False Doctrines: Heaven Going and the Immortal Soul

Hiya guys

Well it's me, Sam, here to tell you people about false doctrines. Before I start I just want to tell you that if I start talking rubbish then feel free to change anything that you feel is incorrect. So let's begin!!!!!!

So last week at getting ready group we spent a lot of time talking about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. One of the first things we noticed was that in the NKJV bible it doesn't classify this passage as a parable as it doesn't follow the normal rules of other parables in the bible. Just for the sake of this blog I am going to refer to this passage as a parable because it is easier.

We all agreed that the meaning of this parable is to treat others as you would like to be treated yourselves. We also figured from this parable that if you don't believe in the Law of Moses then you won't believe in the "spirit" coming back from the dead. The "spirit" is the resurrection of the dead when Jesus comes back and God will set up his kingdom. Also, Christians would say it supports heaven and hell yet it mentions neither in this parable.

We also found that Jesus only gives the good person a name and not the rich man. We thought this could mean something. Jesus doesn't appreciate as much the rich man who only interests is himself as he does the the good person who's first interest is in God and Jesus. (I think that's right anyway)

Debbie had a list of references that have opinions from one of her friend's minister. We took a few and discussed them one at a time. The first passage we looked at was from John 5:39

"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me"

This minister believes that the parable that this reference comes from is to emphasize heaven, hell and retribution after death. We can't argue that this parable is metaphorical and not just a parable.

From this parable Protestants believe that Jesus will come back and have a final judgement but we noticed that if you are in heaven and hell then you are already being judged but does the bible say we go to heaven and hell when we die?????????

In this passage Jesus sort of mocks the fact that the Pharisees believed in everlasting torment so it it was a tradition.

Quite a few people use passages like this to prove that heaven and hell are true but we as Christadelphians can counter argue this theory however we can't use it as proof anymore as we don't get anywhere just tangled up in a big arguement.

Heaven isn't mentioned at all in Luke 16 but some people put heaven in it which is probably why they misinterpret what the bible is really saying.

The next passage we looked at was from Ecclesiastes 12:5-7,14.

Also they are afraid of height,
And of terrors in the way;
When the almond tree blossoms
The grasshopper is a burden,
And desire fails.
For man goes to his eternal home,
And the mourners go about the streets
Remember your creator before the silver cord is loosed
Or the golden bowl is broken,
Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain,
Or the wheel broken at the well.
Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

For God will bring every work into judgement,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.

These verses doesn't mention heaven or hell either but it only mentions spirit as the breath of life. The idea of the breath of life was also written in Genesis 6:17.

"And behold, I myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die"

It also doesn't say that the "spirit" is good or bad so we really can't be sure. It also suggests we were a spirit to God before we were alive as the passage says "return" and you can't return to somewhere unless you've been before.

This passage also explains how when we die our breath returns to God, where we got it in the first place, and our bodies return to the ground and turn to dust which is back in the form we first originated in the very beginning, says nothing about our souls going to heaven and hell. Genesis 2:7 tells us how humans came to be in existence.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

We also brought up other points from other places in the Bible. Acts 2:34 says:

"For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
The LORD said to my Lord,
Sit in my right hand

The people that believe that our souls go to heaven when we die we as Christaelphians can argue that and say well why didn't David go to heaven????

One of the last passages we talked about last week was from Mark 9:42,43,46,48

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that will never be quenched....
Their worm does not die,
And the fire is not quenched"

These verses are very often misinterpreted as many people think Jesus is talking about going to hell but Jesus is using hell as Gahena (I think that is how you spell it, I hope you guys know what I'm talking about though). The hell Jesus is referring to is symbolic for Gahena but many people take it literally, probably why they come to the conclusion that the Bible talks about what ell is like.

The minister that was mentioned earlier claims that hell is is for everlasting punishment however "hell" is for the unrighteousness so he jumps to conclusions too quickly.

