Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Monday, August 12, 2013

George Saunders's Advice to Graduates

By Joel Lovell, NY Times, July 31, 2013

It’s long past graduation season, but we recently learned that George Saunders delivered the convocation speech at Syracuse University for the class of 2013, and George was kind enough to send it our way and allow us to reprint it here. The speech is well worth reading, and is included below.

Down through the ages, a traditional form has evolved for this type of speech, which is: Some old fart, his best years behind him, who, over the course of his life, has made a series of dreadful mistakes (that would be me), gives heartfelt advice to a group of shining, energetic young people, with all of their best years ahead of them (that would be you).

And I intend to respect that tradition.

Now, one useful thing you can do with an old person, in addition to borrowing money from them, or asking them to do one of their old-time “dances,” so you can watch, while laughing, is ask: “Looking back, what do you regret?” And they’ll tell you. Sometimes, as you know, they’ll tell you even if you haven’t asked. Sometimes, even when you’ve specifically requested they not tell you, they’ll tell you.

So: What do I regret? Being poor from time to time? Not really. Working terrible jobs, like “knuckle-puller in a slaughterhouse?” (And don’t even ASK what that entails.) No. I don’t regret that. Skinny-dipping in a river in Sumatra, a little buzzed, and looking up and seeing like 300 monkeys sitting on a pipeline, pooping down into the river, the river in which I was swimming, with my mouth open, naked? And getting deathly ill afterwards, and staying sick for the next seven months? Not so much. Do I regret the occasional humiliation? Like once, playing hockey in front of a big crowd, including this girl I really liked, I somehow managed, while falling and emitting this weird whooping noise, to score on my own goalie, while also sending my stick flying into the crowd, nearly hitting that girl? No. I don’t even regret that.

But here’s something I do regret:

In seventh grade, this new kid joined our class. In the interest of confidentiality, her Convocation Speech name will be “ELLEN.” ELLEN was small, shy. She wore these blue cat’s-eye glasses that, at the time, only old ladies wore. When nervous, which was pretty much always, she had a habit of taking a strand of hair into her mouth and chewing on it.

So she came to our school and our neighborhood, and was mostly ignored, occasionally teased (“Your hair taste good?”—that sort of thing). I could see this hurt her. I still remember the way she’d look after such an insult: eyes cast down, a little gut-kicked, as if, having just been reminded of her place in things, she was trying, as much as possible, to disappear. After a while she’d drift away, hair-strand still in her mouth. At home, I imagined, after school, her mother would say, you know: “How was your day, sweetie?” and she’d say, “Oh, fine.” And her mother would say, “Making any friends?” and she’d go, “Sure, lots.”

Sometimes I’d see her hanging around alone in her front yard, as if afraid to leave it.

And then—they moved. That was it. No tragedy, no big final hazing.

One day she was there, next day she wasn’t.

End of story.

Now, why do I regret that? Why, forty-two years later, am I still thinking about it? Relative to most of the other kids, I was actually pretty nice to her. I never said an unkind word to her. In fact, I sometimes even (mildly) defended her.

But still. It bothers me.

So here’s something I know to be true, although it’s a little corny, and I don’t quite know what to do with it:

What I regret most in my life are failures of kindness.

Those moments when another human being was there, in front of me, suffering, and I responded…sensibly. Reservedly. Mildly.

Or, to look at it from the other end of the telescope: Who, in your life, do you remember most fondly, with the most undeniable feelings of warmth?

Those who were kindest to you, I bet.

It’s a little facile, maybe, and certainly hard to implement, but I’d say, as a goal in life, you could do worse than: Try to be kinder.

Now, the million-dollar question: What’s our problem? Why aren’t we kinder?

Here’s what I think:

Each of us is born with a series of built-in confusions: (1) we’re central to the universe (that is, our personal story is the main and most interesting story, the only story, really); (2) we’re separate from the universe (there’s US and then, out there, all that other junk—dogs and swing-sets, and the State of Nebraska and low-hanging clouds and, you know, other people), and (3) we’re permanent (death is real, o.k., sure—for you, but not for me).

Now, we don’t really believe these things—intellectually we know better—but we believe them viscerally, and live by them, and they cause us to prioritize our own needs over the needs of others, even though what we really want, in our hearts, is to be less selfish, more aware of what’s actually happening in the present moment, more open, and more loving.

So, the second million-dollar question: How might we DO this? How might we become more loving, more open, less selfish, more present, less delusional, etc., etc.?

Well, yes, good question.

Unfortunately, I only have three minutes left.

So let me just say this. There are ways. You already know that because, in your life, there have been High Kindness periods and Low Kindness periods, and you know what inclined you toward the former and away from the latter. Education is good; immersing ourselves in a work of art: good; prayer is good; meditation’s good; a frank talk with a dear friend; establishing ourselves in some kind of spiritual tradition—recognizing that there have been countless really smart people before us who have asked these same questions and left behind answers for us.

Because kindness, it turns out, is hard—it starts out all rainbows and puppy dogs, and expands to include…well, everything.

One thing in our favor: some of this “becoming kinder” happens naturally, with age. It might be a simple matter of attrition: as we get older, we come to see how useless it is to be selfish—how illogical, really. We come to love other people and are thereby counter-instructed in our own centrality. We get our butts kicked by real life, and people come to our defense, and help us, and we learn that we’re not separate, and don’t want to be. We see people near and dear to us dropping away, and are gradually convinced that maybe we too will drop away (someday, a long time from now). Most people, as they age, become less selfish and more loving. I think this is true. The great Syracuse poet, Hayden Carruth, said, in a poem written near the end of his life, that he was “mostly Love, now.”

And so, a prediction, and my heartfelt wish for you: as you get older, your self will diminish and you will grow in love. YOU will gradually be replaced by LOVE. If you have kids, that will be a huge moment in your process of self-diminishment. You really won’t care what happens to YOU, as long as they benefit. That’s one reason your parents are so proud and happy today. One of their fondest dreams has come true: you have accomplished something difficult and tangible that has enlarged you as a person and will make your life better, from here on in, forever.

Congratulations, by the way.

When young, we’re anxious—understandably—to find out if we’ve got what it takes. Can we succeed? Can we build a viable life for ourselves? But you—in particular you, of this generation—may have noticed a certain cyclical quality to ambition. You do well in high-school, in hopes of getting into a good college, so you can do well in the good college, in the hopes of getting a good job, so you can do well in the good job so you can….

And this is actually O.K. If we’re going to become kinder, that process has to include taking ourselves seriously—as doers, as accomplishers, as dreamers. We have to do that, to be our best selves.

Still, accomplishment is unreliable. “Succeeding,” whatever that might mean to you, is hard, and the need to do so constantly renews itself (success is like a mountain that keeps growing ahead of you as you hike it), and there’s the very real danger that “succeeding” will take up your whole life, while the big questions go untended.

So, quick, end-of-speech advice: Since, according to me, your life is going to be a gradual process of becoming kinder and more loving: Hurry up. Speed it along. Start right now. There’s a confusion in each of us, a sickness, really: selfishness. But there’s also a cure. So be a good and proactive and even somewhat desperate patient on your own behalf—seek out the most efficacious anti-selfishness medicines, energetically, for the rest of your life.

Do all the other things, the ambitious things—travel, get rich, get famous, innovate, lead, fall in love, make and lose fortunes, swim naked in wild jungle rivers (after first having it tested for monkey poop)—but as you do, to the extent that you can, err in the direction of kindness. Do those things that incline you toward the big questions, and avoid the things that would reduce you and make you trivial. That luminous part of you that exists beyond personality—your soul, if you will—is as bright and shining as any that has ever been. Bright as Shakespeare’s, bright as Gandhi’s, bright as Mother Theresa’s. Clear away everything that keeps you separate from this secret luminous place. Believe it exists, come to know it better, nurture it, share its fruits tirelessly.

