Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.
Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI. So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do..'
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!
just before i woke up this "morning", i was having a dream.. i was in church, and the pastor was preaching.. and for the first time our church was just incredibly full of people.. just packed, and people were standing huddled at the entrance. i remember i was sitting at the front and turning around to see all the people there and then hiding my face in my arms feeling the urge to cry of joy. i got up and went to tell rich that that was the point of the breakout room, and to open the sliding curtain and set some chairs there for them to sit..
but the point of this post, is that a verse came up in my dream. clear as daylight, and i could see it written, i could see the words as letters in my dream, and they were "acts 4:12".. im guessing the words were floating or were like a vision in the dream, because i dont think they were written down anywhere, they just "were". so i woke up and thought, "man, what was acts 4:12 again?" and so i made a mental note to go look it up.. and i just did:
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Acts 4:12
you tell me what this all means.. its definitely interesting..
wow!! Time Magazine's "10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now" number 3 is "The New Calvinism".. incredible! and yet so true.. cant believe they didnt mention paul washer though.. hehe
Calvinism is back, and not just musically. John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction ? and our purpose ? is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine ? and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus ? seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" ? with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.
It sounds too good to be true. Now, for a limited time ? the year of St. Paul, to be specific, which ends in June ? say a prayer, pop by a designated church and qualify for an indulgence that deducts time from your scorching sojourn in the cleansing fires of purgatory.
Indulgences (no relation here to bubble baths or truffles) have been part of Catholic doctrine since the Crusades. When the Church offered them for sale in the 1500s ? call it mercy for money ? religious reformer Martin Luther protested. These days, they can't be bought. "How does that MasterCard ad go?" muses Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Some things are priceless."
The pardons have fallen by the wayside in the past few decades, but they're being revived in conjunction with a new emphasis on the importance of charity in Christian life. Catholicism, with 67 million followers in the U.S., is big on formulaic repetition of the Hail Mary and "Our Father" variety. But the Vatican is starting to move away from that and toward, according to the church's Manual of Indulgences, a "greater zeal for the exercise of charity."
It's no longer enough to repeat a prescribed number of prayers; you also have to do good, such as volunteer at a soup kitchen, help resettle refugees or donate to a worthy cause. Much like how many high schoolers have to fulfill a community-service requirement, Catholics are being urged to become do-gooders. "The church's teaching has evolved," Walsh says. "Part of indulgences is not just saying special prayers, but also doing good works."
At the core of indulgences is sin, which can either lead to eternal punishment ? i.e., hell ? or time spent in purgatory, a place of suffering where imperfections are scrubbed away in preparation for entering heaven. Confession erases eternal punishment, but temporal punishment remains. Plenary, or full, indulgences are the equivalent of a get-out-of-purgatory-free card. Partial indulgences simply shorten your stay.
[...]
The rules can confound even believers. William Damkoehler, an actor from Rhode Island, learned about indulgences as a kid in Catholic school. As an adult, he's bewildered by them. "It seems like the church is trying to get business back by offering rebates," he says.
The essence of plenary indulgences is tricky to nail down. They're granted if you meet specific criteria: go to confession, receive communion, pray for the Pope, visit a particular shrine. How do you know you actually got an indulgence? Faith.
If you merit a full pardon, it's fine to break out the bubbly. But if you drink too much champagne and start a barroom brawl? Indulgence revoked, and you're back to square one. How's that for an incentive to keep doing good works?
ahh good ole salvation by works.. oh right, even this doesnt guarantee your salvation.. i wonder when the catholic church will crack open their bibles and actually start reading them?
If someone tells me that faith is more important than love or hope is more important than love, I turn away because Paul said that of these three the greatest is love. Faith and hope are essential, but as Paul said, "without love, I am nothing."
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
so, this has been a long time coming, as i did this a while ago, but here are a few questions an atheist friend of mine posted as a note, and my answers to such questions:
1) HOW CAN GOD DECIDE STUFF WITHOUT A BRAIN?
Isn't it a huge leap to think that there is a being which can make moral judgments and take willing actions in the absence of an organic brain? I mean, what is god composed of? Is it anything that we can analogize with in any human experience whatsoever? Unless maybe God's neurons are actually the stars in the sky! Now that would be cool. Wait... no, that doesn't make any sense.
2) DO ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN?
To me, animals seem like feeling and thinking creatures, so shouldn't they have the same mystery of possessing a soul? One dog might die running into a fire to save its puppies, while another lazier and less altruistic dog may just lick itself, so shouldn't super dog be rewarded in the afterlife? On the other hand, all animals just act by their instincts and behave for survival - generally not taking 'evil' actions - so then shouldn't all animals go to heavens cause of their innocence? There are lots of creatures though, so where do you draw the line? You know, maybe heaven really is just full of animals! It could be like a crazy zoo with every mammal, fish, bird or insect that has ever died - ever- sharing eternity with God! Wait... no, that doesn't make any sense.
3) WHY DID GOD MAKE SUFFERING A LOGICAL NECESSITY?
If you need darkness to know light, and you need pain to know suffering, and the food that sustains you can choke you, plus the water you drink can drown you, then shouldn't we blame whoever wrote these rules of logic that require these contrasts to be needed? If we require the option of evil to be able to make truly good decisions, and we require the possibility of error for freewill to exist then shouldn't we be frustrated at whoever made this a logical necessity? What am I saying! God is by nature logical and therefore is superseded by the natural logical order of the universe. The almighty - creator of existence - must still obey rules that he did not himself make. Wait... no, that doesn't make any sense.
4) COULDN'T THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE BIBLE BE MORE POLITICALLY CORRECT?
Why is the christian God a 'He' instead of some neuter alien intelligence? And if He is so wise, then shouldn't He be more even-handed than to create Adam before Eve? Plus, why did Jesus have to be a man instead of a woman? Why not send twins - one boy and one girl - to preach the good word? Wouldn't all of these factors make it seem like God is rather sexist instead of all knowing? Wait, maybe I am not taking this all into historical context. Maybe the Garden of Eden and God's masculinity are just outdated sexist metaphors. And maybe God sent down Jesus alone instead of a girl because He had to pander to the sexism of the time period! God wanted to be representative of both genders when taking the tremendously important action of sending His children to save us all, but His hands were tied by the sexism of biblical Jerusalem! Wait... no, that doesn't make any sense.
5) SHOULDN'T GOD HAVE ANTICIPATED THAT HIS COMMANDMENTS WOULD BE VAGUE?
If whether or not you go to Hell is so heavily dependent on following the Bible, shouldn't there be a few hundred commands instead of just ten? And why did God waste four of the commandments on himself? How are we supposed to look to the Bible for direction on issues like abortion, or stem cell research, or nuclear proliferation, or war crimes, or gay adoption rights, or custody battles, or any number of real life moral quagmires with such outdated and simple stuff? If the US constitution can be reinterpreted and argued over, and it is only a couple hundred years old and was written in brief with legal English, then doesn't it follow that a bible that is super long written poetically in an ancient language would be positively useless as law? I'm not being fair. God must have instilled in us a basic goodness that we are meant to follow and the Bible is just some stories for inspiration, and it is well within our power to contextually pick out for absolutely certain what was symbolic and what was concretely intended to keep us out of eternal hellfire. That is why it is so easy for theists to agree on a single interpretation of God's word. Wait... no, that doesn't make any sense.
This was supposed to sound somewhat casual and comical, but turned into a bit of a rant,
please don't take it too seriously because I certainly didn't :P
(feel free to link this over to more believers, I'd welcome some constructive dispute)
and below are my answers:
1) HOW CAN GOD DECIDE STUFF WITHOUT A BRAIN?
i think this question is due to a limitation in how we think of "thought". sort of akin to asking "how can we fly without wings?" we can fly without wings (hot air balloons, jetpacks, helicopters etc), it just took the understanding of what it meant to "fly" or what flying implies or requires. by observation it was concluded that those who flew had wings, therefore, to fly you need wings. but that wasnt the case. so therefore, to think i dont think we require neurons or physical material, it just is the way _we_ doit, so its how we understand it at this point.
definitely an interesting question, i dont think ive ever heard it before.
2) DO ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN?
actually, only humans have souls (speaking in this realm at least) and only humans have the capability to make moral decisions, therefore only humans will be judged according to that. the bible also makes the distinction between soul (personality) and spirit (life) though not all theologians agree on that. in any case, the bible does say that the spirit returns to the Creator. so, the spirit given to all animals and humans (yes, the spirit of every human) returns to God, while souls await in a sort of sleep state for the judgment (which will actually end up feeling like the same day anyways, given that Jesus told the criminal on the cross who repented that he would see paradise "today"). however, the bible never mentions animals in heaven (or hell) at least that i know of. so, do dogs go to heaven? if one does, they all do, but having no soul (but indeed a spirit) only their spirit would.
3) WHY DID GOD MAKE SUFFERING A LOGICAL NECESSITY?
haha, i guess ill take the second part of your explanation as more "thinking out loud" than support for the question.. hehe
in any case, yes, the only way free will can be free is if you have choice. i dont know if i already told you this one, but there is a great olaf comic i read a long time ago that always stuck with me (from way before i was a christian). olaf is sitting there and helga asks him what he wants to eat, chicken or beef. he lets us know how great it is to be able to have choice over what you eat, and promptly answers "beef!" and then helga says "sorry, we only have chicken". did olaf actually have a choice? or was it just an illusion? one thing i constantly hear from atheists is that they dont just want the "illusion" of freedom, they want "actual" freedom. which is what God actually gave us. such that when we chose "beef", beef we got. of course, choosing beef has its consequences, choosing sin has its consequences, and those are the ones we are dealing with now. i find it funny when people criticize earth or creation as "flawed" because "just look at it!" asking "do you /really/ think this shows design?" well, thats the point, the genesis account of creation says that when God created everything he looked at it and saw that it was "good".. then adam sins and the bible says a curse fell upon the whole earth. sort of like when you smoke and get lung cancer, but it affects your entire body. despite the fact that your feet arent guilty of anything, they still die along with you, because they are a part of you. theres another preacher, who i think is the best preacher out there, i told mike about him, his name is paul washer, and he actually (pretty radically, since its the first time i ever heard such a thing) states that pain and suffering are actually acts of God's mercy! (waits a moment for any of you having a fit to cool down.. hehe) because, as he puts it, it demonstrates that we are "fallen, fallen, fallen" and "in need of a savior".. it lets us know that things arent alright. something is definitely bad. and having sinned against a holy God, means we deserve hell (eternal separation from the fullness of His glory) --which be honest, as atheists that what you want, right? you dont want to spend eternity in the presence of a God you hate, one you cant run out of expletives to describe (not all of you fall in this category i know, but im sure you know what im talking about-- and if nothing lets you know that you are in that fallen state, nothing lets you know that you are in need of a savior, why would you seek one? and then when faced with Him in the trial, you could say "i didnt know". for God to be fair, He has to let you know, whether you accept what He offers or not. but all excuses are removed.
this is actually part of a much much deeper theology than i would say 99% of christians even understand, and thats salvation, and regeneration. but i wont go into that now, unless you want to know more about this. its really very interesting, i was preaching about exactly this on sunday, so its pretty fresh in my mind
4) COULDN'T THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE BIBLE BE MORE POLITICALLY CORRECT?
hehe i like how you phrase the question, because it almost answers itself. the problem is that we try to force "our" (current) ideals or worldviews upon God, expecting Him to conform to _us_, and not the other way around. like the clay telling the potter how the potter should form it. in an egocentric world view this makes sense, but not otherwise.
as for the gender issues asked, thats another thing i mentioned this sunday, and thats that he bible says that in Christ, there is no jew or gentile, or slave or free man, or male or female, in Him we are all one, we are all equal. different roles, customs, etc, but all one. the same way that my hand doesnt do what my foot does, but they are all part of me.
why did God say He is a He, and why is Jesus a He? i could try to explain this several ways, ultimately i would have to conclude "i dont know", but let me give it a whirl. one could be genetic (remember, God knows everything, after all, He made us) and if you only had women, you could only get more women (XX) while if you start off with a man (XY) you can get both. perhaps its a genetic analogy to His being "the origin of everything" that from Him comes everything while from us (or what is physical) you can only get more of "us".. ie, we are the woman, God is the man.. and actually the bible describes the church (incorrectly thought of as an organizational entity, usually the "catholic" church.. which is not the biblical definition) as a female (bride) betrothed to Christ (the groom)
more explicitly, God is a He in His function as Father, with all that that entails. the love of a father, thats the kind of love God has for us, and not the love of a mother (which paul washer says is actually never mentioned in the bible). and the love of a father (the true love of a father, or what its supposed to be) is quite quite different to that of a mother. the problem is that most of us have never actually truly experienced what the love of a father is really like, so we dont understand it. the love of a father requires discipline, the bible says that God disciplines those whom He loves, for example. it is a providing love, takes care of your needs. it is a love that demands an example to be followed in a lot of senses.
in any case, final conclusion, i dont know 100% why God chose to refer to Himself as a "He".. but there it is, He did, and it would be offensive to His nature to refer to Him any other way (did you hear that oprah??)
i
5) SHOULDN'T GOD HAVE ANTICIPATED THAT HIS COMMANDMENTS WOULD BE VAGUE?
actually, theres 613 precepts to be followed, according to rabbinical enumerations. but as the bible says, the law isnt meant to save us, it cant. nobody is able to fulfill the law completely. only Jesus was, and that because He is God. so if you fail the law in any point, you fail. doesnt matter how many there are, if you fail any of them, thats it. issues like abortion (baby sacrifice for the false god moloch) and everything related thereto are answered by the passages that talk about when human life begins (bible says in the womb) and the regard for the practices rendered to moloch (ie, not favorable); anything to do with gay "rights" is answered by the verses that deal with homosexuality and sexual immorality; custody battles answered by verses dealing with marriage/divorce; and as for nuclear proliferation, can we safely throw it into the "murder" and "war" categories? that theists dont agree on interpretation
or understanding of texts (or selection of texts) doesnt invalidate what God actually determined as such.
the law serves two main purposes, one, to keep us safe from ourselves and maintain peace. and the other, like i said before, to show us just how fallen we are. God knows it is impossible for us to keep thelaw fully (or at all).. we have decided to rebel against God since we were babies almost. yet, again, this is the doctrine of salvation. i think you said you were from an anglican background. well, many spawns of the catholic church (though not limited to it) preach a salvaion by "works" ie, theres actually something we, as humans, can do to "attain" salvation for ourselves, while the bible teaches exactly the opposite. we cant even have faith, or believe unless God grants it to us by grace.
and now that i have surely created an even greater array of questions im sure, i must go and take a bit of a nap, but i hope this answers the 5 you laid out.
i dont agree with his lax attitude on people going to bars, as i do not think bars are a place where christians should be hanging out.. but the main message was good
yes, thats right, the obama'nation is now going to overturn protection for doctors who refused to kill innocent babies because it goes against their religion or morals (cuz who has those anymore.. right?) or they risk, you guessed it.. going to friggin JAIL.. this is just ridiculous. how did this guy become president again?
worst thing is, i was actually trying to give this guy a chance.. but, thats it for that..
joelie sent this to me, not sure if its true that a kid in school wrote it, but i still think its great..
WRITTEN BY A 15 yr. Old SCHOOL KID IN ARIZONA :
New Pledge of Allegiance (TOTALLY AWESOME) !
Since the Pledge of Allegiance And The Lord's Prayer Are not allowed in most Public schools anymore Because the word 'God' is mentioned... A kid in Arizona wrote the attached
NEW School prayer :
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks..
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
"who's to say that things which are explicable are not miraculous? Many who rely on science alone for all things think when science finds an explanation to some phenomenon that it nullifies any miraculous status people ascribed to it before. That's nonsense. ALL that God has done is miraculous beginning with the salvation of sinners like me."
get your own ads on insaner.com for just $1