Search This Blog

Friday, May 18, 2007

“For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.”

Christians can be a smug lot. Hubristically and, might I say, quite sinfully, we often pigeon-hole our atheist “enemies” as being quite incapable of even grasping the most rudimentary truths concerning the world we live in. Tagging along with this is the frequent and, what seems to be, intentional failure of Christians to carry through with the biblically ordained task of seeking rational understanding of the atheist worldview. These are no better abjectly reflected than when Christians adopt the evolutionary story as their own, a Mephistophelean barter implicitly announcing that Christians appreciate the materialist “creation myth of this age”, as Mary Midgely so aptly labelled it, more comprehensively than they.

Of course, passing these mythological elements off as genuine Christian philosophy comes with a monumental price-tag: How does one explain away all those ill-fitting components which just do not square up with the revelation that God himself has spoken to us in the Bible?

Far too many Sydney Anglicans have capitulated to philosophical materialism, adopted its faux scientific offspring, and are thus forced to ignore the internal contradictory clashes that arise when a Christian worldview is tied to a pagan one. When these are pointed out, the best its adherents offer is a stream of irrelevant platitudes that just do not take seriously this metastasis of Christian theodicy and soteriology: “This is not a salvation issue”, “God’s ways are not ours”, “My God is big enough to do it any way he pleases”, “Genesis 1 tells us who and why, but not how”.

In contradistinction to the Anglicans’ lack of comprehension, it is completely refreshing to read an atheist who has intelligently understood the ramifications of this zeitgeist. Mark Rowlands, in his The Philosopher at the end of the Universe: Philosophy Explained through Science Fiction Films, has done just that.

Like the existentialists, he thinks life absurd. Absurdity, he coherently explains, arises because there is a confrontation between how we see ourselves from the inside and the view that we understand about the external world. This philosophical absurdity is fundamentally and rationally linked to the meaning of life:

“The problem is one of explaining our ultimate significance given our place in a universe that does not seem to allow us to have any such significance. The problem derives from the thought that there are two quite different stories we tell…[On the one hand] we matter…We are…a core of significance. On the other hand [there is] our ultimate insignificance. As a species we are finite, partial creatures, inhabiting an unremarkable planet in an unremarkable galaxy. We have been around for an infinitesimally small proportion of the life of the universe, and even the best estimates for our continuation don’t give us too much longer in the cosmic scheme of things. None of us, not even the cleverest, really understands where we came from – the origin of the universe we inhabit is necessarily a mystery to us.” (pp. 4-5)

Rowlands doesn’t just end his pitch there; he goes on to make a quite unexpected and perspicacious confession. His sense of disquiet isn’t cured by invoking some anti-intellectual Hegelian synthesis of the two incompatibilities; rather he admits he has a “hard time seeing how both sorts of stories we tell about ourselves could be true.” (p. 6)

This enigma is returned to again and again with increasing clarity, nuance and despondency: “How can I be a centre of significance and purpose when I am the product of processes and forces that were in place long before I was born, and where my essential nature seems inextricably bound up with these processes and forces?” (p. 14)

And ultimately what fuels his angst, this discontent he experiences when he attempts to grasp the ‘big picture’? The very view that the Sydney Diocese has promoted from its pulpits, college and discussion groups: the evolutionary worldview:

“The philosopher Immanuel Kant once wrote that there were two things that never ceased to fill him with amazement: the starry sky above him and the moral law within him. When I look at the starry sky above me, what fills me with amazement is the idea that there could be a God who created a universe like this. A universe that is designed according to a principle – the Second Law of Thermodynamics – which means that suffering and death are built into it as one of its structural elements. A universe that, after billions and billions of years of travail, eventually produced creatures that were conscious, and then self-conscious. A universe that, through these creatures, became aware of itself, understood itself, marvelled at itself, only to realise that it was doomed; that its fate was heat death, that it was essentially ephemeral, that it was essentially futile. The darkness of unconsciousness eventually, after billions of years of struggle, gave way to the light of consciousness, only for this light to understand its own hopelessness. This is cruelty on a cosmic scale. Perhaps only a God could be capable of such cruelty.” (p. 23)

