Archives for posts with tag: Christian Church

The Gad Fly ver. 1.2.1

The Philosopher

http://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/gad-fly/

https://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/gad-fly/

7/20/2016

Copyright 2016

Definition of Gad Fly

  • A fly that bites livestock, especially a horsefly, warble fly, or botfly.
  • An annoying person, especially one who provokes others into action by criticism.

The Gad Fly of the Greek Democracy[i]

  • Plato refers to Socrates as the “gad fly” of the state (as the gad fly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians).

The Gad Fly of the Christian Church[ii]

A New Paradigm in Christian Thinkingis the gad fly of the Christian Church.  Christian Churches do not accept criticism, ever. The price of criticism in the Christian Church is excommunication.  Christian sees themselves as “birds of a feather” and a critical bird is not of their nest.  They must protect the income and salaries of the professional Christians, the minds of their youth and the minds of all of their members from the gad flies of the Christian Church. Professional Christians must preach to the choir, instructing them on the religion that they have chosen to put their faith.  The cost of not preaching to the choir is that the choir will vote with their feet and donations, resulting in a loss of income to the church and the professional Christians who probably have children – if Protestant – that they need to get through college and a mortgage to pay off.   If the professional Christians are Catholic, they will not meet with the approval of the hierarchy of the church and will be excommunicated.

Max Planck, the German nuclear physicist of the early twentieth century, stated, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.[iii]

The same statement can be made of religion.  Acceptance of a new viewpoint of the existing data on religion can only take place when a younger generation becomes comfortable with these new views and those who are adamantly opposed to these new views die off.

Because of this self-protection of the minds of the youths, the church is destined to disappear for failure to keep up with our knowledge of the universe and the light it has shined on our knowledge and purpose of the visit to planet Earth of the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU) two thousand years ago, and taught how the Homo sapiens who have evolved over the past thousands of centuries can get their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter met on this planet Earth and how to live in peace with each other and other nations.

An interesting side note is that Paleoanthropologist has found no link to the evolution of the Homo sapien skull to that of the evolved Ancient Man, leaving open the creation of the Homo species by the “Creator of the Universe”.  Although ancient man and modern man have identical bone structure from the neck on down, their skulls and thus brains are much different, nor is there any evidence of a transitional development from the skull of Ancient Man to the skull (Brain) of the Homo Species. [iv]

The advances in our knowledge of the universe and the life creation process in the last one hundred years, mainly due to the Hubble Telescope and advances in life science, have put the Christian Church in a position where they need to update their theology from religious to pragmatic (cause and effect, science) or face extinction.  The church is clearly in a positon of “grow or die” and the church cannot possibly grow with the determination to maintain their existing course, a course established and handed down through the generations and centuries by people that did not understand the meaning, instructions from the RoCoU and implications of the events that had taken place in the very beginning of “The Way” or the Christian Church.  These events took place in a very religious society and that society, for the most part, saw and recorded these events through a religious lens (perspective).

Case Study I

The RoCoU that visited planet Earth two thousand years ago taught the audience that had gathered around Him how to get along with other people on a one-on-one basis and how nations could live in peace with one another on a nation-to-nation basis.[v]

  • For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” [vi] From the accepted Christian perspective, their judgments will be judged by a higher power at the end of the life of planet Earth. They do not see their judging others as something that has immediate consequences.  From the pragmatic perspective, the effect of judging others – be it one-on-one or nation-to-nation – will have immediate consequences.  All Homo sapiens on planet Earth are of equal authority; one does not have dominion over another. And as one Homo sapien judges another, so in turn are they judged by those they are judging in real time by the same measure they are using to judge!

    This holds true for one nation to judge another nation. As one nation judges another, so is that nation judged, by the measure they use to judge, by the nation they are judging.  As in the case where the USA is judging ISIS with “air strikes,” the USA is being judged by ISIS attacking soft target (civilian targets, airplanes, restaurants, public places, etc.) with bombing and assault weapons.  The USA has judged ISIS as “barbaric” and ISIS, in turn, has judged the USA as “barbaric”.  This ISIS War has made it impossible to tell the Barbarians from the Barbarians.

Wars of our past have been mislabeled.  We must remember that the President of the USA is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA.  The orders given by the President must be followed by the USA military forces.  The President does not issue illegal orders.  If the President  orders it, it is a legal order and must be obeyed by those in subornation to the Commander-in-Chief.  One can argue that they do not have to follow an illegal order, but they will probably be sent to the brig while the Supreme Court reviews their case. They will be removed from and replaced from duty and someone else will carry out the Commander-in-Chief’s order.

Therefore the Civil War as we know it was not our civil war – it was  Lincoln’s War.  The USA involvement in WWII was FDR’s and Truman’s War.  Harry Truman was President when the Korean War began in 1950, and Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and was President when the armistice was signed in 1953.  The Vietnam War was JFK’s initiative and LBJ’s Bombing War; Nixon pulled USA troops out of Vietnam. The Serbia vs. Bosnia, Kosovo, NATO was Clinton’s war.  The Persian Gulf War I with Iraq was G.H.W. Bush’s War.  The Iraq War was G.W. Bush’s War and the ISIS-ISIL War is Obama’s War.

As a professional troubleshooter for over forty years, I can equivalently state that, “A problem must be accurately described before action is taken to try and solve the problem; if not, a bigger problem will be the result.”  By placing the proper labels on our past wars, we should gain some insight as to the right problem to solve.

The Right Problem to Solve

  • Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.” [vii]

The term “workable compromise” was not coined until the twentieth century. Is it any wonder that our ancestors did not understand the meaning of the above instruction from the RoCoU during his visit to planet Earth two thousand years ago?  A workable Compromise is a solution to conflicts that work for all participants in the disagreement.  The first step in search of a workable compromise is to ask the conflicting subject, “What do you want?”  If one does not understand what the conflicting parties want, how can a resolution ever be found that works for the principle parties?

  • Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.[viii]

Here we have the workable compromise on a much larger scale.  In the case of USA vs. ISIS, the question was never asked, “What do you want?”  If we trace back the steps of the previous administrations, we should be able to predict what ISIS-ISIL wants.  The Sunni Muslims were in power in Iraq prior to G.W. Bush’s administration.  G.W. Bush’s War left the Sunni dispossessed from their homeland by the puppet Shiite Muslim administration installed by Bush. Iraq’s neighbor, Syria, was involved in its own civil war; The Sunni Muslims, now still armed with their weapons from the now defunct Iraq Red Army, seized the opportunity and developed their base of operation in Syria.  This new ISIL then made pronouncement on video, in a very barbaric way, for the USA to “Stay out of our fight.”  The Obama administration judged ISIL as “terrorists” and initiated air strikes against ISIS-ISIL as they threatened our allies in power in Iraq.

As described above in Case Study I, judging a nation as terrorist will result in the judging nation to be judged as terrorist by the judged nation.   As the USA conducted air strikes against “hard targets” (military targets) in an attempt to minimize collateral damage (civilian deaths), ISIS-ISIL, in retaliation, began bombing and assaulting soft targets (Civilian Targets).

Judging and the lack of ability to negotiate a workable compromise by the Obama administration has, and will continue to, cost the western civilization much cost in damage, dislocation of refugees and lives of civilians.  It is apparent that even a routine change in the administration by a newly elected administration will not end this conflict with ISIS-ISIL. A resignation or impeachment of the Chief Executive seems the proper road to pursue.  A newly elected administration would be in a position of trying to apologize for the actions of the previous administrations, and that never happens.

The Lens Used for the Viewing of the Facts

The lens one views the facts, events or evidence through determines the conclusions that the viewer will hold as the correct interpretation of the facts, events or evidence. The classic scenario is this: Two men who are walking in the woods come upon an immaculate garden, complete with trimmed hedges, flower garden arrangements, etc.   One man states, “There must be a caretaker for this place.” The other man states, “What a wonderful work of nature.”   The events that took place during the visit of the RoCoU two thousand years ago can be looked at through a religious lens or a pragmatic lens.

There are two and maybe three writers that were able to record the events, of the visit to Earth by the RoCoU and the events that took place, without looking though there religious lens.  Mark, who wrote the book of Mark in the Book of Books, the Bible, was a young man on the perimeter of the core group who became the Apostles of the RoCoU. He found himself in Rome where much persecution was taking place of the “Christians” in Rome.  He took it upon himself to record for the purpose of history the events that had taken place during his life.  He was an eyewitness to some of the events and received reports from those who were part of the core group of the RoCoU.  The style of writing for an historian is to answer the questions, “who, what, where and when.”   Luke, who wrote the books of Luke (Luke I) and Acts of the Apostles (Luke II), was contracted to record the events that had and were taking place in this time period. [ix]  Luke wrote under the guidelines of a journalist, answering “who, what, where and when.”  Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events that took place, he interviewed others who were eyewitnesses of events and he was an embedded journalist with the Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys.  Matthew was a tax collector and a Jew who made an argument to Jews of the authentication of the RoCoU to the Jewish religion.  He sometimes included the “why” in his writings, as did John in the book of John.  This would make their writing styles, “who, what, where, when and why” a little more difficult to sort out the facts from their interpretation of the facts and events that took place during this visit of the RoCoU.  The Apostle Paul was highly educated in Jewish religion and history.  He viewed our relationship with the RoCoU through the lens of Jewish religion and history.  A close examination of the writing of Paul will disclose that his view of the RoCoU’s visit to planet Earth was religious and the RoCoU’s view of his visit to earth was pragmatic and the next step in the evolution of the Homo species on planet Earth.

The Gad Fly of the Democracy of the USA

The present day gad fly of democracy in the USA is The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired.[x]  The Greeks invented democracy from scratch and it worked well for them for about 170 years.  The Greeks were on the peak of their Golden Age when they got tired of hearing their gad fly, Socrates, who was a critic of their society, in particular of the shortcomings and corruption in this democracy.  Socrates was one of the founders of western philosophy.  The Greek Senate charged Socrates with “corrupting the minds of the youth,” and they sentenced Socrates to death.  The death of Socrates was the beginning of the downfall of Greece, for they had lost their “guidepost.”

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, like Socrates has been excommunicated from his position at a national laboratory by management that took offense to his proposals that threated their power structure.  His teaching credentials were canceled in a local church for “corrupting the minds of the youth” and not teaching the church’s official view on the subject. He was excommunicated from a church where he was a member in good standing for twenty years for publishing “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking” [xi] and corrupting the minds of their youth and any other person in their church with science and philosophy.  Thank God for civil laws that protects our citizens from physical harm.

Our President has not chosen to listen to this gad fly, when he suggested that a workable compromise be initiated to resolve the conflict of space, control and authority in Iraq between the three different sects of Muslims. This was proposed by the Vice President, and now the reining authority in Syria has been added to the mix; he chose to put together a coalition of nations to wipe ISIS-ISIL from planet Earth.  ISIS-ISIL has retaliated with attacks against this coalition of nations and the USA hitting soft targets.  We should expect this activity to continue. The best outcome, using the best military forces on the planet,  for a military victory, will be guerilla warfare with the soft targets continuing to be hit by these guerilla fighters.  The only solution to the ISIS-ISIL conflict is a workable compromise – a permanent home for the displaced Sunni Muslims from their Iraq home.

Lessons from History

In 480 B.C. the Persians were set upon wiping the Greeks off the Earth or enslaving them.  The Persians greatly outnumbered the Greeks.  The Persians were under autocratic the rule of Xerxes; the Greeks were under democratic rule (one for all and all for one).   The Persians overran the Greek Spartans (trained warriors) at the pass of Thermopylae [xii] and sacked Athens, which had been evacuated by the Greeks.

The Persians had large war ships (similar to that of the USA navy, bigger than their opponents).  The Greeks built small maneuverable war ships with a torpedo like Ram on the bow of the ship (A trireme).  The Greeks lured the Persian navy in to the Aegean Sea where there were many islands presenting a maneuverable issue for the Persians.  With their mobility (like ISIS-ISIL), the Greeks ran circles around the larger Persian ships and rammed the Persian ships with their torpedo like Rams at the front of their ships and sank the Persian Fleet. [xiii]

Beware USA your large arsenal of weapons is being out maneuvered by an adversary who is focused on mobility.

The USA Transition from a Republic to a Democracy

The USA was formed as a republic and has been in a long transition to a democracy in small steps. This change has come about by allowing more of the population to vote in elections and it changed the way our President was elected.  In the beginning, only land owners could vote in the elections.  These were the people who had an invested interest in the profitability of the nation, much like that of stockholders voting in a corporation. [xiv]  The vote has slowly been extended, for various reasons, to other segments of our society who do not have an investment or knowledge of producing a profitable nation (women, teens, those on government assistance).  We certainly have improved on the lifestyles of our citizens, as have the Greeks, but our national debt is rising above our ability to pay the interest, which could eventually result in foreclosure on our property (nation) by our creditors (like the two bailouts of the Greeks by the EU in recent history).

The Life Span of a Democracy

The average lifespan for a democracy is about 170 years, as established by the Greeks.  In the Greek democracy, leaders were chosen by a lottery, thus minimizing payoffs and corruption in the government.  Serving as a leader was considered a duty of citizenship.  Ballots could be cast to remove a government leader from office and they would be exiled for ten years from their society. In the Greek democracy, only about 20 percent of the population could vote. [xv]   The Greeks now have more people on the government payroll than people paying taxes to support the government. Is this direction the USA wants to continue to pursue?

The Code of Conduct to Live Long in this Land

There is a “code of conduct” that was intended to provide for the continued success of a nation living long in the land that had been giving to them.  Unfortunately, these were given to a very religious people and they did not understand the economic implications of these Ten Codes of Conduct.  Unfortunately, these Ten Codes of Conduct are still seen as religious by almost our entire society, religious and secular alike.  When one sets aside their religious lens, the pragmatic lens shows that the economics of these Ten Codes of Conduct can be realized.  The original Codes of Conduct were given in an ancient language; therefore, the proper perspective is to look at them through the eyes of a parent giving instruction to their children so that they might live long in the land the parent was giving them to raise their generations.

  1. You will not listen to anyone but your father for guidance.
  2. You will not form addictions that will prevent you from making your own decisions.
  3. You will not use my name as an authority to cause trouble or discomfort for any other person on this planet Earth.
  4. You will take a day off, after every six days of work, and remember who gave you this land and enjoy your time with family and friends, and you will allow your employees time off to enjoy their family and friends, and you will not mow your lawn on this day and interrupt the peace of your neighbors.
  5. Remember what your mother and father taught you, and hand down those teaching to your children and grandchildren, that you might live long in this land I have given you.
  6. You shall not murder.
  7. You shall not steal.
  8. You shall not give false witness against your neighbor.
  9. You shall not seek an intimate relationship with your neighbor’s wife.
  10. You shall not scheme to gain possession of your neighbor’s property.
  11. You will not build a big mansion type house in your neighbor’s back yard.
  12. You shall keep the walk-ways, of your communities, free of “Foxtails” that injure our pets. [xvi]

QED

 

 

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

[ii] https://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/

[iii] Max Plank, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_planck.html/

[iv] NOVA: Dawn of Humanity DVD, http://www.shoppbs.org/home/index.jsp/

[v] Jesus on judging, negotiating

[vi] Matthew 7:2, The Bible

[vii] Matthew 5:25, The Bible

[viii] Luke 14:31-32, The Bible

[ix] Luke 1:1-4, The Bible

[x] http://thephilosopheronpolitics.worpress.com/

[xi] https://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/

[xii] http://www.ancient.eu/thermopylae/

[xiii] National Geographic The Greeks DVD, 2016, http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/weaponswar/p/blpwtherm.htm/

[xiv] http://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/voting/  TBC

[xv] PBS, “The Greeks”, 2016

[xvi] http://pets.webmd.com/dogs/foxtail-grass-and-your-dog/

Advertisements

Chapter I

The Big Bang

https://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/the-big-bang/

The Origin of the Universe [i]

Cosmologists now accept, in this first quarter of the twenty-first century, that the universe was created by an infinitely small and infinitely dense mass that was dispersed by a Big Bang. These conclusions are based on the data gathered by the Hubble and Kepler Telescopes, launched in the late twentieth century. The Big Bang expelled hydrogen and helium into empty space. Particles on the exterior were given acceleration greater than particles near the center. The hydrogen and helium were attracted by the force of gravity and created nuclear fusion reactors known as suns or stars. Heavy metals were also thrown into empty space and were attracted to each other by the force of gravity, forming planets, asteroids and other cosmic matter, and thus forming galaxies.

