Coffee Klatch

Today I got an email forwarded to me by a coworker. It asked me to NOT purchase any gas on May 15, touting how this boycott had been going on annually for 10 years now and had made gas prices drop by 30 cents overnight. Being the good doobie that I am, I immediately checked Snopes.com and found out some things that I’ve included below this quotation from the email.

—–Original Message—–
>I only pass this on as asked & will abide Let’s do this
>
>NO GAS…On May 15th 2007 Don’t pump gas on MAY 15th In April 1997,
>there was a ‘gas out’ conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices.
>Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On May 15th 2007,
>all internet users are asked to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices.
>Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 73,000,000+
>American members currently on the internet network, and the average car
>takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up. If all users did not go to the
>pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that’s almost 3
>BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please
>do not go to the gas station on May 15th and let’s try to put a dent in
>the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day. If you agree
>(which I can’t see why you wouldn’t) resend this to all your contact
>list. With it saying, ”Don’t pump gas on May 15th’

Here’s what I learned from Snopes:

• The first email-based boycott of gasoline for a day was in April 1999, not 1997.
• It didn’t make any difference.
• People just bought gas the day before or after instead, so there was no change in the overall market.
• A boycott is a long-term campaign where people totally and continually DO WITHOUT something to get their point across.
• The very premise of this idea is flawed because the amount of gas being used doesn’t change at all.
• Avoiding driving (or at least severely reducing it) would have more impact that not pumping gas on one day.

Their conclusion:

Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won’t have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days–an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without.

Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand. No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing.

An event like a “gas out” can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message. In this case, though, the only message being sent is: “We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can’t even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost.” What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its price? Those who really want to send a “message” to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row.

And there was a nice list of “Sources” at the end of their article.

I replied to the email I received with the following:

For what it’s worth:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/nogas.asp

Truth be told, it’s never had an effect on the gas market or prices. The email campaign to boycott gas stations began in 1999, not 1997, and the prices did not drop 30 cents a gallon overnight. Prices HAVE changed that much in one day, but not because of a boycott (or one-day abstention).

Just thought you should know.
Scott

Their response? “Thanks for the clarifications. I’ll be participating. Ethics are what its worth to me.”

From my point of view, no disrespect intended, ethics would require either doing an actual boycott or not pretending that my one-day thing was efficacious.

What it REALLY comes down to is self-delusion, convincing yourself that what you’re doing matters, even if all the evidence says there is no effect. Again, no disrespect intended, but if it really was a matter of ethics, then they should work at taking steps that CAN reduce the price instead of just trying to feel good.

Current music: On the Way to Bethlehem (Music of the Medieval Pilgrim)

In case you haven’t thought out all the ramifications of Daylight Savings Time, SOMEONE has! This is a real letter to the editor from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper.

Daylight exacerbates warning [sic]

You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot. As a matter of fact, I understand that it was the hottest March since the beginning of the last century. All of the trees were fully leafed out and legions of bugs and snakes were crawling around during a time in Arkansas when, on a normal year, we might see a snowflake or two. This should come as no surprise to any reasonable person. As you know, Daylight Saving Time started almost a month early this year. You would think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have on our climate. Or did they ? Perhaps this is another plot by a liberal Congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat. Perhaps next time there should be serious studies performed before Congress passes laws with such far-reaching effects.

CONNIE M. MESKIMEN / Hot Springs, AR

There you have it from a local expert. Daylight Savings Time heats the earth with all that extra daylight. If only it were possible to legislate cooler summers, too!

While there have been people for ages theorizing that Jesus was married and had children (some Gnostic gospels (not accepted as inspired or part of the Bible) claimed this and the Merovingians even claimed to be descended from Jesus), the whole Da Vinci Code craze has brought it to mainstream thought. Even though it was written as fiction and is full of research errors, many people take the Da Vinci Code as truth. That topic has been discussed ad nauseum by bloggers, theologians, newspaper reporters, and the general public, mostly being disproven, so I’ll let that lie.

The big news today was that somebody is claiming to have found Jesus’ “real” tomb, complete with tombs of his mother, wife, and at least one child. James Cameron (of Titanic infamy) has produced a documentary movie called The Lost Tomb of Jesus, which accompanies a book called The Jesus Family Tomb. They’re based on the discovery of this tomb that has similar names to people in the life of Jesus. It is quite the controversy and has been discredited by eminent archaeologists, but the contronversy continues.

The claim is based on there being a 2,000-year-old cave with tombs with the names of “Jesus, son of Joseph,” Mary, Mariamne (supposed to be Mary Magdalene), and “Judah, son of Jesus.” They’ve even tried to link this tomb through forensic “evidence” to the one of Jesus’ supposed brother, that turned out to be a fake.

Problem: Jesus, or Yeshua or Joshua, was the 6th most common name in Israel at that time. But “Jesus, son of Joseph” alongside a tomb of someone named Mary is supposed to raise the certainty to near-fact. Except for the actual fact that “Joseph” was the 2nd most common name then and Mary was also one of the most popular girl names. (See Ilan, Tall. (2002). Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I: Palestine 330 BCE-200 CE. Tubingen: Mohr.)

That would be like saying that a grave in England with the name William, son of William, found alongside a grave named Mary conclusively would have to be William of Orange.

The spouse and child information would be relevant IF THERE WERE ANY RECORD OF JESUS BEING A HUSBAND AND FATHER. But there isn’t because he wasn’t and so this movie and book are simply another example of shoddy research attempting to capitalize on the success and popularity of other fictional stories.

Here are some external links of interest:

• Reuters: Filmmaker shows relics from disputed Jesus tomb
• Jerusalem Post: Israel may open ‘Jesus tomb’ to public
• Associated Press (via mlive.com): NewsFlash - Scholars criticize new Jesus documentary
• Singing in the Reign: A Titanic Claim: Jesus’ Body Found?
• Kath.Net: Jesus’ Family Tomb Discovery is a Titanic Fraud

[tags]Jesus, Talpiot, Da Vinci Code, archaeology[/tags]

Lately I’ve been hearing complaints in the news by people who are friends and family of military personnel, saying that we need to get them home so they can be with their families. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that they’re wrong. Do we have a draft on? Are people being forced to join the military? No! They’re signing up because they want to and because they feel it’s the right thing for them to do.

Military service is a job. When you take a job, especially one like this, you know what you’re committing to because it’s explained up front. Military jobs have a high possibility of being transferred to different locations or to dangerous locations. Sometimes the family cannot come along. People in the military understand this because it’s part of what they signed up for. They may decide to go ahead and have a family, which is fine, but they have to understand that it will be difficult and that their military service may require them to be separated from their family at times.

People, especially non-military people, have no right to tell the world or their country that their loved ones in the military should be at home with their families. They’ll be there when they can, but they signed up knowing that there could very well be times that wasn’t possible. This is one guilt trip that anyone responsible for military action should not have laid on them.

UPDATE: (1/26/07) This morning there was a story on NPR about a homecoming celebration in Fort Drum, NY, that was having to be postponed because of redeployment. While some people were saying how unfair it was, it was nice to hear the military families being interviewed say that it was part of the job and, while it’s tough right now, they’ll deal with it and get through it like they have in the past. Quite admirable!! Nothing but kudos for them!

[tags]military, family, separation[/tags]

This morning I was listening to NPR on the way to work, like I usually do. They featured a story called “Experiencing Other Faiths to Find Your Own,” about a girl from Davidson College (NC) who took a year to travel abroad and explore other ways of looking at religion.

With a small group of students, Gillian Siple, a religion major, lived in China, Thailand and India. She meditated in monasteries and ashrams, lived and studied among Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus — not your typical study-abroad program.

She remembers living at a meditation center in Thailand, wearing the traditional garb of a yogi. “I remember waking up at 4 o’clock in the morning and taking out my mat and I can remember just thinking, ‘What if my friends saw me now? Would anyone recognize me? I am so far from the person and the life that I live back at Davidson right now. There’s no remnant of that life on my body right now.’”

Even her faith began to fall away. She says that when she mediated, she felt an uncommon sense of peace. She wondered: Have I gone into this too deeply? Am I still a Christian, or am I becoming something else?

She said she now calls herself a “Christian Pluralist,” meaning that she is open to the validity of other religions. I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s actually possible. A Christian is someone who follows Christ and His teachings. One of those teachings, very clearly put by Him, was that there IS no other way.

• John 14:6 says: “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”
• Acts 4:12 says: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

True Christianity has no allowance for other religions being “correct.” Granted, nobody should be forced to believe anything and everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want and follow whatever religion they choose, but that does not make everyone right. There’s a big difference between allowing everyone to believe what they want and endorsing what everyone believes.

“Christian Pluralism,” then, is really an oxymoron. You can’t have both with integrity; one or the other must be compromised to be held to by one person. From this story, it sounds like Gillian has compromised her Christianity for the sake of Pluralism.

But that’s not really a surprise. When listening to her tell her story, I was struck by the feelings she expressed about when she was on this trip and tried to reconnect to her Christian God. She went into her room and knelt and tried to pray. She got as far as “Dear God…” and no words would come. I think that was when she said she began wondering what she was becoming if she couldn’t pray to this God that she no longer knew.

My thought: If you immerse yourself in error, of COURSE you will lose connection with the Truth. Investigating and learning are good, and learning about other religions can help you appreciate your own faith, but becoming steeped in the ways of error will not help you learn the Truth. Maybe it’s the difference between intellectually learning something and becoming personally involved, making it part of you.

This isn’t a popular concept nowadays, but it needs to be said. People today want to hear that anything is legitimate and valid as long as it is believed with sincerity. It makes people feel better about themselves and it soothes the guilty heart to be told that there are no absolutes. What counts is being nice to people and keeping your religion to yourself. They say there’s no such thing today as being wrong in the area of religion. But true Christianity (and true Islam and several others) teaches that there IS such a thing as right and wrong and that following other religions is error. There is no reconciliation there. Apart from dialogue, whose purpose is basically to encourage civility, but not necessarily acceptance.

My thought: If God came down to earth and told us what was right and wrong and what to believe and how to live, it would become our obligation to follow Him. (And you know what? That HAPPENED!)

Be sure to visit the NPR page itself to read the whole article that prompted this post. You can even click the “Listen” button at the top and hear the story just like it was broadcast this morning.

[tags]religion, Christianity, pluralism, NPR[/tags]

This morning I was listening to Morning Edition on NPR while I was driving to work, and they had a story about fighting colds and the effectiveness of various treatments. Why do some people catch everything that’s going around while others seem to avoid the colds or at least make short work of them?

Some [people] add a jolt of wheat grass or green tea to their smoothies. Others choose megadoses of vitamin C.

Many people swear by Airborne, a top-seller in drugstores that’s marketed as the “original immune-boosting tablet” and “created by a school teacher!”

According to “Dr. Ronald Turner, who leads clinical research at the University of Virginia School of Medicine,” no duplicatable studies have been done that show that Echinacea, Zinc, or even high doses of Vitamin C do anything at all for boosting the immune system. Even though Airborne sales have gone from $2 million to $100 million over the last four years, there’s no real proof that it works. They claim that people who take Airborne have cold symptoms eliminated or at least greatly reduced within 5 days, but people who have NO TREATMENT AT ALL had the same results.

So all of these supplements really have questionable results in actual testing as to whether they help prevent or reduce the effect of colds. As someone who was interviewed in the NPR story said, it may be more mental than anything; when we take some of these supplements, we feel like we’re doing something for our bodies and we get the psychosomatic effect of helping things out.

Is psychological treatment of colds worth spending so much money on them? I’d say that’s up for grabs.

I know that when *I* feel a cold coming on, I take Vitamin C more than normal and eat a lot of onion and garlic. Those are both natural antibiotics (so I’ve heard) and I’ve always had colds go away much faster when I’ve ingested high amounts of onion and garlic. Typically my first reaction is to eat a whole onion. I’ll often use a box of macaroni and cheese as the delivery mechanism for the onion since they go well together. I’ve been doing this consistently for a few years now and my instances of severe colds has gone down dramatically, even when the rest of my family has gotten them.

The NPR story did say that the one element that has consistently been shown to have an effect on colds is STRESS. People with higher amounts of stress are twice as likely to get a cold as those with less stress in their lives.

Oh, and since colds are transmitted by viruses, wearing a coat or not when you’re outside really doesn’t make too much difference. Here’s another story that NPR did about why kids hate to wear coats and whether it matters.

Apparently, at the end of every year, Pat Robertson spends some time in prayer, asking for a revelation about the coming year. Well, he’s announced yesterday that he’s gotten his 2007 revelation. Specifically, he says that God spoke to him and told him there will be a “mass killing” in the form of a huge terrorist attack sometime during the year, probably after September.

“I’m not necessarily saying it’s going to be nuclear,” he said during his news-and-talk television show “The 700 Club” on the Christian Broadcasting Network.

“The Lord didn’t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that.”

Robertson said God told him about the impending tragedy during a recent prayer retreat.

God also said, he claims, that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

In January 2006, he announced that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was God’s punishment for ceding land from Israel to the Palestinians. I May 2006, he said that storms and possibly a tsunami would hit the U.S. coast. In 2004, he predicted that President Bush would “easily win” re-election that fall. In 2005, he predicted that Bush would win “victory after victory” in advancing his agenda, including pushing through a new Social Security reform package and nominating new justices to the Supreme Court. Well, Bush did win re-election with 51% (hardly “easily”) and he did nominate two new Supreme Court justices, but Bush has hardly won that many victories and he certain did not get his Social Security package passed. There was also no tsunami, although Robertson claims that the flooding in New England was a partial fulfillment. Funny thing is that that occurred in mid-May. A scant week after Robertson announced his prediction about the storms and tsunami.

“I have a relatively good track record,” he said. “Sometimes I miss.”

Well, according to the Bible, then, he’s a FALSE PROPHET! Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says, “You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”

I wonder if Pat Robertson realizes how much he damages Christianity and the name of Christ when he so publicly pronounces God’s judgement like he does. If he was 100% correct and the signs were clear that things were in fulfillment of prophecy, that would be a different story. But he’s not, they don’t, and he ends up being a laughing stock for much of the U.S. and the rest of the world.

If he wants to truly serve God, he should try selling most of his personal wealth (it’s well over $100 million) and serving God’s people humbly and locally. Think how much good he could accomplish with even just HALF of his wealth! The message of Jesus when He was on earth was about loving others and caring for those who were less fortunate, not about amassing personal wealth and trying to become the center of the world’s attention.

[tags]pat robertson, predictions, terrorism, religion[/tags]

There is a very interesting case going on in Italy right now, concerning a man named Piergiorgio Welby, a poet who has been battling muscular dystrophy for 40 years and who has been hospitalized and on a respirator for 9 years.

He’s wanting to be taken off life support and be allowed to die. And he’s been blogging about it with one hand and a pencil tapping the keys on the computer keyboard. Plus, he just got a book published, called Let Me Die. He’s ready to die now but isn’t being allowed to have himself taken off life support.

To decline forced medical treatment is allowed under Italian law, experts say, but Italy has another law that makes it a crime to assist in a death, even with consent. So a doctor could not detach the respirator without risking prosecution.

It’s also more complicated in Italy because of the influence of the Catholic Church in politics, society, and life in general. The Catholic Church has always been a very firm supporter and defender of life. That explains their opposition to abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and contraception. So what’s the problem here? The Church is also against artificially prolonging life.

So you can’t purposefully take him off the machines because that’s assisting in his death. And yet you shouldn’t artificially prolong his life. What a conundrum! Isn’t removing artificial life support the same as assisting in death? It’s a paradox that will have to be resolved before long.

As Welby asks:

“What is natural about a hole in the belly and a pump that fills it with fats and proteins? What is natural about a body kept biologically functional with the help of artificial respirators, artificial feed, artificial hydration, artificial intestinal emptying, of death artificially postponed?”

Be sure to click the link at the top of this post to read the full story from the New York Times.

Current music: A Christmas Together, by John Denver and the Muppets

[tags]euthanasia, life support, welby[/tags]

I‘ve said before that once you start messing with definitions of relationships or humanity, such as with marriage or abortion, there’s no end in sight for where it could go. Now there’s a case in Vermont that is looking for “legal recognition” of the relationship between people and pets.

A couple’s dog (one of two) was shot while the couple was on a camping trip with their dogs and this one wandered onto someone’s private property. He already paid $4,000 in damages to them, but that’s not enough. The guy has to undergo counseling and perform community service because they’re calling it “animal cruelty” and saying that “the loss of Shadow caused them emotional damages far beyond $4,000.”

If an animal wandered onto my land, especially a potentially dangerous dog, I’d feel fully justified in shooting it. Especially with only a pellet gun. That the pellet severed the dog’s aorta is unfortunate but not animal cruelty. Even the intentional shooting of a dog should be balanced by the owner’s responsibility to keep it with them and on a leash.

“Animal cruelty goes on everyday everywhere,” Sarah Scheele said. “But if there’s a law that recognizes pets as beings that deserve respect, maybe people will think twice before they’re cruel to an animal.”

Right. We’ll have to tread super-carefully to make sure that nobody can consider our treatment of any animal cruel, and at the same time, we’ll smile on allowing abortions where the fetus can obviously feel the pain. Where’s the “respect” for life? Even if some don’t call that life fully human until birth? Ultrasounds have shown that fetuses react to abortifacts by writhing in what would be called pain if a post-natal child were doing it. Having the fetus go through almost the entire birth process and then crushing its skull is just as cruel. But, for heaven’s sake, don’t shoot at a dog! You’ll pay hefty fines and have to go to counseling.

Talk about hypocritical.

[tags]animal rights, animal cruelty, abortion[/tags]

This morning during a Bible study that was looking at James 2, with regard to the concept of “faith without works is dead,” our Lutheran pastor made a comment about what was going on in the time of Martin Luther. He said that during Luther’s time the emphasis was heavily on the role of works in salvation. He said that they acknowledged the power of God for forgiving sins during redemption, but that one still had to work to take care of sins committed AFTERwards. That’s why they were big into indulgences and that’s why they invented Purgatory, so that people would spend hundreds or thousands of years there, working through the penalty for sins committed that Jesus didn’t save them from. And that’s if they didn’t keep sinning while they were there.

I found his statements disturbing and I decided right then to look into the teachings of the Church throughout history and find out just when Purgatory was “invented” and if it was possible to keep sinning there.

The first place I would look would be Scripture. Many Protestants today say that the only place in Scripture that the doctrine of Purgatory is referenced is in the Apocrypha, but you can’t discount that, because up to the time of the Reformation, the Apocrypha was considered part of the Old Testament.

This site gives us LOTS of references from the New Testament that talk about the concepts involved in Purgatory. Concepts like purification after death by fire and a place of suffering and forgiveness after death that’s not heaven. I won’t copy all the verses that are there, since they’ve already done the work. A few aren’t quoted, so you might want to visit BibleGateway to look them up. Some are indirect or symbolic, but others are more clear.

Looking at writings that exist from the first few centuries A.D., I’ve found several references (A.D. 160, 190, 202, 210, 216, 244) to praying for the dead, even dead believers, and descriptions of Christians being purified by fire for a time before entering Heaven. The Early Church Fathers on Purgatory presents an easy-to-read collection of quotes from Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and more.

Clearly this concept was not invented during the Reformation nor by Pope Gregory in the 8th century. There are way too many references to Purgatory by the third century. So was the idea of Purgatory invented? Is it traditional? What’s the purpose of Purgatory? I’d always thought of it as a place where you got punished for sins, but I’d always been taught that all of our sins are forgiven through Christ’s work on the cross and that that covers ALL of our sins, past and future.

The basic definition of Purgatory is a state for those who have died and are bound for Heaven, but cannot yet enter because they are not pure. That is, they “have unrepented venial sins, have not fully expiated their mortal and venial sins (i.e. received temporal punishment), and/or still have attachments to things in this world (through sin) that take them away from God.” Revelation 21:27 says that “nothing unclean will enter Heaven.” 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 talks about how Jesus has laid the foundation but then men build on that foundation through what they do in their lives. Fire will test the quality of each person’s works, and the quality things will survive the test. Verse 15 says “If it [what he has built] is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.”

So Purgatory is a place of cleansing on the way to an eternal destiny of joy in heaven. It’s not a place for people to get a second chance at salvation. But sin does have consequences, even when it’s forgiven. This is where Purgatory comes in.

“Christians have believed in the Purgatory from the earliest times, which can be seen in the writings of the early Church. There wasn’t any serious opposition to the doctrine until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century. The opposition is the result of a misunderstanding of what Purgatory really is.

Most Protestants would agree that unrepented sin cannot be brought into Heaven and that we must be sanctified before we enter it. This purification would occur instantly upon death. They have not given a name for this purification process, but Catholics call it Purgatory.”

We are also encouraged to pray for souls in Purgatory, that their stay be shortened and they be admitted to Heaven. Prayers for the dead are found throughout the Church Fathers, in all the Catholic liturgies by the 4th century, and even engraved on the tombs of Christians from the first few centuries.

For more information, including explanations, Scripture proofs, and history, visit Holy Souls Online or the Prayers for the Dead and Purgatory articles from The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Summary: Whether or not you believe in it, Purgatory has apparently been taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning. There is enough evidence from the first few centuries to prove that the early Christians believed in it and it wasn’t invented later on. The theory behind it seems sound enough when you just look at the references and take them at face value. I think that proof of it is found more in the traditional teaching of the Church than in Scripture alone. But at the very least, I’d have to say that my pastor was wrong about it.

[tags]purgatory, catholicism, religion, christianity, church history[/tags]