Not a matter of intelligence, but mentality"

Archaeology, linguists and science again disprove the Bible's "inspired" "historical" accounts as nothing more then outdated unscientific thoughts. For instance, creation science has no solution to the conflict which exists between Gen 11:1-9 and the archaeological data which show that many people groups were speaking different languages during and prior to the building of the tower of Babel.

In Gen. 11:1 we read "Now the whole earth had one language and the same words." The Bible writer was able to speak of "all the earth" having just one language because he had no knowledge of the lands and peoples of the Americas, Australia, the Far East, or even of all of Africa or Europe. As far as he was concerned, the earth extended only from Sardinia to Afghanistan, and from the southern tip of the

Arabian Peninsula to the northern boundaries of the Black and Caspian Seas

(Gen 10); and the descendants of Noah had not yet spread out over even this

limited earth (Gen 11:4). Of course Christians all along have claimed that the "divine revelation" of the  God of the Bible was accommodated to the writer's limited understanding of geography and anthropology. . .but if that was true and He was directing man to write every word, why not simply just leave those parts out? 

We see another example of such "divine accommodation" to the limited geographical

 knowledge of the times in the NT as well. In NT times educated people were now

aware that the earth was a globe, but believed that the extent of the land area

which mankind inhabited was only slightly greater in longitude than the extent

of the earth in Gen 10 and not significantly greater in latitude. This limited

area of land was also believed, as in OT times, to be encircled by a great

impassable ocean. So in NT times just as in OT times, the southern coast of

the Arabian Peninsula was understood to be the southern limit of the entire

land continent including Africa, the place where the land inhabited by man lit-

erally came to an end.

 So when then we read Jesus' statement in Matt 12:42/

Luke 11:41 that the Queen of Sheba came "from the ends of the earth,"

we may make the mistake of removing the statement from its historical context 

and understanding it in terms of our modern geographical knowledge as a 

merely figurative way of saying "a long distance." But the hearers of Jesus understood

 the statement literally. The "ends of the earth" referred to the boundary between the inhabited earth (essentially a single land mass) and the ocean that was believed to surround it.

To the hearers of Jesus there was no land south of that, for there was no land beyond "the ends

of the earth." Hence, if they had thought that his "inspired" statement necessarily

reflected God's omniscient knowledge of geography, it would have misled them

into believing that God agreed that there was no inhabited land south of the land of

Sheba.

The statements of Matt 12:42, Ps. 72:8, Gen 1:14, and Gen 11:1 all reflect this ancient understanding of the extent of the earth, which did not include the Americas, Australia, the Far East, or even all of

Africa or Europe. They are all supposedly "God's accommodations" to the known geography of the times.

John Calvin believed that for the sake of being easily understood, the description of the garden

 of Eden would be accommodated to the topographical knowledge available in the time of Moses.

 This is a reflection of Calvin's strong belief that Scripture was written in terms which

any common Israelite could understand. Similarly, when Gen. 1 was criticized in Calvin's day for speaking of the sun and the moon as "two great lights" and the stars as small in comparison, (even

though astronomers had proven that one of those stars, Saturn, was larger than

the moon,) Calvin acknowledged the validity of the scientific facts, but  realized that

Gen 1:16 was at best a reference simply to appearances and that the Holy Spirit

had "no intention to teach astronomy."

 

He claimed the Bible writers did not treat the stars, as a

philosopher would do; but he called them [the sun and moon] in a popular

manner, according to their appearance to the uneducated, rather than according to

truth.

Calvin did not expect the Scriptures to reflect modern scientific knowledge.

He even goes so far as to contrast the biblical description of

nature given in Genesis with modern scientific knowledge. 

Calvin also invites those of his readers who might be interested in learning real science to come not to Gen. 1, but "to go elsewhere." And he clearly delineates that "elsewhere" is referring to 

modern professional scientists.

 John Calvin did not have the data available from anthropology and ancient history that we have today. This data shows clearly that it is not merely appearances that are important here, but the prescientific conclusions drawn from those appearances which are in view now. For the ancients though, the appearance was their reality.

So stars could fall to the earth without destroying it (Dan 8:10). (The idea that one

 of those stars (Saturn) was larger than the moon would have seemed incredible to them.)

In NT times even many educated people still believed the stars were as small as they appear. 

In the Sibylline Oracles both in 5:514-31 (first century A.D.) and in 7:124-25 (second century A.D.), every star in heaven falls and hits the earth; and although they cause a conflagration, both earth and man remain. In the NT, accordingly, the stars can fall and hit the earth (Rev 6:13,"into the earth,") without destroying it.  This verse, incidentally, is another example of God's supposed "accommodation to the limited scientific knowledge of the times."

As late as the end of the fourth century, Augustine, after raising the

question whether the stars were really very large but a long distance off or really

as small as they appeared, concluded that they were as small as they appeared.

In his commentary on Genesis, when he considered the same question in the early

fifth century, he continued to believe they were as small as they appeared, and

he cited Gen 1:16 as evidence that the sun and moon really were larger than the

stars, saying, "We do better when we believe that these two luminaries are

greater [in size] than the others, since Holy Scripture says of them, "And God

made the two great lights."

Given the fact that people as late and as sophisticated as Augustine under-

stood Gen 1:16 literally, there can be no question that the original hearers of

Gen 1:16 understood the words literally. To the original hearers,

 the sun and moon really were literally "the two great lights." And when they believed,

 as August-ine did, that this "inspired" statement in Gen 1:16 reflected God's omniscient

knowledge of astronomy, it misled them, as it misled Augustine into believing that the sun and moon really were larger in size than the stars. This same thinking leads many Christians away from scientific progress and freethinking even today, as it has in every culture dominated by religion.

Calvin's understanding of the fact that modern scientific facts are not being

revealed in Gen 1:16 is a significant advance on Augustine's understanding.

Since Calvin had a deep commitment to interpreting the Bible within its historical 

and cultural context, I think it is probable that if he had had the anthropological and

 ancient Near Eastern data available which we have today, he would have used it, and likely come to the same conclusion that the scientists are predominantly today. . .

 He would have realized that such ideas as the solid firmament (Gen 1:6), the water above

 (Gen 1:7), the earth founded upon the seas (Ps 24:2), and the sun and moon as the largest lights

(Gen 1:16) are prescientific beliefs, typical of their time.  

Accordingly, instead of referring simply to appearances, I think he would have recognized they are

really accommodations to the scientific "notions which then prevailed." So our recognition of the fact that Scripture doesn't lie but is nieve to the scientific facts we now know should make us tolerant for others still holding themselves to believing it. . . but to let Christians excuse away the blatant untruths of their inspired book on the grounds that "God" was supposedly temporarily allowing a prescientific people to hold onto their ingrained beliefs about the natural world so he would be following the principle of becoming "all things to all men. . .? Sorry, I don't buy it.

With the knowledge we have available today I do not believe Christians are following Calvin, (or Jesus for that matter) if we are simply following him based on what his present culture understood naively as truth. Calvin was a reformer willing to break with ecclesiastical tradition to find truths. (As was Jesus!)

Augustine saw Gen 1:16 as a revelation of scientific truth, and chose to ignore the truth because he believed the Bible was unchanging and inspired. Calvin saw that Gen 1:16 was at best a reference simply to appearances out of ignorance. These are clearly two different approaches to the subject of the relationship of Scripture to modern scientific knowledge. 

In our time, there has been so much emphasis upon outer space and space

travel that we find it almost impossible to grasp how anyone could ever have

believed the sky was solid. Yet, until the sixteenth century virtually everyone,

everywhere in the world, believed the sky was solid and had so believed for thou-

sands of years.

The inability to understand a concept which does not fit a current paradigm is not a matter of intelligence, but of mentality, that is, of culturally ingrained concepts, like different religions. . . Sometimes, because of a radical difference 

in cultural background, a modern concept simply cannot be accepted as truth,  no matter the science behind it.

 I can only hope that in our culture of enlightenment and ready info, we can follow in the steps of the radical reformers and follow the science and morals of the present, not the myths, biases and preconceived notions of the past. After all "WWJD?" And more importantly, what did he do, even with his cultural biases and prescientific notions. . .think about that! It's what made me turn away from all religion. . . going against the core beliefs that Jesus only spent his life fighting against the symptoms of. (And sadly his disciples replaced the bad he fought with more bad, and just renamed it with other terms.)

Now today I fight along with him and all revolutionaries of the past who ever fought for equality and justice. Won't you join us?

Have you considered subscribing to my blog?

For those not too savvy in Blogs and all the nifty things you can do with them, (like me) let me clarify a few buttons. To the right, (presently anyhow) we have a "subscribe" button. It is not a scary thing, when you click on it, and you type in your e-mail, it simply allows you to be alerted to every new post of mine, no matter if you see it in Facebook, Google+ or not. There is no commitment, no fee. Unsubscribe anytime. . .though it might make me sad:(
So if you are intrigued with my scattered thoughts thus far, and want to make sure you don't miss any of my posts, please consider subscribing to my Blog. Don't worry, not only will I not use it to make money with third parties, I can't even figure out how to get it out of the computer once a person gives it!   So what are you waiting for?

"We have the best government that money can buy." Mark Twain

In this democratic republic of the United States of America, we are told our vote counts. We are encouraged to vote for people who will represent the average American into a congress of individuals who will stand for fairness and equality. So, the typical concerned citizen tries to find the Candidate who seems most likely to stand for the issues most important to them. Going so far as to only vote for one if he has proved to you his motives (in other words, is the same religion) and lifestyle (doesn't cheat, lie and has a good family).  While people always seem to be convinced they voted for the right one at the time, does history show us there has been a good choice as of late to even vote for? Do we really have power for change with our vote, or considering our options, is it a stacked deck? 


When they get into power, do they show integrity, strength, and stand up to the wrong in this country like they promise, or do they simply spend money on things that make the big guys even more rich, and the poor, even more poor? According to the Christian Scientist Monitor,   "Almost every US lawmaker takes big money aimed at helping private interests win favorable government action. If they stash the cash for themselves, it's illegal. If they use it to get reelected, keep their job, and help the private interests, it's generally legal."

 We were founded on the freedom to choose how we will believe and think and told we could not be legally abused, jailed, tortured or killed for the freedom of speech. So because of that I feel the freedom to speak my mind without fear of being legally shut down, financially ruined, tortured, detained indefinitely or assassinated for my unpatriotic speech. . .or do I?

 Senate bill 1867 is now passed and "allows U.S. military to detain and murder anti-government protesters in American cities the National Defense Authorization Act -- would openly "legalize" the U.S. government's detainment and murder of OWS protesters and the assassination of talk show hosts, bloggers, journalists and anyone who holds a so-called "anti-government" point of view."

So they can hurt me, but would they? Have they had a history of it before, that would be prone to get worse now? The question has been asked here: "How many people, in fact, have been killed by government violence in the 20th century? Not deaths in wars and civil wars among military combatants, but mass murder of civilians and innocent victims with either the approval or planning of governments — the intentional killings of their own subjects and citizens or people under their political control? The answer is: 169,198,000. If the deaths of military combatants are added to this figure, governments have killed 203,000,000 in the 20th century." (That's not including the deaths by the drugs and malpractice of their loyal subjects the Doctors and Dentists who are told what to think, paid to make up studies and given a cut in any drugs they push for the Pharmaseudical companies. . . .that number alone would put the government as accomplice to the leading cause of death in this whole country, as seen here.)


Of course no one can know for sure the numbers, and they may be slightly different depending on your source and what they include. . .but we do know the number is high and rising! So if you still believe we are free after checking those sites, you must be watching the controlled media, bribed and controlled Medical field and listening to the government. . .their fingers are in many different large organizations by the way. 

While there may be no such thing as unbiased sources, you can guess that when a university, smaller group or individual puts out their thoughts, a study, or does research that could easily make them lose their job, reputation, or even life, that would be a better source. . . than from a place that is connected to someone making money (or saving a lot of it) or the government.


 Sadly, many find it just easier to stay in the dark about their leadership, or they feel it is wrong to question their leaders aren't ordained by God. . .and that's what the leadership wants! They actually want it so badly, that we can see them encourage thoughts that would make the public more passive and sheeplike, legalizing it's practice and supporting it everywhere they turn. They will even pose as being Christians themselves to convince you that they are a good leader. . .but when we look back on their claim, it seems pretty clear they were just as bad as the next guy not claiming to be a Christian. . .  


They don't want you to believe they are bad, and certainly not that they are being blackmailed or bribed by anyone who is either. When someone actually says they are bad though, they don't usually stay around too long, especially if they are anyone of consequence, who has influence. (so maybe I'm safe:)


People are starting to question their authorities more, which in many cases is a good thing, even if it at first results in rebellion and chaos.  

Often those who are taught to just "pray for your leaders" have a subconscious idol worship of their country, and feel it is their patriotic duty to support their government, as that would be supporting their country's soldiers. (Doubly so if they have a family member who is working for the Government as a soldier. . .) Because of the mounting dissatisfied citizens, those -often "God-fearing"- folk take it on themselves to adamantly defend the government, (and their many wings,) as their patriotic duty, as a "tack on" to their other misplaced faith. So as in religion, they are unaware of, and even praising their own slave masters. 

"None are more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free." 

Goethe

Patriotism has an interesting history! During the 18th century's "Age of Enlightenment", the notion of patriotism was separate from the notion of nationalism. Patriotism was defined as devotion to humanity and beneficence. For example, providing charity, criticizing slavery, and denouncing excessive penal laws were all considered patriotic. In ancient patriotism, individual responsibility to fellow citizens was an inherent component of patriotism. Even the original pledge of Allegiance reflects this. "The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country. It read: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 

Whereas during the 19th century, "patriotism" became increasingly synonymous with "nationalism" and even "jingoism", which refers to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism.

Consequently, in 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added to the pledge to replace the pledge that any nation could use. It was changed again in 1954 to add the biased and intolerant belief that the country is under the authority of the Christian's god. Which was in response to the demonizing and fear of the Communists at that time in World War II. President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the "comforting" words "under God" to the pledge, and soon after wanted to remove the salute that went with it, because it resembled the Nazi one. (At about the same time the law makers were adding "In God we trust" to our money that use to read: "Mind your business.") Bellamy's daughter objected to these alterations, (her father had since died) but they went against her and changed her fathers pledge anyways.

 Patriotism/Nationalism/Jingoism has had a fair number of critics since then. The harshest among them have judged it deeply flawed in every aspect. In the 19th century, Russian novelist and thinker Leo Tolstoy found patriotism both stupid and immoral. "It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best of all whereas, obviously, only one country can qualify. It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country's interests at the expense of all other countries and by any means, including war, and is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us (Tolstoy 1987, 97)." Recently, Tolstoy's critique has been seconded by American political theorist George Kateb, who argues that patriotism is “a mistake twice over: it is typically a grave moral error and its source is typically a state of mental confusion” (Kateb 2000, 901). Patriotism is most importantly expressed in a readiness to die and to kill for one's country. "It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind."

Voltaire

 (And more info is at Wikipedia here.)

Sadly, when people put their faith in and idolize any of the 4 g's (god, government, group, or guru) they set themselves up to do things that a moral, thinking person would never consider. 

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

We already know that the Government plotted to make us drink their drugged water to both save a big company a lot of money on toxic landfill bills, and because they found out it would make us stupid and infertile. When they couldn't get to everyone who had wells they told dentists to get it in their products and endorse it as good for the teeth. (A claim that is not true, and instead fluoride in fact leaves white spots on the teeth. . .which are or were on the teeth of 3 people in my immediate family!)


 Some say that to vaccinate with their drugs is mind altering, and is a plot to control the population without our knowledge or consent. Some also say that unbeknownst to us, vaccines contain a government tracking device! (There is a host of more info, even from "Christian" sites like this, so it's not just the "whacked out Hippies" saying it. . .!)


