Re: Rational thought process vs creationist 'thought' processes

Sean McHugh wrote:
 
Sean.. maybe you posted this without proof reading it?
 
> 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.
>   
 
Well I do tend to express myself rather in the extreme..
 
> 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 . 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. 
>   
 
Without getting too much into this, I suspect Barry sees it as I do.. a 
misrepresentation of his position and a betrayal of trust. Like it or 
not the Christian faith is founded on fundamental beliefs. When do you 
ever see Rowland defending them?
 
> I tried here to be candid without being critical or confrontational. I
> hope I succeeded. 
>
>   
 
I believe you have. Let me attempt to enlighten you somewhat. I concede 
that everyone sees things 'their own way' or from different 
perspectives, and I'm not suggesting that you're 'wrong' to put your 
(atheist) publications on a christian website, and I understand 'where 
you're coming from' in saying that it's sup****ting atheism anyway, so 
what's it matter, but it's not something I would do simply as a matter 
of principle. I just wouldn't want the association. In fact I have 
requested that none of my posts appear there, and I don't even have the 
strong theological position that you do. Some ppl have said that I tend 
to see things as 'black or white' and that may be so. I guess I'm just 
not comfortable with shades of grey. I think when ppl think in terms of 
grey it's very easy to darken the shades without even noticing it. There 
are countless examples of this. Womens clothing for example. Early 
1900's saw womens ankles exposed. So then we said, if the ankle, why not 
the calf? then if the calf why not the whole leg? then we had the three 
piece, which became the two piece, and the two piece became the bikini, 
and the bikini the string bikini. (see link) Without any principle on 
which to base decisions, we have difficulty in deciding. The fact that 
Rowland's website it ostensibly christian, and the nature of it, is for 
me the factor that determines my association with it. Hope that helps,
 
(don't clik if ****ity offends)
http://pedronet.info/pics/string_bikinis.jpg
 
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Sean McHugh
>   


-- 
rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm not young enough to know everything' -Oscar Wilde