NASAdude

Order the salad, but don't hold the fat: report By Alison McCook

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People need to include moderate amounts of fat with their uncooked vegetables in order to absorb the beneficial nutrients, new research shows.

U.S. investigators found that when people ate salads with fat-free dressing, their bodies did not absorb alpha-carotene, beta-carotene or lycopene -- substances known to protect against cancer and heart disease.

In contrast, when people doused their salads with reduced-fat or regular dressing, their carotenoid levels went up substantially.

These findings suggest that people should include small amounts of cheese, meat, or other sources of fat in their salads or opt for something other than non-fat dressing if they want to get the most out of their veggies, study author Dr. Wendy S. White told Reuters Health.

And if people like to snack on carrot sticks in between meals, consider dipping them in ranch dressing, she added.

However, she cautioned that fat intake is "really a balancing act," since many Americans currently consume too much fat in their diet.

"We don't want them drowning their salad in full-fat salad dressing," said White, who is based at Iowa State University in Ames. "Fat is part of a healthy diet. The key is moderation."

Carotenoids are red, yellow and orange pigments found in fruits and vegetables. They act as antioxidants, which prevent disease-causing free radicals from damaging the DNA of cells. Long-term damage by free radicals leads to aging and chronic disease.

To investigate whether people need fat with their carotenoids to get their disease-fighting benefits, White and her colleagues asked seven people to eat three different salads on three separate occasions. The salads contained spinach, romaine lettuce, cherry tomatoes and carrots, and were covered in non-fat dressing, reduced-fat dressing (with 6 grams of fat) or full-fat dressing (28 grams of fat).

Reporting in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, White and her colleagues found that when people ate the non-fat salads, there was "virtually no absorption of alpha-carotene, beta-carotene or lycopene."

However, when people used reduced-fat dressing on their salads, levels of these carotenoids increased in their bodies. Full-fat dressing increased carotenoids even further.

In an interview, White explained that carotenoids are "fat-soluble," meaning they are essentially not absorbed by the body without the aid of fats.

These findings may not apply to cooked vegetables, White noted, for research suggests that people absorb carotenoids more easily from cooked or processed vegetables.

She added that, even without fat, vegetables still contribute other important substances, such as fiber, vitamin C and folate.

But if you can sprinkle uncooked vegetables with a little bit of fat, that might not hurt, she said. "A few tablespoons of bacon bits are not going to ruin anyone's health."

SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, August 2004

Posted by NASAdude at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Follows are two articles off the web. The first is Brian Madsen's response to the question, "Do you believe in God?". The second is an interview with Douglas Adams.

Each article brings up lots of good questions. Have at 'em!

A response to the question, "Do you believe in God?"

On an email list, the following question was posed: "Do you believe in God? If so, please define your perception of God, and why you believe. If not, please explain why you do not believe." The following answer may be of interest to some.

Oh, that question is way too difficult to answer briefly. We're talking book-length essays here.

But I'll try with a short answer:

I want to believe in God. I really do. And an afterlife.

It would be so great -- so reassuring, so comforting, so peaceful -- to know that there's Someone out there who's in control of a world that seems so out of control. That, despite all appearances, all things really do work together for good to them that love God. That an Eternal Reward awaits all of us (or at least, me) in a future life to compensate for all of the crap we have to put up with (some more than others) in this one. That in the end, I can look back on my existence and rejoice that all the balances are added up and everything has worked out to be just and fair.

This is just what religion (just about any religion) promises.

Except that it all sounds *way* too good to be true.

And if there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Of course, it might not be. Let's consider the possibilities.

Ah, but that's where things get really hairy. There are so many possibilities, and God has done a really miserable job of making Himself clear about which ones are the right ones. Each possibility has its share of adherents, all of whom are convinced (by the spirit, or by some analogous means) that their beliefs are the "right" ones.

So, searching them out by the spirit doesn't tell us anything, since the spirit is demonstrably telling one thing to one person and another thing to another person. How about logic and reason? Well, logic and reason are no help, because each one of these belief systems is demonstrably self-contradictory in one way or another. And what's more, the adherents of those belief systems don't see those things as contradictory at all -- they have found ways to explain these things away so that they don't seem like contradictions after all ... not to the believers, anyway. One example: two books of the New Testament say that Mary saw one angel at Jesus's tomb, and two more say that there were two angels at Jesus's tomb. How do we resolve this? Clearly, there *were* two there, but Mary only *saw* one of them. It all makes sense ... if you believe.

Ah, and that's really the bottom line, isn't it. Logic and sound reasoning are "misleading", and even spiritual witnesses aren't reliable -- but that leap of faith, that will answer all your doubts. Just believe. As I've been told so often, "Seeing isn't believing; believing is seeing." ... which is a clever way of saying that "we who are believers, we don't let troublesome contradictions get in our way; we've made that 'leap of faith', which renders doubts and contradictions irrelevant. God will make everything clear, in His Own good time. Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to sit quietly and wait for the Second Coming (or some analogous occurrence), at which time, all these things will be made clear."

Sorry, but I just can't buy that. If there is a God, He wouldn't have discontinuities that would need explaining, or at least, He wouldn't wait forever to make them understandable to the average mortal mind. If there is a God, He wouldn't *want* me to suspend reason and doubt and critical analysis for the sake of a "just believe, and that will make everything all right" mentality -- on the contrary, He would welcome questions and doubts and fears, and would explain them clearly and understandably. He loves me, after all, presumably, right? He wants me to know the truth. So why all the (apparently deliberate) secrecy? He's my Parent, after all, in at least some metaphorical sense, right? Why then does He act so much like an absent father?

If God could create the universe, God could speak to me and help me understand Him. God wouldn't need a spokesperson, and wouldn't need a book, and wouldn't need a Holy Spirit. If God wants me to know Him, He knows where to find me.

Until then -- to be truthful -- I'm really better off trusting in the good old arm of flesh. The arm of flesh doesn't let me down. I pray to God, asking for guidance, and what happens? Nothing. I trust in the arm of flesh -- work hard, keep my nose clean -- and I get ahead in the world. I pay tithing, hoping that God will open the windows of heaven, and what happens? Nothing. But if I put that 10% into my 401(k), now I've got a retirement to look forward to. I believe that God created the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago, and how does that help me understand the observable universe? Not at all. On the contrary, it forces me to come up with clever theories about how the light from stars tens of thousands of light years away is already arriving here on earth, and how dinosaur fossils can be millions of years old, and on and on. But if I believe that the universe is billions of years old, that it evolved into what it is now -- then the observable evidence fits neatly into place and makes all kinds of sense, thank you.

In the end, I've been unable to discover any system of belief -- Christian or otherwise -- in which God can exist without colliding with observable evidence in significant ways.

And so, after looking for God using logic and reason, using blind faith, using spiritual witnesses, using written scriptures -- in short, using any and all means available to us -- God simply fails to emerge as a viable concept, much less a living, breathing, existing being.

I really want to believe that there's Someone out there who will make everything all right. I suspect that we all do. I suspect that it's built into us, a holdover from our childhoods. But eventually we have to grow up, and face facts. There is no one out there who has all the answers. We're on our own for that. I have come to the conclusion that the sooner we get ahold of that and hang onto it, the happier we will all be.

Brian C. Madsen

Excerpts from an interview w/ Douglas Adams.

For the rare reader who does not already know all about him, Douglas Adams is the creator of all the various manifestations of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which include a radio series, a TV series, a stage play, record albums, a computer game, a series of internationally best-selling books, a set of graphic novels, and a bath towel. ...snip...

THE INTERVIEW

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a "radical Atheist." Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as "Atheist," some people will say, "Don't you mean ‘Agnostic'?" I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It's easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it's an opinion I hold seriously. It's funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say "But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case?" This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn't belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don't see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don't believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn't make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don't know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it's the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.
I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid" - then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How long have you been a nonbeliever, and what brought you to that realization?

DNA: Well, it's a rather corny story. As a teenager I was a committed Christian. It was in my background. I used to work for the school chapel in fact. Then one day when I was about eighteen I was walking down the street when I heard a street evangelist and, dutifully, stopped to listen. As I listened it began to be borne in on me that he was talking complete nonsense, and that I had better have a bit of a think about it.

I've put that a bit glibly. When I say I realized he was talking nonsense, what I mean is this. In the years I'd spent learning History, Physics, Latin, Math, I'd learnt (the hard way) something about standards of argument, standards of proof, standards of logic, etc. In fact we had just been learning how to spot the different types of logical fallacy, and it suddenly became apparent to me that these standards simply didn't seem to apply in religious matters. In religious education we were asked to listen respectfully to arguments which, if they had been put forward in support of a view of, say, why the Corn Laws came to be abolished when they were, would have been laughed at as silly and childish and - in terms of logic and proof -just plain wrong. Why was this?

Well, in history, even though the understanding of events, of cause and effect, is a matter of interpretation, and even though interpretation is in many ways a matter of opinion, nevertheless those opinions and interpretations are honed to within an inch of their lives in the withering crossfire of argument and counterargument, and those that are still standing are then subjected to a whole new round of challenges of fact and logic from the next generation of historians - and so on. All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

So, I was already familiar with and (I'm afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn't apply the logic of physics to religion, that they were dealing with different types of ‘truth'. (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn't stand up to it. So I became an Agnostic. And I thought and thought and thought. But I just did not have enough to go on, so I didn't really come to any resolution. I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn't know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology, particularly in the form of Richard Dawkins's books The Selfish Gene and then The Blind Watchmaker and suddenly (on, I think the second reading of The Selfish Gene) it all fell into place. It was a concept of such stunning simplicity, but it gave rise, naturally, to all of the infinite and baffling complexity of life. The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: You allude to your Atheism in your speech to your fans ("...that was one of the few times I actually believed in god"). Is your Atheism common knowledge among your fans, friends, and coworkers? Are many people in your circle of friends and coworkers Atheists as well?

DNA: This is a slightly puzzling question to me, and I think there is a cultural difference involved. In England there is no big deal about being an Atheist. There's just a slight twinge of discomfort about people strongly expressing a particular point of view when maybe a detached wishy-washiness might be felt to be more appropriate - hence a preference for Agnosticism over Atheism. And making the move from Agnosticism to Atheism takes, I think, much more commitment to intellectual effort than most people are ready to put in. But there's no big deal about it. A number of the people I know and meet are scientists and in those circles Atheism is the norm. I would guess that most people I know otherwise are Agnostics, and quite a few Atheists. If I was to try and look amongst my friends, family, and colleagues for people who believed there was a god I'd probably be looking amongst the older, and (to be perfectly frank) less well educated ones. There are one or two exceptions. (I nearly put, by habit "honorable exceptions," but I don't really think that.)

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How often have fans, friends, or coworkers tried to "save" you from Atheism?

DNA: Absolutely never. We just don't have that kind of fundamentalism in England. Well, maybe that's not absolutely true. But (and I'm going to be horribly arrogant here) I guess I just tend not to come across such people, just as I tend not to come across people who watch daytime soaps or read the National Enquirer. And how do you usually respond? I wouldn't bother.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Have you faced any obstacles in your professional life because of your Atheism (bigotry against Atheists), and how did you handle it? How often does this happen?

DNA: Not even remotely. It's an inconceivable idea.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: There are quite a few lighthearted references to god and religion in your books ("...2000 years after some guy got nailed to a tree"). How has your Atheism influenced your writing? Where (in which characters or situations) are your personal religious thoughts most accurately reflected.

DNA: I am fascinated by religion. (That's a completely different thing from believing in it!) It has had such an incalculably huge effect on human affairs. What is it? What does it represent? Why have we invented it? How does it keep going? What will become of it? I love to keep poking and prodding at it. I've thought about it so much over the years that that fascination is bound to spill over into my writing.

Posted by NASAdude at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I came across a host of resources for those interested in keeping their government in check. Educate yourself!

Project on Government Secrecy, Federation of American Scientists - consolidation site
Outraged Moderates - consolidation site - hosts the Download for Democracy project
The Memory Hole - consolidation site
Open the Government - consolidation site
The Scannery - do research on 23,000 corporations
Government Printing Office - get your [approved-only] information right from the 'man'

Posted by NASAdude at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I recently watched the documentary Monopoly Men. It documents the creation of the Federal Reserve with a somewhat over-zealous conspiracy-theory attitude. It certainly does make one wonder about the motivations behind the Fed. It also brings into question the US media.

I've been watching documentaries produced in Canada and by the BBC. It's amazing what coverage looks like from outside the US. Some topics aren't covered at all in the US; others that are covered in the US have a heavy pro-US bias. And this is from national media agencies that we all trust to serve as our daily news sources.

Amazon description of the video: "During the Wilson presidency, the U.S. government sanctioned the creation of the Federal Reserve. Thought by many to be a government organization maintained to provide financial accountability in the event of a domestic depression, the actual business of the FED is shrouded in secrecy."

This documentary raises a lot of questions. To understand some of the key points, follow the links listed below.

Another documentary, Panorama - The Superdollar Plot, reports on the counterfeiting of US $100 bills that are undetectable by standard examination in banks and financial institutions. This has been going on since 1998. Why isn't this information more well known?

Links:
http://www.federal-reserve.net/ (anti-Fed site)
http://www.fact-index.com/f/fe/federal_reserve.html (facts)
http://www.nader.org/interest/021500.html (2000 Nader anti-Fed speech)
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Doc/RESERVE.zip (book: "Secrets of the Federal Reserve")

Posted by NASAdude at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's interesting that high choesterol is indicated, but not high blood pressure.

It seems this is more of a psychological study, using TV viewing as a predictor of later lifestyle.  As such, the only surprising result is that high blood pressure isn't a factor.  Doesn't lifestyle relate to high blood pressure?

----

Source: http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2004/07/16/eline/links/20040716elin022.html

Posted by NASAdude at 09:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sometimes I think I don't make decisions of my own accord, but only to make others happy.

I was just thinking how often we don't talk with our friends about how we feel about them and appreciate them.

Lately I've been pondering that.

It's probably stereotypical to say that men have a hard time with sharing their feelings. Maybe it's difficult for everyone. Or maybe it's just me.

I'm always very logical in how I think and act. I'm trying to be more "normal". I usually don't factor my own feelings into most decisions. Why do I want to be normal; is there such a thing as being normal? I guess we too often do things to make others like us more.

We try to be someone for everyone else. But what do you do when you don't know who you are? It seems a lot of people don't know who they are, which is why high-school guidance counselors are able to keep their jobs. Admittedly, high school is a confusing time for everyone. Everyone is just trying to fit in and be what their parents want them to be... or just not caring at all.

So at what point does a person know who they are and what they should do with their life? How do you factor out making others happy so that decisions are for your own best interest?

Posted by NASAdude at 08:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source: http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2004/07/14/eline/links/20040714elin014.html

 Asthma linked to heightened risk of COPD

Last Updated: 2004-07-14 13:00:46 -0400 (Reuters Health)

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - In a 20-year study, people with asthma were about 12 times more likely to develop chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) than people who did not have asthma, according to a new report.

"For many years, asthma and COPD have been regarded as distinct conditions, with separate clinical courses," lead author Graciela E. Silva, from the University of Arizona in Tucson, said in a statement.

While both conditions cause difficulty breathing, asthma has been considered to be reversible whereas COPD, which covers a number of diseases, is seen as irreversible. However, writes Silva, "Our study shows a strong link between asthma diagnosis and the development of COPD, which suggests they may share a common background."

The findings are based on a study, published in the medical journal Chest, of 3099 adult subjects who completed respiratory questionnaires and underwent lung function testing several times during a 20-year period.

Active asthma was associated with an increased risk of COPD compared with inactive disease or normal respiratory status, the researchers found.

Compared with non-asthmatic subjects, those with active asthma were 10 times more likely to develop chronic bronchitis and 17 times more likely to develop emphysema, Silva's team reports.

Moreover, this pattern held true even after taking into account smoking history and other factors that could affect the risk.

The authors note that further studies are needed to clarify exactly how asthma may lead to the development of COPD.

SOURCE: Chest, July 2004.

Posted by NASAdude at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Is there a point in asking difficult questions in life?
ie: questions to which one likely won't ever find an answer in this lifetime.

I'm still working on figuring out life. It's a complicated set of equations. Some say that we shouldn't bother trying to figure out something we arent meant to understand. I don't agree that we aren't meant to understand. That implies that God wants us to remain ignorant. In any case, I'm compelled to try.

I don't know what will drive me more nuts... giving up on asking questions, or continuing to ask questions and not finding answers.

Some say we aren't supposed to know the answers now, and when we're supposed to know... God will show us them. That might mean being at peace with just finding what beauty we can in every situation and waiting until God knows we can handle the explanations. This sounds a lot like sticking your head in the sand.

I've been frustrated by some people's answers to "difficult" questions. Usually they replied by saying "I'll find out when I get to heaven." To me that sounds like giving up, letting the questioning part of them die. That part of me isn't willing to die; I'm not able to give up. I find that attitude very frustrating.

If we will never be able to comprehend why some things happen, maybe it isn't really giving up. It's just recognizing limitations. Perhaps God doesn't intend us to spend our lives wishing we had answers.

I believe we (humanity) can comprehend anything in the world around us, given enough time and study. It may take longer than my life span, but I should still try to contribute in the search. If I give up, I won't contribute to finding the solution.

Posted by NASAdude at 07:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/13/8000_bloggers_per_day/

Posted by NASAdude at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Is chance the same as luck? By no mean does chance equal luck. Luck implies the odds are unnaturally biased in your favor. Chance is random and unbiased.

Obviously many things have to happen for most events in the world to occur. Does that prove that luck was involved?

Let's assume you own a pet, a cat for example.

For you to have your cat: 1) you obtained it by some circumstance, 2) it's parents mated and gave birth, and it survived, 3) each parents' parents mated and gave birth, etc, etc. The odds of that specific series of events happening are astronomically improbable. So did luck have something to do with each and every one of those events happening, or the overall result of those events?

Simply because a set of chance events takes place leading up to an overall improbability, that improbable event is become quite probable... because it did occur.

From the movie Interstate 60,

"Given an infinite universe and infinite time, all things will happen. That means that every event is inevitable, even those that are impossible.

That is to say, every event is inevitable; if it weren't, it wouldn't happen."

By the way, I highly recommend this movie. Be sure to watch it with an open mind, and you'll find you mind open even more to new possibilities afterwards.

Let's consider a discreet inanimate example. I have a bag of 1000 jellybeans, all of which are black except for one red one. We have examined the experiment and know it is not biased. If a robot arm pulls the red bean 3 times in a row, does that mean it is lucky? Assuming everything is unbiased as stated, it simply means that a 1-in-one-billion-chance event has occurred. It's the same chance as having a bag of one billion jelly beans and pulling the red bean. It is highly improbable, but a very much real and possible event.

In summary, luck has nothing to do with a set of unbiased chance events. It's simply random chance.

The only constraint on random chance is where there is intervention. For example, winning a rigged lottery isn't luck, it's simply biased random chance.

For a religious application, let's consider the formation of the universe. Science shows us that there are many factors in the formation of the universe after the big bang that had to be "just so" for life to be able to evolve on earth. Many of these factors are quite specific, making for the eventuality of life extremely unlikely. Does that mean God was involved in specifying the values for these factors?

We must apply the same reasoning. Simply because something highly improbable occurs does not require luck or the involvement of an outside influence such as God. We first must assume it is merely a set of chance happenings unless there is evidence otherwise.

Posted by NASAdude at 02:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

I don't know what to say. Lots of things happened this weekend. Some were planned; some were not.

I missed out on Habitat on Friday. I showed up at the church in the morning, only to find that due to lack of volunteers, no one was going out. Later I found out that three did go out on their own.

Since I didn't get to help on Friday, I decided to go on Saturday. Again I got up and headed into the church early in the morning. Four of us, John, Art, Craig, and I, drove to the site in a church van. Again, some others from the church had gone of their own accord. There were about a dozen people at the site. It was wonderful getting to meet them and work with them. I was surprised; I expected the group to be comprised primarily of students and retired folks. It turned out we had a great mix, including some about my own age. That was a real treat.

We got back around 4p. I went home around 5p after helping out a little with setting up for Bless the Fest, got cleaned up, ate, and rested. I returned to Wesley at 10p. Bless the Fest was just coming up to speed. I spent the night working 'security' for the gallery that was set up on the first floor. I roused at 7a, helped set out the tables and chairs for the gallery, and then went to the 8a service. I was surprised when JoAnn, one of the Habitat people sat in my pew as the service was about to begin. Both of us don't normally go to the 8a service, so it was an unexpected coincidence.

