Psychology, Bible, Evolution Agree On Generosity, Cooperation

Posted: January 6, 2013 at 1:35 a.m.

In my Dec. 16 column, I wrote about some troubling research with children documenting a human tendency toward bias. Infants who choose Cheerios over graham crackers will actually reward a puppet who punishes another puppet who chose graham crackers over Cheerios. According to researchers, “We are predisposed to break the world up into different human groups based on the most subtle and seemingly irrelevant cues, and that, to some extent, is the dark side of morality.” Bias against the “other” seems to part of our human inheritance.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 11 on 01/06/2013


« Previous Story

Can American Congress Regain Respect?

When I was growing up, I had great interest in and respect for the U.S. Congress. Read »

Next Story »

Ballots, Citizenship And Repercussions

I expect a lot of antivoter-fraud legislation and antiillegal immigration bills in the upcoming General Assembly. I also expect severe political backlash to them. Read »

Mr. Grisham (sorry, I can't bring myself to call you Reverend) I don't know if you read comments submitted about your columns, but on the chance that you do...I have a question.

Who do you say Jesus Christ is? In your column you speak of the Magi who came to find the newborn King. One of your statements is very troubling however. "Jesus gave the same generous gifts of healing and feeding to those outside his religious and cultural tradition as he gave to his own people. Maybe the stories his parents told him of the visit from mysterious foreigners shaped his own openness to the "other"."

By your admission Jesus healed the sick and fed the people. He also raised the dead. Why would the Son of God need to learn "openness" from earthly parents?

Who is Jesus to you? A prophet (a mere man, anointed by God), or God in the flesh?

What do you say?

Posted by: patrioteer

January 6, 2013 at 11:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Why would the Son of God need to learn "openness" from earthly parents?<

By your reasoning why would the Son need to born of earthly parents?

Posted by: cdawg

January 7, 2013 at 1:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg, why don't you do some research? It's all in the Bible, if you take the time to read it.

He was born of an earthly mother, but a Heavenly father. Remember Mary was a virgin?

The reason was so he could be fully man and fully God.

Remember, God cannot suffer and die, paying for our sins, unless he is also a man.

Posted by: patrioteer

January 7, 2013 at 9:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lowell, thanks for another excellent article. Two concepts vitally important in Clinical Pastoral Education involve learning to hear the 'other' with value and respect; and learning to bring the 'Holy' gently into the presence of the 'other' with respect and dignity. I greatly appreciate the way you have represented both concepts in this article.

Posted by: Jim_Huffman

January 7, 2013 at 9:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst, I flagged your toilet comment and will continue to do so everytime you make such references.

Posted by: Coralie

January 7, 2013 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So, when Jesus was two-years-old he was already omniscient and didn't need to learn anything from anybody?

Posted by: Coralie

January 7, 2013 at 1:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, I flagged it also. Even though it was deeply profound, sadly, it was a bit crude. If we have to flush it, well, jiggle the handle.

Posted by: JailBird

January 7, 2013 at 5:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Remember, God cannot suffer and die, paying for our sins, unless he is also a man.

That's one of the silliest ideas I've ever read.

I think its you who needs some research. Perhaps FFT will come aboard and enlighten you with histories of blood sacrifice. To moderns it's a barbaric idea but to Bronze Age goat herders it was normal and acceptable.

Posted by: cdawg

January 8, 2013 at 1:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

moneymyst, please be more careful in the future not to offend the delicate sensibilities of Coralie.

After all she alone is worthy of first amendment rights.

Hmmm...wonder how that flag thing works?

Posted by: patrioteer

January 10, 2013 at 12:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So it is Moneymyst's first amendment right to make offensive remarks on a public forum?
I think there is a webmaster whose job it is to decide that.
If you, patrioteer, want to participate in a discussion filled with toilet references, you and the other four-year-olds can have this space to yourself.

Posted by: Coralie

January 10, 2013 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "After all she alone is worthy of first amendment rights."
One's right to free speech is not absolute, as various types of speech are illegal in all cases. Further, one may agree to further truncation of one's free speech rights. For example, by posting on these threads, one agrees to the site's comment policy. Moneymyst's post violated the comment policy, and its removal was according to terms that he agreed to when he posted.

As Moneymyst has had two or three complete user profiles-- and all of their comments-- deleted from the site already, you might, were you inclined to look at the situation objectively, discern that the problem here is not Coralie.

RE "Hmmm...wonder how that flag thing works?"
Click on the "suggest removal" link below the comment in question.


A patrioteer is no more a patriot than a musketeer is a musket.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 10, 2013 at 2:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Patrioteer, It is my resolution from this point foward to be careful and not offend Coralie again. I, also have many other toilet jokes, but in deference to Coralie and Palelady, I will use them except when referring to George Bush. (I think thats OK)
I further admit that it is I who, with my Christian clinger to guns attitude, have deeply offended Coralie's delicate sensibilites. I repent and pledge to offend her no more. I write this with my hand up and with my solemn honor!

Wait a minute, Coralie said I have no honor.

Posted by: JailBird

January 10, 2013 at 4:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And people say the Bible is hard to understand.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 10, 2013 at 7:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

moneymyst, thanks for "manning up". We certainly don't want to offend Coralie.

I have actually had a commenter call me a liar. Wait... that was Coralie...

I guess it's okay to call someone a liar but not okay to mention the "T" word. Calling me a liar deeply offended my delicate sensibilities, but the webmaster didn't see fit to censor her remarks.

Be the bigger person moneymyst and only denigrate conservative Christians.

After all, the liberal mantra is "be reasonable, do it my way".

Posted by: patrioteer

January 10, 2013 at 8:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Incidentally, I'm not surprised that Mr. Grisham chooses to ignore my question.

Posted by: patrioteer

January 10, 2013 at 8:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kitty, (I can't bring myself to call you alpha) I'm not sure how you can know all that about moneymyst unless you are either an insider or making stuff up, although being an insider might explain how you get away with your offensive behavior.

Posted by: patrioteer

January 10, 2013 at 8:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I'm not sure how you can know all that about moneymyst unless you are either an insider or making stuff up"
Do you remember Phillip1955? He wrote in the same style as Moneymyst (I have quite a few of his comments archived), and he used the same Alfred E. Neuman avatar for a while. After that profile and all comments were expunged from the record, he apparently commented in the same vein for a while using the screen name "NWAobserver", if I remember correctly. That profile and comments have been deleted as well. I believe he used yet another profile for a brief while-- the comments were very similar-- but I don't remember the screen name. If it was him, that profile has been deleted as well. If it was not him, then there is somebody else out there who is almost exactly as amusing as Moneymyst.

It has nothing to do with being an "insider"-- it has to do with paying attention.

RE "being an insider might explain how you get away with your offensive behavior."
What offensive behavior would that be? I am a paragon of decorous behavior.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 10, 2013 at 9:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Whatever gave anyone the idea that this is a "public" forum?

Is it inherent that religious people assume whatever they choose to be true or correct? Yes, they do.

It's not a public forum. This is a privately owned website. There is no freedom of speech. The owners are free to censor you any way they see fit.
You either believe in private property or you don't.

Some of you need to read the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech is a prohibition against Congress, not the owners of private property.

Posted by: cdawg

January 11, 2013 at 1:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I believe in private property to a small degree, but If it's my private property I defend it with my life.

Posted by: JailBird

January 11, 2013 at 5:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer says "I have actually had a commenter call me a liar. Wait... that was Coralie..."
Please show me where I have done that.
Unlike some people who comment (Irish Mensa is one), I do not use the construction "you are a liar" or "you lie."
Unless you can show where I have called you a liar (rather than mistaken or in disagreement) please withdraw what you have said.

Posted by: Coralie

January 11, 2013 at 2 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg, when I used the term "public forum" I did so in a broad sense.

Posted by: Coralie

January 11, 2013 at 2:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Where is old Irsh anyway, haven't enjoyed his comments for a while?

Posted by: JailBird

January 12, 2013 at 3:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, here is your comment. I'll expect an apology now.

I guess I can't use the word "bloody" any more because it's a bad word in UK.
Did patrioteer ever pass his reading test? Guess so, since he went quiet.
As in real estate the key is location, location location, so in reading the key is CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.
To deliberately quote something out of context is lying, pure and simple.

Posted by: Coralie

June 27, 2012 at 1 p.m.

Posted by: patrioteer

January 14, 2013 at 11:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"misssnark blogspot"? What? Miss Snark..... Ha!

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 14, 2013 at 11:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gee, our President, news media, and political leaders all deliberately quote many things out of context, is that l----g, (I'm now scaried to use the L word). Are they liars, also, Coralie?

Posted by: JailBird

January 14, 2013 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"To deliberately quote something out of context is lying, pure and simple."
So you admit you deliberately quoted out of context?
Then the definition fits.

Posted by: Coralie

January 14, 2013 at 4:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg got all upset because I called this a public forum, although it is owned privately (by the newspaper) and monitored by a webmaster.
I googled and found this person's blog which she calls a public forum although she freely admits that she can do whatever she likes with it, including excluding comments.

Posted by: Coralie

January 14, 2013 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, exactly what are you talking about?

The quote you used above, "To deliberately quote something out of context is lying, pure and simple." is YOUR quote calling me a liar.

If you take the time to research your own comments you will find this is your exact comment, in it's entirety from that date and time.

I did not admit to quoting out of context. Quoting out of context is a liberal tactic you people use quite often.

What about that apology?

Posted by: patrioteer

January 14, 2013 at 5:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "What about that apology?"
Coralie said that taking a quote out of context is lying. You say that you didn't admit to taking a quote out of context. Why, then, should she apologize to you? Are you now admitting that you took a quote out of context?

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 14, 2013 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )