My piece “The Creation of All Things (Catechism V)” was recently cited by what I perceive to be a European Christian blog site, “Christadelphians.” As of 10:37pm, January 1, 2020, “Catechism V” is listed as a “related article” near the bottom of the post, “Today’s Thought ‘Allowed to have dominion over the universe.’” English does not seem to be a native language for the site, so being picky with semantics is probably foul-play. However, even in broken English, my cited article is quite evidently not related to the Christadelphian piece – at least in any meaningful way.

Brief Analysis

The “Today’s Thought” article begins with an analysis of Genesis 1-3 and ends with application to Climate Change. “Today it is still that deception” (the deception of Genesis 3) “that causes a lot of problems and got us in such a mess that conferences concerning our attitude to nature are still not reaching the ears and hearts of the people,” (“Today’s Thought ‘Allowed to have dominion over the universe’” on, accessed January 1, 2020). Humans are causing the “destruction of the world” while global temperatures rise “at an unprecedented rate” (Ibid.). Politicians who ignore this crisis are just trying to make “as much money as they can.” Our climate sins today are akin to man’s in Eden, where “Man wanted to be like God and God gave him an opportunity to show that he could arrange the world better than God. But man proved to be useless without God. That is one of the greatest lessons from the bible and from history that we should remember,” (Ibid.).

Once again accounting for potentially poor translation, my short-hand response is that the Christadelphians seem swayed by the United Nation climate propaganda they champion. First, the “destruction of the world” will come at the hand of God, not man (2 Peter 3). This is an eschatological problem.

Second, the point about rising global temperatures has two problems. First of all, what standard do we have to judge the current rate of temperature increase? Answer: the data we have collected, since we started collecting such data. OK, so then, what about before we started collecting such data? All “unprecedented” means is, “this is the fastest temperatures have risen since we started tracking it” not “this is the fastest temperatures have risen, ever.” Second of all, what standard compels you to consider rising global temperatures to be a bad thing? For example, rising global temperatures have led to a boost in agricultural production. These markets and our bellies are benefitting from global warming. The question is not, “Is the planet getting warmer?” Yes, it’s getting warmer. The question is, “Is this a bad thing?” Even if the rate is unprecedented, the temperature certainly is not. The earth has been much warmer than it currently is, with us thriving on top of it.

Third, the money is in climate change activism, not ignorance. When the majority of American businesses turn their attention to “green” products, you should be asking the question, “How are they making money off of this?” Because they most certainly are. If a product is labeled “Environmentally Friendly,” it can easily sell for more than otherwise.

The Bigger Issue

So there’s a few thoughts, what exactly I think about the article. The deeper issue is who the “Christadelphians” are, which should compel us all to ask the question, “Why are they citing ‘Catechism V’ as a related resource?” The Christadelphians deny the deity of Christ (see here) and the Trinity (see here, also here). Their statement of beliefs explains other interesting, unorthodox positions (see here). Clearly, we’re coming from two different worldviews. These proprietors are not Christian and their approach to Genesis 1-3 is at the root distinct from my own.

The Christadelphians wrote, “Man wanted to be like God and God gave him an opportunity to show that he could arrange the world better than God.” In my article “Catechism V,” I claimed, “The goodness of the universe does not mean God had no intentions with its future, as though the immediate post-creation state was the most good and holy…. In his expansive dominion, man was…. to expand the boarders of Eden unto the ends of the earth. This is the world God looked upon and beheld it as very good (1:31): a universe with an eschatology.” The Christadelphians seem to believe that the earth’s best state was right after God created it, and man has disgraced the earth by his work upon it. I do acknowledge man’s ability to disgrace and abuse the world God made, however I firmly deny God wanted matters to stay as they were in Eden.

The earth was made as it was to be subdued by man, the image bearer of God. The seasons of earth will come and go until the end God has set (Genesis 8:22). The industrial revolution did not mess that up. If I had to guess, I’d say the Christadelphians have the habit of searching tags on WordPress, referencing any number of articles they can get their hands on, all for the purpose of increasing traffic on their site. If that is their plan, gosh-darn-it, they succeeded.

Is my article “related” to this Christadelphian piece? I suppose, in a very loose way: the way cyanide is related to the stomach.

9 thoughts on “Christadelphians, Climate Change, Cyanide – Oh My

  1. We sincerely search for interesting articles for our readers. It takes some time to do so.
    We are not afraid to give our readers the opportunity to come to know other blogs and to read other opinions than ours and even do not mind sending them to blogs of Trinitarian (and as such not real) Christians. But you being a Trinitarian, and as such not holding to the God of Christ, who did not pray to himself (as you believe) but worshipped the God of Abraham, Who is a singular Spirit God and not a being of flesh and blood humans can see, you might find it annoying in case some of your readers would come to a non-Trinitarian blog and could find out what the Bible really says.

    We can imagine you do not love such a going away from your Trinitarian views in case people could find out how Trinitarians are fooling them by false teachings. All are views may be checked by whatever Bible translation people are using. Perhaps that frightens you most, that people can find lots of references to Bible verses which may confirm what we are preaching?


