What is your reality?

You do not see this page with your eyes. Well, if we were to be real picky, you really don't see anything with your eyes. You may know this, but what really happens is that light enters the front of the eye, stirs activity in cells inside the eye which begin electrochemical reactions in the nervous system, and the reactions in the nervous system activate various areas within the brain that convert the signals from the eyes into images that are then matched to various memories to interpret what the light reveals. You really "see" with your memory. The cool thing about our brain is that it can remember concepts, things, and events so that you can read this word and instantly remember seeing it while connecting it to an idea, and possibly even have feelings elicited because of an event of which the word reminds you. This is why you learn about everything you see in your world instead of instantly knowing everything about your world. This is also why optical illusions are possible. 

I remember the first time I saw a mirage on the road in front of us on a hot summer day. I can still remember the feeling of surprise when the water wasn't there when we came to the dip in the road where there had been a puddle of water only moments before. My dad explained how the different temperatures of air bent the light to make it seem as if water was reflecting the sunlight, and I learned that things can seem different than they are. My favorite example of this is the McGurk Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect) in which a sound is "heard" differently depending on what is seen by the hearer. Some optical illusions show quirks in how light enters and is transmitted by the eye, but others reveal how what is "seen" is interpreted by the brain in conjunction with prior memories as in the McGurk effect. If you are used to distrusting what your eye tells you about sounds, like if you watch badly-dubbed kungfu movies, then the McGurk effect doesn't really work on you. 

All this is interesting because it is possible for your reality to differ from mine in very important ways. We often use the words reality and truth interchangeably, but some aspects of reality do differ from person to person because we experience the world with different brains which interpret things based on different memories and makeup. So while we both may experience the same sunshine your brain may see happiness and life while others may see murderous UV rays. I remember the story in the Gospels about the man Jesus healed of blindness who then described men walking around like trees (Mark 8:22-26). Imagine a blind man who knew by touch that upright structures were trees, but when his eyes worked he saw upright structures walking and talking like men. In other words his reality hadn't really included both sets of features in the same object. Mark remarks that a second touch from Jesus was required to allow him to recognize the same reality that someone who saw from birth had.

What if reality differed from truth? My favorite contribution to the Internet is my quote an acquaintance spread years ago- "Belief and sincerity do not define truth; it exists despite belief and sincerity." You may sincerely believe your reality is true but it doesn't mean that it is. One of my big frustrations is the false idea that still lives in this country that if something seems "natural" it is better. I am consulted by my fellow nurses at least monthly about some new "natural" treatment or supplement (as if taking a pill is natural) that seems better than modern medicine, and I must admit that while some people naturally see these things as better in obvious ways I do not agree with their reality. So our reality disagrees. What are we to do? An independent measure must be used to determine truth in our realities, and it cannot be who is loudest or most sincere. This is the real argument. When I still worked in the "alternative healthcare" industry I struggled over real evidence. My well-meaning mentor insisted that good healthcare started with the presupposition that certain concepts trumped "science falsely-so-called" that seemed to dominate the industry. In the end the only evidence that was included was whatever study supported his prior convictions of reality. I find this is often the case in the false healthcare industry- conventional medicine and science is supposed to be tainted and so only is right when it agrees with the nonconvenitonalist's preconcived notions. This has led to all sorts of craziness like iridology, applied kinesiology and overdosing on toxic plants because Aunt Gertrude saw a Chinese Indian take them once. 

This frustration is what led me to where I am. I found that scientists trust each other less than herbalists trust them. In fact they are constantly checking and rechecking their work to the be the gal or guy to prove a deeply held theory to be wrong. Preconceived notions are often thrown out to be reformulated or verified, and sacred cows are slaughtered whenever possible. So when a young earth creationist tells me that evolution is impossible because Genesis 1 says God did it in six days six thousand years ago I say, let's test that theory. "It's not a theory." I'm told "It is a preconceived notion that must be accepted to find the truth." What this means is that I must accept the way your brain interprets truth in order to find other truths. In other words this is a reality that lives on the same level as Aunt Gertrude's bitter poisonous green leaves. This is what I can't seem to swallow.

Justification or Explanation?

I dealt with a few approaches to the problem of evil in the last post, and how I am trying to reconcile what I see as reality with what I have been raised to believe. For many of my friends and family members "the problem of evil" is not even remotely an interesting question. These dear ones feel as if there is not any need to question God. When tornados tear bodies and lives apart some Christians see judgement of sin or a long-term purpose that goes beyond our understanding. Joseph of early Jewish history faced horrible rejection at every level, but he is remembered for recognizing God's higher purpose when he said "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." (Genesis 50:20) On the other hand Job was rebuked for looking for a higher purpose, and trying to understand why he was suffering. (Job 40:8) 

I know a little about suffering, but only a little. As a small boy we were told that my mother was going to die, and there were a few times that I was convinced that I was watching her last moments. Cancer hurts everyone related to the victim, but what would happen if you were to ask my mother how she felt about the disease her body finally defeated. Her physical and emotional suffering was incredible, and she will tell her story with a few ideas on what purpose God had for her suffering. Ask Mom in a particularly vulnerable moment and she will confide that she cannot really find a purpose of God that makes the suffering to feel truly worth it, but she believes in her heart that His plan is far better than any she could have so she chooses to tust Him though she wishes His plan could have been perfected another way.