And someday, in 80 years, when you’re 100, and I’m 134, and we’re both so kind and loving we’re nearly unbearable, drop me a line, let me know how your life has been. I hope you will say: It has been so wonderful.

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Across Forbidden Border, Doctors in Israel Quietly Tend to Syria's Wounded

By Isabel Kershner, NY Times, August 5, 2013

NAHARIYA, Israel—The 3-year-old girl cried “Mama, Mama” over and over as a stranger rocked her and tried to comfort her. She had been brought from Syria to the government hospital in this northern Israeli town five days earlier, her face blackened by what doctors said was probably a firebomb or a homemade bomb.

In the next bed, a girl, 12, lay in a deep sleep. She had arrived at the pediatric intensive care unit with a severe stomach wound that had already been operated on in Syria, and a hole in her back.

Another girl, 13, has been here more than a month recovering from injuries that required complex surgery to her face, arm and leg. She and her brother, 9, had gone to the supermarket in their village when a shell struck. Her brother was killed in the attack.

As fighting between Syrian government forces and rebels has raged in recent months in areas close to the Israeli-held Golan Heights, scores of Syrian casualties have been discreetly spirited across the hostile frontier for what is often lifesaving treatment in Israel, an enemy country.

Most are men in their 20s or 30s, many of them with gunshot wounds who presumably were involved in the fighting. But in recent weeks there have been more civilians with blast wounds, among them women and children who have arrived alone and traumatized.

Israel has repeatedly declared a policy of nonintervention in the Syrian civil war, other than its readiness to strike at stocks of advanced weapons it considers a threat to its security. Officials have also made clear that Israel would not open its increasingly fortified border to an influx of refugees, as Turkey and Jordan have, given that Israel and Syria officially remain in a state of war.

But the Israeli authorities have sanctioned this small, low-profile humanitarian response to the tragedy taking place in Syria, balancing decades of hostility with the demands of proximity and neighborliness.

"Most come here unconscious with head injuries," said Dr. Masad Barhoum, the director general of the Western Galilee Hospital here in Nahariya, on the Mediterranean coast six miles south of the Lebanese border. "They wake up after a few days or whenever and hear a strange language and see strange people," he said. "If they can talk, the first question is, ‘Where am I?’ "

He added, “I am sure there is an initial shock when they hear they are in Israel.”

The identity of the patients is closely guarded so they will not be in danger when they return to Syria. Soldiers sit outside the wards where the adults are to protect them from possible threats and prying journalists. But doctors granted access to the children in the closed intensive care wing, on the condition that no details that could compromise their safety were published.

Like many Israeli hospitals, this one serves a mixed population of Jews and Arabs; its staff includes Arabic-speaking doctors, nurses and social workers. In the lobby, a glass display case contains the remnants of a Katyusha rocket that was fired from Lebanon and hit the hospital’s eye department during the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. The rocket penetrated four floors but nobody was injured because all the north-facing wards had been moved underground.

With more than 100,000 people estimated to have died in the Syrian civil war, Dr. Barhoum, an Arab Christian citizen of Israel, acknowledged that the Israeli medical assistance was “a drop in the ocean.”

But he said he was proud of the level of treatment his teams could provide and proud to be a citizen of a country that allowed him to treat every person equally. He said the cost of the treatment so far had amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars and would be paid for by the Israeli government.

Little has been revealed about how patients get here, other than that the Israeli military runs the technical side of the operation. The doctors say all they know is that Syrian patients arrive by military ambulance and that the hospital calls the army to come pick them up when they are ready to go back to Syria.

The Israeli military, which also operates a field hospital and mobile medical teams along the Syrian frontier, has been reluctant to advertise these facilities, partly for fear of being inundated by more wounded Syrians than they could cope with.

Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a military spokesman, said that “a number of Syrians have come to the fence along the border in the Golan Heights with various levels of injuries.”

He added that the military has, “on a purely humanitarian basis, facilitated immediate medical assistance on the ground and in some cases has evacuated them for further treatment in Israeli hospitals.”

Now, efforts are under way to bring over relatives to help calm the unaccompanied children.

When the 13-year-old arrived, she was in a state of fear and high anxiety, according to Dr. Zeev Zonis, the head of the pediatric intensive care unit here.

"A large part of our treatment was to try to embrace her in a kind of virtual hug," he said.

Days later, the girl’s aunt arrived from Syria. She began to care for the Syrian children here, living and sleeping with them in the intensive care unit. The staff and volunteers donated clothes and gifts.

The aunt, her face framed by a tight hijab, said a shell had struck the supermarket in their village suddenly, after a week of quiet. A few days later, she said, an Arab man she did not know came to the village.

"He told us they had the girl," she said. "They took me and on the way told me that she was in Israel. We got to the border. I saw soldiers. I was a little afraid."

But she added that the hospital care had been good and that “the fear has passed totally.” She was reluctant to speak about the war back home, saying only, “I pray for peace and quiet.”

Sitting up in bed in a pink Pooh Bear T-shirt, the niece, who was smiling, said she missed home. She and her aunt were expected to return to Syria later this week.

Asked what she will say when she goes back home, the aunt replied: “I won’t say that I was in Israel. It is forbidden to be here, and I am afraid of the reactions.”

A family dynasty gives up The Washington Post


By Calvin Woodward, AP, Aug 6, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP)—The newspaper forever known for Deep Throat and the unraveling of a presidency had a quieter distinction, too: a family’s ownership through thick and thin, seemingly as immutable as the Washington Monument.

But just as an earthquake cracked the tower of stone, the ground now has shifted for The Washington Post.

Facing questions about the future of the newspaper business “to which we have no answers,” Don Graham, whose grandfather bought the paper at a 1933 bankruptcy sale, announced to staff Monday that the paper had been sold to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, closing the book on the storied paper’s history as a family dynasty after seven straight years of declining revenue.

It’s another watershed moment for an institution that first published in 1877, with a circulation of 10,000, bounced among owners both Democrat and Republican in its young life and encountered near-death experiences along the way.

Then Eugene Meyer, a California investor and member of the Federal Reserve, took the reins in the midst of the Depression, burnishing the paper’s reputation and tripling its circulation before handing control in the 1940s to son-in-law, Philip L. Graham, a brilliant, brooding and mercurial figure who killed himself with a shotgun at his Virginia farm in 1963.

Control fell to his widow, Katharine Graham. And it was she who stirred the full fury of all the president’s men when young reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein began unwrapping the Watergate saga that would destroy Richard Nixon’s presidency—and inspire legions to take up investigative journalism for years ahead.

In one landmark revelation, the paper published a front-page story describing the 1972 burglary at Democratic headquarters at the Watergate offices as part of a massive campaign of spying and sabotage directed by White House officials and members of Nixon’s re-election committee.

As told in Graham’s memoir, “Personal History,” then-Attorney General John Mitchell, one of the implicated officials, let out a “primal scream” when told the story was coming, followed by an obscenity that The Post cleaned up for its readers. Graham, the amended quote read, is “gonna get caught in a big fat wringer.” Nixon himself vowed The Post “is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of this one.” Ultimately, he did.

Before the cascade of Watergate reporting and throughout that episode, The Post was—as it remains—in pitched competition as a voice of national influence with The New York Times, still a survivor in the dwindling list of powerful family-owned organs.

In 1971 The Times, then The Post, published explosive stories on the leaked Pentagon Papers, revealing the government’s lies about the Vietnam War. Both fought attempts to suppress publication of the material. The case led to a First Amendment victory in the Supreme Court and a Pulitzer Prize for The Times one year before The Post won honors for its Watergate scoops.

In 2008 alone, the paper won six Pulitzers, recognized for exposing mistreatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital, for its Virginia Tech massacre coverage, its series on private security contractors in Iraq, and more. Perhaps its darkest hour also involved a Pulitzer, won in 1981 for a Janet Cooke story that was fake.

Despite the awards of recent years, there was trouble brewing for the business.

Buckling from pressures felt throughout the industry in the digital age, the paper saw its paid weekday circulation drop 37 percent from 2002 to last year. Newsroom staff was repeatedly trimmed and some bureaus closed. The newspaper ran an operating loss of $54 million last year.

"We had innovated and to my critical eye our innovations had been quite successful in audience and in quality, but they hadn’t made up for the revenue decline," Don Graham said in his announcement of the sale. "Our answer had to be cost cuts, and we knew there was a limit to that."

"This has been, this is, and this will continue to be, a family operation," Katharine Graham said.

Her words remain true in one sense: The Post goes now to a family, but not hers.

Snowden's Asylum: 'It's the law, stupid'

By Richard Falk, Al Jazeera, 5 August 2013

The most influential media in the United States has lived up to its pro-government bias in the Snowden Affair in three major ways: firstly, by consistently referring to Snowden by the demeaning designation of ‘leaker’ rather than as ‘whistleblower’ or ‘surveillance dissident,’ both more respectful and accurate.

Secondly, they are completely ignoring the degree to which Russia’s grant of temporary refugee status to Snowden for one year was in full accord with the normal level of protection to be given to anyone accused of nonviolent political crimes in a foreign country, and pursued diplomatically and legally by the government that is seeking to indict and prosecute. In effect, for Russia to have turned Snowden over to the United States under these conditions would have been morally and politically scandalous considering the nature of his alleged crimes.

Thirdly, the media’s refusal to point out that espionage, the main accusation against Snowden, is the quintessential ‘political offense’ in international law, and as such is routinely excluded from any list of extraditable offenses. That is, even if there had been an extradition treaty between the United States and Russia, it should have been made clear that there was no legal duty on Russia’s part to turn Snowden over to American authorities for criminal prosecution, and a moral and political duty not to do so, especially in the circumstances surrounding the controversy over Snowden.

If the world were composed of equal sovereign states and a global rule of law existed, the United States would have meekly apologised and, at the very least, promised to refrain from such behaviour in the future.

If these elements had been clearly articulated, the United States government would have seemed ridiculous if it complained about the willingness of some foreign governments to give Snowden asylum. The Obama administration, and senate hot heads could bemoan Snowden’s unavailability for prosecution to their heart’s content, but it would be then seen for what it is: a petulant empire exhibiting its rage and anger because it’s hard power global presence is of no use, and its policy options are constrained by the rule of law.

Under these conditions to be threatening foreign countries with adverse diplomatic consequences if they refuse to play ball is not only exhibiting a child’s frustration, but it is self-defeating. If properly presented, those countries that offered asylum or refused Washington’s demand for the transfer of Snowden to American custody did the only decent thing.

What should be surprising is that more governments were not forthcoming, leaving it to such small countries as Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to withstand the strong arm tactics of the United States, perhaps signaling a welcome new resolve throughout Latin America to no longer accept a regional identity of being the backyard of the colossus of the North.

If anything, President Vladimir Putin, considering the nature of the Snowden disclosures about the global reach of American surveillance systems, acted with exceptional deference to the sensitivities of the United States. Instead of merely pointing out that Snowden could not be transferred to the United States against his will, Putin went out of his way to say that he did not want the incident to harm relations with the United States, and even went so far as to condition Snowden’s asylum on an unusual pledge that he refrain from any further release of documents damaging to American interests.

Such a constructive approach to a delicate situation hardly merits the hyperbolic aggressive words of the supposedly liberal Democratic senator from New York, Charles Schumer: “Russia has stabbed us in the back…Each day that Mr. Snowden is allowed to roam free is another turn of the knife”.

We should ask these deeply aggrieved senators for honest answers, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, never ones to shy away from a good fight, what they would have done had a comparable Russian whistleblower revealed a Russian surveillance system that was listening in on secret government deliberations in Washington as well as invading the privacy of ordinary Americans. The righteous indignation surrounding such revelations and the gratitude that would be bestowed on a Russian Snowden would know no bounds.

It would seem that a genuinely democratic government would not wish that the commission of war crimes and invasions of the privacy of citizens were kept secret, and beyond procedures of accountability.

Washington seems to be casting around for tangible ways to express its displeasure with Russia. The American presidential press secretary, Jay Carney, talks of ‘extreme disappointment’ leading to the possible cancellation of the Obama/Putin summit scheduled for September where such issues as Syria, reduction of nuclear arsenals, and Iran would be on the agenda.

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, reminiscent of Cold War days, issued an inflammatory joint statement urging the United States to view Russia through an optic of conflict. It impetuously proposed reacting to Snowden’s asylum by beefing up the commitment to deploy missile defense systems in Europe and expanding NATO in ways that the Kremlin would find antagonistic.

Of course, Putin’s new identity as ‘human rights defender’ lacks any principled credibility given his approach to political dissent in Russia, but that does not diminish the basic correctness of his response to Snowden. There is a certain obtuseness in the American diplomatic shrillness in this instance. Snowden’s acts of espionage are pure political offense. Beyond this, the nature of what was disclosed revealed sustained threats to the confidentiality of government communications throughout the world.

If anything, rather than being intimidated by American inappropriate demands, the more natural and healthier international response would have been to cry ‘foul play!’ If the world were composed of equal sovereign states and a global rule of law existed, the United States would have meekly apologised and, at the very least, promised to refrain from such behaviour in the future. Snowden would have been chastised for breaking American law, but commended for bringing to the surface some ugly encroachments on freedom and constitutional order, including within America, that shows how dangerous it is to leave the balancing of security and civil liberties to the good faith and judgment of bureaucrats and politicians.

It would seem that a genuinely democratic government would not wish that the commission of war crimes and invasions of the privacy of citizens were kept secret, and beyond procedures of accountability.

In the age of digital wonders, more than ever we are dependent upon the vigilance of citizens of conscience to protect us against Orwellian scenarios of those many wannabe Darth Vaders lurking in the murky depths of the governmental bureaucracy in Washington. It is such individuals that have repeatedly taken the United States to the dark side in places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base, as well as arranging those infamous ‘black sites’ and devising depraved procedures such as ‘extreme rendition’ to ensure that a suspect will be duly tortured with no consequences if it turns out that he is innocent.

We, as citizens of the world, should be thankful for the sacrifices made individuals such as Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden, surely deserving heroes of our time! And if we are ever to achieve legitimate government, then even our elected leaders and representatives would be grateful for such a check on the abuses of government.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

Keeping the Spark


By Anna Perlini

They say you are old when you stop dreaming. Or even moving. Or a number of other paralyzing and static symptoms, depending on the life you lead.

When I was a child I remember bursting into tears thinking of my parents growing old. I loved them so much, and just the thought that one day they could lose some hair and get a few wrinkles was so hard for my child’s heart! In those days Peter Pan was my favorite movie, ha! Thinking about it now, something in me was dreading the aging process. Everything beautiful should never end or lose its spark.

As time went on, that particular fear slowly disappeared. I started accepting the physical aspect of aging, at least in my parents, who, by the way, have been aging very well. I can’t honestly say I’m excited about growing physically old—no, that would be a lie—but besides feeling stronger now than when I was in my twenties, I’m starting to realize that what I actually dread the most is becoming old inside: losing my enthusiasm, my ideals, and the desire to learn and move forward. I’ve seen this happening to others, especially to many belonging to my generation, the generation who in their young years fought for change and for a better world with such passion. For this reason I’m glad every time I have a chance to stretch and in some way start anew and remain young inside. I’m a hopeless idealist, that’s all.

One quote that has challenged and motivated me whenever I’ve been tempted to quit is: “Some people sell themselves out too cheap, they quit too soon! It is so easy to make excuses—legitimate, logical, reasonable, acceptable excuses why you couldn’t make it, why you shouldn’t be expected to make it—and in most cases most people will accept your excuses because most people don’t have faith either, and in excusing you they’re excusing themselves! But is God going to excuse you?”1

A few years ago I had the chance to participate in a school reunion, and I saw many of my school friends that I hadn’t seen in over 30 years. I had been a very good student, one of the tops in my high school, and a mover and leader in political and social causes. I was only 18 when I decided to dedicate my life to missionary and humanitarian causes, and I spent the next 38 years doing that, often in very difficult fields, never accumulating much for myself in terms of material goods. In contrast, quite a few of my friends are now accomplished professionals—doctors, lawyers, and businessmen.

At one point at the reunion, all eyes were on me and someone dared to ask the hot question: “But ... do you have any regrets? You were such a brilliant student—the best. We all admired you and thought you would become some great doctor or writer.”

I simply answered that, no, I didn’t have any of that sort of regret. I knew that I’d found and followed my calling, and that is the highest form of reward. My only regret is not to have given and helped others more, but I’m still working on that, ha!

Everyone breathed a sigh of relief and almost unanimously exclaimed: “We are so glad to hear that and to know that you are still fighting for the ideals you gave up so much for! You can keep being a role model for us.”

I realized then that I wasn’t the only one who hates quitting. It’s not a matter of always appearing strong and never making mistakes. That is impossible anyway, and there are many falls along the way, and even times when one is forced to take a break. What I’m talking about is not quitting for good, but instead continuing to believe, to give, to move and change.

Someone said, “A heart that loves is a heart that never grows old.” That alone will ensure you’ll keep that spark in your eyes till the end of this earthly life.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Love Never Dies


M. Fountaine

Let’s say you’re going through a desperate time and have lost your bearings, or are experiencing loss, suffering, grief, or big changes in life, to the point that you question how you’re going to go on. What can you do? We all know the spiritual solutions: pray, read the Word, go to the Lord for His help. Calling out to God for His help in desperate situations should always be our first recourse.

However, sometimes in the midst of such problems and hopelessness, we can barely even have faith that God will hear us. The Lord understands. He does not condemn us for that. In fact, He knows that’s when we need Him most. So even if you have a hard time believing that He will answer, it’s still important to cry out to Him and call on His name. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

God has not only provided the strength which comes directly from His Spirit through our prayers and through the Word speaking to us; He has provided other methods that will help to sustain our physical strength and our emotional stability during such difficult times.

There are physical steps that can be taken (widely recognized by many experts in mental and emotional health care) when facing grief, depression, loss, chronic pain, etc.—things like communicating with friends and family, taking time to relax, getting proper exercise, maintaining a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, refraining from things like alcohol, caffeine, drugs, etc., and limiting TV viewing. All of these things help to reduce overall stress levels, both physically and emotionally, leaving your mind more able to cope with what you’re facing and your body more capable of building strength and stamina.

There is a wealth of help and counsel on this topic available from a range of sources. However, there is one healing tool that particularly stands out to me that I took special note of. It repeatedly comes up in the extensive research that has been done on this all-too-common human condition of extreme discouragement. Besides, it is something you might find you’re already in the habit of doing. I think that it is exceptional because it is something that not only benefits the one implementing it but also others.

It’s the simple act of giving to others in whatever way one can.—This is known to improve mental, emotional, and physical health in measurable and sometimes profound ways.

Studies have been done by numerous institutes, such as the National Institutes of Health, Harvard Business School, and the University of California, Berkeley, and published in such journals as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. One such study found that the areas in the brain that are activated by giving are the same as those that are activated by other positive stimuli—such as in response to sexual pleasure, monetary rewards, enjoying a meal, exercising and a number of other activities. Contributing in some form to help others actually triggers the release of chemicals in the brain called endorphins that are sometimes called “feel good” chemicals because they promote social bonding and a sense of belonging.[1]

In another study a researcher found that this principle of reaching out to others who are also suffering had definite, positive benefits for the one reaching out. This applied to people suffering from a range of conditions, including depression, chronic pain, and AIDS. As she expressed it, "When humans help others regardless of a shared condition, they appear to live longer and happier lives."[2]

In another study, Paul Arnstein of Boston College and his colleagues evaluated the effects of volunteering on chronic pain patients. Their findings show that pain, depression, and disability consistently decreased after volunteering.

One researcher discovered some unexpected results in her study of a group of long-term sufferers of multiple sclerosis who made phone calls to encourage others suffering from this affliction. While their calls had some benefits for the recipients of the calls, the greatest beneficiaries were those lending a supportive ear through their calls. In fact, those who offered support experienced dramatic improvements in their quality of life, several times greater than those they were helping.[3]

When familiar basic principles that we have learned in our lives for the Lord are confirmed by scientific research it can serve as a witness to those who have yet to discover the truths of the Bible. It’s wonderful to see such confirmations in actual research and studies and it provides a good means of introducing the principles of faith to those we witness to.

Getting out of our comfort zone by helping, encouraging or supporting someone else may be the last thing we feel like doing when we’re suffering, but it is a way to turn the negative into something positive for ourselves—and in the process, for others. The principle of getting busy helping others as a way to overcome the struggles and loss and hardships that we all encounter in life is something that I think, as I mentioned above, many of you have seen or experienced at some point. You have followed the biblical principles of “give and it shall be given unto you” and have been blessed as a result.

Here’s a little story that illustrates this point:

There had been an accident and the husband had died, leaving a young wife and a three-year-old child. One day in the midst of her deep grieving and feeling that life wasn’t worth it anymore and that she didn’t know how she could go on, she was reminded of a list of goals and dreams they had made together for the next five years—things they would do with their son, places they wanted to take him, a cruise they would go on together, etc.

As she looked over the list, her eyes fell on a goal that her husband, Jim, had come up with. His face had lit up when he thought this one up: “Find one needy person each month to help. Do something special for them to cheer them up.” They had had only one chance to do it, but it had brought such a wonderful response that they had been eager to repeat it. Jim had said, “Sweetheart, it takes so little on our part to bring great happiness to others.” But now, what could she do? “I’m the one in need. I’m the one hurting,” she thought to herself. She heard Jim speak again in her mind something he had always told her: “If you’re ever feeling blue, always remember there may be someone more needy than you.”

That day she made the decision to look for the needs around her and bring encouragement to those whom God laid on her heart. She knew that God had given Jim to her as a special gift of His love and care. She knew that she had been privileged to live with him for several wonderful years, that his passing wasn’t to mean an end of her joy, nor was it a sign that God had now withdrawn the gift that He had given her. The gift of Jim’s love was meant to forever live on in her heart, and, in fact, would grow as she gave it away. Her grief was gradually replaced with a purpose through which she was able to bring much joy and the love and knowledge of Jesus to many others who were lonely and needed a friend.[4]

When we encourage others, we ourselves are encouraged!

I love quotes like the following, which remind me of the biblical principle of how much more blessed it is to give than to receive, and how important a role giving plays—or should play—in our lives.

