tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post7575843912132163345..comments2024-03-29T13:30:56.758+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Speaking accuratelyPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47267357380202789202012-09-02T19:20:08.879+12:002012-09-02T19:20:08.879+12:00Hi Martin,
I hope you might reconsider ... at leas...Hi Martin,<br />I hope you might reconsider ... at least one day in the future, as I personally have valued your erudition and eloquence here immensely.<br />With warm regards<br />PeterPeter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63613323671995967472012-09-02T18:51:19.137+12:002012-09-02T18:51:19.137+12:00Shalom! MartinShalom! MartinBryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77477854936799044192012-09-02T17:02:57.866+12:002012-09-02T17:02:57.866+12:00Mr Smith, I asked you out of charity to ignore me ...Mr Smith, I asked you out of charity to ignore me and to cease passing personal comments about me. You have been unable or unwilling to do so, and I've found your responses frankly embarrassing, and unworthy of a senior minister. None of this helps me spiritually, so I'm going to drop out of this blog.<br />Thank you for hosting it, Peter.<br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-4879882081949477342012-09-02T15:32:30.633+12:002012-09-02T15:32:30.633+12:00Regarding age, all I can say for myself is that th...Regarding age, all I can say for myself is that the older I get the less I know I know, the more I know I don't know and as for the stuff I don't know I don't know, well, I don't know anything about that at all.<br /><br />Of course, all that depends on the meaning of the word 'know'. Do I 'know' the sun will come up tomorrow? According to some that is something I can't 'know' until after it happens. (It's a handy debating point for those who wish to offer a form of intellectual justification for agnosticism.) According to others it is something I can 'know' because the sun comes up every day and we have no reason to believe anything will happen between now and tomorrow to prevent that.<br /><br />If to 'know' is to have a justified true belief then there are things I used to think I knew but now I don't know them anymore because what I thought was a justified true belief has turned out not to be that at all. For instance, I used to 'know' that the creation story in Genesis was no more than "a tale told round a camp fire", or a myth if you like. But that was when I used to 'know' that 'science' had demonstrated that human beings descended from ape-like creatures, who had descended from some other sort of creature, all the way back to the first living cell which arose as the result of some fortuitous accident involving natural processes operating on lifeless matter. (This is what Kerkut called the General Theory of Evolution, as opposed to the Special Theory of Evolution which merely states that living creatures can undergo change sufficient to form new 'species'. And that's another word the meaning of which is unclear.)<br /><br />Now I 'know', on the basis of logic, that 'science' can't demonstrate anything of the sort. That's assuming that 'science' means the investigation of indefinitely repeating natural events or processes in order to provide a description of how the event or process occurs. You know, the sort of investigations that gave us useful drugs and vaccines, electric lights, non-stick cookware, computers and space ships, the sort of investigations that most people think of when they think of 'science', and the ones that gave the word 'science' such cachet that everyone wants to, and does, use it to describe their own research causing philosophers of science such difficulty in deciding what is 'science' and what is not that they gave up on the "Demarcation Problem" decades ago.<br /><br />There would be no talk of Adam and Eve being a myth but for the General Theory of Evolution which so many people, for so many years, have believed is a 'scientific' theory (and therefore given credence to) when, in fact, it is a theory about history. Yes, it uses evidence from 'science' but so do the theories that Abraham Lincoln had Marfan's Syndrome, that the Black Death was caused by Yersinia pestis (some now think it was caused by an Ebola-like virus) and that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave. <br /><br />As for the Special Theory of Evolution, it's only results are either trivial ('species' change) or they falsify the theory (there are limits to how much change can occur). <br /><br />And as for Augustine, I know he said that God could have created in an instant, rather than in 6 days, but he also said this:<br /><i>[W]hen they [non-believers] produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will so cling to our Mediator, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion.</i> (The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Book 1.)Janicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29991772403523620222012-09-02T09:51:52.888+12:002012-09-02T09:51:52.888+12:00"At the risk of sounding a wee bit superior&q..."At the risk of sounding a wee bit superior"<br /><br />That ship gas king since sailed Ron. Every post you make drips with your own self-proclaimed sense of superiority.<br /><br />I don't fare how long you gave lived or what you have done. It proves nothing. I know plenty of Consevatives around your age who do not share your view, so what does your age prove?<br /><br />I am weary of Liberal political clap-trap and the ad Hominem that YOU constantly pour out on us. THAT is not serious theology.<br /><br />And you have failed to answer my question about how you decide what is myth and what is not in Scripture. Your "experience is not an answer, but merely convenient avoidance of the issue.<br /><br />Do you have a serious theological answer to that question or not?<br /><br />On the issue of ad Hominem. Pot. Kettle. Black.<br /><br />If you don't like it, don't dish it out.<br /><br />Nobody is forcing you or Bosco to post here. There are plenty of Liberal blogs on which you can rant about us ignorant and hateful fundamentalists to your hearts content.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-71721363266343613022012-09-02T07:30:56.879+12:002012-09-02T07:30:56.879+12:00"BTW, I don't find 'myth' a very ..."BTW, I don't find 'myth' a very useful term for describing Gen 1-11 - as a teacher of classics, I find it carries too much freight from classical antiquity."<br /> - Martin - <br /><br />For someone who had 'given up on conversing with me on this site, you're not doing too badly - except that a classical education doesn't necessarily make anyone an expert in theological praxis - where 'the rubber hits the road'. Pax et BonumFather Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60660141641457831182012-09-02T02:18:14.734+12:002012-09-02T02:18:14.734+12:00"How does Ron, or any liberal, decide that Ad..."How does Ron, or any liberal, decide that Adam and Eve are a myth, but the resurrection is not?"<br /><br />With difficulty, or perhaps by not thinking things through but preserving a fundamentalist mind on this question.<br />If the study of science, history and philosophy convinces you that that Adam and Eve are mythological, it could (though I don't think it necessarily would) lead to the same conclusion, on the same principles, about the resurrection - as it did for Bultmann. <br />I know very little about anthropology but I understand that geneticists believe we all have a common ancestress at least.<br />BTW, I don't find 'myth' a very useful term for describing Gen 1-11 - as a teacher of classics, I find it carries too much freight from classical antiquity.<br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59604320598443735482012-09-01T23:36:49.259+12:002012-09-01T23:36:49.259+12:00"How does Ron, or any liberal, decide that Ad..."How does Ron, or any liberal, decide that Adam and Eve are a myth, but the resurrection is not?"<br /><br />From the old hymn, Shawn: <br /><br />"Experience will decide, how blest are they, and only they, who in the Lord confide"<br /><br />At the risk of sounding a wee bit superior. I have actually lived a pretty long life - much of it is service of 'The Master'. I don't claim any credit for myself - but only for "Christ dwelling in me".<br /><br />Oh, and a few years of the active Franciscan Life - together will a little formal theological education, and lots of praxis. But most of all, in prayer, praise and thanksgiving. Pax et Bonum!<br /><br />Oh yes! I too am beginning to tire of the constant battle to deal with<br />the sort of ad hominem that is constantly poured out on 'liberals' <br /><br />'Mine Host', Peter, is generally courteous, but I. Like Bosco, am weary of constant political clap-trap. This is not serious theology.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82093057053820291062012-09-01T19:54:30.424+12:002012-09-01T19:54:30.424+12:00Ron once again trots out his selective approach to...Ron once again trots out his selective approach to Scripture. And once again I point out that one casnit pick and choose what is true and what is myth. Because it is nothing more than a self-serving abuse of God's Word.<br /><br />How does Ron, or any liberal, decide that Adam and Eve are a myth, but the resurrection is not?<br /><br />How? By elevating themselves above God. By elevating their own wisdom above that of the Holy Spirit. This arrogance and self-idolatry is breathtaking.<br /><br />For it is God Himself who "breathed out" every word of Scripture. It is the Holy Spirit who speaks in every word. <br /><br />The Liberal approach to Scripture promoted by Ron turns God into a liar, whose lies have to be corrected by the oh so very wise and enlightened "reason" of Western urban latte liberals.<br /><br />We will nit win the world fir Christ by promoting the failed ideology of arrogant and idolatrous Liberalusm.<br /><br />It us a cancer and it does what all cancers do, it kills it's host body.<br /><br />In every church and every denomination in which Liberalism has gained sway it has emptied churches. Liberalism lost the Western world. It has had no success in bringing new people to Christ. <br /><br />Throughout the world, in Asia, in Africa, and in the West, it is those churches who take the conservative Evangelical understanding of Scripture that are expanding and bringing millions to Christ, while dying liberal churches spend resources and mission work on advancing homosexuality and liberal politics.<br /><br />It takes a special level of self-delusion to pretend otherwise. As we saw with the current leader of TEC, when confronted with the truth that her Church us broke and dying, she had no answer, only delusional fantasies.<br /><br />Ron talks about the need to experience the Holy Spirit. <br /><br />But how can anyone do so when they reject the very words the Holy Spirit breathed out? Why would the Spirit even bother to dwell in such people?<br /><br />God us not mocked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-12531722254626314652012-09-01T15:05:23.031+12:002012-09-01T15:05:23.031+12:00Two brief responses, Ron.
1. And so, what then is...Two brief responses, Ron.<br /><br />1. And so, what then <i>is</i> the “real substance” of Williams’ exploratory essay?<br /><br />2. Are the “objections” of the grand majority of the GSA world merely “cultural”? I ask, because might they not say the same of your own “views”? In which case, what’s to decide between their culture and your own?Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37038271822599636442012-09-01T13:09:41.459+12:002012-09-01T13:09:41.459+12:00I have noted your dismissal of the real substance ...I have noted your dismissal of the real substance of ++Rowans's essay on 'The body's Grace', Bryden; but perhaps you'll forgive me if I accept the author's version rather than your own. My opinion is that he has not changed his mind on the substance of his acceptance of the integrity of Same-Sex relationships <br /><br />I believe - together with many others in the Church - that, in the light of objections voiced by certain Global South prelates; ++Rowan felt he had to defer to their specific cultural objections in the interests of maintaining ecclesial unity - at the cost of his own theological opinion! <br /><br />I'm sure we haven't heard the last from ++Rowan on this issue. Having decided to step down from being Primus-inter-pares, he may feel more able to speak his true mind, from the less-fraught background of the academic world.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18766266634294110152012-09-01T12:53:32.084+12:002012-09-01T12:53:32.084+12:00"Two questions still remain which can't b..."Two questions still remain which can't be dismissed easily.<br />1. Did Adam and Eve exist as historical persons?<br />2. Was there a historical 'Fall'?<br />Christian theology has historically answered yes to both questions."<br /> - Martin - <br /><br />I would remind Martin that myth is not necessarily untruth. The word simply helps us understand the real facts of how humanity has found the mystery of God's activity in the cosmos. This is perhaps the reason why Jesus mostly taught in parables - to avoid the possiblity of some future theologian wanting to set in concrete the elements of what was intended to be the lesson taught.<br /><br />Of course, the Christian message is predicated on the need for God's redemption of the fallen. Why else would the Gospel of Christ have become necessary? The Adam and Eve myth is the best way to tell the story of how the Fall happened.<br /><br />The great blessing out of all of this, is not how humanity fell from grace, but how God set about redeeming us Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18421063674146743352012-08-31T22:20:10.143+12:002012-08-31T22:20:10.143+12:00Bosco writes: "Please quote a Reformer, of wh...Bosco writes: "Please quote a Reformer, of whom many here are so fond, who regards Genesis 1 as speaking of anything other than 24 hour days. Why is their exegesis of Genesis suddenly abandoned when it becomes inconvenient?"<br /><br />I don't think the Reformers differed much, if at all, from the Church Fathers, of which a few hgere are so fond, as regards Genesis 1 - look at the various Hexamera since Basil.<br />But as I've pointed out, Augustine (a man well versed in the rhetoric of antiquity) believed in instantaneous creation (not evolution) and didn't take Genesis 1 as 'literal' but as the poetic expression of a theological truth; have a look at Confessions XI-XII (the chapters nobody reads today!). Which is to say: within Gen 1, a day means a day, but Gen 1 has a larger context for interpretation. Look at the notes in the NIV Study Bible or the Word Commentary of Prof Gordon McConville for how contemporary evangelicals respond to the evident poetics of the text (and I say this as a Hebraist).<br />Still, Luther was not Calvin. Already in his commentary on Genesis Calvin was responding to the findings of astronomy about the mass of planets and their revolution, and he was exploring the phenomenological character of language. He wasn't so different from Galileo in his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.<br />Questions about the actual age of the earth didn't impinge on men for another two centuries or more.<br />Two questions still remain which can't be dismissed easily.<br />1. Did Adam and Eve exist as historical persons?<br />2. Was there a historical 'Fall'?<br />Christian theology has historically answered yes to both questions.<br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88824387508395466692012-08-31T21:37:15.919+12:002012-08-31T21:37:15.919+12:00Having gone over this conversation again, Peter, I...Having gone over this conversation again, Peter, I noticed this remark from you:<br /><br />" In the case of the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 we have two perspectives bound into one account." - P.C. -<br /><br />And is this not the problem with the literal reading of Scriptures: the fact that ALL of it is written from a particular perspective - which may, or may not, fit in with what we now know about the cosmos, about human biology, and about own developing experience of the life of God within. <br /><br />It is not as though we Christians are just interested bystanders. Many of us have a life-or-death need to actually experience the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives. We are not all intellectual dilettantes or masters of scholarly didactic. <br /><br />Many of us help to struggle with the day-to-day difficulties and trials of other persons' lives - trying to make sense of them, in the light of our personal Faith mechanisms - a task which needs more than just 'human wisdom'.<br /><br />Sometimes, 'scholarly wisdom' - often obtained through reading the 'wisdom' of our favourite model - just does not 'cut the mustard'. as Saint Paul reminds us in today's Epistle:<br /><br />'If anyone thinks of himself as wise, in the ordinary sense of the word, then he must learn to be a fool before he really can be wise. Why? Because the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God'. -<br />(1 Corinthians 3:18-19)<br /><br />Today's Saint in our lectionary, is none other than St.Aidan, who is described as "a gentle, ascetic and humble man, whose unassuming holiness readily won him the respect of others". <br /><br />If only we were able to emulate such a model! The world might be won for Christ!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiweianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66707374131463432942012-08-31T21:09:50.132+12:002012-08-31T21:09:50.132+12:00" I am willing to accept the idea that the st..." I am willing to accept the idea that the story of Adam and Eve is some sort of parable, but I cannot accept the idea that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is anything but a historical fact."<br /> - Paul Powers -<br /><br />In this statement, Paul, I am your ally. I believe in the creedal statements about the conception; life and death; bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus. I have problems with the literal reality of Adam and Eve - except as a paradigm of human beginnings. Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52989557007119404612012-08-31T17:30:55.262+12:002012-08-31T17:30:55.262+12:00Hi Bosco,
Other comments made recently here about ...Hi Bosco,<br />Other comments made recently here about 'day' noted and appreciated.<br /><br />Yes, it is possible to think of G2 as an expansion of D6 of the week of creation. But if it is it does offer some differences about the coming into being of creation which are not easy (in my view) to reconcile with the coming into being of creation according to G1. Thus G2:4 offers 'in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens ...' with no plants etc, but man appears quickly on the scene.<br /><br />Another observation: in contrast to some other commenters here, I do take the 'day/night' of G1 (and the six/seven days) as days/nights/a week within the narrative itself (whether or not sun or more is yet created). The question is whether this particular narrative is then also intended to be understood as a chronologically accurate account, and the question arises, not simply because of subsequent developments in science, but also because of G2:4 onwards.<br /><br />That time gets played around a bit in Scripture is not confined to these two chapters. Luke offers Luke 24 as a 'long day' re resurrection-ascension, and then in Acts 1 tells us that there were 40 days from resurrection to ascension!<br /><br />None of this 'play' on words, stops the Bible being quite clear and specific on other matters. 'Do not commit adultery' means what it says: I should not be unfaithful to my wife. No excuses and explanations relying on a metaphorical understanding of the commandment apply.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82088632398825912672012-08-31T15:28:46.705+12:002012-08-31T15:28:46.705+12:00Hi Bosco!
Although frankly, I find this entire d...Hi Bosco! <br /><br />Although frankly, I find this entire debate re “literalism” rather tedious, as it is so trapped by simplistic contemporary views as you say, if you want the Reformers’ views, Calvin is rather helpful I find.<br /><br />His principle of “accommodation” is the guide here. I quote: “Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.” (Institutes I, xiii, 1) I.e. God is gracious in his revelation.<br /><br />That is, when we examine Genesis 1's depiction of creation, there’s the rather crucial question to ask: what function is the 7 day format performing that God accommodates to such a literary process?! And for my money, two rather helpful answers prevail. (1) John Walton’s <i>The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate</i> (2009). (2) Neil MacDonald’s <i>Metaphysics and the God of Israel: Systematic Theology of the Old and New Testaments</i> (2006).<br /><br />Talk of “days” might be literal; the week’s Sabbath is literal too! But establishing the form and function of the cosmos by filling the universe and the earth with its functionaries may take ... who knows how long?! (A very modern question ...) The point is we now have God’s temple in place: so get worshiping on that very Sabbath - and beyond! Such is the “theatre of God’s glory” after all - after Calvin once more.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26252939802439876292012-08-31T15:23:49.611+12:002012-08-31T15:23:49.611+12:00Hi Bosco,
The Hebrew word 'yom' that is ...Hi Bosco, <br /><br />The Hebrew word 'yom' that is translated as day does have several meanings in Scripture. I recommend Francis Schaeffer's book 'Genesis in space and time' for a good exposition on the subject. I don't think anyone could doubt his credentials as a very conservative Reformed theologian.<br /><br />Thankfully Scripture gives us a very clear definition if "homosexual". In both Leviticus and Romans. It is defined as men lying with men and women lying with women. I do not se how there is any confusion on that. <br /><br />My "tirade" as you put it was aimed at your demand of honesty and consistency.<br /><br />I take exception to that as I think it amusing that those who promote Church acceptance of homosexuality are the ones engaging in dishonest and inconsistent approaches to Scripture.<br /><br />Or in simple terms: Pot. Kettle. Black. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45034845039509595552012-08-31T15:06:21.259+12:002012-08-31T15:06:21.259+12:00In answer to Ron @ August 30, 2012 9:05 PM
Re RDW...In answer to Ron @ August 30, 2012 9:05 PM<br /><br />Re RDW. Fortunately, I have been blessed to sit at the feet of a number of excellent teachers amongst whom I’d list Rowan Williams. Thereafter, I have naturally encountered this essay you speak of; it’s often waved around. And I have too my own copy of this “exploration”. Although what exactly it is supposed to <i>prove</i> I am not sure! Sarah’s experience of seduction, and her supposed “discovery”, which gives way to the essay’s title, is hardly an auspicious move, frankly! That said, there is the truth nonetheless, first extensively worked by St Augustine, that we humans are indeed “desired” by the triune God. And <i>so</i> desired that this God should become one with us, one with all our very materiality and even fallenness, that we might become one with him.<br /><br />However, NONE of this suggests properly the extension of such “desire” and “joy” in ‘self-abandonment to the other’ to same-sexed partnerships. And for one real reason which Williams strenuously avoids in this essay: “a picture of what sexuality might mean at its most comprehensive” is surely <i><b>reproductive</b></i>, one where procreation is <i>not</i> sidelined but viewed as a necessary and integral element of the whole - including the discovery of the joy Williams so earnestly desires; to be sure! “Our [human] bodily selves mean” at least this much too, and in countless cultures - surely. For the “language of creation and redemption” is, at the very least, fruitful, both literally and metaphorically. And if it is viewed only so in the latter sense, divorced from the former, then that is precisely Gnostic - ever the temptation of the abstract academic view! For overall, he erects here a strawman view of the heterosexual “norm” which is as bourgeois as it is crass: “Marxist” “material” “production” be damned! It is not for nothing that others in my “list” of mentors have become increasingly “exasperated” (the word used by two of them independently of each other recently!) with him over the years.<br /><br />Re “justice”. You said earlier, “then the Church - which is committed to justice - must be seen to listen to the arguments and not evade them.” Well; please do not evade the careful work of a MacIntyre quite so glibly ... Which is what your reply surely does ...! What constitutes “injustice” is merely the flip-side of “justice”. And you have argued not at all; only, one more time, asserted!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-15769268259756238962012-08-31T14:48:51.938+12:002012-08-31T14:48:51.938+12:00" "Evening and morning" is a tempor...<i>" "Evening and morning" is a temporal expression which defines each "day" of creation as a literal day. It cannot be made to mean anything else. It is irrelevant that the sun is created on day 4.</i><br /><br />Not necessarily. It's possible that there were periods of darkness and light (evening and morning) that were caused by something other than the earth's rotation, in which case a "day" might be several million years long. <br /><br />That said, I think there's a danger in getting too bogged down with concerns about the historical accuracy of the Genesis account of the Creation and Fall. If we don't see ourselves in Adam (and in Eve), I think we're missing the point.<br /><br />On the other hand, I must admit to an inconsistency that I haven't figured out how to resolve: I am willing to accept the idea that the story of Adam and Eve is some sort of parable, but I cannot accept the idea that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is anything but a historical fact.Paul Powershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04833212693999583069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65542083139248334902012-08-31T13:37:33.217+12:002012-08-31T13:37:33.217+12:00Hi Peter,
No problem. As my wife says, it's t...Hi Peter,<br /><br />No problem. As my wife says, it's time to dial down the caffiene :)<br /><br />Also sorry for the double post. Something went wrong with the first attempt and I thought it had failed.<br /><br />I'll be off posting for a few days now as I have assignments to do.<br /><br />Have a good weekend all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18954213029218434742012-08-31T12:10:36.870+12:002012-08-31T12:10:36.870+12:00Thanks, Peter, for your moderating comments.
Rat...Thanks, Peter, for your moderating comments. <br /><br />Rather than presenting my own position on Genesis I am trying to press through logical consequences of others and I cannot see any justification for altering the understanding of evening/morning/day to be anything other than – a day. Uncomfortable and tirade-inducing though that reading might be in the 21st century [“day” doesn’t mean day; but, and here’s the centrally important thing the Bible is totally clear about, “homosexual” does mean homosexual].<br /><br />So, Peter, if Genesis 2 is also a day, then I struggle why that’s not just read as detailing day 6 of Genesis 1? Where is this contradiction that you are seeing that leads you “to probe deeply”– following the methodology of your reading. <br /><br />Blessingsliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38869142768807840092012-08-31T11:36:17.185+12:002012-08-31T11:36:17.185+12:00Bosco,
I'll take your demand for honesty and ...Bosco,<br /><br />I'll take your demand for honesty and consistency seriously when I see either from Liberals.<br /><br />Ron shows neither. Ge demands we take Scripture literally in one place one day, then not in another place te next day, then a day later demands that none of it ge taken literally. When these laughable contradictions are exposed he trots out " new revelations". The fact his "new revelations" contradict Scripture dies not worry him at all. The fact that everyone else can see that his "new revelations" are nothing more than Liberal political ideology also does not seem to concern him.<br /><br />Honesty and consistency? Please! Pull the other one mate. It has bells on it.<br /><br />I am happy to take Genesis literally, but contrary to your facile claim this does not require seven solar days, and yes, the fact. that the sun dies not appear until day four IS important. I have read extensively on the subject of creationism for many years, and I feel quite safe in rejecting your claims.<br /><br />As to the petulant demand that those of us who are Reformed take everything the Reformers said as though it had the same weight as Scripture, I'll take your demand seriously when you can show me one single positive statement about homosexuality in Scripture.<br /><br />I won't hold my breath.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91640121617443136562012-08-31T11:24:56.380+12:002012-08-31T11:24:56.380+12:00Hi Shawn,
Your comment above just sneaks past mode...Hi Shawn,<br />Your comment above just sneaks past moderational editing ... take care re words like 'petulant' (implies a certain judgement which might or might not be borne out by the facts of the state of mind of the other person) ... also re running two people together, one of whom may not have claimed or self-identified as 'liberal' and the other who has done so ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77865700707461280302012-08-31T11:20:32.896+12:002012-08-31T11:20:32.896+12:00Whenevil we get honesty and consistency from liber...Whenevil we get honesty and consistency from liberals Bosco?<br /><br />One minute Ron claims one part if Scripture must be taken literally, the next ge demands that another part be considered mythical or outdated. Then when that argument fails he trots out "new revelations" by which he really means liberal ideology.<br /><br />Consistency and honesty? Yeah right.<br /><br />I have read extensively on the issue of Genesis and creationism and your claim that it does mean seven solar days is simply wrong. <br /><br />The Church Fathers and Reformers took a variety of views. Demanding that those of us who are Reformed only accept one is rather petulant, and frankly just silly game playing.<br /><br />I am happy tto take Genesis literally, all of it. But I reject your claim that this requires understanding the "week" as actual solar days.<br /><br />I don't take demands from liberals. I certainly do not take petulant demands from those who show no honesty or consistency, who do not even respect Scripture, but abuse it in the service if advancing whatever evil or perversion is currently fashionable amongst liberal elites.<br /><br />When you or Ron can show me one single place where Scripture says anything positive about homosexuality I might take your demands seriously.<br /><br />I won't hold my breath.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com