Rev. Tica Cornelius calcă în străchini pe blogul Vindecătorului (1)


Am citit şi eu marea dezvăluire a pretinsului Vindecător, cel care îşi ascunde veninul sub masca unei înşelătoare simplităţi, scrisă de către Rev. Cornelius Tica. Ni se promitea o analiză pe tema Dyo-Mănăstireanu; ni s-a oferit o lecţie de proastă disciplină a argumentării, pe fundalul unui subiect sensibil în lumea evanghelică: disputa creaţionism-evoluţionism.

În principiu nu pot decât să fiu onorat că îmi văd numele pus la zid în compania unor personalităţi precum Stott, Ţon şi Mănăstireanu. În ignoranţa lui, strălucitoare pe parcursul întregii argumentări, bravul reverend habar nu a avut că Dionis Bodiu este numele unui informatician, coordonator al unui proiect de dezvoltare rurală derulat la capăt de dulce Românie şi neşlefuit în vreun fel pe băncile unui institut teologic. Nu sunt teolog, mulţumesc de compliment domnule reverend! Mă onorează teama ta faţă de modul meu de gândire, chiar dacă, aşa cum am s-o dovedesc, nu ai nici cea mai mică ideee despre ce cred eu cu adevărat.

Spre deosebire de Vindecător, nu doresc să-mi pun pe chip masca smeritului mirean; nu mă feresc să pun întrebări, nu mă dau înapoi de la cântărirea diverselor răspunsuri ce mi se oferă şi consider că sunt îndreptăţit să cercetez calitatea fiecărei îmbucături pe care o primesc din partea teologilor. De aceea intenţionez să răspund articolului lui Cornelius Tica mai pe larg, nu de alta dar să fie clar pentru toată lumea ce părere are „teologul” din mine despre elucubraţiile sale.

Astăzi vreau doar să scot în evidenţă modul prezumţios în care reverendul îmi explică apostazia; eu cred că, la acest nivel, un astfel de demers descalifică şi prejudiciază întregul nivel, pretins academic, al argumentării.

“Problema” John Stott

Nu sunt un fan al lui John Stott. Am doar trei cărţi de-ale sale în bibliotecă: două tare vechi – Galateni şi Noua societate a lui Dumnezeu – şi una pe care am primit-o cadou – Tesaloniceni. Nu îmbrăţişez calvinismul său. Nu am citit niciodată expunerea sa pe Romani! În consecinţă, nu am ştiut că  Stott sprijină evoluţionismul. Va trebui să verific această informaţie pentru că, din păcate, în Rev. Tica nu pot să am încredere.

Nu sunt fan nici al lui Iosif Ţon. Citiţi vă rog, poate vă luminaţi odată, seria Credinţa Adevărată şi postări precum Iosif Ţon contra-atacă sau Iosif Ţon – reformator, pionier şi inventator. Pe scurt: cameleon, şi terminaţi odată cu circul acesta al etichetărilor! Nu vă onorează chiar deloc, fraţilor!

John Stott nu mi-a fost introdus de Iosif Ţon – care, ca să fie lucrurile limpezi, nu mi-a introdus niciodată ceva semnificativ în formarea mea spirituală, că nici n-a avut când – ci de Beni Fărăgău, un alt apostat, care lipseşte de pe lista lui Cornelius Tică, aşa cum lipseşte şi editura Logos, cea care a publicat cele mai multe dintre cărţile teologului britanic.

Anihilaţionismul lui John Stott este o penibilă informaţie de Wikipedia. Ştiu acest lucru pentru că am studiat la un moment dat problematica acestei doctrine. Există un singur citat, scos din context şi fără facilitarea accesului la sursă, pe baza căruia mai mulţi amatori încearcă să-l pună la zid pe Stott.

Evoluţionismul lui Dionis Bodiu

Cornelius Tică spune că eu şi cu Dănuţ Mănăstireanu am fi “înamoraţi de evoluţionismul ştiinţific”. Nu este problema mea să vorbesc în locul lui Dănuţ dar, în cazul meu, pot să întreb: de unde ai scos o astfel de inepţie? Poţi să o dovedeşti? Am afirmat eu pe undeva, pe blogul meu sau aiurea, că sunt un evoluţionist? Se pare că citit postarea mea cu privire la opiniile Păr. Doru Costache. Ai înţeles ceva din ea? Poţi să faci diferenţa dintre recenzia obiectivă a unui articol şi apologia lui? Se pare că nu: este prea mult pentru o conştiinţă inflamată de demonul apostaziei.

Ura lui Dionis Bodiu faţă de credinţa fundamentalistă în Scripturi

Dar asta de unde mai vine? Pot să vă cer, stimate reverend, o probare a acestei acuzaţii cu citate din „teologia” mea? Puteţi argumenta în vreun fel dorinţa mea de „a discredita accepţiunea literală a Scripturilor”?

