It’s a Miracle

It seems like every hour I hear someone talk about a miracle happening. I am at home now and have the TV on in the background. Within two minutes I heard the term used twice; once for a caesarian birth and the next for a new surgery technique that helped a woman who was previously debilitative.
For me, this metaphor has become part of our language to such a degree that the metaphor has increased magical thinking and a lack of understanding of nature, science and the validity of faith.
I hate to be a kill joy, but there are no true miracles. A miracle is an event that goes outside of the natural laws of the universe, i.e. spontaneous regeneration of a new limb when one has been severed. It is not an event that is common, such as a birth, and it is not an event that is unusual but within statistical probability such as getting a Royal Flush twice in a row. The odds for some events happening are tremendous. The odds for winning the Powerball Jackpot are one in over 195 million. It I was to win, it would feel like a miracle but it is still easily within the realm of possibility.
The primary definition of a miracle, according to Merriam Webster, is “an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs”. Here is the problem… when we call something a miracle we are claiming divine intervention. We are forcing God to become part of very event. We allow mundane and expected events to be the cause of our human will, science, natural phenomenon or whatever. However, when it is special or a bit unusual we say God had his hand in the event.
I believe this use of language and communication is forcing our brain to become lazy. In the past, argumentation , debate and critical thinking were an integral part of our liberal arts education. Now we are continuing to give higher education degrees to individuals who cannot use logic and reason. Words mean something and natural events and scientific advances are not a product of divine intervention.

Another difficulty when we use the miracle claim, is our selective use of it. When Senator Gabrielle Giffords was shot and survived, people from all over the nation called it a miracle. However, the death of the young girl who was also present was the “act of a Mad Man”, or even worse, “God’s Will”. When we make God the author of natural events, we also have a tendency to make God a monster while placing some individuals as being worthy of special treatment and others to be forgotten by God. It is true that Giffords’ recovery is wonderful and promising; however, it was far from a miracle. A miracle would have been someone waving their hand over her head and the wound being fully repaired without any consequences. Yet we use magical talk and undercut the special events, the trained personnel who worked so hard to help her. We also place God to be the Judge of those who are special enough to be saved and one who kills little girls.
I prefer to think of God as limited in his power and one who loves everyone. I don’t see God as choosing to save one through his almighty power and to cause others to suffer and die… All for His Glory!?

Multiculturalism Gone Awry

I believe our government was and should be driven by enlightenment Ideals and rationalism. However, over the last several years it seems like an ever-increasing element of our society wants to bring a theocracy to American. This trend is also extending throughout the world. European cultures have been bowing to pressures from those who, under the guise of multicultural principles, want the government to accept religious tolerance, which often violates what we have determined as basic human rights. In America, we have adopted Christian holidays, placed God’s name in the pledge of allegiance and adopted “in God we trust” on its currency. We require those who have been adjudicated to attend uniquely Christian programs. We give tax moneys to “faith-based” programs who have a specific religious agenda. Additionally, we have those exempting out of educational classes, mandatory immunizations, and other programs for religious reasons that are designed for the betterment of society. While some exemptions are justified, some place all of us at risk and often dumb down America.
In other countries, governments are swallowing religious tolerance to restrain investigations and allegations of child abuse, domestic violence and other forms of emotional, physical and sexual abuse. Why are we allowing religious communities to force women to wear absurdly restrictive clothing, marry off young girls, use harsher cultural and religiously accepted forms of discipline? How far do we allow parents to indoctrinate their children on the fear of science, rationalism and working toward the best for a society?
We are moving back to the dark ages where radical religious groups using their own interpretation of religious holy books will rule the world.

Love is more than Tolerance

Love is more than tolerating someone. Love is acceptance of their beliefs, views and differences. Love values the individual. Love sees the weaknesses of the individual but they are overshadowed by their recognition of their strengths. Christian love does not hate people who disagree with them. They look past people's differences and love the human being.
Christian Hypocrisy is when a person believes they are better than another human being. Christian hypocrisy believes they cannot share company or fellowship with someone who disagrees with them on issues. They try to change others. They pray for their conversion. They push to make their community and country more like them. They are right and others are wrong. Period. Everything is black and white and they believe they always wear the white hat. Christian hypocrites see everyone else's sin but cannot see their own pride which is detestable to God.

Galileo and the Heavens

It has been almost 400 years to the day that Galileo Galilei fist observed the moons of Jupiter and other astronomical phenomena, which would change the world forever. His findings resulted in a solar system instead of an earth system formerly believed. He was tried and found to be a heretic, a title he held until October 13 1992, when Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not the center of the universe. In March 2008 the Vatican proposed to complete its rehabilitation of Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls. Why was this finding so controversial? In today’s world if we discover something new we all are marveled, but at that time such knowledge was seen as a direct contradiction to the scriptures. If the bible was right, then Galileo must be wrong; if Galileo was right, then the bible must be wrong.
Of course, we now know that Galileo was right. This knowledge is beyond question. Therefore, people’s view of the bible had to change. Either, they had to accept that the bible was wrong or they had to change their view on hermeneutics and exegesis. Nevertheless, why were Galileo’s findings so controversial?
I have been doing some thinking and I believe it primarily rests not on a verse or two but on the overall view espoused in the bible. This view was spoken repeatedly that the space above the clouds is where the Heavens are. The Heavens was a physical place. Elijah road a chariot of fire into the heavens – this was not a spiritual event, this was a spacecraft heading into the clouds where God was thought to reside. When Jesus ascended, he did it in a physical body. He went into the air and up to God. The rapture is another example. Jesus, in his super physical body, will come down from heaven and our physical bodies will rise up to meet him in the clouds. This is a physical ascension and resurrection.
Now, I see why the church was so threatened by Galileo’s findings. His telescope should have found God, and he was nowhere to be found. Galileo not only didn’t see God or his angels around the earth, he also discovered that the earth was not the center of the world. If the earth was not special, then maybe Mankind wasn’t either. Later, with Isaac Newton’s findings, the world now did not even need God to control it. Prior to Newton, God was busy making everything happen. While Galileo and others took away God’s direct involvement on the earth, with rain, earthquakes and other “acts of God”, Newton found the universe, as a whole, as self-regulating. God wasn’t supernaturally keeping the planets and stars in the heavens anymore, there was physical laws that accounted for that phenomena now. These revelations and the emerging scientific method would bring about the deism movement espoused by many of our nation’s founding fathers. Deism is a philosophical belief in the existence of a God on the basis of reason, and observation of the natural world alone. Deist held that God made the world then left it to handle itself through natural laws. They did not believe in special or divine revelation of God believed by Christians.

Therapists Missing Fingers

I was just thinking back on earlier days. I remember taking “shop” in elementary school, Jr. High and Senior High. It seems that times have changed because it was mandatory for boys to take these classes and girls were required to talk home economics and other cooking or sewing classes. One thing I specifically remember was how nearly every one of my shop teachers was missing a finger. I hope this wasn’t a requirement but it was often the case. This got me thinking about credentials. Would a shop teacher be a better safety instructor after losing a finger or a poor role model for children? What if he or she lost more than one finger in separate incidents? Would that take away the person’s credibility more?
I wanted to relate this metaphor to counselors. Life experience is a great teacher and can help make a good counselor even better. I believe a shop teacher that has experienced the bite of a buzz saw usually becomes an advocate of stricter safety standards. I also believe that counselors who experience many of life difficulties and learn from them, often become the best therapists. Those who have been sheltered from life’s struggles in their own life, often become prideful and unable to relate to other human beings. We can learn from the mistakes of others, which is a good way to go, but there is something about us as humans that still needs to learn through our own experience. However, we should learn the first time and not go back to the same old behavior.
I cannot imagine sending my son or daughter to a shop teacher who has several fingers missing from several incidents. This would indicate to me that this teacher does not learn from their mistakes and may not be able to help others from their experience. Touching a hot stove once, helps us learn; continuing to touch the hot stove is incompetence. Unfortunately, I see counselors that continue to put their hand in the saw without learning some of life’s important lessons. Therapists should be experts in human relationships and communication. They should know the correlation between cause and effect and how one’s actions, whether positive or negative, always result in a consequence.
This relates to so many areas of therapist competence. Although, I believe I am a good addiction counselor without having had a particular drug addiction myself, I believe many individuals who have had a problem in the past can make excellent counselors. However, those who remain in “recovery” forever and continue to struggle need to step away from the field of counseling. I can see a how a divorced counselor could still be an effective marriage and family therapist, however, if this person has a divorce, after a divorce, after a divorce, their credibility becomes questionable. Soon, the counselor can cut off so many fingers that they lose their integrity with their clients or their stubs for hands leave so many scars that they are more focused on themselves and their recovery that their effectiveness with others is limited.

