Critias posted this comment. I thought I'd take it to the front of the line, I thought it so good. Hope you don't mind Critias!
I was thinking of the polarities in belief the other day. Here are some contrasts: I went to a talk a few years ago at the Humanist Society. It was on evolution or creation?. The speaker, I think he was from Sydney Uni, spoke long and well, and was congratulated by the president. His talk opposed evolution and supported biblical creation.
Another time I went to a debate in Bankstown; it was at a church. Three speakers for biblical creation, three for materialist evolution. Both sides had book tables, and for we Christians, there were some great warm conversations with unbelievers.
I remember one older man, one of the Rationalists puzzled over the conjunction of God and suffering. He wondered how children could be allowed to suffer. I joined and wondered at the futility of ending life with death: what we all face as we age (he was quite old). His philosophy gave him no help. I talked about the hope I have not only becuase God who is love created, but he whi is love has acted to unite us with him across the divide of alienation and death.
Another time I went to a debate (at Christ Church St Ives) where the topic was biblical creation. The minister, Dr Woodhouse debated with Carl Wieland of Creation Ministries on the Bible's teaching on creation. Woodhouse gave a great display of shifting hermeneutics and strange biblical thinking. He talked about 'multiple creation accounts' (he was refering to biblical references to the single creation account in Genesis 1 and 2). Carl on the other hand, stood in the Reformed tradition, and took the Bible for what it said.
Now, the contrasts: I saw hearty open and honest talks and debates with the Humanist Society and the Rationalists. From SADists I saw equivocation, absurd special pleading and a veiled supercilious truculance.
Woodhouse is now principal of Moore College: I wonder what it will be turning out: more North Shore parish disaster mongers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I remember that. Dr Wieland was very much to the point, both scripturally and scientifically. Woodhouse was such a waffler on Scripture that I was tearing my hear out, like "when is he going to get to the point!". Of course, he couldn't answer the scientific evidence for catastrophe and design at all, like most SADists.
Gee, thanks for taking my comment into a proper post! Much humbled!!
I forgot to mention one thing. The Rationalists didn't flick me off by declaring any of my questions or comments to be beside the point, or irrelevant, or accuse me of not being serious. They just dealt with them. Try the same thing with a typical anglican: talk about 'creation' and they'll glaze over, presuming to know more of your mind than you do, pretending that your concern is a 'non-issue'. What incredible arrogance! I don't see this anywhere in the NT. Jesus took people's concerns head on and dealt with them. The only people who didn't of course were the Pharisees! Worth thinking about, chaps.
Post a Comment