Imaginary God Prevents Creationist Ken Ham From Having Sex With Animals

Imaginary God Prevents Creationist Ken Ham From Having Sex With Animals June 11, 2015

Celebrity creationist and Christian fundamentalist Ken Ham argues that the only thing preventing him from having sex with animals is his imaginary God.

For Ham, without his imaginary God, everything is morally permissible, and he seems to be particularly fixated on the possibilities of bestiality.

Earlier this week Ham used his blog to attack pop star Miley Cyrus, after the young entertainer made some wise remarks concerning the poverty of conservative Christian values and the ignorance of believing that the story of Noah’s Ark is true.

In the NSFW interview, Cyrus also spoke about her experience being a sex-positive, gender-fluid, bisexual:

I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn’t involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that’s legal, I’m down with. Yo, I’m down with any adult—anyone over the age of 18 who is down to love me.

Ham responded to the pop star’s revelation about her sex-positive stance with several rhetorical questions that reveal much more about Ham than Cyrus.

Ham writes:

Question for her: Why not involve an animal? On what basis does she decide that? Besides, if there’s no God and she’s just a result of evolution, then she is merely an animal anyway. And those she interacts with sexually are just animals—so why not any animals? In other words, she has decided to draw a line for some reason—but what reason? It’s actually because in her heart she knows God exists (Romans 1), she knows she is different from the animals as she is made in God’s image (Genesis 1)—and she has a conscience (as seared as it is because of her sinful rebellion) because the law is written on our hearts (Romans 2).

Question for her: Why only those over the age of 18? On what basis did she decide that? If there’s no God, why have any age restriction? On what basis would she argue against pedophilia? Why not do whatever anyone wants to do?

Ham’s comments indicate that without his imaginary God, he would feel no moral prohibition against raping animals or children. Apparently, Ham has no moral compass, and without his imaginary God to tell him right from wrong, he would not know that it is morally reprehensible to have sex with beings that do not and cannot give consent, beings like children and animals.

This strange and perverse idea that if evolution is true, everything and anything is morally permissible, including the rape of animals and children, is a common theme among Christian creationists and other Christian fundamentalists.

Recently, another leading Christian creationist, Eric Hovind, argued that if evolution is true, it wasn’t wrong for Josh Duggar to sexually assault little girls, “because what one evolved bag of molecules does to another bag of molecules just doesn’t really matter.”

The simple minded moral arguments (if they can be called arguments at all) made by creationists like Ham and Hovind are absurd obscenities that reveal a profound poverty of both intellect and character.

Bottom line: In a contest of intellectual equals, Ken Ham challenged the moral reasoning of Miley Cyrus, and lost. However, for the sake of the innocent children and animals, let’s hope Ken Ham keeps believing in his imaginary God.

The Devolution of Ken Ham (Image via Facebook)
The Devolution of Ken Ham (Image via Facebook)

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment