Early in my reconsideration of Christianity I came across the concept of morality as a construct of a religious belief, and I began to wonder if our morality really is the work of our religion. There are several ways to look at this, but the most easy I can consider right now is the issue of genocide. It is fascinating that genocide was repeatedly commanded by God in the Bible, and yet many Christians quote the Bible to support their calls against genocide. What is truly happening is that the culture is pressuring Christians to hold certain views as morally good, and Christians are selecting, or "cherry-picking", Bible passages that support their ideals rather than acknowledging the contradiction found in Scripture between our modern dislike of genocide and the Scriptural mandates to support it. If Christians were to be truly Biblical, they would support the wholesale murder of all Muslims and resettlement of their lands by Christians or Jews.A more whimsical look at how our culture dictates our choices is reflected in my post last year about the mistaken belief that Christmas is about Jesus (http://me-as-me.blogspot.com/2009/11/get-mas.html). At any rate an interesting blog post about morality adds much more to the discussion than I can at this time- http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/why_should_i_be_moral/
I am interested in your thoughts.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
dissecting
I am an OR nurse which means many of my interests relate to something in surgery. Having scrubbed in and assisting surgeons for ten years really cements this tendency. At any rate dissecting tissue is fascinating me. One of my favorite surgeons with which I have worked is a Dr. Max Austin, a GYN/oncologist who always brought residents with him to the OR. Not only did I get to see the surgeries he did I also enjoyed hearing him explain to new doctors why he did what he did. I stood fascinated as he led his residents through each step of the procedure, and one part I found interesting right at first is the fact that he was always looking for "the plane".
"The plane" is the point where the obvious change between types of tissue occurs. Whether it be the layer of cells between the abdominal lining and the muscle of the uterus, or the muscle of the uterus and its lining these layers often are easier to separate if you can find the point where one begins and the other ends and begin to separate them there. I have since seen the principle apply to dissecting around gallbladders or prostates. The point at which such dissection becomes difficult is when a cancer has invaded the tissue surrounding the tumor. I have seen the tendrils of cancer tumors totally obliterate the normal planes leaving surgeons to guess where to dissect. When planes are difficult to find worse bleeding occurs and complications are more severe with surgery time being much greater. Another occurrence that makes finding the plane more difficult is scarring from prior surgery or disease.
As I looked over the last post it occurred to me that some may find it difficult to discern where I find the plane between truth and falsehood in health care. The fact is that I identified many poor health care choices that various family members made in a week of being together. At first glance it would seem that I simply rejected those practices that are not part of conventional medical practice. This is why I have been accused of being totally against alternative "medicine". The fact is that the plane between truth and falsehood is much more difficult to demonstrate.
Let's take, for example, the colloidal silver that my mom applied to every cut and burn and made everyone who had signs of infection take. I don't support the use of colloidal silver, but it is not because I know of an alternative "doctor" who prescribed it. In fact what happened is that my mother sent this colloidal silver liquid to me to prevent an infection in my family. Her statement was that taking a little silver every day prevented bacterial and viral growth in the body and kept one healthy.
My first thought was common- nothing can fix everything. It is true that many claims made by alternative health care practitioners regarding their wares cover everything from arthritis to cancer, but these claims have never borne much fruit. Consider this fact- if colloidal silver did kill every bacteria, then there goes the gut bacteria that help us make vitamin K. How about your skin bacteria that protect us from staph infections? Does silver taken orally kill off all the bacteria that give one bad breath?
Even though I know the claims made for silver may be a bit extreme I always consider the possibility that some truth may underlie the excessive claims. In fact studies done almost one hundred years ago supported the idea that ingesting silver molecules in liquid solutions reduced bacterial infections. The downside was that more then 3000 milligrams of silver were necessary daily to have that effect, and even so it was only a mild antibacterial that did not prevent pneumonia very well. This massive dosage of silver did have one obvious effect in that it turns the skin gray.
In my dissection of the facts from falsehoods in claims such as these I often start with recognized authorities. Many of my alternative |"medicine" friends decry such sources because they see it in the best interest of the authorities to suppress information that will support alternative "medicine". In my experience such authorities are a great place to start in research because they have history on their side and love to share it. In the case of silver the CDC, FDA, and EPA all had interesting articles that they published on the different risks and benefits of silver. In the case of a common item such as silver one of my favorite places to start is the EPA because they have files of MSDS sheets produced on such items which are used in industry. This is where toxic doses may be found. The EPA data was especially helpful in developing my information on ozone generators.
Back to silver. After finding that the official history of silver in medicine was less that sterling I thought I should see what additional claims were being made for those who sold silver. I found that Nature's Sunshine stated that their colloidal silver preparations had specially formulated silver molecules that are more bioavailable than older preparations. The question in my mind is now how much is necessary to have an effect? For this information I turned to Medline to find studies on local effects of silver preparations on infections. The studies I found reported that a fairly high concentration of silver was necessary to retard the growth of micro-organisms in any tissue. Even if the silver in colloidal silver liquids was more bioavailable the body would have to deposit enough silver in the effective area to essentially turn the area gray. Taking this much silver would have negative effects on helpful bacteria and cause many more health problems than it would help. As a side note none of the colloidal silver preparations have high enough concentrations that would have provided the necessary silver to have the desired and undesired effects. One would have to drink gallons of the the colloidal silver solution to gain any benefit.
But was there some truth to these claims? Technically yes. Silver solutions with high concentrations of silver molecules have been known to reduce the growth of bacteria in the lab. The question is whether the complex biologic systems in the body will allow silver to do its work. The most effective silver applications have been topical creams and silver impregnated dressings used for severe wounds or extensive surgical wounds. Short-term trial results have been mixed, but some people swear by silver dressings in the hospital. They are most effective at reducing the risk of infection in clean wounds, but don't seem to help already infected wounds. In my own experience silver impregnate creams are not as effective as triple-antibiotic creams. Oral silver whether colloidal or otherwise just hasn't lived up to its expectations.