After the service I went home, ate, got cleaned up, and took a nap. I almost completely ignored my alarm when it went off; I was still very tired. I went back into Wesley for an advisory board meeting at 4p. The meeting ran over two hours. Tyson was present, and he shared some of his plans for Wesley. The meeting covered a lot of ground; I'm glad I was there. Afterwards, I grabbed some leftovers in the fridge and watched 60 Minutes in the green room.

Morgan stopped by. He organized a group to go to the drive-in. Nate, Maureen, and Becky joined us. It was nice to get to spend some time with them.

I got back home around 2:30p. After taking care of email, news, etc, I made it to bed at 3:30a.

*yawn*

I don't think this compares to the schedules of some of the other students, especially those who are pulling long shifts at work (some w/ more than one job) in addition to other responsibilities.

Even so, I feel that I've had a "non-stop" schedule from Saturday morning through late Sunday night.

As Becky said, "I can't wait for the fall semester so I get a break."

Posted by NASAdude at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

There are about 20,000 - 30,000 Christian denominations around the world. In the US there are about 1000 recognized Christian denominations, a few of which are Amish, Baptist, Brethren, Catholic, Christian Science, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, Pentecostal, Quaker, Schwenkenfelder, Swedenborgian, Unitarian, and The Way. Within each denomination factions and discord exist. That's a general perspective of the politics within each church, but the same is true on an interpersonal level as well.

We all experience problems, conflicts, and stresses that bring us down and make life difficult. When we turn to the church, we don't always get the help we want or need.

• jumping down people's throats with judgment instead of love


• whipping out scripture without truly empathizing with the person


• giving "Sunday-school" answers

Most people aren't looking for these solutions.

We all have a need for fellowship and accountability, but it is too often missing in the church. Is it because Christianity has no mile-markers of faith, indicators of a God's plan for our study? It seems we are all lost in a sea of promised hope.

Is it because everyone is self-absorbed that no one can bother to really care about someone else? Is it simply a general apathy within the church? Or is it that most Christians really don't feel confident enough in their faith to help someone?

On the other hand, how can I help someone else when I don't have the answers?

We just want someone who will listen, to care, to understand. We want someone who will give a big hug, who will share personal experiences about having the same problem. We just want to be understood and loved.

Posted by NASAdude at 06:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

How much of our lives does God want to control? It could be that we have total control and free will in all parts of our lives. Conversely, the free will we are burdened with might only apply to a small part of our lives?

I came across an interesting article on prayer and free will.

Some of the more interesting ideas explored in the article are:

• We are not predestined; we choose God.
• God affects our lives in real ways, so God is "tampering" with our free will. ie: Paul being struck blind on the road to Damascus
• "Maybe you prayed at a rescue where babies were going to be aborted. Maybe you prayed for Bill Clinton. Aren't all of those prayers a request for God to intervene in the free will decision making of other people? Aren't we asking that some employer who wouldn't normally have done so would now hire you for a job?"
• We're asking, "God, use Your will and Your power to overcome the power and will of others."

If God interferes with free will, how does that affect our interpretation of the value of free will?

Posted by NASAdude at 07:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nate led tonight's bible study, based on Philippians 2:1-11. We talked about what we value and cherish in our lives and what goals and ambitions we have.

Phi 2:3-4 GW Don't act out of selfish ambition or be conceited. Instead, humbly think of others as being better than yourselves. (4) Don't be concerned only about your own interests, but also be concerned about the interests of others.

Our unscheduled tangent took us to the concept of making decisions in our lives, and how we can discern God's will since God doesn't speak directly to us.

Someone commented that perhaps it's only after one develops a close relationship with God that it becomes easier to interpret the influence of the Holy Spirit. From an outsider's perspective, this would sound like indoctrination or even brainwashing. Moreover, it's circular reasoning in that God isn't apparent until you believe.

The result of this sort of debate with a Christian invariably results in a Christian rebuttal that humans cannot know God's will as he is beyond our understanding. Why are many Christians afraid to question the world around them and their own belief system?

