Search This Blog

Thursday, March 17, 2011

The Execution of Dialogue

It would be easy to write words at length in criticism of the churlishness of Craig Swarze on his blogspot - culminating in his complete removal of a conversation he and I were having in the comments section of a recent blog. It occurred in his blog on the Moore College Think Tank. Look, and you won't now see any comments section.

There is more to his behaviour than just that. Let me just say that there is nothing of Jesus Christ in Craig Swarze's behaviour.

Sam Drucker

13 comments:

Craig said...

Well Sam, I deleted the comment thread because it was not on topic. I am not going to let you hijack other topics - especially when you just keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

If you wish, feel free to repost your comment on one of the two creation science threads on my blog. But you must not post off topic comments on other threads. Thank you.

John said...

Oh, yes, Mr Moral Highground. This is the man who REFUSES to say why we should reinterpret, as he does, God's direct discussion with Moses in Exodus 31.

Craig won't say why, in Exodus 31, 6 days means 6 billion years. God has just told Moses he created in 6days but Craig implies that it can't mean that because his atheist mates reckon, on the advice of a few pieces of man-created machinery, the earth is way older.

Hmm, let me think: God's direct revelation in the Bible or cage-wrestling-loving Craig's dishonest avoidance of the problem? A true no-brainer!

Craig said...

I don't see what your objection is - I said Sam could repost his comment. He just has to keep to the appropriate threads.

Regarding your other questions - I answered them in the very long comment threads. Anyone who takes the time to read through the threads will see that.

You didn't like my answers and just repeated your questions. Sam has done the same. It's not possible to dialogue in such circumstances.

Well, I know in my heart I honestly tried to engage you guys with grace and respect. It didn't work three years ago, it didn't work this time either. I've already said things in this conversations I've regreted, so I think Proverbs 26:4 comes into play. Perhaps I'll try again in another 3 years.

blessings,
Craig

John said...

Quoting Scripture makes you feel good about yourself Craig? Shame you're not consistent on that!

If you can show us where you actually dealt with Exodus 31 then you may have a case. Until then, you've just lied, once again.

John said...

Craig said: "Regarding your other questions - I answered them in the very long comment threads. Anyone who takes the time to read through the threads will see that."

I've just gone through all your comments in your 2 thread son the subject. You have not dealt with Exodus 20 or Exodus 31, as you claim above. This means you are either delusional, punch-drunk or a liar.

Craig said...

Actually John, I withdraw that statement. I just went back and looked through the comments, and you are right - I never tackled Exodus 20 head on. I got caught up in a pointless back and forth with Sam. I was going to to stop commenting, but I need to correct that - my mistake.

So let me state it plainly - I believe Exodus 20 is speaking is using the "six days" figuratively rather than literally. No, I'm not interest in a long argument about this fact.

The truth is that there is NOTHING you can do to convince me the earth is 6,000 years old. NOTHING. It is like trying to convince me that the earth is square.

This time I genuinely will say goodbye.

blessings,
Craig

John said...

Craig,

At first blush Exodus 20:11 (i.e. the proclamation of the 4th commandment) and Exodus 31:17 (reiteration of the 4th commandment and the penalty for not obeying it) would appear to say that God, talking directly to Moses ("And God spoke all these wrords saying..." & "And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying.."), is saying that He created in 6 real days. However, you say that God is merely talking figuratively or idiomatically.

Now the reason for you saying that this legal command is an idiom is principally not from Scripture but based on ideas from scientists.

Problems:

1. What legal document contains figurative or idiomatic language?
2. What legal document prescribing the death penalty for breaking the law has the law itself based on figurative or idiomatic language?
3. So God is talking about himself and what he did in figurative language but instructing the Jews to act literally despite the fact that this 4th commandment has the Jews' expected behaviour being based on God's non-actual actions?
4. If God's words are to be taken figuratively here, why not take Jesus words here figuratively: "Whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" or "Before Abraham I am" or "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected..and be killed and be raised the THIRD day." or "Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, "Peace to you."
Liberals take all of these as figurative, non-literal expressions with no historicity behind them, for the same reasons you do e.g. SCIENCE has shown us dead men don't resurrect.

Craig, you're just an old-fashioned liberal dressed up as a modern conservative, no more, no less. I hope your children do not run with your ideas.

Any man who says there is nothing that will convince him he is wrong, is a fool. It is also the sign that someone is ungodly. It means that they are so full of conceit that they can't even see the other as a human being. For them, the other doesn't even exist, hence there is NOTHING in that other that can make a difference on ME. This is not a sign of Christ in them but someone else.

This is not about 6 days or any other matter but what it means to be Christ-like. If you can't even begin to believe that you are wrong, that another's words of advice or encouragement can have real meaning and truth, then I find it difficult to believe Christ lives in you.

Craig, you have got to let Christ live in you because it is very difficult to see he actually does.

Peter said...

Come on guys we don't need to fight over 6 or 7 days. We all know that the beginning of Genesis, the Priestly bit, is just lifted from the true Mesopotamian Tiamat slaying religious creation story. Hebrews just copied it once the copyright expired and slapped it in before the Elohist Adam and Eve story. And John, Graig’s mates are not atheists, he is predestined to pushes them away.

sam drucker said...

As regards, Craig's lame assumption of figurative or idiomatic intention by God as recorded at Exodus 20:11 I think John addresses it well.

At the risk of repetition I'll just conclude that, on Craig's rationale it was God's intention that that Moses accept what God was saying as just figurative or idiomatic. So, how real were the other commandments? Where or what is the trigger for separating the real from the unreal? Should Moses have gone so far with the Law when it was just figurative? What about the New Testament charges by Paul and Peter about behaviour aligned to those mentioned in the Ten Commandments?

The history of Christian belief is unravelling at the will of Craig Schwarze.

Craig, pull out of this nose-dive!

Sam Drucker

sam drucker said...

To paraphrase Craig:

The truth is that there is NOTHING you [God]can do to convince me the earth is 6,000 years old. NOTHING.

So, where does that leave Craig Schwarze?

Sam Drucker

Critias said...

Craig's claim amounts to an argument from personal prejudice: just like Dawkins whose arguments from personal credulity (imagination...failure of imagination) also amount to nothing.

What we want is rational consideration of evidence; not hope, prejudice and puffery.

sam drucker said...

Critias,

Exactly as you have said it although "puffery" is a neew word for me.

Sam Drucker

John said...

So's "neew", unless you're Dutch.