To blog or not to blog (about family stuff)

My blog is a record of some of my thoughts. You do not need to agree with them. Please comment on them and give me an alternative perspective. I am willing to change. I seek the truth. I desire knowledge and wisdom to behave responsibly. I like debate and those willing to engage me intellectually.
One thing that I have struggled with in my current pursuit of truth is working through my own past. My experiences are interwoven with others of my family and friends. It is never my attempt to hurt anyone’s feelings through personal reflections of the past. However, I want to also be honest in my writing and not have personal and family secrets. I am blatantly honest. This means that I may express my feelings and interpret the past actions of my family and friends, which they may find offensive. Yet, I am torn between two extremes. I see the positives and negatives of my own behavior and I also see the same in family members. If I talk about a negative trait or belief of a family member, it does not mean that I do not see their positive traits or that I have lost my love for them. I dearly love my family but I also hope they respect my own views. I have been told that my views are wrong and that I'm sending my own children to hellfire; yet, I respect their opinions and understand their perspectives. I ask for the same respect. Please allow me to write about how, for instance, I may see my grandfather on my mother’s side as a child abuser and a tyrant, but I also can see another side of him. Yet, I believe it is important to evaluate this life and how my mother and I were influenced by the heritage he left. I want to be honest about him and others and I do not want to wait until people are dead before I can do my own assessment and share my own feelings with my family, students and others I feel may benefit from this information. I could only share the happy and uncomplicated times of my life, but this is dishonest with others and myself. I like to talk about these but I also want to explore times of personal struggles. If someone can help me in my quest for balance, please feel free to share.

Christian Faith vs. Muslim Faith pt.1

I just received a phone call criticizing me for statements from my blog of March 18. I understand this criticism. To associate Christian parental training with extremist Muslim indoctrination seems unfair, radical and almost hateful. Yet, I have even stacked the deck with the way the last statement was worded and the culture in which it was presented. The truth is that most parents, Christian and Muslim, want the best for their children. They want their children to follow the commands of God as written in their scriptures. They want their children to seek after the eternal values and not worldly desires. They want them to be men and women of faith and to be willing to defend their faith even if it means martyrdom. Interestingly, they also use the same arguments to defend their own faith and dismiss others.
There are some differences in my opinion. First, I do believe that Christians in this century like to follow the God from the Sermon on the Mount and not the God of the Old Testament. They have developed elaborate doctrines, such as dispensationalism, to separate Jesus, the God of Love, from the God of wrath, vengeance, jealousy, hate (I can give verses to back up statements, if needed) and more, of the Old Testament. One thing about Christianity is that we Christians can find solace in large parts of the Bible and be illiterate or ignore other parts, which shows another side of God. Muslims find very little of love and tolerance from the Koran. Christians can look to the New Testament for elements of tolerance of differing views and ignore God’s laws instructing his people to kill adulterers, those who turn you away from God, homosexuals, wayward children and more from the Old Testament. The Koran doesn’t have large sections of tolerant love to find comfort. Of course, one could argue that Christians do not really believe their scriptures wholly while Muslims do…. but that is a different blog.
Recently even well-known atheist Christopher Hitchens was physically attacked when debating Muslims from Damascus but described a Christian debate last week as being thrust in a “Den of Lambs”. Dr. Hitchens was grateful and respected the collegial debate and respect of Christians as compared with Muslims. Yet, this was not always the case. Historically, Christians of every persuasion were very intolerant of differing views and the result was often death.

Animal- Assisted Therapy

Parent's Rights and Responsiblities

I have always been an avid supporter of parental rights. Yet, I have also worked and been involved in various settings that have tried my beliefs. We all want to believe parents have their children’s best interest in mind, but this is not always the case. I have been involved with many cases of horrific child abuse. I’ve know and even testified against a parent who killed their own child. I know of parents who have burned their children, kicked them across the room, molested them sexually or even sold them for drugs. There is no question that some parents should not have the right to raise children. However, what about the parents who are well meaning but their belief systems are unconventional, fundamentally religious or even cultic in nature? Should parents have the right to keep their children sequestered from the world, traditional education, traditional medicine or other established benefits of society? These questions are not easily answered. I just reviewed a court decision where a judge is forcing a divorcing couple to place their children in public school. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509687,00.html. Many groups consider this an attack against homeschooling parents, but this decision was primarily to allow both parents to be equally influential to their children in a joint custody resolution. Others feel this was a just decision and limits the influence of a potentially mentally ill mother who has been brainwashed by a cult.
Parents should have the right to point their children in the direction they feel is best for them. However, I do not believe that parents should ignore other routes youth can travel as well. Teaching our children to think is paramount. Rather than simply teaching them what is holy and evil, teach them to be discerning, logical and use reason to identify solutions for themselves. Parents may have the right to teach or program creationism, intelligent design or religious faith to our children, but it is much better to educate them to use cognitive tools to discover these mysteries for themselves. There is nothing wrong with giving our children direction and our opinion on specific issues, but it is important to point out our own bias and the reasons why we made the decisions we have. To give glib, simplistic answers that are intellectually bankrupt are hurtful to our children. We need to give them the “Why” with the “What”. If we tell our children, that being a Baptist is important; we need to explain why. If our answers are simplistic and full of logical fallacies, we do a disservice to them. This form of training is not much different than the reports we hear of the indoctrination of hate from Islamic schools of Hamas or Hezbollah. Public schools are far from perfect, but they do expose us to others; people of different beliefs and different cultures. They allow us to give our children a different frame of reference than ourselves and help them discover answers for themselves rather than relying on parents or other authoritarian figures. When I try to find the truth, I don’t exclusively listen to people with whom I agree; instead I intentionally seek out those who make me think and challenge me. I still may come full circle, such as those beliefs handed down by my parents, but they are now my own. I think one of the saddest things in this world, is when people hold beliefs that are not their own. They have not been taught to listen, learn, and think and to take ownership and responsibility for their own views and destiny. While blindly believing and obeying in authority figures is easier, I believe many suffer or will suffer for their ignorance and laziness.

Public Prayer

Why do people pray aloud? Are they really praying to God or simply choosing words for “people” to hear. I know when I was asked to pray aloud, I prayed for human ears. I could not help but think about what others were thinking about me and my holiness. As much as I wanted to, I could never drown out those thoughts. I felt like a hypocrite every time I was asked to pray. Whenever someone asked me to pray, they were forcing me to be a charlatan. Sunday rituals were also to blame for forcing hypocrisy. Now, I know that I am very introspective and have a tendency to think these issues out a little too far, but I can’t help but believe that others may feel the same way. It was not that I was embarrassed to pray it was that I have always preferred to talk to God in a personal way and not formalized. I once was asked why I address my prayers to Jesus and not to God the father. I was rebuked for this once by my own father. Yet, I prefer to talk to God as someone who is real and understands me. It is sometimes difficult to talk to God, THE FATHER, in this manner. I have also never understood praying to the Spirit…. without a name, and only a title, it makes communication even more difficult.
I believe that even saying grace at a meal has become ritualized and void of meaning for most people. Are they truly thankful when they pray, thanking God for their food? I can still remember my grandfather’s prayers over the family meal. He had a long version and a short version of the same prayer. The short version went like this… “Lord, we thank thee for this food. Make it useful and nourishing to our bodies. We ask for Christ’s Sake… [He would click his tongue here] Amen”. Now, I might have forgotten a line or two but it was practically the same at every meal. I loved my grandfather but I just can’t believe that he was praying to God but was praying for those present at the table. I believe he prayed (and many pray) before a meal as a ritual of thankfulness but not to truly talk to God. I also believe he memorized and ritualized his prayers not for God but because he was a quiet, almost shy man and didn’t want to mess up on a spontaneous public prayer. To screw up a public prayer before God is unthinkable. But… Why? When I pray, God understands and doesn’t condemn me. And that is the point. If we are truly afraid of making a mistake in our public prayer, this is a sign we are not praying to God but to people.
I believe another sign of fake prayers are when we change our English to the Victorian Times. We put in the thees and thous because we want to impress people, not God. If God can hear our thoughts, why would we revert to an unused language? I just don’t understand this. I believe that if we should pray, we should do it alone and not in public. I have no desire to impress people with my eloquent prayers and turning into a hypocrite which I loathe in myself. There is nothing more I hate about myself than when I am not genuine, a hypocrite or a fraud. I want to be myself… the good, the bad and the ugly. If God, and others, cannot accept me for who I am (faults and all), then they do not really love me.
And one last thought… If we pray to impress others and are not talking to God… are we not speaking God’s name in vain?