PDA

View Full Version : Ian Plimer and other Jono-Goughfather exchanges sf Copenhagen



Goughfather
20-12-2009, 02:11 PM
Also, Ian Plimer pointed out the silliness and hypocrisy of the conference (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/libs-vindicated-on-ets-claims-abbott-20091219-l6r7.html):


''To talk about 2 degrees is viewing the planet like the thermostat on the central heating,'' Professor Plimer said.

''Climate is extraordinarily complicated and we humans are blessed with such an air of arrogance and ego, we actually think we can change climate.''

The real game should be improving conditions for the world's poor. ''The amount of money spent on this Copenhagen conference would have been enough to provide electricity and water for a small African nation,'' he said.

So just out of interest, what is your your general opinion of Professor Plimer?

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2009, 02:28 PM
So just out of interest, what is your your general opinion of Professor Plimer?
A strange character, and a publicity hound. Even when I agree with him about warm-mongering, I'd check his claimed facts. He showed gross unreliability, misology, and abusive ad hominem arguments on creation (http://creation.com/more-nonsense-from-professor-plimer). He has quickly gone from a hero of the Leftmedia to a pariah, so now is facing the same unfairness that he encouraged against CMI.

Goughfather
20-12-2009, 02:39 PM
Given that you see fit to accuse Plimer of "scientific and ethical unreliability" (http://creation.com/more-nonsense-from-professor-plimer), wouldn't his stance on AGW be of somewhat questionable reliability, especially given the nature of his financial interests?

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2009, 03:34 PM
Given that you see fit to accuse Plimer of "scientific and ethical unreliability" (http://creation.com/more-nonsense-from-professor-plimer),
This accusation is amply supported.


wouldn't his stance on AGW be of somewhat questionable reliability,
As I said, he should be checked out.


especially given the nature of his financial interests?
That applies in spades to the leading warm-mongers! alGore has made many millions with his warm-mongering (http://newsbusters.org/node/11149), and the investment company he founded would make even more if governments went down that trac (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2320--carbon-scam-al-gore-profits-and-copenhagen)k. And there much government funding for pro-warm-mongering. It's hypocritical of warm-mongers to accuse opponents of being in the pay of Big Oil (not true of Plimer AFAIK), when they are often in the pay of Big Government; money can corrupt whether from private or government.

Goughfather
20-12-2009, 06:39 PM
As I said, he should be checked out.

And it would seem, then that you've gone to trouble of checking him out and that in your supremely objective and unbiased perspective, his commentary on global warming is not only scientifically accurate, but also of the utmost integrity?


That applies in spades to the leading warm-mongers! [sic]

Well as long as you realise that Plimer's associations bring into question the content of his claims and indeed that he has somewhat more incentive to take academic liberties than he did in his polemic against literalists?

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2009, 07:07 PM
And it would seem, then that you've gone to trouble of checking him out and that in your supremely objective and unbiased perspective, his commentary on global warming is not only scientifically accurate, but also of the utmost integrity?
What I quoted, yes. Do you have any counter to what was said?


Well as long as you realise that Plimer's associations bring into question the content of his claims
As long as you realize that this must apply in spades to the leading warm-mongers. Look at the Dopenhagen conference and the cheering of the communist Despot of Venezuela calling for the end of capitalism and worldwide socialist redistribution of wealth (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans/)—really redistribution of poverty, and giving time to that thug Mugabe who has turned the Breadbasket of Africa to Famineville.


and indeed that he has somewhat more incentive to take academic liberties than he did in his polemic against literalists?
He gained lots more adulation and probably book sales from his gutter attacks on true (biblical) Christians, and laughed at compromising churchians behind their back, e.g. that idiot Hollingworth who wrote the foreword to his book Lies without reading it). His stand against warm-mongering has cost him his former adulators in the ABC and newspapers.

Goughfather
20-12-2009, 08:30 PM
What I quoted, yes. Do you have any counter to what was said?

