Over to you Michael, and welcome back, once more.
INTRODUCTION
Well, I only called YOU nutty, on the basis of this absolutely nutty blog... boohoo.
hey, you know, I thought this blog may have been an elaborate joke by
gordon cheng himself... I am kinda sorry it isn't...
Hey I don't wear glasses. And the archbishop hasn't driven a camel for a while now...
THE PARACHURCH DILEMMA:
no evidence AND no retraction...hmm, nice display of intergrity guys! (That's sarcasm, by the way.)
Where did I say or write that? Amd where did Peter Jensen say or
write that?
No evidence yet.
NEVER A TRUER WORD SPOKE
What do you think of daylight saving btw?
ANGLICAN SOCIOLOGY:
'more Biblical'? well that's the point at issue. I think ridicule is
certainly appropriate (I don't justify all of it) and even Christlike if the views in question are placed as an addition to the gospel as a
requirement of belief. Which, clearly, they are.
Yes: more biblical, that's the issue.
Did Christ never engage in mocking and ridiculing? well, actually, he did...
Is it sunny up north?
Well I wrote something else which was perfectly reasonable and it got deleted. Smug? must be the photo. And: yes, my comment is exactly the point... which you continue to miss. I in no way preach a gospel shorn of its historical roots. So who is straw-manning again? I also pointed out that in fact I am not on the whole the ridicul-er of others on AMS forums. For that, go see Gordon Cheng. However, the
more I read this site, the more his ridicule seems appropriate.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course, I uphold the historical truth of Genesis as do I am certain all the faculty of Moore College. However, I don't think the language of brethren is
appropriate for you to use, because you think I am apostate.
QUESTION OF GENRE:
Your account of Dickson's stuff presents an either/or which isn't actually accurate. And it is 'others' not 'other's'.
Well, I do know John D for a start... What does he mean by 'history'
in this instance?
WHO'S A HILLBILLY THEN?
And.. still no evidence. Shouldn't be too hard to find if it is actually there.
ie, no evidence that PFJ has used the word 'hillbilly' in this way.
Still no evidence that he actually called him this. And: are you now deleting my comments?
Posts
14 comments:
Sir, as a regular reader I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your timely resurrection of the thoughts of Chairman Mike. He is an inspriation to all we lesser mortals waiting breathless deep in shadow hoping to steal just a glimpse of his words.
Assure me kind eloquent sir that there will be more?
Lesser men heathens all cast about vile stories, purile slanders claiming chairman Mike had cut & run in the heat of battle. But he returns.
Just in case those of the AngloNasty(R) persuasion(avid readers of these posts) are confused by my comments may I explain they are irony, expressed in terms made famous by brother Cheng. Or maybe a feeble attempt at same.
________________________________
An expert is a man who tells you a simple thing in a confused way in such a fashion as to make you think the confusion is your own fault. ~Willaim Castle
Please get rid of those line break codes in the HTML (<br>). The formatting of this entry is hideous!
Interesting to see that after the flurry of accusations about Jensen calling Broughton Knox a 'hillbilly' and the provision of evidence of same slur, that the Jensen boosters failed to give out even an 'Oh dear, what a nasty man he must be' let alone, 'apologies, dear brothers, you were right, and we were out of order to criticise you'
Since I have repented of my comments on this blog, I would appreciate if you would respect this and remove them. I offer my apologies to the aggrieved parties. They were immature.
God Bless,
MpJ
Michael,
Honestly brother, we weren't offended by your personal comments, so there's nothing to apologise for. What we were concerned about was that you (and others) didn't believe us that your father had called us these things, when he was clearly on record as having done so.
More importantly, however, is that you are unwillingly to tackle the issues which we've raised with you concerning the Sydney Diocese. I know you believe, like us, that a Christian is not free to believe anything and everything about God. Yet, we see Christians within the SD upholding the most unbiblical ideas about our Creator, many of which are obtained from atheists. Furthermore, and far more serious, is that they go on to attack and ridicule those that seek knowledge of God from an orthodox biblical position. Some on this blog have even expressed a view that there is a new revelation available that overturns thousands of years of basic core beliefs concerning God and, I presume, teach this to young Christians. As I have mentioned, even one SD bishop now openly professes that we should forget traditional biblical understanding and replace it with a new epistemology that says "First believe men's ideas and allow these to judge God's Word."
We would really love to fellowship with you, Michael, but we feel that you and the SD have put unbiblical stumbling blocks that prevent seekers coming to know the love and true knowledge of our Lord, Saviour and Creator, and so until you repent of this we can't move forward.
John
Michael I am truly impresssed that you would apologize. I trust this means you do accept that the Archbishop's derogatory comments were as reported here?
What a fascinating conversation. Fellow Sydney-sider by the way. Likely to be denounced as an arch-heretic by some. You'll find me blogging at http://mattstone.blogs.com.
Matt
No, I don't accept that the spin you have put on the comments are at all fair... 'hillbilly' was a word describing the secular carictature of evangelicals.
Michael said,
No, I don't accept that the spin you have put on the comments are at all fair... 'hillbilly' was a word describing the secular carictature of evangelicals.
So, Michael, if so, why did Peter not answer our enquiries about what he meant?
In any case, can you explain [away] your Peter's redneck comment?
John
Michael,
In the last 20 years can you provide an example of a moment from a lecture at Moore which actually provides a brief laying out of the traditional, orthodox view of Genesis 1 i.e. the historico-grammatical view?
Can you provide the name of 1 lecturer from the time your father began as principal who holds to this orthodox view?
Why has your father stated or supported the position in Doctrines 1 that from Moore College's perspective the evolutionary view is the correct view?
Surely, commonsense tells you that if you didn't think the opposing view hillbilly, Moore would provide some fairness on the issue. This is what academic rigour demands.
Your comments are deliberately disingenuous!
John
Yes. At least 2 of the current faculty hold to a Young Earth creation view as I understand.
In Doctrine 1 he said it was 'a' position, not 'the Moore College' one.
Michael reckons: "At least 2 of the current faculty hold to a Young Earth creation view as I understand."
I'm sorry Michael but I find that quite hard to believe. Am I supposed to believe you because you're the archbishop's son? I hear the masses calling for a syllogism. Let me see...
1. Archbishops' sons never tell lies and their grasp of knowledge is always perfect.
2. Michael Jensen is an archbishop's son.
3. Therefore MJ must be telling the truth and his comment about there being at least 2 creationists on faculty at Moore must be true.
Right, people, can you tell me what's wrong with the syllogism?
BTW, what's that sneaky little rider (as I understand) doing there? Is that your great escape clause?
Well, if you like you can call Philip Kern, Barry Webb and Paul Williamson and ask them for yourself. I have never talked to them directly: but as I remember, I though they held to Young Earth views. I could be wrong. Of course, we are all creationists. As I said, I could be wrong.
Post a Comment