So, in answer to those who say I dismiss all alternative "medicine" claims outright the answer is a qualified no. I totally reject palm readers and craniosacral therapy because the science just isn't there, but other claims I look into because I often find something I can use in my own practice. I even research odd claims just in case. It is a matter of looking for the plane between truth and falsehood, and being alert for the sometimes very thin line.
"The plane" is the point where the obvious change between types of tissue occurs. Whether it be the layer of cells between the abdominal lining and the muscle of the uterus, or the muscle of the uterus and its lining these layers often are easier to separate if you can find the point where one begins and the other ends and begin to separate them there. I have since seen the principle apply to dissecting around gallbladders or prostates. The point at which such dissection becomes difficult is when a cancer has invaded the tissue surrounding the tumor. I have seen the tendrils of cancer tumors totally obliterate the normal planes leaving surgeons to guess where to dissect. When planes are difficult to find worse bleeding occurs and complications are more severe with surgery time being much greater. Another occurrence that makes finding the plane more difficult is scarring from prior surgery or disease.
As I looked over the last post it occurred to me that some may find it difficult to discern where I find the plane between truth and falsehood in health care. The fact is that I identified many poor health care choices that various family members made in a week of being together. At first glance it would seem that I simply rejected those practices that are not part of conventional medical practice. This is why I have been accused of being totally against alternative "medicine". The fact is that the plane between truth and falsehood is much more difficult to demonstrate.
Let's take, for example, the colloidal silver that my mom applied to every cut and burn and made everyone who had signs of infection take. I don't support the use of colloidal silver, but it is not because I know of an alternative "doctor" who prescribed it. In fact what happened is that my mother sent this colloidal silver liquid to me to prevent an infection in my family. Her statement was that taking a little silver every day prevented bacterial and viral growth in the body and kept one healthy.
My first thought was common- nothing can fix everything. It is true that many claims made by alternative health care practitioners regarding their wares cover everything from arthritis to cancer, but these claims have never borne much fruit. Consider this fact- if colloidal silver did kill every bacteria, then there goes the gut bacteria that help us make vitamin K. How about your skin bacteria that protect us from staph infections? Does silver taken orally kill off all the bacteria that give one bad breath?
Even though I know the claims made for silver may be a bit extreme I always consider the possibility that some truth may underlie the excessive claims. In fact studies done almost one hundred years ago supported the idea that ingesting silver molecules in liquid solutions reduced bacterial infections. The downside was that more then 3000 milligrams of silver were necessary daily to have that effect, and even so it was only a mild antibacterial that did not prevent pneumonia very well. This massive dosage of silver did have one obvious effect in that it turns the skin gray.
In my dissection of the facts from falsehoods in claims such as these I often start with recognized authorities. Many of my alternative |"medicine" friends decry such sources because they see it in the best interest of the authorities to suppress information that will support alternative "medicine". In my experience such authorities are a great place to start in research because they have history on their side and love to share it. In the case of silver the CDC, FDA, and EPA all had interesting articles that they published on the different risks and benefits of silver. In the case of a common item such as silver one of my favorite places to start is the EPA because they have files of MSDS sheets produced on such items which are used in industry. This is where toxic doses may be found. The EPA data was especially helpful in developing my information on ozone generators.
Back to silver. After finding that the official history of silver in medicine was less that sterling I thought I should see what additional claims were being made for those who sold silver. I found that Nature's Sunshine stated that their colloidal silver preparations had specially formulated silver molecules that are more bioavailable than older preparations. The question in my mind is now how much is necessary to have an effect? For this information I turned to Medline to find studies on local effects of silver preparations on infections. The studies I found reported that a fairly high concentration of silver was necessary to retard the growth of micro-organisms in any tissue. Even if the silver in colloidal silver liquids was more bioavailable the body would have to deposit enough silver in the effective area to essentially turn the area gray. Taking this much silver would have negative effects on helpful bacteria and cause many more health problems than it would help. As a side note none of the colloidal silver preparations have high enough concentrations that would have provided the necessary silver to have the desired and undesired effects. One would have to drink gallons of the the colloidal silver solution to gain any benefit.
But was there some truth to these claims? Technically yes. Silver solutions with high concentrations of silver molecules have been known to reduce the growth of bacteria in the lab. The question is whether the complex biologic systems in the body will allow silver to do its work. The most effective silver applications have been topical creams and silver impregnated dressings used for severe wounds or extensive surgical wounds. Short-term trial results have been mixed, but some people swear by silver dressings in the hospital. They are most effective at reducing the risk of infection in clean wounds, but don't seem to help already infected wounds. In my own experience silver impregnate creams are not as effective as triple-antibiotic creams. Oral silver whether colloidal or otherwise just hasn't lived up to its expectations.
So, in answer to those who say I dismiss all alternative "medicine" claims outright the answer is a qualified no. I totally reject palm readers and craniosacral therapy because the science just isn't there, but other claims I look into because I often find something I can use in my own practice. I even research odd claims just in case. It is a matter of looking for the plane between truth and falsehood, and being alert for the sometimes very thin line.
Monday, July 05, 2010
How should a nurse nurse?
I had a delightful time with family last week. It was such a delightful time that I fought tears for hours as I faced the prospect of piling everyone into the car, and then as I left with my four securely buckled in. A few times tears did spill especially as I hugged my dearly loved parents and siblings goodbye. I love and enjoy the people who gave me life and a future!
As always, the grouping of several families that live different lives creates tension. This past week highlighted some of our differences as my extended family and I encountered various health problems. An interesting cream that one family member used for every skin lesion was a colloidal silver preparation. Another application of this silver preparation was used on a young boy who presented with an upper respiratory infection that had a moderately high fever (103 f). An oral liquid with silver suspension was given to the boy regularly throughout the day with the hope that the body would take the minute amount of silver in the liquid to the area of infection and kill the causative organism.
Reflexology and what appeared to be craniosacral therapy was used to treat this small boy's fever as well as garlic cloves that were attached to his feet where they were supposed to be more easily absorbed. The parents involved also gave the boy a vinegar bath and oral feverfew (herb) to reduce his fever. I will not discuss the efficacy of these methods now, but I will state that the mother of the child finally resorted to acetaminophen to bring the fever to more tolerable levels.
I also encountered a family member using a "Q-Ray" bracelet for his musculoskeletal health. In the midst of all this were the dietary options provided by various family members who believed their siblings or spouses had food allergies with questionable symptoms, and the ubiquitous ozone generators that the host family uses to "clean" the air in the home.
What is the nurse who follows science-based medicine to do? I love each of these family members and want to have meaningful encounters with them in the future, and yet I can identify several lapses in science-based health care which are sometimes purposeful and other times inadvertent. I finally chose to overlook the poor science while practicing it as best I could, and hope for the best though I did mention to the parent involved that I had acetaminophen if she wanted it for her child. I do not know what the hardcore ethical thing would be to do. I suppose I could have sensitized my family members to each of what I felt was their poor choices, but I feel as if I would have ruined my future potential for good with them as well. More importantly I love each member of my family and the concern of losing my relationship with them is greater than the desire to have them follow perfect health practices which they would not necessarily recognize as such or even be prepared to recognize.
As always, the grouping of several families that live different lives creates tension. This past week highlighted some of our differences as my extended family and I encountered various health problems. An interesting cream that one family member used for every skin lesion was a colloidal silver preparation. Another application of this silver preparation was used on a young boy who presented with an upper respiratory infection that had a moderately high fever (103 f). An oral liquid with silver suspension was given to the boy regularly throughout the day with the hope that the body would take the minute amount of silver in the liquid to the area of infection and kill the causative organism.
Reflexology and what appeared to be craniosacral therapy was used to treat this small boy's fever as well as garlic cloves that were attached to his feet where they were supposed to be more easily absorbed. The parents involved also gave the boy a vinegar bath and oral feverfew (herb) to reduce his fever. I will not discuss the efficacy of these methods now, but I will state that the mother of the child finally resorted to acetaminophen to bring the fever to more tolerable levels.
I also encountered a family member using a "Q-Ray" bracelet for his musculoskeletal health. In the midst of all this were the dietary options provided by various family members who believed their siblings or spouses had food allergies with questionable symptoms, and the ubiquitous ozone generators that the host family uses to "clean" the air in the home.
What is the nurse who follows science-based medicine to do? I love each of these family members and want to have meaningful encounters with them in the future, and yet I can identify several lapses in science-based health care which are sometimes purposeful and other times inadvertent. I finally chose to overlook the poor science while practicing it as best I could, and hope for the best though I did mention to the parent involved that I had acetaminophen if she wanted it for her child. I do not know what the hardcore ethical thing would be to do. I suppose I could have sensitized my family members to each of what I felt was their poor choices, but I feel as if I would have ruined my future potential for good with them as well. More importantly I love each member of my family and the concern of losing my relationship with them is greater than the desire to have them follow perfect health practices which they would not necessarily recognize as such or even be prepared to recognize.
Last week
Last week saw me with my dear family. Mom and Dad have all the children of their progeny over for a cousin's camp the last week of June every year. I have always loved this as a chance to spend time getting to know my nephews and nieces, as well as a chance to spend time with siblings. Sadly work kept all the guys away but myself and Dad so I spent a great bit of my time with the kids running games and teaching bible verses to the younger kids while Dad taught the older ones and read the missionary story of John Paton to the group. Mom and Dad focused on the theme of bugs for cousin's camp this year, and the kids loved it. Kristen, my sister, took the theme to a new level with bug themed meals including a beautiful ladybug cake for two of the cousin's birthday, bug shaped snacks, and even (scrumptious!) meatloaf molded in the shapes of four different bugs. We had a great time! My favorite contributions were the bug videos, family pictures on the TV screen, and IDs of the fish the kids caught in the creeks that border my parents' land. for your info- they caught a full grown tessellated darter, eastern blacknose dace, and at least two different types of crayfish along with several small minnows that were not identified. I also introduced the children to the joys of Pat and Mat as well as the videos of Miniscule and Bakkom , as well as some educational videos on bugs-
In all, we had fun!
In all, we had fun!
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Death by Homeopathy?
Steven Novella who blogs on Neurologica recently wrote a post that presents the idea that those who practice homeopathy can be held accountable for the deaths of those that believe them and follow their instructions. The story he tells is of a woman who died of a very curable form of cancer when she followed her homeopath's advice and refused surgery and chemotherapy which would likely have been curative. I do not recall having personally dealt with anyone who practiced alternative medicine that suggested their patients totally reject their medical doctor's advice in favor of alternative medicine. I have worked with some who have suggested quite strongly that the medical "habit" of "cut, burn, and poison" will not work as well as their supposed superior methods. As an aside I find it interesting that herbalists fuss at pharmacologists for their "unnatural poisons" while the herbalist sells "natural" poisons that supposedly do the same thing. I suppose an herbalist would object to the cut and burn for cancer but should admit that they too poison. I personally have never seen a cancer patient with verified cancer diagnosis cured by alternative medicine. I have seen many cancer patients cured by conventional medicine while also taking alternative medicine.