We can also see how dangerous the GMO "foods" are that they encourage and support the production of. As well as MSG and artificial sweeteners, which they also support.

A generation of following a low fat, high grain diet (with the condemning of raw dairy, animal fat and butter as well as raw honey) has shown us how unhealthy and biased toward their pawns the government made the food pyramid, against the advice of the health experts they hired to make it! And now we have a generation of people leading the world in obesity because of it! And our stupidity and addictions have now spread to other westernized countries! Check out the obesity rate chart below.

I think we are very close to the reality in the "fiction" movie with Christian Bale called "Equilibrium" personally. The solution in that was an assassination of the top dog, by a powerful insider.
 Another close-to-reality movie recently put out is "V for Vendetta." (Don't let both of their R ratings put you off, they are serious subject matter, and sadly violent in a few parts, but they are appropriate for most audiences IMO.) That movie as well showed real insight to our nation's problems, and gave the same solution (assassination), although not being carried out by an insider this time, it was a mutant created by the governments human testing.


 It was "V for vendetta" that has inspired the face of some groups like "Anonymous", a large hacktivist group, considered by CNN to be one of three successors to wikileaks, and on a larger scale, The Occupy Movement. 


Some would say that a government that fears the people is going to be the most motivated to help the people for their common good. Thomas Jefferson said: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

 I also think Voltaire was onto something when he said: "The ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination." Any volunteers:)?

(P.S. if my posts stop, or sound different anytime after this, you can guess it's not the government who has been taken out, it's me!)

Will science be the death of religion?

A friend commented to me one day, "It's almost as if they (Christians) live in a parallel reality where things like the Enlightenment never existed. But even as they circle their wagons against the perils of liberalism and genuine science, they don't realize that they are a dying breed and that resistance is futile." That of course changes nothing for the conservative Christian who is believing typical preaching about the end times though. They have an answer of faith for everything, including this. The funny thing is when Christiandom says that even their dying out is all part of the plan! "It is lamentably true that many are turning their backs on Christianity. But the truth, as revealed in the Bible. . . will never be defeated. If we have eyes to see, we can see signs of Christ’s present and coming kingdom everywhere."(www.christianity.ca) (Translation for the non religious: "we are about to see our enemies wiped out, and our beliefs validated, as "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. . .")

  In this day and age we now try to use science to support our thoughts and beliefs, (usually coming in the way of scientific studies, stats, and logic) or we classify them as "opinions", "fables", or at best "theories". In science we can disprove more easily than we can prove, but with certainty we can also see truths in the laws of nature and mathematics.

  Religion, on the other hand, can only tell of experience and circumstantial evidence (like personal empowerment or near death experiences) to support their belief in their book or their god who is worshiped in it. These may seem like very real experiences though and all the support that is needed for the individual to believe in whatever supernatural being they were expecting to see or feel or hear. Unfortunately they are in fact no more real then science tells us placebos and near death experiences are, though they are something real in a sense, they are also common to all humanity. . . and known by science to be just how the brain works. In other words, "it's all in the head" and religion is a delusion.

 There is actually a book out called "The God Delusion". Wikipedia calls it a "2006 bestselling non-fiction book by Richard Dawkins. In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural Creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement that 'when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion'."

  Trusting in anything because of mere feelings and experience is against scientific reasoning. Voltaire said it this way, "The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reason."

  While on the surface it may seem like Christians are both smart and reasonable in a lot of ways (and they are), sadly, when it comes to their religion, they are not able to reason or question the foundation of their beliefs without immediately losing their status and respect as a "faithful Christian."  Because "without faith it is impossible to please God."  Also, faith is what you need for salvation, so without it you may be accused of not being saved, now, or even in the past, and/or not being then capable of having the Holy Spirit's leading. Because the Holy Spirit is suppose to be the only one that can lead you into all truth, you are then suddenly said to be "deceived by Satan" into doubting God or the Bible. Then when you really become a heretic you are the "fool" who has said in his heart "there is no God." So as you can see, questioning is both not allowed, condemned, and harshly punished. . .but in a round about way so no one suspects. Some do go so far as to physically shun, but all seek to humiliate and discredit anyone who would dare be a freethinker and doubt.

  That has always been the bondage of religion. Those who are in it though never see it as bondage, they think they are free. . . all the while being told what to think, who to talk to, what to read, and who to listen to, lest they stray or be deceived by the "world." (If you're still reading this though, you might be a bit of a free thinker. . . at least secretly.) Not only do religious people not see this bondage, but they believe it's a safety net for their soul, and are scared what would happen if they let their guard down for a minute. Voltaire has a few good thoughts on that too. "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

I am not a pessimist though, and there is great hope for the future, because the delusion is dying out. Europe is leading the way. "In Prague, the lovely and lively capital of the Czech Republic only 19 percent of the people in this once-religious country still believe that God exists. Many surveys in Europe show that there is a sharp drop-off in church attendance and religious practice. In five key countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy) regular church attendance since 1970 dropped from about 40 percent to about half that. When the new constitution for the 25-nation European Union was debated, the drafters rejected all proposals to include a reference to the Christian faith, on the ground that 'such mention would be exclusionary and offensive to non-Christians.'
Subsequently, Italy’s nominee for justice minister of the EU, Rocco Buttiglione, was rejected because of his Christian faith. Every major religion except Islam (probably because of their culture staying to itself, and Islamic people flooding there for religious freedom as Christians did here when they were treated badly elsewhere. . .) is declining in Western Europe. This study finds that this decline is most evident in France, Sweden and the Netherlands, where church attendance has dropped to less than ten percent in some regions. The Pope said: “There is no longer evidence for a need of God, even less of Christ. The so-called traditional churches look like they are dying.”