Some facts about Gahena- it's history, none of the passages say the people will suffer so there is no such thing as everlasting torment, the whole hell theory has been misjudged, misinterpreted and twisted to suit myths and legends. The fire stays but the body doesn't.

The last set of verses we referred to was Jeremiah 7:31-32.

"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I do not command, nor did it come into My heart.
'Therefore, behold, the days are coming' says the Lord, 'when it will no more be called Tophet, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Tophet until there is no room' "

These verses talk about the Valley of Betalim and what happens to the people when they die there.

Overall, the people that say that the good people go to heaven and the bad people go to hell are totally mistaken, they have no prove to back up that theory, yet we have God and Jesus to prove that this believe is not true.

Famous quote of night:

"God has got his breath back" says Graham (sorry Graham just had to do it, funny times!!!)

Thank you for reading this and watch the blog space for any changes.

Week 5: Conscientious Objection Part 2

Oh well. Since the last one was such a long, rambling affair, I intend to make this one slightly more succinct.

As far as I can remember, I sort of volunteered to do the blog again (not really) but I never actually got around to writing anything down. So, this week, we had a look through all the examples of tribunal questions in the back of the book we were given copies of at an Intercity ages ago. It was at Glasgow South, can't remember when. Anyway, the book is called 'The Captive Conscience' if you want to have a read for yourself. It's very well written and extremely handy for getting your head round the topic and finding out a bit about the history of Christadelphians who conscientiously objected.

So, since I didn't write anything down, I can't remember any of our answers well enough to post them up here. If anyone can, feel free to put up a great big long comment...

Happy Tuesday. Next blog will be on the subject of False Doctrines: Heaven Going and the Immortal Soul. I think. At least, that's what it's supposed to be. Provisional date of Sunday the 11th May.

Week 4: Conscientious Objection Part 1

Right. This week's topic was Conscientious Objection, but since we tend to get fairly involved in our discussions and rarely finish what we started, it's next week's topic too.

To start with, we listed the three main questions we needed to look at, but for the sake of headings, I'm going to mash two of them together and add another one. So, the resulting questions are:

• What is conscientious objection?
• Why do we, as Christadelphians, conscientiously object, and how do we explain this?
• How far should we take this objection?

The first question is relatively simple, but the second question is a bit more in depth, and number three can cause serious brain-pain. Let's start at the start. Get comfy.

-Question One: What is Conscientious Objection?-

In this context, or at least in the context we started off talking about, conscientious objection refers to refusing to join the Armed Forces. The phrase literally means objecting to something because your conscience tells you it is not right, for whatever reason, and could really apply to a huge range of issues and situations. But more of that later.

The 'problem' of people objecting to military service really stems from the First and Second World Wars, when the British Government introduced conscription - they were short of cannon fodder, so they pressured the public to enlist and fight. Those who objected on religious, moral or ethical grounds were usually sent to a tribunal, where they would be given the chance to put forward their reasons for objection to a panel who would decide what to do with them.

According to Debbie's Standard Grade History jotter, most conscientious objectors were sent to the front on non-combat duties, such as driving ambulances or providing medical care. Those who refused outright to have anything to do with the military were usually sent to work on the land, and weren't very popular - they were despised by everybody around them and were treated very harshly by those they lived and worked with. Others were sent to prison, where some died from the poor treatment they received. Apparently, though, many soldiers returning from the Front both during and after the war, having seen the atrocities committed and the horrific things that humans can do to one another, admired their courage in refusing to take part, and respected them for what they did.

-Short Interval-

• 8:21pm - Eilidh discovers a Used Tissue invading her Personal Space.
• 8:22pm - Used Tissue forcefully apprehended and safely deactivated.

-Question Two: Why do Christadelphians conscientiously object?-

There are two main lines of reasoning to look at when asking this question, and both are equally valid. The first is that we are told quite clearly in the bible that killing (and any sort of violence) is wrong.

