Friday, September 21, 2012

Sydney Anglican, Sam Anderson, says orthodoxy is not offensive ...just repulsive

How can Moore College Students find the face of Christian orthodoxy repulsive

 Well Christian... let me explain ...because we need a discussion now ...because people have lost respect for Sydney Anglican arrogance ...and its refusal to listen to real people...because the only people we relate to are 2D theoretical theological 'paper doll' constructs ...Well Christian....Sydney Anglicans and Moore College students their prejudice and discrimination ...delivered with smile...oh and when it involves violence and death ...then a calm silence always the best tact... when offering support to bullies!
  1. Is Sam Anderson  the same Sam Anderson who commented on Calam's blog? 
  2. No, little George, I don't think I'm welcome at all. You're displaying the renowned Jensensist predilection for lying again

Your comments are repulsive. I'm not sure how George manages to respond to you with such grace, or why he replies at all: your comments paint you as an angry, illogical, antagonistic little man acting brave as he hides behind the anonymity afforded by his sunglasses, and the internet.
  1. Sam ...I don't find Christian Troll offensive at all. It's those who turn a blind eye to the damaging effects of orthodoxy, in my mind, who are truly offensive.
  3. Jane: First, I did not say I found Troll's comments offensive - I said I found them repulsive. And I do. Perhaps that is the intention of his persona, in which case he is succeeding.

    Secondly, you lack credibility when you say that you don't find his behaviour offensive at all. An objective outsider would no doubt conclude that his tone, manner and many of his comments would offend the recipient. Again, I think this is Troll's aim.

    Finally, addressing the logic of your comment: Is offensive behaviour/speech is nullified by the fact that one perceives the recipients behaviour/speech to be offensive?

    Are the acts of violence by Muslim extremists last week acceptable because they find the views expressed in the film offensive?

    The means do not justify the ends. Especially when one claims to be a Christian.
Them St Augustine boys are sure pragmatic ...and miss nuances unless, of course, they are their own ...Sam obviously didn't read the link he was given ...and I spent hours explaining to one of these orthodox folk David Ould's rationale know the one where...if you are concerned about the welfare of young women submitting to men... then you don't like the Bible...and I'm half illiterate!...then what can you say about Lionel Windsor... I mean he only learnt 2 weeks ago what submission meant in the real world...and that was after encouraging his wife to tell everyone through the world-wide web how she submits to Lionel!... By God those Sunday sermons must be a hum dinger, Bill!


  1. It is obvious these Sydney Anglican men find Dr Troll sexually attractive. Like Haydn Sennitt, they hide behind submisssive women to conceal their lust for a manly doctrinal warrior.

  2. Thirst missions is an incredible organization.We love and admire the people at Thirst Missions.

  3. Breaking character for just a moment if I may: seeing how these Jensenites are always convinced that the object of my terrible alter-ego has something to do with them invariably reduces us all here at "St. Onuphius'" to wry laughter. That there exists a vast crowd of people around the world who have been seriously harmed by their false gospel of abuse and power clearly never occurs to the Sams of this world; that there might be those who in the course of ministering to fundamentalism's "collateral damage" seek to empower others by leading the way in laughing at the naked buffoons so convinced of their own tinsel-like theology is clearly more than their deluded narcissism can bear.

    And so Sam my boy (as Father Christian would doubtless address him) - whether you or an other of your fellow Pharisees are offended by anything I say is of absolutely no consequence to me - all that matters is that those whom your false gospel has dis-empowered begin learning to laugh at those who would oppress them. If in the course of this you happen to show the world the delusional arrogance of your true colors - as your ilk can so rarely resist doing - then so much the better.
    "Fr. C."

  4. I have only just tuned in to find that I have been counted worthy, not only of investigation, but of getting my very own post. I take it as a compliment and a sign that I must be doing something right!

    If you wanted to know who I was Jane you only needed to ask. I didn't have to put my name to my posts, but chose to do so. But I guess that wouldn't have been so much fun.

    It amuses me how much "Sydney Anglican" material you must read, and how much mental and emotional energy seems to go into your art. And I wonder, what would you do with yourself if you didn't have such a noble crusade to fight? Would you, like the Hulk, shrink away and simply become Mild Disturbance Jane?

    But Jane, you have still not addressed my question - perhaps you could have put your effort into that instead.

    Troll - thanks for the fatherly endearment. However, you seem to have judged me, and declared me to be a Pharisee and a false teacher, pretty quickly. And based on what? Isn't that what conservatives are so often lampooned for doing - being judgemental and labelling others?

    But seriously, ladies, just as Catherine Deveny made a fool of herself on Q&A and made Jensen look good, and as Dawkins' amateur dabbling in Philosophy disgraced himself, and provided impetus for great books by Plantinga and Lennox, you and your ilk really are the best advertisement against vacuous liberal christianity. So thanks and keep up the good work.

  5. Sam, Sydney Anglicans evangelise and I'm a product of their great evangelistic skills. Sydney Anglicans created me, so I owe it to them to keep up with their cutting edge theology. Sam, it's not like Sydney Anglicans contain their views...they like to spread their orthodoxy far and wide. In studying Sydney's cutting edge stuff,it is in my humble opinion, that your defence of archbishop Jensen, is built on shame based rationalities, whereas my critique is more guilt-based, and relies on an internal conviction of right and wrong... but I'm sure there would be times when you'd be more guilt based in your approach, and do what you think is the right thing to do, even if it hurts other people, like gay Christians seeking acceptance and marriage equality or women seeking ordination.

  6. "an angry, illogical, antagonistic little man acting brave as he hides behind the anonymity afforded by his sunglasses, and the internet."

    Ah yes Sam - it's always good to be shown how a Christian should address those with who they disagree. Your example serves as a salient correction, and a brilliant refutation of any inconvenient facts which might have been presented along the way.