The Universe [ii]

Thus, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate with the outer galaxies traveling faster than near galaxies, forming asymmetrical shape (egg shape). From our observation point – the Hubble Telescope – galaxies can be determined by their direction and distance by use of the Doppler Effect. As with sound waves, light waves exhibit this Doppler shift.  If one were standing on the platform of a train station and a fast moving train was approaching from a distance with its whistle blowing, the frequency of the sound wave would increase, raising the pitch of the sound as the train approached the viewer on the platform, and it would decrease in frequency and pitch when moving away from the viewer on the platform. When a galaxy is moving away from the observation point, the frequency of the light wave will decrease into the red light band. If the galaxy is moving towards the observer, the frequency of the light wave will increase to the blue light band. Thus, the direction and velocity of the galaxies has been determined.

The Life Cycle of Suns and Stars [iii]

The suns and stars that form the galaxy systems are created by the gravitational attraction of hydrogen and helium. They, in turn, attract the collected matter, forming a solar system consisting of planets, asteroids, comets, etc. The suns and stars will live out their lives as long as there is hydrogen to support the fusion reaction. The forces, due to gravity and fusion energy, are equal and opposite to each other, giving the sun equilibrium in size, until the sun deceases in size due to the depletion of hydrogen fuel. Gravity will then dominate and attract the remaining material into dark matter millions of times more dense than the sun.  If the sun is large enough, there will be a reactionary reaction and the sun will explode with great force, which is known as a Super Nova. The Super Nova (New Life) will repopulate itself many times over, creating new galaxies. Like biological plants on Planet Earth, galaxies have a birth, life and death and, on their deaths, they repopulate themselves many times over. The result is dark matter that is millions of times more dense than the preexisting sun, and it will provide a gravitational net that will keep the new galaxy together.

Life on Other Planets [iv]

Looking at a small section of the universe, the number of galaxies in the universe can be estimated, and it is estimated that there are about 400 billion galaxies existing at this point in time. [v]  Because planets do not emit light, these dark spots crossing in front of the suns can be observed and the size and orbit of these planets can be determined. [vi] It is estimated there are about four billion planets orbiting a sun in the Goldilocks Zone (not too hot, not too cold) and not too big and not too small, where water combined with amino acids can create life that will rapidly reproduce itself and can evolve and be advanced by creation, as it has on Earth. [vii] Paleoanthropologists have traced the evolution of ancient man to the primates, who in turn, had their origin in the ocean. However, there is no history of an evolution of the skull of ancient man (Australopithecus sediba) to the skull of the modern man (Homo species), leaving an opening for the creation of the brain of modern man by the Creator of the Universe. Although ancient man and modern man have identical bone structure from the neck on down, their skulls and thus brains are much different. [viii]

The evolution/creation of the homo species (modern man) could then take place as it has on Earth, beginning with nomadic hunters and gatherers as the planet warms, making the transitioning to agrarian societies possible. That planet would then, with the development of cities, roads and easy communications between the social hubs, be due a visit from the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU), as the next step in this evolutionary process. The RoCoU would then teach them how to live successfully on this created Planet Earth; how to get their physical needs met on this planet, how to live with each other and how to live with other developing nations. [ix]

The Arrival of the RoCoU and the Guiding Spirit

The Guiding Spirit, provided by the Creator, shows evidence of being in the world with the creation of modern man’s brain. Socrates stated that he “was guided by a spirit that kept him from making mistakes.” Socrates was known as the wisest man of his time because he knew that he did not possess wisdom and relied on this Guiding Spirit for wisdom. [x]  The RoCoU arrived on planet Earth in the form of a seed planted into a virgin, giving Him the form of modern man. [xi] He arrived in a place and time that made it possible for His instructions to be passed to all the places on the planet. [xii] His parting command to His disciples was to pass onto the world what He had taught them while He was on planet Earth. [xiii]  He told his disciples that when He returned to His home, He would send them His Personal Counselor to guide them and teach them all that they needed to know. [xiv] He explained to His disciples that this planet Earth would come to an end like a bolt of lightning, [xv] which certainly follows the birth, live and death processes of the suns in the universe. The universe and Planet Earth are estimated to be 13.5 billion years old. Our sun is estimated to have four billion years of hydrogen fuel remaining before it implodes and likely explodes in a Super Nova, giving life to a new galaxy. [xvi]

The RoCoU needed to change His body into a form that would allow him to travel to His home in the universe. This is the reason for Him being crucified until dead, buried in a tomb, and resurrecting from the dead in a form that would allow Him to go to go home or to His next assignment on a different planet in the universe, to elevate the evolved/created modern man to the next step in this process. It’s interesting to speculate on how the RoCoU traverses the universe. The speed of light presents a barrier for particle accelerators. As accelerated electrons approach the speed of light, the electrons gain mass and slow down. Therefore, the new body form of The RoCoU must be able to transverse the universe at speeds in excess of the speed of light. At this point in time, the farthest galaxies are estimated to be 400 billion light years in distance (the distance a corpuscular light wave can transverse in one year from planet Earth).  Therefore, there must be other laws of physics that can be applied once on the other side of the “Speed of Light”.

QED

 

[i] Steven Hawkins, “The Universe”, Steven Hawking’s University, Pub. British Broadcasting Corporation, 1997, PBS; Stephen Hawking, “Genius” Pub. Bigger Bang Communications LTD, 2016, PBS.

[ii] ibid

[iii] ibid

[iv] ibid

[v] ibid

[vi] http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/astronomy-topics/extrasolar-planets.html/

[vii] Ibid i

[viii] NOVA: Dawn of Humanity DVD, http://www.shoppbs.org/home/index.jsp/

[ix] http://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/weapon/

[x] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates /

[xi] Luke 2:1-7 The Bible

[xii] Explores Class, Cedar Grove Community Church, Livermore, CA, ca 2016

[xiii] Matthew 28:20, The Bible

[xiv] John 14: 26, 15:26, The Bible

[xv] Matthew 24:27, Luke 17: 24, The Bible

[xvi] Ibid i

Christianity is not an Offensive Weapon Ver. 1.1.2

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired

http://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/weapon/

The Philosopher

https://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/weapon/

4/19/2016

Copyright 2016

Introduction

As of late, there are several incidents in this first quarter of the twenty-first century that involve using Christianity as an offensive weapon.  The Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU) visited planet Earth twenty centuries ago and used parables to teach us that peace on this planet Earth can be obtained by “negotiating a workable compromise.”   This is a negotiating process that results in an agreement between individuals, organizations and nations and that works for all parties concerned.[i]

Case Study 1

The USA sought to oust the dictator of Iraq and did so effectively.  The overthrow of the dictator was justified from the fear that weapons of mass destruction were being constructed.  The driver for this operation was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the USA Armed Forces.  This was someone more knowledgeable of the military might of the USA than of negotiating a workable compromise.  However, the government installed a replacement for this dictatorship and, in turn, ousted the Islamic sect that was previously in power under this dictatorship. This resulted in their being disenfranchised from their home country.

The disenfranchised military members left their homeland with their weapons they possessed as being a part of the dictatorship’s army.  These disenfranchised military members formed their own group now known as ISIS-ISIL.  This new group rightly blamed the USA for their disenfranchisement and made their demands clear in a barbaric fashion. They did not want the USA involved in their objective to establish a home nation for this group in Iraq and Syria.

While under public pressure, the leadership of the USA retaliated against ISIS-ISIL with military air forces.  The USA leadership had an opportunity to negotiate a workable compromise at this time but instead chose to retaliate with force, and they did so under the label of Christianity.  ISIS-ISIL then retaliated against soft targets in Europe and, using propaganda on the internet, was able to influence USA citizens to retaliate against soft targets in the USA.  As they see the USA as a Christian nation, all citizens of the USA qualify as a soft target.