New evidence hints that Christianity is quickly losing its grip on America as well, and it may become a minority religion within a single generation.  According to the book "Is Christianity dying? Ninety-nine Reflections in religion, science and morality", it is dying.   "Are all religions losing adherents? On the surface, you might think everything is fine for Christian churches in America. Christianity though is losing ground, but the trend is slow, right? Just a percent here and there. . . But it turns out there is some very bad news, (for the Christians) hiding in those numbers..."

 A new report from the Pew Research Center shows that among "millenials" – those born after 1980 who became adults after 2000 – twenty five percent, one quarter of them, are not affiliated with any religion. That's double the number of non-religious compared to the older generation! Sometimes statistics can hide what's really going on. Surveys that report on the overall trend of the religious in America are burying the true trend by averaging young and old. But when you break it down by age group, it's obvious that Christianity, and religion in general, is going the way of old wives tales, myths and superstitions.

Some see this as an obvious trend, while others break it down by 1st world or 3rd world differences, or co-hearst non belief in communist countries that are gaining their freedom then turning in bitterness or rebellion to a God.  Even that the religious folks have more children and the non religious have fewer, and are more concerned about overpopulating makes a difference that some bring up. Here is one guys views of all those differences.

That guy is apparently a Christian himself as he bemoans the fall of Christianity in first world nations saying:
"I have checked the eleven First World industrial democracies with populations greater than a million and Christianity is a declining portion of the population in all but South Korea and Japan. Conversions away from the faith are the reason for the First World decline in Christianity. The Atheist and non-religious populations are growing, often fairly rapidly, in spite of the generally lower birth rates for these groups. I was disappointed to see that the trend in Western European nations is away from faith. I had assumed that a lot of the strength of atheism in Western Europe was related to communism and would fade with the fall of communism. It is disappointing to see that atheism and other forms of non-belief have expanded after the fall of communism in the Soviet Block.
Atheism and other forms of non-belief have been expanding in the United States (as well).  With Communism gone, atheism is not as tainted as it was (once) in this anti-communist country.
As a progressively larger portion of the world becomes affluent, Christianity will have to face the challege of thriving in a First World environment." (There is more info about Third World nations becoming First World nations where you can read about this in more detail.) 
So Christianity is (as we also see in this country) very popular with mainly the very ignorant and poor populations of the 3rd world countries. I see this as just an obvious outcome of our affluent 1st world  missionaries going over to proselytize the third world because they see them as miserable heathens without God. . .and next thing you know, the missionaries become an idol of brilliance and wisdom to these ignorant and desperate people. (I.E. my own beloved Grandparents who were in Liberia west Africa for 35 years as Missionaries) So anything these Missionaries say then becomes absolute truth to these people, and they are sometimes led astray because of their sheep-like worship of money, industrialized nations, as well as these Missionaries who are clean, kind and knowledgeable of healthcare. (Not to say there isn't a lot of good to learn from a person from a 1st world country like ours, but the poor and desperate often don't consider that they also have their biases too and just follow them blindly.)

Is it possible that with the Christianizing, and clothing of these poor countries, as well as giving them all our old religious cast off books, we've done more harm then good? It has started families fighting, tribal warfare and going away from some very good, traditional and eco friendly practices. . .but it's also brought in some cleanliness and some education. . .

Christianity is getting a lot of bad press lately, but the Christians would call it "persecution" when they see it overseas, or deny any connection with these people who claim Christianity, but give it a bad name in this country. The abuse of Christians, though definitely around worldwide, is mainly well deserved, and the bad press largely self inflicted. As a Christian, I use to believe that was true of the extremist Islams, and their fight for their intolerant views of a one god, and all the issues their inspired book causes. . .but I couldn't see how my religion was doing the same thing! The headlines are filled with stories of pedophile priests, homophobia, violence against abortion clinics, hate crimes, Koran burning and sex scandals of the professing Christians, but if we look at statistics of the Christians in jail, we can see an even bigger picture. . .Of all the people in jail, Atheists account for 0.209% of them. While the latest stat for their percentage in the populous is 14.1% as seen here. If that present history doesn't say enough of the Christians contributions to society, history has and is being uncovered now that the worst crimes of the past were almost exclusively religiously motivated!

Presuming you are a Christian who is sure they aren't delusional, feel free to doubt, and is not phased by the masses dropping away from all religions. . .including Christianity, there should still be a few questions in your mind: Why is the Christian faith losing its grip on America? Why are specifically more and more young adults abandoning the "faith of their fathers" ... permanently? Why have evangelical Christians taken such a dramatic right turn that mainstream Christians are embarrassed and alienated from their own fellow Christians? Yet why do the mainstream Christians show no difference in lifestyle than any other moderate religion, making the "true Christians" want to disown them as fakes? Why is the separation of church and state more important now than it's ever been in American history?

I will attempt to answer those here.
In 1898, Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), a professor and co-founder of Cornell University, wrote a rather notorious book called "A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom." He tracked many religiously-based conflicts, and showed that they often take decades or even centuries to resolve. His book documents a pattern in these conflicts: they often go through eight stages before being finally resolved:

1. Some individual or group will propose a new belief system that is in conflict with established religious beliefs. The official religious institutions generally ignore this.
2. A growing number of people will start to disagree with church teaching.
3. Churches issue statements which condemn the proposal, citing Biblical passages as justification for their stance.
4. Support for the proposal continues to grow among the public.
5. Churches issue a statement pointing out that belief in the proposal negates the entire Christian message, or attacks a fundamental Christian principle.
6. Public support continues to grow.
7. Churches begin to ignore the proposal, and sometimes ignore the Biblical passages that it once quoted in opposition to the new idea.
8. Many decades or centuries later, churches may incorporate the proposal into their beliefs.

Since the advent of the modern/fundamental divide in Christianity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, religious liberals have tended to readily accept scientific findings and incorporate them into their theology and morality.

Thus White's eight step process now mainly applies to religious conservatives.

  Of course, there are many scientific theories that never pass through these steps either. The theories are introduced, gain some acceptance, and collapse due to lack of evidence, typically within two decades. Quasi-scientific theories do not endure. . .and it looks as if religion is one of them.

  Christian's claim of course that there is good science behind the Bible, and their beliefs. Sadly, that seems to be a claim based on nothing but presuppositions of their source's authority. Science on the other hand says otherwise.

 The following can be found on the American Scientific Affiliation's website.  I will share some of what I found there concerning the many areas where science and religion make conflicting claims:

	Cosmology, geology, astronomy, etc. Many believers within the conservative wing of Christianity claim that the earth is less than 10,000 years of age. They interpret the creation and universal flood stories in the Biblical book of Genesis as being literally true. 95% of scientists reject a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. They believe that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that no world-wide flood has happened, that humanity and other species evolved from a common ancestor, etc.
	Linguistics: Most conservative Christians claims that the Tower of Babel story in the Biblical book of Genesis describes a past event in the Middle East in which humanity abandoned a single language. They then separated into many different cultures, with various languages. Scientists generally disagree that languages developed in this manner.
	Medicine: There are many conflicts in health related topics: Some faith groups promote healing using just prayer and spiritual techniques that they believe are superior to modern ones. Physicians tend to disagree in the effectiveness of prayer. It is no better then a placebo effect that works equally well (or poorly) for every culture and religion. Some faith groups teach that human personhood begins at the instant of conception. Upon this belief they base their assertion that abortion is the killing of a human being -- a practice than they feel should be stopped. Others teach that life becomes human life much later in pregnancy and that abortion is sometimes the least immoral choice in certain circumstances. Some faith groups believe that only God gives life and only God should take it away. They oppose physician assisted suicide. Others believe that when a terminally ill person is in pain and wishes to die that physicians should be allowed to assist them in dying.
	Religious practices: A common Pentecostal practice is "Speaking in tongues" where one believer will speak in what appears to be gibberish to the casual observer, while another believer interprets the meaning of the speech for the congregation (assuming they are practicing it biblically).  Pentecostals and investigators have reached different conclusions over the significants of speaking in tongues. Most theists believe that they can assess the will of God. There is a pilot study which appears to indicate that determining God's will is not possible, and will only lead you to your own inner feelings on the subject.
	Religious events: Various faith groups make certain claims about historical events. One example is the belief by the Mormons, that there were three mass migrations from Palestine to North America circa 600 B.C.E.. This belief has been rejected by essentially all non-Mormon archaeologists. Another is the Shroud of Turin which many believers regard to be the burial cloth            of Jesus. Many scientists disagree, having dated its material to the middle ages.           Also even Christian Archaeologists will say "The fact is that not one shred of    direct archaeological evidence has been found for Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob or the 400-plus years the children of Israel sojourned in Egypt. The same is true for their miraculous exodus from slavery." (Which should be quite obvious in archaeology because of the sheer numbers and details of the story.)
	Human sexuality: Many conservative Christian groups teach that homosexual behavior is unnatural,  a choice, not genetically determined, and can be changed through prayer and counseling. Researchers into human sexuality generally believe that homosexual orientation is normal for a small percentage of the human race, natural, not chosen, at least partly determined by one's genes, and cannot be changed through prayer and counseling.

Generally speaking, in these areas of overlap:

	When religious claims are evaluated using scientific methods, they are found to be false.
	When scientific claims are evaluated using faith on the Bible as authoritative, they are found to be false.

  The result is stagnation. Neither side can easily convince the other of their truth. (ital. mine)  Sometimes, the conflict continues over centuries before being resolved. Some conflicts may be permanently irresolvable. 

  Thus the reason many a war has started. . . "Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men."

Voltaire

If we ever expect to have world peace, it will not be by starting a war with all the people who oppose religion (as the Christians are all gleefully looking forward to winning that battle with God in the endtimes). Peace will come instead by educating the religious that they have been fooled into believing fables are facts.  Quoting from one of my readers, "I think it's better to have a peace which comes from understanding, than a peace which surpasses understanding." We first need to have an inner peace, before we can bring that into our actions. Considering that Fundamental Christianity does nothing but stir up hate and pity for themselves, I don't think that shows the peace that they claim to have. We need to stand in the gap and be peacemakers between them and all the groups they preach about being Hell bound sinners.

How can we change, and not go against our conscious?

Will we follow our own wisdom, and what we see? Follow what our small circle of friends sees? Follow what our church teaches? Follow what the media tells me? Follow what the Bible says? (And if so, what does the Bible say? Last time I checked, the Bible says the "Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "you have no need of a teacher". . .while you can also find verses of subjugation to all leadership.) 

What if we just simplified things and "every man did that which was right in his own eyes", would that be bad, or good?

  I believe the stats of countries that are "godless" with just the golden rule and selfishness guiding them have answered that for us. Those countries with the least religion have the highest quality of life, the most education, and the least crime. We can see the crime rate proved out here too, as the Atheists are a rarity in the jails, as mentioned up above. Look at a cool video on YouTube called "God prefers Atheists" for those stats and more.

  So, another question: how do we adapt to change in our life? Do we humbly and wisely keep our mind open to new info, or do we try to stick our head in the sand and proudly claim we have the unchanging truth? One mindset is scientific, one is religious.  Religioustolerance.org put it this way:

Science and religion have different methods of adapting to change:

Science (that is not controlled by greed of those in power or by those in religion) generally welcomes change. Many false hypothesis are proposed and later rejected or modified as new data becomes available. This is the method by which science continually advances. It is ultimately self-correcting. All scientific beliefs are subject to being falsified if new evidence is uncovered.

Religious beliefs, particularly those based on a sacred text, change much more slowly. In fact, many faith groups stress the unchangeable nature of their beliefs. There are three main methods by which religions modify their teachings. In Christianity, for example:  Some Biblical passages that were once considered to be literally true are now interpreted symbolically. Heaven is no longer considered to be somewhere "up there."  Hell is no longer believed to exist inside the earth. Over the past century, Bible passages that describe torture methods inflicted on Hell's inhabitants (worms, pain, flogging, heat, thirst, darkness, unbearable heat and flames) have been downplayed and often treated as symbolic. Hell is now viewed as being isolated from God.     2. Some Biblical passages are ignored. We no longer execute prostitutes. Sections of the Bible that condone and regulate slavery are rarely if ever quoted. The Bible contains dozens of passages that are profoundly immoral by today's secular and religious standards of behavior. These verses are largely ignored today.    3. Still other passages are interpreted as perhaps being valid for the culture and age for which they were written, but not binding in a different society or era. Male control over women, treating wives as property, restrictions on female ordination, prohibiting women from certain professions, etc. have being largely rejected as sexist, at least by mainline and liberal Protestants.

  Those who are slow to change attempt to keep us in the past and all it's many problems. They are dissatisfied with the present and not living in thankfulness, but bitterness, inadvertently hurting themselves and others. When bitterness turns to anger we see judgments of natural disasters being from God, while fellow religious extremists (but of another religion) are "terrorists". . . yet our hate and bigotry goes unseen by us and unpunished by others. More and more, as science gains ground in our culture, actions of bigotry and hate are not tolerated thankfully.

  If we cannot change like science does, with the growing knowledge of this age, and instead choose to religiously stick with the knowledge from the past, we are liable to go back to the views of that time as well. Do we really want to go back to the slavery, wars, witch hunts, hangings, burning at the stake for a woman who wore pants, rampant murder and rape of virgins, sexism, racism, and so many more problems of the past? The teachings in the Bible have been used to justify all of these atrocities.

  If a pastor still has the persuasive powers to make a person believe the Bible is God's word, in this enlightened era, then watch out for what else he can persuade you to do:  giving your money to him is of course presumed (tithes and offerings--remember "God loveth a cheerful giver" :) , but besides that he is likely to make you go against your conscious and not follow the golden rule.  As Voltaire said,

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Peace to all.

More on "friends" and grain prep.

If you read my last post on "friends" you didn't know you had (and need), you will probably have noticed the part about sprouting, soaking and souring (with sourdough) grains being one form of fermenting to get your probiotics. That may have left some of you with a lot of questions as it did me not too long ago. Traditional cooking has been around forever almost, but as it's gone out of vogue for 2 generations it's not necessarily easy to find people who will teach you how to do it anymore. I would highly recommend one source if you have the money for it though: GNOWFGLINS Sourdough eCourse,

I have a sourdough starter that I love, and will share, if you live near me in  Rustburg,VA! I never bother to feed it just because it is a living thing and needs to eat; I feed it because I want more of it! Like a tiny bit of yogurt makes a big batch of yogurt, or a glob of keifer grains makes a big batch of keifer, just a little bit of sourdough starter can transform some plain flour and water to a puffy, broken down batter that is very useful in many yummy recipes. Once you have this bubbly starter made, you can use it just as it is in an instant recipe that only needs a little thickening, or you can add more flour and let it work on that overnight to make a healthy bread or the like. The starter part is brainlessly easy, the bread part. . .not as much.

I have an admission to make though, I am not a baker. It takes an exacting personality to be a good baker, IMHO. I am a creative, never the same recipe type of cook and not an exacting type cook, so that doesn't usually work well for me in baking. Actually though, sourdough is the easiest form of yeast for breads to work with I've been told. It raises almost no matter how warm you keep your house or not. . .it just takes longer the colder it is. If it raises too much, or too quickly, you can just punch it down and start again. I've had that issue because of living in the south, and not being a very attentive cook. (Then I was too lazy to punch it down and set myself back by more time, so I just cooked that overflowed mess. . .big mistake!) It also makes a very simple recipe for a bread. The basic recipe always has 3 ingredients: water, flour and salt.

Anyhow, there seem to be plenty of people online that will teach you how to take those ingredients, (or more occasionally) along with your starter, and turn out a beautiful and tasty loaf. . .I'm just not one of them. (Just make sure it is allowed to sit 8 hours to be a true sourdough that transforms the grains into a more healthy form.) I'm getting ahead of myself here though. So why should you get some starter and use it? Or why should you soak or sprout for that matter?


Sourdough improves nutrition by:

• pre-digesting starches, making the bread more easily digestible
• lowering insulin response/improving glucose tolerance
• protecting Vitamin B1 from the damage of the heat of baking
• breaking down gluten, which may result in a bread that gluten-sensitive people can eat
• activating phytase to hydrolyze (dissolve) the phytates, thus freeing up minerals such as:
• zinc
• iron
• magnesium
• copper
• phosphorus

  I am convinced that sourdough is THE most nutritious way to prepare grains. Sourdough rye bread is the most nutritious of them all, because it has more phytase activity and thus even fewer phytates in the finished product to bind to your minerals. I just love that the traditional “sourdough rye” turns out to be scientifically proven as the healthiest bread. Somehow our ancestors figured out all the good stuff without the benefit of labs!

 So I don't mess with the plain soaking or sprouting, unless I can't do a recipe well or at all with sourdough. . . Soaking overnight with sourdough starter is just another form of soaking mind you. It always needs something (usually an acid though like vinegar, lemon juice, Kombucha, whey, or milk,) added to the water and grains (or beans or nuts) to be effective, so in this case it's just having the added benefit of making it rise as well.
The reason any seeds need this soaking process is that:

• Grains, beans or nuts are seeds.
• Seeds are meant to pass through the system relatively undigested so they can be planted elsewhere (think in nature with birds).
• To make it possible for seeds to pass through undigested, there are some anti-nutrients built in to make them difficult to digest.
• Seeds also need to be preserved until the time is right for sprouting, so they have certain compounds that stop the active enzyme activity of germination.
• These compounds also serve to hinder active enzyme activity in your digestive system.
• “Soaking” whole grains can make them more digestible and help your system obtain all the nutrients in the food.

(This process is recommended by Sally Fallon in Nourishing Traditions.)
If you aren't soaking, sprouting or souring your whole grains, before or after they are ground, the bran and germ are actually the worst for you! Strangely, even though they have the most nutrition in them, it is only going to cause your body trouble trying to get that nutrition out of it. (Ironically, taking the bran and germ out also takes out a lot of the issues, so thus, while totally deficient of nutrients without the starter, white flour is not bad for you compared to regular unsoaked, unsprouted and nonsoured whole wheat flour. . .shocker huh! Just as the mainstream got changed over to healthy whole grain everything. . .) You will inevitably find problems from the teeth all through the gut in individuals who eat the most whole grains that are poorly processed. . .and sadly, the gut is the part of the body that is going to influence the health of the rest of your body, as can be read about in books like "Gut and psychology syndrome"; A wonderful book on the new research that is showing the "GAPs" in our healthcare system that deals with issues from the outside in. . .instead of the inside out. In other words, "we are what we eat."

So if you are interested in sourdough baking and cooking, and you want some now, ask me for some, send away for some FREE dried starter from an ancient culture, like "Carl's friend's sourdough starter" dating back to the time people came over on the Oregon trail, (that's where I got mine, address is below) or look into making some yourself with a more lengthy process.

 (USA Residents)

Send a self-addressed, stamped (45¢) #10 envelope [SASE45] to:

Oregon Trail Sourdough
P. O. Box 321
Jefferson, MD 21755 USA

Next I'll show you a little bit of what I do with it.

I take the starter and add almost equal amounts of organic white flour and water to it. (A little more flour then water.) Some people use a starter with freshly ground flour, but I don't have a grinder that grinds flour fine enough for my preferences yet, nor do I like the taste as much for most things. My sourdough is not at all sour the way I do it, and that's the way I like it. If you want to keep a white starter, a whole wheat starter, and even a rye starter going in your fridge at all times, that's up to you. For that matter, the starter flour options are endless! Just make a thick paste with a batter-like consistency with no lumps, adding at least 1 T. (but as much as you want) of the starter, and let it sit out overnight in a loosely covered glass bowl. I use cheap shower caps from WalMart to cover any size glass bowl. (One of the only things I actually buy there anymore!)


In the morning, if you haven't used a big enough bowl you might have bit of a mess, so I'd suggest that you plan for it to double. If you are just making starter the first time, only one little glass bowl that you intend to keep covered in your fridge is needed. Once you have starter though you will want to use usually 1-4 cups of it at a time. So if that empties your starter container, just keep the leftover scrapings in the container and fill it again with a paste of flour and water. If you want 4 cups of it or more for pancakes in the morning say, you will probably need to make some in a separate bowl(s), (a large glass measuring bowl works great to keep down on the dishes) and also refill the mother bowl. You will need to let the bowls sit out overnight to work on the new flour. Then in the morning, use it for a yummy pancake breakfast, put it in the fridge for a crepe lunch, or after a leisurely breakfast, add to it for buns or pizza for supper. If I'm thinking ahead, I can make enough the night before to do pancakes, crepes AND pizza that next day. 5 minutes of prep, either at night, or after breakfast, gets me the bones of 3 planned, yummy and healthy meals. (When having company, I find that you can never have too much starter made ahead; two cups is often not enough for us.)


So if you want some of my recipes. . .keep reading:) I'll try to get to those soon. . .we'll see how the Spirit moves:)