Friday, February 15, 2013

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" 

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Does the Term Scriptures Refer to the New Testament?

Tradition says Timothy was born in the year 17 and died in 97 at the age of 80.

 

But as for you,  continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings,  which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

 

If Timothy had access to the sacred writings from childhood the term scriptures does not include the New Testament since Timothy was around 30 years-old when the first book of the New Testament was written.. 

Catfish Grabs Pigeon


You've mentioned when you were going off to college folks warned you would lose your faith. When kids who have gone away to college return home they mention how their friends, parents, people at church etc have changed. In reality those people have remained the same the college student has changed. Change of environment changes folks' perspective.

 

Evolution is a long, slow process an endless saga of trials and errors and apparently impossible to witness and is happening today. Most church goers don't question. That is not me. My mother told the story of when I was in kindergarten she would walk me to school. One day I almost beat her back to the house. She was upset and asked me why I had left school but my answer did not make sense. She walked me back to school and asked the teacher what had happened. The teacher told her I had come in and asked her what we were going to do today. The teacher said "same thing we did yesterday" and I said "I've done that" and left.

 

Most folks who read the bible do not question and a common answer is "God did it." Ask them how Noah and his wife's descendants developed into the races and the answer is "God did it." Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations.  

 

Before they have a hissy fit Christians should understand what scientists believe and what they say. Scientists accept theories as theories educators teach theories as facts. The Nebraska Man was discovered in 1922. After years of scientists believing it was a missing link it was discovered to be a pig's tooth. One piece and some scientist defined a human being. If Christians would read more they would not get so upset.

 

God created the heavens and the earth everything else is conjecture and speculation. Physicists like Stephen Hawkins believe the universe is expanding. It is only natural to wonder what would I find if I could reverse the process.  Hawkins believes he can take the universe back to a billionth of a second before the big bang. He says that billionth of a second is the mind of God. Is he right?  

 

I have no idea how God created the heavens and earth and it does not matter. Moses(?) wrote "and God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars and God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night. . . When you think of great lights do you think of things that reflect? The moon is not a light. It reflects light so the sun rules over the day and by the moon as proxy the night. Suppose the moon looked like a light to Moses?

 

Original purpose of this note: there are large river catfish in southern France that have developed an appetite for pigeons. The link below is to a video that shows catfish approaching the shore line, grabbing a pigeon and dragging it into the water. If this catches on I wonder how it will affect the evolution of the pigeons and the evolution of the catfish? Ever wonder why no one teaches baby fish to avoid anything that looks like a "j"

 
 

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" 

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Do We Really Want to Get Government Involved?

 

As much as Christians complain that other groups are intolerant Christians are as a practice as intolerant as any group if not more so. Take the individual who blocked Bob's presentations. Attendance would be voluntary and the individual could have just not attended but since he or she did not like it no one should attend.

Such as the Christian's attitude toward same-sex marriage and abortion I don't like it so no one should be allowed to do it. Though wringing their collective hands worrying about government intervention in our religious traditions we want government to involve itself into the lives of others. A week or so ago I heard an interview of a woman from Texas who had an abortion and she talked about her experience.

Do we want to give government the authority to punish woman asking for a legal medical procedure?

Texas law says the doctor must talk to the woman about certain things before she can have an abortion. After she gets this information, her doctor must wait 24 hours before the abortion can be performed. The law also requires that she receive a sonogram from the doctor (or agent) who will be performing the abortion at least 24 hours before the abortion is to occur. If she lives more than 100 miles away from the nearest abortion provider, she can waive this requirement, but she will still be required to have a sonogram by the doctor performing the abortion. It will need to occur at least 2 hours before the abortion, rather than 24 hours before.

Once she arrives at the doctor's office, and before the sonogram, she will be asked to sign a sonogram/abortion election form. This form certifies that she is aware of the law and its requirements. The doctor will also give her materials to read.

During the sonogram, the doctor is required to display the sonogram images and make the heart beat audible. She may decline to view the images and listen to the heartbeat. The doctor must also provide a verbal explanation of the sonogram results. Only women who certify on the sonogram/abortion election form one of the following criteria can decline to hear the verbal explanation:

  • the pregnancy is a result of a sexual assault, incest, or other violation of the Penal Code that has been reported to law enforcement authorities or that has not been reported because she reasonably believes that to do so would put her at risk of retaliation resulting in serious bodily injury;
  • the woman is a minor and obtaining an abortion in accordance with judicial bypass procedures under Chapter 33, Family Code; or
  • the fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality, as medically documented in the woman's medical file.

These exceptions are evidence that the requirements of the law are intended to punish the patient since none of the criteria has anything to do with the claim the fetus is a human life and the concern is how the conception came about. Apparently the manner of the conception determines the humanity of the fetus.

This is an example of government trying to govern a moral issue.
 
Do we want to get government involved?

 

 
John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too."
 
---Voltaire
 
 

Mislead by the Invitation

In the parable of the sowers Jesus portrayed four types of hearers. Jesus described the second soil, "When they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness." But, Jesus warns, "They have no root in themselves, and so endure only for a time." Jesus knew the reality of being heard by crowds who had no desire to truly follow Him. Jesus knew the possibility of the "emotional response."

Some disagree with Jesus and believe the "emotional response" is the reason to extend an appeal for a public decision, "The Invitation." The problem is that in their attempt to work out their own standing before God by their own efforts people have the tendency to do something of merit that prompts many to respond to the evangelist's appeal. An evangelist with a commanding personality may convince many into what is considered to be an act of religious merit through some public act.

Many go away from the "altar," told that they are now Christians, knowing that they are not changed one bit. They assume, falsely, that their action has made them right with God. 

The Invitation

The practice of "offering the invitation" has its beginning in the 1800s. The system has been refined and used to such an extent it has become most congregations primary act of evangelism.

 

Christians claim biblical support for what they choose to do. While Jesus called people publicly i.e. "Follow Me," or "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess before My Father which is in heaven" nowhere does Jesus give altar calls. While Jesus called men to Himself neither he nor the apostles appealed for people to "come forward" as either a testimony to their decision or as an act of accepting Jesus.

 

To what was Jesus calling people? Was it to make a "one time" decision about him or to follow him all their lives? "The Invitation" gives the impression that it was to a "one time" decision. The there is "confessing Him before men". Was Jesus saying that by a single act of confession one became a believer or was he teaching that one mark of real faith is a life that continually confesses Him? Again, "The Invitation" leads many to trust in a "confession," though they openly live in rebellion to Him throughout their lives.

 

Jesus and the apostles called people to repentance and faith but nowhere do we see either used any form of "The Invitation" to either bring people to faith or to confirm their faith.