As I read through different writings that deal with the "problem of evil" I see a pattern developing in which those who have a problem reconciling God's goodness with the presence of evil are inclined to distrust God in the first place. Christians who discuss the problem of evil seem to be trying to explain how their intensely felt belief in a loving God makes logical sense. I suggest you read a blog by a man currently in the raw moments of pain- http://raymelick.blogspot.com/2012/05/men-at-ease-have-contempt-for.html Ray knows how to tell it. 

 

As I struggle with my unbelief I am beginning to think that problems with belief are not a matter of logic, but obedience to an inner sense of reality. What do you think? Do you feel the way you do because it feels right or because of irrefutable logic? In other words, when you defend your beliefs are your providing an explanation or trying to justify how you feel?

Not a Tame Lion

My son was around five when I read him the C. S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia, and we happened on the statement that Aslan, the lion that seemed to represent Jesus in the allegory, was not a tame lion. It was a pretty good explanation to come back to when my son later noted a moment when something made him sad and I could not explain it by saying it fit God’s plan. "A tame animal is predictable and obeys your wishes, but you can't always predict what an untamed animal will do. It obeys no one but itself." Looking back I am interested that I didn't tell my son that God was a wild creature that can't be tamed. Instead I simply stated that he was not tame. A wild God is a scary idea. Wild animals bite and kill for no reason. A wild lion can turn on his handler, leaving onlookers puzzled as to what happened, and yet when I read that God, or Jesus, is not a tame lion, is the alternative simply that they are wild animals? 

One of my first concerns as I try to walk back through the doorway of my former faith is the problem of evil. Is it true that God is either not good or not all powerful? If he is good why does he allow evil unless he is too weak to fend it off? If God is powerful enough to fend off evil he must not be good enough to want to do it. The Christian Scriptures describe its god as all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfect in love. It seems to many that there is a breakdown somewhere in the attributes of God or that there isn't a god like the one described by the Christian.

I have heard different theologians speak of natural disasters as if they were the result of sin or satanic influence, but it is clear that if the God of the Bible can do anything He is fully in control of whatever happens in his world. If God let it happen then He is responsible for it happening. In the Bible even evil men are said to be under the control of God. Think about how God hardened Pharoah's heart while the ten plagues ravaged his country, and even how Solomon stated that the "heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord" and he turns it any way he desires. (Proverbs 21)

Google the word "theodicy" and you will see different attempts of philosophers and theologians (some of whom are philosophers) to make sense of the fact that the Christian god is perfectly good and all-powerful. I discussed this with my son recently and we went through all the options, but we decided that the only answer that really worked for him is that somehow God knows best, and we just have to trust him. This is good enough for many, but it really only works if you feel like God is perfectly good and need an "escape clause" to make you feel ok about an out-of-control world. It is as if you are saying "I know He is good so He must have some higher purpose at work." 

There is another approach that can answer why this world is out-of-control. From the beginning of time as we know it chaos has been the rule of the universe. When untamed powerful forces interact they can change the current organization of things to something very different which can disrupt life and its ability to survive. I am told by Christians "But if everything is the product of chaos then everything is meaningless!" Really? To see that our species has risen out of such chaos and thrived even as the forces of weather, geology, and the competition for resources worked against us creates an incredible sense of being part of an incredibly innovative movement of life. I have a small part of ensuring the continued success of our species as it evolves into the next stage of physical and cultural development. By producing children I have already potentially made a permanent mark on our species' genes for millions of years, and by working to teach my children I have a chance to mold our culture to be better in the future. As humans around me observe my behavior they instinctively develop opinions on how to copy or respond to my behavior which also modifies my culture in a small way, and as billions of us around the Earth act and observe we create the genes and culture of our future. Yes, there is meaning in life, even without a god!

So why would I want to return to my former faith? The culture and people I know and love draw me back, and I honestly want to be part of the confused happiness all around me in church. I remember the good feeling I felt when I believed that God was real and at work in and around me. Now I feel as if those days had me watching a movie on a screen while reality was obscured behind it. Now that I feel like I know the truth I only enjoy the movie for its sense of nostalgia, but I still long for the certainty that came with belief.

So what is the answer for evil? Did God create evil? In a sense the Christian must admit to some extent that his God did create evil, but he could argue that in doing so God had a greater good in mind that goes beyond philosophy and theology. So the God of the Bible allows horrible events to happen on a whim, and cannot really be predicted. All the Christian can say is, “Deep in my heart I know that God is good, and when I get to Heaven it will all make sense.” I guess you must accept God as being truly wild, or untamed, to accept His religion, but I am yet unsure that an untamed God is a better explanation than untamed forces.

Back again?

A few know I have taken this school year off from ministry because I have had some very serious doubts about the basic truths of modern Christianity. Some of those with whom I have discussed this know that I am not reacting to hypocritical Christians, although there are plenty of those around me. It is also true that I am not swayed by the problem of evil, though it is a reality. The simplest version of why I "left" the faith is that I lost the sense that it was true. It is very important for those who care about apologetics to realize that any belief in the Christian god must be "presuppositional" in that the individual must first choose to believe that there is an all-powerful God of the Christian type. The Christian scriptures declare that God can be seen in nature, but in reality scientific observation will not reveal the presence of God unless one already acknowledges the presence of God. The athiest sees a beautiful sunrise and sees an amazing interaction between gravity, gasses, and light while the Christian sees the same, thinking that God somehow planned this interaction. Belief in God does not guide the proper observation of the sunset, but this belief allows the Christian to give the interaction unobservable meaning. "The heavens declare the glory of God", but only to those who are willing to believe. So what can explain the difference between the athiest and the Christian observing a sunset? The best answer is the effect of a strong desire to see God that exists in the mind of the Christian. The nonchristian often believes the Christian's desire to see God comes from a need to belong to a specific group or the desire to claim special knowledge, but a Christian will probably cite the effect of the awakening of the Holy Spirit in his "heart" to explain how he can see God working around him. This is where I felt like I "lost" God. I lost the sense of this "awakening" by the Holy Spirit so that I did not have the intuitive sense that He was there. When I tried to "find" God, the logic of it all evaded me, and so I decided to let God pull me back to him if he existed.  I now have the sense that this is beginning to occur. I am in the early stages, but I began praying again this week. For the sake of understanding what is going on I am going to document my progress, and I welcome comments as encouragement or challenges to rethink what I write. Those who have been praying for me I thank you.

Truly at war

One of the strangest moments from my childhood involved a Christian concert I attended with my grandparents about America that ended with a video showing Russian atomic missiles pointed at our country, and a description of how we will be blown off the earth if Christians didn't pray hard enough. At the end of the presentation the audience was encouraged to kneel and pray, and I found myself scooting as far under my seat as possible in case the bombs fell then and there. Jessica Ahlquist (http://jessicaahlquist.com/) highlighted the fact that this concern did not die with the Soviet Union. As a teenager I watched a series of grainy VHS videos circulated by our homeschool group describing how the Clinton administration was secretly removing the freedom to practice Christianity in the US. I can see the case of Jessica Ahlquist increasing the sense that American Christians are under attack. For those not aware miss Ahlquist was surprised to find that her public high school had a Christian prayer banner posted on the wall. As prayers go it was pretty lame, but it bothered her to the point that she sued to have it taken down. This week she won and the banner is being removed, much to the consternation of Christians all over the country. The same week a suit involving another public school which invited a Christian rapper to preach in a required assembly went against the Christians involved. Of course the nonreligious in the US are pleased at the results, but the Christians complain that the war on Christianity in the US is intensifying. I hope my Christian friends see that this is not the case. A public school is supposed to be a designated safe place for all students whether we are in agreement with their beliefs, but when a nonchristian enters a school that displays hints of Christian bias the school ceases to be a safe place for that student. There truly is a war in the US, but it really is a war by certain Evangelical Christians against anything not Christian. In public this war is couched in terms that focus on promoting morality and character, but the goal is saving souls any way possible. This makes sense if one were to consider how real the Gospel message is to the Evangelical. They honestly believe that people are going to hell, and the best time to reach them is during youth years. If I honestly thought I could save someone from certain unspeakable suffering by breaking the law you bet I would break any law necessary to save them. My Christian friends ask how a subtle sign or single hour of preaching can hurt, but they fail to see how pervasive Chrstianity is in our country while there really is little tolerance of other ideas, especially nontheistic ones. This last fall an atheist group walked quietly in a parade with a banner simply identifying the group and parade-goers were angry that they carried the banner in front of children. In both the cases I mentioned above threats of violence were stated along with the online posting of the addresses of the parties involved with suggestions of the violence that could be done to those who oppose Christianity. Nontheists are acutely aware that they will be targeted for harrassment if they self-identify as nontheistic or express nontheistic sentiments. Even more disturbing is the increasingly public calls for war against Islam in the US. I received two unsolicited emails this week from a local group directly calling for a war at any cost against the tolerance for Muslim ideas in the US. It should not be a surprise that nonchristians in our nation are sensitive to hints of Christian bias in a public school because those hints point to the fact that certain religious bullying will be tolerated against them. So let Tebow do want he wants on the football field. I agree it seems strange, but he may end up being one of the few openly Christian guys who actually lives what he preaches. Let's leave school a religion-neutral place, and let Tebow and his friends fill our popular culture with their faith. There is plenty of room in the culture for all of us.

Time for battle?

ACT! for America sent me an e-mail today that exemplifies my worries for the US as I watch American Christians react in fear against perceived threats against them from the nonreligious and Muslims. The e-mail went right to the point of how Muslims want to evangelize the US in order to make our country fit their ideals. It struck me that if I rewrote the email to substitute "Christians" for "Islamists" the e-mail could reflect the worries of the other religions in countries where Christianity is making inroads. I have seen those who come out publicly as atheists or Muslims receive death threats from those self-identifying as Christians, and I wonder how many people that read these e-mails from ACT! for America or other groups asking for Christians to act for the nation's self-defense against Islam and atheism will lead to death threats being acted upon by Christians. It happened to abortionists to "protect the babies" why wouldn't Christians also take up arms to create fear in those who stand for other ideals? 

Gifts

I was asked by my nursing director to write a two paragraph note describing how Brookwood hospital supported me through nursing school, and as I set to write my paragraphs it occurred to me that I was given an opportunity that is not available anymore. Opportunity is a funny thing in that most opportunities that we encounter are creatures of our own making. It is only rare that we are given an opportunity for which we are totally unprepared.

I was a young, unemployed new father seeking any form of employment when one of my wife's friends suggested I apply for a "scrub" job at two local hospitals. One hospital ignored me completely, but the education nurse for Brookwood's Woman's operating room saw a kid willing to try and she gave me the opportunity to learn how to act as a scrub technician. I knew nothing about the OR and had no clue what a "scrub tech" was, but I jumped into the opportunity with gusto. Here was a chance to see cool things, make money for my young wife and child, and prepare for my future medical career. After six months I was good enough to be considered as an educator of other prospective scrubs, and I learned that one out of ten of my students could make it. Most hospitals have stopped on-the-job training for this type of work because of the high failure rate for trainees, and the new "scrubs" I now meet have completed vocational training at some college or training school. I could not have one of the coolest nursing jobs ever today had that gift been given to me, and, as I wrote to my director, I will ever be grateful for all the help they gave me at Brookwood.

Another gift of which I became aware recently is the security sound health. After fighting depression for twenty-eight years I thought I was accustomed to my body sabotaging me, but last Wednesday found me in an even more difficult situation as I basically lost the use of my body for a short time for no obvious reason. Over the period of about five minutes I went from standing and helping a friend to being unable to lift my head, open my eyes, or even speak. This is even more strange as I was fully awake and aware of everything happening around me. I heard the voices trying to get me to answer, and the hands moving me onto a stretcher. I heard the panicked breathing of my nursing friends as they rushed the vibrating stretcher down the hall of the hospital to the ER, and yet there was little I could do. I felt like I was tightly wrapped in a warm blanket that I eventually loosened and regained the strength to which I was accustomed. I had words like "stroke" or "seizure" floating around me for a while as I slowly regained my ability to speak, but my doctor is calling it an atypical migraine for now, though I had no headache. I am going to be seeking a second opinion since this was a pretty big event for me, but losing all my voluntary movement for thirty minutes made me realize how much I take for granted. Now every twinge is questioned as the start of another event. I don't know exactly what to think of what I experienced last week, but I do know this- I have been much more lucky than I ever realized!

Six reasons not to eat food you make in your own kitchen

A friend of mine posted a link to an article posted in May 2010 and titled "Six Reasons To Say No To Vaccination" It was a strange article which I will say is full of crazy ideas beginning with the statement at the beginning which comments inaccurately that vaccination is controversial. The six "reasons" turn out to be four reasons with one more slightly rephrased and another obvious statement of fact that is not much of an argument against vaccinations.  Here they are for a sense of insanity-
#1:   Pharmaceutical Companies Can’t Be Trusted
     This section focuses on the problems that have occurred with other pharmaceuticals focusing on unexpected complications and side effects. This would work if the alternative therapies they advocate do not have unexpected complications. We can always make medicines safer and so we test them. 
#2:   ALL Vaccines are Loaded with Chemicals and other Poisons
     This is true in a sense, but the "poisons" they are worried about are not really the problem. All of the things we eat contain chemicals and poisons. The fact is that quantity and concentration really matter. As far as "poisons" and chemicals in vaccines they have been found safe for their purpose- studies have been repeated to test this idea.
#3:   Fully Vaccinated Children are the Unhealthiest, Most Chronically Ill Children I Know
     She needs to meet some kids. Small sample size does not prove anything.
#4:   Other Countries Are Waking Up to the Dangers of Vaccines
     Other countries believe in elves. Belief and sincerity do not define truth.
#5:   A Number of Vaccines Have Already Had Problems/Been Removed from the Market
      Restating the first "reason" with a twist. Of course testing a vaccine removes it from the market. Test all your herbs the same way and many of them will be removed too.
#6   You Can Always Get Vaccinated, But You Can Never Undo a Vaccination
      This statement is a truism. I can say never kiss because you can never undo your first kiss. Sorry. 
Now for six reasons not to eat your own food-
#1 Your kitchen cannot be trusted. Many meals every year are unintentionally contaminated with dangerous organisms that sicken and kill people. Just because you know where food come from doesn't mean it is safe.
#2:   ALL Foods are Loaded with Chemicals and other Poisons. As you probably know, plants produce "pesticides" to protect themselves from insects and other organisms. In sufficient amounts these can hurt or kill you or your family yet you knowingly feed these and other chemicals to your family in the form of broccoli, carrots, and other vegetables.
#3:   Fed Children are the Unhealthiest, Most Chronically Ill Children I Know. The biggest pediatric health problem we have in the US is obese children. This problem would be solved by not feeding them any food from your kitchen or anyone else's. It may be uncomfortable, but, well that's not the point is it?

#4:   Other People Are Waking Up to the Dangers of Food. It might be a surprise to find that the necessity of food is not universally accepted. Breatharians believe that food and drink are unnecessary and impure. Since they are sincere I suppose we should believe them.
#5:   A Number of Foods Have Already Had Problems/Been Removed from the Market. We all know about the dangers off raw eggs and fat.
#6   You Can Always Eat, But You Can Never Fully Undo an Ingestion. As soon as you  put a food item in your mouth certain nutrients are absorbed and become part of your bloodstream. You can't undo that. Sad isn't it.

Flashbacks of the weird kind...

Ah, fun of seeing how far I have come! I watched all the parts of the above documentary by Louis Theroux on the Westboro Baptist Church Cult, and it is amazing how much of what they believe were my deeply held beliefs so many years ago. If you take away the vulgar language that marks so much of what the Family says you will hear what I was taught as a child and young adult. I had such a gut reaction to the statements of the members of The Family as the described the dangers of rebellion and thinking for oneself. I instantly identified with the kids who were so afraid that even speaking their hearts would send them to Hell because it would plant a seed of rebellion that would lead them down the wrong road. Even the sense of persecution and future exile that was to mark our transition into the end times was drummed into my head. I love how Louis Theroux let the members of the Family do all the talking so that we get a great view of their beliefs. Having come from a similar background I really believe that this was an accurate portrayal of the Family.

My message from this is that the Westboro Baptist Church Family is probably the best example of obedience to the Bible that I have seen in the USA, and a perfect example of how blind obedience to a book of faith can destroy lives and families. I like the fact that most evangelical Christians in the US actually live according to a more loving ethical standard than is presented in the Bible. I am glad I finally saw the light of Humanism.

When I die...

Last Wednesday night I was discussing with a friend how "kids nowadays" don't know how to write letters like they did "back then", and I told her of how many biographies of historical figures relied on the letters and diary entries of those people as sources of their ideas and opinions. Biographies of the future will need a glossary of codes for text messaging such as "brb" or "LOL". I have a few journals in which I occasionally pen notes to my wife and children, with each one having their own book with which we record our comments and questions to each other. Listening to the song "If I Die Young" by The Band Perry reminds me of the importance of the written word as the song insists that what we write means more when we are gone. Like we should never forget to say "I love you", we should leave plenty of evidence of our love and pride in those around us so that distance of miles or moments cannot erase what we have spoken.

The cost of Character

"I could do that!" My acquaintance was somewhat excited. I can't tell if he really would do it, knowing that the clinic I described would be a total sham, but I believe he just might be serious. "Josh, you can be our front guy because anyone would believe you, but we will do all the work." I shudder as I think of the horror that overtook me the last time I was involved in the endeavor he proposed. I thought that as a health care consultant I could really help people. I would gaze into their eyes or use the latest in muscle-testing methods to determine their health problems and give my clients solutions to their most pressing health problems while staving off future disasters. I am told I was very good.

One man came to me seeking a cure for his ulcerative colitis that had once again flared up with a vengeance. The guy was a good man and a doting father. He was tired of the cramping and diarrhea, and he hoped I could give him the solution he so earnestly desired. I looked at his iris, discussed his health weaknesses, and suggested some herbs he could take with some lifestyle and diet changes. His health seemed to improve until he was admitted to the hospital for a bowel obstruction. This time his supposed ulcerative colitis flare-up was actually symptoms of colon cancer that developed as a probable complication of his longstanding disease. Had he gone to his regular doctor instead of me my client would have probably found his colon cancer soon enough to remove it. Instead it was found after it was too far advanced, and my client's cancer spread to his liver where it killed him.

No one blamed me for my lack of knowledge, but I feel like I should have known this was a common complication of ulcerative colitis and insisted my client seek medical advice. I didn't know my limitations, and I really didn't help this guy. Temporarily undaunted I sought to expand my knowledge and experience, but as I studied I found that more science pointed to my practice as dangerous at worst and useless at best. I left it so that I would not give any more people false confidence.

