On the Subject of Blindness

On the subject of blindness: What we are able to experience is limited by our biology.  This differs from the view that our eyes, ears, and fingers receive an objective physical world outside of ourselves. Our brains sample a small bit of the surrounding physical world.

 

At the beginning of the last century biologists noticed that different animals in the same ecosystem picked up different signals from their environment. In the blind and deaf world of the tick the important signals are temperature and the odor of butyric acid. For the black ghost knifefish, it is electrical signals. For the bat it is air-compression. Biologists introduced a new concept: the part that you are able to see, the environment or surrounding world, they call the umwelt and the bigger reality, if there is such a thing, they called the umgebung.

 

Each organism has its own umwelt, which it assumes to be the entire objective reality out there.

 

Ask yourself what would it be like to have been blind from birth. If your guess is "it would be something like blackness" or "something like a dark hole where vision should be," you would be wrong. Imagine you are a scent dog such as a bloodhound. Your long nose would contain two hundred million receptors. On the outside, your wet nostrils attract and trap scent molecules. The slits at the corners or each nostril flare out to allow more air flow as you sniff. Your floppy ears drag along the ground and kick up scent molecules. Your world is smelling. You wonder what it must be like to have the pitiful, impoverished nose of a human being. What could humans possibly detect when they take in a feeble little nose of air? Do they suffer a blackness? A hole of smell where smell is supposed to be?

 

Because you are human you know the answer is no. There is no hole or blackness or a missing feeling where the scent is absent. You accept your reality as it is presented to you. Because you do not have the smelling capabilities of a bloodhound, it doesn't occur to you that things could be different.  The same goes of people with color blindness: until they learn that others can see hues they cannot, the thought does not appear on their radar.

 

A fraction of women have not just three but four photoreceptors---and as a result they can distinguish colors that the majority of men and women will never differentiate. If you are not a member of that small female population, then you have just discovered something about your own impoverishments that you were unaware of. You may not have thought yourself to be color-blind, but to those ladies supersensitive to hues, you are. In the end, it does not ruin your day; instead, it only makes you wonder how someone else can see the world so strangely. One can only imagine the number of divorces that fourth photo-receptor has caused.

 

And so it goes for the congenitally blind. They are not missing anything; they do not see blackness where vision is missing. Vision was never part of their reality in the first place, and they miss it only as much as you miss the extra scents of the bloodhound dog or the extra colors of the tetrachromatic women.

 

Christians and Marriage

The first known statements about Jesus’ celibacy first appeared about a century after his death.  Clement of Alexandria, a theologian and church father who lived from A.D. 150 to A.D. 215, reported on a group of second-century Christians “who say outright that marriage is fornication and teach that it was introduced by the devil.” They proudly say that they are imitating the Lord who neither married or had any possession in this world boasting that they understand the gospel better than anyone else.”

 

Clement wrote that while celibacy and virginity were good for God’s elect, Christians could have sex in marriage so long as it was without desire and for procreation. Other church fathers also invoked Jesus’ unmarried state. Complete unmarriedness was how the holy man turned away from the world, and toward God’s new kingdom.

 

There is a papyrus fragment that suggests Jesus was married. There were early Christians…who could understand that sexual union in marriage could be an imitation of God’s creativity and it could be spiritually proper and appropriate.

 

Questions concerning Jesus’ celibacy may have been rejected because they flowed were contrary to the Christian practice and understandings of marriage and sexual intercourse.

 

Today we look askance at such beliefs but we have to imagine the affect on the church that church leaders advocated such.

If We Suspend the Sixth Commandment

If, as some assert, it is justifiable to break the sixth commandment to protect oneself or one's interests, is it also permissible to break any of the other commandments when threatened? Consider the same question of defense, but substitute any of God's commands for the sixth commandment:

 

» First Commandment: Could we have another god before the true God if it meant protection for our families and properties? For instance, would God look kindly upon us accepting Allah in order to stay alive?

 

» Second Commandment: Can we fall back on idol worship if it will keep us alive? Aaron built the Golden Calf for the Israelites because he feared them more than God (Exodus 32:1-9)—and God was very displeased!

 

» Third Commandment: Can we take on God's name, only to renounce it when trouble comes? Could we diminish the quality of our worship of God if it meant safety and security? Would God be pleased if we ignored His true nature—His character, mind, plans, will, promises—in hope of putting ourselves in a better position?

 

» Fourth Commandment: The seventh-day Sabbath is a weekly reminder of some of God's attributes, as well as a unique sign and everlasting covenant between Him and His people (Exodus 31:12-17). It plays a crucial part in our relationship with God. Would He ever approve our renouncing the Sabbath to keep from harm? Imperial and Papal Rome martyred many Christians because they held this part of God's law as inviolate.

 

»Fifth Commandment: A current cultural trend is disrespect toward parents by both adolescent and grown children. However, in Deuteronomy 27:16, God pronounces a death sentence on children who treat their parents with contempt. Likewise, He would condemn a person who broke this commandment to save his skin.

 

» Seventh Commandment: The spiritual principle behind adultery and fornication is faithlessness to an agreement, covenant, or contract. God accuses Israel of harlotry because they were unfaithful to their covenant with Him. Even though it is highly unlikely that we would ever be "asked" to commit sexual immorality to save our lives, could we break an agreement or contract to protect our lives or properties? Would God wink at our breaking our eternal covenant with Him—sealed with His Son's blood—in the interest of self-preservation?

 

» Eighth Commandment: The psalmist writes that, in all of his life, he has "not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his descendants begging bread" (Psalm 37:25). We would not be justified in stealing food—or anything else—to preserve life when God shows repeatedly in His Word that He will provide for the righteous (Matthew 6:25, 33).

 

» Ninth Commandment: It is extremely easy to lie to save oneself or one's family. Anyone up against a wall with a gun to his head would be tempted to tell a "little white lie" to stay alive. Under the perceived threat of death because of Sarah's beauty, Abraham told a "half-truth" to Abimelech. God did not accept this behavior from the "father of the faithful." Would He be pleased with us in any similar situation?

 

» Tenth Commandment: In its wider application, the command against coveting deals with the root of one's sin against his neighbor: attitudes, desires, and secret thoughts. If our "neighbor" is robbing or threatening us, would God hold us guiltless for "coveting" our neighbor's life—desiring that his life be taken—if God has not ordained it?

It is evident that God does not allow us to suspend His inexorable law if our life is threatened. Human nature, though, insists on a "self clause." Human nature tells us that God's law is fine unless it goes contrary to what we perceive as our best interests.

 

Noah?

God instructed Noah to build an ark and fill it with two of each kind. By the time the waters receded, all the earth was barren, and it was time to begin again.

 

Noah preserved the diversity of species that had existed before the flood---he took two of each kind and the earth was replenished. Strictly speaking, Noah did some big damage to genetic diversity.

 

Extinction is unusually troubling because it seems incompatible with God’s purposes as revealed in the story of Noah’s flood. If God valued animals enough to have Noah mount a heroic rescue effort to prevent them from perishing in the flood, then surly God would not look the other way as they gradually died out after the flood. 

 

If we presume the Genesis account is historically and scientifically correct there are questions that must be addressed:

 

If the flood was global and Noah preached for one-hundred-twenty years to whom did Noah preach and how did he travel?

 

How many dinosaurs fit on the ark?

 

How did Noah stop the predators from eating the prey?

 

 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



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

 

“Having spent considerable time with good people, I can understand why Jesus liked to be with tax collectors and reprobate sinners."

Mark Twain

Can Christians Suspend the Sixth Commandment

Many Christians demonstrate a growing sentiment that allows for or even endorses Christians taking up weapons for their own defense or the defense of other Christians. Often they point to incidents such as attackers charging into a church service and begian shooting and hurling grenades. The hero of the story, a “heat-packing Christian," returned fire with his .38 caliber pistol, killing or wounding a number of the attackers.

Enthusiasts of this story look at it partly with satisfaction that some of the attackers were "taken out" and partly with disappointment that more worshippers were not carrying guns so more could have been "saved" not by grace through faith but by a good old-fashioned shoot-out between believers and nonbelievers.

They point to God's instructions to the nation of Israel to destroy the idolatrous Canaanites but they fail to recognize God's original promise to Israel that He would drive out the inhabitants of the land if Israel would obey Him. They also point to the commands in the Old Testament to kill lawbreakers within the church-state of Israel.

Their basic premise is that Christians are perfectly justified in killing in self-defense or in anticipation of a crime.

The question for Christians to consider is even though we benefit from living in a society where gun ownership is a constitutional right, are we ever justified in intentionally killing another human being i.e. killing someone to protect our life or property or that of the church?

Israel, before they demanded a king was both a nation and a religious congregation. The human government that God ordained over Israel had both civil and religious authority. As such, many of Israel's civil laws given by God through Moses are not directly applicable today because we do not live in a church-state with God at the helm and directly bearing on the judicial process. Nonetheless, these laws still show God's intent and will concerning civil matters.

God’s instructions to Israel about what to do when a man was killed shows that God recognizes two classifications of killing: accidental and intentional. "Self-defense" is not even listed as a possibility! God illustrates "accidental death" as occurring when there is no intent to kill or to harm. It is accidental when there is no awareness that an action will result in the death of another. God gives an example in Deuteronomy: . . . as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies."

However, when there is intent to kill or injure, the Law defines it as murder regardless of what the other person was threatening to do, about to do, or in the process of doing. If a man fires a gun with the foreknowledge that it has the potential to kill another man, it is murder. The "self-defense" category is something afforded by the law of the land, not by the law of God.

If, as some assert, it is justifiable to break the sixth commandment to protect oneself or one's interests, it would also be permissible to break any of the other commandments when threatened. Consider the same question of defense, but substitute any of God's commands for the sixth commandment:

·        Command 1: Can we have another god before the true God if it meant protecting our families and properties?

·        Command 2: Can we fall back on idol worship if it will keep us alive?

·        Command 3: Can we take on God's name, only to renounce it when trouble comes? Could we diminish the quality of worship of God if it meant safety and security?

·        Command 4: Can we renounce the Sabbath to keep from harm?

·        Command 5: Can we disrespect both adolescent and grown children disrespect our parents?

·        Command 7: Even though it is highly unlikely that we would ever be "asked" to commit sexual immorality to save our lives, would God wink at our sin in the interest of self-preservation

·        Command 8: Would we be justified in stealing food—or anything else—to preserve life when God shows repeatedly in His Word that He will provide for the righteous?

·        Command 9: It is extremely easy to lie to save oneself or one's family. Anyone up against a wall with a gun to his head would be tempted to tell a lie to stay alive.

·        Command 10: In its wider application, the command against coveting deals with the root of one's sin against his neighbor: attitudes, desires, and secret thoughts. If our "neighbor" is robbing or threatening us, would God hold us guiltless for "coveting" our neighbor's life—desiring that his life be taken?

We are not allowed to suspend God’s law if our life is threatened. Human nature insists on a "self clause." Human nature tells us that God's law is fine unless it goes contrary to what we perceive as our best interests.

Does God allow us to decide when it is permissible to kill? If we intentionally—non-accidentally—take another man's life in defense of our own, we are putting self before God.

The self-defense scenario does not hold up when we conside in light of the other nine commandments. What other scenarios could we imagine that would justify killing another person in response to or in anticipation of a sin? Should we kill anyone who does not convert to Christianity or has an idol in his house? Can we murder a man because we overheard him telling a lie or stone a woman taken in adultery?

These examples are absurd because God says every sin requires the death penalty. Not a single person would be alive if God responded to sin as carnal man wants to respond to sins that directly affect him. In the scenario of killing in self-defense, the one killing is judging that his life is more important than the life he is willing to snuff out. One sinner accounts his life to be of more worth than the life of another sinner. Would God make the same determination?

The rewards and benefits of the Old Covenant were largely centered on physical health, material wealth, and national greatness, while its purpose was to prepare the nation for the Messiah's first coming. Because of this emphasis on the physical, many scriptures in the Old Testament demonstrate God's intent to shield and protect Israel if they would obey. They could depend on their national and individual protection if they adhered to God's Word. If they remained faithful to the covenant, God would protect them—it was a sure thing!

Because the reasons for the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are very different, we have to look at the subject of God's protection through the lens of God's purpose. The intent of the New Covenant is to develop a personal relationship with God, leading to eternal life and godly character. God is willing to do whatever it takes to bring us to the point He desires.

Even faithful Christians may have their houses burglarized, their cars stolen, or their property vandalized. They may be the victims of physical or sexual assault. They may be persecuted and even martyred. Some may be the recipients of violence as a natural consequence of their actions; others will receive it more or less undeserved, just as Jesus

Some contend that God's prohibition against killing is "pacifist" or "weak." Does it take more strength to abide by God's law and suffer the consequences from man or to give in and lash out like the rest of mankind? Others argue that we have to "do our part" in taking care of our property and ourselves. But where does God ever tell us that "our part" includes sinning?

Exodus 22:2 seems to contradict the idea that Christians should not kill in self-defense: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." At first glance, this seems to support the "self-defense in one's home" argument, but the distinction is accidental versus intentional. The next verse, Exodus 22:3, explains this: "If the sun has risen on him [the killer], there shall be guilt for his bloodshed."

This statute illustrates that God differentiates between a killing committed when it is dark and one done when it is light. The meaning is not that darkness gives us license to break God's law, but rather that in the dark it is more difficult to determine what level of force is necessary to restrain an unknown intruder. The law gives the homeowner the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he would not deliberately use lethal force, since that falls under intentional or premeditated murder.

James exhorts us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus teaches that murder begins in the heart and has everything to do with intention, even if the act of killing is not followed through: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."

This instruction reiterates that murder is either accidental or intentional, based on what is in the heart. When applied to Exodus 22:2-3, Jesus’ words show that when a thief is killed in the dark, he allows for the homeowner acting without animosity or premeditation. If a homeowner kills a thief when nothing in the circumstance hinders his judgment, he is without excuse—the act was intentional, and he is guilty of murder.

