This is from a post of Christopher Heard on his blog.
He blogs on the Western Commission for the Study of Religion (WECSOR) meeting at Claremont Graduate University.
In one of the sessions, Brad Kelle proposes "that the Greek political orators of the fourth century BCE—Brad drew most of his examples from Demosthenes—function in ways analogous to the socio-rhetorical functions of the "classical" Israelite prophets."
Brad did not convince Chris, but the comparison and possible analogy is certainly interesting.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Buddhist scrolls found dated to 1st and 5th centuries AD
Thanks to a post by Jim Davila on his PaleoJudaica blog.
These scrolls are rare manuscripts written on birch bark and were found in Afghanistan during the Taliban days. They were written in a language derived from Sanskrit. Mark Allon, a University of Sydney research fellow is in charge of translating the texts. According to Allon, "the Senior collection had been particularly important in correcting some chronological errors in Indian history."
(original news article is here)
These scrolls are rare manuscripts written on birch bark and were found in Afghanistan during the Taliban days. They were written in a language derived from Sanskrit. Mark Allon, a University of Sydney research fellow is in charge of translating the texts. According to Allon, "the Senior collection had been particularly important in correcting some chronological errors in Indian history."
(original news article is here)
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Behind the Muslim Cartoon Protests
For about a month now, the US media has been following an international story about angry Muslim reactions in many countries to the publishing of some cartoons in Denmark that occurred months ago. There have been comments made by bloggers in the 'biblioblog sphere' too.
I disagree with the mainstream opinion on this. I am cynical and suspicious of the media coverage, which seems have the fingerprints of the Bush administration all over it. It's like a big overblown circus provoked and egged-on by western interests.
Why do I think this? For several reasons.
1) Everything we in the West see of current events must be passed through the filters of Western media conglomerates. Our knowledge and opinions are thereby controlled through a process of careful selection and manipulation. They decide what is newsworthy, what details will be provided (true or not), and how the stories are presented emotionally — as in the subtle interpretive 'spin' placed on the chosen events. [For example: If there are ten trouble-making hoodlums on a single street burning tires and waving burning American flags while the rest of the street (and even city), is filled with peaceful Muslims going about their usual business, the TV cameras will ONLY record the troublemakers, not the others on the same street who watch them disapprovingly. Likewise, the report will focus on the crackpot concerns of the troublemakers with little or no balancing weight given to the opinions of the hundreds, thousands or even millions of other Muslims who chose not to participate or disagree with the hoodlums. ]
2) The Western media conglomerates have proved themselves to be conciliatory, often unquestioning, and even sycophantic towards the Bush administration and its policies. All big US conglomerates are guilty of this, and even the majority of the British. A good proportion of mainstream Europeans, so I gather, disagrees with the Bush policies, but the European media is still, on the whole, surprisingly uncritical of the Bush government.
3) The Bush administration promotes the political paradigm of a 'War on Terror' which is simplified into an 'Us-vs-them' worldview, and it is further simplified and understood as being 'Christendom vs Islam'. The main target to be infected with this paradigm is the American public because they are the people who must accept the vast expenditure of their wealth on the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, on Israeli 'security', and on ever more expensive and proliferating military and 'security-related' activities.
4) The more the Muslim world can be portrayed to the American taxpayer as 'dangerous', 'crazy', 'non-sensical', or just 'anti-American', the more support the Bush administration can expect to get for its policies. The more negative light that can be cast upon these 'enemies' and the more 'evil' the Muslim world looks to the people of America, then the more justified and necessary Bush's policies will appear.
We just need to "follow the money". Who would want to divide the world into "friendlies and bad-guys" and who benefits the most as it grows ever more violent and dangerous? Who would want to foment anger, and who would want to broadcast images of the most radical elements of an "enemy" society as they 'take-the-bait' in order to cast that entire society in a bad light?
Well, it sure seems a good possibility that the answer is: The guys who make the weapons, and their paid-for politician-goons who promote the use of them. They are who benefit from endless, escalating tensions, deepening divisions, and outright war.