Now this friend wants to play the game. He wants to knowingly give useless medicine to the sick and worried because it will provide gain. I shuddered at the thought. I just can't do it. As I lay in bed that night I suddenly realize that I could do it better than last time. I could use clearly safe, but useless treatment like homeopathic preparations as a gimmick and get patients into my clinic to get good diet and lifestyle advice. I could once again give those who felt lost in the medical landscape a welcome desk to sit at be reassured. I could bill myself as a health care coordinator and give those who see too many doctors a sense of order to their lives. But could I really lie to my clients to gain income and a sense of accomplishment? I could work half as hard to make the same income, but in the end I feel like I would lose more of myself than I would gain.

What did I get when I was raised to be honest, but a hard life? Maybe, at least, I could trust my own advice.

Discrimination

Snuggle up with my friend who recently attended my church in Homewood, Alabama and you will see just how friendly they are here in the South. She and her family were invited to several very respectable homes in our church well before the Pastor began his sermon and he even asked them over to his house after the sermon. I told her later that she would be more than welcome to join our church and her response that the welcome was a little much, almost desperate. Another dear friend attended recently, but he was ignored, almost shunned. Why this contradiction? The answer is complex, but the situation was highlighted by a recent request by a local mission to the poor to build a thrift store in an "upscale" suburb of Birmingham.
Click this link to see how the suburb responded.

Interestingly the debate played out through a series of e-mails that were sent to a few members of my church. I knew that the community at large would oppose the thrift store because they didn't want poor people spending too much time in our city, but I wondered if the more outspoken of our community would actually admit their reason. This e-mail exchange actually did well to outline the feelings of both sides. The original e-mail was a forward that basically said "we don't want their kind in our city" and it was responded to by another member of my church who stated that there was room in God's kingdom for the poor. The poor hapless soul that sent the first e-mail simply responded that he had nothing against the poor as long as they were not in his city painting graffiti and fighting amongst themselves.

This feeling is very raw and fresh, but what about my minority friend that attended my church and garnered such attention? She is a black woman married to a fine, upstanding black man. I have been told by many black friends that visit my church that they are quite disturbed with how aggressively they are courted by church members begging them to join our white, upper-class congregation. It doesn't really matter if you are a poor black single mother or a well-to-do black family you are going to be welcomed into my church because we want to appear non-discriminatory. The sad thing is when my dear friend who was a lower middle class, overweight white man from a rural town came to my church he was generally ignored.

Have we not learned? Discrimination is still alive and well here in the South. It doesn't matter if you are against someone that looks black or someone that looks poor we are still judging someone by the way they look rather than the way they are. My dear friend who was excluded by the wealthy of my church is a successful businessman who has also served as an Evengelical Christian pastor for more than thirty years. He may look lower class because he was raised by poor white farmers who built their fortune from the ground up and changed the moral standing of their community by living the most godly example I have ever seen anyone live without adopting the expensive clothes and habits of those in my church. This man who looks below your class will not bat an eye to meet your most basic need emotionally, spiritually, and physically, but the members of my church would rather edge him out of their church, and keep people that look like him from shopping in their city. I feel like my church and city has ignored Christ's call to reach out to "the least of these my brothers".

It is time to look ourselves honestly because we fail our Saviour so easily. I am going to have to do the same because right now I am seeing that I will easily discriminate against the guy driving by in the BMW with his nose in the air. Jesus loves you too, and I may have misjudged you. I hope I have.

What to do with Sarah

I started this post a while back and decided to put it up today.

1 Peter 3:5-6 "For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening."

During adult Sunday School this morning we just barely touched on this passage as we discussed Scripture passages that are often taken out of context. There is a whole bunch of discussion that can be had on the place of submission in marriage as the Protestant Bible describes it, but suffice it to say that I do not believe that the man is the absolute ruler of his home and his wife is to bend to his every silly whim. Sarah, Abraham's wife that was mentioned in the above passage, was upheld as an example that called her husband "lord" and obeyed him. My wife stated that she had trouble thinking of Sarah as a woman whose example should be followed. She probably remembered how Sarah lied for her husband and twisted a plan to get Hagar to bear a child for her, but Sarah is a great example of how God sees past our limited view.

Since Peter references Sarah's faith in frightening times I suspect that he is thinking of the times she was virtually imprisoned in another man's home because of her husband's deception. We westerners often think that she should have insisted on saying she was married the two times her husband passed her off as only his sister, but consider the possibility that women were essentially property in that time and place. If Sarah had tried to convince her captors that she was married it is possible that she would have been punished for lying since her owner's (Abraham) word would have meant more than hers. Sarah knew that Abraham had been promised a child THROUGH HER, and so, if I read Peter correctly, she trusted God to protect her even when not where she wanted to be.

So how do I explain to my girls how to emulate Sarah?
Link: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Peter+3%3A1-7

Facing Reality

Happy New Year! I hope this year is as good as my last year was. Yesterday Wonderful went through a bunch of the letters I wrote to her over the years and I was reminded of all the chances we had to lose our close relationship that I treasure so much. The same day I learned that another acquaintance has finalized his divorce after his wife left. There are somany reasonsthat a marriage can break up, but two people committed to each other can surmount each one if both are willing to work. Thank you Wonderful for starting another New Year with me. I want you more than ever!

How I succeeded as an iridologist

I sat through many of my father's iridology sessions before I felt confident to do my own, but after practicing for a year I realized that I was beginning to adapt a technique for what many call "cold reading". I began to test my hypothesis, and I realized I could really pull it off with reasonable success. Even now I occasionally have former patients show up to my parents' office looking for me because I was the only one who helped them twelve years ago. Now the times have changed and I seek to do hard science with my patients as a nurse, but those little signals that I learned still give me clues as to what may be wrong with some of my patients. When working in the ER I have fun playing my intuitive game while determining what needs the patient has that he/she is not communicating. Looking back I realize my father is a master cold reader who is so good that he doesn't even realize what he is doing. It began when he started working as a pastor offering counseling. This great video explains how that can occur, though my father never sought to be fraudulent in any way. He is just very good at instinctively picking up on hidden signals.

Get-Mas Revisited

Almost a year ago I wrote about my frustration over the Christian worry that we are going to lose the "true" meaning of Christmas. It grates on my ears every time I hear Christians try to defend their pagan holiday as "Jesus' Birthday" and how it is sacred. Last year I attempted to flesh this out, and even try to get my family and friends who complained that "Jesus' Birthday" is being damaged by the athiests to actually separate the gift giving from the day so that it is truly made a day to focus on Jesus. Wow! The response I got was telling. "You can't have Christmas without the gifts!" I was told. So I learned that American Christmas is not really about Jesus, but it is about the original pagan practice of gift-giving to which the Roman Catholics added Jesus. This is ironic to me in that the same people who insist that we keep true to the original intent of the American Constitution and the originally understood meaning of biblical.creation stories actually prefer a recent incarnation of a pagan festival. So here I stand again insisting that Christ is not truly a part of American Christmas and that our Christian activists need to be honest or actually make Christmas about Jesus and celebrate gifts another day. New Year's day would be a great pagan holiday to give gifts on.

I am stardust...

One of my favorite ideas is the fact that the molecules that make up our bodies are truly combinations of elements that were originally shed by the stars at the beginning of our universe. As the quote attributed to Allan Sandage goes:

 ”Every one of our chemical elements was once inside a star. The same star. You and I are brothers. We came from the same supernova.”

Just a thought that came to me after watching an astronomer's video on YouTube tonight.

The last book

I took the risky move of borrowing a sci-fi film that I didn't know anything about. I did this mainly because it had Denzel Washington in it and I generally like his work. The movie was a bit of a surprise in that it had a good bit of philosophical interest for me. This is not to say that I will watch with my children or parents. It is not that kind of movie, but it is one that raises an interesting question of what the end of our society could be.

The story occurs thirty year after a war basically destroys the world with very little food for a still very populated planet. Some people resort to cannibalism while others resort to other methods of survival. The camera follows one Eli who seems to be a superman type of character with a few interesting.flaws and scruples. As the story moves on we find that most people in the world are illiterate and destroyed all the Bibles they could find attributing the war to the followers of the book. Eli is lead by "a voice" to the last Bible and carries it on a 30 year pilgrimage to safety. Don't worry I didn't ruin the movie for anyone still wanting to watch it, though I will admit that it is not all that great outside some of its cerebral interests.

What would the world look like without the Bible? In the movie and in the minds of many people that argue for Biblical morality the world would be a lawless and destructive place without the moral guidance of the Holy Scriptures to guide us. In fact I must disagree for three reasons.

1. Christians don't even follow scripture as a moral guide. Ask most Christians about their guiding Scriptural passages and you will get some innocuous verses or phrases they learned in elementary Sunday School mixed with some concepts they picked up from some popular speaker or writer. Ask any Christian on the street and you will find that they can barely make their way through a Bible much less relate the basic message in each book of the Bible. I can assure you that almost none have read the Bible from cover to cover. So what do Christians find as a moral compass? They use their culture, though not necessarily their secular culture. The leaders of various evangelical factions hold a cultural sway strong enough that churches and political groups can count on them to vote their way in most elections. James Dobson, James Kennedy, and even the Mormon Glenn Beck can be included in this influential group although there are others with slightly less influence in the Southern Baptist Convention, and Bob Jones University. That a Mormon can lead Evangelicals is a sign that theology is not a necessary prerequisite. Most American Christians follow their herd instincts to do whatever their Christian friends and leaders do.

2. History teaches us that Scripture is not a very strong moral guide. The situation presented in the movie is actually a rough representation of what happened after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Roman Catholic Church held the Scripture in high regard, but did not develop a strong moral or legal code from Scripture. In fact the Greek and Roman philosophers were the moral compass to which Scripture was adapted. Interestingly even our American Founding Fathers followed the Roman and Greek guides along with some Native American examples as practical helps in developing our country with Biblical adaptations that probably added legitimacy to their work.

3. This reason is the most compelling of all- There is not a single moral code in Scripture. My favorite example is that of the value of human life. Modern Christians hold that all human life is sacred, but that standard is not widely applied in Scripture. Jesus comes the closest to holding this standard. Modern Christians would do well to follow the moral guidance of Jesus, but then their theologic standard may be problematic.
While Jesus clearly stated that He did not come to destroy the Law He did cast doubt on its practical value. Even in the Old Testament not all rules were applied consistently with God arbitrarily guiding His people in various actions that contradicted His supposed law. For example, modern Christians would dismiss the command to sacrifice a child for God as a command from a demon and not God, and yet Abraham was congratulated for bringing his son to the altar. Several times throughout the Bible the authors congratulate the heroes for their situational ethics as a deeper understanding of God's implied law.

Not only are American Christians not following the moral law of the Bible they are probably making the better choice. I just hope they someday realize it and stop following all the evangelical fads they seem to love so much. It would hurt if we all actually thought for ourselves.

Is Murder Justified?

I follow a number of blogs for personal growth and education. Among these blogs are some that focus on science, religion, and theology from different perspectives. One blog I like is entirely for fun. It is the blog of a philosophy professor who designs online questionnaires that act as philosophy experiments. The most recent addition to his series is a set of questions answering the above question. While philosophy tends to deal in hypothetical questions, especially as related to questions of morality, this set of questions mostly relate to true situations and how the reader responds to them. Jeremy Stangroom chose as one of his questions the scenario of Richard Parker who was killed by his shipmates after they found themselves shipwrecked and starving in a lifeboat. Richard Parker was chosen to be killed to sustain the lives of the other men because he did not have a wife and children depending on him, and it seemed that he was on the verge of dying anyway. Later investigators agreed that the men would have died had they not eaten the body of Richard, but they were convicted of murder even though the murder was the only choice possible to save the lives of several men.

One of the interesting questions that this raises is what would be the Biblical response to this situation? American Christians would state that every life is precious which is why they tend to dislike abortion and euthanasia, and so they would tend to feel that one life is too precious a cost for the attempt at saving two or more other lives. Of course this instinctive response is not necessarily Biblical. Based on the math present in the many Bible stories that deal with substitutionary death one life lost is a reasonable cost for the saving of many others. This is an issue at conflict with the American Evangelical aversion to abortion. God is certainly not "pro-life" in the Bible, and yet many Americans would still oppose abortion and the killing of Richard Parker as being against Scripture when their ethics really are a product of their culture and not the Bible.

Wild at Heart

My wife and I recently watched a movie about Christopher McCandless who, in an attempt to find himself and be cleansed of his worldly distractions, found his way to wilderness Alaska where he lived for a few months and eventually died. It is fascinating to me to see this story and recognize the idealism of the young man. I remarked to Wonderful that I was considering something similar when I was single in my twenties because I felt that I has been damaged by my materialistic society too. I had even gone so far as to research how to disappear without a trace, but I abandoned my quest for an escape when I realized that I had a responsibility to give to my society. I could not simply walk away from everything and accomplish what I was created to do. I also had a deep attachment to my parents, who are wonderfully loving, and realized that I really needed them in a sense. So I branched out in other ways and found a position hundreds of miles from home where I made a name for myself, and surrounded myself with people who didn't care about my father's accomplishments. I learned the same things about the value of relationships that Christopher did without risking my parents' sanity so much.


I look back at those days of idealism and realize that I had so much to learn. I have watched many teenagers grow up, and it is true for them as it was for me- you change alot every year until you are late into your twenties. I think it has something to do with brain development. At any rate when I was younger I preached a good sermon and persuaded some people who were charmed by my simplistic idealism like Christoper did, but in the intervening years I learned it isn't so simple. Like Christopher I was arrogant and selfish, and if he survived his time in Alaska I wonder if he would look back on his youthful idealism with the same level of regret that I do. 


If I could, I would go back and tell myself that not so many people are persuaded by the truth as you expect there should be. I thought it would be so simple to find the truth and share it, but the fact is that "truth" is much more complex and elusive than it appears to a young mind. I would tell myself that people are not as easy to understand as they should be. I wish I could tell myself at twenty that people are much more important than ideals, and relationships are much more valuable than ironing out contradictions. People lie to themselves much more than they realize, and miss the point much more than they should. But they have so much to offer even so.


I still feel right about the materialism, though. We can acquire things and a name, but in the end the monument erases the person it represents, and memories become the story while the true person melts away into nothing. Ask John Adams about that, he would know.