While we don’t do science too much on this site, ignoring it completely would mean turning a blind eye to one source of information. Cats have a long history of association with humans. Sadly for literalists this history contradicts their claimed meaning of Genesis 1-3. Archaeology and genetics both demonstrate cats have been with humans – and tracked the spread of human settlements for 10,000 years – the domestic cat’s genetic diversity also plays havoc with global flood readings.
Student protests in Australia over climate change have been in the news of late. It makes sense that informed younger folk would be outraged by government inaction on climate – after all younger people will be disproportionately impacted. Climate denial in the Christadelphian community follows a similar age pattern. The blatant disregard for climate science is necessary theologically though. Tens of thousands (and in many instances hundreds of thousands) of years of climate records fly in the face of the literalist reading of Genesis 1-3. You can’t be an old or young earth creationist and accept climate science. The two cannot be reconciled. The heat on literalists will continue to grow – but much like old conservative politicians, the denial of reality is not over yet.
As requested by the Australian Conference, the AACE – a consultative Australian body – has commenced a process of considering the Bible’s teaching on creation. There are people of balance and goodwill on the committee. However the majority of the committee are decidedly literalist. A sub-committee will examine the issues. A sub-committee including zero Evolutionary Creationists. It does contain high profile anti EC individuals and some decent individuals, but ones whose opinions are literalist approved only. Anyone can have input but only anti-ECs can have a voice.
The project scope excludes any science. Ie no accountability to God’s reality for any conclusions. If we read the Bible to say the earth is flat, then it is flat. Simple, accessible and obvious evidence for ongoing ancient life (human and animal) is conveniently off limits. We can use archaeology as evidence in Bible lectures, but not to check what we think the Bible is teaching. Illogical. However this is a core demand of literalists on such “investigations”. Ignore inconvenient truths which might serve as a check on our exposition.
Optimism is somewhat hard to maintain. The AACE tried to establish a fair process, but the literalists succeeded in squashing the inclusion of any evolutionary creationists. Without a voice on the sub-committee, there is no pressure to address issues in an even handed way. The sub-committee proceedings are a closed book. The results of the handpicked review group will be delivered to the literalist controlled AACE. This body will then deliver a report. Barring a miracle, the result is a foregone conclusion and an opportunity to engage and learn has been effectively neutered.
A few times various ECs have been asked and encouraged to leave the community. That in the main ECs chose not to leave exasperates some zealous literalists. So why stay? The sentiment of Schurz’s famous line is appropriate ““My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” Further we could explain further while quoting from Fred Barling. He had a somewhat different relationship with the community post the Ralph Lovelock controversy, but still had this to say “I found Christ through the Christadelphian community“. Well said Fred.
The South Australian issued “IEAC Reaffirmation Statement” claimed that the supporting ecclesias took the Genesis creation record as “literal in all its details”. This is simply incorrect as demonstrated by Gen 2:19-20 where Adam names every animal and bird. The record five times tells us Adam named all/every animal and bird. This all happened in less than one day. Do the literalists think so? No. They don’t. They adopt an inconsistent pick and mix approach to Genesis 1-3. Continue reading
On 12.08.18, Neville Clark presented a lecture on the subject of demons in Scripture. The crux of his argument is that demons do not exist, and that every reference to them in Scripture is merely a well-established ancient euphemism for mental illness and/or mental disability. While Neville does make a number of valid points in his talk, he overstates the case considerably and leaves a number of crucial issues unaddressed. This paper will examine these, and present an alternative interpretation. Continue reading