Oh, so by "check", you mean you read those three paragraphs, they appear to agree with your jaundiced impressions and so you'll choose to have faith that they are accurate? Much like your interpretation of the Bible and with your adoption of the Early Church Fathers, you'll cherry pick anything as long as it fits in with what you already believe.


As long as you realize that this must apply in spades to the leading warm-mongers.

Oh, so your belief about something is conditional upon my believing something else? How crass.


He gained lots more adulation and probably book sales from his gutter attacks on true (biblical) Christians

Which ones? There are 30,000 sects around the world claiming to be the "true (biblical) Christians". As I've said, the insecure insistence that one is a "true (biblical) Christian" is pretty good evidence that one is neither.


His stand against warm-mongering has cost him his former adulators in the ABC and newspapers.

Wow, he truly sounds like a freedom fighter fighting for truth and justice. Except, of course, when he would dare to question literalism, or what you ridiculously call "true (biblical) Christianity".

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2009, 09:19 PM
Oh, so by "check", you mean you read those three paragraphs, they appear to agree with your jaundiced impression
"Jaundiced" is Goughspeak for anything opposing measures that will make little difference to world climates but impose gigataxes and wealth transfer from democracies to despot-ruled countries. Never mind that trillions of dollars of foreign "aid" has left Africa worse off than it started, but enriched a legion of thugs. African-American economist Dr Thomas Sowell argued that it should really be called "foreign hindrance" (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-failures-and-fallacies-of-foreign-aid/).


and so you'll choose to have faith that they are accurate? Much like your interpretation of the Bible
At least I use words that are actually in the text!


and with your adoption of the Early Church Fathers,
To show that they support biblical inerrancy and creation.


you'll cherry pick anything as long as it fits in with what you already believe.
You have no clue; sometimes the Bible has changed what I believe. I've also pointed out CMI's critique of a "translation" with conservative political bias (http://creation.com/politicizing-scripture-conservative-bible-translation).


Oh, so your belief about something is conditional upon my believing something else? How crass.
Nope, showing that if you want to adopt such arguments, apply them equally to your side. In biblical terms, this is avoiding unequal weights and measures.


Which ones? There are 30,000 sects around the world claiming to be the "true (biblical) Christians".
Did you pick that number from thin air? And how many of these claimed sects rule out others as genuine Christians, or have split on doctrine, and how many would even be Christians in any sense. Of course, if GF understood logic, he wouldn't argue his postmodernist crap, "there are many claims about what X means, therefore there is no right meaning of X." When marking exams in my uni days, there were often many different answers to a question, but only one was right.


As I've said, the insecure insistence that one is a "true (biblical) Christian" is pretty good evidence that one is neither.
That might apply to insecure insistences, but not to ones like mine backed up by historical and grammatical analysis of the genuine words in their context.


Wow, he truly sounds like a freedom fighter fighting for truth and justice. Except, of course, when he would dare to question literalism,
Still with the Göbbels tactic of repeating a lie in the hope that it will stick.


or what you ridiculously
Sez a liberal whose version of christianity is really leftist politics with some god-talk thrown in when it suits.


call "true (biblical) Christianity".
He is a humanist who hates any sort of Christianity and despises belief in life after death.

Goughfather
21-12-2009, 12:08 AM
"Jaundiced" is Goughspeak for anything opposing measures that will make little difference to world climates but impose gigataxes and wealth transfer from democracies to despot-ruled countries. Never mind that trillions of dollars of foreign "aid" has left Africa worse off than it started, but enriched a legion of thugs. African-American economist Dr Thomas Sowell argued that it should really be called "foreign hindrance" (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-failures-and-fallacies-of-foreign-aid/).

I suggest you look the definition of the word "jaundiced" up in the dictionary.


At least I use words that are actually in the text!

And at least I appeal to texts I have actually read in support of my doctrinal positions.


