Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Transgender Children

Al,

Several months ago you mentioned that you consider homosexuality a choice. While I have no expertise it appears curious that people who have chosen to be gay find it difficult to tell their family and friends. I would think they would be proud of their decision. Recently I saw an article concerning a 6-year-old transgender girl being banned from using the girls' bathroom at her Fountain, Colorado public school.

The parents have four other children, including a set of triplets, one of which is Coy. Apparently Coy, a Girl Scout who loves pink, began gravitating toward girls' toys and clothes by 18 months. Gender eventually turned into a bigger issue when Coy asked, at age 4, "When are we going to go to the doctor to get me fixed so I can be a girl?" A psychologist confirmed then that Coy was indeed transgender.

That led to allowing Coy to "transition" into girlhood in school, which meant dressing as a female, lining up with the other girls and using the girls' restroom.

The change in Coy after she transitioned at school was said to be amazing. The anxiety went away, the depression went away. She became happy. Coy has many friends and that they have not had any problems with or complaints from any of the other children's parents.

I knew adults liked to transgender I did not realize it began with children.

Months ago I heard an interview of a woman who is considered a chimera.  She had written a book, of course, of her experience. She needed a kidney transplant and when her two sons were tested for a match it was determined she was not the parents of either. It took a couple of years but it was determined she had two sets of DNA and was diagnosed as a chimera. From what I have read that could affect an individual's sexuality.

Do the professionals have an opinion on the subject and religion? Looking ahead can the boys grow to be elders and girls elder's wives? This could get confusing 


John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN




Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
          http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

 
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" 
 
--- Will Rogers (1879-1935)

 

 

The Story of Stuff: http://www.storyofstuff.com/

God, like a quarterback gets credit and blame for things he does not deserve

Last night, in the discussion of God sending storms and earthquakes in response to my comment that I did not realize those states were so godless New Orleans was mentioned as an example of people deserving of God's wrath. God apparently needs a new gps because he missed the French Quarter. It is not true every event comes from God. If a child dies of crib death, it's God's will. If my home is destroyed by a tornado it must be part of Gods' eternal plan and we, the object of God's wrath, have no right to complain.

Such allegations suggest God is as likely to main and kill me as he is to save me. That is not very comforting and I don't believe it. But apparently I am in the minority.

Remember the story in John about the blind man and the disciples asking if the man had sinned or his parents? That is an odd question. How could the man sin before he was born? I wonder if the disciples were that gullible or does life begin before conception? I believe the view of the majority at GSMCOC is that the man was born blind just so Jesus could heal him. How would you like that; a life of blindness just so Jesus could have someone to heal? Imagine all those people killed and injured and all that damage and in his wrath God missed the French Quarter.

Making God both the cause of blindness and the source of healing is a dangerous theology. Munchausen-by-proxy is a condition in which a parent secretly harms his or her child in order to gain the attention and praise for the child's care and healing. When humans do this we call it a mental illness. Yet we, as the disciples did, attribute this behavior to God. God becomes the source of evil and pain but cleverly redeems himself by healing the very ones he has stricken.

We need to take the Old Testament for what it is, history.

Friday, February 15, 2013

Amos and the Rabbis

In the opening chapters of Amos there is a series of condemnations on the various nations for three transgressions and for four. From this rabbis deduced that God's forgiveness extended to three offenses and that he punishes the sinner on the fourth. Rabbis did not believe a man could be more gracious than God they limited forgiveness to three times.

When Peter asked Jesus "How many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Seven times seemed extravagant to him since Jewish tradition suggested three times was adequate.
 
Fodder for classes would be situations where folks in the NT learned that what they had been taught the scriptures said their entire lives is no longer valid.. And would be react the same way.
 
If the NT is not scriptures since they were not included what Timothy had known and learned since he was young are they inspired? Was Luke inspired or just an historian? He says he was an historian and never claims to be inspired. Purpose would be to help folks understand believing something does not make it true.


Salvation of Some Damnation of Many

There are two common justifications for the salvation of some and the damnation of many. One suggests God doesn't want to save all his children. God could but chooses not to. God has favorites and saves only those who please him. The second suggests that God wants to save all his children but reluctantly concluded God can't save all his children. God can't but wishes he could. God respects our freedom to reject his grace and doom ourselves to damnation.

 

Both have problems. The first defends the power of God while diminishing God's affection. The second affirms God's love but reduces its power and reach.  Both assume someone will be damned. The first concludes this is God's will, that his judgment is beyond reproach even if it includes the eternal torment of his children.  The second implies God's will is irrelevant, that we are the ones who control our destiny and determine God's attitude toward us. Neither takes seriously the possibility that God loves and saves every person.

And the Lord Formed Man of the Dust of the Ground

Genesis 2:7 

    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 soul.

 

 

...we believe God gave man a limited amount of time to live on earth. If that man acts exactly as God knew he would in the judgment that man will go to Hell for eternal torment. Or how about the poor ignorant savage in the deepest part of the great forests of South America who never heard of the Bible who will be tormented eternally for his ignorance. Won't he be surprised! Can you make something logical out of that? If you treated your children like that, in man's wisdom, you would be considered a bad parent and probably go to jail for child abuse. Add to that the man who brought sin into the world was permitted to live a lot longer than you or I we know fairness has nothing to do with anything. Wouldn't it have been more loving of God just to not involve man in His eternal plans? Do we truly understand what we think we understand?

 


Is satan real

When you look at the punishment God has setup for "the devil and his angels" it may appear the story of Satan may have been  conjured up by the early Christians to scare unbelievers and new believers from turning back to the old ways...

In Genesis 3 God punishes the serpent for its part in the deception of Eve. God then foretells Jesus' victory over Satan, punishes the woman with additional pain during childbirth and Adam by making it more difficult to till the soil.

It appears Satan is a real entity but the question is, is it active in the world today.

The Elder Prodigal

In the story of the Prodigal Son, the elder son was us. The elder son stayed home. He mad no demands, did his chores, and sought to impress his father. He never offered to look for his brother. He was content to bask in his father's good graces. Yet he was not perfect. When his brother returned and his father forgave him without condition, he became enraged. He stomped home to discover a party when he had hoped for a trial.  He refused to come into the house, to sit with his brother, to celebrate his redemption. He turned his back on his brother and his father. In the end, the son with his back to the father resisting grace is the elder son. He becomes the prodigal.

 

When the father tried to convince the elder son to join the celebration, he responded, "Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends." His response exposed his heart. His obedience and work were not motivated by love for his father. His hope was that he would be rewarded with a party for himself and a few friends.

 

Is our obedience and work motivated by love for our father or are we looking for a party for ourselves and a few friends? Are we, as the elder brother, living in the father's presence without ever appreciating the father's character?

 

The father responds to this ugly revelation with grace. He says to him, "Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found."

 

The father is as gracious to the elder son as he had been to the younger son. He left the party to seek him.

 

Jesus doesn't tell us whether the elder son repented and returned to the banquet. Jesus leaves that for us to resolve. Will we turn from God and his grace or will we join the party?

 

Joining the party requires forgiveness. We elder sons find forgiveness so hard to accept from God and so difficult to extend to those around us.

 

 

 

 

Maybe We Do Not Understand What We Think We Understand

Matthew records a story where Peter asked Jesus "How many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Seven times seemed extravagant to him since Jewish tradition suggested three times was adequate. In the opening chapters of Amos there is a series of condemnations on the various nations for three transgressions and for four. From this rabbis deduced that God's forgiveness extended to three offenses and that he punishes the sinner on the fourth. Rabbis did not believe a man could be more gracious than God they limited forgiveness to three times.

 

We like Peter have to recognize things may not be as we have always believed them to be.

 

In our recent classes on Dreaming about Heaven we were told certain things that would be characteristic of heaven; no sin, no pain, no anything bad. But in Revelation John wrote: "They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

This passage portrays the saints waiting impatiently for vengeance? Maybe we do not understand what John was meaning.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Loving God

Is a God who only forgives after an innocent man is tortured and killed worth praise? Is it true that unless blood is shed God is powerless to forgive?

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Excerpted from "God, Government and Roger Williams' Big Idea", Smithsonian.com

 

In 1534, Henry VIII had rejected Roman Catholicism and turned the kingdom Protestant, and Parliament declared him head of the new Church of England; he executed those who opposed him as heretics and traitors. His daughter Queen Mary made England Catholic again and burned Protestants at the stake. Then Queen Elizabeth turned it Protestant and executed Catholics who plotted against her—including her cousin Mary Queen of Scots. Her successor was King James, VI of Scotland, Mary's son.

 

 

James was Protestant but moved the Church of England ever closer to Catholicism, inflaming Puritans. In 1604, believing the existing English Bibles did not sufficiently emphasize obedience to authority, he ordered a new translation; what became known as the King James Bible satisfied him on that point. In politics, he injected the theory of the divine right of kings into English history and claimed that "the monarch is the law. Rex est lex loquens, the king is the law speaking."

 

 

Opposing James was Sir Edward Coke, one of the greatest jurists in English history. It was he who ruled from the bench that "The house of every one is to him as his castle." Precedents he set included the prohibition of double jeopardy, the right of a court to void a legislative act, and the use of writs of habeas corpus to limit royal power and protect individual rights.

 

 

When the colonies were founded the government sponsored churches, required attendance, and punished those who did not conform. Throughout history those professing to follow Christ were executed for worshiping in the wrong manner.

 

 

In 1644 Roger Williams in a pamphlet he wrote used for the first time a phrase that although not commonly attributed to him has been repeated through American history. "When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall it self, removed the Candlestick & c. and made his Garden a Wilderness."

 

 

He was saying that mixing church and state corrupted the church, that when one mixes religion and politics, one gets politics.

 

 

Americans should feel safe knowing they have Constitutional protection from government sponsoring or establishing a religion.

Monday, February 11, 2013

To Some the Image of God as Father is not a Comforting Image

We call God father. To some the image of God as father is not always a comforting image. Many have experienced their fathers as emotionally distant, physically and sexually abusive, harsh and demanding.  Their experiences suggest a father might murder his children and God might be such a father. It is difficult for these people to find any attraction in calling God a father and some of the stories in the bible remind them of their abusive fathers and suggest that God did kill his children.

 

There are no perfect fathers but we all know the qualities we expect from good parents. We expect them to love us unconditionally, to guide us, teach us, and encourage us to be our best. We depend upon them to set boundaries yet give us freedom to explore and even fail. We expect parents to provide a safe place for us to return to after we have been testing our wings.

 

We read stories in the newspaper of a father killing his child; incomprehensible to most.

 

Could you destroy or abandon your child? If you could you probably see nothing strange about the idea of God destroying or condemning his children. Do we understand the bible? Is it possible that God will annihilate abandon, or eternally punish his children?

 

Jerry Falwell was once asked what he would do if his son were gay. He said he'd tell him homosexuality was wrong. Then he said, "Nothing would make me reject one of my children. I would tell him to go back to his bedroom. You live here. You are my son. My resources are yours."

 

Is God not more gracious than Jerry Falwell? God loves his children more perfectly than any human father. Matthew recorded that Jesus said "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him."

 

Last night Beverly was talking with Al about her 7-year-old grandson.  He is putting his parents and teachers through hell.  He is rebellious, screams, strikes his mother, is uncooperative plus some. Neither his parents nor grandparents are going to reject him.  We believe there is a limit beyond which God's love will not go. Really?

 

In the parable of the Prodigal Son at what point did the father throw the son out? What was Jesus really trying to say? I use the word "trying" because I do not believe we understand Jesus' true meaning of the story.

Solomon, Joseph and Barack

 

In the seventeenth chapter of Deuteronomy Moses (?) continued writing instructions on various subjects including laws concerning Israel's kings.

           

"When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,' you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.' And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

"And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

           

At first blush it appears Solomon failed to follow the ban on acquiring many horses unless he considered them possessions of the government. I do not know about the ban on sending the people to Egypt for horses, he may have had the horses imported or he may have sent foreigners to Egypt. He also failed to follow the ban on many wives. Not sure about the ban on excessive gold for himself. He, like politicians today, may have considered the excessive gold and silver for the country and not himself at least until it came to spending it.

 

Solomon's wisdom appears to have been limited to select areas which certainly did not included domestic, moral or government areas. He was hard on the people and the son who became king acted like a spoiled brat. He married 699 wives and took 300 concubines instead of remaining faithful to his wife. Imagine how she felt. We may think higher of Solomon today than the people and his children did at that time. Who would have guessed the wealth God was going to give Solomon was to come from the people via high taxes.

 

We are told the OT gives us a window into how God dealt with his people at that time and we ignore the "windows" we do not like. For example: look at Joseph and what he did in Egypt during an economic crisis when he taxed the citizens into slavery to the government and made them pay interest on their own money. Then look at Solomon's high taxes. It suggests God favors tax and spend government which would certainly explain his response to the fervent prayers of Christians that he ensure the best person would be voted into office was Barack Obama TWICE!!

Don't forget Acts chapter 2:

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.

I wonder what the next window will show us.

 

Sunday, February 10, 2013

"God said it! I believe it! And that settles it!"

"God said it! I believe it! And that settles it!"
 
What that means is "I read somewhere in the Bible that God said it. I believe it, even if other Scriptures contradict it. I believe it, even if others understand differently. I believe it, even if my experience call it into question. I believe it, because I was taught it as a child, And, since believing i won't cause me the pain of change, that settles it!"
 
Jesus said, "You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth ..." Where had they heard that said? In the Bible, when the Lord said to Moses, "If anyone injures his neighbor whatever he had done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." God said it, they believed it, and that settled it for everyone but Jesus. Countering God's very words, Jesus said, "But I tell you ... if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
 
Jesus challenged blind dedication to the written word. This has never been popular.
 
Can we honor men and women in the bible and ignore their example?  They trusted their experiences with God more than the words that preceded them. Can we ignore their obedience to the voice of God telling them something new?

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Believing Something New

In the tenth chapter of Acts Luke tells of an experience Peter had that went against most of what he had been taught his entire life

Cornelius  saw in a vision an angel of God who told Cornelius to send men to Joppa and bring Peter to Caesarea.              

Luke recorded that Peter saw the heavens open and a sheet descend from the sky. The sheet contained certain animals Scriptures forbid Peter, a faithful Jew, to eat. The voice of God said "Rise, Peter, kill and eat."

Peter responded, "No, Lord; I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." Peter knew what he believed and he was faithful to those beliefs even if it meant saying no to God. Our response usually is a "no" especially when God wants us to think or act in a new way.

As we are, Peter was resistant to change. God had to repeat the vision three times. During each vision Peter was cautioned not to reject what God had accepted.

While Peter considered what the vision meant God had sent three men to knock on his door. The men asked Peter to go with them to Cornelius, a Gentile. To visit a Gentile's home was to violate the rigid rules separating Jew from Gentile. Torn between what he'd always been taught and his experience with God, Peter relied on his experience. He went with the men and saw God pour out his Spirit on the house of Cornelius and all the Gentiles gathered there.

Peter rejected what he had learned from his father. He rejected what his rabbi had taught. He rejected what his friends believed. He trusted his experience with God, though it challenged a belief of his religion and contradicted certain Scriptures. Despite all this pressure to conform, Peter believed something new.

Peter's vision represented a major shift in the popular understanding of God's grace. Such shifts would unsettle anyone.

Consider how difficult those days must have been for Peter. It is not easy to believe and act in opposition to your religious tradition. It gets you few friends and many enemies. In the eleventh chapter of Acts, Peter faced severe criticism from other disciples of Jesus for asserting God's grace was even for a Gentile.

The first believers were Jewish and some of them believed God's grace was for the Jew alone. They had formulas that limited God's grace to those who were circumcised, kept dietary laws, and essentially became Jewish. Peter voiced another view. Peter trusted his experience with God and believed in a more extravagant grace.

Peter knew he could no longer believe God's grace was limit to the Jew.

If God interjects himself in the world today how can we not consider Peter's experiences as possibly applicable to us today.

 

When had his father forgiven the prodigal son?

When we think of Jesus as our advocate are we saying God wants to destroy us but Jesus stops him?

 

A woman dies. She was not a member of the Church of Christ. Her life was difficult. Her father deserted her when she was three. He mother filled the void with a parade of temporary replacements, none of whom wanted her around. Passed from aunt to cousin to grandmother and back again, staying only as long as their patience allowed. Shuffled from school to school, from town to town. She made acquaintances, never a friend. Longing for stability she married young, and poorly.

 

Her husband abandoned her with three small children, no job, and no diploma. Her dreams withered away as she struggled to survive. All her life she'd been neglected, and now she began to neglect herself. Like dominoes falling, bad jobs were followed by worse ones; a poor husband was replaced with abusive boyfriends. Alcohol and drugs sped her descent. When the last domino toppled, she was thirty-two years old, the mother of five, unemployed, and living off the leftovers of neighbors and relatives. That domino tumbled the day she slept in with a hangover and woke to find her youngest daughter drowned in the pool next door.

 

At the funeral she told the preacher she had been abandoned by God. He assured her that God loved her and knew her pain that she was not alone.

 

What if at that point she had died? Did God love her; know her pain send her to hell?

 

She did not die. She lived another five years and according to everyone who knew her life story said they were the happiest years of her life.

 

Following her daughter's death she repented, she turned. She turned from thoughts of suicide, she turned from crippling self-pity. She turned from despair. She turned.

 

She moved to a small town. She found a job. The she found a better one. She bought a car. She bought a house. She made friends, not acquaintances. She made peace with her family. Life wasn't perfect, but she'd turned from despair.

 

A month before her death, she told her son of a new and surprising desire. She told her son "I think I'm going to look for a church."

 

One minute she was at work laughing with co-workers, the next she collapsed. The doctor thought she had a stroke. She was dead before she hit the floor. She died seeking

 

Some Christians believe in clear response to their prayers, she had been drawing close to God. She'd turned from the path of destruction. She'd been asking, seeking, and knocking. Would God invite her to his home, and then slam the door as she stood at threshold. Was it just a cruel joke?

 

In the parable of the Prodigal son at what point is the father running towards the son?  Had the father forgiven the son while the son was still in the far country? Had the father forgiven him even before he turned?

 

Friday, February 8, 2013

Church and State

If Christians understand the reasons behind the Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a religion Christians might be relieved instead of being upset. Christians must understand what government establishes or promotes government WILL govern.
In the 17th century the Puritans came to North America to get away from the corruption of the Church of England. The Colony's leaders, both lay and clergy believed the state must prevent error in religion and that the success of the Massachusetts plantation depended upon it.
A well know preacher at the time, Roger Williams, believed that preventing error in religion was impossible, since it required people to interpret God's law, and people would inevitably err. He believed government had to remove itself from anything that touched the man's relationship with God. He thought a society built on the principles Massachusetts espoused would lead at best to hypocrisy, at worst it would lead to the corruption of the church.
The dispute defined for the first time two positions that ran through American history up to today.The proper relationship between government and the church and the relation between a free individual and government authority---the shape of liberty.
Authorities in the Bay feared Roger Williams and ordered him to leave the colony and if he returned he risked execution.

When he left Massachusetts he went south to Narragansett Bay bought land from the Narragansett Indians and established Providence (Rhode Island). He meant it to be a place for people distressed for religion. Several of his friends and their families went with him. Since he owned the land he had political control over the settlement.

When he drafted the compact for Providence he relinquished most of the land---to a common stock---and any political rights, giving himself a vote equal to others. It did not propose to build a model of God's kingdom on earth, as the Massachusetts settlement had done. Nor did it even claim to advance God's will, as had been done by the founding documents of every other European settlement in North and South America, whether English, Spanish, Portuguese, or French. The compact did not even ask God's blessing. It did not mention God at all. While he was a preacher and religious he was convinced "that to assume God embraced any state other than ancient Israel profaned God and signified human arrogance in the extreme."

The other settlers agreed: "We, whose names are hereunder…do promise o subject ourselves in active and passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for public good…only in civil things."

Government dealt solely with the world. Unlike all other English settlements, this one neither set up a church nor required church attendance. Later it would decree that a simple "solemn profession had as full force as an oath" in court. This was revolutionary. Christians must remember the colonies required church attendance punishable by a fine if they did not attend.Government has no place in establishing or promoting religion.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

KJV

In 1534 Henry VIII rejected Catholicism, turned his kingdom Protestant was declared head of the new Church of England by parliament and had the folks who opposed him killed as heretics and traitors. His daughter, Queen Mary made England catholic again and had Protestants burned at the stake. Then Queen Elizabeth turned it Protestant and had Catholics who opposed her---including her cousin, Mary Queen of Scotts, executed. Her successor was her son King James who became king at age thirteen.

James was Protestant but moved the Church of England closer to Catholicism upsetting the Puritans. In 1604 James believed the existing English Bibles did not sufficiently emphasize obedience to authority ordered a new translation that became known as the King James Bible satisfied him on that point.

Apparently the KJV emphasizes obedience to authority more than earlier versions. At the time there was conflict over the relationship of government to religion. 

Free Will

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. The principle of free will has religious implications. In the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. We believe salvation is only for those who freely choose Jesus as their savior and choose to follow his instructions and human evil is an unavoidable byproduct of God's gift of free will. If free will goes, so do those beliefs.

 

Do we really have "free will?" "Free will" is defined as: at the moment when we have to decide among alternatives, we have free will if we could have chosen otherwise. In other words if we could re-do  our life up to the moment we make a choice, with every aspect of the universe configured identically, free will means that our choice could have been different.

 

Some believe this sort of free will is ruled out by the laws of physics.

 

Our brain and body, the vehicles that make "choices," are composed of molecules, and the arrangement of those molecules is entirely determined by our genes and our environment. Our decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain—our "choices"—are dictated by those laws. (It's possible, though improbable, that the indeterminacy of quantum physics may tweak behavior a bit, but such random effects can't be part of free will.) And deliberating about your choices in advance doesn't help matters, for that deliberation also reflects brain activity that must obey physical laws.

 

To assert that we can freely choose among alternatives is to claim that we can somehow step outside the physical structure of our brain and change its workings. We can't do that. Like the output of a programmed computer, only one choice is ever physically possible: the one we made. 

Re: Christians might want to consider that not everything is as it first appears.

"Yes" except in those cases where you are convinced you are right. 

 

I think Benjamin Franklin's attitude concerning the Constitution is the attitude Christians should have toward the beliefs and actions of others.

Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right. 

Do you suppose the members of the congregation where Mary Winkler attended ever considered she would kill her husband? Do you suppose those same folks considered their preacher would have treated his wife as she said he did? Did either of those events have an affect on the salvation of the members? Would you permit a person who "looked" Gay preach or pray or pass the communion trays? Would you let an overweight person preach or pray or pass the communion trays? How about one who smoked or chewed tobacco? How about one who regularly violated traffic laws? How about a man who cursed regularly? If asked  would you immerse any of them?

 

We do not need to agree with or condone the practices of everyone to assemble with them.  


John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
          http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

 
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice."

---Isaac Bashevis Singer



On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Martha Slate <slate1960@yahoo.com> wrote:
No snap judgements now.  Sometimes we draw conclusions too quickly. I am glad there is forgiveness for the repentant.

Is it possible that I could be wrong on something?



From: John Jenkins <jrjenki@gmail.com>
To: Martha Slate <slate1960@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:09 AM
Subject: Christians might want to consider that not everything is as it first appears.

I realize you may not think this is as interesting as I do. I have cut and pasted and editorialized. Sorry for the length but to me it is fascinating and causes a lot of questions.
 
For many Christians everything is black or white. But are they?
 
A while back I was listening to an interview on the radio, the subject was chimerism. The individual being interviewed was Karen Keegan who discovered her chimera-ness at age 52. When she needed a kidney transplant, she and her two adult children underwent DNA testing to figure out which kid's kidney would be the best match for mom. Surprisingly, the tests showed neither. In fact, according to DNA, Keegan's children weren't her children at all. The case confounded doctors for more than two years until, in 2000, the docs finally realized that Keegan's blood cells carried different genes from the cells in her ovaries---the long-absorbed twin was found. Does this mean Karen has two souls?
 
Then there is Lydia Fairchild who with her children are the subjects of a British documentary called The Twin Inside Me (also known as "I Am My Own Twin").
 
Lydia Fairchild was pregnant with her third child when she and the father of her children, Jamie Townsend, separated. When she applied for welfare support in 2002, she was requested to provide DNA evidence that Townsend was the father of her children. While the results showed Townsend was the father of the children, the DNA tests indicated that she was not their mother.
 
This resulted in Fairchild's being taken to court for fraud for claiming benefit for other people's children or taking part in a surrogacy scam. Hospital records of her prior births were disregarded. Prosecutors called for her two children to be taken into care. As time came for her to give birth to her third child, the judge ordered a witness be present at the birth. This witness was to ensure that blood samples were immediately taken from both the child and Fairchild. Two weeks later, DNA tests indicated that she was not the mother of that child either.
 
A breakthrough came when a lawyer for the prosecution found an article in the New England Journal of Medicine about a similar case involving Karen Keegan that had happened in Boston. He realized that Fairchild's case might also be caused by chimerism. Fairchild's prosecutors suggested this possibility to her lawyers, who arranged further testing. As in Keegan's case, DNA samples were taken from members of the extended family. The DNA of Fairchild's children matched that of Fairchild's mother to the extent expected of a grandmother. They also found that, although the DNA in Fairchild's skin and hair did not match her children's, the DNA from a cervical smear test did match. Fairchild was carrying two different sets of DNA, the defining characteristic of a chimera.
 
Chimeras can incorporate twins of different sexes with much stranger results. In 1998, Scottish doctors reported treating a teenage boy for an undescended testicle. But when they put the kid under the knife, no second testicle could be found to pull down. Instead doctors discovered an ovary and fallopian tube.
 
The existence of chimerism is problematic for DNA testing since it results in one individual having at least two sets of DNA. Chimerism is thought to affect homosexuality and transgender identity. Male cells outgrow female cells in this condition; the majority of male/female chimeras should be phenotypically male. Since the majority of any organ tends to be made from one embryo or the other, while a mixed-sex brain could occur in any proportion, generally the brain would be primarily male or female.
 
Is it possible that at least some homosexuals and transgenders are born the way they are like heterosexuals?
 
Individuals opposed to abortion claim "life begins at conception." But does it? At what point does the soul attach?
 
The there is the case in 2002, a 40-year old male school teacher began to view child pornography websites, and soliciting prostitutes at massage parlors, activities which there are no accounts of him having done in the past. The man's wife turned him into the police when he was found making subtle sexual advances towards young children.
 
He was found guilty of child molestation and medicated for pedophilia. He was given an ultimatum; he could either pass a 12-step Sexaholics Anonymous rehabilitation program or face jail time. He chose the former but was expelled after asking the ladies in the program for sex. 
 
The evening before his prison sentencing, he took himself to a hospital, complaining that he had a massive headache and would "rape his landlady." An MRI revealed an egg-sized brain tumor located in the right lobe of the orbifrontal cortex, which is tied to judgment, impulse control and social behavior. 
 
Once the tumor was removed, his sex-obsession disappeared.
 
After he was remanded to psychiatric care, he complained of balance problems and a MRI scan revealed an egg-sized brain tumor. Further tests found the man was also unable to write or copy drawings and was unconcerned when he urinated on himself.
 
But seven months after the tumor was removed, and after successfully completing the Sexaholics Anonymous program, the man returned home. In October 2001 he complained of headaches and secretly collected pornography once more. But after a MRI scan revealed tumor regrowth and it was removed, the behavior again disappeared.
 
How many people are in prison for doing something that due to the condition of their brain they could not control? How would we like being put in prison for doing something we could not control? I hear a lot of folks that sin and crime are just a matter of making the right choices. But are they?
 
Not everything is as it first appears.

 
 
 
 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
          http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

 

"I have always told you some version of the truth." 

Jack Nicholson "Something's Gotta Give" 



Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Christians might want to consider that not everything is as it first appears.

I realize you may not think this is as interesting as I do. I have cut and pasted and editorialized. Sorry for the length but to me it is fascinating and causes a lot of questions.
 
For many Christians everything is black or white. But are they?

 

A while back I was listening to an interview on the radio, the subject was chimerism. The individual being interviewed was Karen Keegan who discovered her chimera-ness at age 52. When she needed a kidney transplant, she and her two adult children underwent DNA testing to figure out which kid's kidney would be the best match for mom. Surprisingly, the tests showed neither. In fact, according to DNA, Keegan's children weren't her children at all. The case confounded doctors for more than two years until, in 2000, the docs finally realized that Keegan's blood cells carried different genes from the cells in her ovaries---the long-absorbed twin was found. Does this mean Karen has two souls?

 

Then there is Lydia Fairchild who with her children are the subjects of a British documentary called The Twin Inside Me (also known as "I Am My Own Twin").

 

Lydia Fairchild was pregnant with her third child when she and the father of her children, Jamie Townsend, separated. When she applied for welfare support in 2002, she was requested to provide DNA evidence that Townsend was the father of her children. While the results showed Townsend was the father of the children, the DNA tests indicated that she was not their mother.

 

This resulted in Fairchild's being taken to court for fraud for claiming benefit for other people's children or taking part in a surrogacy scam. Hospital records of her prior births were disregarded. Prosecutors called for her two children to be taken into care. As time came for her to give birth to her third child, the judge ordered a witness be present at the birth. This witness was to ensure that blood samples were immediately taken from both the child and Fairchild. Two weeks later, DNA tests indicated that she was not the mother of that child either.

 

A breakthrough came when a lawyer for the prosecution found an article in the New England Journal of Medicine about a similar case involving Karen Keegan that had happened in Boston. He realized that Fairchild's case might also be caused by chimerism. Fairchild's prosecutors suggested this possibility to her lawyers, who arranged further testing. As in Keegan's case, DNA samples were taken from members of the extended family. The DNA of Fairchild's children matched that of Fairchild's mother to the extent expected of a grandmother. They also found that, although the DNA in Fairchild's skin and hair did not match her children's, the DNA from a cervical smear test did match. Fairchild was carrying two different sets of DNA, the defining characteristic of a chimera.

 

Chimeras can incorporate twins of different sexes with much stranger results. In 1998, Scottish doctors reported treating a teenage boy for an undescended testicle. But when they put the kid under the knife, no second testicle could be found to pull down. Instead doctors discovered an ovary and fallopian tube.

 

The existence of chimerism is problematic for DNA testing since it results in one individual having at least two sets of DNA. Chimerism is thought to affect homosexuality and transgender identity. Male cells outgrow female cells in this condition; the majority of male/female chimeras should be phenotypically male. Since the majority of any organ tends to be made from one embryo or the other, while a mixed-sex brain could occur in any proportion, generally the brain would be primarily male or female.

 

Is it possible that at least some homosexuals and transgenders are born the way they are like heterosexuals?

 

Individuals opposed to abortion claim "life begins at conception." But does it? At what point does the soul attach?

 

The there is the case in 2002, a 40-year old male school teacher began to view child pornography websites, and soliciting prostitutes at massage parlors, activities which there are no accounts of him having done in the past. The man's wife turned him into the police when he was found making subtle sexual advances towards young children.

 

He was found guilty of child molestation and medicated for pedophilia. He was given an ultimatum; he could either pass a 12-step Sexaholics Anonymous rehabilitation program or face jail time. He chose the former but was expelled after asking the ladies in the program for sex. 

 

The evening before his prison sentencing, he took himself to a hospital, complaining that he had a massive headache and would "rape his landlady." An MRI revealed an egg-sized brain tumor located in the right lobe of the orbifrontal cortex, which is tied to judgment, impulse control and social behavior. 

 

Once the tumor was removed, his sex-obsession disappeared.

 

After he was remanded to psychiatric care, he complained of balance problems and a MRI scan revealed an egg-sized brain tumor. Further tests found the man was also unable to write or copy drawings and was unconcerned when he urinated on himself.

 

But seven months after the tumor was removed, and after successfully completing the Sexaholics Anonymous program, the man returned home. In October 2001 he complained of headaches and secretly collected pornography once more. But after a MRI scan revealed tumor regrowth and it was removed, the behavior again disappeared.
 
How many people are in prison for doing something that due to the condition of their brain they could not control? How would we like being put in prison for doing something we could not control? I hear a lot of folks that sin and crime are just a matter of making the right choices. But are they?

 

Not everything is as it first appears.


 
 
 
 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
          http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

 

"I have always told you some version of the truth." 

Jack Nicholson "Something's Gotta Give"