Fwd: Belief

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Jenkins <jrjenki@gmail.com>
Date: October 24, 2014 at 2:30:40 PM EDT
To: abehel@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Belief

I've intended to send this for a while but Dollywood continued to call. Today the Rampage is shutdown and I am not working. Something broke that fixing requires the channel be drained.  When drained the water somehow finds its way into a stream requiring Dollywood to control the flow so the urine (human and fowl), and associated  "purification" chemicals not pollute the stream. When they refill they have to notify Pigeon Forge of their intentions. Dollywood does not want it filled when guests are in the park; if it affects PF I can only imagine what it does to DW.

 

A few weeks ago the Supreme Court decided to not consider various state bans on same-sex-marriage allowing same-sex-marriage to proceed, at least in those states and for a while. During the report they showed two men kissing…. on the lips which brought to mind that you told me you thought homosexuality is a choice. I have asked a number of men what could influence them to choose to kiss another man and want to run their hands all over his body. I told them the question was rhetorical, because I did not want to know their answer. I cannot imagine anything permitting me to make such a choice so in my ignorance I believe the root cause of homosexuality must be something else.

 

Then we have the question of why do we believe anything?

 

When children who are ten, twelve, fourteen years-old are baptized are they capable of understanding what they are doing or are they just responding to someone they trust? For that matter do adults just respond to someone they trust? Faith is not enough. Who does not have "…confidence in what they hope for and assurance about what they do not see." in something? Consider people in "the" denominations, Muslims, Hindus etc all have "faith" as we have faith even atheists have confidence in something and hope for something.

 

Isn't it odd that what someone called "The Christian Age" is the first time since Creation that God does not interface directly with his creation? I realize many believe God answers their requests but factual evidence calls that belief into question. We are expected to believe without evidence of any type. We are not even allowed the Gideon test. I am told testing God is sin; relying upon God is testing God thus is sin; and that God helps those who help themselves. Our belief is based on our perception of the person telling us which is, in turn, based on their perception of the person telling them which is … you get the picture.

 

At some point shouldn't belief rely on fact, on knowledge? Are we the first of all creation expected to take somebody's word? God had been speaking directly but now…not a peep.

 

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.

Maybe we need to examine our "certainty."

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



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

 

"Having spent considerable time with good people, I can understand why Jesus liked to be with tax collectors and reprobate sinners."

Mark Twain

Applying Jesus' Precepts

Friday night at the Adair’s I heard folks, around the fire, talking about protecting the congregation. I heard comments about guns and euphemisms for killing.  

 

How do you rationalize those discussions with what Jesus told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” 

 

Or his Sermon on the Mount: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.  But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 

 

and with the behavior of some missionaries in Ecuador  in 1956?

 

Operation Auca was an attempt by five Evangelical Christian missionaries to bring Christianity to the people of the rainforest of Ecuador. The Auca were an isolated tribe known for their violence, against both their own people and outsiders who entered their territory. Their efforts came to an end on January 8, 1956..

 

Even though they knew that to face the Aucas was to face danger, the men decided not to use weapons if confronted with violence. When the missionaries finally met the fierce tribe, all five missionaries were killed. Not one of the missionaries drew their guns to fire in self-defense.

 

Looking back we see that like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

 

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check." When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a restaurant. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

 

In a photograph taken in Dodge City in 1879, everything looks exactly as you'd imagine: wide, dusty road; clapboard and brick buildings; horse ties in front of the saloon. Yet right in the middle of the street is something you'd never expect. There's a huge wooden billboard announcing, "The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited."

 

While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public.

 

When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, the first law the passed was a gun control law. They declared that "any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law." Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona also barred the carrying of guns openly.

 

Like any law regulating things that are small and easy to conceal, the gun control of the Wild West wasn't always perfectly enforced. But statistics show that, next to drunk and disorderly conduct, the most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.

 

I wonder what Bryan’s friend thought.

 

Do we really want GSMCOC to be an armed fortress?

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



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

 

“Having spent considerable time with good people, I can understand why Jesus liked to be with tax collectors and reprobate sinners."

Mark Twain

When Churches Become Political

While the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion€, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right of peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances it does not guarantee churches cannot be taxed and the threat of the loss of such a status is the primary tool government has to exert influence on churches. Jesus did not address social issues and the church in Rome continued to grow despite Roman rule.

But when churches become political the world changes,

 

Secrets

The main reason not to reveal a secret is aversion to the long term consequences. Friends may turn away from you a community might ostracize you. Concern about the outcome is evidenced by the fact that we are more likely to tell our secrets to total strangers; with someone you don’t know the neural conflict can be dissipated with none of the costs. This may be why strangers can be so forthcoming on airplanes, telling all the details of our troubles and why confessional booths have remained a staple in one of the world’s largest religions. It may similarly explain the appeal of prayer, especially in those religions that have personal gods who lend their ears with undivided attention and infinite love. 

Are We the Sum of Our Chemicals?

Scientists say chemical reactions create electric circuits which cause various areas of the brain to send messages to the body etc. For a long time I have wondered how the soul (spiritual) influences or affects the physical if it does. Do our actions originate in our brain or does the soul in some fashion influence the brain. What follows is from a book by. 

David Eagleman, a neuroscientist at the Baylor College of Medicine, in his book Incognito.

Do we possess a soul that is separate from our physical biology---or are we simply an enormously complex biological network that mechanically produces our hopes, aspirations, dreams,desires, humor, and passions? The majority of people on the planet vote for the extra biological soul, while the majority of neuroscientists vote for the latter: an essence that is a natural property that emerges from a vast physical system, and nothing more besides. Do we know which answer is correct? Not with certainty.

Consider epilepsy. If an epileptic seizure is focused in a particular sweet spot in the temporal lobe, a person won’t have motor seizures, but instead something more subtle. The effect is something like a cognitive seizure, marked by changes of personality, hyper religiosity (an obsession with religion and a feeling of religious certainty) hypergraphia (extensive writing on a subject, usually about religion), the false sense of an external presence, and, often, the hearing of voices that are attributed to god. Some fraction of history’s prophets, martyrs, and leaders appear to have temporal lobe epilepsy.

 

Consider Joan of Arc, the sixteen-year-old-girl who managed to turn the tide of the Hundred Years War because she believed (and convinced the French soldiers) that she was hearing the voices of Saint Michael the archangel, Saint Catherine of Alexandria, Saint Margaret , and Saint Gabriel. As she described her experience, “When I was thirteen, I had a voice from God to help me to govern myself. The first time, I was terrified. The voice came to me about noon: it was summer, and I was in my father’s garden.” Later she reported, “Since God had commanded me to go, I must do it. And since God had commanded it, had I had a hundred fathers and a hundred mothers, and had I been a king’s daughter, I would have gone.” Although it’s impossible to retrospectively diagnose with certainty, her typical reports, increasing religiosity, and ongoing voices are certainly consistent with temporal lobe epilepsy.

 

Consider Noah, Abraham, Paul and others more current......

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



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

 

“Having spent considerable time with good people, I can understand why Jesus liked to be with tax collectors and reprobate sinners."

Mark Twain

Are We the Sum Total of Our Chemicals?

 

 

Consider epilepsy. If an epileptic seizure is focused in a particular sweet spot in the temporal lobe, a person won’t have motor seizure, but instead something more subtle. The effect is something like a cognitive seizure, marked by changes of personality, hyper religiosity (an obsession with religion and a feeling of religious certainty) hypergraphia (extensive writing on a subject, usually about religion), the false sense of an external presence, and, often, the hearing of voices that are attributed to god. Consider history’s prophets, martyrs, and leaders appear to have temporal lobe epilepsy.

 

Consider Joan of Arc, the sixteen-year-old-girl who managed to turn the tide of the Hundred Years War because she believed ( and convinced the French soldiers) that she was hearing the voices of Saint Michael the archangel, Saint Catherine of Alexandria, Saint Margaret , and Saint Gabriel. As she described her experience, “When I was thirteen, I had a voice from God to help me to govern myself. The first time, I was terrified. The voice came to me about noon: it was summer, and I was in my father’s garden.” Later she reported, “Since God had commanded me to go, I must do it. And since God had commanded it, had I had a hundred fathers and a hundred mothers, and had I been a king’s daughter, I would have gone.” Although it’s impossible to retrospectively diagnose with certainty, her typical reports, increasing religiosity, and ongoing voices are certainly consistent with temporal lobe epilepsy.

 

---David Eagleman, Incognito

 

Consider Noah, Abraham, Paul.

What is the purpose of preaching?

 

There are many great sermons recorded in the New Testament, such as the Sermon of the Mount (Matt. 5-7), Stephen's history of the Jewish nation (Acts 7), Paul's address on Mars' Hill (Acts 17), and Peter's first sermon under the new covenant (Acts 2). Men today have very little respect for preaching — maybe it's because they don't know the purpose of preaching. What is the purpose of preaching?

 

Then classify the following:

 

Telling the listeners how many of them he knows and for how long.

 

Talking about how many times a week he speaks.

 

Talking about his real job and how respected he is by his peers,

 

Talking about how many people want to kill him because of his work,

 

Talking about how godly his mother was and how honest his father was and how many loans he was able to take out because of his parents’ reputation.

