Search This Blog

Saturday, May 5, 2007

Jensen reprise

Mr Jensen's desire to have his posts removed from the blog will be unmet. Two reasons. One, he chose to post, and that is the end of the story: public is public, Michael, secondly your efforts are a great case in point for the heretical teaching and practice that flows through rivers in the Sydney Diocese. Your remarks typify the ecclesiastical fascism which underpins Sydney life.

The case in point is this. Mr Jensen storms around riding on the coat tails of his father's position, when Jesus tells us very clearly that the first will be last and the last first, and that we aren't to go around using 'prestige' position or power as the world uses it. We are in fact bound to treat each other with honesty and respect. I note that Peter Jensen is unable to do this. Like father, like son.

I was reading in the Financial Review on Friday (3 May 07) that Miltion Friedman, the famous Chicago School economist took pains to correspond with everyone who wrote to him, wether economic neophyte, opponent, or not. I contrast this with Peter Jensen, who, if being obedient to the Bible, would place himself as servant of the church, not 'leader' 'head honsho' or 'the big biscuit'. After he lampooned his brothers and sisters who hold to the historic Christian position on the meaning of Genesis 1, who adhere to the Chicago statement on bibilical inerrancy (what does happen in Chicago??), who ascribe to that great statement of faith expressed in the series of books 'the Fundamentals' published as a bulwark against liberalism in the USA in the 1930s (from whence the term, of abuse for some, taken as an honour by others 'fundamentalist'), by calling us 'hillbillies'; and I never fail to remind all that he thus lampoons Broughton Knox, I wrote to him, expressing my anger, dismay and pain at his behaviour. I heard not a word. Here we have it, Milton Freidman, arguaby a 'great' man, is able to correspond with anyone about mere economics, but Peter, the main biscuit in Sydney, is unable to correspond with a brother he has sworn to serve, as part of the limb of the church in which he orbits. Makes me want to vomit from my mouth any Anglican allegience that I might have had. Incidently, it was in evangelical anglican churches that I've experienced the worst treatment, in 'broad', 'high', or 'catholic' that I've experienced the best of fraternal love.

By the way, I hope others read the Fin Review. The Friday 'Review' pages often have great religious articles. Of course, the religion they extol is invariably evolution . . . demonstrating the need to deal with this idea soundly as part of our evangelism (as Paul sets out in Acts 17, for example, an example the Anglicans and evangelicals broadly choose to ignore).

While I'm on the subject of periodicals, There is another stimulating article on Dawkin's 'The God Delusion' in the current Quadrant magazine (Richard Dawkins and the Morality of the Bible by David Hodgson). The author deals with Dawkins philosophical thinness with respect to his arguments for atheism, but also discusses moral issues which surround segments of the Old Testament. I hope to post some thoughts on this in the near future, God willing. Quadrant can be found at , along with its sister publication

I've recently started reading Thucydides' 'The Peloponnesian War', as I've decided to work through the highlights of classical literature. The introduction by M. I. Finley is itself worth a read. A remark about Thucydides' historigraphical approach is germane to this blog. I'll quote:

"The historian's data are individual events and persons; the sum total of their interrelationships is the historical process. Unlike the poet, he must get the events and the relationships right, exactly as they were, and not, in Aristotle's phrase about tragedy, as they might or ought to have been ..."

Considering Genesis 1, one is struck by the care taken by the author (let's say, Moses' because that's what the Holy Spirit tells us) to give the precise order of events, using grammar and selecting words so that alternatives are not possible (I refer to the historical consequentive grammatical structures in Genesis 1, the care to delinate sets of events by dirunal progress, and the description of the type of 'day' meant as 'evening and morning' type days, counted so that it is unavoidable that individual days are identified, described and events ordered).

