Why Do Christadelphians Believe?


By Thom Jonas

Even though most Christadelphians might say they believe because of prophecy, or because of current events, I don't think that is actually the case. Most Christadelphians believe quite simply because they happened to be born into Christadelphian families, were taught Christadelphian doctrines from a young age, and were raised in a largely Christadelphian culture. The evidence is clear. Had they not been born into such an environment, it is almost certain they would not be Christadelphians today.

We know this from the statistics of the relative few non-Christadelphians who later join the religion compared to the 7 billion people who never do. This makes one's family of birth the single most influential reason for Christadelphians believing what they do, with relatively few exceptions. The same also holds true for most of the world's religions, although the larger and more influential the religion, the more likely it is that someone born outside the religion might later join. But even for the world's largest religions, it is still more likely that someone born outside the religion will remain outside it than for that person to join the religion during their lifetime.

It might seem unusual to speak of the reasons for belief in this way, and that is because our brains are excellent at post-rationalisation. We tend to believe first, and then we seek explanations for the belief second. We then convince ourselves that the explanations we came up with were the original cause of the belief, even if they weren't. That does not mean the reasons and explanations we come up with are necessarily false or unsound, however. Such explanations may well provide sufficient justification for continuing to believe something even if they were not actually the reason why we arrived at the belief in the first place. We can still use our reasoning faculties to weigh up the various explanations to see which ones stack up to the evidence.

However, what we're not very good at is abandoning a belief if it turns out that it does not comport with reality. Thus, once people are entrenched in a belief system like religion (which usually happens from early childhood onwards), they are far more likely to double-down on their beliefs and deny any contrary evidence, than to accept the often-frightening possibility that one or more of their cherished beliefs may be less than certain. This is especially true if the belief(s) in question are tied to one's culture and even their core identity, and such is the case with religions like the Christadelphians.

Realising that we still believe many things we were taught when we were children, and that our entire worldview was moulded by the culture we grew up in, and that those who taught us were also influenced in the same way and via the same process when they grew up, we should start to become very skeptical about our ability to independently assess the things we were taught. Almost every belief we hold is backed by underlying assumptions that derive from our culture and upbringing, and even those assumptions are built on yet deeper assumptions, and so on.

Our default instinct should be to question all such received "truths", knowing the process by which they have been perpetuated. To question something does not mean to automatically reject it - but rather to be skeptical and open to the outcome going either way. But all too often people follow the much easier road of unquestioningly accepting what they were taught, as if, out of more than 7 billion people on earth, they happened to be so lucky as to be born into the correct religion, which in the case of Christadelphians is against staggering odds!

I will leave you with a thought experiment. This goes for both believers and non-believers alike.

  1. Think about why you believe, or don't believe. List the primary reasons (in your head is fine).
  2. Now change the question to ask what was the actual process you followed to arrive at the beliefs you hold. Think back to the events that led to your change in beliefs, or the formation of those beliefs. Can you see how that process influenced the position you now take?
  3. Now imagine you had been born into different circumstances. A different religion perhaps and/or a different country (those often go together anyway). How likely do you think it is that you would have arrived at the same beliefs? As a way to answer this question - ask how many people from that other religion actually do arrive at beliefs similar to yours now.

The thought experiment is intended to show how our beliefs are influenced by external factors, especially religion and culture. Obviously such influences do not automatically mean our beliefs must be false (otherwise known as a genetic fallacy), but they should make us highly skeptical of them, knowing that we most likely did not arrive at them via purely rational means.

Any honest pursuit of truth must therefore incorporate some method for detecting and correcting false beliefs, which includes being skeptical of our current beliefs and being prepared to re-evaluate and change our beliefs as new evidence comes to light.

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things."
- RenĂ© Descartes

47 comments:

  1. I realise that an argument could be made that I have only addressed the reasons for arriving at one's beliefs, and that Christadelphians may feel they have other new reasons that compel them to continue believing, independently of the original reasons for arriving at the beliefs.

    My response to this would be to question whether you would still find these new reasons compelling if you had not been born into the religion (and/or so heavily influenced by it). An objective look at the number of non-Christadelphians in the world suggests this is highly doubtful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether or not someone believes because they were born in does not matter. So long as they believe.