Jam 3:13-15 GW Do any of you have wisdom and insight? Show this by living the right way with the humility that comes from wisdom. (14) But if you are bitterly jealous and filled with self-centered ambition, don't brag. Don't say that you are wise when it isn't true. (15) That kind of wisdom doesn't come from above. It belongs to this world. It is self-centered and demonic.

Jam 4:14-15 GW You don't know what will happen tomorrow. What is life? You are a mist that is seen for a moment and then disappears. (15) Instead, you should say, "If the Lord wants us to, we will live and carry out our plans."

Pro 3:5-7 GW Trust the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding. (6) In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths smooth. (7) Do not consider yourself wise. Fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.

An interesting first-hand anecdote was given that many mentally-ill patients have delusions of hearing voices. The patients attribute the voices as instructions from God or the Holy Spirit. Today we have a better understanding of mental illness and how to treat it. How would people hearing voices be received in Biblical times? Was Moses mentally ill?

Where is God? How do we discern God's will apart from circumstance, coincidence, and chance? When we pray, how do we know God's answer, since God doesn't answer directly?

Let's consider a thought experiment to try to differentiate between coincidence/chance and God's influence that might help us to determine God's will. The key of this experiment is to see if anything exists that can be attributed to God by an unbiased observer.

Imagine a philosophy of living life identical to Christianity in every way except that God does not exist; the philosophy is merely a way of living a good, ideal life. In making life decisions how is using Christianity as the basis different than using the philosophy with the same constructs? We pray, we seek guidance from the Holy Spirit; we consult with like-minded peers; we use our God-given minds to help us decide. How do we determine God's answers to our prayers, or what the Holy Spirit intends? Those gut feelings are the same for the philosophy as for Christianity. So why do Christians decide their gut feelings came from God, while the student's gut feeling of the hypothetical philosophy did not. What evidence does the Christian have for that conclusion? It seems to be a self-reinforcing idea, without any real evidence to back it up.

Posted by NASAdude at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This topic started from an IM discussion with Julia W. Thanks for being my muse, Julia. :)

NASAdude (10:16:16 AM): money isn't everything. In fact, it's not much of anything at all.

Life's far more complicated than it needs to be. It's a shame we (society) make it that way.

Paraphrased from Julia W.:
We shouldn't worry about climbing the ladder, about getting a meeting with the corporate president. Everyone is just a person. If it works out, great; if not, I learn and move on. I am not going to sit around and think about it and play games.

It's not just how we manipulate people to better our careers. Everything inter-personal is political: the politics of sex, money, power, social standing, respect, etc. It's a game for most people. They seem to think, "How can I play the game to maximize my position in relation to those around me."

I'm a social misfit and don't date, so the prospects aren't good for meeting my parents' expectations of grandchildren. Dating in general is pretty weird, since it's been years since I've had any practice. Some say that having friends of the opposite sex is like dating, or at least practice. Some have observed me hanging out with women, having involved conversations, being funny, friendly, good company, and a really nice guy. But sadly, most people I find pedantic... to the point of being utterly boring.

Does that mean I'm just a good actor, feigning interest in those around me? I have been trying to be a bit more social, just to get practice. But that's just demonstrating some extroverted qualities so people don't find out how stolid and serious I am. Dating is an entirely different thing. It shouldn't involve misdirection or disinformation.

Julia W.:
yeah i know ... it shouldn't be but it is

I shudder with the realization that I have, to some extent, adopted society's standard of "it's all about me". I've become a good actor when I meet attractive women. While having a stimulating conversation, I am wondering what she thinks of me. Fortunately I'm not a great actor, since I haven't had to extend the acting to a more intimate level. While my physical desires may be disappointed with that, I'm glad that I am not in the uncomfortable position of continuing a relationship that isn't based on honesty and truth.

As with most of these articles, they are for my own personal exploration, as well as for the readers' benefit. In doing so, I am disingenuous with you, the reader, to some extent. You don't get the benefit of *all* of my thoughts, as many are filtered through my censor. Also, I skew my writing toward the extreme case, to make a point.

I admit that I'm not really bored with most people... not completely at least.

I admit that I'm not acting as much as I indicated when interacting with others. Extroverted qualities seem to appeal to others, so I hide my introverted nature as best I can. With close friends I have learned to be more interesting. I am simply extending that to people I don't know. Because it is a forced action and not natural, it is playing a role that isn't fully honest. Hopefully if I get to know someone and they become a close friend, they won't notice [much of] a difference in how I treat them. It all depends how well I fake it initially.

I admit that I am a lot more self-centered than I'd like. Don't get me wrong. From my own perspective I am quite selfless, honest, genuine, and a really nice guy (too nice... which is a whole other article). But I don't wear my heart on my sleeve, even with friends. There are many thoughts and feelings that I can't bring myself to share with others, some good and some dark. With strangers, especially women, especially attractive women, I find myself wondering how that person perceives me and how I can alter that perception to be more positive. That disgusts me when I see it in others, and even more so in myself.

I like Julia's statement, "Everyone is just a person." It's an awesome simplification of this topic. How can we treat others as people, not as means of advancing ourselves? It's a great ideal, to open ourselves up and honestly share everything about ourselves with those we meet without worrying about what others will think or how they might take advantage. I don't know how to make it true for the rest of the world. I'm not even sure how I'd make it true for myself. It would require me to change how I treat others, how I choose what to share, how honest I am in new relations. It is a change of perspective, a change in how I actually think, a change in my basic nature. Can I change?

Can you change?

Posted by NASAdude at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Today's sermon included the scripture of Luke 10:1-20.
Luk 10:3 GW Go! I'm sending you out like lambs among wolves.

Are many Christians behaving as sheep? It all depends on what one means by the term "sheep".

Being a sheep can be good, in an ideal world. One is innocent, simple, trusting, unencumbered, living day-to-day. It seems that we all start out life this way, but we lose these qualities little by little over time, some much faster than others. On the other hand, how many of us are sheep in a negative way, blindly following the other sheep around us wherever they lead without question?

Is a blind, unquestioning faith the answer to all our questions? Should we suppress our drive to seek out explanations for the way the universe works? Should we refrain from understanding how our own minds work or how our DNA can be used cure disease or even change who we are?

Holding a belief on blind faith is dangerous if your believing it affects your perception of reality or how you interact with others. Believing you can fly and acting on it would not be wise. It is also not wise to believe that others can fly, pushing them off a cliff while they vehemently disagree with your belief. How can this action be justified by the belief that it's God's will or God's love?

What is the basis for your beliefs? Why are you Christian and not Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu? Is it because you were raised in that belief system, because a parent or someone close held those beliefs? It seems that many people are sheep in their beliefs, following others around them because that is what is expected. We all want to fit in, don't we? This behavior doesn't make the beliefs true (or false). It simply means we don't truly hold the belief for ourselves, but only are regurgitating what we've been taught.

What of those who claim a belief based on scripture? Ultimately the value of that claim depends on the validity of the book's contents. It is the writings of people who could selectively choose what to say and how to say it, making for the best story and persuasiveness. Then those writings were translated through the ages multiple times, and selectively chosen for inclusion by others with their own agendas. This ultimately yields a document which one must examine skeptically, as it has been tainted by those who wish to put their belief on you (so you become a sheep if you accept it blindly).

A religious belief should be something personal, between one and God, with nothing intermediary. For this to take place, one must have two-way communication with God in a real sense. Many say the see God working in the world, but fail to account for circumstance, chance, and pure coincidence. Even that is not enough; a direct communication is required to fully understand all that is necessary. Personally, God has never replied to me, nor answered any prayers. Is this the fate of a skeptical Christian, or is it simply that we've killed God in these modern times, or perhaps that God never existed and scripture is merely a fairy tale to give an idealized value system and supplicant followers for politically aspiring church leaders?

Does God exist? If so, where is God, and why doesn't God speak directly to us?

Mat 9:36 GW When he saw the crowds, he felt sorry for them. They were troubled and helpless like sheep without a shepherd.

Mat 15:24 GW Jesus responded, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."

Posted by NASAdude at 03:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Isn't there some unwritten law that says every blog must begin with an inane and pointless entry that doesn't serve any purpose other than simply to exist?

"Hello world."

How's that?

Posted by NASAdude at 01:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)