If the events related are merely what they 'ought to have been', then we have fiction, poetry, as Aristotle might characterise it (entertainment, as we might refer to it today). What if the opening chapters of the Bible were fiction. Not telling us what happened, and not, therefore, locating us in history, in relation to God and in relation to our environment, which itself is not spiritual, not worthy of worship, but material, as from the hand of God? Well, if it was fiction, because this is the bald alternative to history (Aristotle refers, by implication to only the two categories), then it is not connected to history: to events which actually happened, and so, despite the neo-orthodox telling us that it is meant ot convey 'theological' but not 'scientific' truth (as thought truth wears colours like football teams), it tells us nothing, because it is not relating what is real, but imaginary. So a piece of imaginary writing cannot tells us anything real about God's status in realation to the physical universe, or us, as there is no source of information for us to determine the truth content of any utterance. We are left with the arbitrary, not the truth. If we know that something is false, then it cannot tell us anything, particulalry when some claim that Genesis tells us something, but not the things that it tells us. This is the basic logical impasse that the neo-orthodox have backed themselves into. In fact, they have backed off a plank over the side of a ship: they have nowhere to go but oblivioun (episemologically), because they have removed any warrant for the text being connected to the common world. It really is 'blow your brains out' thinking by the neo-orthodox, the sort of thinking that results in existential obliteration of the revelation, as I see it in adolescents, who are completely adrift, believing that they are material jumbles, not image bearers of God.

63 comments:

John said...

Yes, Eric, this blowing your brains out (I think that was a Perry Wiles' turn of phrase directed at us creationists in his SALT article) has become a mark of the SA when it comes to their dealing with Genesis 1, Noah's flood account and Exodus 20. When it's asked of them how a day with a number can be anything other than an actual day, 'all', as in "the water covered all the earth", can mean anything but...well, all, or a legal statute (4th commandment) can be taken to mean something other than the straightforward, literal reading, they, if they condescend, reply with the irrationality that highlights their fideistic separation of matters dealing with faith and science. We see this again and again when they parrot their leaders' spurious pseudo-argument that Genesis 1 teaches us the what and who but not the how. Or, elsewhere, that it is not a science lesson but a polemic against pagan mythology. Here we see this distinct and contrived (not to mention straw-man misrepresentation of the creationist argument) division that convinces their flock that they know best and that these hillbilly creationists do not understand God's mind and word as well as they do because they have theological degrees from world-respected colleges, like Moore, and if Moorites do not understand these complex issues then no one else possibly could.

John

michael jensen said...

I think this may actually be libellous.

neil moore said...

Michael, that is a little unfair.

From my knowledge of John, he is not an Anglican, and ought not be expected to know what you and I know about Perry's later life-changing experience.

Neil

michael jensen said...

I was refering to post itself.

Craig Schwarze said...

Hmmm...did you delete my comment?

Craig Schwarze said...

I was reading the following from James 3, and was very challenged by it. I thought I would share it with your readers -

"...but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so."

John said...

Michael,

Libellous? Exactly what are you commenting on?

John

John said...

Craig,

Deleting comments? A bit paranoid, are we?

As was previously made abundantly clear, we don't cut comments.... unlike some other sites I won't name.... (oh...fiddlesticks..it's the Sydney Anglican Forum, if you must know!)

John

John

John said...

Craigs said,

I was reading the following from James 3, and was very challenged by it. I thought I would share it with your readers -

"...but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so."


Your point being????????

John

neil moore said...

Michael, somewhere among my papers I have a copy of a statement from Perry where he said something to the effect of "not having to check your brains in to come to an understanding of Genesis fitting with the world's view on origins."

I think John has got the statement a little 'skew-whiff' but the thrust of it all is much the same.

I'll have a search for the document over the weekend and post it to this comment section.

Neil

Craig Schwarze said...

Your point being????????

It is a helpful word from God to meditate on, don't you think?

Craig Schwarze said...

Eric, if you have read Book 1 of "Peloponnesian War", you will know that Thucydides makes up all of the speeches in his work.

Now, by your own criteria, is his writing still "historical"?

michael jensen said...

Nothing to do with Perry.

Ktisophilos said...