      Delete
    2. Interesting. I have a bridge for sale. Whether or not I am lying does not matter. So long as you pay me.

      Delete
    3. Unknown, "So long as they believe".
      So long as I believe in what I was told to believe? What sort of belief is that? How do I know if what I was told to believe is the truth?

      Delete
    4. Jacobus ArminiusJune 28, 2018 at 1:50 PM

      Unknown, the fact is most CDs are only CDs as they were born so.

      Nothing wrong with that, but given there are so few converts in, aren't you even a tiny bit suspicious that Dr Thomas was in fact wrong?

      Delete
    5. Unknown, going a bit further than Jacobus, with whom I agree, what specifically convinces you that Dr Thomas was right? In his day there was a culture and upsurge of preachers in the New World (unfettered by the "old" church in England; new ideas, new thinking, leaving behind the old church), who started collecting new followers and starting new sects, who all believed, sincerely, that they had the real (version) of truth.
      How had this, other than by gullible adherents following a new, different and interestingly slant on religious belief by a convincing preacher, have "taken off?".
      Take note, that other sects (the founders` in competition,intellectual exercise of egos?) they all "took off" at the same time, some of them having been former adherents of each others` congregations.

      Delete
  2. As has been stated on this site many times before, the biggest engine driving the christadelphians is confirmation bias.
    They are told what and what not to believe from an early age by all those around them, and are encouraged to interpret evidence to suit those views only. Hence the somewhat ridiculous pseudo-science that is spouted from platforms across the world, to an audience only too eager to lap it up.
    Some of the claims made are jaw-dropping such as evolution being "just a theory", scientists being in a conspiracy to hide the evidence of creation, human footprints appearing alongside dinosaur prints, the moon being proved to be less than 10000 years old etc. These are just a few claims made recently by CD speakers, yet they are easily debunked in seconds with a little research.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darwin himself stated in his book The THEORY of evolution that he was just speculating and if later some knowledge was found that could disprove evolution he would accept it and admit that his THEORY of evolution was false. Research the Bombadier beetle and tell me how it could have evolved

      Delete
    2. It's really not that hard. I typed "bombardier beetle evolution" into Google and this was the result:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

      and this was the third result:

      https://ncse.com/cej/2/1/bombardier-beetle-myth-exploded

      Rather than asking random people on the internet about evolution - why not search the science for yourself? Or did you actually not want the answer? Let's see how quickly you change the subject now that an answer has been provided.

      Delete
    3. This is just the kind of scattergun approach to debating that CDs use to try and support their flimsy arguments. Throw out a question, and if you can't immediately provide an explanation then they feel their point is proved and evolution is wrong. If they don't understand how something happened, then obviously God must have done it! Simple.
      However, as Thom Jonas has pointed out above, the instant they feel the argument is slipping away from them, they swiftly change the subject. I have had this experience several times when talking to CDs in my family, and my feelings are a mixture of frustration and pity for their simplistic view of science.

      Delete
    4. Mark,
      It must be immensely wearing to have family involved with these people. I no longer get involved here because I don't have anyone who I care about involved with them, however, my kids do have relatives amongst the more loony wing, so I keep my ears open should I need to have an opinion.
      It would seem that opposition to some science is based on 1 Tim 6:19-21 and thus allows science that they do not like, to be defined as "science falsely so called", and thus ignored. But still allows medical science, and engineering science which don't challenge their world view to used as and when required.
      If you have an hour to spare, listen to this talk from Swanwick 2018, and pay particular attention to the first few minutes with regard to confirmation bias.
      To avoid annoying Mancott, It should be made clear that the views expressed in the talk are not necessarily shared with wider Christadelphia, but represent those of approximately 10-30% of the UK brotherhood, so conclusions should not be drawn regarding the whole group.

      https://bibleschoolmp3s.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/4/0/1240840/04_the_dangers_of_theistic_evolution.mp3

      Delete
    5. I only listened to the first 10 minutes or so, but the speaker really needs to get a new Bible version. The Bible wasn't talking about science, let alone trying to distinguish between "true science" and "science so called". As far as I can tell just about every modern version uses "knowledge" in 1 Tim 6:20. While the speaker might think "knowledge" just as bad, I think it's much more likely to be talking about other philosophical and religious ideas than it is to be talking about science.

      I actually have some sympathy with the idea that the Bible and evolution aren't compatible (I know some of the ways they are reconciled, but never felt them particularly compelling). But I don't think you can then go "OK, we know the Bible is true, so let's discard all the evidence for evolution as worldly thinking".

      It's also interesting making the yard-stick for correct belief the Statement of Faith rather than Bible teaching. This went along with the somewhat telling phrase "the Bible as we understand it", and the acknowledgement that there have been a number of different acceptable understandings of the creation account in Christadelphia (though theistic evolution is obviously not one of them).

      The other interesting thing there is that the Statement of Faith (a human document) leaves considerable room for interpretation, and some of those who hold theistic evolution believe it is compatible with the Statement of Faith. So it becomes not just "the Bible as we understand it" but "The Statement of Faith as we understand it" and "God's plan for the world as we understand it".

      Then it comes to worldviews and an act of faith and looking at the world through Biblical eyes, and sorry, I'm going to have to tune out. I can't see anything useful coming out of that discussion (and probably little I haven't heard before).

      But on this note, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/09/05/the-broken-promise-of-biblical-inerrancy/ gives a good description. Quick quote:
      "It doesn’t work. That’s the fatal flaw of biblical inerrancy — it just plain doesn’t work.
      ...
      So they add to it. They write up a “statement of faith” and require it to be endorsed as a kind of loyalty oath. That statement attempts to clarify what they agree to agree the Bible means, and what they agree to agree they mean by what the Bible means."

      Delete
    6. Joseph, you misunderstand me, I feel. I don`t get annoyed very easily. I have a very long fuse with regard to getting annoyed. Before getting annoyed, I get amused, irritated, frustrated, first, and not necessarily in that order, before the slowly burning fuse reaches the 'Being Annoyed' bit. Then WOOOF, up I go, but rarely.

      Delete
  3. Mancott: "So long as I believe in what I was told to believe? What sort of belief is that? How do I know if what I was told to believe is the truth?"

    By FAITH!
    "Without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
    Hebrews 11:5-6 (KJV)

    What is faith then?
    Put simply.
    "1 Faith assures us of things we expect and convinces us of the existence of things we cannot see.....3 Faith convinces us that God created the world through his word. This means what can be seen was made by something that could not be seen."
    Heb 11:1-3 (GW)
    Amen!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Muslims have faith. Hindus have faith. Christians have faith (and Christadelphians disagree with almost all of them). Clearly faith, whatever it is, does not lead to reliable beliefs.

      Further, you said:

      "Faith assures us of things we expect and convinces us of the existence of things we cannot see"

      How does it do that?

      "Faith convinces us that God created the world through his word"

      Again, how? You used the word "faith" several times without actually saying what it is. Apparently it is this thing that convinces you. But what is it? And why do you find it convincing?

      Just because a book says it, doesn't make it true. "Faith" also convinces Muslims that Allah created the world. I doubt you would just blindly take their word for it. Why should anyone accept your word?

      Delete
    2. Jacobus ArminiusJuly 2, 2018 at 5:03 PM

      Watcher, you must consider yourself extremely fortunate to have been born into CDs so you can benefit from your faith!

      Delete
    3. Hi to you, The Watcher.
      As Thom Jonas has replied to you, many followers of various religions have 'Faith' in what they understand and believe, as being true.
      Where is the evidence? Please give the evidence, to show that 'Your' faith is the true one. Faith is but the 'substance', to convince the mind that it is the 'evidence'. 'Substantial' evidence has never been acceptable as being truth.

      Delete
    4. Jacobus
      "Watcher, you must consider yourself extremely fortunate to have been born into CDs so you can benefit from your faith!"

      Divinely blessed and forever thankful.
      [Although both my parents eventually fell away from the Truth]

      I also left the Central body many years ago due to their evil inconsistency regarding divorce and remarriages and acceptance of forbidden marriages with unbelievers.

      Delete
    5. "I also left the Central body many years ago due to their evil inconsistency regarding divorce and remarriages and acceptance of forbidden marriages with unbelievers."

      When you describe a being killing its creations as "right" (see below) and then you describe allowing people to escape the psychological (and sometimes physical) harm of an unhappy marriage as evil, it is pretty clear that your moral compass is completely broken.

      This is what fundamentalism does.

      Delete
    6. Watcher`s background information sounds uncannily the same as another person who used to post here, someone called Jeff. This Jeff tried to come back under another name after being told his views were not welcome. After this second attempt he was told again that his attitude was not welcome. Is this a third attempt by Jeff to foist unacceptable views into the blog? Perhaps either Watcher will state that "he" isn`t Jeff, or Jeff will come clean about being Watcher.

      Delete
    7. Mancott,
      "the watcher" or "Jeff" as we better know him, is most likely bored. As you will know if you are still in the UK, the present conditions reduce fishes appetites, and stop the grass growing, so Jeff has little to do but pursue his other hobby...

      When I was a member here, Jeff's babble didn't overly bother me. Much of what he said was what Christadelphians say, but they say it in "private", and a number of his observations rang true with me .
      Very sadly, offensive as his comments may be, they are not so very far from what SOME Christadelphians preach behind closed doors.

      Delete
    8. Yes, Joseph, I`d forgotten that Jeff indulges in fishy exploits on the Trent, and possibly on other waterways. Also, that he is a man who goes to mow. He certainly doesn`t let the grass grow under his feet in his psychologically interesting headlong rush to get as many quotes into each of his posts.

      Delete
    9. Mancott :
      "This Jeff tried to come back under another name after being told his views were not welcome. After this second attempt he was told again that his attitude was not welcome. Is this a third attempt by Jeff to foist unacceptable views into the blog?"

      So if a person's ideas and words fail to agree with your own opinions, they are not welcome?

      Is that not a rather a small-minded and bigoted view to take?

      Delete
    10. Curious, one of the unacceptable views that Jeff ventilated was after the Mexico earthquake, when children were crushed to death under a collapsed school. He was asked how a loving God could stand aside, as it were, and let such things happen. Jeff trotted out that God had the right to dispose of unbelievers as he wished, and that when you are killing rats, you don`t spare the baby rats as well. Perhaps you think that is an acceptable view for a balanced person to express, and that it is "a small-minded and bigoted view (for me) to take" and not sufficiently obscene to sicken readers.
      Just a few days ago another contributor suggested that Jeff`s "moral compass is completely broken."
      If you take care to trawl through Jeff`s posts you can make up your own mind about what he has to say.

      Delete
    11. Furthermore, Curious, It was not me who said Jeff wasn`t welcome (although I don`t think he is if he persists in showering us with biblical quotes instead of answering 'what do "you" think' questions, and from time to time ventilating his morally questionable understanding of what is acceptable). I was simply stating what others`reactions were at the time, to what was deemed by them to be deeply unacceptable.

      Delete
    12. But from a Biblical prospective is it not a correct reply to you?

      "17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity."
      Isaiah 40:17 (KJV)

      Some people are meant for destruction as the Bible inform us which has been pointed out already.

      For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

      16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

      17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

      18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

      19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

      Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

      22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction"
      Romans 9:15-22 (KJV)

      'Acts of God' as they are known in such happenings as you mention, cover all such 'natural' disasters and thus He in His wisdom decides how many will live or perish.

      God gives life and so He can take it away.

      Delete
    13. Curious, while reasoning from the Bible is not banned, nor is it really helpful when talking with people who don't accept the Bible as inspired.

      It is also misleading to talk as if the Bible has one correct interpretation that you are forced to accept, moral or not, like it or not. Many Christians would disagree that all natural disasters are caused by God or that he chooses who lives and who dies, including I think the majority of my former ecclesia.

      Oh, and why quote from the KJV? The world has moved on significantly since 1611.

      Delete
    14. Curious, "is it not a correct reply to you?"
      If that is how you/Jeff interpret the bible, and believe that the bible writing was inspired by God, and that you are happy to agree with that God, then the reply could be said to be incorrectly understood as being correct. As Jon has said, many Christians would not agree or accept such an interpretation. Just don`t go to Mexico.

      Delete
    15. Mancott.
      "Jeff trotted out that God had the right to dispose of unbelievers as he wished, and that when you are killing rats, you don`t spare the baby rats as well."

      Which is true is it not?
      What God has created He can destroy at will, no questions asked.

      As "17 All the nations are as nothing before him; they are accounted by him as less than nothing, and vanity."
      Isaiah 40:17 (ASV)

      "Perhaps you think that is an acceptable view for a balanced person to express, and that it is "a small-minded and bigoted view (for me) to take" and not sufficiently obscene to sicken readers."

      Only to those who have no "Understanding of the Holy"

      "Just a few days ago another contributor suggested that Jeff`s "moral compass is completely broken."

      Not according to scripture teaching, such an opinion is 'spot on the ball' as the saying goes.


      Delete
    16. Isn't it curious how Curious sounds a lot like The Watcher, who sounds a lot like Jeff? Good for moral support when expounding a fringe version of correct scripture teaching, I guess.

      Delete
    17. Scratch 'Curious' or 'The Watcher' where you will, and you seem to discover Jeff.

      Delete
    18. If The Watcher and Curious are created personae of Jeff`s, then as I (and I think at least one other contributor), said sometime ago to Jeff, that I considered his comments so disgusting that I did not wish to, and would not continue to, I now will not, respond to him.
      The next time Jeff catches a really big fish, then I suggest that The Watcher and Curious take themselves with Jeff to the Taxidermist.

      Can we now move on to something more interesting, edifying and useful to discuss.

      Who knows anything about Retroviruses in our DNA?

      Delete
  4. Not my word, but God's Word of ALL Truth.

    Unfortunately not many people are given such a fulfilling, convincing and lifetime lasting faith.
    For although many are called, few will be chosen.

    "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"
    Eph 2:7-8 (KJV)




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jacobus ArminiusJuly 3, 2018 at 1:04 PM

      The Watcher, Its surprising that a CD would quote that verse, as they reject the Calvanist idea of pre-destination preferring my own [Arminius'] doctrine of free will. So according to Christadelphian narrative there were no or very few chosen between about the start of 2nd Century and the mid 19th. Does is not seem odd that God would send his Son and then choose virtually nobody for nearly 2000 years ?



      Delete
    2. The Bible informs us that all who are finally saved where in fact "Predestined before the foundation of the world".

      But none of us know which called out ones will finally be chosen, which is good, as it helps reduce presumption before judgment day and failure to comply with the good works deemed necessary vie "Suffering for righteousness sake".

      Calvinists maintain they can commit sin but it will not be held against them as Christ has already paid for any sins they commit.

      I know one who's language was appallingly obscene and his personal abuse was very bad. But he declined to apologize, as such sin could not be held against as he was already saved.

      Very foolish.
      As the warnings of people failing to be saved are numerous throughout the NT.

      Delete
    3. Jacobus ArminiusJuly 4, 2018 at 4:18 PM

      Watcher, cant you see that the CD narrative that no-one was given this 'gift of God' for almost 2000 years either means the whole thing is rubbish as Thom would argue, or at the very least Dr Thomas was wrong ?

      Delete
  5. What God often does seems very odd to men, but only He knows why He does things the way He sees fit.

    For His ways are not our ways as He has declared.
    If God only wants to call and accept only a specified few each decade or century, is that not His prerogative?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it your prerogative to determine which of your kids should live and which should not?

      Delete
    2. Watcher, if "His" ways are so difficult to understand, how does "He" expect us to understand, accept and follow, and become acceptable to "Him", and be ready to be kings and rulers in "His" kingdom?
      Please, Watcher (only if you want to, but try it), put your thinking cap on. Start to do some research. But if you do so, you might be amazed, surprised and rocked back at what you find out.
      We are here to support you should this unlikely scenario occur.

      Delete
    3. Mancott.
      "if "His" ways are so difficult to understand, how does "He" expect us to understand, accept and follow, and become acceptable to "Him", and be ready to be kings and rulers in "His" kingdom?"

      His ways are quite easy to understand if we put all our assurance on His awesome, infallible wisdom, which tells us that "Everything works together for good" for those who are prepared to love, honour,trust and obey Him.

      "16 Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.

      17 And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

      18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not."
      Mal 3:16-18 (KJV)

      Delete
  6. Thom "Is it your prerogative to determine which of your kids should live and which should not?"

    No, but it is right for Almighty God their creator!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. I disagree.

      As a thought experiment, if we someday created sentient robots I think "turning them off" would be murder. Just being the creator of something does not automatically give someone all rights over that thing.

      While an all-powerful being (should one exist) would have the capability to do whatever it liked, I don't think it has the moral justification.

      Any being that systematically wiped out its sentient, conscious creations the way the biblical God did on multiple occasions could not be said to be morally good, let alone "all-loving". Such a being would be evil.

      Delete
  7. "20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

    21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

    23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory"
    Romans 9:20-23 (KJV)
    Amen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

      Actually people are not clay. The analogy is a rather disturbing one, and I suspect its author has given away a bit more than he perhaps intended about his view of the world.

      For a start clay is not sentient, nor does it possess any purpose, intent, emotions, desires, or thoughts, while the potter presumably possesses all of these traits, which just shows the analogy to be deeply flawed. Just have a think about the difference between potter and clay, and ask yourself if you would like to be treated like clay by a being that saw itself as your potter.

      The picture given is one in which we have no intrinsic value, and are merely replaceable chess pieces, useful only as temporary tools to satisfy the whims of another being. Slaves at best, and that's if we co-operate.

      That may be how Paul saw the world, but humanity has progressed a little since then. Jeff, not so much.

      It is telling that the religious still use the slave/master analogy and especially sinister when they insist that the slave-owner is invisible and omni-present (and thus inescapable). They even invented the idea of "thought crime", asserting that the slave owner wants to control even our thoughts and punish us if we don't conform. In the above analogy, we are even less than slaves. We become dehumanised even further - into a lifeless piece of dirt.

      That Jeff and others cannot see this as immoral is testament to how fundamentalism corrupts a person's thinking. The fact that he wants to be enslaved - even more so!

      All that being said, there are babies born every day all over the world without a hint of divine intervention or anything other than the laws of nature doing their regular thing.

      So in summary I disagree for three reasons:
      1. People are not clay. They have intrinsic value as sentient, conscious beings.
      2. Slavery is immoral.
      3. There is no evidence of any "divine potter" anyway.

      Delete
    2. I realise that the Bible literally says humans came from clay (an idea shared with other writings from the same time period as well as much older texts, such as the Enuma Elish), but this claim is clearly false (and not otherwise relevant to the potter analogy).

      If you want to know where we really came from, well the paternity tests have been done using our DNA.

      Delete
  8. "So in summary I disagree for three reasons:
    1. People are not clay. They have intrinsic value as sentient, conscious beings.
    2. Slavery is immoral.
    3. There is no evidence of any "divine potter" anyway."

    1. People are less then clay, as they are made from the "Dust of the earth".
    "Dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return".

    Almighty God merely rearranged the molecules, etc, and so man was created from the dust of the ground.

    2. Slavery is not immoral by the most high Divine law.
    Neither was to mere man until they decided to change their minds a couple of centuries ago.

    God forsaken Homosexual acts where classed as a terrible perversion and criminal acts for many centuries until foolish men decided to change their minds once again and decided it wasn't any more.

    3. The evidence of an Almighty Creator is all around us, [take a look in the mirror and see God's wonderful creative power] including the zillions of stars in the Heavens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jeff. I never know what you're going to come out with next.

      "People are less then clay"
      "Slavery is not immoral by the most high Divine law"
      "including the zillions of stars in the Heavens"

      Zillions is a technical term, no doubt.

      "The evidence of an Almighty Creator is all around us"

      I've spoken with someone who used exactly the same argument in support of Hindu gods. It's just argument from ignorance and argument from personal incredulity. If you need to use logical fallacies to justify your position, that tells me all I need to know.

      Keep on fishing, Jeff.

      Delete

Please do not comment as 'Anonymous'. Rather, choose 'Name/URL' and use a fake name. The URL can be left blank. This makes it easier to see who is replying to whom.