În lipsa unei minime documentări în ceea ce mă priveşte, Rev. Tica calcă dintr-o prezumţie în alta, lăsând vidul de idei să transpară printre invectivele cu care m-a gratulat într-o neroadă frenezie. El ştie ce cred eu, ce intenţii am şi ce drumuri vreau să deschid eu în evanghelismul românesc. Să nu-l credeţi, oameni buni. Nu ştie – nu  are de unde – pentru că nu mă cunoaşte şi nici nu a citit cu atenţie măcar un rând din ceea ce am scris eu. Nici măcar o iotă.

(va urma)

Reclame

5 gânduri despre “Rev. Tica Cornelius calcă în străchini pe blogul Vindecătorului (1)

  1. Multumesc Dyo, pentru aceasta sinteza. In haznaua Vindecatorului nu intru, ca nu ma lasa religia 🙂
    Stie cineva cine este acest ilustru necunoscut reverend? Sau este vorba de un alter ego al aceluias personaj imund?
    Eu nu am de gind sa raspuns acestor magarii. Tocmai din pricina acestor lucruri, intre altele, am pus distanta intre mine si spatiul ‘sectar’. Daca le stau in git, si le face placere balacareala, n-am decit. Pe mine n-au cum sa ma dea afara, ca pe Ton, nici macar din blogosfera evanghelica, din care nu mai fac parte (si cind vad asemenea lucruri, imi vine sa adaug, ‘slava Domnului’).
    Sper, oricum, ca nu-ti pierzi somnul din pricina unor oameni marunti ca cei doi, repet daca nu cumva e vorba de cineva care sufera de boala personalitatilor multiple.
    Sanatate.

    1. Parerea mea este ca Vindecatorul nu are totusi capacitatea de a exprima cu claritate ideile sale, chiar asa proaste cum sunt ele in continut. Dar, nu se stie niciodata: lupul îşi schimba adesea părul daca este nevoie sa dea iama în stână … îşi pune clop şi cojoc numai sa-si implineasca pohta.