Creationists, by insisting on a young earth, non-evolutionary, 6 day creation week, are frequently accused by Sydney Anglicans of setting a major stumbling block before those seeking Christ. What is clearly apparent from reading Rowlands’ words is that it’s the Sydney Anglicans’ promulgation of the pagan evolutionary worldview that clearly hinders people opening the door to Christ. As Jesus complained, “Alas for you experts in the Law, for you have taken away the key to knowledge. You have never gone in yourselves and you have hindered everyone else who was at the door!”

30 comments:

neil moore said...

If you put on the 'dress' of the world don't be surprised to wake up one day thread bare and shamed.

Neil

Craig Schwarze said...

Scientific American has published 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.

I don't endorse everything said in that article, but there is certainly no "grudging respect" to be found there...

Ktisophilos said...

A better interpretation is that the antitheists regard creationists as the real enemy. Moorite compromisers aren't even worth refuting. BTW, that SciAm article was demolished by CMI at 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American, but naturally Schwartz prefers the word of God-haters to that of Bible-believers.

That rebuttal was clearly damaging to the christophobes at SciAm that they threatened legal action unless it was removed. Evidently CMI told them where to go! http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2539/

Craig Schwarze said...

Moorite compromisers aren't even worth refuting.

Then why are you bothering commenting on this website?

Craig Schwarze said...

A much more reasonable approach to this whole issue may be found in this book.

Craig Schwarze said...

One of the most frustrating thing about this debate is that creationists refuse to see the difference between evolution in a purely materialistic universe, and evolution in a universe where God is sovereign.

The former, of course, is a completely random process. The latter is not random, but is a process under the control of God. Jesus said "Not one sparrow falls to the ground apart from the will of my Father." A God who has express control over the movements of a tiny bird is surely also in control of the biological destiny of all creatures.

Now, I can understand Arminians taking this view, as they tend not to accept the full sovereignty of God over creation. But I find it hard to understand Reformed/Calvinists, who assert God's complete sovereignty, also positing the choice between YECS and Evolution as a choice between theism and atheism.

As it happens, my own observations are that, by and large, Reformed/Calvinists are much less troubled by this debate than Arminians. This, of course, is why the strongly reformed Sydney Diocese has never been terribly concerned about the debate.

The heartland of YECSism is revivalistic baptists and pentecostalism - both strongly arminian groups.

To accept the dichotomy the YECS propose between atheistic natural processes and theistic special providence is to deny a fundamental tenant of Calvinism and (I would suggest) the Bible - that is, that God the sovereign over creation.

All this has been stated time and again. The YECS either cannot or will not understand the distinction.

Warwick said...

That makes a lot of sense Craig, not. You take an atheistic doctrine & squeeze a bit of God in here & there(somewhat like No More Gaps)& voila c'est magnifique,we have a new creation. Not in 6-days of course, or maybe it is 6-days but your days aren't days they are..... 'Plastic Daze' a wonder new product which when liberally applied allows a day to be stretched to incredible lengths.

Bishop Montefiore would be proud of you & your mates Craig. He started in the same place but is a little further down the road & a little more consistent:

"Human beings are the result of evolution, and shaped by natural selection. Self-centredness and aggression were essential at every stage of evolution. Human beings naturally inherit this self-centredness ('original sin'). . .’

"What the cross is not . . . The Son standing in my place to take the punishment that I ought to have. Such a view is immoral. In any case no one person could suffer the whole world's punishments."

Bishop Hugh Montefiore (1984). Confirmation Notebook (SPCK, London


When you infer that we are anti-Anglican you are wrong. As I understand it this blogspot was created to highlight the shift to sectional liberalism which is infecting the Anglican church. My comments have not been aimed at the Anglican church or members in general but directly at, & solely at those who preach a view contrary to the plain meaning of God's Word & destructive to it.

Do you imagine Craig that the false doctrine you (plural)hold is in some way new or novel? No way it is an old one which has brought about the decline of whole denominations.

I write to defend God's Word, as we are commanded to do & take no pleasure in doing this.

Warwick said...

Craig, thinking upon this subject I remembered an article I had read about the Romanian Pastor Joseph Ton. The church he lead grew to be the largest in Romania, always under threat from their Communist government. When communism fell he was able to travel to the west and wrote that he expected to find churches full of people praising God. However he found almost empty churches & totally discouraged ministers. He said:

“I came to the conclusion that there were two factors which destroyed Christianity in Western Europe. One was the theory of evolution, and the other, liberal theology ... Liberal theology is just evolution applied to the Bible and our faith.”

Do you understand that Craig- evolution applied to the Bible is liberal theology. Craig that describes the view doggedly held and passionately promoted by you & your friends.

You insist we do not understand but we do, being well aware it's no new theology just old time liberalism with a new coat of paint. Tombs whitewashed on the outside but full of corruption within.

John said...

Craigs said:
"One of the most frustrating thing about this debate is that creationists refuse to see the difference between evolution in a purely materialistic universe, and evolution in a universe where God is sovereign.

The former, of course, is a completely random process. The latter is not random, but is a process under the control of God. Jesus said "Not one sparrow falls to the ground apart from the will of my Father." A God who has express control over the movements of a tiny bird is surely also in control of the biological destiny of all creatures."

Craigs,

Thanks for finally engaging with us.

However, you beg the question that evolution is even true. We hold for good scientific and theological objections that evolution is not true.

One of the most important demands of evolution is that there is an increase of novel biological information. Now if evolution is occurring then it should be fairly easy for someone to observe a whole lot of mutations which actually create new genetic information. Can you point us YECS to some of these? (BTW, I suggest you read Not by Chance by Lee Spetner)

You still haven't addressed the most important theological question. If God used evolution then he has to have billions of years of death and pain and suffering preceding Adam and Eve's Fall as his preferred method of "creation". That is, billions of dogs, cats, cows, horses must have suffered cancer, heart attacks, arthritis, blood disorders, breathing illnesses etc etc, before Adam and Eve sinned.

Now can you actually conceive of a God who would, as a first choice, cause every animal which has ever lived, to experience the pain and suffering that these illnesses bring when he could have had a painless and disease free creation? Remember, evolution by definition has to have the death of the weak in order be evolution, or are you redefining evolution to suit you end goal?

This is the dilemma the theistic evolutionist faces. Throwing in words like sovereign, etc doesn't help the problem. But if you think it does, then you have to unpack the proposition. As it stands your argument is one assertion after another and does not consist of an argument.

When SAs actually confront these problems with clarity and honesty, instead of throwing in red-herrings and avoiding the questions, proper Christian dialogue can occur.

Craig Schwarze said...

You take an atheistic doctrine & squeeze a bit of God in here

This is exactly what I am NOT doing. Unfortunately, you either cannot or will not understand what I am saying.

Craig Schwarze said...

Now can you actually conceive of a God who would, as a first choice...

We have debated this for pages upon pages on the Sydney Anglican forum.

Saying "I can't believe in a God who would do this..." is not a strong argument. It is simply a value judgement.

As you would be well aware, one of the most common arguments against Hell is "I can't believe in a God who would torment people forever." Your argument against theistic evolution is very similar.

John said...

Craigs said

Saying "I can't believe in a God who would do this..." is not a strong argument. It is simply a value judgement.

Son, you need a good dose of honesty. You've deliberately misquoted me and lied about what I have said. My statement was far from being as vacuous as the piece you ascribed to me. I gave reasons (in fact, explicitly biblical ones) as to why God creating a world where death was there from the beginning was inconceivable.

I am beginning to understand you now, son. At every opportunity you've selectively attended to our arguments, overlooking the ones that demolish your own. For example - and this is a trivial one - you've ignored the fact that a Reformed theologian was the main guest speaker at a then AIG conference at Moore College (and before you make a further fool of yourself and claim that this proves Moore doesn't ban YECs from their property, you better ask how AIG got there in the first place!). Your little imaginary world where YECs are Arminian and Calvinists aren't, all done to boost your smug self-righteousness, has collapsed. (Of course, you won't respond to the well-known fact that Calvin himself was a YEC!)

I've asked you to supply the observed evidence that genetic information has actually qualitatively increased, a key demand for the biological change that will drive the molecule to man scenario of evolutionary theory. You've ignored this because you don't know anything about your belief that God used evolution.

Warwick said...

I think I may have a glimmer of light as to what Craig is on about.

1) He isn't on about atheistic evolution- messy, bloody & wasteful. Not a god in sight.
2) He isn't on about the above but with God in control, but still messy, bloody & wasteful.
3) He is on about a form of evolution which isn't messy, bloody or wasteful. Evolution without 'nature red in tooth & claw.' Evolution where peaceful animals just get on with the job of peacefully evolving into higher forms with a slightly powerful God patiently watching as the eons slide by. I see this god as having a cockney personality- 'Cor ain't you becom 'uman yet mate. I'll av ter 'urry it up a bit mate. I'm gettin royt sik o this mate.

Please excuse my poor attempt at humour but the whole idea is ridiculous. All this nonsense so as to stretch creation out to billions of years? This isn't evolution but freeze frame creation. Give me the old blood n' guts type anyday or give me the real God of the Bible who speaks & it happens- come out God commands & Lazarus' rotting corpse becomes alive again, instantly. Maybe these guys imagine it would take their god twice as long to reconstitute two Lazuri & so on therefore needing eons to make our spinning orb & all its critters.

Maybe I ate too many mandarins tonight. I am off to bed as this is all too silly even for me.

sam drucker said...

Warwick, Neil, Ktisophilos and John, it is time to move on from the time waster and distraction, Craig.

We are "casting pearls before swine" when we try to engage with one such as he who refuses to listen. He is disingenuous.

I would advise all to treat any future comments he makes as intellectual litter.

This blogspot has a higher calling. It is not a place for him to air his ignorance and be given any semblance of credibility.

Sam Drucker

John said...

Sam,

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. Craig has proved he is not ready to do the hard yards as we have done, we who were formerly aligned with the theistic evolutionary model. As long as Craig believes in his own righteousness his mind will never be open to the perspicuity of Scripture and the science which supports the young earth model. Craig is a paradigm of what this blog is against, the hardened heart and mind that forms the soul of the SAD (a very useful acronym!)

I have been a Christian for 25 years now and a young earth creationist for about 20. Daily I revel in the intellectual challenge that God brings to me regarding this subject.

As I found here and overseas, there are plenty of atheists and spiritual searchers who are wanting answers to the most basic questions of existence: How did life come about? Is it all chance? Why is death here? Are we really related to mushrooms and amoebas?

The theistic evolutionary model (and thus the type of Christian apologetic promulgated by SAD) can neither answer these questions nor satisfy the intense spiritual yearning for truth displayed by these people.

One of the worst things about Craig's myopia and his SAD-is-the-entire-Christian-world mentality is that he is entirely ignorant of the revolution that has occurred in Christian scientific thought in the last 30 or so years. For example, London to a brick he has never heard of, let alone read, the important ideas that men such a AE Wilder-Smith brought to Christian apologetics. His pioneering work on information theory, optical activity in amino acids etc and how these all mitigate against the possibility of God's creating by evolution were some of the most important ideas in Christian thinking in the 20th century. Many times of brought them up in talks, debates and lectures and have atheists later express their amazement that they have never had a Christian give a rational argument for the existence of God such as what they just heard (the ideas, as I have stated, aren't mine so I am not claiming ownership of them!)

Until Craig gives us evidence of honestly grappling with the issues raised here and actually responding to all our points (instead of referring us to atheist websites!), he's best left to wallow in his SAD hubris.

Craig Schwarze said...

Warwick, Neil, Ktisophilos and John, it is time to move on from the time waster and distraction, Craig.

Warwick, Neil, Ktisophilos and John, I prayed for you all this morning. I prayed that God would grant you abundant joy and blessings in your life.

I don't consider you time-wasters or distractions. You are precious children of God, created in His image, redeemed by the blood of Christ. May God make his face shine upon you.

Warwick said...

Sam I dunno about giving up on Craig I sorta like dealing with Him & the other slippery AngloLiberals.

I have too long kept company with Christians who accept God at His Word & it's been an education for me to experience these slippry critters.

I have learned that six-days doesn't mean six-days but means something totally different: what or how I don't know as they goes all coy when asked.

I have learned that even when God says it 'all' don't mean all.

I have learned of a new type of evolution which contains no evolution at all. Kinda like those meat pies I read about.

I learned that even if Jesus Himself believes man was made at the 'beginning of creation' it don't mean beginning.

You know it's a bit like my French lessons where to my confusion certain French words don't mean what they appear to mean. Sensible in French don't mean sensible at all but sensitive. How about that. So maybe the AngloBibloPhobes have introduced a French-it don't mean what it appears to mean-virus into English?

Maybe there's more? Maybe up doesn't mean up, left means right, no means yes. Maybe 'In the beginning God created from nothing realy means He created from evolved stuff. Or has that already been said?

I think I'll hang in there a tad longer for the education value. This is all good stuff for the creation evangelism conference I am heading up in Paris in September. It will all come under the heading of how not to do it.

Do you think I could use selected AngloNasties photos in my PPT presentation?

shell said...

I just stumbled across this site, and have found it a rather horrible experience. I am neither an Anglican, nor from Sydney, and I haven't made up my mind on how I understand Genesis 1. But I was, quite frankly, absolutely disgusted by your treatment of people, who have attempted to engage with you, only to be heaped with personal insults and outrageous slurs. I think that the SA's have tried to respond in a gracious and godly manner. The way the posters on this site have behaved is anything but.

Warwick said...

Michelle could you please be specific about the 'personal insults and outrageous slurs.' Not a general comment but who has said what which offends you.

And Michelle how did you stumble upon this site?

shell said...

For starters, how about the repeated sarcastic references to 'Lord' Jensen, and insults cast upon his son (Jan 30, 07).

Following links on people's blogs.

That aside, could you answer me this:

Do you believe that a Christian who admits they are unsure whether God created the world in 6 24 hour days, or through evolutionary processes, is saved?

And will a person, who trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ, seeks the forgiveness of sins that is found in His blood alone, and yet believes the world may have been created through God sovereignly controlling processes of evolution, be cast into hell?

Warwick said...

Michelle you wrote- 'For starters, how about the repeated sarcastic references to 'Lord' Jensen, and insults cast upon his son (Jan 30, 07).'

** Michelle I came into this relatively recently however I am aware that people on the Anglican website,and elsewhere have been extremely rude referring to those who believe in 6-day creation as hillbillies, morons, lunatic fringe & worse. This has been going on for some time. Is this the way to address Christian brothers?

So I suppose there has been some tit for tat happening here. I have been strongly critical of some behaviour but I don't think I have been insulting towards anyone. However I suppose that depends upon your definition of insulting.

'Following links on people's blogs.'

** ???

'That aside, could you answer me this:

Do you believe that a Christian who admits they are unsure whether God created the world in 6 24 hour days, or through evolutionary processes, is saved?'