The obvious passage that springs to mind is in the Ten Commandments - "Thou shall not kill." This sets it down in black and white, and is a good place to start, but we have to be careful not to rely too heavily on this verse. A critic will quickly jump in and ask about all the killing that happened throughout the Old Testament, much of it at God's command, so we have to be able to demonstrate this principle elsewhere in the Bible.

Since Christ lived without sin and fulfilled the law, we aren't under the Law of Moses, although the principles still stand. We follow Christ's examples and Christ's teachings from the New Testament, and it is even clearer here that it is wrong to kill. We looked at quite a few relevant passages:

• Matt 5:38 - "You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
• 1 John 3:15 - "No murderer has eternal life abiding in him."
• 1 Pet 2:23 - Jesus did not retaliate.
• 1 Thess 5:15 - "See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone."
• Matt 19:19 - "Love your neighbour as yourself."

So, God makes it pretty obvious that killing is wrong, and that we are to treat others as we would want to be treated. But it is also very important to note that we are NOT pacifists. A pacifist disagrees with violence, which is fair enough, but as followers of Christ we have to be prepared to fight for Jesus when He returns.

• Rev 19:11-19 - "And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against Him that sat on the horse, and against His army."

So, why are we prepared to fight for Jesus but not for the Government? This is closely related to our second line of reasoning. From Jesus' teachings, and from the various epistles in the NT, we know that as believers in Christ we can become heirs of the Promises to Abraham, and that this makes us as 'strangers and pilgrims' - we look to a citizenship in God's Kingdom on Earth, and so our allegiance is to God and Jesus, not to the Government.

• Heb 13:14 - "For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come."
• Heb 11:10 - "He looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God."
• 1 Pet 2:11 - "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims..."

And Jesus sums it up quite nicely:

• John 18:36 - "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were of this world, then would my servants fight."

So, Christadelphians object to military service based on the commands given in God's Word and the teachings of Jesus Christ - it is wrong in God's eyes to kill or inflict harm on another human, and besides, our allegiance should be to God rather than 'our' country. This isn't to say we should disregard the laws of the place we live in - Paul is quite clear about that:

• Romans 13:1 - "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, the the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God."

However, it is also made perfectly clear that God's will comes before Man's will, and when the two conflict, God's will takes ultimate priority.

• Acts 5:29 - "We ought to obey God rather than men."
• Acts 4:19 - "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge."

Rodge also had a handy analogy - the Bible teaches us that we should be as foreigners, as citizens of another kingdom. If, for example, Britain went to war with Poland, would all the Polish people living in the UK be allowed to enlist in the British Army? So, why would we, as 'strangers and pilgrims,' sign up?

-Question Three: Where is the line?-

This question is the one that really had us talking for ages, I think partly because it has so much to do with our lives today. Up to this point the discussion was mainly to do with military service, but this is where the subject of 'conscientious objection' opens right up.

As we said at the start, conscientious objection is when our conscience tells us that something is wrong, hopefully, in our cases, guided by the principles in the Scriptures, and our conscience can object to an awful lot of things.

If we go back to the Christadelphians in the two World Wars, they all applied for complete exemption from any form of military service, including non-combatant roles which pacifists would be happy with, such as ambulance driving. Again, the reasons for this are that these jobs were still part of the 'war effort' and came under military control. At any point, the military could hand you a gun and tell you to use it to defend a patient or something, and you would have no choice.

One thing is pretty clear-cut, though. If (by baptism) you have vowed to serve God, you can't then take an oath of allegiance to the Queen or your country. Common sense, really. Jesus tells us this unequivocally (!):

• Luke 16:13 - "No servant can serve two masters.... you cannot serve God and mammon."

As such, we should not be involved in things which require an oath of allegiance, such as the military or police, as we should always put God first. But this doesn't solve every conscience-related problem - the boundaries between right and wrong become a bit blurred when you look a bit closer. During the war, although a large number of Christadelphians were granted exemption from military service, they were sent to work on the land, providing food for everybody... including soldiers. Was this right or wrong?

I don't think we reached any definite conclusions, but I think it's one of these things that comes down to individual consciences. Rodge was saying that since farming is an ordinary peacetime job, providing food for people to eat, not like making munitions or anything, he personally wouldn't see a problem with working on the land during a war. Yet some Christadelphians were sent to prison for refusing to help the war effort in any way. It really comes down to how far each person feels it is right to take it.

One thing we discussed, but again didn't really reach any conclusions, was what soldiers who are converted should do. Paul tells us in Corinthians:

• Cor 7:17 - Let each one remain in the same calling as he was called."

What about soldiers? Jesus gives an answer in Luke:

• Luke 3:14 - "The soldiers asked him, saying, 'What shall we do?' He answered them, 'Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.'"

But could you still take part in warfare, and be under oath to the Queen? Anyone any thoughts? Again, I suppose it would come down to individual consciences, but it'd be extremely interesting to see what folk think.

Right. Moving away from just military service, we had a talk about some other issues we might 'conscientiously object' to. We mentioned things like euthanasia, and other 'moral dilemmas' we hear about today, but the one we really spent some time thinking about was abortion. We've all heard the pros and cons, the for and againsts, but where should we stand as Christadelphians?

For the majority of situations, it isn't difficult to see the right choice. Using abortions as a means of getting out of 'inconvenient' pregnancies is obviously completely wrong. But what about situations where the health of the mother is at risk? What is 'right?' Again, thoughts please. As far as we could see, the best thing is to pray and have faith that God will not put us in the position of having to make such a decision.

The next place we went in our collective train of thought was right back to that citizenship thing again, and how we should behave as 'strangers and pilgrims.' If we put this forward as a reason for objecting to military service, we can expect, as Christadelphians in the World Wars found, to have people accusing us of hypocrisy, of being perfectly happy to take the benefits of living in Britain but using this as an excuse to get out of fighting. The only way to answer this is to show that we don't try to get involved in the running of the country and so on, and although, yes, we benefit from the NHS and road network and so on, it isn't free - we pay taxes just like anyone else. Actually, this raised another of those interesting questions - a sizeable chunk of tax money goes towards funding the Armed Forces. Does this mean we should withhold however much percent of the tax we pay? Personally, I reckon that's a bit daft, and liable to get you locked up, and I think most of us agreed on that, but again, any comments are welcome...

This naturally led us on to voting, and whether or not it is the right thing to do. Most, if not all, Christadelphians do not vote, because, as we have said, we don't want to get involved in politics, and also because we could be voting against what God wants to happen. Yes, you could say, but God is guiding the votes anyway, so it doesn't matter what we vote. But it does. If you ask all the Christians you know who they voted for in the last election, you can be fairly sure they weren't all rooting for the SNP, which means that some of them voted against what God wanted to happen, and we can't put ourselves in that position.

However, this refusal to be involved in politics might well come under fire as well. What about Daniel and Joseph? They were second-in-command in their respective governments. The answer to this is that neither of them were elected, nor did they get there out of ambition and a desire to be powerful. They were put in those positions by God, to do God's will, which shows how strong both of these characters were - I doubt many of us could be the second most powerful person in the known world and still serve God as well as they did.

So, finally, that's pretty much all of what we talked about (it took quite a while). Since this is a bit of a whopper of a post, it would be nice to end it with a couple of interesting and relevant rhetorical questions, one courtesy of Rodge and the other courtesy of Wikipedia.

Going back to military service, and with our religious reasons for objecting to joining up being closely cross-examined, it's useful to think of this: during WWI and WWII, there were Christadelphians in both Britain and Germany. If they had enlisted, they would have been fighting on opposite sides of the battlefield, and killing their own brothers in Christ. Is there really any question about what God wants us to do?