Perry Wiles was gainfully employed by Moore, and used this position to denigrate YECs. He also admitted explicitly that if we relied on the text of Genesis we would be YEC, but we can't do that because of "science". So Moore's claim to follow Sola Scriptura is a sham.

Craig Schwarze said...

Michael, they've certainly wandered in libel occasionally on this blog. That is, I suppose, one of the reasons the main offenders choose to post anonymously.

Something similar happened to RC Sproul recently, with an anonymous website set up spreading vile slander about him. He attempted to get a court order taking the slander down, but it got nowhere because they could not locate the perpetrator. Eventually the slanderer went away.

The guys who do these sorts of things usually end up hanging themselves, anyway. They are singing a one-note song, and the only way to get "repeat business" is to make the blog entries more and more sensational. Eventually even the most sympathetic reader is turned off.

michael jensen said...

As I say, the libel was against me, not Perry. It potentially affects my capacity to do my job. As some of the people here ARE named...

Craig Schwarze said...

Are they real names though? If so, you could potentially subpoena them and force them to reveal the identities of the libellists.

John said...

Michael,

Apparently you've been attended to all your life and had people jump at every request you've made. The REAL world doesn't work like that, fortunately. So, unless you make your demands far more explicit and explain exactly what you believe is libellous then unfortunately (for you!) we can't process your claim.

John

John said...

Ah, yes, Craigs, another circumspect and germane posting by you. Congratulations.

John

Craig Schwarze said...

Michael, I imagine "Sam Drucker" is a pseudonymn, but "Neil Moore" is genuine I think.

The REAL world doesn't work like that

In the REAL world, courts have often determined that if someone is damaged by your public comments, then you are obliged to compensate them for that damage.

Craig Schwarze said...

For the information of your readers -

The Blogger "terms of service" prohibit harrasment and libel as follows -

"Member agrees not to transmit through the Service any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature. Member further agrees not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give
rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation. Attempts to gain unauthorized access to other computer systems are prohibited."

If you believe there has been a "terms of service" violation, you can report that to blogger using this link.

michael jensen said...

Could they have described this blog better?

Warwick said...

What a sad bunch of proud, childish compromisers you AngloNasties are. I coined that term in humour but the more I read of your trivial nonsense & acceptance of unproven worldly non-Christian views the more AngloNasties fits. What you promote is nasty as it kills faith, promoting 'another Gospel.'

I have met numerous Christians who have been hounded out of individual Anglican churches which some of you infest. Why were they kicked out? Because they dared to question the anti-Biblical philosophy of those who call themselves leaders in those individual churches. Some of you even brow-beat Anglican ministers who even suggest that a six-day view is the best option. How do I know this? Because they have told me.

I know of one senior Anglican minister who suggested they have a creationist speaker to get some balance. A few within his church the 'tribe'- tribe of compromisers, reacted so strongly against this that he, frightened of losing his position, backed off. If you took part in this anti-Truth ambush are you proud of yourselves?

If there is any libel it has been committed by AngloNasties & the court before which you will stand will not be presided over by falible men. I know that I will stand before that Judge also & if indeed He tells me He was not powerful enough to create in six-days nor able to write clearly then I am confident He will forgive my higher than real view of His power. On the other hand those of you who run with the hares & hunt with the hounds will answer for your disobedience. I take no pleasure in that but that's your fate.

Craig Schwarze said...

"...AngloNasties..."

Warwick, is there anything "nasty" in your post, do you think?

Warwick said...

Only truth CraigS. I am sure that to some of you truth is very nasty.

Craig Schwarze said...

Warwick, I was just praying for you that God would richly bless you in everything.

If you have any specific prayer points, please let me know...

Warwick said...

Craig I thank you for the offer of paryer & if you feel lead to pray for me then who am I to say no. However I am already truly blessed of God with everything anyone could ask for- salvation, family, friends, health, wealth & happiness.

I Thank you anyway

Craig Schwarze said...

Well, I will thank God that He has given you so much then...

Ktisophilos said...

These AngloNasties have a persecution complex. But as Warwick has said, they are the ones who suppress any dissent from their compromise. The Reformers would never have been welcome at Moore because they accepted Genesis as real history.

Craig Schwarze said...

Kristophilos, I pray that God will bless you richly and abundantly in all things. If you have any specific prayer points, please let me know and I will pray for them.

neil moore said...

Ktisophilos, I once spoke to a Clergyman who, when studying at Moore College, held to the biblical interpretation of Genesis just as the Reformers did.

Sadly, he told me that he was told by the hierarchy at Moore that his interpretation would not help him at Moore. It was in the last twenty years.

This is second hand news but I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the Clergyman and his version of events.

Neil

michael jensen said...

That's just silly gossip. We have students and faculty who hold differing positions on this.

Craig Schwarze said...

Neil, this is a serious and respectful question. Do you believe it is appropriate for a Christian to repeat hearsay like this? I know you have a great respect for historical Christian belief, and many Christians in history have considered this sort of thing to be "gossip".

Would you agree? And do you think Christians are prohibited from engaging in gossip?

Warwick said...

Craig I have been friendly with a man, now an Anglican minister who studied at Moore College. While at Moore that which he was taught challenged him to consider what he actually believed about Genesis. We discussed & debated these matters & he came to accept the straight forward(6-day)view of Genesis & was subsequently told that he 'would not be priested' if he kept promoting this view.

We discussed all these matters on numerous occasions in detail & I have no doubt he told me the truth. This was also confirmed by other students & ex-students.

Craig a pattern emerges. It can't all be fantasy.

Craig Schwarze said...

Craig a pattern emerges. It can't all be fantasy.

I'm not suggesting it is or isn't. What I'm asking is, what constitutes gossip, and is it appropriate for a Christian to engage in it?

sam drucker said...

I am not at all surprised by the experiences at Moore College mentioned here. It is to be expected. The Sydney Anglican Diocese does take stands on certain issues and if you don't conform you are set apart.

Consider the issues of Women priests & bishops and practicing homosexual bishops and priests. A strong stand is taken on these issues because on the grounds of clear Scripture injunction. Attempts by advocates to reinterpret Scripture to accommodate these practices are resisted. I do not object to the stand taken against the will of advocates because of the biblical basis.

What I do object to is the hypocritical stance taken within the Diocese (read Moore College in this also) against those who remain with the Reformers in taking Genesis at its word.

In an earlier blog I disclosed Hans Frei's study of a shift in the evangelical church's reading of historical narrative ('The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative - A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics')

The Anglican Diocese of Sydney has been influenced by the world to reinterpret Genesis on origins and then the Diocese goes "wagging the finger" at those who are influenced by the world on the role of women in the church and homosexuality. Hypocrits!

But, as I said, I am not surprised. Israel, proud Israel, had its ebbs and flows. Times of greater faith and times of decline. The times of decline were characterised by taking on the belief systems of the world around it with resultant idolatry. The Lord, as a test, allowed Israel to engage in idolatry, or is it harlotry, or both. There then came a serious consequence for this grievous sin.

Other areas of the church have gone after the world while the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church and its teaching institution has stood back proudly shaking the head and uttering "tut, tut" yet, on the matter of origins, it is sliding after the very ones it berates.

A new reformation is required because of the extent of departure from the original Reformers.

Sam Drucker

Craig Schwarze said...

Craig I have been friendly with a man, now an Anglican minister who studied at Moore College. While at Moore that which he was taught challenged him to consider what he actually believed about Genesis. We discussed & debated these matters & he came to accept the straight forward(6-day)view of Genesis & was subsequently told that he 'would not be priested' if he kept promoting this view.

Warwick, these are serious allegations. If the situation is as you have described it, it is indeed disturbing.

But I cannot make a judgement without hearing from the men themselves. Could you please tell me the name of the priest involved, and also the person who threatened him with non-ordination. I will follow both of them up.

If you don't wish to disclose those names in a public forum, please email them to me at craig.schwarze@gmail.com. I promise to keep the names confidential.

michael jensen said...

