sequel is in the works.

Longman touches on the Jonathan and David story. It’s a most excellent chapter for anyone thinking about this issue. Succinct, informed, and even handed.

In school I took an interest in political philosophy, and had a kind of awakening when I took a class in philosophy of law.

Laws with respect to what it means to be a human being? Is it in the interest of the good society? Yes. But not in the way it has been traditionally thought…


I don’t know if Mr. Gray’s fan base ever took issue with him but the people as a whole definitely seemed to just look the other way. His lofe was fairly tragic and bizarre.

Apart from incarnational considerations, can God be a victim?

To deny God something (like my praise) kind of implies that God needed my praise in the first place. The only way I’m seeing that God could be victimized is through how people treat each other … whatever you’ve done to the least of these, you do it to me. But then that involves victimizing somebody here in this world. Apart from that; how can God be a victim?

So it’s an interesting and open question for me.

Really?! I’ve not read Longman (at least not recently or to my recollection), but it strikes me he’s not looking very hard, or else has a very low and provincially narrow view of the breadth of significance of the New Covenant. Does he suppose that Peter’s whole lesson on the roof top (“Do not call unclean what I’ve made clean”) was only about dietary laws and no more? Just because we can find one of the apostles (Paul) passionately rehearsing a few of the same old-covenant ordinances (as in homosexuality) does not become a legitimate cover to begin to sneak the letter of the law back into operation again where the letter was shown to be insufficient for spiritual life. More importantly, though, Jesus’ own reactions to would-be enforcers of sexual purity laws is telling (especially in Matthew 19:12) regarding this very issue. People who were formerly not even permitted to set foot in Jewish holy places are given quite a different reception here in the words of Christ! And he recognizes that not everybody will be able to accept this - but exhorts those of us who can to do so! What a let-down for those who want to rush out in front (where Christ himself refuses to follow) to condemn any deviance from what is typically seen as acceptable!

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.