Finally, slightly tongue-in-cheek but with a totally serious message, one Christian was summoned before a tribunal in WWII to explain his reasons for requesting exemption from military service. Once he had put his case to them, and explained his beliefs, he asked the panel whether any of them were Christians. They all said yes. 'Tell me,' said the man, 'can any of you picture Christ in khaki running out into no-man's land?' He was granted full exemption.

So, conscientious objection. Provided we read the Bible regularly and do our best to understand and seek guidance from it, we can usually (not always) rely on our conscience to tell us, deep down, what is the right course of action to take. The real difficulty lies in being able to act accordingly, and apply the principles that we know to be right to what we do every day.

I'm afraid that turned into a bit of an epic blog post, but I think it's (mostly) relevant, and hopefully I haven't missed anything much out. If I have, post it as a comment. I'm not going to make this post any longer.

PS. Coming soon: Part Two! The GRG Crew are faced with a few tricky tribunal questions... will they survive to see Monday? Stay tuned!

The History of the Christadelphians

Session 3



This week we were looking at the history of Christadelphians.

The founder of the Christadelphians, John Thomas, had to come up with a name when the American Civil War broke out in 1861. They had to make a stand to what they believed in as conscientious objectors. So to avoid military service, it was required that believers had to belong to a recognised religious group that didn't agree with participation in war. So Thomas came up with 'Christadelphian' which means bretheren in Christ.
So it came from making a stand for our beliefs, to obey God rather than man.

We came up with a few passages that were relevent to this
Hebrews 11v13-16
Hebrews 13v14
1 Peter 2v11

Another influential figure we discussed for a short while was Robert Roberts. He was the man
generally considered to have continued the work of organising and establishing the Christadelphian movement. Mainly Britain, especially Aberdeen!
So that was the first thing we discussed in the evening.

We then went onto talking about Unamended Christadelphians. They believe the same things as Amended Christadelphians but the Unamended group believe that only the deceased who are "in Christ" will be raised from the dead and have eternal life; the rest will simply remain dead, without conscious existence. The Amended group believe that all who are responsible will be raised from the dead at the time of the Final Judgment. The "responsible" are those that have heard of the Gospel. The righteous among the responsible ones will be judged according to their works and given everlasting life. The wicked will be destroyed and cease to exist. Those who are not responsible, since they had never heard the Gospel, will not be raised.

We ended the evening drawing up a list of passages where it talks about brothers and sisters being "in Christ." We did this to show exactly what "in Christ" means.
Acts 24v24 - involves having faith in him
Rom 8v38 -39 - we have the love of God
Rom 12v4-5 - being in Christ is being in one
1 Cor 1v2 - sanctification, being made seperate
1 Cor 15v22 - made alive in Christ
2 Cor 5v17 - born again
Gal 2v4 - freedom from the law, set free from sin
Gal 3v26-28 - all one in Christ
Eph 2v12-16 - brings us near to God
Eph 3v6 - in Christ, the promise
Phi 3v3 - rejoice in Christ Jesus
Phi 3v14 - the reward in heaven
1 Thes 4 v16 - those dead in Christ shall rise
2 Tim 2v1 - grace in Christ Jesus
2 Tim 2v10 - salvation and glory
1 Pet 3v16 - in Christ has a direct effect on the way we live

So that was this weeks one, next post will be done by Big Hairy Daniel!

Week 2: Actually, there's this book I'm reading called the Bible...

This time round, we tried to work out why we base our faith on the Bible, and whether or not it can really support our beliefs. The beans made a welcome return, and Jamie ate all the grapes. We came up with loads and loads of stuff, which I will now proceed to mangle.