The point of my post is to follow up from the perspective of someone who was an adherent to the false medicine type that killed the woman mentioned by Novella. I can see how one person whose career in alternative "medicine" I have followed quite closely would respond to the above story. He would state that he practices "complementary medicine" and is most successful when he can coordinate care with a medical professional. The bizarre logic of the statement aside this naturopath's practice is not necessarily in line with his statement. I recently received an e-mail from a family member who stated he was ending his cancer treatment on the advice of this particular practitioner. Here is how it works- the patient comes to his "alternative medical doctor" and the "doctor" assures the patient that he can do something in this case (the alternative medical doctor will always have something that he thinks might work). The patient, with a sigh of relief, asks the "doctor" if he needs to have his chemotherapy continued (or whatever else was advised), and the "doctor" suggests that he probably does not need it but he cannot say to stop it. The "doctor" stops just short of telling the patient to leave off his effective truly medical treatment and so can say with a clear conscience that he did not tell the patient to stop it, but remember that the "doctor" of naturopathy claims the same amount of knowledge as the oncologist, and the patient trusts the suggestions of the naturopath as much as the oncologist. It is not the same as getting a second opinion, but many patients who do not understand these things think that they got a good second opinion from a well-studied professional when they go to an alternative health advisor because they call themselves doctor.
The key here is that the "doctor" really believes that his methods actually work. It may be because his ideology gives him certainty, or because he just doesn't know any better and has fallen victim to confirmation bias. The naturopath I mentioned above believes that he is more knowledgeable than most medical doctors, and has sought a means by which he could legally call himself "doctor" without actually doing the work that PhD candidates or MDs have done to be called "doctor". This particular naturopath took some correspondence "coursework" from what is a known diploma mill, and then sat for an exam from some shady accreditation board that is not recognized by the department of education. The board then conferred on this man a doctorate which only cost him $400. The US state in which he practices does not regulate naturopaths and so he is free to practice as a doctor of naturopathy. He honestly feels that his recently acquired title will allow him the recognition that will allow him to accomplish the things he feels he can do better than most medical doctors.
This brings me to my new blog title. my friend very sincerely believes that he knows a great deal, but that doesn't make it true. A recent visit to my friend's office showed me just how wrong he is. My friend has a palm reader that connects to his computer to scan a person's health condition from their hand and input it into a computer program. He also does live blood cell analysis, and uses several other dubious methods to diagnose health problems. In addition to all this he sends his patients away with herbs and other potentially dangerous "natural" medications.
It is true that a medical degree does not make a genius, and I must admit that my friend the naturopath does very well with his limited education. The problem is that a genius can only work with the tools he has acquired. A dunce can muddle through medical school training and work as an inferior doctor, but a genius only has potential until he has training. Many critiques of alternative medicine dismiss the alternative "doctor" as a money-grubbing quack who is knowingly endangering their patients, but there are a majority that truly believe that their limited knowledge is enough to truly help people. Many don't really even know how to critique their own mistakes, and are easily led astray by shady dealers who sell them crazy things like palm readers and degrees that won't ever be accepted by the board of education. Sadly these advisors will be responsible for leading many to their deaths even if unintentionally.
The point of my post is to follow up from the perspective of someone who was an adherent to the false medicine type that killed the woman mentioned by Novella. I can see how one person whose career in alternative "medicine" I have followed quite closely would respond to the above story. He would state that he practices "complementary medicine" and is most successful when he can coordinate care with a medical professional. The bizarre logic of the statement aside this naturopath's practice is not necessarily in line with his statement. I recently received an e-mail from a family member who stated he was ending his cancer treatment on the advice of this particular practitioner. Here is how it works- the patient comes to his "alternative medical doctor" and the "doctor" assures the patient that he can do something in this case (the alternative medical doctor will always have something that he thinks might work). The patient, with a sigh of relief, asks the "doctor" if he needs to have his chemotherapy continued (or whatever else was advised), and the "doctor" suggests that he probably does not need it but he cannot say to stop it. The "doctor" stops just short of telling the patient to leave off his effective truly medical treatment and so can say with a clear conscience that he did not tell the patient to stop it, but remember that the "doctor" of naturopathy claims the same amount of knowledge as the oncologist, and the patient trusts the suggestions of the naturopath as much as the oncologist. It is not the same as getting a second opinion, but many patients who do not understand these things think that they got a good second opinion from a well-studied professional when they go to an alternative health advisor because they call themselves doctor.
The key here is that the "doctor" really believes that his methods actually work. It may be because his ideology gives him certainty, or because he just doesn't know any better and has fallen victim to confirmation bias. The naturopath I mentioned above believes that he is more knowledgeable than most medical doctors, and has sought a means by which he could legally call himself "doctor" without actually doing the work that PhD candidates or MDs have done to be called "doctor". This particular naturopath took some correspondence "coursework" from what is a known diploma mill, and then sat for an exam from some shady accreditation board that is not recognized by the department of education. The board then conferred on this man a doctorate which only cost him $400. The US state in which he practices does not regulate naturopaths and so he is free to practice as a doctor of naturopathy. He honestly feels that his recently acquired title will allow him the recognition that will allow him to accomplish the things he feels he can do better than most medical doctors.
This brings me to my new blog title. my friend very sincerely believes that he knows a great deal, but that doesn't make it true. A recent visit to my friend's office showed me just how wrong he is. My friend has a palm reader that connects to his computer to scan a person's health condition from their hand and input it into a computer program. He also does live blood cell analysis, and uses several other dubious methods to diagnose health problems. In addition to all this he sends his patients away with herbs and other potentially dangerous "natural" medications.
It is true that a medical degree does not make a genius, and I must admit that my friend the naturopath does very well with his limited education. The problem is that a genius can only work with the tools he has acquired. A dunce can muddle through medical school training and work as an inferior doctor, but a genius only has potential until he has training. Many critiques of alternative medicine dismiss the alternative "doctor" as a money-grubbing quack who is knowingly endangering their patients, but there are a majority that truly believe that their limited knowledge is enough to truly help people. Many don't really even know how to critique their own mistakes, and are easily led astray by shady dealers who sell them crazy things like palm readers and degrees that won't ever be accepted by the board of education. Sadly these advisors will be responsible for leading many to their deaths even if unintentionally.
Monday, May 10, 2010
"Sunday's Coming" Trailer
I think this is an interesting view of Sunday Morning in certain Churches
"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.
