Conservative Christians: John Stott
Ken Smith
"Conservative" Christian from other types of Christian.
John Stott, evangelical theologian in his short book "Balanced
Christianity" (1970) had a chapter `Conservative and Radical'.
The following quotation is from page 20 in that chapter>
Some Christians, however, do not limit their conservatism to their
biblical theology. For the fact is that they are conservative by
temperament. They are therefore conservative in their politics and
in their social outlook, in their life-style, dress-style,
hair-style, beard-style and every other kind of style you care to
mention! They are not just stuck in the mud; the mud has set like
concrete. Change of any kind is anathema to them.
Enjoy - and if you can beg or borrow a copy, the whole book is worth
reading.
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Was this the face that launched a thousand ships
And did the stabbing in the Wandsworth Off-Licence?'
from John Mortimer, "Rumpole and the Case of Identity"
I
> John Stott, evangelical theologian in his short book "Balanced
> Christianity" (1970) had a chapter `Conservative and Radical'.
> The following quotation is from page 20 in that chapter>
>
> Some Christians, however, do not limit their conservatism to their
> biblical theology. For the fact is that they are conservative by
> temperament. They are therefore conservative in their politics and
> in their social outlook, in their life-style, dress-style,
> hair-style, beard-style and every other kind of style you care to
> mention! They are not just stuck in the mud; the mud has set like
> concrete. Change of any kind is anathema to them.
A "conservative Christian" is a less militant fundamentalist Christian.
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very stong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from it
of any sort of error;
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
Your Personal Stalker
> From time to time questions are raised about just what distinguishes a
> "Conservative" Christian from other types of Christian.
They are the Republicans.
YPS
--
Take a moment to accept me as your personal stalker, make a public
profession and you will have a fan forever that you can never lose.
theologynut
You have to define Christianity first. Conservatives tend to
emphasize sexual morality, righteousness-leads-to-abundance, military
strength deployed in just wars, and literal reading of the Bible.
Liberals tend to emphasize liberation-theology, charity, pacifism, and
historical understanding of the Bible. Both sides have their assets
and liabilities, for instance, a laxness about homosexuality led to
AIDS, but on the other hand what is the logic of opposing abortion
while sending your sons to die in a foreign war? We can open a
dialogue on these issues and hear both sides out--people believe what
they believe because of nature and nurture. One is born into one's
family of faith and one makes decisions based on their experience in
realtime in the real world. Seeing both sides of an issue is what
defines a mature adult.
**Rowland Croucher**
You're 'not far from the kingdom' :-)
And re John Stott -
http://rowlandcroucher.blogspot.com/search/label/JOHN%20STOTT
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher
Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/
Your Personal Stalker
> Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher
Are you one of the pastors here? Do you accept Raymond Knapp as your
bishop? Do you know Steebie?
Unknown
<sta...@some-nonexistant.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:53:45 +1000, **Rowland Croucher** wrote:
>
>> Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher
>
>Are you one of the pastors here? Do you accept Raymond Knapp as your
>bishop? Do you know Steebie?
Rowland built this newsgroup. Rowland owns this newsgroup. He can do
what ever wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars,
but he can't until you kiss his arse.
BTW, you don't get the million dollars until you leave the newsgroup
but you must leave the newsgroup when Rowland says so.
Ken Smith
>On Jul 1, 9:20=A0pm, Your Personal Stalker <stal...@some-
And, of course, the ability to see both sides of an issue
immediately puts you, in the eyes of fundamentalists, as a raving
liberal.
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`To demonstrate that evolutionary theory was not true, they [creationists]
did not hesitate to misquote, distort, take out of context, and in other
ways violate the biblical injunction against false witness.' Isaac Asimov
Ken Smith
>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:44:03 GMT, Your Personal Stalker
><sta...@some-nonexistant.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:53:45 +1000, **Rowland Croucher** wrote:
>>
>>> Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher
>>
>>Are you one of the pastors here? Do you accept Raymond Knapp as your
>>bishop? Do you know Steebie?
>Rowland built this newsgroup. Rowland owns this newsgroup. He can do
>what ever wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars,
>but he can't until you kiss his arse.
Yet another poster who hasn't read the FAQ about
aus.religion.christian.
How about posting your link to this, Rowland?