It is one of the most beautiful compensations of this life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself. Serve and thou shalt be served.[5]

To ease another's heartache is to forget one's own.[6]

Giving is true having.[7]

The surest way to have happiness and peace of mind is to give them to somebody else.[8]

Kindness is twice blessed; it blesses him who gives and him who takes.[9]

The remedy for loneliness is to love more.[10]

Kindness makes a fellow feel good whether it's being done to him or by him.[11]For the solution to all your problems, forget yourself and think of others.[12]

You can't give without getting; you can't reward without receiving in return.[13]

The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.[14]

Art thou lonely, O my brother?
Share thy little with another!
Stretch a hand to one unfriended,
And thy loneliness is ended.[15]

Forget thyself; console the sadness near thee;
Thine own shall then depart,
And songs of joy, like heavenly vials, shall cheer thee
And dwell within thy heart.[16]

"My burden is too heavy, Lord," I tremblingly said.
"I can no longer carry it!" And tears I shed.
Then came a sudden cry for help from one sore pressed
I ran to seek him, gladly gave him of my best.
Then thought I of my heavy burden—but, lo, 'twas gone
The gloom and doubt had vanished quite and Love's light shone.[17]

If we spend our lives in loving, we have no leisure to complain, or to feel unhappiness. [18]

Give and it shall be given thee.[19]

Give to the world the best you have and the best will come back to you.[20]

Giving is the secret of a healthy life. Not necessarily money, but whatever man has of encouragement and sympathy and understanding.[21]

As you give so shall you receive. Contribute more and you will receive more. If you want a stronger rebound, throw the ball harder. [22]

If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
Or help one fainting robin
Unto his nest again,
I shall not live in vain.[23]

Giving works! God gives us blessings in life not only for our benefit, but so that we can share them with others, and in the sharing we’re blessed yet again. At times we suffer loss, but in that loss there are new blessings—those of sharing the love, the fullness, the happiness that we’ve experienced with others. As we share our blessings with others, they are renewed and continue to live on in our life.[24]



[1] Jorge Moll and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health 2006.


[2] Maria E. Pagano, PhD, of Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.


[3] Carolyn Schwartz, research professor at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.


[4] Source unknown.


[5] Ralph Waldo Emerson.


[6] Abraham Lincoln.


[7] Charles Spurgeon.


[8] Unknown.


[9] Shakespeare.


[10] Unknown.


[11] Clark A. Frank.


[12] Unknown.


[13] Unknown.


[14] Proverbs 11:25.


[15] John Oxenham.


[16] George Thomas Coster.


[17] J. F. Gibb.


[18] Joseph Joubert.


[19] Luke 6:38.


[20] Madeline Bridges.


[21] John D. Rockefeller Jr.


[22] Unknown.


[23] Emily Dickinson.


[24] Unknown.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

The Bad Seed: The Health Risks of Genetically Modified Corn


By Caitlin Shetterly, Elle Magazine, July 28, 2013

The office of allergist Paris Mansmann, MD, sits on a grassy slope overlooking the Royal River, a wide waterway that originates in inland Maine and winds down across farmland and under train tracks until it hits the coastal town of Yarmouth, where it sloshes into the Atlantic Ocean. When I first came to Mansmann in February 2011, the river was covered with ice, and bare trees stood silver sentry on its shores. I was 36. I’d been sick for three and a half years.

During that time, when I wasn’t working as a writer and theater director or being a wife and mother, I visited doctors and had tests. I told few friends or members of my extended family how ill I was, because I didn’t have any way to explain what was wrong. I had no diagnosis, just a collection of weird symptoms: tight, achy pain that radiated through my body and caused me to hobble around; burning rashes that splashed across my cheeks and around my mouth like pizza sauce; exhaustion; headaches; hands that froze into claws while I slept and hurt to uncurl in the morning; a constant head cold; nausea; and, on top of all that, severe insomnia—my body just could not, would not, turn off and rest. I visited every doctor who’d see me and tried everything they threw at me: antidepressants; painkillers; elimination diets (including a long eight months when I went without any of the major allergens, such as gluten, nuts, dairy, soy, and nightshades); herbal supplements; iodine pills; steroid shots; hormone treatments; Chinese teas; acupuncture; energy healing; a meditation class—you name it, I did it. Nothing worked. After I maxed out the available rheumatologists, endocrinologists, nutritionists, gastroenterologists, Lyme disease specialists, acupuncturists, and alternative-medicine practitioners in the Portland metropolitan area, I was sent to neurologists in Boston. All of my tests came back normal.

In late 2010, after a long and unhappy antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease, my newest GP (who’s still my doctor today), Chuck de Sieyes, MD, announced that he was referring me to Mansmann: “Because I have no idea what’s going on with you, and he’s one of the smartest guys around. And frankly, I’ve had it!"

Mansmann had moved to Yarmouth with his wife and kids to be close to his parents, who’d retired in Maine. A third-generation allergist, he worked in his father’s allergy clinic, at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, during high school. While in college at Saint Joseph’s University, also in Philadelphia, he helped his dad develop two asthma drugs. Later, he headed an allergy and immunology clinic at a West Virginia hospital for 10 years.

Mansmann has a helmet of thick, graying hair and an intensely serious air. After escorting me into an exam room, he sat down across from me and promptly pushed aside my thick medical file. He’d read through it all, he said, but he wanted to hear the story from me. He listened patiently, asking questions every so often: When did my rashes flare? Was the pain an ache in my muscles, or did it feel deeper? Was I worse after I slept or at the end of the day? He seemed, as we spoke, to have all the time in the world. Then, with no pyrotechnics, he offered his theory: “I think it’s possible you’ve developed a reaction to genetically modified corn."

Genetically modified corn? Everyone’s heard of GMO corn, but I realized I didn’t know what it actually was. Mansmann explained that starting in the mid-1980s, the biotechnology giant Monsanto began to genetically alter corn to withstand its herbicide Roundup—the goal being to eradicate weeds but not crops—as well as to resist a pest called the corn borer. These small changes in the DNA of the corn are expressed by the plant as proteins. It’s those proteins, Mansmann believes, that can act as allergens, provoking a multisystemic disorder marked by the overproduction of a type of white blood cell called an eosinophil.

He swabbed inside my nose with a Q-tip, then placed the results under a microscope. “Take a look," Mansmann said. “See all those pink cells? Those are eosinophils." My nose, it seemed, was chock-full of them. When the immune system is working properly, eosinophils swarm certain invading substances, be they parasites or viruses, and work to eliminate them. Sometimes, however, an allergenic protein may prompt the immune system to release eosinophils. Then, it’s as if a faucet gets turned on but can’t be turned off—eosinophils just keep coming. Eventually they begin to leave the bloodstream and may infiltrate and damage the GI tract, esophagus, mucous membranes, lungs, the fascial system (the layer of connective tissue that surrounds the muscles, blood vessels, and nerves), and the skin—hence, the avalanche of symptoms. (Some allergists say that the best way to test for a true eosinophilic disorder is to look for the cells in the esophagus and GI tract with an endoscopy. But Mansmann thinks that once you have a preponderance of them in your nasal mucus, they’re likely to be elsewhere.)

Mansmann’s advice was to strip all corn, even that marked organic, from my diet. “It’s almost impossible to find a corn source in the United States that doesn’t have the [protein] in it," he said. The U.S. government started approving GMO corn and soybeans for sale in the mid-1990s, and today, 88 percent of corn, and 93 percent of soybeans, are the transgenic varieties. Moreover, Mansmann and others contend that due to cross-pollination via winds, birds, and bees, there’s no such thing anymore as a GMO-free corn crop. He estimated that it would take from two to four months of living without corn for the eosinophils to cycle out of my body, and almost a year before I’d feel entirely like myself.

While I quickly discovered that blaming GMO foods for any kind of health problem is controversial in the medical and biotech worlds, what’s beyond debate is the increase in the incidence of autoimmune disorders such as type 1 diabetes, lupus, and celiac disease, as well as of allergies. As for the latter, the National Health Interview Survey found, for instance, that since 1999, the number of children with food allergies has jumped by 50 percent, and those with skin allergies by 69 percent (and the increase isn’t merely a by-product of fuller reporting by parents, experts say).

I was desperate enough that I was willing to try the diet Mansmann recommended. After all, how hard could it be to give up corn? The answer was: way harder than I imagined. Corn was my Waldo, popping up everywhere: in tea bags, juice, and cheese culture; it lined my “to go" coffee cups and plastic bags of frozen vegetables; it coated my store-bought apples and was on the bottom of restaurant pizza—almost everything my family used, no matter how piously natural and organic, had corn in it. It came under the guise of dozens of names like “xanthan gum," “natural flavors," “free-flowing agents," “vitamin E," “ascorbic acid," “citric acid," and “cellulose," to name a few. Almost daily, I’d find a new culprit. “Damn, this toothpaste is full of corn!" Then: “Wait, our dish soap is made from corn!" Or: “Oh my God, iodized salt has dextrose in it!"

Not to mention the corn that is fed to animals whose meat and eggs I ate, whose milk I drank. I had to restrict my diet, Mansmann said, to vegetables, grains other than corn, grass-fed beef and dairy, wild fish, and game (if I was game). My husband and I threw ourselves into the corn-free diet with gusto: We began baking all our bread, we learned how to make our own flour tortillas and sweet treats like muffins and cakes. By luck, we met an intrepid farmer raising corn-free chickens (harder than you might guess, because chickens have literally been bred to get fat fast on corn). We eschewed anything premade and began gathering foods from local sources we could trust. I stopped taking every medicine or supplement with corn in it (which was most of them). Wherever I went, I took my own stainless-steel coffee cup.

The first thing I noticed was that my skin rashes began to dissipate. Then, slowly, my body stopped aching, and I could walk or even jog easily, for the first time in years. I started to have more energy, and I slept better at night. The head cold went away—poof—and I wasn’t going through a box of tissues a day. My hands became less stiff. I realized, in retrospect, that my frozen hands had been the hardest symptom to tolerate: I could barely button my son’s small shirts or apply a Band-Aid, which made me feel useless as a mother. Almost four months later, in late May, I felt pretty much like my old self. I was so startled by my physical well-being that I didn’t know how to enjoy it. Each night I’d go to bed preparing myself for the possibility that I might wake up sick again the next morning.

With the level of penetration of GMO foods, and the fairly widespread acceptance of them in America (certainly compared with Europe, where they’re banned in many countries), saying “halt" seems unlikely at this point. Definitely in the air, however, is better labeling of such products. The Connecticut legislature passed a measure this June to require it, and a whopping 96 percent of people favor GMO labeling, according to a 2011 MSNBC poll. Whole Foods Market announced this March that by 2018 everything it sells in the U.S. and Canada will be labeled for GMOs. How the store will implement that is hard to fathom given the ubiquity of industrial corn: Will the bastion of healthy eating plaster GMO stickers on practically every item on its shelves? “We’re very aware of how much of a challenge [labeling] is going to be," a company spokesman admitted, adding that they’re committed to it nonetheless.

My small family has been able to jettison GMOs, thanks to the local farmers we’ve found and our willingness to do without the vast majority of prepared foods. But my husband and I both have jobs, and there are days when we can’t imagine preparing everything from scratch forever. Yet when I was sick for all that time, my life felt totally out of control. I still rue the day when I was desperate enough for a diagnosis to believe I had chronic Lyme disease, which necessitated weaning my small son from my breast before either of us was ready so I could be bombarded with antibiotics.

When I think back to how suffocatingly powerless I felt, how sidelined as a wife, mother, and productive person, I just feel, well, sick. Although Dr. Mansmann told me that most people allergic to GMO corn can end up tolerating small amounts after a couple years of abstinence, each time I’ve dared cheat, I’ve awoken the next morning with a frozen left hand, a sore hip, and a facial rash. So for now, at least, the extra work isn’t really a choice; it’s a way of life, one that reminds me daily that our modern world is full of challenges—dietary, economic, environmental—that at times feel overwhelming. And perhaps that’s the gift in this: I’ve had to slow down and think about my food—how it was grown, what’s in it, and which trade-offs were made in the journey from a seed to my plate. That consciousness has to be worth something bigger than just my health.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Aeon

Aeon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the geologic time, see eon (geology). For other uses, see Aeon (disambiguation).

The word aeon /ˈɒn/, also spelled eon, originally means "life" or "being", though it then tended to mean "age", "forever" or "for eternity". It is a Latin transliteration from the koine Greek word ὁαἰών (ho aion), from the archaic αἰϝών (aiwon). In Homer it typically refers to life or lifespan. Its latest meaning is more or less similar to the Sanskrit word kalpa and Hebrew word olam. A cognateLatin word aevum or aeuum (cf. αἰϝών) for "age" is present in words such as longevity and mediaeval.[1]

Although the term aeon may be used in reference to a period of a billion years (especially in geology, cosmology or astronomy), its more common usage is for any long, indefinite, period. Aeon can also refer to the four aeons on the Geologic Time Scale that make up the Earth's history, the Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and the current aeon Phanerozoic.

Contents

Eternity or age

Further information: In saecula saeculorum

The Bible translation is a treatment of the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion. Both these words have similar meaning, and Young's Literal Translation renders them and their derivatives as “age” or “age-during”. Other English versions most often translate them to indicate eternity, being translated as eternal, everlasting, forever, etc. However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion. Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity”, so the question arises whether it should ever be so.[3] Proponents of Universal Reconciliation point out that this has significant implications for the problem of hell.[4] Contrast Matthew 25:46 in well-known English translations with its rendering in Young's Literal Translation:

And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during. (YLT)[5]

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (NIV)[6]

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (NASB)[7]

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (KJV)[8]

And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life. (NWT)[9]

Philosophy and mysticism[edit]

Plato used the word aeon to denote the eternal world of ideas, which he conceived was "behind" the perceived world, as demonstrated in his famous allegory of the cave.

Christianity's idea of "eternal life" comes from the word for life, zoe, and a form of aeon,[10] which could mean life in the next aeon, the Kingdom of God, or Heaven, just as much as immortality, as in John 3:16.

According to the Christian doctrine of Universal Reconciliation, the Greek New Testament scriptures use the word "eon" to mean a long period (perhaps 1000 years) and the word "eonian" to mean "during a long period"; Thus there was a time before the eons, and the eonian period is finite. After each man's mortal life ends, he is judged worthy of eonian life or eonian punishment. That is, after the period of the eons, all punishment will cease and death is overcome and then God becomes the all in each one (1Cor 15:28). This contrasts with the conventional Christian belief in eternal life and eternal punishment.

Parable of the Two Debtors!




The Stories Jesus Told—The Two Debtors, Luke 7:36–50
Video length: 24:25
Download Video: High (151MB) Low (71.5MB)
Audio length: 23:34
Download Audio (33.9MB)

The parable of the two debtors, or as it’s sometimes referred to, the parable of the Pharisee and the sinful woman, is told in Luke 7:36–50. This is a beautiful story of love, mercy, and thanksgiving. One New Testament scholar describes it as one of the “treasured religious possessions of the Western world.”[1] The parable portion of the story is very short, only two verses sandwiched in the center of the action and dialog surrounding Jesus’ visit and meal at the house of Simon the Pharisee. Brief though the parable is, it sheds a bright light upon God’s forgiveness and the proper response to it.

The story begins with:

Now one of the Pharisees was requesting [Jesus] to dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table.[2]


This seems like a fairly straightforward statement of events. However, it’s whatdoesn’t happen that is one of the central aspects of the story. Those who were present would have immediately understood that a terrible breach of decorum had occurred, and that it was deliberate.


The custom at the time dictated that when a guest entered a home, the host would greet the visitor with a kiss, either on the cheek or hand. Next, water and olive oil would be brought to wash the guest’s hands and feet. One of the uses of olive oil in those days was as soap. In some instances the host would anoint the head of the guest with the oil. None of these courtesies were extended to Jesus by Simon. It was a terrible breach of protocol and manners.


Pharisees regarded their dining tables at home to be like the altar of the temple; they strove to maintain the state of ritual purity required of priests in the temple within their households and among their eating companions. They only ate with those who were also in a ritual state of purity. Simon’s invitation for Jesus to eat with him showed that he considered Jesus to be in such a state.[3]


Later in the story he calls Jesus “teacher.” According to early Jewish writings, to host a teacher or scholar in one’s home was considered an honor. Having been invited to Simon’s house, the least Jesus could have expected was a kiss of greeting, some water for His feet, and olive oil to use in washing His hands. But none of these were offered, and the other guests would have noticed this. At this point Jesus could have rightfully said, “I am not welcome here,” and left in anger. But He didn’t. Though Simon’s lack of hospitality would have been considered an affront, Jesus absorbed the insult and reclined at the table, with unwashed hands and feet.[4]


The fact that they reclined at the table would indicate that the meal was a formal one. At such meals the diners reclined around a central table on couches which would most commonly be arranged in a U-shape. At these formal meals it was expected that there would be discussion of serious subjects of mutual interest, and in this case, since the meal was in the house of a Pharisee, the expectation would be discussions involving scripture.[5]


The next scene of the story now unfolds:


And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that [Jesus] was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment.[6]


The woman, who was known within the city to be a sinner, learned that Jesus was going to be eating at Simon’s house that day, so she was present when Jesus arrived. The most widely accepted interpretation is that the woman was likely a prostitute. Now, how is it that this woman was allowed to attend the meal at Simon’s house? No Pharisee would have her as a dinner guest, as evidenced by the fact that the Pharisees criticized Jesus for eating with sinners.[7] So the presence of a prostitute, and her subsequent actions, was extremely offensive to the Pharisee and his other guests. She was, however, allowed to be there.


One author explains:


At traditional Middle Eastern village meals, the outcasts of the community are not shut out. They sit quietly on the floor against the wall, and at the end of the meal are fed. Their presence is a compliment to the host, who is thereby seen as so noble that he even feeds the outcasts of the community. The rabbis insisted that the door be open when a meal was in progress lest you ‘lack of food’ (i.e., lest you shut out the blessings of God).[8]


The woman was there not as an invited guest, but as one of those who were allowed to observe the meal, but not join in on the meal. But why was she there? What was her reason for attending? In all likelihood, she was there because she had heard Jesus speak earlier and was transformed by what He said. All of the research material I read in regard to this parable brought out that the woman must have had an encounter with Jesus prior to this meal, and that this encounter changed her. While this isn’t specifically stated in the Bible, it is inferred, and it becomes clear as the story develops.


Most likely both Simon and the woman had heard Jesus speak while He was in their town. Simon invited Jesus for a meal, which would have been a normal courtesy extended to a visiting teacher or rabbi. The woman enquired where Jesus would be, and when she learned that He had been invited to dine at Simon’s house, she went there. Later in the story we hear Jesus tell Simon, “From the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet,” which shows that she was there before Jesus, or that she had arrived in time to witness the discourteous reception Jesus had received upon His arrival.


The woman may have heard of Jesus’ reputation for being willing to mix with sinners. She probably heard Him speak about forgiveness of sins, that God loved her and those like her, that His grace was available to her even though she was sinful. She received what He said and was transformed by it. She was joyful that her sins were forgiven, that she was set free, and she came to the house to show her gratitude to the one who had shared this good news with her.


We are told that she brought an alabaster flask of ointment. Alabaster is a soft stone which was crafted into small vials to hold fragrant oil. In some translations, the word ointment is translated as fragrant oil or perfume. Women would wear a vial with perfumed oil around their neck, which hung down between the breasts, used to both sweeten the breath and perfume the wearer.[9] Such perfume was very expensive at the time. When the woman found out where Jesus would be, she took the perfumed oil with her in order to anoint Jesus’ feet as an expression of gratitude for what Jesus had done for her.


However, witnessing the cold and rather insulting reception that Jesus received by Simon deeply saddened her. The one who had set her free with His message of God’s love and forgiveness was being humiliated.[10] Simon hadn’t washed Jesus’ feet, a sure sign that he considered Him inferior. He hadn’t even made water available for Jesus to wash His own feet. No kiss of greeting was given. Upon seeing this, the woman weeps. What could she do to make up for the obvious lack of hospitality shown to the man who had changed her life?


Looking at the scenario, we see Jesus reclining at the meal, lying on His side, leaning on His left elbow, eating with His right hand. His feet were at the end of the couch facing away from the table, near the woman since she was sitting against the wall. Looking at His unwashed feet, she decided to do what Simon had not done, so she used her tears to wet His feet. She didn’t have a towel to wipe and dry them, so she let down her hair and used it to dry His feet. She then kissed His feet. The Greek word used for “kiss” in this instance means to kiss again and again, over and over. So she showered kisses upon Jesus’ feet.


The dinner guests are shocked by this display! They would see this as wrong on a number of levels. A woman letting her hair down is an intimate gesture which would never be done in front of anyone other than her husband. According to some rabbinical writings, if a woman let her hair down in public, it was considered grounds for divorce. And here is an immoral woman, doing that very thing in the presence of a dinner table full of men. To make matters worse, she is touching a man who is not a relative; this is something that no moral woman would do. For Simon and his dinner guests, this would have been completely unacceptable.


Then, in a beautiful gesture of gratitude, she uses the perfumed oil from her alabaster vial to anoint Jesus’ feet. It seems that anointing His feet with the oil was the reason she came to the house where Jesus was dining, as she wanted to demonstrate her gratefulness. The acts of washing His feet with her tears and drying them with her hair were most likely spontaneous responses to the incivility Jesus was shown by the host. Since Jesus had received no water to wash His feet, then she would wash them with her tears and dry them with her hair. Since He had received no kiss of greeting, she would kiss His feet over and over.


Kissing Jesus’ feet was a public sign of deep humility, devotion, and gratitude. In the Talmud there is a story of a man accused of murder who kisses the feet of the lawyer who got him acquitted and thus saved his life.[11]


The woman is deeply grateful for the forgiveness of her sins; she has repented and her life has been changed. She brought expensive perfumed oil and used it to anoint Jesus’ feet in gratitude for what He had done for her. Since she felt hurt by the way Jesus was treated, she goes further in her public demonstration of gratitude and honor. Her actions are seen as scandalous by those in attendance, just what they would expect from an immoral woman. They have no idea she has been forgiven; they see her only as an unworthy sinner. They can’t believe Jesus is allowing a woman of such ill repute to do these things to Him. But He is.


The story continues:


Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.”[12]


Having been shown up for his failures as a host doesn’t seem to affect Simon in any way. Instead, he is silently criticizing Christ. Having heard Him preach and teach, Simon was probably wondering if Jesus was a true prophet or not. He seems to be rejecting any idea that He might be, because in Simon’s mind, if Jesus were a prophet He would know that the woman touching Him was immoral and was thus defiling Him.


