Religion Fact of the Day

The final book in the Christian Bible, The Revelation to John, more commonly called simply Revelation, was probably written in the early 90s CE. Most scholars do not believe that this John is the same John who was an apostle of Jesus. Revelation fits into the apocalyptic genre of writing which had been flourishing amongst the Middle East since about 250 BCE.

Revelation Was Written When?

Well, according to Bill O'Reilly, it was 5,000 years ago.

On the November 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing the "secularists" and their refusal to acknowledge the "holy war going on," Bill O'Reilly cited the Book of Revelation, the final scripture in the New Testament, saying, "This was written -- what? Five thousand years ago?"

That's right. Even though, Jesus lived 2,000 years ago and the New Testament (of which Revelation is a part of) was written after Jesus was around, the book of Revelation was somehow written thousands of years before that.

Why is it that people who scream loudest about any topic seem to know the least about it?

Happy Birthday

Happy birthday to my oldest daughter, Erica. She turns eleven today. I can't believe she is that age already. No longer can I see a young girl in her; she is becoming a young woman. It is scary and thrilling at the same time.

I hoped to talk to her today, but, unfortunately I did not. I called her house a couple of times, but, unsurprisingly there was no answer. I will see her and her sister on Friday, though. We're going to go rollerskating and then have cake and ice cream. I can't wait.

Waterboarding

If Mississipi could figure this out in 1926, why are we having so much trouble today calling a spade a spade. Waterboarding is torture. I'm not typically a black and white kind of guy, but in this instance, there is certainly no gray. It is abhorrent and everyone who has done it, authorized it, or stood by and let it happen should be held accountable.

Religion Fact of the Day

Sennacherib, king of Assyria, destroyed much of Judah in the late 8th century BCE in response to Hezekiah allying with Egypt against Assyria. Jerusalem was spared but Hezekiah had to pay Sennacherib large amounts of gold and silver, cede some of his territory, and return to a vassal state. The account in Isaiah and 2 Kings credit the saving of Jerusalem to an angel of God which slew 185,000 Assyrian troops in one night. Sennacherib's non-Biblical records mention no defeat of any kind.

Spirit of Men

The hospital I work at sponsors an organization called Spirit of Women. As you would expect, it is all about celebrating femininity and so on. They have all sorts of meetings and events. It seems to me a little sexist to not have a counterpart group, so I have taken it upon myself to create a recruiting poster for when they realize the error of their ways. I used a SoW poster as a template and came up with this:



What red-blooded male wouldn't want to be a part of this?

Wordsmiths at the Onion

Where else are you going to read such awesome sentences as this:

On this occasion, Baumer removed the tea bag from the dainty brew and added one dollop of honey made by his friends the honeybees and a splash of milk straight from his mama's precious teat.

Read the whole article here.

Multiple Sclerosis - Year One

It's been one year now since I found out I have MS. It's the strangest thing in the world hearing your doctor tell you that you have an incurable disease. As I've said before, I wasn't really surprised. My symptoms were strong and I knew there was something wrong. I expected the worse. Still, when he said, "Shane, you have multiple sclerosis," I sat in shock for a moment, unsure what to say.

My first thought was, this changes everything. My next was, no, it doesn't. I could have let this disease change my life, but I was determined to not let it get the best of me. I've been blessed in that I was diagnosed very early. Many people go years before their doctor figures out what it wrong. Being that it is so early, the MS has not progressed enough to give me any noticeable signs. In fact, other than fatigue and susceptibility to cold, I don't feel any different.

I have also been very lucky in that there just happens to be a study going on right now for MS drugs. I met the qualifications and so I signed up. The study is testing whether Copaxone and Avonex work better together rather than individually. Both drugs are already tested and proven. There are three groups in the study, two get one drug and a placebo, and the third group gets both drugs. Obviously, I have no idea which group I am in, but no matter which I am getting something. Because I am in the study the drugs are free. If they weren't, I'm not sure I would be able to take either. At my last appointment, the study coordinator told me she had just checked the market price for the drugs and they were both $1800 for a one-month supply. $1800! I have great insurance through the hospital, but I don't think I'd be able to afford either of these.

The shot I take weekly, Avonex (or placebo), is not much fun. For the first month or so, I would have flu-like symptoms for up to 24 hours after I took the shot. I felt horrible. My body has adapted to it, though, and it is not as bad now. I take the shot on Saturday night and typically until around dinner time on Sunday, I fell a general malaise. Some days are better than others, but I don't usually feel really good on Sundays. The daily injection, Copaxone (or placebo), is much nicer in this regard in that the only side-effects I get are occasional redness and itching at the injection site.

I struggled with how to tell people at first. I debated keeping it to myself and not telling anyone. I didn't want anyone's pity, nor did I want anybody's first thought of me to be "He has MS." In the end, I decided I didn't care what people thought and just told friends and family and work. My Mom knew something was wrong because she had seen me stumbling during my flare-up last summer and so I probably couldn't have kept it from her anyway. Reactions were, of course, mixed with lots of tears and disbelief. Overall, though, everyone was very supportive.

Overall, though, it has been a strange experience. Other than my initial flare-up last July and August and a minor flare-up in February, I have no major signs of the disease. I still feel like the same person I was before I was diagnosed. Not that I would be different if the disease was progressing more rapidly, but it would have more of an impact on my life. As it is, I can still run around and do everything I could before. I am very lucky in that regard. I know that the disease is going to progress and I will eventually become limited physically. I don't sit around praying for a cure. If one comes, great. If not, I know I will manage just fine. That's how I roll.

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

Obama and Iran, Part III

My discussion with Jeromy continues from here.

You know I had to respond to this one. :)

I would have been disappointed if you hadn't.

1. Diplomacy is not like going out to dinner with a buddy. Every action, every word, every small iota has serious insinuations. Just sitting down at a public table with another country speaks volumes about the relationship with that country.

Hmmm...I don't think the mere fact of opening a dialog with a nation says anything other than "we are willing to talk." It doesn't mean we agree with them on anything. It doesn't mean we like or condone their actions. It just means we're not above talking to anyone, nor should we be.

Reward them with positive changes in behavior? That's no different than not sitting at a public forum with them because of previously bad behavior. Same attitude, different tact.

I disagree. Not talking with them gives us an arrogant, "better than you" posture. That's not going to make matters any better. Rewarding good behavior is also a better tactic than punishing bad behavior.

3. Regarding Obama personally- Although I probably would pay attention to a 500- page dissertation on American-Iranian relations, I would settle for a two-page document with just a couple of specifics. Just three years ago Obama was singing a different tune , talking about missile strikes, sanctions, and the unpredicability of the Iranian government. Three years ago it was popular to take a "tough stand" against Iran, now its popular to play the diplomatic card.

I don't think Obama was really "singing a different tune" then. In the link you gave, Obama talked about using missile strikes as a last resort if Iran was on the verge of getting nukes. He talked about going through the UN and using economic sanctions first. In the story I originally linked to, Obama talks about using "carrots and sticks" in working with Iran. Sounds like the same kind of thing to me.

And you're right, the argument I made could be said about most politicians because that's the nature of the game. And yet you said in your post after the quote that you support Obama exactly because of the kind of this kind of statement. If statements like this ARE generic and meant to gain favor, is it wise to base your support for him on such rhetoric?

If I said I wasn't going to support any politician who played the game of politics, well then I'd never support any politician. I try to look at their track record and listen to them. From what I have seen, Obama does not seem to be the same kind of pandering pol as we usually see. I don't think he's perfect by any means. I definitely have my disagreements with him on issues. However, I think he is by far the best candidate in either party running right now.

Do we "take our ball and go home" because Iran's not playing by the rules? Absolutely not. But do we formally sit down at the world trade and commerce table with them without recognizing the oppression, torture, and hatred that flows from the hands and mouths of the Iranian government? How is it that the same people who are ready to throw Bush out for water boarding (I count myself in this group) are also willing to legitimize a man and government who openly admits, even glorifies, decades of atrocities and torture?

Cold shouldering is not the answer, but a koom-bay-a session, as Obama seems to suggest, is not the answer either.

Obama is not talking about legitimizing the Iranian regime. He is talking about "changes in behavior." He is also talking about using "carrots and sticks." That doesn't sound like Kum Bah Yah to me, but like realpolitik.

As for Obama- I hope he gets the Democratic nomination, because I still think he's the lesser of the many mistakes that we could make. But I am absolutely not convinced of his true intent and goals. His speeches are simply pages ripped out of the JFK and MLK, Jr. playbooks, which sound great....but are they backed by conviction or merely a ploy to win an election? Time will tell...

I thought I was supposed to be the cynic. As I said, I don't think Obama is the Second Coming or anything like that. However, there is absolutely no way to be sure of any candidate until they are in office. We have to make our best judgment and pray it is correct. I've been trying to pay attention to all of the candidates as best I can and right now, I am convinced Obama is the best one. Time will tell, eh?

Religion Fact of the Day

Early Israeli culture was not monotheistic, but henotheistic (belief in multiple gods with one being supreme). There are many mentions of other gods besides Yahweh such as in Psalm 95:3, "For Yahweh is a great God, a greater King than all other gods" or in the Ten Commandents, one being "You shall have no other gods before me." It's also not likely that so many Israelites kept reverting to worship of Baal if they did not believe he was a real god.

I've Got Wheels!

After nearly a month of being without one, I finally have a vehicle. My sister had a Toyota 4-Runner that she was not driving as she had bought another vehicle. She wanted to dump it, so I got it for the cost of getting it fixed ($2600) which is probably a better deal then I would have been able to get from any snake-oil salesman at a car dealership.

It's funny how we take things for granted. Certainly I did with having a car. Going a few weeks without one will remind you how nice it is to have one. I'm not holding my breath for this vehicle to last long, but it works now and I am grateful to have one again.

Thanks, Shawna.

Facts About the Amish

A.J. Jacobs, mental_floss writer and the man who attempted to live Biblically for one year, has written a post with some interesting tidbits about the Amish.

Amish have beards in accordance with Leviticus, which forbids the shaving of the corners of your beard. But they do shave their moustaches. The moustache was thought to have military associations by the early Amish, who came over from Switzerland in the 18th century.

There's more including an amusing story about baseball.

Distracted

I haven't posted much in the last few days because my life has been rather hectic. I'm not sure how regular I will be over the next few months, either. The holidays are coming up. I just started another class, God and World, that is going to keep me very busy with lots of reading and writing. I need to be looking for a roommate for the house so my Mom and I can keep it.

I'll try my best to be regular, but no guarantees.

But, But, They Do It, Too!

I didn't think this was a proper defense for anything, but to see it applied to torture as Cal Thomas has is appalling.

There is a double standard when it comes to this subject. We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives.

Yes, it is a double-standard. That's because we're America and we're supposed to be better than that. I can't believe that our great nation has descended to this. How can a terrorist attack, even one as brutal as 9/11, bring us to this, to saying torture is okay.

Fear.

We let our leaders and the media whip us up into a panic over the "Islamofascist threat" and subsequently we resort to our most primal instincts. Do anything to survive. Don't think. React.

Unfortunately, this puts on the same level as animals. We need to take a step back and really examine ourselves, our morals, our principles. We need to think about what kind of nation we want. Do we want a country in which we suspend individual liberties and support policies such as torture? I don't. What makes it even worse is that it is a well documented fact that torture does not work. People being tortured will say anything - truth or not - to make it stop. We're degrading ourselves with a horrifying act that doesn't even work.

Just because our enemies use a tactic does not mean we have to do the same. We're supposed to be better than that.

Religion Fact of the Day

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are known as Abrahamic faiths because all three religions trace their roots back to Abraham. For Jews, he is the one Yahweh made a covenant with to grant them the land of Israel and the father of Jacob later named Israel and the prodigal father of the Jews. For Christians, Abraham is the father of the Davidic line that culminates with the birth of their savior, Jesus. In the Muslim tradition, Abraham's first born son, Ishmael, cast out by Abraham's jealous wife, Sarah, becomes the father of the Arabs.

More on Obama and Iran

My friend Jeromy had some comments in response to my post about Obama and Iran.

How much do we legitimize actions like the one cited here (and the hundreds that have been reported like it) when we sit down to the table with a guy like Ahmadinejad?

See, I've heard this argument before and I just don't get it. We live in a world with people who see things much differently than we do here in America. We live in a world where not everyone likes us. We need to learn to live with that and effectively deal with it. If we take the stand that you have to do what we want before we will even talk to you, then we are only going to make more enemies. Ahmadinejad is not popular in his country as can be seen by recent protests. If we tell Iran we won't talk to them unless they do what we want and constantly beat the war drum, we are only going to whip up a national fervor there. Those people protesting Ahmadinejad will rally behind him against the arrogant American threat.

Dialoging does not mean condoning. We should never be afraid to talk to anyone. In fact, we will accomplish much more through meaningful discourse backed by incentives and the threat of a stick than we will through arrogant posturing.

On Obama himself, Jeromy said:

I think Obama's intentions are decent, but realistically he's positioning himself for an election, which means the rhetoric about foreign policy, while it sounds good, is not nearly as simplistic or practical as he makes it sound.

You can make that argument about any politician running for any office ever. Of course they are going to say things that may sound simplistic. No one would pay attention to Obama's 500-page Dissertation on American-Iranian Relations. Especially in our sound-bite era, politicians break things down as small as possible. That's the way our system works.

The reason I like Obama is because (with the exception of Ron Paul), he is the only candidate that really comes off as genuine and different than most every other politician. He's not afraid to tell people things they aren't going to like (e.g. his speech to Detroit automakers). He's not talking about sticking it to the Republicans or doubling Gitmo or torture being cool or giving free money to everyone. No, he's talking about coming together and making a better America.

Yeah, yeah, he's saying that to get elected (like every other person who runs for office). Well, it sounds good; he sounds like he genuinely means it; and it sounds better than what the other candidates are saying. That's why I support Obama.

Hitch on Islamic Radicals

Christopher Hitchens has harsh words for people who think that the only reason there are terrorists in Iraq is because we are there.

After all, if the usual peacenik logic were to be pursued, and it was to be assumed that "we" are chiefly responsible for magnetizing "them," then it would follow that if we were to leave, they would either give up or go elsewhere. Is there anybody who can be brought to believe anything so fatuous? Well, then, if this logic is self-evidently false in the case of Afghanistan, why should it be any more persuasive in the case of Iraq?

Unfortunately, Hitchens does what he accuses "liberals" of doing and simplifies the issue to much. First, it is true that al-Qaeda did not exist in Iraq under Saddam. Our failed attempt to bring stability and order after overthrowing Saddam did create an opening in which al-Qaeda elements could move in and start a splinter faction we now call al-Qaeda-in-Iraq (AQI). However, it is also true - and Hitch gives several examples - that America is not responsible for creating all of the Islamic terror cells in the world. Terrorists are not going to go away if America suddenly withdraws all its military forces from foreign soil and brings them home.

It is true, though, that even if our presence does not automatically create terrorists out of thin air, the actions of this administration have driven more people to become terrorists and have violently inflamed emotions to the point that many Muslims, even if not terrorists themselves, silently condone violence against Americans. It's more than the fact that we have botched the Iraq war. It's the horrible rhetoric, calling the war a "crusade," and saying things like "dead or alive." It's the lip service paid to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. It's the beating of the war drum with Iran. It's the botch we made with Afghanistan by declaring victory too early and allowing the Taliban to regroup.

In short, Hitchens is correct to say that America doesn't magic up terrorists out of thin air. He is wrong to imply that our actions have no effect on terrorists or those who choose that lifestyle.

Music Sampling

For someone who had a huge hit, "I'll Be Missing You," heavily based on "Every Breath You Take" by the Police, you'd think Puff Daddy, P Diddy, Diddy would be doing more to protect artists who sample music.

Foreign Policy Sanity

From Obama regarding Iran:

Take notice: on Iran, at least, Obama is speaking a new kind of language for mainstream American politics. For nearly 30 years since the Iranian revolution kicked out a shah who had been installed by the CIA, American leaders have been too timid to engage in a constructive dialogue with Iran. That includes Hillary's husband, whose curiosity was aroused by the moderate Khatami but failed to rise to the challenge of how to achieve a diplomatic opening for the good of both countries. Now Obama says he's willing to go to Iran to talk without preconditions, reward Iran with positive changes in behavior and demonstrate that the U.S. is not hellbent on regime change.

It's exactly for reasons like this that I have become an Obama supporter. He's not spouting the same tired rhetoric that other pols are. We need a desperate change in our foreign policy tactics after the current administration has destroyed our standing worldwide. I don't see any other candidate (save maybe Paul) being able or willing to make the necessary changes.