 

 

 

Are We Sure

 

We use Hebrews 1:11 as our definition of faith: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” We choose to believe and to be assured but that belief is not verifiable,

 

The author of Hebrews says that it is impossible to please God unless we believe that he exists and without that belief we cannot draw near to God. A key point which we must believe is that he rewards those who seek him.  Isn't that obvious? Do we need someone inspired by God to tell us that? Who would want to please God or to draw near to him if they did not believe he exists?

 

Does it seem a bit curious that the “Christian” age is the first “age” that God does not deal directly with his people? Are we sure we have it right? Are we sure Christianity is focused on the clergy-laity relationship?

 

Religion Requires Mind Control

Religion teaches people to believe in things without evidence and despite the evidence. There are penalties for pointing out truths that do not agree with the teachings. Education requires critical thinking and people who believe in magic do not think critically. History clearly shows the more devoted to religion a group is the bigger the problem and as populations move away from religion the problem lessens.

 

Believing people denied an education are easier to control many countries forbid education for some. Religion comes down to: control, keeping the laity dependent upon the clergy the underclass dependent upon the upperclass.

How Do We Compare?

Two thousand years later, how much do we look like the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2)? Probably about like the fellow who claimed he owned an axe dating back to the days of George Washington.  When someone questioned him “Your axe doesn’t look that old,” he replied, “Oh, it’s that old all right. It’s just had three new blades and five new handles. But, other than that, it’s the same old axe.” That’s about how much of what we plea for today resembles the original New Testament church.

 

Somewhere we fell into the trap of believing we’ve restored the church of the New Testament. Let’s not forget that restoration is an on going project. It’s never finished. It has to be resold and reduplicated in every succeeding generation. This present generation, being the most educated generation in our history, has realized that much of what had been sold as scripture in the past is actually nothing more than the traditions of men. These educated Christians are presently challenging some of our most sacred doctrines. And the baton passers have dug their heals in and taken a defensive position. They aren’t aware their traditions have crystallized into law. They still resist “new words” or “no words” said during a baptism. They continue to label hand raising as rank Pentecostalism, yet ignore plain passages of scripture authorizing it (1 Timothy 2:8). They would faint if someone asked them to send off a missionary by the laying on of hands. Divorce and remarriage, the Holy Spirit, and instrumental music continue to produce judgmental attitudes and division in their assemblies.   

 

These things have taken their toll on our numbers and our witness to a lost world. Will we ever learn to disagree without drawing lines in the sand? If the 1^st-century church, that we’re trying to restore, had followed this path they would never have been “of one heart and one mind” (Acts 4:32). No one, other than the Lord Himself, has the qualification or authority to judge.

 

Maybe we should go back to what the early believers did, and just preach the Word. Let’s begin by emulating what the Restoration Movement was founded upon. The freedom to approach the Scriptures individually, without the fear hat repudiation will be the consequences or our conclusions.

 

 

Law of Exclusion?

The Collection for the Lord’s People

 

1Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. 3Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. 4If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me.

 

For years I remember the church treasurer changed the weekly figures on the record board in the church auditorium. It was natural. Giving to the church budget was a measurement of one’s faithfulness to the church and to God. At the time, it seemed reasonable to believe that this was one of the five weekly “items of worship” and an essential part of God’s plan. But a closer look at Paul’s instructions to the church in Corinth leads me to believe this is not the case.

 

It is clear that Paul was saying to “set aside a sum of money,” for a special collection and to pool the funds for the 1^st-century church in a Jewish world. Have we taken specific instructions intended for a historical emergency and made it a universal law for all Christians of all times and all places?

 

While there are many unanswered questions there are some things we know with certainty:

 

• Paul’s instructions are addressed to individuals in the congregation at Corinth.
• These funds are to be put aside weekly.
• These funds were not used to fund overhead cost or salaries arising, from other ministries.
• These Sunday collections were only to help meet a special, temporary need related to congregations in the Jewish world.
• Collections were to be completed prior to Paul’s arrival. Once he was there, there no longer a need for funds to be collected.

 

Concerning 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 Albert Barnes said “It does not mean that Paul had assumed the authority to tax them, or that he had commanded them to make a collection. But that he left directions as to the best manner and time in which it should be done. The collection was voluntary and cheerful in all churches.”

 

I am unable to find a command where the Holy Spirit instructs the church to systematically contribute money to a weekly “church treasury.” This is a modern day extension of 1 Corinthians 16. It may be the most expedient way for the church to operate, but it not in the text.