Surprisingly enough, the fact that there are boring bits in the Bible (genealogies, lists of numbers, bits we don't immediately understand, and bits that might not seem all that relevant to our salvation) ranked high on our list of reasons for why we trust its authority. The main message of the Bible is clear - God's way is the way of life, and any other way leads to pointless death - but the detail is what ultimately convinces. We thought about the little bits of information that tie up in books that were written years apart and by different writers; two people might notice different things about the same event, and their comments might explain each other, for example. Matthew (27:37), Mark (15:26) and John (19:19) give three different accounts of the notice above Jesus' head on the cross, but we are told that it was written in three different languages. Coincidence? Nah. Rodge backed this up with some examples from J.J. Blunt's Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences, which can be found online here: http://dandenongbec.org.au/blunt/index.html



But I'll start at the start. First, we thought of all the people who were witness to Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul lists them in 1 Cor 15:3-8, urging the Corinthians to remain faithful awaiting the resurrection of the dead because some of them were saying it would never happen. This is an example of a typical device used in scripture - solid evidence for belief is given, and then we are asked to base our faith on it and believe in something we can't see (Heb 11:1).



Here are a few of the peices of evidence we came up with:

• There is a tremendous amount of historical data in the Bible. Archaeology has never contradicted what the Bible says, and miny finds have backed it up. In contrast, the Book of Mormon has been shattered by New World findings.


• Evolution just doesn't work, whichever way you look at it. It is scientifically unverifiable, and that leaves intelligent design. The resposibilities of created beings to their creator are for the individual to decide, but the Bible gives the most comprehensive answer on this subject.


• Prophecy continues to be fulfilled. The Jews have been back in Israel since 1948, as prophecied in Isaiah 1:24-8, but Jerusalem has not yet been 'redeemed with judgement' (v.27) so we know we have something else to wait for.
• Many other religious writings concentrate on the actions of their gods, whereas the Bible is wholly concerned with the separation and reconciliation of God and Mankind. We should respect other people, but we do not have to respect their beliefs. By the way, that is a statement that can be misunderstood very easily, so don't for a moment imagine that you can go about ridiculing other religions and denominations. It's just that we shouldn't view them as holding sacred beliefs, because they are man-made, and for the gratification of man.
• The Bible has many authors, but only one message. It's as simple as that. And the authors quote each other so we know who wrote God's word - Jesus alone quotes almost every book in the Old Testament.
• There is no doctrinal inconsistency in the Bible - if it teaches a particular lesson, it will never contradict itself. God's principles have remained the same since the creation of the world.
• And lastly, the subject of Biblical transmission, or how the Bible reached us. We spent a bit of time on this, and reached the conclusion that the Bible couldn't have survived for us as it did had it been a book written by men. God was in control the whole time.

Right, so that was last week, March 30. I'd better phone Jamie, who had finished his blog for April 5 before I was halfway through this one...

Session 1: In A Nutshell.

This was the session when we were looking at how to start our conversation about beliefs with a Normal (code name for unreligious person), and what our basic beliefs were.
We looked at how John the Baptist preached, being as he preached before Jesus' first coming, and given that we reckon the Kingdom's coming really quite soon, then we technically could be counted as today's John the Baptist - it's our responsibility, as Christadelphians, to spread the beliefs that we have before Jesus comes back. Anyway, back to subject. We looked at John's 'punchline' - "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." [Matt 3:2] We looked at the kingdom aspect of that phrase, and looked at how to describe the kingdom, and why anyone would want to be in it - to some the contemplation of eternal life wouldn't be attractive at all! The kingdom is perfection on earth, and being as God's purpose with humans is that 'The earth shall be filled with the Glory of God.' [Num 14:21], we can assume that that's what the kingdom will be all about. We also looked at the spirit of oneness - "I [Jesus] do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you Father, are in me." Zeph 3:9 "For at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call upon the name of the Lord and serve him with one accord." So the Kingdom's good because we will all be one (in purpose) and glorifying God - our Maker and the One who actually deserves to be praised. We looked at how you could have a egotistic (big word!) approach to wanting to be in the Kingdom by saying "I want to be in that Kingdom, because everything will be perfect for me," and we know this is the completely wrong approach - we should be thinking about how we will be able to glorify God in the way we should and the way he wants us to, and have the close relationship with God that he planned for humans in the beginning (although mankind completely destroyed it.)

We went from this to look at what sin is. In James 1:14 it says that "Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire." This shows that sin comes from humans, and that it's us that makes us sin (killing two birds with one sin - this quite clearly contradicts the supernatural devil theory). We also looked at Gen 6:5 - when God looked and saw that "every intention of the heart was only evil continually." This shows us that sin is a state where we aren't in tune with God and his thoughts. We are evil continually, but we decided that when we're talking about this to Normals we shouldn't point the finger, but say "I am a sinner and I need to repent of it." This way we're not doing the typical 'YOU'RE CONDEMNED TO DEATH UNLESS YOU DO SUMMAT ABOOT IT, MON!' (although maybe not quite in that wording...)

We looked at where sin started - the Garden of Eden and the forbidden fruit - and what the first sin meant for mankind. It a) made humans dying creatures, so death is a result of sin b) got Adam and Eve their curses, which still stand today - pain in birth for woman, and labour to actually live (get food) for the men c) gave us the 'knowledge of good and evil' - previously we'd only had the knowledge of good (no one can have the relationship they had with God without having a knowledge of good!) so the fruit basically showed us there was a way other than God's.

But we realised we were getting quite involved for a first conversation with a Normal, and remembered that we should always keep it a) simple and b) in plain english (no Christadelphian jargon!) and c) make it interesting and show you believe it by not being 'apologetic' about it and sounding like we're defending our faith, but that we are really truly sure of what we believe and that we live by it - actions speak louder than words! Daniel told us an amusing example of how we can't predict what questions people are gonna come up with when we talk to them about our faith ('So, where do aliens come into all this?!'). Also we shouldn't keep telling them that we don't believe in the Trinity and that we don't believe you go to Heaven when you die - it leaves people wondering what on earth we do believe!

Rodger suggested a possible opening for a catchy and intriguing line about our beliefs:
"I believe in the Bible, and did you know that the middle verse of the Bible is Psalm 118:8 where it says "It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man." So when it comes down to it all, God is the middle of our religion, not us." We all really liked this suggestion.

After that we talked about how we would talk to people who had a religion different from ours. WE decided to first find out how much we agree on, eg the Bible, eternal life, Jesus, God as one or many?

To finish up, we brainstormed all our basic beliefs, and came up with this:

• Creation
• God and the Bible (people can always go back to the Bible later if they feel like it - makes our beliefs more accessible). Also we said you could maybe say 'I believe in the Bible, God's message to us, which bit do you wanna hear about first?!' [If they say Revelation, explain to them that you need to have a good understanding of the rest of the Bible to understand that, and that even you don't really fully understand it yet.]
• Jesus was the Son of God who had the ability to sin but didn't, so was perfect.
• we need to be baptised (and therefore to repent)
• Jesus will come back
• So death doesn't have to be the end (be careful who you say that too though)
• Resurrection (of Jesus and of potentially us)
• God's Kingdom on Earth (we have a chance to be in it)

PS If we're ever unsure about what to answer a person, always remember it's ok to say that we'll get back to them on that - they'll respect us, especially if we actually do come back to them. Or alternatively, in the campaign or meeting situation, we could ask if we could go and find someone who is 'better placed to answer than me'.

I know it's tres tres late! Completely forgot! Sorry! Also, I'm not too sure it's actually intelligible because I did it over two days and my notes weren't very intelligible either... Have fun interpreting it...

Here We Go

Should be up and running by now. Just posting this to check it looks ok.

If you want to change stuff/be an admin or anything, send me a Facebook message or something. Happy Blogging, I'm late for Tech Studies.