To show that they support biblical inerrancy and creation.

While disregarding the writings from the same Father on issues like purgatory and the intercession of the saints.

Just out of interest, did it ever strike you as strange that the arguments from the Church Fathers you found most convincing were about positions you already held?


You have no clue; sometimes the Bible has changed what I believe. I've also pointed out CMI's critique of a "translation" with conservative political bias (http://creation.com/politicizing-scripture-conservative-bible-translation).

Most bible versions already have a theologically conservative bias. For instance, read the Foreword to the New International Version.


Nope, showing that if you want to adopt such arguments, apply them equally to your side. In biblical terms, this is avoiding unequal weights and measures.

Not what you wrote, although I'll grant that this is what you may have meant. I guess it works both ways. If you believe the opinion of a pro-AGW spokesmen is compromised because of his or her interests, you have to apply the same standards to Plimer too. It seems odd that you don't, considering your little lecture.


Did you pick that number from thin air? And how many of these claimed sects rule out others as genuine Christians, or have split on doctrine, and how many would even be Christians in any sense.

I suspect in your opinion, very few, or at least you would consider yourself of superior stock. Kind of reminds me of the words of St. Augustine about the Donatists:

"The clouds roll with thunder, the House of the Lord shall be built throughout the earth; and these frogs sit in their marsh and croak - We are the only Christians!"


Of course, if GF understood logic, he wouldn't argue his postmodernist crap, "there are many claims about what X means, therefore there is no right meaning of X."

You're really the last person who should be lecturing someone about logic. And before you're tempted to do so, I know about your book, so don't even bother to link it.

I should also point out that you've shown a woefully inadequate understanding of postmodernism.


When marking exams in my uni days, there were often many different answers to a question, but only one was right.

Well that's certainly true with respect to a mathematical equation and it's generally true with respect to the hard sciences, but you'd be criticised for allowing your own prejudices getting in the way if you adopted that approach in marking a humanities or a law exam.


That might apply to insecure insistences, but not to ones like mine backed up by historical and grammatical analysis of the genuine words in their context.

As I said, insecure insistence.


Still with the Göbbels tactic of repeating a lie in the hope that it will stick.

That would probably be more pertinent to your repeated insistences that you hold to "true (biblical) Christianity" as well as the suggestion that you appeal to the historical and grammatical meaning of a text.


Sez a liberal whose version of christianity is really leftist politics with some god-talk thrown in when it suits.

Since you seem to have no concept of what I believe, perhaps it would be wiser for you to abstain from casting judgment.


He is a humanist who hates any sort of Christianity and despises belief in life after death.

It's always amusing to see you dismiss the arguments of others out of hand in this manner. Since you are a fundamentalist and a literalist, err, a "true (biblical) Christian", does that automatically disqualify your assessment of progressive Christianity, atheism and evolution? Since you are a climate change denialist, does that automatically disqualify your assessment of those who advocate AGW?

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2009, 01:15 AM
I suggest you look the definition of the word "jaundiced" up in the dictionary.
A yellowing of the skin and the whites of the eyes caused by bilirubin, often indicating liver dysfunction. That's the literal meaning anyway, given your obsession with non-existent literalists. How the figurative meaning applies my opposition to gestural gigataxes is beyond me.


And at least I appeal to texts I have actually read in support of my doctrinal positions.
Evidently not including Scripture, just parroting liberal nonsense.


While disregarding the writings from the same Father on issues like purgatory and the intercession of the saints.
Purgatory is hardly a teaching of the Fathers. 19th century Protestant scholar George Salmon, D.D., in The Infallibility of the Church (http://www.bible.ca/cath-salmon-infallibility.htm), points out:


In like manner, when Augustine hears the idea suggested that, as the sins of good men cause them suffering in this world, so they may also to a certain degree in the next, he says that he will not venture to say that nothing of the kind can occur, for perhaps it may. (De Civ. Dei, xxx. 26.) Well, if the idea of purgatory had not got beyond a "perhaps" at the beginning of the fifth century, we are safe in saying that it was not by tradition that the later Church arrived at certainty on the subject; for if the Church had any tradition in the time of Augustine, that great Father would have known it. [ 133-34]

On Purgatory more than on any other subject the evidence of revelations deserves to be listened to, for the whole faith of the Church of Rome on this subject has been built upon revelations, or, as we should call it in plain English, on ghost stories. For hundreds of years the Church seems to have know little or nothing on the subject. Even still the East has lagged sadly behind the West in her knowledge, and the reason is, that the chief source of Western information is a Latin book, the dialogues of Gregory the Great, a work of which the genuineness has been denied by some, merely because it seemed to them incredible that so sensible a man should have written so silly a book. But no one acquainted with the eccentricities of the human intellect can rely on such an argument, in the face of positive evidence the other way. Gregory, believing twelve or thirteen centuries ago that the end of the world was at hand, and that the men of his age, by reason of their nearness to the next world, could see things which had been invisible to their predecessors, collected a number of tales of apparitions which, being received on his authority, have been the real foundation of Western belief in Purgatory. [206]


Just out of interest, did it ever strike you as strange that the arguments from the Church Fathers you found most convincing were about positions you already held?
It was pleasantly surprising to read the primary sources, since various opponents claimed that they believed in long creation days for example.


Most bible versions already have a theologically conservative bias. For instance, read the Foreword to the New International Version.
More equivocation. The critique concerned politically conservative bias, which is not necessarily the same as theological conservatism. If there is conservative bias, it's probably because it there is much less motivation to translate a mere work of men.


Not what you wrote, although I'll grant that this is what you may have meant. I guess it works both ways. If you believe the opinion of a pro-AGW spokesmen is compromised because of his or her interests, you have to apply the same standards to Plimer too. It seems odd that you don't, considering your little lecture.
So where is the money trail for Plimer? I suspect it's nothing like that for alGore and Tim Flummery.


I suspect in your opinion, very few, or at least you would consider yourself of superior stock.
I meant, included in that number are likely groups like JWs and Mormons, which are not usually considered Christians. Conversely, for example, Baptists do not doubt that Presybterians are genuine Christians and vice versa.


Kind of reminds me of the words of St. Augustine about the Donatists:


"The clouds roll with thunder, the House of the Lord shall be built throughout the earth; and these frogs sit in their marsh and croak - We are the only Christians!"
Ironic, since the Donatists would be more "fundamentalist" by your standards.


You're really the last person who should be lecturing someone about logic.
You're hardly in a position to judge.


And before you're tempted to do so, I know about your book, so don't even bother to link it.
What book? I've written a number, but none on logic (not yet anyway). An article (http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation), certainly.


I should also point out that you've shown a woefully inadequate understanding of postmodernism.
Most unlikely. Not that you could defend postmodernism without abandoning its denial of absolute truth.


Well that's certainly true with respect to a mathematical equation and it's generally true with respect to the hard sciences, but you'd be criticised for allowing your own prejudices getting in the way if you adopted that approach in marking a humanities or a law exam.
Yet many lecturers mark according to their own leftist bias.


That would probably be more pertinent to your repeated insistences that you hold to "true (biblical) Christianity" as well as the suggestion that you appeal to the historical and grammatical meaning of a text.
But this is true, and you have done nothing to disprove it. It is demonstrably false that I am a literalist; this is not a matter of opinion.

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2009, 01:16 AM
Since you seem to have no concept of what I believe, perhaps it would be wiser for you to abstain from casting judgment.
I know what liberals are like, and you have hardly differed.



Since you are a fundamentalist and a literalist, err, a "true (biblical) Christian", does that automatically disqualify your assessment of progressive Christianity, atheism and evolution?
They have considerable overlap.


