Over on our nemesis forum: run by the SADists; there was a comment (I'll grab the link later) as to how we cast aspersions and rant rather than debate.
I must say, I think the boot is on t'other foot. This blog's authors and commenters go a long way to reasoning out their position, but no matter how much we put forward our reasons, there is scant intellectual engagement. Mr Baddeley comes the closest to dealing with our discussion, but even he took his bat and ball when challenged on the fathers' writings. He went on to win the Baddeley award with his lengthy discussions (which I'm still to fully consider) on his objections to something we don't happen to be: creation scientists. So he thoroughly missed the point while calling the kettle black.
Long time readers will recall Michael Jensen's fabulously insightful comments . . . I say no more, or the sharp debates of one Mr Cheng . . .ditto. But who will recall the discussive engagement of dealing with arguments? No one, I fear!
Perhaps one of the early commenters who went right past the Bible to cosmic rays zapping from outerspace to explain creation wins the day? Irrationality triumps over biblical fact in the SAD, it would seem.
I think the real reason is that SAD runs on 'priestcraft' even if with another name, and only those who've been given magic hands can study the Bible and talk about it.
Someone also suggested that if only we knew the Archbishop, we'd know what a fab guy he is.
I've met and spoken to the AB on many occasions, I've served on church committees and mission teams with Phil. I've heard many of Peter's sermons (and Phil's) at St Matthias and the Cathedral. Indeed, I've been to the odd ordination where a Jensen spoke. One of my nearest misses was when I was in a mission team, and confronted by a problem no one seemed to want to answer, I rang Moore and asked to speak to Peter; after all, he was one of the teachers at my church. His gatekeeper laughingly dismissed me ("what, speak to Dr Jensen, he's far too important for the likes of you" was the implication), and I was left as dead meat for the people I'd be assigned after our mission. But perhaps I, as a young Christian then, was not aware that the lowly should not presume to ask of the lofty!
But that's not what got this blog going; it was the quasi-Barthian compromise with materialism and the rejection of the gutsy historic position on Genesis 1 from which springs all our theology, in one way or another. Peter is complicit in this, as are other bishops: none, in personal corresondence, discussion or formal exchanges seems to want to correct the Lord Archbishop's wrong teaching that evolution and creation are in different realities: evolution in this one, but creation in some ethereal 'reality' that we, and those who are lost from Christ, cannot touch.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
The person you refer to at the SAD forum is obviously dishonest. As if he had forgotten or nearly forgotten all about us. We really got up his nose before because we weren't prepared to roll over and cop his style of dealing with people. He hadn't forgotten us.
He is dishonest also in making false statements about our writings.
He and his liberal offsider killed the thread David Palmer had started. They went on the thread thinking they were making a contribution to David Palmer's call for help but it was beyond them to be a help. David even feared his thread degenerating into a slanging match because of things they were saying so he ended it.
As I said before, David Palmer had a genuine desire to respond to atheists. I wish him well in his pursuit.
Neil Moore
Post a Comment