 

For those who advocate the “law of exclusion” if you believe the silence of the scriptures demands that there be no deviations, additions, or subtractions, why not apply the rule here? It is clear Paul instructed these Christians to set aside on every first day of the week. Keep in mind that this collection was earmarked for the poor Christians in Jerusalem. What is the basis for using the weekly collection for anything other than benevolence? And on what grounds can it be said it is a sin to take up money on any other day except Sunday, when the weekly collection is not being used in the exclusive manner that Paul instructed the early church? It also seems somewhat hypocritical to accuse a congregation that gives to a Christian college of deviating from a supposed New Testament blueprint when the accusers are going beyond the only stated purpose for Bible giving? The supporters of the silence argument have twisted and bent the words to fit whatever they want to get into it, while their “law of exclusion” has been freely used to exempt whatever they want to exempt. It all seems more than a bit inconsistent.

 

 

 

Law Code vs Gospel

Many church of Christ members believe the New Testament is a legal document. They search for rules that, they believe, will led them into a correct understanding of all Bible issues. The problem is the New Testament is not a codified legal document.

 

Most will agree that the Old Testament was a legal document where commands were spelled out with absolute clarity and directions were made clear.  The New Covenant is not a legal system with camouflaged directions requiring legal specialists with special tools to unlock and make known what God expects of us. If the New Testament was a legal document, why did God suddenly stop spelling out in meticulous detail what is necessary and binding? Why would God replace a clearly spelled out legal system with a not-so-clearly spelled out legal system couched in veiled commands, numerous examples which may or may not be applicable, and inferences which may or may not be necessary (depending on who is making the application) and then call it a “better” covenant?

 

When Martin Luther translated the bible he prefaced his translation with this statement:”…what to expect in this volume, lest he search it for commands and laws, when he should be looking for gospel and promises.” He then warned his readers “Beware lest you turn Christ into Moses, and he gospel into a book of law.”

 

Patternism has lead to an endless list of church splits and divisions over such trivialities as one communion cup versus multiple cups. The list is endless. The gospel approach will remember the Lord no matter how many cups are used. The law code seeks to justify the individual because right acts are done in right ways. The gospel approach will justify because faith in Christ and His promises being salvation into a heart, which then acts in loving ways toward his fellow man. 

The Church Coming Together

We are told we must “Go to church on Sunday, every Sunday, pray, sing, preach, take the Lord’s Supper, return for evening service and then meet again during the week.” We are told me must “follow the pattern.”

 

God never gave such instructions.  There is no trace in the bible that God, an apostle, or any inspired writer ever instructed the church to come together to “perform a worship service.”

 

There are a number of instances recorded in the bible where the early Christians came together, but never for the express purpose of engaging in “items” of worship. “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another,”

 

Why don’t we follow the 1^st century example and meet to discuss and take care of problems? Maybe more would be active if communicated and worked out our problems instead of ignoring them. Some 1^st century examples are the man who married his father’s wife, and the misinformed Christians who were taking each other to court. These problems were discussed and resolved, Often we see the disciples hammering out difficult issues and questions i.e. Acts 15. Certainly there are examples in the bible of coming together but never to perform public, corporate acts that we call worship.

 

Christians are to worship but worship is not building centered. Worship is constant. It’s every day, all day, in every activity, and every place. It is reverence and submission to the will of God. It is visiting orphans and widows in distress. It is doing for others what you want them to do for you. It is caring about the burdens of our brothers and sisters. It is realizing that God resides in us and that whatever we do to a brother or sister we do to Jesus. It is being devoted to Jesus and to one another.

 

Christ-centered worship has more to do with loving and voluntarily surrendering to him and to one another than it has to do with ritual.   

Divine Service

It has often been observed and complained of, that the morning and evening services, as practiced are so long, and filled with so many repetitions, that the continue attention suitable to so serious a duty becomes impracticable, the mind wanders, and the fervency of devotion is slackened.”

 

Many pious and devout persons, whose age or infirmities will not suffer them to remain for hours are obliged to forgo the comfort and edification they would receive by their attendance at divine service.

 

Young people would probably more frequently, as well as cheerfully, attend divine service if they were not detained so long an any one time.

 

Saying grace over meat while it was still in the barrel would be a great time saver as compared with saying grace over a portion at a time in a long succession of meals.  

Fwd: Observations

It is me again. I write little blurbs when I am thinking or trying to come to a conclusion. I just put them together for emails such as this one. Yu might want to read this in sections 

 

Statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings tell us that somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. He will rape, torture and kill her. If it is not occurring at this moment it will in hours or days at the most.

 

The same statistics also suggest the girl’s parents believe, as you say, that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family.  

 

The city of New Orleans was destroyed by a hurricane. More than a thousand people died; tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions; and nearly a million were displaced. It is safe to believe that almost every person living in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina struck shared a belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and compassionate God. Surely he heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled to safety only to be drowned.  These were men and women of faith who prayed throughout their lives.  

 

There had been ample warning that a storm “of biblical proportions” would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. It was inept in response to the information provided by science. God told no one his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans relied only on the goodness of God, they would not have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down on their city until they felt the wind on their faces. And interestingly the Washington Post found that 80 percent of Katrina’s survivors claim the event has only strengthened their faith.

 

As New Orleans was being battered by Hurricane Katrina, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. These pilgrims believed in the God of the Koran. Their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence: their women walked veiled before Him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It is doubtful a single survivor lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagined that they were spared through God’s grace.

 

I find it insulting to God for the survivors of a catastrophe to believe they were spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs.

 

Remember "Kitty" Genovese, the New York City woman who was stabbed to death near her home? At the time her neighbors were criticized for failing to respond to her aid. People who believe God answers prayers include God on the list of those being unresponsive though he had the ability to help he chose to not intervene. Belief that God answers prayers makes God responsible for willingly permitting evil in the world. I do not believe that. God does not intervene because if he did it would require that he suspend natural laws and take away free will.

 

Now to the point: You have said and wrote “Please pray that God will shower His grace on Dan and Sheryle and grant healing to her.” He lets children be raped, tortured and murdered, he lets children starve to death every day, and he lets horrible evil occur in the natural world, lets Wilma, as well as thousands of others with cancer die and heals Sheryle? I do not believe that but it describes a God I do not like and would not trust.

 

I find it odd that what Christians say indicates they believe God will only help if asked nicely in the right way i.e. when they pray hard or fervently by a large group of people. Ever wonder who prayed for the Ethiopian Eunuch when he became sick?

 

Many Christians are convinced that prayer can heal a wide variety of illnesses, it is curious that prayer is only ever believed to work for illnesses and injuries that can be self-limiting. No one ever seriously expects that prayer will cause an amputee to regrow a missing limb. Why not? Salamanders do it routinely as do starfish and squirrels. If God answers prayers, ever, why wouldn’t He occasionally heal a deserving amputee? And why wouldn’t Christians expect God to answer prayers to work in such cases?  How about Downs Syndrome as well as other conditions?

 

Why won't God heal amputees? It may seem like an odd question but it just might be one of the most important questions that we can ask about God. It probes into a fundamental aspect of prayer having to do with ambiguity and coincidence.

 

Imagine that you visit your doctor one day, and he tells you that you have cancer. Your doctor is optimistic, and he schedules surgery and chemotherapy to treat your disease. Meanwhile, you are terrified. You don't want to die, so you pray to God day and night for a cure. The surgery is successful, and when your doctor examines you again six months later the cancer is gone. You praise God for answering your prayers. You believe with all your heart that God has worked a miracle in your life. You tell your friends that prayer works.

 

The obvious question to ask is: What cured you? Was it the surgery/chemotherapy or was it God? Is there any way to know whether God is playing a role or not when we pray?

 

Unless you take the time to analyze this situation, it looks ambiguous. God might have miraculously cured your disease, as many Christians believe. But it might have been the chemotherapy drugs and surgeries are the things that cured you. Or your body's immune system might have cured the cancer itself.

 

When your tumor disappeared, in other words, it might simply have been a complete coincidence that you happened to pray. Your prayer may have had zero effect.

 

How can we determine whether it is God or coincidence that worked the cure? One way is to eliminate the ambiguity. In a non-ambiguous situation, there is no potential for coincidence. Because there is no ambiguity, we can actually know whether God is answering the prayer or not.

 

That is what we are doing when we look at amputees. Think about it this way. The Bible clearly promises that God answers prayers: Mark 11:24

 

Jesus says, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." And billions of Christians believe these promises. You can find thousands of books and magazine articles on the power of prayer. According to believers, God is answering millions of their prayers every day.

 

So what should happen if we pray to God to restore amputated limbs? Clearly, if God is real, limbs should regenerate through prayer. In reality, they do not.

 

Why not? Notice that there is zero ambiguity in this situation. There is only one way for a limb to regenerate through prayer: God must answer prayers, at least occasionally. What we find is that whenever we create an unambiguous situation like this and look at the results of prayer, prayer never works. God never "answers prayers" if there is no possibility of coincidence.

 

Tomorrow when the prayor thanks God for letting the folks be present know that God decided he prefers I be at Dollywood where I will see hundreds of children and adults not blessed with good health as the people the prayor is praying about are blessed and I will wonder why?

 

There is no purpose in responding. I already know what you say you believe. I listen to what you say and so I finally let you know there is at least one who does not concur.  For years I have asked various folks including you and generally received no responses what specifically does one expect when they pray and do they find bible support for such expectations? One Christian man told me he doesn’t expect anything. I asked him why he prayed, He said the bible says he should. I believe James says he is unstable and I do concur.

 

I doubt you are still reading this but if you are you get credit for good old fashioned doggedness.

 

Fini…..

 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



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

 

“When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. When life gives you a broken dryer, you make wet socks, lots of them."

AHS