Roll Call of Friends After War 11/22/2010
One of the unusual things about war is that the soldiers who fight them could be friends with their enemy, under different circumstances. Union and Confederate soldiers who faced off against each other at the bloody battle of Gettysburg could have been fishing buddies under different circumstances. American and German soldiers who shot at each other across the morbid wastelands of eastern France could have been hunting buddies under different circumstances. Americans who struggled to take out a German pill boxes atop the cliffs at Omaha Beach on D-Day could have been camping buddies with the Wehrmacht soldiers under different circumstances It is therefore not surprising that long after war’s end, after stinging memories of the savage struggle between life and death have somewhat faded, we see heartfelt expressions of friendship, glimpses of what might have been under different circumstances.  Left: Dead on the field at Gettysburg. Right: Confederate and Union soldier embrace as friends in 1938 at the 75th anniversary of Gettysburg.  Left:WWI soliders remove dead comrade from Flander's Field in 1915. Right: American serviceman smiles as he comforts young, frightened German soldier near the end of the War.  Left: Attack at Pearl Harbor. Right: Japanese Dive bomber Zenji Abe and friend US Serviceman Richard Fiske unite for Pearl Harbor service. (Zenji was repentant of his country's surprise attack on the US).  In WWII captain Charlie Brown was flying his cripled B-17 flying fortress across occupied Europe and back to Britain when a German fighter pilot was dispatched to finish him off. When German fighter pilot Franz Stigler, a decorated pilot with over 25 confirmed kills, neared the heavily damaged B-17 and saw dead and wounded US airmen throughout the plane, he would not engage. Rather than shoot down the plane as ordered, he waved Capt. Brown on the correct course toward Britain and escorted him safely across hostile territory. Franz (left) and Charlie (right) became good friends 40 years after the war had ended. Franz reported back to his unit that the B-17 went down over the Channel rather than face court-martial which may have ended in the loss of his life. If he had shot down Charlie's B-17 that day (his third), he would have earned the Knight's Cross Medal. I think the prophet Joseph Smith said it best when he wrote to a former enemy of the church, “Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, for friends at first are friends again at last.” 2 Comments I Want My Vitamin D3 11/15/2010
In the 1980’s Dire Straits sang “I want my MTV”. After reading this, you might be singing, “I want my Vitamin D3”. Two and a half years ago I attended a healthcare research conference where Dr. Brent Muhlestein, a cardiologist and researcher, shared some interesting findings on the benefits of Vitamin D. Dr. Muhlestein and his team followed a group of patients over 50 and with no prior history of cardiovascular disease. They measured levels of Vitamin D during routine care visits and tracked new diagnoses of heart disease. They found that patients with very low levels of Vitamin D (< 15 ng/ml) were 1.77 times more likely to die, 1.45 times more likely to develop artery disease, 1.78 times more likely to have a stroke, and 2.00 times more likely to develop heart failure than patients with normal levels of Vitamin D (>30 ng/ml). One year later I attended a research forum where Dr. Muhlestein again presented data on Vitamin D. In addition to the accumulating cardiovascular benefits, he presented other research showing that Vitamin D helped regulate other functions such as blood pressure and glucose control, and control inflammation, suggesting benefits for arthritis, hypertension, and diabetes, to name a few. And six months ago when I happened to get on an elevator with Dr. Muhelstein, I asked him how his Vitamin D research was coming along. He said that things still looked promising and that it would be nice to have something as simple as Vitamin D to help them treat patients with cardiovascular disease. Currently many of his heart patients are on Vitamin D therapy. How much Vitamin D should people take? Dr. Muhelstein pointed out that many people are Vitamin D deficient, and that for some, the 400 IU available in most multivitamins may not be enough. For now it seems that taking higher doses of Vitamin D does not put most people at risk. Even increasing Vitamin D intake to 1,000 to 5,000 IU a day may be appropriate if there are no health and genetic risks. It is not hard to find supplements with these higher doses nowadays. I’ve seen supplements with 2000 and even 5000 IUs per dose in my local supermarket. How much Vitamin D should you be taking? That’s something to discuss with your doctor. If you have not yet heard of the newfound benefits of Vitamin D, chances are you could benefit from a prudent increase beyond what you are currently getting in your regular diet. http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20100315/vitamin-d-supplements-lower-heart-disease-risk There are certain things that are difficult for mere mortals to conceptualize. One that I find particularly challenging is the LDS doctrine of “There [being] no such thing as an ultimate beginning, a time prior to which there was nothing” (Quote taken from Mormon Doctrine). From a mortal perpsective it seems like there should be a beginning to the universe; this is one reason why the Big Bang theory is so popular - it postulates a definite moment in time when everything began. How could there be no beginning? Something funny about the idea of “no beginning” is that it is equally difficult to conceptualize the opposite, of there ever being a beginning. If we assume for a moment that there was a beginning to the god-created universe, then we must ask, who created the first god? An all-powerful being could not have just "poofed" into existence. If you spend too much time thinking on the apparent impossibility of both positions, you run the risk of experiencing a minor ontological crisis over whether the things we call life and the universe really exist. Thankfully Descartes provided a temporary escape from these sorts of existential crises. Regardless of whether there was or was not a beginning to the universe, you can be certain that you exist in a universe by virtue of the fact that you are thinking about these very issues. Cogito ergo sum – I think therefore I am! But wait, there's more. Another influential philosopher named Bishop Berkeley (namesake of Berkeley University) pointed out that for something to exist, including ourselves and the universe, it must be perceived. He called it “Esse est percipi” – to be is to be perceived. You've no doubt heard the statement, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?” Bishop Berkeley asks us to consider whether the tree even exists at all if no one ever perceives it. If you are skeptical of the need for something to be perceived in order for it to exist, you are in good company. Einstein was very skeptical of esse est percipi. The notion of something having to be perceived in order for it to exist led him to quip, “When no one is observing the moon, is it still there?” He obviously believed that the moon exists even when no one is observing it. So if Einy rejected esse est percipi then the matter is settled, right? Not quite. Esse est percipi is supported by experiments in quantum mechanics. Consider a classical quantum mechanics study where electrons are fired one at a time from an electron gun through a double slit barrier. When the positions of the electrons are registered on a screen behind the barrier with no one present, the single-fired electrons create an interference pattern that can only be explained by the electrons behaving like a non-physical wave of potentialities after leaving the electron gun. However, when people stand at the barrier and observe electrons going through the slits, the electrons go back to being physical particles as evidenced by the pattern they leave on a screen. The upshot of all this is that when no one observes the electrons they behave like non-physical probability waves, but when people observe the electrons, they behave like physical particles. Dr. Quantum describes this process well. Click on the video below. So how do we reconcile esse est percipi and the quantum slit experiment with our common sense notion that physical things continue to exist even when they are not being perceived by mortal beings? The answer is the Light of Christ. The Light of Christ is a divine source that emanates from the presence of God. It gives him instant knowledge of everything throughout all His creations. It is that Light by which He knows at an instant how many hairs are on the top of our heads. It is that Light by which He knows instantly that a sparrow died and fell to the ground in the mountains even though no one else knew it ever existed. It is that Light by which God perceives all things, thus bringing all things into continual existence.  Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling that arises when people hold opposing viewpoints or beliefs. Have you ever felt this way? If so, how did you deal with it? Most people deal with cognitive dissonance in one of two ways. One approach is to change views and beliefs to bring them into harmony. This may be called the healthy approach because it prompts an analysis of salient issues and personal values. Analysis may produce new insights on important issues, and assessment of personal principles may increase self-awareness of embraced values. The second approach to coping with cognitive dissonance involves what are called defense mechanisms. Defense mechanisms are psychological coping strategies that hide or mask the underlying problem. Defense mechanisms are undesirable because they prevent people from dealing with and resolving the source of the mental discomfort. Common defense mechanisms for coping with cognitive dissonance include blaming, justifying, and denying. So, in other words, people experiencing cognitive dissonance may try to blame others for their opposing beliefs or for feelings of discomfort, try to rationalize their opposing viewpoints, or deny that their viewpoints are in opposition or that they produce discomfort. The other day while driving through the streets of Salt Lake City, I noticed two interesting bumper stickers on the same car. One sticker read “Protect Wildlife”. The other was a pro Planned Parenthood bumper sticker. I thought about those two stickers for a few seconds and then realized that they convey somewhat opposing ideas. Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice and pro-abortion organization, particularly when it comes to resorting to abortion as a form of selective birth control. Planned Parenthood advocates killing human fetuses when pregnancies are unwanted. Then there is the Protect Wildlife sticker which advocates going to great lengths to protect animal species, such as denying residential, commercial, or needed infrastructural development permits to protect a small animal. Hmm? Is it okay to kill a human fetus but not okay to kill an endangered rodent? Is it okay to kill a human fetus but not okay to disrupt the nesting grounds of an endangered bird? I am not saying that we shouldn’t protect wildlife. (Please, no comments on how we need to be good stewards of the earth. I am on board with that message.) This post is about thinking that it is okay to end a human life while thinking that it is not okay to kill an animal. How do more liberal leaning folks who embrace these opposing viewpoints deal with the inherent conflict? My guess is that most resort to defense mechanisms - approach #2 above. They either deny that there is a conflict; blame conservatives for messing up the world; or attempt to rationalize their opposing viewpoints by saying things like “It is more important to protect a woman’s choice than it is to protect a human life” or that “A fetus does not have a right to life until it is born.” A thoughtful analysis (a’la approach #1 above) will reveal that these two viewpoints are disharmonious and that one should be dropped, preferably the Planned Parenthood viewpoint. Hello, LDS scholars. Look at your bookshelf, now back at mine. Now back at your bookshelf, now back to mine! Sadly your bookshelf doesn’t have all the LDS science books that mine has, but if you stopped buying vampire love stories, it could look like mine. Ha ha. This post is about “must have” books for Latter-day Saints who are interested in the relationship between Mormon theology and science. I’ve compiled a list of books that LDS scholars should consider acquiring and reading, especially those who fashion themselves as experts on Restoration theology and science. Some of these are out of print and may be hard to find. Please respond if you know of a book that should be added to the list. Thanks. List of Books Covering LDS Theology and Science 1. Of Heaven and Earth: Reconciling Scientific Thought with LDS Theology (Clark) 2. Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology (Erich Paul) 3. Science and Mormonism (Melvin Cook & Garfield Cook) 4. Earth: In the Beginning (Eric Skousen) 5. Science and Your Faith in God (Henry Eyring et al.) 6. Joseph Smith as Scientist (Elder John A. Widtsoe) 7. Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective (Dave Collingridge) 8. The Case for Divine Design (Frank Salisbury) 9. Divine Engineering (David Brems) 10. Mormons and Science: Setting the Record Straight (Rodney Brown) 11. Mormon Scientist: The Life and Faith of Henry Eyring (Henry J Eyring) 12. (Your recommendation)  Some evolutionists assert that macroevolution (evolution across life forms) has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They also assert that macroevolution has been proven to the same extent as other theories like Relativity and gravity. I argue otherwise on both counts. It is true that convincing evidence for macroevolution exists, which is why I would never claim that evolutionists are dummies. (Were it not for the teachings of the gospel, I would, in all likelihood, be an evolutionist.) Even Mormon evolutionists have plenty of reasons to believe in macroevolution. By the way, just for the record I also believe that many evolutionists will go to heaven, as will many Buddhists, Muslims, and Baptists, to name a few. (Having a perfect knowledge in this life, something we all lack, is not a prerequisite for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.) This post is about the quality of evidence for macroevolution in comparison to the quality of evidence for other well-accepted scientific theories. For example, I submit that evidence for macroevolution, notwithstanding being impressive, is not on par with the evidence for Relativity. Relativity has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt while macroevolution has not. To support this assertion, let’s compare two impressive studies, one in transitional fossil research and the other in time-space curvature.  The Amazing Discovery of Tiktaalik Ten years ago researchers Edward Daeschler, Neil Shubin, and Jennifer Clack decided that the best place to look for an elusive transitional fossil bridging the divide between fish and tetrapods was in Nunavut in northern Canada. This region, although now in the Arctic Circle, was once thought to be near the equator and to have a warm climate. So in 1999 they sent research teams to Ellesmere Island to look for transitional fossils in an area where an intermediate animal would most likely be found. After 5 years of digging with little success and the realization that their exploration would soon come to an end, the researchers made a profound discovery. They found several fossils of a fish-tetrapod looking animal. The animal had characteristics similar to a fish, but with skeletal characteristics akin to a crocodile. Its skeletal structure enabled it to support itself on land and water and the presence of spiracles (small holes) on its flat head suggests that the animal had primitive lungs, in addition to gills. The researchers hypothesis was confirmed. It is an amazing discovery. Eddington’s 1919 Journey When Einstein introduced his theories of