Perhaps Simon’s intention in inviting Jesus to a meal was to test Him, to see if He truly was a prophet. After viewing this display and mentally noting what he felt was a deep lack of discernment on Jesus’ part, Simon was probably convinced that Jesus didn’t meet the spiritual standard one would expect from a prophet of God. No man of God would put up with the behavior of this woman.


But Simon is wrong. Jesus does know the spiritual state of the woman. He knows she has been a sinner, for He later states that “her sins are many.” He also knows that she has been forgiven for her sins because she believed, by faith, the words about God’s forgiveness that she had heard Him speak earlier. Besides that, Jesus shows He is a prophet by discerning Simon’s thoughts. Though Simon hasn’t verbalized his thoughts, Jesus nevertheless responds to him.


And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.”[13]


The phrase “I have something to say to you” is a classical Middle Eastern idiom that introduces blunt speech that the listener may not want to hear. And this is exactly what follows.[14]


It’s at this point in the story that Jesus tells the short parable of the two debtors.


“A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?”[15]


One denarius was an ordinary day’s pay for an ordinary day’s work. Therefore, one debtor in the parable owed the moneylender the equivalent of 500 days’ pay, the other debtor 50 days’ pay. Quite a difference. The moneylender generously cancels both debts when the borrowers are unable to pay.


Author Kenneth Bailey said:


In both the Old and New Testaments the phrases “canceling a debt” and “forgive a debt/sin” overlap and indeed at times are expressed with the same words.[16]


In this case the verb used for canceling the debt has its root in the Greek word charis, which is often translated as grace. Throughout the New Testament the verb “to forgive” is used both as a financial term, as in forgiving a debt, and as a religious term, as in forgiving sins. Jesus was speaking in terms of financial debt in the parable, but as we will see, the creditor/debtor language is being used in reference to God and His forgiveness of sin.


To the question of who will most love the one who forgave the debt:


Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And [Jesus] said to him, “You have judged rightly.”[17]


Simon, realizing that the parable is somewhat of a verbal trap that he has been caught in, answers rather weakly, with “I suppose.” Despite being treated poorly, Jesus commends Simon for his correct answer.


The point of the parable is that love is the correct response to grace, to undeserved favor; that the one who has been forgiven the greater debt would love the most and would show the most gratitude. Having made that point, Jesus then delivers the blunt speech to Simon.


Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.”[18]


These words were spoken to Simon, but Jesus turned to face the woman as He spoke them. He asks, “Simon, do you see this woman?” He was trying to get Simon to look at her as a person, not as a sinner. Jesus wanted to transform Simon’s view of the woman in particular, and through that, of people in general.


Simon saw the woman’s actions as offensive, out of place, and in alignment with his low opinion of her as a sinner and a prostitute. He didn’t understand that she was a forgiven person who was loved by God. Jesus was trying to help him to see the woman as He did, as someone who has been forgiven for much and who therefore loves much, and demonstrates her love and gratitude by her actions. He wanted Simon to realize and accept that her sins had been forgiven, that she was no longer a prostitute. Because if he and the others at the table accepted this, she could be welcomed back into the community, no longer as a sinner, but as a child of God.


Jesus verbalized Simon’s failures, those things which he had omitted, where he had fallen short. He contrasted Simon’s omissions with the woman’s noble actions—actions that went far beyond what Simon should have done, but didn’t.—Actions which were extravagant. Actions based on her love and gratefulness. Jesus then linked her great love to the multitude of her sins that had been forgiven.


And [Jesus] said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”[19]


Jesus wasn’t saying that He was forgiving her sins right then, but rather that her sins were already forgiven. The love she showed and her emotional outpouring of gratitude was in response to the forgiveness she had already received upon hearing Jesus speak earlier. From what He said, it’s evident that she understood that God’s grace, His forgiveness, is received by faith and not by one’s good works. Learning that God graciously forgives sin even when the person needing forgiveness is not holy and religious, brought her great joy and freedom.


The woman’s response was one of deep thankfulness. She wanted nothing more than to see Jesus, who had delivered this beautiful message to her, in order to express her profound appreciation.


The other guests at the table missed the point completely. They were focused on the wrong thing and misinterpreted what Jesus said.


Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?”[20]


Though Jesus did forgive people’s sins throughout the Gospels—something the religious leaders felt was blasphemous—He wasn’t forgiving the woman’s sins at that moment; they were already forgiven.


And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”[21]


Her faith saved her. She believed in God’s grace; she accepted it. She knew she didn’t deserve it. Her sins were many. There was nothing she could do to merit salvation. She believed and accepted what the Lord had told her—that her faith, belief, and acceptance were sufficient.


That’s how the story ends. There is no indication of Simon’s response. Does he get the point? Does he see that he was wrong in his judgment of the woman? Does he accept that she was one who had many sins forgiven and therefore loved much? Does he see himself as one who loves little? Does Simon understand he’s a debtor as well—that he’s a sinner in need of God’s love and forgiveness—or is he only focused on the sins of the woman? Does he accept that the woman is forgiven, that she’s now changed, and will he accept her back into the community? These questions aren’t answered; instead, we who read the story are left to ponder and to draw our own conclusions.


When thinking about what transpired in Simon’s house, questions arose in my mind as to how I treat the Lord and others. It’s healthy to reflect on these matters. Questions like: Can we accept that those who have greatly sinned can be forgiven and can change, becoming new creatures in Christ? Do we still respond with thankfulness and gratitude at our own salvation? Do we praise and thank God for our redemption? Do we remind ourselves of what it cost Jesus to take the punishment of our sins? Have we lost the joy and wonder of our salvation?


Having invited Jesus into our lives, how do we treat Him? Do we treat Him as Simon did—coldly, with disrespect? Or do we give Him the honor and respect He deserves?—Our time, our attention, our love. Do we take the time to both listen to His words and to absorb them? Do we apply them? Do we obey them? Do we give back to Him through tithes and offerings, through showing compassion to the poor and needy?


The woman had that deep joy which comes when you realize your sins are forgiven. Her appreciation was manifested in her actions. Are we appreciative enough to act on the knowledge of our forgiveness and salvation both internally through praise and externally through obedience?


Do we look at others in the manner that Jesus did, recognizing that He died for them too, and wants them to receive the great gift of salvation? In gratefulness for our forgiven debt, are we motivated to help others find that same forgiveness?—To love them, to speak to them, to give of ourselves, our time, effort, and energy to bring them to salvation? No matter who they are?—The poor, the rich, the young, the old, the unlearned, the intellectual, the unlovely, the lovely, the sinners, the pious, the outcasts, the accepted? Jesus seeks to save them. Are we doing our part to make that happen?


Does our love and thankfulness translate into action? We have all been forgiven for much. Do we love much?


The Two Debtors, Luke 7:36–50 NAU/ESV


36 Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table.


37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment,


38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment.


39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.”


40 And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.”


41 “A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.


42 When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?”


43 Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.”


44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.


45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet.


46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.


47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.”


48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”


49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?”


50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
Notes


Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptures are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.



[1] C.G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1927), 2:437, quoted in Klyne Snodgrass, Stories With Intent (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), 77.


[2] Luke 7:36 NAU.


[3] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 796.


[4] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 243.


[5] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 799.


[6] Luke 7:37–38.


[7] Luke 15:2.


[8] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 246 footnote 15.


[9] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Complete and Unabridged in One Volume(Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 390.


[10] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 247.


[11] Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant, and Through Peasant Eyes, combined edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1985), 10.


[12] Luke 7:39.


[13] Luke 7:40.


[14] Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant, and Through Peasant Eyes, combined edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1985), 12.


[15] Luke 7:41–42.


[16] Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 252.


[17] Luke 7:43.


[18] Luke 7:44–47.


[19] Luke 7:48.


[20] Luke 7:49.


[21] Luke 7:50.

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith