Search This Blog

Thursday, May 1, 2008

The Sydney Anglican Diocese’s Quadune God

Neil personally expressed to me that he was left somewhat confused regarding my most recent post stating that the SADs have introduced another god to Christendom, namely ‘Time’. Let me try and further explain what I mean by this by offering up an analogy. (Of course, there is a rider attached to all analogous relationships because – and this is what most people forget – analogies will always be somewhat disanalogous because if two things didn’t have some dissimilarity then they would be absolutely indistinguishable and an analogous argument would be pointless. It is the degree of “sameness” that authenticates the relationship and people are free to argue over its strength but not to dismiss the proposed likeness out of hand.)

Imagine an architect and a builder who draw up a blueprint for an elaborate tool shed and who then immediately put their plan into action by constructing it and completing it without a break, not so much as a smoko or holiday being taken. An observer would quite rightly praise these master craftsmen for their, and theirs alone, skill and wisdom.

Now, imagine the same architect and builder who take years to draw up a plan (several in fact, because most were found to be in error), adjusted, erased, augmented, and who took another age to “complete” this structure (again, not all the components were in their correct place, but a shed is a shed is a lean to). Furthermore, you could never tell when the job reached perfection because it never really ended. In between the beginning and “end” were enormous periods of non-activity in which the ravages of time took effect by allowing the structure to, well, fall to pieces ever so incrementally and where “unplanned things” just happened because time allows the entrance of the accidental. Now, would the same observer then be rational to rightly praise these craftsmen for their, and theirs alone, skill and wisdom? Obviously not? The structure – and that is all that it could be called because it certainly would not resemble a shed like the first – would exist in its present form because time has been allowed an input. Time has usurped some of the glory of these craftsmen, hasn’t it?

Similarly, when the SADs Peter Jensen, Rob Forsyth, Gordon Cheng et al hand over some of the Creator’s glory to ‘time’ they’ve apotheosised another “power”. Let us not forget that before Darwin, Lyle and Hutton wanted to remove any trace of God from the scientific world and, in particular, from discussion about the Earth’s history. To succeed they realised that increasing the amount of time was the key. It’s simple: They understood that the Creator needs no time to bring his plans to existence and thus to explain reality without God they just increased time to a degree that “allowed” anything, a whole world in fact, to come into being.

The Sydney Anglican Heretics have robbed God of his glory and it is because of this lie they continue to tell the world and their parishioners they remain heretics.

6 comments:

Eric said...

John, I like the analogy. I think the SADists certainly have taken glory from God and given it to time. Just as Paul said, people reject the creator and worship (give worth to) the creation.

neil moore said...

John, the problem with Theistic Evolutionists such as those you have mentioned is that they have hastily accepted the evolutionary model of origins. They then have to hobble together a dodgy theology which, in reality, they have no confidence in and will avoid discussing Genesis with Biblical Creationists because the Biblical Creationists continually expose the failings of their theology.

In presenting this observation of time you have exposed another fault in the T/E theology. They advocate a form of idolatry.

These people are a real danger to the Church.

Neil Moore

Eric said...

I think this relates to the SAD disregard for time: it is their disregard for (a) Jesus engagement with the material world, and, related to this (b) their elimination of the creation from their theology.

In connection I liked this quote:

“When Jesus saw Mary weeping and the Jews who came with her he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. Jesus wept. Jesus once more deeply moved came to the tomb.”

But that phrase “deeply moved” is actually better translated “angry”. Now that puts Jesus’ mood in a whole different light. Jesus is not so much grieving the death of his friend, as he is angry. But at what? Maybe it was because of the sheer, futile injustice of it all. A young man snatched away in his prime of life, by mankind’s final enemy - death. For Jesus death is just not right. It shouldn't be. It had no part in God’s original plan for creation, and it has no place in the New Creation that Jesus himself will bring in one day. Death is a gatecrasher. And Jesus is mad at it.

It is from:

http://www.timesindicator.com/church.htm

neil moore said...

Eric, maybe, but upon encountering the funeral procession at Nain our Lord is not recorded as expressing anger etc at the passing of the young man.

Neil Moore

John said...

The word used in John 11 literally means 'to snort with anger','to have indignation on', 'to blame'. Death qua death as the target of Jesus' anger seems an appropriate understanding.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,