  2. Dyo iata un extras din comentariu lui John Stott pe Romani, unde vorbeste si despre evolutie:

    „e. The historicity and death of Adam

    It is fashionable nowadays to regard the biblical story of Adam and Eve as ‘myth’ (whose truth is theological but not historical), rather than ‘significant event’ (whose truth is both). Many people assume that evolution has disproved and discarded the Genesis story as having no basis in history. Since ‘Adam’ is the Hebrew word for ‘man’, they consider that the author of Genesis was deliberately giving a mythical account of human origins, evil and death.
    We should certainly be open to the probability that there are symbolical elements in the Bible’s first three chapters. The narrative itself warrants no dogmatism about the six days of creation, since its form and style suggest that it is meant as literary art, not scientific description. As for the identity of the snake and the trees in the garden, since ‘that old serpent’ and ‘the tree of life’ reappear in the book of Revelation, where they are evidently symbolic,78 it seems likely that they are meant to be understood symbolically in Genesis as well.
    But the case with Adam and Eve is different. Scripture clearly intends us to accept their historicity as the original human pair. For the biblical genealogies trace the human race back to Adam;79 Jesus himself taught that ‘at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female” ’ and then instituted marriage;80 Paul told the Athenian philosophers that God had made every nation ‘from one man’;81 and in particular Paul’s carefully constructed analogy between Adam and Christ depends for its validity on the equal historicity of both. He affirmed that Adam’s disobedience led to condemnation for all, as Christ’s obedience led to justification for all (5:18).82
    Moreover, nothing in modern science contradicts this. Rather the reverse. All human beings share the same anatomy, physiology and chemistry, and the same genes. Athough we belong to different so-called ‘races’ (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid), each of which has adjusted to its own physical environment, we nevertheless constitute a single species, and people of different races can intermarry and interbreed. This homogeneity of the human species is best explained by positing our descent from a common ancestor. ‘Genetic evidence indicates’, writes Dr Christopher Stringer of London’s Natural History Museum, ‘that all living people are closely related and share a recent common ancestor.’ He goes on to express the view that this common ancestor ‘probably lived in Africa’ (though this is not proved) and that from this ancestral group ‘all the living peoples of the world originated’.83
    But how ‘recent’ was our ‘common ancestor’? The evidence of Genesis 2–4 is that Adam was a Neolithic farmer. The New Stone Age ran from about 10000 to 6000 BC, and its beginning was marked by the introduction of agriculture, the original ‘green revolution’, which seems to have begun in the region of Eastern Turkey, near the head waters of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers (cf. Gn. 2:10, 14), and which has been described as the most important cultural development in all human history. So Adam cultivated the garden of Eden,84 and he and Eve made clothing for themselves.85 Then the next generations, we read, domesticated and reared stock, as well as working the soil and cultivating crops;86 built a protected settlement, which Genesis graces with the word ‘city’;87 made and played musical instruments;88 and ‘forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron’.89
    But surely the human fossil and skeleton record indicates that the genus homo existed hundreds of thousands of years before the New Stone Age? Yes. Homo sapiens (modern) is usually traced back to about 100,000 years ago, and homo sapiens (archaic) to about half a million years ago, homo erectus to about 1.8 million years ago, and homo habilis even to two million years ago. Moreover, homo habilis was already making stone tools in East and South Africa; homo erectus was making wooden tools as well and living in caves and camps, while homo sapiens (especially the European Stone Age sub-species Neanderthal man), although still a hunter-gatherer, was beginning to paint, carve and sculpt, and even to care for the sick and bury the dead. But were these species of homo ‘human’ in the biblical sense, created in the image of God, endowed with rational, moral and spiritual faculties which enabled them to know and love their Creator? Ancient skeletons cannot answer this question; the evidence they supply is anatomical rather than behavioural. Even signs of cultural development do not prove that those involved were authentically human, that is, God-like. The likelihood is that they were all pre-Adamic hominids, still homo sapiens and not yet homo divinus, if we may so style Adam.
    Adam, then, was a special creation of God, whether God formed him literally ‘from the dust of the ground’ and then ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’,90 or whether this is the biblical way of saying that he was created out of an already existing hominid. The vital truth we cannot surrender is that, though our bodies are related to the primates, we ourselves in our fundamental identity are related to God.
    What then about those pre-Adamic hominids which had survived natural calamity and disaster (as large numbers did not), had dispersed to other continents, and were now Adam’s contemporaries? How did Adam’s special creation and subsequent fall relate to them? Derek Kidner suggests that, once it became clear that there was ‘no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s “federal” headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.’91
    Having thought about Adam’s creation and fall, we are ready to ask about his death. ‘Adam … died.’92 Why did he die? What was the origin of death? Was it there from the beginning? Certainly vegetable death was. God created ‘seed-bearing plants … that bear fruit with seed in it.’93 That is, the cycle of blossom, fruit, seed, death and new life was established in the created order. Animal death existed too, for many fossils of predators have been found with their prey in their stomach. But what about human beings? Paul wrote that death entered the world through sin (5:12). Does that mean that, if he had not sinned, he would not have died? Many ridicule this notion. ‘Obviously’, writes C. H. Dodd with great self-confidence, ‘we cannot accept such a speculation as an account of the origin of death, which is a natural process inseparable from organic existence in the world we know.…’94
    We have already agreed that death is ‘a natural process’ in the vegetable and animal kingdoms. But we must not think of human beings as merely rather superior animals, who on that account die like animals. On the contrary, it is because we are not animals that Scripture regards human death as unnatural, an alien intrusion, the penalty for sin, and not God’s original intention for his human creation. Only if Adam disobeyed, God warned him, would he ‘surely die’.95 Since, however, he did not immediately die, some conclude that it was spiritual death, or separation from God, which was meant. But when God later pronounced his judgment on Adam, he said to him, ‘Dust you are, and to dust you will return.’96 So physical death was included in the curse, and Adam became mortal when he disobeyed. Certainly the Rabbis understood Genesis in this way. For example, ‘God created man for incorruption, and made him an image of his own proper being; but by the envy of the devil death entered into the world.…’97 This is why the biblical authors lament death, and are outraged by it. They see it as demoting us, levelling us down to the animal creation, so that we (God’s special creation) have become ‘like the beasts that perish’.98 The author of Ecclesiastes feels the indignity of it too: ‘Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.’99
    It appears, therefore, that for his unique image-bearers God originally had something better in mind, something less degrading and squalid than death, decay and decomposition, something which acknowledged that human beings are not animals. Perhaps he would have ‘translated’ them like Enoch and Elijah,100 without the necessity of death. Perhaps he would have ‘changed’ them ‘in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye’, like those believers who will be alive when Jesus comes.101 Perhaps too we should think of the transfiguration of Jesus in this light. His face shone, his clothing became dazzling white, and his body translucent like the resurrection body he would later have.102 Because he had no sin, he did not need to die. He could have stepped straight into heaven without dying. But he deliberately came back in order of his own free and loving will to die for us.
    All this evidence confirms the straightforward statement of the apostle Paul:… sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin … (5:12).”

    1. Acesta este păcatul lui Stott; sigur, rămân întrebări cu privire la rostul şi sensul zilelor Creaţiei din relatarea Genesei, la care nu cred ca cineva are răspunsuri infailibile, în nici un caz ştiinţifice …

Dă o replică!

Te rog autentifică-te folosind una dintre aceste metode pentru a publica un comentariu:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Google

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s