Since I know of people who have most certainly been ordained whilst holding these views - I can only conclude that someone is telling porkies.

neil moore said...

Craig, "gossip"? it's a fine line but my Lord Jesus cautioned others about the false teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matt 16:5-12)

I see myself cautioning believers against what is a false teaching at Moore College in recent decades.

Judging? Yes, and I must be careful because I have many failings for which I deserve judgment. On the matter of trusting the Lord in character and word in Genesis and recognising the need to make value judgments I am compelled to speak out.

You asked Warwick to reveal to you details of the people involved in our recent charge. You might well be asking me too.

My answer is that I have seen a lot of things you have said here and in the your.sydneyanglican forum. Sorry brother, I don't trust you to deal rightly with the matter.

Neil

Craig Schwarze said...

Sorry brother, I don't trust you to deal rightly with the matter.

Well, this is unfortunate. I've taken your allegations seriously and sought to confirm them, but you are unwilling to provide details.

I think most impartial judges would require more evidence than hearsay from a pseudonymous source. Imagine for a moment that you were the target of similar allegations made in a similar forum - I think you would rightly demand the presumption of innocence.

neil moore said...

Craig, the reality is no names have been mentioned because of sensitivity towards the individuals involved. There is more that could be said but I have said as much as I think should be said and I would like the individuals to remain anonymous.

To go chasing down the people could ruin careers. I advise you just to accept my word and leave it at that. I am not lying and I am confident the person who informed me was not lying about his experience.

At this stage only an institution has been identified. Don't put the insitution above the persons involved.

Neil

Craig Schwarze said...

I advise you just to accept my word and leave it at that.

Neil, unfortunately I know nothing about you. You are asking me to accept very serious allegations on the basis of hearsay from an unidentified source. That is not a reasonable request.

You would be very upset if others accepted allegations against yourself without substantiation. I ask you to use the same standard you would wish applied to yourself.

Warwick said...

CraigS I have just spoken with the minister I wrote about,the one who was told he would not be ordained if he kept on with his creationist stance. He confirms this as fact saying-"I was told my ordination was under threat if I kept associating with 'the lunatic fringe.'" That 'lunatic fringe' being those who trust God & believe that He did as He wrote, created in six days.

I asked if I could name him, he hesitated then so no because of the intimidation he wouuld surely receive from many in the Anglican church. Such intimidation as covered here in various blogs.

Why would he trust people like you Craig? We see the scorn, insults & ridicule you and the other crass AngloLiberals pour upon those who take God at His Word.

You can take what I have written as the shameful truth that it is or you can reject every word of it. You & your ilk do not & cannot intimidate me. That is not because I am in any way hiding as you know my name.

michael jensen said...

ahhh. Well that is different: it isn't about his beliefs, actually: it is about association with people who add to the gospel. In which case - fair enough!

Actually, Warwick, John and co: why do you give a toss about Syd Anglicans? Surely if you are being consistent you ought to shake the dust off your feet and move on.

Warwick said...

Michael I am a christened & confirmed Anglican & in my teens was a Server. It was an Anglican minister who by his perserverence & faith brought me to the position where I asked for an received forgiveness from Jesus.

My mother was a faithful Anglican, strong in her Christian faith until her death at 92 years of age.

I care about the shattered state of the Anglican church outside of the Sydney Diocese and care about the downhill slide into liberalism of the church here in Sydney.

Paul the apostle was convinced the historical reality of Genesis was the only foundation of the only Gospel. I believe absolutely in the historical truth of Genesis and am convinced this adds to the Gospel. Indeed it adds a foundation to the Gospel. I ask you how this adds anything unBiblical or improper to the Gospel?

Or is it that you as a theistic evolutionist are attempting a spot of guilt transferrence, accusing Bible believers of adding to the Gospel when it is in reality you who commit this sin.

Craig Schwarze said...

"I was told my ordination was under threat if I kept associating with 'the lunatic fringe.'"