** Michelle we are saved by the grace of God through the finished work of our Lord Jesus upon the cross. So I am sure we can be saved while unsure of many things. However theistic-evolution as vigorously promoted by those who I refer to as AngloNasties (as their behaviour & words are nasty)are pushing a view which leads people away from faith. They attempt to impose a worldly view upon the Bible which is contrary to what Jesus taught. Can we become a Christian while having unformed views about sections of Scripture? As above certainly. But how long do we remain faithful if we stubbornly hold to anti-Biblical views? How long do we remain Christian when we actively oppose what Jesus believed? I think you know the answer.

'And will a person, who trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ, seeks the forgiveness of sins that is found in His blood alone, and yet believes the world may have been created through God sovereignly controlling processes of evolution, be cast into hell?'

**Michelle who would ever come to the idea purely from Scripture that the Almighty God would need a slow & wasteful process like evolution to achieve that which he can do instantly by His spoken Word? Who reading Genesis would imagine that its real meaning was contrary to the plain meaning, as the AngloNasties teach?

Why would God who is perfect and cannot lie so distort the truth?
I hope that helps you understand my personal position. I can speak for no one else.

** Michelle you did not answer my question- how did you stumble upon this site?

Regards,

Warwick

ps I became a Christian 30+ years ago thinking God probably used evolution. It took me quite a while before I saw the gaping holes in this philosophy. It was quite a liberating & faith building thing when I finally did.

neil moore said...

The name Michelle is not too far removed from Michael. I wonder????

Neil

shell said...

Neil, that's just insulting. I'm quite sure I am a woman, and that Michelle is the name my parents gave me at birth.

It's that kind of juvenile comment that means that, while I have many questions about 6 day creation, I will not continue to seek to understand the position here. I will find somewhere instead, where people who have questions are encouraged as they engage in seeking to understand the Scriptures.

Ktisophilos said...

I await Michelle copying us her rebuke of the Sydney Anglicans for calling creationists "moronic", "hillbillies", and "demonic".

Many enemies of biblical creation have double standards: condoning the most vicious insults against creationists, but squealing pitiously at any slight firmness from the creationists.

Ktisophilos said...

St Basil the Great (AD 329–379) backed up what Warwick says about taking the plain meaning, and not making words say something else. So despite the Moorite fibs about how novel the YEC view is, it is actually the traditional view of exegetes who analysed the text without imposing outside ideas upon it.

In his Hexaëmeron (= ‘Six Days’), nine Lenten sermons on the days of creation in Genesis 1, Basil stated (Homily 9):

I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel." Romans 1:16 ...

Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.

... so nature, once put in motion by the Divine command, traverses creation with an equal step, through birth and death, and keeps up the succession of kinds through resemblance, to the last. Nature always makes a horse succeed to a horse, a lion to a lion, an eagle to an eagle, and preserving each animal by these uninterrupted successions she transmits it to the end of all things. Animals do not see their peculiarities destroyed or effaced by any length of time; their nature, as though it had been just constituted, follows the course of ages, for ever young. "Let the earth bring forth the living creature."

Warwick said...

Michelle I would like to think I carefully & properly gave answers, to the best of my limited ability, to your questions.

I also asked you twice how you came to stumble upon this site.

Surely good manners would require a reply?

That also makes me a little suspicious about who you really are.

I am made even more suspicious by your overreaction to Neils comment.

I would like to give you my phone number so we can speak so as to verify that you are indeed Michelle & to endeavour what you are wanting to understand. If I do so will you phone me?

neil moore said...

Cheerio, Michelle!

Neil

shell said...

Warwick said:
I also asked you twice how you came to stumble upon this site.

Surely good manners would require a reply?

That also makes me a little suspicious about who you really are.

I am made even more suspicious by your overreaction to Neils comment.