This progression of the USA targeting hard targets and ISIS-ISIL targeting soft targets has now escalated past the point of the present leadership of the USA to be able to negotiate a workable compromise with ISIS-ISIL.  A change in leadership with another leader not capable or experienced in negotiating workable compromises would effectively just be a change in the face of the leadership and would not result in a policy change from military action to negotiating a workable compromise. The RoCoU taught us during His visit twenty centuries ago to live in peace with our neighboring nations.  This leaves the only solution to peace as impeachment or resignation of the President of the USA, which would send a clear message to ISIS-ISSL that the USA is ready to negotiate a workable compromise.

Case Study 2

The leadership of a small local independent church was following the examples given in the New Testament of the Bible to guide and organize their church.  When their New Testament theology was threatened by the discovery of a scientific explanation of the events that were reported in the four Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles of this New Testament, the leadership chose to take offensive action to protect their religious tradition.

What could be the possible reasoning behind this aggressive offense by church and state?

  • The USA leadership was pressured by public opinion to take military action against ISIS-ISIL because of their barbaric method of sending a message to the USA to stay out of their fight.
  • The leadership of the USA mistakenly thought that an aggressive military action was consistent with Christian values.
  • The Commander-in-Chief’s responsibility is given to the President, when instead it should be delegated to a much wiser panel of mature statesmen (not the Joints Chiefs of Staff, as they have a conflict of interest, which was demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq).
  • Christian leadership in the church has become a professional Christian role. Professional Christians have a conflict of interest in their churches (Protestant), as they must maintain continued funding by a fickle membership to ensure the continuity of their salary.  The use of laypersons to perform leadership duties in the church mitigates this conflict of interest and would lead the way for debate on the Gospel in the church.  In another major non-Protestant denomination, this conflict of interest is mitigated by a corporate style of leadership.  In this case, it is a follow-the-leader style of church with a hierarchy of church leaders.  For this reason, the idea of open debate is unheard of in this denomination of the Christian church, as final authority rests with their chosen leader.
  • Debate in the church has been discouraged dating back to the Apostle Paul. Paul knew he was right even if he was not[ii] and the other orators were declared unreliable by Paul. [iii] Any interpretation of the Gospel other than that defined by the Apostle Paul was and is an imposter.
  • The RoCoU, on the other hand, stressed the use of negotiating a workable compromise to resolve differences of opinion in the church, in society microscopically and between nations macroscopically. [iv] Certainly he would have supported open debate in the church over the closed church doctrine that now exists in most present day churches.
  • A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it,” – Max Planck. [v] So it must also be true of a “New Paradigm in Christian Thinking.”

QED

 

 

[i]  Luke 12:58, http://biblehub.com/niv/luke/12-58.htm,  Luke 14:31-32,  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14:31-32&version=NIV

[ii] http://drleman.com, “The Firstborn Advantage”, Revell Pub. 2008, p69 “The Firstborn Personality”

[iii] 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11%3A13-15&version=NIV

[iv] Ibid i

[v] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_planck.html

                            The Path to World Peace Ver. 1.1.4

The Philosopher

https://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/World-Peace/

http://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/World-Peace/

Revised 3/21/2016

Copyright 2016

Introduction

There are many factors that cause conflict in the world, but one of the largest divides between people on a microscopic social scale and between nations on a macroscopic social scale is religion.  Religion can be divided into two parts: faith and tradition. The difference between faith and tradition is that faith does not need to be defended, protected, preserved or expanded, while Tradition must be defended, protected, preserved and expanded.  The promotion of tradition can be by peaceable means or by aggressive armed conflict.  Faith is something that can be shared with others but only by the personal testimony and by example of/by the faithful.

The Visit by the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU)

Planet Earth received a visit by the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU, a.k.a. Jesus) in the Common Era (C.E.) (in common terms) or the Era after the Birth of our Lord Jesus (in religious terms). The RoCoU came to planet Earth in the most advantageous time and place.  He came when the Homo sapiens had developed to an agrarian society, making the transition from “hunters and gatherers” due to a warming climate moving from an Ice Age.[i]  The Romans had conquered much of the known world and had built roads that made communications from community to community possible.  The RoCoU arrived into a culture that was a monotheist society, making known the Creator of the Universe more possible versus a society that was multi-theist, as was most of the known world at this time.

The purpose of the visit by the RoCoU is best described in the book of Luke in the Book of Books, the Bible.  Luke was writing as a journalist reporting to excellent Theophilus, a person or a group of persons. [ii] He not only interviewed eyewitnesses of the events that took place during this visit of the RoCoU, but was an eyewitness himself in his travels with Paul on his missionary journeys as reported in the Book of Acts, a.k.a. Luke II.  More insights can be obtained in the Book of Mark, as Mark was writing as a historian and in haste, so he was direct and did not offer any interpretation of the events. He just recorded the events for history.  From the accounts of Luke, we see that the RoCoU was on planet Earth to teach the Homo sapiens how to live life successfully on this planet and that Homo sapiens’ existence on this planet Earth will be finite, as planet Earth’s existence will be finite.

The Resurrection Problem

The Resurrection of the RoCoU, a.k.a. Jesus, has been interpreted through history as a religious event. He died for our sins, was resurrected from the dead as a forecast of our own resurrection, and He ascended into Heaven as a forecast of our own ascension into Heaven. [iii]  It is important to note that Paul the Apostle was a Jew’s Jew, an Israelite’s Israelite and an expert in Jewish Law.  He was chosen to represent the RoCoU (Jesus) to the Jews and the Gentiles (non-Jews) because he was persecuting the followers of the RoCoU by Jesus Himself in a very dramatic way, and he had the leadership personality and skills to accomplish the mission of establishing the “Living Church” of the RoCoU and to accomplish the mission of the RoCoU on planet Earth. [iv]  Paul, therefore, was humbled by the RoCoU and he put the focus of the Gospel message on the RoCoU himself and tied this event to the Jewish religious teachings of the time.

The RoCoU, however, put the focus of his message as being totally independent from – not tied to or a progression of – the Jewish religion.  “He told them this parable: ‘No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.  No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’’” This is clearly a teaching of a “Paradigm Shift” which is a term that was not coined until the seventeenth century by the Philosopher Immanuel Kant and Thomas Kuhn in 1962. This term was first applied to the paradigm shift of the mathematics of the Greeks and to Newtonian Physics, and was later applied to social science by H.L Handa and to the paradigm shift of Christianity by Hans Kuhn. [v]

In general, a Paradigm Shift is a new way of thinking or a new way of understanding or acting.  The New Paradigm is totally independent from – not tied to or a progression of – the existing Paradigm. Therefore, the message brought to planet Earth by the RoCoU was indeed a Paradigm Shift from the Jewish Religion, which was the religion of the Homos sapiens where the RoCoU made His appearance on planet Earth.

The Return of the RoCoU to His Home Base

The RoCoU came to planet Earth in the form of the existing Homo sapiens on planet Earth by the immaculate conception of Mary, His surrogate mother.  He was raised in the Jewish society to which he was born and had complete knowledge of this Jewish religion and tradition.  To return back to His home base somewhere in the universe, He needed a change in form that would allow him to make that transition.  If He were to be interned on this planet as a corpse, he would not be able to return to His home base and go onto His next assignment, another planet, like the planet Earth in the “Goldilocks Zone,” to advance the life that has evolved on that planet as it did on planet Earth.  Therefore, the death, resurrection and the ascension of the RoCoU was necessary for him to continue His work in the universe created by the Creator of the universe – His Father.