Not surprisingly, this is a bit different to your original description of what happened. And if I spoke to the other party involved, I'm sure I would get a different story again.

You can see now why I cannot just "take your word for it".

Warwick said...

Dear John I know you give good advice to the lonely, the love-lorn & the lost so I write to you seeking your assistance. Craig doesn't believe me. Does he imagine I somehow need his acceptance of what I have said to give it the ring of truth. What should I do?

John my Anglican minister friend friend said that i had represented thhe sorry events faithfully That indeed he would not ordained if he continued in his views & associations. Such views as proscribed by the guru's. But Craig says my description of events has changed.

Did the channel change while I was having a well earned afternoon snooze. Have I strayed onto the comedy chanel?

Please help!

John said...

My brother Warwick,

Craigs is a very dishonest and self-righteous man. He can't follow through with a discussion because he first falls back on this attitude to take shots at his fellow brothers.

This also shows through with his clear lack of logic. If he were at all logical and honest in his discussion he would have understood that "I was told my ordination was under threat if I kept associating with 'the lunatic fringe.'" contains the same meaning as what you had originally written about what the minister had been told.

Craigs is so blinded by his self-righteousness that he looks for any excuse to find fault. I am not surprised he can't see the similarity of the statements because he can't follow our argument about Genesis 1. Preferring to rely on a postmodern theory of knowledge (the words can be given any meaning the reader wants them to have) he then builds upon this by promoting the pagan idea that evolution, non-intelligence, death, survival of the fittest and long ages are God's method of creation. He never presents a reasoned argument but prefers to say that Rabbi Peter Jensen is a nice chap and it's Ok to believe what Rabbi Peter Jensen believes because he's a nice chap.

Craig is so intent on defending an organisation, leaders of that organisation and principles based on man's speculation that he ignores plain meaning of Scripture. A truly blind man.

His dishonesty is salient also because if you ask him to explain an aspect of his belief, he ignores you. From my years of working with people in cults this is a clear symptom that we are not dealing with brothers in Christ who wish to share their intellectual experience of God.

This is all deja vu and is why I left Anglicanism many years ago.

Warwick said...

Interesting John. I've been doing a spot of blogging on a US site & find one of the anti-Genesis blogers there has a similar style & attitude to Craig & some others who grumble on this site. Turns out he is a Mormon Priest! But John CraigS wont believe what I say about this. Isn't Craig the guy who is into star signs, kung FOOOO & other new age stuff?

neil moore said...

Craig, what I have said, I have said.

Neil

Ktisophilos said...

Michael Jensen displays his wolfish aggression when he calls YECs heretics, as he does when he claims that we add to the Gospel.

No, we provide a foundation for the Gospel as Paul does: Jesus came as the last Adam to die for our sins and conquer death, because the first Adam brought death into the world with his sin (Romans 5:12 ff, 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45).

When Moore adds evolution to the Bible, it really subtracts, because it removes the logical foundation for the Gospel. I.e. if human death pre-existed Adam, then Adam's sin didn't bring death. And thus what is the point of the Last Adam?

YECs also teach "the whole counsel of God", rather than only part of it as Moore does, mixed as it is with the counsel of God-hating evolutionists.

Craig Schwarze said...

Isn't Craig the guy who is into star signs, kung FOOOO & other new age stuff?

No, no and no.

Craig Schwarze said...

This is all deja vu and is why I left Anglicanism many years ago.

It sounds like it was a good move for you John. But there were clearly still some unresolved hurts for you - otherwise you would not have gone to the trouble of creating a web site for the express purpose of criticising the diocese and especially it's leadership.

This, of course, is the reason you want to remain anonymous. If your name was known, so would your history be. People would say "Oh, it's xxxx saying all that stuff? That makes sense - he was very angry when he left church. Here's the rest of the story he hasn't mentioned..."

Craig Schwarze said...

YECs also teach "the whole counsel of God", rather than only part of it as Moore does,

Interesting comment. I suspect you actually don't know very much at all about the curriculum at Moore.

