BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION REJECTED BY THE LOGOS ECCLESIAS


Contributed by Corky
 
Editor's Note:
 
The following quotation is from the "Christadelphian Statement of Faith: Doctrines to be Rejected" as unilaterally amended by the Logos affiliated Ecclesias without consulting the rest of the Christadelphian Community on their action:

"37. We reject that the Bible account of creation is figurative,


 or parabolic, of a type of organic evolution in which all living things evolved from simpler varieties. [The record of Genesis 1-3 describes the literal work of God in creating this world and its creatures out of the previous void and chaos. Each day was a period of 24 hours duration, and does not permit an evolutionary process]."


-- Since evolution is now a "doctrine to be rejected" what happens to those Christadelphians who have wisely already accepted biological evolution? Should the scientific theory of evolution even be considered to be an ecclesiastical "doctrine" to be accepted or rejected by a church following at all? Doesn't evolution belong to science and not religion and therefore not under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical authority (as if there is an "authority" consisting of Bible readers to start with, that is)? 
 
I suppose Christadelphians have learned nothing from history about the ecclesiastical rejection of  science in the past. Do they still believe that the earth is the center of the universe with the sun, moon, planets and stars revolving around it as in the book of Joshua? Do they still reject the germ theory of disease?  That the ocean sea cannot be crossed? That man will never set foot on the moon? Do they still hold that the sky is a strong solid dome like a molten looking glass as in the book of Job? 
 
Maybe Christadelphians believe that to learn anything about science they should go to a Bible Reader to learn about it. God forbid that they should pick up a science book. I won't mention that religion has been wrong 100% of the time when they have rejected a scientific discovery or that science has been right 100% of that same time when scientists have rejected the ecclesiastical judgment of their science.
 
Going back to the book of Job; Job's error was not self-righteousness but that he knew everything; knew it all. In the end, he was shown by a series of questions that he didn't know everything after all. Maybe there is knowledge in those science books that Christadelphians reject or maybe the next time they get sick they should go see a Bible Reader instead of a doctor?

Editor's Note:

Whoever wrote the Logos doctrine to be rejected, mistakenly added a  doctrine to be "accepted" under the "rejected" list by adding a parenthesis to their "rejected" doctrine. I suggest that the Central Fellowship ignore the Luddite Logos rejected doctrine and instead add the Logos parenthesis as a hypothesis to be rejected. Because in reality the following hypothesis is a serious error:

"The record of Genesis 1-3 describes the literal work of God in creating this world and its creatures out of the previous void and chaos. Each day was a period of 24 hours duration, and does not permit an evolutionary process."

- That idea should be rejected by all intelligent Christadelphians because it is contrary to commonly accepted human understanding in the 21st Century.

Write to Andrew Bramhill now and demand that he tells the Logos Ecclesias to behave and to stop bullying Christadelphians who accept science as well as the Bible.
   

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be nice when writing comments. Thank you.