The Science behind the Visit of the RoCoU

Astrologers have determined that there are approximately four billion other planets like Earth in the universe.  These plants are in the “Goldilocks Zone,” which means they are not too hot, not too cold, and are not too large and not too small. And given the possibility that water exists on these planets, which along with amino acid [vi] are the two requirements to produce life on these planets, all the other elements to create life are readily available in the universe (a.k.a. “star dust”). The conclusions that can be drawn from this data are that the RoCoU may have a lot of planets like planet Earth to visit.  That makes planet Earth a very small number amongst all of its peers.  Therefore, planet Earth is not just a singular miracle as it has been reported in the past.  Astro physicists estimate that the sun has about four billion years of fuel left to burn, and then it will extinguish and life and the planet Earth will cease to exist in this solar system.  The RoCoU stated the end time would come like a “Bolt of Lightning.” [vii]

Negotiating a Workable Compromise is Key to World Peace

The RoCoU stated that negotiating a “workable compromise” was one of the most import things to do to be reconciled with an adversary.[viii] Only children, or children who are widely separated in age or distance from their siblings (functional only children), have the disadvantage of having grown up in their family of origin without near-in-age siblings and not gaining the natural ability to negotiate a workable compromise.  These special children, who are becoming more numerous in our and other nation’s societies, have also shown themselves to be world leaders.  There have been five Presidents of the USA, including our present President in this first quarter of the twenty-first century, as well as the leader of Russia, who have not developed the natural skill of negotiating a workable compromise. Who knows how many other world leaders did not have an opportunity to develop the natural skill of negotiating a ‘Workable Compromise’? Their communication style incudes statements like, “I want this” and “I want that,” and they usually got what they wanted in their family of origin and this communication style carried over into adulthood.[ix]  Being the oldest sibling with a near-in-age same sex sibling also tends to show an aggressive communication style and does not demonstrate they learned how to negotiate a workable compromise in their family of origin.  Learning to negotiate a workable compromise, once majority has been obtained, often comes only with intervention and intensive training.

The Effect of Divorce on World Peace

Looking at world peace on a microscopic scale leads to exploring the changing families of origin.  Sociologists have presented three perspectives on the cause of the increasing divorce rate in the USA and Western Europe, as only Japan has been able to minimize divorce and hold families together under the same roof.  The three perspectives are:  Symbolism, Functionalism and Conflict Theory. Taking Religion into account, a fourth perspective would be the effects of religion on the rate of divorce.  All of these four perspectives must be taking as parts of the whole, since each perspective only gives a partial view of the changing societies of the world.

Symbolism Interaction

Symbolism interaction is a microsociological examination on small-scale patterns of social interaction.  Its focus is face-to-face interactions and how people use symbols to create social life.  Industrialization and urbanization change marital roles and lead to a redefinition of love, marriage, children and divorce. The increasing divorce rate is explained in terms of changing symbols (or meanings) associated with both marriage and divorce.  Changes in people’s ideas—about divorce, marital satisfaction, love, the nature of children and parenting and the roles of husband and wife—have put extreme pressure on today’s married couples.  No single change is the cause, but taken together, these changes provide a strong ‘push’ toward divorce. ” [x]

Functional Analysis

 “The central idea of functional analysis is that society is a whole unit made up of interrelated parts that work together.  Society is viewed as a kind of living organism.  Just as a biological organism has organs that function together, so does society like an organism. If society is to function smoothly, its various parts must work together in harmony.  The group is a functioning whole, with each part related to the whole.  Whenever we examine a smaller part, we need to look for its functions and dysfunctions to see how it is related to the larger unity.

The family has lost many of its traditional functions, while others are presently under assault.  Especially significant is that economic production is no longer a cooperative, home-based effort, with husbands and wives depending on one another for their interlocking contributions to a mutual endeavor.  Husbands and wives today earn individual paychecks, and increasingly function as separate components of an impersonal, multinational, and even global system.  When outside agencies take over family function, this makes the family more fragile and an increase in divorce inevitable.  The fewer functions that family members have in common, the fewer their ‘ties that bind,’ and these ties are what help see husbands and wives through the inevitable problems they experience.” [xi] 

An early and similar living organism view of society was applied to the Christian Church by the Apostle Paul. “Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” [xii]


 

Conflict Theory 

Applying conflict theory to explain why the U.S. divorce rate is high, conflict theorist look at men’s and women’s relationship in terms of basic inequalities—men dominate and exploit, while women are dominated and exploited.  They also point out that marriage reflects the basic male-female relationship of society and is one of the means by which men maintain their domination and exploitation of women.

Conflict theorists see marriage as reflecting society’s basic inequalities between males and females.  Higher divorce rates result from changed male-female power relationships, especially as wives attempt to resolve basic inequalities and husbands resist those efforts.  From the conflict perspective, then, the increase in divorce is not a sign that marriage has weakened but, rather, a sign that women are making headway in their historical struggle with men.” [xiii]

Religion and the Rise in Divorce Rate

Following the lines of conflict theory with women gaining power in the U. S., religion is playing an important function with the diversity of religions in the U.S.  In western nations, the percentage rate of births to unmarried mothers (UMM) is increasing (from greatest to least of UMM rates is: Sweden, Denmark, France, United States, Great Britain, Canada and Germany).  Only the monotheist nations Italy and Japan have low UMM rates. [xiv]  Women have been gaining power; states have accommodated this change in the power structure of marriage with community property laws, no-fault divorce, and amicable attorney guided divorce.

A Lesson from History

“King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites.  They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, ‘You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.’ Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.” [xv] Historically this number of wives may have become inflated due to the verbal nature of passing down historical information in this time period, as there was not a great many people living in this area in this time period.

Effects of Men Marrying Wives of a Different Religion

There are several instances in which men find themselves married to a woman whose religious beliefs become objectionable.  This usually happens when the husband or mate attains the age of thirty-five to thirty-nine.[xvi]  At this age a maturation process begins [xvii] and the religious teaching of their youth (often from their mother) kicks in and they make a major life changing decision to follow the religion of their youth, which is now in conflict with the religion of their mate.  But as seen in Solomon’s case, these women do not change their religion, at least not easily.  Women are governed under different rules of life than men. They do not seem to go through this mid-life transformation; they have their own bodily changes at about the age of fifty.

In this changing of religions situation, mothers often take the position that they must protect their children form the heretical teaching of the new religion of their mate.  In community property states and no-fault divorce states, this can lead to some dicey situations and long discussions in courts, about the future of the children, and may result in court orders in regard to child custody.  Our courts do not seem to have the wisdom given to Solomon [xviii] when it comes to establishing what is best for the family, but they usually follow the letter of the law which does not put much substance in negotiating a workable compromise.

The Path to World Peace

What then is the “Path to World Peace?”  The Path to World Peace has two roads to follow.  Route one is to come to terms with the visit of the RoCoU to planet Earth twenty plus centuries ago and come to grips with the notion that He did not come to Planet Earth to set Himself up as a person or deity to be worshiped, but rather He came to instruct us how to live successfully on this planet Earth. [xix] This, in effect, was part of the evolutionary process of the Homo sapiens species.

The RoCoU taught that the teachings he was bringing to us was not tied to, in conjunction with, or a progression of anything that had preceded His visit.  “One does not put new wine into an old wineskin. The new wine is too volatile and will burst the old wineskin and he will lose both the new wine and the old wineskin.  New wine must be put into new wineskins.[xx]

Regarding The Path to World Peace, the RoCoU taught two parables that He hoped would be understood by his disciples and handed down through the generations.  Unfortunately His disciples were not at the development stage that they could understand these parables. They themselves were caught up in a religious society and could not separate their thinking in religious terms from that of scientific terms.  Parable 1, (One-on-One Peace): “As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled on the way, or your adversary may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison.” [xxi] Parable 2, (Nation-to-Nation Peace): “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.” [xxii]

The Path to World Peace: Negotiate a Workable Compromise with your personal adversaries and with other nations that have a different view of the world than your own nation.  Accept the overwhelming evidence that planet Earth is but one of a billion or so other planets like Earth and the RoCoU paid us a visit in a special place that was most advantageous for Him to get His message to the world’s inhabitants.  The RoCoU’s message was to teach us how to live on this planet Earth peacefully with other people and other nations, and these teachings were based on science not religion.  “People who are unable to understand perfectly both the Bible and the science far outnumber those who do understand them.” – Galileo (1564-1642).

There is one caveat to negotiating a workable compromise.  Most of us grew up in our family of origin with another sibling(s) somewhat close to our own age (within five years).  We learned naturally how to negotiate a workable compromise and how to share with another sibling.  Only children and those with distant siblings (greater than five years) did not receive this natural training to share and negotiate a workable compromise.  As a result, they got most of everything they wanted without outcries from their siblings, resulting in a communication style of “I want this” and “I want that,” and they usually got what they wanted.  They never outgrew this early training.

Food For Thought

Our greatest economic competitor, China, has a one-hundred percent national population of people age about thirty-five and younger, in this first quarter of the twenty-first century, that are only children and are coming into power positions in their country. This could prove challenging for leaders of the world’s nations to deal with since they would have little training in how to negotiate a workable compromise and would be accustomed to getting everything they want.  If the USA continues to elect only children as their President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, this could be devastating to the USA, as neither nation would have leaders with the natural training to share and negotiate a ‘Workable Compromise’.

QED

 

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_society

[ii] Luke 1:1-4, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_1

[iii]I Corinthians 15,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus

[iv] Acts 9, https://www.bible.com/bible/111/act.9.niv#!

[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

[vi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

[vii] Luke 17:22-24, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17:22-24&version=NIV/

[viii] Luke 12:58-59, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A58-59&version=NIV/,

Luke 14:31-32, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A31-33&version=NIV/

[ix] http://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/adlerian-psy/

[x] James M. Henslin, Sociology “a Down-to-Earth Approach 5th ed. Allyn and Bacon, 2001 pp24-26

[xi] Ibid pp27-30

[xii] The Apostle Paul, Romans 12:4-5, The Book of Books, (The Bible), NIV

[xiii] Ibid vi pp 30-31

[xiv] Ibid vi p26-28

[xv] I Kings 11:1-3, The Book of Books (The Bible)

[xvi] C. G. Jung and personal observations

[xvii] The President of the USA must be Thirty-Five years old, USA Constitution

[xviii] 1 Kings 3: 16-28, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon

[xix] Book of Luke, The Book of Books (The Bible)

[xx] Luke 5:36-39, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+5:36-39&version=NIV

[xxi] Luke 12:58, http://biblehub.com/luke/12-58.htm

[xxii] Luke 14: 31-33, http://biblehub.com/niv/luke/14.htm

A Church Guided by Gossip or a Church Guided by the Holy Spirit?

Ver. 1.0.1

The Philosopher

https://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/gossip

10/4/2015

Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft Societies

“Ferdinand Tonnies (1877-1988) saw a new type of society emerging. Tonnies used the term Gemeinschaft (Guh-Mine-shoft), or ‘intimate community,’ to describe the traditional type of society in which everyone knows everyone else and people share a sense of shared fate. In such a society, people toe the line because they are acutely sensitive to the opinions of others and know that if they deviate, others will gossip and damage their reputation. Although their lives are sharply controlled by the opinions of others, they draw comfort from being part of an intimate group.

Tonnies saw that industrialization was tearing at this intimate fabric of village life. He noted that, in this emerging society, personal ties, family connections, lifelong friendships were growing less important. They were being replaced by short-term relationships, individual accomplishments, and self-interests. Tonnies called this new type of society Gesellschaft (Guh-Zell-shoft), or ‘impersonal associations.’ As much as anyone might hate it, in Gemeinschaft society informal mechanisms such as gossip had been effective in controlling people. In this new world of Gesellschaft, however, gossip was of little use, and to keep people in line society had to depend on more formal agencies, such as the police and courts.”i

The Church has become a Gemeinschaft society – and “intimate community.” A community that is to be guided by the Personal Counselor, a.k.a. the Holy Spirit, that Jesus sent into the world during the Pentecost Festival after His ascension into Heaven. However, this writer has noticed some competition with gossip controlling the church. And when we have given members of the church a position of authority, and gossip rather than the Holy Spirit is in control, the community of the church can be led astray and damaged.

In the Covenant of one local church, the following was made a part of this Church Covenant: “I WILL PROTECT THE UNITY OF MY CHURCH
…By acting in love toward other members
…By refusing to gossip
…By following the leaders”

What do the Scriptures say about Gossip?

Proverbs:
 11:13”A gossip betrays a confidence….”
 16:28 “…a gossip separates close friends.”
 18:8 “The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man’s/ [woman’s] inmost parts.”
 20:19 “A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid a man/ [woman] who talks too much.”
 26:20 “Without wood a fire goes out; without gossip a quarrel dies down.”
 II Corinthians 12:20 “….I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder.”

Women and the Church

1 Corinthians 14:34-35“…As in all congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

I Timothy 2:11 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

Paul’s Letters and Gender Roles

“An example of gender roles would be gender roles depicted in the letters, which proscribe roles for women that appear to deviate from Paul’s more egalitarian teaching that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Separate male and female roles, however, were not foreign to the authentic Pauline epistles; the First Letter to the Corinthians (14:34–35) commands silence from women during church services, stating that “it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” This is widely regarded to be an interpolation by a later editor of 1 Corinthians of a passage from 1 Timothy 2:11–15 that states a similar “women should be silent in churches”. This made 1 Corinthians more widely acceptable to church leaders in later times. If verses before or after 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 are read, it is fairly clear that verses 34 and 35 were inserted later.”ii

Pauline authorship

For Pauline authorship

“Among the Apostolic Fathers, ‘a strong case can be made for Ignatius’ use of … 1 and 2 Timothy’. The unidentified author of the Muratorian fragment (c.170) lists the Pastorals as Pauline, while excluding others e.g. to the Laodiceans. Origen refers to the “fourteen epistles of Paul” without specifically naming Titus or Timothy. However it is believed that Origen wrote a commentary on at least the epistle to Titus.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary (1897) gives a date for the First Epistle to Timothy of around A.D. 66 or 67 and says of 2 Timothy, “It was probably written a year or so after the first, and from Rome, where Paul was for a second time a prisoner, and was sent to Timothy by the hands of Tychicus,” as the text indicates. Of the Epistle to Titus, Easton’s says “Paul’s authorship was undisputed in antiquity, as far as known, but is frequently doubted today. It was probably written about the same time as the First Epistle to Timothy, with which it has many affinities.”

“Adherents of the traditional position date the Epistle to Titus from the circumstance that it was written after Paul’s visit to Crete in Titus 1:5. That visit could not be the one referred to in Acts 27:7, when Paul was on his voyage to Rome as a prisoner, and where he continued a prisoner for two years. Thus traditional exegesis supposes that after his release Paul sailed from Rome into Asia, passing Crete by the way, and that there he left Titus “to set in order the things that were wanting.” Thence he would have gone to Ephesus, where he left Timothy, and from Ephesus to Macedonia, where he wrote the First Epistle to Timothy, and thence, according to the superscription of this epistle, to Nicopolis in Epirus, from which place he wrote to Titus, about A.D. 66 or 67.

Biblical Scholars such as Michael Licona or Ray Van Neste, who ascribe the books to Paul find their placement fits within his life and work and see the linguistic differences as complementary to differences in the recipients. Other Pauline epistles have fledgling congregations as the audience, the pastoral epistles are directed to Paul’s close companions, evangelists whom he has extensively worked with and trained. In this view, linguistic differences are to be expected, if one is to assert Pauline authorship to them. Johnson asserts the impossibility of demonstrating the authenticity of the Pastoral Letters.”

Against Pauline authorship

“On the basis of their language, content, and other factors, the pastoral epistles are today widely regarded as not having been written by Paul, but after his death. (Although the Second Epistle to Timothy is sometimes thought to be more likely than the other two to have been written by Paul.) Beginning with Friedrich Schleiermacher in a letter published in 1807, biblical textual critics and scholars examining the texts fail to find their vocabulary and literary style similar to Paul’s unquestionably authentic letters, fail to fit the life situation of Paul in the epistles into Paul’s reconstructed biography, and identify principles of the emerged Christian church rather than those of the apostolic generation.”

“As an example of qualitative style arguments, in the First Epistle to Timothy the task of preserving the tradition is entrusted to ordained presbyters; the clear sense of presbuteros as an indication of an office, is a sense that to these scholars seems alien to Paul and the apostolic generation.”iii

If we take the scriptures as “God’s unerring word,” women participating in church activities would be in trouble. On speculation, these passages look to appear from a practicing preacher, as they are almost word for word in I Corinthians and I Timothy. As an amateur platform speaker, I can attest to the frustration a speaker would have when he is delivering his important message and women are taking amongst themselves, interpreting what the speaker is saying. It seems women have an unrestrained need to share their thoughts and insights with their neighbor in the audience. The insertion of the “women not to speak in the church” into Paul’s writing in I Corinthians could have been an attempt to eliminate this urge of women to share their thoughts and insights while the speaker was speaking and to assert this frustration.

Church Covenants and Codes of Conduct

The following Church Covenants and Codes of Conduct is suggested for churches that deem these necessary.
I will protect the unity of the church:
 I will support and treat others with love and negotiate workable compromises in a win-win manner.
 By refusing to gossip or carry gossip forward or act upon gossip in the discharge of my church duties.
 By following the leadership of the Personal Counselor Jesus sent to us with my constant, real time, continuous seeking his guidance in my life.
 By remaining silent, except for an appropriate “Amen” of approval and support, and not discussing my insights with others as the speaker is delivering their message in general assembly.
 I will conduct outreach for the purpose of introducing the unchurched to Christ’s Teachings. I will not visit church members to ascertain their assets that I can use for my own personal purposes. Private assets are for the mission of the church as each member chooses to make them available to the church mission.

QED


i Henslin, James M., Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, “Sociology (A Down-to-Earth Approach) 5th ed.” Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, Massachusetts, 2001, p 107
ii https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_epistles#Against_Pauline_authorship
iii Ibid

Romans: The Book That Changed the World or the Book That Derailed the Gospel Jesus Sent Us Ver. 1.0.1

The Philosopher and Church Reformer, Twentieth-First Century

https://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/Romans/

9/11/2015

Dear Fellow Christians:

Our Bible Study Group is in the midst of an in-depth study of the book of Romans, written by the Apostle Paul preceding his trip to Rome. Our class leader has stated that the Book of Romans is “the Book the changed the world.” It has, but is it the Gospel Jesus wanted us to have? Our class leader stated that Martin Luther thought that the book of Romans and especially Chapters II & III “were the heart of Paul’s argument for his Gospel.” However, Jesus was all about the empowerment of individuals.

Things to keep in mind about the Apostle Paul

There are some things we should keep in mind about Paul and his Gospel. 1) Paul was very educated in the Jewish religion. 2) Paul did not have firsthand knowledge of the teachings of Jesus. 3) Paul did not have firsthand knowledge of the arrival of the Personal Counselor, a.k.a. the Holy Spirit, that Jesus said he would send to us when he got back home to Heaven. Paul had secondhand knowledge of this event on that day of the Pentecost Festival, receiving his information from disciples that themselves did not understand the significance of the arrival of this Personal Counselor. 4) Paul was a problem solver; his institution of the Lord’s Supper solved a problem in the Corinthian Church. His theology of the salvation of man was a solution to a condition of man – his original sin. 5) Paul’s mission was to put the church of Jesus on the map. He accomplished his mission. 6) Paul’s lack of knowledge of the Personal Counselor and his failure to empower the new converts with this Personal Counselor resulted in Paul micromanaging his churches.

The Teachings of Jesus

From the teachings of Jesus, it should be obvious to any well-trained philosophical investigator that is very well educated in the New Testament teachings, that it was not the church, that Paul created, that Jesus wanted, but then he, like all taskforce leaders, had to accept what his taskforce people could accomplish with their given skill packages. Jesus was given the assignment to establish His church on this planet by His Father in Heaven; no time limit was given for Jesus to accomplish His mission. Jesus was in the position of waiting for someone to come along, like Paul did, to move his church forward in the direction that He wanted it to go.

Teachings of Jesus

There are some teachings of Jesus that His disciples did not understand, nor did any of the Gospel writers, the Apostle Paul, or any of the New Testament writers, nor any religious leader in the past twenty centuries and, to this day, I think there is only one person on this planet that understands these particular teaching of Jesus found in: Mathew 9:16-17, Mark 2:21-22, Luke 5:36-38. “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse, and no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins. And no one, after drinking old wine, wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better’.” Jesus is teaching His disciples about a Paradigm Shift. This is something that only a philosopher, who is also a serious student of the Gospel, is likely to notice.

Peter’s Contribution to Derailing the Gospel

  • Case study:

Peter in Acts: 2:38 connected the reception of the Personal Counselor, a.k.a. the Holy Spirit, to the existing Paradigm, which was the Jewish religion. “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” To this day this action has not been challenged by anyone knowledgeable in the teachings of Jesus, and this is probably because they have a problem with Philosophers.

Different Philosophers

Churches seem to have a problem with philosophers and scientist, probably stemming from Paul’s interaction with the Philosophers of Athens in his time and Darwin’s theory of evolution. They seem to be of the opinion that there are two Gods, one created religion and the other created science and they are at odds with each other. This writer’s intent is to show that religion is only science that we do not yet understand and when we do it will be shown to be science. There are several categories of Philosophers: There are Philosophers who have studied Philosopher’s teaching and can quote Philosophers like a serious student of the Bible can quote Book, Chapter, Verse and phrases on demand. Then there are Philosophers who have studied the methodology of Philosophers and learned how to apply this methodology themselves and thus have indeed become a Philosopher in their own right. There are Modern Philosophers and Ancient Philosophers; there are Philosophers that put arguments forward to prove the existence of God and those who argue for the nonexistence of God.

There are two important Philosophers of the 18th and 19th century that have contributed greatly to the field of philosophy. These two Philosophers are Rene` Descartes of France, and Immanuel Kant of Germany. Rene` Descartes was a supporter of his church and country, but he wanted to prove the truth to himself, by himself, leaving no doubt to what the Truth was. He developed a methodology of self-doubt and “Autonomous Reflection.” He had to prove to himself by a step-by-step process, building from the basic known truths to the more complex truths. This new methodology was the beginning of Modern Philosophy and has become the new protocol for Philosophers. This is a new era, “Modern Philosophy,” differentiating it from “Ancient Philosophy” going back several thousand of years. Rene`Descartes then is known as the Father of Modern Philosophy (The Enlightenment Era, The Age of Reason).

This methodology was accepted by other Philosophers, including Immanuel Kant of Germany, who also was an ardent supporter of Christianity and known as the greatest Philosopher since Aristotle, who stated that “We are not yet enlightened, but are becoming enlightened,” which means we are still in the Enlightenment era in this twenty-first century. These Philosophers became known as the “Enlightenment Philosophers,” as they lead us out of the middle ages, where man was instructed how to live, think and act by the authorities of their time, including church leaders, and into the “Enlightenment Age”, where man could determine for himself how to live, think and act. The Truths that these “Enlightenment Philosophers” developed, regarding the “Rights of Man”, influenced Thomas Jefferson to incorporate them into our “Declaration of Independence” from England. They also led to the bloodless revolution in England, the French revolution and probably the Ottoman Empire revolution.i

Definitions of a Paradigm Shift

Jesus gave us His definition of a “Paradigm Shift” when He taught us that “One does not take a piece of cloth from a new garment and sew it on an old torn garment. The new cloth will shrink and the tear will become worse.” “One does not pour new wine into an old wineskin, as the new wine is volatile and will burst the old wineskin and both the new wine and the old wineskin will be lost.” People will always say that ‘the old wine is better than the new’.”

From Wikipedia:The term ‘paradigm shift’ has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain thought-pattern — a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing.”
“Hans Küng applies Thomas Kuhn’s theory of paradigm change to the entire history of Christian thought and theology. He identifies six historical ‘macromodels’: 1) the apocalyptic paradigm of primitive Christianity, 2) the Hellenistic paradigm of the patristic period, 3) the medieval Roman Catholic paradigm, 4) the Protestant (Reformation) paradigm, 5) the modern Enlightenment paradigm, and 6) the emerging ecumenical paradigm.
”ii

The Paradigm Shift of Jesus:

Jesus brought us a “New Paradigm Shift” – a complete change from the old Jewish way of thinking, believing and acting. This was a paradigm shift that was not to be associated with the old Jewish way of relating to our Father in Heaven, but a new relationship with our Father in Heaven that had nothing to do with the history of the Jewish Religion, its laws or its traditions. This New Paradigm Shift that Jesus brought us was completely new and not to be associated or linked to the Jewish past. But nobody understood it; not one person did until now in this 21st century. The New Paradigm Shift of Jesus is that we have a loving Father in Heaven who wants to guide us through this life on Earth and provide for all our needs to live on this planet. He wants to participate in all of his children’s lives and he wants us to look to him for His support so that “He can feel good about participating in our lives.” That is the New Paradigm Shift that Jesus brought to us and He provided that support through His Personal Counselor a.k.a. the Holy Spirit.

The Problem of Ego

The only thing that prevents us from receiving this guidance from His Personal Counselor is our Ego. This is not the Ego as Freud described it, as a moderator between the Id and the Super Ego, but for what the Ego has evolved through time. “In modern English, ego has many meanings. It could mean one’s self-esteem; an inflated sense of self-worth; the conscious-thinking self; or in philosophical terms, one’s self. Ego development is known as the development of multiple processes, cognitive function, defenses, and interpersonal skills or to early adolescence when ego processes are emerged.”iii This is our desire to be independent and live, think and act the way we want to without the guidance from His Personal Counselor. “We want to live it our way.” This is what separates us from God (our Father in Heaven) and this is the problem Paul, in his intellectual augments in the “Book of Romans,” attempted to solve in chapters II & III by associating ‘The Problem’ and its solution with the existing Jewish religion.

Yours Truly,

The Philosopher
Church Reformer, 21st Century

Amazing Grace its Birth to National-World Spiritual Anthem Ver. 1.1.0
The Philosopher and Church Reformer Twenty-First Century
https://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/amazing-grace
8/24/2016

Biography of the Author of Amazing Grace:

The biography of Mr. John Newton: John Newton was the only son of a sea captain in Liverpool, England, which was a working class community. John was not treated very kindly by the other boys in his community. This was probably the result of a clash in the social order, noticeable to others because of John’s greater inheritance of innate knowledge from his sea captain father. John’s mother instilled in John the Gospel message until he was six years old, when she died of tuberculosis. John was exceptional in his ability to write fluently at the age of three, and memorized long text his mother gave him to study. At the age of eight, he was sent off to boarding school. At age 10, he finished his formal education and went to sea with his sea captain father. By this time, John exhibited much behavior in being tough. He was mischievous, vulgar and blasphemous (degrading God, in some countries this is a crime punishable by death)

Captain of Slave Ships:

John Newton made four voyages aboard slave ships taking slaves from Africa to the West Indies and America. His first voyages was as the first mate on a slave ship and three more as captain of the ship usually carrying two hundred salves in close sardine can accommodations in the overheated hole of the ship. It was usual for many of the slaves as well some sailors to die on the long six week middle voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to the West Indies. On his final fourth voyage, the competition for slaves had increased with ships from France and America now in the slave business and Captain Newton only had eighty-seven slaves on board across the middle voyage. The full complement of slaves and crew survived this middle voyage across the Atlantic a feat never before accomplished by a slave ship.
Preparing for his next voyage on a new ship that was being constructed for him in Liverpool, John experienced what today might be called a mild stroke. John was in robust physical condition and only twenty-nine years old. His doctors recommended that he retire from Sea Captain as it would be too dangerous for him and his crew with this unknown health condition.
Providence had saved John before when he was the first mate on a slave ship, and his captain made a last minute decision to replace John in command of the longboat headed up a river for supplies and the longboat never returned and all hands had drowned in the river. This captain could not explain his decision to replace Newton, it was an impulse decision. Now Captain Newton’s replacement on this slave ship was murdered by his cargo of slaves. Providence again had appeared to save Newton.

John Newton’s Advancement to Ordination:

Mr. Newton, now with his attention turned back to the Gospel message that his mother had taught him, began a long self-study of God’s Grace. Grounded from being a sea captain and unemployed, he landed a government position in the service of collecting duties from the incoming ships into Liverpool. This position afforded him and his wife a comfortable living in this working class community. John’s religious studies led him to interfacing with the new Methodist, Baptist and independent churches of England. The congregations of these churches were two social steps below his in-laws and his wife. The only church that would keep the peace in his family was the Church of England. Mr. Newton applied for ordination into the Church of England several times over a six-year period, being rejected at every attempt. The Church of England was an elitist society and required its priests to have a degree from Cambridge or Oxford, and John’s formal education ended at the age of 10! John was self-taught in the study of God’s Grace. It was not until a wealthy landowner with political power in the Church of England, Lord Dartmouth, took an interest in Mr. Newton as a potential religious leader that John Newton was ordained into the Church of England and given a Parish in Olney, a working class community..

The Birth of Amazing Grace:

John Newton’s reputation as one of the world’s great preachers flourished in his position of curate in this Olney working class Parish. He began writing hymns to supplement his sermons. For his sermon of January 1, 1773, celebrating a new year and a new beginning, he wrote the song that would become “Amazing Grace.” This was published by Mr. Newton in 1779 in a Hymnal the “Olney Hymns,” with the uninspiring title of “Faith’s Review and Expectations”, and it was #41 in the Olney Hymnal. He had collaborated on this hymnal with William Cowper, who became known as one of England’s great poets, and this song remained in obscurity for 60 years.

The Evolution of Amazing Grace:

Olney Hymns was first published in New York in 1790 and in Philadelphia by the end of the end of the century. The Reformed Dutch Church in North America in 1789 published a general hymnbook that included “Amazing Grace”. In some New England hymnals “Amazing Grace” was featured by the 1830’s. The hymn was becoming popular at revival meeting, where large numbers of people became converted.

The song that John had written for the 1773 New Year became known as “Amazing Grace.” At an unknown time and place. England ignored this song; it first appeared in literature in America, at least the last two verses, in Harriett Beecher Stowe’s book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” in 1852,

The earth shall be dissolved like snow the sun shall cease to shine, But God who called me here below Shall be forever mine.

And when this mortal life shall fail and flesh and sense shall cease, I shall possess within the veil A of joy and peace.

These two verses are reversed from Newton’s original version, possible due to its being passed down orally from their African-American forefathers on the plantations.

It ironically was being sung by the decedents of the slaves that John Newton had brought to America when he was a captain of a slave ship. It had been handed down by oral tradition and was first published in William Walker’s book “The Southern Harmony” in 1835 where it was linked to the tune of “New Britain” no one knows where this connection came from. The last verse, which begins “When we’ve been there ten thousand years,” had been around orally for half a century in Afro-American worship, was added after the first three verses by Edwin Othello Excell in 1910 in “Coronation Hymns,” and is the accepted 20th century form of “Amazing Grace” where the last two verses of John Newton were dropped.

Amazing Grace Becomes the National Spiritual Anthem:

Aretha Franklin took “Amazing Grace” from Gospel Music to popular music by recording it in 1947. It shifted into political consciousness of Black America when she teamed up with Martin Luther King in the 1960s and put “Amazing Grace” on its way to becoming our official National Spiritual Anthem. Judy Collins took “Amazing Grace” beyond the church walls in 1970 as the final track on “Whales and Nightingales.” Many recordings of “Amazing Grace” were recorded onward after 1970. The bagpipes of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards created the use of “Amazing Grace” as a melancholy lament appropriate for sorrowful occasions, and its use at funerals grew widely as when Judy Collins sang it at the funeral of her son in 1992 and it was sung as part of the memorial mass for John F. Kennedy Jr. in 1999. “Amazing Grace” came to be used frequently at joyful church services, weddings, baptisms, celebrations of anniversaries, and on important public occasions ranging from the opening of baseball games to ceremonies of national mourning, such as the loss of the astronauts on the space shuttle Challenger in 1986, and the 3,000 deaths at Ground Zero in New York after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and led by President Barrack Obama at the memorial service of those killed in a church who were attending a Bible Study group in 2015.

In light of its recent history and usage, “Amazing Grace” has been called the “Spiritual National Anthem of America”. This is a description that can be applied even more widely on an international canvas, for the hymn soars above most boundaries as a simple celebration of the experience of grace. It is sung not only by Christians but by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and people of no particular faith. i

QED

  • 1 Jonathan Aitken, “John Newton” “From Disgrace to Amazing Grace” Crossway, 2007

Amazing Grace
Originally by John Newton
1773
Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound) That sav’d a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found; was blind, but now I see.

‘Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears reliev’d; How precious did that grace appear, The hour I first believed!

Thro’ many dangers, toils and snares, I have already come; ‘Tis grace has brought me safe thus far, And grace will lead me home.

Added verse by Edwin Othello Excell in 1910

When we’ve been their ten thousand years Bright shining as the sun, We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise, Than when we first begun.