But I'm more interested in your comment regarding YECS teaching "the whole counsel of God". Well, what does YECS teach about predestination? About the rapture? About infant baptism?

neil moore said...

Predestination, rapture and infant baptism are matters which will attract varying responses as it does in the Lord Jesus' Church universal.

This blogspot was developed to respond to the 'viper like' treatment of YECS on the Anglo site.

It will therefore deal with that subject and the degenerate church of this era and its 'sucking up to the world' on origins.

Neil

Craig Schwarze said...

Predestination, rapture and infant baptism are matters which will attract varying responses as it does in the Lord Jesus' Church universal.

You can accept that, but you can't accept a diversity of opinion on Genesis 1. Why is it ok to have different opinions on Predestination, but not YECS?

Regardless, it was Kris who claimed that YECS taught the "whole counsel of God." Given this, my question is totally reasonable.

John said...

Craig said: This is all deja vu and is why I left Anglicanism many years ago.

It sounds like it was a good move for you John. But there were clearly still some unresolved hurts for you - otherwise you would not have gone to the trouble of creating a web site for the express purpose of criticising the diocese and especially it's leadership.

This, of course, is the reason you want to remain anonymous. If your name was known, so would your history be. People would say "Oh, it's xxxx saying all that stuff? That makes sense - he was very angry when he left church. Here's the rest of the story he hasn't mentioned..."


Yes, you've worked me out. Damn, you ought to become a counsellor because with skills like that you could really attend to the needs of the lost, lonely and outcast.

Is this another example of your one-up-manship or are we just being a little too smug, son?

John said...

Isn't Craig the guy who is into star signs, kung FOOOO & other new age stuff?

Craig responded: No, no and no.


So, you aren't into martial arts?

John said...

Craig wrote: You can accept that, but you can't accept a diversity of opinion on Genesis 1. Why is it ok to have different opinions on Predestination, but not YECS?


We'll answer you on this one if you give us one reason why you claim that when a number is attached to the word 'day' (e.g. day 6 or 3 days) it can mean something other than a solar day.

You are on notice, Craig: If you ignore this then everything we have said about your dishonesty and evasiveness will ring true.

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

Ktisophilos said...

Here's the difference: debates about Calvinism v Arminianism, end times, church government, infant v believers' baptism are debated from the Bible as the ultimate authority. Obviously one side is wrong in its understanding.

But debates about creation concern the nature of the authority: is it the Bible or secular "science". Historically, when the Bible rather than uniformitarian science was the authority, hardly anyone doubted that Genesis 1 taught creation 6000 years ago over six normal-length days.

Look at the commentaries over history. The long-age ideas came in only after the deists brought in uniformitarianism. Perry Wiles explicitly stated that we can't take Genesis as written because it would contradict "science".

For more on YEC philosophy on these issues, see End-times and Early-times and a recent feedback response from Creation Ministries International, Should CMI take a stand on eschatology?.

Critias said...

I haven't been here for ages. And what I've missed. It's good to see discussion, and I'm pleased that we can all chat on about this question of origins and the teaching of the Bible. Is it important? Paul tells us: YES. All scripture is there for our teaching.
I was amused to read that M Jensen considers the post libelous. I couldn't see it myself, but I've known people who've not been written to after corresponding with either of the Jensen boys: as parishioners. Same for various Moore College lecturers and bishops of the diocese (as opposed to the Primate who has graciously replied to a letter of mine on another subject). What worries me is that these blokes seem to put themselves a cut above the rest of us. Like Eric said about Milton Freedman: great people usually reply, the little men don't.

neil moore said...

Welcome back, Clive.

Celebrity status has its dangers.

Just to emphasise your point, a friend wrote to Antony Flew (formerly the world's leading Atheist Philosopher) just after he renounces his atheism. My friend sent him a DVD to help him come to an understanding of the Creator who he did not yet know.

Antony Flew sent a friendly letter in reply thanking my friend and saying he would look at the DVD in time.

Neil