an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Visiting Christadelphians, Please Clearly Explain What You Believe, And Why.

I’ve been trying to get Len (kind of Fortigurn Jnr, without the footnotes) to tell us all what he believes, and why he believes it. So far he’s not been willing to proclaim the source of his faith, despite his Bible clearly commanding him to –

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

So, I’ll ask again, and this time it’s for all the Christadelphians who’ve decided to parade their massive superiority complex on this blog.

Let’s have your answers.

What do you believe?

Why do you believe it?

I want straight answers, not the weaselling and avoidance you’ve displayed so far.

ADDENDUM

As Len, clearly understanding the request, chose to ‘act dumb’ I shall clarify further.

What are your RELIGIOUS beliefs?

Why do you believe these RELIGIOUS beliefs?

Right, that should stop a whole hurricane of shit being sprayed over comments as the ‘we’re not fundies honest even though our sect is profoundly fundie’s try to avoid answering.

Single Post Navigation

26 thoughts on “Visiting Christadelphians, Please Clearly Explain What You Believe, And Why.

  1. //What do you believe?//I'm a Christian. My core theological beliefs can be found articulated in the BASF, as well as in the 'Apostles' Creed' and the 'Didache'.//Why do you believe it?//I believe it because I believe the balance of evidence supports it.

  2. But there's a startling lack of evidence for it, and a huge amount against….even in the 'relevant scholarly literature'I didn't ask you to point to the BASF, I want you to explain what YOU believe.If you do, as you claim, believe the BASF then how do you deal with point 4? If Adam was the first man, and created by your god, how do you square your belief in evolution with that? Or do you say man hasn't evolved?Also the foundational statement claims "That the book currently known as the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth, and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and are consequently without error in all parts of them, except such as may be due to errors of transcription or translation."You have said that you believe the Bible to be in error in several places (you said it contains material that is clearly not true), this is in direct opposition to the core faith of the sect you profess to be a member of.Christadelphians are, in the most part, Bible literalists….literally fundamentalists. Why do you remain in the sect if you disagree with their approach? (This question is also for Len, Ken, and Dave)Surely "the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth" means that all the 'relevant scholarly literature' in the world is thoroughly irrelevant?Seems to me that you're desperate to hang onto the faith you were brain washed with as a child, but can't bring yourself to believe the more ludicrous sections (of which there are many) so look to writers from the world to justify it to yourself. The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.

  3. Fortigurn is not a Fundamentalist but he is a fundamentalist.

  4. //But there's a startling lack of evidence for it, and a huge amount against….even in the 'relevant scholarly literature'//In your opinion.//I didn't ask you to point to the BASF, I want you to explain what YOU believe./You asked me what I believe, and I told you what I believed. I didn't just use the BASF either, I also cited the 'Apostles' Creed' and the Didache. If you didn't want to know what I believed, you shouldn't have asked.//If you do, as you claim, believe the BASF then how do you deal with point 4? If Adam was the first man, and created by your god, how do you square your belief in evolution with that? Or do you say man hasn't evolved?//Adam was the first man, and he was created by God. No problem. What's the problem?//You have said that you believe the Bible to be in error in several places (you said it contains material that is clearly not true), this is in direct opposition to the core faith of the sect you profess to be a member of.//You're confusing several different issues. There's a difference between saying 'I believe the Bible to be in error in several places', and saying 'I believe it contains material that is clearly not true'. The Bible contains heaps of material which isn't true; poetic material, metaphorical material, parable, fable, myth, sarcasm, and phenomenalistic descriptions.//Christadelphians are, in the most part, Bible literalists….literally fundamentalists.//Really? Evidence please.//Surely "the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth" means that all the 'relevant scholarly literature' in the world is thoroughly irrelevant?//No it doesn't. Why would it mean that? That's a very strange interpretation.

  5. Maybe he's a fUnDaMeNtAlIsT. Or another of the 16,384 ways to vary the capitalization. Who knew there were so many flavors?

  6. Len"Maybe he's a fUnDaMeNtAlIsT. Or another of the 16,384 ways to vary the capitalization. Who knew there were so many flavors?"And maybe you're a bullshitter who's afraid to admit that he believes nonsense for fear of ridicule?Fortigurn"Adam was the first man, and he was created by God. No problem. What's the problem?"The weight of 'relevant scholarly literature' (in this case the endless number of papers and studies into human origins and evolution, not to mention the fossils, DNA evidence and comparative anatomy) completely contradict the idea that there was any 'first man' – that's your problem.

  7. "//Christadelphians are, in the most part, Bible literalists….literally fundamentalists.//Really? Evidence please."20 years of being a Christadelphian to start with. Numerous Christadelphian pamphlets if we want to go further….or how about the website of a Christadelphian ecclesia? http://www.lichfieldchristadelphians.org.uk/news/creation.html – as fundamentalist as they come.

  8. Alex, you are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization. Identifying a few Christadelphian fundamentalists, and citing your own small corner of the community, do not substantiate an assertion about what they "are, in the most part."Your argument is fallacious as if I said that "atheists, for the most part, lack intellectual honesty and commit logical fallacies constantly," when in fact I have no empirical evidence about "the most part" of atheists; it would be hastily generalizing that all of them are like you.

  9. "Alex, you are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization. Identifying a few Christadelphian fundamentalists, and citing your own small corner of the community, do not substantiate an assertion about what they "are, in the most part.""Len, either you are completely unaware of the beliefs of the UK Christadelphians, or you are knowingly lying.If you consider dozens and dozens of ecclesias from the north of Scotland right down to the south coast of England and everywhere in between to be a 'small corner' then I'd love to know where the rest of the Christadelphians who agree with you are hiding! I lived in a lot of places growing up, and as my father was a speaker, we were more often than not at a different ecclesia every other week, I never once encountered anything other than vanilla fundamentalism.I also went to tonnes of fraternals, youth weekends, and even attended Swanwick several times – not ever seeing anything other than 'the Bible is all true' literalists. Indeed, when I started to express scepticism in my teens, I was treated as if I were some dangerous influence, someone that the other more faithful teens should not engage with in case I infected them with my dangerously outré ideas.So don't you come on here and claim that Christadelphians are hardcore fundamentalists just because your tiny little sub-sect believes some weird fucked up, cognitive dissonance causing mix of reality and fantasy.

  10. Anyway, I notice you STILL haven't claimed what you believe, Len. Why so coy?

  11. Len, further to my previous post (and this is relevant to Fortigurn as well), from http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/wcb/thebible.html"The Bible Says What it MeansWith some qualifications we can say that the Bible always says what it means. Consider this prophecy, from Micah 5:2: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel". According to Matthew 2:6 this was fulfilled by Christ being born in Bethlem. For another example compare Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:1-4. These passages clearly show that when the Bible says something it says it plainly. (The exception to this is where highly figurative language is used in prophecy, such as Revelation or Daniel. The metaphors, however, are always explained.) In light of this, consider this verse from Acts 1:"this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." (verse 11). What else could this mean other than Christ will literally return to earth one day?"Obviously, I believe them to be completely in error, starting from a faulty premise and merely building on it, but I wonder what Fortigurn and Len make of this statement from a major Christadelphian website? They clearly believe that what the Bible says is what it means, pretty much the definition of fundamentalists.

  12. You see, Alex, there are these few "real" Christadephians (like Len and Fortigurn) and all the other so-called Christadelphians are just fundies who have fooled themselves into believing they are Christadelphians – but, they're not.Well, they are Christadelphian but they're not "real Christadelphians" – know what I mean?

  13. You're right, Corky! The majority of Christadelphians think they have 'The Truth', but it's only Furtigurn, Len, and a tiny handful of others that have 'The MEGA Truth', or 'TRUTHMAX'And in the world of TRUTHMAX it's the non-believers who are the fundamentalists, and the bulk of global Christadelphians are just a small corner of the sect.Kind of reminds me of those maps where a tiny island is made massive, and the rest of the world is tiny. A bit like this http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_03/ToyExportsDM0103_800x469.jpg

  14. //The weight of 'relevant scholarly literature' (in this case the endless number of papers and studies into human origins and evolution, not to mention the fossils, DNA evidence and comparative anatomy) completely contradict the idea that there was any 'first man' – that's your problem.//Well Alex that depends on what you mean by 'first man'. That there was a first male human being is certainly not a matter of scholarly dispute.//20 years of being a Christadelphian to start with. Numerous Christadelphian pamphlets if we want to go further….or how about the website of a Christadelphian ecclesia?//I'm afraid that's an unrepresentative sample of the 50,000+ Christadelphians around the world. I've already cited the commentary from JT and RR, not to mention Alan Heyward and Alan Fowler, including many articles in the mainstream Christadelphian Magazine which have made the same points we're making here.//Obviously, I believe them to be completely in error, starting from a faulty premise and merely building on it, but I wonder what Fortigurn and Len make of this statement from a major Christadelphian website?//What I make of it is what it says; with some qualifications the Bible says what it means. They note that sometimes metaphor and highly figurative language is used.//The majority of Christadelphians think they have 'The Truth', but it's only Furtigurn, Len, and a tiny handful of others that have 'The MEGA Truth', or 'TRUTHMAX'//No we don't believe that at all.

  15. "Well Alex that depends on what you mean by 'first man'. That there was a first male human being is certainly not a matter of scholarly dispute."If that's what you think then you have no understanding of evolution. '…there was a first human being' – so what species was this first human being's parents? If you stood them side by side they'd clearly look the same. Perhaps it's the parents of THOSE human beings? But no! They look the same as well.The way life has developed there was never a first human, just gradual change from an earlier form.Or do you think that a chimp like ancestor gave birth to a fully human baby? Of course you don't, despite that (insane as it is) being LESS ridiculous than your belief that Adam was made from dust by your god. As an aside, I've heard a Christadelphian tell Sunday School kids that women have one less rib than men….astonishing eh?

  16. "I'm afraid that's an unrepresentative sample of the 50,000+ Christadelphians around the world. "Weird, because whenever there were visitors from overseas at these ecclesias or youth gatherings, they too adhered to the core beliefs! And, look! The Christadelphian.org website presents the beliefs exactly as I remember them. You're deluding yourself if you think that the majority believe your version. As I've said before, I think your upbringing and subsequent discovery that a lot of things you were taught are untrue has caused significant cognitive dissonance. I feel sorry for you.

  17. //If that's what you think then you have no understanding of evolution. '…there was a first human being'…//Feel free to correct me from the relevant literature.//so what species was this first human being's parents?//Archaic Homo sapiens. This is well documented. The earliest anatomically modern human being was a direct descendant of archaic Homo sapiens. The new subspecies is known as Homo sapiens sapiens.//The way life has developed there was never a first human, just gradual change from an earlier form.//Of course there was. Whether the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens was uni-regional or multi-regional, there was still one being which was the first member of the new species.As an aside, I've heard a Christadelphian tell Sunday School kids that women have one less rib than men….astonishing eh? //As an aside, I've heard a Christadelphian tell Sunday School kids that women have one less rib than men….astonishing eh?//Yes that is astonishing. Clearly they didn't engage in any fact checking.//The Christadelphian.org website presents the beliefs exactly as I remember them.//We're not talking about the core beliefs, the BASF. We're talking about the YEC and literalist beliefs you've claimed are held by all Christadelphians worldwide.//You're deluding yourself if you think that the majority believe your version.//I don't think the majority of Christadelphians hold the same beliefs as I do on these matters.

  18. "there was still one being which was the first member of the new species."Absolute nonsense – tell me, what species was this first human's father? There are no 'first' versions of ANY species, just slightly different versions of the parent, and the large differences only become noticed over time.You probably don't think that all forms are transitional by their very nature, either.Even if your assertion were correct (that there was a first man), this does nothing to prove it was Adam, or miraculously created by your god.

  19. //Absolute nonsense – tell me, what species was this first human's father?//Alex I already told you; the species to which this first human's father belonged was archaic Homo sapiens.//There are no 'first' versions of ANY species, just slightly different versions of the parent, and the large differences only become noticed over time.//Sure there are first versions of a species; that's the moment of speciation. As soon as you have a version of the parent which is sufficiently distinct, you have a new species. Surely you believe in speciation, don't you?//You probably don't think that all forms are transitional by their very nature, either.//Of course all forms are transitional by their very nature. This doesn't mean that speciation is meaningless. Look at ring species' for example.//Even if your assertion were correct (that there was a first man), this does nothing to prove it was Adam, or miraculously created by your god.//I agree entirely. You always seem so terrified that someone is going to find evidence which supports anything the Bible says.For clarification, do you believe there was no such thing as an initial member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens? Do you believe that we're all still archaic Homo sapiens? Do you believe in speciation at all?

  20. fortigurn, you clearly do not understand evolution and/or speciation if you think the offspring of any individual will be of a different species to its parents.As for your other accusations, i'm not going to even dignify them with a response, as they are utterly pathetic.

  21. Yeah, Fort, I'm afraid you stepped in that one. There isn't a "first Homo sapiens," because the shift from one species to the next is too gradual. We use sharp species names (and that doesn't always work) because most intermediaries between living species are extinct, and because the gaps in our fossil record have the same effect. If we had every fossil for your male line, going back to Homo erectus, we would be unable to pick one out and call him the first Homo sapiens.It's true that if we had such a fossil collection, we would no doubt pick someone and call him the "first Homo sapiens," but the choice would be basically arbitrary.There is one fairly sharp demarcation we can make, though, and that's branch points. There is a last individual ancestral to both chimpanzees and humans, and each of its offspring is ancestral only to humans or only to chimpanzees. However, its children are not of distinct species. They obviously could have intermarried, but for some reason (such as migration) they didn't, and their descendants remained separate breeding populations until they became incapable of interbreeding.We could give our arbitrary "first Homo sapiens" an air of rigor by picking the most recent common ancestor of all modern humans, but it would still be absurd to say that his mother was of a different species.

  22. Ooof! I'm eager to see how Fortigurn spins this into him having been right all along!

  23. I want to know why Fortigurn thinks so many scientists don't believe in God.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Approximately_what_percentage_of_recognized_Scientists_believes_in_CreationWhy pick a position that so few scientists hold?If the answer is faith, why should we accept anything he says?

  24. I see that Fortigurn applies the 'ignore it and it'll probably go away' method to being shown up!

  25. //It's true that if we had such a fossil collection, we would no doubt pick someone and call him the "first Homo sapiens," but the choice would be basically arbitrary.//I agree it would be pretty arbitrary, but we would still do it and it wouldn't be invalid to do so. Categorization of species is fraught with difficulties of judgment, but we make them anyway.//There is one fairly sharp demarcation we can make, though, and that's branch points.//There's another, and that is that in certain cases speciation (identified by chromosonal doubling, lack of ability to reproduce with the parent, sterility, or morphology), is observable from one generation to the next; this has been observed in Drosophila paulistorum, and the butterfly genus Heliconius (speciation took place in a mere 3 generations; polyploid hybrids).//We could give our arbitrary "first Homo sapiens" an air of rigor by picking the most recent common ancestor of all modern humans, but it would still be absurd to say that his mother was of a different species. //We couldn't say that about a 'most recent common ancestor', I agree. But I wasn't saying that.

  26. I see you're incapable of admitting an error even when it's been pointed out to you by other Christadelphians!Jon, the cognitive dissonance must be unbearable to you.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: