George Washington on religious toleration

“All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.  For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens … “

 

 

Which to take Literally

We are told that there is one correct way to participate in the Lord’s Supper i.e. Luke 22:17-20: “After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

 

Luke says Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it. Isn’t that part of the pattern? Does the pattern include multiple cups or just one? Luke says Jesus took the cup. There is no end to controversies whether we ought to take one detail or another literally and ignore the obvious.  The early church---from all appearances---observed the Lord’s Supper in conjunction with a normal ordinary make with the usual variety of food. Jude referenced “love feast.”  

Why 10,000 years

The youth of the church do not accept what they are being taught.

 

If I make something look like an antique so that you believe it is an antique am I being honest and ethical? Was God pretending when he asked Adam and Eve where they were? We are told God knows the number of hairs on our head but he did not know where Adam and Eve were hiding?

 

I know what I believe and why I believe it. My guess is no one knows why they believe the earth is 10,000 years old.

 

Groupthink

 

Jerry Harvey wrote an article “Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement.” His point is a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of many of the individuals in the group. It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections. A common phrase relating to the Abilene paradox is a desire to not "rock the boat". I believe the GSMCOC men are an example. The men of GSMCOC, have shown we cannot discuss sensitive personnel issues. Until we are able, groupthink will rule.

I have included Harvey’s paradox below.

 

On a hot afternoon in Coleman, Texas, the story goes; a family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests they take a trip to Abilene, fifty-three miles north, for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out of step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time." The drive is hot, dusty and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is bad. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted. One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?"

 

The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic." The husband says, "I didn't want to go. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.

 

The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.

 

This is a benign but dramatic illustration of the consequences of groupthink. Every member of the group agreed to do something they didn't want to do because they thought the others were committed to doing it. The result was that no one came away happy.

Does the Bible teach the earth is immovably fixed in space?

In the sixteenth century Nicholas Copernicus suggested that the earth moves, when Scripture seems to teach the earth is immovably fixed in space. I can provide verses if you like.

This may not seem to be a huge deal nowadays, but at the time it was a very hot topic. The reason? In the fourth century BC the Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that the earth was fixed in the center of the universe and that the sun, stars, and planets revolved around it.  This fixed-earth view held sway for centuries even though, as early as 250 BC. a sun-centered system was suggested. After all, it made a lot of sense to ordinary people; the sun appears to go round the earth; and, if the earth moves, why aren't we all flung off into space? Why does a stone, thrown straight up into the air, come straight down if the earth is rotating rapidly? Why don's we feel a strong win blowing in our faces in the opposite direction to our motion? The idea that the earth moved was absurd.

But now we need to face an important question: why do Christians accept this "new" interpretation, and not still insist on a "literal" understanding of the "pillars of the earth?"  Why we are not still split up into fixed-earthers and moving-earthers? Is it really because we have all compromised, and made Scripture subservient to science?

In the January 2010 issue of Smithsonian magazine there is an article about the Dead Sea scrolls. The article says the thousands of tourists who flock to Qumran each year, where the scrolls were discovered, are told the site was once home to a Jewish sect called the Essenes, who devoted their lives to writing and preserving sacred texts. An Israeli archaeologist disagrees, and says the settlement was originally a small fort that was later converted into a pottery factory to serve nearby towns. Which story sounds better to the tourists? Do they want to know the truth or do they want to continue to believe what they want to believe even if it might be false?

Free Will?

When an animal kills we do not bother to ask the question of blame. We simply deal with the offending animal in the most straightforward manner to maintain public safety.

 

When it comes to humans the legal system rests on the assumption of free will and we are judged based on this perceived freedom.

 

The rabies virus is a microscopically small organism which takes over the behavior of a host. After a bite from one mammal to another, this tiny virus climbs its way up the nerves into the brain. There it changes the local patterns of activity inducing host to aggression, rage, and a propensity to bite. By steering the behavior of the host, the tiny virus survives by commandeering the massive body of the host millions of times larger than it. The lesson is that invisibly small changes inside the brain can cause massive changes to behavior. Should we punish the individual for failing to exercise his free-will not to bite?

 

In 1966 Charles Whitman killed thirteen and wounded thirty-three beginning with his mother and wife the previous day. Whitman had thought something was different about himself and he was correct and asked that his brain be examined to possibly understand what. At his own request following his death his brain was examined and a tumor abut the diameter of a nickel was discovered. It is thought the tumor was the cause of his actions. Should he have been punished for his failure to use his free will to make better choices?

 

In 2002, a 40-year old male school teacher began to view child pornography websites, and solicit 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.

 

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 area of the brain 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 he complained of headaches and secretly collected pornography once more. After an MRI scan revealed tumor regrowth and it was removed, the behavior again disappeared.

 

Should he be punished for failing to use his free will to make better choices?

 

Frontotemporal dementia is a disease which causes parts of the brain to degenerate. Patients lose the ability to control the hidden impulses. They patients find a variety ways to violate social norms: shoplifting in front of store managers, removing their clothes in public, running stop signs, breaking out in song at inappropriate times, eating food scraps found in public trash cans, or being physically aggressive or sexually transgressive. Currently there is no medication to stop it. Over fifty percent of frontotemporal dementia patients display socially violating behavior compared with less than ten percent of Alzheimer’s patient. Should these people be punished for failing to use their free will to make better decisions?

 

When Parkinson’s patients were given a drug called pramipexole some of them turned into pathological gamblers. These patients had never before displayed gambling behavior. For some, the new addiction reached beyond gambling to compulsive eating, alcohol consumption and hypersexuality.

 

The treatment for Parkinson’s is to increase the patient’s dopamine levels. It turns out along with dopamine’s role in motor commands it also guiding a person toward food, drink, mates, and all things useful for survival. Because of its role in the reward system, imbalances in dopamine can trigger gambling, overeating, and drug addiction.

 

Should these people be punished for failing to use their free will to make better decisions?

 

A slight change in the balance of brain chemistry can cause large changes in behavior. Should these people be punished or treated in ways to protect society.

 

There is no consensus of the causes of homosexuality do they really have free will? Do you have control over the gender you find sexually attractive?   

Is Satan as all powerful as we claim?

Have you considered that the folks who translated the bible let their personal prejudices and biases unduly influence their work? While Jesus did not choose a woman as an apostle he appeared to not hold the biases towards women we know existed in the world at the time as it does today. It appears to me the New Testament is similar to CNN in that on CNN the president says something and then “experts” tell us what he meant. In the bible we have Matthew Mark, Luke, and John telling us what Jesus said and we have Paul’s and Peter’s letters telling us what he meant.

 

I have to wonder if our understanding of what Jesus said is correct.

 

Did God create Satan as evil or is he a fellow-sinner like the rest of us? If he dropped dead would sin continue to exist? James says “each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” He does not say Satan tempts or causes us to sin.

 

Genesis says “the serpent was craftier than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman…” but we say Satan tempted Eve.

 

The author of Genesis tells us “the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.”

 

The author fails to differentiate that God is next speaking to Satan: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

He then speaks to Eve.

If God is speaking only to Satan, Satan is cursed above all livestock and wild animals and is crawling on his belly eating dust. If he is speaking only to the Serpent we have God putting enmity between the Serpent and Eve and between the Serpent’s offspring and Eve’s offspring and Eve’s offspring will crush the Serpents head and the serpent will strike Eve’s offspring’s heel.

If he is first speaking to the Serpent and then speaks to Satan we have something that makes sense.

Folks are not comfortable considering ideas other than those they have heard their entire lives isn’t it more important to know truth. Youth are not accepting our explanations. As one fellow wrote the youth are spiritual but it not the spiritual of their fathers.

    

Does Christianity make people prejudiced?

     

Working at Dollywood has exposed me to people with whom I would not otherwise have associated. 

 

It’s no secret that the evangelical church is divided along racial/ethnic lines; evangelicals rarely engage in meaningful interactions outside of our mostly homogenous church groups. Sociologists report that over 90 percent of all American churches are composed of congregations that are at least 90 percent racially homogenous and even though American society is increasing in diversity, American churches are decreasing in diversity.  Social psychologists have found a significant correlation between Christian religiosity and racial prejudice. The more people identify with Christianity, the more they display racial prejudice.

 

 

We naturally create group categories that distinguish us versus them. This distinction is good for group formation; we have a stronger group identity and greater group solidarity when we can easily distinguish ourselves from other groups. However, when it comes to the way we categorize Christians, our fellow church members are mostly, if not entirely, composed of ethnically-similar others. The people who belong to our homogenous church group with whom we interact on a regular basis are the people with whom we most closely associate the term “Christian.”  We automatically and nonconsciously apply the term “Christian” exclusively to our church group and not to the broader, diverse body of Christ. As a result, ethnically-dissimilar Christians are treated like the outsiders they are perceived to be.

 

 

When we get beyond the comfort of our racially-homogenous churches, we will begin to associate the term “Christian” with those who do not necessarily look, think, talk, or act like us. Only then will we begin to embody the unity and diversity for which the Church was intended.

 

No King But King Jesus

 

George Washington and Martha did not have children of their own. George did take in Martha’s children from an earlier marriage, John Parke Custis and Martha Parke Custis. Later George and Martha raised John's two children when John died in 1781. George had no direct descendants.

 

Studies have shown we are more likely to believe that a statement is true if we have heard it before---whether or not it is actually true: “illusion-of-truth effect.” Subjects rated the validity of plausible sentences every two weeks. Without letting on, the experimenters snuck in some repeat sentences (both true and false ones) across the testing sessions. And they found a clear result: if subjects had heard a sentence in previous weeks, they were more likely to now rate it as true, even if they swore they had never heard it before. This is the case even when the experimenter tells the subjects that the sentences they are about to hear are false: despite this, mere exposure to an idea is enough to boost its believability upon later contact. The illusion-of-truth effect highlights the potential danger for people who are repeatedly exposed to the same religious edicts or political slogans.

 

How many untruths do Christians believe only because they have heard it all of their lives? What the fellow said about knowing George’s direct descendant is blatantly untrue but since they have heard it once when they hear it again people will believe it to be true.

 

From what I have found “No king but King Jesus” was the slogan of the Fifth Monarchists during the Interregnum in England, but there is little evidence for its use during the American Revolution.

 

At a 1999 commencement speech at Bob Jones University, Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft is quoted as saying this phrase was a slogan of the founding fathers. He also said this sentiment is found in the Declaration of Independence in the phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Was this the motivating cry of the Revolution, and was Thomas Jefferson alluding to it in the Declaration? Ashcroft was wrong on both counts.

 

While people in the colonies may have used the expression, I have not found anything to suggest that it was a central rallying cry, nor that it was implied in the Declaration of Independence. Members of radical sects first used the phrase in a revolutionary context in England in the mid-17th century during the British Civil War. Groups such as the Diggers and the Levellers believed that after the execution of Charles I, a biblical monarchy was near and that Jesus would be the king. (The Diggers advocated the abolition of private property, and the Levellers were for the separation of church and state.) The phrase was particularly incendiary because it attacked the authority of both king of England as well as the clergy. In the American colonies, there are some historical references to it being said by Presbyterians who were agitating against the authority of the British king and harkening back to the earlier revolution.

 

The Enlightenment, not Revelation, was the underlying philosophy of the founders. While Jefferson was a member of the Anglican Church, he, like Washington, Adams, Madison, and Franklin, was a Deist. He believed in a rational God who created the world but that it was up to men, through reason and science, to shape it. Jefferson believed Jesus was a historical figure and moral philosopher, but like his fellow founders, was skeptical about the divinity of Jesus.

 

    I suggest quotes without credit be looked upon as suspect. If you are still reading this I am surprised.