"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
National Day of Prayer
Just in case you missed it, the National Day of Prayer occurred today as proclaimed by our president (presidential proclamation - national day of prayer). A judge correctly noted that the National Day of Prayer did not fit the ideals of separation of Church and State envisioned by many of our founding fathers, but she did not suggest that it should be cancelled this year though many people have reported that it was cancelled. Meetings were held around the country to observe the National Day of Prayer. It bothers me that people are making a big deal about how it was "cancelled" when it turns out to be a falsehood. I am reminded of a conversation I had with my daughter last weekend about the fact that anger is not wrong unless it keeps us from being in control of ourselves. Many politicians have learned how to use public anger to gain support, and I am seeing certain politicians using public anger on issues such as the allegedly cancelled National Day of Prayer to gain support for their campaigns. I told Middlesweet to remember that anger should not guide us, but motivate us to act. Let us remember to check the facts and follow the truth rather following our guts as unthinking angry Americans.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Photos!
See our recent update on the snow in Birmingham, Mercedes marathon, kids run, and Sarah & Abby's funny smile after dental work numbed their cheeks. All this on flickr!
Friday, January 22, 2010
Some links and a great virus lesson
As you may be aware I read a bunch on different issues in theology, philosophy, and healthcare. In the last week I have come across a few gems that I wanted to keep and I though you might like them as well. The first is a post on a new method to medically fight viruses in Effect Measure. Some parts of the article are a little heavy on biology, but he starts by explaining how a virus hijacks the cells of the host (read "you"- your the host when the virus makes you sick) with an analogy to the inner functions of an office. It is a great analogy.
Another post that I wanted to save is on raising children to be more able to maintain a moral compass. I warn you that this was bent to support the argument that children raised by atheists are better than those raised by the religious (Raising Children Without God), but the point is still good. Many parents don't take the time to explain themselves to their children because it is more difficult and consumes time, but I (even though I am not an atheist) feel as if I explain myself to my children they are more likely to adapt our moral rules to other situations and not take some authority's word as equal to God's because he/she said so. Think of it as cult-proofing your child, or teaching them to be Bereans. We will leave the argument over whether God's rules are truly arbitrary for another time.
One more gem I was sent by Wonderful is a little more rough cut, but just delightful so I had to share it. It is certainly not original to me.
The Ten Commandments
Some people have trouble with all those 'shall's' and 'shall not's' in the Ten
commandments.Folks just aren't used to talking in those terms. So, in middle Tennessee
they translated the 'King James' into ' Jackson County ' language....
no joke, (posted on the wall at Cross Trails Church in Gainesboro , TN )(1) Just one God
(2) Put nothin' afore God
(3) Watch yer mouth
(4) Git yourself to Sunday meetin'
(5) Honor yer Ma & Pa
(6) No killin'
(7) No foolin' around with another fellow's gal
(8) Don't take what ain't yers
(9) No tellin' tales or gossipin'
(10) Don't be ahankerin' for yer buddy's stuff
Now that's plain an' simple. Y'all have a nice day.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
How to read it
When I was a boy I remember a preacher quoting a verse in the New Testament (Ephesians 4:28) that instructs those who have stolen to cease from their thieving ways and find gainful employment. He quoted it like this - "Let him that stole steal no more; let him labor" and then played with the punctuation to get "Let him who stole steal, no more let him labor." The pastor's point was that the meaning of the passage can be changed by punctuation. Thankfully the Greek is not so difficult to decipher. The passage would have to be twisted purposefully to be misunderstood, but we do tend to make mistakes in how we read other parts of God's revelation. This is why context is so important to help us catch mistakes in reading.
The King James version of Ephesians 4:28 reads- "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." Even if the punctuation was messed up and a few words left out to confuse for a moment the rest of the verse would cause one to consider other meanings that are probable for the verse. The same is true for the rest of God's revelations- when taken together they explain the message. This is why I cannot discredit something a scientist tells me simply because it disagrees with how I read the Bible. It is possible that I misread Scripture because of a bias and missed the point. Here is a great video to further illustrate how re-reading something can bring out other meanings- http://www.wimp.com/freakymessage/
Monday, January 18, 2010
Evil problems
In light of the recent earthquake I was reminded of the "problem of evil". God, as CS Lewis wrote, is not a tame lion who cannot be pegged into any certain category. It would be dishonest to say that accepting God makes it easy to accept the hard things that happen at His hand. I am reposting something I wrote a few months ago on another blog-
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Horror
The dream seemed to be as vivid as if I truly had been there, and the feelings of helpless horror were incredibly memorable. This dream was a continuation of a series of dreams that I have had since I first began reading as a preteen about the Nazi roundups and mass murders in the second World War. In this case I was a member of a group of Jews targeted for elimination and I stood helpless waiting my turn as I watched people ahead of me tormented in terrible ways before they were murdered. I awoke with a shudder and the question occurred to me "Why did I survive?" As my mind came back to full awareness I realized that my survival was as it always was in my dreams, but then I noted with revulsion that people are still torturing their fellow humans in such ways even today. While the dream was not real, it reflected in a small way events that happen all the time around the world where one group of people is powerful enough to treat others to such horrors as most Americans have no concept.
This is the problem I have with the form of Christianity that I practice in which I acknowledge the existence of a supreme creator deity that supersedes and controls every other member of reality. We call this deity The righteous, loving God and discuss Him as an all-knowing, all-present, and all-powerful person who is perfectly good and just. With all this recognized why on earth (or any part of the universe for that matter) would this wonderful deity allow such things to occur as the horrors that people experience in the world today? This is my version of the problem of evil- If God is so good why does He let really bad things happen?
Some of the answers that come instantly to mind is that Satan causes evil or that God is doing a greater good by allowing suffering now. I instantly dismiss the claim that Satan is at fault for evil. Satan may be noted in the Bible as the actor that produces evil, but God limits and controls what evil Satan does. God, even if it is indirect, plans and controls the evil that happens. Think, for example, of the fateful conversation between God and Satan that is recorded in the book of Job where God gives incremental allowances for the level of suffering which Satan is to subject Job just to prove that God is right about Job's righteousness.
