Dr. Forbush Thinks

More On Paul and Jesus

Jesus never said anything one way or another about homosexuality. On the other hand Paul did. I received a comment from someone who claimed that because Paul talked with Jesus on the Road to Damascus he has the authority to proclaim homosexuality a sin. Could any one imagine the conversation that Jesus and Paul had?

Jesus: Hey Paul! Stop persecuting my followers.

Paul: Right On Jesus, I didn’t realize how powerful you were until you knocked me off my horse.

Jesus: By the way, I forgot a few things while I was preaching. I forgot to tell everyone that we no longer need to circumcise males. And, go around and promote my words all around the world, because this is the only real religion. Oh, and don’t forget to make sure everyone knows that homosexuality is forbidden. But, it OK to eat pork now, because pigs are cleaner than they were back in the old days. And, don’t forget to have women understand that they are to obey their husbands. And, make sure they are treated differently in places of worship so that they know their place.

Paul: Right On Jesus I will write some letters to a bunch of churches and make sure that everyone knows this.

My feeling is that the issue of homosexuality is clouded by cultural bias. It is clouded by the nature of human sexuality. Obviously our culture is very sensitive to the whole issue of sex in general.

In the light of scientific research that says that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexuals it would be hard to imagine that God would torture people by making them be attracted to the same sex and then making a rule against acting on it. My God is not evil like that. People choose not to have sex with each until they commit themselves to each other. Why wouldn't this apply to any sexual orientation?

True Values

This weekend while sitting in church listening to the sermon I was inspired. This isn’t the first time and hopefully not the last. For why else would I go to church except for the occasion to be inspired. The subject was on values and the comment was “we all have values. We know what our personal values are, because these are the issues that provoke emotion in us.” He went on to give examples, like a person who gets angry when he sees a scratch on his car. Or and person who really cares when they see a person begging on the street. Not only that, but our values can actually be ordered by the strength of our emotional response. For example, if the scratch on the car provoked more anger than the sadness provoked by the poor beggar we realize that our own material goods may score higher on our values index than our care for the poor.

After listening to this I began to wonder how this emotional response quotient could be used to measure the two political parties. Since the Republicans are claiming to be the party of values, just what are these values? The Republicans also claim that the Democrats don’t have values. So, does that mean that Democrats are not emotional beings? So, lets compare these two parties and the values they demonstrate.

First of all we need to look at the things that evoke emotions in each of the parties and why those emotions are evoked. We need to go beyond to words that are spoken, because each of the parties evokes strong emotions by their use of spin, deception and lies. Each party gets angry when they hear the other party distort the facts. This is because each party believes that the values of their party supercede the value of truth. This is clear and I won’t argue about it.

Beside deception what really makes Democrats angry? There are quite a few I will list here, and there are surely many that will be left off this list, but the point is to find the values that underlie the collection of issues. First there is the war in Iraq. Then there is the destruction of the environment by corporations. There are also the social issues of helping the poor, health care for the sick and equality for all. But, what makes Democrats so angry about the war in Iraq? I would claim that the waste of life is number-one on the list, and the waste of money would be second. Why does the destruction of the environment anger the average Democrat? I would contend that it is the waste of life in the forest for the profit of a corporation. And why is health care important? The lack of treatment for those who can’t afford it often leads to death. What about helping the poor? Helping the poor increases the dignity for these people. Corporations easily exploit people who lack dignity. In fact improving the dignity of all humans regardless of race by promoting equality also increases the dignity for all.

So, the Democratic values at the very heart of all these important issues tend to value life and human dignity above other values. Life? But what about abortion? The Republicans tell the world that they are the party of life, because they want a law against abortion. Well, actually many Democrats would not be able to bring themselves or a family member to have an abortion. But, this does not mean that a law against abortion would save more lives. This is because many black market abortions would continue to be performed regardless of the law. This is just like the drug laws – they do not prevent people from taking drugs. In addition to this many women will try to induce miscarriages with sometimes-fatal results. It is quite possible that an abortion law could actually increase the number of human deaths instead of decrease the number. If the Republicans actually valued life, then they would promote birth control methods which would reduce the number of abortions. They would promote assistance for pregnant women to make the fear of being a single mother more bearable and less fear provoking.

So, lets look at the issues the Republicans fight for. They want tax cuts for the wealthy. They want to prevent homosexuals from getting married. They want to pass abortion laws. They want corporations to use natural resources at very little cost. They want to cut spending on social programs. They promote America as the ideal culture and minimize other cultures. Like I said, there are many more issues but any other issue will most likely support the underlying values of the Republican Party.

So, why do Republicans get so angry about taxes? This is because Republicans value material possessions above any social programs. What about abortion laws and their opposition to birth control? This stems from the value of punishing the sinful. This value is based on the idea that anyone who is pregnant and doesn’t want to be pregnant must have sinned. If they sinned, then they deserve to be punished by being forced to raise a child. This same idea of punishment to the sinful extends to the idea of homosexual marriage. Republicans believe that marriage is a privilege and homosexuality is a sin. Therefore rewarding a sin with a privilege goes against their value of sin and punishment. Also, Republicans value creating wealth above the value of environment. Republicans value American culture above any other culture from around the world. Therefore, learning from other cultures tends to be difficult with this value.

If we look at these values we can see that material possessions and punishing the sinful are certainly the top values of the Republican Party.

So, what were Jesus’ values? Since the Republicans tend to claim a mandate from God, we would expect that Jesus’ values and the Republican values would be close if not identical. Jesus’ values would be written in the Bible and it should be obvious, because whenever Jesus’ emotions are evoked we would know that he is taking about his values, or acting on them. Well, the only time he really got angry was when he attacked the moneychangers in the Temple. This was because these people were disrespecting God by selling things in the Temple. Jesus certainly valued God above money. So, if we rank the Republican values as punishing the sinful first and material possessions second then maybe they are still in line with Jesus.

But, there was the story about the crowd taking the adulterous woman out to be stoned. Jesus saved her by telling the people that the man without sin should throw the first stone. All of the people left and Jesus forgave her. So, I am guessing that punishing the sinful wouldn’t be very high on His value list.

So, what were Jesus’ values? Well, we know this because the apostles asked Jesus this what He thought was the greatest commandment (Mat 22:36 - 40) He said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

It funny, but I don’t see material possessions on this list. I don’t see tax cuts for the wealthy. I don’t see punish the sinners. I do see “Love God” and “Love thy neighbour.” Now, which parties values are closer to Jesus’ values?

The Mind of the Man

The administration seems to have a selective memory when it comes to history. A lawyer for the administration told an interviewer yesterday why the actions of the CIA, military and administration was justified under the international laws that exist today. As I listened to this I sat in shock and wondered how an administration that was reinstated under the guise of moral values could step around the law in such a way to accomplish justification for such unchristian activities.

A few of the legal justifications boggle my mind. For example, in Afghanistan, a sovereign country that signed the Geneva Convention, the administration claimed that Taliban fighters did not qualify for the provisions of the Geneva Convention. The lawyer reasoned that the Taliban fighters did not wear uniforms with insignia, and therefore should not be afforded rights of prisoners. The administration lawyer said that these fighters were dishonorable for not wearing uniforms and hiding among the civilians.

Of course the first thing that flashed into my mind was the American Revolutionary War. The American colonists did not wear uniforms and fought in what the British considered unfair methods. Would this administration say that the American Revolutionaries were dishonorable? Should we give control of our country back to the British because we won our battle by dishonorable means?

Obviously, the Taliban was at a great disadvantage. In these circumstances the Taliban was bound to use every method conceivable to fight for it’s cause. The Taliban believed that God sent down its mandate. Even when we all most certainly disagree with the Human Rights violations of this regime, should we violate Human Rights to prove our point?

The administration certainly doesn’t understand the mind of its enemy. If you want to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the enemy, then you should certainly understand the hearts and minds of the enemy as they exist today. However, with the administration populated by Fundamentalist Christians they should certainly understand why a terrorist would give his life for a cause. After all, Christians worship Jesus because he gave his own life for his cause. He was put to death for his beliefs. Every time a suicide bomber kills himself in the name of his cause the followers to remark, “This cause must certainly be important if this guy was willing to give his life for it.” The death of each terrorist makes the movement stronger with every attack. It isn’t about how many people he kills, although that offers frustration to their enemy, its about power of their cause.

Maybe if the administration would put itself in the mind of an early American Revolutionary trying to win independence from the overpowering British empire. Maybe if they were to understand the power that giving one’s life for a cause has. Then maybe they could figure out how to win the hearts and mind of the terrorists and the Arab world.

Dear Peaceful Nation,

Brothers and Sisters, you may wonder why it is important to look back on the evils of times past. You may wonder why we should care about something that happened 60 years ago. You may look at our country and feel confident that such evils and atrocities could never happen where and when we live. But, this is why we need to remember that evil does happen.

If we look back a little further than 60 years ago we can ask ourselves how could this happen. Did the German people possess some evil in their genes that made them vulnerable to the evil that was later perpetrated? If they did, how do we know that we don’t possess that evil in our own genes? But, once you begin to accuse the genes of the German people you actually fall into the same trap that these people found themselves in over 60 years ago. This is because evil has nothing to do with our genes and we need to understand this as a lesson from the past.

So, if genes play no role in behavior, then how does evil come into being? Since it can happen anywhere, what should we be aware of to prevent that evil from taking root in our society before it is to late?

We should recall that before Hitler came to power in Germany a form of Democracy existed in Germany. People could choose their leaders by voting, and they did. But all was not peaceful in the 1930s. Inflation, unemployment, and poverty were everywhere. People wanted to work, but companies could not afford to hire anyone. People didn’t have money to pay for the products that companies made. And, because of all this people were afraid. Fear took hold, because no one knew where his or her next meal would come from.

When people are afraid they begin to look for relief. They don’t want to be afraid. But, the solution isn’t always obvious. People wanted to work, but there were not enough jobs. People began to blame “the others” for their woes. “The others”, is a term meaning anyone outside of one’s circle of friends and family. It is often easy to blame “the others” for our fears. It makes us feel like it isn’t our fault; it is the fault of “the others.”

In Germany “the others” where the Jews. The Jews were a mystery to most Germans who only dealt with them when doing business. The Jews suffered as much as anyone else in Germany during this time, but this minority proved an easy scapegoat to bash when one was feeling frustrated with the situation. It turns out that hatred can be used to fight fear.

So, when a leader finally emerged in Munich who told everyone he could solve the nation’s problems people were willing to listen. They liked the idea that he could calm their fears. They liked the idea that he could improve the economy. He rose to power, and he put people back to work. But, he also stoked the fire of hatred to fight the fear, and he continued to use fear to maintain his power. Power was sucked out of the Democracy, because weak leaders ceded their power in the goal of saving the nation. In a blink of an eye a Democracy was turned into a totalitarian regime.

What does that have to do with us today in our peaceful nation? How could this evil ever come to our land?

Over ten years ago when I was living in Germany I saw first hand how this evil could rise again. When the Berlin wall fell many East Germans sought life in the old West Germany. They came to Hamburg, where I lived, seeking work, and fortunes. Many families arrived. At the same time families were also leaving Croatia and Bosnia where a war was being fought. A park near my house became a refuge camp for some of these people. Standard shipping containers were converted into homes for these people.

How do you think the people of Hamburg reacted to this? Most people felt sorry for all these people. However, many of the youth began to resent the special aid these people receiving. They began a movement with the hatred of these people, “the others,” at the heart of their ideology. We experienced this hatred first hand on the trains in Hamburg. These youths would board the train and yell at us to speak only in German. “Sprech Deutsch! Du bist in Deutschland,” they would say. They used fear to enforce their ideas.

Fortunately, the government and the majority of the people in Germany did not agree with the sentiments of these youth. But among a minority of people this hatred still exists.

When fear is used to take power hatred is used to maintain it. These things happen all the time, they may even happen in your peaceful nation. People in your peaceful nation may demand power and create fear to gain that power. The fear can come in many forms. Classes of people may be singled out and turned into scapegoats. The opposition may be personally demeaned with lies and untruths. One group may rise to power and proclaim “the others” as unclean. This can happen in so many different ways that when it does the majority will be caught off guard. This is when the nation is at greatest risk. This is why the story of the rise of evil in Germany needs to be remembered forever. If this history isn’t remembered, then nations will be doomed to repeat it again and again.

********************************************

Remembering the Wannsee Conference and the Liberation of Auschwitz

"This article is posted in response to the January 27, 2005, BlogBurst (see list at drforbush.blogspot ), to remember the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp, sixty years ago, on January 27, 1945.

On January 20th, we marked the anniversary of the 1942 Wannsee Conference. In the course of that Conference, the Nazi hierarchy formalized the plan to annihilate the Jewish people. Understanding the horrors of Auschwitz requires that one be aware of the premeditated mass-murder that was presented at Wannsee.

Highlighting these events now has become particularly important, even as the press reports that '45% of Britons have never heard of Auschwitz' (Jerusalem Post, December 2, 2004, link ).

50K

I would like to thank all my readers who contributed to crossing the 50,000 hit number. Whether it was 50 people who actually read my blog 1000 times each or 1000 people who read it 50 times each it seems amazing to have that much interest in what I have written.

For those of you who may have been wondering I started a blog at drforbush.blogspot.com more than a year ago. I posted to it two or three times and forgot about it. I then started a second blog in March 2004 at drforbush.tblog.com. At this site I have post just about every weekday and occasionally on the weekend since then. Last month I began to post the same posts at tblog, blogspot and a new site: blogspirit. I also added a counter to the blogspot site last month. So, I added up the totals and found:

tblog – 44000+
blogspot – 2300+
blogspirit – 3700+

And, totaling all of them together we crossed the 50,000 hit mark.

Thanks again!

Conservative Paul vs. Liberal Jesus

Conservative Christians have one thing in common, they all put heavy weight on the letters of Saint Paul. This is because Saint Paul is a very conservative writer. For example, if you wonder why conservatives allow other ideas to supercede the teachings of Jesus you will find the answers in the letters of Saint Paul.

On Friday I had an interesting discussion with a member of the Church of Christ. He claims that he is not a Fundamentalist Christian, but he offers no leeway his arguments. This is an interesting stand, but it doesn’t really matter for this argument.

Our friend claims the following argument

“1. We are amenable only to the law we live under.
2. But we live only under the New Testament.
3. Therefore, we are amenable only to the New Testament.”

Actually, he said, “" The Christian is amenable solely to the law of Christ (cf. Gal. 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:21), what James described as the "perfect law of liberty."” This Law of Christ is the law of love, not the whole New Testament. They are not equal.

Somehow our friend has determined magically that all of the letters of Paul have equal weight as the four Gospels of the New Testament. This is interesting, because even Paul doesn’t believe that his writings are that important.

If we look at 1 Corinthians, Chapter 1 we see that Paul says, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”

So, Paul is saying that there are Christians who disagree with him and he understands this. He is saying that it doesn’t matter, because all Christians are Baptized under Christ not Paul. In other words, if two Christians disagree they should both look at the teachings of Christ to reconcile their positions. And, I am a Christian who disagrees with Paul’s interpretation of homosexuality and I believe Jesus is telling us that we should all love one another. If a person should use hate to divide the community, which is especially the case under this interpretation of Paul’s the unity of the community is more important than the issue.

Wow, Paul was smart. He said not to take everything he wrote as the law. He says that Jesus should be the touchstone to understanding. He said that he only preaches what Jesus’ has said. He understands that his ideas are flawed by his cultural experience and subject to re-interpretation. So, Paul has the best interest of the Christian community at heart. This is wonderful.

What this means is that the various Christian communities that are divided should exert their efforts in trying to re-unite the Christian churches and not waste their time on issues that are dividing the Christian community.

It’s too bad that we don’t know what the issues were that Cephas and Apollos were preaching that differed with Paul. If we did, we would have a better understanding of what things Paul would be willing to compromise on.

Fundamentalist Christian Hypocrisy

Someone was reading some of my old posts and left an anonymous comment on the blog. I responded even though I assumed that they wouldn’t be reading my blog again. The commenter was a Fundamentalist Christian with the Bible memorized. The original post talked about the inconsistency of “so-called” Fundamentalist Christians. If these people are so fundamentalist then everything from the Bible should be observed. I was arguing that the Law of Love: “Love God above all others and love your neighbor as yourself.” was way more important than whether you are saved through Christ or some other means. Of course, this idea is the foundation of Fundamental Christianity. Being “born again” out ranks anything else in their faith.

So, I said that this is only mentioned in John. I was wrong, because this guy said it was also mentioned in Paul’s letter to Timothy. However, the point is, that if Jesus thought it was so important wouldn’t every writer mention it, and in Paul’s case, harp on it?

This guy tells me that the number of times it is mentioned is irrelevant of the importance of the message. This seems completely unreasonable to me, but he used the argument that whatever message is sent by God’s holy messenger must be true regardless of how often it is mention, regardless of the context.

So, I asked, if this is true, why do Christians eat pork? Why don’t they follow all the Old Testament Laws?

He responded that “The Christian is amenable solely to the law of Christ (cf. Gal. 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:21), what James described as the ‘perfect law of liberty.’” This law of course is the Law of Love as I stated above. So, first of all he proved for me that the “Love of Love” is more important than the “Born Again” rule stated in John. He also pointed out that homosexuality is an “old law” that doesn’t need to be followed any more.

He was quite clever with his knowledge of the Bible. He was a little weak on understanding it though...

They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love

This is the title of a song they sing in my church. I know, some of you may think that I don’t go to church, but you would be quite wrong. I have gone to Church nearly every weekend of my entire life. I recall one weekend when I missed church a while back, it turned out to be very close to the day the Pope died. I didn’t attend church that weekend, because I was riding on a 36-hour bus trip from Cleveland, Ohio to Fort Collins, Colorado.

So, when I hear attacks on my ideas and thoughts centered on some strange notion of what Jesus may or may not have said I take it to heart. There is a deeper understanding of the message that Jesus preached that goes beyond many of the issues that the Fundamentalist Christians have decided to concentrate. You would think that Jesus proclaimed that tax cuts for the wealthy was a number one priority based on the rhetoric of the Religious right. When did Jesus say countries should go around invading countries killing civilians in order to spread Democracy? Would Jesus really think that the number of people who have died because the US decided to invade Iraq is justified? Do two deaths make a right? What would Jesus tell us about the sad state of Health Care in the US? Would Jesus think that caring for the sick is secondary to caring whether the wealthy get a large tax cut? I personally believe that there is a problem with the theology of the religious right.

So, when I heard that my son was being teased at school I began to worry that there were some nasty kids at the school. My kids are in a very small school, and for the most part people are civil to each other. People understand that you will need to deal with these same people again and again.

Well, was I surprised that the two children that were teasing my son were Fundamentalist Christians? The one boy is from a family who has changed churches three times, because the churches were not conservative enough. So, does this religion teach its followers that teasing is tolerated, or does it teach its followers that teasing is required? Well, it turns out that these children believe that it is a good idea to single out my son and call him gay. The truth is that my son is top in his class and these children have just been kicked off the sports teams because they can’t keep a C average. These kids have decided that calling people they don’t like “gay” makes them feel better. They know that “gay” is bad, because they are taught that in their church. Does anyone believe that this is what Jesus taught?

But, this isn’t the only evil in this school. But it certainly does seem to come quite often from the Christian Fundamentalists. I could tell you more stories like this one. I could tell you stories about the parents.

I will tell you one more story.

My daughter’s class watched the inauguration speech yesterday. After the speech the teacher asked the class what they thought about the speech. Many children offered statements about the speech. My daughter said that she thought it was a bit too religious. She said that religion should be separated from government because it was divisive. She asked, “What would a Buddhist American think about this speech?” Her teacher looked at her and said, “Don’t you go to church?” And my daughter said, “What does that matter?”

Now, like I have said above, our family goes to church every weekend. My daughter could have said, “yes we do.” But, she didn’t. Instead she tried to exclude her religion from the discussion.

Inauguration Speech Translation

Here’s a good one, hope you enjoy.

http://demgoddesses.blogspot.com/2005/01/bushs-speech-translated.html

Questions

Just a short blog to ask a question:

Why is it that the Republicans preach against the institution of the “Nanny State,” but they need a father figure to protect them from pornography, gay marriage, abortion and recreational drugs? Can’t the just stand up and protect themselves by taking responsibility for themselves? Can’t they just stay out of the porn shops and off the porn web sites? Can’t they resist the temptation to marry someone of the same sex? Can’t they just say no to abortion? I understand that Rush Limbaugh can’t say no to the drugs, but can’t someone on the right just help him along? The drugs are already against the law, what more can the government do?