Answers in Genesis revenue declines by 50% in 2005

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/12/answers-in-genesis-revenue-declines-by.html ^

[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:

Back in March, I noted that creationism was a profitable business ... at least for Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis who had a salary of $121,764 for 2004. Now Jim Lippard is reporting that Ham has taken a pay-cut and only made $60,000 in 2005. Poor, poor Ken ... must be rough surviving in a state where the median household income is $37,270.

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?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Are you claiming to be a Christian yourself?

[Hebrews 11:6]

Friend, I find your post disturbing on several levels. I am both an old-earth creationist and an ardent supporter of Reasons to Believe.

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.

[truthfinder9]

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).

[Hebrews 11:6]

You stated facts in a way that can only be perceived as an ungracious, unloving, and hateful attack--indeed, the first responder questioned your Christianity solely on the basis of your post. You are so busy now defending yourself from me that you are unable to hear what the Holy Spirit might be saying through me.

Be quiet, and listen to Him.

[Tax-chick]

Isn't it illegal for members of a nonprofit to financially benefit from the donations of their supporters?

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?

[truthfinder9]

No, you perceived it as "hateful" which doesn't make it hateful. How are facts hateful? They aren't. But the unwillingness for Christians to address them, because they don't want to offend people, is why this problem exists. I'm not defending anything, I don't have to. Maybe you should ask why you are so offended. Who needs to "be quiet and listen" here? I'm not the one upset.

[truthfinder9]

Of course not, unless they are embezzling You don't necessarily have to be embezzling. You can be using it on a lavish lifestyle, which is illegal for a nonprofit (hence the word nonprofit). No one is saying the folks at AIG are doing that, but there is a history of such things in ministries. Which answers your belligerent-worded question: "And what's it to you how other people distribute their financial support, anyway?" Christians are defrauded out of tens of millions of dollars a year. So my point is that they need to pay close attention to what happens to their money.

[Hebrews 11:6]

I'm not the one upset.

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.

[truthfinder9]

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.

[nmh]

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!

[nmh]

Your "Christianity" is legitimately questioned because of your behavior. You're too BLIND to see it or understand WHY. What a pity.

[truthfinder9]

That's from someone calling people liars. What a pity.

[truthfinder9]

And BTW, do you question AIG's Christianity? After all, their history of bad behavior is well-known: AIG's Negative Tactics

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I didn't attack you. I asked a question because I seriously wanted an answer. If people thought my question was a statement due to their own perception of the tone of your post, then I have no control over that. It was a question and was meant to be taken as a question.

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.

[truthfinder9]

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.

[Tax-chick]

You can be using it on a lavish lifestyle, which is illegal for a nonprofit

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.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

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.

[truthfinder9]

I hust guess I don't think name calling and emotionalism is a substitue for solid scholarship. Other people might not mind so much.

[truthfinder9]

I hust guess I don't think name calling and emotionalism is a substitue for solid scholarship. Other people might not mind so much.