Re: Watershed

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Sat Jun 23 2001 - 16:28:31 EDT

  • Next message: Vernon Jenkins: "Re: Watershed"


    Herewith my responses to your latest:
    > Vernon Jenkins wrote:
    > >
    > > Thank you for these observations. However, I am completely at a loss
    > > to understand why you should think I regard others on this list as
    > > 'morons' and 'gross hypocrites'.
    > It isn't that difficult. If your claims are "self-evident" (which I
    > take to mean something like "obvious" rather than "analytic") then the
    > only explanations for the refusal of professed Christians to accept
    > them would be that they are
    > a) stupid, or
    > b) blinded by sin to an extent incompatible with genuine
    > Christian faith.

    You must know that I am completely ignorant of the views of the silent
    majority on this list, so what possible reason would I have for
    expressing such an all-embracing view. My specific comment was directed
    to Michael. However, since you have taken it upon yourself to respond on
    his behalf, let me put the same points to you: (a) our Lord's words to
    Pontius Pilate make it clear that one important attribute of a Christian
    is that he/she loves truth; (b) the matters I have recently drawn
    attention to are a subset of 'all truth'; (c) something is clearly amiss
    if a person claiming allegiance to Christ rubbishes that which is
    manifestly true. I invited Michael to follow this train of reasoning,
    and explain his position. To date he has failed to do so. However, you
    may see some flaw in the foregoing logic. If so, please advise.
    > > When you challenge my claim that 'I deal only in self-evident
    > > truths', you appear to be forgetting the nature of the truths to
    > > which I refer. Do I understand you to challenge simple numerical
    > > facts? - as for example the precise relationships between
    > > symmetrical form and number that represent a substantial portion of
    > > my findings?; or these recent discoveries relating to 'pi' and 'e'?
    > > It would help if you were to explain yourself a little more clearly
    > > here. Regarding my considering the possibility that I might be
    > > wrong, I have not - simply because facts are facts!
    > I.e., "I know I can't be wrong because I'm right." This attitude
    > makes it clear that there's nothing to be gained from further
    > discussion.

    It's hardly a matter of attitude! Surely, in the world of number things
    are, very clearly, right of wrong. It is highly possible, I suppose,
    that you have not bothered to examine the facts - in which case, it is
    your imagination that leads you to believe I must be wrong; on the other
    hand, if you have indeed examined the evidence, please do me the
    courtesy of indicating where you have detected error.

    I see no reason to close down this discussion. It's important that we
    iron out the truth of these matter together, and proceed to talk about
    their wider implications. But first, do please examine the facts

    > > Clearly, it would appear that my recent posting has uncovered a
    > > psychological barrier (perhaps better known as 'cognitive
    > > dissonance') that some find hard to overcome. Thus, for no good
    > > reason (as far as I am aware), Michael and yourself regard my
    > > writings as 'offensive'. This, of course, implies that certain
    > > potentially interesting and important areas of investigation should
    > > be considered 'out of bounds' for the Christian. But is this really
    > > what Christ meant when he said, "... when he, the Spirit of truth,
    > > is come, he will guide you into all truth..." (John 16:13)?
    > If your claims had any validity - which they don't - they would be at
    > most a way of calling attention to Scripture so that people could hear
    > its central message, which is Christ crucified. The fact that you
    > think that the Spirit of Christ is to lead us into truths about pi and
    > e being encoded in Bible verses shows that you have things precisely
    > backwards, & it's the consequent diminishment of the gospel which is
    > offensive.
    I suggest the Gospel is hardly diminished by tangible evidences of God's
    Being, Sovereignty and Providence. You appear to be missing the
    significance of these findings. The numbers, in themselves, are of
    little consequence; what really matters is that they carry evidence of
    purposeful supernatural design (ie ID of a non-biological nature). The
    words from which the numbers derive are thereby elevated - the truths
    they convey, underlined and confirmed. What should follow an acceptance
    of these facts (and what self-respecting scientist would deny empirical
    truths?) is a reasoned debate concerning their wider implications.

    George, I am interested to know what really worries you about such
    potential developments. I would have thought it more appropriate that
    the Lord's people rejoice over news of this prospect. However, please
    understand that I am sympathetic to your concerns, and anxious to allay
    them - if that be possible.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 23 2001 - 16:30:21 EDT