Since you are a climate change denialist, does that automatically disqualify your assessment of those who advocate AGW?
Depends how I arrived at my position, which is actually that several propositions muct be proven before we throw billions of dollars at it, e.g.:

Climate is changing
This change is man-made
Warming will overall be harmful (more people die of cold than warmth, and CO2 is plant food)
The benefits of trying to overcome it will outweigh the costs (poverty and unemployment are proven health risks)

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2009, 02:07 AM
Plimer, Australian Humanist of the Year in 1995, wrote:

‘Furthermore, 27 percent (of 150 medical students at Monash Uni.) think humans did not have ape-like characteristics, 21 per cent believed that Eve was created from Adam’s rib, and 54 per cent believe in life after death!

‘It is clear that school children are not being taught how to think.’ (Lies p. 278)

[Not what I really wanted to say or break up, but there was this poxy glitch:
Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /newreply.php on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Apache/1.3.41 Server at chesschat.org Port 80

Goughfather
22-12-2009, 08:02 PM
A yellowing of the skin and the whites of the eyes caused by bilirubin, often indicating liver dysfunction. That's the literal meaning anyway, given your obsession with non-existent literalists. How the figurative meaning applies my opposition to gestural gigataxes is beyond me.

Surely you're able to read further to discover the figurative meanings?


Evidently not including Scripture, just parroting liberal nonsense.

And which liberal nonsense would this be?


Purgatory is hardly a teaching of the Fathers. 19th century Protestant scholar George Salmon, D.D., in The Infallibility of the Church (http://www.bible.ca/cath-salmon-infallibility.htm), points out ...

This guy is a scholar? Are you serious? Augustine of all Church Fathers believed strongly in the intercession of the saints. I guess this is simply another example of the cherry-picking that you love so much.


It was pleasantly surprising to read the primary sources, since various opponents claimed that they believed in long creation days for example.

I'd guess that perhaps it would not have been so pleasant to realise that Augustine had no truck with a literal six-day account of creation, option for an allegorical reading in which creation was instantaneous. I guess this is simply another example of the cherry-picking that you love so much.


More equivocation. The critique concerned politically conservative bias, which is not necessarily the same as theological conservatism.

There does seem to be at least broad correlation between the two, especially in the US.


So where is the money trail for Plimer? I suspect it's nothing like that for alGore and Tim Flummery.

I've merely spoken about his interests, which you've not seen fit to refute. I just wanted some insight into what can only be described as a marriage of inconvenience between Plimer and yourself as climate-change denialists. And it must be an uncomfortable relationship indeed. Although, in desperate search for some kind of support for your position, you bite the bullet and so the same Plimer that you hate with a passion with respect to his perspective on creationism you're more than happy to endorse uncritically (as revealed in your response on this thread) with respect to climate-change denialism. This is, of course, the same man you saw fit to accuse of "scientific and ethical unreliability", although as long as he says what you want him to say, you'll eagerly embrace him. I guess this is just another example of the cherry-picking that you love so much.


I meant, included in that number are likely groups like JWs and Mormons, which are not usually considered Christians. Conversely, for example, Baptists do not doubt that Presybterians are genuine Christians and vice versa.

I do recall that there was some debate at one point in time about whether those who did not believe in a literal creation narrative could be honestly regarded as Christians. It seems that the position now seems to be that those who fail to believe in such a narrative have dangerously compromised their faith and are somewhat inferior to those faithful Christians that do.

For what it's worth, I know a few Latter Day Saints and although I disagree with their Christology, it seems to me that they seem to have a much better grasp of the concept of grace than you and many Calvinists do.


Ironic, since the Donatists would be more "fundamentalist" by your standards.

In what sense is it ironic. In fact, I'm already on the record accusing evangelicals of essentially being twenty-first century Donatists in more ways than one.


What book? I've written a number, but none on logic (not yet anyway). An article (http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation), certainly.

