God's Ephiphany

God’s Epiphany

Although omniscient, advancements in Science gave God pause to consider paradoxes he hadn’t originally considered.  As John opined in the chapter bearing his name, "I solemnly assure you, no one can enter God's kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit.” The necessity of baptism seemed reasonable at the time but now God was mildly concerned about the souls of the unborn or babies that died at birth or, for that matter, babies that died at any time prior to baptism. He knew the Church taught that it does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude. Limbo, which had a good run but was ultimately retired, was a speculation as to what happened to the souls of children who died and, who through no fault of their own, were not baptized. What should happen to souls that have neither been baptized or accepted the Spirit? After all, it was his own son who directly instructed that, "Unless a man be born again of the water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

God had doubts back around 1560 when the Council of Trent decreed: "If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema” and thought about intervening. However, Martin Luther had done such good work and it appeared as if people were finally starting to understand and get along. Eventually, the window of opportunity closed and by the time Pope John XXIII Vatican II’s: "What was, still is” circulatedhe felt  it was too late to interfere.

But God worried.The dilemma he faced was how to reconcile the requirements for baptism and accepting the Spirit with the fact some souls simply didn’t have the opportunity. Some scholars tried to rationalize that, "The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God” but even God knew this was a cop out.

One option God was aware of is that souls can get into heaven if they die a martyr. Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what he called baptism of blood or desire. An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ. Not every death is martyrdom, but if aborted children have in some way been killed because of Jesus and his teaching, they might qualify to be among those souls that were slain for the word of God.  The caveat being that either the martyr must choose death for Christ, or else the murderer kills out of pure hatred for Christ as a motive. Perhaps the reason mothers abort their children is due to the nefarious workings of Satan and thus, unborn baby souls are martyrs who have suffered the heinous act of murder by mothers under Satan's spell.

God felt he was making progress on finding an acceptable solution until he came upon a New England Journal of Medicine article on fertilization within the female species of Homo sapien sapien, the humans he created back in the Garden. The article reported that as many as 70% of fertilized eggs do not survive through to a live, viable birth. Though not a doctor, God grasped the explanation that the maternal RNA transcripts -- that is, the molecules that carry instructions from the mother's DNA to the embryo's protein-making factories -- must be actively degraded in each cell of the embryo, and that this degradation is necessary for the cells to begin to express embryonic genes. Cells that fail to execute some part of this delicate process get out of sync with their neighbors and jeopardize the life of the embryo. God realized the whole endeavor is complicated, and how this might explain why human embryonic development is so precarious and unique.

What a quagmire though. Seventy percent of souls never take a breath, get a chance to sin or embrace the Spirit and are then kept from eternal paradise? What kind of world was this?

God shared his concerns with Gabriel and Peter. Peter acknowledged the difficulties and shared his own concerns over the paradox of when life begins and how many souls never get the chance to even try to fail.  Peter told God about his confusion over the case of monozygotic (identical) twins: each twin does not exist as an individual when "its life begins" - that is, when it is conceived because the embryo doesn't split into two parts until later. “If we told them life begins at conception, and ensoulment is the defining factor indicating life, how is possible some get souls earlier than others?”

God began to consider giving himself a mulligan and starting over. It was clear he had not put as much thought into this as he probably should have. If lasers or electron microscopes had been around back in the day he might have looked a little deeper into his creations.

“What a clustermess”, said God.

Arguments with Albert: 86% of Oncologists

Arguments with Albert: 86% of Oncologists
 “86% of oncologists won’t prescribe chemotherapy to themselves or a family member,” says Al. Immediately, my mind starts to calculate the odds and the incongruity of Al’s comment as well as the likelihood I could ever persuade him otherwise. The chance of convincing him the statement is both alarmingly wrong and harmful is about as high as it is that the statement is true.

 “86% is pretty high,” I say. “It’s probably higher”, he replies.

