TonioTimeDaily

Each of the eight sections of this review produced a definitive conclusion about one of the dominant issues in the Christian-nation allegation:

"What is the history of Unitarian Universalism? While both Unitarianism and Universalism grew out of the left wing of the Protestant Reformation in Europe during the 16th century, both took on an American flavor when they were introduced in the United States. Both religions originated in part as a protest against two Calvinist doctrines: total depravity (Original Sin) and Predestination (the doctrine of the elect— the belief that God has determined whether you will go to Heaven even before you were born). HISTORY 5 During a staff meeting of the UUA, the president was holding forth in his usual windy and repetitive manner. A staff member who had been raised with the Bible, slipped a note to a colleague with a similar background. The note said, “Hebrews 13:8.” His colleague burst into laughter, recalling the passage, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.” 16 The Unitarians, while recognizing the reality of evil, did not believe that any person was born in a state of total corruption from which they could be rescued solely at the whim of an arbitrary God. They believed that all people had the potential for good or evil depending upon both the life they chose to live and upon the social environment in which they were born and raised. The Unitarians were Christians who believed that people should interpret the Bible in the light of human reason. Although Jesus and the Bible were central to their faith, they regarded Jesus as more of a moral and ethical teacher than a supernatural being. They did believe in the divinity of Jesus, that he was the son of God but not the same as God. The term “Unitarian” originally meant “non-trinitarian” a belief in one unified God rather than a three-part entity. The term Universalism originally meant that every person could be saved (universal salvation) as opposed to the salvation of a few whom God would select to save. Although Christian, the Universalists did not believe a loving God would condemn people to an eternity of hell. They believed that the souls of all dead people would eventually be reconciled to this loving God, although it would take a longer time for some to get to heaven than others. Both groups had their American origins in the late 18th century. Unitarian and Universalist churches were established mostly in New England but during the 19th century, Unitarianism spread west and many churches were organized in California. Throughout the 19th and into the early 20th centuries, Unitarianism and Universalism were liberal Christian alternatives to the more harsh and dogmatic forms of Christianity of that time. During the 20th century, both religions began to move away from their Christian origin toward a religion based on individual freedom of belief. The Universalists retained their Christian identity longer than the Unitarians. In today’s congregation, it’s common to find a variety of beliefs: humanist, agnostic, theist, atheist, liberal Christian, etc. Over the past decade, feminist theology has made an impact: our hymn books are gender inclusive, and half our seminary students are women. The term Unitarian affirms that we believe there is a unity of all life, what the UUA Principles and Purposes calls “the interdependent web of all 17 existence of which we are a part.” The term Universalism indicates universality of religion itself. In the UUA Principles and Purposes, we affirm that you can find wisdom in all the world’s religions."

"Saartjie (Sara) Baartman was one of the first black women known to be subjugated to human sexual trafficking. She was derisively named the “Hottentot Venus” by Europeans as her body would be publicly examined and exposed inhumanly throughout the duration of her young life.  Moreover. her experience reinforced the already existing and extremely negative sexual fascination with African women bodies by the people of Europe.

Sara Baartman was born in 1789 at the Gamtoos River, now known as the Eastern Cape in South Africa. Baartman and her family were members of the Gonaquasub group of the Khoikhoi. Baartman grew up on a colonial farm where she and her family most likely worked as servants. Her mother died when she was aged two and her father, who was a cattle driver, died when she was still a young girl.

By her teenage years Baartman married a Khoikhoi man who was a drummer. They had a child together who died shortly after birth. When Baartman was sixteen, her husband was murdered by Dutch colonists. Soon after, she was sold into slavery to a trader named Pieter Willem Cezar, who took her to Cape Town where she became a domestic slave to his brother, Hendrik. On October 29, 1810, although she could not read, 21-year-old Baartman supposedly signed a contract with William Dunlop, a physician, who was a friend of the Cezar brothers.

This contract required her to travel with the Cezar brothers and Dunlop to England and Ireland where she would work as a domestic servant since technically slavery had been abolished in Great Britain. Additionally, she would be exhibited for entertainment purposes. Baartman would receive a portion of earnings from her exhibitions and would be allowed to return to South Africa after five years. However, the contract was false on all details and her enslavement continued for the remainder of her life."

"Excerpted from Birthing a Slave: Motherhood and Medicine in the Antebellum South by Marie Jenkins Schwartz. Published by Harvard University Press.

By the 1820s planters and would-be planters were moving in large numbers to places previously unavailable for settlement and growing the fiber for sale in Europe and New England, where a textile industry was beginning to thrive. The extension of the so-called Cotton Kingdom required new laborers. As of 1808, when Congress ended the nation’s participation in the international slave trade, planters could no longer import additional slaves from Africa or the West Indies; the only practical way of increasing the number of slave laborers was through new births. With so much at stake, black women’s reproductive role became politically, as well as economically, decisive. If enslaved mothers did not bear sufficient numbers of children to take the place of aged and dying workers, the South could not continue as a slave society.

Every woman of an appropriate age needed to bear children. Early in the 19th century, slaveholders looked to both heaven and Earth for answers to why childless women had not given birth. They were willing to attribute a role to providence, but they also scrutinized the behavior of the woman herself and the circumstances in which she lived. Generally, owners adhered to a racist assumption that all black women were fecund—more so than whites—and would breed if given the chance.1

Most provided an opportunity for woman to become a mother by ensuring that she had access to a mate, even if it meant tolerating the visits of an enslaved man living on another plantation or purchasing additional slaves. One planter, Bill Alford of Mississippi, first purchased Jacob Dickerson. Shortly after, he bought Sally. When he brought Sally home, he said to Jacob, “I brung you a good woman, take her an’ live wid her.” The couple consented, and according to their son, lived contentedly thereafter.2

Not all slaves accepted planter matchmaking docilely, but the willingness of some couples to mate under such circumstances is not hard to understand given that the majority of enslaved people wanted to marry and have families. Any couple who did not have the approval of an owner might be denied access to material resources as well as the owner’s assistance in maintaining family ties.3 Although no slave couple could be certain that they would be allowed to remain together, everyone knew that an owner was more likely to respect a union that had been approved. Only those couples who gained an owner’s consent for marriage obtained separate housing with furnishings, patches of land for growing foodstuff, passes to visit one another if husband and wife lived on separate plantations, and other accouterments of married life. For these reasons, a woman or man would have thought long and hard before rejecting a spouse proposed by the owner."

"We’ve all watched movies, seen pictures, and heard stories of how terribly slaves were treated. But, the story of how sexual violence was weaponized and used by slaveowners against slaves is often forgotten. Yet, slaves — including men — were often sexually violated to keep them in line or as punishment against those that dared to rebel.

Mainly utilized by slave owners in the Caribbean, buck breaking was used against male slaves who were seen as defiant. The process involved the slaveowner forcing the enslaved man to lower his pants and bend over a tree stump to ensure that his buttocks were propped up into the air. The enslaved man would then be flogged severely. This would weaken him so that he would not be able to resist the rape that followed. The white slaveowner would then proceed to rape the slave several times.

This form of punishment was worsened by the fact that it would be done in full view of all the other enslaved people, including the slaves’ family and friends. In an addition to being sexually violated the slave would also be publicly humiliated. This public punishment would instill fear in other slaves and thus prevent any further rebellion.

Enslaved men who were victims of this vile punishment often ran away from the plantations or killed themselves as they were unable to deal with the humiliation that they had suffered. It was often too difficult for them to integrate back into a society that had watched them being emasculated in front of their wife, children, and friends.

Buck breaking as a form of punishment grew amongst slave owners in the Caribbean. White men were able to travel from plantation to plantation raping male slaves. The punishment became so widely implemented that sex farms developed from the practice. These sex farms allowed multiple slaveowners to gang-rape male slaves as punishment for any supposed wrongdoing that they committed."

"In 1972, I heard Michael Ramsey, while talking to a group of clergy at Windsor, describe himself as “a Christian agnostic”. He explained it by saying that he did not have a ready answer to all our theological questions. 

I have often used the expression  myself in a similar context. Surely we all walk by faith, and not by sight. And I have heard it said: “Faith is living with uncertainty.”

"Is the description “A Christian agnostic” helpful?

"This attitude of intellectual engagement is perhaps best embodied by Canadian psychologist Jordan B. Peterson, who has renewed interest in the Christian faith by bridging the divide between Christianity and science. His lecture series on the psychological significance of the stories in Genesis was delivered to the kind of packed house that is just a memory in many church buildings, drawing the attention of church leaders around the world.

Peterson, one of only a few professors at the University of Toronto rated as “life-changing,” has extensively studied the psychology of religion and presents the Biblical stories within the context of evolutionary biology, neuroscience, literary analysis and human psychology. It’s been a recipe for success: each lecture’s associated YouTube recording has an average of 1.4 million views, a head count larger than the entire membership of some national churches.

The comments on Peterson’s YouTube videos tell a compelling story. “I used to hate religion. Now I hate and fear what is replacing it,” says one user. “Do I believe in God? No. Am I going to watch this series? You bet I will,” says another.

Despite the rapid decline that Christianity has been experiencing in the western world, Peterson has unleashed tremendous interest in the Christian faith. Over a million people are suddenly interested in a brand-new perspective on Biblical stories. Thousands of them are not explicitly Christian, and some are even following the Christian ethos as a result of exposure to his work.

By demonstrating that these stories have intrinsic value from a scientific perspective, Peterson has given Christians new ways to understand, appreciate and communicate their faith. He has also ushered in a curious Christian revival in the west. Most importantly, he has introduced nuance and respect into a dialogue that has been fraught with impatience and misunderstanding.

Christian religious leaders haven’t come to a consensus on Peterson. Some wonder whether he is the saviour of Christianity, others denounce him as a heretic who is trying to be God. His followers—and what they could bring to the faith—have attracted little interest, at least for now.

This is unfortunate, because the emergence of agnostic Christians is of significance both to the Christian church and to broader society. Agnostic Christians straddle the divide between believer and non-believer: the Gospel is meaningful to them for unique reasons, and they can explain the Good News in different terms.

In particular, agnostic Christians are positioned to move interfaith dialogue forward by translating some of Christianity’s teachings into terms that non-Christians can understand. What does it mean to be justified by faith? How can God’s plan for humankind simultaneously contain death penalties for homosexuality and the forgiveness of sin? These are things that church leaders have struggled to answer convincingly, moored as they are within their own paradigm. Figures like Peterson, who come from a different background altogether, can shine a new light on these difficult theological questions.

In the coming years, new language will probably be developed for matters of Christian faith. Debates on difficult topics may find new direction. Communication and mutual understanding can only improve."

What is it a about celebrities that so obsesses us? Think about it, we even call them idols. It is not just that we enjoy their work, be it singing or acting or playing golf. We want to know all the nitty gritty details about their personal life, and the more personal the better. There is a huge thriving industry selling us the dirt on celebrities. Here is an interesting fact; People Magazine has a weekly audience of 4.6 million readers and has the largest audience of any American magazine. That is a lot of gossip, but more frightening, that is a lot of people spending their time and money reading about people they don’t even know. There are also plenty of TV shows running in prime time that are exclusively about celebrities such as Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood and Extra. And there are people becoming rich and are now celebrities themselves by blogging about the stars. Perez Hilton (real name Mario Lavandeira) is one such blogger.

Celebrity worship is becoming such a problem psychologists even have a name for it, Celebrity Worship Syndrome or CWS. There are different levels of intensity but a study done at The University of Liecester found that a whopping 36 percent of British citizens suffer from this disorder. Physiologist and Author John F. Shumaker says “CWS is an obsessive addictive disorder in which a person becomes involved with the details of a celebrities personal life”. In researching this article I came across one story of a woman who cut her own wrists and throat when her favourite celebrity got engaged. Luckily, she lived to obsess another day. And another extreme of this disorder is people stalking their favourite star. It was a sad day for the world when John Lennon was killed by a “fan”. While most of us go nowhere near these extremes, there is still a wide spread fascination with the famous.

Companies know this about us and are cashing in on it. Think of all the celebrity endorsed products. Taylor Swift, Shania Twain, J Lo, Halle Berry, Justin Bieber and Madonna all have their own perfume. Do we even want to smell like them? You can get a credit card with The Kardashians on it, Jessica Simpson has her own shoe line and Oprah has made people very rich by just mentioning their product. There is even a name for this; it is called The O Effect.