That may have been what I'm referring to, but did you deal with some of these issues in "Refuting Compromise" (compromise being someone who doesn't believe what you do) or somesuch?


Most unlikely. Not that you could defend postmodernism without abandoning its denial of absolute truth.

Again with the strawperson. Read through Kierkegaard's corpus and get back to me.


Yet many lecturers mark according to their own leftist bias.

And they shouldn't. Do you have a point?


But this is true, and you have done nothing to disprove it. It is demonstrably false that I am a literalist; this is not a matter of opinion.

You're not the arbiter of what is and is not true, Jono. The sooner you realise this, the better.

Capablanca-Fan
24-12-2009, 12:20 PM
And which liberal nonsense would this be?
Following the fad-du-jour, instead of the Bible.


This guy is a scholar? Are you serious?
Of course. Not that you would know; you trust people who invent LXX words out of thin air, and invent new meanings for other Greek (misspelt) words .


Augustine of all Church Fathers believed strongly in the intercession of the saints. I guess this is simply another example of the cherry-picking that you love so much.
As Salmon documents, such things were later doctrines, prompting Newman to propose "development of doctrine" rather than pretending that such things were the result of apostolic tradition.


I'd guess that perhaps it would not have been so pleasant to realise that Augustine had no truck with a literal six-day account of creation, option for an allegorical reading in which creation was instantaneous. I guess this is simply another example of the cherry-picking that you love so much.
Yawn, covered that in my book Refuting Compromise. He was in a minority among the Fathers, most of whom did believe in a straightforward Genesis—as did Augustine in later years (http://creation.com/augustine-young-earth-creationist). Note that Augustine denounced old-earth beliefs very strongly.


There does seem to be at least broad correlation between the two, especially in the US.
Probably because the Bible has more in common with conservative politics than liberal, e.g. I see nothing in Scripture about massive confiscation of wealth to fund massive welfare bureaucracies, for example, or a belief that man is flawed so that power should not be concentrated in one man or institution. This is not to say that conservative politics = biblical Christianity, as CMI says in Politicizing Scripture: Should Christians welcome a ‘conservative Bible translation’? (http://creation.com/politicizing-scripture-conservative-bible-translation). Also, it might be the strong secularist arm in the Dems that strongly outweighs the "religious right" influence in the GOP (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-03-023-f).


I've merely spoken about his interests, which you've not seen fit to refute.
Where is your evidence that he has been bankrolled by big-money interests into AGQ skepticism? I've provided plenty of evidence of the huge amounts of money supporting warm-mongering.


Although, in desperate search for some kind of support for your position, you bite the bullet and so the same Plimer that you hate with a passion with respect to his perspective on creationism
More of the Leftard way of changing difference of political opinion into cheap psychologisation of motives and unwarranted charges of "hate". Never mind that it's the warm-monger side that includes advocacy of prosecuting opponents (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8).


you're more than happy to endorse uncritically (as revealed in your response on this thread) with respect to climate-change denialism.
More leftard piffle. I made it clear that he must be checked given his pattern of unreliability.


This is, of course, the same man you saw fit to accuse of "scientific and ethical unreliability",
And documented it. It's nice to see him do something productive for a change, but he's hardly the leading authority I'd trust.


although as long as he says what you want him to say, you'll eagerly embrace him. I guess this is just another example of the cherry-picking that you love so much.
More moronic nonsense. Plimer is hardly the only skeptic I've quoted.


I do recall that there was some debate at one point in time about whether those who did not believe in a literal creation narrative could be honestly regarded as Christians.
Not that your recall is very accurate.


It seems that the position now seems to be that those who fail to believe in such a narrative have dangerously compromised their faith and are somewhat inferior to those faithful Christians that do.
Rather, the outright liberals like Spong are more consistent (http://creation.com/spong-is-wrong) in their view of Scripture, since they disbelieve re-interpret the virginal conception (http://creation.com/the-virginal-conception-of-christ) and resurrection (http://creation.com/jesus-christ-questions-and-answers#resurrection)accounts to fit in with naturalistic "science" just as they do Genesis.


