Re: Rational thought process vs creationist 'thought' processes

lynx wrote:
> 
> Barry OGrady wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:50:59 +1000, **Rowland Croucher**
<rccroucher@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> Sean McHugh wrote:
> >>
> >>> "swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote:
> >>>
> >> <>
> >>
> >>> If Creation 'Science' is to be taught at all, let it be where it
> >>> belongs, in the religion class.
> >>>
> >> Not in my religion class...
> >>
> >
> > Your religion class has been modified to make it PC.
> > You are no more a Christian than Mark T.
> > You are a user.
> >
> >
> >>> Sean McHugh
> >>>
> >> Sean: can I put the gist of your post here on our website - with or
> >> without your name? If with your name, with a link to your current
online
> >> debate (I've mislaid that link and appreciate a reminder. Thanks).
> >>
> >
> > Don't do it Sean. You don't want to be associated with Rowland's
> > Usury.
> >
> 
> I second that. It may bring you glory, but I would think less of you for
> sup****ting his website.

I don't see it. I think, the amongst the thousands of articles, few
will read it and fewer will remember who wrote it. I expect that even
I ever come across it, it will be by accident. 

I don't see myself as sup****ting Rowland's website. However that lack
of sup****t something determined; it's simply not an issue. If I write
a sceptical post and the Billy Graham wishes to quote it, that is
fine, as long as he doesn't misrepresent it. Then it becomes an
entirely different matter. As it happens, the topic in the post that
Rowland wanted, is something with which we both agree - you and Barry
too, I expect. I would be surprised if Rowland agrees with my views on
the Resurrection, but if he wants to have a link to my recent debate
on that, that too is fine. 

I don't share your disdain for Rowland. Sure, we have had our
differences but when I was Melbourne he met with me twice for dinner -
with others as well. I wonder if Ath would have if I had been working
in Brisbane instead. Perhaps. Anyway, I found Rowland to be a 
straightforward and a gentleman. You said in another post:

~ Of course Rowland wants your debate on his website. He wants
~ anything to promote atheism and destroy christian faith.

Now let's imagine two possibilities. First let us imagine that you are
simply wrong. If that's the case, your appeal is founded on a false 
premise. There we need go no further. 

Next let's assume you are correct and Rowland is trying to promote
atheism. Well that would be no skin off my nose, so why would I be
resistive? I recall a man from the Second World War who said if the
Japanese wanted to die for the Emperor, he was happy to oblige. I
understood him. 

To be honest, my problem is that you and Barry have such a problem
with Rowland's distance from fundamentalism. If Ath or Chuck were
writing your objections, I could understand that. I do find some of
Rowland's positions to be quite curious, but not as curious as yours
or Barry's. 

I tried here to be candid without being critical or confrontational. I
hope I succeeded. 



Best Regards,



Sean McHugh