    1. The God of Christ gave Christ the name LORD/YHWH (Philippians 2:5-11), which is inappropriate to give to anyone other than God Himself. The God of Christ was present with and equivalent to Christ at the beginning (John 1:1-3), denoting a distinction of personhood but not substance. That’s some of what the Bible “really says,” that God is indeed a spirit in substance yet three persons in one being.

      I am not compelled to shield my readers from Arian heresies and the like, which I have demonstrated by pointing them to your blog in this post. I have no need to fool people: Scripture speaks for itself.

      If you would like to debate the topic, however, I will be more than happy to oblige. A cordial, written debate could be arranged.


      1. We do not know which Bible translation you are using, but in the many Bible translations we have at our disposal nowhere is said that God gave the Name Jehovah or Yahweh to Christ.

        Naturally when you take everything there is written “Lord” this to be God than today we still have man gods walking around.

        “5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; 10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Php 2:5-11 ASV)

        The God of Christ has always been because He is an eternal Spirit. But He was not always with and was never equivalent to Christ, nor at the beginning (John 1:1-3), nor not know, when He has Jesus at His site.

        That opening passage from the Gospel of John is usually the chief reference on which the pre-existence and deity of Christ are argued. All those Trinitarians forgetting that there is spoken about a Word which is the result of Speaking.

        “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.” (Joh 1:1-3 ASV)

        Christ was not literally the Word. He was the word “made flesh”. (Jo 1:14). The Greek word “logos” translated “Word” expresses the divine intention, mind, or purpose.1 Young defines “logos” as “a word, speech, matter, reason.”2 In the a.v. “logos” is translated by more than 20 different English words and is used for utterances of men (e.g., Jo 17:20) as well as those of God (Jo 5:38).

        Christ, like you and us were already written in the Book of life, long before Abraham was born. In the Garden of Eden God spoke and gave His Word (made a promise) that there would come a solution against the curse of death. That promise made over there, or that Word given then became a reality many centuries later, when Jesus got born.

        “In the beginning was the Word  …  all things were made by him.” > “logos” does not in itself denote personality. It is personified by the masculine gender in the a.v., The Diaglott avoids confusion by translating the pronouns in the neuter-“through it every thing was done.” + An Old Testament parallel to the personification of logos is the personification of wisdom: “The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.” (Pr 8:22, 23). In this passage, wisdom is personified as a woman. (Pr 8:1, 2).

        You are right to say Scripture speaks for itself, but when people keep to human doctrines and than twists words and positions they lure people in false teachings and away from the True God.

        You say have no need to fool people: Scripture speaks for itself, but not accept those sayings of the Elohim where He declares Jesus to be His only begotten beloved son?!?


      2. It looks also you did not want to let your readers see what is written in the Bible, because you did not place our reply with the bible texts to prove what God and Jesus said about each other and what we do believe, but you do not seem to believe. Who the is the honest person in this debate and accusation?

        In case you have no need to fool people and agrees like we think that “Scripture speaks for itself”, why do you not let the Bible speak for itself by the texts we gave you in our reply to your accusations that we would not follow the Bible’s teachings?.


  2. Dear Sir,

    your accusation

    “If I had to guess, I’d say the Christadelphians have the habit of searching tags on WordPress, referencing any number of articles they can get their hands on, all for the purpose of increasing traffic on their site. If that is their plan, gosh-darn-it, they succeeded.”

    Makes no sense. There are much better ways to get traffic to a site without sending the own readers to other sites wich goes in against the basic Biblical teaching and against Christadelphian ideas. You also seem to forget that Google ratings for articles go up when there are more referrals and/or links to an article. As such by placing additional and related links to articles of others, those Christadelphians help those writers not only to receive more views, but help them also to get a higher place in the ranking and presentation on the list given by a Google-search. Therefore they give more opportunities to have those articles read more than their own, plus always could risk losing readers from their own site, bringing them to trinitarian or other sites, not in accordance to Biblical teaching.

    For sure they better do not continue to do such a lot of work for searching (in their eyes) interesting articles to read. Instead of losing further time to place such links to their own sites, they better invest more time in writing more articles and in reacting to other people’s their writings on their own sites.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Marcus,
      I believe you’ve misrepresented me. First, I made no accusation, but a guess. I did not flatly make such an accusation.
      Second, saying my guess makes “no sense” is exaggeration. There are traffic benefits to tagging multiple articles, as I explained by pointing out they got me to explore their site. I never would have known about the Christadelphians if they hadn’t have tagged my article, and now at least dozens of people in Arkansas, United States know them.
      Third, you seem to think I was trying credit the Christadelphians with the most logical conclusion, but I was not trying to do anything of the sort. I was making a guess, with my own reasons for that assumption.
      Fourth, of all the things in my article to take issue with, this one seems quite petty. However, let me say that if my snide guess is going to be a cause of enmity between us, then I apologize for it and you can consider it retracted. Perhaps I shouldn’t have included it in the first place.
      Thanks for commenting, and I pray you have a good weekend.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s