Fred Said

Corky, please leave the blog up!

That's the whole point about social knowledge - it can be examined by others at a later date. There's something interesting here for others to find.

By exploring some of the behaviors of Christadelphians, you have added value to the web of knowledge: you have offered another perspective than the rote "faith once delivered to saints".

There are very few places on the web that openly discuss this particular belief system.

Well said, Fred. Because of your message and about a dozen emails, I will leave the blog up - just in case something related should pop up. Meanwhile, you may find my new blog here.

Closing Shop!

In the very near future this blog will magically disappear. I think I have said all I have needed to say and I plan to move on to other things. If there is anything here you wish to keep, please feel free to make a copy.

A Corrupt and Scandalous Faith

By Joe E. Holman

Smith:

The year was 1928. The place was Arkansas. Charles Lee Smith, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism was arrested “on charges of blasphemy.” His crime? Passing out atheist tracts in a local town. After spending one night in jail, Smith was released with one charge dismissed while the other was never set for trial. Just like the famous blasphemy trial of C.B. Reynolds decades earlier, Mr. Smith was just one more victim of the American legal system, hijacked by Christianity.

Inoculation:

The year was 1722. The date, July 8th. The place, St. Andrew’s Church in London, England. A bold, determined preacher walked up to his pulpit and delivered a heartfelt sermon entitled, “Against the Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation.” . . . Read More

Public Religion

Human History at a Glance

Is Unbelief a Sin?

Over at the Christadelphian "Bible Truth Discussion Forum" I asked the wrong questions and got slammed in a PM by moderator, "nsr".

Corky: What I am getting at is whether or not God requires people to believe in hearsay about fantastic, impossible things recorded by nobody knows who thousands of years ago.

nsr: Here you are making your trademark assertion about the reliability of the canon, despite the fact you've never done any research into the matter, and have been warned several times before about this.

Comment: In other words, nsr thinks he knows who wrote the books in the canon when the real biblical scholars of the world don't know. Plus, he assumes that I have never done any research into the matter.

Corky: If that is required, does God only desire gullible, naive people?

In other words, is unbelief in unbelievable things worthy of destruction? If so, why would God hate people who are not gullible and naive and want proof and evidence of such things? Is it just a stumbling block so that intelligent, reasonable, rational people are left out? And, wouldn't that be a little bit unbelievable too?

nsr: Here you are implying that belief in God is the preserve of the "naive and gullible", and that "intelligent, reasonable, rational" people do not believe in God because there is no evidence. This is again an assertion about a lack of evidence when you haven't actually looked to see if there is any, and a blatant attempt to elicit angry responses, which you have also been warned about before.

Comment: Now, is that what I said or is nsr misreading what I wrote? I said nothing about a belief in God (unless nsr thinks God is one of those "unbelievable" things). I also did not say "there is no evidence". I simply asked pointed questions that evidently they can't answer so it offends them.

Those who are not offended by a few questions may comment on my blog, I'm easy and I won't ban you.

Who is Antichrist?

Of course, the short answer is that the antichrist is the Jews, because the Jews deny that the Jewish Messiah has come in the flesh. However, the Jews are not who the author of the epistles of John is writing about. The author is writing about people who have left the Christian faith.

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (1 John 2:18-19).

Evidently the folks leaving the faith were calling the faithful a bunch of liars because the author says that what he is teaching “is no lie” (verse 27) but the real liar is the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah (verse 22).
Now, why were these former believers denying that Jesus was the Messiah? Because, just as above, they had been taught that it was “the last time” and that Jesus would return in their generation.

They went out saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2 Pet. 3:4).

So, the dissenters had finally realized that the generation Jesus was talking about in Mark 13, Matt. 24 and Luke 21 was past, “since the fathers fell asleep”, and they were the next generation and the end still had not come and Jesus still had not returned. However, the author of the epistles of Peter still wanted them to believe that the time of the end was at hand.

“But the end of all things is at hand:” (1 Pet. 4:7).

The New Testament is full of passages that say that “the time is short” and it is “the last days” and the time is at hand etc.

What conclusion could those Christian dissenters have come to except that they had been deceived and Jesus was not the Messiah? Therefore, it was Christian dissenters who the author of the epistles of John is calling the antichrist and are the same ones who the author of 2 Peter calls “scoffers” and this also makes him declare that it was “the last days”, 2,000 years ago (2 Pet. 3:3).

No! Obama is not the antichrist.