.................
The Globe and Mail has an interesting take on things.
The circulation of other images, not the 12 published in Denmark, was "the beginning of the whole catastrophe. The booklet of cartoons that the Danish imams took to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt contained images of the Prophet as a pig, a dog, a woman and a sodomizer — none of which had ever been published in a Danish paper (or any paper anywhere). Mr. Akkari, the leader of the delegation, showed these to me and told me that he'd included them because they'd been included in hate mail that he and his colleagues had been sent by right-wing extremists. He told me that he'd made it clear that the two sets of images were separate. But that was lost on the people who received the images, and on the larger population who heard fast-growing urban myths about them. Mr. Akkari told me that he had no idea of the reaction this would cause. I suspect he was partly naïve, but also somewhat disingenuous — obviously, the package was intended as a provocation of some sort, even if they couldn't have anticipated exactly what it would provoke."
I wonder who "Mr. Akkari" really is... ?
I disagree with the mainstream opinion on this. I am cynical and suspicious of the media coverage, which seems have the fingerprints of the Bush administration all over it. It's like a big overblown circus provoked and egged-on by western interests.
Why do I think this? For several reasons.
1) Everything we in the West see of current events must be passed through the filters of Western media conglomerates. Our knowledge and opinions are thereby controlled through a process of careful selection and manipulation. They decide what is newsworthy, what details will be provided (true or not), and how the stories are presented emotionally — as in the subtle interpretive 'spin' placed on the chosen events. [For example: If there are ten trouble-making hoodlums on a single street burning tires and waving burning American flags while the rest of the street (and even city), is filled with peaceful Muslims going about their usual business, the TV cameras will ONLY record the troublemakers, not the others on the same street who watch them disapprovingly. Likewise, the report will focus on the crackpot concerns of the troublemakers with little or no balancing weight given to the opinions of the hundreds, thousands or even millions of other Muslims who chose not to participate or disagree with the hoodlums. ]
2) The Western media conglomerates have proved themselves to be conciliatory, often unquestioning, and even sycophantic towards the Bush administration and its policies. All big US conglomerates are guilty of this, and even the majority of the British. A good proportion of mainstream Europeans, so I gather, disagrees with the Bush policies, but the European media is still, on the whole, surprisingly uncritical of the Bush government.
3) The Bush administration promotes the political paradigm of a 'War on Terror' which is simplified into an 'Us-vs-them' worldview, and it is further simplified and understood as being 'Christendom vs Islam'. The main target to be infected with this paradigm is the American public because they are the people who must accept the vast expenditure of their wealth on the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, on Israeli 'security', and on ever more expensive and proliferating military and 'security-related' activities.
4) The more the Muslim world can be portrayed to the American taxpayer as 'dangerous', 'crazy', 'non-sensical', or just 'anti-American', the more support the Bush administration can expect to get for its policies. The more negative light that can be cast upon these 'enemies' and the more 'evil' the Muslim world looks to the people of America, then the more justified and necessary Bush's policies will appear.
We just need to "follow the money". Who would want to divide the world into "friendlies and bad-guys" and who benefits the most as it grows ever more violent and dangerous? Who would want to foment anger, and who would want to broadcast images of the most radical elements of an "enemy" society as they 'take-the-bait' in order to cast that entire society in a bad light?
Well, it sure seems a good possibility that the answer is: The guys who make the weapons, and their paid-for politician-goons who promote the use of them. They are who benefit from endless, escalating tensions, deepening divisions, and outright war.
.................
The Globe and Mail has an interesting take on things.
The circulation of other images, not the 12 published in Denmark, was "the beginning of the whole catastrophe. The booklet of cartoons that the Danish imams took to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt contained images of the Prophet as a pig, a dog, a woman and a sodomizer — none of which had ever been published in a Danish paper (or any paper anywhere). Mr. Akkari, the leader of the delegation, showed these to me and told me that he'd included them because they'd been included in hate mail that he and his colleagues had been sent by right-wing extremists. He told me that he'd made it clear that the two sets of images were separate. But that was lost on the people who received the images, and on the larger population who heard fast-growing urban myths about them. Mr. Akkari told me that he had no idea of the reaction this would cause. I suspect he was partly naïve, but also somewhat disingenuous — obviously, the package was intended as a provocation of some sort, even if they couldn't have anticipated exactly what it would provoke."