>
>BTW, you don't get the million dollars until you leave the newsgroup
>but you must leave the newsgroup when Rowland says so.
>>YPS
>>
>>
>>--
>>Take a moment to accept me as your personal stalker, make a public
>>profession and you will have a fan forever that you can never lose.
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
gladys swager
> theologynut writes:
> >On Jul 1, 9:20=A0pm, Your Personal Stalker wrote:
> >> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:50:55 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:
> >> > From time to time questions are raised about just what distinguishes a
> >> > "Conservative" Christian from other types of Christian.
>
> >> profession and you will have a fan forever that you can never lose.
> >You have to define Christianity first. Conservatives tend to
> >emphasize sexual morality, righteousness-leads-to-abundance, military
> >strength deployed in just wars, and literal reading of the Bible.
> >Liberals tend to emphasize liberation-theology, charity, pacifism, and
> >historical understanding of the Bible. Both sides have their assets
> >and liabilities, for instance, a laxness about homosexuality led to
> >AIDS,
> >but on the other hand what is the logic of opposing abortion
> >while sending your sons to die in a foreign war?
They are two different issues. In the Second World War was Britain and
the allies
just to stand by and let Hitler, Mussoline and Tojo rule the world?
The fact is that pregnanceis in modern times can can be prevented,
so caution is required before they occur, .
One issue is national; the other issue is personal.
> We can open a
> >dialogue on these issues and hear both sides out--people believe what
> >they believe because of nature and nurture. One is born into one's
> >family of faith and one makes decisions based on their experience in
> >realtime in the real world. Seeing both sides of an issue is what
> >defines a mature adult.
>
> And, of course, the ability to see both sides of an issue
> immediately puts you, in the eyes of fundamentalists, as a raving
> liberal.
>
And the Fundamentalists are the ones who are given your ire
because they do not your point of view.
> Seeing both points of view leads eventually to accept one or to reject the other,
> `To demonstrate that evolutionary theory was not true, they [creationists]
> did not hesitate to misquote, distort, take out of context, and in other
> ways violate the biblical injunction against false witness.' Isaac Asimov-
I have read a little of Isaac Asimov - a child genius - said to have
taught himself to read English reasonably competently by the age of
about four years - a fact I dispute as English is just too complicated
for anyone to be able to teach himself,
The twenty four vowel sounds have many variant spellings and the same
spelling can be pronounced differently,
That's not counting the schwa sound such as the -er on mother and in
unstressed syllables of multisyllabic words which has an even greater
number of variant spellings.
What were the distortions, misquotations and other errors of the
Creationists, according to him?
Or was it that they were just diifferent assessments of the evidence
that they were studying and just didn't agree with him?
And he was just very sure that he was right and others were in error.
The Creationists have had to back-track on some of their earlier
assessments; as also have the evolutionists.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2997/
Gladys Swager
**Rowland Croucher**
> Bazza Magoo <> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:44:03 GMT, Your Personal Stalker
>> <sta...@some-nonexistant.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:53:45 +1000, **Rowland Croucher** wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher
>>> Are you one of the pastors here? Do you accept Raymond Knapp as your
>>> bishop? Do you know Steebie?
>
>> Rowland built this newsgroup.
(For those reading this on other newsgroups, we're referring to
aus.religion.christian)
With the help of several others - not all Christians.
Rowland owns this newsgroup.
We all 'own' this newsgroup...
<>
> Yet another poster who hasn't read the FAQ about
> aus.religion.christian.
> How about posting your link to this, Rowland?
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12320.htm
--
Ken Smith
>On Jul 14, 10:03=A0am, (Ken Smith) wrote:
>> theologynut writes:
[deletions]
>> `To demonstrate that evolutionary theory was not true, they [creationi>sts]
>> did not hesitate to misquote, distort, take out of context, and in other
>> ways violate the biblical injunction against false witness.' Isaac Asimov
>I have read a little of Isaac Asimov - a child genius - said to have
>taught himself to read English reasonably competently by the age of
>about four years - a fact I dispute as English is just too complicated
>for anyone to be able to teach himself,
Funny. Asimov isn't the only person who has taught himself to read.
>The twenty four vowel sounds have many variant spellings and the same
>spelling can be pronounced differently,
>That's not counting the schwa sound such as the -er on mother and in
>unstressed syllables of multisyllabic words which has an even greater
>number of variant spellings.
In the above comment I was talking about "Read", not "Pronounce".
English pronounciation is difficult - but I suspect most Russians or
Germans would find my pronounciation of those languages a cause for
mirth.
And I'm quite sure that if Moses heard my attempts at pronouncing
Hebrew he'd laugh, too.
But I am reasonably competent in reading all those languages - and
I've managed to make sense of assorted mathematical papers written in
Spanish and Italian, based on my knowledge of Latin and French.
Reading isn't nearly as hard as speaking.
>What were the distortions, misquotations and other errors of the
>Creationists, according to him?
I'll see if I can dig out some place where he's gone into detail.
>Or was it that they were just diifferent assessments of the evidence
>that they were studying and just didn't agree with him?
>And he was just very sure that he was right and others were in error.
>The Creationists have had to back-track on some of their earlier
>assessments; as also have the evolutionists.
I'll see if I can find an example of creationist back-tracking, where
thay have corrected one error, only to make another one.
And I'll dig out something I used from Duane Gish in a seminar, where
he shows inconsistency many times in the space of just one page.
>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2997/
>Gladys Swager
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
` "It is because they have no Oyarsa," said one of the pupils.
"It is because everyone of them wants to be a little Oyarsa himself,"
said Augray.' from C. S. Lewis, "Out of the Silent Planet"
Ken Smith
>Ken Smith wrote:
>> Bazza Magoo <> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:44:03 GMT, Your Personal Stalker
>>> <sta...@some-nonexistant.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:53:45 +1000, **Rowland Croucher** wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher
>>>> Are you one of the pastors here? Do you accept Raymond Knapp as your
>>>> bishop? Do you know Steebie?
>>
>>> Rowland built this newsgroup.
>(For those reading this on other newsgroups, we're referring to
>aus.religion.christian)
>With the help of several others - not all Christians.
>Rowland owns this newsgroup.
>We all 'own' this newsgroup...
><>
>> Yet another poster who hasn't read the FAQ about
>> aus.religion.christian.
>> How about posting your link to this, Rowland?
>http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12320.htm
Thanks, Rowland.
I'll have to save this and put it in a directory/folder where I can
use it as necessary.
>--
>Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher
>Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
gladys swager
> gladys swager writes:
> >On Jul 14, 10:03=A0am, Ken wrote:
>
> [deletions]
>
> >> `To demonstrate that evolutionary theory was not true, they [creationists]
> >> did not hesitate to misquote, distort, take out of context, and in other
> >> ways violate the biblical injunction against false witness.' Isaac Asimov
They were seeking evidence that showed that the Biblical account was
correct.
That was and still is a legitimate study.
> >I have read a little of Isaac Asimov - a child genius - said to have
> >taught himself to read English reasonably competently by the age of
> >about four years - a fact I dispute as English is just too complicated
> >for anyone to be able to teach himself,
>
> Funny. Asimov isn't the only person who has taught himself to read.
>
> >The twenty four vowel sounds have many variant spellings and the same
> >spelling can be pronounced differently,
> >That's not counting the schwa sound such as the -er on mother and in
> >unstressed syllables of multisyllabic words which has an even greater
> >number of variant spellings.
>
> In the above comment I was talking about "Read", not "Pronounce".
> English pronounciation is difficult -
Reading is both thinking the words in the brain and voicing the words
from the print,
depenfing on one's circmstances. .
> But I am reasonably competent in reading all those languages - and
> I've managed to make sense of assorted mathematical papers written in
> Spanish and Italian, based on my knowledge of Latin and French.
> Reading isn't nearly as hard as speaking.
I can't understand your last comment. We learn to speak from the
speech used in our environments. Reading is giving ideas to printed
symbols as we have been taught them. And those ideas change even with
he same spelling at times. How many differnet ways can you read 'ough'
in a word and sometimes with a pronouncced 'ch' and sometimes not
pronounced as it is within the vowel sound. .
You were working with allied languages, but I cannot comment much,
except to say that as I used Linguphone recordings of prose writing I
was able to read and understand what I had read in Italian and
Spanish. However I didn't follow it through to competency. And that
was as an older adult.
I still can't understand the possibility of a four year old teaching
himself to read English. .
