Shopping Cart
Your Cart is Empty
Quantity:
Subtotal
Taxes
Shipping
Total
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
CelebrateThank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart

Guestbook

This site uses Google reCAPTCHA technology to fight spam. Your use of reCAPTCHA is subject to Google's Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message was sent successfully.

WesleyRix 

2:16 AM on July 30, 2018

Hope

7:36 PM on September 3, 2013 

Hi David ,

Thank you for your reply.

It makes perfect sense!

God bless.

David Brown

2:22 PM on September 2, 2013 

Neil: You're evidently one for speaking frankly.... That's ok; so long as you permit me to do the same.


No, I don't believe Thomas, Roberts et al 'got it all wrong. No doubt they got a good deal right - whether through their own study, which I'm sure was commendable, or through taking on ideas from others as Thomas did, though that may not always be clear since he wrote in an age where intellectual debts were seldom acknowledged as they would be today. Thomas and Roberts were of course also writing in a time of religious controversy among Christians, and were they around today, I am not at all sure they would take such a divisive stance or be so scathing about other flavours of Christianity. Christians have since then become, by and large, less sectarian and less divided, and I for one think that's good. You and I will just have to agree to differ on that. As for Mansfield, I don't question his sincerity but to me, the Logos movement he led has aspects of an unpleasant and sectarian embarrassment to our community.


As for agitating and causing division, the pot seems to be calling the kettle black. I haven't sought to exclude from church (or ecclesial if you must) membership people I happen to disagree with; I haven't circulated false allegations to kick others out; I haven't claimed that an acceptance of the overwhelming evidence for evolution is incompatible with membership; I haven't refused to give other believers the benefit of the doubt. But I've been on the receiving end of all those things. So think Neil - who's doing the dividing?

David Brown

2:21 PM on September 2, 2013 

Belatedly, on the survival of the fittest: I think the answer has to be yes, insofar as that seems to be the way God chose to allow advanced forms of life to develop - including human beings, some of whom would eventually be in a position to know something of Him. Evolution via natural selection is evidently the method used to achieve the result which, presumably, an all knowing God had foreseen. Not that for Him there's a 'before' and 'after' as there is for us...

Hope

4:03 AM on August 11, 2013 

Hi David, Your website is really interesting! I have this question, i would like to hear your thoughts on it.Does the theory of the survival of the fittest relates in any way, with the actual concept of God's creation? Looking forward to your reply.

Paul Routledge

5:51 AM on July 20, 2013 

HI David - you have some interesting things here - I thought you'd be interested to see the opening words of a text by Bro Islip Collyer: In connection with almost all matters there are harmful extremes, and the truth lies somewhere between them. It is so with Evolution and Creation. There is the extreme of those who say there is no such thing as Evolution, and there is the extreme of those who, in effect, say that there is nothing else. It would be well if the distinction between the moderate central position and the two extremes could be borne in mind. Not only is a belief in a kind of Evolution quite consistent with a recognition of Creation, but it is a logical sequence of such recognition. It would be impossible to conceive of a world of life, ordered by an intelligent Creator, which should exclude the possibility of variation or development. Imagine all men like perfect twins, quite indistinguishable from each other. Intelligence would decree that with all forms of life"

It is from a text called "The Vegetable in the Witness Box" 1922. I am about to peruse it. There aer surely things that we don't understand but, perhaps, to appear to retain our position we claim or seen to wish to appear authorative over all matters. We can see how wrong we have been over some issues such as the "role" of women etc; the priesthood of Christ etc ... so, yes, we need to re-examine and also to observe the more enlightened approach of some of the "pioneer" writers. With love to you all Paul R.

John Davy

8:59 AM on August 2, 2012 

Hi David, I am enjoying your site.

Just a few comments about baptism that I feel are significant.

Paul writes 1 Corinthians 10:1-2

1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.

2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 


Notice that they were baptized under the cloud - that was for 40 years - and that he says "under the cloud and in the sea" not "in the sea and under the cloud"


Perhaps a bit obtuse but I think we need to see that baptism has two distinct aspects to it.

I think that Paul was making the point that the baptism of Israel was not just in the Red sea as everyone thought - but from the time they entered the red sea to the time they exited Jordan

When Israel entered the red sea they were fleeing Egypt (much as we do- fleeing sin) looking over their shoulder in fear. When they left Jordan they were the advancing army of God.

Everything that knew (and loved) of Egypt had to die in that period.

Paul makes the point that in baptism we die to sin and then as we emerge we are alive in Christ ? awakened to a new life.


When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus in John 3 he says nothing at all about repentance or leaving sin behind. Nicodemus already knew the principals of seeking forgiveness and repentance from the law - Jesus emphasis is on being born again. This was something that he was exhorting Nicodemus to in his own time - not at some time in the future.


I hope you don?t mind me commenting but I think it is important to grasp these concepts too.

Love in Jesus, John

David Brown

5:20 PM on July 16, 2012 

That wasn't what I had in mind, and I know it'd agitate some and so might not be the most constructive first step in fostering cooperation. But for me, the communion / Eucharist / B of B procedure is between the individual and Jesus - it isn't really up to me who else breaks bread in the same service and I have no time for the idea that you can be 'tainted' by breaking bread with someone whose views aren't the same as yours. That said, there are some members of my former congregation with whom I wouldn't feel very comfortable sharing a communion service.....


Hi David, I'm new to your website, and took a look at a few pages, though not all. But I looked at your proposed manifesto for a group, and have a question concerning working with other religions. Would that include breaking bread with them ?

[/Marilyn Rodwell]

Marilyn Rodwell

6:50 AM on June 19, 2012 

Hi David, I'm new to your website, and took a look at a few pages, though not all. But I looked at your proposed manifesto for a group, and have a question concerning working with other religions. Would that include breaking bread with them ?

Jes Berry

11:48 PM on July 14, 2011 

Your page called Character Assassination was sad to read. When the Christadelphian community is so small already, surely ecclesias should think twice before they try and oust members. It is not fair to the younger generations who already have difficulty finding life partners, since marrying non-believers is frowned upon. It is not loving, and sends a very bad example to non-believers and reaffirms to people like myself why they left in the first place.

Members Area


Recent Videos


Newest Members

0