I wonder who "Mr. Akkari" really is... ?
Friday, February 10, 2006
Historicity of Julius Caesar
In a recent exchange of emails on the biblical-studies mailing list (webpage here) Philip Davies says:
But is there primary evidence for Caesar. A bust or two (but I'm not
sure if they are contemporary). I read a book of the Gallic Wars when
at school. But they could be pseudonymous; someone else might have
conquered Gaul, I suppose. Anyway, I have yet to read anything that
Jesus wrote.
He was responding to another posting that attempted to equate the doubtful historicity of Jesus Christ with a supposed doubtful historicity of Julius Caesar. To compare the two is indeed an interesting exercise in discerning apples from oranges.
I cannot devote as much time to this as I'd like, (perhaps in another post). But the quick point I want to make right now is: A world of difference exists between the evidence for a historical Julius Caesar and that for "Jesus Christ".
The evidence (primary? we can't speak of much "primary evidence" for anything in the range of 2 thousand years old. Even the manuscripts are not the manuscripts but copies...), of a historical Julius Caesar consists of several extensive mentions by the historian Sallust, (86-34BC); a biography by another historian, Suetonius (c75-120AD) as well as one by Plutarch (46-127AD). Chapter after chapter by the historian Appian (c95-165AD) relate complex chains of events in which Julius Caesar was intimately involved. There are the many other critically important mentions too, for example in the works of Cicero, Dio Cassius, Livy, Lucan, Valerius Maximus, Vitruvius, Catullus...
What is the epic story of Pompey the Great without Julius Caesar? What gaping holes would there be in the stories of Cleopatra or Mark Antony without Julius Caesar? Or for that matter of Octavian, Cicero and Cato? So much of Roman history depends upon this one man he is like the centerpiece of its history...
In addition, we can find numerous inscriptions and monuments, statues and coins. There is not enough material to satisfy my appetite, (I am still hoping for textual material to be rescued from Herculaneum) but there is, undeniably, quite a bit of historical evidence that a man named Julius Caesar did indeed exist.
On the other hand, with the case of this Jesus fellow, we have a few obviously mythicized accounts that are, frankly, an astonishing mess. These gospels, if taken as a body of work to be used as a 'historical source', are full of factual errors and embarrassing contradictions, with some awed descriptions of petty street charlatan tricks thrown in, worshipful remembrances of "miracles" that smack of already extant and ancient mythical accounts of other gods, and so many intricate and twisted allusions to Jewish legend and prophecy that one begins to think that it is a bit overdone.
However, are there any accounts by men who might be considered historians? None are contemporary except one: Josephus. All except Josephus do not talk directly of Jesus but of "Chrestians" or followers of Chrestos, or just Christians, and the descriptions of these people are vague and undistinguished.
We are left with only Josephus, the turncoat Jewish general. There are two mentions in his works that read more as if they were written by medieval Christian monks than by a Jew living in the Roman empire of the first century. I am not impressed in the least by the Testimonium Flavianum. I cannot help but strongly suspect it is a wonderful example of an interpolation, and if it is the best historical evidence for this "Jesus Christ" that can be found, then there simply isn't any at all.
Sure: we've got tons of accumulated and venerated flotsam and jetsam piled neck-deep for us to wade through, but nearly all of it dates to centuries after the fact.
So I find it disappointing that any serious historical scholar or educated person interested in history would think for a moment that the historical existence of Julius Caesar is as questionable as is the historical existence of Jesus Christ. There really is no comparison in these two cases. On the one hand we have a living apple tree. On the other hand we have a thousand old, faded, grainy photographs of paintings and drawings (never the actual paintings or drawings, mind you) of a sliced orange.
But is there primary evidence for Caesar. A bust or two (but I'm not
sure if they are contemporary). I read a book of the Gallic Wars when
at school. But they could be pseudonymous; someone else might have
conquered Gaul, I suppose. Anyway, I have yet to read anything that
Jesus wrote.
He was responding to another posting that attempted to equate the doubtful historicity of Jesus Christ with a supposed doubtful historicity of Julius Caesar. To compare the two is indeed an interesting exercise in discerning apples from oranges.
I cannot devote as much time to this as I'd like, (perhaps in another post). But the quick point I want to make right now is: A world of difference exists between the evidence for a historical Julius Caesar and that for "Jesus Christ".
The evidence (primary? we can't speak of much "primary evidence" for anything in the range of 2 thousand years old. Even the manuscripts are not the manuscripts but copies...), of a historical Julius Caesar consists of several extensive mentions by the historian Sallust, (86-34BC); a biography by another historian, Suetonius (c75-120AD) as well as one by Plutarch (46-127AD). Chapter after chapter by the historian Appian (c95-165AD) relate complex chains of events in which Julius Caesar was intimately involved. There are the many other critically important mentions too, for example in the works of Cicero, Dio Cassius, Livy, Lucan, Valerius Maximus, Vitruvius, Catullus...
What is the epic story of Pompey the Great without Julius Caesar? What gaping holes would there be in the stories of Cleopatra or Mark Antony without Julius Caesar? Or for that matter of Octavian, Cicero and Cato? So much of Roman history depends upon this one man he is like the centerpiece of its history...
In addition, we can find numerous inscriptions and monuments, statues and coins. There is not enough material to satisfy my appetite, (I am still hoping for textual material to be rescued from Herculaneum) but there is, undeniably, quite a bit of historical evidence that a man named Julius Caesar did indeed exist.
On the other hand, with the case of this Jesus fellow, we have a few obviously mythicized accounts that are, frankly, an astonishing mess. These gospels, if taken as a body of work to be used as a 'historical source', are full of factual errors and embarrassing contradictions, with some awed descriptions of petty street charlatan tricks thrown in, worshipful remembrances of "miracles" that smack of already extant and ancient mythical accounts of other gods, and so many intricate and twisted allusions to Jewish legend and prophecy that one begins to think that it is a bit overdone.
However, are there any accounts by men who might be considered historians? None are contemporary except one: Josephus. All except Josephus do not talk directly of Jesus but of "Chrestians" or followers of Chrestos, or just Christians, and the descriptions of these people are vague and undistinguished.
We are left with only Josephus, the turncoat Jewish general. There are two mentions in his works that read more as if they were written by medieval Christian monks than by a Jew living in the Roman empire of the first century. I am not impressed in the least by the Testimonium Flavianum. I cannot help but strongly suspect it is a wonderful example of an interpolation, and if it is the best historical evidence for this "Jesus Christ" that can be found, then there simply isn't any at all.
Sure: we've got tons of accumulated and venerated flotsam and jetsam piled neck-deep for us to wade through, but nearly all of it dates to centuries after the fact.
So I find it disappointing that any serious historical scholar or educated person interested in history would think for a moment that the historical existence of Julius Caesar is as questionable as is the historical existence of Jesus Christ. There really is no comparison in these two cases. On the one hand we have a living apple tree. On the other hand we have a thousand old, faded, grainy photographs of paintings and drawings (never the actual paintings or drawings, mind you) of a sliced orange.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
A Christian Gang in Guatemala
As reported in Canada. I wonder if they often asked themselves: 'What Would Jesus Do?'...?
"Their work started with delivering notes containing biblical quotations and threats."
see CBC News report here.
"Their work started with delivering notes containing biblical quotations and threats."
see CBC News report here.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Phoenician link to the Jews
A recent post by Jim Davila on his award-winning blog PaleoJudaica is about a news article regarding an old inscription found on a New Mexico rock, (article here) ....
While the article has absolutely nothing to do with it directly, one of my pet theories is based on speculations regarding the Phoenicians and the Jews. The indirect link between the article and the 'pet theory' is where the article states that "The surface is carved with 216 characters that resemble Phoenician or old Hebrew."
From what I understand from reading in other places: Hebrew has its direct origins in the language of the Phoenicians — to the point that 'old Hebrew' and 'Phoenician' inscriptions are actually indistinguishable from each other.
Could anyone with more knowledge of the nuances of Hebrew language history tell me if this is true?
.
While the article has absolutely nothing to do with it directly, one of my pet theories is based on speculations regarding the Phoenicians and the Jews. The indirect link between the article and the 'pet theory' is where the article states that "The surface is carved with 216 characters that resemble Phoenician or old Hebrew."
From what I understand from reading in other places: Hebrew has its direct origins in the language of the Phoenicians — to the point that 'old Hebrew' and 'Phoenician' inscriptions are actually indistinguishable from each other.
Could anyone with more knowledge of the nuances of Hebrew language history tell me if this is true?
.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Daniel C. Dennett's 'Common-Sense Religion'
You can find his article here. It is well worth the read, and has many interesting points and thoughts to ponder over.
A quote:
".... those who have an unquestioning faith in the correctness of the moral teachings of their religion are a problem: If they haven't conscientiously considered, on their own, whether their pastors or priests or rabbis or imams are worthy of such delegated authority over their lives, then they are taking a personally immoral stand.
That is perhaps the most shocking implication of my inquiry into the role religion plays in our lives, and I do not shrink from it, even though it may offend many who think of themselves as deeply moral. It is commonly supposed that it is entirely exemplary to adopt the moral teachings of one's own religion without question because — to put it simply — it is the word of God (as interpreted, always, by the specialists to whom one has delegated authority). I am urging, on the contrary, that anybody who professes that a particular point of moral conviction is not discussable, not debatable, not negotiable, simply because it is the word of God, or because the Bible says so, or because "that is what all Muslims (Hindus, Sikhs...) believe, and I am a Muslim (Hindu, Sikh...)" should be seen to be making it impossible for the rest of us to take their views seriously, excusing themselves from the moral conversation, inadvertently acknowledging that their own views are not conscientiously maintained and deserve no further hearing."
(from The Chronicle of Higher Education )
A quote:
".... those who have an unquestioning faith in the correctness of the moral teachings of their religion are a problem: If they haven't conscientiously considered, on their own, whether their pastors or priests or rabbis or imams are worthy of such delegated authority over their lives, then they are taking a personally immoral stand.
That is perhaps the most shocking implication of my inquiry into the role religion plays in our lives, and I do not shrink from it, even though it may offend many who think of themselves as deeply moral. It is commonly supposed that it is entirely exemplary to adopt the moral teachings of one's own religion without question because — to put it simply — it is the word of God (as interpreted, always, by the specialists to whom one has delegated authority). I am urging, on the contrary, that anybody who professes that a particular point of moral conviction is not discussable, not debatable, not negotiable, simply because it is the word of God, or because the Bible says so, or because "that is what all Muslims (Hindus, Sikhs...) believe, and I am a Muslim (Hindu, Sikh...)" should be seen to be making it impossible for the rest of us to take their views seriously, excusing themselves from the moral conversation, inadvertently acknowledging that their own views are not conscientiously maintained and deserve no further hearing."
(from The Chronicle of Higher Education )
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
'Clergy Letter Project' reaches 10,000 signatures
The Project has reached the goal of gathering 10,000 clergy signatures. The next step is outlined here.
Michael Zimmerman writes: "For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith."
The Clergy Letter Project
FYI...
Michael Zimmerman writes: "For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith."
The Clergy Letter Project
FYI...
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Difficult times lately
For the last several years my family has watched my father-in-law's health gradually deteriorate. He is 91 years old now. Up until about the age of 85, he was a very active man, attending baseball games with his many friends at least twice a week; driving his car all over creation; endlessly tinkering with his old, beat-up car every afternoon.
But he entered dialysis treatment the year he turned 85, and although he still drove and was active, being hooked-up to a machine for several hours, three times a week took its toll. And plus: he was old.
What really took him down however, was a fall which broke his hip in 2003. He recovered successfully to the point where he could walk and drive his car, again. This was terrific news. But if we were concerned about him driving at that age before, the concerns had only increased. Anyone who has been in a similar situation probably can tell you, it is not an easy thing to convince a determined American male that he should no longer drive his car!
One year later, he broke his other hip. This was bad enough on its own, but the day after this (now second) hip replacement operation, while still in the hospital, he fell out of bed and they needed to re-do the operation. Three hip operations in one year. This of course extended his hospital stay and led directly to the development of bed sores on his heels, which only led to an even longer stay. He was there about two months, I think.
Amazingly, he bounced back even from this fiasco. At least he no longer made overtures that he wanted to drive again. So we got rid of his old car. I began driving him and my mother-in-law to his dialysis treatments. She always goes with him now, and while he is in the center receiving his treatment she can 'talk story' with all her friends whose husbands are dialysis patients, too. They all look forward to seeing each other and for all intents and purposes, they form their own impromptu support group. If it were not for these people sharing their similar concerns with each other I wonder if my mother-in-law might have had a mental or emotional break-down.
In the last year he has had a bout with pneumonia, broke his arm(!) once, and fell (or rather slid off his wheelchair) and as his wife struggle to get him back up, he bruised his knee. Each separate incident initiating another hospital visit, if not a hospital stay.
He can hardly walk, now. Since my in-laws live on the second floor of an apartment building and there is no elevator, he therefore needs assistance to go anywhere, which I end-up providing. Circumstances have led me to being rather well-experienced at manipulating a wheelchair up-and-down stairs, through doorways and across rough uneven pavements, curbs and sidewalks. (The world seems remarkably easy to manuver in until you are in a chair that has very small wheels in front!)
But, of all things, it is the pulling- up and the easing-down on those stairs that demands the most acute attention from the wheel-chair, uh, 'driver'. It is not as physically demanding as it surely appears to anyone watching, because he is not very heavy anymore. (And btw, I don't mind the exertion since I need the exercise!) So it is more of a delicate balancing act than a feat of strength. One break in my concentration, and we both could easily go tumbling down end-over-end (and take anyone 'downstream' with us). Not a pleasant thought. I can walk and chew gum at the same time (yes, I tried it to make sure), but if I try to talk while easing a wheelchair with a 100lb man in it down a flight of stairs, step-by step, I have had my share of 'scares'. I might be an extreme 'minimalist' but at the moment before a stair-encounter, I say a little prayer to the powers-that-be!
My mother-in-law now devotes her life to caring for him, and the task is considerable. She is not young herself, and trying to keep track of his numerous medications, her own, and the thrice weekly morning preparations for the trips to the dialysis treatments all take their toll on her. He wakes up at all hours of the night and wants to talk about nonsense. Last night it was about 'saltwater' and 'fixing the pipes' for the neighbors dowstairs... From 2am until 4am. Lack of sleep adds to her stress.
A couple of weeks ago, the option of hospice care was broached by his doctor. In his condition as a dialysis patient, he can be expected to last about a week without dialysis treatments, so the decision cannot be taken lightly. In his age and condition, it would probably be shorter than a week. So, to put it bluntly: hospice is a death sentence. But my mother-in-law is at her wit's end. She's tired. We have to be very concerned about her health. A nursing home is, for various reasons, out of the picture. And, my father-in-law is very, very tired. He has in the past expressed such sentiments as, "What a life! I am useless. Good for nothing!" etc. That was years ago.
The other day when I asked him about what he thought of hospice (after describing what it was and what would happen to him — and believe me: it is a difficult thing to look someone in the eye and basically tell them "This course of action that we are discussing will lead to you dying..."; it is probably one of the most difficult things in life to do), he actually took my hand and his wife's hand and said "I have been here long enough."
In the end, the decision is for his wife to make. So I don't worry over it. I watch and do what I can to help. I love these people very much. But I can't help but think to myself (I can't speak for him, but he probably would agree with the thought): I would not want to die while hooked-up to a blood-cleaning machine in some cold dialysis room... None of us really has the power to choose how or when or where we die, and perhaps none of that really matters nearly as much as how we conducted ourselves in our daily lives.
...This doesn't have much to do with historical biblical studies — or ancient espionage, for that matter, (something I still have not blogged about, come to think of it) — but I wanted to post something and this is what has been on my mind for quite some time...
But he entered dialysis treatment the year he turned 85, and although he still drove and was active, being hooked-up to a machine for several hours, three times a week took its toll. And plus: he was old.
What really took him down however, was a fall which broke his hip in 2003. He recovered successfully to the point where he could walk and drive his car, again. This was terrific news. But if we were concerned about him driving at that age before, the concerns had only increased. Anyone who has been in a similar situation probably can tell you, it is not an easy thing to convince a determined American male that he should no longer drive his car!
One year later, he broke his other hip. This was bad enough on its own, but the day after this (now second) hip replacement operation, while still in the hospital, he fell out of bed and they needed to re-do the operation. Three hip operations in one year. This of course extended his hospital stay and led directly to the development of bed sores on his heels, which only led to an even longer stay. He was there about two months, I think.
Amazingly, he bounced back even from this fiasco. At least he no longer made overtures that he wanted to drive again. So we got rid of his old car. I began driving him and my mother-in-law to his dialysis treatments. She always goes with him now, and while he is in the center receiving his treatment she can 'talk story' with all her friends whose husbands are dialysis patients, too. They all look forward to seeing each other and for all intents and purposes, they form their own impromptu support group. If it were not for these people sharing their similar concerns with each other I wonder if my mother-in-law might have had a mental or emotional break-down.
In the last year he has had a bout with pneumonia, broke his arm(!) once, and fell (or rather slid off his wheelchair) and as his wife struggle to get him back up, he bruised his knee. Each separate incident initiating another hospital visit, if not a hospital stay.
He can hardly walk, now. Since my in-laws live on the second floor of an apartment building and there is no elevator, he therefore needs assistance to go anywhere, which I end-up providing. Circumstances have led me to being rather well-experienced at manipulating a wheelchair up-and-down stairs, through doorways and across rough uneven pavements, curbs and sidewalks. (The world seems remarkably easy to manuver in until you are in a chair that has very small wheels in front!)
But, of all things, it is the pulling- up and the easing-down on those stairs that demands the most acute attention from the wheel-chair, uh, 'driver'. It is not as physically demanding as it surely appears to anyone watching, because he is not very heavy anymore. (And btw, I don't mind the exertion since I need the exercise!) So it is more of a delicate balancing act than a feat of strength. One break in my concentration, and we both could easily go tumbling down end-over-end (and take anyone 'downstream' with us). Not a pleasant thought. I can walk and chew gum at the same time (yes, I tried it to make sure), but if I try to talk while easing a wheelchair with a 100lb man in it down a flight of stairs, step-by step, I have had my share of 'scares'. I might be an extreme 'minimalist' but at the moment before a stair-encounter, I say a little prayer to the powers-that-be!
My mother-in-law now devotes her life to caring for him, and the task is considerable. She is not young herself, and trying to keep track of his numerous medications, her own, and the thrice weekly morning preparations for the trips to the dialysis treatments all take their toll on her. He wakes up at all hours of the night and wants to talk about nonsense. Last night it was about 'saltwater' and 'fixing the pipes' for the neighbors dowstairs... From 2am until 4am. Lack of sleep adds to her stress.
A couple of weeks ago, the option of hospice care was broached by his doctor. In his condition as a dialysis patient, he can be expected to last about a week without dialysis treatments, so the decision cannot be taken lightly. In his age and condition, it would probably be shorter than a week. So, to put it bluntly: hospice is a death sentence. But my mother-in-law is at her wit's end. She's tired. We have to be very concerned about her health. A nursing home is, for various reasons, out of the picture. And, my father-in-law is very, very tired. He has in the past expressed such sentiments as, "What a life! I am useless. Good for nothing!" etc. That was years ago.
The other day when I asked him about what he thought of hospice (after describing what it was and what would happen to him — and believe me: it is a difficult thing to look someone in the eye and basically tell them "This course of action that we are discussing will lead to you dying..."; it is probably one of the most difficult things in life to do), he actually took my hand and his wife's hand and said "I have been here long enough."
In the end, the decision is for his wife to make. So I don't worry over it. I watch and do what I can to help. I love these people very much. But I can't help but think to myself (I can't speak for him, but he probably would agree with the thought): I would not want to die while hooked-up to a blood-cleaning machine in some cold dialysis room... None of us really has the power to choose how or when or where we die, and perhaps none of that really matters nearly as much as how we conducted ourselves in our daily lives.
...This doesn't have much to do with historical biblical studies — or ancient espionage, for that matter, (something I still have not blogged about, come to think of it) — but I wanted to post something and this is what has been on my mind for quite some time...
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Happy Birthday!
Is Jim West's Blog the only one I read on a regular basis? It isn't true, (I do read other blogs and assorted things on the internet, some quite regularly) but one might easily think it is because of all the references I make to his blog!
Anyway. According to Jim West, today, January 7, is Thomas Thompson's birthday.
Happy Birthday to you, Professor!
Anyway. According to Jim West, today, January 7, is Thomas Thompson's birthday.
Happy Birthday to you, Professor!
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Prove Jesus Christ Exists!
Jim West recently blogged on a rather amusing development in the legal realm. (Or would it be in the historical realm? Or in the theological realm?)
A Catholic priest has been ordered by an Italian court to prove that Christ exists.
A longer news article on this development
is here.
.
A Catholic priest has been ordered by an Italian court to prove that Christ exists.
A longer news article on this development
is here.
.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Brainpoo has been flushed
Gone. Nada. No more. Wiped.
And yet... Cleansed, it lives on, resurrected in a new and better form. (And all Brainpoo posts are saved and still available, too.)
The alert was sounded on Jim West's blog that Chris Tilling's blog has a new name and URL:
http://www.christilling.de/blog/ctblog.html
I liked the name "Brainpoo" actually. But Chris intends (and I look forward to seeing him succeed, as I am sure he will) to blog interviews with noted scholars in his area: the city of Tübingen, a city justly famous in the field of biblical scholarship. Perhaps he felt the degree of cooperation or serious consideration he can expect to receive might possibly be hampered somewhat if the blog-name of "Brainpoo" chanced to arise in discussion.
;)
.
And yet... Cleansed, it lives on, resurrected in a new and better form. (And all Brainpoo posts are saved and still available, too.)
The alert was sounded on Jim West's blog that Chris Tilling's blog has a new name and URL:
http://www.christilling.de/blog/ctblog.html
I liked the name "Brainpoo" actually. But Chris intends (and I look forward to seeing him succeed, as I am sure he will) to blog interviews with noted scholars in his area: the city of Tübingen, a city justly famous in the field of biblical scholarship. Perhaps he felt the degree of cooperation or serious consideration he can expect to receive might possibly be hampered somewhat if the blog-name of "Brainpoo" chanced to arise in discussion.
;)
.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Forgiveness vs Justice
Metta Spencer has written a thoughtful post, in response to a recent ongoing (?) discussion on Jim West's Biblical Studies mailing list. The discussion was about Forgiveness vs. Justice.
My thoughts: The power of forgiveness to heal and rejuvenate, and perhaps even to create anew what did not exist before, is probably always underestimated. And, it is well worth thinking about forgiveness, and perhaps how seldom it is that we or the world around us forgives when the opportunity or need arises.
My thoughts: The power of forgiveness to heal and rejuvenate, and perhaps even to create anew what did not exist before, is probably always underestimated. And, it is well worth thinking about forgiveness, and perhaps how seldom it is that we or the world around us forgives when the opportunity or need arises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)