**My response, which will be my last, is that I am a 24-y.o wife and mother, who is seeking to understand your position. I am not a scientist (my husband is), and I am completely unconvinced by the theory of evolution (as is he, for that matter). If you had simply clicked on the hyperlink embedded in my name, you would come across pictures of my children on my own blog, which should surely be sufficient to verify my identity. Perhaps I did over-react, but it was unfortunately exactly what I expected, given the nature of many other postings on this blog.

Incidently, I came across this blog, by that exact process, I linked from one friend's blog to another, came across a syd-ang blog, on which some of your contributors had posted, clicked the hyperlinks in their names, and followed them here.

Warwick said...

Michelle thanks for your reply. Last night I did think to click on your hyperlink which I discovered almost by chance. I posted a comment there as you claimed (there)thsat no one on this site was prepared to answer your questions. As I had carefully answered your questions I thought that a little unfair. I have just opened your spot again & my comments, which were there this morning,now appear to have been deleted. Maybe I didn't look in the right place.

Michelle you need to know that I am not anti-Anglican, being a christened & confirmed Anglo,& it was an Anglican minister out at Grenfell who was God's instrument in my adult conversion.

The annoyance & frustration you have come upon here is in fact the result of long-term deviousness, unBiblical teaching & wrong behaviour as promoted by certain members of the Anglican community. I am friends with a number of Anglican ministers who are extremely upset by the new religion taught at Moore Theological College. One of those while at Moore was threatened & told to step away from his 6-day creation beliefs & step away from associating with people of like mind,(described by Moorites as 'the lunatic-fringe')or he would not be ordained. He is not prepared to be named here as a 6-day believer as he is convinced this would bring him trouble! This is the type of thing I seek to disclose here.

This is just one example of many of the quite evil things which these people who I call AngloNasties have done. BTW AngloNasties means those individuals are both Anglican & nasty. Not that they are nasty becase they are Anglican.

I do agree that some intemperate responces have been posted here. However I am responsible only for what I have written. i am anindividual & not part of some group here. If I have written anything you consider improper, & if this has offended you then I am truly sorry.

However I am passionately Christian & have a hunger for Truth. I therefore cannot take a-she'll be right mate-attitude towards those who distort the plain meaning of Scripture. I consider them to be 'wolves in the fold' & will not consider them otherwise until they repent of their error.

On the subject of intemperate language we can't fail to notice the scorn our Lord Jesus & his servants heaped upon the religious leaders who opposed them. John the Baptizer called the Pharisees a brood of Vipers. Rather intemperate but surely accurate.

I trust & pray you will understand what fuels the sometimes blunt talk here. That which is written against here are not about whether you sprinkle of immerse but they strike at the very heart of the Gopsel & are,in my opinion,part of a 'different Gospel.'

Regards,

Warwick

neil moore said...

Warwick, sufficient time has passed to indicate to me that Michelle will not be back. I cannot therefore assess sincerity through futher comments.

I must go on what I saw.

Michelle's initial and immediate comment was to lambast contributors to this site. This presented as just more of the same that has been received from Dave, Craig and Michael. Yes, there has been a lot of rough & tumble here but so much is generated from frustration arising from the failure of critics to engage on the subjects posted and questions asked for justification for reinterpreting Genesis 1. For example, where has there been engagement on any blogs posted other than those exposing the doctrinal position on origins of certain people within the Sydney Diocese.

So, my (hardly over the top) query as to who Michelle was was greeted with hostility from Michelle ie more of the same. There was definitely no humility contained within the reponse.

You tried well to engage with Michelle but received only a grudging response.

I cannot remove from my mind there was something non-genuine about Michelle. I would actually like to be wrong on this but performance tells a story.

If nothing else, a humble correction of my early doubt and then a sincere (much less bombastic) inquiry seeking advice on the matter of soteriology would have been the desired elevation of dialogue from what Michelle came on criticising.

Neil