If God is truly good and just why does He allow evil when He can control it? Some of the arguments I have heard or thought of to explain this are the ideas that God wants us to have the option to choose Him so He allows the option to choose evil, that God allows us to see such horrors to contrast His goodness or to give hope of a better future in Heaven, and that God has a better view of what is going on and what is evil in our view is good in the bigger picture which He can only see. I have to admit that I am still unsure that any of these work. Is it possible that the common American Christian view of God as a sweet, wonderful, good God is mistaken? Maybe He is a mean, vindictive, petty God who picks and chooses evil events for His own twisted pleasure? What evidence in there in Scripture that God is good?
Friday, January 15, 2010
Belief, sincerity, and truth
"Belief and sincerity do not define truth; it exists despite belief and sincerity." I wrote this about ten years ago on a newsgroup discussion in which I was discussing with some members about how accurate some alternative health care practitioner's claims were. I don't remember the subject of the debate, but one of the members of the newsgroup picked up my comment and posted it to his page of favorite quotes. There- now I am famous in my own mind!
I still believe what I wrote a decade ago. I am now engaged in a bit of an e-mail debate with a close friend on how to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 and I am struck on how strongly his points are based on his instincts rather than facts. What amazes me (though it shouldn't) is the fact that so many people take very strong positions with equally strong belief and sincerity even though facts are lacking. Poor Wonderful acts as my barometer since she has little interest in philosophy, and so she is exposed to my unadulterated craziness to see how other people would see how my ideas would look. When she has that shocked look on her face I know to keep that idea to myself until it is better developed. What strongly disappoints me is that no one seems to be providing a similar service to Pat Robertson who is now exposing his poor understanding of history and theology- (thanks to nakedpastor for the cartoon)
I still believe what I wrote a decade ago. I am now engaged in a bit of an e-mail debate with a close friend on how to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 and I am struck on how strongly his points are based on his instincts rather than facts. What amazes me (though it shouldn't) is the fact that so many people take very strong positions with equally strong belief and sincerity even though facts are lacking. Poor Wonderful acts as my barometer since she has little interest in philosophy, and so she is exposed to my unadulterated craziness to see how other people would see how my ideas would look. When she has that shocked look on her face I know to keep that idea to myself until it is better developed. What strongly disappoints me is that no one seems to be providing a similar service to Pat Robertson who is now exposing his poor understanding of history and theology- (thanks to nakedpastor for the cartoon)
The point is that just because it seems right to you (or me) doesn't mean that it is right. Truth is often found when we allow ourselves the discomfort of going against our gut feeling and examine the facts.
Pat Robertson obviously sincerely believes that God always makes natural disasters (such as the earthquake in Haiti) to punish people. The fact is that the Bible does not present this as a rule. What was God's punishment to Egypt to allow them a famine of seven years during Joseph's time? Looking at the way God tells the story it was not a punishment, but part of His plan. When I veiw these events I am reminded of the observation in Matthew 5:45 that God causes it to rain on both the just and the unjust. The rain may or may not be a good thing, but Jesus seems to have been saying that natural events may not have any more meaning than being part of God's plan (a point which is borne out in other areas of Scripture). The country of Haiti may not be under punishment of God, and there is no way to see for sure what His purpose is since the Bible doesn't address this particular earthquake. God may use this natural disaster as a punishment for some in Haiti and as a conduit of good for others. Pat Robertson does not speak for God, and I hope he figures out that no matter how strongly he feels his belief and sincerity does not define truth.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Another cause for concern
Ron Hamilton (Patch the Pirate) and his wife are awaiting word on what has happened to his father-in-law Dr. Frank Garlock who was in Haiti with his wife for ministry when the earthquake hit this week. Dr. Garlock spoke to his daughter just a little while before the quake hit and the family has not received any more contacts from either Dr. Garlock or his wife since the quake. Keep this inspirational man and his family in your prayers as they deal with this situation. Majesty Music has a page dedicated to the situation- http://www.majestymusic.com/t-drgarlockupdate.aspx
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Misterious Islands
The Mysterious Islands
Starring: Doug Phillips, Joshua Phillips Director: John ErwinThis is a film that is strong in young earth creation (YEC) philosophy. To summarize- YEC ideas are "pre-suppositional" which states that in order to properly understand anything in the world of science and history one must first accept that the Bible is literally true from Genesis to Revelation with a few obvious exceptions (Song of Solomon being one good example). This means that every finding in geology, astronomy, biology, and any other science must first be explained as having occurred in the last 6,000 years having been a part of the plan of the personal God described by conservative evangelical Christians. In fulfilling the above requirements Doug Phillips finds an incredible team consisting of photographer and videographers to document a trip to the Galapagos islands with his son and Dr. Morris- a teacher respected in YEC circles.
The images are absolutely stunning and well-framed. This team really serves up a delightful visual feast from a beautiful place and interesting animals.
Doug Phillips has historically maintained the YEC line that erroneously points to Darwin's ideas as being the philosophic basis of the horrific atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. He follows this line in the the film and also maintains the mistaken view that the best description of Darwin's ideas is "survival of the fittest". Phillips successfully argues against the mistakes of the dead Darwin with recent discoveries, but struggles in explaining how modern discoveries are able to support YEC ideas.
This film presents a summary of "mediated design", the YEC explanation of how evolution is real without seeming to agree with the philosophy that seems to be behind Darwinist evolution. Phillips and Morris haltingly argue genetic evolution is actually theistic evolution, but rename theistic evolution "mediated design" and limit their view of theistic evolution to evolution "within kinds".
Sadly Phillips and Morris fail to adequately describe what defines a "kind" and resort to using vague concepts of species typing. Another major disappointment is that they totally gloss over any genetic evidence for YEC ideas, and expose their gross misunderstanding of what consists of genetic information by stating that genetic mutations only result in "lost information" in a bow to the debunked entropy argument against Darwinist evolution.
If the reader wants a good summary of YEC ideas with awesome images I highly recommend this film, but if the reader wants to see good science and find evidence that will stand strong against modern evolutionary science and philosophy this film will disappoint.
The images are absolutely stunning and well-framed. This team really serves up a delightful visual feast from a beautiful place and interesting animals.
Doug Phillips has historically maintained the YEC line that erroneously points to Darwin's ideas as being the philosophic basis of the horrific atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. He follows this line in the the film and also maintains the mistaken view that the best description of Darwin's ideas is "survival of the fittest". Phillips successfully argues against the mistakes of the dead Darwin with recent discoveries, but struggles in explaining how modern discoveries are able to support YEC ideas.
This film presents a summary of "mediated design", the YEC explanation of how evolution is real without seeming to agree with the philosophy that seems to be behind Darwinist evolution. Phillips and Morris haltingly argue genetic evolution is actually theistic evolution, but rename theistic evolution "mediated design" and limit their view of theistic evolution to evolution "within kinds".
Sadly Phillips and Morris fail to adequately describe what defines a "kind" and resort to using vague concepts of species typing. Another major disappointment is that they totally gloss over any genetic evidence for YEC ideas, and expose their gross misunderstanding of what consists of genetic information by stating that genetic mutations only result in "lost information" in a bow to the debunked entropy argument against Darwinist evolution.
If the reader wants a good summary of YEC ideas with awesome images I highly recommend this film, but if the reader wants to see good science and find evidence that will stand strong against modern evolutionary science and philosophy this film will disappoint.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Special stuff
Thanks to Wonderful's sisterI was able to buy this cool camera at a decent price as an entry level "DSLR". At any rate, I am taking way too many pictures and getting up close and personal with family members and pets. This Saturday I will be taking Brain to the USS Alabama and I plan on taking my now "beater" kodak and Canon EOS with me for lots of awesome picture goodness. Consider me totally psyched man.Friday, December 11, 2009
Infant Feeding Surprise
One of my favorite blogs follows new developments in pediatric medicine pretty closely. I cannot recommend her too highly. At any rate she is reporting on a new study that goes against a bunch of the stuff we thought about food allergy development in young children. You can read her post at http://www.kidsdr.com/daily-dose/changes-are-coming-in-infant-feeding-recommendations. One study does not a law make, but the results if verified in other research will change practices a bit. Just thought someone would like to know.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Get-Mas
The so called "war on Christmas" drives me crazy. The e-mails are going around again whining about various organizations wishing "happy holidays" instead of the traditional "Merry Christmas." I see Christians sneer at those who say ''happy holidays" and I hear the snide response "I celebrate Christmas!" and cringe. Even those Christians who sweetly and gently respond make me cringe because they are exposing a poor understanding of history and theology. A catchy and meaningless cry of those who want to "defend" Christmas is "Jesus is the reason for the season." This strange statement assumes that Christmas was invented by or for Jesus. Another meaningless catchphrase is "keep Christ in Christmas" as if Christ was at the origin of Christmas.
Theologically this whole "war on Christmas" is a puzzle. If Christmas is a Christian holy day why do we even allow outsiders to participate much less force them to celebrate our way? Each God-ordained holiday in Scripture required cleansing form the heart out for even outsiders. On top of this, no celebration of Christ's birth is recommended in the Scripture or even referenced as practiced by the early believers, unlike the long-time celebration of Christ's resurrection. More interestingly birth dates have little importance in Scripture as commemoration times. Few people are celebrated for their births as compared to the those who were celebrated for what they did. To declare the common "Jesus is the reason for the season" is also a theological mistake because Jesus is not the reason for this season any more than Shakespeare is the reason for midsummer. Scripture identifies Jesus as one with God the Creator and as such He is not only the Creator of all seasons beyond Christmas, but He is the focus of all seasons. More on this in a moment
Historically Christmas as an important ancient Christian holy day is a legend. "Keep Christ in Christmas" is slightly more silly than insisting on "keep the Easter Bunny in Easter!" While the events of Christ's death and resurrection do somewhat coincide with pagan spring celebrations, it is almost certain that the events of Christ's birth almost certainly did not coincide with pagan winter celebrations. While we can place Christ's resurrection pretty accurately we question the time of Christ's birth, and so we must wonder why December 25th was chosen.
So, am I going to attempt to outlaw in my home the giving of gifts and decorations that we enjoy this time of year? No. What I want to do is celebrate like my friends in Russia did on their quiet Christmas celebration January 7, 1996. I want to have a special day just for Christ where there is no Santa or reindeer or gifts to distract. I want to have a time for quiet reflection much like we have on Sunday's in our home or Veteran's Day in the US. I want to eventually move the gift-giving to New-Year's day where we can welcome the new year and celebrate the evidences of what God gave us in the old year. I don't know if this all will happen in our home, but this is my wish. Oh, and don't mention the war on Christmas to me. I don't hear "Christmas" anymore but it sounds like "Get-mas" in my ears.
Theologically this whole "war on Christmas" is a puzzle. If Christmas is a Christian holy day why do we even allow outsiders to participate much less force them to celebrate our way? Each God-ordained holiday in Scripture required cleansing form the heart out for even outsiders. On top of this, no celebration of Christ's birth is recommended in the Scripture or even referenced as practiced by the early believers, unlike the long-time celebration of Christ's resurrection. More interestingly birth dates have little importance in Scripture as commemoration times. Few people are celebrated for their births as compared to the those who were celebrated for what they did. To declare the common "Jesus is the reason for the season" is also a theological mistake because Jesus is not the reason for this season any more than Shakespeare is the reason for midsummer. Scripture identifies Jesus as one with God the Creator and as such He is not only the Creator of all seasons beyond Christmas, but He is the focus of all seasons. More on this in a moment
Historically Christmas as an important ancient Christian holy day is a legend. "Keep Christ in Christmas" is slightly more silly than insisting on "keep the Easter Bunny in Easter!" While the events of Christ's death and resurrection do somewhat coincide with pagan spring celebrations, it is almost certain that the events of Christ's birth almost certainly did not coincide with pagan winter celebrations. While we can place Christ's resurrection pretty accurately we question the time of Christ's birth, and so we must wonder why December 25th was chosen.
And [De Origine Festorum Christ.] Hospinian speaketh judiciously, when heRather than keeping Christ in Christmas it seems that Christians have been forever trying to put Christ into some sort of pagan winter celebration. He doesn't exactly fit. I have recently observed that Americans spend more time thinking about the gifts and celebrations that occur using Christ's name than in actually reflecting on the Savior- an indictment on myself and many others with whom I share genes and fellowship. My Wonderful countered that her Aunt Jane certainly did not fit that description, and she is correct, but Wonderful's Aunt Jane also represents the mindset I would want to embody- "Jesus is my reason to live every season."
saith, that he doth not believe that they who first of all observed the Feast of
Christ’s Nativity in the latter end of December, did it as thinking that Christ
was born in that Month, but because the Heathens Saturnalia was at that time
kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian. Hence December was called Mensis Genialis, the Voluptuous Month.
Whilst the Saturnalian Days lasted, the observers of them were wont to send
Gifts one to another, which therefore Tertullian calls Saturnalitia, and Jerom
giveth them the Name of Saturnalium Sportulae. The like is done by many in
Christmas time. ~"A TESTIMONY Against several Prophane and Superstitious
CUSTOMS, Now Practised by some in New-England, The Evil whereof is evinced from the Holy Scriptures, and from the Writings both of Ancient and Modern Divines."
By Increase Mather, 1687
So, am I going to attempt to outlaw in my home the giving of gifts and decorations that we enjoy this time of year? No. What I want to do is celebrate like my friends in Russia did on their quiet Christmas celebration January 7, 1996. I want to have a special day just for Christ where there is no Santa or reindeer or gifts to distract. I want to have a time for quiet reflection much like we have on Sunday's in our home or Veteran's Day in the US. I want to eventually move the gift-giving to New-Year's day where we can welcome the new year and celebrate the evidences of what God gave us in the old year. I don't know if this all will happen in our home, but this is my wish. Oh, and don't mention the war on Christmas to me. I don't hear "Christmas" anymore but it sounds like "Get-mas" in my ears.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Cancer Prevention
I have fought a constant battle with weight since I turned 21 because I feel that I am at high risk for lots of nasty things like diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Research in the recent past has led me to believe that being overweight is associated with increased risk of those things I mentioned above. One thing to think about is that just because two things happen together don't mean one caused the other. My favorite example of this is pickle toxicity- just about every American who died in a car crash last year ate at least one pickle in the prior 12 months. The pickle obviously had nothing to do with the risk of death but the above statement is still true. The pickle example illustrates the fact that just because two things happen together should not lead one to believe that they are related. A number of theories exist as to why obesity is associated with other problems, but given the complexities of the situation it is difficult to establish direct cause and effect. "Fat" people may be found to engage in other risky behaviors that have nothing to do with their weight. In fact some studies have suggested that if someone with excess body fat is otherwise in good physical shape their risk for other problems is lower than sedentary "normal" weight individuals.
In her series of New York Times articles on the battle against cancer http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/health/research/13prevent.html?_r=1 Gina Kolata details how this difficulty in defining causation adds to the confusion over how to prevent cancer. One major problem for those trying to find answers isthe vast amount of information out there. For every study that seems to point to a cause another seems to contradict it. Gina does a fine job of considering all the info and distilling it. Some of the advice that is now in question about behaviors that are thought to reduce cancer risk such as high fiber and low fat diets are still good ideas. All Americans would benefit from eating more vegetables and less junk food for reasons that have little to do with cancer. Interestingly the evidence seems to point to the fact that most of the dietary and lifestyle changes that reduce the risk of many cancers are actually effective when implemented during young childhood. This could mean that the die is cast after puberty or that the benefits are cumulative over a lifetime. In practice the result is the same- good diet and exercise need to be modeled by parents and taught to children as early as possible. I tend to think we have time to get my three kids online with healthy choices but the truth is we should have been more strict long ago. It is time for more low-fat cow's milk, less candy, less soda, more family walks, and better stress management for my wife and I to share wth our kids. This also means I that we need to consider what supplements and flllers are added to our processed foods. Just as adults need to limit their soy consumption we need to watch how much soy is used in the food our kids eat and drink. It's time to go- there are some labels I need to read and new trails to run!
In her series of New York Times articles on the battle against cancer http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/health/research/13prevent.html?_r=1 Gina Kolata details how this difficulty in defining causation adds to the confusion over how to prevent cancer. One major problem for those trying to find answers isthe vast amount of information out there. For every study that seems to point to a cause another seems to contradict it. Gina does a fine job of considering all the info and distilling it. Some of the advice that is now in question about behaviors that are thought to reduce cancer risk such as high fiber and low fat diets are still good ideas. All Americans would benefit from eating more vegetables and less junk food for reasons that have little to do with cancer. Interestingly the evidence seems to point to the fact that most of the dietary and lifestyle changes that reduce the risk of many cancers are actually effective when implemented during young childhood. This could mean that the die is cast after puberty or that the benefits are cumulative over a lifetime. In practice the result is the same- good diet and exercise need to be modeled by parents and taught to children as early as possible. I tend to think we have time to get my three kids online with healthy choices but the truth is we should have been more strict long ago. It is time for more low-fat cow's milk, less candy, less soda, more family walks, and better stress management for my wife and I to share wth our kids. This also means I that we need to consider what supplements and flllers are added to our processed foods. Just as adults need to limit their soy consumption we need to watch how much soy is used in the food our kids eat and drink. It's time to go- there are some labels I need to read and new trails to run!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)