For what it's worth, I know a few Latter Day Saints and although I disagree with their Christology, it seems to me that they seem to have a much better grasp of the concept of grace than you and many Calvinists do.
What would you know? What would you care about the biblical meaning of grace anyway?


In what sense is it ironic. In fact, I'm already on the record accusing evangelicals of essentially being twenty-first century Donatists in more ways than one.
You're certainly very accusatory, but I doubt that most evangelicals care what you think.


That may have been what I'm referring to, but did you deal with some of these issues in "Refuting Compromise" (compromise being someone who doesn't believe what you do) or somesuch?
You were the one who supposedly knew what I say in my books, so you tell me :P Compromise in RC was twisting Genesis to fit uniformitarian "science".


Again with the strawperson. Read through Kierkegaard's corpus and get back to me.
Why should I read such a confused man in entirety? Get back to me when you have a serious case for postmodernism.


And they shouldn't. Do you have a point?
Yet they do, and it is condoned in many faculties. There's more intellectual and political diversity at CMI than in many uni faculties. No wonder that modern liberal churchians blindly follow the leftardism that's uncritically accepted in those faculties, and have the same wilful ignorance of the incentives and results of said policies.


You're not the arbiter of what is and is not true, Jono. The sooner you realise this, the better.
You're making a truth claim yourself, but you certainly aren't the arbiter of truth.

Goughfather
24-12-2009, 02:49 PM
Following the fad-du-jour, instead of the Bible.

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance with respect to progressive Christianity.


Of course. Not that you would know; you trust people who invent LXX words out of thin air, and invent new meanings for other Greek (misspelt) words .

At least I read the articles before choosing to use them in support of my argument, unlike yourself.


As Salmon documents, such things were later doctrines, prompting Newman to propose "development of doctrine" rather than pretending that such things were the result of apostolic tradition.

Salmon is clearly an embarrassment and possibly a fraud. If he'd done any research at all, he would have come across the following quote from Augustine:


"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers" (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).


Yawn, covered that in my book Refuting Compromise. He was in a minority among the Fathers, most of whom did believe in a straightforward Genesis—as did Augustine in later years (http://creation.com/augustine-young-earth-creationist). Note that Augustine denounced old-earth beliefs very strongly.

But the point is that Augustine's allegorical interpretation cannot be used to support your literalist reading of Genesis, even if you came to similar conclusions about the age of the Earth. The mere fact that he disagreed (or did not actively promote) an old Earth says nothing about his rejection of your approach.


Probably because the Bible has more in common with conservative politics than liberal,

At least your starting to be more honest about your prejudices. You'll get there, eventually.


Where is your evidence that he has been bankrolled by big-money interests into AGQ skepticism? I've provided plenty of evidence of the huge amounts of money supporting warm-mongering.

I know your comprehension of fairly straight-forward text is fairly suspect, but please go back and read what I wrote, what I claimed and what I did not claim. Please.


More of the Leftard way of changing difference of political opinion into cheap psychologisation of motives and unwarranted charges of "hate". Never mind that it's the warm-monger side that includes advocacy of prosecuting opponents (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8).

It's fairly self-evident given the lack of self-restraint in your language and your immature and somewhat pathological compulsion to engage in name-calling of those who disagree with you.


More leftard piffle. I made it clear that he must be checked given his pattern of unreliability.

And you made it clear when I asked you precisely how you checked the nature of his research, you suggested that you'd merely read those three paragraphs, as if that constitutes checking. I guess I should at least be glad that you went to the trouble of reading those three paragraphs.


More moronic nonsense. Plimer is hardly the only skeptic I've quoted.


Didn't say that. Please read more carefully in future.


Rather, the outright liberals like Spong are more consistent (http://creation.com/spong-is-wrong) in their view of Scripture, since they disbelieve re-interpret the virginal conception (http://creation.com/the-virginal-conception-of-christ) and resurrection (http://creation.com/jesus-christ-questions-and-answers#resurrection)accounts to fit in with naturalistic "science" just as they do Genesis.

Rather, anything outside of your literalist frame of reference is regarded as inconsistent because you have difficulty seeing things from outside of that framework.


What would you know? What would you care about the biblical meaning of grace anyway?

I care about it deeply and am deeply disappointed that you show no grasp of the concept yourself.


You're certainly very accusatory, but I doubt that most evangelicals care what you think.

My response was directed towards your inability to understand my Donatist reference.

Whether evangelicals care what I think or not (especially when their comprehension skills are not much better than yours), they are not the people I am ministering to anyway, so your aggressive retort is quite irrelevant.


You were the one who supposedly knew what I say in my books, so you tell me :P Compromise in RC was twisting Genesis to fit uniformitarian "science".

Well, I didn't know, which is why I asked you. For some reason I thought you included a section on logic in the book, but I could very well be wrong on that score.



Why should I read such a confused man in entirety? Get back to me when you have a serious case for postmodernism.

I'll get back to you when you demonstrate the slightest understanding of the concept.

As for Kierkegaard, he has a very broad following, even amongst literalists. I recall that J.I. Packer wrote the foreword for a book of his writings.


Yet they do, and it is condoned in many faculties. There's more intellectual and political diversity at CMI than in many uni faculties.

I find this very difficult to believe. How many of the staff at CMI are egalitarians, for instance?


You're making a truth claim yourself, but you certainly aren't the arbiter of truth.

And nor do I claim to be. But just to clarify, in case my truth claim was wrong, do you consider yourself to be the arbiter of all truth, Jono?

Desmond
24-12-2009, 03:48 PM
do you consider yourself to be the arbiter of all truth, Jono?No, he's just the historical-grammatical interpreter of it. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
24-12-2009, 04:46 PM
No, he's just the historical-grammatical interpreter of it. ;)
Heheh ;)

Capablanca-Fan
26-03-2010, 06:48 PM
Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance with respect to progressive Christianity.
Ah yes, liberal churchians often claim to be "misunderstood", although in reality their unbelief in Christian doctrine is understood all too well. Same goes for postmodernist misology.


Salmon is clearly an embarrassment and possibly a fraud. If he'd done any research at all, he would have come across the following quote from Augustine:
Nothing to do with purgatory, which his quote was about. As for Dr Salmon, even your beloved Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Salmon)notes that he was professor of Divinity at Trinity College Dublin; and before that he was a noted mathematician who wrote several textbooks that went through many editions; received the Copley Medal of the Royal Society, the highest honorary award in British science; and was a chessplayer strong enough to have defeated Harrwitz (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz166.pdf). It's laughable for leftard lawyer types to throw baseless accusations against Salmon.


At least your starting to be more honest about your prejudices. You'll get there, eventually.
Of course, leftards are totally prejudice-free, aren't they?


It's fairly self-evident given the lack of self-restraint in your language and your immature and somewhat pathological compulsion to engage in name-calling of those who disagree with you.
You need to get out more, e.g. look at some well known public leftards.


I care about it deeply and am deeply disappointed that you show no grasp of the concept yourself.
Most doubtful, since you reject biblical authority.


I find this very difficult to believe. How many of the staff at CMI are egalitarians, for instance?
There are some, even among speakers; CMI takes no official stand on the issue (http://creation.com/london-times-reports-that-the-bible-is-not-anti-female-is-this-news#endRef4). But next time I hear any academic type pontificating about the need for "diversity", I'll ask him how many Coalition supporters there are in his faculty. To a LeftAcademic, "diversity" means a Caucasian leftard, female leftard, Aboriginal leftard, and Asian leftard; i.e. no diversity of political opinion.