I have no recall of my Grandmother helping me to read but she must
have because my education was interrupted by a a Third Term start.
interrupted by a six week illness , retained in Kindergarten until a
Third Term start the next year in First Class that was also
interrupted by a six weeks illness. Reading the same story as a class
exercise for the whole week, I am sure, helped me, but didn't do much
for my spelling. But then I wasn't a genius! .
> >What were the distortions, misquotations and other errors of the
> >Creationists, according to him?
>
> I'll see if I can dig out some place where he's gone into detail.
>
> >Or was it that they were just diifferent assessments of the evidence
> >that they were studying and just didn't agree with him?
> >And he was just very sure that he was right and others were in error.
> >The Creationists have had to back-track on some of their earlier
> >assessments; as also have the evolutionists.
>
> I'll see if I can find an example of creationist back-tracking, where
> thay have corrected one error, only to make another one.
>
They might have been errors that did not conform with your own
perceptions.
Did you graduate with a Science degree in evolutionary theory as well
as one in Mathematics?
I am aware of information that I was given in my Teacher training for
which I made initiates for improvements (Reading, Maths, Aboriginal
studes, Physical Education, Music) during my teaching career. So what
is taught at one time can be changed at a later time.
The situation at present, seems to me of determining what is correct
and what is in error. But that cannot be done as those so sure that
they are right refuse to evaluate newer evidence.
I came into this newsgroup on this issue to state that a law of
science is that life
begets life and that suggested the Living God as the first creator, an
idea,. I was told in 1975, had also been stated by Anslem, (1055 -
1109) when he was Archbishop of Canterbury.
And I'll dig out something I used from Duane Gish in a seminar, where
> he shows inconsistency many times in the space of just one page.
>
I would say that there have been errors on both sides of theis issue -
even with Charles Darwin himself.
> >http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2997/
Gladys Swager
Mordecai
gladys swager wrote:
> On Jul 16, 12:06 pm, (Ken Smith) wrote:
> > gladys swager writes:
> > >On Jul 14, 10:03=A0am, Ken wrote:
> >
> > [deletions]
> >
> > >> `To demonstrate that evolutionary theory was not true, they [creationists]
> > >> did not hesitate to misquote, distort, take out of context, and in other
> > >> ways violate the biblical injunction against false witness.' Isaac Asimov
>
> They were seeking evidence that showed that the Biblical account was
> correct.
> That was and still is a legitimate study.
I see, the method of misquoting, distorting, taking things out of context ... is
actually "seeking positive evidence that the biblical account is correct?"
Hmm.
As the theory of evolution demonstrates
a) the change in the snake.
b) The change in humans as mentioned in Genesis.
c) The changes in animals, especially the cattle as see in Genesis
d) the outworking of the change in life expectancy - and the subsequent decrease in
each generation ...
I personally conclude that of all the theories, evolution is the most accurate of
all the ones proposed to validate the bible.
What do you think the problem is with this theory?
And why do you think slandering and bearing false witness about this theory is
actually a positive thing?
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is wrong,
and reality is Never wrong.
theo
Gladys, we have had this discussion before. I believe that I told you
at the time that Asimov, as a four year old, was living in New York. I
also told you that when put into a normal classroom at age eleven with
no English and no other option, I myself was able to speak and read
English within a week or three. Children learn languages very easily
and quickly.
Theo
Ken Smith
>On Jul 16, 11:13=A0am, gladys swager <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 12:06=A0pm, =A0(Ken Smith) wrote:
>> > >I have read a little of Isaac Asimov - a child genius - said to have
>> > >taught himself to read English reasonably competently by the age of
>> > >about four years - a fact I dispute as English is just too complicated
>> > >for anyone to be able to teach himself,
[deletions]
>Gladys, we have had this discussion before. I believe that I told you
>at the time that Asimov, as a four year old, was living in New York. I
>also told you that when put into a normal classroom at age eleven with
>no English and no other option, I myself was able to speak and read
>English within a week or three. Children learn languages very easily
>and quickly.
Our children have attended State schools where, at the beginning of
each year, a number of immigrant children who knew no English were
enrolled. These children had separate classes for a month or so,
learning only English, untile they were competent enough to join the
normal classes. But during breaks all the children mingled in the
playground. The immigrant children were quite fluent in what might be
called "playground English" in less than a week. It took them much
longer to learn standard English.
>Theo
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional
sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god.'
Carl Sagan