Special Relativity and Relativity in the early 1900s his ideas created a stir. Back then Newton was still revered as the undisputed champion of science and the thought of anyone challenging Newton’s ideas was considered heretical. However Einstein boldly challenged Newton’s ideas. He argued that space and time are not constant as Newton had supposed; rather space and time differed based on one’s state (hence the name “relativity”). Yet at the time there was very little empirical evidence to support Einstein’s ideas. Searching for ways to test Einstein’s theory, scientists decided to study the light from stars next to a fully eclipsed sun. If Einstein was right then the sun’s gravity well would cause the light from ‘nearby’ stars to bend and thus appear shifted in the dark sky. And so in 1919 a British research team headed by Sir Arthur Eddington went on a distant journey to view a solar eclipse on Principe Island near the coast of Guinea in West Africa. It was cloudy during the days leading up to the eclipse and a heavy thunderstorm rolled through the team's location on the morning of the much anticipated event (May 29th). The research expedition was in jeopardy of failing, nevertheless, Eddington and his team set up their instruments and hoped for a miracle. Minutes before the eclipse when the sky was still overcast, anxieties grew as the moon moved in front of the sun and the sky darkened. Then suddenly, before the eclipse reached totality, as if by supernatural fiat, the clouds parted revealing the corona of the sun and surrounding stars. The team quickly snapped their photos. The photos revealed that light from ‘nearby’ stars (in the Hyades star cluster) had indeed shifted, as Einstein predicted. The sun’s gravitational pull shifted the position of the stars an average distance of 1.6 arcseconds. It was an amazing discovery. The Crucial Experiment: The Crux of the Matter Tiktaalik’s discovery provides reasonable evidence for accepting macroevolution, and Eddington’s eclipse study provides reasonable evidence for accepting Relativity, but the quality of evidence from these two studies are not on par. The essential difference is that one was a crucial experiment and the other was not. A crucial experiment is one where a do or die scenario is set up that allows us to tentatively decide on the truth or falsity of a theory. Relativity was subjected to a do or die test, and it survived. The bending of starlight around the eclipsed sun allowed us to ascertain with a great deal of certainty that Einstein was right. If the light had not bent, we would have good reason to conclude that Einstein was wrong and we might still be going with Newton’s theory. Tiktaalik, although an important and impressive discovery, was not a crucial test of macroevolution. By this I mean that Tiktaalik did not create a situation where the theory of macroevolution was subjected to a do or die scenario. If the Ellesmere research team had never discovered Tiktaalik then the theory of macroevolution would not have been any worse off. Explanations might have included, “Well, we’re not looking in the right place,” or “We just have to keep looking.” The quality of scientific evidence hinges, among other things, on the possibility of finding something false. Scientific theories that have been repeatedly subjected to crucial tests and survived have earned the status of “proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. Those that have not been subjected to crucial tests have not earned the status of proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I look forward to the day when macroevolution will be subjected to crucial tests. Until then, we must be content with the currently available evidence, which is fairly impressive to say the least. Mormons Have Religious Smarts 09/30/2010
Good news everyone! Three hours of Sunday church service and weekday church meetings are paying off in more than spiritual ways. All that instruction is making us religiously smart, so says recent research by the Pew Forum on religion and public life. Pew research shows that “Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups . . . of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.” On a test of 32 religious questions, “Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.” Way to go everyone! Perhaps this study will help convince the evangelical community that Mormons are religiously informed people. You see, by and large they think we are deceived members of a cult. Case in point: The evangelical response to Glenn Beck’s recent revival in Washington DC. Christiannewswire.com is skeptical about Beck’s ability to create a religious revival in America because of his religion, Mormonism. The website brings up many of the old arguments against Mormonism. Here’s a sampling. 1. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Mormonism is not a Christian denomination but a cult of Christianity. My response: According to latter-day scripture America was founded for the purpose of bringing forth the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ (aka Mormonism). 2. The country needs to get back to the simplicity of the Bible. The reason our country is in bad shape is that ministers for the most part do not share the truth. Many endorse false gospels including Mormonism. My response: America is a better place because of the Restoration (aka Mormonism). Blaming Mormonism and accusing Mormons of not being Christian has been going on for a long time. These sorts of accusations have been a major stumbling block for many evangelicals, thus keeping them from the blessings of the Restored gospel. Removing these stumbling blocks from evangelicals’ minds seems a big a task, kind of like taking down the Iron Curtain, but we all know what the Lord did to that barrier. I welcome the day when the evangelical community declares that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormons) are Christian. The Pew study will hopefully help in this regard. In this world of increasing secularism, America will be better off if evangelicals and Mormons set aside their differences and unite in the cause of promoting traditional Christian values. Stephen Hawking's new book titled The Grand Design hit the bookshelves on Sept. 7th, 2010. Since its release it has become a lighting rod for religionists. How can Hawking engender the wrath of believers who 22 years ago applauded his God-friendly message in A Brief History of Time? What is going on? In his 1988 book A Brief History of Time, Hawking discusses his lifelong dream to discover the Grand Unifying Theory (GUT) of the universe. GUT is a scientific theory that unites all laws and theories of physics. He declares that when we discover the GUT, we will know the mind of God. This declaration created warm fuzzies in the minds of religionists who viewed Mr. Hawking as a genius and fellow believer on a mission to uncover the handiwork of the Creator. With Hawking’s latest book, however, warm fuzzies have been replaced by sharp criticism. Here’s one source of the criticism. In The Grand Design Hawking declares that understanding complex theories of physics makes it "[un]necessary to invoke God." Believers are in a tizzy over this statement, claiming that Hawking has dismissed God. Hawking has not dismissed God – he is staying true to the tenets of science by giving a scientific explanation that does not invoke God. Anytime we claim that something happened because God did it, we are giving a theological explanation, not a scientific one. It is good to acknowledge deity in science; it is not good to invoke deity in scientific explanations. Moreover, hearing that it is unnecessary to invoke God is a good thing because it minimizes our reliance on what are called “God of the gaps” explanations. “God of the gaps” involves resorting to “God did it” explanations when we don’t have an adequate scientific explanation for natural phenomena. Getting rid of such explanations is a good thing because it means that we are moving closer to the truth. However some believers like “God of the gaps” explanations because they represent a validation for their faith (“See here! Science can’t explain this phenomenon, so it must have been done supernaturally. There is a Creator!”) Here’s some advice for these folks: Don’t let your faith be driven by what science does or does not discover. A second criticism of The Grand Design involves spontaneous creation. Hawking declares that “The Universe can and will create itself from nothing…. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” He continues, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going…. Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” For those who accept the false doctrine of creation ex nihilo (creation from nothing) and believe that there has been and always will be just one god, and that he created the entire physical universe, yes, the notion of parts of the universe existing without supernatural intervention is very problematic, but not if you’re LDS. From latter-day revelation we’ve learned that the elements of the physical universe are co-eternal with our God. So, yes, in a way our God did not have to “light the blue touch paper and set the universe going” because it was already going. As I point out in Truth & Science, restored gospel truths can go a long way in helping to reconcile science and religion. Christian religions across America are concerned about the effects of education on religiosity, and with good reason – past research shows a negative correlation between level of education and religiosity. In other words, data show that as level of education rises, level of religiosity drops. Here’s some data for all Christian religions.  However, there is one Christian religion that bucks this trend. For this religion there is a positive correlation, meaning that as education level rises, so does religiosity. That religion is Mormonism. This unusual positive correlation between education and religiosity among Mormons even made it into the Wiki article on “religiosity and intelligence”. Here’s some religiosity data for Mormons.  