By Jon Morgan
Has anyone ever told you they had a message from God for you? If so, have you ever felt worried that you might be attacked by a lion if you responded wrongly?
The Bible contains two such stories - fairly close together, actually. I think they’re interesting in themselves, but even more interesting when compared.
Click here to read the rest of this article
Scriptural inconsistencies, gibberish, contradictions. And if your child calls some godly man "baldy," it is God's justice and mercy that bears will come out of the woods and eat him.
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ with that kind of "justice."
Looked at in its entirety, the bible is a mish-mash of nonsense and convoluted "wisdom" and "moral instruction." Many of its teachings are incoherent. If a woman is raped and does not cry out, it means she enjoyed the intercourse, and was complicit in it. Take her out and stone her to death.
Why do people then attach their lives to these "holy texts / instructions?" Because it is a part of their cultural tradition, or because they lack a more meaningful rationale to form their life around.
Well said.
ReplyDeleteIf that's your God, I'll attempt to find more compassion amongst mortals.
ReplyDeleteIt`s a little confusing: is that one Anon making two separate comments, or two Anons` making one comment each?
DeleteI do wish those commenting would at least make up a pseudonym and then we`d know who was whom.
Mancott, you may recall that a former editor here simply refused to debate or have anything to do with young earth creationists, on the basis that it was a pointless exercise. I am close to thinking the same about "anons", on the basis that if they are unable to concoct a fake name for themselves, and wish to hide as "anon", then they are unlikely to be mentally capable to adding anything constructive. Were I running or administering the site, I would simply delete all "anon" comments before publication, after a suitable warning post of course.
DeleteI wrote the longer of the two comments. I am still in an ecclesia. You are both forgetting the implications of being half in and half out of this religion. The consequences can be ugly. From now on, I'll make up a name.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that position: I contributed here for many years first as anonymous, then under a pseudonym. I obviously can't tell you how many (if any) would have found out and asked awkward questions if I'd made comments under my real name, but it's not an easy position to be in.
DeleteLooking back, I think I spent far too long in that twilight zone, though I'm not sure if I had my time again I'd actually make different decisions. Your reasons are your own, and I wouldn't want to force you to do anything you're uncomfortable with, but if you do think it possible that you'll officially quit one day, what I'd tell my younger self is "You can't just keep putting it off forever, and trying to do so is hurting you".
I think that if you can stay away for some time from (not being subject to, not being burdened by) the continuing closeness of ecclesial activities and members` belief-way-of-life-influence, then you will begin to be able to think more clearly, positively and rationally about what you were "in", and how relevant or otherwise to your life it was -- or, of course, if you still feel you should continue to stay "out". Your well-being is important.
DeleteAnon, 24/3/24 3:15PM, I for one have not forgotten the consequences of being half in and half out, and have seen, and suffered the ugly consequences. Why are you in this "limbo"? What has caused you to doubt and find yourself in this place?
DeleteIt is hard to make a clean break, when all of your immediate family is in the fold and they're hardcore fanatics. It is hard to make a clean break when your family has been in the sect for over a century. Hard when inheritances are involved. Hard when your friend group is entirely within the sect. Hard when you have business connections to people in the group. The bars on your cell door become thick.
ReplyDeleteFor all intents and purposes, I have mentally left the group for some time now. I've rejected all forms of religious belief; it seems to me they cloud the vision of rational humans. There is no evidence of any higher power or any life beyond death; it is simply a rationalizing of what we do not comprehend, and such things are the occupation of children, not adults. My reservations about the consequences of leaving are the occupation of an adult: I got stuck in a place by virtue of my genetics, and must now extricate myself with a minimum of damage to my psyche and my welfare and the welfare of others.
I will make a clean break when the time is appropriate. I will probably start....with.........the..............slow......................fade.
Floundering Departing CD:
DeleteWe are listening. We are here. We will support you by being here. This may not seem to be much, but others will add to what I have posted.
Stay with us.
I faced many, though not all, of those (and the first one still applies, as you can see from the conclusion of my post...), and I agree that each extra hook makes it harder to leave. Because of how much both I and my immediate and extended family were involved, I thought a slow fade would be difficult to do with no-one noticing, and so (eventually) chose the clean break, but if you can do the slow fade it's probably the better route. You know your own situation best, but it is a difficult situation, and you have my sympathy.
DeleteOne thing a former contributor here said which stuck with me was "Leave when the pain from staying is more than the pain from leaving". And on that basis I probably left it too late, but it was at least clear by that point that it was something I had to do, no matter what the cost. And in my case, some of my fears came true, but many of them didn't. Again, you know your situation better than any of us can. But you might find your family and other friends and associates actually take it better than your worst case scenarios (though obviously that's tough because any time you choose to tell you can't know how people will react until the cat is out of the bag).
Oh yes, one more thing that the same former contributor said which stuck with me was "Yes, it's difficult going through it, but it does get better". I wasn't sure whether to believe it or not, and so ended up making the clean break just because I couldn't go on with the status quo, but I found it was true a year or two after officially quitting: Life had changed a lot, and not all the changes were what I might have chosen, but overall it was a lot better.
DeleteWhat started it all? The CD folks around me condoning the slaughter in Gaza. The wanton bloodletting, excusable because the bloody hands belong to "God's Chosen Ones." All resulting in 15,000 dead children crushed under apartment buildings....but that's okay. "It's God's divine Will."
ReplyDeleteAre they "condoning" it though, or just accepting the inevitable? When the Hamas leadership rubber stamped the activities of 7/10, what response where they anticipating? A shrug of the shoulders and a "fair enough, you got us there", and silence? Or what?
DeleteIf you read here regularly, you will know that I don't take sides on this matter, I see it as foreign religious people falling out with each other thousands of miles away, but, if you whack a wasps nest with a stick, or pull a cat's tail, or run about in a field of bulls with a red flag, just what should you expect, and who is responsible for the outcome?
Christadelphians (and other religious people) are manipulators, who wish to validate their beliefs by bending you around to their warped way of thinking, and by doing so, justify and amplify their beliefs, but, you can step away and reject it. If you don't, then you will be just a number, a sacrifice, like the 15k kids that you quote.
When "Christadelphians" is used in the same sentence as "business connections", you can be sure that Christadelphians are looking (as usual) to make a quick buck out of you, and then bury you like you never existed, and spend the proceeds on luxury goods, laughing in your face, whilst they convince themselves of their superior morals.
I don't believe the Jews are "more chosen" than anyone else. And no one is going to convince me of that, just because their ancestors contended it in "sacred" documents that they, uncoincidentally, authored. There is also no context granted in the current discussions of the ongoing slaughter in Gaza. In the first British census in Palestine in 1920, roughly ten percent of the population of Palestine was Jewish. Go back a century prior, and it was significantly less, probably three or four percent of the total population. There are also entire centuries during which -- despite modern contentions -- there is no evidence of Jews being in the area at all.
ReplyDeleteThey colonized it, returning in small numbers from Europe starting in the 1880s. "We are a people without a land, for a land without a people," they claimed. And it was a lie. They shoved the natives out of the way, in time doing land grabs (just as they continue doing them even now in land mandated by the U.N. to be a Palestinian homeland). They are colonists, interlopers, occupiers, shoving Palestinians behind walls paid for by U.S. tax dollars, and brutalizing and executing them when they object.
Who then created the hornet's nest, sir?
For CDs to give all of the preceding oppression and bloodletting their blessing.....is nauseating to me. It is rubbish, similar to many other CD tenets. This was just the last straw for me.
I was born in, and live in, a colonised country: Australia. It is significantly different from what it was in, say, 1750 (it's also quite different from what it was in 1950, but that's a different story). I say that because, like me, a fair percentage of the population of the nation of Israel was born in Israel. Whether or not it should have been their ancestors' homeland, it is their homeland, just as Australia is mine. And yes, the same applies for Palestinians born there, whether in Gaza, in the West Bank, or in the rest of what is currently the nation of Israel. This is part of why I think fixing historic injustices becomes harder the longer they persist.
DeleteMy experience in Christadelphia was that Israel was always seen to be in the right, mostly because they were "God's chosen people", plus throwing in a bit of Promises to Abraham. In addition, any attempt for peace via a two state solution was usually condemned in scriptural terms as "dividing God's land".
I don't know whether a two state solution could actually be made to work. I don't follow Israel's politics very closely any more, but it seems to me it hasn't even been seriously considered this century. The 1990s had a lot of negotiation but ended up not quite succeeding. What I object to in the CD position is ruling it out a priori on theological rather than practical grounds (and not even good theology at that...). Oh, and I also object to them treating Israel as God's chosen nation when it suits, but then snatching all the prophecies and applying them to Christadelphians whenever that suits (this isn't unique to Christadelphians, of course...).
What some officials and ministers said here in Australia from shortly after the October attack was that Israel have the right of self-defence, but the way they defend themselves is important. I largely agree with that. And the clear sub-text is that the civilian casualties and other collateral damage caused by Israel's attack would be far too high even if they achieved their aim of eliminating Hamas (which doesn't seem very likely).
I do also agree that history didn't start with that October attack, and Israel's many past actions go a long way to understanding (though not justifying) the Hamas attack. And in the same vein, I think Israel should be more worried than they seem to be about their continuing actions further radicalising Palestinians and continuing a cycle of bloodshed.
So, If we were to be able to roll the clock back, and and let the Austrian painter complete his work, then the Palestinians would all be living peaceful and industrious, fulfilled lives then, rather than being such a burden to their neighboring "brothers", that they will let NONE of them across their borders?
DeleteBeats me why a disgruntled "generational" Christadelphian, deeply involved in "business" with his brethren, who joined up in FULL KNOWLEDGE of Christadelphian beliefs surrounding Israel, now wishes to come here throwing his opinions about. I suggest he heads off to his local meeting room on Sunday and lets them know what he thinks, rather than bothering us.
So, Joseph, still no horse in the race as you told me on another thread? It seems a few others do have a horse in the race by there comments.?? or at least show some compassion...
DeleteIt's good to hear some of their concerns about thousands being slaughtered.
No, SAM, nothing has changed, two lots of foreign people, with foreign religions are fighting and killing each other in a foreign country, thousands of miles away. None of my business. Meanwhile, in Ukraine, one lot of Slavs is killing another lot of Slavs over equally "none of my business" matters. Same in Nigeria, the Pakistan/ India border, all sorts of places. Nothing to do with me.
DeleteMeanwhile, the UK Christadelphians stalk, and conspire with, and assist, and baptise 600+ young Iranian men into their ranks every year, such that the under 40's Christadelphians are now outnumbered by them, after (by their own admission) "decades" of single digit recruitment here. Where will brides for these young "Christadelphians" come from? How will the elderly cope with exhortations in Farsi?
Far more important matters than foreigners fighting in foreign places, so, please air your views on those matters which are far more relevant to this site than jumping on the current left wing cause bandwagon. Also, please give the names of the "slaughtered" that particularly concern you, how you know them, and what your involvement with their lives is, at a personal level. Yes, I thought so.
While we are at it, why do you suppose that local Christadelphians are so upset about their neighborhoods being "taken over" by foreigners? ( reported to me this very week by an insider), Surely they would be more welcoming?
Is it compulsory that i know the slaughtered personally? for me to feel sorry or think it's wrong when either side get innocent women and children killed? I don't really think that you are worried about Brides for Christadelphians are you???
DeleteIf we watch the world news at all we can`t help but be made aware of the horror that the persecuted, bombed, shot-at, whatever, people in different parts of the world go through on a day-by-day basis. We may not be able to empathise with these people, but as we are humans as are they we can usually feel sympathy about their plight, and deprecate what has brought it about. Isn`t feeling this way towards others a normal human reaction, however distant they are from us? Or, if not, have a we developed a callus, knowingly or not, which protects us from such feelings?
DeleteAs for what is happening in Israel/Gaza being a Sign-of-The-Times, as is thought by (some ?) Christadelphians, a serious study of how the bible came about and what is written in it will show clearly that it is not so.
This is what I'm getting at, yes, it's called being Human, i don't understand why Joesph is so uptight about actually being Human. I don't care if you're an ex-Christadelphian or whatever. You don't need religion or ex religion to have human feelings of sadness and empathy.
DeleteI don't know if it's a sign of the times or not. ?? my point has nothing to do whatever you want to dress it up as or call it.
SAM, Joseph (note the spelling of his name --type once - check twice -- post), is entitled to be "uptight", as you term it, though I think you might be mistaken to term him thus, because everybody is different. Everybody views the world differently. Everybody has the right to stand on one side from what is happening in the world, unless it directly affects them, or those near to them, or whether they feel they can help, or alter, and make "bad" things in the world "better".
DeleteSam, I'm really not sure why you've made it your mission to convince Joseph he has to express the correct emotions in the correct ways. For the record, I suspect I would experience at least some of the emotions you think I should experience - but I also think those affected could reasonably say "That's great for you, but what good does it do for us?"
DeleteBut I also wonder whether there's crossing of wires here. I have taken Joseph's comments to be about whether one side is right and the other side wrong. Yes, clearly some of us do have opinions on that, but there is no necessity to have an opinion about the rights and wrongs of something far away from us, and it's also unlikely that our opinions will be completely informed (let alone actually, y'know, doing something to change the situation). The question of how much compassion to show and when is a completely different question, and I think when it's connected to opinions on right and wrong it's sometimes people feeling less compassion for those they consider on the wrong side because "they had it coming".
I have taken his comment to mean he doesn't care or feel any empathy about the 30 or thousand slaughtered. Yes all of you are correct. I cannot force anyone to feel empathy. I just thought it part of being human or natural human reaction that we do.If I'm.wrong so be it. I was brought up a Christo. I know that Israel can do no wrong in some people's minds.
DeleteAt the beginning of this I had heated arguments with the family. I stand by what I said at the beginning. I do not agree with innocent women/children on either side being slaughtered. That is my opinion on this topic how I feel. My opinion remains he same with family also.
SAM/sam, twice now, you have stated your objection to "innocent" women and children being killed in the conflict. Why are choosing to decide the value of human life based on age and gender? Could a man not also be innocent? Also, please define innocence as you see it. Is a woman who voted for the Hamas government, chants support for it's actions, and harbours her Hamas fighter husband covered under your definition of innocence?
DeleteYes, an innocent man i would object to as well. My definition of innocent? Someone who just wants to get on with life, law abiding etc. Just as you will be all those things.
DeleteWe've gotten away from the point in this discussion. The point was that CDs indulge in what one reader referred to as "Jew worship," meaning, Israel can slaughter crowds of Arabs/Moslems, including children and old people, and CDs will salivate that it is "all according to God's divine will" because it is all a precedent to Christ's return.
DeleteNonsense. Blood-soaked nonsense. And, after leaving the dank caverns of CD mythology, just as important, many CD defectors continue that mindset, one in which Zionist Israel can collapse apartment houses on the heads of thousands of children and still be cheered onward, because Jewish lives carry more value to them and the world than the lives of anyone else.
Standing outside CDism, we should comprehend in the light of day that the Jews are no more "special" or "chosen" than any other group of human beings, and not more so because their ancestors wrote in a book that they hold a "chosen" status. That conclusion correctly means the genocidal slaughter of Palestinians -- and the removal of their means of survival -- is as damnable and vile at the hands of Jews as any of the other countless slaughters, purges, displacements, replacements, and exterminations visible throughout human history.
Yes, damnable.
What is invariably mentioned after this last comment arises? That Hamas attacked Israel first, in October of 2023. More nonsense, with zero contextualization. Most of the people in Gaza were refugees dumped into that confined area by Israel's War of Independence. While confined there, a huge border wall was built around them, using U.S. tax dollars. It has basically been a squalor-filled open air prison for the last 75 years. Gaza is one of the most confined and heavily populated areas on the planet. In essence, the people pushed into Gaza were pushed there as a result of U.S.-funded Israeli imperialism. The events of October 7 were Israel's chickens coming home to roost. That is the full context of the recent slaughter in Gaza and Israel.
We've left the toxic brew of CDism. Don't be a cuckold for Zionism, for Israeli slaughters of the people who occupied Palestine for 2,000 years in their absence. The Palestinians deserve better. Humanity deserves better. Your respect for your own logic deserves better.
Alice, "The Palestinians deserve better". Look what happens when they are given better, in "Infidel" lands.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYQ9ggO6Lhk
However, I agree with you on one point, the CD legacy is indeed a toxic brew, still, it is being diluted by by adding 2600 former Iranian Muslims per year to their ranks here in the UK.
Was denken Sie?
Joseph, Was ich denke, werde ich dir sagen: That the Cd`s need to be very careful, and consider very carefully what the consequences are likely to be by adding so much Iranian culture to their midst. I for one will watch with interest.
DeleteAlso: Should we, on this site. be concentrating more on trying to introduce topics which will align with the key purpose for the site, as listed on the reasons given in the header?
Since when is hypocrisy NOT a key reason for leaving Christadelphianism?
DeleteMancott, have you read the recent (25th March) articles on Tidings.org with regard to the Iranian "situation"? I find much of it rather disturbing.
DeleteJoseph, yes, just speed-read through it, and agree with you, though it should be most disturbing for "home-grown" CDs. I thought the comment that this large number (would "deluge" be more accurate?) of "refugees" who have joined the CDs is what is keeping ecclesial "flickering" lights to remain alight.
DeleteMancott, the leader article by Stephen Cox shocked me so much, that it probably deserves an article being written here about it. I have read it several times and each time have become ever more appalled at the attitudes expressed by both the Christadelphians and Iranians towards the UK. "Ungrateful" does not do it justice, for either party. That the Christadelphians are in the thrall of such people will surely hasten their now rapid decline.
DeleteThe writer of the article claims that Iranian Christians choose to join the Cds because the Cds reject the doctrine on the Trinity, as do they. So why, I ask, do Iranians also flock to join other religions, such as the Baptists (and other religions and sects) who do believe in the Trinity?
DeleteI skimmed it last night. I wouldn't say I saw it as a big deal, though it would clearly significantly change the character of UK ecclesias, and I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or not. I personally wouldn't write anything about it, but Joseph, if you wanted to I could make it a post.
DeleteJon, amongst other things, one of the brethren, Soroush Parsi, in his testimony, makes the statement that only 15% of Iranians go to church because of their love for Christ, but that because 99.5% of them do not have a valid political reason for asylum, they use Christianity to, in his words, "build their case". Since there are 3000 of them, this means that probably 2550 of them are not Christians (Christadelphians) at all, but are merely there as a means to obtain leave to remain. He further states that their reasons for leaving Iran are not religious persecution at all, but rather political, economic or educational.
DeletePut very bluntly, this means not just a change in character of UK Ecclesias, but that The Christadelphians are knowingly conspiring with criminal people traffickers, (who use the funds obtained to fund further criminal enterprise) to facilitate illegal immigration. My guess is that many Christadelphians know this, and do not approve of it, but are terrified to call it out for fear of being called un-Christian, or worse, racist.
Joseph, OK, I'd only skimmed through the Stephen Cox article. Didn't realise there was more. I've read the one you mentioned, and skimmed through some of the others.
DeleteNot sure I buy the "conspiring with people traffickers", though. I may have missed another point you wanted to draw attention to, but I haven't seen anything suggesting Christadelphians were involved with these refugees before they entered the UK (the Stephen Cox article did mention converts either fleeing to Turkey or converting in Turkey, but I don't see a suggestion that those are then aided through anything but official visa processes*).
What do you expect Christadelphians to do when someone turns up and shows an interest? Interrogate them carefully and refuse to let them continue to attend unless they have some kind of permanent residency granted? That would, dare I say it, sound rather unlike at least some of gospel Jesus' teachings (don't forget, it's supposed to be their mission to preach the gospel to all creation, which surely includes all refugees). Or to take them at face value and watch on as some continue to attend and others don't? Perhaps you'd prefer those actively involved in recruiting to be less active? - but again, I don't think it should be a surprise given the Great Commission that some will see that opportunity and throw themselves into it.
Maybe sometimes, yes, Christadelphians are being used. It wouldn't surprise me (not sure about the 85% though - yes, there's talk in multiple articles there about some people dropping off, and trying to find more palatable reasons for it, but I'd have thought there would be a lot more hand-wringing if 85% left the religion after getting leave to remain). And maybe after years of declines Christadelphians are more vulnerable to being used because they want to believe each person who appears interested in their particular spin on the Bible is actually interested. I'm not sure their response is particularly surprising, either for those who see it as an exciting opportunity or for those censured for daring to prefer the comfort of their small ecclesia and their familiar routine over getting their lectures translated. And I'm also not sure they should respond differently. Maybe it will all come to tears, but I'm not sure that's in itself a reason to exclude them.
To me, it's the government's problem to figure out how to treat each applicant. Perhaps they're in a better position to be objective about this than Christadelphians are, perhaps not - I'm not sure. But they have given these applicants the ability to stay for a certain amount of time while their case is considered, and also given them the ability in that time to attend any church they are able to attend. And that includes Christadelphian churches.
* This matches my experience when I was involved with the ACBM a decade ago. There were some cases where individuals assisted with applications and sponsored converts from various Asian countries who were ultimately recognised by the UNHCR, and then looked for resettlement (and I think some got it?). I don't recall any discussions of getting people out by other means, though perhaps Australia is a bit further away from it all (which doesn't stop immigration being a hot button topic over here...).
All of Christendom is being overrun by the world's desperate hordes. As the global economy and global ecosystem continue to degrade, and conflicts intensify as a result, these migrations will increase in size. Christians -- saps that they are -- including CDs, aid and abet the invasions, knowing full well that they are being useful tools for the immigration bureaucracies and charities and industries in their home countries. They give away the futures of their progeny by importing the problems the migrants have fled yet bring along with them.
DeleteJanice, these seem to me to be wild generalisations. Migrants leave their home country for many different reasons, and yes, they will change the countries they go to. But I don't think all those changes are likely to be negative, and I don't think the youth of the countries they are going to are likely to be free from problems, either.
DeleteAs for the involvement of Christians, I'd say the same as I said about Christadelphians above: In light of gospel Jesus' messages about preaching the gospel to all creation, and also his messages of inclusion, I think it's hard for Christian groups to say "Yes, these people say they're interested, but we'll reject them anyway" (yes, I know that in practice many Christian groups, including Christadelphians, have not been as inclusive as some of gospel Jesus' messages might suggest).
But I won't go into it further, because I don't think it's a debate that will help anyone, and I think it's off-topic for this website. How people left Christadelphia is definitely on-topic. Christadelphian teachings (including their views on prophecy and particularly current events, and their views on how you determine someone is a true believer) are on topic. Where they are attracting new recruits is probably on topic. But I don't think the merits and drawbacks of different immigration policies is on topic.
I wasn't the contributor who brought up the topic of migrants exploiting CDism in order to gain footholds in Western countries. I also wasn't the contributor who first suggested that CDs are simply accommodating this shysterism, and that it is a reflection of CDs' innate moral inadequacy. Finally, if you don't believe that today's massive migrations pose an existential dilemma to Christendom -- to in effect have Westerners profoundly displaced in their countries (and anyone studying demographics will confirm that that is what we're looking at) -- then you need to do some research. Not scolding, just commenting.
DeleteWhere the line between "on topic" and "off topic" lies is always a bit subjective. I felt that it was shifting from Christadelphian focused, and that that wasn't a good idea.
DeleteAs for the rest, I doubt you're saying anything I haven't heard before. Yes, things will change. I expect that. I'm just not convinced it's necessarily a bad thing. Not sure where Christendom specifically comes into this, but as one of the many brought up strictly religious who consciously left the religion, I'd say that if threats to Christendom mean Christianity having less influence on formerly "Christian nations", the threat isn't just coming from outside the house...
What I find myself reflecting upon is how foolish many of the ecclesias in question will look once the bulk of these "converts" shuffle back to their own religions or into secularism. No matter, they'll have the plum they came after: citizenship.
DeleteJon, just to point out that this is not a traditional case of interested visitors turning up at the Christadelphian Hall after seeing an interesting lecture title posted outside. It is about Christadelphians actively recruiting individuals in camps in Turkey and Greece, then turning a blind eye as they pass through multiple safe countries, by criminal means, and then pursuing them across the country as they move from hotel to hotel, quickly baptising them, and then, when they begin acting outside of Christadelphian teaching (by pursuing political protests relating to matters relevant in their country of origin), instructing longer term indigenous members to "simply bite their tongues, or agree". (The reason for this is what is euphemistically known in the UK now as "community cohesion"). This follows five years on from the Christadelphians telling their membership that "integration (of the migrant Iranians) is a two way street". This is important on a small scale, because it marks not the growth of Christadelphianism, or the welcoming of outsiders, but rather a changing, or watering down of first principles, or perhaps the development of a two-tier Christadelphian movement. My thought is that across the country, there will be a further decline in membership as these new acceptances become repellant to more traditional members.
DeleteLOL. "Visitors" to the home country lecture meetings you describe would usually average between zero and one attendees, and in two-thirds of the meetings it would just be the usual Sunday members, drafted into attendance to make it look like someone was interested in the slop being peddled. After a while, the elders would get mad if you wouldn't go along with creating a fake audience, and part of my departure from CDism involved actively resisting this coercion. I was already in the fold -- I didn't need to be drafted to hear some geezer's insights and epiphanies about why CDs held the only and terribly, terribly precious "Truth." And I didn't like the chicanery of it. At. All.
DeleteJoseph, I'll just say again what I said before - reading what you linked from the Tidings, that wasn't the impression I got. My impression was that there were some Christadelphian contacts from Iran in Turkey, and they were being kept in contact with. And then that there were a lot of Iranians in the UK with temporary visas going through the appeal process and also attending Christadelphian lectures and possibly encouraging other Iranian refugees to attend them by word of mouth. I don't think I saw anything connecting those two in the way you have, though perhaps I missed something.
DeleteI don't have any inside line into UK Christadelphia. The one UK Christadelphian I was still in contact with when I left the religion I haven't had contact with for several years (actually, now I think about it I'd be curious what his take on this would be - just not curious enough to ask...).
The question you raise about integration does interest me. I've always assumed that it would be difficult to come in "from outside", because there are so many written and unwritten expectations to conform with (though, yes, that can also vary significantly from ecclesia to ecclesia). I know there are many things I grew up with which seemed normal because it was all I knew, and now feel deeply weird. Certainly the very few my former ecclesia baptised who weren't e.g. children of members had left before I did, and my memory is that culture was part of that, not just beliefs.
But if those coming in are the majority, yes, it could change things a lot. And yes, it wouldn't surprise me if there are some who were completely comfortable with the old state of affairs and don't like the change. It also wouldn't surprise me if a large percentage of those baptised end up "falling away" within a few years. What UK Christadelphia will end up looking like as a result I'll wait and see.
It would now seem that at some UK ecclesias the membership is entirely comprised of Iranian converts. I can`t think that the proceedings in these ecclesias will be conducted in any language other than Farsi. Bible talks will, surely, attract only those who can understand this language. Furthermore it seems to me that the format of services and the nature of these ecclesia will move away from what is a normal "standard" Christadelphian service. Yet again, another brand of Christadelphia will come into being. Already there is a further "split" of sorts developing by at least one ecclesia I know of which now "allows" sisters to act as president, speak, and undertake the offices once the preserve of brethren, which has caused members of some other ecclesias to refuse to attend sister-led meetings. I echo what Jon has said about wondering what Christadelphia will look like within the next few years.
DeleteMancott, I'm sure you know what I am getting at, and I'm sure Jon does too, but, fair play to him, he has to keep a line somewhere down the centre, whereas I do not. There is something "off" about this whole carry on. It is very hard to avoid the elephant in the room as to why preaching methods that haven't worked for decades, suddenly work by the thousand even when the converts don't speak the language, new converts that don't follow the dress codes, even when they are at memorial meetings they seem to be wearing casual/sports/ designer ware rather than suits. I found the article in the Tidings where they "excused" them for long absences on account of them working low paid jobs rather than being comfortable middle class people, to be utterly bizarre- no such tolerance was ever shown to me, and I sat through talk after talk where "Christmas/Easter/wedding/funeral" Christians were roundly condemned or mocked, now, suddenly, all of that is OK for the new Brethren.
DeleteI don't believe a word of it, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, waddles like a duck then it probably is a duck.
Joseph, It is clear that Iranian, Iraqi and some other refugee/illegal immigrants are seeking to join Christadelphian ecclesias. If it is the case that they are attracted to the Christadelpian message only then we might think that the Cds version of "Truth" resonates very specially to them. This isn`t the case. These people are flocking to all Christian churches and, as in some Cd ecclesias, some Christian churches have members either entirely or almost entirely comprised of Iranians. This says something, and possibly if we listen we can hear the quacking. But, are Christadelphians hard of hearing?
DeleteJoseph, some of those things are probably ecclesial variation. I was brought up with the attending weekly very much emphasised (OK, actually attending everything, so multiple times a week was the expectation, and definitely no working on Sundays - and also "doing the daily readings", while we were at it), and dress code less of a big deal (there was still a difference between Sunday wear and weekday wear, but not a suits vs casual clothing difference). The ecclesia I was last a member of there were quite a few who didn't attend weekly (though it was probably more once or twice a month than it was Christmas / Easter...) and the dress code was more casual than I personally wore.
DeleteThis discussion is reminding me of the expression "If you owe a thousand dollars and you can't pay, that's your problem. If you owe a billion dollars and you can't pay, that's the bank's problem." If one person converts and they don't follow the written and unwritten rules, that's likely their problem (and yes, I can believe they will be judged heavily for it). But if the converts outnumber those who grew up knowing all those rules, I can believe that there are people so invested in the growth miracle that they waive all the rules to hold onto the numbers.
I'm in two minds about it: Some of the rules that everyone born in it grew up knowing are arbitrary, and it makes sense to relax them (for everyone, not just for new converts). But also yes, some of those not following rules that were historically taken to show commitment to the denomination may actually be demonstrating a lack of commitment to the denomination.
Mancott, a decade ago in Australia there were a few ecclesias who were involving women more, and yes, there were other members (and ecclesias) who wouldn't fellowship them. I have no idea whether it's become more or less common since then. The problem really is similar to the theistic evolution problem: People can act as gatekeepers for the label and declare that others don't meet their requirements for being a True Christadelphian - but they can't really stop the people they disagree with from calling themselves Christadelphian, and thinking themselves Christadelphian, and even arguing that they are the ones who better inherit the True Christadelphian legacy.
I never did the daily readings. Wasn't going to be tethered to the cult to that extent; something in me instinctively resisted. And, in my experience, most other people who had anything resembling a life also slacked off on "the readings." They spoke a good game, but it was mostly just pretend. As I began easing out the door, I also stopped dressing up for the meetings. I wore a suit all week, and was tired of feeling like a uniformed monkey every day. In time, I was only going on occasion to church. The business of going on Sunday, and then going one or two nights a week "to study" became objectionable and onerous to me. I wearied of it all, and began to see it as behavioral control on the cult/sect's part.
DeleteMy behavior gathered only a few comments. They don't want people leaving, so they accommodate some minor dissenting behaviors. But when you see these things happening, it often means the people manifesting the behaviors are edging toward the door. The meeting groups are small to begin with, so, again, they grant some modest leeway in small things. It often doesn't save the groups anyway. Just heard the Catonsville, Maryland ecclesia folded up and their chapel was sold. And as churches empty out all over the world, I'm not sure I grieve their demise. We may end up grieving it, since there's no telling what morality will replace the one driven by religious beliefs. Not sure, but I think I'm willing to risk it. If anything, I think religion greatly clouds our vision with a lot of fog.
Myles, the idea put about by the Christadelphians that it is they, and only they, who read their Bibles on a daily basis, works only on their own families who do not know any better. The rest of us know that many, many Christians of all denominations do so, which included myself at least 20 years before I even knew what a Christadelphian was. The noticeable difference as a Christadelphian was that if you were going round to family, for tea say, then you would be expected to engage in "the readings" with them, regardless of whether you had already done yours that day or if you wanted to, the conclusion that I drew was that it was a splendid opportunity for the most senior members there to make an exhibition of both their superior Bible knowledge, and piety, this conclusion being drawn because they then went out "into the world" and lived their lives in the exact opposite way to that which a reasonably informed person might expect as a result of their studies.
DeleteI think that dressing in a smart suit is now all but gone from the brotherhood. If you look at recent videos, those on the platform don't even wear ties and jackets, and look rather like a dollar store Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader well known for his scruffy appearance and never wearing a tie, although even he managed a jacket most of the time. Perhaps this is so that the majority of their current membership feel more at home.
I don't think we have much to fear, Christadelphianism is no great beacon of good morals, and probably never was. Yes, religion does fog our thinking.
Joseph, the expression you used ("exhibition of their . . . superior knowledge) caught my eye. This "knowledge" was/is gained from their studies from the bible, and generally from the bible alone, as reading non-Cd works (or works closely aligned to Cd beliefs) was, certainly in my day, something to be avoided. "Doing" the Robert Robert`s created bible reading plan is, in my opinion, a dead loss in enabling the reader to understanding what the bible is all about. It doesn`t easily illuminate the discrepancies, the doublets and triplets of accounts of same happenings, accounts which often contradict each other, because one account is read one week and the different account of the same event is read several weeks later, and the two are not connected or compared by the reader. What is read in the bible doesn`t reveal its historical, geographical and archaeological errors, and this is supposed to be God`s inerrant Word. I don`t think Cds have superior knowledge, I think they have their own concocted knowledge gained from a lack of information, information which is readily available if one looks for it.
DeleteWhat right of self-defence did the Palestinians have, as millions of Jews regathered into Palestine to establish a nation identity? What right of self-defence have they had as more and more of their land was militarily occupied during Israel's existence? What right of self-defence do they have now, as tens of thousands of them are being slaughtered? Traditionally, they have fought high tech U.S. weaponry (bestowed to the tune of $4 billion annually to Israel) with rocks and vitriol and little else. While the world looked on in indifference.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a lengthy response. It got eaten by Google. Tried bullet points this time round. Hopefully it makes sense and I've covered most of the same points.
Delete1. The right of self-defence I talked about is national, not personal. Early Jewish settlers came in under first the Ottoman Empire, then the British Mandate. I believe most (though probably not all) complied with all laws then present. You can argue whether it was moral or not, but individual Palestinians no more had a right to drive out those settlers than I have a right to try and drive out legal immigrants to Australia because I feel they're threatening my way of life or something.
2. The original state of Israel was declared following a UN resolution, and recognised by many (though not all) UN states then, and by more since then. That did give them rights like national sovereignty, writing their own laws, and defending their borders.
3. There were a number of major wars in the next 20 - 25 years. As you say, borders changed significantly as a result. There would be some dispute about how much each side was the aggressor in those conflicts, who invaded who, and what the final result should be. I don't know enough of the details.
4. We're fifty years on from that. Even if you think it unjust (and yes, I'm confident there has been injustice) the longer it has gone on, in my opinion the harder it becomes to unpick that situation and remedy the injustice.
5. It seems to me that Israel has been the one with the power in the relationship and the oppressor for at least most of my lifetime.
6. In principle, yes, I think both Gaza and the West Bank should be self-governing with a right of self-defence. But the example of, say, Ukraine shows that in practice that right doesn't prevent a powerful neighbour from entering your borders, nor does it prevent you paying a high price to try and actually defend those borders.
7. Until recent months I hadn't been aware how much the US supported Israel with weaponry (not just, say, words and security council vetoes). It does seem that they are the nation outside the Middle East with the best chance of doing something to change the current situation - if they want to. And I've seen arguments that they are required to, not just by the nebulously defined international law but also by US law. Not holding my breath on their action, though.
8. I'm not sure it's fair to say that the world has looked in with indifference. I remember hearing Christadelphians complain about the UN being perpetually biased against Israel. There has been resolution after resolution. There have also been domestic protests in many nations. "The world has not solved the problem" would be true, but I think that shows the difficulty of solving the problem, not indifference.
9. Think carefully: If you want it to go beyond words and UN resolutions (which Israel, on their own land - at least according to their law - and with their own armed forces does generally seem to ignore), what action do you want? Sanctions targeting Israel? Targeting the US for supplying weapons to Israel? Supplying weapons to Gaza and/or the West Bank, the same as many nations have supplied weapons to Ukraine? A peace-keeping force to be brought in, whether Israel likes it or not? A full-fledged invasion of Israel? Any of those things might have the desired effect - and they also might have many unintended consequences, up to and including nuclear war.
All this to say: Thinking from my perspective in Australia and on the other side of the world, I'm not sure how much my government can do, but I'm certain it's not just a matter of "If Australia would have the courage of their convictions and see an obvious injustice, they could parachute in and save the day". But for me personally, saying there's nothing I can do feels like realism, not indifference.
One of the most objectionable parts of CDism, in my own experience, was what I designated in my own mind as "Jew worship." It is a common pathology in Christianity, and particularly in Protestantism, but in CDism it is a raging brain fever. It is evident even in the discussions of defectors, those who have largely rejected CDism's tenets, including individuals on this site. For that reason, this discussion and its commentary and criticisms are entirely germane.
DeleteDoris, one family at our Ecclesia in particular stick in my mind, and I have commented before, they walked about the local shops wearing star of David pendants, they actually thought they were Jews, or "super Jews", and despite being poorly educated low achievers, most certainly thought that they had a better grip on Biblical truth than the thousands upon thousands of genuine scholars that had gone before them, despite their homes and conversation containing no evidence whatsoever that they they had studied anything at all, never mind the religion that they were supposedly expert in, and is superior to all others.
DeleteThe U.S. gives Israel four billion annually in U.S. tax money. Additional large amounts get diverted there by U.S. Jewish and Christian charities. The U.N. mandated certain areas to be a Palestinian homeland. Those monies can and should be used as leverage to make it happen. Israel does not stand alone, despite the nonsense coming out of Netanyahu's mouth. The West is Israel's cash cow, spewing out an endless supply of money. Restrict the supply of money when Israel gets uppity. Israel offers no strategic to the West. It only engenders unending Arab/Moslem animosity toward the West.
DeleteMeant to write above "Israel offers no strategic value to the West." And it doesn't.
Delete