 “So, Al. I have a few follow-up questions, if you’ll permit me.” He neither gives consent nor objects. “To begin with, are you referring to all oncologists in the Milky Way? Earth? Western Hemisphere? Detroit? Responders to someone’s survey? Who exactly are these oncologists?” “It’s been widely reported,” he huffs. “I can find you a dozen references if you want.” “A dozen references to the same misreport”, I think to myself.

"And, Al, are you saying this includes all types of cancers and all types of chemotherapy? “I don’t know, look it up for yourself. Any way you look at it, doctors who treat cancer won’t prescribe this poison to a loved one. Or take it themselves.”

Most surprising in Al’s charge is his unawareness of the implicit condemnation of oncologists as being immoral, greedy and wicked. “If what you say is true, Al. Then 86% of oncologists are inhumane, brutal human beings unfit to practice medicine.”

 “I didn’t say any such thing,” Al protests, ‘I’m just saying they know the damage it does and they would never go against the AMA so they keep prescribing it. But not if it’s a loved one.”

 “Right. These oncologists are perfectly happy to pour poison into their patients – merely for profit, or out of callousness or cruelty. If so, not only are they mean but stupid as well. By admitting they administer chemotherapy to patients, but would refuse to do the same for someone they loved, they are admitting their malevolent involvement in the practice of killing patients, or at best not helping them. If it were true that in general oncologists would not prescribe chemotherapy to family members because they believed the treatment was either ineffective or poisonous, don’t you think they’d keep this to themselves?”

 “I’m sure most of them are good people just doing their jobs, but facts are facts, these things don’t get widely reported if they’re false.” Al weakly proclaims. Al is guilty of contemporary confirmation bias: having an opinion and then Googling until you’ve found confirming evidence of what you already believe to be true. As is usually the case, numerous articles can be found spouting the same information, almost always originating from the same source that affirms the opinion you started with. Any Google hit with a conflicting opinion is ignored.

 In the case of the fabrication of oncologists refusing to prescribe chemotherapy to themselves or family members, the perpetrator of the myth leads back to a 1987 Canadian study. One hundred and eighteen Canadian doctors who treated lung cancer were asked how they would wish to be managed if they had non-small cell lung cancer. (Mackillop, 1987) Four clinical situations were described. Although opinion was divided as to the role of immediate radiotherapy in inoperable cancer, and the role of post-operative radiotherapy following incomplete surgery, there was little controversy as to the role of chemotherapy. Three percent of doctors wanted adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for early disease, 9% wanted chemotherapy for advanced disease confined to the chest and 15% wanted chemotherapy for symptomatic metastatic disease. This study only addressed non-small cell lung cancer, not any of the other dozens of cancers.

Furthermore, data accumulated from 1985 to 1990 at the Massey Cancer Center, indicated that only a small minority (19% of Virginia non-small-cell lung cancer patients) were actually receiving chemotherapy. (Thomsas J. Smith, 1998). Thus, this selective data describes that while doctors in the 1980’s may well have been reluctant to treat themselves with chemotherapy if they had this particular cancer, they were only using it with less than 1 in 5 patients. In a 1998 follow-up study, Smith found that “In the MacKillop et al study, only 17% of medical oncologists said that they would take chemotherapy for painful bone metastases and another 17% said that they would undergo radiotherapy to the spine, in addition to chemotherapy, for a total of 34%. Our results show that 64.5% would now take chemotherapy indicating nearly a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those now willing to have chemotherapy plus radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take chemotherapy alone.” (Thomsas J. Smith, 1998)

 I persisted, “Al, if you look deep enough you find there is a lot more to the story. The actual numbers are that in 1987 a study conducted in Canada (118 doctors) reported that 34% of doctors would take either chemotherapy or radiation and in a follow up study that included 126 doctors, results showed that 64.5% would now take chemotherapy indicating nearly a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those now willing to have chemotherapy plus radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take chemotherapy alone.” (Thomsas J. Smith, 1998) Two-thirds of doctors, not 14% as you suggested, and this was nearly 20 years ago. There’s a good chance the results would be even higher in favor of chemotherapy, given that over the years chemotherapy has shown enhanced clinical benefits and medication to lessen the side effects has improved greatly. ((EBCTCG), 2011)

 “Say what you want,” Al cries defensively, “We all have a right to our opinions.” “This is so,” I lament, “But if it’s false that 86% of oncologists would refuse chemotherapy for themselves or loved ones, and you tell someone with cancer that it’s true, and that person chooses not to seek treatment because of it, then you’re partially culpable for the outcome. At a minimum, if you insist on holding this opinion, at least do more than read articles that make vague claims and general references. Find the research and read it.”

 (EBCTCG), E. B. (2011, December 6). Chemo after breast cancer surgery cuts deaths by one-third. Cancer Research Center UK News Report.

 Mackillop, W. (1987). Non-small cell lung cancer: how oncologists want to be treated. Int J Oncol Bio Phys. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3034842?dopt=Abstract

Thomsas J. Smith, M. (1998). Would Oncologists Want Chemotherapy If They Had Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer?

The New Workplace: Employee Advocacy

A business may ask employees to actively promote the organization, often through social media, as an element of their jobs. However, the most compelling employee advocacy consists of freely-offered communications on the part of the workforce. The question of whether or not staff members are likely to freely promote an organization is highly related to the degree of employee engagement in the workplace, and employee engagement is largely a factor of the corporate culture and the employer’s ability to make working for them a positive experience. Forrester research studied the status of employee advocacy through a global survey of over 5,500 information workers. The survey used a 10-point Likert scale to quantify the response to two questions: How likely are you to recommend your company's products or services to a friend or family member? How likely are you to recommend a job at your company to a friend or family member? The results of Forrester’s research indicated that there is a great deal of room for improvement. Overall, the North American score was negative twenty-four percent on the employee advocacy score for recommending their company's products and services. Forty-nine percent of the information workers sampled were detractors, twenty-four percent were neutral and just twenty-seven percent were promoters. For job referrals, the overall score was negative sixteen percent, with forty-three percent detractors, twenty-nine percent neutral and twenty-seven percent promoters.

How do you know you're communicating with God?

How do you know that your connection to God, your personal relationship, isn't just a conversation in your brain? Write your own personal explanation using between 5 - 500 words and the author who's response helps me better understand this phenomenon will receive one ticket to the 2015 Wild Goose Festival. ( I purchaed the ticket hoping to attend but I won't be able to make it, maybe next year). Email me at treybien33@yahoo.com by June 18th, 2015. Background: on the continuum I sway between a reluctant athiest and a skeptical agnostic. I'm pretty far from the "true believer" end of the spectrum. But, I keep an open mind. Personally, I can't sense any reality beyond the natural world. So, I'm interested to understand how/why people of faith know their personal relationship with a supernatural being exists as opposed to it just being a dialogue in their mind/brain.

Didn't know it, but looks like I'm an Epicurean

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, founded around 307 BCE. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Following Aristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that what he called "pleasure" is the greatest good, but the way to attain such pleasure is to live modestly and to gain knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires.

Words I Use Incorrectly

There’s great joy to be gleaned from using and understanding words with precision. For the linguistically inclined, it can be the pleasure of reading and writing. It can also be an obsession. Recently, for example, a man named Bryan Henderson made headlines for editing thousands of Wikipedia pages to eradicate the phrase “comprised of” in favor of “composed of.” Of course, even amongst avid readers, there are a handful of words that often are confused and misused. So we've rounded up some of these tricky word pairs and their definitions, adding sentences to help you remember the distinctions. Join in the fun by commenting with your own mnemonic sentences that include these words. Twins - Female twins posing in hats. Image ID: 1685125 eminent v. imminent eminent: adj. famous and respected within a particular sphere or present to a notable degree imminent: adj. about to happen She was an eminent author, winning prestigious awards and accolades. At the moment, what she was most anticipating was not the National Book Award ceremony, however; it was the imminent arrival of her breakfast burrito. substantive v. substantial substantive: adj. having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable substantial: adj. of considerable importance, size, or worth My point is substantive, derived from thorough research, and it is this: Your substantial chocolate stash takes up an entire drawer, so you should be willing to share. censure v. censor censure: v. express severe disapproval of (someone or something) censor: v. examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it They wanted to censor the film, removing the sex scenes. So we censured the decision in a scathing op-ed article called, "Give the People What They Want!" indeterminate v. indeterminable indeterminate: adj. not exactly known, established, or defined indeterminable: adj. not able to be definitely ascertained, calculated, or identified The goodie bag's contents were indeterminate until we opened it. There we found a coupon worth "a gajillion hugs," a number of hugs that was indeterminable. denote v. connote denote: v. signify the literal meaning connote: v. (of a word) imply or suggest (an idea or feeling) in addition to the literal or primary meaning According to the dictionary, the word denotes strength. Unfortunately, when he used the word to describe my perfume, it seemed to carry a negative connotation, especially once he began coughing. elude v. allude elude: v. escape from or avoid (a danger, enemy, or pursuer), typically in a skilful or cunning way; fail to be attained by (someone) allude: v. suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at He eluded the trip to see the horror movie by playing sick, but the following day, when his friends alluded to the scene when the zombie attacks, he actually felt ill. ambiguous v. ambivalent ambiguous: adj. open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning ambivalent: adj. having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone She was ambivalent about the date because he was funny but also hogged the popcorn during the movie, which would give anyone mixed feelings. When he sent her an ambiguous text message that she couldn't decipher, she decided she preferred watching Downton Abbey to dating.

Your Morals Depend on Language

If words matter, then it naturally follows that the language matters, too. Especially when it comes to solving a moral dilemma. That’s according to a study published in April called “Your Morals Depend on Language, ” authored by University of Chicago psychology professor Boaz Keysar and Albert Costa, a psychologist at Barcelona’s Pompeu Fabra University. When we spoke to them last spring, the told us that our decisions can change radically depending on whether you reach them in your native tongue, or in a second, learned language. In his research, Boaz used a classic social science hypothetical: imagine you are standing on a footbridge. An out-of-control trolley passes underneath, hurtling toward 5 people who will die, unless you stop the trolley by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. A very large man stands beside you. Do you sacrifice him to save the other 5? Source: On the Media, Bob Garfield, December 19, 2015

Whites Perceptions of the Terms Black and African American

Last month, shamed by press reports, the United States Army abruptly removed outdated language from regulations governing the ethnic terminology. Until Nov. 6, 2014, it was acceptable to describe African-Americans as negroes -- much as it was in civilian life, until about 40 years ago. The new policy limits the acceptable terms to “black” or “african american,” corresponding to contemporary usage. But we are not yet in a post-racial society, and language is still freighted. A new study published by The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology conducted by Emory University’s Erika Hall identifies significant difference of public perception based on which of the widely acceptable terms is applied. Erika welcome to OTM. White Americans perceive the term 'black' more negatively than 'African-American.' We found this in a criminal study. We found this in a media study and also in an employment study. SOURCE: Erika Hall, Emory University

Lapis lazuli (blue pigment)

Lapis lazuli was being mined in the Sar-i Sang mines[1] and in other mines in the Badakhshan province in northeast Afghanistan as early as the 7th millennium BC,[2] Lapis beads have been found at neolithic burials in Mehrgarh, the Caucasus, and even as far from Afghanistan as Mauritania.[3] It was used for the eyebrows on the funeral mask of King Tutankhamun (1341–1323 BC).[4]

Neuromorphic Engineering

Neuromorphic engineering, also known as neuromorphic computing,[1][2][3] is a concept developed by Carver Mead,[citation needed] in the late 1980s, describing the use of very-large-scale integration (VLSI) systems containing electronic analog circuits to mimic neuro-biological architectures present in the nervous system. In recent times the term neuromorphic has been used to describe analog, digital, and mixed-mode analog/digital VLSI and software systems that implement models of neural systems (for perception, motor control, or multisensory integration). A key aspect of neuromorphic engineering is understanding how the morphology of individual neurons, circuits and overall architectures creates desirable computations, affects how information is represented, influences robustness to damage, incorporates learning and development, adapts to local change (plasticity), and facilitates evolutionary change. Neuromorphic engineering is a new interdisciplinary subject that takes inspiration from biology, physics, mathematics, computer science and electronic engineering to design artificial neural systems, such as vision systems, head-eye systems, auditory processors, and autonomous robots, whose physical architecture and design principles are based on those of biological nervous systems.[4]

Vivid Dreaming, Stephen LeBerge

Vivid dreaming is when you become aware, while dreaming, that you are in fact, dreaming. It's rare but many have had the experience. In essence, while being unconscious, you become conscious of the fact you are dreaming. You are now both conscious and unconscious. How's that work? Stephen LeBerge has spent his life trying to understand vivid dreaming. Vivid dreaming gives us an unusual peak into the fabric of reality and consciousness. "Consciousness is what makes consciousness interesting," says LeBerge "Why should realizing something isn't real make it more real," he asks, yet that is the feeling we get when realizing a vivid dream. Are mental and physical spaces the same, or entirely unrelated? If I'm sitting down with you talking there are three realities. My experience in my mind, your experience in your mind and the physical world. Which is real? If you can become conscious of yourself dreaming while asleep, can you wake up during waking life too? Imagine a snowflake, a unique individual in a world of billions, falling into a pond. Is is scared, worrying about the end of life, annilalation? But the snowflake may think, "I'm not just one frozen molecule of water. I am water."

Sleeping with the Enemy

Most of us have between 1-4% Neanderthal in our DNA. I have 2.1%. At least according to 23&Me and National Geographic.Paabo is the guy who figured all this out. See Elizabeth Kolbert's New Yorker article called Sleeping with the Enemy for details. It seems we slept with them before we eliminated them. Not just Neanderthals, Denisovans and thr Hobbit group, Homo floresiences. How we (Homo Sapiens) we're able to conquer and survive is a mystery. We rocked the planet, but no one can put their finger on quite the reasons for it.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams (Cauvet)

The Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc Cave in the Ardèche department of southern France is a cave that contains some of the earliest known cave paintings, as well as other evidence of Upper Paleolithic life.[1] It is located near the commune of Vallon-Pont-d'Arc on a limestone cliff above the former bed of the Ardèche River, in the Gorges de l'Ardèche. Discovered on December 18, 1994, it is considered one of the most significant prehistoric art sites. The cave was first explored by a group of three speleologists: Eliette Brunel-Deschamps, Christian Hillaire, and Jean-Marie Chauvet for whom it was named. Chauvet (1996) has a detailed account of the discovery. In addition to the paintings and other human evidence, they also discovered fossilized remains, prints, and markings from a variety of animals, some of which are now extinct. Further study by French archaeologist Jean Clottes has revealed much about the site. The dates have been a matter of dispute but a study published in 2012 supports placing the art in the Aurignacian period, approximately 30,000–32,000 BP.

Umwelt

In the semiotic theories of Jakob von Uexküll and Thomas A. Sebeok, umwelt (plural: umwelten; from the German Umwelt meaning "environment" or "surroundings") is the "biological foundations that lie at the very epicenter of the study of both communication and signification in the human [and non-human] animal."[1] The term is usually translated as "self-centered world".[2] Uexküll theorised that organisms can have different umwelten, even though they share the same environment. Basically, it is the idea that an organism, like homosapiens, can only perceive a part of the world, reality, the part they are biologically designed to perceive. Take light, which exists as ultraviolet, infrared, x-ray, our eyes can only perceive less than one trillionth of the spectrum. There are whole realities we can't perceive.

For Good People to do Evil Things Requires Religion

Quotations related to Steven Weinberg: "'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."[14]

The Anthropic Principle

In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. In other words, because a species evolved that can contemplate the meaning of life, the structure of the Universe, isn't is logical that the Universe is designed to account for intelligent life? Did a self-reflecting, contemplative species evolve to the point of understanding the complex world it lives in and yet the Universe is taken by surprise this happened. The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist",[6] is "easy" to support in mathematics and philosophy, i.e. it is a tautology or truism. However, building a substantive argument based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not tautologies and thus make claims considered controversial by some and that are contingent upon empirical verification. 

Today I was thinking

Is is possible for the universe to have created itself or for it to have always existed? Yes. The other primary explanation is that God created the universe and that God always existed. Nothing created God, God just always was. So, let's call God A. A created the universe but A was not created, A always existed. Now let's replace A with B. B created the universe but B was not created, B always existed. So, if it's possible, or at least believable by some, that A always existed, it should follow that it is possible that B always existed.(God always existed and needs no explanation for his creation or The Universe always existed and needs no explanation.) In other words, maybe the answer to the question: "How could something be created out of nothing?" is that "something" is the norm and "nothing" would be unusual. There has always been "something", whether it's God or some sort of Universe. If "Where did God came from?" doesn't require an explanation, then neither should "Where did the Universe come from?" Fair's fair.

Silk

Silk is a natural protein fibre, some forms of which can be woven into textiles. The protein fibre of silk is composed mainly of fibroin and produced by certain insect larvae to form cocoons.[1] The best-known type of silk is obtained from the cocoons of the larvae of the mulberry silkworm Bombyx mori reared in captivity (sericulture). The shimmering appearance of silk is due to the triangular prism-like structure of the silk fibre, which allows silk cloth to refract incoming light at different angles, thus producing different colors. Silks are produced by several other insects, but generally only the silk of moth caterpillars has been used for textile manufacturing. There has been some research into other silks, which differ at the molecular level.[2] Many silks are mainly produced by the larvae of insects undergoing complete metamorphosis, but some adult insects such as webspinners produce silk, and some insects such as raspy crickets produce silk throughout their lives.[3] Silk production also occurs in Hymenoptera (bees, wasps, and ants), silverfish, mayflies, thrips, leafhoppers, beetles, lacewings, fleas, flies and midges.[2] Other types of arthropod produce silk, most notably various arachnids such as spiders (see spider silk).

I'm 2.6% Neanderthal

Got my 23and Me results back. Got Neanderthal DNA? An estimated 2.6% of your DNA is from Neanderthals. Trey Duffy (you) 2.6% 26th percentile Average European user 2.7% MODERN HUMANS Higher brow Narrower shoulders Slightly taller NEANDERTHALS Heavy eyebrow ridge Long, low, bigger skull Prominent nose with developed nasal chambers for cold-air protection

Blue Brain Project

The Blue Brain Project is an attempt to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level. The aim of the project, founded in May 2005 by the Brain and Mind Institute of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland, is to study the brain's architectural and functional principles. The project is headed by the founding director Henry Markram and co-directed by Felix Schürmann and Sean Hill. Using a Blue Gene supercomputer running Michael Hines's NEURON software, the simulation does not consist simply of an artificial neural network, but involves a biologically realistic model of neurons.[1][2][3] It is hoped that it will eventually shed light on the nature of consciousness.[3] There are a number of sub-projects, including the Cajal Blue Brain, coordinated by the Supercomputing and Visualization Center of Madrid (CeSViMa), and others run by universities and independent laboratories.