Why does Mormonism buck the trend that exists among other religions? I think that latter-day revelation on the importance of learning plays a role. The Lord has instructed us to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study” (D&C 88:118). He is not just referring to scriptures here; He is referring to all good books. Christian religions that reject latter-day revelation have not accepted this instruction from the Lord - they have not gotten the message that the Lord wants us to continually learn. The LDS faith is also unique in the sense that it lays all its cards on the table. It encourages people to thoroughly explore its doctrines of salvation and the lifestyle it engenders among its members. It encourages people to study the Book of Mormon and revelations from the prophets – go ahead and scrutinize the teachings, ask questions in church classes, and talk with others about church doctrine. With regard to the doctrines of salvation, there is nothing to hide. The fact that educated Mormons score relatively high on measures of religiosity suggests that they are finding harmony between what they’ve learned in their studies of the gospel and in their studies of science, philosophy, arts, and literature. If this harmony did not exist, measures of religiosity would certainly be lower among educated Mormons. I have found much harmony between my religious and secular studies; these have strengthened my testimony. At the same time, however, I have found some inconsistencies, particularly between science and religion. Inconsistencies have not created a faith crisis in my life, nor should they. Inconsistencies between secular and religious learning should not be shunned – they should be sought out and explored with the understanding that secular knowledge is continually evolving, as is our knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven. Acknowledging inconsistencies between secular and religious learning is an important step in moving closer to the truth of all things. Sources of graphs: Princeton Religion Research Center Other sources: The Consequential Dimension of Mormon Religiosity, by Stan L. Albrecht; Secularization, Higher Education, and Religiosity, by Stan L. Albrecht and Tim B. Heaton. The recent defection of renowned novelist Anne Rice from organized religion has some religionists taking stock of the state of organized religion in America. Things don’t look good. The current state of organized religion may be described like a patient in medical shock: weak pulse, shallow breathing, and pale skin. What is driving down the number of parishioners in the pews? I don’t think secularism is largely to blame. I think certain doctrines from the pulpit are the culprit. Do you return missionaries remember what it was like to encounter ardent evangelicals and their closely allied believers, Born Again Christians? I do. They were good people alright, good people like those you find in any LDS church house on a Sunday morning, yet I could not understand why they so firmly accepted a doctrine of salvation rooted in simply affirming acceptance of Christ. No matter how many times I quoted the familiar phrase, faith without works is dead, they downplayed the importance of works, claiming instead that we are saved by faith and grace, not by works. Downplaying the importance of works was bound to have ramifications on behavior, and it is. Recent polls indicate that the “saved by grace, not by works” chickens are coming home to roost (to borrow a phrase from Obama’s former minister, Reverend Wright). Consider, for example, that evangelical pollster George Barna found that Born Again Christians are more likely to divorce, and University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus found that evangelical adolescents who believe in abstaining from premarital sex are more like to be sexually active at an earlier age than Mormons, mainline protestants, and Jews. Are these the sort of polling results we would expect to find among believers who are continually reminded that salvation is largely about faith and not works? Perhaps. Author Ronald Sider calls it the “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience”. In his book by the same name, he asserts that “By their daily activity, most Christians regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is their Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate their allegiance to money, sex, and personal [self-gratification].” This sort of treason is present in all Christian churches, but why is it increasingly becoming a concern among evangelical and born again churches? Perhaps the “saved by grace, not by works” doctrine is sending an unintended message, that it is okay to sin a little as long as you accept Jesus as Lord. Is this doctrine and its accompanying laissez-faire attitude toward works, particularly works of a sinful nature, contributing to the hypocrisy that is pushing people like Anne Rice out of organized religion? Finally, changing doctrine away from traditional Christian teachings is also contributing to defections from organized religion. Consider that in 2009 the American Evangelical Lutheran Church voted to remove the celibacy requirement for gay ministers, a vote which opened the door for openly homosexual Lutheran ministers. In the same year (2009), the Lutheran Church lost almost 91,000 members or 48 congregations, largely due to the aforementioned vote. Like Forrest Gump, I wish I could end by saying, “That’s all I have to say about that.” Yet this sort of post demands a closing comment. I used to think that it is better for someone to be in a mosque, church, temple, or synagogue on a Sunday morning than at home watching football; now I am not so sure. If I had to choose between someone being at church listening to an openly homosexual minister downplaying the importance of good works in obtaining salvation, or being at home on a Sunday morning, I might chose being at home (reading scriptures and good books instead of watching football ;) | Welcome to the Religion and Science (R&S) Blog. Feel free to post your comments. Please be courteous.    CategoriesAll ArchivesJanuary 2012 |
RSS Feed