Why do we give them this God like stature? We put them so high on a pedestal that if they fall, they fall very hard and in the spotlight. And this, of course, is more fodder for the gossip junkies. We almost seem to take pleasure in their misfortune or mistake. We have an almost moral superiority even though we still can’t help but gawk at every detail of their fall. We act as if they have let us down personally, as if they somehow owed it to us to remain perfect.

They owe us nothing. They are business people, that is all. If they have a movie or song to sell us, it is up to us to buy it, or not. This does not give us the right to peer into their personal lives, who they are sleeping with, how much weight they have gained or how their marriages are going. The transaction is completed when you buy their goods."

When you don’t use your muscles, they stop wanting to do their job. It’s simple.

Sitting puts you in a position where you don’t need to actively engage important muscle groups like your glutes and quads. This is exacerbated if you have the tendency to slouch, which means that you also aren’t engaging your core — the group of muscles largely responsible for helping you sit up straight.

Reduced use of these muscles leads to atrophy, and then you’re dealing with another problem entirely.

This is one of the many benefits of standing desks. When you spend more time standing (with correct posture, of course), your muscles have no choice but to engage to help keep you upright.

Imagine, for a moment, what your muscles and skeleton look like when you sit. Your quads/femurs are at a 90-degree angle to your core. This means that your hip flexors tighten since they’re in a shortened position.

When your hip flexors tighten, your lower back beings to arch and you stick your bottom out, leading to the dreaded anterior pelvic tilt.

If you’re slouching, with your shoulders slumped forward, your pectoral muscles shorten, similar to what your hip flexors are doing.

Now, guess what happens when you try to do kipping pull-ups with a body like this? Or throw a barbell overhead? Guess what happens when you try to simply bring the groceries in?

This sedentary lifestyle has led to severely compromised mobility. And poor mobility is one of the main causes of injury. With such a shaky, unreliable foundation, you’re in the perfect position to suffer from anything from annoying strains to full-blown injuries.

It’s not just your body that takes a beating from a sedentary lifestyle; your mental health does, too.

Some research suggests that sitting for more than six hours a day in the workplace can increase your risk of mental health problems like anxiety and depression, compared to people who sit for three hours or less a day.

Other research from University College London echoes similar sentiments, finding that in adolescents, sedentary behavior is associated with increased risks of depressive symptoms.

It doesn’t start and end with depression and anxiety. These can lead to a whole host of other issues, like reduced productivity and motivation, trouble sleeping, and hormonal imbalances.

We’re not telling you to get up in the middle of the workday and run a marathon. Remember that it can be as simple as walking a lap around the office, pacing the sidewalk outside for a few minutes, or walking to your coworker’s office instead of calling or emailing them."

"Benefits of Minimalism

Here are 21 powerful benefits of pursuing and living a minimalist lifestyle.

1. Spend Less.

Choosing to accumulate only the essentials often results in financial freedom. Spending less on things you don’t really need will cut your financial expenses and increase your savings.

2. Less Stress.

A minimalist home is significantly less stressful. Being able to freely move around and enjoy your home is a huge weight off your shoulders.

3. Easier to Clean.

The fewer things in our home, the fewer things there are to clean. This makes cleaning a significantly easier chore.

4. More Freedom.

The sense of freedom that comes from minimalism is truly refreshing. You will no longer feel tied to the material possessions in your home and you’ll feel a new sense of independence.

5. Good for the Environment.

The less we consume and buy, the less damage we do to the environment.

6. Be More Productive.

Our possessions consume our time more than we realize.

7. Example for my Kids.

These are valuable life lessons they will never learn in the media.

8. Support Other Causes.

Money is only as valuable as what we choose to spend it on.

9. Own Higher Quality Things.

More is not better… better is better.

10. Less Work for Someone Else.

Create a less stressful life today and lessen the burden on someone else too.

11. Be Happier.

Owning fewer possessions makes you happier.

12. Do Work You Love.

Own less stuff. Choose work you love.

13. Freedom From the Comparison Game.

Our culture begs us to own more."